Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8599 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Racist Christians in our Ranks?
I've been admonished to go easy on Christians here. I said I'd try, but I just can't. The goal of this site is to reduce racism and expose Zionism which works through religion. Unfortuneatly it appears that many fans of Daryl, and Eric are Christians, and Christopher Bollyn is one himself. What does this mean?
Now I don't know Eric to be racist, but look what happens when we go easy on Christians and may fall prey to overlooking their material: (emphasis mine)
Come and listen to my story 'bout a star named Mel,
He was drunker than a skunk, and now he's really catchin' hell,
One night he got pulled over down in Malibu,
And he asked the cop a question, "Hey, are you a Jew?"
Sheeny, that is.
Nickel nose.
Red Sea pedestrian.
Well, the next thing you know it's all over CNN:
And the Hollywood hebes said "He'll never work again!"
And spin folks said, "Next time take a cab!"
Instead it's gonna be ninety days of rehab.
Betty Ford, that is.
Carrot juice.
Twelve steps.
Well, the moral to my story is this, forsooth,
If you're gonna get hammered, don't never speak the truth.
Don't never speak your mind about a certain Tribe,
When you're talking to the cop, just offer him a bribe.
Less trouble that way.
Keep the ADL off your ass.
Christ-killing bastards.
Another problem I see here is that a lot of Daryl/ Eric/ Christopher's friends confess to not even reading a book (in it's entirety) that they profess to us to be God's Word! So where are they coming up with these racist outbursts? I've read the Bible intensely for myself 8x through. Those who do that would be afraid to speak such of God's chosen people if they believed the book. Jesus came to die, he was prophesied to die, he knew and chose to do it! Anyone that reads the Gospels knows this -or so I thought.
Quote:
Matthew 26:39 39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Who does Jesus blame?
Quote:
John 18:11 11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
Even on the cross before death he was still fulfilling alledged prophecy according to the Bible:
Quote:
Matthew 27:48 48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
Now we have Christians attacking the Talmud like Ted Pike. What they fail to see is that the Talmud can be defended with the same lame arguments they use to defend their Bible. In both cases; it seems a matter of pride of being chosen, or special. On one side they declare and think themselves a chosen race, and on the other a chosen people. It's impossible to distinguish Jews from Palestinians, Libyans, etc.. The are no more a race than Catholics are born Catholic. They are flawed definitions.
I have no problems with Christians being here, and certainly am not aiming to drive them off. I do want to establish the fact that I am NOT racist, Christians are, and they do not represent the goals of this site. What if the Jews were really Israelites.. what side would the Christians be on then? What if the person leading them didn't expose this?
Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 243 Location: False Apostle Rebuttal below::READ IT
Quote:
I've been admonished to go easy on Christians here. I said I'd try, but I just can't.
Then don't. "Christians" that feel they are being attacked and cannot provide any argument then deserve what they get for sticking the nose into topics in which they know not how to defend what they call their faith.
Quote:
We've established that the Bible teaches racism.
A 'grain of salt' applies well, I think. lmao
Quote:
confess to not even reading a book (in it's entirety) that they profess to us to be God's Word!
That sure is a sad case for them.
Quote:
. Those who do that would be afraid to speak such of God's chosen people if they believed the book. Jesus came to die, he was prophesied to die, he knew and chose to do it! Anyone that reads the Gospels knows this -or so I thought.
I agree, mainly on this, anyone hating Jews because they killed Christ is ignorant. "Christ killing bastards" is pretty unChristlike I would think.
Quote:
I am NOT racist, Christians are, and they do not represent the goals of this site. What if the Jews were really Israelites.. what side would the Christians be on then? What if the person leading them didn't expose this?
IMO, I don't think you are racist or consider you racist MT. If Christians are racist, its their fault. A lot of 1st Century Christians were Jewish and came from the Hebrew blood themselves, they certainly did not act racial toward eachother or their gentile brothers.
To name jews as "christ killing bastards" is exactly the same as to name germans as "nazis".
Christianity is born out of Judaism:
" Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Jesus Christ, Matthew 5:17
"Judaism is a horrible religion with racist origins that in principle should not exist at all"
John Strugnell
Chief editor of Dead Sea Scrolls
quoted from Time Magazine January 14th 1991.
Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:00 pm
Opiate
Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 243 Location: False Apostle Rebuttal below::READ IT
I agree with your first statement BF, doing that assumes all Germans are Nazis or that all Jewish men were involved in killing Christ--which is inaccurate of course. What's pretty...lack of a better word, gutless of the singer is that he practically whispers what he said. Or maybe he did it to be covert?
I am not here to convert anyone to Christianity or Catholicism, its just that there are a lot of very critical threads on Christianity started by the forum mods which I don't think should go unchallenged. I am no expert on the subject but I am fairly well-informed so I intend to reply to them all eventually.
Christian Zionism needs to be strongly critiqued because of its uncritical support for Israel is derived in part from a demonstrably false and novel interpretation of the Bible.
What Mel Gibson said was gravely wrong (as are also the lyrics of the song on Eric's site) and he has apologised for it - I don't think you can draw any general conclusions from one man's drunken outburst . In mitigation, Mel was probably outraged by Israel's attack on Lebanon which was ongoing at the time of his arrest.
And when the Catholic Church says the Jews killed Christ, that is exactly how the New Testament tells it - but this is the key point - it is not saying the descendants of the Jews or anyone who believes in Judaism killed Christ as the ADL try to pretend, only the original Jewish leadership living at the time of Christ. You say Jesus laid down his life voluntarily. That is true as well. Truth is not always either/or it can be both/and. To use an analogy if a soldier volunteers for a 'suicide' mission and is killed by the enemy soldiers - was he killed by the enemy or did he lay down his life freely ? The answer is both propositions are true.
mt, I don't see Christianity as being inherently racist like you do. If I came to the same conclusion as you I too would reject Christianity. But I don't because I use a commentary when I study the Bible so I don't jump to wrong conclusions based on my lack of knowledge. That is how I know when Jesus says dog, the original Greek word in the Bible is that for a small household pet dog and a different Greek word for dog is used elsewhere when the writer wishes to describe a wild, rabid dog that you have in your mind. A household pet is not a full member of the family like a child is and the woman Jesus was speaking to was not worshipping God in the correct way which at that time would have been in the Temple in Jerusalem. So Jesus was quite correct to infer by using the word dog she was part of God's household but not in the fullest sense. The Temple of Jerusalem had a court set aside for Gentiles so it was never the case that Gentiles were barred from the true worship of God. I am not sure of this but I think the money-changers may have set up pitch in this area which is one of the reasons why Jesus got so angry. I fail to see any racism in this text. Plus you have Jesus saying treat other people the way you would like them to treat you. This general precept excludes racism as being compatible with Christianity.
You will say that is only my interpretation, but my interpretation is what the Church has always taught which is what being a Catholic is all about - Catholics are not allowed to invent novel interpretations of the Bible. I don't find any defects in moral teachings of Christianity although I appreciate that feminists and homosexuals would strongly disagree with me. The actual practice of Christianity has always fallen very short of its ideals - so you can accuse the Church of not doing enough to stamp out slavery but I can point out things like that one of the very early Popes was from Africa, that the US Church had a black bishop before the abolition of slavery etc. The bottom line is the world a worse or better place because of Christianity. My answer is its a much better place.
If it was demonstrated that the Israelis were all descendants of the original Hebrews and not the Khazar usurpers, would we support their claims to Israel ? The answer is no. The events of the Old Testament were meant to be a just a taste of something much greater to come. The Old Israel was a shadow for the New Israel which is the Catholic Church (Catholic is Greek for universal - it is open to all men and women regardless of race) and the Old Promised Land is a shadow for Heaven. The old Mosaic Covenant based on law has been replaced by the New and Everlasting Covenant based on grace, circumcision for males replaced by baptism for both sexes and so forth.
If I came to the same conclusion as you I too would reject Christianity. But I don't because I use a commentary when I study the Bible so I don't jump to wrong conclusions based on my lack of knowledge.
Commentary of priests.
What do your priests say about
Matthew:
Quote:
023:008 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Oh i see - they say - it was only for Rabbis.
ALL priests at that time were called Rabbis.
When it comes for Jesus calling non-jews a dogs, your priests will tell you - oh he ment it in good way, it's nice pet dogs as you said
Quote:
But I don't because I use a commentary when I study the Bible so I don't jump to wrong conclusions based on my lack of knowledge.
That is how I know when Jesus says dog, the original Greek word in the Bible is that for a small household pet dog and a different Greek word for dog is used elsewhere when the writer wishes to describe a wild, rabid dog that you have in your mind.
He referred to us a small household pet dogs, not a wild rabid dogs!!!!
WHAT AN IDIOCY, THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!
What do your priests say about PRAYING ALONE WHICH IS EXPLICITELY STATED IN MATTHEW?
Quote:
006:005 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
006:006 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
006:007 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
If religion is represented by its followers than Judaism is most evil and Christianity is certainly most stupid and ignorant.
STATEMENT of your Christian brethren
"Christ killing bastards" IS RACIST AND INSULTING
UNDERSTOOD?
p.s.: since i see how ignorant xians are, there's gonna be more and more threads about xianity.
im starting to think that xians are bigger problem than judaists.
oh wait - i hear it - it's Satan talking to me!!!
This - all ashkenazis are bad and sephardi are true chosen people IS ANOTHER BULLSHIT PERPETRATED BY CHRISTIANS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, you wrote here
Quote:
If it was demonstrated that the Israelis were all descendants of the original Hebrews and not the Khazar usurpers, would we support their claims to Israel ?
There is lot of truth in many of these things,
what xians are doing is they TAKE EVERYTHING TO THE EXTREME and thereby ruin everything.
"all ashkenazis are evil"
"women are less than men"
"abortion has to be forbidden in ANY CASE"
"science is absolutely evil, satan's work"
"gays are evil"
They ignore it when EXPERIENCE NEGATES their views.
That's right folks, it's psylicybin time in the good old Yorkshire Dales, throw away your cares and reorganise your mind with the fantastic fungi that grows out of the ground!
Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:02 am
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8599 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
How does "pet" dog make it any less racist?
Pets are a lower form of servants. Wild dogs would represent free thinkers, non-indoctrinated, not-schooled.
@jimmy reppin
1) Is Christianity racist or not? Y or N ?
2) Is it ok to molest boys if they are young enough? Y or N ?
3) Is penis mutilation called for in the Bible? Y or N?
4) Is Christianity sexist? Y or N?
5) Does the Bible lay down rules for slavery? Y or N?
Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:10 am
Opiate
Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 243 Location: False Apostle Rebuttal below::READ IT
Quote:
"science is absolutely evil, satan's work"
"gays are evil"
Thats a bunch of crap. If Christians say Science is Satan's work, then they are not in tuned with the science that the Bible itself has shed light upon, such as the percipitation cycles, orbits, spheres of planet, atmospheres, animals based on instinct, vitamin k etc etc.
Gays are not evil--the act is just not right. I've known gay men, I don't have to like what they do, but I still respect them like a human. Heck, some of the Christians in 1st Century were gays if not worse. That is why Paul told them, "that is what you once were." Obviously they were still treated with respect in that era, but the act was not treated as correct.
Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:49 am
Opiate
Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 243 Location: False Apostle Rebuttal below::READ IT
I dont disagree with Christianity if it is properly taught from the Scriptures, I DO have a problem with Catholic doctrine. The majority of it has unscriptural doctrine. Such as abstaining from meat on certain days, celebicy, virgin mary, idols, papacy etc.
Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:56 am
Opiate
Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 243 Location: False Apostle Rebuttal below::READ IT
madthumbs wrote:
How does "pet" dog make it any less racist?
Pets are a lower form of servants. Wild dogs would represent free thinkers, non-indoctrinated, not-schooled.
He used "little dog" or "puppy" in order to not use the racist Jewish saying "dog." One must ask why he did that? If he was so racist, why didn't he call her a dog? Why did he still heal her child? Why did he say her faith was strong and rarely ever said that about the Jews? Why did he talk to Samaritans when the Jewish "law" supposedly they were not to have any "dealings" with them--yet Jesus did. Why does he portray the Jew in the "good samaritan" story as a hypocrite and the Samaritan as a good neighbor? If he was racist, wouldn't have been the other way around? LOL if anything, someone could wrongly conclude he was really a Samaritan and not really a Jew.
He used "little dog" or "puppy" in order to not use the racist Jewish saying "dog." One must ask why he did that? If he was so racist, why didn't he call her a dog? Why did he still heal her child? Why did he say her faith was strong and rarely ever said that about the Jews? Laughing Why did he talk to Samaritans when the Jewish "law" supposedly they were not to have any "dealings" with them--yet Jesus did. Why does he portray the Jew in the "good samaritan" story as a hypocrite and the Samaritan as a good neighbor? If he was racist, wouldn't have been the other way around? LOL if anything, someone could wrongly conclude he was really a Samaritan and not really a Jew.
This is HILARIOUS!!!
why are you quoting examples from completely different part of the book?
if somebody murders a person, does his good actions 5 years later make him a good guy?
when somebody is promoting slavery and torture, does his good actions after make him God?
p.s.: just to remind you - in authorized KJV Bible - there's no "puppy", there's dog.
Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:39 am
Opiate
Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 243 Location: False Apostle Rebuttal below::READ IT
Quote:
This is HILARIOUS!!!
why are you quoting examples from completely different part of the book?
if somebody murders a person, does his good actions 5 years later make him a good guy?
when somebody is promoting slavery and torture, does his good actions after make him God?
p.s.: just to remind you - in authorized KJV Bible - there's no "puppy", there's dog.
It is from similar accounts, not a different part of the book only--and they were cited to shed even light, not just your one sided view. In effect, all the citations I made are concerning the same things, another race, and how did Jesus treat them? Dont just say, "thats not the same story! we cant use it in this arugment!!"
Where did Jesus murder a person? In fact where did he do any harm to anyone anywhere in his life?
To remind you, the KJV Bible was written in the 1600s LOL. English was still evolving. I guess that is why you now say YOU instead of THOU huh? Some words didn't even exist! And in eithercase, if that wasn't the argument, look at the original hebrew, not some half-hazard Bible translation. The original Greek says little dogs/puppy--so your argument is faulty regarding the word anyway.
Last edited by Opiate on Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:28 pm; edited 2 times in total
Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:49 am
Opiate
Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 243 Location: False Apostle Rebuttal below::READ IT
Here is more for you to chew on.
The GREEK (sorry, incorrectly had "hebrew" previously) word used for "dog" is "kuon." Though the GREEK word used in this account is "kunarion." Strongs #G2952 says it is derived from dog (kuon), and it literally means "puppy" or "little dog." This is evident when you compare other translations of the Bible or just look at the original Hebrew to see the difference. (ALT, YLT, NWT are some translations that render it little dogs.)
Now the questions are obvious. Why would Jesus use "puppy" when quoting from old Jewish law that called the Gentiles "dogs"? Apparently it was a giveaway that he really wasn't racist, nor did he like using the word "dog" to describe this poor woman--so in effect he toned it down. Next, why did he then reply with such a statement? It is not unreasonable to suggest that he was examining this woman's faith first, which she eventually displayed to be great. It was impressive so much that Jesus took note of it and did cure her child. So really he was not displaying racism otherwise why cure her daughter and tell her that her faith was great? Another thing to note is, how about the other Scriptures where Jesus actually rebuked his own disciples for showing anger towards Samaritans for not receiving Jesus? (Luke 9:51-56) Or what about the account that Jesus actually speaks with the Samaritan woman? Did she not herself see something odd about that? Yet he was not going to let race prevent him from giving her truth. What of the account in Acts 10:30-35? Peter under inspiration said "God is not partial" when describing that nations of all sorts were to be saved. This was confirmed when the holy spirit was also given to gentiles. Was not Jesus the one that sent the holy spirit by the will of God his creator and Father? ( John 14:16-17, 26) That's one funny racist if you ask me.
Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:52 am
Opiate
Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 243 Location: False Apostle Rebuttal below::READ IT
Also another point... talk about irony:
Paul Jew himself wrote:
(Philippians 3:2) 2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the workers of injury, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.
No he isn't only referring to Jews by him saying "those who mutilate the flesh" because this could include other forms of self mutilation, but in the Christian era, it certainly did include Jews since "circumcision is nothing." And he also uses "dogs" to describe those that are "workers of inury," which obviously applies to anyone, including Jews.
