Someone recently passed this article on to me, which I posted on another board. It was promptly removed. So sad . . .

Frightening News from France

Once again, the real news in France is conveniently

not being reported as it should. To give you an idea

of what's going on in France where there are now

between 5 and 6 million Muslims and about 600,000 Jews,

here is an email that came from a Jew living in

France. Please read! Will the world say nothing - again - as it did in Hitler's time?

"I AM A JEW -- therefore I am forwarding this to

everyone on all my e-mail lists. I will not sit back

and do nothing." Nowhere have the flames of

anti-Semitism burned more furiously than in France:

Lyon, a car was rammed into a synagogue and set

on fire. In Montpellier, the Jewish religious center

was firebombed; so were synagogues in Strasbourg and

Marseilles; so was a Jewish school in Creteil - all recently.

A Jewish sports club in Toulouse was attacked with

Molotov cocktails, and on the statue of Alfred

Dreyfus in Paris, the words "Dirty Jew" were

painted. In Bondy, 15 men beat up members of a

Jewish football team with sticks and metal bars. The

bus that takes Jewish children to school in

Aubervilliers has been attacked three times in the last 14 months.

According to the Police, metropolitan Paris has seen

10 to 12 anti-Jewish incidents PER DAY in the past

30 days. Walls in Jewish neighborhoods have been

defaced with slogans proclaiming "Jews to the gas

chambers" and "Death to the Jews."

A gunman opened fire on a Kosher butcher's shop

(and, of course, the butcher) in Toulouse , France;

a Jewish couple in their 20s were beaten up by five

men in Villeurbanne , France . The woman was

pregnant; a Jewish school was broken into and

vandalized in Sarcelles , France . This was just in

the past week.

So I call on you, whether you are a fellow Jew, a

friend, or merely a person with the capacity and

desire to distinguish decency from depravity, to do,

at least, these three simple things:

First, care enough to stay informed. Don't ever let

yourself become deluded into thinking that this is

no t your fight. I remind you of what Pastor

Neimoller said in World War II: "First they came for

the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I

wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and

I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they

came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up,

because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me,

and by that time there was no one left to speak up

for me".

Second, boycott France and French products. Only the

Arab countries are more toxically anti-Semitic and,

unlike them, France exports more than just oil and

hatred. So boycott their wines and their perfumes.

Boycott their clothes and their foodstuffs. Boycott

their movies. Definitely boycott their shores. If

we are resolved we can exert amazing pressure and,

whatever else we may know about the French, we most

certainly know that they are like a cobweb in a

hurricane in the face of well directed pressure.

Third, send this along to your family, your friends,

and your co-workers. Think of all of the people of

good conscience that you know and let them know

that you and the people that you care about need

their help. The number one best selling book in

France is "September 11: The Frightening Fraud,"

which argues that no plane ever hit the Pentagon."

If literal is the only interpretation of the bible, then:

IS 40:22. The earth is a circle. You believe the earth is a circle, and not a sphere?

GE 7:19-20. The flood covered the earth with water fifteen cubits (that's more than twenty feet) above the highest mountains. Breaking that out, that's a rain rate of 6 inches per minute required to cover the entire earth with an ocean 5 miles deep. 5 miles deep would be required to have placed Mt. Everest (at its last current height, let alone it's height that long ago) under 20 feet of water. How did the author know the depth of the water? Where did all the water go? How come we see no geological signs of a worldwide flood, only isolated floodings?

GE 32:24-30. God wrestles Jacob and wins by injuring Jacob's hip. You believe god wrestles?

LE 11:6. You believe rabbits chew cud?

LE 14:33-57. You believe that houses can have leprosy, and that the cure for this requires the blood of a bird?

"Ehud ... took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. And the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and the dirt came out." You believe this literally happened?

2CH 7:5, 8-9. Solomon sacrificed 22k oxen and 120k in one week. That breaks out to more than 14 animals per minute (something like 4 seconds per animal), for seven straight days. You believe this happened?

IS 30:26. The moon will someday be as bright as the sun now is. So you believe that a dead planet will once again come to life?

Lisa, if you happen to have lots of spare time laying around, I thought you might find these passages interesting. A lot of them echo what you've been saying.

Wow - that's VERY intersting stuff. I read it through, but will come back and re-read it again. Thank you for posting that!

I still don't see where homosexuality is listed among the vices of Sodom that God was going to destroy them for. Do you have a verse?

I sooo hate to do this.

But, what Ron is referring to is that the angels came to warn lot, the MEN of Sodom demanded that Lot hand over the strangers to them, so that they may basically gang rape them. They(the men of Sodom) did not know that they were angels, but knew that they were men. The angels, basically "smited" the men. From that part of what happens to Lot, we could gleen that they were "Smited" because they wanted to do an "unnatural act" with who they thought were men.

Paul, later uses this story to say homosexuality is bad.

However, some other scholars say this is a testament to say gang rape is bad.

There are other stories in the bible that infer that David, Daniel and Naomi had a homosexual relationship. However, I am sure that Ron says that its all taken out of context.

Yes, I want you to show me where it talks about treatment of slaves in the New Testament. The word slave is only used once in the entire New Testament, in the Book of Revelations, and mentions nothing about treatment or ownership. Have you ever even read the Bible??

Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven

1 Timothy 6:1

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered

Titus 2:9

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Ephesians 6:5

[ Slaves and Masters ] Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

John 8:35

Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.

I sooo hate to do this.

But, what Ron is referring to is that the angels came to warn lot, the MEN of Sodom demanded that Lot hand over the strangers to them, so that they may basically gang rape them. They(the men of Sodom) did not know that they were angels, but knew that they were men. The angels, basically "smited" the men. From that part of what happens to Lot, we could gleen that they were "Smited" because they wanted to do an "unnatural act" with who they thought were men.

Paul, later uses this story to say homosexuality is bad.

However, some other scholars say this is a testament to say gang rape is bad.

There are other stories in the bible that infer that David, Daniel and Naomi had a homosexual relationship. However, I am sure that Ron says that its all taken out of context.

Yep, I don't equate gang rape with consensual sex of any type. And the angels were sent down to see if there were any rightoues people in Sodom before God destroyed it. So, what happened to them was not the reason God was wanting to destroy the city. It just confirmed His decision.

You gals rock my world! In a really good way!

Wrong! It was changed to servant because it is a more literal translation, and the role of a servant was much different that that of a slave.

Ok, then what about this?

Exodus21:2-6 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him forever."

Does that sound like servants as we know them?

If you read the post you would note that the translations he was referring to were in the New Testament not the Old Testament.

Ok, then what about this?

Exodus21:2-6 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him forever."

Does that sound like servants as we know them?

Those verses were part of the Mosiac Law and they did apply during that time of reference. With the coming of the New Testament and the application of the Law to our hearts as opposed to the physical application (see Jer. 31), and the fulfilling of the Mosiac Law by Jesus, those laws are no longer in effect. Yes we take the Bible literally, but also in proper context. Those laws do not apply to Christians or anyone today.

That is like reading a law book literally and finding a law from another time period, that gives men the right to own slaves. It is very literal, but that law no longer applies today.

If you believe that the bible should be read literally, then do you believe these things should occur? You believe that adulterers should be stoned, and that a husband having sex with his wife during her period is an executable offense?:

You talk about "literal" on one hand, and "context" on the other. Doesn't "context" imply room for interpretation?

You've been asked several times what makes your interpretation "right", and anyone who reads the bible differently from you "wrong". Have you answered that question?

If you read the post you would note that the translations he was referring to were in the New Testament not the Old Testament.

Now I am confused. You said the NT didn't mention slaves, but Servants. I found several NT references to slaves, from the NIV.

Then I read your post about it really meaning servants, and that a servant was different then a slave. So I went to the KJ version, looked for servant, and found what I posted. Which describes the position of "servant" much like we think of slavery.

So what am I missing?:help:

Ok we get the context thing. So now we can get rid of any reference to homosexuality in the Bible because things have changed and it no longer applies as it did in Biblical times.

ALL of the major translations, mincluding the universally accepted King James Translation, use the word Master, with is the accurate translation from the Greek root of the word. I am guessing that you are reading a pharaphrased version of the Bible which is not a literal translation.

Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven

1 Timothy 6:1

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered

Titus 2:9

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Ephesians 6:5

[ Slaves and Masters ] Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

John 8:35

Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.

Whoever said that the reference to homosexuality in the Bible no longer applies today?? I know that is what you want it to be, but it is not.

Ok we get the context thing. So now we can get rid of any reference to homosexuality in the Bible because things have changed and it no longer applies as it did in Biblical times.

ALL of the major translations, mincluding the universally accepted King James Translation, use the word Master, with is the accurate translation from the Greek root of the word. I am guessing that you are reading a pharaphrased version of the Bible which is not a literal translation.

So you don't accept the NIV?

And what translation would use the word "master" instead of slave or servant?

In those times, there was volentary indenture where a person could volentarily place themselves into the role of servant to repay a debt or because the "master" could provide a better life for them and their family than they could otherwise have. It was not the forced role of a slave, such as we saw in our country.

The whole point of the "slave" discussion is that these references in the Bible could never be used to support forced slavery when our country was formed. If some took them to mean so, they did it in error. God does not condon one person owning another.

Now I am confused. You said the NT didn't mention slaves, but Servants. I found several NT references to slaves, from the NIV.

Then I read your post about it really meaning servants, and that a servant was different then a slave. So I went to the KJ version, looked for servant, and found what I posted. Which describes the position of "servant" much like we think of slavery.

So what am I missing?:help: