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."

I apparently did misquote you and I apoligize. Nevertheless, weather we are talking about proof of the flood or geological signs, the fact is that there is plenty of evidence to that end.

Why are you so intent on misquoting me? I ASKED why there are "no geological signs". I never SAID there was NO EVIDENCE. And after asking for resources, I later added that MY searches had been unsuccessful, not that ALL searches had been.

It's like you read what's on the screen, and then let it mean whatever you want it to. But ironically enough, you're the first one to call foul if someone misquotes you, e.g. the most recent exchange between you and TOM. So why can you wantonly misquote others, but no one can do it to you?

And I'm still waiting to hear what qualifies you to make the statement to me that, "You just haven't looked." How could you possibly know? On what evidence do you base that claim? I don't know that you havan't look, it appeared that you had not looked because there is plenty of evidence in plain sight on the Internet and in book stores. And you know exactly what I meant.

...and a host of other questions still lingering out there.

There are no questions lingering that I have not answered. Just questions where you don't accept the answer and are nit-picking just to be difficult. I am not playing you stupid, childish game anymore. You want to talk seriously, fine, but I'm not playing this push and shove gave with you any more.

At one time in my life, I believed the same as many of those with whom I am now disagreeing. Why would I belittle them? It is how you are taking it.

Having once held a belief that you no longer do doesn't mean one wouldn't belittle those who still hold it. Talk to many ex-smokers for example.

Unless you happen to be a master of both Hebrew and English, they you have to rely on the translation of experts. Those who are not fluent in these two languages, which includes just about everyone, have a language dictionary called a Strongs Concordance that provides the literal translation of every word in the Bible from the original Hebrew or Greek. We rely on historial and archeological works to provide the background information on what life was life during biblical times. This is how all students of the Bible, from scolars to beginners learn scripture. So what is the problem that you have with this? Are you saying we should not study the Bible unless we are fluent in Hebrew and Greek"

That is like saying we shouldn't drive a Japanese made care becaue we don't speak Japanese and have to use a manuel translated by someone who speaks both English and Japanese. That makes no sense!

I am not saying that at all. I have driven Japanese, German, Swedish, Yugoslavian, Italian, English, French and American cars, and driven German, English, Italian and American motorcycles and never needed a manual.

I am saying that being so sure of yourself based on other people's work is very dangerous ground to stand on.

I was also questioning why you fluffed off Reverend White who did learn the languages of the Bible. Well, at least some of them.

I believe that the Bible was written in many languages, including Aramaic, Classic Hebrew and Koine Greek. As anyone who has ever read Beowulf in "Old English" knows, languages change so much over the years that the Greek and Hebrew of today are not the same as the Greek and Hebrew of the time of the Bible.

If I might attempt to put this thread into a nutshell (so to speak):

This thread is about a group of people with opinions debating a person who knows because he knows and the proof that he knows is that he knows, based on his knowledge of scriptures which interpret themselves, although the people with opinions, think that scriptures need relevance to be interpreted or that scriptures are not relevant at all.

In on sentence; “Some people know that they have opinions and one person doesn't know he has an opinion.”

There are no questions lingering that I have not answered. Just questions where you don't accept the answer and are nit-picking just to be difficult. I am not playing you stupid, childish game anymore. You want to talk seriously, fine, but I'm not playing this push and shove gave with you any more.

I don't believe you can stop. I bet that I can refrain from posting in this thread for longer than you can.

TOM

PS: You went from possible subconscious belittling to attacking with malice.

Old Chinese Proverb: Man who knows not he knows not, shun him.

I am not playing you stupid, childish game anymore. You want to talk seriously, fine, but I'm not playing this push and shove gave with you any more.

I am asking my questions very seriously. I want to know why, if you believe the bible is literal, you wouldn't also believe the world is a circle, as the bible states. Or why you wouldn't believe that rabbits have rumen, as the bible indicates. How are those questions nit-picking?

It seems like whenever you're called out on evading questions, or when it's shown that what you have said is not accurate, or when someone doesn't allow you to skirt around the question, this is the turn you take. Why not just answer the questions? Why does your refusal equate to people "whinning" (a.k.a whining), or playing childish games, or mocking your faith, or a host of other accusations?

If you don't have an answer, it's ok to say so. No one has all the answers, or they'd also have all the Nobels. And it's much more respectable to say "I can't answer that", or "I don't know" than to disguise your inability or reluctance to answer as someone else's childishness or stupidity.

Belittle:To think, represent, or speak of as small or unimportant: decry, denigrate, deprecate, depreciate, derogate, detract, discount, disparage, downgrade, minimize, run down, slight, talk down

What you have said to me:

Have you ever even read the Bible??

Post 1705

The NIV is a good translation in most instances.

Implication: My bible is not good enough, belittling me again. Further implication is that since you are no longer a member of the Church, and I am, your beliefs are better than mine, make you a better Christian and more likely to get in to heaven, whilst I burn in hell for my beliefs.

I asked for your beliefs on why you think the Church is wrong... In the same way you asked Wheet why she didnt accept God.

But now I am not playing fair?

In the same way you asked Wheet why she didnt accept God.

Missed that, where's it at? I'll go read again.

Ok, well, I inferred that from all his asking about you and your "moniker" under your avatar.

My bad, I misread. I thought you had said that *you* had asked me, and I didn't want to have missed it.

I am not talking about ex-smokers who I don't even know. I am talking about me.

Having once held a belief that you no longer do doesn't mean one wouldn't belittle those who still hold it. Talk to many ex-smokers for example.

I am not talking about ex-smokers who I don't even know. I am talking about me.

My point is that just because you used to believe one way, be part of one group, doesn't mean that after you've changed you wouldn't belittle what you used to be.

You may not intend to belittle anyone, in fact I believe you have good intentions, and aren't aware of how you come across. But you are indeed doing so.

I am asking my questions very seriously. I want to know why, if you believe the bible is literal, you wouldn't also believe the world is a circle, as the bible states. Or why you wouldn't believe that rabbits have rumen, as the bible indicates. How are those questions nit-picking? They are nit-picking. The writer used the term circle to decribe his view of the earth. Because it does not contain the eD wording you prefer does not change it's literal meaning in the context. It is extream nit-picking.

It seems like whenever you're called out on evading questions, or when it's shown that what you have said is not accurate, or when someone doesn't allow you to skirt around the question, this is the turn you take. Why not just answer the questions? Why does your refusal equate to people "whinning" (a.k.a whining), or playing childish games, or mocking your faith, or a host of other accusations? I have never evading any question if it was serious. Do you deny that you go to great lengths to try to find fault with everything I say?

If you don't have an answer, it's ok to say so. No one has all the answers, or they'd also have all the Nobels. And it's much more respectable to say "I can't answer that", or "I don't know" than to disguise your inability or reluctance to answer as someone else's childishness or stupidity.

I don't have all the answers and never claimed to. I am also not infallible and have never claimed to be, but I do know what I am talking about. If I try to debate Laured about chemistry, I have very limited knowledge and freely admitted it. I may not believe her conclusions, but I don't have the educated knowledge to comprehend all the detailed arguments. Those who do not have intimate knowledge into the scriptures are also not equipped to fully understand a lot of the theology I am speaking about, and you take it as me being arrogant and self-serving. It is anything but.

See Below!

Belittle:To think, represent, or speak of as small or unimportant: decry, denigrate, deprecate, depreciate, derogate, detract, discount, disparage, downgrade, minimize, run down, slight, talk down

What you have said to me:

Have you ever even read the Bible??

I asked you that because the argument you were giving were completely unscriptural!

Post 1705

The NIV is a good translation in most instances.

Implication: My bible is not good enough, belittling me again. Further implication is that since you are no longer a member of the Church, and I am, your beliefs are better than mine, make you a better Christian and more likely to get in to heaven, whilst I burn in hell for my beliefs.

Wrong on both counts! The NIV is a good translation but there are better ones. That is fact. For most study the NIV is good. Simple as that. I use several Bibles. It's not a matter of who's beliefs are BETTER, bur who's beliefs are CORRECT by biblical standards.

I asked for your beliefs on why you think the Church is wrong... In the same way you asked Wheet why she didnt accept God.

But now I am not playing fair?

If you go back and look, you will see that she likewise choce not to answer that question. I am willing to answer it but not in this forum out of respect for your church, even though I disagree with it.

They are nit-picking. The writer used the term circle to decribe his view of the earth. Because it does not contain the eD wording you prefer does not change it's literal meaning in the context. It is extream nit-picking.

Well, either the bible can be taken literaly or it can't. It really is an either/or. Once you say one part, no matter how nit-picky it might seem to you is open to interpretation, where do you draw the line?