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."

When we went to Alaska last summer we were shown areas that used to hold massive glaciers for all of recorded history until recently. The people who live there told us that they had never seen the glaciers melting as much as they are today. That's just one girl's experience, obviously isn't scientific or perhaps even true. But it sure made me think a lot about whether we should believe the scientists and environmentalists or whether we should believe the politicians and people who say they just don't buy it, because this is just a cyclical change we're experiencing.

Besides, would you rather believe your president or your lying eyes?

gadgetlady maybe you didn't ask that question of me, but I answered it. Fully.

You definitely are a little late today. I think that everyone is sick and tired of that dead horse you're beating. You may not get the responses you're looking for right now.

Can you direct me to the post number?

Can you direct me to the post number?

Can I ask what you are looking for at this point? I know I answered, I know other people did, and it doesn't seem to have changed anything.

I guess I'm wondering why you are asking.

#2438, and another one that I explained on it before.

gadgetlady: No I can't. I'm not interested. If you are, I promise it's there.

I'm feeling like Lisa about now, what exactly is your point at this point?

I find it rather odd that Ron choose to answer my post only to the part about Catholism. I was really hoping he would have touched on the Noah part. As seeing as the Noah story was literal a few posts ago and I gave a "context" answer to it.

I am asking because I truly, truly don't understand how someone can believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he was crucified, died, and was resurrected on the third day UNLESS they acquire this knowledge from the Bible. And if they DO acquire this knowledge from the Bible, why do they not believe the other claims of the Bible?

No one comes to faith in Jesus through anything other than the Bible. It's not something you dream about or make up. You cannot know about Jesus unless you are told about or read about Him, and the text from which you read or from which the person telling you read is the Bible. The claim that someone is the Son of God and that He was resurrected after death is a rather fantastic one and does require faith to believe. I acknowledge that. My question is by what logical, consistent grounds does one accept this particular fantastic belief but not the rest of the text from which it came?

I'm sure I'll get accused of attacking, beating a dead horse, telling people they have to believe my way or they're going to hell, and a host of other things. Please note I have said none of these things. I am HONESTLY asking the question because I DON'T GET IT. So please, please, would someone explain it to me? I WANT to understand.

I am asking because I truly, truly don't understand how someone can believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he was crucified, died, and was resurrected on the third day UNLESS they acquire this knowledge from the Bible. And if they DO acquire this knowledge from the Bible, why do they not believe the other claims of the Bible?

No one comes to faith in Jesus through anything other than the Bible. It's not something you dream about or make up. You cannot know about Jesus unless you are told about or read about Him, and the text from which you read or from which the person telling you read is the Bible. The claim that someone is the Son of God and that He was resurrected after death is a rather fantastic one and does require faith to believe. I acknowledge that. My question is by what logical, consistent grounds does one accept this particular fantastic belief but not the rest of the text from which it came?

I'm sure I'll get accused of attacking, beating a dead horse, telling people they have to believe my way or they're going to hell, and a host of other things. Please note I have said none of these things. I am HONESTLY asking the question because I DON'T GET IT. So please, please, would someone explain it to me? I WANT to understand.

I did answer your question in post 626.

You seem to be confusing belief that every word in the translations we have available now is to be taken literally with an overall belief in the Bible. I can believe the main things in the Bible, what I think is central to my faith, and realize some of it isn't meant to be taken as I read it in my NIV. Ron uses the example of Jesus being the bread of life. When I take communion, I don't believe the bread becomes Jesus's body, nor the wine His blood. I do believe He came to earth and died for our sins to rise 3 days later.

If you had a clue about the Old Testament Mosiac Law and how Jesus came to fulfill it, and the message of the whole of scripture, you would not even ask such a question.

Ron...

When was the last time you had bacon and eggs?

Leviticus, Chapter 11

1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron,

2

"Speak to the Israelites and tell them: Of all land animals these are the ones

you may eat:

3

any animal that has hoofs you may eat, provided it is cloven-footed and chews

the cud.

4

But you shall not eat any of the following that only chew the cud or only have

hoofs: the camel, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is

therefore unclean for you;

5

2 the rock badger, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is

therefore unclean for you;

6

the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore

unclean for you; and the pig,

7

which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud

and is therefore unclean for you.

8

Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they

are unclean for you.

I have been asking that same question for 2-weeks but no one has an answer!

I am asking because I truly, truly don't understand how someone can believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he was crucified, died, and was resurrected on the third day UNLESS they acquire this knowledge from the Bible. And if they DO acquire this knowledge from the Bible, why do they not believe the other claims of the Bible?

No one comes to faith in Jesus through anything other than the Bible. It's not something you dream about or make up. You cannot know about Jesus unless you are told about or read about Him, and the text from which you read or from which the person telling you read is the Bible. The claim that someone is the Son of God and that He was resurrected after death is a rather fantastic one and does require faith to believe. I acknowledge that. My question is by what logical, consistent grounds does one accept this particular fantastic belief but not the rest of the text from which it came?

I'm sure I'll get accused of attacking, beating a dead horse, telling people they have to believe my way or they're going to hell, and a host of other things. Please note I have said none of these things. I am HONESTLY asking the question because I DON'T GET IT. So please, please, would someone explain it to me? I WANT to understand.

I have been asking that same question for 2-weeks but no one has an answer!

I beg to differ. You have gotten answers, you just haven't accepted them.

What was the Noah question! I don't recall it but I will take a crack at it!

I find it rather odd that Ron choose to answer my post only to the part about Catholism. I was really hoping he would have touched on the Noah part. As seeing as the Noah story was literal a few posts ago and I gave a "context" answer to it.

I have been asking that same question for 2-weeks but no one has an answer!

Again, you hear what you want to hear.

I answered you already.

What more do you want me to say?

He didn't lie! He presented the intelligence that was provided to him by the CIA and the British. Granted it was faulty intelligence, at least in part, but he didn't lie. If that was something that liberals could prove, we would be looking at a pending impeachment. That is pure liberal hype!

This was not true. As I have previously posted in other threads, Hans Blix was the head of an international team placed in Iraq; his team was sponsored by the UN with the mandate to search out any and all weapons of mass destruction. They found none and Blix made a report to this effect to the American Congress prior to the invasion of Iraq.

It is important to note that Blix had previously headed up a team of international WMD hunters in Iraq after the Desert Storm-Iraq-Kuwait skirmish in the early 1990s. He and his team spent some years in Iraq at this time.

He was recalled by the UN to do further further research in Iraq with a team of his choosing post 9/11. He and his team of international WMD hunters found nothing in the country and did report this to Congress before the invasion of Iraq.

As to Cusano's allegations that these weapons were shipped to Syria at this point, this is questionable. It is my understanding that our space recognisance technology is so sophisticated that the movement of this materiel could not have passed unspotted.