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 used a poor choice of words saying "athiests hate Christians", I owned up to it, and it was not misinformation, it was a poor choice of wording. It was a poor chopice or words because since I don't know ALL athiests, I can't know for a fact that they all hate Christians, but most that i have run into do and have. That is a far cry from delibretely mistating historical and biblical fact, and making thing up. If you don't agree, you are entitled to your opinion.

Really? Because I pretty distinctly remember you spreading lies and misinformation, and then having to double-step to try and talk your way out of it.

E.g.:

1. Atheists hate god.

2. Well I don't mean atheists hate god, I mean they hate christians.

3. Well I don't mean they hate christians, I mean they abhor christians.

4. Well I don't mean they abhor christians, I mean they generically display disdain for god and christians.

So which one of those statements does not count as "misinformation" or "lies"? 1? 2? 3? All of the above?

That's refreshing to hear. We should all take that approach instead of acting like we know it all and refuse to listen to anythings else. I would like to think I learn on a daily basis, not just about my faith, but about life in general. I don't think I am compromising my faith if I change my mind about certain things because I am taught something I was unaware of previously.

That's great. I also think that everyone should take this approach, no matter what they believe in. I know that I am always analyzing my life, my experiences, my beliefs, my knowledge, and what I am learning to see if I should change my beliefs. So far, I haven't seen or experienced anything that makes me consider changing my beliefs. But I still search for knowledge and try to shape my beliefs around that.

Well, I have to assume you're talking about Ron here. And I certainly didn't see a lot of backing off from the, for want of a better term, anti-Ron contingent here. I saw a lot of attacking and attacking back. And when someone apologizes for participating in the barroom brawl, does it really make sense to keep throwing punches? What I saw last night was akin to the popular kids ganging up on the fat kid in elementary school. Everyone who participated should be ashamed of themselves. And I mean everyone.

You talk about someone "nagging you to convert". You have the unique opportunity, in this forum, to escape the nagging. They can't nag (or what they're saying can't be construed as nagging) if you're not in the room.

I am actually quite surprised that this whole thread hasn't been locked because of the blatant personal attacks that are going on. Not that I ever thought locking a thread could be successful when it could just be opened up again in a new thread, but I've seen threads locked for less.

Gadgetlady, this is one instance where you are wrong. I wasn't talking about Ron. I wasn't even thinking about Ron. I was talking about evangelists in general. Surprisingly, not everything in this thread revolves around Ron. Sometimes, we are just having a conversation about faith.

I had one in a post earlier on, that when I take communion I don't believe the bread is actaully the body of Christ, nor the wine His blood. I do it in remberence of His sacrifice.

Do you think when Jesus held up the bread, He was holding up a piece of his body? Or that it changed into His physical body as He held it up? Because if it didn't, then He didn't mean that literally the bread was His body, because it wasn't literally His body. So if when He did it He wasn't speaking literally about a hunk of flesh, it doesn't logically translate that He would expect us to speak literally about a hunk of flesh.

I'm not sure on Noah's ark. But regardless, it's a story with a point for us. I guess that's the best way to put it now, that I believe some things are allegories, if that's the right word. They may not be word for word true, but they are there to make a point and teach me something.

What is the point of the story if it's not true? Someone commented somewhere else (maybe on this thread, maybe not) that they didn't believe Noah's ark actually happened, but it was a beautiful story and they learned a lot from it. It took me a few days to process, but then it hit me. Noah's ark is NOT a beautiful story. It's a story of death and destruction, of God's wrath, and of vile sin. It just seems to me that if you wanted to tell a nice story about how God hates sin and people can choose to be saved from it or not, you wouldn't make up a story like this, and with as much detail as this. Cubits and all.

Do you think when Jesus held up the bread, He was holding up a piece of his body? Or that it changed into His physical body as He held it up? Because if it didn't, then He didn't mean that literally the bread was His body, because it wasn't literally His body. So if when He did it He wasn't speaking literally about a hunk of flesh, it doesn't logically translate that He would expect us to speak literally about a hunk of flesh.

Gadgetlady, I feel like I answered your questions the best I can, and honestly I don't see the point of your continueing to ask more and more. What are you trying to get at? Maybe I can answer whatever that is.

I used a poor choice of words saying "athiests hate Christians", I owned up to it, and it was not misinformation, it was a poor choice of wording.

But then you can't stand by everything you've said. That context that has a pretty sharp ring sometimes.

Gadgetlady, this is one instance where you are wrong.

Well, I guess there's a first time for everything! <g, r & d>

gadgetlady: I could and want to respond to your last post but I will refrain because I don't think that anything I say about it will change your mind about what you feel about what you read. I am glad that those of us who were intensely involved in that discourse took a moment to cool off, laugh together to relieve the tension and to bond. I wish you could have enjoyed it with us.

But I have a very serious question that I would really appreciate an answer to. You have gone on quite a lot about the Bible being literal and if we don't believe that the Bible is a literal tome, we're Christians without what? Direction? Anyway, my actual question is: Why do you think that the Bible MUST be taken as literal?

I for one do not believe that the Noah's Ark story is literally true. I am like Lisa on this, except I believe it with more conviction than she seems to. I do believe that it may be partially true or completely true to the people who wrote about it at the time. Maybe their view of the "world" was 100 miles square. Maybe all of the animals in that square totaled up to about 50, but the point is for me, it doesn't matter at all. I can still learn the lesson of Noah's Ark. I can still feel passionate about Noah and what God spoke to him, but to believe that the all of the earth was under water and that Noah's Ark held 2 of every animal on earth is pure folly.

I for one do not believe that the Noah's Ark story is literally true. I am like Lisa on this, except I believe it with more conviction than she seems to. I do believe that it may be partially true or completely true to the people who wrote about it at the time. Maybe their view of the "world" was 100 miles square. Maybe all of the animals in that square totaled up to about 50, but the point is for me, it doesn't matter at all. I can still learn the lesson of Noah's Ark. I can still feel passionate about Noah and what God spoke to him, but to believe that the all of the earth was under water and that Noah's Ark held 2 of every animal on earth is pure folly.

Actually, I like how you put this.

Gadgetlady, I feel like I answered your questions the best I can, and honestly I don't see the point of your continueing to ask more and more. What are you trying to get at? Maybe I can answer whatever that is.

I'm trying to understand. I'm not trying to attack. I sincerely don't understand, for want of a better term, salad-bar Christianity. But if there's a valid reason for it, I'd like to. You've been the only one so far who's willing to discuss it. I suspect it's because you're secure in your beliefs and are willing to defend them. But if anyone else would like to discuss it as well, I'd be happy to engage more than one person.

But later. I have to get some things done around the house now.

Well you can play with the words all you want, but EVERYTHING that I have said theologically and biblically is sound and true. If you are into the samantics thing, and that's your take on it, thats your business, but I'm not playing that game. There are more important thinks to talk about!

But then you can't stand by everything you've said. That context that has a pretty sharp ring sometimes.

I'm trying to understand. I'm not trying to attack. I sincerely don't understand, for want of a better term, salad-bar Christianity. But if there's a valid reason for it, I'd like to. You've been the only one so far who's willing to discuss it. I suspect it's because you're secure in your beliefs and are willing to defend them. But if anyone else would like to discuss it as well, I'd be happy to engage more than one person.

But later. I have to get some things done around the house now.

Happy housecleaning - and I don't feel attacked at all. I just feel like you have an underlying question and I'd like to answer it if I can.

I don't understand salad-bar Christianity either, which to me means someone chosing to follow that which is easy or convienent for them. I tried my best to explain in my earlier post how I read the Bible, I can't think of another way to put it. I don't just pick things to follow I want to, I think about what I think God wants from me.

I'm trying to understand. I'm not trying to attack. I sincerely don't understand, for want of a better term, salad-bar Christianity. But if there's a valid reason for it, I'd like to. You've been the only one so far who's willing to discuss it. I suspect it's because you're secure in your beliefs and are willing to defend them. But if anyone else would like to discuss it as well, I'd be happy to engage more than one person.

The thing is, I would imagine that many people would be willing to discuss their beliefs. But you don't come across as sincerely asking about their beliefs, you come across as asking people to defend themselves and their choices. Maybe you don't mean it that way, but that's the way you appear. It comes across as interrogation, not discussion. And to be honest, it's offensive. I (and many other people here) wouldn't go out and ask people to defend their belief in God. I would ask them about their beliefs and share my beliefs and I would leave it at that. You can have a great discussion that way, and no one feels like they are being attacked.

I sincerely don't understand, for want of a better term, salad-bar Christianity.

This is a great example of what I am saying. Calling someone's beliefs "salad-bar" is offensive.

Well you can play with the words all you want, but EVERYTHING that I have said theologically and biblically is sound and true. If you are into the samantics thing, and that's your take on it, thats your business, but I'm not playing that game. There are more important thinks to talk about!

Like anti-semitism?

It's not semantics when you say that you have backed up "everything" you have said, when in fact you have not. And then say you do not tell lies.

Funny how when something does line up for you, it's semantics. Or nit-picking, or rubbish, or "whinning", or lies, or pathetic, or below the belt, or... ad infinitum.

The point being, what you said was (apparently) in the context of "theologically and biblically". But you didn't say that. At least not until after the fact. And I seem to have left my crystal ball at work today. So I took you literally. And maybe sometimes I shouldn't do that, because - wow - look at all the things that I might be missing out on.

you come across as asking people to defend themselves and their choices.

yeah, I do have to agree with that, to a degree. A lot of the questions I've seen posed have left me wondering, "What the point? Because if there is one, just get to it." If it were me, that's what I would prefer.