Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

Subscribe to Journal

Sunday, August 13th 2006

8:47 AM

Something Christians and Muslim Extremists DO HAVE IN COMMON

This is a quote from the previous entry:

“I hereby declare that this sinister regime is the banner of Satan. It is the banner of the Great Satan,” Ahmadinejad is seen saying in a speech broadcast by the Iranian News Channel (IRINN) on August 2.

The sad, very, very, sad thing is that MANY millions of Christians teach that Judaism is a religion of "satan"  and thereby, Jews are children of "satan".  Yet, both the Muslims and Christians CLAIM loudly and proudly to be "offshoots" of Judaism. 

So, someone!  Explain to me:  How can you be BOTH a child of G-d and the "branch" of Satan????????  What's wrong with this? 

What is so terribly frightening is that both the "branches" that claim to be children of Judaism, also deny Judaism and it's teachings and that it's teachings are given by the Only G-d.  How do you do this? 

The same way that teenagers rebel against their own parents, the children (branches) who claim to be born of Judaism, rebel against Judaic beliefs and teachings. 

Hopefully, like the majority of children who once matured, who have a secure sense of self, these "branch children" will also review their (claimed) parents' position and say: 

Maybe, the Jews have a point after all. 

 

 

0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Sunday, August 13th 2006

8:39 AM

Mike Wallace's Very Interesting Perception

Ahmadinejad Tells Wallace One Thing, Iranians Another
By Ezra HaLevi

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explicitly called for Israel's “death” - just days before assuring American journalist Mike Wallace that he merely wants to move the Jewish state to Germany.


Mike Wallace, the retired host of the popular “60 Minutes” weekly television program, interviewed the Iranian president last week. Wallace returned from the interview describing Ahmadinejad in glowing terms and insisting he was not an anti-Semite. The interview is set to air Sunday night.

“He doesn't like the United States for the reason that it's supporting the Zionist entity - he doesn't talk about Israel,” Wallace told radio host Sean Hannity.

“So you don't think he's an anti-Semite?” asked Hannity.

“He himself, an anti-Semite, an anti-Jew?” Wallace responded.

“Yes,” said Hannity.

“No, I don't,” Wallace said.

Asked by Hannity what Ahmadinejad meant when he called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” Wallace said: “Yes, he says ‘wiped off the map,’ and of course I asked him over and over about that. He says in effect, ‘It's perfectly sensible that, if there is a Holocaust - and let's buy the fact that there was a Holocaust – [we ask] where did the Holocaust take place? Did it take place in an Arab neighborhood? Did it take place in Jerusalem? No. It took place in Germany. Then it seems to me, under those circumstances, take Israel, the Zionist entity,’ he called it, ‘move it to Germany. Move it to Europe. That's where it happened.’”

The Iranian President himself, however, when speaking to his own people, seems to have a different sort of end of the Jewish state in mind. Ahmadinejad addressed a large crowd of Iranians just a week prior to his interview with Wallace, in which he not only led a chant of “Death to Israel,” but explained that he was not alone in such a pursuit.

“I hereby declare that this sinister regime is the banner of Satan. It is the banner of the Great Satan,” Ahmadinejad is seen saying in a speech broadcast by the Iranian News Channel (IRINN) on August 2. “From the southernmost point in South America to the easternmost point in Asia, all the people are shouting a single cry. With placards in their hands and clenched fists, they shout: ‘Death to Israel.’”

At that point the crowd chants, “Death to Israel. Death to Israel.”

 Nah!  He's not AntiSemitic, Mike.  He only wants to move the Jewish People "back to Germany"?????  They are not "FROM" Germany.  They are from Germany, France, Spain, Russia, and a whole lot from America. So, why Germany???  Holocaust Germany???? Do you suppose that is the "Germany" he meant?  Hmmmmmmmm.  He speaks with forked tongue.   

There is a link on arutz7.com to the actual video ...

0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Tuesday, July 25th 2006

5:54 AM

Something to Consider When Watching the News

A CNN reporter is taken to an area of Beirut and told that the rubble of buildings is a result of Israeli air strikes on civilian targets. The reporter repeats the allegation as fact. He has no way of knowing what was in the buildings, whether it was a rocket workshop, a hiding place for katyushas, the home of a Hizbullah leader, or a command center. In fact, he doesn't even know if the Israel was responsible for the destruction that he is shown.

In waging their propaganda war, Israel's enemies count on journalists to report first and research later, if at all, and CNN and other media outlets have fallen into their trap.

Israel's adversaries learned a long time ago that they can attract publicity and sympathy by fabricating statistics and screaming "massacre." This was the case in April 2002 when Palestinians claimed that 500 people were "massacred" in Jenin. They could not produce any evidence to support the scurrilous charge, and their own review committee reported a death toll of 56, of whom 34 were combatants. By the time the truth was reported, the story had been repeated throughout the world media and Israel's image was tarnished.

During the last war in Lebanon, disinformation was the norm. Perhaps the most dramatic example occurred when the Washington Post published a photograph (August 2, 1982) of a baby that appeared to have lost both its arms. The UPI caption said that the seven-month-old had been severely burned when an Israeli jet accidentally hit a Christian residential area. The photo disgusted President Reagan and was one reason he subsequently called for Israel to halt its attacks. The photo and the caption, however, were inaccurate. The baby, in fact, did not lose its arms, and the burns the child suffered were the result of a PLO attack on East Beirut.

The media also reported that Israel's operation to end the PLO threats to northern Israel resulted in 10,000 deaths and 600,000 homeless in south Lebanon. The 600,000 homeless figure originated in mid-June 1982 with the Palestine Red Crescent, headed by Yasser Arafat's brother, Fathi. Francesco Noseda of the International Committee of the Red Cross, who had originally used the bogus number, later repudiated it. By then, however, it was too late and the perception had been created that Israel was responsible for the mass killing of civilians and the creation of a humanitarian disaster.

The Lebanese Prime Minister is trying this tactic again in 2006 by claiming that Israel has perpetrated massacres and has made 500,000 people homeless. No effort is made to confirm these claims; they are simply repeated by the media, thereby reinforcing the incentive for Arab propagandists to spread disinformation.

During the war in Lebanon in 1982, there would have been zero dead or homeless if the PLO hadn't used south Lebanon as a base from which to menace Israel. This same point can be made today, but is being ignored by the media in its obsession with casualty figures and its desire to find evidence of Israel attacking innocents. Not a single Lebanese civilian would be in danger, however, if Hizbullah was not controlling southern Lebanon and attacking Israel. This fact appears lost on most journalists covering the current conflict.

The press is also spending a great deal of time talking to Lebanese civilians and their relatives in the United States and highlighting the difficult conditions they are enduring. This is no doubt the case since they are living in a war zone; however, the media has spent almost no time talking to the Israelis living under the constant threat of rocket attacks. Few reporters have gone into the bomb shelters to interview the frightened Israeli families. No one seems interested in how the relatives of Israelis in the United States feel about their loved ones being under siege.

Similarly, every report has focused on the Americans living in Lebanon while no one seems interested in the thousands of Americans living in Israel. It is terrible that tourists and students need to be evacuated from Lebanon, but what about those same groups in Israel? What about the hundreds of students on summer tours and programs in Israel, many of whom were in the north when the violence escalated? While the complications of leaving the country may not be as severe as in Lebanon, it is still very difficult to arrange a quick exit from Israel, and many American parents are in a state of panic worrying about their children in Israel.

Wars are never easy to cover, and each side of a conflict wants to make its case through the media. A responsible press, however, does not repeat whatever it hears; it first makes every effort to insure the accuracy of its reporting. That is the standard expected of journalists covering the war between Israel and Hizbullah.

 

0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Monday, May 29th 2006

6:19 AM

Saudi Arabia: Guantanamo Detainees Return to Legal Limbo

Remember all those protestors around the world - including Human Rights Watch - that told the world how INHUMANE the U.S. was toward the "prisoners" at GITMO?

Remember them? 

Remember how the DEMANDED that the U.S. "release"  or "charge" the prisoners at Gitmo? 

WELL .... 

THE U.S. RELEASED SOME! 

NOW LISTEN TO HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH.

Saudi Arabia: Guantanamo Detainees Return to Legal Limbo

(New York, May 26, 2006) – The 15 Saudi detainees transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Saudi custody on May 18 are unlikely to receive a fair trial and are at risk of torture, Human Rights Watch said today. After being deprived of access to justice for years in U.S. military detention, they may face continued incarceration with no legal process in Saudi Arabia. 
 
Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the treatment of several Guantanamo detainees previously transferred to Saudi Arabia – including detention without charge, solitary confinement, and denial of access to legal counsel – increased the likelihood that the 15 new detainees would be arbitrarily detained or mistreated. Saudi Arabia has a long and recent record of torture and its trials remain patently unfair. 

Human Rights Watch met with former Saudi political prisoners in February 2006, who said that they had witnessed torture in al-Ha’ir prison in 2004 and 2005. One said he himself was tortured. Mistreatment included sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, beatings, and suspending prisoners in the air by handcuffing one hand high up to a cell wall for hours at a time. 

0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Monday, May 29th 2006

5:05 AM

It's time to tell Mubarak, 'enough!'

May 20, 2006 

By Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of the Middle East and North Africa Division

As Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's government brutally cracks down on Egyptians campaigning for democracy and political reform in Cairo, global business leaders are gathering today in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el- Sheikh to discuss "the new positive dynamics in the region's politics" at the World Economic Forum's annual Middle East meeting. 

Seems the corporations that have investments in Egypt are disgusted with the lack of decent treatment of the people of Egypt ....  and the arrests of those who would march for more liberalization in Egypt. 

Didn't these investors know that Egypt was a Muslim country and that Muslim and "democracy" or "liberalism" or "freedom of x"  are not complimentary to each other?

 

0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Sunday, May 28th 2006

5:27 PM

Remembering WHY They Served

Memorial Day U.S.A.
 
Tomorrow, as a nation, we celebrate the lives and deaths of all who have served our country in the Armed Forces. 
 
Some say, we Remember Those Who Gave Their Lives.
 
I say, We Remember WHY They Chose To Serve.
 
 
My father was a U.S. Marine - ORIGINAL FIRST RAIDER BATTALION - during WWII. 
 
My Grandfather, his father, was a Submarine Officer on one of the First NUCLEAR Subs in the U.S. Navy during WWII.  He had been in the Navy all his life.  NOT "all his adult life".  ALL his life.
As a child, my grandfather was serving as a cabin boy in the U.S. Navy on a Tall Ship. 
President Theodore Roosevelt met him when his ship, one of the last Tall Ships in operation, came into port at Washington, D.C.  It just happened to coincide with an effort that was ongoing with Hull House in Chicago campaigning against "child labor". 
I guess, it must have been at just the right time for my grandfather.  He had been orphaned as a child and at the age of 8 years old was responsible for making his own living in the world.  Teddy R. was so impressed with the boy that he invited him to stay at the White House for the duration of his time in port. 
The President had a son who was crippled - a son he loved very much.  Because he was bound to a chair, the son could not participate in the activities considered part of "normal" childhood, of course. 
 
No one really knows why but the two boys hit it off immediately.  They became best friends for many years and, because of their love for each other, my grandfather remained living in the White House until Teddy R. left office. 
 
He did not have to return to the Navy.  The President had already authorized a pension for him. 
He chose to return to the Navy and his reasons are as bound up in the love he had for his young friend who lived at Pennsylvania Avenue as it did with his love for a country that would give him the opportunity to live in the White House as an orphan.
 
That love for the Nation of Opportunity and the desire to do whatever his part may be - whether history would record it as right or wrong - was passed down to every member of our family.
 
My son, who is also a Marine, remembers with fondness the sincere love of a President who moved an Orphan into the White House.
 
For All who Served, Remembering WHY may be more important than Remembering how.
 
0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Thursday, May 25th 2006

4:37 PM

The Love of Christian Missionaries

Picked this up on the My Spaces site:  Granny's Revenge.
 
There is a Missionary Group in ISRAEL [you know the place, "Land of the Jews" by order of the U.N. - remember?] who has decided that it is "important" that they broadcast over an Israeli T.V. station their brand of "Jesus Loves the Jews" only to be followed by " And, if you will just take him into your heart, accept him as your savior, and love him,  ALL the problems of Israel will be magically solved". 
 
I thought  this  was  an interesting and very spiritually dangerous method of exterminating Judaism and  Jews. 
0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Thursday, May 25th 2006

8:15 AM


 

0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Wednesday, May 24th 2006

8:06 PM

A Little Tidbit from the May 29 Issue of Newsweek

What the World Really Wants

Russians still rate democracy as something they like and value.

But their big priority is the conditions that let them lead decent lives.

 

The Bush administration describes spreading democracy as the lodestar of its foreign policy.         It speaks about democracy constantly and has expanded funding for programs associated with it.    The administration sees itself as giving voice to the hundreds of millions who are oppressed around the world. 

And yet the prevailing image of the United States in those lands is not at all as a beacon of liberty.

Public sentiment almost everywhere sees the United States as self-interested and arrogant.

[ ]

Gee, Golly whiz!  You know, NOT everyone in the world is Christian and those who are not (eg most Russians, who are highly secular now) don't like the Christian missionizing whether in the form of religion or in peddling their own brand of "how to behave like a democracy".   And, this "democratic ideal" that Bush has been pushing sounds like Christian Democracy! 

Cheney went to Lithuania and gave a "daddy lecture" to President Putin.

Excuse me!  Who the H**l does this administration think it is giving "orders", directives, lectures, or advice to anyone on how to run their country?  ALL OUR LEADERS for the last 5 or 6 administrations ... no all the way back to FDR, actually... WERE peices of dog dodo when it comes to "running" government OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE!  [My opinion of course.]

[  ]

In Cheney's narrative, Russia was a blooming democracy during the 1990s, but in recent years it has turned into a sinister dictatorship where people live in fear. 

[ ]

And, outside pollsters, say that "Putin has a 75 percent approval rating" among Russians!  Look, just because we wouldn't want to live in the Russia the media portrays to us, doesn't mean that the Russians have a complaint with the ENTIRE government. 

Which means, either we have a rotten government that does not serve the people here OR we just like to complain about every little thing. 

Personally, I think it's closer to the first but somewhere in between the two options.   

Americans are tired of the government leaders that we elect in ignoring US and what we want from them.  And, it doesn't matter what party they belong to,  they just don't care what we want. 

By contrast, the Russians don't expect Putin to "do what the people want" so they are not nearly as disappointed as we are.

But, for our little 2 bit practicing to be dictators - meaning the whole congress, supreme court, governors, and president - to call a leader from another country inept or dictatorial,  is way, way, way out of line. 

I wouldn't like us either!

0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Wednesday, May 24th 2006

7:25 PM

CONGRADS TO TAYLOR HICKS!

American Idol just got over in my time zone.

Congradulations to Taylor Hicks!

This is the first season that I actually watched it from the auditions to the final pick. I don't know if every year has been this good, but if they have have, it would account for the popularity of the show.

I thought Elliot was better tonight than he was at almost anytime in the competition and that his mom won an award was super.  She looks like a really great lady.

And, so happy for Chris and for Kellie Pickler, too. Both have sex appeal and personality.

And, WHOA!  MANDESSA!!! She sounded better than any of the "guest STARS".  Toni Braxton couldn't find the right key with her hands on her butt tonight. She stank! 

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say there will be at least 5 of the top 10 that will be around for a while in the public eye and make it big:

Taylor Hicks

Elliot Yamin

Kellie Pickler

MANDESSA!!

Chris Daughtry

I don't think we'll hear all that much from Katherine McPhee in about 3 years - probably about the time we start seeing Paris everywhere!

 

0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Tuesday, May 23rd 2006

6:48 AM

Worth A REPRINT

This was from the blog: Secret Agent Man on blogger.  ***I have REARRANGED some of his post so it does read in a different order than on his own page.  I decided to do that because some of what was at the end needs to be at the top as well, IMHO.  **** I do not know this blogger.

  Thursday, March 09, 2006

Notes on Anti-Semitism

Reading the blogs recently, I came across a comment-box conversation that raised an old perspective on anti-Semitism, one which holds that the term is rightly used only as to "racial" characteristics and should not be confused with "proper" arguments against the Jewish religion, culture, or (by extension) the State of Israel. I say "by extension" because this perspective arose prior to the creation of modern Israel.

I've never bought into that distinction, although I considered it rather closely when I was writing my review of Hitler's Pope. The review wasn't the place to go into that, but now that I have a blog, I can set out my opinions about this nice and false distinction.

What does it matter whether the malice of "the Jews" results from their genetics or their souls, so long as either cause compels "the Jews" to act against human society?

This is why Jew-hating Christians labor diligently to filter the Gospel, to remove from Jesus what would otherwise be the ‘stain' of His ‘Jewishness.'

The "racial anti-Semites" try to remove Him from "the seed of Abraham" with crackpot theories about His lineage.

The "cultural anti-Judaism" bunch tries it by portraying Jesus as a divine messenger who came to repudiate Judaism and the Jews, and not as the Lord of Moses who came to fulfill the Law.

Both branches of this sick tree come from the same root, the idea that the Jews are not -- for whatever cause -- fully human.

I suspect that animus is behind Fr. Gundlach's prevaricating phrase about the "Jewish soul expelled from its homeland."

What does he mean to suggest?

He means, I think, to suggest that the true Jewish "homeland" is not the soil of Israel but the favor of God and that, having repudiated "its" homeland, the "Jewish soul" has been outraged into a "dark" hatred of human society.

He is, therefore, firmly in the camp of "cultural anti-Judaism" and yet ends up making essentially the same arguments the Nazis made about Jews being a culture-destroying race.

Fr. Gundlach and Christians who think as he did would no doubt hasten to explain that the "darkness" in the "Jewish soul" can be healed by accepting Jesus as the Messiah.

That doesn't make their views more amiable. If anything, it makes them more perverse. For they have tacitly defined Christianity as a faith that regards unconverted Jews as something less than human.

If anything, the paradigm runs the other way:
It was our Lord who called us gentiles "dogs." Mark 7:27 (KJV).

For that we were, living without the divine favor represented by the Law of Moses.

It was the fulfillment of the Law by the most holy "seed of Abraham," and not His mythical expulsion of Jews from the human family, that gained us a full place in the human story.

It is ironic when the "dogs" bite their elder brothers, conditioning Jews' humanity on their acceptance of Jew-hating doctrines, and then express shock and anger when Jews equate evangelism with genocide.

But what else may we call a Christian witness that implicitly conditions humanity itself on adherence to credal distinctives?

What should we call it?

We should call it by its proper name -- the "teaching of contempt."

An example of what I'm writing about can be found in the 1930s German Catholic publication, Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche, discussed by Fr. Martin Rhonheimer in his useful (but deeply-flawed) article, "The Holocaust: What Was Not Said":


In the first volume of the same lexicon, published in 1930, the well-known article on "Anti-Semitism" by the German Jesuit Gustav Gundlach had drawn a distinction between a volkisch (people or human) anti-Semitism promoted for strictly racist motives (which was to be rejected), and an anti-Semitism promoted for general political, economic, and cultural reasons that Christians might accept.

As examples of the latter Gundlach cited two Austrian politicians, Karl Lueger and Georg von Schoenerer, prominent and outspoken anti-Semites who had strongly influenced Hitler during his years in Vienna.

It is noteworthy that in the same article Gundlach rejected as unjust ‘laws which single out Jews simply because they are Jews,' while not hesitating to call ‘global plutocracy and Bolshevism' forces that manifest ‘dark aspects of the Jewish soul expelled from its homeland' and which are ‘destructive of human society.'

The distintion between "racial" anti-Semitism and "cultural/religious/political anti-Judaism" is false because they share a determinist view of Jewish nature (the "the Jewish race," the "Jewish soul") that compels both viewpoints to the same conclusion.

The moral flaw in this supposedly "proper" definition of anti-Semitism should be apparent, but unfortunately it tends to escape notice because it immediately provokes historical and factual arguments (I use the terms only as adjectives indicating the subject, not nouns indicating the quality, of these arguments) about such topics as

  • the number of Jews at the New York Stock Exchange or the Comintern,
  • or whether Lenin's maternal grandfather was a Jew
  • and what, if anything, all that is supposed to tell us about Jews, Capitalism, and Bolshevism.

The moral flaw in Father Gundlach's closely-parsed definition of anti-Semitism isn't revealed by arguing about specific pieces of information. It's revealed by comparing it to Nazism, Communism, and other false philosophies that rely on determinism.

Fr. Gundlach uses determinism to deny the human dignity of Jews ab initio and, if his argument is followed through, the dignity of everyone else too.

From the Catechism:


  • God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions.
  • "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him
  • " Man is rational and therefore like God;
  • he is created with free will and is master over his acts. Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility.
  • By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness;
  • it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.


Perspectives on ideas, culture, or politics which locate their evils (real or supposed) in something other than the Church's teaching on sin (grave matter, knowledge of God's law, and deliberate assent) deny the free will and hope of beatitude that are at the core of human existence.

"Global plutocracy and Bolshevism" may indeed witness to "dark aspects of the soul," but, to the extent such things may be said, they should be said about our common heritage of a fallen nature, and not about some allegedly-unique character of Jews, Englishmen . . .

. . . or Germans.

One wonders what Fr. Gundlach might reply to arguments that while laws and social conventions which single out Germans simply because of their blood are unjust, law and custom may still guard us all against the "dark aspects" of the German soul which are destructive of human society.

He would probably point out that to speak of a "German soul" in any ontologically-distinct sense flirts with denying not only the Church's teaching that each man has his own soul which lives as grace and will allow, but also the Church's teaching that humanity is circumscribed by two Adams:

St. Paul  

[      ]

Now, anyone who has been reading this blog at all already knows that I am Jewish and that the concepts, teachings, platitudes, and/or imagination of Christianity is not something I am in agreement with or support.  The following is EXACTLY why Jews do not AGREE with any - ANY - of the Christian "tenets of faith" whether Catholic or Protestant.   No, the "tenets" are not the same in any way shape or form from beginning to end.

But, I found this explanation of how Christians are either related to or separate from -and it seems to say both - Jews and Jewishness or Judaism.  THIS is a prime example of talking out of BOTH SIDES OF YOUR MOUTH. 

And, the concept that "Jman" was Adam means that the Catholics and Protestants are saying they believe in REINCARNATION in it's most basic forms - which I am told by pastors, priests, ministers, and followers :  "no, no.  We don't believe in 'reincarnation'!  That's what the Buddhists believe in!  WE believe in "Resurrection" of the Soul." I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but "reincarnation" and "resurrection" are exactly the same thing!  [except to those who want to use the redefining techniques of DENIAL!]

I truly, in my heart of hearts and soul of souls, do not BELIEVE that the majority  of Christians or those accepting the basic concepts of Christianity have a clue what they [individually] really believe anyway.    Few Christians I've met [and, as a Jew, you meet them everywhere!  uh - sometimes I check under my bed for a loose missionary  ] can explain

  • "why" they believe in a three-headed god
  • "how" the J*man is going to save them from anything - sin or otherwise
  • "who" wrote the four gospels and when
  • "who" the Samaritans, Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, Zealots, and Gallileans were
  • "when" Hellenism was developed and it's connection to the Christian doctrines
  • "why" the Jews are or are not the "chosen" and what that means in the first place

[  ]

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men:

  • Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit.
  • The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . .
  • The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him.
  • That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image.
  • The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end.
  • The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: ‘I am the first and the last.'

[ ]

O.K.  I'll bite!  WHERE does or is "Jesus" called by the name "Adam" and if his name is "Adam" why does everyone call him "Jesus"(joshua aka joe) ?  And, if the church is referring to the term "Christ" or "Christus" as being the "first Adam" in the Greek vernacular, then :

  • the church is admitting to be BORN OF IDOLATRY! 

So, which is it?  Jesus isn't the messiah or Jesus the "christ" is a religion born of Idolatry?

[ ]

If the Germans have a special sort of defect in their souls, they do not descend from Adam as other men do.

So with the Jews, and if that is true for the Jews, then what are we to make of our Lord's having a "Jewish nature" that does not descend from Adam as our own natures do?

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." Hebrews 2:16 (KJV).

The distintion between "racial" anti-Semitism and "cultural/religious/political anti-Judaism" is false because they share a determinist view of Jewish nature (the "the Jewish race," the "Jewish soul") that compels both viewpoints to the same conclusion.

What does it matter whether the malice of "the Jews" results from their genetics or their souls, so long as either cause compels "the Jews" to act against human society?

This is why Jew-hating Christians labor diligently to filter the Gospel, to remove from Jesus what would otherwise be the ‘stain' of His ‘Jewishness.'

The "racial anti-Semites" try to remove Him from "the seed of Abraham" with crackpot theories about His lineage.

The "cultural anti-Judaism" bunch tries it by portraying Jesus as a divine messenger who came to repudiate Judaism and the Jews, and not as the Lord of Moses who came to fulfill the Law.

Both branches of this sick tree come from the same root, the idea that the Jews are not -- for whatever cause -- fully human.

I suspect that animus is behind Fr. Gundlach's prevaricating phrase about the "Jewish soul expelled from its homeland."

What does he mean to suggest?

He means, I think, to suggest that the true Jewish "homeland" is not the soil of Israel but the favor of God and that, having repudiated "its" homeland, the "Jewish soul" has been outraged into a "dark" hatred of human society.

He is, therefore, firmly in the camp of "cultural anti-Judaism" and yet ends up making essentially the same arguments the Nazis made about Jews being a culture-destroying race.

Fr. Gundlach and Christians who think as he did would no doubt hasten to explain that the "darkness" in the "Jewish soul" can be healed by accepting Jesus as the Messiah.

That doesn't make their views more amiable. If anything, it makes them more perverse. For they have tacitly defined Christianity as a faith that regards unconverted Jews as something less than human.

If anything, the paradigm runs the other way:
It was our Lord who called us gentiles "dogs." Mark 7:27 (KJV).

For that we were, living without the divine favor represented by the Law of Moses.

It was the fulfillment of the Law by the most holy "seed of Abraham," and not His mythical expulsion of Jews from the human family, that gained us a full place in the human story.

It is ironic when the "dogs" bite their elder brothers, conditioning Jews' humanity on their acceptance of Jew-hating doctrines, and then express shock and anger when Jews equate evangelism with genocide.

But what else may we call a Christian witness that implicitly conditions humanity itself on adherence to credal distinctives?

What should we call it?

We should call it by its proper name -- the "teaching of contempt."

**************************************************
Fr. Martin Rhonheimer, "The Holocaust: What Was Not Said," First Things, November, 2003. The full text of Fr. Rhonheimer's article can be found here. My (unfinished) critique of the article can be found here.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pp. 1730-31. The relevant text can be found here.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, P. 360 (quoting St. Peter Chrysologus (d. 450 A.D.), Sermo 117: PL 52,520-521). The relevant text can be found here.

 

0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Monday, May 22nd 2006

5:06 AM

NEW BLOG

Goodmorning,

I'll be posting at this blog less frequently now.

I have been having trouble with the centering feature on this site and have decided rather than continue to fight it and wait for continued answers, it would be less aggravating to just get a new blog from Blogger.

If you take a peak at the links, you will see that I just added a new section: My Blogs and there is one link in it.

SACRED EVIDENCE is for the exploration and study of the Holocaust including the results, the questions, and the comparative study of then and now.

You are invited over to comment.

Thank you everyone.

0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Sunday, May 21st 2006

7:59 AM

Iraq Agrees to Support BOYCOTT Against Israeli Products

  Like we didn't see this one coming?  Yet for some reason G.W. and "members" of Congress are "upset" about it!


US fumes as Iraq backs Israel boycott

[ ]

And, why would anyone be surprised? 

[ ]

Tom Casey, a spokesman for the US State Department, told the Post that Washington was unhappy with Baghdad's action.

"We are disappointed by the decision of the Iraqi government to attend this meeting, and will be noting our concerns with Iraqi officials," he said. "We have raised this issue with Iraqi officials in the past and expect to raise it with them again."

"The US position on the Arab League boycott is well known," Casey noted, adding that "perpetuation of the Arab League boycott does greatest harm to those who participate in it by hampering their efforts to develop their economies."

[ ]
Well, either the White House is threatening a boycott in return or the Arab League has just snubbed it's nose into the face of the entire western "economic" world. 

No surprise if they did.  They are sitting on piles of oil that they believe "we" want and even if "we" don't China and N. Korea DO! 

No one is grateful to be constantly reminded "without us"  you would still be under a dictator with few if any rights at all .  But, it certainly sounds like that's what our "diplomacy" has become:  The Without Us Diplomacy.

H E L L O O O O  --------------------------- Washington!   The lights are on but .... ?

Add to that, that The "brains" ??? in D.C. are all under the impression that Islam is a religon of "Peace" and have extended that IN THEIR OWN MINDS TO MEAN:

1.the Islamic countries want to get along with ALL    others in the world because it will allow them to

2.become "westernized"     in technology, inventions, and

3.have a "progressive" society. 

"Peace" or "Piece" ? 

Islamic nations,  in either case of the spelling,  want to get along with ONLY OTHER ISLAMIC NATIONS (not Christian aka Europe and definately NOT ISRAEL under any circumstance!). 

They have repeatedly yelled, screamed, stated, written, and shouted in the mosques and in the streets that "Western Civilization is EVIL!" 

ALL OF IT!  That means ALL OF IT. They don't like it. They don't want it. And, they WANT to see it DEAD TO THE WHOLE WORLD.  This is what they keep saying and yet, it gets lost in the translation in D.C. to mean something akin to "they don't really mean that".

YES THEY DO REALLY MEAN THAT. 

And, the most hated CONCEPT  of all in the Islamic WORLD is "PROGRESSIVE" aka Secular aka LOSS OF THEIR RELIGIION AS THEY LIKE IT

What this comes down to is not just a lack of communication but an absolute arrogance on the part of the leadership ??? in D.C.  to believe [and they believe it devoutly] that "they can SWAY or CHANGE THE MINDS of the "MODERATE ISLAMISTS".

Below is a very simplistic manner of demonstrating these positions of the Islamic sects so don't go nuts over it.

Islam by it's very doctrines is FUNDAMENTALIST and within that there are some that are more extreme and some that are less extreme but all the sects ARE "EXTREME" FUNDAMENTALISTS - spell that FAR RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT, [KEEP GOING RIGHT TILL YOU PASS  THE MIDDLE AGES KEEP GOING BACK, BACK, BACK RIGHT ] WING.

 

Moderate Islamists are the equivalent of what would be RIGHT WING in THE MIDDLE AGES. Now, those that are called "Extremists" by the RIGHT MIDDLE AGES WING are somewhere between the RULE OF ROME and the RULE OF THE CALIPHS .

And, remember it is the RIGHT MIDDLE AGES WING that refers to the "terrorists" as THE EXTREME RIGHT WING. 

That is really scarey. 

"Moderate" in Islam is not even on our radar in American Society which is why when Muslims sawed off the head of Nick Berg,  Americans were aghast! 

HOW could any human being do that in this day and age?

Oh, I don't know.  How could any Father living in America ENACT SHARIA Law and slaughter his own daughter for talking to a BOY????? But, it happens over and over again in the "Moderate" "modern" Islamic communities all over this country. 

To the Moderate Islamists the Secularists aka Progressives in the American Government (from the Islamic pov) would then be talking about concepts that would be on par with something from outer space. 

Islamists have no intention or desire to change their own intention to "comprehend" or "understand" or "discuss" other CONCEPTS outside of their own view of the "ideal"  world.  Because the fact is that they are devouted to the concepts of Islam and to view the world from any other vantage point means the destruction and desolution of their world view and their religion as well. 

And, the Western world of the Christian concepts has NO intention of [or even ability to] "comprehend" or "understand" or "discuss" CONCEPTS outside of their own view of the "ideal" world.  Because to truly understand Islam one would have to embrace the religion and study it for a very long time and thereby become a d'himi or destroy their own religious concepts.

And, starting with a "Without Us Diplomacy" is not exactly a genuine attempt at communication that might lead to finding a point of agreement on anything.

And, herein lies the major danger for the world. 

Until and UNLESS, one side or the other (xian v muslim because they are the two concepts influencing the thought and language and understanding of the dialogues in question) can FIND a POINT OF AGREEMENT where neither is compromising the others basic foundations of belief and ideals, the discussions and peace manuevers all around the middle east are going to be at a stand still or escalate to a serious war. 

[  And, IT'S THE JEWS FAULT!       ]

0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Sunday, May 21st 2006

7:50 AM

MAYBE "Iran Dress Code" says National Post Now

May. 20, 2006 17:41 Updated May. 21, 2006 1:52
Iran denies drafting Jewish dress code

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961380227&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Iranian officials on Saturday denied a report published by Canada' National Post on Friday that said a new dress-code law was passed last week mandating the government to make sure that religious minorities - Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians - adopted distinct color schemes to make them identifiable in public. Actually, the bill only received preliminary approval in Monday's vote.

[]

The National Post cited experts saying that the idea of religious demarcation had only arisen in a discussion on defining Iranian dress code.

[ ]

The Iranians say it is only "preliminary" APPROVAL which means that the Pres of Iran hasn't signed off on it YET.  Does that mean it is imminent?  Time will Tell.

In the story, the National Post tells three versions today ... 1. Their contact said it was to pass or had passed.  2. Their contacts said it was being discussed.  3. Their contacts said it only involved Iranian Women's dress code to be in Burkahs but nothing about the color codes.

Yet, the Iranian "officials" admitted to Jesusalem Post that the color codes received "prelim" approval and was "moving forward" in the debate/discussion phase. 

We don't know what Pres. A. take or position on it is yet.

    

0 Feedback / Leave Feedback

Sunday, May 21st 2006

7:11 AM

Terrorism In Any Place Is Still Terror

May. 21, 2006 1:33 Updated May. 21, 2006 4:15
Hamas expects aid money to be restored soon
By
RAFAEL D. FRANKEL
GAZA CITY

PA Cabinet Secretary Gazi Hammed of Hamas told The Jerusalem Post in an interview in the prime minister's office here over the weekend that the resumption of assistance would come without any capitulation by Hamas with regard to the three conditions set by the international community: recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by previously signed international agreements.

[]

 

"without any capitulation by Hamas with regard to the three conditions set" ????? interesting.

Does this mean that the Arab League, the EU or someone else (china, iran, eg) is going to send the money no matter what the rest of the world thinks?  Does this mean that the Presbyterian Churches or the Vatican are sending money from U.S. coffers?  Both have come out in support of PA administration recently. 

Or, worse, does it mean that the Quartet (including Bush) have once again gone weak and decided to pacify terrorism? 

Terrorist activity even among their own (Hamas - Fatah - Palestinian People) is no better than against outsiders.  It is unacceptable toward anyone.

[]

May. 20, 2006 10:52 Updated May. 21, 2006 1:47
Bomb targets PA security chief

Gaza City, Gaza Strip

Palestinian Authority officials on Saturday accused Hamas of yesterday's assassination attempt against Tarek Abu Rajab, the commander of the PA's General Intelligence Service, and called for dissolving the Hamas government and holding new elections.

"It's time to get rid of the Hamas government before they kill us all," said one official. "The situation is very dangerous and we have demanded the dismissal of this cabinet. We are certainly headed toward civil war."

Another official said the assassination attempt was a message to top PA leaders that they too would be targeted.

[ ]

In a further statement, Abbas said that "maybe, Hamas will change".  It is said that the people have to suffer because of the leadership but the same can be said of Iraq under Saddam, the Saudi's under the Kings, the Iranians under the Pres of Iran, and the U.S. under the wavering, inconsistent policies of GW (who, btw, I voted for ug.)

 

0 Feedback / Leave Feedback