US Russian Hoax

[Fenris]

Ok Fenris… you heard  the man…
Fork it over…

Where is my double face palm emoji?

🤦‍♂️🙈

Busted

[Fenris]

Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.

In all seriousness? Sir, you have compiled your own religion here, and it ain't pretty.

I could not agree more. Holy smokes.

[Fenris]

It is one thing to hate the Jew, and another to allow Judaism in a Christian theocracy. You are judging the standards of a Christian theocracy by the standards of Enlightenment ideals of religious pluralism.

I have no idea how threatening Judaism may have been in Charlemagne's time? I can't even begin to judge to what degree the practice of Judaism in that time might constitute "sedition?"

But it is clear that in either a Jewish Theocracy or a Christian Theocracy, the religion is allied with the state such that at some point another religion would constitute a threat to the unity of the State. In that case, other religions would be disallowed to the extent that they present a real threat.

For example, some leaders in Israel would consider it a threat to the Jewish State to allow back in all of the Palestinians who have fled Israel during times of Arab attack. The notion that all of these Palestinians could enter back into the Jewish State could upend a democracy that could be over-ruled by a predominance of Arab Muslims who are hostile to Jewish beliefs and wish to end any notion of a "Jewish State" altogether. They might wish to make Israel just another Islamic State?

If these Jewish threats were not real in a Christian state in Charlemagne's time, but just a peaceful practice of private religion, I doubt that there would be a real effort to exterminate Judaism.

But it's a good question. Again, identifying particular names just gives you opportunity to question Christianity itself, as if human flaws can invalidate other aspects of a religion that are positive.

Would you invalidate Judaism because it crucified Jesus or murdered Christians in the 1st century? Or would you invalidate King David's prophetic prowess because he slept with Bathsheba and occasionally made serious errors in his life?

Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.

The standards Charlemagne set forth, as you indicated, would be acceptable to Jewish ethics and would not constitute a threat to Judaism in compliance with God's Law. The Law of God as represented in the OT Scriptures is what NT Christianity claims is fulfilled. Greed would be prohibited under the Law. Thus, observant Jews should not be concerned about being punished for usury.

Just quoting this in it's entirety so you can't edit it out. Because wow do you have a tolerance for oppression when it's a cause that you agree with. Anything can be justified using this mindset and history is full of leaders that did exactly that. You may as well have included king Ferdinand as a "Christian king" when he did the "Christian thing" and expelled every Jew in Spain.

You're bigoted, intolerant, and willing to justify any misdeed in the name of your own personal religious belief.

[ProDeo]

Every Christian king with real faith has prayed.

So you should have no problem naming one.

I don't.

What about the Mayflower, do you see that as an example?

[RandyPNW]

What about the Mayflower, do you see that as an example?

An example of what?

[ProDeo]

What about the Mayflower, do you see that as an example?

An example of what?

You were asked to give divine examples, you did not gave one, so I am curious what you think about the Mayflower case.

Did the Pilgrims make a covenant with God?

[RabbiKnife]

Hey, here are some thoughts from a great self professed Christian leader trying to establish a theocratic state…who knows, Fenris, there may be something to this “theocracy” idea after all…

“We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the [people]. The [state] as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."

“ I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”

“ I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.”

“ As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy [nation], for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.”

“ The more abstractly correct and hence powerful this idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings... If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth... In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality.”

“ And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation.”

“ My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...”

“ By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society. ...”

“ Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years. ”

[Fenris]

Hey, here are some thoughts from a great self professed Christian leader trying to establish a theocratic state…

Brutal.

Listen, we can all agree that man is fallen. And that power corrupts. Those things don't magically change when someone says "I'm doing this because God told me to." Many horrible things were done and people claimed it was God who ordered them. That alone should make us steer clear of any "divine mandated leadership".

[RandyPNW]

What about the Mayflower, do you see that as an example?

An example of what?

You were asked to give divine examples, you did not gave one, so I am curious what you think about the Mayflower case.

Did the Pilgrims make a covenant with God?

Yea, I didn't know if you were mocking the idea, or serious? I read "The Light and the Glory" a long time ago, by Peter Marshall. Great book on the mix of Christianity with early Americans.

Clearly, we were closer then to what I'm calling activities that were "theocratic" in nature. Actually, many liberals, pagans, and non-Christians believe that imposing any kind of Christian morality is an example of theocracy and illegitimate in a secular society.

[RandyPNW]

It is one thing to hate the Jew, and another to allow Judaism in a Christian theocracy. You are judging the standards of a Christian theocracy by the standards of Enlightenment ideals of religious pluralism.

I have no idea how threatening Judaism may have been in Charlemagne's time? I can't even begin to judge to what degree the practice of Judaism in that time might constitute "sedition?"

But it is clear that in either a Jewish Theocracy or a Christian Theocracy, the religion is allied with the state such that at some point another religion would constitute a threat to the unity of the State. In that case, other religions would be disallowed to the extent that they present a real threat.

For example, some leaders in Israel would consider it a threat to the Jewish State to allow back in all of the Palestinians who have fled Israel during times of Arab attack. The notion that all of these Palestinians could enter back into the Jewish State could upend a democracy that could be over-ruled by a predominance of Arab Muslims who are hostile to Jewish beliefs and wish to end any notion of a "Jewish State" altogether. They might wish to make Israel just another Islamic State?

If these Jewish threats were not real in a Christian state in Charlemagne's time, but just a peaceful practice of private religion, I doubt that there would be a real effort to exterminate Judaism.

But it's a good question. Again, identifying particular names just gives you opportunity to question Christianity itself, as if human flaws can invalidate other aspects of a religion that are positive.

Would you invalidate Judaism because it crucified Jesus or murdered Christians in the 1st century? Or would you invalidate King David's prophetic prowess because he slept with Bathsheba and occasionally made serious errors in his life?

Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.

The standards Charlemagne set forth, as you indicated, would be acceptable to Jewish ethics and would not constitute a threat to Judaism in compliance with God's Law. The Law of God as represented in the OT Scriptures is what NT Christianity claims is fulfilled. Greed would be prohibited under the Law. Thus, observant Jews should not be concerned about being punished for usury.

Just quoting this in it's entirety so you can't edit it out. Because wow do you have a tolerance for oppression when it's a cause that you agree with. Anything can be justified using this mindset and history is full of leaders that did exactly that. You may as well have included king Ferdinand as a "Christian king" when he did the "Christian thing" and expelled every Jew in Spain.

You're bigoted, intolerant, and willing to justify any misdeed in the name of your own personal religious belief.

Oh I see how it works on this forum. I get trashed, and told to shut up and not defend myself. I give apologies, and you have an open invitation to call me a bigot?

Sorry, friend, but Christianity declares its way is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. It does allow for time to collect facts and make free decisions before judgment. But since I already have submitted to Him who is the Way, I'll not compromise truth just to make you feel better.

People from other religions tried to dilute Christian truth in Christian states and upset Christian leaders, who want the Christian public to be at peace with a single set of moral values. You cannot have greed and usury in the same place as unselfishness and charity.

Both Jews and Christians can live in a state in which morals based on the Law are agreed upon. But attacking this kind of Christian moral exclusivity will not win you acceptance in a Christian society.

Jewish People should agree with Christian morality, since it is based on the Jewish Law. The only Jews who upset Christians were ones who constantly assail Christians for wanting a Christian society and for being intolerant of corrupted morals that are present in other religions.

[Athanasius]

Oh I see how it works on this forum. I get trashed, and told to shut up and not defend myself. I give apologies, and you have an open invitation to call me a bigot?

You haven't been told to shut up and you haven't been told not to defend yourself. You barely apologised, but at least you said something. You're being asked to be mindful of how you say what you say. You're not a victim.

Now, Fenris hasn't joked about friendly suicide bombers, but he has made a serious accusation.

Hmm...

"It is one thing to hate the Jew, and another to allow Judaism in a Christian theocracy"
"If these Jewish threats were not real in a Christian state in Charlemagne's time, but just a peaceful practice of private religion, I doubt that there would be a real effort to exterminate Judaism."
"Thus, observant Jews should not be concerned about being punished for usury."

That's to say nothing of the suicide bomber comment, and so on.

You may not be bigoted and intolerant, but you're writing in such a way that it comes across as bigoted and intolerant. Since a few special Germans have already been quoted, do you suppose that Judaism was peacefully practised as a private religion in Germany in the early 20th century, or was it a real threat to the state? We know what the answer is, so then, why would this argument pass muster with respect to Charlemagne?

In the same spirit of uncompromising adherence to the truth, I don't see how Fenris' comments constitute "trashing you". I'm trying to allow conversation as much as is reasonably possible, without enforcing artificial limits. However, that means taking a considered approach with one's words, and it means taking 'it' if 'it' is also given.

We could always do the boring:

- Don't name and shame
- Make sure comments pertain only to the argument, not the arguer

And so on, but that's such a dry, academic attitude. If you think that should be the case, however, I'm all ears. In the meantime, if you aren't bigoted and intolerant, just be mindful of the things you're saying.

Sorry, friend, but Christianity declares its way is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. It does allow for time to collect facts and make free decisions before judgment. But since I already have submitted to Him who is the Way, I'll not compromise truth just to make you feel better.

Jesus said that about Himself, not about Christianity. I, personally, take this to mean that salvation for anyone is through Christ, not that everyone who is saved will know what Christianity is. An easy immediate example is the thief on the cross.

Both Jews and Christians can live in a state in which morals based on the Law are agreed upon. But attacking this kind of Christian moral exclusivity will not win you acceptance in a Christian society.

Jewish People should agree with Christian morality, since it is based on the Jewish Law. The only Jews who upset Christians were ones who constantly assail Christians for wanting a Christian society and for being intolerant of corrupted morals that are present in other religions.

See, like, this is something that isn't winning any rhetorical awards.

[RandyPNW]

Oh I see how it works on this forum. I get trashed, and told to shut up and not defend myself. I give apologies, and you have an open invitation to call me a bigot?

You haven't been told to shut up and you haven't been told not to defend yourself. You barely apologised, but at least you said something. You're being asked to be mindful of how you say what you say. You're not a victim.

You were *definitely* telling me to shut up. You said you had the last word, and you *meant it.*

Now, Fenris hasn't joked about friendly suicide bombers, but he has made a serious accusation.

Well then, I thought I wasn't supposed to talk about this any more?

Hmm...
"It is one thing to hate the Jew, and another to allow Judaism in a Christian theocracy"
"If these Jewish threats were not real in a Christian state in Charlemagne's time, but just a peaceful practice of private religion, I doubt that there would be a real effort to exterminate Judaism."
"Thus, observant Jews should not be concerned about being punished for usury."

That's to say nothing of the suicide bomber comment, and so on.

I'm not supposed to say anything more about that. But you certainly feel free?

You may not be bigoted and intolerant, but you're writing in such a way that it comes across as bigoted and intolerant. Since a few special Germans have already been quoted, do you suppose that Judaism was peacefully practised as a private religion in Germany in the early 20th century, or was it a real threat to the state? We know what the answer is, so then, why would this argument pass muster with respect to Charlemagne?

I would love to discuss it. But I was being shown the door if I didn't apologize and accepted never to talk about it again.

In the same spirit of uncompromising adherence to the truth, I don't see how Fenris' comments constitute "trashing you". I'm trying to allow conversation as much as is reasonably possible, without enforcing artificial limits. However, that means taking a considered approach with one's words, and it means taking 'it' if 'it' is also given.

Another way of saying, you're biased towards Fenris' position, which is okay, unless you don't apply the same standards to both of us. Now, if I called him a "bigot," I think I'd be shown the door. Or, am I wrong?

We could always do the boring:

I spent 10 years on an unmoderated Usenet group called alt.messianic, where I argued with a Jewish guy. He had the same kinds of thoughts as Fenris, but not once did anybody think to ban the other. Call me names all you want, but don't then just pick on one side to tell him, "I don't want to hear this anymore."

Let me know when I can start telling you how I feel again? Or, are you going to ban me for saying that?

[RandyPNW]

Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.

In all seriousness? Sir, you have compiled your own religion here, and it ain't pretty.

So you're saying the Bible itself isn't pretty? No, it's a pretty ugly picture, but it's in the Bible, that I can say for sure. My only question is, Why don't you know that?

[RandyPNW]

Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.

In all seriousness? Sir, you have compiled your own religion here, and it ain't pretty.

I could not agree more. Holy smokes.

Holy Smokes. You don't read or believe your own Bible!

Jer 25.8 Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: “Because you have not listened to my words, 9 I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon,” declares the Lord, “and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin. 10 I will banish from them the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, the sound of millstones and the light of the lamp. 11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Matt 21.43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

God took away the Kingdom (theocracy) from Israel and gave it (the theocracy) to Rome. Thus, the pagan nation, Rome, that had exiled Israel in 70 AD became the Christian Kingdom where exiled Jews lived, having been banished into territories where they had to serve the interests of Christian states. These are facts of history, and as I showed, completely biblically based.

If you're a liberal or a Jew, you may not like this. But facts are "hard things."

[Fenris]

I give apologies,

Your apology was along the lines of "I'm sorry you were offended by what I said" without conceding that you actually said something offensive.

and you have an open invitation to call me a bigot?

You are willing to excuse great intolerance and great injustice because it was committed by a so-called Christian. In your own words, it was OK for Charlamagne to oppress Jews because they might have been "seditious". And you think it's funny to joke about Muslims being suicide bombers. What else is one to conclude?

Sorry, friend, but Christianity declares its way is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. It does allow for time to collect facts and make free decisions before judgment. But since I already have submitted to Him who is the Way, I'll not compromise truth just to make you feel better.

Nobody is asking you to compromise anything. Live your life how you see fit. And leave space for others to live their lives as they see fit. 

Both Jews and Christians can live in a state in which morals based on the Law are agreed upon. But attacking this kind of Christian moral exclusivity will not win you acceptance in a Christian society.

I shouldn't have to "win acceptance" in a free society.

Jewish People should agree with Christian morality, since it is based on the Jewish Law. The only Jews who upset Christians were ones who constantly assail Christians for wanting a Christian society and for being intolerant of corrupted morals that are present in other religions.

I don't have a problem with biblical values. I do have a problem with people thinking it's ok to force their views on others.