AN APPRAISAL OF THE "HOLOCAUST" BY THE RED CROSS.

[BigFresh]

[color="red"]No, your analysis is incorrect, has it has been in throughout your post (see Bible accuracy)
Your contention was based on content extraction and comparison; where my analysis was based on the [u]process[/u] of accuracy validation.[/color]

Your "process of accuracy validation" is a red herring. You are claiming that there is a very high degree of similarity among existing manuscripts for the new testament. Feel free to back yourself up on this claim, as we have seen no evidence whatsoever to support it. Still: [b]Even if the manuscripts agree [u]%100,[/u] it is not evidence that the [u]stories[/u] [i]really[/i] happened.[/b]

[color="red"]Here is the crux of our debate, as I have said, Atheist possess the common position; "lack of god-belief".
I have also stated that their (atheist) position falls into two categories:
a) The first is the lack of evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn't good enough for him to affirm God's existence.
b)The second is the category where they believe that the idea of God existing is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand. [/color]

I explained how your "statement" is inaccurate. I explained it by showing that there is at least one other option where a person is an atheist simply because said person has not been exposed to the god concept in the first place. You have chosen to ignore this and answer only with religious blather. (In the form of cut and paste biblical passages.) You are flat-out barking up the wrong tree here. You are flogging a false dichotomy.

[color="red"]Additionally, I have stated, there are basic tenents (principals) that atheist adopt.[/color]

Some do, some don't. So what? If you want to debate about something, let's get rid of some of the variables.

[color="red"][u]however, that not all atheists assert all of these tenets.[/u][/color]

If that is the case, admit it and move on instead of trying to lump me or someone else into your little categories.

[color="red"]I wanted to know what was your position.[/color]

Ask me then. Son't tell me I'm lying (you still have to answer for that) or accuse me of holding a "belief" and waiting for me to say I do or don't. [b]Just ask me![/b]

[color="red"]My question has been, what is the presupposition which has enabled you to form your belief?
Your answer, I presume, is [u]I simply do not possess one by default.[/u].[/color]

Don't presume. Ask me. Don't accuse me of dishonesty if you don't like my answer, either. Would you think I'm being reasonable if I asked you why you were a Christian and I told you your answer was stupid and my reasons were the real ones? How about if I described your position for you and scolded you when you said I was mistaken?

To answer your question, I possess no presupposition.

[color="red"]If that's the case, then you are stating that you know for a [u]fact,[/u] there is no god![/b][/color]

You're trying to relinquish the burden of proof onto someone to whom it does not belong. Do you understand the nature of a positive claim versus a negative claim? The burden of proof is on you, sir. As far as I'm concerned, the concept of God (which no one seems to be able to define in rational terms) is illogical to me. I don't SAY "I know there is no God for a fact." because it is unnecessary. It's like saying "I know there are no leprechauns for a fact."

Of course, I don't know [i]"for a fact"[/i] that there are indeed NO leprechauns. I sure as hell don't believe they exist, though.

Furthermore, do you KNOW FOR A FACT God exists?

Suppose the answer is yes? Can you prove it?

[Lawman]

[color="red"]No, your analysis is incorrect, has it has been in throughout your post (see Bible accuracy)
Your contention was based on content extraction and comparison; where my analysis was based on the [u]process[/u] of accuracy validation.[/color]

Your "process of accuracy validation" is a red herring.

[b]Your statement is inaccurate. It should be obviously transparent that I was discussing a issue on bible accuracy by a verifiable cross checking method"[/b]

You are claiming that there is a very high degree of similarity among existing manuscripts for the new testament. Feel free to back yourself up on this claim, as we have seen no evidence whatsoever to support it.

[b]You have not been paying attention; you were too busy accusing me of casting a red herring. [/b]

[img]http://www.carm.org/bible/graphics/textua4.gif[/img]

Still: [b]Even if the manuscripts agree [u]%100,[/u] it is not evidence that the [u]stories[/u] [i]really[/i] happened.[/b]

[b]The Bible it is historically and archaeologically accurate. The Bible speaks of Jerusalem, Egypt, Assyrian, the Jordan River, Bethlehem, the Nile River, the Euphrates River, pharaohs, Kings, and so many other things that have been verified through history. It teaches and assumes factual people, events, and places. Its style is written as a history book, of those who have actually seen what has happened, of those who have been there.

The burden of proof to dismiss a positive falls on you.

But since we are debating, I’ll throw you a bone. With accounts of New Testament events and/or people; see Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian); Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian); Pliny the Younger. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112; Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus; Greek writer and rhetorician. [u]The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."[/u];

Of course there are other supporting manuscripts:
[i]John Rylands MS written around 130 A.D., the oldest existing fragment of the gospel of John
Bodmer Papyrus II (150-200 A.D.)
Chester Beatty Papyri (200 A.D.), contains major portions of the NT
Codex Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), contains nearly all the Bible.
Codex Sinaiticus (350 A.D.), contains almost all the NT and over half of the OT [/i]


[color="red"]Here is the crux of our debate, as I have said, Atheist possess the common position; "lack of god-belief".

I have also stated that their (atheist) position falls into two categories:
a) The first is the lack of evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn't good enough for him to affirm God's existence.
b)The second is the category where they believe that the idea of God existing is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand. [/color]

I explained how your "statement" is inaccurate. I explained it by showing that there is at least one other option where a person is an atheist simply because said person has not been exposed to the god concept in the first place. You have chosen to ignore this and answer only with religious blather. (In the form of cut and paste biblical passages.) You are flat-out barking up the wrong tree here. You are flogging a false dichotomy.

[b]So, you do not live in West Carrollton, OH, USA, but you are actually a member of a pygmy tribe residing in the deep recesses of some rain forest!

Seriously, how is it that you have not been exposed to a god concept in West Carrollton? You mean to tell me there are no religious infrastructures where you live? You must have passed these infrastructures with some curiosity as to what the people inside were up to?[/b]

[color="red"]Additionally, I have stated, there are basic tenents (principals) that atheist adopt.[/color]

Some do, some don't. So what? If you want to debate about something, let's get rid of some of the variables.

[b]Be my guess; select one I have provided (uh, [u]There is no God [/u] is in there) or provide one of your own chosen.[/b]

[color="red"]I wanted to know what was your position.[/color]

Ask me then. Son't tell me I'm lying (you still have to answer for that) or accuse me of holding a "belief" and waiting for me to say I do or don't. [b]Just ask me![/b]

[b]Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not believe in God?
Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can you please tell me what it is? [/b]

[b]My apologizes, for the missunderstanding. Based on the topic of discussion, in reference to the pygmies, my actual implication was that you were “lying to yourself.
Example: one runs a stop sign or a red light (accidentally or not), most people would be like
‘ I hope a cop didn’t see me” out of fear of retribution; paying a fine.
At that moment, one would feel a “guilt of conscience”, they broke the law. As I stated in the case of the pygmies, I am sure they posses a form of communal law possessing their own established moral code of ethics. My belief, to answer your question, is that if they transgress against another member of the tribe and die without asking for forgiveness (from member), then they will answer to god accordingly.[/b]


[color="red"]My question has been, what is the presupposition which has enabled you to form your belief?
Your answer, I presume, is [u]I simply do not possess one by default.[/u].[/color]
Definitions of [b]Default[/b] (Microsoft Encarta 2005)
1. computing preset option: an option that will automatically be selected by a computer if the user does not choose one -No
2. failure to do something: a failure to meet an obligation, especially a financial one-No
3. law nonappearance in court: a failure to make a summoned court appearance-No
4. sports nonparticipation in competition: a failure to appear for or complete a competition-No
5. in default of [u]something or somebody [/u] because of a [u]lack of or the absence of something [/u] or somebody

Don't presume. Ask me. Don't accuse me of dishonesty if you don't like my answer, either. Would you think I'm being reasonable if I asked you why you were a Christian and I told you your answer was stupid and my reasons were the real ones? How about if I described your position for you and scolded you when you said I was mistaken?

I do not believe I have ever stated that any of your answer’s were stupid or attempted to scold you (other than what I previously apologized for and to my defense with your claim of the insertion of a red herring).

To answer your question, I possess no presupposition.

[b]This is illogical, but a response answer to a previous question may hold the clue.[/b]

[color="red"]If that's the case, then you are stating that you know for a [u]fact,[/u] there is no god![/b][/color]

You're trying to relinquish the burden of proof onto someone to whom it does not belong. Do you understand the nature of a positive claim versus a negative claim?

[b]Yes, and I am the one in that positive position (my belief).[/b]

The burden of proof is on you, sir. As far as I'm concerned, the concept of God (which no one seems to be able to define in rational terms) is illogical to me. I don't SAY "I know there is no God for a fact." because it is unnecessary. It's like saying "I know there are no leprechauns for a fact."

[b]Nice try. You have come to refute my belief (a positive position), not the other way around.[/b]

Of course, I don't know [i]"for a fact"[/i] that there are indeed NO leprechauns. I sure as hell don't believe they exist, though.

Furthermore, do you KNOW FOR A FACT God exists?

Suppose the answer is yes? Can you prove it?

[b]As another poster put it so eloquently “ it is my [u]belief[/u] that god exist” that’s all.[/b]

[Guest Coy Bacon]

You guys have a lot of energy.

[Lawman]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='245520' date='Apr 7 2006, 09:27 PM']You guys have a lot of energy.[/quote]

[BigFresh]

[b]In response to this retarded thing from CARM.org:[/b]
[img]http://www.carm.org/bible/graphics/textua4.gif[/img]

What is this trying to prove? What "manuscripts" is it referring to? What evidence does it have to support whatever it is it's trying to say? It's absolutely meaningless and without any supporting facts. It's rote and inconsequential. It still fails to provide [b]any reason whatsover[/b] why we should consider the stories in the new testament of the bible to be the history of actual events.

[color="red"]The Bible it is historically and archaeologically accurate. The Bible speaks of Jerusalem, Egypt, Assyrian, the Jordan River, Bethlehem, the Nile River, the Euphrates River, pharaohs, Kings, and so many other things that have been verified through history.[/color]

You are making several errors in your [i]post hoc,[/i] belief-based analysis of the bible. The fact that the bible mentions many actual places does not make it fact. Homer's [i]The Odyssey[/i] mentions a myriad of place that actually existed, does that mean the events described within that [u]epic narrative[/u] actually happened? Also, the bible - the NT and OT both - include events and descriptions that archaeology has proven inaccurate. For example, the town of Nazareth didn't exist until around the year 200CE. (AD fo you still living in the dark ages)
Furthermore, a great deal of events the bible includes that should have merited the attention of EVERYONE that lived at the time - let alone the historians, including those of the Romans who kept meticulous records - are never mentioned by any document other than the bible. Some examples:

[i]Matthew 2:16[/i] [url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%202:16&version=9"]Herod kills all boys in and around Bethlehem that are two years old and under.[/url]

[i]Matthew 27:45-52[/i] [url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2027;&version=9;"]When Jesus was crucified, there were three hours of complete darkness "over all the land." Then, when he died, there was a great earthquake with many corpses walking the streets of Jerusalem.[/url]

Seems like some incredible stuff, no? Anyone else think it's a little odd that no one seemed to notice except the author of one of the gospels? (assuming your paradigm of them being histories) Also, despite your continued touting of biblical similarity, why is the four canonical gospels themselves have so much in disagreeance?

[color="red"][The bible] teaches and assumes factual people, events, and places. Its style is written as a history book, of those who have actually seen what has happened, of those who have been there. [/color]

Firstly, your opinion on what the bible's purpose is arbitrary and [i]post hoc.[/i] I simply disagree. You've also provided no evidence to support this claim. Also, there are many literary scholars who disagree with you concerning the literary style used within the NT. Particularly the gospels. They FAR better resemble epic narratives - a HERO, a VILLAIN, MAGIC, SUSPENSE, and a MORAL. If you think that the gospels sound like a history, do you also think[i]The Lord of the Rings[/i] is a true story?

[color="red"]The burden of proof to dismiss a positive falls on you.[/color]

You are wrong. [url="http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm"]The Burden of Proof ALWAYS lies on the person making the POSITIVE CLAIM.[/url]


[color="red"]But since we are debating, I’ll throw you a bone. With accounts of New Testament events and/or people; see Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian); Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian); Pliny the Younger. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112; Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus; Greek writer and rhetorician. [/color]

ALL of which have refuted. [url="http://go-bengals.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2715&st=40"]In fact, I explained this thoroughly last year to another poster on this very forum.[/url]

The best part of all of it is, EVEN if NONE of what you attribute to these historians is interpolation, not a single one of the historians could be considered a contemporary of the time Christians claim Jesus lived. [i]Contemporary[/i] history during the alleged time of Jesus is completely silent about the events, miracles, and magic described in the gospels which were also written decades - if not centuries - from the time of the alleged events. At best, (in the case of Josephus Flavian who's passages concerning Jesus have been long since proven as interpolation) we have second hand accounts. At worst, we have fourth and fifth hand accounts. These do not count as contemporary evidence and therefore are not reliable histories.

[color="red"]Of course there are other supporting manuscripts:
John Rylands MS written around 130 A.D., the oldest existing fragment of the gospel of John
Bodmer Papyrus II (150-200 A.D.)
Chester Beatty Papyri (200 A.D.), contains major portions of the NT
Codex Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), contains nearly all the Bible.
Codex Sinaiticus (350 A.D.), contains almost all the NT and over half of the OT[/color]

You put a great deal of stock into copies of things. How do copies make something a history? You have yet to explain that. I wrote a story in 8th grade my English teacher really liked and had it printed in the school magazine. Does that mean my story about dragons is history when they dig it up 20 years from now in the time capsule we threw the magazine in? Evidence of a religion and evidence of good copies is NOT evidence of Yahweh and Jesus.

[color="red"]So, you do not live in West Carrollton, OH, USA, but you are actually a member of a pygmy tribe residing in the deep recesses of some rain forest!

Seriously, how is it that you have not been exposed to a god concept in West Carrollton? You mean to tell me there are no religious infrastructures where you live? You must have passed these infrastructures with some curiosity as to what the people inside were up to?[/color]

Hey there, Mr. Strawman!

[color="red"]Additionally, I have stated, there are basic tenents (principals) that atheist adopt.[/color]
[color="blue"]Some do, some don't. So what? If you want to debate about something, let's get rid of some of the variables.[/color]
[color="red"]Be my guess; select one I have provided (uh, [u]There is no God [/u] is in there) or provide one of your own chosen.[/color]

There are no basic tenets of atheism other than a shared absence of belief in god(s.) You seem to be unwilling to accept this.

[color="red"]]Is this a choice you have made? If so, why?[/color]

No. My knowledge and my consideration have made it impossible for me to believe in God. I had no choice in the matter unless you consider the choice that I ignore my senses and reason.

[color="red"]What made you not believe in God?[/color]

Nothing "made" me not believe in God. I was taught a god belief at a very young age and then convinced of Christianity when I was a preteen. My later questioning and analysis of my religion later convinced me to reject it. More questions and research led to me losing any ability I had to believe in God.

[color="red"]Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can you please tell me what it is?[/color]
Is there an intelligent reason you don't believe in the tooth fairy? You don't really NEED a reason, do you?
I don't believe because I am incapable of a belief knowing what I know. I find cognitive dissonance to be very uncomfortable and unsupportable. To deny my lack of belief is to deny my own mind.

[color="red"]My apologizes, for the missunderstanding. Based on the topic of discussion, in reference to the pygmies, my actual implication was that you were “lying to yourself.
Example: one runs a stop sign or a red light (accidentally or not), most people would be like
‘ I hope a cop didn’t see me” out of fear of retribution; paying a fine.[/color]

I'm not certain where you're going with this. I don't feel guilt if I run a stop sign - not even if I get a ticket. I understand I've broken a public law and I think it sucks that I might have to pay for it. I DO feel guilt if I run a stop sign and plow into someone else's vehicle. Why? Because I can sympathize for the problems I've caused another person. What does this have to do with a belief in God?

[color="red"]At that moment, one would feel a “guilt of conscience”, they broke the law.[/color]

Not me. So it isn't universal. I told you the circumstance under which I would feel guilt. Your argument has no legs.

[color="red"]As I stated in the case of the pygmies, I am sure they posses a form of communal law possessing their own established moral code of ethics. My belief, to answer your question, is that if they transgress against another member of the tribe and die without asking for forgiveness (from member), then they will answer to god accordingly.[/color]

What is this other than arbitrary theological interpretation? Why should a non-believer consider this relevant? I really don't care how you think an atheistic tribe fits within the paradigm of your belief. I was just showing how there are ready examples of atheism that aren't substantively qualified.


[color="red"]Default definitions...[/color]

Pretty much. Let me put it this way: if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby. If atheism, is a religion, health is a disease.

Atheism is not a positive position. It is negatory. It is simply the word given to the property of having no god belief. Since a god belief is a learned behavior - just like belief in unicorns or trickle-down economics - an absence of that belief is the default position; the one you started from.

[color="red"]Yes, and I am the one in that positive position (my belief).[/color]
[color="blue"]The burden of proof is on you, sir. As far as I'm concerned, the concept of God (which no one seems to be able to define in rational terms) is illogical to me. I don't SAY "I know there is no God for a fact." because it is unnecessary. It's like saying "I know there are no leprechauns for a fact." [/color]
[color="red"]]Nice try. You have come to refute my belief (a positive position), not the other way around.[/color]

You are confused. You possess the positive position. It is up to you to make a case for it. If you claimed [i]"I have a dragon in my garage."[/i] you're going to have to click your Genie remote and let us see the thing before we believe you.

"I have a dragon in my garage." is a positive claim. It is up to YOU to prove it. I can say "I don't believe you have a dragon in your garage." and I am under no onus to provide evidence that there is no dragon in your garage because YOU are making the positive claim.

Just because I came to this thread after you did and started criticizing your position, doesn't mean I'm making a positive claim and it doesn't mean I am under the burden of proof. All I'm doing in a roundabout way is trying to get you to show me the dragon in your garage.

[color="blue"]Suppose the answer is yes? Can you prove it?[/color]
[color="red"]As another poster put it so eloquently “ it is my [u]belief[/u] that god exist” that’s all.[/b]
[/color]

So your answers to my questions are effectively "no" and "no" respectively.

I do not share your attitude that a wishywashy non-answer is anything approaching eloquent.

[Lawman]

[color="#660000"]In response to this [u]retarded[/u] thing from CARM.org[/color]

[color="#660000"]AD fo you still living in the dark ages[/color]

[color="#660000"]Hey there, Mr. Strawman! [/color]

[color="#003300"]Your unprovoked diatribes are duly noted. But, I forgive you [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//angel.gif[/img] [/color]

[quote]Is this a choice you have made? If so, why?[/quote]

[color="#660000"][u]No. My knowledge and my consideration [/u] have made it impossible for me to believe in God. I had no choice in the matter unless you consider the choice that I ignore my senses and reason.[/color]

[color="#003300"]You had to make a choice (based on the presuppositions; which you have provided) or you [u]know all there is to know[/u]; which one is it?[/color] I know you have stated "as a Christian".

[color="#660000"]Why is the four canonical gospels themselves have so much in disagreeance?[/color]

[color="#003300"]Please, specify your claim?

Protestan Christian. (Roman Catholiscm added other books.)

[b]Pentateuch, Law[/b] - 5 books
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

[b]Historical Books [/b] - 12 books
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First Samuel, Second Samuel, First Kings, Second Kings, First Chronicles, Second Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.

[b]Poetical[/b] - 5 books
Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon

[b]Prophetical [/b] - 17 books
Major Prophets - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel
Minor Prophets - Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi[/color]

[color="#660000"]ALL of which have refuted. In fact, I explained this thoroughly last year to another poster on this very forum.[/color]

[color="#003300"]You were qouting from the [b]NIV[/b] version, the NIV is bogus.[/color]

[b]Anyone reading this please take note: I recommend you not utilize the NIV[/b]

[Jamie_B]

[quote]Anyone reading this please take note: I recommend you not utilize the NIV[/quote]

NKJV user here.

[Lawman]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='246422' date='Apr 9 2006, 02:59 PM'][quote]Anyone reading this please take note: I recommend you not utilize the NIV[/quote]

NKJV user here.
[/quote]

Good on ya Jamie

[Lawman]

CUTTING TO THE CHASE: PART 1-TRUE TORAH JEWS

[url="http://HTTP://WWW.JEWSAGAINSTZIONISM.COM/ANTISEMITISM/NAZISUPPORT.CFM#_FTNREF3"]HTTP://WWW.JEWSAGAINSTZIONISM.COM/ANTISEMI...RT.CFM#_FTNREF3[/url]
THIS WEBSITE PROVIDES BOOKMARKS TO CLAIMS IN THIS PASSAGE

NAZI SUPPORT OF ZIONISM

Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), [u]the founder of modern Zionism[/u], recognized that anti-Semitism would further his cause, the creation of a separate state for Jews. To solve the Jewish Question, he maintained “we must, above all, make it an international political issue.” Herzl wrote that Zionism offered the world a welcome “final solution of the Jewish question.” In his “Diaries”, page 19, Herzl stated [b]“Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.”[/b]

Zionism was supported by the German SS and Gestapo; Hitler himself personally supported Zionism. During the 1930’s, in cooperation with the German authorities, Zionist groups organized a network of some 40 camps throughout Germany where prospective settlers were trained for their new lives in Palestine. As late as 1942 Zionists operated at least one of these officially authorized “Kibbutz” training camps over which flew the blue and white banner which would one day be adopted as the national flag of “Israel”.

The Transfer Agreement (which promoted the emigration of German Jews to Palestine) [b]implemented in 1933 and abandoned at the beginning of WWII is an important example of the cooperation between Hitler’s Germany and international Zionism. Through this agreement, Hitler’s Third Reich did more than any other government during the 1930’s to support Jewish development in Palestine and further the Zionist goals.[/b]
Hitler and the Zionists had a common goal: to create a world Jewish Ghetto as a solution to the Jewish Question.

The Zionist so-called “World Jewish Congress” declared war on the country of Germany,

“[i]Judea Declares War on Germany!” – London Daily Express headline, March 24th, 1933[/i]

[i]The worldwide boycott against Germany in 1933 and the later all-out declaration of war against Germany initiated by the Zionist leaders and the World Jewish Congress enraged Hitler so that he threatened to destroy the Jews…” (Rabbi Schwartz, New York Times, Sept. 30, 1997)[/i]

knowing that it would affect their Jewish brothers residing in that country who would be left without protection. When others tried to help them escape to other countries, the Zionist movement took actions which caused those countries to lock their doors to Jewish immigration (read more in the books, “Perfidy” and “Min Hametzer”). As a result of the Zionist influence five ships of Jewish refugees from Germany arriving in the United States were turned back to the gas chambers.

[b]The fundamental aim of the Zionist movement has been not to save Jewish lives but to create a “Jewish state” in Palestine.[/b]

On December 7, 1938, Ben Gurion, the first head of the Zionist ‘state of Israel’ declared “If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution. For we must take into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of the people of Israel.”

On August 31, 1949, Ben Gurion stated: “Although we have realized our dream of creating a Jewish State, we are only at the beginning. There are still only 900,000 Jews in Israel, whereas the majority of the Jewish people still remains abroad. Our future task is to bring all the Jews to Israel.”

Of the two and a half million Jews seeking refuge from the Nazis between 1935 and 1943, less than 9% went to settle in Palestine. The vast majority, 75%, went to the Soviet Union [color="#003300"](keep this thought)[/color]. In the mid-70’s, more people emigrated out of ‘Israel’ than came in. The only surges of immigration to the Zionist state have occurred during anti-Semitic threats and persecution in foreign countries.

It follows that for the Zionist state to achieve its goal of a Jewish world ghetto anti-Semitism must be promoted and encouraged, and as we have seen, by acts of violence if necessary.
“To attain its practical objectives, Zionism hopes it will be able to collaborate with a government that is fundamentally hostile to the Jews”.

The use of anti-Semitism as a tool to coerce immigration to the Zionist state continues to the present day:
Prime Minister Sharon([color="#003300"]anyone remember him, I hear he is in a coma[/color] ) has stated that anti-Semitism is on the rise and that the only hope for the safety of Jews is to move to Israel under the protection of the Zionist state. “The best solution to anti-Semitism is immigration to Israel. It is the only place on Earth where Jews can live as Jews," he said.

Those who continue to call the so-called “state of Israel” the “Jewish State” are not only promoting Zionism which is contrary to the beliefs of true Judaism, but also endorsing the promotion of worldwide anti-Semitism. In doing so they are endangering the lives of traditional Jews and denying their civil liberties and human rights.

When the British foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour (sponsor of the 1905 Aliens Act to restrict Jewish immigration to the UK), wanted the British government to commit itself to a Jewish homeland in Palestine, his declaration was delayed ([color="#003300"]as I have previously mentioned[/color]) - not by anti-Semites but by leading figures in the British Jewish community. They included a Jewish member of the cabinet who called Balfour's pro-Zionism "anti-Semitic in result".

In contrast, a great statesman like Secretary of State Colin Powell, a supporter of traditional Judaism, has the courage to separate Judaism from Zionism and to acknowledge [u]that speaking out against the actions of the Zionist state is not “anti-Semitism”[/u]. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//41.gif[/img]

From Torah True Jews
We call upon our leaders in Washington to disassociate the actions of the Zionist state from traditional Judaism by no longer referring to “Israel” as the “Jewish State” but as “the Zionist State” and to speak out against the Zionist actions which promote anti-Semitism.

[color="#660000"]VERY IMPORTANT – PLEASE READ[/color]

THREE STRONG OATHS
The true Jewish position on Zionism and the state called Israel is found in the [u]Scriptures in the Talmud [/u] and in the oral traditions transmitted to us by our parents and teachers.

At the outset of the Jews' exile to Babylonia, the Prophet Jeremiah, in chapter 29 of his book proclaimed G-d's message to all the exiled…Verse seven reads, [b]"Seek out the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you and pray for it to the Almighty, for through its welfare will you have welfare." This has been a cornerstone of Jewish "foreign policy" how to behave in the lands of the nations throughout our ensuing exiles till this very day.[/b]

There Jeremiah adds in the name of G-d (verses 8 and 9), "Do not let your false prophets among you and your sorcerers seduce you, do not head your dreamers which you cause them to dream. For they speak falsely to you in My name. I did not send them." This too has applied to all the would-be misleaders of Jewry whether they presented themselves as prophets or as sorcerers or as dreamers of national aspirations.

King Solomon in Song of Songs thrice adjured the "daughters of Jerusalem" not to arouse or bestir the love until it is ready."[b] The Talmud explains That we have been foresworn, by three strong oaths, not to ascend to the Holy Land as a group using force, not to rebel against the governments of countries in which we live, and not by our sins, to prolong the coming of moshiach; as is written in Tractate Kesubos 111a .[/b]

Throughout the seventy years of the Babylonian exile, throughout the 200 years of the Hellenic exile and throughout the 1917 since the destruction of G-d's Holy House, we have steadfastly maintained our loyalty to G-d and have not transgressed His oaths. [u]And we have prayed for the welfare of the cities and the countries of our host nations that did not oppress us, and in their welfare we indeed always found ours.[/u]

[b]Whoever violates Jeremiah's principles or Solomon's oaths immediately imperils the welfare of Jews locally and elsewhere in the world.[/b]

[b]Rebbe of Satmar, Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum[/b]

This charismatic individual, the Rebbe of Satmar, Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, did not mince any words. [u]Straight to the point he called Zionism "the work of Satan", "a sacrilege" and "a blasphemy". [/u] He forbade any participation with anything even remotely associated with Zionism and said that Zionism was bound to call the wrath of G-d upon His people. He maintained this stance with unwavering bravery from the onset of Zionism whilst he was still in Hungary up until his death in New York where he lead a congregation numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Grand Rabbi Teitelbaum, scion to a legacy of holy mystics and Hassidic Masters unfortunately had his prediction fulfilled. We lost more than six million of our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters in a very horrible manner. This, more than six million holy people had to experience as punishment for the Zionist stupidity. [b]The Holocaust, [u]he wept[/u], was a direct result of Zionism, a punishment from G-d. [/b]
"[b]IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL THE SAGES AND SAINTS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME OF HITLER'S RISE DECLARED THAT HE WAS A MESSENGER OF DIVINE WRATH, SENT TO CHASTEN THE JEWS BECAUSE OF THE BITTER APOSTASY OF ZIONISM AGAINST THE BELIEF IN THE EVENTUAL MESSIANIC REDEMPTION."[/b]

to be continued...

[Lawman]

Continued: CUTTING TO THE CHASE: PART 1-TRUE TORAH JEWS

Zionists Offer a Military Alliance with Hitler

It would be wishful thinking if it could be stated that the leaders of the Zionist movement sat back and ignored the plight of their dying brothers and sisters. Not only did they publicly refuse to assist in their rescue, but they actively participated with Hitler and the Nazi regime. Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letter for its name, "Tel Aviv", while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party (Nazi) member. Many years later a traveler aboard the ship recalled this symbolic combination as a "metaphysical absurdity". Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler's Third Reich. In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel", better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist "National Military Organization" (Irgun Zvai Leumi - Etzel) over the group's attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. [color="#003300"]Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism. [/color]

This remarkable proposal "for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation on the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany" is worth quoting at some length:

[b]BOMBSHELL[/b]

"The NMO which is very familiar with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program takes the view that: 1.Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO. 2.Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry. 3.The establishment of the Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty, with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

[b]"On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.[/b]

"This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the "Jewish" men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front be formed.

[b]The Seventh Million[/b]

The Israelis and the Holocaust "The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European-Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

"The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, [u]in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England". [/u]

[i](Original document in German Auswertiges Amt Archiv, Bestand 47-59, E224152 and E234155-58. Complete original text published in: David Yisraeli, The Palestinian Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1947) pp. 315-317). [/i]

[b]On the basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interests. [/b]

[u]This is just one example of the Zionist movements' collaboration with Hitler for the purpose of possibly receiving jurisdiction over a minute piece of earth, Palestine.[/u]

And to top it all up, brainwashing!

[u]How far this unbelievable Zionist conspiracy has captured the Jewish masses, and how impossible it is for any different thought to penetrate their minds, even to the point of mere evaluation, can be seen in the vehemence of the reaction to any reproach. With blinded eyes and closed ears, any voice raised in protest and accusation is immediately suppressed and deafened by the thousandfold cry: "Traitor," "Enemy of the Jewish People." [/u]

To be continued... Part II Hitler/Jews/Communism/Christians

[Abu-Zayd]

-Look up the Stern gang, they were one of the gangs which ran the prison camps during and after the war.
-The diary of anna frank war forged several
-There were not even close to 6 million Jews in Europe at the time. In fact, the monument honoring the victims of the "holocaust" had to reduce the number from 6 million to 2 million, then 1 million and some, and then to about seven hundred thousand in the face of insurmountable evidence from realists who decided to stand up to the propagandist numbers.
-There are numerous challenges, that if anyone can prove (with evidence) the idea of the holocaust, as it is propagandized daily, large sums of money are offered. Public debates are offerred, public discussion is demanded, yet nothing permitted. Why?? If there is nothing to hide, let us have all the discussions, in public, that are possible. The truth shall find a way, right??

Not gonna happen.

The people who claim a historical ancestral right to take other people's land and then suppress the indigenous population brutally, are not even ancestrally anything even close to descendants to the people who EVER step foot in the land. So, anti-semitic is a political term, not truthful. The only semites around are the Arabs, including Palestinians, and the actual semitic jews, who number a small minority among world jewry today. BTW, they are treated pretty much similar to Arabs in the "Holy Land".

AZ

[Guest BengalBacker]

***sigh***


I pray for the end of religion.

[Lawman]

Torah (תּוֹרָה) is a Hebrew word meaning "teaching," "instruction," or "law." It is the central and most important document of Judaism revered by Jews through the ages. It is written in Hebrew, the oldest Jewish language. It is also called the Law of Moses (Torat Moshe תּוֹרַת־מֹשֶׁה) . Torah primarily refers to the first section of the Tanakh–the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, but the term is sometimes also used in the general sense to also include both of Judaism's written law and oral law, encompassing the entire spectrum of authoritative Jewish religious teachings throughout history, including the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Midrash, and more.

[b]The Torah [/b] is also known as the Five Books of Moses or the Pentateuch (Greek for "five containers," which refers to the scroll cases in which books were being kept). Other names include Hamisha Humshei Torah (חמשה חומשי תורה, "[the] five fifths/parts [of the] Torah") or simply the Humash (חומש "fifth"). A Sefer Torah is a formal written scroll of the five books, written by a Torah scribe under exceptionally strict requirements.

For Jews, the Torah was traditionally accepted as the literal word of God as told to Moses. For many, it is neither exactly history, nor theology, nor legal and ritual guide, but something beyond all three. It is the primary guide to the relationship between God and man, and the whole meaning and purpose of that relationship, a living document that unfolds over the generations and millennia.

The five books and their names and pronunciations in original Hebrew are as follows:

Genesis (בראשית, Bereshit: "In the beginning...")
Exodus (שמות, Shemot: "Names")
Leviticus (ויקרא, Vayyiqra: "And he called...")
Numbers (במדבר, Bammidbar: "In the wilderness..."), and
Deuteronomy (דברים, Devarim: "Words", or "Discourses")

[Homer_Rice]

[quote]Bereshit: "In the beginning..."[/quote]

Is this the Original Joke, along the lines of Original Sin?:

"In the beginning, does a bereshit in the woods?"

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='249257' date='Apr 14 2006, 09:52 AM']Is this the Original Joke, along the lines of Original Sin?:

"In the beginning, does a bereshit in the woods?"[/quote]

......

[Homer_Rice]

I read this [url="http://www.tommywood.com/archives/2006/04/remembering_rud.php"]account via HuffPo; link is to original article.[/url]

To bring this thread back to its original topic--the Holocaust. My childhood best friend was the son of a pair of Auschwitz survivors.

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='253700' date='Apr 22 2006, 09:03 PM']I read this [url="http://www.tommywood.com/archives/2006/04/remembering_rud.php"]account via HuffPo; link is to original article.[/url]

To bring this thread back to its original topic--the Holocaust. My childhood best friend was the son of a pair of Auschwitz survivors.[/quote]

The gas chambers at Auschwitz continued to operate until late October 1944 -- of 800,000 Hungarian Jews, only about 80,000 survived the war -- Vrba felt that the world powers did not do enough, and that because the Hungarian Jewish leadership did not inform the entire Hungarian Jewish population of the Nazis' plans, hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives were lost that might have been saved. Vrba titled his memoir, "[u]I Cannot Forgive."[/u] True christians are taught too forgive.

[url="http://vho.org/GB/c/DC/gcgvcole.html"]http://vho.org/GB/c/DC/gcgvcole.html[/url]

David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper, Director, Auschwitz State Museum
(For the sake of clarity, not only am I a revisionist, I am also quite proudly an atheist. But my parents are both Jewish so if you're a Jew by birth, you're a Jew by birth. It's not anything I'd be ashamed of.)

Excerpts:
The high point of my visit, though, was my interview with Dr. Franciszek Piper, Senior Curator of the Polish government's Auschwitz State Museum. He has worked there for more than 26 years. On tape, he admits that the so-called gas chamber in Crematory Building (Krema) I, which is shown to half a million visitors a year as a genuine homicidal gas chamber,[b] is in fact a reconstruction[/b]-- even down to the holes cut into the ceiling. Piper also admits that walls were knocked down and bathroom facilities removed. He went on to tell us that the remains of the "white cottage," supposed site of the first preliminary gassings at Birkenau, are also reconstructed. This was hardly news to me. Even a quick examination of the remains of the "white cottage" shows that the bricks are not connected in any way, but are simply laid on top of each other like children's building blocks.

Piper has no problems with the Leuchter Report. He told me that he agrees with Leuchter's findings regarding traces of ferro-ferric-cyanide in the walls of Crematory Buildings (Kremas) I, II and III. [u]So what is his explanation for this lack of traces in the supposed homicidal gas chambers when, by contrast, there are significant traces in the non-homicidal delousing gas chambers[/u]? [b]He told me that the amount of hydrogen cyanide (from Zyklon) supposedly used by the Germans to kill people -- unlike the amount needed to kill lice in delousing chambers -- was not enough to leave blue (ferro-ferric-cyanide) staining, or appreciable traces.[/b]

This argument has problems, though. For one thing, the supposed homicidal gas chambers at Majdanek (which in reality were non-homicidal delousing chambers) [u]have abundant blue staining[/u]. So according to Piper's "Holocaust logic" gassing people in Auschwitz did not leave blue stains, but gassing people at Majdanek did. Talk about a Magic Kingdom! As we spoke, I half expected to see Piper's nose grow as long as Pinocchio's!

Until just a few years ago Piper fully endorsed the official view that four million people -- most of them Jews -- had been killed at Auschwitz. This was still the figure given in an official Auschwitz State Museum guide book distributed to visitors as late as 1988.9 In July1990, though, Piper (along with Israeli officials) abruptly abandoned the long-standing figure, announcing that the estimated number of Auschwitz victims was actually about 1.1 million. As Cole stresses, this drastic 75 percent reduction in the "official" estimate is no small revision. (In a lengthy article on this subject published in 1991, Piper suggested that further revision might be forthcoming.)

[b]The first and the oldest gas chamber, which existed in Auschwitz I [main camp], this camp where we are now here, operated from autumn 1941 to December 1942, approximately one year. The crematorium near by this gas chamber worked longer, to the middle of 1943[/b].

In July 1943 the crematorium was stopped and the bodies of prisoners [who] died at Auschwitz at the time were transferred to Birkenau.

Elsewhere during his interview, Cole raises another important issue. Why is it, he asks Piper, that whereas there are obvious and abundant blue stains (caused by contact with Zyklon B gas) on the walls of the non-homicidal chambers used to disinfect clothes there are no such stains or traces on the walls of the alleged homicidal "gas chambers"? Piper responds:

[u]In the gas chambers, the Zyklon B was operated a very short time, about 20 [or] 30 minutes during 24 hours,[/u] and in the [non-homicidal] disinfection rooms it operated day and night.

This remarkable explanation creates yet another problem. According to the most authoritative Holocaust historians, a single "gassing" operation took at least 20 or 30 minutes. If, as Piper maintains, the alleged gas chambers were operated for only 20 or 30 minutes a day, no more than a single gassing per day could have been carried out. This hardly consistent with an alleged German program of mass extermination


[b]Global Holocaust-Deniers
Bill Passed In Knesset
By Nina Gilbert
8-4-5

Legislation that would make Holocaust-denial committed overseas an offense under Israeli legal jurisdiction was approved unanimously in first reading by the Knesset on Tuesday.

The passage of the measure would enable Israel to demand the extradition of Holocaust-deniers for prosecution.

The bill was drafted by MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) as a move against former Palestinian Authority prime minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) for his doctoral dissertation 20 years ago in which he estimated that the Nazis killed less than a million Jews.

It is likely to serve as a deterrence against Holocaust-deniers visiting Israel, although the possibility of countries consenting to extradition on the offense is unlikely.

The legislation expands the territorial jurisdiction of the Israeli law against Holocaust-denying outside of it borders. [/b]

[Homer_Rice]

[url="http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/catapultpropaganda.htm"]Catapulting the propaganda?[/url]

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='253819' date='Apr 23 2006, 06:23 AM']

[url="http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/catapultpropaganda.htm"]Catapulting the propaganda?[/url][/quote]

[jza10304]

My religion's better than your religion!!!