SERIOUSLY

FUCK

THIS

SHIT

GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE

3/4/2006 2:08:19 AM

Quote :

"Isn't there a website or non-profit org that we're supposed to report people like you to?"

i def reported this to the ADL yo
we're on this shit

Quote :

"Who the fuck are you? Cartman with a keyboard?"

FOR THE WIN

3/4/2006 2:49:34 AM

Don't criticize this brilliant one thread a week plan, btw, or you'll be indefinitely suspended.

It came straight from the horse's mouth yesterday that he plans to BTTT and keep all those around. After a few weeks, it'll be exactly the same as it was before.

[Edited on March 4, 2006 at 10:48 AM. Reason : *]

3/4/2006 10:44:34 AM

someone should embed this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4576569031489257638&q=matisyahu

3/4/2006 2:19:14 PM

Okay, salisburyboy. So you've got this better understanding of the truth about the Bible and God. Now what are you going to do with that better understanding? Start your own church? Change the Bible to more clearly convey the "truth"? Exile and exterminate certain peoples who are unwilling to believe your version of God? What does this "better understanding" mean with regards to our lives here on Earth?

[Edited on March 4, 2006 at 3:14 PM. Reason : aaa]

3/4/2006 3:14:15 PM

hahahaah

NAS v. 2.0

this time

its the

New Aryan Standard

3/4/2006 4:00:31 PM

Quote :

"Race is a very imortant subject throughout the Bible. Here are the facts: God chose one race of people, the Israelites, to be his special people above all other people. The Old Testament is full of references of how God hated entire races of people [eg, the Edomites (from whom the modern-day "Jews" descend), Canaanites, and others], and how he acted to destroy many of these people. God even ordered the Israelites to massacre all the foreign Canaanite peoples before settling in the promised land. God commanded racial segregation and forbid interracial marriage for the Israelites to maintain their racial purity."

I think it was always clear that God desired those peoples to be eradicated mainly because they were grossly immoral. The issue was not really racial purity, it was moral purity. That is why God allowed certain non-Israelites to become Israelites if they had faith in God ( Rahab of Jericho for example ). Moreover, the
progeny promised to Abraham was not one of direct racial (bloodline ) descent, rather it was a spiritual
progeny. People of all races and nations are the spiritual children of Abraham, because those of us who
have faith are the sons and daughters of Christ.

One of the main errors in the secular view of Christianity is that the world tends to think that Christians
think they are going to heaven because they have been good. This is of course not the point, the point
has always been that God is good and has mercy on those who ask for it sincerely. This has nothing to
do with race.

Quote :

" Later on in the New Testament, we discover that Jesus only came for the Israelites (which makes perfect sense due to the fact that only the Israelites were under the law and needed a "savior")."

huh? I thought Jesus came so that all should have everlasting life. Not just the Israelites. And
I don't think it is correct to say that only Israelites are under the law. All men are under the law, because
all men are created with an inate sense of right/wrong. The Israelites just had an explicit list of laws in addition to those inate morals, like not eating pork etc... The point of those laws was to make it clear to them that they were incapable of following them. To make it clear that only with God's help was there any
hope of living upto those standards. True righteousness is only possible through Christ. The Israelites
were special because they gave context to Christ's arrival on Earth, their meticulous and legalistic
adherence to tradition allowed Christ to prove he was the Son of God. First to the Israelites, and then to the other nations as His apostles spread the gospel.

God is not racist, quite to the contrary. God is not a respecter of persons. Rich, poor, male female,... all these
demarcations are made by us not Him. He told us to spread the gospel to the whole world, not just to the Israelites.

Do you doubt my conclusions on the basis that they have something to do with Paul's teachings ( which
you have expressed doubts in before... )

3/4/2006 10:34:08 PM

WHY ARE YOU BOTHERING

3/5/2006 12:44:54 AM

just fueling the fire...

3/5/2006 1:47:56 AM

^^because somebody needs to attack the merits of his argument as opposed the endless namecalling. Granted the name-calling might be more fun...

3/5/2006 2:18:57 PM

^ It doesn't do any good.

[Edited on March 5, 2006 at 2:30 PM. Reason : *]

3/5/2006 2:19:57 PM

you mean endless namecalling like, oh say, calling God an antisemite racist, or calling Jewish people edomites or sons of satan or all the things he has said about minorities and immigrants

no, why would anyone resort to "namecalling"

3/5/2006 6:17:38 PM

Quote :

"For example, there is a passage of Scripture referring to Israel that talks about islands to the north and west (of Jerusalem), which can only be referring to the British Isles (Isaiah 49:1, 12). "

Quote :

"YES OBVIOUSLY HE WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MANY MANY ISLANDS AROUND ASIA MINOR AND GREECE."

If you focussed only on the mention of islands to the northwest of Jerusalem and Palestine, you could certainly say that the islands in the Mediterranean Sea would be a possibility. But I was talking about the passage as a whole and in light of the other prophecies about the Israelites. Taking into consideration the other details of the chapter, and considering the passage in light of the many other prophecies regarding the Israelites, it becomes clear that the passage is referring to the British Isles.

Other prophecies indicate that the Israelites would become a great nation (and a "company of nations"), and would be a colonizing and sea-faring people who would inhabit the coastal regions of the earth.

Here's the passage from Isaiah:

Isaiah 49:1,12 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far..."Behold, these shall come from far: and, lo, these from the north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim.

Notice that it says from "from FAR" twice. This land where the Israelites would be is far from Palestine.

Also, the Latin Vulgate renders "Sinim" as "Australi," or "Australia."

Quote :

"Woodfoot: "i def reported this to the ADL yo we're on this shit"

So what? Should I be scared? Is criticizing the Jews or disagreeing with their worldview a crime?

Quote :

"Moreover, the progeny promised to Abraham was not one of direct racial (bloodline ) descent, rather it was a spiritual progeny. People of all races and nations are the spiritual children of Abraham, because those of us who have faith are the sons and daughters of Christ. "

Was not Isaac the bloodline descendant of Abraham, and Jacob/Israel the bloodline descendant of Isaac? And then why did God command the Israelites to not marry with other races, and maintain their racial purity?

The "spiritual Israel" concept is a false teaching. The Bible makes it clear that God's chosen people are the physical descendants of the Israelites.

Quote :

"huh? I thought Jesus came so that all should have everlasting life. Not just the Israelites. "

Matthew 15:22-24: "And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Matthew 10:5-6: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Also, John 3:16 was likely inserted into the Bible much later by a translator. It was not in the original Scripture.

Quote :

"God is not racist, quite to the contrary."

It depends on what you mean when you say "racist." Do you mean that God advocated racial purity and segregation for his Israelite people? Then, yes, he is a "racist" by that definition. Or do you mean that God "discriminated" based on race or thought that race was important? Again, guilty as charged.

3/6/2006 9:48:40 AM

Quote :

"Also, John 3:16 was likely inserted into the Bible much later by a translator. It was not in the original Scripture."

Do you have any education regarding the origins of the Bible - or do you think the red text is exactly Jesus' words as he spoke them?

And what's with all this bullshit regarding God as "he" - I think she wouldn't be very pleased with your misunderstanding and ignorance.

3/6/2006 9:57:19 AM

Quote :

"And what's with all this bullshit regarding God as "he" - I think she wouldn't be very pleased with your misunderstanding and ignorance."

You're really trying to have a serious discussion here?

3/6/2006 10:19:12 AM

Why is God assigned a gender?

3/6/2006 10:20:10 AM

WOW
TWO VERSES TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT

YOU'VE REALLY SHOWN MODERN CHRISTIANITY

3/6/2006 10:49:51 AM

Quote :

"Woodfoot: "i def reported this to the ADL yo we're on this shit"

Quote :

"So what? Should I be scared? Is criticizing the Jews or disagreeing with their worldview a crime?"

3/6/2006 10:53:45 AM

Quote :

"Duke, do something about this. This tripe is not worthy of debate, discussion, or mere mention on these boards."

3/6/2006 11:24:18 AM

Quote :

"Duke, do something about this. This tripe is not worthy of debate, discussion, or mere mention on these boards."

Quote :

"Here you go with your censorship agenda again."

How is a discussion of how race is important to God warranting censorship?

3/6/2006 11:28:12 AM

Man I hate to even post in such a ridiculous thread but...

Quote :

"And what's with all this ******** regarding God as "he" - I think she wouldn't be very pleased with your misunderstanding and ignorance."

Quote :

"Why is God assigned a gender?"

The number of times Jesus refers to deity as "Father in heaven" is staggering.

Quote :

"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name."

I'm pretty sure the universal train of thought is that God is male in the Christian world.

3/6/2006 11:38:09 AM

Quote :

"The number of times Jesus refers to deity as "Father in heaven" is staggering."

So do you honestly believe Jesus said everything "in red" in the Bible?
Do you have any concept of how many times the Bible has been changed since 30 AD?

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure the universal train of thought is that God is male in the Christian world."

Are you serious?

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure the universal train of thought is that God is male in the Christian uneducated world."

[Edited on March 6, 2006 at 11:47 AM. Reason : []

3/6/2006 11:46:44 AM

^If God were a woman then the laws of physics would go all crazy about once a month. Hence God is a man.

3/6/2006 12:00:16 PM

So I guess with you Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were way off with their separate testimonies. That or someone went back and added "Father" or changed all the shes to hes at some later date.

I'm sticking with what is written ATM.

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure the universal train of thought is that God is male in the Christian uneducated world."

Try getting educated yourself. If Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God and they believe that his mom is Mary (read: female) then I'll leave it up to you to guess the gender of the other parent.

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure the universal train of thought is that God is male in the Christian world."

Has a pretty good foundation.

[Edited on March 6, 2006 at 12:12 PM. Reason : -]

3/6/2006 12:06:25 PM

Quote :

"So I guess with you Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were way off with their separate testimonies. That or someone went back and added "Father" or changed all the shes to hes at some later date."

Are you aware that they didn't write those in English?

And what they "wrote" (provided you want to believe they actually recorded anything) is not even close to what you and others are quoting.

3/6/2006 12:09:21 PM

Quote :

"If God were a woman then the laws of physics would go all crazy about once a month. Hence God is a man."

considering the pms god has, and especially had in the old testament, i'd say he probably is a woman

rain is god crying over a planet sized bowl of chocolate ice cream
earthquakes are when god breaks a nail

[Edited on March 6, 2006 at 12:12 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2006 12:11:32 PM

Quote :

"Are you aware that they didn't write those in English?"

Dur. Are you aware that they translated it to english?

Quote :

"And what they "wrote" (provided you want to believe they actually recorded anything) is not even close to what you and others are quoting."

Oh, that's right. You were there. Please feel free to enlighten us all with your first hand account

3/6/2006 12:15:13 PM

Who translated the version you are reading?
When did they translate it?
What version did they base the translation on?

3/6/2006 12:23:18 PM

Quote :

"If Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God and they believe that his mom is Mary (read: female) then I'll leave it up to you to guess the gender of the other parent (read: God)."

The whole foundation of Christianity, that Jesus is the son of God, leads me to believe that out of all the parts of the bible that did get mistranslated/modified that the 100s of references to "Father in heaven" are probably not among them.

3/6/2006 12:26:38 PM

DARKSIDED

3/6/2006 12:36:41 PM

3/6/2006 12:39:43 PM

DID SHE HYPNOTIZE YOU

3/6/2006 12:41:20 PM

i bet jbtilley believes Jesus was born of a virgin.

3/6/2006 1:29:11 PM

Quote :

"Isaiah 49:1,12 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far..."Behold, these shall come from far: and, lo, these from the north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim."

It doesn't say northwest, brainiac.

Oh my God! North and west could be in reference to Europe! Islands could be a metaphor for the isolated jewish communities! Would that make your head explode?

3/6/2006 1:52:16 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't say northwest, brainiac."

I've read that in the original Hebrew, there is no word for "northwest." However, that is what is intended in Isaiah 49:12 as designated by the phrase, "the north and the west."

3/6/2006 1:56:11 PM

Can you actually prove any of your creative interpretations?

The fact that you can twist any bible quote into "GOD HATES JEWS" is rather suspicious.

3/6/2006 2:03:46 PM

RATHER SUSPICIOUS

3/6/2006 2:12:23 PM

CRAZY DELICIOUS

3/6/2006 2:26:13 PM

Quote :

"Can you actually prove any of your creative interpretations?"

You're always asking for "proof" from me. And I am providing evidence to back up my claims. And you often rant about how I "haven't proved" this and that after I've already provided more than sufficient evidence to prove a point (eg, that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7 and the twin towers on 9/11). I guess you think if you repeat the phrase "You haven't proved ______" often enough, it makes it true. Sorry to break this to you, but repeated denial doesn't make the facts go away.

Now, why don't you provide some evidence for your own claims?

Why don't you provide some evidence, for instance, that the Jews are the descendants of the Israelites?

3/6/2006 2:38:52 PM

Quote :

"Sorry to break this to you, but repeated denial doesn't make the facts go away."

Facts? Do you even know what those are?

Quote :

"Now, why don't you provide some evidence for your own claims?"

I haven't made any claims. I have just pointed out your numerous logical fallacies.

3/6/2006 2:41:11 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: "I haven't made any claims."

Really? I'm assuming you're talking about just this thread. What about on page 1 of this thread where you claimed that "Weise" is not a Jewish surname? Or when you claimed "Caucasians didn't originate from the area around the Caucasus Mountains"? Were those not claims?

You are a joke, Mr. Joshua. Please continue your trolling of my threads.

3/6/2006 2:52:37 PM

Quote :

"I've read that in the original Hebrew"

Riiiiiigggggghhhhhtttttt.

3/6/2006 2:58:53 PM

You're taking what I said out of context. Here's what I said:

Quote :

"I've read that in the original Hebrew, there is no word for "northwest.""

I wasn't saying that I had read the passage in the Hebrew language. I can't read Hebrew. What I was saying was that I have read about this fact.

Now, here's my question to you. Do you have reading comprehension problems or did you understand what I was saying and you were trying to deliberately misrepresent what I said in the hope of smearing me?

3/6/2006 3:10:47 PM

^You shouldn't have put that comma in there. Probably was out to bust your chops though.

[Edited on March 6, 2006 at 3:25 PM. Reason : -]

3/6/2006 3:22:46 PM

Quote :

"You shouldn't have put that comma in there. Probably was out to bust your chops though."

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have put the comma there. Typo. But the meaning was clear, nonetheless.

3/6/2006 3:29:40 PM

Quote :

"Really? I'm assuming you're talking about just this thread. What about on page 1 of this thread where you claimed that "Weise" is not a Jewish surname? Or when you claimed "Caucasians didn't originate from the area around the Caucasus Mountains"? Were those not claims?"

Those were not claims. I was simply pointing out your numerous errors, and believe me, there are many.

Quote :

"You are a joke, Mr. Joshua. Please continue your trolling of my threads."

I try to have a rational discussion with an irrational person and they have to resort to smearing me. Isn't that the kind of thing that you continually bitch about?

3/6/2006 3:33:05 PM

Quote :

"Those were not claims."

Oh, yes. They were quite clearly claims. And you know it.

Quote :

"I was simply pointing out your numerous errors"

With claims of your own. Such as this example:

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: "Caucasians didn't originate from the area around the Caucasus Mountains. The concept of a "Caucasian race" was first proposed by a German scientist named Johann Friedrich Blumenbach over 200 years ago. His studies based the classification of the Caucasian race primarily on skull features, which Blumenbach claimed were optimized by the Georgians, a people living in the Southern Caucasus. The name has nothing to do with immigration routes."

You know what? That paragraph contains several claims. Oh, right. You would say they aren't claims.

Quote :

"and they have to resort to smearing me. Isn't that the kind of thing that you continually bitch about?"

A "smear" is when you are lying about a person and trying to use name-calling in the place of a rational argument.

When I call you a joke, I'm simply stating a FACT. You've proven yourself to be a joke throughout your entire time on TWW. And now you try to tell us that those things you posted (that I referenced above) are not "claims"? Just how stupid do you think we are?

Quote :

"I try to have a rational discussion with an irrational person"

No. You are trying to troll my threads and hassle me, as you have previously admitted to. Your admitted goal is to try to give me trouble. You don't seriously think I don't see that? Or that I have forgotten your admission?

But please. Keep trolling. It demonstrates the caliber of people who make up my opponents here.

3/6/2006 3:43:39 PM

Quote :

"Oh, yes. They were quite clearly claims. And you know it."

Did your mother drop you on your head when you were little? Now you want to have an argument about semantics? Thats always how you react when your position has been sufficiently weakened.

Quote :

"You are trying to troll my threads and hassle me, as you have previously admitted to. Your admitted goal is to try to give me trouble. You don't seriously think I don't see that? Or that I have forgotten your admission?"

Where did I admit that? You keep bringing it up, but I don't recall it ever happening. I assume that its one of those salisburyboy things that comes true i you repeat it enough.

Keep swinging, little buddy.

3/6/2006 3:54:30 PM

Quote :

"Did your mother drop you on your head when you were little? Now you want to have an argument about semantics?"

Call it "semantics" or whatever you want. That's not distracting from the fact that you are dead wrong and are lying. You have CLEARLY made "claims" in this thread. Apparantly, you just forgot about them, and you now don't want to admit that you were wrong.

Does this not demonstrate that you have a hard time admitting when you are wrong?

Now, I, on the other hand, have demonstrated that I will admit when I'm wrong. Who do you think is more likely to be a person who is genuine and honest in their search for truth? The person who will admit when they are wrong, or the person who thinks they are right no matter what and will never admit they are wrong? One person is really searching for the truth, while the other thinks they already know it all and refuses to change their mind or admit they are wrong even when they clearly are wrong. If you are genuinely searching for the truth, you are going to have to change your mind (and admit you were wrong). That is to be expected.

Quote :

"I assume that its one of those salisburyboy things that comes true i you repeat it enough. "

How many times do you have to repeat the things I am saying? Is that how you expect to distract from my legitimate criticisms of you?


[Edited on March 6, 2006 at 4:04 PM. Reason : `]

3/6/2006 3:57:36 PM

LITTLE BUDDY

3/6/2006 4:13:52 PM