-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
UMM Rachel,
What do you do about this with what is really said and not your version of it?
The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod's Theological Commission: “The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ's Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.” However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8,11,20-21,24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions' identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction that the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person's heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise. In a footnote, the Commission adds: To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God's guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.
Concordia | The Lutheran Confessions: Roundtable 36: The Papacy (Smalcald Articles II.iv)
What do you do about this with what is really said and not your version of it?
The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod's Theological Commission: “The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ's Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.” However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8,11,20-21,24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions' identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction that the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person's heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise. In a footnote, the Commission adds: To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God's guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.
Concordia | The Lutheran Confessions: Roundtable 36: The Papacy (Smalcald Articles II.iv)
That's sister Rachel's privilege. My family fled Haifa, Palestine at gunpoint in 1947, I grew stories with stories of "Jews with guns". Grandma was old, and old women like to talk. How's that for a canard, sister Zone?
Given my background, I think your antisemitic writings betray psychosis, just like Martin Luther's did later in his life.
I'm new here by the way.
Given my background, I think your antisemitic writings betray psychosis, just like Martin Luther's did later in his life.
I'm new here by the way.
R
well i am aware of all of that and none of it actually contradicts the point i was making...it wasn't my intent to describe all of the nuances of the confessional lutheran doctrine on the antichrist because it wasn't exactly relevant to my point...
but to address your concern...as you correctly noted the confessional lutheran doctrine is that the -office of the papacy- is the antichrist...not necessarily any particular individual -pope-...
in any case zone views the 'big antichrist' as she called it as something else entirely...a view which it must be stressed is foreign to confessional lutheran teaching...and possibly grounds for disfellowship within a confessional lutheran congregation...
but to address your concern...as you correctly noted the confessional lutheran doctrine is that the -office of the papacy- is the antichrist...not necessarily any particular individual -pope-...
in any case zone views the 'big antichrist' as she called it as something else entirely...a view which it must be stressed is foreign to confessional lutheran teaching...and possibly grounds for disfellowship within a confessional lutheran congregation...
what holocaust denial?
if you want precise language, you need to be precise.
why don't you ask me what it is about the narrative that i "deny"?
if you did, the answer would be - the same lies that were told in the beginning, that are now "denied" by Jewish Holocaust Historians.
but the buzz-phrases and triggers that make people shrink away in fear and loathing do the job so well...you don't even know what i believe.
neither do you know the facts apparently.
which is what certain people count on.
many lies that were told (let's blame it on 'faulty intelligence') have been retracted officially.
yet agreeing with the revised facts still makes one 'a holocaust denier'.
LOL....too much cognitive dissonance, man...i can't handle it.
the carefully crafted words are repugnant. even though they are a complete misnomer, it works like a charm.
what i find amusing is how ignorant people are about facts that are available to anyone.
willfully ignorant.....fearful.
Anti-semitic, Its a Trick, We Always Use it
1 minute 22 seconds.
course, she's probably lying.
maybe an antisemitic holocaust-heretic.
if you want precise language, you need to be precise.
why don't you ask me what it is about the narrative that i "deny"?
if you did, the answer would be - the same lies that were told in the beginning, that are now "denied" by Jewish Holocaust Historians.
but the buzz-phrases and triggers that make people shrink away in fear and loathing do the job so well
...you don't even know what i believe.neither do you know the facts apparently.
which is what certain people count on.
many lies that were told (let's blame it on 'faulty intelligence') have been retracted officially.
yet agreeing with the revised facts still makes one 'a holocaust denier'.
LOL....too much cognitive dissonance, man...i can't handle it.
the carefully crafted words are repugnant. even though they are a complete misnomer, it works like a charm.
what i find amusing is how ignorant people are about facts that are available to anyone.
willfully ignorant.....fearful.
Anti-semitic, Its a Trick, We Always Use it
1 minute 22 seconds.
course, she's probably lying.
maybe an antisemitic holocaust-heretic.
Schizophrenia: Symptoms - MayoClinic.com
Schizophrenia
Symptoms
By Mayo Clinic staff
Signs and symptoms of schizophrenia generally are divided into three categories — positive, negative and cognitive.
Positive symptoms
In schizophrenia, positive symptoms reflect an excess or distortion of normal functions. These active, abnormal symptoms may include:
Delusions. These beliefs are not based in reality and usually involve misinterpretation of perception or experience. They are the most common of schizophrenic symptoms.
Hallucinations. These usually involve seeing or hearing things that don't exist, although hallucinations can be in any of the senses. Hearing voices is the most common hallucination among people with schizophrenia.
Thought disorder. Difficulty speaking and organizing thoughts may result in stopping speech midsentence or putting together meaningless words, sometimes known as word salad.
Disorganized behavior. This may show in a number of ways, ranging from childlike silliness to unpredictable agitation.
so, the world is not a safer place.
but we were told it would be.
and are still told this....in case you did not know, all nations are now falling into the NEW order of things, since 9-11 changed everything...right?
or no.
this is just business as usual?
anyway....faulty intelligence is the excuse.
even from you, i see a little further down....
still no reasonable examination of how it was, and is even today, that the USA and allies were not, and are not able to catch a few crazed Arabs running around making plans.
asleep at the wheel? always behind the 8-ball?
what's the excuse for all the faulty intelligence?
just continual blundering apparently.
always one step behind some clever Arabs who keep outsmarting everybody.
at one time we were assured they were so smart and so well funded they had these:
just take a few minutes to look at the detail in that cartoon.
anyways....let's get the big scary issue.
oh....didn't we know that to begin with?
more faulty intelligence?
just lousy planning?
the thinks tanks were on vacation?
what's the excuse?
most people who post on this topic would consider you a radical islam sympathizer for saying those things.
you're not FOR the terrorists, are you?
why were you against it?
you had to get the guys who did 9-11, didn't you?
how would you have gotten them?
who were they btw if you know - got the names?
do you have a theory as to how the DHS was created and put in place and power so soon after 9-11?
do you know the timeline?
does it matter?
mistakes.
i see.
how far back can we go, into how many administrations to see the same "mistakes" made over and over again?
is there something faulty about your MIC that it can't ever get it right?
or is there a possiblity everything is actually going according to plan?
nah....that could never enter into it.
just mistake after mistake.
i won't post any links, since i don't want rachel to think i'm trying to impress you
even this might be too egotistical of me, but here goes:
Lesley Stahl:[re - US-led embargo on Iraq] “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Madeleine Albright, then US. Ambassador the the UN (1996): “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”
now, unless i'm wrong, Ms. Albright did not say, we had faulty intelligence or anything like that.
she didn't say we made a mistake.
what she said clearly (representing the American people with her use of "WE") was:
that the embargo on Iraq which caused the deaths of a half million children was worth it.
the price (a half million children) was worth it.
what is IT she was referring to?
what exactly WAS IT that was worth it (and that was back in 96)?
neocons?
what's a neocon?
who are they?
why do you have little tolerance for them?
what's so wrong about them? they keep making mistakes and relying on faulty intelligence?
is that what the problem is?
okay.
why don't you write out in point form what you see as my antisemitism.
we can decide later if it is at "psychotic levels". - you'll need to define that as well.
feel free to find use words like nazi; and.....nazi....or whatever else you have.
i'll save you some time up front so you needn't waste it (or mine).
you'll never find me saying i hate jews - anywhere, ever.
if you can find it, post it.
so define your accusation, being as precise as you can.
this is quite a charge, and now you have to prove it.
[at least, one would think you would not only be able to do so, that you would want to back this up].
please stay focused on your accusation. that is now my interest.
try to avoid useless emotionally charged rhetoric....oh.
without it you have no case.
maybe i'm wrong though....
post away....i'll be back later.
one last thing:
George Bush's War on Terror?
did he act alone in it?
just a lone nut again? a rogue?
acting outside the will of the govt and 'the people'?
why are you blaming him?
see you later
but we were told it would be.
and are still told this....in case you did not know, all nations are now falling into the NEW order of things, since 9-11 changed everything...right?
or no.
this is just business as usual?
anyway....faulty intelligence is the excuse.
even from you, i see a little further down....
still no reasonable examination of how it was, and is even today, that the USA and allies were not, and are not able to catch a few crazed Arabs running around making plans.
asleep at the wheel? always behind the 8-ball?
what's the excuse for all the faulty intelligence?
just continual blundering apparently.
always one step behind some clever Arabs who keep outsmarting everybody.
at one time we were assured they were so smart and so well funded they had these:
just take a few minutes to look at the detail in that cartoon.
anyways....let's get the big scary issue.
oh....didn't we know that to begin with?
more faulty intelligence?
just lousy planning?
the thinks tanks were on vacation?
what's the excuse?
most people who post on this topic would consider you a radical islam sympathizer for saying those things.
you're not FOR the terrorists, are you?
why were you against it?
you had to get the guys who did 9-11, didn't you?
how would you have gotten them?
who were they btw if you know - got the names?
do you have a theory as to how the DHS was created and put in place and power so soon after 9-11?
do you know the timeline?
does it matter?
mistakes.
i see.
how far back can we go, into how many administrations to see the same "mistakes" made over and over again?
is there something faulty about your MIC that it can't ever get it right?
or is there a possiblity everything is actually going according to plan?
nah....that could never enter into it.
just mistake after mistake.
i won't post any links, since i don't want rachel to think i'm trying to impress you
even this might be too egotistical of me, but here goes:
Lesley Stahl:[re - US-led embargo on Iraq] “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Madeleine Albright, then US. Ambassador the the UN (1996): “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”
now, unless i'm wrong, Ms. Albright did not say, we had faulty intelligence or anything like that.
she didn't say we made a mistake.
what she said clearly (representing the American people with her use of "WE") was:
that the embargo on Iraq which caused the deaths of a half million children was worth it.
the price (a half million children) was worth it.
what is IT she was referring to?
what exactly WAS IT that was worth it (and that was back in 96)?
neocons?
what's a neocon?
who are they?
why do you have little tolerance for them?
what's so wrong about them? they keep making mistakes and relying on faulty intelligence?
is that what the problem is?
None of the above, and nothing that Rachel writes, abrogates your psychotic level of antisemitism.
It's a good thing this thread started, we can let the sun shine in.
It's a good thing this thread started, we can let the sun shine in.
why don't you write out in point form what you see as my antisemitism.
we can decide later if it is at "psychotic levels".
- you'll need to define that as well.feel free to find use words like nazi; and.....nazi....or whatever else you have.
i'll save you some time up front so you needn't waste it (or mine).
you'll never find me saying i hate jews - anywhere, ever.
if you can find it, post it.
so define your accusation, being as precise as you can.
this is quite a charge, and now you have to prove it.
[at least, one would think you would not only be able to do so, that you would want to back this up].
please stay focused on your accusation. that is now my interest.
try to avoid useless emotionally charged rhetoric....oh.
without it you have no case.
maybe i'm wrong though....
post away....i'll be back later.
one last thing:
George Bush's War on Terror?
did he act alone in it?
just a lone nut again? a rogue?
acting outside the will of the govt and 'the people'?
why are you blaming him?
see you later
Last edited:
That's sister Rachel's privilege. My family fled Haifa, Palestine at gunpoint in 1947, I grew stories with stories of "Jews with guns". Grandma was old, and old women like to talk. How's that for a canard, sister Zone?
Given my background, I think your antisemitic writings betray psychosis, just like Martin Luther's did later in his life.
I'm new here by the way.
Given my background, I think your antisemitic writings betray psychosis, just like Martin Luther's did later in his life.
I'm new here by the way.
hopefully you're going to start backing it up.
since it's a pretty serious charge.
U
Do you not see the contradiction here Rachel ? You avail the premise of "Israel's (today's Jews) ethnic right to their homeland" while denying the Palestinian's theirs. Is everything regarding today's state of Israel prior to 1948 irrelevant ? How and why is it racist to say that today's Jews haven't the right to the land called Israel ... and not racist to deny the Palestinians who were the very people living there the same ? What in your mind makes one ethnic group more deserving than the other in light of your correct understanding that today's Jews have no biblical right to the land of Israel (due to their failure to meet God's conditional land covenant with them prior).
Last edited:
there's no debate.
there are facts. and there are revised facts.
which needed to be revised due to faulty intelligence - apparently.
......
"there were no extermination camps on German soil"
- Simon Wiesenthal
since you are too fearful to have an open examination of the revised facts, i'll just ask into the open:
is Simon Wiesenthal a Holocaust denier because he believes revised facts?
there are facts. and there are revised facts.
which needed to be revised due to faulty intelligence - apparently.
......
"there were no extermination camps on German soil"
- Simon Wiesenthal
since you are too fearful to have an open examination of the revised facts, i'll just ask into the open:
is Simon Wiesenthal a Holocaust denier because he believes revised facts?
R
excommunication is an established punishment in the confessional lutheran church for a person who persists in heterodox doctrine after an arbitrary period of admonishment...
i don't need to articulate your view...you yourself have indicated that your view is at odds with the lutheran confessions which the LCMS views as authoritative and binding on congregations...
your view is therefore heterodox according to the standard of the lutheran confessions and persistent heterodoxy is considered grounds for excommunication...
i don't need to articulate your view...you yourself have indicated that your view is at odds with the lutheran confessions which the LCMS views as authoritative and binding on congregations...
your view is therefore heterodox according to the standard of the lutheran confessions and persistent heterodoxy is considered grounds for excommunication...
R
well the palestinians are arabs and there are already -several- arab homeland states in the middle east...how many more do they need?
and actually if you study the history of the british mandate...the state of jordan was intended to be the palestinian state...
in any case i actually have no objection to the establishment of a palestinian state on the west bank...out of fairness to the arabs who were living in the remaining part of the mandate prior to 1948...but any such state would have to be established by mutual agreement between the israelis and palestinians...and part of that accord would have to involve both sides renouncing claims to the other side's agreed upon sovereign territories...so no more israeli settlements and no more palestinian 'push the jews into the sea' stuff...
and actually if you study the history of the british mandate...the state of jordan was intended to be the palestinian state...
in any case i actually have no objection to the establishment of a palestinian state on the west bank...out of fairness to the arabs who were living in the remaining part of the mandate prior to 1948...but any such state would have to be established by mutual agreement between the israelis and palestinians...and part of that accord would have to involve both sides renouncing claims to the other side's agreed upon sovereign territories...so no more israeli settlements and no more palestinian 'push the jews into the sea' stuff...
R
and that previous post should prove that i am not the radical israelophile that the habitual slanderer pretends i am...i just think we can do justice to both sides without imagining that the modern state of israel is an illegitimate entity responsible for practically all of the world's evil and antichristian sentiment...
We were lied to.
This is business as usual, it's called hegemony.
That's not surprising to anyone who understands the concept of millions of US dollars in petroleum profits.
I was against Iraq invasion because there's no evidence that Iraqis were involved in 9/11, and the United States was already busy in Afghanistan. Saddam appeared to be too dictatorial to allow Al-Qaeda to operate in Iraq, in my opinion.
Of course I have theories, and it's pretty obvious if you look at the way the language changed. Too bad you're a Holocaust denier, we could have a real conversation about it.
That was the Clinton administration, not Bush Jr. or Obama, and her defense of genocide is obscene. I'm an American, I know what they do, but they still gave me only one vote.
The mistakes are the result of all the competent people preferring private industry jobs. You could never pay me enough money to get involved with those people in Washington D.C.
IT is the economic, political, and military hegemony of the United States.
http://christianchat.com/conspiracy...ople-push-back-justice-roosting-chickens.html
Too bad you're a Holocaust denier, we could have a real conversation about it.
Neocons are the latest incarnation of grand chessboard players. I have little tolerance for them because they're imperialistic and secretive. That doesn't make them competent.
anti-Semitism - Wiktionary
Noun
anti-Semitism (plural anti-Semitisms)
(narrower sense) Prejudice, discrimination or hostility directed against Jews; anti-Jewism (anti-Jewishness).
Hate? I'd construct my language carefully if I lived in Canada. It's up to the RCMP if they want to "prove" anything.
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46
Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
This is business as usual, it's called hegemony.
anyway....faulty intelligence is the excuse.
even from you, i see a little further down....
still no reasonable examination of how it was, and is even today, that the USA and allies were not, and are not able to catch a few crazed Arabs running around making plans.
asleep at the wheel? always behind the 8-ball?
what's the excuse for all the faulty intelligence?
just continual blundering apparently.
always one step behind some clever Arabs who keep outsmarting everybody.
at one time we were assured they were so smart and so well funded they had these:
just take a few minutes to look at the detail in that cartoon.
even from you, i see a little further down....
still no reasonable examination of how it was, and is even today, that the USA and allies were not, and are not able to catch a few crazed Arabs running around making plans.
asleep at the wheel? always behind the 8-ball?
what's the excuse for all the faulty intelligence?
just continual blundering apparently.
always one step behind some clever Arabs who keep outsmarting everybody.
at one time we were assured they were so smart and so well funded they had these:
just take a few minutes to look at the detail in that cartoon.
I was against Iraq invasion because there's no evidence that Iraqis were involved in 9/11, and the United States was already busy in Afghanistan. Saddam appeared to be too dictatorial to allow Al-Qaeda to operate in Iraq, in my opinion.
Of course I have theories, and it's pretty obvious if you look at the way the language changed. Too bad you're a Holocaust denier, we could have a real conversation about it.
mistakes.
i see.
how far back can we go, into how many administrations to see the same "mistakes" made over and over again?
is there something faulty about your MIC that it can't ever get it right?
or is there a possiblity everything is actually going according to plan?
nah....that could never enter into it.
just mistake after mistake.
i won't post any links, since i don't want rachel to think i'm trying to impress you
even this might be too egotistical of me, but here goes:
Lesley Stahl:[re - US-led embargo on Iraq] “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Madeleine Albright, then US. Ambassador the the UN (1996): “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”
now, unless i'm wrong, Ms. Albright did not say, we had faulty intelligence or anything like that.
she didn't say we made a mistake.
i see.
how far back can we go, into how many administrations to see the same "mistakes" made over and over again?
is there something faulty about your MIC that it can't ever get it right?
or is there a possiblity everything is actually going according to plan?
nah....that could never enter into it.
just mistake after mistake.
i won't post any links, since i don't want rachel to think i'm trying to impress you
even this might be too egotistical of me, but here goes:
Lesley Stahl:[re - US-led embargo on Iraq] “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Madeleine Albright, then US. Ambassador the the UN (1996): “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”
now, unless i'm wrong, Ms. Albright did not say, we had faulty intelligence or anything like that.
she didn't say we made a mistake.
The mistakes are the result of all the competent people preferring private industry jobs. You could never pay me enough money to get involved with those people in Washington D.C.
IT is the economic, political, and military hegemony of the United States.
http://christianchat.com/conspiracy...ople-push-back-justice-roosting-chickens.html
Too bad you're a Holocaust denier, we could have a real conversation about it.
Neocons are the latest incarnation of grand chessboard players. I have little tolerance for them because they're imperialistic and secretive. That doesn't make them competent.
okay.
why don't you write out in point form what you see as my antisemitism.
we can decide later if it is at "psychotic levels". - you'll need to define that as well.
feel free to find use words like nazi; and.....nazi....or whatever else you have.
i'll save you some time up front so you needn't waste it (or mine).
you'll never find me saying i hate jews - anywhere, ever.
if you can find it, post it.
so define your accusation, being as precise as you can.
this is quite a charge, and now you have to prove it.
[at least, one would think you would not only be able to do so, that you would want to back this up].
please stay focused on your accusation. that is now my interest.
try to avoid useless emotionally charged rhetoric....oh.
without it you have no case.
maybe i'm wrong though....
post away....i'll be back later.
why don't you write out in point form what you see as my antisemitism.
we can decide later if it is at "psychotic levels".
- you'll need to define that as well.feel free to find use words like nazi; and.....nazi....or whatever else you have.
i'll save you some time up front so you needn't waste it (or mine).
you'll never find me saying i hate jews - anywhere, ever.
if you can find it, post it.
so define your accusation, being as precise as you can.
this is quite a charge, and now you have to prove it.
[at least, one would think you would not only be able to do so, that you would want to back this up].
please stay focused on your accusation. that is now my interest.
try to avoid useless emotionally charged rhetoric....oh.
without it you have no case.
maybe i'm wrong though....
post away....i'll be back later.
Noun
anti-Semitism (plural anti-Semitisms)
(narrower sense) Prejudice, discrimination or hostility directed against Jews; anti-Jewism (anti-Jewishness).
Hate? I'd construct my language carefully if I lived in Canada. It's up to the RCMP if they want to "prove" anything.
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46
Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
UMMM
All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ's Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.” However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8,11,20-21,24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). .