Are You Still A Racist, Xenophobic, and Intolerant Hater?

[Shamgar]

Are You Still A Racist, Xenophobic, and Intolerant Hater?

Are You Still A Racist, Xenophobic, and Intolerant Hater? Am I talking about a white Christian male who is the typical target of this Granfalloon technique of propaganda? No, I am speaking about the racist, xenophobic, and intolerant hater who promotes the propaganda of the melting pot. What? How could that be? The pro-melting pot people are the defenders against racism, xenophobia, intolerance and hate. Actually, they are not. They are defenders of the propaganda of conformity. And like all good propagandists they accuse their opponents of the very crimes the propagandist wants to commit.

“Propaganda by its very nature is an enterprise for perverting the significance of events
and of insinuating false intentions. There are two salient aspects of this fact. First of all, the
propagandist must insist on the purity of his own intentions and, at the same time, hurl accusations
at his enemy. But the accusation is never made haphazardly or groundlessly (9). The propagandist
will not accuse the enemy of just any misdeed; he will accuse him of the very intention that he
himself has and of trying to commit the very crime that he himself is about to commit. He who
wants to provoke war not only proclaims his own peaceful intentions but also accuses the other party
of provocation. He who uses concentration camps accuses his neighbor of doing so. He who intends
to establish a dictatorship always insists that his adversaries are bent on dictatorship. The accusation
aimed at the other's intentions clearly reveals the intentions of the accuser. But the public cannot see
this because the revelation is interwoven with facts. The mechanism used here is to slip from the facts,
which would demand factual judgment, to moral terrain and to ethical judgment. (9) Because political
problems are difficult and often confusing,and their significance and their import not obvious,the propagandist can easily present them in moral language – and here we leave the realm of fact, to enter
into that of passion. Facts, then, come to be discussed in the language of indignation, a tone which
is almost always the mark of propaganda.”

Jaques Ellul, “Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes” (New York: 1973) Page 58. (emphasis added)

All one has to do is look at the definitions of the words: “racist”, “xenophobe”, “intolerance” and “hater” and you will see each of the words are generic. You will notice that not a single definition includes the words “white,” “Christian,” or “male.”

Racist adj
1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks."
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.

Racist n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.

Xenophobe n. A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially
of strangers or foreign peoples.

Intolerance n.
1: impatience with annoyances; "his intolerance of interruptions."
2: unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs [ant: tolerance].

Hater n : a person who hates.

Since the words are generic the words listed can just as easily be used to describe the promoters of the melting pot.

Page 1 of 5
However, by an appeal to tradition, they are used against anyone, (specifically against white, Christian males) who would speak against the propaganda of the melting pot. So what is the melting pot?

Melting pot n.
1: an environment in which many ideas and races are socially assimilated.
2: a vessel made of material that does not melt easily; used for high temperature chemical reactions
[syn: crucible].

Melting pot n.
1 a : a place where racial amalgamation and social and cultural assimilation are going on
b : the population of such a place.
2 : a process of blending that often results in invigoration or novelty.

Amalgamate trans. verb: to unite in or as if in an amalgam; especially: to merge into a single body. synonym see MIX.

Assimilate v.
1 : to take in and appropriate as nourishment : absorb into the system.
2 : to absorb into the cultural tradition of a population or group
<the community assimilated many immigrants> assimilate.
Assimilate intrans. v.
1 : to become absorbed or incorporated into the system. <some foods
assimilate more readily than others>
2 : to become culturally assimilated.

From the definitions you can see that the melting pot is a social experiment in which pure or impure races/cultures are brought together and merged into a single body of race and culture. So given the right amount of time, the end result of the melting pot is the destruction of the original unique races and cultures to make a new amalgamated race and culture. (Do sugar and butter maintain their original shape, structure and consistency in a melting pot? Answer: No!) Those failing to conform to the assimilation and amalgamation propaganda program are labeled “racist”, “xenophobe”, “intolerant” and “hater” since they are resistant to the “heat” (social norms) of the melting pot.

“In contrast to this propaganda of agitation is the propaganda of integration – the propaganda
of developed nations and characteristics of our civilization; in fact it did not exist before the
twentieth century. It is a propaganda of conformity. It is related to the fact, analyzed earlier, that in Western society it is not longer sufficient to obtain a transitory political act (such as a vote); one needs
total adherence to a society's truths and behavioral patterns. As the more perfectly uniform the society,
the stronger its power and effectiveness, each member should be only an organic and functional
fragment of it, perfectly adapted and integrated. He must share the stereotypes, beliefs and reactions
of the group; he must be an active participant in its economic, ethical, esthetic, and political doings. All
his activities, all his sentiments are dependent on this collectivity. And, as he is often reminded, he can
only fulfill himself only through this collectivity, as a member of the group.(6) Propaganda of
integration thus aims at making the individual participate in his society in every way. It is a
long-term propaganda, a self-reproducing propaganda that seeks to obtain stable behavior, to adapt the individual to his everyday life, to reshape his thoughts and behavior in terms of the permanent
social setting. We can see that this propaganda is more extensive and complex than propaganda of
agitation. It must be permanent, for the individual can no longer be left to himself. (6) This is one of
the points common to all American works on micro-sociology.”

Page 2 of 5
Jaques Ellul, “Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes” (New York: 1973) Page 74-75.
(emphasis added)

So in reality the pro-melting pot propagandists are actually the “racists”, “xenophobes”, “intolerant” and “haters” since they:
1.Believe mixed races are superior to pure races and cultures.
2.Are fearful of the teachings and zealots that promote pure races, religions, and cultures.
3.They are intolerant to beliefs that do not embrace the melting pot.
4.And they hate those zealots who follow the teachings of God. God spoke against amalgamation and assimilation of race and culture.

If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the
world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the
world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, The servant is not
greater than his master. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they have kept My saying, they will also keep yours. John 15:18-20

I have given them Your Word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even
as I am not of the world. I do not pray for You to take them out of the world, but for You to keep them
from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. John 17:14-16

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowshipdoes righteousness have with lawlessness? And what partnership does light have with darkness? And what agreement does Christ
have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever? And what agreement does
a temple of God have with idols? For you are the temple of the living God, as God has said, "I will dwell
in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Therefore come
out from among them and be separated, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean thing. And I will receive you and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.
2 Corinthians 6 14-18

When the LORD your God shall bring you into the land where you go to possess it, and has cast out
many nations before you, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and
the Perizzites,and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, and the
Lord your God shall deliver them before you, you shall crush them, completely destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. Nor shall you make marriages with them. You
shall not give your daughter to his son, nor shall you take his daughter to your son. For they will turn
away your son from following Me, so that they may serve other gods. Deuteronomy 7:1-5

For if you were cut out of the natural wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more these being according to nature will be grafted into their own olive-tree?
Romans 11:24

As stated before the melting pot is a propaganda of conformity. In order to insure conformity the individuals who resist conformity must be vilified and dehumanized. So they are labeled “racists”, ”white supremists”, “xenophobes”, “intolerant” and “haters.” This is accomplished by the Granfalloon technique of propaganda:

'What makes the Granfalloon tick? Researchers have uncovered two basic psychological processes, one cognitive and one motivational. First, the knowledge that “I am part in this group” is used to divide up
and make sense of the world, much in the same way that words and labels can be used to pre-persuade
Page 3 of 5
(see Chapter 6). Differences between groups are exaggerated, whereas similarities among members of
the granfalloon are emphasized in the secure knowledge that “this is what our type does.” One serious consequence is that the out-group members are dehumanized; they are represented in our minds by a simple, often derogatory label – gook, jap, redneck, southerner, kike, nigger – as opposed to unique individuals – Nguyen, Susumu, Anthony, Elliot, Doug. It is a lot easier to abuse an abstraction. Second, social groups are a source of self-esteem and pride, a form of reverse Groucho Marx - “I'd be more than happy to join a club that would have me as a member.”* To obtain the self esteem the group has to offer, members come to defend the group and adopt its symbols, rituals,and beliefs. Herein lies the secret to
the persuasiveness the granfalloon. If the professional persuader, the advertiser, the politician, the televangelist can get us to accept his or her granfalloons, then we have a ready-made way to make
sense of our lives – the propagandist's way – and as our self-esteem becomes increasingly linked to
these groups, we have a strong motivation to defend the group and to go to great lengths proudly to
adopt its customs. What the propagandist is really saying is: “You are on my side (never mind
that I created the teams); now act like it and do what we say.”'

Pratkanis, Anthony and Aronson, Elliot. “Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion” (New York: 2001) Page 217. (emphasis added)

So remember the next time someone accuses you of being a “racist”, “xenophobe”, “intolerant” or “hater” don't be a victim of their propaganda. Tell that propagandist that it is they who are the “racist”, “xenophobe”, “intolerant” or “hater” since they:

1.Believe mixed races are superior to pure races and cultures.
2.Are fearful of the teachings and zealots that promote pure races, religions, and cultures.
3.They are intolerant to beliefs that do not embrace the melting pot.
4.And they hate those zealots who follow the teachings of God. God spoke against amalgamation and assimilation of race and culture.

“And Peter and the apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”
Acts 5:29

Here are some questions to ponder:

1. How can you have diversity without diverse races and cultures being separate?
2. How can you have diverse and unique races by interracial marriage?
3. Why does a racist, xenophobic, and intolerant God hater have to re-define the word "diverse" which means separate to promote the melting pot term "diversity" which means the opposite?

diverse adj.
1. Differing one from another.
2. Made up of distinct characteristics, qualities, or elements: “Prague... offers visitors a series of excursions
into a rich and diverse past” (Olivier Bernier).

Caveat: Don't be alarmed or upset if no Racist, Xenophobic, and Intolerant God Hater wants to listen to you and give up their belief in the melting pot. Why?

For action makes propaganda's effect irreversible.(3) He who acts in obedience to propaganda
can never go back. He is now obligated to believe in the propaganda because of his past action.
He is obligated to believe from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem
Page 4 of 5
to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obligated to continue to advance in the
direction indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action. He is what one calls committed –
which is certainly what the Communist party anticipates, for example, and what the Nazis accomplished.

Jaques Ellul, “Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes” (New York: 1973) Page 29.(emphasis added)

Canon found that, as one's confidence is weakened, a person becomes less prone to listen to
arguments against his or her beliefs. Thus the very people you want to convince and whose
opinions might be the most susceptible to be changed are the ones lest likely to continue to expose themselves to a communication designed for that purpose. Information campaigns frequently fail to

change attitudes, a fact of life persuasive life that was observed by Herbert Hyman and Paul Sheatsley
as far back as 1947. (2) In explaining the frequent failure of information campaigns, Hyman and
Sheatsley noted that people tend to acquire information mostly about things that they find of interest
and tend to avoid information that does not agree with their beliefs. Should someone find that they
have been unavoidably exposed to uninteresting and disagreeable information, a common
response is to distort and reinterpret that information, thus ignoring its implications for updating beliefs and attitudes.

Pratkanis, Anthony and Aronson, Elliot.“Age of Propaganda": The Everyday Use and Abuse of
Persuasion” (New York: 2001) Page 281-282. (emphasis added)

There are at lest four ways in which the members of an audience can reduce their discomfort: (1) They
can change their opinion; (2) they can induce the communicator to change his or her opinion; (3) they
can seek support for their original opinion by finding other people who share their views, in spite of what
the communicator says; or (4) they can derogate the communication – convince themselves the communicator is stupid or immoral – and thereby invalidate the person's opinion.

Pratkanis, Anthony and Aronson, Elliot.“Age of Propaganda": The Everyday Use and Abuse of
Persuasion” (New York: 2001) Page 192. (emphasis added)

"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love
of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

Feel free to reproduce and redistribute this article.
Page 5 of 5

[Shamgar]

So in reality the pro-melting pot propagandists are actually the “racists”, “xenophobes”, “intolerant” and “haters” since they:
1.Believe mixed races are superior to pure races and cultures.
2.Are fearful of the teachings and zealots that promote pure races, religions, and cultures.
3.They are intolerant to beliefs that do not embrace the melting pot.
4.And they hate those zealots who follow the teachings of God. God spoke against amalgamation and assimilation of race and culture.

1. There is the human race - all else is your perception. Describe a pure race or culture?

Please tell the US goverment (or your government) to stop putting the words "Caucasian" on their forms.. . .as it appears you think race to be a "myth". . . . and a pure race and culture is described in the original post. . .

2.I fear not...

I fear you fear to admit to your denial. . . .much like your fear to admit your intolerance and hatred of Christains. . . go figure. . ..

3. Tolerance (i.e. self denial) is the driving force of the evolution of community

Ah pure propaganda. . .which is why it is an invention of the 20th century, not the 19 century nor the 18th century. . . etc. . . . . .etc. . .etc. . . .

4. I hate no one, I hold in disdain bigots and confabulators

ah so you have disdain (hate) for yourself. . . go figure. . . oh btw way next time pick a word that doesn't mean "hate". . . . disdain= hate. . . . . .

dis·dain Audio pronunciation of "disdain" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ds-dn)
tr.v. dis·dained, dis·dain·ing, dis·dains

1. To regard or treat with haughty contempt; despise. See Synonyms at despise.
2. To consider or reject as beneath oneself.

Main Entry: despise
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: look down on
Synonyms: abhor, abominate, allergic to*, chill, contemn, deride, detest, disdain, disregard, eschew, execrate, flout, hate, loathe, misprize, neglect, put down*, reject, renounce, repudiate, revile, run down, scorn, shun, slight, snub, spurn, trash, undervalue, wipe out*

I see no evidence of god. What you call evidence I call 'being'.

"I see" said the blind man called bernee51. . .nor can you see oxygen. . . atoms. . . nor have you looked for any evidence. . . .but have only a faith in a belief that God does not exit. . . . . oh how atheists love to stack the deck. . . . .

Your non-sequitors make as much sense as the pap you post.

Your stacking the deck. . aka failing to have evidence (or look for evidence) to prove or disprove your faith in the belief (atheism) shows your beliefs are vomit. . . .

[McCulloch]

Moderator Intervention

As a Christian, you have my support on this point.

Clarification. . .psuedo-Christain. . member of a cult. . . .the cult of "Christain" zionists. . . .

Shamgar,
Please re-read the Debate Forum Intro and Rules that you had agreed to abide by when you registered on this site. 1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed.
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.
7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.
14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.
Tselem has identified himself as a Christian. If you have evidence that he is not, then present it. By the way, first present a common acceptable definition of Christian. Without that evidence, your comment will have to be regarded as a personal attack.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Intervention

Your non-sequitors make as much sense as the pap you post.

Your[sic] stacking the deck. . aka failing to have evidence (or look for evidence) to prove or disprove your faith in the belief (atheism) shows your beliefs are vomit. . . .

Bernee and Shamgar,
As part of the rules, you both agreed to be civil and respectful. Would either of you support the idea that calling one another's post pap or vomit is civil or respectful behaviour?

[Shamgar]

Tselem has identified himself as a Christian. If you have evidence that he is not, then present it. By the way, first present a common acceptable definition of Christian. Without that evidence, your comment will have to be regarded as a personal attack.

I have presented evidence that Christian Zionism is heresy preached by a cult. . . .Tselem he is a memmber of the cult and spews the heresy. .. . .so he is a pseudo-Christian. . . .the shoe fits. . . . so it is an accurate description. . . a clear identifier. .. not an attack. . . . now if I called him a "moron" that would be an attack. . . but how intelligent can you be to be involved in a heresy cult, anyways?

Grace Halsell, who regards the movement as a cult, asks: “What is the message of the Christian Zionist? Simply stated it is this: every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.' (17)

Stephen Sizer, “Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?” (Leicester: 2004), Page 21.

The Middle East Council of Churches (MECC), drawing together the historic as well as evangelical churches of the Holy Land, rejects, Christian Zionism 'as representing a heretical interpretation of Holy Scriptures',(19) while John Stott has described it as 'biblical anathema'. (20)

Stephen Sizer, “Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?” (Leicester: 2004), Page 22.

The distinction between Israel and the church and the literalist hermeneutic upon which it is based, inexorably leads to a reductionist eschatology in which Jesus is devalued, salvation and judgment redefined, and Israel sacralized.

Stephen Sizer, “Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?” (Leicester: 2004), Page 201.

He [Edward Irving (1792-1834)]insisted that missionary work especially in Southern Europe, where the Continental Society concentrated its ministry, was futile because God's judgment was about to fall on the lands of the former Roman Empire who would align themselves with the Antichrist. Some walked out of the meeting in protest while the leaders of the society accused Irving of undermining their ministry. (52)

Stephen Sizer, “Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?” (Leicester: 2004), Page 42.

[Benjamin] Newton eventually came to recognize Darby's elevation of Israel above the church as heresy, and repudiated the idea that the Jews could be blessed apart from the faith in Jesus Christ. It was 'virtually to say there are two kinds of Christianity, two Gospels, two ways, and two ends of salvation'.(96)

Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (Leicester: 2004) p. 53.

There is a new religious cult in America. It's not composed of so-called “crazies” so much as mainstream, middle to upper-middle class Americans. They listen-and give millions of dollars each week-to the TV evangelists who expound the fundamentals of the cult. They read Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. They have one goal: to facilitate God's hand to waft them up to heaven free from all trouble, from where they will watch Armageddon and the destruction of Planet Earth. This doctrine pervades Assemblies of God, Pentacostal, and other charismatic churches, as well as Southern Baptist, independent Baptist and countless so-called Bible churches and mega-churches. At least one out of every 10 Americans is a devotee' of this cult. It is the fastest growing religious movement in Christianity today. - Dale Crowley Jr., religious broadcaster, Washington D.C.

Grace Halsell, “Forcing God's Hand: Why Millions Pray For A Quick Rapture - - - And Destruction Of Planet Earth” (Beltsville: 2003) Page 5.

[Shamgar]

Moderator Intervention

Your non-sequitors make as much sense as the pap you post.

Your[sic] stacking the deck. . aka failing to have evidence (or look for evidence) to prove or disprove your faith in the belief (atheism) shows your beliefs are vomit. . . .

Bernee and Shamgar,
As part of the rules, you both agreed to be civil and respectful. Would either of you support the idea that calling one another's post pap or vomit is civil or respectful behaviour?

I have absolutely no problem with his post. . . .(aside from the fact he has no evidence to back any of his claims). . . as he is spewing from his heart. . . hop back to your corner in the kangaroo court. . . .

Luke 6: 45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

[Shamgar]

If Mohammad would have had a gun, then everyone not Muslim would have never left those gunsights; as ancient and current history proves. Christian Zionism is only as recent as the 1800's. Muslim hordes had by that time slaughtered and conquered their way through country after country, since Mohammad started that form of spreading his religion of peace.

"Christian" Zionist babble. . . .as Mohammad didn't have a gun. . .and the arabs were at relative peace with the west in the 1800. . .. . and the unrest only started after the jews entered Palestine. . . . .interesting fairty tales you spew to justify your cult and their racist doctrines. . . .even your own evangelicals denounce you. . .go figure. . . .

Even evangelical Palestinians are bitter and outspoken over the loss of ancestral homes and lands and Israeli policies they find oppressive. (112) Such sentiments are not welcomed among American dispensationalists who are convinced that Palestinians - even Christian Palestinians – have no right to the land of Israel and are destined to play a negative role in events leading to the second coming. Many evangelical tourists to Israel are surprised to discover that there are Palestinian Christians, since they assumed that all Palestinians are Muslim and the enemies of both Christians and Jews.(113) In the end dispensational prophecy does not leave much room for Palestinian believers, which means that dispensationalists do not have to pay them any mind.

Timothy P. Weber, “On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend” (Grand Rapids: 2004) Page 248.

When the war ended Israel was not entirely free of Arabs, but the 140,00-1500 who had remained (93) – many of them Christian and Druze, and mainly concentrated in the Galilee and what was known as the Little Triangle – were permitted to remain. The borders of the new state had been pushed through conquest from the 55 percent of the Mandatory Palestine alloted to Jews under partition to 77 percent. The bulk of the land had been acquired ans was now tilled by Jewish settlements, and the size of the Arab minority was apparently considered manageable. It is interesting to note that one of the Transfer Committee's final recommendations submitted to Ben-Gurion on 26 October 1948 was that the Arabs should not exceed 15 percent of the population in mixed cities such as Haifa. Transfer Committee member Ezra Danin later wrote
that the recommendations stipulated that the Arab minority as whole should not be more than 20 percent of the total population of Israel. (94) In 1949, the Arab minority constituted about 17 percent of the state. While the new Jewish state may not have been quite as Jewish as England was English, it was close enough to satisfy the new state's leaders – a miraculous simplification indeed.

Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Nur Masalha. (Washington, D.C.: 1992) Page 199.


Ahad Ha'am (Ahser Zvi Ginzberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891, published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism as well as the exploitation of Palestinian of Palestinian peasantry by Zionist colonists.(9) Ahad Ha'am, who sought to draw attention to the fact that Palestine was not an empty territory and that the presence of another people on the land posed problems., observed that the Zionist “pioneers” believed that “the only language the Arabs understand is that of force.... [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency.” He cut to the heart of the matter when he ventured that the colonists' aggressive attitude towards the native peasants stemmed from their anger “towards those who reminded them that there is still another people in the land of Israel that have been living there and does not intend to leave.”(10)
Another early settler, Yitzhaq Epstein, who arrived in Palestine from Russia in 1886, warned not only of the moral implication of Zionist colonization but also of the political dangers inherent in the enterprise. In 1907, at a time when Zionist land purchases in Galilee were stirring opposition among Palestinian peasants forced off the land sold by absentee landlords, Epstein wrote a controversial article entitled “The Hidden Question,” in which he strongly criticized the methods by which Zionists had purchased Arab land. In his view, these methods entailing dispossession of Arab farmers were bound to cause political confrontation in the future.” Reflected in the Zionist establishment's angry response to Epstein's article(12) are two principal features of mainstream Zionist thought: the belief that Jewish acquisition of land took precedence over moral consideration and the advocacy of separatist and exclusionist Yishuv.

Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Nur Masalha. (Washington, D.C.: 1992) Page 7-8.

[Shamgar]

To engage in fruitful debate is, quite obviously, out of the question.

"Yes" I would agree since are a master or specualtion and propaganda. . not facts. . .

It does not seem like you are in any place to be questioning the tenants of our democracy. In fact, here you are explicitly commanded to obey them. This verse re-inforces what I had said; that God has established America the way it is for his own reasons.

Ah the problem with the literalist. . . .they have no concept of the the Scriptures. . . .as Paul was speaking to the faithful. . . .so the message is explained in detail (unlike the message of the parable of tribute to Casear). . . .a direct teaching. . . . so it is a message to create a righteous government. . . not a secular government (Christ was king and high priest so secualr governments are not a Christain teaching). . . . .

Hos 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.

Is 63:19 We are thine : thou never barest rule over them; they were not called by thy name. (they...: Heb. thy name was not called upon them)

In regard to contemporary times, God does not seem to be choosing kings for us any more, does he?

Pseudo-Christians don't follow God's laws either. . . should how could He? . . . .and btw
God was chosing the apostles. . . .

Acts 1: 26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Prov 16: 33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

To love your neighbor as you love yourself?
To do unto others as they would have them do unto you?
To be gentle unto all men?

Yeah show me the foundation verses which clearly indicate interracial marriage. . . .as the foundation verses are from the OT. . . . . .

You have been priding yourself on the evidence you provide. Why did you abstain here?

Sorry you speculated to the opposite prove you side. . . .for a change. . .

The "Zionists" play a very small part in this ideological battle.

Speculation without proof seemes to be your M.O.. . . . well cult babble doesn't need proof. . . . as the state of Israel was formed by zionists and run by zionist. . . .in fact the Zionist oppose peace in the region. . . . .

Jerusalem is regarded as the eternal and exclusive capital of the Jews, it cannot be shared with the Palestinians. Therefore, strategically, Western governments are placed under pressure by Christian Zionists to relocate their embassies to Jerusalem and thereby recognize the fact.

Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armegeddon? (Leicester: 2004) Page 252.

Since Christian Zionists are convinced there will be an apocalyptic war between good and evil in the near future, there is no prospect for lasting peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, to advocate that Israel compromise with Islam or coexist with Palestinians is to identify with those to oppose God and Israel in the imminent battle of Armegeddon.

Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armegeddon? (Leicester: 2004) Page 252.

[Wyvern]

Speculation without proof seemes to be your M.O.

Seems like it is your M.O. also, pasting sections of an opinionated book does not constitute facts. It just means you agree with the authors opinion.

As far as your whole separation of the races idea goes, in america at least the point is moot. America is a land of mutts, calling for a separation of people into "pure" races and cultures is impossible since none exist.
The idea that the melting pot ideology of america does not allow diversity flies in the face of reality, go to any major U.S. city.

[otseng]

The moderating team has decided to place Shamgar on probation.

This thread is now also closed.