[b:b9ab3a67ee]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:b9ab3a67ee] [quote:b9ab3a67ee]Actually, I don't want to get into any heated debates, but I'd like to ask you some questions about this, roman - since you're the only person I know well enough to ask who has the knowledge to answer (assuming I get an answer and not a clever dicky summary ;-) ). jews evidently believe in racial purity. there are plenty of laws in leviticus (do you have the same names for the books of the torah that christians do? if not, do you know which books I'm talking about when I give their names?) that are all about survival of the jewish people. keeping the jewish race pure and distinct was part of survival for a people whose identity was in jeopardy. then, when you were scattered across the world, you had to have things to maintain your identity as jews, or you'd just have embedded in the local civilisations and ceased to be distinct. there's another tangent I could go down here to do with similarities and differences between jews and romanies, but we'll save that for another day. anyway, I can see the point of belief in racial purity for the jews. but say 'racial purity' to the average westerner, and what will be the first thing to spring to mind? nazis. hitler. ethnic cleansing, eugenics. the concentration camps of the second world war in which those of the wrong race were 'disposed of', while laughably ill-thought-out love camps were set up for those deemed to be true aryans to breed in to help further that perfect, pure race. I think of the war in the former yugoslavia, and slobodan milsoevic's antics in kosovo. I think of rwanda and the sudan, and people who were macheted to bits because they were the wrong tribe. I think of the grading systems for skin colour in apartheid-era south africa, and the preference for pale skin among indians under the raj. you know all this stuff, and could no doubt bring more examples to the table. generally speaking, the notion of racial purity is one that has been disavowed by the western world. it is particularly alien to the english (barring the minority of neo-nazis, of course), who have recognised that our strength arises from our mongrel blood, who are proud of the ethnic mixture of this island, and that any one brit may have genes from all over europe and even the world. those who support the notion of racial purity can find precious few to welcome them here. so how does judaism fit into this? the whole idea of judaism is that jews are a special chosen people who god loves best, and the race has to be kept pure. it's politically incorrect these days to say anything that could possibly be construed as anti-semitic in any way, so no one likes to question anything about judaism. we can make jokes about woody allen and suggest that being jewish makes you better at the arts *and* the sciences, but we must otherwise treat the jewish race with great care and delicacy. but you've just said how you feel about being PC, so I feel able to be blunt with you. the western world, after the holocaust, feels the need to pussyfoot around judaism. the jews are a national victim with a national martyr complex (combined with a national superiority complex), and national paranoia. everyone has to be kind to the jews or they might cry 'holocaust!' and burst into tears and make us all feel horribly guilty, like a child who's been through something dreadful and can then get anything it wants out of the adults because they daren't do anything more to upset it. I'm sorry if that offends, you but it's the prevalent attitude. and things you've said in the past have shown that a lot of it is probably quite true. so, although the concept of racial purity is abhorrent to so many westerners, when it's the jews who are talking about it, we have a dichotomy. the line of thinking might go something like: racial purity smacks of nazism - but wait, who were the biggest victims of the nazis? yes, the jews! jews can never be compared to nazis, because they were their victims! but they believe in the very concept that was the one the nazis used against them. of course, the jews don't propose to gas people as a result of their belief, they just want you to pass a test to join their religion. so that's ok. but still, the ideology is there, and that's kind of worrying, even if they don't use it - although, what about the palestinians? if you ask them if the ideology gets applied, they might have views on the matter... oh, this hurts my head. so my question is, how can jews propose to reconcile the notion of racial purity with the legacy of nazism and with a world political situation where they are no longer the victims but the top dogs, and sometimes the bullies and aggressors? [/quote:b9ab3a67ee] [b:b9ab3a67ee]Roman said[/b:b9ab3a67ee] [quote:b9ab3a67ee]After Clay pointed it out to me that this email existed, and that I didn't reply to it, I did a bit of searching through my archived messages. Found this, and another, unrelated email under the same topic, both from you, Grace, and while the second (I'll reply to that one, too) looks a bit familiar, this one I'm certain I see for the first time in my lfe. Couldn't find the email from you reminding me I left this unanswered, by the way. This is very odd, and a bit scary as it may mean my memory is playing tricks on me. I don't like even thinking about that. I'm not insulted or bothered in the slightest by the email, Grace, and rest assured that I do not ignore questions directed to me. At the very worst, I might say that I don't want to answer, but this is not the case here. Racial purity... Visit Israel if you ever get the chance. The Jewish race isn't all that pure, to say the least. You'll find Jews of every shape, size and colour you can think of. What identifies a race? That word in the USA usually refers to various outer identifying features, such as skin colour for example. In England, it refers to nationality. You'll agree that the Nazi usage of the term fits the latter far more than the former, yes? I recall telling of case of a Jew who ended in the Hitler Youth one time. He fit the racial ideal, even though he was Jewish. The English version, as applied to Jews, is the one that fits. The only things that identify the Jewish 'race' are religion and a Jewish mum. Religion and nationality were fairly mixed together in the old days of the Israelites, and that didn't change by much. The word Jew has two meanings, a religious one, and a race/national one. That distinction, from the religious Jewish perspective, doesn't exist. Faith and nation are one. A non-Jew wishing to become Jewish doesn't just undergo a test. The spiritual part of the Giyur, the very final part, includes a circumcision(for males) and a dip in cleansing water. It's effectively a process of rebirth, from the spiritual perspective. From that point on, the person who passed the Giyur was always Jewish. His shape, size, or colour don't mean anything at all. Now, from the point of view of racial purity as national purity or religious purity, saying that Judaism advocates racial purity is correct. Moreso as religious purity, as religion supercedes the national in this case (or it's the same. What a nice whirlpool of confusion I belong to ). We were always a small group, you see, and even in the pre-Roman days we stood out. We were a small, different group, in an area with belief systems and ways of life that were diffent by far than what our own. And they all turned outward, they all sought converts. Looking at it purely from a historical perspective, one can see that 'don't marry folks from other nations and religions' was a self-defence measure, as you pointed out. It was a way of conserving a culture that could have easily been swallowed by those around it. Smaller faiths do much the same. Take the Druze, for example. Or the Bedoins. No one takes much notice of this because both groups are very small. So, after all this mumbo-jumbo, let me see if I can actually answer your question. The purity of Nazism and the purity of Judaism are two different things, and both had different reasons and applications. I don't view the 'racial purity' of Judaism as a problem, as we're just as scattred and easily affected by other cultures as we've always been. Faith is another matter, and if I were to marry I'd do so with someone who shares my religious views, because one of the things I'd like to have in my household is stability, and parents of two different faiths don't create that, in my opinion. We can't reconcile what we don't view as an issue, really. As for Palestinians... Meh. It all depends on which side of the Israeli border you ask it. Israeli Arabs barely view themselves as Palestinians as it is, if at all. Terrorism that doesn't discriminate between its victims is giving a further push along that way. Now, hopefully, this all was actually an answer, in a way. I get sidetracked too easily, and you can guess how my essays looked like in my school days. [/quote:b9ab3a67ee] [b:b9ab3a67ee]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:b9ab3a67ee] [quote:b9ab3a67ee] good point. I had also made a mental note to comment on that. I think the racial purity aspect is quite important in this instance. in roman's religion, whether or not you are a member is important. non-jews and jews are significantly different groups, owing to jewish beliefs about what it is to be a jew. there is a similar issue in denominations like mormonism or jehovah's witnesses, in that they believe that only they are getting to heaven. I think it would be most unhappy to be married to someone who you believed was going to hell while you went to heaven. in my case, I have no such beliefs. it doesn't bother me that clay is not a christian - as he said, I have a very tolerant attitude. what he didn't say is that he *also* has a very tolerant attitude. I've met an awful lot of people who don't like my religion and would have difficulty being married to a christian without always picking at their beliefs and making a problem out of it. the tolerance has to be mutual for the marriage to work. for clay and I, we are both completely fine with the other's religious viewpoints, and occasionally find it interesting to discuss such matters. these discussions never become unpleasant (except for when I get upset or defensive about things other people have said to or against me). religious tolerance is a two-way street, and clay and I live there! [/quote:b9ab3a67ee] [b:b9ab3a67ee]Garner said:[/b:b9ab3a67ee] [quote:b9ab3a67ee] one thing, just on a side note. roman says: "because one of the things I'd like to have in my household is stability, and parents of two different faiths don't create that, in my opinion." now, as we're all aware, grace is a practicing christian, and had been studying to become a lay preacher until demands on her time grew too great. i, on the other hand, tend to smoulder slightly and occasionally combust when i set foot in a curch. yet, we get along fine and religion has NEVER been a source of contention in our household. i'm not 100% sure, at first glance why that is. I could say 'because we don't take it serriously', but grace does. I think it's more that, while I don't have serrious feelings or issues (read: strong or passionate) about religion in general from day to day, grace likewise has a very tollerant attitude towards people who don't share her views. plaid, bless her misguided little heart, would actually preach to doors in hopes of converting him. now, if that's not trying to get a donkey back down a minarette, i dont know what is. plaid won't be able to settle down with someone who's not a good mormon boy. i expect roman would possibly be able to settle down with someone who wasn't a devout orthodox jew, but i'm sure he'd prefer it if she matched his views. i grew up in the bible belt where Nirvana was 'devil music' and the churches would have a tremendous impact on someone's lifestyle. i'm curious to hear what nate might have to say on this, actually, as he's the son of a southern minister (baptist, unless i've lost my mind? but even southern methodist ministers are likely to be lightyears more conservative than grace's mum), but i myself knew a number of people who's need for christianity to fill their lives would carry over to their dating prospects. different faiths don't automatically create instability, but they definately CAN. i think relaxed attitudes and general tollerance are the key though. [/quote:b9ab3a67ee] [b:b9ab3a67ee]Roman said:[/b:b9ab3a67ee] [quote:b9ab3a67ee]Tolerance is indeed the key, but as you said in my religion Jews and non-Jews are two seperate groups. From experience, some of it painful when it came to people I knew, a Jew marrying anyone who is of a different faith only works if said person stopped being Jewish. The one exception to this case I know is in Russia, where a father abandoned his family completely, wife and kids and all, and the wife remarried to a non-Jew. He not only respected the belief of his wife of the kids, but ensured that the kids would recieve a Jewish education. In Communist Russia, this was a very difficult matter. [/quote:b9ab3a67ee] [b:b9ab3a67ee]Garner said: [quote:b9ab3a67ee]i'd still call myself a christian most of the time, though in more of a philosophical than a theological way. jesus tended to say sensible things. thus, i'm christian in the same way that i might be a bit jungian or jeffersonian. i find taking communion to be a bit awkward, and avoid it whenever possible, and i find english methodist services to be very alien, but then again i grew up high church episcopalean (equates to high church anglican, but our chain of authority stops at the arch bishop of cantebury rather than the monarch... yes i'm aware of the glaring blind spot in that sort of logic) and am used to mass rather than a 'service' religiously, i think i prefer a sort of ancestor worship for myself. but i digress. one of the things about grace that works for us is that she's tollerant not only of MY religious views, but of her own. bible belt again, and i'm sure nate can back me up on this, the south is rife with people who are literalists, creationists, and apologists, often all in one. i recall the absolute sincerity with which a preacher once explained to me that the 'whale' in the story of jhona was probably a peileosaur (spelled something like that... long neck and flippers dinosaur). see, the earth really IS just about 6000 years old, and all that scientist talk about how the grand canyon took millions of years to form is absurd because the mount st helens erruption exposed, in seconds, the same geological strata of rock that you can see in the grand canyon, so clearly the grand canyon could have been made in seconds as well. ... yeah. i was trying hard not to laugh too. but this is the guy who's first talk to us focused on LSD. "some of you may have heard of a drug called LSD" he said, which had me worried as i had two or three tabs in my wallet at the time, but he went on to explain how LSD was going to kill us. you see, Lust leads to Sin leads to Death. that was what his LSD stood for. i can't remember the full spiel right now, but basicly: get horny and have premarital sex, and your soul is forfeit. you will die and never be able to join the kingdom of god. he may have conceeded that accepting jesus could get you forgiveness, but i'm pretty sure his angle was more the 'accept jesus or you haven't got a prayer' variety rather than the 'you've always got a praye and jesus made bloody sure of that, regardless of how you live your life' but anyway, i digress a bit. compared to that sort of nonsense, grace's brand of christianity is almost identical to my own. she adheres more to the theological philosophy than i do, but we both find that the old testament can be freely taken with grains of salt rather than trying to twist our minds round it to make it all fit as the literal word of god. elisha and the two bears? horrible stuff, and not at all what the christian take on ywhw would be about. i think grace and i agree on that. psalm... is it 42? or 102? the one about dashing the babies against the rocks? again, this is jewish military conquest of canan. with what limited religious impact it has on judeochristian theology, its applications to christian dogma and ideology are non existant. if grace saw a red heffer, she wouldn't rush off to deliver it to jerusalem. there are nutjobs in the bible belt that are trying to apply everything we've learned about animal husbandry over the past several thousand years to breed the red heffer so we can rebuild the temple (nevermind that it's jewish) just so we can get this whole 'armageddon' business started. i dunno. call me silly, but jesus said 'love' far more often than he said 'end the world.' a good arguement can be made to say that christ believed that the end of days was upon them. maybe i've forgotten something obvious, and jesus said it point blank. doesn't really matter. if they thought the world was going to end within their life times, or if they thought the world was never going to end at all, the key message is 'love' rather than 'end the world.' so, to me, and i believe to grace as well, the key of christian ethos is 'love and forgiveness' with universal application. i find that admirable, so philosophcially i'm christian. but, in practice, i hate all of you and will stab each and every one of you some day. [/quote:b9ab3a67ee] Roman said:[/b:b9ab3a67ee] [quote:b9ab3a67ee]You have my admiration, then, even if you hate us all. As for the psalms, they're poetry. Neither Psalm 42 or 102 was the one you referred to, and I can't remember it myself, but taking the psalms as literal truth would actually be quite shocking to me. They're poetry, and are constructed as such. Heck, some of them have 'to the conductor' bits in the beginning to say exactly what musical pieces should be used when they are sung. [/quote:b9ab3a67ee] [b:b9ab3a67ee]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:b9ab3a67ee] [quote:b9ab3a67ee] roman, these are people who think that it's blasphemy to suggest that any part of the bible is not the literal word of god. I find it strange (although not shocking) that people take the psalms literally (especially when I think they're much more useful spiritually as poetry), but it is part of a whole belief structure. I can see how people can understand the bible in that way, but it's not my understanding. (selah!) [/quote:b9ab3a67ee] [b:b9ab3a67ee]Roman said:[/b:b9ab3a67ee] [quote:b9ab3a67ee] They're useful spiritually. Very useful, actually, as most Jewish prayers are constructed from the psalms. Still poetry, though, and definitely not intended as literal.[/quote:b9ab3a67ee] [b:b9ab3a67ee]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:b9ab3a67ee] [quote:b9ab3a67ee]you're preaching to the choir, roman.[/quote:b9ab3a67ee] [b:b9ab3a67ee]Roman said:[/b:b9ab3a67ee] [quote:b9ab3a67ee]Heh, forgot that for a moment.[/quote:b9ab3a67ee] [b:b9ab3a67ee]Redneck said:[/b:b9ab3a67ee] [quote:b9ab3a67ee]Clay, you said earlier, [color=blue:b9ab3a67ee]i'm curious to hear what nate might have to say on this, actually, as he's the son of a southern minister (baptist, unless i've lost my mind?[/color:b9ab3a67ee] I grew up with a southern baptist background, but not the son of a minister. As for my opinions on this topic of marrying or having a very intimate relationship with someone who doesn't match your personal beliefs, I would agree with Roman and you. The more devout a person is requires the same devotion from their partner. Taking myself as an example, I'm a very moral person, but not very religious. I could marry someone that was a churchgoer and not have any problems with it, but she might have problems with me not believing as she does. The opposite might be true if I married a hedonist. I would be uncomfortable with some of the things that she does and find them morally wrong while she saw me as a stick in the mud. Even if two people can have a meaningful relationship together even with differing world views, once children enter the picture the differences escalate. I've noticed that after the babies arrive the problems grow just a little bit and if the problem was weighty from the beginning, then it might cause some serious stress. A point from my bother's life. He and his wife disagree about Santa Claus. She thinks it is a cute and imaginative part of a child's life. He sees it as lying to the kids. Which one is correct? They both have valid arguments. They both stand by their views. My sister-in-law is usually the one to back down a little, but the strife is still between them. And that is just a small problem. Imagine if it was a difference of belief between heaven and hell. The father wanting the children to go to church in order to save them from eternal torture and the mother believing that the children were being lied to and wanting them to stay at home. That could cause a serious relationship breakdown. [/quote:b9ab3a67ee] [b:b9ab3a67ee]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:b9ab3a67ee] [quote:b9ab3a67ee]like the 'bother' typo. I agree with all this. regarding father christmas (as some of us still call him over here), a lot of children figure out that he isn't real at a young age, and just play along to keep their parents happy. most of my friends did this from the age of about six. so maybe your brother doesn't have too much to worry about! [/quote:b9ab3a67ee]
[b:bc2fc25668]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]Haven't seen if anyone's answered this yet, but it's a bit all about how young men should fear adulteresses. I assume the reason it winds avgi up is that it basically says that if a married woman commits adultery, it's entirely because she's an evil seductress and it wasn't the man's fault at all. [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Roman said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668] I see. A quick search through all such chapter/verse combinations got me nothing. Now, did I search too fast and missed it, as it tends to happen to me, or is this book of the Christian Bible? [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]it's certainly in the christian bible, yes. it's a book of jewish wisdom though, so I imagine you'd know it, but I don't know by what name. this is proverbs 7 from the king james version. [color=darkblue:bc2fc25668]Proverbs 7 1 My son, keep my words and treasure up my commandments with you; 2 keep my commandments and live, keep my teachings as the apple of your eye; 3 bind them on your fingers, write them on the tablet of your heart. 4 Say to wisdom, "You are my sister," and call insight your intimate friend; 5 to preserve you from the loose woman, from the adventuress with her smooth words. 6 For at the window of my house I have looked out through my lattice, 7 and I have seen among the simple, I have perceived among the youths, a young man without sense, 8 passing along the street near her corner, taking the road to her house 9 in the twilight, in the evening, at the time of night and darkness. 10 And lo, a woman meets him, dressed as a harlot, wily of heart. 11 She is loud and wayward, her feet do not stay at home; 12 now in the street, now in the market, and at every corner she lies in wait. 13 She seizes him and kisses him, and with impudent face she says to him: 14 "I had to offer sacrifices, and today I have paid my vows; 15 so now I have come out to meet you, to seek you eagerly, and I have found you. 16 I have decked my couch with coverings, colored spreads of Egyptian linen; 17 I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. 18 Come, let us take our fill of love till morning; let us delight ourselves with love. 19 For my husband is not at home; he has gone on a long journey; 20 he took a bag of money with him; at full moon he will come home." 21 With much seductive speech she persuades him; with her smooth talk she compels him. 22 All at once he follows her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, or as a stag is caught fast 23 till an arrow pierces its entrails; as a bird rushes into a snare; he does not know that it will cost him his life. 24 And now, O sons, listen to me, and be attentive to the words of my mouth. 25 Let not your heart turn aside to her ways, do not stray into her paths; 26 for many a victim has she laid low; yea, all her slain are a mighty host. 27 Her house is the way to Sheol, going down to the chambers of death.[/color:bc2fc25668] [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Saccharissa said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]Exactly. I can't help but think that someone who displays the wiles of a loose woman in such detail is in most probability someone who wouldn't get blown by said woman for world peace.[/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Garner said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668] that reads like a chick tract. same absolutely baffling lack of character development, same inexplicable 'i aint gettin none, so neither should you' excuse for morality... honestly, organized religion baffles me almost as much as organized sport. [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668] or organised combat systems in rpgs. [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Roman[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]Ah! Found it. Meshali, written by King Solomon, a man who had a multitude of wives, most of which from state marriages. This is not a two sided text, as Solomon had a very nasty marriage life, and to quote him from another text, "Find I the woman (to be) worse than death." Imagine a person humiliated on a daily basis by several dozens of women. Mind, he has only himself to blame as he *wanted* to marry all these women. Weak in flesh, Solomon was. [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Saccharissa said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]The guy marries 700 women and gets 300 concubines on the side and he has the gall to biznatch on married life?[/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Roman said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]Now try to imagine how married life was like for him.[/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668] I can imagine it. he was a philandering womaniser who got cranky when one of his HUNDREDS of women, who presumably were ignored by him most of the time, tried to act like he did. sleeping around is apparently only for men, and for them it's justifiable - but if a woman does it, she's a dark and evil seductress. poor old solomon, with all his THOUSAND women, and them not being absolutely monogamously devoted to him like he is to them. boo hoo hoo! oh, wait a minute... [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Saccharissa said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]You know, most guys would kill to have a harem of one thousand women to themselves.[/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]Perhaps he could have had a think about some of his father's antics too.[/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Saccharissa said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]Oooooooh,l don't get me started. I realised why the old testament stories we were taught were so few and so heavily edited when I started really reading the books. For years I thought Absolom and Solomon were David's sons by Mical.[/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Roman said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]This is something I never quite understood, this editing. It doesn't happen with our lot, you see. People are people, even if they lived thousands of years ago. Pointing out their fuck-ups, monumental as they were, helps both to understand the people better and to learn from their mistakes. [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Saccharissa said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]Roman, we're talking about elementary school. Then rebellious teens[/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668] it doesn't happen with 'our lot' either. just depends where you are and what sort of people you live among. of course, the christian bible is edited anyway, it's just a kind of reader's digest of all the ancient texts available to the good folks at the council of nicea. [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Garner said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]well servicing that many biatches would leave anyone lacking a little starch in the linguini, man. [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Saccharissa said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668] If he can't service a wide audience, he shouldn't have gone into franchising[/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Garner said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]he didn't. he ruled with a mighty iron fist on his royal scepter. probably why he didn't have enough left in him for the biatches [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Saccharissa said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668] ...and in that population of one thousand sex-starved women there would be at least a couple willing to expand their horizons, making men all over the space-time continuum even more willing to sell their souls to the devil in order to be in King Solomon's bed slippers[/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Garner said[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]speaking of chick tracts... what's his take on jews? are they gods chosen people? or did they kill god? [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]not a clue. I'll do some research. ---------- lol! the navigation bar on jack chick's website is headed 'things to do', and includes 'meet jesus'. [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Saccharissa said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668] Ho-kay, someone has been standing too close to the burning incence[/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Buzzfloyd said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]roman, check it out! http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0014/0014_1.htm mr chick has a special online tract just for jews! seems like jews are considered ripe picking for converts, because all you have to do is show them how jesus fulfilled the old testament prophecies, and bingo! instant christian! unfortunately, if they still refuse to recognise jesus as their saviour and accept him into their hearts, they'll be sent to hell, just like all the other sinners. apparently, chick also thinks there is a sinister catholic conspiracy that masterminded WWII and the holocaust and is out to wrest control of jerusalem away from both jews and arabs. look out, roman, the vatican's behind you! [/quote:bc2fc25668] [b:bc2fc25668]Roman said:[/b:bc2fc25668] [quote:bc2fc25668]Spotted this amoung the search for the other email. My answer is ROFLMAO. I never thought I'd use that, but in this case I just can't avoid it. It was a bit sad, really, when I read it the second time. The second time, you can see the loose threads, the ones that are so easy to pull and make the whole thing fall apart into a few rather sad bits of twine. And then you realize that people actually believe that...[/quote:bc2fc25668]
