I think the confusion is in the belief that the secret international Jewish world banking community headquarters, which controls all the banks and all the money and all the financial transactions in the world, is located on Rothschild blvd. in Jerusalem. This is untrue. The secret International world Jewish banking headquarters controlling all the world’s finances is located on Rothschild blvd. in Tel Aviv, not in Jerusalem.
I think the confusion is in the belief that the secret international Jewish world banking community headquarters, which controls all the banks and all the money and all the financial transactions in the world, is located on Rothschild blvd. in Jerusalem. This is untrue. The secret International world Jewish banking headquarters controlling all the world’s finances is located on Rothschild blvd. in Tel Aviv, not in Jerusalem.
I’m afraid you missed my point. The subject of the thread is “Did God abandon the Jews?” and some of the posters here (to the justified disgust of many others) have relied on the argument that this is indeed the case by referring to two specific books. The first one is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a silly forgery similar to the nonsense in “The Talmud Unmasked” with its plethora of references to nonexistent pages and a myriad of ridiculous interpretations. The second book “The plot against the Church” was written by a group of European Catholic priests under the pseudonym “Maurice Pinay” to express their violent opposition to the proposed reforms of Vatican II. This book is a different matter. Not because there is anymore truth or basis for what is written then there is in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the Talmud Unmasked, but because of who wrote the book and why the book was written and the basis for the attitudes expressed in the book.
You don’t need to be an anti-semite, or even believe it is Jews who are the predominant benefactors of Central Banking, to be opposed to its practice - it could be a majority American or Canadian enterprise, it wouldn’t matter. It could be controlled by any number of persons, benefiting illegitimately from its practice, and their religion is of no concern. The people, not a private sect of wealthy financiers, should issue their own currency, as a nation’s currency is based on the (good) Faith and Credit of its people, represented by private, corporate, and public faithfulness to their obligations (debts, promises), but especially their public representatives.
It is illogical for a sovereign nation to charge itself interest when they are perfectly capable of issuing their own coin, currency and credit. Ultimately, it is their faithfulness to their promises and obligations that regulates its value. It is as aburd as charging yourself interest from withdrawing from your savings account, and giving that interest to the bank as a form of monetary discipline, for a nation to indebt itself to a private monopoly bank, which could not itself exist without the State’s sanction and protection by law. Abuse would have consequences and wisdom would have benefits - to both citizens and government if the public managed the monetary system, and quit a debt-based, interest-bearing currency. Squandering the nation’s wealth via interest charges that are syphoned out to private citizens or foreign interests is absurd ; further, a nation’s currency ought to be managed for purely national and sovereign concerns - for the public good - ; otherwise, fiscal or private interests may trump national ones, for example, in times of war.
President Andrew Jackson, upon his veto of the Renewal of America’s then central bank’s charter, clearly and succinctly outlines the absurdity of privatizing a public and natural monopoly, such as the issuance of credit and currency is.
Usury is a sin specifically because it desires to take what was never given, to profit from either the want or ignorance of our neighbours. It becomes anti-social, as ultimately it ends in despoilment of the debtor by the creditor, or the imposition of a kind of bondage that is beneath the proper dignity of man. Lending your neighbour a sum of money at interest out of his desperation, then taking his house and throwing his family to the streets, is a simplified example of what usury, ultimately, is, and the kind of spirit that is necessary to justify it - a most merciless one.
Pax,
Tim
Of course that’s just in the last ten days or so. I wonder where they come up with all those strange ideas?The first thing you need to do is stop playing the victim card. Anti-semitism will get you banned, if reported. Most threads of this nature get shot down fairly quickly. Also, as far as the salvation of Jews, you have to remember that Jesus was a Jew, as was his Blessed Mother. So were the Apostles. In fact most early Christians were Jews. At the Second Vatican Council, a document was issued called Nostra Aetatae, which speaks highly of the Jews. While I do earnestly hope that Jews come to accept Jesus Christ, I also recognize that Israel is the eldest brother among nations. It was to the Jews that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob gave His revelation, and it is this same God that died on a cross for the salvation of the world, in fulfillment of His promise to Abraham. Furthermore, you must not hold all Christians accountable for the crimes of the past, just as modern Jews must not be held accountable for the wrongful execution of Jesus.
The Jews crucified Jesus ? Wasn’t there something about that in Vatican II or did we miss something?
The Jewish leadership of the time did, but the crime (and it was a crime) cannot be charged to either all Jews of the time or to modern Jews
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Are the anti-Jewish ideas expressed by the European priests under the pseudonym Maurice Pinay in the book The Plot against the Church, or by a priest in his book the Talmud unmasked, or by Father Fahey concerning “Jewish naturalism” or by Father Feeney in The Point magazine or by Father Coughlin, just coincidentally being made by priests and devoid of any connection to Catholicism? If so, what has the Church said about what was written and said by them. What actions were taken by the Church against these priests for spreading this anti-Jewish rhetoric? Or are you saying that their actions must be viewed in the light of your belief concerning events which occurred two thousand years previously and which you claim involved certain members of the Jewish leadership at that time?
I hope you don’t give a moment of your time worrying about how christians feel about the relationship that Jews have with God.
Not all priests speak for Catholicism.
If all people with agnostic leanings made such outrageous and false statements as this, I’d have myself a marvelous time refuting arguments all day long.
Wow, just spotted my spelling and grammar errors there.If all people with agnostic leanings made such outrageous and false statements as this, I’d have myself a marvelous time refuting arguments all day long.
Might I add, the Church is the only member of the ‘three great monotheistic traditions’ that has advanced to the level of maturity where a concept of ‘tribe’–in some version–does not factor in a significant way in its theology and polity.
Pax + Shalom
You seem to miss the point of his statement–he argues that a majority of Jewish leaders during this period agitated for Jesus’ execution. Naming an ugly minority, a handful of clergy (4, to be exact), amidst millions upon millions of upright clergymen is dubious material to build an argument on.
Unpeasant things Jews have done to Christians???You seem to miss the point of his statement–he argues that a majority of Jewish leaders during this period agitated for Jesus’ execution. Naming an ugly minority, a handful of clergy (4, to be exact), amidst millions upon millions of upright clergymen is dubious material to build an argument on.
I see what you’re saying, namely that they’re ‘dead and irrelevant’, just like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, who are therefore similarly inculpable.
But, to be honest, I don’t really ‘go for’ the whole blood-guilt that the Jewish people bears for Jesus, anyway, so I don’t care to carry this argument further.
What I would like to point out is that the argument above relies on incomparable statements (i.e., the supposed majority of Pharisees agitating for Jesus’ death, versus a handful of wayward clerics). The reason for this is: the Pharisees were acting in their capacity as religious leaders, while the clerics you’ve mentioned were only ‘accidentally’ anti-Semitic–their ‘anti-Semitism’ occurred outside of their priestly function.
I would also like to say that I understand your frustration, somewhat, when in comes to anti-Semitic and questionable statements made on this board. I can relate to you, because I am a fan of Judaica and I am a regular visitor at VIN (Voiz ist neias?) Orthodox/Hasidic news. While I am there I read all sorts of crazy/outrageous/racist statements about goyim and ‘Xtians’. When I try to correct the many libelous statements that I encounter almost every visit, I am almost always censored by the moderator… unless I punctuate my statement with yiddische-isms (and misspellings, lol). Although it saddens me that the only thing both faiths share, 100% ecumenically is intolerance, I still understand that many of these people are still ‘erliche yidden’ in their daily lives and might even help me if I was in trouble–but when they get home to their computer, they will still type ridiculous things about Christians. So, I try not to get too upset, and I refrain from moralizing with Jews and ‘taking them to task’ for the unpleasant things that Jews have done to Christians. Its worked pretty well so far–why don’t you try it?
Pax + Shalom
I believe I accused your statement of being ‘false and outrageous’. So since you accept your statement’s outrageousness, but need clarification as to its falsity, I will try to explore its dubious validity without belaboring its outrageousness, which you have tacitly accepted.
I think I had it right from the start. I know that the Catholic Church can not and does not state that all Jews wholesale are going to hell. Abandonment from God would essentially be hell.I believe I accused your statement of being ‘false and outrageous’. So since you accept your statement’s outrageousness, but need clarification as to its falsity, I will try to explore its dubious validity without belaboring its outrageousness, which you have tacitly accepted.
Firstly, Christians (given that this is on CAF, I assume you mean Catholics) hold that the Jews are (1) ‘still’ God’s chosen people, and (2) that their Covenant with God is neither abrogated nor superseded.
We share with the Jews. It is not an issue of jealousy or some kind of ridiculous theological pissing match, middle child syndrome, or ‘keeping up with the Jones’.
Thus, these things have long been settled, whether you, the agnostic, have the time to read about them and ‘get them right’ or not.
Good night.
I’m not here to exact revenge or point out who has done things wrong.
I don’t think I have to point out, lol, the idiocy of saying that a Jew has never done an unpleasant thing to a Christian…