Laurent wrote:
> >Those who chastised Bill for his use of the term "chosen people" are not
aware
> >of the meaning of these words. It simply means that God has chosen the
jews
> >to fulfill the 613 commandments of the Torah, for the benefit of the
entire
> >mankind.
> >
> >In other words jews have the responsibility to follow the law to ensure
order
> >in the world, whereas non-jews are not obligated.
> >
Colin wrote:
> >
> and this is where the argument falls flat on it's face. The above is
> nothing more than an idea, it is not the Truth. If people cannot tell
> the difference bewteen their ideas and 'Ttruth' there is little hope.
>
>
> I am sick and tired of reading racist crap from both sides of this
> argument. the propanganda for ALL SIDES is sick and disgusting.
I AM RIGHT I AM RIGHT IAM RIGHT.
Colin,
You have an amazing capacity to:
1) pass judgment on things you know nothing about:
A) Since when are you a religious scholar who can tell the rest of
us what the meaning of the phrase "chosen people" is? Unlike what you think,
I didn't just pop an "idea" out of the blue when I wrote this. Here is a
phrase with a hidden meaning. If one listens to the words, one gets the
wrong idea about its meaning (as has been used by antisemites to show that
jews felt superior to non-jews). Hence the needed correction.
B) "let alone the fact that arabs are semites": again this reflects
your ignorance of the whole topic.
Ever since the 19th century, "antisemitism" has been used exclusively to
mean anti-jewish. If you had done your homework you'd know that.
2) simplify the argument to one phrase:
One takes one "idea" out of a post which is flawed (in this case it wasn't,
but let's assume it was since I make mistakes too) and then one "destroys"
the whole argument.
I've seen it happen many times on this list, instead of addressing the
whole picture it's easier to just single out one idea, sometimes even out of
context. In this particular case, my point about the "chosen people" was a
mere disgression from the entire argument. So for you to say my whole
"argument falls flat on its face" is intellectually wrong. Actually you
didn't even say "whole" but it was inferred. See my point?
Since you're sick and tired of this thread, may I suggest you refrain
yourself from reading related posts and writing about it and by doing so
you'll avoid adding fuel to the fire and keeping the thread alive.
Laurent
