The new anti-Semitism

Well, my only real familiarity with this term comes from aspersions cast at Arator by others. I guess, given the ability to convert to Judaism (which I don't quite understand), I also don't understand why you aren't Jewish. I'll check it out but if you'd be so kind, I would appreciate any insight you've got on how or why you believe it the "one true religion" for non-Jews.

Judaism is a covenant between G-d and one particular nation, which serves as the priestly nation of the human race. This priestly nation is bound by the Torah of Moses, while the rest of the human race is bound by the Seven Laws of Noah. It has never been the Jewish mission to make Jews of the rest of the world but to compel it to follow the Noachide Laws. Though permitted, non-Jews are actually discouraged from converting to Judaism. Also, the fact that you seem to think that converting to Judaism is like converting to Catholicism leads me to believe you know little about Torah Judaism. There's more involved that changing the place you park your tachat once a week (and changing the day). Believe me, if I could handle it, I would convert.

Because I've not defended in the least the lack of consistency by which "true conservatives" defend actions by some countries they condemn when perpetrated by others, I fail to see why you're asking that I do so now.

I ask because as an anti-Israel conservative you place yourself in the same company as Joe Sobran and Charley Reese--men who cheered the South Africans and Rhodesians for doing what the Israelis are doing now (and to the PLO's comrades, no less!) simply because they their twisted ideology forever links "n****** and Jews" even when the two are on opposite sides. (My apologies to the moderators, but I know of no other way to get across the twisted racialist views of the "palaeos" than to phrase it in their classec [though now unspoken] mantra.)

Further, I have a problem with the "conservative" label as such. I fail to see what is worth "conserving" in a profoundly leftist age.

Whatever.

I don't consider myself a "conservative" in the conventional sense. I'm a Catholic and -- consistently applying my Catholic sensibility -- am alternately viewed as a "conservative" or "liberal" depending upon the subject at hand.

Now you sound like a Stephen Hand-ite.

I'm a "conservative" for staunchly defending the right to life but "liberal" where I extend that regard to the subject of capital punishment, for example.

It is hardly "conservative" to teach that the "infallible, indefectible" church erred during all the centuries when it endorsed capital punishment. But perhaps this is "development of doctrine?"

Where you are erring is in choosing "the sanctity of life" as the standard by which all consistency is measured. The actual standard is G-d's Law, which forbids killing in some situations but commands it in others. This is the only "seamless garment" there is, and not the humanistic concept of "life" (now extended to frying chickens) dressed up as theology by an ever-evolving, ever-changing, rootless chr*stianity.

See? I told you guys Judaism was more conservative!

Hitler was NEVER excommunicated, your "reference" is a hoax, YOU PRODUCE THE PAPAL BULL!

You don't know much about much, do you?

For centuries Catholic Church law (known as Canon Law) has provided for two kinds of excommunication - latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae

. The first is automatic excommunication once specific acts are committed. For example, if a Catholic doctor performs an abortion, he is automatically excommunicated for what he has done. There does not need to be any official paperwork: his act speaks for itself.

Ferendae sententiae is an excommunication which is not automatic - the person in question has not performed an immediately excommunicating act, it is open to debate. For example, a Catholic politician who votes to fund abortions. He hasn't actually performed the abortion himself, but his actions clearly help abortions to occur. If the Church rules that such actions really are morally equivalent to performing an abortion, then an official Church ruling to that effect will excommunicate the politician.

So there does not have to be a document (what you are calling a Papal bull) in order for an excommunication to occur, except in borderline cases.

Now, Canon Law states that any Catholic who takes an oath as a member of a secret society is, by that act, excommunicated. In Mein Kampf Hitler boasts of his membership in such societies.

Therefore, no documentation was needed - he freely admitted that he performed such excommunicating acts.

ask ANY Jewish Rabbi

Is there any other kind of rabbi?

in your town

My "town" is New York City. One of my closest friends studied to be an Orthodox rabbi of the kind that a Hasidic Jew would call Mitnagdic. He says he has no idea whether Hitler said this or not.

if that quote from Hitler being on a mission for Christ is true.

Your grasp of logic is not strong.

You made a claim. I asked you to provide a reference - either you made it up out of whole cloth, or you got it from somewhere.

It does not matter whether any particular rabbi agrees with you or not - that's not how evidence works.

You made a claim, now back it up by showing when and where Hitler made such a statement. You made the claim, now own up to it.

BTW, why would any bible believing Christian apologize for defending Gods Chosen People

Perhaps you're confused. No one told anyone claiming to be a Bible-believing Christian to apologize for defending them.

and quoting HIS words,

What language did God speak in? I will give you a small hint: it wasn't 17th century English.

not the words of some black robed,

Would the words of a brown-robed (Franciscan), white-robed (Norbertine), grey-robed (Cistercian) or tan-robed (Vallambrosian) speaker be any better?

baalite priest

I think it's a little extreme to call men like St. Peter and St. Paul "baalites" just because you disagree with their religion.

with his collar on backwards...

On backwards? That's odd - do the collars on your shirts have a small white square on the nape of your neck? Mine certainly don't . . . oh, you're ignorant of the clerical collar and where it comes from! The clerical collar was the usual way men wore their shirts in the 16th century and the fashion still exists among many clergymen to this day.

I presume that you will listen to the doctrine of all the Catholic priests whose habit does not include the clerical collar then? That's an odd way of choosing who to listen to . . .

"You made a claim. I asked you to provide a reference - either you made it up out of whole cloth, or you got it from somewhere"

I posted over 40 references, you posted your OPINION! You have no final authority, where is your proof text! As Chrisitans, we brag about our Saviour, we study His words for the English speaking people, you have no clue who He is....He is the WORD of God, not your opinion of your god. God could care less what you think, or what I think, all He cares about is what you do with HIS TRUTH. You obviously don't even know he's the GOD OF THE MOST HIGH or you would know what it is and quote IT.
Keep hee hawin around, all you have posted was just blah, blah, blah, I have quoted REFERENCES CONCERNING THE WORDS OF GOD. Where is the proof text to defend your "jesus"? Do you know that PAUL warns the church of another jesus, another gospel and another spirit? The one that the Holy Scriptures warns of are; scribes in long black robes, have thier followers call them "father", do "repetitious prayers" their color for thier "church" are purple and scarlet, who's symbol is a golden cup, who's sign is holding up two fingers, who's city is on seven hills, who worship the "queen of heaven" who sacrifice things to idols, who bow down and serve STANDING IMAGES, who drink blood (transubstantiation) which is forbidden in the Law, the Psalms (the writings) and the new testament and putting TRADITION above the WORD of God. There are many more SPECIFIC warnings that posting would do no good. Also, every one of these practices that are forbidden in the bible are referenced in the bible in 4th grade english. If you have a fourth grade education or higher you can surely look these up for yourself. But only a devil would have you keep away from the BOOK (the authorized King James 1611). We read and study material written by Gods enemies. We arn't afraid of the enemies books (there are no "forbidden books" by our God (General George Patton to General Ramel in World War 2 in North Africa during the German defeat, "RAMEL, I HAVE READ YOUR BOOKS!". If the bible is against your RELIGION, then why don't you study your enemies BOOK to prove you doctrines are of God? I have not put the references to these warnings of the bible because you would completely dismis them as if it were just someones "opinion" and not yours.
You are a typical Bible illiterate, get your head out of the sand and STUDY TO SHOW THYSELF APPOVED UNTO GOD, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH. Who knows, maybe you might repent of your unbelief in the Words of the living God! "he that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same will judge him in the last day." If this post upsets you then take a baby asprin...Smile, Have a nice day...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.