Ron Paul Jew-hater to become the next Congressman from Queens?

[USAReturn2GodNow1776]

^Does pagan mean not from the Bible? Also, are there any native American religions that you would consider to be Nazi religions?

[Rubystars]

^Does pagan mean not from the Bible? Also, are there any native American religions that you would consider to be Nazi religions?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216380/British-Museums-Aztec-artefacts-evil-Nazi-lampshades-human-skin.html

[Ulli]

Unbelievable. But I am shure he will be defeated in election. This guy is simply nuts.

[USAReturn2GodNow1776]

Atheism is better than paganism, usually. I have known some people to call themselves atheists who don't believe in God or gods specifically but still work what they call practical magic spells, so they would obviously be the exception to the rule. Also Laveyan satanism is an atheist philosophy and obviously they're no good either.

Atheism has to be worst of all, right? If someone is an atheist, how could you trust them? They have no source for morality. What guarantee would you have that they would do the right thing when nobody is looking if they don't believe in an afterlife or a God who will judge them?

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

There are a lot of Israelis that support Paul

[Rubystars]

Atheism has to be worst of all, right? If someone is an atheist, how could you trust them? They have no source for morality. What guarantee would you have that they would do the right thing when nobody is looking if they don't believe in an afterlife or a God who will judge them?

Most atheists that grow up in Western societies tend to come from a base of Biblical morality to begin with, but it's very easy for them to drift away from it. Obviously a generally moral atheist is a better person than someone who actively cuts people's hearts out in tribute to a pagan deity. You also have to keep in mind we have had and still have some atheist JTF members who, in spite of not believing in God, still have some moral decency. Some are even socially conservative.

Most atheists when they speak about a basis for morality do so based on reciprocity. Basically if it hurts someone else and you wouldn't like it to be done to you, then you shouldn't do it. In theory this would lead to a very high level of consideration for others. In reality though, this falls apart very quickly.

I've spent a lot of time online with atheists in various forums and I've seen a lot of videos by them where they make their different arguments and points.

I found that they justify abortion by saying that a human fetus can't have any more awareness than say, a cow or a pig, and we kill those all the time for human convenience. And so they feel that there's no moral difference between slaughtering a developing human baby and slaughtering a pig. They often can't be convinced that there's anything special or unique about human beings because they don't believe, of course, that humans are created in God's image. They also don't necessarily believe that a human being should have more consideration than any of our other fellow beings on this planet.

They usually think that when people die there is no afterlife. They see us as individual units that are only survival machines for our genetic material. People are born, they live a while and might reproduce, then they die. According to atheism there is no higher purpose other than what humans make themselves. And so when someone is sick, old, or
otherwise nearing the end of their life, there's no reason within atheism why a person shouldn't be euthanized in the same way that a dog or a cat should be euthanized out of kindness. They also would see nothing wrong with assisted suicide. After all the person's going to die anyway and their individual life or human status has no special value in atheism.

Reverence for human life is seen as some form of superstition.

[muman613]

.
.
.
Most atheists when they speak about a basis for morality do so based on reciprocity. Basically if it hurts someone else and you wouldn't like it to be done to you, then you shouldn't do it. In theory this would lead to a very high level of consideration for others. In reality though, this falls apart very quickly.
.
.
.

Shalom Rubystars,

I am going to make a point which I hope doesn't contradict your point, because I don't intend it to and I would like to build on what you said in light of the Torah portion we read today {Parasha Vayeira}.

It is a basic Jewish principle, according to the great Jewish sage of the Talmudic period {The Great Hillel} that a primary rule of the Torah is 'Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself.". Hillel expounded this wisdom to an impatient person who wanted to convert to Judaism, when asked to teach him the entire Torah while standing on one foot.

http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/ahavas-yisroel/08.htm

The Torah on One Foot

The Talmud in tractate Shabbos 31a relates the following well-known story of Hillel:
"On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte, on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot."[1] Thereupon he chased him away with the builder's cubit that was in his hand.[2] When he came before Hillel, (he also asked Hillel to teach him the entire Torah while standing on one foot) Hillel replied, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah while the rest is commentary; go and learn it."[3]

While it is clearly suggested in the Talmud that ahavas Yisrael is the entire Torah and the rest is commentary, this statement of Hillel requires clarification.

It is well known that the 613 Commandments may broadly be divided into two categories: between man and G-d, and between man and man. The mitzvah of ahavas Yisrael is obviously fundamental in the realm of mitzvos between man and man; however, how can it be suggested that it is the entire Torah - that it also applies to mitzvos between man and G-d?

My second idea is that I agree with your premise that atheism leads to depravity. This is something I mediated on concerning the great sin of the cities of the plain, Sodom & Gommorah which were destroyed for their grave mistreatment of the poor and the wayfarer. The cities were entirely 'ethical' according to their own twisted 'ethics'. Their laws and their statutes were established in order to aggrieve the less fortunate, and the infirm and the youth. It was established by their system of society and taught in their schools, much like the atheist beliefs which are being pushed in some schools. The belief that the government owes them contraception paid for by the taxpayer. The belief that a human life can be extinguished before it is born without concern for its well-being. I take the Orthodox Jewish belief that there are exceptions when the fetus should be aborted, but it should not be used as a form of contraception nor should it be allowed once the fetus takes on human life {this can be debated between the scientists}.

We cannot allow the morality of Sodom & Gommorah to become dominant in this country. While I still have faith that there are at least '10 righteous people' in America {and I would be willing to wager that there are at least 50 righteous people in America}. This argument, about how many righteous people exist, is exactly what our father Abraham argued with Hashem when asking him to spare the cities of the plain.... We known how it ended up...

[muman613]

Totally off-topic, but I would like to relate a Talmud Pirkie Avot which relates to the mentality of the Sodomites.


http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter5-13.html

It's Not My Problem -- Or Is It?

Chapter 5, Mishna 13

By Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld

"There are four character types among people. One who says, 'What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours' is of average character, and some say, this is the character of Sodom. [One who says] 'What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine' is unlearned (lit., [of] the people of the land). [One who says] 'What's mine is yours and what's yours is yours' is pious. [One who says] 'What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine' is wicked."

This mishna compares four types of individuals in their attitude towards others. The most straightforward of the two are the pious and wicked ones. Whereas the pious one gives to others asking for nothing in return, the wicked one tries to get what he can with no reciprocation on his part.

Slightly more complex is the "unlearned" person. He is generous towards others yet hopes to receive in return. He is basically a good-hearted person who cares about others. The commentator Rabbeinu Yonah observes that our mishna calls him an "am ha'aretz," which literally means one of the "nation of the land." This expression is often translated as an ignoramus (it's tossed around quite freely nowadays), but more precisely, it means someone who is a full-fledged member of society --- and generally a productive and contributing one. He realizes people must do favors for one another and cannot live as islands. And he does his part to make life more livable for all he comes in contact with. Yet he is not entirely selfless. He hopes to receive as well as give. His interest in himself -- equally strong as his interest in others -- indicates that he does not see giving as a virtue in its own right but weighs relationships in terms of his own bottom line. He displays an ignorance as to the true value of giving. Nevertheless, he has a true Jewish heart -- he's one of us -- and through his acts of generosity he may one day become a person of truly giving spirit.

The final person (actually the first one listed) is one who neither gives nor takes. He is the subject of dispute in our mishna. The first opinion is that he is average, neither good nor evil. We may see him as the secular concept of a good person, crudely -- but accurately -- do whatever you want so long it doesn't hurt anyone else. Neither hurting nor helping others cannot be characterized as good nor evil. I do not wish the harm of others, neither do I care to help them. This is certainly secular: it lacks the religious sense of duty towards mankind, yet neither can it truly be considered evil. Perhaps it is the highest form of morality the secular world has to offer. And at least in a sense, it wouldn't seem that bad a way to go.

The second opinion takes a much harsher stance, comparing such a person to the wicked people of Sodom. Now certainly this fellow could stand to improve and ought to have a stronger sense of obligation towards mankind. Yet how does his evil even approximate the depravity of Sodom -- which G-d deemed so vile as to destroy the very land upon which it rested?

There's a fascinating passage in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 109a) which describes the mentality of the Sodomites. (In fact we see parallels to it in some of the strict immigration laws of more recent times.) What brought the Sodomites to such repugnant evil? The answer in a word was that they saw the lushness of their own land and desired it for themselves. And so, they banned all travelers and visitors. (Today, after its destruction (Genesis 19), it is the area of the Dead Sea, one of the most barren and uninhabitable places in the world.) Why share our richness with anyone else? As soon as you "make it," the shnorers (more respectfully: "fund-raisers") line up at your door. Who needs it? Not of course that they intended anyone else *harm* to be sure. They just wanted the comfortable life for themselves. "No Solicitors" figured prominently at the gates of their city (a rather common sight nowadays -- although most of the time the newly-arrived Israeli "solicitor" has no idea what the word means...). We wish you all the best, but keep your suffering and misery to yourselves!

Step two, continues the Talmud, the Sodomites enacted all sorts of cruel as well as absurd laws banning hospitality and charity, and doing away with all semblance of fair play. No one had any form of obligation towards others or was required to pay for any infraction. The Talmud lists such laws as that if one would hit his fellow, his fellow would owe *him* medical expenses for the service of blood-letting. Other choice rulings were that if A would cut off the ear of B's donkey, A would keep the donkey till it grew back, or if A would injure B's wife causing her to miscarry, A would take her till she again became pregnant.

The people of Sodom likewise decreed punishments for acts of charity. The Talmud records that when a young girl gave some bread to a poor person, they punished her by smearing her flesh with honey and tying her up on a roof, leaving her to die a horrific death at the hands of the bees. (The Sages state that it was this final breach of humanity which sealed the fate of these G-dless and despicable people.)

How did simple selfishness transform itself into such vicious as well as asinine cruelty? Simple -- it was not a transformation at all. They simply lived out their own selfishness to its logical conclusion. They didn't want to share, they wanted to live for themselves -- and so naturally they went to any and all extremes to free themselves of the burdens of hospitality and humanity -- as well as all moral accountability.

And the lesson for us is that there is simply no such thing as a person who focuses wholly on himself yet is still an "average" individual. If we accept that all humans are created in G-d's image, we will naturally feel obligated to help them and will share in their suffering. We might even see our wealth and talents as a responsibility: as gifts from G-d to be used in the manner He wishes. Once humans are in G-d's image, they are all equal, significant, and deserving of our love and respect.

If, however, a person feels others' problems are not his problems, his life will be one of selfishness and unlimited cruelty. He will sleep easily at night, blissfully unconcerned with the suffering of others; in fact he will go to any extreme to see that their plight does not interfere with his personal comfort and equanimity. On a national level, it is difficult for the isolationist mentality of "It's not our problem" to avoid spilling over into the national character of a country's citizens. (Such an attitude could not be more UN-Jewish, incidentally -- even if no one has the means of saving the entire world.) On a personal level, someone who thinks exclusively about himself has not reached the maturity of character required for friendship, marriage, or any type of serious relationship. Such a person will begin to see others as objects -- pawns to be used for his own selfish ends, then to be discarded when no longer useful.

(This also explains why among other things Sodom was known for sodomy. Relationships are one-way. Love is not giving: creating and becoming responsible for a family. It is taking: getting whatever sick pleasure I fancy.)

The sad but realistic conclusion is that one cannot "basically be a good person" if his raison d'etre is selfish. If we're really generous, neither hurting nor helping others can be considered "average." But average people -- if they do nothing to elevate their souls -- will not long remain so. You either grow or you fortify yourself in your mediocrity -- going to every cruel excess to remain oblivious to the rest of mankind. Without a sense of love of and appreciation for others, refusal to help will turn into a lack of concern and eventually an icy callousness towards the needs and suffering of others. Goodness cannot be defined in a vacuum. If you care about and sympathize with others, you are a human being yourself. If you are a person who at best chooses not to hurt others (because -- well, otherwise they might hurt you), your life is one of survival and self-preservation -- and ultimately of pathetic emptiness.

[Rubystars]

Muman of course they are right that reciprocity is very important. Christians as well as Jews see that as a very important aspect of morality. We should always keep that in mind when interacting with other people. We should also show respect to God's other creatures and not abuse them in any way. After all we would not want to be abused.

However the atheists think of this disconnected from any kind of guidelines. Reciprocity is all they go by pretty much to base their morals on. Reciprocity works to a point, but it doesn't work well for long when it's detached from any other guide and detached from a belief in God. Reciprocity doesn't prohibit gay relations for example because if both partners are willing, the atheist would see this as moral based solely on reciprocity. Reciprocity alone doesn't prohibit something like cannibalism because after all if you eat someone who is dead they can't be suffering, and your eating them does them no further harm.

A morality based solely on reciprocity without Biblical guidelines or a belief in God can lead to all kinds of moral depravity.

Do you see what I'm trying to say now?

[mord]

No Halloran is an idiot but a pro Israel idiot.Weng has a sister who is a Jew hater while Halloran is fool but not a Israel or Jew Hater he's just not matured and thinks he's cool to believe in Theodism

[USAReturn2GodNow1776]

Most atheists that grow up in Western societies tend to come from a base of Biblical morality to begin with, but it's very easy for them to drift away from it. Obviously a generally moral atheist is a better person than someone who actively cuts people's hearts out in tribute to a pagan deity. You also have to keep in mind we have had and still have some atheist JTF members who, in spite of not believing in God, still have some moral decency. Some are even socially conservative.

Most atheists when they speak about a basis for morality do so based on reciprocity. Basically if it hurts someone else and you wouldn't like it to be done to you, then you shouldn't do it. In theory this would lead to a very high level of consideration for others. In reality though, this falls apart very quickly.

I've spent a lot of time online with atheists in various forums and I've seen a lot of videos by them where they make their different arguments and points.

I found that they justify abortion by saying that a human fetus can't have any more awareness than say, a cow or a pig, and we kill those all the time for human convenience. And so they feel that there's no moral difference between slaughtering a developing human baby and slaughtering a pig. They often can't be convinced that there's anything special or unique about human beings because they don't believe, of course, that humans are created in God's image. They also don't necessarily believe that a human being should have more consideration than any of our other fellow beings on this planet.

They usually think that when people die there is no afterlife. They see us as individual units that are only survival machines for our genetic material. People are born, they live a while and might reproduce, then they die. According to atheism there is no higher purpose other than what humans make themselves. And so when someone is sick, old, or
otherwise nearing the end of their life, there's no reason within atheism why a person shouldn't be euthanized in the same way that a dog or a cat should be euthanized out of kindness. They also would see nothing wrong with assisted suicide. After all the person's going to die anyway and their individual life or human status has no special value in atheism.

Reverence for human life is seen as some form of superstition.

At least Wiccans believe that what you do to others comes back to you 3-fold or 10-fold or something. And Hindus, Theodinists, and Asatruers believe in the possibility or reincarnation. What do atheists have over them?

[USAReturn2GodNow1776]

Pre-Christian paganism was most certainly not pro-life. It involved human sacrifice. As much as modern pagans try to whitewash that, it's still true, and if they were able to get away with it, many of them would continue those practices today. Anybody who supports a return of the West to such an evil belief system can not be a good person.

Why assume that he wants the West to return to his religion. If he were a Hindu, would we assume that he wants to make the West Hindu. And other more popular religions get away with white washing. For example, the practice of widow burning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29). Maybe it is not white washing but reformation.

[JTFenthusiast]

 I have heard Halloran speak before any of this, to small audience of about 15-20 people at the Women's Republican Club in NYC.  He  was an ARDENT zionist.  He was absolutely against returning to the 1967 borders and called them "indefensible."  I am surprised about this Ron Paul business because he SHOT down a Ron Paul person when it came to Foreign policy.  I appreciate what Chaim and others are saying, and I may be totally wrong, but I listened to this guy for about an hour and everything he said would have appealed to us except the part about gays and abortion.

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

Leveyan and Crowley were not part of certain groups, but they did a heck of a job making them look bad!

 The Church of Satan, made use of a symbol, that made another organization look very bad!

[Rubystars]

At least Wiccans believe that what you do to others comes back to you 3-fold or 10-fold or something. And Hindus, Theodinists, and Asatruers believe in the possibility or reincarnation. What do atheists have over them?

I've talked to quite a few Wiccans and other pagans too. The first thing you should know is that Wicca is a watered down, pansy version of witchcraft. It's something for novices who live in suburbia to dabble in to make themselves feel powerful and special. Wiccans get an immature thrill out of being rebellious against the greater Biblical influence of the West.

Historical pagans committed human sacrifice all over the globe. They sacrificed people to the sun, to the moon, to prevent natural disasters, to ensure a good harvest, and for other reasons. Modern pagans continue this tradition in Africa and other remote areas of the world. If you don't believe this then look up why albinos in Africa must fear for their lives.

Modern Wiccans claim to be all about loving nature, etc. That's only what's on the surface though. If you talk to them a while the truth comes out. They acknowledge that magic can be used for good or for evil, and that in fact these are just two sides of the same coin in their belief system, and that furthermore there is no "good" or "evil" in the way we would think of it. Most will initially claim that they believe that  it's wrong to hex people or cast harmful spells, but most of them will admit eventually that they don't believe that it's wrong to hex certain people they would see as harmful. They will often gladly hex "Christian fundamentalists" or other people they see as "hateful".

The Wiccan rede also has its roots in much darker modern magic tradition. The Wiccans say "An it harm none, do what you will". This is a copying of Aleister Crowley's saying "Do what you will shall be the whole of the law". Without the Bible or any other type of moral guide beyond themselves, it's up to the individual Wiccan to decide for themselves what is "harmful". They are then free to hex those they see as worthy of it even when they claim they only use "white magic" and never hex anyone. There are some who move beyond Wicca into other things like chaos magic, practical magic, and even into black magic. All of these things have the same basic roots to them and aren't necessarily fundamentally different, though the Wiccan dabbler will often claim that they would never do anything dark or scary.

I've been asked a few times not to talk about Hindus so the only thing I will say in this post is that people have died being sacrificed to Kali and there's some stories that this still happens. There are many branches of Hinduism from secular to deeply religious too and so I can't really speak about them as if they were all the same. New agers and suburban pagans do seem to have a fascination with Hinduism though and eastern religions in general due to their strong rejection of Biblical traditions, so that's something to keep in mind.

Odinists and Asatru followers are honoring the same evil deities as the Thule society did. You can't honestly think that would lead to anything good.

At least atheists won't be sacrificing you to the sun or moon or putting a hex on you.

[Rubystars]

[censored] THE THULE SOCIETY, AND THE GOLDEN DAWN. Don't even speak their names, that is the first and last time I do.

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of those societies will have solar references somewhere. If something has a solar/sun etc. reference in it, that should throw up a red flag that it probably has something to do with paganism. Of course God is the one that created the sun and moon and we can admire them as God's creations, but I believe that it's evil to worship them or to give them honor in their own right in any way.

[NoMosqueHere]

I disagree.   I live in the 6th Congressional District and intend to vote for Dan Halloran. 

Our primary problem is Obama, who I believe will be re-elected.  All of his initiatives must be opposed, especially the funding of the PLO and the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as his other attempts to harm little Israel.   Grace Meng will support Obama to the hilt.  Halloran, at least initially, will attempt to be a loyal Republican and oppose most if not all of Obama's initiatives.

The last thing we need is an Obama supporting liberal/radical democrat representing a district with a large jewish population. I don't like Halloran, but he is the only real choice here. 

[Rubystars]

I disagree.   I live in the 6th Congressional District and intend to vote for Dan Halloran. 

Our primary problem is Obama, who I believe will be re-elected.  All of his initiatives must be opposed, especially the funding of the PLO and the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as his other attempts to harm little Israel.   Grace Meng will support Obama to the hilt.  Halloran, at least initially, will attempt to be a loyal Republican and oppose most if not all of Obama's initiatives.

The last thing we need is an Obama supporting liberal/radical democrat representing a district with a large jewish population. I don't like Halloran, but he is the only real choice here.

Do you need an outright Nazi representing a large Jewish population? You do realize that by following that religion that he aligns himself with the Nazi ideology, right? He supported Ron Paul for president, which, in spite of anything else he might say now to get elected, means that he supports Ron Paul's policies toward Israel.

[Rubystars]

I do believe they worshiped the other dimensional black sun.

There's a lot of things tied to dichotomies in occultism. Black and white checkers, age and youth, dawn and dusk, night and day, male and female, positive and negative, sun and moon, Horus and Set, opposing elements, etc. So the fact that they would worship the inverse of the sun makes sense in that context.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I hear both sides of this argument, but I would vote for Meng if I was in that district.    Letting the "libertarian" Paultards plant their roots in a Jewish district of all places is a very dangerous thing, especially if the unthinkable happens and obama wins.   Then we could see the nazi rand paul running for president.

[Rubystars]

I hear both sides of this argument, but I would vote for Meng if I was in that district.    Letting the "libertarian" Paultards plant their roots in a Jewish district of all places is a very dangerous thing, especially if the unthinkable happens and obama wins.   Then we could see the nazi rand paul running for president.

That's a good point, especially since Rand puts on a more moderate mask than his father does, but we all know they're political clones.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I can't believe that there are actually people defending an Asatru Nazi on a Kahanist Jewish forum.

[USAReturn2GodNow1776]

Interesting site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/asatru.htm
I've found that pagans find ways to square their seemingly evil pantheon of gods with today's common conception of morality and monotheism/atheism by saying that the gods really are just poetic ways of talking about various forces and human drives. They're basically saying, our religion is very complicated and you don't understand what we mean when we talk about "gods." It might be perceived by opponents as throwing up a smoke screen. For example, I got this response once when I was talking to a non-Christian about his religion:

H******* does not have a uniform belief, but rather includes elements of monotheism, polytheism, and even atheism – depending on the particular tradition and philosophy. Thus for the outsider it is difficult to assess whether our "gods" are names of the different powers of one central God, or are different spiritual being, angels, forces, etc., carrying out God's will.

Until and unless you know what H******* really is, you cannot classify it into a particular entity.

Also, there is this Rabbi on Shalom TV Mark Golub who says that the God in the Bible is understood in the Jewish tradition to just be a character in a play that tells moral lessons and that the real God of the universe is merely hinted at in Torah. So, the parts about God having arms and killing people are just metaphor for something else. That is one answer to atheists who try to say that the God of the Bible is evil. Also antisemites will often take things from the Talmud out of context to try to denigrate the Jewish sages.

So what if Asatruers make the same claim--that the gods represent forces and human drives or whatnot, and therefore, seemingly evil characteristics about some gods they believe in are not to be take at face value even if they were taken at face value by people a long time ago? For example, what if a people had a certain mythos revealed to them as the truth, and it was passed down either through text or oral tradition, but in what way it was true was purposely kept from them by God, and that was left for later generations to discover through studying, prayer, and moral lessons learned from history, such as the Holocaust, etc.

What if we are arbitrarily deciding to which religions we say, "Your religion is more complicated than meets the eye; I'll stay out of it." and which religions we intrude into and assume we know everything about based on how popular they are among other things?

I admit that Wiccans are bad since they hex people, but I've seen no evidence that Asatruers hex people.

[Rubystars]

Does it matter if they literally believe in their gods or not if they're Nazis? Asatru/Odinism is a Nazi religion.

[USAReturn2GodNow1776]

Does it matter if they literally believe in their gods or not if they're Nazis? Asatru/Odinism is a Nazi religion.

Do you think this because the religion was founded by nazis or because it is mostly nazis who practice the religion or because you think that following this religion causes one to think or behave like a nazi?