First Published:Workers Viewpoint, newspaper, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1976. Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329
840And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
841The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20180820045510/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm Muslims, like Jews and Christians, see the figure of Abraham as a model of unconditional submission to the decrees of God (Nostra aetate, n. 3). http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_05051999.html https://web.archive.org/web/20180820045210/http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_05051999.html
Of Lesser Age, No Guilt is Incurred"
In modern America, sex between an adult and a child is condemned in proportion to the youth of the child. That is, Americans generally consider sex with a fifteen year old, a twelve year old, a six year old, and a three-year-old on a continuous scale of condemnation. The younger the child, the greater the condemnation.
Talmudic law works on the reverse scale: sex with younger children is less significant than sex with older children. How did this doctrine come about?
Scripture states thus:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
The Old Testament prohibits a man lying with a man; but notice, the Old Testament does not prohibit a man lying with a boy. Thus, the Talmud Sages arrive at their position on pederasty. In the following, bestiality said to be committed "naturally" when a man uses the vaginal passage of the beast, and "unnaturally" when a man uses the anal passage of the beast. The Sages make a similar distinction for the couplings of a woman with a beast.
GEMARA. … Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that. (2) What is the basis of their dispute? — Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty [in that respect]. (3) But Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman. (4) It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; [55a] [he] who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally; or a woman who causes herself to be bestially abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment. (5)
The translator, Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman, amplifies the text with footnotes. Note particularly footnote 2: "… but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred." See also the final sentence of footnote 5: "… nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable." (See Soncino Talmud Glossary for definition of Baraitha.)
I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.
At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
Lev. XVIII, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of three.
(Rashi reads [H] instead of the [H] in our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day who commits etc.] There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first — a male aged nine years and a day — refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning — because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab's contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable.
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman
The plain English meaning of the Talmud text is clear, but if there is any doubt, the Soncino scholars put the matter to rest: No guilt is incurred with a boy child younger than nine, even in incest. Thus we see that Orthodox Jewish doctrines concerning homosexuality are not accurately represented by Dr. Laura and other Orthodox spokesmen.
And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).
In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.
There are these men that are primarily classified as mentally ill or disabled that live together and one of them has difficulty leaving the house so I brought them McDonald's food. One of the other individuals was very rude to me and is rude to other people plus he can easily leave to get his own food and I do not have unlimited money.
While he called one of the people there the N word to retaliate for not getting anything and the other person grabbed something to either fight him or threaten to fight him but did not end up attacking him.
I told the person who grabbed something he should have said nothing and let the person attack him instead of grabbing something, so he can call the police on him and get him kicked out instead of nearly getting himself kicked out and that if the other person does not attack him then there is no physical harm. He said he is good at talking to the police. He changed personality from being a rude violent person the moment the police arrive so it is not a uncontrollable temper caused by mental illness beyond his control and he should be held morally responsible and not given free treats for acting like a jerk in my opinion.
I was thinking of getting him a McDonald's arch card and a box of crackers and crossing off the word cracker and writing his name in black permanent Market because he likes to throw around the N word. But would I have to convince the court system my racial identity at the time was white and therefore I could not be racist against white people and I say racial identity because apparently people can change gender so I guess I am not sure what race i am and do not want to declare myself as a permanent racial label but I might have racial fluidity that fluctuates. Anyway I am probably not going to do it because it costs time and money.
I suggest the practice to sue those who sue Facebook for twice as much per comment Facebook deletes as Facebook would have to pay for not deleting the comments for suppression of the right to free speech via government policy. Or to simply ban countries that fine Facebook excessive fines from facebook.
Germany is censoring free speech not only of Gentiles but also of Jews. Even if Germany is censoring so called anti semitic speech that comes from Jews this is still an anti semitic act as it portrays Jews as only having viewpoints that Germany endorses. Since Germany's political positions are so ridiculous yet Jews have a disproportionate share of media ownership, when all viewpoints that are not Germany approved are censored this creates the illusion that the viewpoint of Germany is the viewpoint of the Jews. Since Germany's policies such as hatred of free speech and treating refugees with a different legal standard than natives is rightfully unpopular this increases anti semitism because Jewish media owners like Zuckerberg take the blame for the censoring of the mainstream media and now in Zuckerberg 's case the alternative media when this is actually the fault of the believers in the German government or the German government's narrative.
Germany's policy on treating refugees with a different standard is not only antisemitic but also Islamaphobic (islamophobic) as the refugees would not commit kidnapping ( "sex trafficking" ), rape and murder in such large numbers if Germans were armed with weapons and they (the refugees) were prosecuted for it and those with a known history of violence were not allowed to enter, I assure you an increased number of Germans would do the same in Muslim countries if Muslim countries treated Germans the same way that Germans treat refugees and this would influence people to hate Germans.
I do not necessarily deny the mainstream narrative of the holocaust as a historical event but claim it to be more complicated than generally explained due to an attempt to defend against potential enemies who were committing economic war against Germany. Many Jewish media sources (in 1933 prior to the start of world war two in 1939) declared economic war against Germany and some Jews, perhaps a minority of elite Jews (as opposed to the majority of poorer Jews who might have been their economic prey along with gentiles) had a disproportionate influence on German economics per capita(there was a lower percentage of gentiles doing usurous crimes than Jews.) Additionally, there was a disproportionate number of Jewish Bolsheviks or "communists" who posed a danger to Germans and Russians or Slavic peoples where the "communist" Soviet Union government was murdering its own citizens. Jews who are baptized into Christian Churches by Jews are generally still considered Jewish in race or ancestry by many Jews and may have posed a hidden threat due to this economic warfare proclaimed by Jewish media sources prior to world war two. Since Hitler could not always tell which Jews were part of the economic warfare and which were not and they would use baptism in Churches as a way to try to hide while still committing economic warfare in some cases this put Hitler in an inconvenient position to racially profile Jews although he was not prejudice against all Jews and even appointed some Jews to key positions and married a Jewish woman. Unfortunately a lot of innocent Jews and Gentiles were rounded up in camps but did not die in massive numbers until Germany hit a crisis near the end of the war and were originally planned to be protected as they were given food and medical care. The original plan could have been justified if more lives were saved by rather letting innocent people temporarily be housed in a area of restricted exit than letting the guilty go free, this was the same philosophy America initially used when imprisoning Japanese Americans when Japan was at war with America even though not all Japanese Americans were guilty of treason due to conflicted allegiances between their country of ancestry and America. German propaganda had many sweeping statements against Jews, but these statements clearly did not apply to all Jews as demonstrated by treating some select Jews differently, however it is easier to say, "Jews" then a disproportionate number of Jews in public speeches, none the less there probably were some people that were simply prejudice or racist against all Jews who behaved very badly during this time, just as there are some racist Donald Trump supporters who simply hate immigrants but that does not mean Donald trump is racist because he mentions criminal immigrants and now is deporting some innocent immigrants in order to keep guilty immigrants out. I do not deny that at the end of the holocaust when Germany hit a crisis Jews might have been executed in massive numbers many and possibly even most of whom may have been innocent.
Now although I do not necessarily deny the mainstream holocaust narrative that Jews were executed in massive numbers there are Jews who do deny it and believe that Jews died in the camps due to other causes than execution primarily when rations were cut short as an economic result of the war and that the Zyklon B was actually used for killing parasites such as lice not killing Jews. It is not only anti semitic Gentiles that are being censored but also Jewish holocaust deniers who are not anti semitic and Gentile holocaust deniers that are not anti semitic that are being censored and in some cases prosecuted by the German government and even Zuckerberg who supports free speech for holocaust deniers in spite of professing belief in the mainstream holocaust narrative even though ironically he is Jewish.
But Angela Merkel's policy of hate extends not only to Jews, Muslims and foreigners but also to native Germans as she has implied essentially that she would be okay with Germany dying off because of the holocaust even though Germans alive today did not execute Jews in concentration camps. ( I am having trouble finding this reference again even though I remember viewing it before to the best of my recollection because of the large number of other articles and videos about Merkel recently.). She recently had appeared with a facade of repentance through changing policies of refugee location but clearly has not repented as her censorship policy continues which is at the root of the problem, the refugee issues merely being a symptom.
Her evil policies of censorship apply not only to Germany but worldwide and she now is the fascist bent on the destruction of humanity for she not only supports the destruction of access to information akin to burning books but the destruction of people that inevitably came through her censorship policy. Facebook is a platform with a worldwide audience but she wishes to censor the speech of everyone in the world through using Facebook to delete comments.
I suggest the practice to sue those who sue Facebook for at least twice as much per comment Facebook deletes as Facebook would have to pay for not deleting the comments for suppression of the right to free speech via government policy, this can reimburse Facebook for the cost of maintaining comments, reimburse the victim and create desensitive for censorship.
Since the fees per comment plus the lost revenue from customers offended at such a high level of censorship, may exceed ad revenue gained from Germany it maybe more profitable to ban Germany from Facebook than to comply with German regulations.
Cancel culture is spreading from college campuses to the rest of the public square. According to JNS editor-in-chief Jonathan Tobin, “a country where cancel culture has become pervasive is not a safe place for democracy or Jews.”
