I ask the question seriously.

It certainly seems that someone who is not, will get hounded while everybody watches by... some amused.

I need some guidance

Thank you

Well, I suppose that question deserves an answer, since you ask it in all seriousness.

There is no "requirement" that one be anti-Zionist, but the fact is that most people on Cathinfo either A) don't participate in discussions on the Jєωιѕн question, or B) they are positively anti-Zionist.

Keep in mind that anti-Zionist has nothing to do with hating Jєωs. To be "anti-Zionist" means you oppose the goal of a "greater Israel" which is meant to eventually encompass most of the Middle East -- and built on the skulls of the Palestinians who live around the current borders with the state of Israel.

Anti-Zionist also includes an opposition to the dark machinations of some who do everything in their power to exalt the Jєωs at the expense of other races. This encompasses a great many crimes, too many to list here.

As with any topic, you are free to have your own beliefs. However, if you are wrong, expect to be "piled on" since I would like to think that Cathinfo members have an above-average possession of the truth -- and the truth is certainly against Zionism.

I also make no pretense that truth is relative. There are some things that I (and other members) are not well-informed about. However, the Jєωιѕн question is one that I (and others here) are quite confident about. It is not pompous for me to insist that I am right that the sky is blue, or that water freezes at 32 degrees F -- it's obvious and it's not a big deal to be right about it. Same goes for the Zionist question.

Just as if someone believed that water froze at 40 degrees F, the burden of proof is on the pro-Zionists. Let them defend their irrational position.

I will also add this: Anyone who can't handle themselves in an argument or debate -- that is, they are offended when someone disagrees with them -- had better go back home to mama. This is an adult forum, for those who have at least some ability to be rational (and not 100% emotional). A verbal argument against a person's stated views does NOT equal a personal attack. All arguments are not automatically ad-hominem! But some people act as if they are.

Such people are victims of the modern world -- which is full to the brim with sentimentality.

In Christ,

Matthew

You misunderstood what I was saying.

I am criticizing those who scream "you're mean" whenever someone enters into an argument with them -- or criticizes something they said (or posted).

I would hold that arguments can be smashed to pieces, alongside perfect charity and love for the destroyed argument's author. Some very emotional people don't get this.

I was often accused of this on another traditional Catholic message board. When I tried to shed light on an argument, or tried to illustrate a point of truth, some people would take my posts VERY personally.

Matthew

As the term "anti-Jєωιѕн" can have different meanings for different people, it might be good to define it.

Anyone who is Catholic should be against the forces of Naturalism (or anti-Supernaturalism) - although many of us have been saturated in the omnipresent naturalist propaganda, failing to identify the enemy or his stratagems.  It just so happens that the most organized and formidable of such forces, at least among visible creatures, is the Jєωιѕн Nation.

Let's turn it around: why would a traditional Catholic be pro-Jєωιѕн?  (Or pro-anything else, for that matter, other than pro-Catholic?)

There are two types of disputes, disputes in beliefs and disputes in attitude.

My question here is not related to disputes in attitude, which is largely concerned with how we feel about things. I am not concerned with that.

What I do concern myself with, is disputes in beliefs, which is concerned with the world of facts.  

Being opposed to Jєωιѕн influence construed as negative to Catholic values is fine by me, but I certainly see a value in someone that contribute in setting the record straight on certain things.  

Do you feel that anti-Jєωιѕн bias, defined as above is a license to let all kinds of inaccurate information stand for the purpose that it helps increase that said bias ?

I would be concerned if it was the case.

I dont "feel" anything: I *think*.  And I *think* you are trying to prove a point.  Stop using the ambiguities and speak plainly.

Better yet, just go ahead and be "concerned".  In the meantime, I'll just be Catholic.

The distinction is important.

For instance, it's not being Pro-Jєωιѕн, or anti-Catholic to debate someone on that facts that 9/11 was a Mossad operation.  You can believe it was such an operation, but that view should be allowed a challenge on the basis of the facts without it becoming a dispute in attitude. ie: How we feel about Israel, etc..

Yes, I'm trying to make a point. So what ?

Vandaler --

To say it plainly, Gilbertgea is trying to point out something that is wrong with modern speech. News anchors say it, etc.

"I feel that we need to...." as opposed to
"I think we need to..."

Everything is about "feeling", and it even makes its way into our very speech!  I always cringe when I hear someone start a sentence "I feel that..."  it's like we just go around emoting and feeling all day. What are we, irrational animals?

No, we (should) use our REASON and THINK about issues and come to logical conclusions. That has nothing to do with "feeling".

Matthew

For Vandaler --

I think I understand what you are saying now. You're saying that many Traditional Catholics will be against Zionist schemes, etc. and thus will be pre-disposed to believe anything evil regarding the Jєωs, even if it isn't true -- because of that pre-disposition (bias).

Now to answer your question:

Actually, those who disagree with the (objectively) "good" or "true" position are welcome on this board, AND they are welcome to disagree with however many other members, because at least they will keep us honest. If someone posts something which has no credibility, etc. it's always good to point that out, so we can at least conclude "maybe it's true, maybe it isn't" OR EVEN "it's a bunch of bunk". Either way, we'll have some idea how certain a fact is.

In other words, if "even Vandaler admits something", I'm going to use that fact FIRST when talking to non-Catholics, etc. because it's obviously a very solid piece of evidence.

Matthew