View Full Version : invasion is okay for NOBODY,,,but us
46zilzal
08-14-2008, 07:39 PM
“FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
So says John McCain, as part of his tough talk about Russia’s attacks on Georgia. In calling for Russia to get out, McCain says he doesn’t think we’ll reignite the Cold War, but that you can’t justify the “extent and degree” of Russia’s intervention in Georgia. The presumptive Republican nominee insists that we need to make sure that in the 21st century, we all have respect for the sovereignty and independence of nations.
Say what? The United States invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq more than 5 years ago. And you, Senator McCain, were all for the idea. You voted for the war, remember? At the time, McCain insisted that the U.S. needed to act before Saddam Hussein could develop more advanced weapons. And since then, McCain has remained steadfast in his support of arguably the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. At one point, McCain said U-S troops could remain in Iraq, a sovereign nation, for 100 years."
To compare our action in Iraq to Russia's of George is just plain stupidity.
The two are not remotely alike.
But you and that drive-by jerk seem made for each other. Neither one of you
could find the truth with a search party.
46zilzal
08-14-2008, 08:10 PM
from the U. of Maryland:
The Iraq War is morally troublesome and many of our soldiers are suffering the consequences. Our soldiers are smart and educated. They watch the news and navigate the internet. Most of them are confronted with the lack of moral reasoning for this continued war with the high casualties to the Iraqis.
Invisible Wounds of War, a recent report by the RAND Corporation, sounds alarms for our military and all of our citizens to heed the effects on our soldiers when they are off waging a war. Unfortunately, with the presidential primaries at full steam, the report received scant media coverage.
The report indicates that a third of all military servicemen deployed, mainly in Iraq, suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), major depression, or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) during deployment. About 5% individuals suffer from all three. In stark figures, of the 1.64 million service members deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan, about 300,000 individuals suffer from PTSD or major depression and that 320,000 individuals suffered TBI during deployment.
Marshall Bennett
08-14-2008, 08:29 PM
“FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
So says John McCain, as part of his tough talk about Russia’s attacks on Georgia. In calling for Russia to get out, McCain says he doesn’t think we’ll reignite the Cold War, but that you can’t justify the “extent and degree” of Russia’s intervention in Georgia. The presumptive Republican nominee insists that we need to make sure that in the 21st century, we all have respect for the sovereignty and independence of nations.
Say what? The United States invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq more than 5 years ago. And you, Senator McCain, were all for the idea. You voted for the war, remember? At the time, McCain insisted that the U.S. needed to act before Saddam Hussein could develop more advanced weapons. And since then, McCain has remained steadfast in his support of arguably the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. At one point, McCain said U-S troops could remain in Iraq, a sovereign nation, for 100 years."
Jack Cafferty hates this nation more than you do . Thats why CNN has so much respect for him . Why would I pay attention to anything he has to say ?
dav4463
08-14-2008, 10:51 PM
Iraq led by Sadaam Hussein was such a peaceful and loving place wasn't it?
Once again, by post #3 Zilly has hijacked his own thread and taken it off topic. sounds like he might be riddled with ADD.
This slippery one is harder to keep on topic than a puppy on newspapers.
Go start another thread you can't finish,46.
NJ Stinks
08-15-2008, 01:02 AM
To compare our action in Iraq to Russia's of George is just plain stupidity.
The two are not remotely alike.
Ok, Tom. I'll bite. Why not?
boxcar
08-15-2008, 01:22 AM
Tom, a piece of unsolicited advice: Don't waist so much as a nanosecond on stupidity. Anyone who doesn't see the differences should be left to wallow in the darkness of their self-imposed ignorance.
Boxcar
bigskyguy
08-15-2008, 05:32 AM
boxcar:
i think new jersey was innocently asking for an explanation of the difference between georgia and iraq vis a vis being a nation...then you spew venom..i think the question is legitimate... i'd like to know that answer...maybe it's just me, but i thought iraq was a nation when we invaded it?..also, a piece of advice, when you call someone stupid while misspelling a word in the same sentence, it kind of makes you look stupid...bigsky
PaceAdvantage
08-15-2008, 11:10 AM
Ok, here's some differences between the two situations:
Iraq - Dictatorship
Georgia - Not
Iraq - in violation of UN security Council Resolution 1441 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441)
Georgia - Not
Iraq - Actively supported terrorist causes and was on the US State Department list of State Sponsors of Terror (since 1991)
Georiga - Not
Iraq - US endgame is liberation of Iraq
Georgia - Not - complete opposite endgame
I probably could go on, but this is probably enough for now....
US - spend a couple of years trying to get the UN to enforce thier resolution
Russia - not
US - gave SH and his sons one last chance to leave and avoid the invasion
Russia - not
US - took longshot chance to hit SH early and avoid invasion
Russia - not
US - stays n to rebuild and help free people get a new start
Russia - :lol::lol::lol::lol:
boxcar
08-15-2008, 01:15 PM
boxcar:
i think new jersey was innocently asking for an explanation of the difference between georgia and iraq vis a vis being a nation...then you spew venom..i think the question is legitimate... i'd like to know that answer...maybe it's just me, but i thought iraq was a nation when we invaded it?..also, a piece of advice, when you call someone stupid while misspelling a word in the same sentence, it kind of makes you look stupid...bigsky
A few things Dumbo:
Yeah...sure. The next thing you'll be telling me is that NJ is as innocent as a newborn babe. :rolleyes:
And if you don't know the differences either, then you're in the same league as your bosom buddy because such a dumb question betrays an utter lack of critical thinking ability on both your parts.
And technically, there are no misspelled words in my post, but only one that was misused.
Finally, if you're going to presume to correct someone's spelling or grammar, it would be incumbent upon you to brush up on your own grammar in order to learn all about proper nouns, capitalization and all that neat stuff.
Boxcar
(who can pick gnats with the best of 'em)
46zilzal
08-15-2008, 01:18 PM
box car can't respond without venom, or scripture.
Truly amazing that these Christian moralists NEVER advocate what that religion supposedly teaches: TOLERANCE and UNDERSTANDING.
Greyfox
08-15-2008, 01:27 PM
Once again there are problems in determining the truth of what is actually happening in Georgia and the order that it has happened.
Of course there are differences between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Georgia.
Conveniently not being mentioned though is the fact that the area of
South Ossetia has been trying unsuccessfully to separate from Georgia
for some time now and align with Russia.
Conveniently not being mentioned is the fact that Georgia attacked South Ossetia before the Russians moved in. Effectively, the South Ossetians and Georgia were involved in a civil war.
The time line of events is outlined by Reuters at
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSHO05105720080810?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
Light
08-15-2008, 01:41 PM
Ends do not justify the means in Iraq or Georgia.
boxcar
08-15-2008, 01:48 PM
box car can't respond without venom, or scripture.
Truly amazing that these Christian moralists NEVER advocate what that religion supposedly teaches: TOLERANCE and UNDERSTANDING.
Hey, Blind Man:
I gotta hand it to ya 'cause you did say, "what the religion supposedly teaches". But what you now have to do is figure out what the bible actually teaches.
Furthermore, you're confusing biblical Christianity for Liberalism; for it is Liberalism that incessantly espouses the tenets of Tolerance and Understanding. (Try extricating your head out of the thick fog for once in your life.)
And finally, make an attempt at being truthful for once, also. (Although, I do realize this will not come very easily to you.) The vast majority of my posts on this forum have been scripture-free.
Boxcar
46zilzal
08-15-2008, 02:00 PM
When I observed the sanctimonious nature of the so called Christians in my life (peached tolerance and NEVER practiced it) I went elsewhere, thank goodness for the Eastern philosophies of peace and self motivation (the Tao and Buddhism).
No deity to be subservient to, self improvement, self motivated, practice and promotes peace......
NJ Stinks
08-15-2008, 02:03 PM
Once again there are problems in determining the truth of what is actually happening in Georgia and the order that it has happened.
Of course there are differences between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Georgia.
Conveniently not being mentioned though is the fact that the area of
South Ossetia has been trying unsuccessfully to separate from Georgia
for some time now and align with Russia.
Conveniently not being mentioned is the fact that Georgia attacked South Ossetia before the Russians moved in. Effectively, the South Ossetians and Georgia were involved in a civil war.
The time line of events is outlined by Reuters at
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSHO05105720080810?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
That's the biggest difference I see. South Ossetia wants to be part of Russia - not Georgia. Plus I've read that South Ossetians hold Russian passports.
In contrast, Iraqi's can't wait for us to leave.
I'll just assume you disagree, Boxcar.
When I observed the sanctimonious nature of the so called Christians in my life (peached tolerance and NEVER practiced it) I went elsewhere......
Hallelujah, my brothers, our prayers have been answered!
Glory be, glory be!!!!!:jump::jump::lol:
Secretariat
08-15-2008, 03:00 PM
Once again there are problems in determining the truth of what is actually happening in Georgia and the order that it has happened.
Of course there are differences between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Georgia.
Conveniently not being mentioned though is the fact that the area of
South Ossetia has been trying unsuccessfully to separate from Georgia
for some time now and align with Russia.
Conveniently not being mentioned is the fact that Georgia attacked South Ossetia before the Russians moved in. Effectively, the South Ossetians and Georgia were involved in a civil war.
The time line of events is outlined by Reuters at
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSHO05105720080810?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
No one is a fan of the Russian retaliation in Georgia. And I worry about it escalating further, but it does make questions like 46 asked come up in the world community.
One of the differences is that military action wasinitially begun by Georgia in this province in dispute. When territories are in dispute there is often violence - ie- the West Bank, Gaza, Kuwait, etc. This is a territorial issue here and a significant one. Our invasion of Iraq was a "pre-emptive" act, not a retaliatory act based on a military action as Georgia did. It was a pretty stupid thing for Georgia to do and not think Russia would respond militarily. If they were banking on Europe or us to get involved militarily then there leaders are dumber than I thought. No one wants to take on Russia at this time with thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us.
And GW and Rice look like Paper Tigers with their threats. Putin must be laughing his a** off. Like we're going to engage a military operation with Russia when we're bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq (maybe even a 100 years of McCain has his way). Putin knows that and so does Iran. Our military is over-extended to deal with any crisis like this. Is Taiwan next? We were silent (in action) when it dealt with China invading Tibet. We'll be silent here as well except for the moaning and lamenting.
And just what would you have Bush do at this point?
You are already on record as being against using force...what specifically should he do? That you and your Bush=Bad cohorts would approve of?
Keep in mind the fool Barry already suggested Russia vote to pass a resolution agiinst itself - that me the cause of the laughter you hear.
Greyfox
08-15-2008, 03:47 PM
And just what would you have Bush do at this point?
.
What would any one have Bush do? Now? Tom, stay up to speed.
Hopefully Bush does nothing.
A cease fire agreement between Georgia and Ruskies was signed this morning.
"Concessions" were given to Russia.
boxcar
08-16-2008, 12:24 AM
When I observed the sanctimonious nature of the so called Christians in my life (peached tolerance and NEVER practiced it) I went elsewhere, thank goodness for the Eastern philosophies of peace and self motivation (the Tao and Buddhism).
No deity to be subservient to, self improvement, self motivated, practice and promotes peace......
Well now, on one hand, you and I would get along great because I, for one, have never preached "tolerance". On the other, however, I have found the most incessant liberal preachers of it to hardly ever practice what they preach, which makes them a wee bit hypocritical.
Boxcar
highnote
08-16-2008, 02:03 AM
U.S. can't do much to Russia right now. We have a full plate in Iraq and Afganistan and Russia knows this.
The strongest action we've taken so far is to demand that Russia immediately withdraw from Georgia.
Meanwhile, Russia marched into Georgia without much resistance.
bigmack
08-16-2008, 02:41 AM
U.S. can't do much to Russia right now. We have a full plate in Iraq and Afganistan and Russia knows this.
They're either doing wrong in a foreign country or spread so thin they can't show those Rooskies a thing or two. Damned both ways to some.
You don't actually think we'd "engage" with the Russians over this Georgian situation if we weren't "spread thin" do you?
highnote
08-16-2008, 03:19 AM
They're either doing wrong in a foreign country or spread so thin they can't show those Rooskies a thing or two. Damned both ways to some.
You don't actually think we'd "engage" with the Russians over this Georgian situation if we weren't "spread thin" do you?
We might have done more than say "Russia go home". Who knows? Had we not been spread so thin in Persia the circumstances may have been entirely different.
I imagine Putin to be somewhat of an opportunist.
Well now, on one hand, you and I would get along great because I, for one, have never preached "tolerance". On the other, however, I have found the most incessant liberal preachers of it to hardly ever practice what they preach, which makes them a wee bit hypocritical.
BoxcarIn order to understand "tolerance", one must understand ones' own flaws, attempt humility, and try to be empathetic.
Of course then there's that word "LOVE".
A bit of a stretch here no doubt.
Light
08-16-2008, 11:05 AM
Calls for restraint only seems to be spoken towards countries we are at odds with. When it comes to our own savagery or our allies such as Israel's invasion of Lebanon,there is no call for restraint or citing of humanitarian principles. In those cases our leaders always see the butchery as justified and every effort is made to ensure military action prevails over humanitarian ones.This administration has no crediblity.
Israel has shown tremendous restraint.
Perhaps all this whining and crying by the Arab world would not be taking place if they had not tried to invade and destroy Israel years ago. The bed they sleep in is the one they made themselves. Sucks to lose a war you started.
boxcar
08-16-2008, 11:34 AM
In order to understand "tolerance", one must understand ones' own flaws, attempt humility, and try to be empathetic.
Of course then there's that word "LOVE".
A bit of a stretch here no doubt.
A huge stretch. There is a love characterized by worldliness or carnality and then there is biblical love -- and even here there are a few types, but the highest of these is "agape". But don't ever mistake even this type of love as embracing tolerance for sin, wickedness, depravity or evil.
Boxcar
http://www.answers.com/agape&r=67
"Early Christians to refer to the self-sacrificing love of God for humanity, which they were committed to reciprocating and practicing towards God and among one another."
"The Christian usage of the term agape comes directly from the canonical Gospels' account of the teachings of Jesus. When asked what was the greatest commandment, Jesus said, "'Love (agapao) the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love (agapao) your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-41)
As I said, "one must understand ones' own flaws, attempt humility, and try to be empathetic.
Of course then there's that word "LOVE".
Marshall Bennett
08-17-2008, 10:47 AM
Israel has shown tremendous restraint.
Perhaps all this whining and crying by the Arab world would not be taking place if they had not tried to invade and destroy Israel years ago. The bed they sleep in is the one they made themselves. Sucks to lose a war you started.
Isreal's restraint through out history has been its own worst enemy . Example , its 1967 war with Egypt . Here , they destroyed the Egyptian army/air force in five days , its air force basically removed on the ground . Its army fleeing across the desert barefoot being chased down by Isreali jeeps . The entire arab world in the middle east was clinging by their heels hoping they weren't next . Isreal however backed off , mostly from pressure from the U.S. Had we allowed Isreal to have their own way through out the years , who knows ?
boxcar
08-17-2008, 11:25 AM
http://www.answers.com/agape&r=67
"Early Christians to refer to the self-sacrificing love of God for humanity, which they were committed to reciprocating and practicing towards God and among one another."
"The Christian usage of the term agape comes directly from the canonical Gospels' account of the teachings of Jesus. When asked what was the greatest commandment, Jesus said, "'Love (agapao) the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love (agapao) your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-41)
As I said, "one must understand ones' own flaws, attempt humility, and try to be empathetic.
Of course then there's that word "LOVE".
Cap, thanks for the Sunday school lesson. But this doesn't address the issue of Tolerance which is a major tenet of Liberalism, not Christianity. You're confusing ["agape"] love for tolerance. Loving my neighbor as myself does not imply that I tolerate his sinful, evil or wicked actions. Quite the contrary!
In fact, sir, the very extra-biblical quote you use to support your position does the very opposite! Christians are to practice self-sacrificing love
among one another, i.e. in the Christian community,within their congregations. The writer didn't say that Christians are to practice this kind of love toward all humanity -- toward everyone in the world. And rightfully so because Christians are clearly enjoined to not befriend the world, e.g worldly, carnal people. Why? Because bad company corrupts good morals.
Boxcar
P.S. Don't go tossing around scripture very much on this forum lest you upset your soul mate Zilly.
Marshall, agree - Israel should have let it roll in 1967. They showed mercy and now pay for it.
46zilzal
08-17-2008, 12:38 PM
nNw the Justice Department is investigating those Blackwater paid assassins.
More thugs unleashed on the world.
Try to follow along, zilly - you are, once again, off topic for this thread.
Can you your read?
nNw ?????? Rutabaga moment? non-winners of n lifetime? numb-nuts whine?
Light
08-17-2008, 01:16 PM
Israel has shown tremendous restraint.
In your dreams. Israel used phosophorous and cluster bombs on Lebanese civilians illegally. Leaving thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets that are still killing civilians today.Indiscriminitae bombing on cities that ruined civilian infrastructure is not restraint. Even Reagan banned certain weapons from Israel in his day because Israel violated their use. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
This is why schmucks like you cant understand why the Arab world hates Israel. You think its because they are Jews. You think its the 72 virgins. You think its Mohammed.You think they hate our lifestyle. You're dead wrong. They hate Israel and the U. S. because of they way Israel and the U.S. treats them. Worse than shit.
boxcar
08-17-2008, 01:26 PM
A really good thing about a dead enemy is that they'll never live to fight another day.
Boxcar
highnote
08-17-2008, 01:31 PM
In your dreams. Israel used phosophorous and cluster bombs on Lebanese civilians illegally. Leaving thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets that are still killing civilians today.Indiscriminitae bombing on cities that ruined civilian infrastructure is not restraint. Even Reagan banned certain weapons from Israel in his day because Israel violated their use. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
This is why schmucks like you cant understand why the Arab world hates Israel. You think its because they are Jews. You think its the 72 virgins. You think its Mohammed.You think they hate our lifestyle. You're dead wrong. They hate Israel and the U. S. because of they way Israel and the U.S. treats them. Worse than shit.
I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides. At some point, you'd hope everyone gets fed up and stops. However, this has been going on for thousands of years so I don't expect it to stop any time soon.
Funny thing is, I did a job in Jerusalem about 10 years ago. The crew consisted of Israeli and U.S. Jews, U.S. Christians and Arab Palistinians. We all got along. So it is possible to do.
Marshall Bennett
08-17-2008, 02:20 PM
In your dreams. Israel used phosophorous and cluster bombs on Lebanese civilians illegally. Leaving thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets that are still killing civilians today.Indiscriminitae bombing on cities that ruined civilian infrastructure is not restraint. Even Reagan banned certain weapons from Israel in his day because Israel violated their use. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
This is why schmucks like you cant understand why the Arab world hates Israel. You think its because they are Jews. You think its the 72 virgins. You think its Mohammed.You think they hate our lifestyle. You're dead wrong. They hate Israel and the U. S. because of they way Israel and the U.S. treats them. Worse than shit.
Yeah , you damned right its because they're Jews . Isreal set itself up as an independent state 50 years ago very content to be left alone and maintain itself within its own borders . Arabs ( Palestianian extremist and everything that lies between ) wouldn't hear of it . Time and time again they've prevoked conflict with Isreal . They set the tone of hatred between the two . A tiny nation about the size of Maine having been bulied for decades and you want to tell me how they've mistreated the arab world . They should own the air the arabs breathe !!!
Light
08-17-2008, 03:44 PM
Isreal set itself up as an independent state 50 years ago very content to be left alone and maintain itself within its own borders .
The U.N.partition plan assigned 55 percent of Palestine’s territory to the Jewish state in 1948.The rest were supposed to go to the inhabitants(Palestinians). Today, Palestinians who still have the deeds to their homes are not allowed to return to their homeland. This has been the issue from the start. All the rest is propaganda to make the Palestians look like the bad guys after their lands were stolen from them. Israel continues its ethnic cleansing in the west bank and Gaza to this day. Until Israel stops its Nazi tactics, against one of the most poorest and oppressed people on the planet,there will continue to be so called "terrorists".
Marshall Bennett
08-17-2008, 04:20 PM
Amazing isn't it . Such a tiny little nation has remained intact against a people a hundred times its size . When all is said and done , intelligence plays out . The Arab world is lagging badly in this area .
I can see light's point, if:
1. You ignore that the Jews were there first in history
2. That the Arab world sided with the nazis
3. The holocoust
4. The Exodous
5. When you lose a war, you pay for it.
Then, he makes a little sense. Not much,but a little.
equicom
08-17-2008, 05:17 PM
Regarding some of Tom's points...
1. No. Absolutely untrue. They were not there first.
2. This is generally untrue. For the most part they stayed out of it.
3. The holocaust has nothing to do with the Palestinians
4. Yes, the Exodus... they LEFT the place. They scattered. Vamoosed.
5. They didn't lose the war, so they shouldn't have to pay.
This is not a "for or against" thing... it is just a "get the facts straight" thing.
You are a fountain off mis-information.
pandy
08-17-2008, 08:37 PM
Ok, here's some differences between the two situations:
Iraq - Dictatorship
Georgia - Not
Iraq - in violation of UN security Council Resolution 1441 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441)
Georgia - Not
Iraq - Actively supported terrorist causes and was on the US State Department list of State Sponsors of Terror (since 1991)
Georiga - Not
Iraq - US endgame is liberation of Iraq
Georgia - Not - complete opposite endgame
I probably could go on, but this is probably enough for now....
Good post.
Secretariat
08-17-2008, 09:08 PM
I can see light's point, if:
1. You ignore that the Jews were there first in history
2. That the Arab world sided with the nazis
3. The holocoust
4. The Exodous
5. When you lose a war, you pay for it.
Then, he makes a little sense. Not much,but a little.
1. Using your argument, the American Indian could make some serious claims here.
2. So did Prescott Bush
3. Slavery
4. Trail of Tears
5. Iraq--and we're still paying.
Light
08-17-2008, 09:38 PM
Amazing isn't it . Such a tiny little nation has remained intact against a people a hundred times its size . When all is said and done , intelligence plays out . The Arab world is lagging badly in this area
I wouldn't credit all that sucess to the smart Jew,dumb Arab theory.The U.S. has given Israel close to 200 billion dollars since 1949 including the most sophisticated weapons on earth.The fact that poverty stricken,penniless and homeless Palestinians can give Israel,one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, something to worry about should make you think twice about racial profiling of ME intelligence,courage and will.
boxcar
08-17-2008, 11:08 PM
I wouldn't credit all that sucess to the smart Jew,dumb Arab theory.The U.S. has given Israel close to 200 billion dollars since 1949 including the most sophisticated weapons on earth.The fact that poverty stricken,penniless and homeless Palestinians can give Israel,one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, something to worry about should make you think twice about racial profiling of ME intelligence,courage and will.
And just how much have the obscenely oil-rich sheiks from the region given to the poverty-stricken, penniless and homeless Palestinians?
Boxcar
JustRalph
08-18-2008, 12:19 AM
I wouldn't credit all that sucess to the smart Jew,dumb Arab theory.The U.S. has given Israel close to 200 billion dollars since 1949 including the most sophisticated weapons on earth.The fact that poverty stricken,penniless and homeless Palestinians can give Israel,one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, something to worry about should make you think twice about racial profiling of ME intelligence,courage and will.
yeah, yeah, we know............ Jews Bad.........Arabs good...........
rastajenk
08-18-2008, 04:56 AM
The implication that we could defend Georgia if we weren't so overextended in Iraq and Afghan is ludicrous. Equally so is the idea that Russia is getting all macho because we are engaged elsewhere. Nobody with a lick of sense wants to ramp up for a military engagement with Russia, regardless of the circumstances.
boxcar
08-18-2008, 10:22 AM
The implication that we could defend Georgia if we weren't so overextended in Iraq and Afghan is ludicrous. Equally so is the idea that Russia is getting all macho because we are engaged elsewhere. Nobody with a lick of sense wants to ramp up for a military engagement with Russia, regardless of the circumstances.
Really...."regardless of the circumstances"? Permit me to posit this hypothetical: Russia, who is already very chummy with such countries as Iran and Syria, convinces these two rogue states to allow her to establish a strong military presence on their soil in order to bring "peace, security and stability" to the region. You wouldn't think that Russia has any designs on all the oil in the region? That her presence in the region was strictly for altruistic reasons? And the whole world, including the U.S., should just sit idly by to watch her move in to her new digs?
Boxcar
rastajenk
08-18-2008, 11:17 AM
Okay...let me try again, this time emphasizing the want. I agree that one could draw up a scenario where we would have to become engaged, but I don't think anyone could seriously desire such a situation. I'm sensing that some of the anti-Iraq War crowd is using our deployment in Asia to suggest that we can't do anything about Georgia, as if we could anyway, gilding their hawkish bona fides with an issue that would never really test their mettle, anyway. In other words, they're being blowhards. :)
"Adolph" Puten is far from done in Eastern Europe. Zeich Heil !!!
"An iron currain is descending....."
boxcar
08-18-2008, 12:37 PM
"Adolph" Puten is far from done in Eastern Europe. Zeich Heil !!!
"An iron currain is descending....."
I think you're right. This is accounts for all the tough talk to the U.S. about Bush's plans to deploy defensive missiles in Europe. The communist party in Russia is still obsessed with building an empire.
Boxcar
46zilzal
08-18-2008, 01:23 PM
. The communist party in Russia is still obsessed with building an empire.
A mirror image of the West
boxcar
08-18-2008, 01:38 PM
A mirror image of the West
Yeah, in our quest for world domination, our next stop is Canada. Got your bunker ready? :rolleyes:
Boxcar
JustRalph
08-18-2008, 02:03 PM
A mirror image of the West
yep, and the Canadians hunker further and further down behind the United States military.................as usual
equicom
08-18-2008, 02:58 PM
You are a fountain off mis-information.
Please explain. If you can prove even the first of your claims, then I will acknowledge that you may be right about some of the others. For the moment, you are just dredging up the usual misinformation that is taught to the masses.
I contend, until you offer some proof otherwise, that the Israelis were not the first inhabitants of Palestine.
46zilzal
08-18-2008, 03:01 PM
Back home, I was so certain; the path was very clear
But now I have to wonder - what are we doing here?
I'm not counting on tomorrow and I can't tell wrong from right
But I'd give anything to be there in your arms tonight
Weaving down the American highway
Through the litter and the wreckage, and the cultural junk
Bloated with entitlement, loaded on propaganda
Now we're driving dazed and drunk
Went down the road to Damascus, the road to Mandalay
Met the ghost of Caesar on the Appian Way
He said, "It's hard to stop this binging once you get a taste
But the road to empire is a bloody, stupid waste"
Behold the bitten apple - the power of the tools
But all the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools ....(THE NEOCONS!!!)
And it's a long road out of Eden
Please explain. If you can prove even the first of your claims, then I will acknowledge that you may be right about some of the others. For the moment, you are just dredging up the usual misinformation that is taught to the masses.
I contend, until you offer some proof otherwise, that the Israelis were not the first inhabitants of Palestine.
Contend all you want. You disagree, prove me wrong, especially points 2 and 5.
Hints - the brigade that guarded Hilter's bunker at the end wqas 100% ARAB.
TheBaath party had it's roots in Nazism. Israel won the 1967 war.
Go google yourself.
equicom
08-18-2008, 05:58 PM
Since you won't even try and prove your claim about point 1, I will just disprove it. No doubt I could work through the others, but I am too busy right now to bother.
Here it is, according to their own history book:
Then all the army went up the hill into the city and captured it. With their swords, they killed everyone: men and women, young and old. They also killed all the sheep, cattle and donkeys.... then Joshua said "Go into the prostitute's house and bring her and her family out as you promised her." So they went and brought Rahab out, along with her family. They took them all to safety near the Israelite camp. Then they set fire to the city and burnt it to the ground, along with everything in it, except things made of gold, silver, bronze and iron, which they took and put in the lord's treasury."
The same scenes, with minor variations, are repeated at Jericho (as described above), Jerusalem, Hebron, Lachish, Libnah, Jarmuth, Debir, Gaza, Goshen, and many others places.
It then later says:
Joshua captured all the land - hill country and foot hills, both north and south, and all the area of Goshen and the dry country south of it, as well as the Jordan valley. The territory extended from Mount Halak in the south near Edom to as far as Baalgad in the north in the valley of Lebannon...
To put this in modern geographical context, it is an area extending from about 40 miles south of Gaza to about 40 miles north of Tyre (and almost as far as Sidon), and about 120 to 150 miles wide measured from east to west.
Joshua was at war with the kings of this territory for a long time, but he captured them all and put them to death. The only people that made peace with the people of Israel was Gibeon, where some of the Hivites lived. All the others were conquered in battle. The Lord made them determined to fight the Israelites so that they would be condemned to total destruction and all would be killed without mercy.
So to chop away all the mumbo-jumbo, what this actually tells us is that:
The Israelites conquered this territory from the original inhabitants. Thus, your claim on this point is proved false.
Incidentally - if we choose to believe the written account they have given - in taking the territory they committed the first documented historical case of genocide that we know of. They killed old women and children, and even innocent animals. Stole everything of value, burned the rest, and the only mercy they showed was to a prostitute, her family, and her slaves. Then they wrote the whole thing up so that everyone would know they did it.
Additionally, if we are to believe what they have written in their history book, the people they killed were innocent victims of a nefarious scheme by Israel's God, which made the people against their own will rise up and fight against the Israelites (thus countering the concept that is often parroted by the devout that "God does not interfere in free will").
These are the facts written in their book. The "facts" may possibly be untrue, but they are the only written history that we have of those times, and therefore it is all that can be used to understand the history until a better source is discovered.
I know it is very uncool to tell the truth, and I will probably be treated harshly for having the courage to do so, but somebody has to do it or we'll keep getting misinformation repeated down the line.
The Israelites were not the original inhabitants of the territory of Palestine, according to their own records. In fact their book says that they came from what is now known as Iraq, originally.
rastajenk
08-18-2008, 06:00 PM
OK, so let's give 'em Iraq. I'm pretty sure most Israelis would make that trade. Do you think that would go over well?
equicom
08-18-2008, 06:08 PM
What makes that not work is no matter how much the Israelis like it, the Arabs won't (and especially the Iraqis). The problem is, you see, that in both cases (Iraq and Israel) they packed up and left. In other words, they abandoned those places.
So, they can't claim any territory in Iraq legally, although they do have a legal right to be in Israel because the UN awarded it and the international community has accepted the authority of the UN to do so.
boxcar
08-18-2008, 07:35 PM
Since you won't even try and prove your claim about point 1, I will just disprove it. No doubt I could work through the others, but I am too busy right now to bother.
The Israelites conquered this territory from the original inhabitants. Thus, your claim on this point is proved false.
Incidentally - if we choose to believe the written account they have given - in taking the territory they committed the first documented historical case of genocide that we know of. They killed old women and children, and even innocent animals. Stole everything of value, burned the rest, and the only mercy they showed was to a prostitute, her family, and her slaves. Then they wrote the whole thing up so that everyone would know they did it.
Additionally, if we are to believe what they have written in their history book, the people they killed were innocent victims of a nefarious scheme by Israel's God, which made the people against their own will rise up and fight against the Israelites (thus countering the concept that is often parroted by the devout that "God does not interfere in free will").
These are the facts written in their book. The "facts" may possibly be untrue, but they are the only written history that we have of those times, and therefore it is all that can be used to understand the history until a better source is discovered.
I know it is very uncool to tell the truth, and I will probably be treated harshly for having the courage to do so, but somebody has to do it or we'll keep getting misinformation repeated down the line.
Oh...I don't know about that. I think the truth can often be very cool -- most especially when the whole truth of the matter be told -- if you get my drift.
Couple of things, sir: First, why do you consider the slaughter of the wicked infidels to be a "nefarious scheme" of God? Is it because of your low view of sin? Is it because you assume that the wicked cannot not be judged here in this life and will not be in the next? And is it also your assumption that God, under his Old Covenant arrangement with Israel, did not use his chosen people as instruments of his wrath and righteous judgment upon the surrounding wicked nations?
Secondly, "free will" is a myth. Man's will is not free because it's a slave to his sin nature. Just as the Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin or the leopard alter his spots, then neither can man alter his sinful ways. Simply put: Man is what he is. Period. However, man is a moral free agent in that he will always freely act in accordance to his nature. If God, as the Almighty Sovereign, chose to leave all men to their own utterly sinful devices, not only wouldn't any be saved and have a personal relationship with him through his son Jesus Christ, but I believe man would have destroyed himself and this planet long before now -- because, basically, man is the most violent of all God's creatures.
But God has not chosen to leave all men to their sinful ways. He has freely chosen to save a "remnant" of mankind, while simultaneously electing to not save most. Since by definition, "grace" is unmerited, undeserving, unrequited favor bestowed upon unworthy sinners according to God's own good pleasure and his hidden counsels, then God is free to bestow his grace and withhold as it pleases him. (God is under no moral obligation to Man. Quite the contrary!) Therefore, sir, all God did in the case of those "innocent victims" (so called) was withhold his common grace from them so that they would act in accordance with their own sin nature. He did not "force" anyone to act. That is your illogical and faulty assumption. Were you there at those battles? Did you hear those "innocent victims" cry out and rail against God because they were being forced to battle the Israelites? No? You weren't there? Then can you provide evidence of your carnal conclusion through other historical, extra-biblical writings, perhaps? Did some third party witness the slaughter of "the innocents" and hear them complain against the Almighty's power over their will are record it for all mankind to see? No? Then, sir, you should refrain from speaking about that of which you have utterly no knowledge. The dark cloak of Ignorance is not becoming to anyone.
Boxcar
Investorater
08-18-2008, 08:30 PM
Genesis-Chapter:12
Genesis-Chapter:16
Genesis-Chapter:32
Joshua-Chapter:1
NJ Stinks
08-18-2008, 09:53 PM
My dearly-deceased father said (more than once) the dumbest thing the Brits ever did was give Isreal Isreal. Dad was sure there was a better place out there for Jews to live in besides the location they were given after World War II.
Anybody disagree?
boxcar
08-18-2008, 10:09 PM
My dearly-deceased father said (more than once) the dumbest thing the Brits ever did was give Isreal Isreal. Dad was sure there was a better place out there for Jews to live in besides the location they were given after World War II.
Anybody disagree?
Yeah...they should have them New Jersey. But then what would have become of you? :rolleyes:
Boxcar
DRIVEWAY
08-18-2008, 10:27 PM
My dearly-deceased father said (more than once) the dumbest thing the Brits ever did was give Isreal Isreal. Dad was sure there was a better place out there for Jews to live in besides the location they were given after World War II.
Anybody disagree?
The brits game up with a short time solution for themselves and a longterm problem for the world. What is often called unintended consequences.
However, what does anyone do now. The brits, the Americans and the UN all recognize the status quo. There's no going back.
Ultimately your father was right. However, today is another reality. Not only do most countries accept Israel's right to exist, but Israel has the trump card(Nuclear weapons). However, they will not admit to this.
So when adversaries try to gain nuclear weapons, how do you maintain neutrality. Obviously, the major threat is Iran. Iran has questioned Israel's right to exist.
Twenty-five years from now the Conservative-Orthodox Jews will control Israel. The religious muslims already control Iran. When and how will this situation explode?
Yes your father was right.
PaceAdvantage
08-20-2008, 05:43 AM
And just how much have the obscenely oil-rich sheiks from the region given to the poverty-stricken, penniless and homeless Palestinians?A fantastic question that has gone completely ignored and unanswered.
Perhaps the answer is that the rest of the Arab (and non-Arab Iran) world doesn't give two shits about the Palestinians UNLESS it suits their political needs during the rarest of moments.
boxcar
08-20-2008, 09:33 AM
A fantastic question that has gone completely ignored and unanswered.
Perhaps the answer is that the rest of the Arab (and non-Arab Iran) world doesn't give two shits about the Palestinians UNLESS it suits their political needs during the rarest of moments.
You've nailed it! The only real worth to Palestinians is their service as political pawns.
Boxcar
Light
08-20-2008, 11:47 AM
And just how much have the obscenely oil-rich sheiks from the region given to the poverty-stricken, penniless and homeless Palestinians?
You think this is a great unanswered question. Its dumb and irrelevant,thats why I didnt answer. But since someone named PA,also thinks its so profound,I'll play along.
The people who put the Palestinians in the position of poverty are the Israeli's. The people who continue to take away their resources,land,jobs and opportunities to flee their plight are the Israeli's. Right now,Israel is even denying Palestinians in Gaza the ability to treat their own sewage(shit) by denying imports of machinery. So most of it(shit) goes untreated into the Mediterranean where Palestinians swim in it and eat the fish caught from there.
Instead of seeing how the oppressor is subjucating its victims,you try to lay blame on another country that has nothing to do with their oppression. If Palestinians had money given to them they still cannot do much economically because Israel has restricted most of their movements and activities. To make it clearer,if you had a million dollars,what good would it do you if you are sitting in jail with a guard watching your every move. They are an occupied and oppressed people. Remember that next time you try to blame someone else for their suffering.
46zilzal
08-20-2008, 12:18 PM
Agree with Light as do many of my Jewish friends who continually say things akin to "Didn't the Holocaust teach them anything on how to treat their fellow man?"
They are doing, in intent, the same thing the Nazi's did.
equicom
08-20-2008, 12:19 PM
Couple of things, sir: First, why do you consider the slaughter of the wicked infidels to be a "nefarious scheme" of God?
I am just stating what is written. They claim that the "wicked infidels" (as you describe them) were not really given a choice in the matter. God supposedly poisoned their minds and made them fight the Israelites. Personally I don't believe it because he had all kinds of other ways he could have got rid of them, he didn't need to use the Israelites unless it was to give himself some kind of emotional blackmail guilt-trip thing over them that he could use later on.
Is it because of your low view of sin? Is it because you assume that the wicked cannot not be judged here in this life and will not be in the next?
Eh? WTF are you on about? "Sin" is a relative term, I think. And we've been told by the chap who allegedly claimed he was the son of God that we're not supposed to judge one another in this life. I say "allegedly" because he didn't get a fair trial.
And is it also your assumption that God, under his Old Covenant arrangement with Israel, did not use his chosen people as instruments of his wrath and righteous judgment upon the surrounding wicked nations?
Allegedly chosen people, and alleged God, alleged wrath... etc. No proof has ever been presented to demonstrate that they were not just making the whole thing up. I mean, if I came up to you and said, "God told me to tell you to shoot Big Brown" you would probably not believe me, but if you were some ignorant camel herder in the Sinai desert, maybe it would not sound so far-fetched.
Secondly, "free will" is a myth.
Ooooh... stated with such authority.
Man's will is not free because it's a slave to his sin nature. Just as the Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin or the leopard alter his spots, then neither can man alter his sinful ways.
I wonder if any of Michael Jackson's ancestors were from Ethiopia?
Simply put: Man is what he is. Period. However, man is a moral free agent in that he will always freely act in accordance to his nature.
But this is contradictory to so many parts of the Old Testament. The various nations and cities fighting the Israelites against their own free will is a good example. For that matter, even the Israelites fighting the battle is a good example, since they had been ordered to do it... God didn't just say "Hey there, Josh, feel like smiting a few Giddeonites this weekend? There'll be snacks!"
If God, as the Almighty Sovereign,
Alleged almighty sovereign...
chose to leave all men to their own utterly sinful devices,
Allegedly chose, allegedly sinful
not only wouldn't any be saved
Allegedly saved
and have a personal relationship with him through his son Jesus Christ
Alleged son
but I believe man would have destroyed himself and this planet long before now -- because, basically, man is the most violent of all God's creatures.
Generalizing. Some people are very nice and non-violent. It's odd that some of those who do the most hating and commit the most violence often do so in the name of religion.
But God has not chosen to leave all men to their sinful ways. He has freely chosen to save a "remnant" of mankind, while simultaneously electing to not save most.
Discrimination, and according to your earlier comment about "chosen people" with regard to the Israelites, possibly racist, too. God would make a lousy UN president.
Since by definition, "grace" is unmerited, undeserving, unrequited favor bestowed upon unworthy sinners according to God's own good pleasure and his hidden counsels,
I think this was decided by a bunch of rebelious monks opposed to the Catholic Church in about AD1200, there's nothing in the Bible about it or in any of the early Christian writings. This was the beginning of the persecution of "heretics" by the Catholic church, because the monks were winning favor with the peasants and thereby depriving the church of income.
and his hidden counsels,
Why should a true God choose to deceive his creations, and if the nature of man is wicked, then surely that is because God created him that way? And if God was omniscient, he'd have known in advance that everything that subsequently happened, and therefore since he chose for it to happen, then by the process of logical reasoning the nature of God must also be wicked. And if God is wicked, then he must approve of wickedness.... gosh this is getting complicated!
then God is free to bestow his grace and withhold as it pleases him.
I guess so, if he is God he can do anything, but it would make him kind of an asshole.
Therefore, sir, all God did in the case of those "innocent victims" (so called) was withhold his common grace from them so that they would act in accordance with their own sin nature.
Objection, limitation on disclosure. Failure to allow proper discovery. Withholding evidence. Intimidating of the defendants. Your Honor, this is grounds for immediate dismissal. God has failed to meet the burden of free will.
Your claim is that man has no grace without God, yet if it was deliberately withheld (which is not what the text states, anyway) then it obviously does interfere with free will. They did not make the choice, and that is the distinction. If you say that, with the grace of God they could have made a different choice, but in the absence of that grace they in reality had no choice, then you're also saying they had no free will in the matter.
He did not "force" anyone to act. That is your illogical and faulty assumption. Were you there at those battles? Did you hear those "innocent victims" cry out and rail against God because they were being forced to battle the Israelites? No? You weren't there?
I'm not sure whether your next step should be to register the patent for your time machine, or to declare to the world that you've returned from the clouds with honor and great glory (in which case, on behalf of all humans, I protest, because you claimed we'd all see you coming).
Then can you provide evidence of your carnal conclusion through other historical, extra-biblical writings, perhaps? Did some third party witness the slaughter of "the innocents" and hear them complain against the Almighty's power over their will are record it for all mankind to see?
I have no idea. Maybe. But I am just quoting from their text, where they brag that they rounded up every person young and old, male and female, and killed them. Then rounded up all the animals. Now you tell me, what were the babies they killed guilty of exactly? What did Jethro's donkey and Aaron's sheep get up to that was so terrible?
Light
08-20-2008, 12:25 PM
I forgot to mention when Israel denied the importation of food in Gaza recently and Palestinians were starving to death. Again,what good would money do if they are forbidden to import goods. They had to knock down the barrier with Egypt just to get some food to stay alive.
This was equivalent or worse to the Nazi concentration camp treatment of Jews,but I believe the Jews were allowed some rations where the Palestinians were totally denied food by the Israeli's.
This is why America and Israel are seen as Satan. This is why Bush has no credibility when he does nothing and says nothing to Israel when they try to starve an entire population and his only words are Israel has a right to defend itself,( while Palestinians starve).You cant starve,people,and force them to swim in their own shit while giving their oppressor billions of dollars to continue doing so and then act like you cant understand 911. There is always a price to pay for stupidity and arrogance.
boxcar
08-20-2008, 01:10 PM
I am just stating what is written. They claim that the "wicked infidels" (as you describe them) were not really given a choice in the matter. God supposedly poisoned their minds and made them fight the Israelites. Personally I don't believe it because he had all kinds of other ways he could have got rid of them, he didn't need to use the Israelites unless it was to give himself some kind of emotional blackmail guilt-trip thing over them that he could use later on.
Then if you don't believe the account, why did you cite any parts of the bible to Tom in an attempt to prove your point that the Israelites were essentially squatters on other people's land? :rolleyes:
Hey, get back to me when or if you ever find your mind -- but not before.
Boxcar
equicom
08-20-2008, 02:20 PM
Then if you don't believe the account, why did you cite any parts of the bible to Tom in an attempt to prove your point that the Israelites were essentially squatters on other people's land?
Boxcar
Well, I am saying that according to the Israelis themsleves they were not the original inhabitants. If Tom has found some source other than the people themselves, who do not make any claim themselves to being the original inhabitants, then he has not presented it to us for evaluation.
I requested proof of the claim that they were the original inhabitants and none has been presented. In lieu of proof that they were the original inhabitants, I have submitted their confession as testimonial evidence by the ancestors of the people themselves.
I did not say it was my opinion. I said "here are the facts as they are written".
Also I did not say that I don't believe any of what is written, but that no evidence has been provided yet to prove any of the claims that are written in those particular sections of the Bible ever happened, or that if they did happen, that they were truly the will of God and not just the will of the people. The most likely scenario is that the massacres did happen and that they attributed God as an afterthought so that no blame would be placed upon them for their diabolical actions.
And yes, I do mean diabolical because killing old women, old men, babies, children and animals en masse is postively sick. If God told me to do that, I'd tell him where to go. And if you're even half decent, I am sure you would do the same.
ps. I did NOT at ANY TIME EVER say that they were squatters on other people's land. They won that land fair and square as the spoils of war. Unfortunately they then abdandoned that land. There is no precedent of a person abandoning land and then coming back more than a thousand years later and demanding that same land back from the current tenants, at least not without a court providing some form of compensation to the tenant.
I have also not said that they are now squatters, because as I actually stated, the UN has given them authority to be there and the International Community has endorsed the authority of the UN to make that decree.
boxcar
08-21-2008, 01:07 AM
Well, I am saying that according to the Israelis themsleves they were not the original inhabitants. If Tom has found some source other than the people themselves, who do not make any claim themselves to being the original inhabitants, then he has not presented it to us for evaluation.
You are so over your head. Of course, the Jews weren't the original inhabitants. Long before Joshua existed, God entered into a covenant with Abraham. (The Abrahamic Covenant formed the foundation for the convenant made hundreds of years later with Moses.) God promised Abraham that his descendants would inhabit a huge tract of land. Naturally, there were people living in that land -- both at the time the promise was made to Abraham and long after he died. So, yes, the wicked tribes and nations were to be driven out so that Israel could gradually occupy the land in peace.
God also drove his sinful, covenant-breaking people out of the land -- twice in fact. The last dispersion was prophesied by Christ and came to pass in 70 A.D. when Titus the Roman general leveled Jerusalem and the Jews were dispersed all over the earth.
Boxcar
Gee Box, so why don't we let "Titus the Roman general" decide another one for us? By the way, did God guide Titus' hand? Or did the good general act through free will?
Using biblical references to deal with modern geopolitics is like trying to smell the color blue. Wrong tool. Wrong perspective. In fact it allows all opposing groups the rational to quote willy-nilly their favorite passages from their scriptures. Now you give rise to all sorts of faith based theories of why my "God" is bigger and more correct than yours.
Sounds pretty extremist to me.
pandy
08-21-2008, 07:13 AM
You are so over your head. Of course, the Jews weren't the original inhabitants. Long before Joshua existed, God entered into a covenant with Abraham. (The Abrahamic Covenant formed the foundation for the convenant made hundreds of years later with Moses.) God promised Abraham that his descendants would inhabit a huge tract of land. Naturally, there were people living in that land -- both at the time the promise was made to Abraham and long after he died. So, yes, the wicked tribes and nations were to be driven out so that Israel could gradually occupy the land in peace.
God also drove his sinful, covenant-breaking people out of the land -- twice in fact. The last dispersion was prophesied by Christ and came to pass in 70 A.D. when Titus the Roman general leveled Jerusalem and the Jews were dispersed all over the earth.
Boxcar
I still don't get it. Are you saying that we should leave and give this country back to the Indians, or the Brits? Technically what you're saying is whoever gets there first owns the land and whoever wins the war is at fault.
boxcar
08-21-2008, 08:59 AM
I still don't get it. Are you saying that we should leave and give this country back to the Indians, or the Brits? Technically what you're saying is whoever gets there first owns the land and whoever wins the war is at fault.
No, I'm not saying any such thing. I merely gave a very brief history lesson. Some people don't like the way God kept his promises (especially the land-related ones) to Abraham, e.g. in using Israel (his chosen people) as his instrument for his righteous judgments against the wicked. However, having said this, the bible makes no specific promises to Israel, under the New Covenant arrangement, for returning to the land after the fulfillment of Christ's prophesy that the nation would be driven out and dispersed among the nations of the earth -- which, again, was fulfilled in 70 A.D. at the hand of Titus. However, it could be and often is argued that within the context of New Testament (NT) end-time prophesies that Israel appears to be back in the land (albeit a much smaller portion of it than originally) even in the apparent absence of any specific NT land-related promises.
In terms of international legalities, Israel has every right to be where they are today. All people who respect the rule of law have no problem with this.
Boxcar
boxcar
08-21-2008, 09:15 AM
Gee Box, so why don't we let "Titus the Roman general" decide another one for us? By the way, did God guide Titus' hand? Or did the good general act through free will?
Using biblical references to deal with modern geopolitics is like trying to smell the color blue. Wrong tool. Wrong perspective. In fact it allows all opposing groups the rational to quote willy-nilly their favorite passages from their scriptures. Now you give rise to all sorts of faith based theories of why my "God" is bigger and more correct than yours.
Sounds pretty extremist to me.
The only thing that is extreme here is your hatred of God and ,as a consequence, your utter lack of understanding of any spiritual truth, as it is revealed in God's word.
Boxcar
P.S. And you, sir, have no room to talk about extremism since you believe in the existence of some unknown and unknowable god or higher power "out there somewhere". This kind of irrational faith is analogous to believing in the existence of the tooth fairy!
equicom
08-21-2008, 11:00 AM
You are so over your head. Of course, the Jews weren't the original inhabitants.
Exactly. That was my point. Tom was claiming that they were the original inhabitants, and I was refuting that.
Long before Joshua existed, God entered into a covenant with Abraham. (The Abrahamic Covenant formed the foundation for the convenant made hundreds of years later with Moses.) God promised Abraham that his descendants would inhabit a huge tract of land.
But we only have their word for that. They haven't shown us the title deeds or any other evidence.
Naturally, there were people living in that land -- both at the time the promise was made to Abraham and long after he died. So, yes, the wicked tribes and nations were to be driven out so that Israel could gradually occupy the land in peace.
What right did God have to go messing in human affairs? Who are you to judge that they were "wicked and sinful"? We only have the word of a bunch of nomadic murderers from thousands of years ago... hardly the best of sources for information on morality and righteousness. Nearly every practice of those people is abhorrant to us today. We do not tolerate slavery, genocide, ritual sacrifice, "cruel and unusual" punishments, mysogeny, disability discrimination, etc. All of which were things practiced by the ancient Israelites. Even their first major heroic leader, Moses, was a self-confessed murderer, and incited others to murder.
Even the so-called "miracle" of the Red Sea was murder. With so many other options available to halt the Egyptian advance, murder by mass drowning was the method selected. Lots of other options, but they believed that "smite is right".
God also drove his sinful, covenant-breaking people out of the land -- twice in fact. The last dispersion was prophesied by Christ and came to pass in 70 A.D. when Titus the Roman general leveled Jerusalem and the Jews were dispersed all over the earth.
Clearly then, the Romans drove them out, not God. And because they were militarily and strategically inferior to the Romans, not because they were "sinful". If God knew they'd break the convenant, then why make it with them in the first place?
Furthermore, the Jews chose to leave rather than stand and fight to the last man. They left. They lost.
Light
08-21-2008, 11:07 AM
In terms of international legalities, Israel has every right to be where they are today. All people who respect the rule of law have no problem with this.
Then why are Palestinians denied that right? International law gave them 45% of the land too. Israel was only granted 55% of the land.I know your answer.Oh they ran away.They hate Jews. Propaganda and excuses.Israel is not open to Palestinian return to their lands. They do not even allow them access to their homes that they still hold the deeds to. Israel's government has done everything it can to wipe out any records of Palestinian real estate ownership.In fact Israel contimues to expand its borders outside Israel proper with illegal settlements on Arab lands.
Bottom line is Israel wants an exclusively Jewish state.Palestinians are a threat to that ideal and are ethnically cleansed. The recent attempt to starve them to death,bomb them to death,now poison them to death with their own shit is testimony to Israel's crimes against them. I dont think God would approve of his "chosen people" acting in such a heartless manner.
Jews have tried to pull out numerous times, only to be attack while doing so.
Throw in the occassional homicide bombers and I think there is reson to say "screw you!" Perhaps is the P's started acting like they were victims instead of agressors, peace would be realized.
Marshall Bennett
08-21-2008, 11:54 AM
Its a well known fact that the Palestinians have sponsered terrorism on more than one occation worldwide , not only against Jews but innocent victoms of many different faiths . Its hard to have sympathy for whatever they're crying about . They can rot !!
boxcar
08-21-2008, 12:45 PM
What right did God have to go messing in human affairs? Who are you to judge that they were "wicked and sinful"? We only have the word of a bunch of nomadic murderers from thousands of years ago... hardly the best of sources for information on morality and righteousness. Nearly every practice of those people is abhorrant to us
Furthermore, the Jews chose to leave rather than stand and fight to the last man. They left. They lost.
I have as much right to "judge" as you do and have. You have judged Israel, have you not? You have found them guilty and have condemned them, haven't you? Besides, have you not stated previously that "sin" is a relative issue? Doesn't sin/morality, then, lie in the eye of the beholder? If so, who do you think you are to sit in judgment, while simultaneously condemning me for sitting in judgment of the wicked nations? And what makes your judgment morally superior to mine? Is your false sense of moral/spiritual superiority and safety resting on the foundation of the sifting sands of consensus (as suggested by your multiple uses of the term "us" -- that most of the inhabitants of the world would agree with you, perhaps? Little do you realize that narrow is the path that leads to the kingdom of heaven and few are those who find it; but the path to destruction is broad and many are those who travel upon it.
I on the other hand, by the miraculous grace of God, have chosen the narrow path and view these events surrounding Israel through the inspired, inerrant Word of God. The God of the bible cannot lie, which stands in the sharpest of contrasts to the spiritually dead who can only lie.
Secondly, God has every right to "go messing in human affairs". Just because you don't care much for the theological idea of Theism doesn't mean that it isn't true. As creator of the Universe, God owns all that's in the earth and all the inhabitants are his. He is very much concerned with human affairs human conduct, and the unfathomable wisdom of God is such that he uses these affairs to work out his soteriological ends within the framework of eschatology. Don't waste bandwidth and anymore of my time by railing against God and against things you do not understand. As I pointed out to 'Cap earlier, the spiritually dead cannot understand the things of God. Spiritual truth is foolishness to such people. The bible is very clear on this point. People like yourself have as much sensitivity and receptivity to God's word as the physically dead would have sensation to the flames of a crematory.
Boxcar
boxcar
08-21-2008, 12:47 PM
Then why are Palestinians denied that right? International law gave them 45% of the land too. Israel was only granted 55% of the land.I know your answer.Oh they ran away.They hate Jews.
Go ask your buddies at the U.N. Also, remember to whom the spoils of war belong!
Boxcar
boxcar
08-21-2008, 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Long before Joshua existed, God entered into a covenant with Abraham. (The Abrahamic Covenant formed the foundation for the convenant made hundreds of years later with Moses.) God promised Abraham that his descendants would inhabit a huge tract of land.
per Equicom:
But we only have their word for that. They haven't shown us the title deeds or any other evidence.
So then, why are so quick to believe that the Israelites slaughtered all those "innocents"? What evidence do we have? The book they wrote? The very same book that says God gave them that land? Suppose they fabricated those accounts. Suppose it's all fiction. You're very quick to believe what you conveniently want to from "their book", but quickly dismiss everything inconvenient to your presuppositions.
Boxcar
equicom
08-21-2008, 01:01 PM
It's a bit of a broad sweep to say that all Palestinians support terrorism. That's like saying all white Americans are members of the KKK and support their activities.
Who started off the terrorism in the Middle East? The Palestinians? If you immediately said "yes" then go sit in the corner with a pointy hat on.
Terrorism in Palestine was started by the Jews in 1931. The terrorists were a Zionist group known as Irgun (a racehorse was later named after them). Irgun were an organized human smuggling operation, assisting Jews to illegally immigrate to Palestine. The Palestinians, quite naturally, were pissed off about all this illegal immigration and wanted it to stop, and eventually there were fights and squabbles. When Jews involved in the riots were hurt, Irgun began staging terrorist attacks against the Palestinians as "reprisals".
These terrorist attacks were what actually caused Israel to be formed. The UN wished for the attacks to stop and so they stepped in to divide the territory and hoped for peace. The terrorist attacks only ended in 1948 and had been going on since 1931, including during WW2 and 3 years after. Effectively this means that at least some of the Jews liberated by allied forces during the war went to Palestine to become terrorists.
Not only that, but Irgun also fought against the British, the very same people who had helped to free their people from the Nazis. That's grattitude for you.
The terrorists bombed the King David Hotel in 1948. The terrorists were never punished for this act, and instead were eventually absorbed into the Israeli Defence Forces, which probably explains the tactics the IDF use to this day. That incident was the first of many condonments by the Isreli government of acts that could properly be considered terrorism.
equicom
08-21-2008, 01:11 PM
So then, why are so quick to believe that the Israelites slaughtered all those "innocents"? What evidence do we have? The book they wrote? The very same book that says God gave them that land? Suppose they fabricated those accounts. Suppose it's all fiction.
How stupid are you? I did not say I believed any of the story. I said what their claims were, or in other words that they claimed to be a bunch of murdering genocidal bastards and that they claimed they had been granted the land by divine decree.
I think they probably did commit those murders because people usually don't boast about murders that they do not commit, in fact the most usual practice is for murderers to try and cover up their acts. The exception is usually those who are insane enough to be proud of being murderers.
I do not believe the land was granted to them by divine decree. There is no evidence presented. I will take their confession of the murders as evidence, but do not accept the unsubstantiated claim that the land was granted to them by divine decree.
Any court of law would agree with this view. A confession made voluntarily, without coercion, of a major crime would usually result in the perpetrator being institutionalized in some way (probably an insane asylum).
On the other hand, an unsubstatiated claim of property ownership for which there was no documented evidence and which nobody else could validate, would be thrown out of court, and indeed the petitioner would probably also be slapped with a fine for wasting the court's time.
boxcar
08-22-2008, 01:10 PM
How stupid are you?
Hey, some advice: Before you call anyone stupid, take a long, hard stare in the mirror at yourself because your specialty is tripping over your own contradictions, which really isn't too bright of you, is it? In one breath you state:
I did not say I believed any of the story. (emphasis mine)
Then on the exhale state:
I think they probably did commit those murders because people usually don't boast about murders that they do not commit... (emphasis yours)
So you don't believe "any" of the story, but yet you are inclined to believe the Israelites' "confession to murders", which is part of the story, isn't it? You think (believe) they probably did those dastardly deeds, right?
Then you rationalize why you think (believe) the Israelites were "probably" telling the truth with:
... in fact the most usual practice is for murderers to try and cover up their acts. The exception is usually those who are insane enough to be proud of being murderers.
But of course, you don't believe the land was granted to them by divine decree because no deeds were ever filed in a recognized ancient court of law or unearthed in some ruins, right? Let me give you a clue: The bible is divine revelation of spiritual truth to man written against the backdrop of human history. But this doesn't make the book primarily a history book. Nor is it a legal document. The main thrust of the bible is the revelation of spiritual truth.
Now, the real reason you don't believe the land claims is that you think that part of the Jews' claims were embellished at best or at worst -- even outright fictional accounts, right? Therefore, why couldn't their accounts of the "slaughter" have been equally as fictional? Maybe the entire bible is fiction.
Or why couldn't the accounts of the slaughter amount to nothing but tall tales -- told around the campfire one chilly night after a few bored, chest-pounding wannabe warriors had a few swigs of strong drink? And one of the more sober ones decided that some of the tales were so good that he'd record them for all posterity?
This brings me back to my point made in my previous post: People of your ilk tend to believe that which you think conveniently supports your presuppositions, while easily dismissing that which inconveniently doesn't. And methinks this is a wee bit disengenuous of you.
Boxcar
equicom
08-27-2008, 06:23 PM
I don't know if you're fooling anybody else by trying to use technicalities as an escape clause, but it doesn't wash with me.
If you want to play that silly game, then you'll noticed that I not only said that... "I did not say I believed any of the story"... but also that I did not say that... "I did not believe any of the story"...
But technicalities aside...
What I mean to say is that I don't attribute the stories with any theological credibility (that means, I don't think God told them to commit murders, and in fact that goes against his own commandments, so it is especially suspect).
I do think they probably committed the murders because it is unlikely that somebody would boast of murdering people unless they had done so, and in either case (whether they did or not), boasting of murder is a sign of insanity. Therefore I conclude that the people who boasted of that were insane, and especially insane if they thought God told them to do it.
How many people are in institutions right now claiming that God told them to kill?
If you want me, or anyone else, to believe your claim that the book of Genesis was "divine", you will have to provide at least some evidence.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go out into the garden and pick some fruit. Hopefully I won't fall over the edge of the flat Earth while I'm out there or bump into one of the pillars that holds the Earth up. I also hope not to trip over any "fake" dinosaur bones (which some fundamentalists claim were put there [by Satan or God, depending on the source] to fool humans into disbelieving the story of creation).
boxcar
08-28-2008, 12:01 AM
[equicom]What I mean to say is that I don't attribute the stories with any theological credibility (that means, I don't think God told them to commit murders, and in fact that goes against his own commandments, so it is especially suspect).[/quote]
You have a problem with divine justice? Have you not read that the "wages of sin is death"?
Moreover, if you're going to use that kind of argument, how do you know it goes against his own commandments? On whose authority do you have that!?
I do think they probably committed the murders because it is unlikely that somebody would boast of murdering people unless they had done so, and in either case (whether they did or not), boasting of murder is a sign of insanity. Therefore I conclude that the people who boasted of that were insane, and especially insane if they thought God told them to do it.
You can cherry-pick the bible all you want. "Believe" the passages that suit your presuppositions and toss those that don't. A typical dishonest practice. But the fact remains is that another option other than the one you keep harping on is the one I postulated, for example. How can you say that the whole bible isn't fictional? How do you know it isn't? Where is your evidence?
How many people are in institutions right now claiming that God told them to kill?
Probably a lot fewer than those who weren't privy to private conversations with God, but murdered anyway. :rolleyes:
If you want me, or anyone else, to believe your claim that the book of Genesis was "divine", you will have to provide at least some evidence.
Why would I want you to do anything? You need to get over your sense of self-importance, sir. Besides, you have already made up your mind about what you think about the bible.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go out into the garden and pick some fruit.
Ahh... a migrant worker. This also helps to explain the dismally poor quality of your arguments.
Hopefully I won't fall over the edge of the flat Earth while I'm out there or bump into one of the pillars that holds the Earth up.
Methinks you have fallen off the deep end long ago. And no need to worry about those pillars since you have already stumbled over your own ignorance about such things as the numerous types of language conventions employed in literature -- which is what the bible is, for you info.
I also hope not to trip over any "fake" dinosaur bones (which some fundamentalists claim were put there [by Satan or God, depending on the source] to fool humans into disbelieving the story of creation).
You sure do worry a lot about tripping, don't you? Not surprised. The bible speaks to the plight of blind fools.
Boxcar
Cangamble
08-28-2008, 06:51 AM
It's a bit of a broad sweep to say that all Palestinians support terrorism. That's like saying all white Americans are members of the KKK and support their activities.
Who started off the terrorism in the Middle East? The Palestinians? If you immediately said "yes" then go sit in the corner with a pointy hat on.
Terrorism in Palestine was started by the Jews in 1931. The terrorists were a Zionist group known as Irgun (a racehorse was later named after them). Irgun were an organized human smuggling operation, assisting Jews to illegally immigrate to Palestine. The Palestinians, quite naturally, were pissed off about all this illegal immigration and wanted it to stop, and eventually there were fights and squabbles. When Jews involved in the riots were hurt, Irgun began staging terrorist attacks against the Palestinians as "reprisals".
These terrorist attacks were what actually caused Israel to be formed. The UN wished for the attacks to stop and so they stepped in to divide the territory and hoped for peace. The terrorist attacks only ended in 1948 and had been going on since 1931, including during WW2 and 3 years after. Effectively this means that at least some of the Jews liberated by allied forces during the war went to Palestine to become terrorists.
Not only that, but Irgun also fought against the British, the very same people who had helped to free their people from the Nazis. That's grattitude for you.
The terrorists bombed the King David Hotel in 1948. The terrorists were never punished for this act, and instead were eventually absorbed into the Israeli Defence Forces, which probably explains the tactics the IDF use to this day. That incident was the first of many condonments by the Isreli government of acts that could properly be considered terrorism.
One could say that terrorist acts are what caused the USA to be formed. The Jews, like the Patriots, relied mostly on political terrorism, not directed at inhabitants.
Every country on this planet was formed by "might makes right" and/or negotiations. Israel is as legitimate as every other country. There hasn't been any country formed where everyone was a happy camper.
The IP conflict didn't start with Irgun in 1931. Lets not forget that there was a massacre in Hebron in 1928.
It was mostly the surrounding Arab nations and absentee land owners who had problems with Jews migrating to the Palestine region, not the indigenous Arabs.
Modern Zionism traces back to Herzl who was agnostic himself. He was looking for a place to escape anti-semitism in Europe in the late 1800's. Even Zaire and Uganda was considered, but because most people believed in God back then, and the OT, the Palestine region made the most sense.
The reality is that the land was not sovereign land, so technically there was no legitimate country there, and the land was controlled by the Turks at the time, and then the Brits after WW1.
The population in the late 1800's was around 500,000 people (about 10% were Jews), living in a land where now 9 million live. In other words, there was a lot of room for migration. In fact, only 20% of the land was lived on or owned. Tel Aviv was built by the Jews who migrated in the early 1900's, on sand dunes.
This is a before picture of Tel Aviv which was built around 1910:
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/pic117a-m.jpg
Incidentally, a great site for picture of the Palestine region from the late 1800's to early 1900's can be found here:
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/index2.html
Leftists and Muslims are very hypocritical when it comes to migration. In Brazil today, there are over 10 million people of Arab descent. In Dearborn, Michigan over half the population is now Muslim. Do we see the original inhabitants of Dearborn strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up school buses full of Muslim children?
Equating the IDF with terrorism is complete nonsense. If the Arabs dropped their arms, there would be peace.
equicom
08-28-2008, 02:28 PM
One could say that terrorist acts are what caused the
USA to be formed.
Precisely... one man's terrorist is another man's "freedom fighter"... it's all a matter of perspective and depends on which side of the fence you stand.
The Jews, like the Patriots, relied mostly on political terrorism, not directed at inhabitants.
Actually, the Irgun terrorists specifically targeted the inhabitants, namely civilian Palestinians, British citizens, British journalists and British embassy staff. The bombing of the King David Hotel was the final straw that encouraged Britain to pull out, and unfortunately the very action that "proved" to Yasser Arafat that if you just persist long enough, terrorism pays off.
So in fact, the whole policy of the PLO and its offspring was developed based on this flawed understanding because the British (once again) backed down in the face of a terrorist attack and gave up the territory. Having therefore seen with their own eyes that terrorism works, they learned a very unfortunate lesson.
equicom
08-28-2008, 02:47 PM
You have a problem with divine justice? Have you not read that the "wages of sin is death"?
That has nothing at all to do with what I said. I haven't even considered the issue of divine justice. I just said I don't believe that God told them to do it. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but there is no evidence to say he did, and as I pointed out, we have asylums and prisons full to the rafters with crackpots claiming that God told them to kill.
Jonestown, Waco, and that weird Japanese cult are all fairly good examples of the "God told us to..." bunch.
Moreover, if you're going to use that kind of argument, how do you know it goes against his own commandments? On whose authority do you have that!?
Again, I am just quoting their version of events. They say that God commanded them to not kill, and then they also say that he commanded them to kill. So you have a contradiction there, and a "perfect" God does not (or should not) contradict himself.
You can cherry-pick the bible all you want. "Believe" the passages that suit your presuppositions and toss those that don't. A typical dishonest practice.
This is what I find really weird about you. You say stuff like this when I am doing the exact opposite of what you're claiming, while in fact it is you who is doing the cherry picking, and selectivism. I have just quoted what their claim is and shown that in support of the claim that they were not the original inhabitants by their own admission, and therefore it does not matter one iota whether God really said all that they claim he did. Because that was not the issue of contention.
But the fact remains is that another option other than the one you keep harping on is the one I postulated, for example. How can you say that the whole bible isn't fictional? How do you know it isn't? Where is your evidence?
Well, that's the thing. I never said it wasn't fiction. But it is something that has been taken by some crackpots as fact, when it quite clearly could not possibly be fact, because there are too many contradictions and too much bizarre logic for it to be a divine work. Looking at it symbolically, however, we can see some potentially divine inspiration in there, but really only in the very first chapter of Genesis. The rest of it is very unreliable.
I emphasise that this support is in the symbolic representation only, and in no way would I support it as a factual account of the creation of the universe.
Why would I want you to do anything? You need to get over your sense of self-importance, sir. Besides, you have already made up your mind about what you think about the bible.
1. You have no idea what I think about the bible.
2. That wasn't the point, and you know it.
Ahh... a migrant worker. This also helps to explain the dismally poor quality of your arguments.
1. This is very unfair to migrant workers and insulting and demeaning to anyone not of your nationality.
2. I am not a migrant worker, anyway. And I know you know that and you were just taking a shot, but it was a cheap shot.
Just for the record, this thread should definitely be preserved as the ultimate example of "Where off topic goes really off topic"... the whole issue is so confused now I think we're about 4 or 5 removes from where we started.
Investorater
08-28-2008, 04:22 PM
Deuteronomy 31:1-6
equicom
08-28-2008, 04:28 PM
Well, that chapter is just so full of evil, isn't it? Of course, according to what is written in the legend/fable/history, Moses started his career as a murderer, so it is not so much a surprise to see him end his career by inciting others to murder.
Investorater
08-28-2008, 04:40 PM
Listen you,are correct,GOD,can do what-ever HE wants.......
equicom
08-28-2008, 04:51 PM
Apparently so. Except for that bit about the fruit business... I'm not sure why he didn't just put up a big fence or something... avoid the whole fiasco with the heel biting and the stick bashing and the pain in childbirth thing...
Cangamble
08-28-2008, 07:58 PM
Precisely... one man's terrorist is another man's "freedom fighter"... it's all a matter of perspective and depends on which side of the fence you stand.
I think there are degrees of what terrorism is. Political terrorism does not focus wrath on non military civilians. And it also depends what one is fighting for.
What exactly are the Palestinians blowing up civilians for? The ultimate goal is completely unrealistic....to drive the Jews into the sea.
If they wanted a state, they would have one by now.
If they accepted the partition, no Arabs would have had to move.
Actually, the Irgun terrorists specifically targeted the inhabitants, namely civilian Palestinians, British citizens, British journalists and British embassy staff. The bombing of the King David Hotel was the final straw that encouraged Britain to pull out, and unfortunately the very action that "proved" to Yasser Arafat that if you just persist long enough, terrorism pays off.
So in fact, the whole policy of the PLO and its offspring was developed based on this flawed understanding because the British (once again) backed down in the face of a terrorist attack and gave up the territory. Having therefore seen with their own eyes that terrorism works, they learned a very unfortunate lesson.
There weren't very many incidents involving Palestinian citizens. In fact, from the history I know, it was pretty equal when it came to citizens fighting citizens before Israel was formed in 1948.
When did the Jews use suicide bombers as a terror tactic?
It isn't the same on any grounds what the Muslims do (ie 9/11 and suicide bombings) versus the few acts that the Irgun gang was responsible for when they tried to get the Brits to get off the pot.
boxcar
08-29-2008, 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
You have a problem with divine justice? Have you not read that the "wages of sin is death"?
That has nothing at all to do with what I said. I haven't even considered the issue of divine justice. I just said I don't believe that God told them to do it. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but there is no evidence to say he did...
This was my precisely my point, sir! Thank you so much for confirming for us the extent of your ignorance of the entire counsel of God. I deduced that either you never considered it or have dismissed whatever you think you may know about the subject. My question about his divine justice was rhetorical. So, by you own admission you did not consider that there could be feasible and reasonable explanations behind God's commands to the Israelites -- things that would have nothing do to with "murder" but everything do to with man's sinfulness and divine justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Moreover, if you're going to use that kind of argument, how do you know it goes against his own commandments? On whose authority do you have that!?
Again, I am just quoting their version of events. They say that God commanded them to not kill, and then they also say that he commanded them to kill. So you have a contradiction there, and a "perfect" God does not (or should not) contradict himself.
Shame all over you for tripping over your own faulty logic. (Tough being blind, isn't it!?) Indeed, there would be a contradiction if this was all there was to the bible, i.e. his commands to "murder" and his commands not to murder. But you have made two classical errors here: First, there's a difference between killing and murdering, which I have discussed in depth previously on this forum. And secondly, since you don't bother considering the entire counsel of God before you run your mouth, you have interpreted those passages out of their much larger context. Once considered in the context of his entire counsel, there are no contradictions (e.g. when you consider Man's spiritual condition, divine justice, retribution, etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
You can cherry-pick the bible all you want. "Believe" the passages that suit your presuppositions and toss those that don't. A typical dishonest practice.
This is what I find really weird about you. You say stuff like this when I am doing the exact opposite of what you're claiming, while in fact it is you who is doing the cherry picking, and selectivism.
Sir, your own words above condemn you! You just got done telling us that you never considered the subject of divine justice (which is really odd, by the way, considering how much is written about it in the bible.) By conveniently ignoring this subject, you are the one practicing "selectivism" ("selectivity" is the proper word), for you have tried to argue your points by choosing two narrow topics within a very limited number of passages that deal specifically with "murder" and killing, while simultaneously and conveniently ignoring the rest of God's counsel. And then you smugly proclaim that if God did command the Israelites to "murder" that this would constitute a contradiction. Before you go spouting off about contradictions, you should familiarize yourself with the Law of Non-Contradiction, for starters. You might start wearing a little less egg on face.
I have just quoted what their claim is and shown that in support of the claim that they were not the original inhabitants by their own admission, and therefore it does not matter one iota whether God really said all that they claim he did. Because that was not the issue of contention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
But the fact remains is that another option other than the one you keep harping on is the one I postulated, for example. How can you say that the whole bible isn't fictional? How do you know it isn't? Where is your evidence?
Well, that's the thing. I never said it wasn't fiction. (emphasis mine)
And you know what else you haven't said? You haven't said that it isn't fiction, either! So, just what is it you been trying to tell us? You haven't said it is fiction; and you haven't said it isn't! Cute! You're quite right, "that's the thing"! You've been equivocating from the very beginning -- wanting it both ways, so that you could swing from one side of the fence to the other as needed -- never committing to one way or the other.
But it is something that has been taken by some crackpots as fact, when it quite clearly could not possibly be fact, because there are too many contradictions and too much bizarre logic for it to be a divine work.
Well, I'm here to tell you that I'm one "crackpot" who believes the bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant holy word of God from cover-to-cover, and that the writers of the bible, who God called to record his revelation for Man, employed every imaginable language convention, which requires careful and prayerful study and interpretation in order to rightly understand its meaning. And while I cannot claim to understand everything that is written, I'm here to tell you that in all my years of study, I have yet to find so much as one contradiction in those things that I do understand. And this for me, sir, constitutes rock-solid evidence that the bible is what it claims to be throughout, i.e. Divine Revelation.
Looking at it symbolically, however, we can see some potentially divine inspiration in there, but really only in the very first chapter of Genesis. The rest of it is very unreliable.
I emphasise that this support is in the symbolic representation only, and in no way would I support it as a factual account of the creation of the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Why would I want you to do anything? You need to get over your sense of self-importance, sir. Besides, you have already made up your mind about what you think about the bible.
1. You have no idea what I think about the bible.
2. That wasn't the point, and you know it.
Do you ever give your brain a chance to catch up to your mouth!? I think we all have a pretty darn good idea of what you think about the bible. You're a true piece of work! (Here's free Clue: For starters, read your own words above! And then go back and read some of your earlier posts.)
Moreover, I have dealt with types like you for nearly all my adult life. So, I had a pretty decent idea where you stood with respect to the book. You're just another lost infidel traveling that broad path to destruction about which Christ warned his listeners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Ahh... a migrant worker. This also helps to explain the dismally poor quality of your arguments.
1. This is very unfair to migrant workers and insulting and demeaning to anyone not of your nationality.
2. I am not a migrant worker, anyway. And I know you know that and you were just taking a shot, but it was a cheap shot.
Well, golly gee whiz: I betcha some of that fruit you go pickin' everyday in that garden of yours has thicker skin than you do. You can mockingly and arrogantly dish it out, but you can't take any of it back, can you? Maybe you should find another profession. Have you considered becoming a professional victim?
And my little remark had nothing to do about nationality, but had everything to do with your highly uninformed opinions of the bible. You remind me of a fish out of water -- or like an immigrant who just landed on our shores and not at all familiar with American culture, with our language, etc. So, too, you're just as clueless when it comes to the bible. Totally out of your spiritual element.
A true lost soul.
Just for the record, this thread should definitely be preserved as the ultimate example of "Where off topic goes really off topic"... the whole issue is so confused now I think we're about 4 or 5 removes from where we started.
Neither the issue or I are confused. You are the one who got caught up in the labyrinth of that space between your ears.
Boxcar
equicom
08-29-2008, 04:04 PM
In fact, from the history I know...
Well, that's exactly the problem. The history being taught and promoted in the west is not the real history, but the propagandized version. It's unfortunate, but in almost every history, there is somebody trying to push a slant on what happened to further their own cause.
Since I don't personally have a cause to push, that means you can at least trust that I won't intentionally misreport or use bias. That's not to say that I won't make any mistakes, because obviously all history is second-hand, but in reporting these incidents I look to the factual events and not the emotional or political issues that are attached to them.
The facts in the case of Irgun are that it was founded by a radical Zionist known as Ze'ev Jabotinsky, who stated that his ideology was "Only active retaliation will deter the Arabs and the British. Only by force of arms will we ensure a Jewish state."
Starting from the 1930's, they began harrassing Palestinian Arabs, in a selective campaign of terrorism that involved killing (apparently) random citizens, a bit like the Washington snipers from a few years ago.
Between 1937 and 1939, Irgun killed at least 250 random civilians. After a time, they started going after better targets where their actions would have more effect than on the Arabs who were reconciled with the idea of death (in other words, the British had more fear of death than did the Arabs). Initially attacks against the British were targeted at civilians, but then they began going after journalists and embassy staff, until on 07/22/1946 they bombed the King David Hotel, finally convincing the British to pack their kitbags and vamoose.
Both Irgun and another (less radical) Jewish terrorist organization known as Lehi directed attacks at British policemen, soldiers, and UN personnel. They even attacked other Jews who they suspected of being sympathetic to the British or Arabs.
Irgun was not really very popular with the Jewish people in general (much like Arab terrorist organizations are not popular with most Arabs in general), so much so that the World Zionist Congress condemned Irgun and their actions. Lehi seems to have gotten off lightly and was not openly criticized, probably due to not intentionally targeting civilians.
Even after the British had already decided they'd had enough of these shennanigans, Irgun struck again, and this time not even on Palestinian soil, but in Rome, where they bombed the embassy.
Even the highly publicized acts by Al-Qaeda style organizations in which captured Americans and British are killed by their captors was something they copied from Irgun, who were the first to do this. In that incident, they carried out a revenge killing on two captured British sergeants as a form of protest against the British sentencing two Irgun members to the death penalty for terrorist acts.
You are correct in stating that the Arabs also contributed to violence, but the reasons are somewhat different to those of the Jews. The Jews were fighting to obtain a Jewish state and using terror as a weapon. The Arabs were fighting because they wanted to halt the immense rush of immigration that was threatening to make them a minority in their own country (prophetic, as it turns out), because they wanted to hold free democratic elections (and denied that right), and because an important Arab leader had been killed by British soldiers. In other words, terror was a result of the actions of the Arabs, but not the cause or reason for the actions.
The Arab violence was very similar to the ridiculous rioting behavior that we see today in media from the Middle East. They were basically a rabble or mob throwing rocks at anyone who was not an Arab. The Jewish attacks were co-ordinated and premeditated attacks done with calculation.
Both groups were horrifically wrong in their actions. But the fact remains that the first to begin planned attacks against civilians in that country (in the modern era) were the Jews. And of course, as Boxcar keeps reminding us, they were also the first reported terrorists of history, systematically wiping out "Gentile" tribes and cities and seizing the land by force.
After all the violence of the Irgun era, it's natural to expect they'd be sick of killing civillians. But in fact after partition, the Irgun members were absorbed into the IDF along with members of another Jewish terrorist organization called Hagganah. When the Arab-Israeli war broke out in 1948 (because the UN had stupidly decided to award 55% of the territory to the Jews, who represented only 32% of the total population of the region) it is interesting to note that all of the massacres that took place against civilians were perpetrated by Israelis.
The IDF and Hagganah between them slaughtered at least 1000 civilians, the worst of these being the massacre of over 250 civilians at Lyddah on 07/12/1948.
As a further point of interest, it is a matter of record that the first terrorist attacks to occur inside the United States related to the Arab-Israeli conflict were perpetrated by the Jewish Defense League. These acts included the bombing of the Aeroflot offices in New York (1971), and another bomb attack in Washington DC (1972).
Also in 1971 a member of the JDL fired a rifle into the Soviet mission office of the UN (in New York), and two of its members were arrested for manufacturing bombs. The JDL leader was arrested for conspiracy to kidnap, plotting to bomb the Iraqi embassy and conspiring to import arms from Israel to the US. Further adding to the intrigue is a reported counter-plot by the Soviets to attack African-American neighborhoods and blame it on the JDL.
Following the assassination of the Californian director of the American Arab Anti-discrimination Committee, Israel became embroiled in scandal by allegedly interfering in the FBI investigation and giving refuge to the suspects.
The JDL are not only anti-arab terrorists. They are also anti-christian, as can be seen at this page from their website:
http://www.jdl.org/enemies/quiet_holocaust/
Also interesting to read is their charter, which can be found here:
http://www.jdl.org/information/five_principles.shtml
Absolutely none of what I have written here is intended to be anti-semitic. It could be considered anti-terrorist, which I believe is a good policy. All acts of terrorism, whether committed by Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Budhists or Atheists should be condemned most strongly by everyone no matter what their brand of religious faith.
Cangamble
08-29-2008, 05:55 PM
Between 1937 and 1939, Irgun killed at least 250 random civilians.
*************************
Do you have a source for this?
And Irgun didn't invent terrorism. Terrorism existed way before that, including kidnapping.
On one hand you say the majority of the Jews found Irgun reprehensible, but these same Jews still were going about hoping for a Jewish majority state.
The Arabs action were guided by the intolerance of surrounding Arab nations who didn't want to give up "Muslim land"
Like I said, there was plenty of room for migration and the land was not sovereign. So it was pretty much up for grabs and negotiations.
The difference between Arab terrorism in Israel, is that it is applauded by the majority of Palestinians (Hamas was elected even after the GAza withrawel).
Terrorist acts like those of Baruch Goldstein are treated with disgust by the majority of the Jews in Israel.
Mentioning the JDL is like mentioning Westboro Baptist. They probably have the same amount of members.
equicom
08-29-2008, 06:26 PM
So, by your own admission you did not consider that there could be feasible and reasonable explanations behind God's commands to the Israelites -- things that would have nothing do to with "murder" but everything do to with man's sinfulness and divine justice.
According to this logic, you would also support the acts of those terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, because they believed that God was in support of their cause. They also felt their actions were "divine justice".
Indeed, there would be a contradiction if this was all there was to the bible, i.e. his commands to "murder" and his commands not to murder. But you have made two classical errors here: First, there's a difference between killing and murdering, which I have discussed in depth previously on this forum. And secondly, since you don't bother considering the entire counsel of God before you run your mouth, you have interpreted those passages out of their much larger context. Once considered in the context of his entire counsel, there are no contradictions (e.g. when you consider Man's spiritual condition, divine justice, retribution, etc.).
So, rounding up grandmothers, old men, children and babies, and killing them without mercy, until the rivers run with blood and a mountain can be made of the skulls is not murder?
You've still not provided a satisfactory answer (in fact, seem to be skillfully dodging it) to the question of what the babies and children and animals were guilty of.
You haven't said it is fiction; and you haven't said it isn't!
Precisely. That's the whole point. I'm not trying to express an opinion on whether it is true or not true, because I don't consider that to be important. What is important is that regardless of what happened after, or on whose orders it took place, there were people living in that land before the Jews took possession of it (in fact, not even the Jews, but the Israelites). That was my only point, and solely provided to disprove Tom's claim that they were the original inhabitants. I did not really get into whether they were the rightful inhabitants or not.
But, I don't think God would be inclined to reward the wholesale slaughter of entire races of people, and I strongly suspect that he's deeply offended by being given the credit for orchestrating the violence.
Well, I'm here to tell you that I'm one "crackpot" who believes the bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant holy word of God from cover-to-cover, and that the writers of the bible...
1. The Bible was not a single book, it is now a series of books collected into a single volume, and the Catholic Church got to dictate which books were included. Only those items that supported their brand of theology were allowed to be included.
2. Infallible and inerrant are the same thing (just thought I'd point that out, since you're from the grammar and technicality police).
3. Your criticism of the word selectivism is misplaced. I deliberately chose that word over selectivity because we're dealing with fundamentalist religion here, and so "ism" is the appropriate word to use in describing anything pursued with mindless one-eyed zeal.
4. The Bible is absolutely chockers with errors and contradictions. To point them all out would take a very lengthy list. These "errors" are sometimes intentional however, because there is a secret hidden message behind what is stated.
equicom
08-29-2008, 06:32 PM
Do you have a source for this?
I'll see what I can dig up.
And Irgun didn't invent terrorism. Terrorism existed way before that, including kidnapping.
I never said they invented it. I said they were practicing terrorism before the PLO etc. came into existence. And that the success of their terrorism provided inspiration for the Palestinian terrorists, and a false belief that it would work for them as it had for the Jews.
Mentioning the JDL is like mentioning Westboro Baptist. They probably have the same amount of members.
Agreed. Both are ridiculous. But I'm not trying to make a point by mentioning the JDL, just mentioning that they were the first middle-eastern themed terrorist group to stage an attack on US soil.
*** EDIT ****
You can read about the attacks on civilians in the 1930's in the archives of the British-produced Palestine Post (now the Jerusalem Post). I'm too lazy to do it for you, but if you're interested enough, you can do it yourself here (http://jpress.tau.ac.il/Default/Skins/TAUEng/Client.asp?Pub=Palestine&Skin=TAUEng&GZ=T&AW=1218665270484&AppName=2).
equicom
08-29-2008, 06:48 PM
New edit
*******
I found this website which has some interesting items:
http://qumsiyeh.org/whousedterrorismfirst/
Have not read it yet, but am just about to.
Extra edit
********
The Jerusalem Post seem to have removed a suspiciously large number of articles from the 1930's. Their server can find the articles with the references to bomb attacks, but appears to not want to allow them to be viewed.
Extra extra edit
************
In 1937 the number of Arabs and Jews killed were about equal, but the main difference was that most of the Arabs were killed in groups by bombs, while the Jews were killed individually by mobs of thugs.
Greyfox
08-29-2008, 06:50 PM
Between 1937 and 1939, Irgun killed at least 250 random civilians.
*************************
Do you have a source for this?
And Irgun didn't invent terrorism. Terrorism existed way before that, including kidnapping.
.
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: I noticed that comment too. Just a few thousand years out I'd say.
Greyfox
08-29-2008, 06:53 PM
Who started off the terrorism in the Middle East? The Palestinians? If you immediately said "yes" then go sit in the corner with a pointy hat on.
Terrorism in Palestine was started by the Jews in 1931. .
Terrorism existed many many years in this region before 1931.
equicom
08-29-2008, 07:03 PM
Regarding point 8 on the "who used terrorism [in modern Palestine] first" website:
8. Booby-trapped car parked alongside buildings: first used against the British in Sarafand (east of Jaffa) on 5 December 1946. This was probably the first use anywhere of this device. On this occasion, two were killed and 28 injured. R.D. Wilson, Cordon and Search (Aldershot: Gale and Polden, 1949), p. 259;
They're partially correct that it was the first "parked" car-bomb. However the first "car bomb" was acutally a horsedrawn cart which was driven into the JP Morgan bank on Wall Street (NYC). It was believed to be the work of an Italian gang that had a dispute with the bank, and if you go there you can still see some of the damage from that attack today. This happened some time in September 1920, I believe.
So the Italians (allegedly) invented the concept of the car bomb, not the Palestinians or Israelis.
equicom
08-29-2008, 07:06 PM
Terrorism existed many many years in this region before 1931.
I meant terrorism in the modern day in that particular region, not that all terrorism began there. Hence the words "in the Middle East", but I should have clarified that I meant in the modern era also.
On the other hand, I think it should be obvious from my repeated references to the ancient terrorist attacks that took place there that I did not mean all terrorism there began in 1931. Because I previously pointed out that Moses and Joshua etc were genocidal terrorists thousands of years ago.
I admit that I should have been a bit more careful in the wording and also to try a bit harder not to generalize (so in other words, to specifically point out the particular groups and incidents involved in the first known planned and premeditated terrorist attack in that region commencing from 1931).
Cangamble
08-29-2008, 09:08 PM
New edit
*******
I found this website which has some interesting items:
http://qumsiyeh.org/whousedterrorismfirst/
Have not read it yet, but am just about to.
Extra edit
********
The Jerusalem Post seem to have removed a suspiciously large number of articles from the 1930's. Their server can find the articles with the references to bomb attacks, but appears to not want to allow them to be viewed.
Extra extra edit
************
In 1937 the number of Arabs and Jews killed were about equal, but the main difference was that most of the Arabs were killed in groups by bombs, while the Jews were killed individually by mobs of thugs.
That isn't a very unbiased source.
Anyway, you might want to read this:
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2007/09/zionism-and-intense-desire-for-peace.html
And as far as the Arabs who got blown up by Jews, I'm still searching for a reliable source myself.
The Stern and Irgun gangs went after the Brits for a few reasons. The shaft the Brits gave the Jews in the early 20's. The White Paper which prevented Jewish migration in the late 30's. And the overall tardiness the Brits showed in carving up the land.
From what I read from old Post articles, many of the indigenous Arabs welcomed Jews and the jobs that were created caused many Arabs to migrate to the area as well.
Deir Yassin wasn't terrorism as much as it was an act of war, and probably a war crime.
Cangamble
08-29-2008, 09:10 PM
I meant terrorism in the modern day in that particular region, not that all terrorism began there. Hence the words "in the Middle East", but I should have clarified that I meant in the modern era also.
On the other hand, I think it should be obvious from my repeated references to the ancient terrorist attacks that took place there that I did not mean all terrorism there began in 1931. Because I previously pointed out that Moses and Joshua etc were genocidal terrorists thousands of years ago.
I admit that I should have been a bit more careful in the wording and also to try a bit harder not to generalize (so in other words, to specifically point out the particular groups and incidents involved in the first known planned and premeditated terrorist attack in that region commencing from 1931).
The Italian mob probably invented modern terrorism. But like I said, there were many act of modern terrorism during the Revolutionary War and preceding it.
boxcar
08-30-2008, 01:34 PM
According to this logic, you would also support the acts of those terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, because they believed that God was in support of their cause. They also felt their actions were "divine justice".
No, that's your faulty conclusion. God's chosen people are not the Muslims. God's chosen ones, under this New Covenant economy, is his spiritual nation -- his church universal -- his faithful believers who are scattered all over the world. (Of course, under the Old Covenant, it was the nation of Israel.)
So, rounding up grandmothers, old men, children and babies, and killing them without mercy, until the rivers run with blood and a mountain can be made of the skulls is not murder?
ou've still not provided a satisfactory answer (in fact, seem to be skillfully dodging it) to the question of what the babies and children and animals were guilty of.
No, it's not murder because all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. There is none righteous. Not one. Man practices sin. Furthermore, all men are guilty of sin by virtue of our relationship to Adam -- that is to say, Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind because Adam was the federal head of the human race. God tested Adam and Eve, in their state of innocence, and they failed the test. Therefore, all men are guilty because all mankind is in Adam. Conversely, those who have repented of their sins and have placed their faith in Christ for their salvation have been declared righteous because they are in Him, that is to say, believers have Christ's righteousness imputed to them because he is the federal head of his people. In short, there are two kinds of people in this world: those who are spiritually dead and in Adam, and those who are spiritually alive and in Christ.
In order for the Israelites to be kept pure and to be kept from being influenced and corrupted by the heathens, whose land they were seizing, they were under strict orders from God to kill everyone and everything in the land. (If it's any consolation to you, there is evidence in the bible that young children, who don't understand the difference between right and wrong, are probably not held accountable for their sins or Adam's.)
Why the slaughter of animals? Can't say for certain, except God promised the Israelites many times that if they obeyed him and followed him and worshiped him, he would provide for all their needs in the Land of Milk and Honey, which I have to think included their livestock. Commanding the killing of useful beasts of burden and livestock, for example, was probably a test of their faith.
Precisely. That's the whole point. I'm not trying to express an opinion on whether it is true or not true, because I don't consider that to be important. What is important is that regardless of what happened after, or on whose orders it took place, there were people living in that land before the Jews took possession of it (in fact, not even the Jews, but the Israelites). That was my only point, and solely provided to disprove Tom's claim that they were the original inhabitants. I did not really get into whether they were the rightful inhabitants or not.
And my point is that only if the account isn't fictional could it be said with certainty that other nations occupied the land prior to the Israelites. For someone not deciding one way or the other whether the accounts are historically factual or mere fiction, it seems you certainly have made up your mind that other people occupied the land prior to Israel's invasion. I find it very strange that you wouldn't find this decision to be a prerequisite to any subsequent ones -- to be the foundational decision.
Also, it seems to me, sir, that this last issue you raise is of paramount importance. The question of who had first dibs on the land pales by comparison. I say they were and now are the rightful inhabitants. Under the Abrahamic Covenant, they were the rightful inhabitants because the whole earth belongs to the Lord -- "all the cattle on a thousand hills are his". Therefore, as the Sovereign King of the Universe, he has every right to give and to take away as he wishes. That is his divine prerogative. And in this modern day, the Jews have the legal right to the land under man's law.
But, I don't think God would be inclined to reward the wholesale slaughter of entire races of people, and I strongly suspect that he's deeply offended by being given the credit for orchestrating the violence.
Sir, read your bible. God would never be offended by anyone who obeys him. As stated above, save for the young children, all the rest who were slaughtered were gross sinners who worshiped idols and false gods, performed human sacrifices, etc. Now, God would be offended by those sinful practices! But never by acts of obedience. As stated early on in this thread, God used the Israelites as his instruments for administering his justice.
1. The Bible was not a single book, it is now a series of books collected into a single volume, and the Catholic Church got to dictate which books were included. Only those items that supported their brand of theology were allowed to be included.
Perhaps we'll discuss the canon at another time, but you're way off base here. Yes, I'm well aware that the canon consists of 66 books to be exact. Nonetheless, these books form one unified, consistent and cohesive focal point which is its soteriology. The whole bible, therefore, is Christocentric throughout.
2. Infallible and inerrant are the same thing (just thought I'd point that out, since you're from the grammar and technicality police).
Oops, got me there.
3. Your criticism of the word selectivism is misplaced. I deliberately chose that word over selectivity because we're dealing with fundamentalist religion here, and so "ism" is the appropriate word to use in describing anything pursued with mindless one-eyed zeal.
No, it's not misplaced. There simply isn't such a word.
Further, I thought we were talking about the bible -- not an organized religion, per se.
Just for the record and so you can breathe a little easier perhaps -- I don't consider myself a "fundamentalist". Certainly, I share some fundamentalists' views, but I also differ in significant ways from them -- most especially in the highly important area of hermeneutics.
4. The Bible is absolutely chockers with errors and contradictions. To point them all out would take a very lengthy list. These "errors" are sometimes intentional however, because there is a secret hidden message behind what is stated.
The bible certainly has its share of difficult passages, and even some errors -- but those errors are very minor in nature. Remember: Numerous scribes over the centuries recorded God's revelation for all mankind, so a slip of the scribe's pen here or there would be inevitable. However, none of those errors touch upon any important doctrinal issues, and most importantly there are no contradictions with respect to important matters of faith. For sure -- many people think there are, but this is due to faulty and sloppy interpretation. And if we're really honest, we must confess that we operate (or have at one time) on the carnal assumption that there are contradictions; therefore, those kinds of presuppositions make it easy for us to believe we have found them. Believe this: Before the Lord graciously saved my worthless hide, I, too, thought the bible was replete with contradictions. That was then, but now I know better.
Boxcar
equicom
08-30-2008, 03:47 PM
Boxcar... I find it strange that you prefer to believe that God is a bad guy. You're also right that one of the biggest problems with the Bible is that it has been transcribed and translated so many times that the original text is corrupted. If you've ever seen the fragments of material from which the books have been transcribed and translated (themselves transcriptions, and quite possibly also translated from an even more ancient dialect) you'll know what I mean.
In some cases there are entire chunks missing, and the transcribers have filled in the blanks with what they think fits best. In other cases the text is so faint and poorly written that they have to decide what they think a letter or word is meant to be, possibly getting it wrong, and as you say there's also the fact that the original text could have had mistakes due to a slip of the pen. On top of that there's the problem of that ancient language having so many double meanings and cross-translating words, that the translaters have to make guesses.
The conversion from Latin into Olde English was bad enough (not to mention the prudish censorship that was enforced, resulting in the meanings of some passages being changed). Then translating from Olde English into modern English, which saw even more changes from the original.
Despite all of this, at least some of the original hidden meaning is still visible behind the text, but of course very corrupted and dilluted. It's no wonder that people have a difficult time deciphering it.
Anyway, back to the topic...
And my point is that only if the account isn't fictional could it be said with certainty that other nations occupied the land prior to the Israelites. For someone not deciding one way or the other whether the accounts are historically factual or mere fiction, it seems you certainly have made up your mind that other people occupied the land prior to Israel's invasion. I find it very strange that you wouldn't find this decision to be a prerequisite to any subsequent ones -- to be the foundational decision.
Their claim is that they were not the first inhabitants. I even said that I was only putting that claim up as evidence because there was no other reliable source to the contrary. Mainly I only put that evidence into the topic because Tom failed to produce evidence to support that the Israelis were the first to occupy the territory. And I stress that even if the Israelites were the first to occupy that territory, it doesn't mean that the Israelis were. There are certain arguments that suggest that there is not a direct relationship between the two groups.
No, it's not murder because all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. There is none righteous. Not one. Man practices sin. Furthermore, all men are guilty of sin by virtue of our relationship to Adam -- that is to say, Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind because Adam was the federal head of the human race. God tested Adam and Eve, in their state of innocence, and they failed the test. Therefore, all men are guilty because all mankind is in Adam.
Consequently, you must have sinned yourself. Do you think it would be OK for somebody to kill you, just because you're a sinner?
The Israelites were just as bad as the other bunch. They even made themselves a golden calf to worship while Moses was up the mountain and settled in for an orgy. So why should they have more right to life than the "heathens"? At least the heathens didn't know any better, whereas God's "chosen people" (who were clearly idiots, because if they truly had witnessed the miracles they are supposed to have witnessed they would not have subsequently worshipped a false god, unless they were idiots) did know better.
Also if all people are descended from Adam, then why would the Arabs (who obviously are also descended from Adam according to your logic) have any less claim to the territory?
If everyone is descended from Adam, and the descendents of Adam are the chosen people, then isn't everyone "chosen"? Why is God a bigot and a discriminator, anyway? Those Israelites were clearly an ammoral bunch of losers, and not only that they were knowingly ammoral. And since the root of all sin was the knowledge of sin, they must have been doubly guilty and far more deserving of punishment.
Then again, they should not have been punished at all, since if Adam and Eve did not know that disobeying God was wrong until after they had done it, why should they be punished?
Does it do any good to punish an infant for taking a cake from the table if he does not know that it is wrong? Of course not! It will only make him confused and angry!
And why are the descendents also guilty? That does not make sense! They receive the knowledge of guilt and innocence from their parents, and this is the only way that the sin is passed on. But that would mean that people incapable of understanding language in any form would not receive the knowledge and would be incapable of knowing right from wrong, and therefore would be innocent. But you say nobody is innocent, and in fact your God specifically singles out the disabled for special punishment! They are doubly punished!
If there were only four people in the world, who was Cain's wife? Why did Adam need to name the territory if there were no others present to try and take it? When Adam named all the animals, how did he name the platypus, the panda, or the penguin? None of those creatures can be found in Persia, and there is no evidence of them having ever been there.
How did the kangaroos get from Mount Sinai to Australia after they left Noah's ark? That's a very long hop!
It is estimated that there are up to 100 million different species of creatures in the world. If Noah had put two of every kind in the ark, then that would be quite a squeeze with 200 million on board, plus Noah and his folks, plus the giants (who were taller than the tallest of dinosaurs). All that in a space that was reported as being the equivalent of 450 feet long by 75 feet wide.
I wonder what Noah did with all the poo from 200 million animals and giants on his ship? It takes me about 10 to 20 minutes to thoroughly clean out one horse stall with modern tools. How long would it take for Noah and his family to clean up after 200 million animals using only ancient tools?
When Noah put the termites, beavers, and other xylophages on his ark, why didn't they eat it?
If Noah only had two of every species on the ark, then how many species became extinct when Noah had to sacrifice a few to feed the lions, tigers and bears (oh, my)?
What became of the Midianite and Amalekite zombies?
Does God still say it is a crime to wear a hat? Does he still endorse canabilism as a lifestyle? Does he still contradict himself by saying people may not drink blood or eat fat but it's ok to drink milk and eat butter?
Does God still think that insects only have four legs?
When God created man and gave him the order not to eat the fruit, he knew in advance that it would happen, so why did he create the fruit? Bother to forbid them to eat it? Punish them for doing something that he obviously planned for them to do? Feel so upset about it when he knew they would do it, and actually wanted them to do it?
How did God "separate the light from the darkness" and call the darkness "night" and the light "day"? And if he did that on the first day, but didn't place the stars in the firmament until the fourth day, then how did 3 days manage to go past when there was no way to tell one from the other? And who noticed that the days had passed?
Why did God create the Earth and the stars twice?
If the universe is only a little over 3400 years old, then why can we see light from stars that are more than 3400 light years away?
If I see my neighbor mow his lawn on a Saturday, is it OK for me to stone him to death? What if I discover that a woman has lied about being a virgin, is it OK to stone her to death? How about if I see a lazy person, should I stone him or her to death?
If I hear a young child curse his mother, should I strike him down and put him to the sword? Should I visit the homes of catholics and tear the wooden crucifixes off their walls and burn them?
Is it true that even to the present day, not one uncircumcised man has visited the city of Jerusalem? Remember, the bible predicts that it will not happen until the day armagedon.
Does God still ply his trade as a part-time barber?
And why do you insist that he punished the Moabites, the Hittites, the everythingites (except the Israelites) for being sinners, when in fact it must have meant that he loved those people far more than his "chosen ones", because the bible says "For whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth?" (obviously the Bible was written by an ancestor of Sylvester the cat).
Greyfox
08-30-2008, 03:57 PM
Maybe you two should PM each other.
Otherwise this thread is filling up like Gilgamesh's boat with excrement and seems far from the original poster's starting line.:sleeping:
equicom
08-30-2008, 04:00 PM
Nobody is forcing you to click on the link and read the latest drivel. Nice call on the Gilgamesh reference. And I did state this was the most off-topic Off Topic of all time! But it's kind of fun to see boxcar digging that hole for himself and happily jumping into it.
I agree with Greyfox......far off topic and boring to boot.
And even delusional, judging by that last post.
equicom
08-30-2008, 04:18 PM
Up till now, Tom, yours was the last post! Tsk!
And nobody forced you to click to read the drivel either!
This is why we try to stay on topic - so people KNOW what they want to read or not. But then, people like you just can't seem to grasp that simple idea.
equicom
08-30-2008, 05:01 PM
Well smarty pants, I'm not the one who orginally took this thread off topic, and you (yes you!) caused the whole fiasco by not accepting my challenge and providing proof of your unfounded claim (or at least being man enough to admit that you had made a mistake).
Aww, you going to cry now?
equicom
08-30-2008, 06:14 PM
See, that comment is illogical. It doesn't contribute anything constructive at all. You never step up and meet a challenge. You need to respond with maturity and intelligence, instead of trying a childish insult that is essentially meaningless and also totally unimaginative. An insult should cut, and deep. You should make me wish I could crawl up my own ass to cover my shame when you insult me. You have massively failed.
That's it, let out.....
XsYJyVEUaC4
boxcar
08-31-2008, 12:24 AM
Equi, in post 118 you're all over the map. In fact, you've have gone so far East, you're West already. I'd stand a better chance of having an intelligent and reasoned exchange with one of your four-legged bugs. I'm outta here.
Ciao,
Boxcar
equicom
08-31-2008, 09:24 AM
Equi, in post 118 you're all over the map. In fact, you've have gone so far East, you're West already. I'd stand a better chance of having an intelligent and reasoned exchange with one of your four-legged bugs. I'm outta here.
Well of course you are! Just like any other "Bible is 100% true" fanatic, you can't handle being confronted with the truth that the bible claims that God believes insects only have four legs (plus all that other weird stuff I mentioned). Yes, it is extremely whacky, and that is preciselywhy I presented it. Because all that really whacky stuff comes from a really whacky book which you know as "The Holy Bible".
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.