Christian Coalition's Symposium on Islam [Archive]

Cherith

February 23rd 2003, 04:45 PM

Salus,

You said:
I believe that the United States, as well as any other soverign nation, should recognize, accept, and support Israel the same way that other nations are supported. I know most of the Arab nations will never do this as long as Israel is on the map. Jordan and Egypt are the closest thing to an Arab nation normalizing its ties with Israel but Iraq, Iran, Syria, none of the others will.

I agree, but the truth of the matter is that Israel receives far and away more support - both morally and financially - than any other country on the planet. As long as this is true, then why would the Arab nations perceive us as fair and unbiased? And given our part in both the creation of Israel and it's present state, then again why would Arab nations trust or respect us as a country?

You said: "Israel is a unique country and is in a unique situation."

· First, I would ask why? What makes the modern nation of Israel so unique?

I agree that they are in a "unique situation," but I believe your next sentence is quite telling. You said: "The Israel we know today was a nation carved and created by the United Nations and therefore Arab countries claim that Israel is not a "true" country."

· Second, I would like to see you defend the next part of your statement where you said:
However, Israel itself was around long before Mohammad and Islam and I believe that Jerusalem as well as other Old Testament cities are Israel's and Israel's alone.

· Israel, as a nation, ceased in 722 BC and the Southern Kingdom of Judah ceased, as a nation, in 586 BC. Thereafter, until the Coming of Christ and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem, the remaining remnants of that nation lived under the rule of various other nations/kingdoms. What I'm saying is that, as a nation, Israel ceased even prior to the first century AD. A look at any ancient or historical maps will show the region called either Judea or later Palestine (both before and after the Arabs and Turks controlled it).

See: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea or use Ctrl +F and enter "Judea" at this site: http://www.largeprintreviews.com/HIRhayes.html or simply enter +Judea, +Province and +Rome in any search engine.

You also said:"Jerusalem was a Christian and Jewish city long before the Muslim mosque was built on the site of the Temple."

If you mean that both groups held it in high religious regard then I would not quibble, but after AD 70 (perhaps one can argue even before) did God hold it in high regard? And should His people have done so? By the time the Muslims built their mosque, Herod's Temple had been long ago plowed under by the Romans and that spot had lain desolate for 600 yrs.

You then said: "People say that Jerusalem is important to Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike and, I apologize for saying this, I don't buy this statement. Islam was born in Mecca and Medina and Muslims CONQUERED Jerusalem."

The Hebrew nation lasted only about a 1,000 yrs. Islam has been around for 1400+ yrs and they have controlled Palestine for much of that time. As a piece of real estate, who has the greater claim? As a religion, who has a more legitimate claim before God?

You also said:
Jerusalem "belonged" to Jews and Christians and was forcefully taken by the Muslims and made into an Islamic holy city so in my mind, Jersualem is an Islamic city in "name" only and not in true spirit.

So, the short answer is yes, I believe that all countries SHOULD support Israel as they do each other but for sure certain countries have a duty to support Israel.

"Certain countries" and a "duty"? :huh: Please explain.

You post has not "angered" me, it has confused me. And I'm certainly not offended. I just don't think that your opinion can stand against the historical facts.

Grace and Peace,
--C

Cherith

February 23rd 2003, 04:52 PM

Ric,

Please quote these Biblical admonitions to us. And please remember that, as Christians living under the New Covenant and its stipulations, our marching orders should come from that OR at the very least a spiritual PRINCIPLE from the Old Covenant that can be APPLIED to our relationship with a modern, pagan country such as Israel.

In Him,
--C

Epoetker

February 23rd 2003, 04:53 PM

the very existence of Israel sort of begs the question. And I'd like to preface what I'm about to say by making a qualification: I am NØT a water-carrier for the Palestinians and/or Islam, nor do I think that either side is above criticism

Neither do I. But I do believe that the largest amount of wrongdoing is on the Palestinian side.

however, Israel came about through lies and deception to the Arab people

Explain yourself. Fully. Completely. With references. Consider that many of the Jews that lived there bought that land before it became a state.

and the take-over of the land of the indigenous peoples who have lived/occupied that land for 1400+ years

Being indigenous to an area does not give you the right to rule over the area, especially when someone else owns the land.

(while these "Jews" were happily ensconced in Germany, Spain, Hungary, Russia, etc...).

Happily?:argh: How many pogroms did Russia and Germany undergo? How badly did Spain treat it's Jews? How many Jews were harrassed and persecuted in Hungary, and indeed in all of Eastern Europe over the last millenium?

Zionists wanted the land for political and religious reasons. So, what about a Baptist state or a Methodist state or a Catholic state or a Quaker state, etc.?

How about the whole bunch of officially MUSLIM states around the region, many of which have deliberately disallowed any Jews from even entering their country at all? Where's your outrage at Saudi Arabia for excluding Jews completely when Israel allows any Arab who's an Israeli citizen to serve in the frikkin' KNESSET?!:rant:

Dee Dee Warren

February 23rd 2003, 04:54 PM

02-23-2003 @ 03:39 PM
Ric:

I voted yes to "Yes, Politically & Militarily"... And add Financially to my Yes!

As Christians we are commanded in Scripture :read: to support Israel at all costs! And this Christian will do so!

Well politically I support Israel as I stand right now, but I can definitely say that I do not agree with this statement. I do not beleive that the Scripture tells about supporting the modern nation of Israel any more than about supporting any other country.

Ric

February 23rd 2003, 05:19 PM

02-23-2003 @ 03:52 PM
Cherith:

Ric,

Please quote these Biblical admonitions to us. And please remember that, as Christians living under the New Covenant and its stipulations, our marching orders should come from that OR at the very least a spiritual PRINCIPLE from the Old Covenant that can be APPLIED to our relationship with a modern, pagan country such as Israel.

In Him,
--C

Here is a few I can think of right now:

Psalm 122:6 (ESV)
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!
"May they be secure who love you!

Psalm 51:18 (ESV)
Do good to Zion in your good pleasure;
build up the walls of Jerusalem;

Jeremiah 27:7 (ESV)
All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes. Then many nations and great kings shall make him their slave.

Cherith

February 23rd 2003, 05:22 PM

Epoetker,

Hi. I would be happy to explain myself "fully, completely and with references," but it won't be today. You see, I am presently at the library and without any personal historical aids.

A good book on the history of the creation of modern Israel, which incidentally is written by a Jew, is The Zionist Connection by Alfred M. Lilienthal. http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/zionist_connection.htm There are plenty of other sites online regarding the history of the Palestinian conflict (but somehow I get the impression by what you said next that you would prefer not to be convinced).

Another good book - with maps - is a good historical atlas with historical commentary. I can't recall the name of mine off of the top of my head.

You might also try A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People. You then said:
Being indigenous to an area does not give you the right to rule over the area, especially when someone else owns the land.

Tell me Epoetker, who "OWNS" the land? The Bible says that God "owns" the land and that the Hebrews were merely "tenants". But if you try and make modern Jews and/or Israelis the "owners" of the land of Palestine based on a mythological genetic connection to the descendants of Abraham, then I would ask you how that is? If it is based on the fact that many "Jews that lived there bought that land before it became a state" then I would ask you how much land can foreigners buy in another country before they are entitled to take over that country. :bonk:

My pastor is from Scotland and my next door neighbor is from Mexico... But the number of Jews to Arabs in the land prior to it becoming a state was minute in comparison. I'll find the figures for you if you'd like...

As for my use of the word "happily" :huh: you'll have to read their biographies for yourself! And if they were not "happily" living in their host countries then you would have to further ask "why"? Was it because of their "chosen race" mentality, their arrogance, their lack of patriotism to the land of their forefathers? What? Perhaps it was all of those Old Testament prophecies that stated that God would pursue them until they were destroyed from off of the face of the earth? And other such prophecies?

And as for your ranting and raving about Arab countries presently excluding Jews and the Israelis "allow[ing] any Arab who's an Israeli citizen to serve in the frikkin' KNESSET?!" then I would again suggest that you need to READ YOUR "FREAKIN" HISTORY! Because the facts of HISTORY don't bear the same witness, nor do the Israelis openly embrace that particular Knesset member. Or would you like the FACTS on that as well!?! :argh:

Take a Pill,
--C

Cherith

February 23rd 2003, 05:33 PM

Ric,

Would that be:

1) ancient Jerusalem? (long since destroyed)
2) New Jerusalem - "the mother of us all"? (a heavenly reality)
3) modern Jerusalem in Israel? (the pagan capital of an idolatrous nation)
or
4) Jerusalem, AR
5) Jerusalem, OH
6) Jerusalem, RI
7) Jerusalem, AL
8) Jerusalem, GA
9) Jerusalem, MD

I'm sure there are even more around the world, but I just included the ones I know of in America...

--C

P.S. Lest someone think that I'm just be belligerent (trying to pick a fight), then let me correct that assumption by saying that as Christians our politics should be informed by our theology and not vice versa. And it is to this end that I'm raising these issues...

Ric

February 23rd 2003, 05:36 PM

02-23-2003 @ 04:33 PM
Cherith:

Ric,

Would that be:

1) ancient Jerusalem? (long since destroyed)
2) New Jerusalem - "the mother of us all"? (a heavenly reality)
3) modern Jerusalem in Israel? (the pagan capital of an idolatrous nation)
or
4) Jerusalem, AR
5) Jerusalem, OH
6) Jerusalem, RI
7) Jerusalem, AL
8) Jerusalem, GA
9) Jerusalem, MD

I'm sure there are even more around the world, but I just included the ones I know of in America...

--C

P.S. Lest someone think that I'm just be belligerent (trying to pick a fight), then let me correct that assumption by saying that as Christians our politics should be informed by our theology and not vice versa. And it is to this end that I'm raising these issues...

:no: :nc: :noid:

Cherith

February 23rd 2003, 05:37 PM

P.S. I noticed that Ric pulled his Biblical admonitions out of the OLD Covenant and verbatim at that (i.e. minus their spiritual application). I guess he couldn't find (or even think of any) in the NEW Covenant.

I wonder what Covenant guides and governs his thinking...?

Cherith

February 23rd 2003, 05:43 PM

I've gotta run everybody. (Library's closing/Church will be starting soon.) Maybe we can discuss this more later.

DeeDee, I think you should add a "log in/out" area on each page (like over at that other website). :brow:

Grace and Peace,
--C

:angel:

Ric

February 23rd 2003, 09:18 PM

02-23-2003 @ 04:37 PM
Cherith:

P.S. I noticed that Ric pulled his Biblical admonitions out of the OLD Covenant and verbatim at that (i.e. minus their spiritual application). I guess he couldn't find (or even think of any) in the NEW Covenant.

I wonder what Covenant guides and governs his thinking...?

Then we resort to personal attacks!

Socrates

February 23rd 2003, 10:20 PM

Humph, Cherith, like most anti-Semites, turns a blind eye to the terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians, and would be happy for the PLO to carry out its oft-expressed mandate to push all Israelis into the sea. For goodness's sake, Israel is such a tiny dot on the landscape, but the only democracy in the Middle East. But the Jew-haters don't even want the Jews to have even that tiny sliver of land, even though it's their ancestral homeland. There was no such state as “Palestine” — it was just another part of the Ottoman Empire. And before the Jews sweated their blood on the land, it was mainly desert and malaria-infested swamp with a very low population, as Mark Twain noted.

I too agree with GrayPilgrim's caveat. And since he liked one of my jokes, I'll post it here for Cherith's benefit:

Sharon and Arafat finally agreed to negotiate. But Sharon requested that they should follow Jewish tradition by starting off with a story, and Arafat grudgingly agreed.

Sharon:
“Once, while the Israelites were wandering the desert for 40 years, Moses took a swim in an oasis. But when he got out of the water, he found his clothes missing. He demanded to know what had happened, and the rest of the children of Israel said,
‘That's obvious — the Palestinians stole them.’ ”

At that point Arafat furiously interupted and said:
“Just wait a minute here — there were no Palestinians there at that time!”

Sharon responded:
“Right, now that we've got that settled, what would you like to talk about?”

Ric

February 23rd 2003, 10:41 PM

Amen Socrates! :smile:

Cherith

February 25th 2003, 04:24 PM

Socrates said:
...Cherith, like most anti-Semites...

That's all well and good, Socrates, IF you could point me to ONE "Semite" that I could be against (anti-)....

Tell me, Socrates, how many ancestral charts have you seen from the descendants of Shem? You must also remember, that IF the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael, then they also are of Semitic stock...

You're pejorative comment begs the question and like all red herrings tries to distract the audience from the real issue.

Didn't your momma teach you how to play fair and not resort to name-calling? :smile:

--C

Cherith

February 25th 2003, 04:52 PM

Socrates,

So, in answer to my earlier question, you would have us as Americans (our Christian principles notwithstanding) support a pagan, idolatrous nation on the grounds of their form of government?

Then after you seemed to infer that I am a "Jew-hater" you made reference to "their ancestral homeland" to which I would QUERY: what makes Palestine the "ancestral homeland" of modern Jews - Jews that have NØ documented blood ties to Abraham or even the land in most cases (apart from their chosen religion)?

Third, if you will carefully reread what I said, then you will find that I never called the land of Palestine a "state". Just as the Indians in this country had their own territories and tribal governments and later lived under the sovereignty of their conquerors, so too the Palestinian-Arabs enjoyed a certain amount of autonomy in their own land.

Epoetker wanted facts. Well, here's a fact for you who say:
"...before the Jews sweated their blood on the land, it was mainly desert and malaria-infested swamp with a very low population..."In 1917 (at the time of the Balfour Declaration) there were 700,000 inhabitants in Palestine. Of those 700k, 93% were Arab (570,00 Muslim & 70,000 Christian-Arab) and only 7% (or 49,000) were Jews!

So much for your "very low population"...

GrayPilgrim's joke IS funny (if it were not so tragic). In the Symposium on Islam by the Christian Coalition, Joseph Farah (of WorldNetDaily.com fame) said that the Romans renamed the province of Judea, Palestine, after their conquest of the remaining Jewish populace. They named it this in honor of the ancient Philistines that had held the land prior to the Jews as a slight. Farah went on to say that the ancient Philistines had been exterminated 500 yrs before and that modern Palestinians couldn't possibly be their descendants. Along this same logic I would say that modern Jews/Israelis could not possibly be the descendants of the ancient Israelites!

The fact of the matter is that you have been duped by Israeli/Zionist/Dispensationalist propaganda and refuse to even consider the truth - either Biblically or historically.

"Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" --Gal 4:16

The Lord Jesus COMMANDED us to take heed not only to "WHAT you hear" but also "HOW you hear". Here's hoping that you will obey the commands of the Master and think before you speak on subjects that you obviously know little to nothing about.

Blessings,
--C

Cherith

February 25th 2003, 04:57 PM

Ric,

My comment was not meant to be a "personal attack". I had requested from the outset that AS A CHRISTIAN you stick with either 1) the Covenant that Governs US or 2) a spiritual PRINCIPLE from the OLD Covenant and show it's APPLICATION to US as New Covenant Christians.

Was that too much to ask?
--C

Cherith

February 25th 2003, 04:59 PM

Here's a recent quote for Epoetker:

"Israel's supreme court will hear an appeal today against a decision by the knesset to bar two Arab members from running in this month's general election on the grounds they threaten Israel's existence. Azmi Bishara, the country's most charismatic Arab Israeli politician, and Ahmed Tibi were disqualified from re-election by a knesset committee earlier this week..." --Thursday January 2, 2003 - The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,867330,00.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0103/p01s02-wome.html

Or how about this one for your token Arab Knesset member?

Arab Israeli Knesset member Azmi Bishara injured

"Azmi Bishara, an Arab member of the Israeli Knesset, was injured when members of the Israeli police shot him with rubber bullets during an Arab demonstration near Tel Aviv.

A spokesman for Bishara said that another 15 Arabs were injured when police intervened to disperse the demonstration that was organized as a protest when the Israeli authorities destroyed a house owned by an Arab man on the pretext that it was built without a license. ..." --- Israel, Local, 6/22/1999

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990622/1999062251.html

In Defense of Truth,
--C

Socrates

February 26th 2003, 12:53 AM

Cherith whinges about being called an anti-Semite—the truth hurts which is why "anti-Semitism" is now usually called "anti-Zionism" by its proponents:

That's all well and good, Socrates, IF you could point me to ONE "Semite" that I could be against (anti-)....All the ones in Israel trying to live their lives peacefully without being blown up by terrorists.

Tell me, Socrates, how many ancestral charts have you seen from the descendants of Shem? You must also remember, that IF the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael, then they also are of Semitic stock...Meaning is determined by usage not etymology, and anti-semite means against Jews on account of their being Jewish.
So, in answer to my earlier question, you would have us as Americans (our Christian principles notwithstanding) support a pagan, idolatrous nation on the grounds of their form of government?
I'm not an American. And Both the Israelites and the co-called Palestinians would be better off under a democracy than under a murderous despotism.

Then after you seemed to infer that I am a "Jew-hater" you made reference to "their ancestral homeland" to which I would QUERY: what makes Palestine the "ancestral homeland" of modern Jews - Jews that have NØ documented blood ties to Abraham or even the land in most cases (apart from their chosen religion)?Don't tell me you swallow British Israelitism or Ashkenazim = Khazar Converts theory? See the article Y-chromosomes confirm Genesis teaching about Abraham (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4304news5-16-2000.asp) which also refutes those pathetic ideas.

See

GrayPilgrim

February 26th 2003, 12:59 AM

I can't take credit for the joke, I would kill a joke if I coppied it from a joke book. It was Socrates joke, that I liked.

GP

Cherith

February 27th 2003, 04:42 PM

Socrates tried to wriggle out of his pejorative name-calling by saying:
"Cherith whinges about being called an anti-Semite—the truth hurts which is why "anti-Semitism" is now usually called "anti-Zionism" by its proponents" (emphasis mine)Anti-Zionism is NØT the equivalent of anti-Semitism. You are making a category mistake (and one which would implicate non-Zionist Jews as well) and seriously confusing religion with nationalism.

Furthermore, when I asked you to point me to just one documented son of Shem you demurred by saying:
"All the ones in Israel trying to live their lives peacefully..."So, EVERY ISRAELI is a descendant of Shem based on the land in which they now reside and if they are "trying to live their lives peacefully"? Wow, Socrates, you've just redefined the meaning of Semite! Talk about etymological screwups!

I once took a course in etymology so I know very well its use and function. I even know the difference between denotative and connotative.

You again dodged my question about ancestral charts and modern Arabs alledgedly being Semitic by this little jewel:
"Meaning is determined by usage not etymology, and anti-semite means against Jews on account of their being Jewish."Which means that you misunderstood me again.

I am NØT against Jews as Jews. As a Christian, I do find fault with their theology and am against them in that sense, but I am NØT against Jews as an ethnic group.

I AM rabidly against Zionism and injustice, but so are non-Zionist Jews.

As for your support for Israel based, it seems, SOLELY on their form of goverment and their alleged "democracy," then I would ask you what rock you've been hiding under? Israel is the "murderous despot." People all over the world have been likening them to an aparteid state! I could give you examples of their decidely undemocratic stances that could curl your toes. The links about their fellow Arab Knesset member was just one instance. How about the 70+ U.N. resolutions that they've ignored. Funny, how we pick and choose our friends and enemies...

--C

Cherith

February 27th 2003, 04:50 PM

And "NØ," I do not subscribe to British-Israelism - far from it. In fact, I disbelieve and would refute British-Israelism on the same grounds that I disbelieve and refute the claims of modern Jews of being the genetic descendants of Abraham.

A good book on the subject is O. Michael Friedman's The Origins of the British Israelites. Friedman refers to himself as a "Hebrew-Christian." The book is expensive, but if you are interested I would gladly photocopy it for your perusal.

Secondly, the Y-chromosome theory is refuted on other websites by the fact that Jews and Arabs in the Middle East share these genetic markers! Try typing +Arab +Jew and +DNA in a search engine and see what you come up with...

In Defense of Truth & Still Awaiting a REAL Challenge,
--C

Sauron

February 28th 2003, 02:33 AM

02-23-2003 @ 01:22 PM
Cherith:

And as for your ranting and raving about Arab countries presently excluding Jews and the Israelis "allow[ing] any Arab who's an Israeli citizen to serve in the frikkin' KNESSET?!" then I would again suggest that you need to READ YOUR "FREAKIN" HISTORY! Because the facts of HISTORY don't bear the same witness, nor do the Israelis openly embrace that particular Knesset member. Or would you like the FACTS on that as well!?! :argh:

Take a Pill,
--C[/color]

Indeed. If this is the same Knesset member I'm thinking of, the Sharon govt had him arrested. That's "acceptance" fer ya! :rofl:

Socrates

March 2nd 2003, 09:01 AM

The anti-semite Cherith must have his moral blinders on if he thinks that even the most violent Israeli acts of retaliation can hold a candle to the systematic mass murders of Jewish civilians planned by Palestinian terrorists. It also seems not to bother him that as soon as Israel was re-formed as a nation, seven Arab countries tried to wipe them our.

And Cherith didn't even bother to read the article Genesis correctly predicts Y-Chromosome pattern (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4304news5-16-2000.asp) that I recommended, otherwise he would have seen the subtitle "Jews and Arabs shown to be descendants of one man!" Of course, Abraham was the father of Isaac and Ishmael, so this is to be expected. But it was through Isaac that the Abrahamic Covenant was continued.

Sauron

March 2nd 2003, 08:21 PM

03-02-2003 @ 05:01 AM
Socrates:

The anti-semite Cherith

Anti-semite?

That's a pretty disgusting charge. How do you back it up?

must have his moral blinders on if he thinks that even the most violent Israeli acts of retaliation can hold a candle to the systematic mass murders of Jewish civilians planned by Palestinian terrorists.

By sheer numbers of total civilians killed, the Israelis have killed more than the Arabs have. Do you have another way that you'd like to measure this?

It also seems not to bother him that as soon as Israel was re-formed as a nation, seven Arab countries tried to wipe them our.

Perhaps that's because Israel's formation required the expropriation of land, and eviction of Arabs. Funny how one's perspective changes when *all* relevant facts are included.

Socrates

March 2nd 2003, 09:45 PM

Sauron whinges:

Anti-semite?

That's a pretty disgusting charge. How do you back it up?Bcause of his indifference to Jews being murdered, denial of their heritage and right to peaceful existence, squealing when they defend themselves. After all, King Hussein of Jordan, usually regarded as a moderate, threw out Arafat and the PLO from Jordan, but what a furore it would cause if Israel did that!

Soc:
must have his moral blinders on if he thinks that even the most violent Israeli acts of retaliation can hold a candle to the systematic mass murders of Jewish civilians planned by Palestinian terrorists.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Sauron:
By sheer numbers of total civilians killed, the Israelis have killed more than the Arabs have. Do you have another way that you'd like to measure this?Sez U. Perhaps you swallow the media lies of thousands killed at Jenin, when it was only in the tens, mostly non-civilians, and it was a terrorist training camp. But the main point is that the Israelis do not TARGET civilians for killing as the PLO does.

A PLO spokesman actually inadvertently provided support: he said that when an Israeli dies, they cry; when one of their own dies, they cheer. Who wants scum like that running the country. AS Golda Meir said long ago, there will be no peace as long as the PLO hate Jewish children more than they love their own.

This hatred is so fanatical that a wounded PLO terrorist refused an offered blood transfusion on the grounds that it was Jewish blood. So the medics got blood from Jordan. This act of mercy cannot be more diametrically opposed to the culture of hate fostered by the PLO.

----------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
It also seems not to bother him that as soon as Israel was re-formed as a nation, seven Arab countries tried to wipe them our.

----------------------------------------------------------
Sauron:
Perhaps that's because Israel's formation required the expropriation of land, and eviction of Arabs. Funny how one's perspective changes when *all* relevant facts are included.
Actuallly, the Jews purchased all the land legally, and it was mostly deserts and malaria-infested swamps. The Arabs were welcome to stay, but the surrounding nations encouraged them to get out so they could push the Jews into the sea. This didn't happen, and now the Palestinians are just used as pawns. Osama alone has enough wealth to build them all mansions, but neither he nor the other Arab countries really care about them, but only about Jew-hatred.

Sauron

March 2nd 2003, 10:17 PM

03-02-2003 @ 05:45 PM
Socrates:

Sauron whinges:

Anti-semite?

That's a pretty disgusting charge. How do you back it up?Bcause of his indifference to Jews being murdered,

I see no indifference.

denial of their heritage and right to peaceful existence,
squealing when they defend themselves.

Disagreeing on whether they should have a particular piece of land is not "denial of their heritage". Many Jews also think that ISrael should co-exist peacefully, and withdraw from the occupied territories. Are you now going to tell us that these Jews are also anti-Semites? :rofl:

And I don't see Cherith advocating their destruction. So your claim about him/her not considering their "peaceful existence" is another red herring you've tossed out. :whip:

After all, King Hussein of Jordan, usually regarded as a moderate, threw out Arafat and the PLO from Jordan, but what a furore it would cause if Israel did that!

Unfortunately, you obviously have no idea of the politics behind Hussein's move. You might want to spend 5 minutes reviewing the history, before

Soc:
must have his moral blinders on if he thinks that even the most violent Israeli acts of retaliation can hold a candle to the systematic mass murders of Jewish civilians planned by Palestinian terrorists.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Sauron:
By sheer numbers of total civilians killed, the Israelis have killed more than the Arabs have. Do you have another way that you'd like to measure this?

Sez U. Perhaps you swallow the media lies of thousands killed at Jenin, when it was only in the tens,

1. No, not "sez me". The Israelis have the better weapons, and superior firepower. It stands to reason that they would kill more. In addition, several news sources (Frontline, BBC, etc.) have been keeping a running count of those killed on each side. It's about twice as many Arabs killed as Israelis.

2. Jenin - you're wrong.

mostly non-civilians, and it was a terrorist training camp. But the main point is that the Israelis do not TARGET civilians for killing as the PLO does.

Actually, they do. There have been several cases recently in fact - and the military inquisitions have covered the tracks of the offending officers.

A PLO spokesman actually inadvertently provided support: he said that when an Israeli dies, they cry; when one of their own dies, they cheer.

Unfortunately, that doesn't support your position at all, for several reasons:

1. Your claim was about alleged Arab "moral blindness", and my response was about total number of civilians killed. Your quotation fails to address my response at all;

2. You claim that the Arabs are so much worse, morally. Yet I have heard Jews say the same thing about dead Arabs - actually, I've heard worse than this - - so your quotation again fails to support the case you're trying to make;

3. You have failed to name this PLO spokesman, nor have you presented evidence that their viewpoint represents the PLO view, and/or the views of most Arabs, so all we have to go on is your word and this anecdotal story;

This hatred is so fanatical that a wounded PLO terrorist refused an offered blood transfusion on the grounds that it was Jewish blood. So the medics got blood from Jordan. This act of mercy cannot be more diametrically opposed to the culture of hate fostered by the PLO.

And I've heard a similar story about a Jewish victim who wouldn't take blood from an Arab, becuase it would be like taking transfusion from a pig - an unclean animal. Big deal. :ahem: For every anecdotal story you dredge up, I can find two stories that illustrate the Israeli atrocities. That's the problem with anecdotal stories.

Sauron

March 2nd 2003, 10:25 PM

03-02-2003 @ 05:45 PM
Socrates:

Actuallly, the Jews purchased all the land legally,

No, they didn't.

and it was mostly deserts and malaria-infested swamps.

Nonsense. You know zero history or geography of the area; that's becoming very clear.

There were orchards and gardens, especially in the fertile Shephelah plain. Some of these orchards (olive, lemons, etc.) and gardens had been owned by the same Arab family for 8 or 9 generations.

The Israelis made great strides in reclaiming some areas; desalinization, etc. But to claim that it was "mostly deserts and swamps" only shows that you lack any background in the topic.

The Arabs were welcome to stay, but the surrounding nations encouraged them to get out so they could push the Jews into the sea.

No, the Arabs who were living there in 1948 were driven out and/or encouraged to leave at the point of a gun. The Israelis took their homes and lands, and thus the diaspora began.

Pity you don't know anything about history, Soc.

Socrates

March 2nd 2003, 10:57 PM

Sauron expects us just to take his word for things. Hardly likely, given the crass ignorance and anti-biblical bigotry he's demostrated on all the topics on which he spruiks. Mark Twain famously pointed out that Palestine was a wasteland. But now the Israelis grow things in the Negev Desert, and I'm sure there are many things my country could learn from them.

Arabs are welcome to stay in Israel, provided that they renounce violence.

Sauron

March 2nd 2003, 11:23 PM

03-02-2003 @ 06:57 PM
Socrates:

Sauron expects us just to take his word for things.

Actually, you're the one who apparently expects to be able to make grand statements, and then expect people to just swallow your opinion as though it were fact.

Hardly likely, given the crass ignorance and anti-biblical bigotry he's demostrated on all the topics on which he spruiks.

Except that I know what I'm talking about, and you've utterly failed to demonstrate otherwise, Soc.

Mark Twain famously pointed out that Palestine was a wasteland.

Mark Twain wasn't a geographer; he was a writer of popular novels. The areas that I mentioned (the Shephelah plain, for example) have been fertile fields since the time of king Omri, and before. For a more thorough refutation of your nonsense, see these charts and figures, collected by the British mandate and the UN:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story665.html

And here's some more:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap5.html

Arabs are welcome to stay in Israel, provided that they renounce violence.

In other words, as long as they don't resist the acts of theft that have occurred, then everything will be just fine. :bonk:

Socrates

March 4th 2003, 03:59 AM

Socrates:
Arabs are welcome to stay in Israel, provided that they renounce violence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sore-on, after spruiking nonsense including from the Infudgels:In other words, as long as they don't resist the acts of theft that have occurred, then everything will be just fine.
No, so long as they don't strap explosives to teenagers and send them to places crowded with Jewish civilians to blow themselves up.

Cherith

March 4th 2003, 04:29 PM

Hello Sauron, nice to have an ally. :brow:

Socrates! Regarding your post that said:
"And Cherith didn't even bother to read the article Genesis correctly predicts Y-Chromosome pattern that I recommended, otherwise he would have seen the subtitle "Jews and Arabs shown to be descendants of one man!" Of course, Abraham was the father of Isaac and Ishmael, so this is to be expected. But it was through Isaac that the Abrahamic Covenant was continued."I did bother to read that stupid article and my conclusion was one of shock!

I cannot believe that a Christian - much less a Christian Creationist-website - would appeal to such inconclusive, biased, evolutionary drivel!

I read Dr. Hammer, et. al.'s paper and that is the best that I can say about it. (Have you read it Socrates? Or have you just read their conclusions reguritated by Answers In Genesis? And what eschatological ax do they have to grind, I wonder...? :huh: )

In case you need the link it is:http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769. Just a few items should suffice to question AIG's conclusions:

1) The study itself lacked was conducted on evolutionary principles. (See the several comments about "natural selection" under the Introduction. The reference to "homologous NRY sequences from great apes" and "evolutionary relationships" in the Results section for examples. Note also that the lead researcher works in the "Laboratory of Molecular Systematics and Evolution" at the Univ. of Arizona.)

2) The study's conclusion begged the question. It concluded that Jews and non-Jews "descended from a common Middle-Eastern ancestral population." Well, duh! Have they not ever heard of Noah? The problem is (besides the fact that we don't know if Noah wasn't a widower twice before his youngest son was born and he and his "wife," singular, entered the ark...) that the researchers are presupposing this link to be Abraham when they have no genetic material by which to make this comparision. There are no direct male descendants of Abraham who can document their ancestry for comparision against modern claimants and there isn't any genetic material from a grave or such that is identifiably Abraham's. So, the study's conclusion is flawed from the get-go.

3) Two of the researchers are Israelis. Do you not think that their conclusions would tend toward substantiating a genetic claim to the land they now possess?

I could go on and rip that study apart phrase-by-phrase, but I trust that this is sufficient to dissuade a Christian from being a Jewish apologist for an evolutionary study on genetics?

I had thought to write Dr. Hammer. Perhaps I should and share with you his answers? I'll bet they would not be what you would want to hear...

As for Koestler being "widely discredited" by "reputable historians," would you please name several and their work where this discreditation appears? (I have yet to find one single source by any historian - reputable or not.)

In fact, I found where one historian (who shares Koestler's interest in the Khazars) refers to Dr. Hammer's study as "less [than] complete." (http://www.barzan.com/kevin_brook.htm).

The AIG article is biased against Koestler from the get-go using pejorative comments like "Koestler was prone to anti-establishmentarianism, and this Khazar conversion theory could have been motivated by his desire as a secularised Jew to assimilate with gentile and avoid persecution." They offer no real arguments against his theory. But it fails on other issues like the next section on Polish Jews or using the guilt by association tact that anti-Semites quote Koestler or the claim that Nazis "absurdly called Jews 'Christ-killers'..." Well, is that "absurd"? Funny, I remember real, unqualified Jews saying "His Blood be upon us and our children..." Did the Jews kill Christ? Yes they did. As sure as the Romans carried out their demand (see Matt 27:24). :argh:

Gotta run. More later.
--C

GrayPilgrim

March 4th 2003, 04:45 PM

03-02-2003 @ 09:17 PM
Sauron:

Disagreeing on whether they should have a particular piece of land is not "denial of their heritage". Many Jews also think that ISrael should co-exist peacefully, and withdraw from the occupied territories. Are you now going to tell us that these Jews are also anti-Semites? :rofl:

What Socrates was referring to was in post 25405 when cherith said:

And "NØ," I do not subscribe to British-Israelism - far from it. In fact, I disbelieve and would refute British-Israelism on the same grounds that I disbelieve and refute the claims of modern Jews of being the genetic descendants of Abraham.

It is Cherith's implicit support of the Khazan Hypothesis that led Socrates to say this.

My question is how do you account for Yemenite and other Sepharidc Jews witht he Khazan Hypothesis?

GP

Sauron

March 5th 2003, 12:09 AM

03-03-2003 @ 11:59 PM
Socrates:

Socrates:
Arabs are welcome to stay in Israel, provided that they renounce violence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sore-on, after spruiking nonsense including from the Infudgels:In other words, as long as they don't resist the acts of theft that have occurred, then everything will be just fine.
No, so long as they don't strap explosives to teenagers and send them to places crowded with Jewish civilians to blow themselves up.

Maybe they wouldn't feel like doing so, if Israelis weren't bulldozing houses, stealing land, and doing it all with American money and backing.

And of course, the Zionists never committed terrorism, in pursuit of their political goals, right?

It's fun debating with people who know zero about history.

:yipee:

Sauron

March 5th 2003, 12:25 AM

03-04-2003 @ 12:45 PM
GrayPilgrim:
It is Cherith's implicit support of the Khazan Hypothesis that led Socrates to say this.

OK. I still don't see it as anti-semitic, however.

My question is how do you account for Yemenite and other Sepharidc Jews witht he Khazan Hypothesis?

I think the Khazan hypothesis only applies to Ashkenazi Jews in the first place. Right? I don't think it was ever offered as a comprehensive explanation for the origin of all Jews; only those from Europe.

GrayPilgrim

March 5th 2003, 12:57 AM

It is still an anti-semitic replacement theory.

Socrates

March 5th 2003, 07:48 AM

Yeah, the idea that the Ashkenazim were really descendants of the Khazar was promoted by the secularized Jew Arthur Koestler, who used this to advocate assimilation. While Koester thought this was the way to avoid being victims of anti-semitism, anti-semites like Cherith(and probably the Lizard Being) have latched onto it to deny the Jews their heritage.

But Y-chromosome analysis shows that the Sephardim and Ashkenazim are really part of the same people group, and close to the Arabs, which is just what the Bible would predict. Other genetic analysis of the Kohanim (Cohens) of all branches of Jewry provide further support.

Also, history shows that by far the majority of Khazars became Moslems, and the few Jewish converts were absorbed into the Jewish communities that were already around.

For more information, see:
Genesis correctly predicts Y-Chromosome pattern:
Jews and Arabs shown to be descendants of one man! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4304news5-16-2000.asp) (although Cherith evidently needs remedial reading lessons because he misses most of its points).

Socrates

March 5th 2003, 07:59 AM

Wow, the anti-semite professing Christian Cherith and the avowed God-hater Lizard Being make a great team.

Cherith keeps spruiking about the "Christ-killer" slander, although the article I cited refuted that, showing that if anyone was, it was the Italians (and in fact ALL of us because it he died for sinners). And evidently Cherith bases his Jew-hatred on the UNINSPIRED words of the Jewish mob saying "His Blood be upon us and our children..." rather than the words of Jesus, "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do."

I also said that Arabs were welcome in Israel with this condition:

No, so long as they don't strap explosives to teenagers and send them to places crowded with Jewish civilians to blow themselves up.
Then the Lizard Being showed his low value for human life (or at least Jewish human life):

Maybe they wouldn't feel like doing so, if Israelis weren't bulldozing houses, stealing land, and doing it all with American money and backing.Amazing—Lizard Being equates what are at worst property crimes with the savage hatred and destruction of human life by the terrorist suicide-murder squad. BTW, the Israelis buildoze only the houses of known terrorists. But they follow the Biblical command against killing a father for the sin of the son and vice versa. But they are perfectly right to make sure that the consequence of sheltering terrorists is the loss of that shelter.

Cherith

March 5th 2003, 02:52 PM

GrayPilgrim:It is Cherith's implicit support of the Khazan Hypothesis that led Socrates to say this. My question is how do you account for Yemenite and other Sepharidc Jews witht he Khazan Hypothesis?First, I am not giving "implicit support [to] the Khazar hypothesis." I could care less whether modern Jews are descended from Khazars or Yemenis or Spainards or Brits or Chinese. The fact of the matter is still the same: they do NØT know who they are ORIGINALLY descended from because they didn't bother to keep their pedigrees AS REQUIRED BY MOSAIC LAW. Neither did they obey the MOSAIC LAW that required them to abstain from intermarriage with the gentiles/nations. Now, they can scream and complain and do DNA studies all day long and all I have to say is "Sorry. Too little too late.":bawl:

Cherith

March 5th 2003, 02:59 PM

Socrates: "The Arabs were welcome to stay, but..." (Post #26288)Well, isn't that magnanimous! The Arab Palestinians and descendants of those who have lived in that particular area for 1400+ years are "welcome to stay" in their own land. Wow, Socrates, and I didn't think you cared...

Cherith

March 5th 2003, 03:23 PM

Socrates: "Cherith keeps spruiking about the "Christ-killer" slander, although the article I cited refuted that, showing that if anyone was, it was the Italians (and in fact ALL of us because it he died for sinners). And evidently Cherith bases his Jew-hatred on the UNINSPIRED words of the Jewish mob saying "His Blood be upon us and our children..." rather than the words of Jesus..."Ok, Socrates, how many INSPIRED words or passages by Christ and the apostles saying that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ would it take for you to then believe? One passage? Two? Ten?

Jesus, the Anti-Semite:

Matt 23:29-35 "...you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, "If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth..."

John 8:40 "...you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this."

Stephen, the Anti-Semite:

Acts 7:51-53 "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it."

Paul, the Anti-Semite:

1 Thess 2:14-16 "For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost."

Cherith

March 5th 2003, 03:45 PM

Socrates: "...they follow the Biblical command against killing a father for the sin of the son and vice versa..."Between 29 Sept 2000 - 31 Mar 2002 there were 232 Palestinian children killed compared to 54 Israeli children who died from violence during the same period. Perhaps you can tell us what crimes these Palestinian children commited to warrant the higher percentage of their deaths?

Sara HASSAN of Nablus was 18 months old when she was killed in a car by Israeli settle gunfire to the head. What did she do, Socrates, to incite violence?

Samer TABANJA of Nablus was 10 yrs old when he was killed by Israeli forces helicopter gunfire to his head.

Muhammad Abu ASI of Khan Younis was 9 yrs old when he was killed by Israeli forces gunfire to his little chest.

Ala AHMAD of Nablus was 10 yrs old when he died of a burst appendix after Israeli forces denied access to a hospital.

Maram HASSOUNA of el-Bireh was 3 yrs old when she died of asphyxiation after inhaling Israeli forces tear gas.

Shadi ZAGHOUL of Husan was 14 yrs old when he was hit by a car driven by an Israeli settler and left to bleed to death.

Riham Hussam Abu TAHA was 4 yrs old when she was shot in the head in front of her home by an Israeli troop incursion in the autonomous area of Rafah in Gaza.

infant girl OBEISI of Nablus died because Israeli forces denied her mother access to medical care.

Omar KHALED of el-Bireh was 10 yrs old when he was killed by Israeli forces gunfire to his head.

Muhummad NASSER of Jerusalem was 10 yrs old when he was killed by Israeli settlers with stones and sharp implements.

Truly, these modern Jews are the descendants of the ancient people of God, righteous and pure of heart!

Cherith

March 5th 2003, 03:54 PM

GrayPilgrim: "It is still an anti-semitic replacement theory."Well, I would argue against the anti-Semitic part, of course (as I have done elsewhere), but what about the replacement portion?

Did God or did He not "replace" the genetic makeup of His olive tree by grafting in a quantitatively higher portion of gentiles? This is not anti-Biblical it is verifiably Biblical. Does God reckon descendants of Abraham based on genetic makeup or spiritual makeup?

At this point your argument ceases to be with me but with God.
--C

GrayPilgrim

March 5th 2003, 10:23 PM

The Khazar theory has nothing to do with theology or the in-grafting of Gentiles! We are talking about physical descent not salvific regeneration! I concur that Gentiles were grafted in but this does not change the fact that Abraham and Sarah begat Isaac...The Khazar thing has everything ot do with racial bigotry.

Oh, and by the way the Priests have kept track of their lineage, albeit not as carefully as they would have like, but then again its a little hard with anti-semites and pogroms burning their homes and records for over 1900 years. As for inter-marriage, that just seems to be another redf-herring.

GP

Socrates

March 6th 2003, 01:46 AM

I wonder if this latter-day-Streicher Cherith is also a Holocaust denier and circulates the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He, like the misotheist Lizard Being, is so morally twisted that he can't see the difference between accidental civilian casualties caused by Israeli attacks on military targets and the intentional targeting of civilian men, women and children by PLO terrorists. And there would be even fewer civilian casualties if the PLO didn't hide in places like hospitals and other civilian areas.

Also, in one famous case where a young Palestinian was shown dying, an independent German news crew showed conclusively that the bullet could NOT have come from the Israeli direction.

As for the alleged anti-semitism in the New Testament, did Cherith pick all this up from the loony Bishop Spong? Obvious a denouncement by Jews of Jewish leaders or possibly in fact Judeans is hardly justification for the blanket anti-semitism that Streicher-Cherith tries to justify. See the further refutation, Alleged Antisemitism in the New Testament (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2483.asp).

Intermarriage (which was forbidden to unbelievers not gentiles per se) largely ceased to be a problem after Ezra and Nehemiah.

Gray Pilgrim rightly pointed out that the priestly line has been recorded even after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. You can tell them by name Cohen, the Hebrew for priest, or variants like Cohn, Kohn, Cowen, Kogan, Kagan, etc. In fact, the Levtical line in general has been preserved, and they have names like Levy, Levine, Levinson, Levental (or Löwenthal in German orthography).

Even if the so-called Palestinians had been there for as long as Streicher-Cherith claims, my joke illustrated that they were NOT around at the time of Moses!

Cherith

March 6th 2003, 03:23 PM

BTW, Gray, I love your quote by John Piper. He is an excellent writer.

GrayPilgrim: "The Khazar theory has nothing to do with theology or the in-grafting of Gentiles!"

I don't think that I'm the one who brought up the Khazars or Koestler, but whether modern Jews are direct descendants of Abraham not only has a direct bearing on our theology it also has a direct bearing on our politics as shown by the substance of the Christian Coalition's Symposium which was supposed to be on Islam but turned out to be a love-fest for Israel and the Jews! As Christians, we must be very clear on the nature of the Gospel - whether it is based on race or faith. This is my main contention. The politics and treatment of the Palestinians is of course a corollary of that but it is secondary.

GrayPilgrim: "We are talking about physical descent not salvific regeneration!"

Well, some of us are talking about both and the necessity for distinction and clarification between the two.

GrayPilgrim: "I concur that Gentiles were grafted in but this does not change the fact that Abraham and Sarah begat Isaac...The Khazar thing has everything ot do with racial bigotry."

I, too, concur that Abraham & Sarah begot Isaac (although by miraculous circumstances) and that the Gentiles were grafted in. I am not a bigot and Jews are not a "race." I am a Christian contending for the very nature and heart of the Gospel.

GrayPilgrim: "Oh, and by the way the Priests have kept track of their lineage, albeit not as carefully as they would have like, but then again its a little hard with anti-semites and pogroms burning their homes and records for over 1900 years."

Gray, can you show me two or three priest's genealogies that go back to Aaron or even the time prior to the Babylonian exile? It's not just that they weren't "careful," it was impossible because of the fact that their genealogies, in the Providence of God Almighty, were destroyed. QUESTION: Do you think He allowed that for no reason? The priests were required by Law to marry within their own tribe. If there are no genealogical records to prove ancestry, then they were excluded from service. Or haven't you ever read Ezra?

"These were the ones who came up from Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Cherub, Addan, and Immer; but they could not identify their father's house or their genealogy, whether they were of Israel:" ... "These sought their listing among those who were registered by genealogy, but they were not found; therefore they were excluded from the priesthood as defiled."
--Ezra 2:59, 62

GrayPilgrim: "As for inter-marriage, that just seems to be another red-herring."

I hate to be disrespectful, Gray, but if you are going to challenge me then please do it on solid ground. Is it a red-herring or is what I said Biblical? The phrase "red-herring" came about from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs. In logic, we use it to mean that someone is trying to distract others from the main issue with an issue that has no relevance.

Intermarriage with heathens was hardly irrelevant to God - either then or now. And intermarriage among Jews (either ancient or modern) is directly relevent to this discussion.

Grace and Peace,
--C

Cherith

March 6th 2003, 03:35 PM

You know what, Socrates, you really haven't contributed anything of substance to this thread - except ad hominem attacks and dragging red-herrings around behind you. If you can't cease your vitriolic attacks and let the hunters go after the real prize, then perhaps you should leave the field.

You have not shown yourself worthy to wear the handle of a great philosopher.

Perhaps Euthyphro would be a better handle...

Epoetker

March 6th 2003, 07:29 PM

Actually, Cherith, most intelligent people here, including myself, abandoned this thread when it became clear that you were a rabid anti-Semite who would not be convinced of anything that didn't support your theory. You should be glad Socrates is humoring you, especially given the fact that you have made almost zero posts in any other threads on any other issue.

Though I have found that I like the Zionist Association of America site now
www.zoa.org

Epo, pro-Israel, pro-anti-terror, NOT A JEW.

Cherith

March 8th 2003, 05:23 PM

Hello again Epoetker,

The fact of the matter is that I am temporarily without a computer and I prefer to devote what little computer time I do have to one topic at a time. It's less distracting that way. I didn't know that it was now a means of determining worth or merit of an argument.

It seems these days that unless a topic can be neatly summed up in a soundbite that it isn't worth discussing.

I noticed that Clinton & Dole are teaming up to revive the old Point/Counterpoint segment on 60 minutes. The old segment used to be 60 seconds long. The producers have said that the new segment will only be 45 seconds long because the attention span of Americans has greatly decreased.

I expected more from a website aimed at thoughtful debate among Christian brethren... I have been sadly mistaken again...

Not one person on this thread has responded in any real way to any of my questions. They've just thrown out ad homs and red-herrings because they can't refute my basic argument. If you call that "humoring me," well then, so be it.

The Lord judge between you and me. :kiss:
--C

Epoetker

March 9th 2003, 05:33 PM

Not one person on this thread has responded in any real way to any of my questions. They've just thrown out ad homs and red-herrings because they can't refute my basic argument. If you call that "humoring me," well then, so be it.

The Lord judge between you and me.

Perhaps I do have a short attention span, but then, I'm only 21. Most of the stuff on Jews & Israel I know has been compiled within the last 10 years or so, so most of my arguments will concern actions taken by the Israeli and Palestinian government around that time. (My position on the Palestinians vis-a-vis the historical wars of the 40s-60s is: "You lost 4 wars. Get over it.")

But when you said, regarding the Jews:

And if they were not "happily" living in their host countries then you would have to further ask "why"? Was it because of their "chosen race" mentality, their arrogance, their lack of patriotism to the land of their forefathers?

that was the time I made my "stay away from Cherith" decision. Anyone who presumes that the Jews were "asking for it" based solely on ATTITUDE, rather than actual crimes or other actions, is not someone you want to engage in a debate on the morality of wars of any type that involve Jews. I cannot debate with someone as hatefully presumptuous as this, and most other people here choose not to as well. Their silence is not assent, but revulsion.

Cherith

March 10th 2003, 03:03 PM

Ric said on 2/23 that I "personal[ly] attack[ed]" him. (Section 2, Pg 9)

Socrates called me:

an anti-semite - 6x (Section 2, pp. 10, 12, 15; Section 3, pg 23, 24; Section 4, pg. 27)
blind to terrorists - 1 (Section 2, pg. 10)
a supporter of terrorists (Section 2, pg. 10)
a Jew-hater - 4x (Section 2, pg. 10, 15; Section 3, pg 24)

[To which Ric concurred with a hearty "Amen" - Section 2, pg. 10]

a buffoon (for lack of a nicer description) - 3x (Section 2, pg. 12, 16; Section 4, pg. 27)

he implied that I was "pathetic" - (Section 2, pg. 12)

morally blind - (Section 2, pg. 15; Section 4, pg. 27)
morally twisted - (Section 4, pg. 27)

a slanderer - (Section 3, pg. 24)

another Julius Streicher - 3x in one post (Section 4, pp. 27)

a Holocaust denier - (Section 4, pg. 27)

"loony" - (Section 4, pg. 27)

Then Epoetker offered that I was:

unintelligent - (Section 4, pg. 28)
willfully ignorant - (Section 4, pg. 28)

GrayPilgrim & Epoetker also called me an anti-semite at least once (Section 3, pg. 23; Section 4, pg. 28)

------------------------

Our homeschooled children are getting in a real lesson in Christian charity and responsible debating techniques! :bonk:

They also see the flagrant disobedience of Christ's command to "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you ... with meekness and fear"

Cherith

March 10th 2003, 03:26 PM

And these were the questions that were never answered:

Question: Should the religion of a particular group be able to lobby for their own country irrespective of those that have historically lived there?

Question: Should Christians in another country support the religous aspiriations of another faith [one which is even antagonistic to Xianity] and their desire for a "homeland" based on those aspirations?

Question: Should we, as patriotic, democratic Americans, support them based on their form of government? (I asked this one at least twice.)

Question: As long as this is true, then why would the Arab nations perceive us as fair and unbiased?

Question: Or trust or respect us as a country?

Question: What makes the modern nation of Israel so unique?

Question: Post AD 70 does God hold [Jerusalem] in high regard?

Question: Should His people?

Question: As a piece of real estate, who has the greater claim?

Question: As a religion, who has a more legitimate claim before God?

Question: Who "owns" the land?

Question: If you try and make modern Jews and/or Israelis the "owners" of the land of Palestine based on a mythological genetic connection to the descendants of Abraham, then...how that is?

Question: If it is based on the fact that many "Jews that lived there bought that land before it became a state" then I would ask you how much land can foreigners buy in another country before they are entitled to take over that country?

Question: If they were not "happily" living in their host countries then why was that?

Question: Which Jerusalem should we pray for?

Question: How many ancestral charts have you seen from the descendants of Shem?

Question: What makes Palestine the "ancestral homeland" of modern Jews - Jews that have NØ documented blood ties to Abraham or even the land in most cases (apart from their chosen religion)?

Question: Has Socrates read the actual study that he suggest that I read as his refutation OR has he merely read the reguritated version at AIG?

Question: Did the researchers factor in Noah as the common ancestor?

Question: Where is the "wide discredit[ation]" of Koestler's theory by "reputable historians"?

Question: Were the scientists and their study completely unbiased?

Question: Were the Jews responsible for the murder of Christ?

Question: Does God support "replacement theology" - i.e. is it Biblical?

Question: Does God reckon descendants of Abraham based on their genetic makeup or their spiritual makeup?

Question: Produce 2 or 3 actual genealogies of modern priests supporting your claim that they can trace their ancestry either 1) back to Aaron or 2) prior to the Babylonian exile.

Question: Do you think that God allowed the destruction of their genealogical records (after requiring them to maintain such records) for no apparent reason?

Question: Is my argument against intermarriage a red-herring or is it Biblical?

I suppose it was these questions that demanded my immediate and colorful denunciation by Christian brethren?!?

Cherith

March 10th 2003, 03:47 PM

Here's another study/link from an Israeli newspaper:

"Study: Israel leads in ignoring Security Council resolutions"

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=218313&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

Cherith

March 10th 2003, 03:51 PM

al-Jazeerah contrasts the number of violations of UN resolutions by Iraq & Israel.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Documents/Comparing%20UN%20Resolutions%20for%20Iraq%20and%20Israel.htm

Cherith

March 10th 2003, 03:57 PM

Another source on the discrepancies between the resolutions ignored/defied by Iraq & Israel: http://www.mediamonitors.net/michaelsladah&suleimaniajlouni1.html#israelsdefiedresolutions

Epoetker

March 10th 2003, 06:39 PM

Sigh..may as well have fun humoring Cherith with the questions I can readily answer...

Question: Should the religion of a particular group be able to lobby for their own country irrespective of those that have historically lived there?

I live in America. You'll recall issues with the Indians in our past. I support both the right of the colonists to live on leand they dealt with and the rights of descendants of those Indians to lobby for reservation space. I don't recall any American Indian suicide bombers recently, perhaps because they fought war, like, honorably on the battlefield, and any civilian killings were generally reciprocal on both sides. King Philip's War is a good example. In any case, they lost, repeatedly, and accepted their loss, and the mercy of those in government. No later suicidal violence problems.

Question: Should Christians in another country support the religous aspiriations of another faith [one which is even antagonistic to Xianity] and their desire for a "homeland" based on those aspirations?

Antagonistic? The Jewish secularist intellectuals who do the most damage to Christianity are, well, SECULARISTS. Have we at least made the distinction between Orthodox/Conservative/Reform yet?:bonk:

And given the history of how Jews were treated for practicing their faith, yes. A Jew living in Israel may be more receptive to the Christian message than a Jew with the "siege mentality" of living in a culture whose majority religion is not his.

Question: Should we, as patriotic, democratic Americans, support them based on their form of government? (I asked this one at least twice.)

Yes.

Question: As long as this is true, then why would the Arab nations perceive us as fair and unbiased?

Because their form of government, for all its (mostly trumped-up)excesses, is still less repressive than any Arab state you care to name. We like real democracies; should they not be told that inconvenient fact?

Question: Or trust or respect us as a country?

If they vote straight Islamist in most of their elections, probably not.

Question: What makes the modern nation of Israel so unique?

The only functional democracy and real American ally in the region. Also the only one making non-oil exports of any significance. Can create and innovate lots of fancy new weapons from our cash donations for our own use, the most recent in my memory being the Arrow anti-missile system.

Question: Post AD 70 does God hold [Jerusalem] in high regard?

As high as He's ever held it. The Lord does not change.

Question: Should His people?

The Christian people especially, seeing how the location is a great site for archaeological digs on our faith's history.

Question: As a piece of real estate, who has the greater claim?

Those who won it in battle and developed the place most extensively.

Question: As a religion, who has a more legitimate claim before God?

Christianity.

Question:
Who "owns" the land?

The government of Israel, partitioned out to the people who hold the title deeds to it. As in any country.

Question: If it is based on the fact that many "Jews that lived there bought that land before it became a state" then I would ask you how much land can foreigners buy in another country before they are entitled to take over that country?

None. They have to fight or petition for it from the current land holders(Britain in that particular case.) Owning the land just gives you a legitimate claim to the particular piece of it in an orderly state.

Question: If they were not "happily" living in their host countries then why was that?

Their host countries loved to kill or exile them whenever times were tough and they needed a scapegoat("Kill the Christ-killers!") or a quick 'n easy cash source (the Jews tended to be rather rich due to their banishment from any but clerical and bank-related professions, and anti-Semitism is pretty well married to class hatred.)

Question: Which Jerusalem should we pray for?

The one that has the wall that the Jews want to fix up but can't due to fanatical Islamic extremists.

Question: Were the Jews responsible for the murder of Christ?

Yes. As is the rest of humanity.

As far as the comparison of UN resolutions violated to Iraq's, I say:tongue:

There's a difference between applying (a)moral pressure on a government through a condemnation and specifically issuing the threat of force or other real penalties if the resolution is not complied with (1441.)

Cherith

March 11th 2003, 04:34 PM

Epoetker: "Sigh..may as well have fun humoring Cherith with the questions I can readily answer..."

That's the spirit, Epoetker, lay down your carnal weapons of name-calling and subterfuge and take up the challenge! Demolish the strongholds that vaunt themselves up against the Knowledge of God! (Because, ultimately, IF I were a neo-Nazi or Armstrongite(?) then such "defenses" wouldn't work. ONLY the Word of God (and the spiritual principles that undergird His Word) has the power to change men's minds and hearts.

BTW, I can not continue this conversation without sharing a tremendous article that I've been reading: The Mediator of the Covenant Described in His Person, Nature and Offices by William Witaker (1548-1595).

The link is:http://www.mountzion.org/fgb/Winter-Spring03/FgbWSP4-03.html

Whitaker is best known for his classic work defending the Protestant view of Scripture, entitled A Disputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton. Robert Bellarmine, an Italian Jesuit, who was easily one of the most articulate defenders of Roman Catholic doctrine during the Catholic Counter-Reformation, is said to have kept a picture of Whitaker in his study. When asked why he responded because "he is the most erudite heretic I have ever read". :brow:

Enjoy!
--C

Cherith

March 11th 2003, 05:17 PM

Perhaps I do have a short attention span, but then, I'm only 21.

Is this a case of special pleading or are you trying to make an excuse? :angel: (Don't get mad, now, I like to have fun with people.)

Most of the stuff on Jews & Israel I know has been compiled within the last 10 years or so...My position on the Palestinians vis-a-vis the historical wars of the 40s-60s is: "You lost 4 wars. Get over it."

The American-Indians fought their oppressors and European land-grabbers for over 200 yrs, would you deny the Palestinians the right to fight at least equally as long?

But when you said, regarding the Jews: Cherith: "And if they were not "happily" living in their host countries then you would have to further ask "why"? Was it because of their "chosen race" mentality, their arrogance, their lack of patriotism to the land of their forefathers?" Epoetker: that was the time I made my "stay away from Cherith" decision. Anyone who presumes that the Jews were "asking for it" based solely on ATTITUDE, rather than actual crimes or other actions, is not someone you want to engage in a debate on the morality of wars of any type that involve Jews. I cannot debate with someone as hatefully presumptuous as this...

First, Epoetker, you are putting words in my mouth when you suggested that I thought that Jews in the past were "asking for it." I never said any such thing. Furthermore, is that not the basis for your arguments against the Palestinians? Aren't you suggesting that their attitude or religion or choice of forms of government should be the basis for their subjugation and exile from their homeland?

QUESTION: Or are you arguing that modern Jews/Israelis have a Divine destiny over and against any other nation or people?

I see in Scripture where Christians are called to suffer for Christ and have been promised that indeed they will. But are modern Jews/Israelis likewise called to this Divine promise/calling? Or do they suffer "the common fate of all men" (Num 16:29) or "except such as is common to man" (1 Cor 10:13). Cultists, gypsies, Africans, widows, orphans, etc. all have suffered - some because of their attitudes, some their religion, some because of their skin-color or status in society, etc. My point was if Jews have suffered in their host countries, then what was the reason for that suffering. Is it Divinely appointed (whether to their good or to their detriment) or do they just have better apologists/propogandists?

The Branch-Davidians suffered. They say it was for their faith - in fact, that they were divinely appointed to such. On what basis would you argue against them? Wouldn't you first have to establish that their beliefs were cultic and outside the mainstream? Then wouldn't you have to determine if they were "persecuted" because of those beliefs or for some other reason? Would or did their attitude play any part in their destruction? Was it justified - either in the eyes of God, the law, the church, etc?

I fear that we will get bogged down in these side issues, but my main concern is regarding the nature of the Jew's (particularly the Zionist's) claims and how those claims have impacted the Church spiritually and only secondarily, politically.

Rumsfield said today, in answer to why more countries were not with us on the Iraq issue, that those countries didn't feel the brunt of 911. I would agree. What I would not agree with is why they didn't feel the wrath of the Muslim extremists? The fact cannot be denied that America has made her bed, (with the help of Christian fundamentalists/dispensationalists) and now she is reaping the fruit of her illicit relationship with the Zionists of the last 100 yrs.

I know, now I'll be in trouble again... :no: Sigh...
--C

Socrates

March 11th 2003, 10:07 PM

Amazing how Streicher-Cherith reverses the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 12:3 with his obscene comment that America somehow deserved 11 Sept. So now it's "I will bless those who curse you and curse those who bless you"?!:eek:

Epoetker

March 12th 2003, 01:26 AM

The American-Indians fought their oppressors and European land-grabbers for over 200 yrs, would you deny the Palestinians the right to fight at least equally as long?

It depends upon the way they fight. The Indian tribes alternately either engaged in general uprisings against the US MILITARY(the outlying civvie population was occasionally the party hit to instigate war, but almost all battles took place as a battle between the opposing armies of both sides) or...lived out their own life as much as possible in peace. NONE of the Indians who chose to assimilate into the wider American culture(a great deal, BTW) EVER saw fit to blow themselves up (not even the most rabid Indian-rights advocate) in the middle of a civilian or even a military population. The fact that this is a widely used and widely praised tactic in Palestine drains my sympathy for their cause very quickly.

First, Epoetker, you are putting words in my mouth when you suggested that I thought that Jews in the past were "asking for it." I never said any such thing.

It is far too easily implied from context.

Furthermore, is that not the basis for your arguments against the Palestinians? Aren't you suggesting that their attitude or religion or choice of forms of government should be the basis for their subjugation and exile from their homeland?

No, I was mainly thinking about their continual military aggressiveness, their willingness to work with foreign Arab governments to train terrorists that continually attack Israel's civilian population, their propensity to lie about "massacres" in Jenin and other places in order to score propaganda points among the civilized world, the fact that those who advocate moderation tend to get killed in the streets, their tendency to name streets after suicide bombers, and the fact that Yasser Arafat is still their representative.

My point was if Jews have suffered in their host countries, then what was the reason for that suffering. Is it Divinely appointed (whether to their good or to their detriment) or do they just have better apologists/propogandists?\

Divinely appointed to everyone's good, apparently. Israel's unwillingness, brought upon by strong memories of the Holocaust, to simply accept popular physical or rhetorical racist/ethnic attacks on Jews provides a model for how best to respond towards attacks on other minorities.

The Branch-Davidians suffered. They say it was for their faith - in fact, that they were divinely appointed to such. On what basis would you argue against them? Wouldn't you first have to establish that their beliefs were cultic and outside the mainstream? Then wouldn't you have to determine if they were "persecuted" because of those beliefs or for some other reason? Would or did their attitude play any part in their destruction? Was it justified - either in the eyes of God, the law, the church, etc?

The Branch Davidians were the victims of an illegal botched federal takeover attempt. Perhaps God, due to their own sins in following the wretched anti-Christ figure, engineered the nasty sequence of events that lead to their deaths in the firestorm, but that still wouldn't keep me from making sure the federal government does not do that sort of thing to any other group unless it can be clearly shown that they present an imminent threat to society or national security.

I fear that we will get bogged down in these side issues, but my main concern is regarding the nature of the Jew's (particularly the Zionist's) claims and how those claims have impacted the Church spiritually and only secondarily, politically.

Your concern depends a lot on the viability of the "side issues" you discuss. I support Israel more for reasons of politics and morality than I do for any theological endgame plans.

Rumsfield said today, in answer to why more countries were not with us on the Iraq issue, that those countries didn't feel the brunt of 911. I would agree. What I would not agree with is why they didn't feel the wrath of the Muslim extremists?

Saudi Arabia and much of the Arab world either supports, exterminates, or pays them off, Western Europe is not as attractive, rich, and powerful a target(and they bash Israel with cowardly regularity), Latin America is pretty much irrelevant on the global scene, and China and Russia are longtime masters of the smackdown-crackdown when it comes to Muslim militants. And America is one of the most open and trusting societies in the world.

The fact cannot be denied that America has made her bed, (with the help of Christian fundamentalists/dispensationalists) and now she is reaping the fruit of her illicit relationship with the Zionists of the last 100 yrs.

I'd move that America is merely reaping the fruit of a horrible immigration system, an idiotic foreign policy (especially the one from 1994 that's currently hurting Bush very much on North Korea) and eight years of Clintonian treatment.

Socrates

March 13th 2003, 06:25 AM

At a Mass at which some young ladies were to
take their final vows to become nuns, the Bishop
presiding noticed two Rabbis enter the church
just before the service began.

They sat on the right side of the center aisle.
The Bishop wondered why they had come, but
he didn't have time to inquire before the Mass
began.

When it came time for the announcements, the
Bishop's curiosity got the better of him. He
welcomed the two Rabbis and asked why they
had chosen to be present at this occasion where
the young ladies were to become the "Brides of
Christ."

The elder of the Rabbis slowly rose to his feet
and explained, "Family of the Groom."

GrayPilgrim

March 13th 2003, 02:15 PM

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Socrates

March 13th 2003, 09:22 PM

A Jewish father was troubled by the way his son turned out, and went to see his Rabbi about it.

"I brought him up in the faith, gave him a very expensive bar mitzvah, cost me a fortune to educate him, and even shouted him a trip to Israel. Then he tells me last week he has decided to be a Christian! Rabbi, where did I go wrong?"

"Funny you should come to me," said the Rabbi. "Like you I, too, brought my boy up in the faith, put him through University, also treated him to a trip to the Holy Land, and it cost me a fortune too. Then one day he, too, tells me he has decided to become a Christian."

"What did you do?" asked the father. "I turned to God for the answer" replied the Rabbi. "And what did he say?" pressed the father. "God said, 'Funny you should come to me...' "

Cherith

March 14th 2003, 02:54 PM

Socrates: Amazing how Streicher-Cherith reverses the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 12:3 with his obscene comment that America somehow deserved11 Sept. So now it's "I will bless those who curse you and curse those who bless you"?!

1) I'm getting really nigh to ignoring anything you have to say, Soc.

2) I noticed you can't seem to post one item without reverting to name-calling.

3) You give me more credit/power than I deserve. I cannot "reverse" any Covenant by mere "comments" - "obscene" or otherwise.

4) I never said that America "deserved" the attack on Sept 11th, I only implied that I could see how some factions could justify taking those actions and why they would hate America because of her past policies. Or are you ready to say that the Arabs and Timothy McVeigh's of this world have no legitimate gripes with US policies? I am N¨ªT saying that I condone what they did, only that I can understand what would drive them to feel as if they had no other choice/options.

5) Just exactly what does the blessing-cursing promise made to Abraham have to do with all of this? See, you've assumed already that the modern nation of Israel is the descendant of / and equivalent of Old Testament Israel. And that is the premise that I'm asking all of you to PROVE.

In His Grip,
--C

Cherith

March 14th 2003, 04:41 PM

You evaded my question, but okay, I'll bite: what right did the colonists have to any piece of land in North America? The Puritans saw the New World as their God-given right based on a faulty interpretation of the Old Covn't. That is, they saw themselves as the New Israelites in the "Promised Land" and their mission was to conquer the New "Canaanites".

Allied with the Narragansetts, traditional enemies of the Pequots, the colonists attacked at dawn. Surrounding the Pequot village, whose inhabitants were mostly women, children, and old men, the British set it on fire and shot those who tried to escape the flames. William BRADFORD described the scene: "It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave praise thereof to to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them." The slaughter shocked the Narragansetts, who had wanted merely to subjugate the Pequots, not exterminate them. The Narragansetts reproached the English for their style of warfare, crying, "It is naught, it is naught, becauses it is too furious, and slays too many men." In turn, Capt. John Underhill scoffed, saying that the Narragansetts style of fighting was "more for pastime, than to conquer and subdue enemies." Underhill's analysis of the role of warfare in Narragansett society was correct, and might accurately be applied to other tribes as well. Through the centuries, whites frequently accused their Native allies of not fighting hard enough. The Puritans tried to erase the Pequots even from memory, passing a law making it a crime to say the word Pequot. BRADFORD concluded proudly, "The rest are scattered, and the Indians in all quarters are so terrified that they are afraid to give them sanctuary."

Compare this event with:

The Zionist military forces (that is, pre-1948 statehood) or "freedom-fighters" (as they called themselves) "the Begin-led Irgun Zvai Leumi, which with the Stern Gang were the two principal terrorists groups. The Irgun perpetrated many acts of violence and terror. Far worse than the more celebrated King David Hotel incident, in which only 95 British and Arabs were killed, and the garroting-hanging of 2 British sergeants in Nathanya, was the attack of the small village of Deir Yassin in which 254 women, children, and old men were killed and their bodies thrown down a well on April 9, 1948.

This particular village, hugging a rocky promontory west of Jerusalem, had managed to keep out of the turmoil of fighting and excesses of nearby Jerusalem until that moment; Haganah commander David SHALTIEL noted that Deir Yassin had been 'quiet since the beginnings of disturbances...not mentioned in reports of attacks on Jews, and one of the few places which has not given a foothold to foreign bands.' Harry LEVIN in Jerusalem Embattled wrote: 'When an Arab band tried to make its base there [Deir Yassin] last month, the villagers themselves repulsed them, at the cost of the Mukhtar's (headman's) son.'

Deir Yassin had done nothing to provoke this attack and had lived peaceably in a sort of agreement with the Jewish suburbs surrounding it. The village had on occasion actually collaborated with the Jewish Agency and was said by a Jewish newspaper [New Judea] to have actually driven out some Arab militants. It was the Muslim sabbath when the attack was launched on the little village by the combined forces of the Irgun and the Stern Gang.

No warning had been given to the villagers, as was later claimed . ...Advised by a night watchmen of the approaching Jewish raiders, some inhabitants, with only a robe thrown around them, managed to flee to the west.

The initial resistance of the men of Deir Yassin to the attack was soon overcome, and all the town's inhabitants were ordered out into a square, where they were lined up against the wall and shot. According to the recital in O! Jerusalem by Larry COLLINS and Dominique LaPIERRE, the daughter of one of the principal families of Deir Yassin, declared that she saw 'a man shoot a bullet in the neck of my sister, Salhiyeh, [b]was nine months pregnant. Then he cut her stomach open with a butcher's knife.' Another woman was killed when she tried to extricate the unborn infant from the dead mother's womb. A sixteen-year-old survivor, Naaneh KHALIL, claimed she saw a man take 'a kind of sword and slash my neighbor Jamil HISH frm head to toe and then do the same thing on the steps to my house to my cousin Fathi.'...

Another survivor, Safiyeh ATTIYAH, saw one man open his pants and leap on her. 'I screamed' she said, 'but around the other women were being raped, too. Some of the men were so anxious to get our earrings they ripped our ears to pull them off faster.'

Fifteen houses in Deir Yassin were dynamited to drive out the owners, and when the terrorized survivors fled to those homes still standing, the Irgun commanders began to systematically work their way through these remaining buildings with Sten guns and grenades.

Most of the men of the village were absent because they worked in Jerusalem [the city of peace!]. When the terrorists entered, there were only women and children and older people. For 2 days afterwards, while they tried to tidy up the mess they had made, the Irgun allowed no one else to enter except a Jewish policeman, who reported that one Arab had been killed.

When the British authorities refused to investigate the incident, the Arabs of Jerusalem prevailed upon the International Red Cross to look into the facts. Swiss representative Jacques DeREYNIER led the 1st party to reach the site and found 150 bodies thrown into a cistern and another 40 or 50 at one side. In all, he counted 254 dead, including 145 women, of whom 35 were pregnant. He found a 6-year-old girl still living under the heap of corpses. Eyewitnesses said later that it was not possible to go near the village without becoming nauseated. ...

Israelis today, and Begin defenders in particular, deny that the Israelis in any way instigated the flight of the Palestinians, whom they insist left voluntarily as a result of Arab broadcasts urging them to leave 'so that Arab armies could sweep through.' But other sources indicate contrarywise. Jon KIMCHE, the Zionist writer, calling the incident 'the darkest stain on the Jewish record throughout the fighting,' stated, 'The terrorist justified the massacre of Deir Yassin because it led to the panic flight of the remaining Arabs in the Jewish state area' Jewish writer Don PERETZ described the result of Deir Yassin as a 'mass fear psychosis which grasped the whole Arab community.' Arthur KOESTLER wrote, this 'bloodbath...was the psychologically decisive factor in the spectacular exodus of Arab refugees."

I could go on, but hopefully this will suffice to show how both groups - the colonists and the Zionists - used their bad theology to justify ousting, subjugating or killing the natives.

I was also shocked to see that you think that American Indians fought "honorably" and that they just "accepted their loss." Listen to the Wampanoag leader Metacomet (aka "King Philip"):

"The English who first came to this country were but a handful of people, forlorn, poor, and distressed. My father was then sachem; he relieved their distresses in the most kind and hospitable manner. He gave them land to plant and build upon. They flourished and increased. By various means they got possessed of a great part of his territory [i.e. Metacomet's father's territory]. But he still remained their friend until he died. My elder brother became sachem - he was seized and confined and thereby thrown into illness and died. Soon after I became sachem, they disarmed all my people. Their land was taken; but a small part of the dominion of my ancestors remains. I am determined not to live until I have no country."

My ancestors were scalped, murdered, and kidnapped by the Shawnees and several were held captive for 3+ yrs. http://www.rootsweb.com/~indian/JohnEwing.htm They had been friendly to the natives, but they were also occupying their land. I can understand the animosity on both sides and because they were my family I tend to want to plead their case, but as a more recent descendant of Oklahomans who have intermarried with various Indian tribes, I also tend to want to side with the native underdogs.

But getting back to our discussion, I asked you an ethical question and you're trying to evade it by bringing up Islamic "terrorists." But I understand that you don't want to answer it straightforwardly - i.e. without any "suicide bomber" qualifications - because your Christian principles might get in the way (or more likely be shown to be non-existent?).

Tell me this, how many years of staggering oppression must one live under before suicidal measures could be justified? How many suicide-bombers were there prior to 1967? or 1956? How many total suicide-bombers have their been in the almost 100 yrs of illegal Jewish immigration and settlements?

And how many people do you hear screaming about Japan's lack of democracy or their suicidal piloting efforts during the War in the South Pacific (e.g. Battle of Midway)? Were they not lead by their religious dogma (Sammurai / Kamikaze)?

BTW, it has been said that one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom-fighter". . . It's all a matter of perspective.
--C

Cherith

March 14th 2003, 04:58 PM

The question was: Should the religion of a particular group be able to lobby [their gov't or a foreign goverment] for their own country irrespective of those who have historically lived there?

I am asking you this AS A CHRISTIAN on a CHRISTIAN WEBSITE. Is this ETHICAL? Do we, as Christians, support the idea that religious groups should be allowed to lobby for their own nations and oust the natives on the basis of religious freedom/sovereignty? Or is this only permissable for adherants of Judaism!?!

--C

Just wait until the day that they want to expand their "God-given" borders and swallow up other sovereign Arab countries or one day say that they were indeed promised the world!

Cherith

March 14th 2003, 05:25 PM

Question: Should Christians in another country support the religous aspiriations of another faith [one which is even antagonistic to Xianity] and their desire for a "homeland" based on those aspirations?

To which Epoetker responded:
Antagonistic? The Jewish secularist intellectuals who do the most damage to Christianity are, well, SECULARISTS. Have we at least made the distinction between Orthodox/Conservative/Reform yet?

And given the history of how Jews were treated for practicing their faith, yes. A Jew living in Israel may be more receptive to the Christian message than a Jew with the "siege mentality" of living in a culture whose majority religion is not his.

So, Epoetker, are you having fun "humoring" me yet? Because here again you didn't answer a straightforward, ethical question but dodged it with talk about:

1) secular Jews (whatever that means!) and
2) the various branches of Judaism and
3) whether some might be receptive to the Gospel message.

How does any of this answer my question?

First, I don't buy your premise that secular Jews are even a threat to Christianity (the gates of Hell notwithstanding). But don't kid yourself, the majority religion in Israel is secularism - secular humanism, not Orthodox, Conservative or Reform Judaism.

And are you saying that a Jew has to be in Palestine - their "ancestral homeland" in order to be "receptive to the Gospel"!?! Are you trying to say that Jews can only escape Judaism if they are living in a predominantly Jewish culture!?!

Judaism is a religion, my friend, not an ethnicity; therefore, there is no such thing as a "secular Jew" anymore than there could be such a thing as a "secular Christian." Secularism has to do with being "of the world."

Now, my point has been this exact thing all along and I'll say it again: My main concern is NØT about the Israelis and the Palestinians, but whether the Israelis/modern Jews are actual descendants of Abraham and thereby have any legitimate claims to Old Testament promises. Have you at least got that distinction right yet!?!

--C

Cherith

March 14th 2003, 05:36 PM

Of course, I have more to say, but I'm being squeezed out of my computer time right now.

More later,
--C

Perhaps you can regroup and recognize the import of what I'm saying and apparently what you believe. It seems obvious to me that your support of Israel has little to do with politics or morality(?) but more with supporting bad theology and Zionist propoganda.:help:

Socrates

March 15th 2003, 12:26 AM

Streicher-Cherith wrote:
Judaism is a religion, my friend, not an ethnicity; therefore, there is no such thing as a "secular Jew" anymore than there could be such a thing as a "secular Christian." Secularism has to do with being "of the world."Nice little bait'n'switch, which makes this a non-sequitur. Note the switch from Judaism to Jew.

Indeed, Judaism is a religion, and a religion many Jews follow. But there are also Jews who are atheists and Jews who are Christians because they follow Y'shua. Note that Hitler killed Jews regardless of religion, which meant that at least 250,000 Jewish Christians were murdered in the Holocaust (which Streicher-Cherith probably denies, given his tendency towards anti-semitic historical revisionism).
Now, my point has been this exact thing all along and I'll say it again: My main concern is NØT about the Israelis and the Palestinians, but whether the Israelis/modern Jews are actual descendants of Abraham and thereby have any legitimate claims to Old Testament promises. Have you at least got that distinction right yet!?!Oh yes, that you support the utterly discredited Koester nonsense of Khazar conversion. But this would apply only to the Ashkenazim, not to the Sephardim.

It's notable that to our anti-semite, the Jews can't win. Streicher-Cherith condemns them for being Christ-killers, which would presuppose that they ARE real Jews. But then he condemns them for NOT being real Jews, so have no right to the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their descendants.

Socrates

March 15th 2003, 12:32 AM

Streicher-Cherith:
My ancestors were scalped, murdered, and kidnapped by the Shawnees and several were held captive for 3+ yrs. http://www.rootsweb.com/~indian/JohnEwing.htm They had been friendly to the natives, but they were also occupying their land. I can understand the animosity on both sides and because they were my family I tend to want to plead their case, but as a more recent descendant of Oklahomans who have intermarried with various Indian tribes, I also tend to want to side with the native underdogs.Then get out of America, you trespasser, back to the land your ancestors came from!! Then you might have more credibility here.
But getting back to our discussion, I asked you an ethical question and you're trying to evade it by bringing up Islamic "terrorists." But I understand that you don't want to answer it straightforwardly - i.e. without any "suicide bomber" qualifications - because your Christian principles might get in the way (or more likely be shown to be non-existent?).Oh, no, can't have Christian principles like "Do not commit murder" stand in the way of slaughter of Jews by terrorists, can we??
Tell me this, how many years of staggering oppression must one live under before suicidal measures could be justified? How many suicide-bombers were there prior to 1967? or 1956? How many total suicide-bombers have their been in the almost 100 yrs of illegal Jewish immigration and settlements?Where are the Tibetan suicide bombers in China? Tibet has been far more oppressed than the Palestinians, even granting the ridiculous exaggerations spouted by Streicher-Cherith.
BTW, it has been said that one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom-fighter". . . It's all a matter of perspective.Only by those who are so morally blinkered due to pathological anti-semitism that they can't see the difference between, say, the French Resitance targeting Nazi military targets, and thugs targeting Jewish civilians in school buses and shopping centers, or hijacking airliners and killing hostages that are even further removed from their political arena.

Ryokan

March 15th 2003, 04:47 PM

in that one statement right there you have summed my position Socrates, although Israel is hardly blameless:thumb:

Socrates

March 16th 2003, 01:16 AM

Thanx Ryokan, and I agree that Israel is not blameless :thumb:

Epoetker

March 16th 2003, 05:20 PM

Just like I would NEVER assert that the multivariate British/Spanish/French/Dutch colonists were blameless, or that all of the Wampanoags/Narangassets/Patuxets/Iroquois/Sioux/Cherokee tribes are somehow equally to praise or blame.

My views on this have to be taken on a case-by-case basis: while I think the cannibalism of the Arawaks was nowhere near enough of a justification for the brutal enslavement that the blinded-by-greed Columbus foisted upon them, I look on the eradication of the Aztec culture with a sort of Delenda est Carthago fatalism-I am exceedingly glad that their religion of human sacrifice did not persist into the future, any technological acheivements notwithstanding. Cortez didn't exactly go it alone-he had a massive coalition of previously subjugated surrounding tribes that did most of the killing.

Cherith

March 17th 2003, 10:11 PM

Well, Epoetker, you finally said something I can agree with.
I look on the eradication of the Aztec culture with a sort of Delenda est Carthago fatalism-I am exceedingly glad that their religion of human sacrifice did not persist into the future

I give up. Socrates has beat me down - I can't defeat his infinte wisdom and logic. I capitulate. Every man who claims to be a Jew (a descendant of Abraham, particularly from the tribe of Judah) certainly is, on the basis of his claim alone. "What is that to [me], see thou to that."

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." --Matt 23:15

And the sacrifice rages on...
--C

hypocrite: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

Epoetker

March 18th 2003, 03:46 AM

With all due respect, Cherith, moi and Socrates haven't exactly been using our faith in Christ as cover for our views-while they are often derived from the morality received therein, our cases have been primarily practical, historical, and moral, rather than overtly theological. Making repeated demands upon all here to adhere to the "Christian" position,as well as to swallow pages of propaganda on historical Jewish crimes, seems sadly enough to fall more in line with those who pepper their sigs and avatars with bible verses or declarations of millenial belief. If we're religious pretenders, we could do better than representing ourselves with a possibly homosexual pagan Greek logician and the reincarnation of an ancient pagan Egyptian.

In short, we believe that correcting present wrongs is more important than making restitution for historical wrongs.

Ryokan

March 18th 2003, 10:41 AM

Cherith, the Israelis born there have as much right to be there as anyone else. There has to be a compromise to get peace. And the Israelis tried to offer a peace deal. The Palestinians will have to stop blowing Israeli civilians up before they will again. That is just the way it is.

Socrates

March 18th 2003, 11:36 AM

Well put Epoetker and Ryokan :thumb:

Cherith

March 18th 2003, 03:52 PM

Illinois Rep. Paul Findley (1961-1983): "September 11 would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. ...the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the past 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land it seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war."

Epoetker: "As cover for [my] views"?!?

I'm sorry, Epoetker, are you saying that I'm not even a Christian now and that I'm just USING CHRIST and HIS WORD!?! Let's see you justify that! Whatever happened to "righteous judgment" (John 7:24)?!?

Epoetker: "...our cases have been primarily practical, historical, and moral, rather than overtly theological."

I have yet to see you build a case - on anything. But you're right about one thing, you don't let your theology get in the way of your views. Instead of your study of God informing your views it appears to be the other way around.

Epoetker: "Making repeated demands upon all here to adhere to the "Christian" position..."

I know, the gall of it all! To demand that Christians on a Christian website adhere to Christian principles!

Epoetker: "...as well as to swallow pages of propaganda on historical Jewish crimes..."

And those "pages of propoganda" are where exactly? And your refutation of them, they are where?

Epoetker: "...seems sadly enough to fall more in line with those who pepper their sigs and avatars with bible verses or declarations of millenial belief."

You're right, of course, bible verses have no place on the signature line of a Christian who posts on Christian websites. Make-believe conversations with pagan philosophers or idolizing TV viewing should be my mantra.

As for my avatar, my second favorite hobby is genealogy - you know, the research of one's ancestors? I fail to see how judging me based on my avatar demolishes my argument any more than judging the worth or merit of my arguments on the basis of how many posts I make or don't make on any other topics. Ah, but I've asked you that before...

And have I made any "declarations of [my] millennial beliefs" over here?!?

Epoetker: "If we're religious pretenders, we could do better than representing ourselves with a possibly homosexual pagan Greek logician and the reincarnation of an ancient pagan Egyptian."

What are you talking about!?!

And if you think that the verse about hypocrites was directed at you, then you are mistaken again. (Although it might be a sign of your subconscious... :angel:) My point was directed more at Socrates' suggestion that Jews/Judaism is an authentic faith system and yet Jesus said that even authentic Jews (i.e. ones who still could validate their ancestry), as well as their proselytes, were "children of Hell"!!! Todays Jews cannot substantiate their claim to fame and even allowing that they are descendants of Abraham, Christ invalidates/nullifies that premise based on their religious system!

Beware if you build again what Christ has torn down! (Gal 2:18)

Epoetker: "In short, we believe that correcting present wrongs is more important than making restitution for historical wrongs."

So what happens today has no bearing on what happened yesterday or the day before or last year or the decade before that or for the last century... Great, you've just nullified the word of God and the laws/principles of restitution. I'm sure, however, that you're just spouting that solely in this context and that if someone were to eavesdrop on your political discussions at work we would be privy to just the opposite. Unless of course you are the only person on the planet that thinks the crimes of yesterday have no bearing upon the actions of today. In the spirit of forgiveness let's forgive O.J. and Robert Blake and Sadaam or even Hitler (after all, we won the war and he was dead. His government was in shambles and those tried at Nuremburg weren't actively persecuting anyone). But of course, if you were willing to forgive and forget then you wouldn't be hanging onto the small number of suicide bombers in contradistinction to the large number of murdered and oppressed Palestinian refugees or the even larger number of European immigrants who continually vote to continue the oppression and illegal settlements in the face of international condemnation.

I wonder if Ambassador John Gunther Dean (the son of Jewish parents) shared your high views on Aug. 27, 1980 when the Israel Mossad tired to assassinate him? www.WRMEA.com

Your problem is that you live and think in a vacuum and have no idea of history (you admitted such yourself) or the machinations going on around you.

As I said, I bow to your impenetrable logic.
--C

Epoetker

March 18th 2003, 10:27 PM

I'm sorry, Epoetker, are you saying that I'm not even a Christian now and that I'm just USING CHRIST and HIS WORD!?! Let's see you justify that! Whatever happened to "righteous judgment" (John 7:24)?!?

No, I'm saying that you've fallen prey to the notion that yours is the only Biblically based position on the issue, and that anyone who supports Israel for reasons larger than simply fulfillment of prophecy or nostalgia for a Jewish presence in a Jewish homeland(like the Christian Coalition dispensationalists whom you first trotted out here to despise) is either a closet dispy or ignoring his/her Bible.

I have yet to see you build a case - on anything. But you're right about one thing, you don't let your theology get in the way of your views. Instead of your study of God informing your views it appears to be the other way around.

Nerp, not quite. Much of my views on the current Israeli-Palestinian situation stems from a concern for a lasting peace(when Jesus said 'blessed are the peacemakers,' I don't think he was referring to those whose ideas would result in the perpetuation of the cycle of violence and the spreading of it to other nations, as was the result of the preceding 10 years of "peace process")and through careful reading of this particular article in the wonderful Christian Thinktank:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

and applying the necessary extrapolations to the American experience of suicide bombers. YOU have been morally foolish enough to make apologies for this ultimate act of hatred for life if it doesn't go your way, and thus have left me automatically unimpressed with the sources for believing as you do. If your theological view has led to this morality, I desire little part in anything but its destruction.

I know, the gall of it all! To demand that Christians on a Christian website adhere to Christian principles!

Its more gall to say that your particular set of "Christian" principles is more representative of Christian views on the subject than, say, the Christian Coalition whom you so despise.

And those "pages of propoganda" are where exactly? And your refutation of them, they are where?

You referred me to a BOOK called "The Zionist Connection" on the very first page of the thread, and have made several references to voluminious manifestos on the web with suggestions that I read and refute them all. Such is a work of months, not weeks.

You're right, of course, bible verses have no place on the signature line of a Christian who posts on Christian websites. Make-believe conversations with pagan philosophers or idolizing TV viewing should be my mantra.

Oh, lots of people here have Bible verses/characters in their sigs/avatars. Very few make those verses/characters the center of their entire discussion. If you had to be a single-issue fanatic, it would have made more sense if it were something more pressing, like, say, abortion? Where at least you could have said that the whole of scholarly conservative Christianity was unanimously behind you?

What are you talking about!?!

Socrates and Seto Kaiba, those pictured in Soc's and mine's avatar windows, respectively. We kinda wanted the reflections of our nature to, well, look like us. Soc's a rampant nitpicker and I'm an elitist cold-hearted strategizing snob. Our pictures were well chosen:smile:

BTW, would you disparage JP Holding, our most voluminious and incisive resident apologetics producer, for choosing a combative barely-reformed genociadal maniac for HIS avatar? It's all about taking yourself lightly!

Todays Jews cannot substantiate their claim to fame and even allowing that they are descendants of Abraham, Christ invalidates/nullifies that premise based on their religious system!

So they're an ancient race that follow an ultimately false religion. So do Muslims, according to you, as well as Buddhists and Hindus and Shintos and Zoroastrians. They're still closer to Christianity than any of those mentioned previously, keep traditions that are at worst totally innocuous, at best greatly symbolic of Christian principles, and most importantly of all, quite tolerant of those who peacefully choose to live among them. I see no reason why they should be considered less qualified to hold Jerusalem than the ancestral Muslims.

So what happens today has no bearing on what happened yesterday or the day before or last year or the decade before that or for the last century... Great, you've just nullified the word of God and the laws/principles of restitution. I'm sure, however, that you're just spouting that solely in this context and that if someone were to eavesdrop on your political discussions at work we would be privy to just the opposite. Unless of course you are the only person on the planet that thinks the crimes of yesterday have no bearing upon the actions of today.
In the spirit of forgiveness let's forgive O.J. and Robert Blake and Sadaam or even Hitler (after all, we won the war and he was dead. His government was in shambles and those tried at Nuremburg weren't actively persecuting anyone). But of course, if you were willing to forgive and forget then you wouldn't be hanging onto the small number of suicide bombers in contradistinction to the large number of murdered and oppressed Palestinian refugees or the even larger number of European immigrants who continually vote to continue the oppression and illegal settlements in the face of international condemnation.

At times when all interested parties to a restitution are dead, there is no need to penalize the descendants for the sins of their fathers. All are judged based upon their actions before God and man. That's why, for example, no serious person advocates reparations for slavery in the US, thinks that France forcing Germany to pay massive reparations after WW1 was an immensely bad idea, and that holding Israel responsible for every action commited by every Jewish militant in its name is foolish and shortsighted, especially since the UN has not shown anything like the same trigger-happy attitude toward the Palestinian Authority.

Your problem is that you live and think in a vacuum and have no idea of history (you admitted such yourself) or the machinations going on around you.

I can recognize dangerous precedents when I see them. Suicide bombing is definitely one of them.

As I said, I bow to your impenetrable logic

I fear that you may indeed find me incomprehensible.

Cherith

March 19th 2003, 04:03 PM

Epoetker: I'm saying that you've fallen prey to the notion that yours is the only Biblically based position ... that anyone who supports Israel for [larger] reasons ... is either a closet dispy or ignoring his/her Bible.

Ok, so remind this dim-wit once more, what is your "Biblically based position" for supporting an idolatrous, heathen nation?

Epoetker: ...when Jesus said 'blessed are the peacemakers,' I don't think he was referring to ... the perpetuation of the cycle of violence...

No, He was referring to those who proclaim the Gospel of Peace. There isn't, nor can there be, ANY peace apart from a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Peace in the NT is used exclusively to refer to peace between God and man through His Son. This is why Paul's letters start out with the phrase "Grace and Peace"...

There will NEVER be peace among nations or individuals apart from Christ. The best they can hope for are false and temporary utopian illusions of peace.

Epoetker: It's more gall to say that your particular set of "Christian" principles is more representative of Christian views...

See there you go putting words in my mouth again. I fully realized when I made my original post that most "Christians" do not share my views - that my view is a minority view. But you see, I believe most "Christians" are woefully ignorant of Christian principles and doctrine. Furthermore I do not believe that Christian principles are relative - i.e. that each follower of Christ can have a "particular set". Christian principles are (or should be) based on cold hard truth. And for you to think that anything I say (real or imaginary) is more galling than "demand that Christians on a Christian website adhere to Christian principles" just says more about your character than mine!

Epoetker said: "Making repeated demands upon all here to...swallow pages of propaganda..."

To which I replied: "And those 'pages of propoganda' are where exactly?"

To which Epoetker responded: "You referred me to a BOOK called "The Zionist Connection" on the very first page of the thread, and have made several references to voluminious manifestos on the web with suggestions that I read and refute them all."

Actually, Epoetker, you orginally asked me on your 1st post to "Explain yourself. Fully. Completely. With references." It was to that request that I suggested several things you might want to read:

1) A history of the situation written by a Jew, Dr. Alfred Lilienthal.
2) "a good historical atlas with historical commentary"
3) "You might also try [i]A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People." (which was written and edited by Jews for Jews)

It was not meant to be taken as a requirement nor did I ask you to refute anything - except perhaps your apparent belief that modern Jews are the direct descendants of the ancient people of God/Abraham.

On the other hand, Socrates did suggest/demand that I read a study on DNA "proving" that modern Jews are direct descendants of Abraham. Which I did. In fact, I not only read the reguritated synopsis by AIG, but the actual full-length study, and I pointed out several problems with their conclusions and my problem with a Christian website (devoted to destroying the strongholds of evolution) quoting approvingly from an evolutionary study! I even asked Socrates to deal with that and he wouldn't touch it, but railed that I should read it (again, I suppose?)!?!

And what did you have to say Epoetker? Did you read the study? Did you agree or disagree with their conclusions or with mine? Apparently you agree with Socrates since you repeatedly lump yourselves together and presume to speak for him and his views (if not those of everyone else on this thread)![/quote]

Epoetker said: "Very few make those verses/characters the center of their entire discussion."

[color=maroon]Where do I do that!?! My avatar is a pedigree chart, for heaven's sake and [i]my Bible verses are:
1) a reference to my handle and
2) a reference to "the most important PRINCIPLE in the Bible" - viz, "the Lord keeps covenant with those who LOVE Him and KEEP His commandments."

If you had to be a single-issue fanatic, it would have made more sense if it were something more pressing, like, say, abortion?

First, I am not a "single-issue fanatic" but I am extremely interested in this topic at this point in history and do not have the time nor the inclination to wage war on multiple fronts. Secondly, I could care less about what pagans do or what you think is a "more pressing" issue. My views are not held captive to majority opinion. Sure abortion is wrong, but pro-lifers are plentious. How many people like me have you run across lately calling Christians to defend their commitment to a pagan nation based on their misunderstanding of the NATURE of the Gospel!?!

"Where at least you could have said that the whole of scholarly conservative Christianity was unanimously behind you?"

Who cares if "the whole of scholarly, conservative Christianity" is behind me!?! I don't. The Bible never calls me to defend "scholarly" opinion or conservatives for that matter. The Bible calls me to hear and heed the Truth! Furthermore, the Lord says to help the afflicted and oppressed.

You want my view on abortion? I think that Christians should spend more symposiums calling for the outlaw of abortion with the death penalty for all women who resort to murdering their babies, all doctors who perform infanticide and all men who "hire the hitmen" to cover up their fornication/adulteries/materialist greed. Is that conservative enough for you? Is that "scholarly"? Can that view be defended by Christian principles?

Epoetker: So they [modern Jews] are an ancient race that follow an ultimately false religion.You have yet to prove that there is any such thing as "race" or that their pedigree is "ancient". So do Muslims, according to you, as well as Buddhists and Hindus and Shintos and Zoroastrians. They're still closer to Christianity than any of those mentioned previously, keep traditions that are at worst totally innocuous, at best greatly symbolic of Christian principles, and most importantly of all, quite tolerant of those who peacefully choose to live among them. I see no reason why they should be considered less qualified to hold Jerusalem than the ancestral Muslims.

Oh, Epoetker, I'd love to hear you explain how "[Modern Jews] are still closer to Christiany"!?! Christianity has NO EQUIVALENT. There are no religions on this earth that even come close much less "closer". Sir, you blaspheme.

As for "traditions that are...totally innocuous" was that the verdict of Christ on first-century Jews and their "traditions"? He said they made "the Word of God of none effect" by their tradition. Modern Jews do NØT hold to "Biblical Judaism" - they rarely, if at all, read the Bible. Modern Jews hold to the Babylonian Talmud for their instruction. In this manner they are NO BETTER than JWs or Mormons or Muslims or Buddhists, etc. Their belief-system doesn't even come close to resembling OT views. The "Orthodox" Branch does, however, share much in common with NT Pharisees.

Did you know that when the Zionist Ben Yehuda tried to revive Hebrew (a dead language for 2,000+ years) that the Orthodox branch protested loudly. Their superstitious religious beliefs were offended at the thought of calling to their dog in the sacred language of the Bible!

And where do you see "Christian principles [symbolized]" in their belief system!?! If even ancient Judaism symbolized Christian principles then why was the Messiah so ____ angry with them!?!

And finally, as to which religious group, Jew or Muslim, is "more qualified" to hold Jerusalem I had already asked you that question.
QUESTION: As a piece of real estate, who has the greater claim? QUESTION: As a religion, who has a more legitimate claim before God?

To which you stupidly answered "Christians." Neither Jews nor Muslims have any legitimate claims before God based on their religion. As for real estate, I had said that God owns the land and that the Jews were merely tenants 4,000+ yrs ago. They were vomited out of the land because of their iniquities. They are back in the land because of their iniquities and not because God has divinely sanctioned their return.

Epoetker: ...[when] all interested parties to a restitution are dead, there is no need to penalize the descendants for the sins of their fathers

Those who took the land from the natives in 1948 are not dead. Sharon, unlike most of the other leaders in Israel, was born in Palestine. He is not dead. And Sharon and his government (who symbolize Christian principles) frequently penalize the descendants for the sins oif their fathers. Or don't you watch the news. Tell me, how many Palestinians died in that apartment bldg when an American-made missile was launched to take out 1 supposed terrorist (without a trial, I might add, in that great democracy of Israel)?

Or what about reparations. Have you not read how the Jews are lobbying for reparations to be made by the present German government to descendants of Holocaust victims/survivors?

Your ignorance of the facts keeps landing you in these untenable positions.

Epoetker: I can recognize dangerous precedents when I see them. Suicide bombing is definitely one of them.

I have never advocated suicide bombings. But understanding how a person or a people can be driven to desperate measures or how their idolatrous religion could blind them to think that they are somehow vindicated before God for self-murder or homicidal acts is not the same as supporting their inalienable right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Epoetker, listen carefully to what I am saying. If you support Israel then do it on the basis on Christian principles set forth in the Gospel and full information of the facts. The Lord will not hold us guiltless for our misguided views or for taking His Name in vain.

Grace and Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
--C

"...every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in The Day of Judgment."