Pass The Ammo

we borrow from china for pretty much everything, and they are only too happy to finance our debt, because it keeps us buying chinese exports. unless something drastic happens, china is next in line for the throne.

I do like Ron Paul. Unfortunately he is a lone voice for the Constitution. I disagree with his stance toward Israel. That is about the only issue I see that really makes me stop. I think his ideas are great but probably a little too drastic.

Not only are we borrowing from China but the commies are under valueing their own currency in order to destroy american imports. I agree with Simon- China is next in line for the throne.

My views are a little extreme here so take them with a grain. I don’t think China will make it to the throne. I think they are on the verge of a nuclear war with the US or other major power over the likes of Taiwan.

We need a strong leader like Ron but one with less drastic ideas.

I very much doubt that Ron Paul thinks or has said that we should “stop supporting Israel.”

I find it more likely that he feels we should stop acting as if Israel’s national interests and our national interests are identical—they are not—and support Israel’s policies only to the extent that they coincide with ours.

In other words, treat Israel like we treat everyone else.

It appears we are the only friend of Israel.

And why is that?

Which is what I was actually asking … why is that?

Uhm, no, I certainly was not looking for “Because the US created Israel” … the US did not create Israel, so I’d be surprised if someone answered that.

My question was why does Israel have so little support throughout the world?

See, now I would have said something to the effect of “because they have been occupying land outside of their borders since 1967″ but your answer was far more interesting

At this stage, ending the occupation would amount to handing over the land from one group of (jewish) assholes to another group of (islamic extremist) assholes. neither helps the “palestine people” as such, and to be totally frank, I’d rather the jewish assholes if it was up to me. and in regards to oft-decried “israel aggression” - it takes two to tango, and iran, syria, and a myriad of others are definitely ready to dance. the cause of the “palestinians” has been completely co-opted by groups with totally separate agendas.

no doubt, what is going on is wrong, sometimes horrifingly so, and i really do sympathize with the palestinians but until somebody comes up with a better alternative than macho-posturing religious “martyrs” for a palestinian government, Israel shouldn’t give up anything. it wouldn’t help the palestinians and it would damage israel.

At this stage, ending the occupation would amount to handing over the land from one group of (jewish) assholes to another group of (islamic extremist) assholes.

Which ultimately, is irrelevant—the simple fact is that the land is not part of Israel. It doesn’t matter if the Palestinians are assholes, it’s not Israel’s right to occupy it, and it’s illegal for them to keep building settlements on it. Period.

(I can’t believe the word “assholes” isn’t a banned word here, but as if Simon can use it, so can I!

Just to brush up on everyones history… the Palastinians have no real state of their own and have never had a land of their own. Palastine was a name given to the region by Caesar Hadrean, when he destroyed Israel and renamed the land “Philistine country” or Palastine. To be technically correct, the Philistines own the right to the Gaza strip… but last I checked… there is no such thing as a Philistine any more. It is also interesting to note that muslims were leaving Israel pre-statehood in droves because the land was crap. They were more than happy to sell every bit of crap land they could to the crazy jews during the british mandate. When the Jews were given statehood by the UN mandate, the Jews had already owned all the land. When Israel changed the land back into the land flowing with milk and honey, the people from oppressed surrounding muslim populations came into the now prosperous land and demanded that the Jews leave their land. The Palastine thing came afterward… not before. It was a rationalization for fighting the Jews, not the purpose.

Earth? Where is that? I live in San Diego.

the palistians tried and are still trying to get some land, who doesnt want land of their own, but as allies of israel it is our part to help deny them towelheads land

we should give israel all the weapons they need and let them clean house, them palestinians have been giving the israelies s#%t since hadrean gave them a name. and in ‘76 they took the the plane down to africa and demanded their”freedom fighters” be released and back then we should have sent isreal a cargo ship full of weapons and ammo so they could do their thing a long time ago!!!!!

This is an amazing thread.

Honestly, we give Israel plenty of money. I think we pay both Israel and Egypt millions of dollars per year not to go to war against each other. That’s on top of everything else we give them. Militarily, they are robust. Haha, I said “robust” in a sentence.

Chad, I back your comment about frickin lasers. Don’t forget the jetpacks tho.

Guav had said-

>

“Ever” is a long time. In fact, if you go back far enough the land was completely dominated by the Israelites after they conquered the Canaanites. Sure, shortly before 1948 it was dominated by Arabs that is only because the invading forces of Muslims by way of the Ottoman Empire took it from the Romans. Needless to say it has changed hands many times- to the victor goes the spoils I guess. But it definitely wasn’t originally Arab land. Like Sean said, it was originally Philistine or Canaanite land but since they are a people group that no longer exist and the Israelites were the next to live there, of all peoples currently living it most belongs to the Jews!

>

Yes but this condition was because the British didn’t keep to their word. After dividing up the middle east they had promised the Jews a small portion for them to have a national home which they called the “Palestine Mandate”. This was laid out in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. But, in 1921 the British separated 80% of the Mandate east of the Jordan calling it the Transjordan and barred Jews from living there! The small area left for the Jews had been settled by both Jews and Arabs but Jews lived there continuously for around 3,700 years even after the Romans destroyed their state in Judea in 70AD. Arabs became the dominant population by the seventh century as a result of the vast Muslim invasions.

Anyway, jump ahead to the 1940’s and we have the holocaust, 6 million Jews killed, and roughly 250,000 Jewish refugees stranded in camps across Europe. Well, the Brits who cared more about being friendly with oil-rich Arabs couldn’t care less about what happened to the Jews and to keep the Arabs happy enforced strict anti-immigration regulations against Jews who wanted to settle in Palestine Mandate that had been promised to them back in 1917. Talk about a f**ked up situation for the Jews. 6 million murdered and those who survived were left with no place to live. Until, Britain cracked under pressure and reluctantly allowed the Jews to live in three small sections of the land that was originally to be theirs while still barring them from living in the 35 thousand square miles of the Transjordan.

>

Actually Osiderocker wasn’t too far off. Perhaps you are the one living in a parallel universe; either that or a university where neo-communists dominate and anti-Jewish propaganda is commonplace. The fact of the matter is that when Jews immigrated into this land they brought with them industrial and agricultural know-how and made quite a lot of the desolate lands they were given. If the Arabs would have been satisfied with their plush arrangement of getting 90% of the land and benefiting from what the Jews brought to their parts of the land, there would have been no mid east conflict. But they were not. And the Arab League declared war on Israel on the day of its creation and have been fighting to destroy them ever since.

>

After five Arab nations waged war on young Israel and got their butts kicked Jordan actually annexed the entire west bank and Egypt annexed the Gaze strip. Arab refugees of this war fled and Jews poured in from Arab countries that were booting them out. Young and tiny Israel allowed these Jewish refugees in while no Arab country welcomed the Palestinian refugees.

*Sean pokes his head out from behind Chris*

Ya, Guav! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

osiderocker: Hahaha … hiding behind Chris doesn’t change the fact that you were talking out of your anus

I know… but some of my best stuff is marinating in my colon.

Chad: I’ve read nearly a dozen books about the region, most of them specifically concerning the history of the current conflict, and they invariably include ancient history.

David ruled from 1010 or 990 BCE and the The Kingdom of Judah lasted until 586 BCE.

From 586 BCE onwards, the majority of Jews have lived outside the Holy Land.

Guav, I’d be interested in knowing what 12 books you’ve read on this subject. Just curious.

Also, if you read the Bible, I will read a book of your choosing. Deal?

I actually think the New American Standard Version is the easiest to read and the most literal translation. Many like the NIV or the English Standard. I do however enjoy reading the King James for funsies.

*that was a joke. I would probably hang myself.

Gauv-

Thanks. Also let me just say that your reading on this issue is impressive. About the only book I’ve read related to this is “Left Illusions; An Intellectual Odyssey” by David Horowitz. Other than that, I’ve read a ton of stuff online, but it looks like I need to pick up some more books on amazon. Regarding the books you mentioned off hand, with the exception of Dershowitz it looks like all those other authors are blatantly pro-Palestinian. And Chomsky? Don’t even get me started on that guy. What an intellectual hack job he is. Anyhow, in your opinion, what would you say is the best book for someone looking for a relatively unbiased account of the history of this issue? It seems to me that most books dedicated to this issue would by nature be very biased one way or the other- being that this is such a hot button divissive issue and people have very strong feelings on it. Should we not just read basic history books/articles to learn the history of what happened and decide for ourselves?

You had said,

I assumed that nobody would try to rationally argue that we should go all the way back to biblical times in order to decide who has the “right” to any given parcel of land on the planet, but I should have known better. I forgot that when it comes to Israel (and Israel only), someone can argue that land claims from 3,000 years ago are valid and not be called a complete kook.

But your coming from a position that the Arabs have a “right” to the land, aren’t you? But why should they? They stole it from the Romans, right? The history of mankind is of nations conquering nations and people groups stealing land from other people groups. Look, its not ideal, I’ll be the first to admit that. But that’s just how it is. And when talking about the “plight” of the poor Arabs lets not forget that they aren’t exactly innocent when it comes to conquering others. The ottoman empire was one of the greatest conquering and expansionary forces the world has ever seen. Anyway, I don’t think its unreasonable to go far back in history and see who lived in these lands in the far past. Why would it be unreasonable? Also, this of course, isn’t the only reason for allowing the Jews to have their own homeland.

The Canaanites don’t exist because the Arab invaders settled down as residents and intermarried with them—there is no way to tell where the Canaanites end and the Arabs begin.

Then my point stands, doesn’t it?

The kingdoms of David and Solomon endured for only about 73 years and then fell apart. Even if you take the entire span of the Jewish kingdoms—from David’s conquest of Canaan to the wiping out of Judah—you’re left with only a 414 year Jewish rule.

I see what your saying, but does length of time in a land determine who had the right to it? I’m not sure that it is.

In any case, like I said, I find the idea of these ancient claims to be utterly ridiculous

Really, why? What factors do you use to determine whose land it is? Should it belong to whoever lived there most recently? That seems quite short-sited to me.

and the idea that these claims give someone the right to dispossess someone living on that land in modern history—especially in the present day—to be unsupportable, both legally and morally.

Here again, I think the basis for your position here is unfounded. First, its not just these claims that give them the right to the land, it was also the authority of the victors of WW1 and WW2 who give them that right. Also, if you want to talk about morality, I would strongly suggest that after what happened to the Jews at the hand of the Nazi’s, the world population had a moral obligation to give Jews back their ancient homeland. Please tell me- in your view would it be morally superior to have let the Jews live as refugees in camps across Europe, to refuse to allow them any land of their own so that they would forever be a weak minority and easy target for persecution in foreign lands?

Nevertheless, the Palestinians were not the ones that murdered 6 million Jews, and the Holocaust doesn’t justify European colonialism—which is what Zionism is—and taking land from people who had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Furthermore, the Zionist project began in the late 1800’s long before Hitler or the Holocaust, so the argument that Zionism was a reaction to the Holocaust is plainly false.

There are a lot of misconceptions here. First the Jews were originally willing to live side by side with the Palestinians. Second, it matters not that the Palestinians were not the originators of the holocaust. By that logic, the Jews should have been given Germany. LOL. The fact remains that it was a dire situation and something HAD to be done. This is of course is why most countries unanimously supported giving the Jews their homeland at this time (See here). Of course, the Arabs didn’t but that should surprise us. They have always hated the Jews and learned the precedent from their prophet and leader Mohammed. It is interesting to note though, that it says in that article- “King Faisal I of Iraq supported the idea of Zionism and signed the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement in 1919. He wrote: “We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our delegation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday to the Zionist organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper.”
Another thing that’s important to note is that the Ottoman Empire had joined forces with Germany in WW1 and I don’t see any reason to believe that they wouldn’t have in WW2 if the Empire had survived long enough to see it.
I think the most important flaw here, however, is your statement- “the Zionist project began in the late 1800’s long before Hitler or the Holocaust, so the argument that Zionism was a reaction to the Holocaust is plainly false”
This just doesn’t square with what I’m reading. While it is true the Zionist movement began in the late 1800’s it was more or less only an ideological movement and only a very small number of Jews sympathized with it. As a matter of fact, most were strongly against it. They believed that for them to get their homeland back it would have to be by God’s doing not by their own (thankfully for them God also works through other nations) and Zionism was a purely secular movement so supporting them amounted to almost heresy. Now of course, as time passed, while Jews where receiving harsh persecution in Russia and culminating with the holocaust, Zionism grew more support as the matter became urgent, and even a matter of survival. So while it is true that Zionism was not a reaction to the Holocaust, the strong support for Zionism among Jews was in fact most definitely a reaction to the Holocaust. BTW, after the holocaust, most non-Jews supported it as well.

This is also false. If European Zionists had not tried to claim land that was not theirs, there would be no mideast conflict.

Timeout. Rewind. The Ottomans unwisely joined the central powers in WW1 and were defeated. The victors of WW1 then had the power and authority to partition the lands of the middle east after the ultimate decline of the Ottoman Empire. Britain was given control of Palestine at the Paris Peace conference by the League of Nations. The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement was signed as an agreement between Arabs & Jews on the development of a Jewish homeland and Britain drafted the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate of Palestine promising a homeland in Palestine for the Jews (and local Arabs btw). The concept of Zionists stealing the land is a bit unfounded and simplistic. It was given to them by the powers that be. Like it or not, that is how the world works. Heck, we’ve come a long way. In times past, the victors of a great war like that would completely take rule over the defeated or else make them all their slaves. The League of Nations was civilized enough to divide them up into countries to rule themselves. Granted this disunity in the Arab world was a great benefit to the West and the call of Islamic radicals is to reverse this process and reunite the Arab world (in order that it might conqueor the West of course). But I don’t think that would be too good.

CS: I do not believe in God, so telling me that something is the way it is because God said so doesn’t mean anything to me.

JJ: I wouldn’t have you read something I haven’t read, and since I can’t stand Hillary, you’re safe. Thank you for the suggestions—I have a bible at home somewhere, I’ll see what it is.

Chris: In regards to my book list, all but one of the authors are Jewish, three of them are Israeli, and two of the seven books are decidedly pro-Israel. The remaining five are not all “pro-Palestinian.”

But your coming from a position that the Arabs have a “right” to the land, aren’t you?

No, not an inherent right—not the type of “right” that Zionists claim—an exclusive right. Not a biblical or spiritual right. Just saying, there were already there when the Russian Jews started showing up to create a homeland.

And when talking about the “plight” of the poor Arabs lets not forget that they aren’t exactly innocent when it comes to conquering others. The Ottoman empire was one of the greatest conquering and expansionary forces the world has ever seen.

Yes, but to be specific, that was Turks, not the Arabs. The Arabian peninsula was part of the Ottoman empire, but they didn’t want to be, and Arab nationalism and a desire to be free from the yoke of the Ottomans began to form right around the same time that Zionists started colonizing Palestine. And that’s really the problem—there were two nationalist movements vying for the same land. And the Arab nationalists had no desire, obviously, to have European colonists take the place of the Ottoman Turks.

Anyway, I don’t think its unreasonable to go far back in history and see who lived in these lands in the far past.

It’s not at all unreasonable to see who lived in those lands, it’s unreasonable to claim that we should revert everything back to the way it was 2,000 years ago—I don’t think you’re advocating giving America back to the remaining Native Americans or think that we should give California and Texas back to Mexico, do you?

Second, it matters not that the Palestinians were not the originators of the holocaust. By that logic, the Jews should have been given Germany. LOL

You’re absolutely correct: logically, that is what should have been done. What’s so funny about that? Makes a hell of a lot more sense than giving them a place in the Middle East.

This is of course is why most countries unanimously supported giving the Jews their homeland at this time

Many countries supported the Zionist endeavor because they wanted to get rid of their own Jewish populations.

There is no avoiding the fact that Zionism was a European nationalist/colonial movement. Eastern European Jews—mostly Russian—we tired of being treated like crap and being killed for silly reasons. They wanted to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine (although they considered other locations) but the problem is that there were already people there. And these people had been there for generations. You can’t create a homeland if there are already people there. From the beginning, the Zionists understood that they could not establish a state of their own without displacing the native population. As one of the most important Zionist leaders, Vladimir Jabotinsky, wrote in 1923

Every reader has some idea of the early history of other countries which have been settled. I suggest that he recall all known instances. If he should attempt to seek but one instance of a country settled with the consent of those born there he will not succeed. The inhabitants (no matter whether they are civilized or savages) have always put up a stubborn fight. Furthermore, how the settler acted had no effect whatsoever … the native resisted both barbarian and civilized settler with the same degree of cruelty.

There has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native people—its all the same whether they are civilized or savage—views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them.

They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile.

Individual Arabs may perhaps be bought off but this hardly means that all the Arabs in Eretz Israel are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement.

That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel”.

Their goal was to buy as much land as they could—in some cases evicting the tennant farmers on it, in some cases employing them—and to get as many Jews as possible to immigrate into Palestine as possible until they had a majority and were politically strong enough to assert themselves and form a new state. They always understood it would have to be done against the will of the native population. It was really a case of advanced Europeans vs. Third World natives. And of course, it was no match. The Zionists were more advanced economically and politically, and had funding.

Yeah, the British “gave” Israel to the Zionists. Aside from “that’s the way the world worked” my question is why do people criticize the native Arabs for not accepting it? Why should they have? One foreign European power “gave” land the inhabitants had lived on for generations to other European settlers and we still have people wondering why the Arabs—Muslim, Christian, Druze and Bedouin—fought tooth and nail to prevent that. Why is this shocking? Would you not do the same thing?

I just find it ridiculous that I, as an American grandson of a German Jew, have the “right” to “return” to a land that my family never lived in, and there’s some old dude in a refugee camp who used to live there who can’t return.

Guav- thanks for the response, interesting stuff, ultimately though I think your ideas here have been weighed and found wanting. Keep up the reading…

CS: Saying God gave Abraham the exact boundaries is not “historically accurate.” It’s historically accurate to note that the bible claims this, but that doesn’t make it factual. Maybe that’s what you meant.

I know the bible says that, but the fact that they have returned there is not proof of the bible’s prophecy, because the reason they chose to go back to Palestine is because the bible says they would—we’re talking about people who believe in the bible following it’s blueprint. That’s not very surprising. If the bible said nothing about the Jews returning there, I doubt they would have selected that spot, they certainly entertained other options.

The bible I own is called the New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures—you guys have any idea about that? Will that be OK or should I buy one of the other ones you guys suggested?

Simple Simon: I wonder the same thing. The Zionists considered other locations such as Angola, North Africa, Canada and the American southwest (near Galveston). Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, suggested Argentina in his pamphlet, The Jewish State. Part of Uganda was offered to the Zionists twice by the British (although the Masai there didn’t really like Europeans all that much either). The Nazis wanted to ship all the Jews off to Madagascar, and the Japanese wanted to bring them to land they had captured from the Japanese in Manchuria.

The Jews just wanted somewhere they could be safe and secure from their tormenters. Sadly, Israel is probably the most dangerous place where Jews live.

Guav: Let me be clear, the Bible is 100% accurate historically. Not because I say so but because you can read it and learn about history and check it against other sources. True the Jews MADE history by OBEYING God and experiencing his promises, or obtaining the promised land. Did you know they have found chariot wheels on the floor of the Red Sea where Moses lead the Israelites from Egypt? The wheels date to the exact dynasty.

You most likely are right for the reason they chose the land of Israel to return to. However, do you honestly think that the dwellers of that land thought the same thing? The odds that a group of poorly trained Jews defeating the surrounding nations and taking the land is a military miracle. The Jews acted on the desire to come home when many of their family members were being killed in Hitler’s camps.

The way you make it sound they chose the land and the people there agreed and backed away.

The Jews didn’t do everything the scriptures said to do. The Temple Mount is the Jews yet they still do not have a Temple. Scripture says a Temple will be built, the Anti-Christ will stand in it. So far they have no Temple but are going to build it soon. Fulfillment of Bible prophecy, I say it would be but I understand your perspective too.

Like oside said, NWT is not a reliable translation. It only had one translator who was vaguely familiar with ancient languages. Mainly they scrapped from other translations and then changed some words to make it agree with their belief. Oside and JJ gave good advice. I’d lean toward NASV, NIV, or NKJV, or KJV.

The way you make it sound they chose the land and the people there agreed and backed away.

No I most certainlt did not. My entire contention is that the people there did NOT agree or back away. That should be quite apparent from the things I posted.

And the Jews were hardly “poorly trained” scraggly immigrants by the time 1948 rolled around—they had been fighting for decades already.

Jonah and the Dudes In Whales. great rock band name.

Ah… the Bible… what a great gift! Guav, as you read it, realize for a moment that you do not know everything and that God is trying to tell you something. Those things you listed as “hard to swallow” are hard to swallow when you try to explain it from man’s standpoint. But when you look at it from the God point of view… none of that is hard to swallow. God could have snapped His fingers and our world could be set into motion… why did He take seven days? God could have frozen the Red Sea, could have dried it up, could have built a bridge over it… why split it? And your beloved Jonah… lets let Jesus sum up why this happened.

Matthew 12:39-41

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.

The Jews were asking Jesus to prove His claims to them and Jesus used the example of Jonah in the belly of the whale to illustrate the only proof He would give His critics of His claims to Godhood. Resurrection! Jesus’s death and resurrection is historically verifiable and Jonah’s story was neccesary in order for Jesus’s statement to make sense.

CS:

Why not you believe intelligence comes from non-intelligence, life from non-life, and so on. Why not believe it?

You don’t know what I believe about the origins of life, you’ve never asked me. I know you guys might find this shocking, but there is not just one scientific theory of how the universe started, and not all atheists even have an opinion on or care about how the universe was created.

You believe in the bible, so to you it is “100% historically accurate,” but that is not an objective statement of fact, it’s a subjective opinion.

The Palestinians and the surrounding Arab nations were hardly shaby either, they far outnumbered the Jews.

Actually, they were extremely shabby. In any case, there is no shortage of examples throughout human history of small groups of people being victorious over much larger groups of people. It’s really not all that unusual.

osiderocker:

Guav, as you read it, realize for a moment that you do not know everything

I already realize I don’t know everything, and have never been under any other impression. I know very little, relatively speaking. None of us know all that much.

Those things you listed as “hard to swallow” are hard to swallow when you try to explain it from man’s standpoint. But when you look at it from the God point of view… none of that is hard to swallow.

Well, isn’t that incredibly convenient for defending some of the more ridiculous claims of the bible. “Dude, it’s God … he can do anything.” Well I guess that settles that—you win.

At least it didn’t go from the more natural progression of Ron Paul to Ru Paul.

Guav:

You believe in the bible, so to you it is “100% historically accurate,” but that is not an objective statement of fact, it’s a subjective opinion.

The Bible has not yet been disproven to be historically inaccurate. It has tons of evidence supporting the historical claims.

Yep lots of theories out there and fogive me for lumping you with the “flavor of the century” theory. Lots subscribe to the “whocares” theory but I’m sure you’re not one of them?

The Jews are a modern day “burning bush” to mankind. They have been sought out for destruction since the very begining. No other nation, or kingdom, has been scattered across the world (prophetic fulfillment) then brought back to the land (prophetic fulfillment) of previous occupancy and restored their religion, customs, and creeds.

Leaning so heavily of the prophetic parts of scripture tends to get me labled “nut case”. Thanks for listening and considering, only offering more reasons for you to come to faith.

osiderocker: Hahaha

Chris Woollet:

most of the other “scientific” theories for the origin of life … are based on hopefull speculations and depend on an apriori commitment to naturalism.

The truth is, I’m not particularly interested or concerned about how the universe came into existence. I don’t advocate for any particular scientific theory, but I find the ones I’ve heard to be more plausible than God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster waving his hands and making it magically appear. I don’t believe in magic.

The thing with the resurrection is that almost every single cult and religion back then had a similar myth—it was a common, recurring theme throughout most of recorded human history. Virtually nothing about the story of Jesus Christ is original or new. I have no more reason to believe that Christ rose from the dead after three days than I do that Osiris did. Hercules, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and others also compare to the Christian myth. All are pre-Christian, all allegedly had gods for fathers and virgins for mothers; were born around December 25th; met violent deaths; and all rose from the dead (often after 3 days). The accounts of these myths say nothing about historical reality, but they do say a lot about believers, how they believed, and how their beliefs spread. People believed all sorts of crazy things back then.

CS:

The Bible has not yet been disproven to be historically inaccurate.

The burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim. If you claim that a man was swallowed whole by a whale and hung out in it’s stomach for three days, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to back up that claim. It’s not my job to disprove your claim. You have to convince me it happened if you want me to believe it.

Lots subscribe to the “whocares” theory but I’m sure you’re not one of them?

Well, kinda. I don’t really give it much thought, and I wouldn’t be able to debate any of the scientific theories with any qualification. I’m not well-versed in them.

The truth is, I’m not particularly interested or concerned about how the universe came into existence. I don’t advocate for any particular scientific theory, but I find the ones I’ve heard to be more plausible than God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster waving his hands and making it magically appear. I don’t believe in magic.

By that last sentance (and the condescending nature of it), I take that to mean that you don’t believe in the supernatural and you think its ridiculous to even suggest it. So with that assumption or metaphysical bias of course you will find these other supposed scientific theories as more credible. You have eliminated the very possibility of God through your presuppositions so materialistic theories are all thats left!

But anyway, there are eyewitness accounts of vampires and werewolves also. Almost every fraud and hoax in history has had people who swore they saw something that supported it.

Fair enough. However, many of these hoaxes were for financial gain or personal fame. But in the case of the apostles, their accounts of Christ’s resurection led to beatings and eventually death.

If I tell you I personally saw a man flap his wings and fly up into the sky, it is not your job to disprove that I saw that. Telling you that I witnessed it myself is not going to make you believe me. If I could not provide you with some sort of evidence or proof—say, a videotape—you would be forgiven for not taking my claim very seriously.

If you did I would talk to others in the area and see if anyone else saw the same thing. If others did, I might be inclined to investigate the matter. Video evidence in this case would be no good- there are videos of David Blain levitating but its an illusion.

Of course, much of human history is based on eyewitness accounts—how to know which ones to believe and which ones to be skeptical of? I guess I’m skeptical of claims that contradict what we now know about the world.

Right. We should be skeptical of supernatural historical claims. However, we shouldn’t write them off as impossible. Rather we should remain openminded. Same as with the origins issue.

Could you possibly link me to one specific one in particular that you feel I should read regarding the topic?

Well, its a complex issue. 10 times more complex than the Israeli/Palestinian issue. I hardly doubt one article would suffice a good understanding of it. Even all these articles are just an introduction to this issue. Back in 89 Craig wrote a 489 pg book and back in 85 a 696 pg book on the issue. But I guess for a general overview I would suggest at least these two:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html

I find scientific theories more credible only to the extent that they can be demonstrated to me.

Not on the issue of ultimate origins they can’t. It’s speculation at best.

Ok … what do you want me to do? I haven’t done anything—I haven’t actively “eliminated” the possibility of God—I just don’t believe in God.

But it seems to me that you don’t even allow for the possibility, perhaps unknowingly even. I dunno, correct me if I’m wrong. I was just pointing out that if you discount the supernatural and/or God from the get-go then of course you will come up with materialistic theories (by definition).

You’re seeing this is if it’s something I am doing instead of just the way I have always been. My lack of belief isn’t a strategy for debate—”I’ll reject all supernatural explanations to make Chris aggravated!”—I just don’t believe in the supernatural. I don’t know what you want me to do.

Again, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying your employing some kind of trickery. And also, I’m not getting aggravated at all. I just think you should be more openminded about it.

I guess one must have faith in order to have faith. If I have to already believe in God in order to accept the claims of the bible, then that’s a problem, innit? If I believed in God, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I see what your saying. And this is partl