PDA

View Full Version : Why do Muslims hate the Jews?


Pages : 1 [2]

Dedans Penthouse
08-03-2006, 10:30 AM
Meanwhile, sitting around the campfire at Camp Haifa:

"Seventy-two hairy virgins in a shawl,
Seventy-two hairy virgins.....
Ya take one down, and slap her around,
Seventy-one hairy virgins in a shawl...."

alienhamster
08-03-2006, 10:38 AM
Are they showing love and respect by video taping beheadings and televising them. Sooner or later, the Muslims have to decide what they are all about. Right now they are in conflict with themselves and a bunch of half truths and lies. And I'll be the first to agree with you, it is somewhat confusing. Seems Muslims are the most confused. TOTAL cheap shot here. A ton of protestant Chrisitians in this nation celebrate the death penalty, including the display of executions in person or via television. Does this seem to run against the love and forgiveness preached by these same Christians? Yes. Does that mean Christianity "doesn't know what it's about" and somehow isn't really about these values at all? NO. Religion is a complex social thing, and you can't simply dismiss it outright based on the contradictory nature of certain aspects of its practice, especially since a number of believers don't even agree on the issue.

This is true, of course, unless you're saying Christianity is just as easily dismissable. That's an argument a lot of people make, but not one that I agree with at all.

(And don't pull the "it's apples and oranges because it's criminals here and it's innocents there." Doesn't matter--if you have compassion, it doesn't fly out the window willy-nilly. Killing is killing.)

Kevin T
08-03-2006, 11:20 AM
Are you familiar with the Old Testament, Alienhamster? God is not only a God of love. He is a God of vengeance and jealousy. And that's not a bad thing, IMHO. I'm by no means a Bible-thumper but this new wave of feel good, focus only on the positive aspects of Christianity is charlatansim and not Biblically accurate. To put it in modern terms, Jehovah told the Israelites to lay the smack down on numerous occassions. And yes, there is a huge difference in MURDERING innocent journalists, women, etc. and killing a guy that killed and raped a mother and her three small children. You don't see the distinction, that's your opinion. To me, it's not even in the same ballpark. Not even the same sport, actually.

And Falcon, I love the 150 year old references to slaves and Native Americans. Yeah, we (Americans) made our mistakes. Are the radical Islamists 150 years late or what?

tennis-n-sc
08-03-2006, 11:27 AM
TOTAL cheap shot here. A ton of protestant Chrisitians in this nation celebrate the death penalty, including the display of executions in person or via television. Does this seem to run against the love and forgiveness preached by these same Christians? Yes. Does that mean Christianity "doesn't know what it's about" and somehow isn't really about these values at all? NO. Religion is a complex social thing, and you can't simply dismiss it outright based on the contradictory nature of certain aspects of its practice, especially since a number of believers don't even agree on the issue.

This is true, of course, unless you're saying Christianity is just as easily dismissable. That's an argument a lot of people make, but not one that I agree with at all.

(And don't pull the "it's apples and oranges because it's criminals here and it's innocents there." Doesn't matter--if you have compassion, it doesn't fly out the window willy-nilly. Killing is killing.)

Well, it is apples and oranges, but since you brought up fruit, I assume you are familar with it.

First, the death penalty in the U.S. is a law in some states and is not admistered by churches or religions. Most religions in this country are against the death penalty. However, those that have been executed were tried in courts of law and appellate courts for years before the execution. The executions are not televised. There are a handfull of witnesses to ensure that the condemed receives his rights up till the end. This is a little different than kidnapping an innocent stranger and beheading them in the name of Allah. Need anymore explantions about fruit?

tennis-n-sc
08-03-2006, 11:38 AM
I don't live in south carolina but I would assume you've probably seen a couple of muslims in your real life (I hope caronlinas aren't THAT bad). Were they running around holding dismembered body parts? Did they attempt to decapitate you? Or are you just paranoid?

When christians were keeping slaves and justifying the practice with their bible or scalping indians were they practicing christianity or were they confused?

Sure, we have Mulsims in South Carolina along with a few hundred thousand red-necks, but that's material for another thread. In South Carolina, people that commit murder are tracked down, caught and given trial. They are then sentenced to prison or a mental institute, depending on the findings of the court. And, no, I'm not paranoid. I live in land of laws and the Muslims that live here observe those civil and criminal laws or they face the same judgements as anyone. Not by Allah or some Mullah, I might add.

Actually, slavery was common in the bible. But it was a blight on the U.S. and we have learned from it. And I know your history of the U.S. is probably a little tainted by your Iranian education, but it was the Indians that was scalping the forked-tongued white eyes. For the most part anyway.

alienhamster
08-03-2006, 11:38 AM
Are you familiar with the Old Testament, Alienhamster? God is not only a God of love. He is a God of vengeance and jealousy. And that's not a bad thing, IMHO. I'm by no means a Bible-thumper but this new wave of feel good, focus only on the positive aspects of Christianity is charlatansim and not Biblically accurate. To put it in modern terms, Jehovah told the Israelites to lay the smack down on numerous occassions. And yes, there is a huge difference in MURDERING innocent journalists, women, etc. and killing a guy that killed and raped a mother and her three small children. You don't see the distinction, that's your opinion. To me, it's not even in the same ballpark. Not even the same sport, actually.

And Falcon, I love the 150 year old references to slaves and Native Americans. Yeah, we (Americans) made our mistakes. Are the radical Islamists 150 years late or what? Yes, I am familar with the OT. But I'm pretty sure you're not on board these days with all of the "Old Law" as seen in Leviticus and such. Jesus is claimed very often as the "new Law" that trumps the old stuff (or, at least the old stuff that isn't interpreted as pre-figuring the words and love of Christ). But I often see people (like you) picking and choosing the parts of the old law that correspond to the culture you want for yourself in the present day. So, you look for justifications for the death penalty in the Old testament, when it has ZERO to do with anything that came out of Jesus's mouth.

And yes, I see a difference in the types of killing there, but not one that matters a smidgeon in deciding who gets to die. "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty clear to me.

And lastly, you can't have it both ways. You criticize the Islamic fundamentalists for a barbarism that is scriptually driven as a "laying the smackdown on the immoral." And then you turn around and defend a VERY similar practice in Christianity. Contradition much?

tennis-n-sc
08-03-2006, 11:40 AM
Yes, I am familar with the OT. But I'm pretty sure you're not on board these days with all of the "Old Law" as seen in Leviticus and such. Jesus is claimed very often as the "new Law" that trumps the old stuff (or, at least the old stuff that isn't interpreted as pre-figuring the words and love of Christ). But I often see people (like you) picking and choosing the parts of the old law that correspond to the culture you want for yourself in the present day. So, you look for justifications for the death penalty in the Old testament, when it has ZERO to do with anything that came out of Jesus's mouth.

And yes, I see a difference in the types of killing there, but not one that matters a smidgeon in deciding who gets to die. "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty clear to me.

And lastly, you can't have it both ways. You criticize the Islamic fundamentalists for a barbarism that is scriptually driven as a "laying the smackdown on the immoral." And then you turn around and defend a VERY similar practice in Christianity. Contradition much?

Don't you know that if you keep smoking that crap, you'll make a fool of yourself. Oh.....never mind.

alienhamster
08-03-2006, 11:41 AM
Well, it is apples and oranges, but since you brought up fruit, I assume you are familar with it.

First, the death penalty in the U.S. is a law in some states and is not admistered by churches or religions. Most religions in this country are against the death penalty. However, those that have been executed were tried in courts of law and appellate courts for years before the execution. The executions are not televised. There are a handfull of witnesses to ensure that the condemed receives his rights up till the end. This is a little different than kidnapping an innocent stranger and beheading them in the name of Allah. Need anymore explantions about fruit? So how is it not killing, then? Murder as defined as "the intentional act of killing another human being"? How do you have moral clarity about it?

(Duh--I know there's a difference. But you're not constructing an argument about how THIS SIMILARITY is somehow fundamentally different.)

dmastous
08-03-2006, 11:47 AM
Well, it is apples and oranges, but since you brought up fruit, I assume you are familar with it.

First, the death penalty in the U.S. is a law in some states and is not admistered by churches or religions. Most religions in this country are against the death penalty. However, those that have been executed were tried in courts of law and appellate courts for years before the execution. The executions are not televised. There are a handfull of witnesses to ensure that the condemed receives his rights up till the end. This is a little different than kidnapping an innocent stranger and beheading them in the name of Allah. Need anymore explantions about fruit?
There you went and did it... Can't we talk about birds and bees instead?

A ton of protestant Chrisitians in this nation celebrate the death penalty, including the display of executions in person or via television. Does this seem to run against the love and forgiveness preached by these same Christians? Yes. Does that mean Christianity "doesn't know what it's about" and somehow isn't really about these values at all? NO. Religion is a complex social thing, and you can't simply dismiss it outright based on the contradictory nature of certain aspects of its practice, especially since a number of believers don't even agree on the issue.

This is true, of course, unless you're saying Christianity is just as easily dismissable. That's an argument a lot of people make, but not one that I agree with at all.

(And don't pull the "it's apples and oranges because it's criminals here and it's innocents there." Doesn't matter--if you have compassion, it doesn't fly out the window willy-nilly. Killing is killing.)
This is the same kind of argument that the pro choice people use (unborn baby vs convicted murderer). But there's a big difference between beheading, slowely and painfuly with a small knife, an innocent person (and even at times a conscientious supporter who comes to help and gets beheaded), and a killer convicted and sentenced to die by lethal injection. That is after round after round of appeals and attempts to get a governor's pardon. Then posting the video on the Internet while your flock jump around, burn flags and effigies, and raise their rifles in joy.
Personally I've never seen an execution on TV, though there have been attempts to do this "pour encourager les masses". And I hope I never do see it appear on TV. There may be celebrating when the deed is done, but only quietly and only by the family of the victim(s).

dmastous
08-03-2006, 11:59 AM
So how is it not killing, then? Murder as defined as "the intentional act of killing another human being"? How do you have moral clarity about it?

(Duh--I know there's a difference. But you're not constructing an argument about how THIS SIMILARITY is somehow fundamentally different.)
You can use semantics to make any point you want. There is a difference, whether you want to admit it or not, between killing or murdering a convicted individual who wrongfully murders another human being and an (assumedly) innocent human being.

alienhamster
08-03-2006, 12:21 PM
You can use semantics to make any point you want. There is a difference, whether you want to admit it or not, between killing or murdering a convicted individual who wrongfully murders another human being and an (assumedly) innocent human being. Right, I don't disagree here. I just don't think that difference matters in terms of creating justifications for the killing itself.

As to your preceding post, I'm trying to point out the bloodlust that Christians have as seen in issues like the death penalty. Believe me--it is beyond the victims and families. There wouldn't be a law in so many states, nor a demand for televised executions, if it wasn't there. I just really bristle at the holier-than-thou stuff when people locate barbarism/blootlust/insanity in other cultures but fail to see it (IN WHATEVER FORMS, I don't care how minor you want to make it out to be) in their own.

And yeah, using the Bible to justify this stuff is, to me, a pretty terrible misuse of the book.

ETA: PLEASE NOTE I'm not defending Islamic fundamentalism that claims religious righteousness in its killing of innocents here. It just seems like a lot of people want to dismiss the aspects of our culture that are *****ty or suspect because they are oh-so-much worse than us. And, YES, I do think their fundies are worse than ours at present. But that doesn't mean I don't see frightening acts on both sides.

And it just strikes me as funny (tragic?) that the rhetoric (us vs. them, righteous vs. heathen, sane vs. crazy) is sometimes oddly similar in Christian and Islamic fundie worlds. What's the Israeli rhetoric like in this mix?

dmastous
08-03-2006, 12:34 PM
Right, I don't disagree here. I just don't think that difference matters in terms of creating justifications for the killing itself.

As to your preceding post, I'm trying to point out the bloodlust that Christians have as seen in issues like the death penalty. Believe me--it is beyond the victims and families. There wouldn't be a law in so many states, nor a demand for televised executions, if it wasn't there. I just really bristle at the holier-than-thou stuff when people locate barbarism/blootlust/insanity in other cultures but fail to see it (IN WHATEVER FORMS, I don't care how minor you want to make it out to be) in their own.

And yeah, using the Bible to justify this stuff is, to me, a pretty terrible misuse of the book.
Bloodlust is a part of a carniverous beast (which we, in part, we are). We have our dark side, all of us. But I described the victim's family's "celebration" as usually very quiet and sedate. A quiet thanks to whichever God they believe in is usually sufficient, with perhaps a toast to their departed one.
The desire for televised execution as a pandering to that dark side. So far, as far as I know they haven't succeeded, and I think that's to our credit.
But I have yet to hear a reasoning behind the practice of targeting innocent civilians. Check that, I can see the reasoning, but I don't see how they can justify innocent people paying with their lives (by being kidnapped and beheaded, or blown up in a cafe, or in building) for something that they have no control over. I have seen a lot of posturing, "well, I don't think that's right", or "I wouldn't do that myself, but...". I have yet to hear the terrorist's side on that issue. I don't care if the charges they make are 100% true. I don't care if their land has been taken from them, or their most holy of holies has been destroyed by some callous capitalist. There is zero excuse for the method they use to make war.
Try and justify that.

dmastous
08-03-2006, 12:40 PM
ETA: PLEASE NOTE I'm not defending Islamic fundamentalism that claims religious righteousness in its killing of innocents here. It just seems like a lot of people want to dismiss the aspects of our culture that are *****ty or suspect because they are oh-so-much worse than us. And, YES, I do think their fundies are worse than ours at present. But that doesn't mean I don't see frightening acts on both sides.

And it just strikes me as funny (tragic?) that the rhetoric (us vs. them, righteous vs. heathen, sane vs. crazy) is sometimes oddly similar in Christian and Islamic fundie worlds. What's the Israeli rhetoric like in this mix?
This appeared as I was framing my reply.
The killing of innocents is the issue here. It's the one thing that makes them wrong and destroys any credibility they have in this world (IMO). Unless they stop this practice they will never get me to listen to their side. It's unequivocal for me. What they are doing is wrong in any religion or society. If it's right in their religion than their religion is wrong.

alienhamster
08-03-2006, 12:48 PM
Bloodlust is a part of a carniverous beast (which we, in part, we are). We have our dark side, all of us. But I described the victim's family's "celebration" as usually very quiet and sedate. A quiet thanks to whichever God they believe in is usually sufficient, with perhaps a toast to their departed one.
The desire for televised execution as a pandering to that dark side. So far, as far as I know they haven't succeeded, and I think that's to our credit.
But I have yet to hear a reasoning behind the practice of targeting innocent civilians. Check that, I can see the reasoning, but I don't see how they can justify innocent people paying with their lives (by being kidnapped and beheaded, or blown up in a cafe, or in building) for something that they have no control over. I have seen a lot of posturing, "well, I don't think that's right", or "I wouldn't do that myself, but...". I have yet to hear the terrorist's side on that issue. I don't care if the charges they make are 100% true. I don't care if their land has been taken from them, or their most holy of holies has been destroyed by some callous capitalist. There is zero excuse for the method they use to make war.
Try and justify that. I will try, but once again, THE JUSTIFICATION DOESN'T MATTER SO MUCH (and certainly isn't divinely justified) when you're imposing the killing on someone who didn't ask for it. (This is my position, anyway.)

I think the terrorist argument is pitched at a more macro level than what you're going for with talking about families and individuals and innocents. I've heard some claim that you're not innocent if you participate in the heathen/opposing/_____ culture. So, just by exisiting, you're an enemy. A different argument is that the larger goal of defeating the infidels is the primary goal, and there will be some unintended consequences to reaching that goal. Make sacrifices, do things you don't want to do because it's needed by the higher powers, blah blah blah.

These arguments are creepy, but there is definitely ia logic there. A really stupid, immoral logic that I keep hoping fewer and few people will adopt. And, keep in mind, most wars, even the ones we initiate, involve tons of killing of "innocents" because the cause is greater than the individuals.

There is also a logic to what you describe as the family's reaction to the killing of a murderer in the capital punishment scenario. That creeps me out, too, but admittedly on a much smaller level. (Whether or not it's sedate, it's still a desire for vengeance to be solved only with another killing.)

Kaptain Karl
08-03-2006, 01:01 PM
alienhamster - Please e-mail me ASAP.
____________

... you look for justifications for the death penalty in the Old testament, when it has ZERO to do with anything that came out of Jesus's mouth. ... "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty clear to me.If you're going to use the Bible in your debate, please use it accurately. (You did not.)

The Hebrew word transliterated "kill" in the 10 Comandments isn't accurate. It would be accurate -- and is in better Bible translations -- to say "thou shall not murder." As "kill" is less specific, it's a mis-use. (Murder is the taking of an innocent life.) There's an enormous difference between that ... and putting a murderer to death.

The authority of State Law is supported in Romans 13; even the authority to execute the guilty.

And lastly, you can't have it both ways. You criticize the Islamic fundamentalists for a barbarism that is scriptually driven as a "laying the smackdown on the immoral."Finally! Someone admits the Koran endorses these murders. (Thank you.)

And yeah, using the Bible to justify this stuff is, to me, a pretty terrible misuse of the book.I believe you started using the Bible.... You just don't understand it.

PLEASE NOTE I'm not defending Islamic fundamentalism that claims religious righteousness in its killing of innocents here.I don't believe this was needed ... but it is still good to see it posted, alienhamster.

And it just strikes me as funny (tragic?) that the rhetoric (us vs. them, righteous vs. heathen, sane vs. crazy) is sometimes oddly similar in Christian and Islamic fundie worlds.You lost me here. What do you mean?

- KK

alienhamster
08-03-2006, 01:17 PM
alienhamster - Please e-mail me ASAP.
____________

If you're going to use the Bible in your debate, please use it accurately. (You did not.)

The Hebrew word transliterated "kill" in the 10 Comandments isn't accurate. It would be accurate -- and is in better Bible translations -- to say "thou shall not murder." As "kill" is less specific, it's a mis-use. (Murder is the taking of an innocent life.) There's an enormous difference between that ... and putting a murderer to death.

The authority of State Law is supported in Romans 13; even the authority to execute the guilty.

Finally! Someone admits the Koran endorses these murders. (Thank you.)

I believe you started using the Bible.... You just don't understand it.

I don't believe this was needed ... but it is still good to see it posted, alienhamster.

You lost me here. What do you mean?

- KK I'll admit I don't speak Hebrew here. But I am a linguist, so let me just say kill/murder is tricky to define in pretty much any language. I notice, for example, that your definition of murder didn't specify 'human.' Languages might distinguish words for animal/human killing. Some might not, and we even see things like "meat is murder" said by a number of folks today. Fundamentally, murder is hard-to-pin down precisely, and I'm not convinced that your translation opens up the door with 100% certainty for capital punishment. (Seems like a lot depends on what you and your culture defines as "innocent.")

As for the state law reference in Romans--you have to be REALLY careful with that one. Christians have been subject to many state supported laws which have been immensely immoral though given Biblical support (see slavery reference above). I'm fine with you putting together an argument for capital punishment as long as you acknowledge it's (literally) not Gospel.

My last point was just about the ease with which people fall into categorical oppositions such as righteous/non-righteous, and often one side will tend to see itself as its opponent sees itself. Kind of a minor, no-duh point, I guess.

And Karl, I tried to e-mail you before some time ago with no response. I'll try again (if I don't forget) in a bit. :)

ThePlungerMan
08-03-2006, 01:36 PM
Meanwhile, sitting around the campfire at Camp Haifa:

"Seventy-two hairy virgins in a shawl,
Seventy-two hairy virgins.....
Ya take one down, and slap her around,
Seventy-one hairy virgins in a shawl...."
I beg to differ Dedan.
But 1st of all that wasn’t nice, you should apologize.
2nd, They are perfect virgins. That would make them, not very hairy.
And to make it better, they (the human bombs) are given the energy to go at it for as long as they want.
Also, It’s not just 72 virgins, it’s 72 palaces with 72 rooms with 72 virgins in each room.
That’s 373,248 perfect virgins.

So if you believe this and also believe it’s for God, wouldn’t you strap explosives to your body and blow up people. We need to understand the enemy before we can begin to……

Since you said something mean I have to distance myself from you at this moment. Hope your OK with that.

dmastous
08-03-2006, 01:53 PM
I'll admit I don't speak Hebrew here. But I am a linguist, so let me just say kill/murder is tricky to define in pretty much any language. I notice, for example, that your definition of murder didn't specify 'human.' Languages might distinguish words for animal/human killing. Some might not, and we even see things like "meat is murder" said by a number of folks today. Fundamentally, murder is hard-to-pin down precisely, and I'm not convinced that your translation opens up the door with 100% certainty for capital punishment. (Seems like a lot depends on what you and your culture defines as "innocent.")
One man's meat is another man's poison, in a philosophical way.
Your morals are given you by your family, your church and your government. You are informed and, in some ways, caged or controlled by those morals. This is why human shields have been used in Iraq, and weapons caches are being place in schools and churches. They are counting on our morality to not bomb that church or school. They are hoping to use our morals against us.

nickybol
08-03-2006, 01:59 PM
I read a whole bunch of posts, and will try to make some points.

1. Al lah means "the god" in Arabian, although there has been some discussion between scholars about the etymology of allah.

2. I am against the death penalty, but I`ll start another topic on this.

3. Religions like Islam and Christianity derive from a peace wish, but they became fighting machines.

Muslims think their god/Allah is the same god as the Christian god. I don`t believe in both.

nickybol
08-03-2006, 02:00 PM
By the way, killing and murdering is the same thing to me. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a murderer. George Bush is a murderer.

Kevin T
08-03-2006, 02:26 PM
Alienhamster,

I'm not using scripture to justify anything, only as a reference that the Bible isn't all "love, peace and chicken grease". And your claim that I am "picking and choosing" parts of the Bible to complete my moral world view is no more laughable than you ignoring "an eye for an eye", "there is a time for war and a time for peace" and "the man who takes a life is forfeit to his own". The avenger of murder in Biblical times was a family member of the one murdered, much like the law of my father's tribe (Native American). Pacifists are no less guilty of picking and choosing their "cafeteria Christianity" any more than the hard right. And by the way, isn't the old law still the law? I know the argument that Christ is the new law but was God's law imperfect? Should we just throw away the Old Testament and just read the New Testament? Do YOU think there is a difference in cutting a journalist's head off and purposefully targeting women and children and placing women and children and the elderly in harm's way to be killed for political gain? If not, there is really no more need to argue because we are obviously on different sides of the abyss.

Bolt
08-03-2006, 05:44 PM
... Hope you're OK with that.

I fixed your post. I hope you're OK with that.

ThePlungerMan
08-03-2006, 08:45 PM
I fixed your post. I hope you're OK with that.
Uh huh. Thank you. Is there an easy and fast rule I can use to avoid such mistakes?

David L
08-03-2006, 10:00 PM
Oh! You've deeply wounded me.

David, I'm on-record with my position. Why don't you stop with the phony "I'm above the fray" stuff and tell us where you sit on the issue? Are you Muslim? Are you pro-Arab? Once you've fessed up ... then maybe your posts will seem less contrived.
The only thing which is contrived in this dynamic are your 'arguments'. Don't you know the first rule of debating? One should avoid ad hominem arguments that question the opponent's motives. It is the truth, validity and quality of the argument that counts, not the proponent. Having said that, my position is one of disinterest, that's to say, I am not influenced by considerations of personal advantage, because there are none. I subscribe to no religion and I have no ethnic connection to the inhabitants of the Middle East. My first concern is as a sentient being who abhors the suffering of others and the perpetuation of injustice. What I would like to see in Palestine is a 2 state or equivalent or better solution, where there is parity in the autonomy both states and/or peoples are able to pursue and peace.
Did you just jump into the middle of this thread? I already posted that here. (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1046182&postcount=185)
As a matter of fact, worse. I barely got past the first two pages. Who could be bothered to read most of the nonsense posted here? Speaking of nonsense, the longstanding claim you refer to is a biblical one? I expected this. The notion is so ridiculous it hardly needs contesting. Firstly, the idea that a religious text written thousands of years ago should take precedence over the rights of the longest standing inhabitants, who are uninterrupted descendants of the earliest inhabitants, is preposterous. Suppose some lost biblical texts were discovered and authenticated, confering land rights in England to Jewish people or some other group who had been inhabitants a long time ago. Am I to believe you would endorse a transfer of land rights immediately, in spite of history? Secondly, in the passages you refer to, there is no mention of an eternal Jewish right to a particular territory. Thirdly, the Zionist movement responsible for the formation of Israel was a secular one. In fact, many Orthodox Jews were against the whole enterprise, because it went against their belief that a Jewish state could only be formed after the arrival of the Jewish Messiah. To this day, there is still tension between the state of Israel and Orthodox Jews, many of whom oppose it. So if you are going to invoke the religious argument, you had better get the agreement of the people who actually practice the religion.
Your posts are suspect. Your "sources" are suspect. They are partisans and you are too. (Our difference is ... I admit my partisan position.)
My posts are suspect? My sources are suspect? Coming from you this is a joke. The one source I refered to was a book review in the New York review of books, by Yehoshua Porath, who is a Professor of Middle Eastern History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, one of the most renowned universities in the world. In the review he speaks of Jewish myths and Palestinian myths fabricated by both groups, in an attempt to obscure the truth and strengthen each groups claim to Palestine. On top of this, he is Jewish. How is it possible that such an individual could hold such a post, be who he is, say what he does, in the way that he does and be a partisan for the Arab or Muslim cause? The guy is an academic and a historian, and a very good one. Now you are showing signs of desperation.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. What about the veracity of your source of choice? Well, here is the introduction to the home page.

Welcome to The Refiner's Fire! This is a Hebraic faith website that responds directly to the issues raised by Jewish "anti-missionaries" using the ENTIRE Bible in context. It also challenges Islam, atheism, and ANY "religion" that attempts to negate Yeshua (Jesus). The ultimate goal of The Refiner's Fire is to introduce Jews to the "New Testament", Gentiles to the "Old Testament", and Biblical Truth to the whole world.

I will let others decide if this is partisan or not.

I hate to do this to you again, but do you actually know what partisan means? Here.http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/partisan

1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

So in effect, if you have'nt misunderstood the term, you are admitting that your view is blind, prejudiced and unreasoned, and what is more, even implacable in the face of conflicting credible evidence. I will say for the record, my position is not one of a partisan. My position is one of disinterest as stated earlier, not to be confused with uninterest, just in case you are not familiar with the distinction.
It still comes down to "Whose source do you give credence to?" My position is Biblical; Israel's claim is paramount. (Notice I'm being very open about my POV. I wish you'd be a little more open, too.)
Well, you know what I think about the biblical claim. Can I ask, slightly off topic, are you one of those who advocate the book of Genesis be taught in science classes?

Stop right there, please. "Allah" and the Christian God are NOT the same. (Most Muslims try to say so, but it is patently untrue.)

You are wrong here also. Allah is both the proper noun in Arabic that means God and the term that denotes the Islamic concept of God. So if you happened to be a Christian Arab, you would use the term Allah to refer to 'God' when speaking in your mother tongue.

alienhamster
08-03-2006, 11:06 PM
Alienhamster,

I'm not using scripture to justify anything, only as a reference that the Bible isn't all "love, peace and chicken grease". And your claim that I am "picking and choosing" parts of the Bible to complete my moral world view is no more laughable than you ignoring "an eye for an eye", "there is a time for war and a time for peace" and "the man who takes a life is forfeit to his own". The avenger of murder in Biblical times was a family member of the one murdered, much like the law of my father's tribe (Native American). Pacifists are no less guilty of picking and choosing their "cafeteria Christianity" any more than the hard right. And by the way, isn't the old law still the law? I know the argument that Christ is the new law but was God's law imperfect? Should we just throw away the Old Testament and just read the New Testament? Do YOU think there is a difference in cutting a journalist's head off and purposefully targeting women and children and placing women and children and the elderly in harm's way to be killed for political gain? If not, there is really no more need to argue because we are obviously on different sides of the abyss. Hi Kevin . . . thanks for the thoughtful response here. I want to give this some more considered thought--which may require me to think beyond what I can post here as a more immediate response. But I don't want to leave all your questions hanging.

(1) I'm at a crossroads here because my primary experience with the Bible and its interpretation by Christians I've spoken with--primarily Catholic and Baptist/other protestants--does hinge strongly on the idea that "love your neighbor", the Beatitiudes, etc. does trump the vengence aspects of the Old Testament Bible that you're drawing out. In this thread you're stating a different position, one which DOES, BTW, use the Old Testament to justify certain kinds of violence against other humans. I can't argue against your individual belief there. All I can say is that I personally wish the Bible wasn't used to justify these sorts of things (like war and the death penalty which, honestly, I do see as barbaric).

(2) I in no way meant to convey that you were cherry-picking the Bible while I wasn't. Much the contrary, I meant to say that WE ALL cherry-pick the Bible (and indeed, every text or cultural artefact) when we have an argument to make. We downplay certain things or dismiss them as culturally or linguistically irrelevant. We draw other things out because they better suit our vision of the world. I think it's just that our visions differ here. I just want YOU (and others) to acknowledge that the more peaceful reading of the Bible is just as valid an interpretation and basis as yours. For every "eye for an eye" there's a "turn the other cheek." And it's a real problem when you take into account what Jesus preached. (This is of course ignoring the textual history and accuracy of Biblical accounts themselves, which is a topic just too, too complicated for this discussion right now. And one I wish I knew more about myself.)

(3) The question "was God's law imperfect?" is actually a really good one, since I can honestly say no Christian I know today follows every law of the Old Testament. In terms of practice, I actually think most Christians demonstrate that the old law isn't entirely relevant to their lifestyles today. Does that mean that there is a sort of implicit consensus that OT law isn't an unproblematic system?

(4) I think there's a difference in a journalist who hasn't killed anyone (and who is slain) and someone who intentionally kills others. But I just don't see much of a morally justified difference in an individual or state intentionally killing either of these people. They're both humans; they both have a right to live. Do you lose your humanity suddenly simply because you committed a crime? (The latter certainly deserves some substantial punishment and social stigma, but killing is not warranted.)

ThePlungerMan
08-04-2006, 12:00 AM
Well, you know what I think about the biblical claim. Can I ask, slightly off topic, are you one of those who advocate the book of Genesis be taught in science classes?

You are wrong here also. Allah is both the proper noun in Arabic that means God and the term that denotes the Islamic concept of God. So if you happened to be a Christian Arab, you would use the term Allah to refer to 'God' when speaking in your mother tongue.
If someone isn’t clear on a subject, AND, they talk long enough about it, they usually trip themselves up.
I’m not good at writing long articles and couldn’t keep up with your level of LEARNED knowledge but I’ll try to discredit you somewhat.
First off, if someone is secular, I believe they are learning from false prophets. (not a very good start for someone like you huh?)

Also when someone uses a renown authority from a renown university, a big red flag goes up for me. Shoot, the number of idiots who graduate with high honors from esteemed universities who excel in the secular world, is endless.
Shoot again, the number of yo yo’s that come out of some the most renown Graduate School’s of Theology around the world, often come out preaching a gospel not preached in the Bible.

You said in a previous post,
“Why the Muslims hate the Jews 101.” Then you gave a long fancy explanation about some land that was given to them, and yada yada on and on.
The 101 version all the way to the 1001 version is, BECAUSE they are taught to. Period

Then the question to KK about if Genesis should be taught in school. ARRRGGH

Then your saying the God of The Bible and The Muslim God being the same. This is your big trip up. You are convoluting the two with fancy word play.

It should read a Christian who is an Arab. If you were to be technical. Which you seem to have worked hard at. And it should if that Arab is a Christian of the Bible. Your talking about someone who only thinks they are Christian then, because they wouldn’t confuse the two, “if they were a Christian of the Bible,” ( a monumentally big difference). Not some Arab who says he’s a Christian. The Allah, (peace be upon him) of the Quran is most defiantly not, The God Of the Bible.

nickybol
08-04-2006, 01:53 AM
Some of the most god-loving Christians live in the Arab countries.

PLungerman, come up with a somewhat more thoughtful post, instead of these nonsense arguments. David wrote a well-argumented post, now it is up to you to come up with such a post.

David L
08-04-2006, 05:42 AM
Then the question to KK about if Genesis should be taught in school. ARRRGGH
Not, in school, in science classes, as opposed to religious classes. I have no problem with people who want to study religion in school, but put it in the correct class, don't confuse it with science.

Then your saying the God of The Bible and The Muslim God being the same. This is your big trip up. You are convoluting the two with fancy word play.

It should read a Christian who is an Arab. If you were to be technical. Which you seem to have worked hard at. And it should if that Arab is a Christian of the Bible. Your talking about someone who only thinks they are Christian then, because they wouldn’t confuse the two, “if they were a Christian of the Bible,” ( a monumentally big difference). Not some Arab who says he’s a Christian. The Allah, (peace be upon him) of the Quran is most defiantly not, The God Of the Bible.

I'll try to make this simple, since you have'nt understood. I am not speaking of anyone in particular, since I don't know any Arab Christians personally. However, there are actually millions of Christians in the world today who are Arab. Arabs tend to speak Arabic. The Arabic term for God is Allah, in the same way the German term for God is Gott or the Italian term Dio. So when Arab Christians refer to their God in Arabic, they use the term Allah. Christians believe in God, Allah, Gott, Dio, etc. They are one and the same. Allah is also the term used for the Islamic concept of God. Christians do not believe in this. So Christians are in the unique position of believing and not believing in Allah, simultaneously.:D

Kevin T
08-04-2006, 05:54 AM
Alienhamster,

Thank you for your well thought out response, as well. It is always nice when two posters can disagree without blowing up. Trust me, I'm not an "old time religion, fire and brimstone" guy. Quite the contrary. I'll take peace and love over destruction anyday. There are a number of passages from the Bible that don't apply to my life. I grew up in a fundamentalist household but my mother was always a little more liberal than her peers, which was nice. I've been running from it (fundamentalism) ever since! I'm also of the belief (like most people) that man has put his spin on the Bible and its translations over the years, though I still believe it is the word of God. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree over the death penalty.

Bolt
08-04-2006, 05:59 AM
Uh huh. Thank you. Is there an easy and fast rule I can use to avoid such mistakes?

If you can't decide, stop writing and say out loud the sentence with you are in place of your. If it sounds wrong, use you're.

FalconX
08-04-2006, 08:04 AM
And Falcon, I love the 150 year old references to slaves and Native Americans. Yeah, we (Americans) made our mistakes. Are the radical Islamists 150 years late or what?

150 years old and still continuing. Slavery ended but racism never did. Of course I could have used more recent examples, such as KKK, the incarceration the japanese americans, Rodney king and such. But I was trying to make a point from these examples. You cannot characterize a people based on isolated events. It was his reference to the beheadings that was utterly stupid. Should I characterize christians based on women's clinic bombings? Or McVeigh? How does that make any sense?

Kaptain Karl
08-04-2006, 08:28 AM
alienhamster - I think I "get" you ... mostly. Thanks for clarifying. (We disagree, but at least I believe we are pretty much understanding each other.)

I'll admit I don't speak Hebrew here. But I am a linguist, so let me just say kill/murder is tricky to define in pretty much any language. I notice, for example, that your definition of murder didn't specify 'human.' Languages might distinguish words for animal/human killing.Okay, you're the linguist; not me. Is it actually possible that in some languages "murder" is used to refer to killing animals. (I mean the language itself; not the distortion of meaning so common in political activism.)

Fundamentally, murder is hard-to-pin down precisely, and I'm not convinced that your translation opens up the door with 100% certainty for capital punishment.I'm really surprised at this. I thought "murder" was pretty specific. (I'm not energized enough to do a linguistic study on "murder". If somebody else wants to do this ... have at it.) alienhamster, I'll take you at your word on this, but I am surprised....

(Seems like a lot depends on what you and your culture defines as "innocent.")Oh, Boy!! Now we're not talking "linguistics". And this cultural definition "stuff" is (part) of the heart of the Middle Eastern conflict(s).

As for the state law reference in Romans--you have to be REALLY careful with that one. Christians have been subject to many state supported laws which have been immensely immoral though given Biblical support (see slavery reference above).I'm comfortable with my hermeneutic. The Christians of Rome -- to whom Paul addressed that letter -- were at the time of Paul's writing undergoing some pretty gruesome, and getting worse, State-approved persecution. Paul was reminding the Christians to "do good," and be subject to the governing authority (Rome).

[You should have heard some of the looney "Christians" and what they wanted to do to Pres. Clinton. It was Christians of authority ... Pastors in the pulpits of churches large and small ... who calmed the "mob mentality" which was bubbling up. Real Christian leaders reminded us we didn't have it nearly as bad, under Clinton, as our spiritual forefathers in Rome.]

(To your slavery reference) 1 - Remember that Christians were huge participants in the anti-slavery movement in America. They were "big time do-ers" in the Underground Railroad.
2 - Biblical slavery was of two kinds: "Slaves" as we knew in Antebellum USA ... and more-or-less "indentured servants;" people who voluntarily became slaves to others. Plantation owners of the 1850's and 1860's were conflating the two in a feeble attempt to justify an evil institution.

Karl, I tried to e-mail you before some time ago with no response. I'll try again (if I don't forget) in a bit.I have not received it....

- KK

FalconX
08-04-2006, 08:28 AM
Sure, we have Mulsims in South Carolina along with a few hundred thousand red-necks, but that's material for another thread. In South Carolina, people that commit murder are tracked down, caught and given trial. They are then sentenced to prison or a mental institute, depending on the findings of the court. And, no, I'm not paranoid. I live in land of laws and the Muslims that live here observe those civil and criminal laws or they face the same judgements as anyone. Not by Allah or some Mullah, I might add.

Actually, slavery was common in the bible. But it was a blight on the U.S. and we have learned from it. And I know your history of the U.S. is probably a little tainted by your Iranian education, but it was the Indians that was scalping the forked-tongued white eyes. For the most part anyway.

So you would think if there weren't these laws in place, or if you were to meet them in the middle east they'd be hunting for your head? How does that explain why the Lebanese/palestinian christians(yes you read that right), assyrians, ethnic armenians and jews(before Israel) have coexisted with muslims in the middle-east for centuries? Of course they've all had their share of troubles being the minority, but nothing more than African Americans have faced in this country, jews in europe, or muslims and arabs do in American right now.

as for indians I think you should read up on bounty for indian scalps. Rest assured the whites pealed off far more indian scalps than the other way around. The origins of the practice is still being debated. Plus my point was more a figure of speach for the fact the Indians were systematically almost pushed towards extinction. You are not denying that are you? Genocide is the term that Americans try to avoid when it comes to native americans but that's what it was.

Kevin T
08-04-2006, 08:31 AM
Falcon,

The big difference in the last 50 years is the tens of thousands of deaths attributable to islamic radicals. Racism exists in every country. More people have died in the last 2 weeks from Hezbollah rockets than the entire history of women's clinic bombings. Another big difference is that we (Christians) DENOUNCE these actions while moderate Muslims (whom I'm sure are in the majority) shy away. Can you remember an example of Christians celebrating in the streets en masse when an abortion clinic was bombed or an abortion MD was murdered or when McVeigh et al. bombed OK City? As for your Indian comments, let it go. I'm part Native American and trust me, most of us have let it go.

nickybol
08-04-2006, 09:04 AM
No, the big difference is the state of Israel. Jews could have lived peacefully together with the Palestinians. But they thought it necessary to found an own state on stolen land...

nickybol
08-04-2006, 09:06 AM
Murder derives from latin

mors: death

mori: to die

remyb2
08-04-2006, 09:17 AM
First there should be a distinction that it focuses more on radical islam and Zionism that really Jews/Muslims.

I’d suggest you watch documentaries or read a books regarding the 2 different perspective (Isreal and Arab muslim) to better understand as it’s so deep and have been going for so long that a 5 minute coverage of your local western news channel can’t cover.

There’s a documentary by Wayne Kopping that explains the Israel point of view which won various film prizes: http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/, a trailer can be found on the site. It used to be found on google video but was removed. It targets radical Islam (it makes a notion that muslim are also victims or radical Islam). Radical Islam (groups like Hezbollah and Hamas) has a culture of hate that educates very young kids to hate all who is non-muslim. So it doesn’t stop at Jews and Israel. Radical Islam is dreaming of a new world order in which the whole world is ruled by Islam... whether it’s Israel, U.S, U.K, Canada, France, Japan, etc… Israel is a prologue of what is coming and Israel must continually protect itself against it. Radical Islam is using the western philosophies like free speach and democraty against us (as we are very naive) to propagate their culture of hate.

There’s a documentary on the Internet that talks about how the news is broadcast in the US for political gain (oil gain, military control of the region): http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696 . Featuring some intellectuals as Noam Chomsky It shows some of the news coverage that doesn’t make it to the US like inhumane treatment of Palestinians by Israelis (can't go to their homes, can't go to work, have absolutely no control of their lives, Israel occupation of Palestine is the longest military occupation in our modern era).

In my opinion, the Zionist politicians in Israel continue mistreating Palestinians and ignoring UN warnings so that it can eventually claim all the land which they believe to be their promised land as per their faith. The mistreatment is used by radical Islam for propaganda and to rally other people to their “cause”, building a culture of hate towards Israel and US (which supports it and therefore the west).

Israelis and regular arab are then stuck in the middle. Stuck between the propaganda from Zionists and Radical Islams… if you’re a regular Israeli and do not support the Zionist, you get attacked or isolated… if you’re an arab-muslim and do not support the radical islam, you get attacked or isolated…. Therefore what you have is a much more bi-polar environment where you’re “either with us or against us”... no moderation.

I don’t know how peace can come to a place that suffered so much for so long…

FalconX
08-04-2006, 09:20 AM
Falcon,

The big difference in the last 50 years is the tens of thousands of deaths attributable to islamic radicals. Racism exists in every country. More people have died in the last 2 weeks from Hezbollah rockets than the entire history of women's clinic bombings. Another big difference is that we (Christians) DENOUNCE these actions while moderate Muslims (whom I'm sure are in the majority) shy away. Can you remember an example of Christians celebrating in the streets en masse when an abortion clinic was bombed or an abortion MD was murdered or when McVeigh et al. bombed OK City? As for your Indian comments, let it go. I'm part Native American and trust me, most of us have let it go.

You are comparing apples with oranges. You can't compare Hizbollah with clinic bombings but you can compare it with the beheadings because both are very isolated. I tell you what you can compare Hizbollah to. You can compare them to the moron Jihadist terrorist that the US funded during the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The same pieces of **** who later founded Taliban, hosted binladen and are still running the show in Afghanistan and even some areas of Pakistan.

As for celebrations you are misinformed. Nobody danced in streets after 9/11. CNN showed a clip of palestinians dancing but later admitted they were old footage and apologized. Of course all countries have their ********s that enjoy such tragedies. If anything Americans seem to enjoy war and bloodshed more than other people. Of course they always say they're killing the bad guys, whether it's in Vietnam or Iraq but I've seen many people who take pleasure in it.

tennis-n-sc
08-04-2006, 10:00 AM
You are comparing apples with oranges. You can't compare Hizbollah with clinic bombings but you can compare it with the beheadings because both are very isolated. I tell you what you can compare Hizbollah to. You can compare them to the moron Jihadist terrorist that the US funded during the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The same pieces of **** who later founded Taliban, hosted binladen and are still running the show in Afghanistan and even some areas of Pakistan.

As for celebrations you are misinformed. Nobody danced in streets after 9/11. CNN showed a clip of palestinians dancing but later admitted they were old footage and apologized. Of course all countries have their ********s that enjoy such tragedies. If anything Americans seem to enjoy war and bloodshed more than other people. Of course they always say they're killing the bad guys, whether it's in Vietnam or Iraq but I've seen many people who take pleasure in it.

I just knew you would get back to apples and oranges. No question, the U.S. has funded its share of losers during the past 50 years or so. But I don't hear you blasting the governments of Iran (your homeland) and Syria for their backing of Hezbollah and Hamas and anyother radical group that will kill infidels. And yes, most of the Arab world danced in the streets after
9/11. There many TV and press coverings of the events, which apparently went on for several weeks. Where have you seen (American)many people taking pleasure in killing? Your views are tainted from your place of birth and education. I'm just wondering why you continue to live in such a blood thirsty country when you could easily return to Iran.

Phillip=Tennis guy
08-04-2006, 10:01 AM
middle east=war haven

Always will be.

alienhamster
08-04-2006, 10:33 AM
First there should be a distinction that it focuses more on radical islam and Zionism that really Jews/Muslims.

I’d suggest you watch documentaries or read a books regarding the 2 different perspective (Isreal and Arab muslim) to better understand as it’s so deep and have been going for so long that a 5 minute coverage of your local western news channel can’t cover.

There’s a documentary by Wayne Kopping that explains the Israel point of view which won various film prizes: http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/, a trailer can be found on the site. It used to be found on google video but was removed. It targets radical Islam (it makes a notion that muslim are also victims or radical Islam). Radical Islam (groups like Hezbollah and Hamas) has a culture of hate that educates very young kids to hate all who is non-muslim. So it doesn’t stop at Jews and Israel. Radical Islam is dreaming of a new world order in which the whole world is ruled by Islam... whether it’s Israel, U.S, U.K, Canada, France, Japan, etc… Israel is a prologue of what is coming and Israel must continually protect itself against it. Radical Islam is using the western philosophies like free speach and democraty against us (as we are very naive) to propagate their culture of hate.

There’s a documentary on the Internet that talks about how the news is broadcast in the US for political gain (oil gain, military control of the region): http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696 . Featuring some intellectuals as Noam Chomsky It shows some of the news coverage that doesn’t make it to the US like inhumane treatment of Palestinians by Israelis (can't go to their homes, can't go to work, have absolutely no control of their lives, Israel occupation of Palestine is the longest military occupation in our modern era).

In my opinion, the Zionist politicians in Israel continue mistreating Palestinians and ignoring UN warnings so that it can eventually claim all the land which they believe to be their promised land as per their faith. The mistreatment is used by radical Islam for propaganda and to rally other people to their “cause”, building a culture of hate towards Israel and US (which supports it and therefore the west).

Israelis and regular arab are then stuck in the middle. Stuck between the propaganda from Zionists and Radical Islams… if you’re a regular Israeli and do not support the Zionist, you get attacked or isolated… if you’re an arab-muslim and do not support the radical islam, you get attacked or isolated…. Therefore what you have is a much more bi-polar environment where you’re “either with us or against us”... no moderation.

I don’t know how peace can come to a place that suffered so much for so long… Great post, Remy. Thanks to you and others above for posting links like this. It is a GREAT feeling to have a thread this volatile and actually feel like: (1) we can debate things rationally; and (2) we can actually learn something. Well, I at least feel that way.

To Kevin: the back and forth was very good with you, too. And where are you at in SC? I miss my days down there in Greenville. (Graduated from Furman.) I felt like I could actually talk about religion and the Bible on a regular basis with folks, and nowadays I don't get that opportunity so much.

To Karl: I will e-mail you in a sec. And thanks for contextualizing your hermeneutic, there! (It's exciting to even see that word used appropriately in an internet thread.)

The question about the semantics of <murder> in other languages is tough because once you leave English, you'll get completely different semantic systems. I just realized the other day, for example, that a number of languages don't have separate words for <nut> and <seed>. There's usually one word that covers most of the terrritory of our two words. So, I don't know for sure about 'murder' (and I can try to ask around about this), but my hunch is that there are some languages with words that might cover some of the same turf you're describing. So, for example, there might be a word that covers 'killing any innocent creature' which could include humans, animals, maybe even plants. This would likely (but not necessarily) co-occur with an antonym that might be 'kill something that deserves/needs to die.' This could all depend on what a culture deems as sacred and harmful, or it could just be an idiosyncrasy of the language itself.

But please note this is all just hypothetical based on my general understanding of semantics in the languages I know and research. A "proper" linguist would never make a solid claim without empirical data to back it up.

Kevin T
08-04-2006, 10:47 AM
Falcon,

With the exception of US funding in Afghanistan, I am flabbergasted at the inaccuracy of your post. And as Tennis-n-SC mentioned, how can you live in such a horrible country as the United States? I want an unbiased, critical look at today's events! I want my Al Jazeera!

Nicky,

If not Israel, where should the Jews go? Do they not deserve this small strip in a sea of land? Who started nearly all the conflicts involving Israel? You can debate news sources all you want but I can tell you who finished every war and who will finish the current conflict and who will finish every conflict for the foreseeable future...Israel.

Alien,

I am actually now in the San Diego area. Just haven't changed my location. I lived in Charleston for 4 years and miss it terribly from time to time. No replacement for shrimp 'n grits or boiled peanuts here in SoCal!

tennis-n-sc
08-04-2006, 11:02 AM
Faawck the Iranian government and screw Hizbollah. Most Iranians don't give a rats *** about the Palestinians. If you wanna know what the Iranians really think read this NYtimes piece,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/world/middleeast/23iran.html?ex=1311307200&en=2e30f86077c449df&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

about about America and I, in case you haven't noticed it yet everytime you guys write garbage I write garbage back. While there is a small degree of truth to everything I have wrote about Americans, Christians and others I don't believe more than half of it myself and certainly don't feel strongly about the other half. But I write it anyway cuz I'm having some fun with while ******* you guys off. I don't know how else to put this to you, Kaptain Klux and others politely, but the collective ignorance on you guys' part about the muslims and the middle east is not allowing us conduct this debate properly. And I'm not getting on the high horse here. I was ignorant about America before I moved here as well. But I came here, I lived among these people and I saw that most of them were peacefull, loving people who frankly just wanted to mind their own business. Furthermore, there are many intelligent people in America, that unlike you have made a genuine effort to understand the world better, and definitly associating with those people makes my living experience here in the US worthwhile.

Sorry, dude. I didn't pick up on your Iranian humor. I get it now. And, by the way, while you have been living amongst us, I fear you have not done much to aleve your ignorance of American culture. Having never lived in the Middle East, I of course, am ignorant of your culture. However, based on the actions of most of those living in the Middle East, and your posts in general, I don't much care to know more. But I love talking about apples and oranges, produce in general, and even canned goods to a degree.

tennis-n-sc
08-04-2006, 11:04 AM
Falcon,

With the exception of US funding in Afghanistan, I am flabbergasted at the inaccuracy of your post. And as Tennis-n-SC mentioned, how can you live in such a horrible country as the United States? I want an unbiased, critical look at today's events! I want my Al Jazeera!

Nicky,

If not Israel, where should the Jews go? Do they not deserve this small strip in a sea of land? Who started nearly all the conflicts involving Israel? You can debate news sources all you want but I can tell you who finished every war and who will finish the current conflict and who will finish every conflict for the foreseeable future...Israel.

Alien,

I am actually now in the San Diego area. Just haven't changed my location. I lived in Charleston for 4 years and miss it terribly from time to time. No replacement for shrimp 'n grits or boiled peanuts here in SoCal!

Kevin,

I hate to tell you, I ate at the Boathouse last week on IOP. There is nothing like lowcountry cooking, well, maybe cajun.

remyb2
08-04-2006, 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by FalconX
but the collective ignorance on you guys' part about the muslims and the middle east is not allowing us conduct this debate properly. And I'm not getting on the high horse here. I was ignorant about America before I moved here as well.

Yes, I think there’s a tendency especially in north-america to have a very short view or summary of a situation. Sort of “don’t explain it in details because you’ll bore me, just make it quick… and entertaining.” This doesn’t make a proper education.

Mix this with a “good” or “evil” way of viewing things. We’ll judge something based on our beliefs and education as being the “correct” thing to do or not. And since the culture and conflicts like the ones in Middle East does not happen in our daily lives (well Canada for me anyways), it’s very difficult to have a good perspective of what is going on.

That’s why I believe it’s best to listen to what Isreal, Arab-Nations/Iran are saying and not figuring out who’s right or wrong but rather what are their perspective on things. It can perhaps better explain their motives and where the source of the problem lies. Maybe one day come to a common agreement (Hey, Schwarzenegger became governor so you never know! ;-).

Life, culture and history in north America is so much different then the one in Israel, Lebannon, Syria, Saudi-Arabia, Iran, etc. that some actions are hard to understand. Heck, my biggest concern in the morning is not finding 5 feet of snow to shovel so I have a hard time understanding why someone would blow one self up in a restaurant to kill innocent women and children or why a government would continue kicking families out of their homes to build settlements.

nickybol
08-04-2006, 11:34 AM
The jews could have just stayed where they were:

- living peacefully together with the Palestinians before 1948
- in the countries they lived in before the world war 2

I think if they Jews didn`t found their own state and just cooperated with the Palestinians, the middle east would have remained relatively peaceful. I still think the solution lies in cooperation. There needs to be one Israeli/Palestinian state with full integration of Palestinians, equal rights, etc. Two different states would be another solution.

dmastous
08-04-2006, 11:39 AM
150 years old and still continuing. Slavery ended but racism never did. Of course I could have used more recent examples, such as KKK, the incarceration the japanese americans, Rodney king and such. But I was trying to make a point from these examples. You cannot characterize a people based on isolated events. It was his reference to the beheadings that was utterly stupid. Should I characterize christians based on women's clinic bombings? Or McVeigh? How does that make any sense?
These are all well documented facts (Rodney King amongst the extermination of the Indian nations and slavery? Sheeesh!), and we have been flogging ourselves over it for the past 20 or 30 years. It seems the further in the past they are, the more guilty we become of these crimes. Despite all our genuflecting and self loathing.
I don't hear the British decrying their enslaving various countries during their colonial days. Or the French, the Portugese, the Spanish or the Dutch. Who was it that was going to Africa to picking up the slaves to bring to America? Who was 'selling' the slaves for a few beads or whatever? Of course there were American slave ships, but there were slave ships from other nationalities as well.
When does the US get to say they are no longer a "racist' state? Racism as an accepted institution doesn't exist anymore. (notice I said as an accepted institution, which should not be confused with individual racist attitudes).
In the 1800s we fought a war amongst ourselves and declared slavery abolished. Racism continued as an institution for another 100 years, but with each succeeding generation since the early 1900s it has been less accepted the last. Now we have arrived at a point where now a racist is a pariah in society. An unaccepted phenomenon. Can it get better, of course it can. Can they say the same in Europe, where one of the chief concerns during the World Cup was the treatment of the black soccer players? Are they better? Somehow not stained with that brush?
How about these militant Muslims we've been talking about? These 'if you are not a Muslim you are an infidel, and you must die' Muslims that you seem to be speaking for?
When does the rhetoric end and the common sense take over?

The 101 version all the way to the 1001 version is, BECAUSE they are taught to. Period
This is a big part of the problen. In the same way that my generation and the generation before mine were taught to hate the Soviet Union, as a matter of course. But we were never taught to kill any Russian we came in contact with. It was the same level of brainwashing that they seem to be administering (though it is all brainwashing of a sort).

nickybol
08-04-2006, 01:57 PM
Racism was a widespread thought until quite some years after the second world war.

People who watch soccer in stadiums, the "hooligans" making the weird noises when black soccer players come up, are usually low-educated people. They probably don`t know any black people, and when they meet them, they are very nice. You have these kind of people everywhere, but soccer-fans don`t seem to be the smartest people. Racism in Europe is not widespread. You can be severely punished in court if you are a racist and spread the thought.

Kaptain Karl
08-04-2006, 02:38 PM
Don't you know the first rule of debating? One should avoid ad hominem arguments that question the opponent's motives. It is the truth, validity and quality of the argument that counts, not the proponent.Ha-ha! I know this ... you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. And your attempt to "impose" your silly High School Debate rules on me ... and then presuming to impress with your "superior(?)" intellect ... is tantamount to bringing a knife to this "Internet gunfight."

my position is one of disinterest, that's to say, I am not influenced by considerations of personal advantage, because there are none. I subscribe to no religion and I have no ethnic connection to the inhabitants of the Middle East.Then go away. You're wasting my time with your "disinterest".

What I would like to see in Palestine is a 2 state or equivalent or better solution, where there is parity in the autonomy both states and/or peoples are able to pursue and peace.This demonstrates how little you know of what's going-on there. Your "solution" is impossible in this Age. (This is as close to a "fact" as I know in the Middle Eastern turmoil.)

I barely got past the first two pages. Who could be bothered to read most of the nonsense posted here?Then go away.

Speaking of nonsense, the longstanding claim you refer to is a biblical one? I expected this. The notion is so ridiculous it hardly needs contesting. Firstly, the idea that a religious text written thousands of years ago should take precedence over the rights of the longest standing inhabitants, who are uninterrupted descendants of the earliest inhabitants, is preposterous.1 - The veracity of the Bible is not in question here.
2 - Oooh! You're an ... "Intellectual"...! (That explains a lot.) You keep right on applying "logic" and "reason" to the Middle East, David. You'll be very successful and persuasive....

Suppose some lost biblical texts were discovered and authenticated...I'll take my chances. So far, every authentic "lost" Biblical text has supported the Bible as we know it today.

... in the passages you refer to, there is no mention of an eternal Jewish right to a particular territory.Geez! (I know I just turned "the big" Five-Oh, but) I don't remember referencing *any* passages dealing with this. What are you posting about?

... the Zionist movement responsible for the formation of Israel was a secular one. In fact, many Orthodox Jews were against the whole enterprise, because it went against their belief that a Jewish state could only be formed after the arrival of the Jewish Messiah.I'm not a student of Zionism. I'll stipulate....

To this day, there is still tension between the state of Israel and Orthodox Jews, many of whom oppose it.My reply to this is, my Jewish "cousins" missed the Messiah; I think they are "missing" on this tension too....

So if you are going to invoke the religious argument, you had better get the agreement of the people who actually practice the religion.(I suspect no guile to you on this, but) I am not making a "religious" argument. (As a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, I don't appeal to "religion". People who are part of "mainline Christian" groups may, but I do not ... and neither do most of the "Fundies" with whom I associate. This is an admitted "Christian-speak" thing, but I'm stickin' with my story.)

I am making a Biblical argument. As I am a student of the Bible, I have confidence in my argument.

My posts are suspect? My sources are suspect? Coming from you this is a joke.I wasn't laughing....

The one source I refered to <snip> ... On top of this, he is Jewish.Big deal. We've seen for centuries how factions and alliances form -- for baffling reasons -- in the Middle East.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. What about the veracity of your source of choice? Well, here is the introduction to the home page....Yeah! I found it to be excellent, too.

... do you actually know what partisan means?Yes.

1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; ... (Kinda funny, that you are trying to embarrass me with your "lesson" ... and you pretend you don't know the purpose of a semi-colon.) If you'd have stopped there, you'd have been fine, but you had to keep digging that hole for yourself....

...especially...See, that little ";"? It denotes an additional thought in this compound sentence. This additional phrase means one who fits this description is "especially" partison. IOW, "Professor," you *chose* to misrepresent my meaning.So in effect, if you haven't misunderstood the term, you are admitting that your view is....If it suits you, Professor, you could substitute "bias" for my use of "partisan". (Thanks for playing.)

Well, you know what I think about the biblical claim.Actually, I wonder if much "thought" entered into your position at all. I know your ... partisan position ... on the Biblical claim" would be a better way to write it....

... are you one of those who advocate the book of Genesis be taught in science classes?Not in government schools, here in the USA. (I understand "Public" and "Private" schools mean the opposite of each other from the US to the UK.) Our government school systems are so inept, they'd just mess up Genisis, too.

You are wrong here also.You're really enjoying yourself, aren't you?

(Pay attention, Professor.) The "Allah" of Islam and the God of Judeo-Christianity is -- categorically -- NOT the same supreme being. Is there anything about this clarification which you do not comprehend?
____________

Plungerman, come up with a somewhat more thoughtful post, instead of these nonsense arguments.(Considering the source) this was an especially humorous post. nicky, you have supported very few of the claims you've made in this thread. Talk about "nonsense arguments...!" Sheesh!

- KK

nickybol
08-05-2006, 01:22 AM
Another thoughtless post by Kaptain Karl. David writes a well-argumented post and you just come up with some nonsense, no real arguments, just playing on-person. Very weak. It seems that you can`t appreciate good, well-argumented posts.

David L
08-05-2006, 07:32 AM
Ha-ha! I know this ... you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. And your attempt to "impose" your silly High School Debate rules on me ... and then presuming to impress with your "superior(?)" intellect ... is tantamount to bringing a knife to this "Internet gunfight."
It looks as though you, have brought the knife to the gunfight, such has been the inadequacy and ill-prepared nature of your responses. You say you know about the ad hominem criticism, then I guess you'll also know that employing such tactics is tantamount to conceding defeat on the essential debating points.

1 - The veracity of the Bible is not in question here.
2 - Oooh! You're an ... "Intellectual"...! (That explains a lot.) You keep right on applying "logic" and "reason" to the Middle East, David. You'll be very successful and persuasive....

I'll take my chances. So far, every authentic "lost" Biblical text has supported the Bible as we know it today.
By now I have realized that you don't value reason or argument, but you also appear to be struggling with reading comprehension, since the weak attempts you have made to respond to anything I have said miss the point of what was asked to begin with. Maybe this is intentional, I don't know. In case it is'nt, I will try to simplfy things even further.

In my previous post, I did not raise the question of the veracity or authenticity of the Bible or any other religious text. What was being asked was whether you would endorse the transfer of land rights in England to a group mostly outside of England, in spite of history up to this point, if you discovered the Bible or a rediscovered portion of it laid claim to the land for that group? It was a hypothetical question designed to ascertain whether your view in this instance would remain consistent with what you believe about Palestine and the Jewish people, and possibly reveal more about your motivation.


Geez! (I know I just turned "the big" Five-Oh, but) I don't remember referencing *any* passages dealing with this. What are you posting about?If you revisit your earlier post in response to me, post 249, you will discover a link you provided that was intended to explain the Jewish peoples longstanding claim to Palestine. I was asking, where does it mention this, since the extract you provided makes no such claim?


(I suspect no guile to you on this, but) I am not making a "religious" argument. (As a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, I don't appeal to "religion". People who are part of "mainline Christian" groups may, but I do not ... and neither do most of the "Fundies" with whom I associate. This is an admitted "Christian-speak" thing, but I'm stickin' with my story.)

I am making a Biblical argument. As I am a student of the Bible, I have confidence in my argument. You say you are not making a religious argument but a Biblical one. However, given that you describe yourself as a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, I have to ask myself if it is possible for you to argue from one, without the other? There are a wide variety of differing interpretations and emphases of the Bible. Just as Roman Catholics have theirs, you have yours. However, let's for the sake of argument say I accept that your argument is a Biblical one. I have yet to hear it. If you can, would you please present it? You say your position is Biblical and the Bible speaks the truth, so let's hear what the Bible has to say about the Jewish people and their eternal right to Palestine. Bear in mind that Orthodox Jews believe something else and the Zionist movement instrumental in the formation of Israel was a secular one. These things will have to be squared with your position and the tenabilty of Israels devine right to exist in its current form. I am doubtful a Biblical argument, endorsed by non-partisan Christians, actually exists.

(Kinda funny, that you are trying to embarrass me with your "lesson" ... and you pretend you don't know the purpose of a semi-colon.) If you'd have stopped there, you'd have been fine, but you had to keep digging that hole for yourself....

See, that little ";"? It denotes an additional thought in this compound sentence. This additional phrase means one who fits this description is "especially" partison. IOW, "Professor," you *chose* to misrepresent my meaning.If it suits you, Professor, you could substitute "bias" for my use of "partisan". (Thanks for playing.)Kinda funny maybe, but not hard. I'm just providing the rope, you are doing the rest. Regarding your acknowledged bias, this in itself undermines the credibilty of your position. I on the other hand have no preference toward people of Arab or Jewish descent or toward any religion, a better position, I think, from which to look at the situation in the Middle East fairly. Pending your Biblical argument, I am working on the assumption that one can be a Fundamental Evangelical Christian and non-partisan on the matter of Palestine.

Actually, I wonder if much "thought" entered into your position at all. I know your ... partisan position ... on the Biblical claim" would be a better way to write it....But I don't know your partisan position on the Biblical claim. I really would like to hear it.

Not in government schools, here in the USA. (I understand "Public" and "Private" schools mean the opposite of each other from the US to the UK.) Our government school systems are so inept, they'd just mess up Genisis, too.Fine, but you do believe Genesis is science? This has nothing to do with this debate, I was just curious.

You're really enjoying yourself, aren't you?

(Pay attention, Professor.) The "Allah" of Islam and the God of Judeo-Christianity is -- categorically -- NOT the same supreme being. Is there anything about this clarification which you do not comprehend?Yes, I am. But there is a serious point to this also. I hope that people who have not really given the Arab-Israeli conflict much thought or have accepted the mass media slant, might investigate further on reading this thread and possibly make a difference.

One last question. What Arabic word do you propose Arab Christians use to refer to 'God'? There are probably a few Arab Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians who could use your assitance on this matter. This is from my previous post in response to ThePlungerMan:

I'll try to make this simple, since you have'nt understood. I am not speaking of anyone in particular, since I don't know any Arab Christians personally. However, there are actually millions of Christians in the world today who are Arab. Arabs tend to speak Arabic. The Arabic term for God is Allah, in the same way the German term for God is Gott or the Italian term Dio. So when Arab Christians refer to their God in Arabic, they use the term Allah. Christians believe in God, Allah, Gott, Dio, etc. They are one and the same. Allah is also the term used for the Islamic concept of God. Christians do not believe in this. So Christians are in the unique position of believing and not believing in Allah, simultaneously.:D

Is there anything about that clarification that you did not comprehend?

The fact that there are so many Arab Christians who reside in the Arab world and coexist peacefully with their Muslim countrymen also calls into question the prevalent falsehood in America that Muslims hate Jews because of a story in the Bible involving Abraham and his sons. I should add, the assertion that Muslims hate Jews, as a rule is false to begin with.

donnyz89
08-05-2006, 08:26 AM
who was ignorant enough to ask such a question? Muslims do not hate jews, just like african americans do not hate white people, there have been conflicts but the entire race does not hate the other. seriously, how ignorant can you be to even state the question as you did? if you wanna know the history between them, go read it up in a book, internet, take a class. dont come here and ask something like "why do muslims hate jews"? i know you dont mean harm but seriously, and is just curiousity but you should read what you say next time.

Kevin T
08-05-2006, 08:36 AM
Tennis-N-SC,

You old dog, you! I lived in Mt. Pleasant for 4 years. Ever notice the condo complex just across the Cooper River ("Cupper River" in Low Country speak!) from Daniel Island. I'm sure you noticed it descending the bridge from D Island. That was me! Boy do I miss that place. Only ~3 miles from the Mt. P tennis complex and all those nice hard courts and just across the river from clay heaven on Daniel Island. For really good and affordable home cooking, I hope you have visited or will visit Boulevard Diner. Setti on Shem Creek is also a great little Italian Restaurant. If you like French food, Coco's Cafe is fantastic and really affordable-it's in the Whole Foods shopping center just before you cross the Cooper River bridge to downtown Chucktown. Thanks for the Boathouse mention, SC! Now I'll be reminiscing all day. Have a great weekend.

tennis-n-sc
08-05-2006, 08:48 AM
Tennis-N-SC,

You old dog, you! I lived in Mt. Pleasant for 4 years. Ever notice the condo complex just across the Cooper River ("Cupper River" in Low Country speak!) from Daniel Island. I'm sure you noticed it descending the bridge from D Island. That was me! Boy do I miss that place. Only ~3 miles from the Mt. P tennis complex and all those nice hard courts and just across the river from clay heaven on Daniel Island. For really good and affordable home cooking, I hope you have visited or will visit Boulevard Diner. Setti on Shem Creek is also a great little Italian Restaurant. If you like French food, Coco's Cafe is fantastic and really affordable-it's in the Whole Foods shopping center just before you cross the Cooper River bridge to downtown Chucktown. Thanks for the Boathouse mention, SC! Now I'll be reminiscing all day. Have a great weekend.

Hey Kev,

I do indeed know the condos. And I love Daniel Island. I have eaten at the Boulevard Diner and will give the others a try. It is a great place, especially if you like to eat, which I do. Have a good one!

Kaptain Karl
08-05-2006, 12:21 PM
... about the ad hominem criticism, then I guess you'll also know that employing such tactics is tantamount to conceding defeat on the essential debating points.Since when? (Answer: never.) I was on my HS and College debate teams. I taught Forensics. Your argument -- regarding the "first rule" of debate -- is a total fabrication.

I have realized that you don't value reason or argument [Blah, blah, blah...]Now who's employing the ad hominems?

It was a hypothetical question ...I didn't answer it *because* it was a hypothetical. I think it was a poor -- and inartful -- rhetorical technique. Not worth my time....

If you revisit your earlier post in response to me, post 249, you will discover a link you provided that was intended to explain the Jewish peoples longstanding claim to Palestine. I was asking, where does it mention this, since the extract you provided makes no such claim?(Now who's having reading comprehension problems?)
1 - *I* didn't provide those passages. I provided a third party link.
2 - Didn't you read the referenced link? It's in there.

You say you are not making a religious argument but a Biblical one. However, given that you describe yourself as a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, I have to ask myself if it is possible for you to argue from one, without the other?"Asked and answered." David, religion is a bunch of man-made rules and rituals. I am a Christian who has a personal relationship with my Lord. (I already indicated this was a "Christian jargon thing" but I refuse to be put in the position of defending some religion.) Note that in my lexicon, religion ? faith....

... let's for the sake of argument say I accept that your argument is a Biblical one. I have yet to hear it. If you can, would you please present it?It's not my fault you so proudly announced you didn't read this thread. I'm not repeating it. You go read it.

These things will have to be squared...David, please stop making your ridiculous "rulings" about how this discourse must procede. I don't care *what* you think must be squared.

...with your position and the tenabilty of Israels devine right to exist in its current form.NWIP (You're relatively new. This is my acronym for "Not What I Posted." It saves time when I'm frequently being asked to defend a position I never established.)

Regarding your acknowledged bias, this in itself undermines the credibilty of your position.Fine. Go away.

Let the readers make up their own minds if my candor is damaging to my argument....

I on the other hand have no preference toward people of Arab or Jewish descent or toward any religion, a better position, I think, from which to look at the situation in the Middle East fairly.I flat-out do not believe you. I really tire of the "intellectuals'" manner of pretended neutrality on issues of importance. I believe you are a phony.

Fine, but you do believe Genesis is science? This has nothing to do with this debate, I was just curious."Genisis is science?" What a curious question. My best shot at this would be ... Genisis is history. (I am a Creationist. I am not 100% -- but I lean that way -- to "God created the Universe in six 24 hour Earth days.) Does that help?

One last question.I don't believe this either...!

What Arabic word do you propose Arab Christians use to refer to 'God'? ... Is there anything about that clarification that you did not comprehend?Oooh! Getting a little testy, huh? David, I don't care what word is being used in what language to refer to the God of the Bible. (I am making a theological point. You keep trying to make a ... linguistic ... counter to it.) The god of Islam and the God of Judeo-Christianity is -- categorically -- NOT the same supreme being.

The fact that there are so many Arab Christians who reside in the Arab world and coexist peacefully with their Muslim countrymen ... Do you just make up these claims as you go?

How many Saudis can go to their Christian church in Saudi Arabia? (Lebanon used to have a lot of Arabic Christians. Most of them left the country years ago, to avoid persecution.) How about Iranians? (I know they are not "Arabic" but they are Muslims.)

By the way, the answer is NONE....

... also calls into question the prevalent falsehood in America that Muslims hate Jews because of a story in the Bible involving Abraham and his sons. I should add, the assertion that Muslims hate Jews, as a rule is false to begin with.Another false claim.

- KK

nickybol
08-05-2006, 12:48 PM
"Genisis is science?" What a curious question. My best shot at this would be ... Genisis is history. (I am a Creationist. I am not 100% -- but I lean that way -- to "God created the Universe in six 24 hour Earth days.) Does that help?

The god of Islam and the God of Judeo-Christianity is -- categorically -- NOT the same supreme being.


How many Saudis can go to their Christian church in Saudi Arabia? (Lebanon used to have a lot of Arabic Christians. Most of them left the country years ago, to avoid persecution.) How about Iranians? (I know they are not "Arabic" but they are Muslims.)

By the way, the answer is NONE....


- KK
If you believe genesis is history, you are insane. Yes it is history. History of Literature. History of fiction. Not history of earth.

Why is it not the same supreme being?

Christians can live relatively free in Arabian countries. One of the most important things in Islam is freedom of religion (that`s relative, it mostly means freedom of monotheistic religion). Freedom of religion flourished during the reign of the Muslims in Spain during the Middle Ages. The catholics came, conquered Spain again and freedom of religion disappeared (Muslims and Jews were persecuted)

nickybol
08-05-2006, 12:50 PM
Since when? (Answer: never.) I was on my HS and College debate teams. I taught Forensics.
- KK
You are actually trying to say you know you can debate by using a false argument.

Kaptain Karl
08-05-2006, 04:43 PM
Why is it not the same supreme being?The (triune) God of Christianity came to Earth as a perfect sinless man and sacrificed Himself for our sins, offering us a free gift of eternal life with Him. He specifies we cannot "earn" our way to heaven with good deeds; only accepting Him as Lord and Savior will gain entry into eternal heavenly life.

Do you know enough about the god of Islam to know how antithetical the Christian God is to theirs?

Christians can live relatively free in Arabian countries. One of the most important things in Islam is freedom of religion (that`s relative, it mostly means freedom of monotheistic religion).You've equivocated ... in two sentences. (And you question *my* sanity?)

Freedom of religion flourished during the reign of the Muslims in Spain during the Middle Ages. The catholics came, conquered Spain again and freedom of religion disappeared (Muslims and Jews were persecuted)Source, please?

You are actually trying to say you know you can debate by using a false argument.nicky, when you don't know a subject (rules of debate) it's best not to keep digging.

- KK

Kaptain Karl
08-05-2006, 04:50 PM
I still think the solution lies in cooperation. There needs to be one Israeli/Palestinian state with full integration of Palestinians, equal rights, etc. Two different states would be another solution.Did you forget Israel offered more than 95% of the land the PA claimed ... and one of Arafat's last actions was to reject it?

"Oops!"

- KK

David L
08-05-2006, 11:03 PM
Since when? (Answer: never.) I was on my HS and College debate teams. I taught Forensics. Your argument -- regarding the "first rule" of debate -- is a total fabrication.Since forever. Why deal in ad hominem arguments if you can defeat an argument on its own grounds? The discerning observer understands the implication if you can't.

Now who's employing the ad hominems?Not me. All my arguments have been absent of ad hominems, as you put it. Observing traits displayed by behaviour, are not ad hominems.

Having said this, I understand your difficulty. Arguments based on Biblical text, rely on faith, not evidence or reason. Subsequently, debates between these opposing camps are futile. For any meaningful debate to take place, one has to challenge the opponent on his terms. One of us has to cross over. So I will argue from a Biblical point of view.

I didn't answer it *because* it was a hypothetical. I think it was a poor -- and inartful -- rhetorical technique. Not worth my time....

(Now who's having reading comprehension problems?)
1 - *I* didn't provide those passages. I provided a third party link.
2 - Didn't you read the referenced link? It's in there.

It's not my fault you so proudly announced you didn't read this thread. I'm not repeating it. You go read it.Ok I read it and it is a model of heavy interpretation and falsehood by omission. If these people wanted to convince, they might at least try to be Biblically accurate. I did a little research. While 'God' does promise the region of Palestine and more to the descendants of Abraham through the line of Isaac(the Jews), its fulfilment is set to occur after what is known as the Second Coming, when 'God's' son, Jesus, returns to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. The operative word here is 'after'. That means, not before. This key point is conveniently omitted from the extract you provided a link too. The Bible actually says Abraham's descendants via Isaac will be 'strangers in a country not their own', until that time. That means nationless, for the time being. So, as I expected, no Biblical argument that justifies the present existence of the State of Israel.

David, please stop making your ridiculous "rulings" about how this discourse must procede. I don't care *what* you think must be squared.

NWIP (You're relatively new. This is my acronym for "Now What I Posted." It saves time when I'm frequently being asked to defend a position I never established.)You established it alright. Something about the Jewish people having a longstanding claim to Palestine and something about your position being a Biblical one. Now that I have established that the Bible does not endorse the nation of Israel in its current form, can I assume you share this point of view?

Fine. Go away.That's not very nice.

Let the readers make up their own minds if my candor is damaging to my argument....It is your 'argument' that is damaging to your argument, not your candour! However I agree, let the reader make up their own mind.

I flat-out do not believe you. I really tire of the "intellectuals'" manner of pretended neutrality on issues of importance. I believe you are a phony.You love those ad hominem arguments. You may not believe me, but it's true.

"Genisis is science?" What a curious question. My best shot at this would be ... Genisis is history. (I am a Creationist. I am not 100% -- but I lean that way -- to "God created the Universe in six 24 hour Earth days.) Does that help?Genesis as science curious? Yes I think so as well. However, not so long ago and maybe still today, there was a movement amongts some creationists in America, which sought to get creationism taught in science classes, as a competing scientific theory, along with evolution, and the other scientific theories about the origins of the universe. They failed.

I don't believe this either...!You don't believe what, that there are Arab Christians? Somehow this does not surprise me, but it's true.

Oooh! Getting a little testy, huh? David, I don't care what word is being used in what language to refer to the God of the Bible. (I am making a theological point. You keep trying to make a ... linguistic ... counter to it.) The god of Islam and the God of Judeo-Christianity is -- categorically -- NOT the same supreme being.Testy? Hardly. I'm glad you finally understood the linguistic distinction, only it was'nt a counter to anything. It was a statement of fact from the very beginning.


Do you just make up these claims as you go?

How many Saudis can go to their Christian church in Saudi Arabia? (Lebanon used to have a lot of Arabic Christians. Most of them left the country years ago, to avoid persecution.) How about Iranians? (I know they are not "Arabic" but they are Muslims.)

By the way, the answer is NONE....Not all Arab countries contain a high number of Christians but, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq have significant numbers. Totalling millions.

Another false claim.Another barren argument. This is even more pitiful than usual.

nickybol
08-06-2006, 03:17 AM
1You've equivocated ... in two sentences. (And you question *my* sanity?)

2[B]Source, please?

[B]3nicky, when you don't know a subject (rules of debate) it's best not to keep digging.

- KK

1. Explain what you mean. I don`t exactly understand what you mean by "equivocated"

2. Search for the Caliph of Cordoba, the Muslim reign in Spain and the reconquista. During Muslim reign there was freedom of religion, and there was much religious diversity, especially under the Caliph of Cordoba. After centuries of Muslim reign, the Christians reconquered Spain. Muslims and Jews were forced to convert to Christianity or forced to leave. Most of them fled to North Africa. This is common historical knowledge and there has been much research on this subject. It is too much work for me to quote dozens of books.

3. I know the rules of debate. I went to school too, you know.

Kaptain Karl
08-06-2006, 09:46 PM
Quoting out of order. You'll see why....

Since forever. Okay. Please point me to your source for this "First Rule."

Having said this, I understand your difficulty.NWIP (Not What I Posted.)

Arguments based on Biblical text, rely on faith, not evidence or reason.(a) False premise. (b) Hubris.

One of us has to crossover. So I will argue from a Biblical point of view.This ought to be interesting.... <edit> David, you actually did pretty well. </edit>

Ok I read it ... While 'God' does promise the region of Palestine and more to the descendants of Abraham through the line of Isaac(the Jews), its fulfilment is set to occur after what is known as the Second Coming, when 'God's' son, Jesus, returns to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. The operative word here is 'after'. That means, not before.Reading this, I thought, "And didn't I post more-or-less this same thing? (And I, myself, reread this whole thread to point it out.)

More on this in a bit....

This key point is conveniently omitted from the extract you provided a link too.The link I provided wasn't to offer a "solution," but to help people understand the current claim of Israel.

The Bible actually says Abraham's descendants via Isaac will be 'strangers in a country not their own', until that time. That means nationless, for the time being. So, as I expected, no Biblical argument that justifies the present existence of the State of Israel.

You established it alright. ... Now that I have established that the Bible does not endorse the nation of Israel in its current form, can I assume you share this point of view?Pretty good researching there, David. I owe you an apology. I remember that I prepared a post saying (roughly) "To the question, 'What's the solution?' the answer is ... not anything MAN can do. When the Messiah returns, THEN it will be resolved." ... But I also remember my browser *Quit* before I clicked "Submit" and I never re-did the post.

I was irritated with you for not reading a post I never submitted. Sorry.

Most people would probably view this as splitting hairs, but "today's Israel" is, IMO, not the same Israel of the Bible. Today's Israel is mostly a secular state. Most of the Israeli leaders since '48 are ... opportunistic ... when it comes to choosing to apply Biblical prophecies to their leadership of Israel (or choosing not to apply them).

Also, many Israelis of today *will* come around to the Messiah -- becoming part of the Biblical Israel. They just have not yet done so....

You love those ad hominem arguments. You may not believe me, but it's true.(To quote someone else from this thread...) "Not me. All my arguments have been absent of ad hominems, as you put it. Observing traits displayed by behaviour, are not ad hominems."

You don't believe what, that there are Arab Christians?NWIP.

I'm glad you finally understood the linguistic distinction...Ah! The condescending "Professor" is back.... Thank you for conceding my point. The god of Islam is not the God of Judeo-Christianity.

- KK

nickybol
08-06-2006, 10:27 PM
what do you mean by NWIP?

David L
08-07-2006, 06:29 AM
Quoting out of order. You'll see why....

Okay. Please point me to your source for this "First Rule."Okay, I'll play this game. It's an unwritten rule or understanding amongst the initiated, as are many of our day to day interactions. If one is reduced to making ad hominem digs, in replacement of cogent arguments, when cogent arguments are the prefered option in undermining someones position, because they actually tackle the argument head on and, if good enough, can irrevocably damage the tenability of the opposing view, the discerning observer will assume that that party has been defeated on the essential debating points. This assumption is encouraged by the fact that the person who resorts to ad hominem tactics, by default, has abandoned the debate. As in sport, one can concede defeat by no longer participating.

Unfortunately, ad hominem tactics can be very effective in convincing the undiscerning observer, which is why the evidence and arguments exposing the incompetence of the current Bush administration have not been as effective in undermining it as they might. Like clockwork, former CIA officials and retired Generals critical of the administration, in kind with others, have had their characters attacked and their motives called into question, deflecting attention from the debate. Unfortunately, people buy these retorts, despite the fact that they are devoid of evidence and argument regarding the actual issues. The more astute recognize the underhand tactic and make the inference that there is no defence. Many others will buy the 'defence'. In effect, the accused have conceded on the issues, but sought to win anyway.

(a) False premise. (b) Hubris.Well, you have to have faith in the Bible to believe any argument based on it, as one would with the Koran.

This ought to be interesting.... <edit> David, you actually did pretty well. </edit>

Reading this, I thought, "And didn't I post more-or-less this same thing? (And I, myself, reread this whole thread to point it out.)

More on this in a bit....So we are agreed that there was no justification for the formation of Israel in its current form? I should add that I have no problem with Israel existing peacefully with its neighbours.

The link I provided wasn't to offer a "solution," but to help people understand the current claim of Israel.My request to you was never for a solution, but justification for the current position of Israel. You have agreed with me that there is no justification for the current claim of Israel, so I won't labour the point.

Pretty good researching there, David. I owe you an apology. I remember that I prepared a post saying (roughly) "To the question, 'What's the solution?' the answer is ... not anything MAN can do. When the Messiah returns, THEN it will be resolved." ... But I also remember my browser *Quit* before I clicked "Submit" and I never re-did the post.

I was irritated with you for not reading a post I never submitted. Sorry.Gracious. Impressive and suprising! It definitely beats "go away".

Most people would probably view this as splitting hairs, but "today's Israel" is, IMO, not the same Israel of the Bible. Today's Israel is mostly a secular state. Most of the Israeli leaders since '48 are ... opportunistic ... when it comes to choosing to apply Biblical prophecies to their leadership of Israel (or choosing not to apply them).You are becoming less partisan by the second.

(To quote someone else from this thread...) "Not me. All my arguments have been absent of ad hominems, as you put it. Observing traits displayed by behaviour, are not ad hominems."I think the difference is that you explicitly belittled the value of reason on the matter of Palestine and acknowledged your own bias. I merely repeated what you admitted yourself. You, on the other hand, accused me of something I denied and which was not true. Incidentally, I am curious to know how you justify your bias now, given that the Bible does not endorse it?

NWIP.So what did you post?

Ah! The condescending "Professor" is back.... Thank you for conceding my point. The god of Islam is not the God of Judeo-Christianity.

- KKIt was not a concession, because the opposite was never asserted.

Kaptain Karl
08-07-2006, 04:35 PM
Okay ....Geez! You got diarrhea of the keyboard ... and never actually admitted the truth: There is NO SUCH "RULE" of debate. I'll take your filibuster as another concession.

Well, you have to have faith in the Bible to believe any argument based on it.... Nice dodge ... again. ::Sigh:: I don't like doing this but.... Each time you've been caught blowing smoke, you've either ignored the issue ... or pretended you posted something entirely different than you did:
You previously posted, Arguments based on Biblical text, rely on faith, not evidence or reason.
To which I posted, [b](a) False premise. (b) Hubris.
(a) The premise that Biblical arguments are not grounded in evidence or reason is a false premise. In the God Argument" thread BB posted a long list of Bible prophecies (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1022264&postcount=103) which came to pass just as they were predicted ... even hundreds of years in advance. ("Oops!" That "evidence and reason" claim surely demonstrated your (b) hubris, huh?)

So we are agreed that there was no justification for the formation of Israel in its current form?NWIP. (But you just keep on trying....)

My request to you was never for a solution, but justification for the current position of Israel.... Which isn't quite accurate, either. In answer to my posted, "Some group" didn't "come along" and develop the land called "Israel." A people with a long-standing claim to the area did so. This was my reference to secular Israel's claim ... you asked, Please enlighten me about this longstanding claim the Jewish people had to Palestine/Eretz Yisrael ... (seemingly pretending *not* to know secular Israel has claimed the land these many years.) Pretending you've (What?) lived in a cave for the last 60 years....

You have agreed with me that there is no justification for the current claim of Israel ....NWIP (as any ten year old could discern.)

You are becoming less partisan by the second.Knowing your "particular" definition of the word, "partisan," I am very suspicious of this Trojan Horse of an "olive branch."

I think the difference is that you explicitly belittled the value of reason on the matter of Palestine ...NWIP. (Pay attention, "Professor".) I belittled your myopic version of "reason"; not "the value of reason" in-general.

I merely repeated what you admitted yourself.No. You have an especially irritating habit of twisting others' posts to suit your own personal rhetoric. (This is why you are reading so many "NWIP" replies from me, Professor.)

You, on the other hand, accused me of something I denied and which was not true.Since you have yet to demonstrate you are "being straight" (See all the perversions of my own statemtents.) with me in this discourse, I reserve the privlege to disbelieve your claims of ...honor.

Incidentally, I am curious to know how you justify your bias now, given that the Bible does not endorse it?I'll try one more time to see this as a truly candid question.... Would you please ask this another way? I'm not sure I "get" your meaning.

So what did you post?Duh! Go back and read what I wrote, Professor.

- KK

David L
08-07-2006, 11:49 PM
Geez! You got diarrhea of the keyboard ... and never actually admitted the truth: There is NO SUCH "RULE" of debate. I'll take your filibuster as another concession.I find it amusing and somewhat telling that you are determined to defend the ad hominem argument, when it is universally accepted, save with one or two individuals such as yourself, as fallacious, an example of poor argument and considered best avoided. A google search brought up these sites amongst others. This whole topic is a digression, but it was fun compiling this little spread.

Argumentum ad Hominem is literally "argument directed at the man".

The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or people making the assertion. This is invalid because the truth of an assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it.

For example:

"Atheism is an evil philosophy. It is practised by Communists and murderers."

http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html


In general, of course, it's a good idea to avoid logical fallacies if at all possible, because a good debater will almost always catch you

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem


Do not use ad hominem arguments. Even (p)erverts can have good arguments. The qualities of the person presenting an argument are irrelevant to the quality of the argument he presents.

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith//courses98/DEBATERULES.htm


The debating rules and reminders below are particularly relevant to you, because they are from a Christian website.

IMPORTANT RULES

1. Each post must have relevant content ie. it must stay on-topic, or be a rebuttal.

2. Ad hominem and personal attacks are not allowed

....

REMEMBER

We have lurkers, new christians and those searching for truth, visiting us daily. The low blows and bickering are confirming the old "hypocritical christian" point of view. We are told to love our neighbors as well as our enemy. That pretty much means everyone. Show your love even when you don't agree. We are here to edify, not tear down.

Colossians 4:6 Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.

Ephesians 4:15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ

Psalm 141:3 Set a guard, O LORD, over my mouth; Keep watch over the door of my lips.

Psalm 19:14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer.

Proverbs 12:18 There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword, But the tongue of the wise brings healing.

http://www.christianforums.com/t48432-formal-debating-rules.html


Last but not least.

An Ad Hominem is a comment directed at another person. It is from the Latin, meaning literally “to the man”. As used here, it refers to attacking the opponent in a debate, not the opinions they offer. In debates, Ad Hominem comments are generally non-productive and divert attention from the actual points being discussed.

The best way to avoid complications is to simply not comment on the character of the person you are addressing. Of course, that is something that is not easy if the other person “attacks” first. But it should be relatively easy if their only crime is to be contrary, stubborn, of simply stupid. The general rule is that, if a person is presenting themselves as a jackass, you don’t really need to point it out, because everyone else will see it for themselves.

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=suggestions&Number=383233&page=4&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

David L
08-08-2006, 01:17 AM
Nice dodge ... again. ::Sigh:: I don't like doing this but.... Each time you've been caught blowing smoke, you've either ignored the issue ... or pretended you posted something entirely different than you did:
You previously posted, Arguments based on Biblical text, rely on faith, not evidence or reason.
To which I posted, (a) False premise. (b) Hubris.
(a) The premise that Biblical arguments are not grounded in evidence or reason is a false premise. In the God Argument" thread BB posted a long list of Bible prophecies (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1022264&postcount=103) which came to pass just as they were predicted ... even hundreds of years in advance. ("Oops!" That "evidence and reason" claim surely demonstrated your (b) hubris, huh?)The English poet, Edward Young, once wrote 'a fool at forty is a fool indeed'. I have no idea what he had to say about fifty year olds of the same ilk. Too bad I can't invoke his spirit. The sentences, 'arguments based on Biblical text, rely on faith, not evidence or reason' and 'Biblical arguments are not grounded in evidence or reason', are not equivalent. The first asserts a reliance on faith, the second implies the absence of evidence or reason. Now, there may be things in the Bible that correspond with actual historical events, there may be displays of reason, there may even be prophetic declarations as there were with 'The Prophecies' of Nostradamus. However, much of the book's claims are unsupported by evidence and therefore rely on faith. Note, a reliance on faith does not preclude the presence of evidence or reason in some areas. Also remember that poor reason and poor evidence, count as reason and evidence respectively as well.

Regarding the hubris, you set the tone from the very beginning, I just followed your lead. I'm generally a very well behaved, pleasant young man.

NWIP. (But you just keep on trying....)Right, so you're saying there is justification for the formation of Israel in its current form?

... Which isn't quite accurate, either. In answer to my posted, "Some group" didn't "come along" and develop the land called "Israel." A people with a long-standing claim to the area did so. This was my reference to secular Israel's claim ... you asked, Please enlighten me about this longstanding claim the Jewish people had to Palestine/Eretz Yisrael ... (seemingly pretending *not* to know secular Israel has claimed the land these many years.) Pretending you've (What?) lived in a cave for the last 60 years....Ok, so you're saying that your reference to a longstanding claim was not meant to be a justification for the current position of Israel?

NWIP (as any ten year old could discern.)What, so you're saying there is a justification for the current claim of Israel?

NWIP. (Pay attention, "Professor".) I belittled your myopic version of "reason"; not "the value of reason" in-general.Glad to hear it.

No. You have an especially irritating habit of twisting others' posts to suit your own personal rhetoric. (This is why you are reading so many "NWIP" replies from me, Professor.)I think this is in your imagination.

Since you have yet to demonstrate you are "being straight" (See all the perversions of my own statemtents.) with me in this discourse, I reserve the privlege to disbelieve your claims of ...honor.That's you privilege of course.

I'll try one more time to see this as a truly candid question.... Would you please ask this another way? I'm not sure I "get" your meaning.You've acknowledged a bias you have. From your muddled posts, I am still uncertain whether this is exclusively a Biblical bias or bias in favour of Jewish people as well. If it is the latter, I am curious to know if this translates into support for their current position in Israel. In one of your previous posts, you commended my reading of the Bible, that says the Jews are to be nationless until the Second Coming. What I want to know, is whether your Biblical bias or your bias toward the Jewish people wins out on their wish to reside in Palestine before this time. Do you support the idea of a nationless Jewish population pending the Second Coming, in line with the Bible, or the current status of the Jews, who today have a nation before the Second Coming? If the latter, how do you explain this given that the Bible does not endorse it?

Duh! Go back and read what I wrote, Professor.

- KKAll you said was 'I don't believe this either...!' in response to the extract below. I could not figure out what you were refering to.

One last question. What Arabic word do you propose Arab Christians use to refer to 'God'? There are probably a few Arab Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians who could use your assitance on this matter.

Kaptain Karl
08-08-2006, 04:13 AM
... you are determined to defend the ad hominem argument ...NWIP

And "NWIP" would be my response about four more times to comments in your last post. ::sigh::

I'm finished with you, David. While I do commend you on "stepping outside your comfort zone" and doing some decent Bible research to address one point....

1 - You have spent multiple paragraphs side-tracking this topic to paint *me* as the agressor regarding ad hominems. You have demonstrated you are quite "adept" at the ad hominem, yourself.
2 - Even though there is no "First Rule of Debate" regarding ad hominems, you keep trying to insist some "unwritten rule" proves your childish claim.
3 - You persistently and stubbornly choose to twist my posts to try and make me defend a position I do not hold.
4 - (Especially lately) your rhetorical style preference is the famously effective Grade Schooler's technique of "You started it!"
5 - Your rhetoric is circular. You keep ... resurrecting ... points we've already closed. (Your "Arabic word for 'God' bit" is the most recent example.) David, I've already expressed my lack of desire to explore this linguistic side-track to this topic. I don't care about the "word"; I've already established the Islamic concept of their god is different than the Christian concept of God.
6 - You've demonstrated an insistence on having the last word. So I'll depart you now and let you fire whatever last shots you wish.

(This is really too bad. Normally I'd like a healthy exchange about a ... tension ... you bring up with the penultimate comment of your last post: the seculare Israel's "claim" to the land versus the Biblical Israel's. But you have become so tedious a poster with whom to carry-on an exchange, I'd rather not experience your "act" in that area of discourse either.)

See you on the boards....

- KK

David L
08-08-2006, 05:34 AM
NWIP

And "NWIP" would be my response about four more times to comments in your last post. ::sigh::

I'm finished with you, David. While I do commend you on "stepping outside your comfort zone" and doing some decent Bible research to address one point....

1 - You have spent multiple paragraphs side-tracking this topic to paint *me* as the agressor regarding ad hominems. You have demonstrated you are quite "adept" at the ad hominem, yourself.
2 - Even though there is no "First Rule of Debate" regarding ad hominems, you keep trying to insist some "unwritten rule" proves your childish claim.
3 - You persistently and stubbornly choose to twist my posts to try and make me defend a position I do not hold.
4 - (Especially lately) your rhetorical style preference is the famously effective Grade Schooler's technique of "You started it!"
5 - Your rhetoric is circular. You keep ... resurrecting ... points we've already closed. (Your "Arabic word for 'God' bit" is the most recent example.) David, I've already expressed my lack of desire to explore this linguistic side-track to this topic. I don't care about the "word"; I've already established the Islamic concept of their god is different than the Christian concept of God.
6 - You've demonstrated an insistence on having the last word. So I'll depart you now and let you fire whatever last shots you wish.

(This is really too bad. Normally I'd like a healthy exchange about a ... tension ... you bring up with the penultimate comment of your last post: the seculare Israel's "claim" to the land versus the Biblical Israel's. But you have become so tedious a poster with whom to carry-on an exchange, I'd rather not experience your "act" in that area of discourse either.)

See you on the boards....

- KK

See you on the boards then. Hey man, no hard feelings. I had fun exposing you.