It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezhad Calls For The Permanent Removal of Israel

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity
How can Allah and God be the same being if one is saying "kill the Jews" and the other is saying "These are My chosen people whom I brought out of Eygpt by a mighty hand"?

Ah so Ahmadinejad is wrong because he is a muslim? That's fine, you cant have any other opinion because you are obviously a religious Christian. Although I think you'll find you have more in common, ideologically, with muslims than jews. Muslims recognize Jesus Christ as a prophet whereas jews do not. Jews believe Jesus is burning in hell as a heretic.

Also if you are prone to basing your World view on scripture you might want to know that the very presence of Israel is heretical according to the Torah and the Talmud.


King Solomon in Song of Songs thrice adjured the "daughters of Jerusalem" not to arouse or bestir the love until it is ready." The Talmud explains That we have been foresworn, by three strong oaths, not to ascend to the Holy Land as a group using force, not to rebel against the governments of countries in which we live, and not by our sins, to prolong the coming of moshiach; as is written in Tractate Kesubos 111a

Three Strong Oaths

So are you going to cherry-pick the scripture that best fits your contemporary view of Israel's righteousness? Because as far as Judaism is concerned there is no greater blashphemy than the state of Israel and its continued use of force in the Holy Land.

Are you going to ignore the scripture of the Torah and the Talmud when it disagrees with your take on Israel?

[edit on 14/7/06 by subz]




posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity
I'm not going there. Here it is in a nutshell. Christians hear from God because that is Who they talk to. Did you imagine it would be a one-way conversation? Wouldn't that just be talking to yourself?


That would be the logical conclusion.


How can Allah and God be the same being if one is saying "kill the Jews" and the other is saying "These are My chosen people whom I brought out of Eygpt by a mighty hand"?


How can God and Yahweh be the same being if one is kind, forgiving, and merciful and the other is vengeful, savage, and warlike?


Furthermore, because you are acting AGAINST the word of God, you are evildoers...

...His Word, the Bible, which all you who don't believe in God love to disdain, tells Christians that Jews are His chosen people, that Israel was given them indisputably in the long ago and far away for their possession ALWAYS, and that, as Christians, we are to behave as God behaves towards His people and His chosen land, praying for the peace of Jerusalem, loving and praying for our 'elder brothers', in short, doing all we can to love and protect them.


It is utter foolishness to believe that a book, any book, written by man can be taken as the infallible word of God. Let us not forget that this same supposed "word of God" that you're talking about was used to justify slavery, miscegenation laws, and more recently the effort to introduce discriminatory language into the United States Constitution. And this is only in recent history. A long time ago the majority of the world believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, this belief was upheld by the "infallible" scriptures until a man named Nicolaus Copernicus published a book that went in direct contradiction to the geocentric model and the "infallible" Bible. Millions of people were killed during the inquisitions including a fair percentage of Jews. The Spanish Inquisition was even specifically targeted at finding out and killing "secret Jews."

If we blind ourselves and take something devised by fallible human beings to be an infallible truth there will come a time when that so called "truth" will be called into question by progress in the understanding of our world (Heliocentricism, Darwinism, Humanism). And when that time comes there are only two options: you can either have an open mind and listen to reason or you can cling to infallibility in the face of all opposing evidence.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by ShakyaHeir]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir

Originally posted by curiousity
I'm not going there. Here it is in a nutshell. Christians hear from God because that is Who they talk to. Did you imagine it would be a one-way conversation? Wouldn't that just be talking to yourself?


That would be the logical conclusion.


Furthermore, because you are acting AGAINST the word of God, you are evildoers...

...His Word, the Bible, which all you who don't believe in God love to disdain, tells Christians that Jews are His chosen people, that Israel was given them indisputably in the long ago and far away for their possession ALWAYS, and that, as Christians, we are to behave as God behaves towards His people and His chosen land, praying for the peace of Jerusalem, loving and praying for our 'elder brothers', in short, doing all we can to love and protect them.



It is utter foolishness to believe that a book, any book, written by man can be taken as the infallible word of God. Let us not forget that this same supposed "word of God" that you're talking about was used to justify slavery, miscegenation laws, and more recently the effort to introduce discriminatory language into the United States Constitution.


And how do YOU, who are only the product of your time after all, declare that slavery, miscegenation laws, and the "discriminatory language" are NOT justified by the Bible? Because YOU believe them to be "wrong"? Isn't that then YOUR opinion, even if backed up by thousands of others with the same mindbent? Truth is not determined by YOUR opinion, sorry to be the one to tell you that.


A long time ago the majority of the world believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, this belief was upheld by the "infallible" scriptures until a man named Nicolaus Copernicus published a book that went in direct contradiction to the geocentric model and the "infallible" Bible.


And just btw, how do you know that earth is not the center of the universe? Since the "center" of anything means there is a beginning and an end, a circumference, how do you know it isn't? Have you seen the universe measured and determined that earth is a few degrees or a few thousand OFF CENTER?


And though you didn't bring up this chestnu, let's look at the question: how does the Bible support the flat earth theory?

It says that God sits above the circle of the earth. (Isa 40:22) It says "(I, wisdom, was there) When He drew a circle on the face of the deep, (Pro 8:27) It says "He walks above the circle of heaven.. (Job 22:14)

Sound flat to you?

The reference to the Spanish Inquisitions is saying that it was manned by Christians? When all of that goes against the very Bible the ones truly involved claimed to believe in?


... And when that time comes there are only two options: you can either have an open mind and listen to reason or you can cling to infallibility in the face of all opposing evidence.


Or you can cling to the infallibility of man in the face of all opposing evidence, claiming "reason" as a treasured icon.

As for me, I'll take the Bible.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by curiousity]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Also if you are prone to basing your World view on scripture you might want to know that the very presence of Israel is heretical according to the Torah and the Talmud.

Are you going to ignore the scripture of the Torah and the Talmud when it disagrees with your take on Israel?


The Talmud explains That we have been foresworn, by three strong oaths, not to ascend to the Holy Land as a group using force, not to rebel against the governments of countries in which we live,


Are you really going to insist that the "very presence of Israel is heretical" according to Scripture and then use as a reference the Talmud? Especially such a reference as this?

First of all, the Talmud is not Scripture. Find me a rabbi who says it is. Secondly, what you quoted DOES NOT SAY that Israel's "presence is heretical". AND thirdly, if the Talmud actually does say elsewhere that it is, and I doubt totally that it does, it would be proven "heretical" because it is in direct contradiction to the Torah.

And if you're prepared to say the Torah says so, you are wrong; if you believe me wrong, get the Scripture to back it up.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity
And how do YOU, who are only the product of your time after all, declare that slavery, miscegenation laws, and the "discriminatory language" are NOT justified by the Bible? Because YOU believe them to be "wrong"? Isn't that then YOUR opinion, even if backed up by thousands of others with the same mindbent? Truth is not determined by YOUR opinion, sorry to be the one to tell you that.

You are correct in saying that I am a product of the time I live in; we all are. In a different time I might have believed that God meant for black people to be a slave race, or that it goes against the natural order that God intended for blacks and whites to intermarry, I might have even believed that the Sun moves around the Earth.

But I'm glad I live in a much more enlightened time where matters of truth are not arbitrated by the Bible.


And just btw, how do you know that earth is not the center of the universe? Since the "center" of anything means there is a beginning and an end, a circumference, how do you know it isn't? Have you seen the universe measured and determined that earth is a few degrees or a few thousand OFF CENTER?

Well one of the main assumptions of the Geocentric theory is that the Sun revolves around the Earth. We know now that in fact the Earth revolves around the Sun. In order for the Earth to actually be the center of the Universe it would have to be stationary and the Universe would have to revolve around it. Even the sun is part of a spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy and makes a revolution every 230 million years. And even our galaxy is moving towards the Virgo galaxy cluster.


Since the "center" of anything means there is a beginning and an end, a circumference, how do you know it isn't?

Because I believe the Universe is infinite, and in an infinite universe there is no such thing as a "center."

But let's run with your assumption and pretend that the Universe is finite. How then can there be a center that is constantly moving? Does it constantly re-adjust it's shape to make sure that the Earth is in the dead center?


The reference to the Spanish Inquisitions is saying that it was manned by Christians? When all of that goes against the very Bible the ones truly involved claimed to believe in?

Yes it was manned by Christians. You would say that they weren't "real" Christians. My point is that many many Christians have misinterpreted the Bible in the past largely due to their belief that it is infallible. You might say that they were following the "wrong" kind of Christianity and that you follow the "right" kind; but the fact that you even have to make that distinction means that Christians have been wrong in the past and it is possible that you are wrong now.


Or you can cling to the infallibility of man in the face of all opposing evidence, claiming "reason" as a treasured icon.

As for me, I'll take the Bible.

My whole point is that man is fallible. I have in no way said or indicated that I cling to the infallibility of man, but rather that I recognize that they are not infallible. Hence the need for an open mind rather than a closed one.

You say I cling to the infallibility of man. I could say the same for you. You cling to the infallibility of a handful of men who thousands of years ago wrote down their opinion which some today take as "the word of God."

I don't mean to hijack this thread, so if you want to take this any further PM me and we can start a thread in the debate forum.

[edit on 15-7-2006 by ShakyaHeir]



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   
I remember one phrase about Israel while I was growing up....

"Never Again"


I use to think it would be next to impossible for a leader of a country to speak of eliminating or wiping the jews of the map. I also use to think genocide as it happened in WW2 wouldn't be possible or I should say not permitted. Then Cambodia happened and Rawanda, Sudan and the slaughters continue. Irans leader and all the people like him don't seem to understand the difference between mass killing jews in WW2 and today. Todays Jewish people have nukes. If it ever happened that a middle eastern nation nuked an Israeli city or perhaps even used gas what do they think Israel will do? Nuke every capital in the middle east? Nuke the 5 biggest citys of each country in the region? Perhaps the iranian leader feels it would be ok to radiate the entire region for decades or longer. If he is pushing all of this to bring about the 12th imman, what will he do if there is no 12th imman at this time?

Does anyone not expect israel to react with its nukes? Does iran and syria really think by using hamas and hizbullah as cannon fodder that their countrys aren't going to get battered also? I also agree that it is our fault (the United States) that things have gotten to this point. When Iran attacked the soverign territory of the US back in 1979 we should have put the boots to them then. Instead year after year bombing after bombing they have gotten bolder. We have tried diplomacy and carrot and stick tactics and appeased for all these years. We allowed the nuts and extremists within islam to think they can beat the west. So I guess it is fitting if we have to lance the boil that is iran. I fell horrible for all the innocents on both sides who will end up paying the price. If we had pummeled the terrorists back in 79 no matter how many deaths it would have been smaller heck much smaller that the butchers bill today.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Ahmadinnejad really has no power in Iran, it is all the religious leaders. And you gotta understand that everytime the U.N. has a hearing why Isreal should stop violence against palestenians the U.S. vetoes the idea. It's hard for any progress to occur when the U.S. and many other nations want a war in teh region because it just makes a market for selling weapons. The U.S. does pay million to both sides of the conflict just to ensure an ongoing war, that just shows the U.S' true colors. And its not the first time U.S. has supplied weapons to a middle eastern nation to either start a revolution/war or continue one. Anyone ever heard of the Iran Contra Affair........



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   
The Islamic Republic of Iran

The Supreme Leader is a cleric elected by the Assembly of Experts - reminiscent of the College of Cardinals choosing the next Pope - who also serves for life. The Assembly OTOH has the Constitutional obligation to oversee the Supreme Leader and to remove and replace him. So is his a life time job or not? The Assembly is elected by the public or voters of Iran. Candidates are vetted by the Guardian Council which is itself appointed by the Supreme Leader. Him? Running in circles, are we? Iran - formerly Persia - is 5,000 years old. It has a mix of government not exactly equivalent to ours and it makes it hard for outsiders to understand. The president is the only person who is voted on country-wide. He is the legal head of state and the practical head of government. But should any of his acts not conform to the principles of the Islamic Republic, the Supreme Leader can overruled him.

So who’s in charge? Well, it is up to the Supreme Leader to decide when to overrule the president, so I guess the SL has the final say? The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, holds the post, since 1989. He succeeded Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini who was Supreme Leader from 1979 to 1989.

See en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 7/15/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
You are saying stuff I already know. But all I'm saying is that Israel is the sole cause of all the violence in the Middle East because they decide to imprison Palestenians on no charges(a la Guantanamo). Then every singel news channel reports that grandma was killed while its not being reported that many other people in lebanon died because Israel decides to bomb an airport. Iran is attempting to be the guy on the playground who tries to stop the bully from picking on other people, the thing is Iran is doing this in the wrong way. Instead of threatening they need to bring to light the crimes Israel has committed agaisnt Palestenians for more than 50 years.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   


posted by goran319

“ . . every time the U.N. has a hearing why Israel should stop violence against Palestinians the U.S. vetoes the idea. It's hard for any progress to occur when the U.S. and many other nations want a war in the region because it just makes a market for selling weapons . . “ [Edited by Don W]



It is absolutely true, G4, as you said, that in the Security Council, the US has vetoed every substantive call on Israel to reform its conduct vis a vis the Palestinians. This practice is a left-over from the Cold War when the Soviets wanted to embarrass us. But the Cold War ended in 1991, and America is still guided by that thinking. Say hello, Israel Lobby.

This explains why the great majority of Middle East action in the UN is taken in the General Assembly where the US does not have a veto. That in turn is a large part of the reason people like John Bolton denigrate the General Assembly at every opportunity. If we can’t control it, we don’t want ti. American mantra, “Control good, free bad.”




The U.S. pays million to both sides of the conflict to ensure an ongoing war, that shows America’s true colors. It’s not the first time U.S. supplied weapons to a middle eastern nation to either start a revolution/war or continue one. Anyone ever heard of the Iran Contra Affair . . [Edited by Don W]




In 1979, following the Yom Kippur War of 1973, a peace treaty was concluded at Camp David between Israel and Egypt. As a major feature of that treaty, the US agreed to furnish a peacekeeping force of about 900 men to watch the common border in the Sinai. It may still be there. I do not know. We also agreed to pay Israel and Egypt $3 billion a year as long as each kept the peace. I believe this payment continues in 2006.

American foreign aid is misunderstood by many. We do not ever send any country a check. We don’t make a deposit in a Swiss bank account in the name of any country. What we do do, is this. We agree to buy inside the United States, items the foreign government says it wants or needs, and to ship 50% of those items in “American bottoms” to that country.

Almost all the money in so-called foreign aid is spent here at home. For example, countries in North Africa sometimes get angry over this practice. In one case, the country needed 10,000 one ton trucks. The US agreed to make that a “foreign aid” package. The law required the foreign country to buy American made trucks and ship them in American flagged ships. Ford and GM sold the trucks at MSRP, fully 50% more than Fiat would have sold trucks for. Shipping costs well triple those that buying Fiat would have involved. American tax payers subsidized Ford and GM and American ship owners for about 20% of the total foreign aid package. Most foreign countries know “foreign aid” is really American corporate aid.

American bottoms. Industry talk for American owned or flagged ships. There is another giant corporate subsidy here. A long time ago and far away the US Congress enacted a law saying that if the ship owner would consent to make his ship available to the Pentagon in times of national emergency, the US taxpayers would pay half the cost of the ship! More corporate welfare.

Note: I’m not entirely against the motivation behind this Act. The condition of seamen on foreign flagged shipping is deplorable. The US has high standards of worker safety and disability compensation. It is not unheard of for a foreign shipowner to throw an injured seaman overboard. But, this is not really connected to paying half the cost of a ship. Worker safety could be obtained in other, more equitable way.

Iran Contra. Actually, VP Bush41 (Pres Reagan slept) and his minion, USMC Lt Col Ollie North, had Israel sell munitions to Iran for cash, and the money - what part that was not stolen - went to buy weapons for the Contras in Nicaragua. The US could replace the older munitions directly to Israel later. This was done in direct violation of Congressional prohibitions on aiding the Contras. Which made it a crime. Which is why Bush41 had to pardon Casper Weinberg at his term’s end. To avoid himself being in the dock!



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Communicating on a volatile subject is very difficult and it is important everyone be on the same page. That is why I recited what you already knew. So you’d know where I was coming from, not to educate you.



posted by goran319

I'm saying Israel is the sole cause of all the violence in the Middle East because they decide to imprison Palestinians on no charges (a la Guantanamo) . . [Edited by Don W]



Well, G3, are you saying the egg preceded the chicken? This 'he said she said' one act play gets us nowhere. That is why I offer that any serious discussion of ending this seemingly endless drama should begin at the end of the Six Day War, in June, 1967. That is the first place in time and space where everything need to end the dispute is present.

Where does anything begin? 70 AD. General Titus. Expelled many Jewish persons from the area around Jerusalem. This is called the Diaspora. The Great Dispersal. Or maybe at 597 BC with the Babylonian Captivity? Or 1492 when the Moors lost to the Christians and Jews were offered the option of 1) leave Spain without your property, 2) convert to Catholicism or 3) die. Or 1933-1945, the Hitler era? Or 1948-49 War of Independence? And etc. See below.

Israel has been under constant siege since 1948. It was to salve the good consciences of the West that the UN was motivated to create the State of Israel in 1948. Then followed on the 1949 UN Armistice which attempted a division of the land between the new in-coming Jewish settlers and the old land owning Arab inhabitants of Palestine. A solution calculated to make both sides angry. A mirror image of early white America and the Native Americans. Which brings us to 2006.

I have written for 2 decades that only the United States can end the turmoil that is the Middle East. This turmoil more than any other is the underlying cause of our own Nine Eleven Event. What could have worked in 2000 is harder to get in 2006. Like any sore, it gets worse if unattended. Not better. It is still true that only the United States can resolve this dispute.




Iran is attempting to be the [good] guy on the playground who tries to stop the bully from picking on other people, the thing is Iran is doing this in the wrong way . . “



I think you are being overly optimistic, G3. There is a conflict within the Islamic religion going on since the Holy Prophet died. The Sunni and the Shia. The two groups have argued over which is the legitimate heir of the mantle of the prophet. Then throw in the Wahhabi Movement of 1744 which is like our own Fundamentalist Christian Movement. Dead certain literalists. It seems to me that it is the Wahhabi movement that foments the radical Muslims to violence.

But in any case, extreme problems bring on extreme solutions. And people driven to extremes, do extreme things. Which applies in equal measure to both sides. Israelis as occupiers, Palestinian Arabs as conquered people. Each has its special role to play. On occasions one side does act out its role better than the other side. Leaders are so important. Neither side has a strong leader with a vision today. A very dangerous situation. Israel has 400-600 atom bombs. And the US leader worries about North Korea?

The present solution is calculated to make both sides angry. Unilateral withdrawal on Israeli terms. Which brings me back to the simple fact only the U.S. can end the ME turmoil. Many people are coming to believe the U.S. does not want to end it. Turmoil serves us best in that it keeps in power authoritarian regimes favorable to us and who are willing to sell us their oil. And without ME oil, the West is doomed.


For Reference:
The Balfour Declaration it its entirety:
“Foreign Office, November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour”

See invitation.to...



[edit on 7/15/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
It is plain to see that Iran is pulling ALL of the strings.

That's quite the future the moronic mullahs have in mind for ALL of us.

You just have to crack up at the 'reasoning' that Israel is the 'source' of the problem.

You have to marvel at the huge gap in the fantasy world results the Hezbollah efforts are dishing out on the Israelis vs the reality of the pounding the IDF is laying on the Lebanese using SO LITTLE of their real capacity.

Apparently, the hate/religious zealotry just makes you absolutely blind to what is going on around you.

The funniest take I've seen on the situation in Lebanon was a guy asking the IDF to send all the 'gorillas' back to Iran.



At least the Iranians are smart enough not to wage the war in their own country.

When will it be time to clean out the nest of this destructive insects that have infected the wooden frame of the Middle East? And what will it take for the USA to finally say ENOUGH! ?




posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShakyaHeirMy whole point is that man is fallible. I have in no way said or indicated that I cling to the infallibility of man, but rather that I recognize that they are not infallible. Hence the need for an open mind rather than a closed one.

[edit on 15-7-2006 by ShakyaHeir]


When you quote Darwin, Copernicus, and the like to "prove" the Bible is fallible, you ARE saying man is not. That is clear and logical. If this were a debate you would lose that round.

When you inserted the last remark in the quote, you left behind the possibility of this resolving in debate and went to provocation by implied insult, a well known gambit in normal conversation but not really kosher for "debate".

So, I think your invitation to debate is one I will have to decline, since without the proper protocol it can only end in yes it is and no it isn't statements, and it appears you are vested in gambits and not in serious discussion.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Question: if Iran is supposedly so eager to exterminate the Jews, why are there so many Jews living in Iran still? Why haven't they been killed? Why does Iran have Jewish representatives in it's Parliament?

The truth is that Iran is calling for the removal of the Israeli government, which they (and pretty much everyone else in the area) regard as a European colony in the Mideast.

Personally I can't argue too much, even if I have little love for Iran or its theocracy. Israel is a colony, and an apartheid state that is the result of a massive ethnic cleansing and terrorist campaign in the 1940's.

If the Israeli and Iranian governments manage to remove each other from the face of the planet, it will be a positive boon to the species as a whole and reason to rejoice.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   


posted by curiousity

When you quote Darwin, Copernicus, and the like to "prove" the Bible is fallible, you ARE saying man is not . . That is clear and logical . . If this were a debate you would lose that round.

I think your invitation to debate is one I will have to decline . . it can only end in yes it is and no it isn't statements, and it appears you are not in serious discussion. [Edited by Don W]



1) Modern Christianity was invented by Emperor Constantine.

2) On Emperor Constantine’s order, a small group of bishops - not including the Bishop of Rome - hand picked the 27 books making up today’s New Testament from about100 books or letters as they were sometimes called.

3) It was not agreed to add the Book of Revelation until about 100 years after the first selection was made.

4) We have only copies of copies of copies today. The early Jewish Christians spoke in Aramaic. The first books of he New Testament were not put to papyrus until 45 or 50 AD and then in Greek. It is asking more than I can give to think a speaker in one language recorded in another language 20 or more years after the fact, and then translate into Old English around 1609, has any reliability or authenticity today, other than what tradition only gives to it.

5) Beginning a long Christian - say Roman - tradition of NON tolerance, Emperor Constantine ordered all non selected books to be burned. So much for honest discourse

That Mr C, is what you playfully call “infallible.”


[edit on 7/15/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity
When you quote Darwin, Copernicus, and the like to "prove" the Bible is fallible, you ARE saying man is not. That is clear and logical. If this were a debate you would lose that round.

When you inserted the last remark in the quote, you left behind the possibility of this resolving in debate and went to provocation by implied insult, a well known gambit in normal conversation but not really kosher for "debate".

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to insult you, but I do think it's a valid point. You think that men are fallible except for the small group of men who wrote the bible. I don't think Darwin and Copernicus are infallible, if I did I would be touting their ideas as unquestionable truth. That's why we call it the "theory" of evolution and the heliocentric "theory." Because theories can later be proven wrong or elaborated on to account for new evidence. The Newtonian "clockwork" model of physics worked well for hundreds of years at explaining phenomenon in our world, but on the atomic level it fails completely. Which is why Einstein's theory of special relativity revolutionized physics. By citing Darwin and Copernicus I was giving an example of men who's ideas gave a better understanding of the world at that time. Just like Isaac Newton. That doesn't mean that they discovered unquestionable and infallible truths...maybe I should have made that more clear.

Once again, I apologize if I insulted you. I certainly didn't mean to.


Originally posted by goran319
And you gotta understand that everytime the U.N. has a hearing why Isreal should stop violence against palestenians the U.S. vetoes the idea.


U.S. Vetoes UN Resolution Seeking to End Violence in Gaza Strip

July 13 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. vetoed a resolution presented to the United Nations Security Council by Arab nations seeking increased pressure on Israel to stop attacking the Gaza Strip and the release of a kidnapped Israeli soldier.

The measure, sponsored in the Security Council by Qatar, was supported by 10 of the other 14 members. Britain, Denmark, Peru and Slovakia abstained in the vote.

``We didn't think any useful purpose would be served by a resolution or council action with respect to the situation in Gaza,'' U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters before the vote. ``Israel has a right of self defense.''


They vetoed a resolution just two days ago. Normally I would have read this news story and shaken my head at the United States unflinching support for Israel even against the sentiments of the rest of the world. But just the other day when I was reading Rebuilding America's Defenses one of the names on the second page jumped out at me:


ABOUT THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a nonprofit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project. William Kristol is chairman of the Project, and Robert Kagan, Devon Gaffney Cross, Bruce P. Jackson and John R. Bolton serve as directors. Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project. [emphasis added]


John Bolton
, the current U.S. Ambassador, served as a director on PNAC! Is it any surprise that he said: "We didn't think any useful purpose would be served by a resolution or council action with respect to the situation in Gaza." Of course it doesn't serve a useful purpose to the Project for the New American Century.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
i belive instead of arguing among each other about who is right and who said what..i think we should be studying on more of what could be coming.....we all know war is coming eventually...religious textbooks state it and so do ancient cultures predicted it....i think we should be coming up with theories of what to do or preparing ourselves for ww3



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

1) Modern Christianity was invented by Emperor Constantine.

2) On Emperor Constantine’s order, a small group of bishops - not including the Bishop of Rome - hand picked the 27 books making up today’s New Testament from about100 books or letters as they were sometimes called.

3) It was not agreed to add the Book of Revelation until about 100 years after the first selection was made.

4) We have only copies of copies of copies today...

That Mr C, is what you playfully call “infallible.”


Blah, blah, blah

So what? Ps 105:8 He remembers His covenant forever, The word which He commanded for a thousand generations.

Can any of your vaulted authors claim such a record, Mr. donwhite?

And that is Ms. C to you, "sir".

FYI to the posters who feel Israel is not for the descendants of Abraham and Jacob:

Ps 105:9 The covenant which He made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac, 10 And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel as an everlasting covenant, 11 Saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan as the allotment of your inheritance,"

Canaan today is all the land known as Israel plus the "Gaza Strip", so called.

Palestinians were once called Philistines and have no such covenant for the land.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I know I'm probably wasting my time, but you can't expect purely scriptural arguments to carry any weight with non-Christians. You might as well be quoting from a phone book.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Starts quoting the phone book:

An Domino's Pizza - Area code (424) 435-3245 Dangerious Petes Pizza - Area code (423) 434-2455

Fashion Bug - Area code (343) 343-2454


haha lets see if thats gonna make em see different!!!!

anywho's isnt this just gonna turn into a huge ordeal if both sides are as stubborn as they are......

[edit on 15-7-2006 by Tranceopticalinclined]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join