IamJoseph,
The sheer volume of your bullshit is staggering.
I will ignore your little journey into self pity that most of the first paragraph of your post is. I will just take the final bit -
I find the Hebrew writings the most credible and honest among the three religions - by a margin which is varied in kind and degree.
it is no wonder that you are having trouble with reality. If the only choiced you think you have are the 3 big monotheistic faiths, then of course you are going to be terribly misguided. If you are going to limit your search down to three similar falsehoods, it is not surpsising that you have difficulty finding facts.
Each of the three faiths have attacked each other for various reasons at various times. They are all bad. Each one believes that their version of God gives them particular rights. Each one of them reject the others opinions on those rights.
we need two credible witnesses else the charge gets reversed - that's Hebrew and International law?
You put a question mark on this. I have already answered it several times but i will do so again. It is Hebrew law that you need more than one witness. There are no international laws that goven citizens. There are international laws that goven nations. There are treaties that many nations sign but there is no body of law that covers law in every nation on Earth. There are things like the Geneva convention that have rules of engagement in times of war. These are very specific cases though. There is no international law regarding the amount of witnesses that can give evidence in court. It is entirely legal to have a case tried with 1 witness or even no witnesses.
Your not an honest atheist.
how am I not an honest athiest?
my comment - They all have similarities and differences. None is more the odd one out than the other two. Are you suggesting that out of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Judaism is the odd one out because it is older?
your reply - You will fail this test.
I cannot work out how your reply in any way relates to the question I asked. Try again, and try to make sense this time.
I will ignore the nest paragraph, I asked you to explain yourself but you refused to.
If you thought that God promised you a large section of California, how do you think you would go. Is it not convenient that God promised some people a land close by.
Whoah there! The difference in Europeans invading California and the Jews in Israel is this: "RETURN". Europeans did not "RETURN" to California. My history lessons say the Jews have never occupied/stolen another peoples' land in all their 4000 year history - despite being exiled throughout the nations. In fact occupying even a cubit of another peoples' land is firbidden in the Hebrew bible - you could not beg of Jews to occupy Califoria! I know there are many honest Christians around who know I am giving you a truthful account. Your 'God gave you this land' is used with wrong pespectives, it appears intentionally: who asked Muslims to dump a Mosque in Jerusalem and in India - they at all times knew these were not their lands?.Christians remain silent of this most unGodly violation of another peoples rights because they erected a church here first [FK the Jews!] - and Islam destroyed the church and dumped a huge mosque there. I don't hear you fussed by it - even that they did this claiming their lord and allah said so? So you point to some things which are clearly false, while omitting all truthful and impacting factors. Why is that - as an atheist you have to at least be honest about your views? Most atheists I found are even more honest than religionists.
Again, your comprehension is terrible. Your first sentence says invade. I never said anything about invasion. My statement was regarding God promising a patch of land. Nothing about invading. I will ask the question again. What if you thought through your interpretation of Bronze age texts that God had promised the Jews a section of California. How would you react? Would you expect the current citizens to leave so that your people could move in?
I am of English and Polish heritage. If I write up a holy book atht says that God promised that i could RETURN (i put this in capitals because for some reason this you think this makes it more significant) to lands my family previously occupied. My family line is pretty well known and we have located areas that still bear my family name. So not only would I have a holy book that says god promised it to me, but I could also say that it has my name on it.
Your history books say that the Jews never occupied or stole anyones land. Well, your history books are wrong. The Jews currently occupy Israel. The only basis for this is that yoru bronze age books says your god bagsied it for you. And the fact that it cannot be verified if any indigenous people survived the conflicts there. They also occupy lands not inside the state of Israel as set out in the 1949 Armistice agreement. The territories include the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Palestine and the Golan Highlands. I wonder if the Canaanites thought that the land they lived on was theres? I bet they did. Were there any left alive to ask? The lands now called Israel were occupied by people before the Jews. There were cities and small empires. I reckon they probably thought it was theres. Unless you are suggesting that for all of history, in one of the areas with the highest population, the area now called Israel was totally empty and noone was living there.
You say my quotes are from the wrong perspective. How is that possible? They are direct quotes from the bible.
You say you dont hear me fussed about the Muslims putting a mosque in India. Of course I am not. Why the fuck would I talk about that? We are not discussing Islam or India. I have also not mentioned the Christians violating Indian burial grounds in the USA either. Know why, because it is totally irrelevant to the conversation. this appears to be your best tactic. Slowly broaden the arguement by brining up more and more bullshit until there is so much bullshit noone knows what the fuck they are talking about anymore. Its called the Gish Gallop. You are a master (that is not a compliment).
Again you question my honesty, what am I being dishonest about? I dislike all religions more or less equally. From our conversations and the research I have done on your claim, you have damaged my opinion of Judaism pretty badly.
Jews must not have their homeland where they were created and incepted! FYI - Jews predate both Islam and Arabs in Arabia, as do the Copts and the Kurds. The Islamic regimes are new - most never existed 100 years ago, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, all the Gulf states, Jordan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc, etc - these states have fictional borders based on oil deposits. Jews have documented proof of their land backed by scientficaly verifiable relics and ancient writings from a host of nations. The Middle-east is not Islamic!
Why should the Jews get their homeland back? Have you any idea of the displacement of people on this Earth if everybody went back to their ancestral homeland? Half the bloody population of the world would have to move house. A vast amount of people alive today are not living in the nation of their ancestors. The populations of the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, a fair chunk of South America, a fair chunk of Africa, large parts of Asia would all have to move to other countries if they had the chance to move back to their homeland. Few people have this opportunity. It is not a right. If I had this right, I could return to England or Poland and dispalce the people who currently live on my ancestral family lands. Both of my family lines were displaced by war. Start championing my rights IamJoseph.
You are trying to be provocative to cause a redicule of manifest truths and facts of history. Better you admit whether Jews have historical, legal and factually rights - you don't believe in God, remember?
I was not trying to be provocative. I was quoting the bible. If the bible is provocative, that is Gods fault. You are right. I dont believe in God. That is part of the reason that I do not believe that the Jews have any more rights to a bit of land than any other displaced people. Your bronze age books claims mean nothing to me.
Is Hebron the birthplace of Judaism?
Who gives a fuck if a bronze age faith started there. Does Salt Lake City belong to the Mormons because they started their faith there? No.
Who established and built Jerusalem?
There is evidence of perminent human settlement on the current site of Jeruselum as far back as 3500BCE. But again, who gives a fuck?
Why did the UN recognise the 'HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS OF THE JEWS WITH PALESTINE'?
There are lots of reasons. So truman could get votes, so the Western Powers had a friendly nation in a volitile region, because the Jews had lived there for a long time, because the Jews had a book that said God gave it to them, because all of the Jews holy sites are there, because the Jews were often rejected from their homelends after WW2. There are lots of reasons. My Jewish ancestry went to England because they could not return to Poland. Tell you what, I am fucking glad they didnt go to Israel.
Was there a sovereign country called Israel 3000 years ago? Was Israel legally established via the UN and all nations voting in the Motion?
3000 yeras ago? yes. The earliest archaeological artifact to mention the word "Israel" is the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt (dated to the late 13th century BCE). Israel was legally created by a very narrow margin. From your sentence you make it sound like every nation supported the proposal. 33 nations or 59% supported it. 23% were against the idea. You also said that all nations voted. This is also not true. 11 nations or 18% did not vote at all. 41% of the UN or 23 nations including China, the United Kingdom, Egypt and India did not vote in favour of the creation of Israel. Also, a large amount of nations, mosty in Africa and central Europe did not have a UN presence at the time, so their opinions went unheard. All of the Axis powers had no vote. If they had voted, and they would have voted against the USA, Israel would most likely not exist. So you cant make out like it was a universally approved of application.
But I dont really give a fuck about the debate as to the validity of Israels claims. We were talking bout your claims regarding laws. Get back to the topic.
my comment - If someone came up to me and said they spoke in the name of Jesus or God, I would tell them I am an athiest and they can go peddle their bronze age bullshit elsewhere. This is what I do anytime a religious person comes to my door with a religious message. I would not ask for proof of their words because I am already aware they dont have any.
your reply - I doubt it. You would be burnt at the stake. Europeans never had any choice about becoming Christians. Read up on the church rule the first 1000 years of Christianity. Read up what was done to the natives of invaded lands who refused to become Christian or Muslim? You wouldn't stand a chance as an athiest with Islam either.
We are talking about the present day. Notice that my comment is in present tense. I regularly tell people what I think of their bronze age myths. I have at no stage been in any danger of being burnt at the stake. I am aware of the history of these religions. I am also aware that the Jews did not have clean hands either. Canaanites?
my comment - Laws, history and truth are different things. There are no laws that govern the entire planet either.
your reply - Laws do govern thisnplanet, and not all laws are globally accepted. But the Hebrew laws are so; those who do not accept it are outside the law. I won't play with words.
Again with the same bullshit. You have said again that hebrew Laws are globally accepted. I have refuted this claim with many, many examples now. I would call continually repeating something that has been so thoroughly refuted as playing with words.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
