Sharon : The Temple Mount

FredC said:

What page is it on, does he do nice writing? Still believe in father Christmas I suppose. Is that the best you can contribute to the thread?

The Bible is what it purports to be or it is not. If it's not then ignore it. If it is then you must examine what it says and the promises that it gives. Abraham, Moses, Joshua all receive territorial imperitives and specific instructions on the ethnic cleansing of that territory which the Hebrews did not follow and hence their troubles today. If you want to understand what's happening today, then I suggest you study the Book of Revelations. Or not, one of the promises of the Bible was free choice.

mtbjr said:

god wants all to be trated = and if the good lord treats one better then the outher then that would not be fufilling his word and his word will always be forfilld god loves evey one = and the land should not be "just" givin to high speritual leaders let the lord have a say in it . 🙂

Look everybody just leave this mythical God thing out of all attempted resolutions, and get down to human beings and common sense. I did notice that Bush and other US politicians kept banging on about God this and God that. That doesn't happen here in the UK.

FredC said:

What page is it on, does he do nice writing? Still believe in father Christmas I suppose. Is that the best you can contribute to the thread?

PS: Christmas was a pagan ceremony that the Catholics added to their calander and should not be celebrated.

Trekker2017 said:

PS: Christmas was a pagan ceremony that the Catholics added to their calander and should not be celebrated.

That's very true killjoy. You must be a miserable [censored] if you want to ban Christmas, whether it's the christian one or the pagan one. The Jewish midwinter is celebrated by Chanukah. Pretty much all the same in principle. Were not doing Xmas here.

FredC said:

That's very true killjoy. You must be a miserable [censored] if you want to ban Christmas, whether it's the christian one or the pagan one. The Jewish midwinter is celebrated by Chanukah. Pretty much all the same in principle. Were not doing Xmas here.

Christmas, Easter, St. Valentine's Day, Halloween... just to name the big ones. Jesus said, "God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth." (John 4:24) Now unlike Chanukah which celebrates a specific Temple event/miracle. There is nothing spiritually or factually true about Christmas, Easter or those other holidays. There is even a prohibition in the Bible against cutting down evergreen trees a decorating them. These are pagan or man-made "holidays" that the money changers of the world have turned into profitable traditions. And Jesus also said you make void the word of god by your traditions.

Now, you can either take what the man said or not. To me, there is no difference between christmas and some voodoo ceremony where someone dances naked around a fire biting the heads off of chickens. If any one wants to celebrate christmas or bite the head off a chicken, they have the free choice to do so.

Stiff Upper Lip said:

Well, Saudi Arabia does have a sizeable investment in the US, but at this point is about as popular here as any other place whose citizens would board commercial airliners and murder innocent people as they worked their day jobs in NYC.

America is home to many more Jews than Israel. It is this fact coupled with the financial support that they provide to the homeland and the power of the Israeli lobby that keeps Israel alive.

I do not know how many Christians died in the holocaust, but until you have family members that perished under [censored]--your arguments are nothing more than book-read notions or abstract ideas.

More Christians perished under [censored], than Jews.

However, this not the point of my argument.
The point of my argument is that there has been so much revisionism concerning alleged Jewish persecution during WW2, that the perception has been created in the USA, in particular, that it was only Jews who perished
under [censored].
The revisionism and the cult of victimhood on behalf of those perished Jews,
is always invoked by the Jewish apologists to vindicate Israeli/Jewish persecution of the Palestinian people.

This false perception - for that is what it is - is constantly referred to.
What happened in WW2, happened.
The Jew/Israeli lobby constantly invoke WW2 to try to justify their persecution of the Palestinians under the lie of "security" or some such waffle.

Trekker2017 said:

It's called the Bible.

The Bible contains many book written by different (and in some cases) unknown
writers.

I think that the legal deeds in the possession of a Palestinian as he/she is being terrorised from his house in 1948, hold more sway than a note in a book, by an unknown writer, that forms part of the Bible.

FredC said:

It's English. Do you have difficulty with it. Only joking. Are you referring to 'a kick off the side' ? Right, imagine you are on the quayside, you undo the mooring rope, then you help the boat off the quayside by giving it a kick off the side. Got it now?

Um, no. Is this an Irish thing? Can someone translate? I am not good with nautical references.

So when Arafat dies, who will be the next scapegoat?

The US and Israel have continually portrayed Arafat (who was democratically elected by the Palestinians) as being the main obstacle to peace.

So who will they blame now? The terrorists? Bin Laden? Liberals?

Trekker2017 said:

The Bible is what it purports to be or it is not. If it's not then ignore it. If it is then you must examine what it says and the promises that it gives. Abraham, Moses, Joshua all receive territorial imperitives and specific instructions on the ethnic cleansing of that territory which the Hebrews did not follow and hence their troubles today. If you want to understand what's happening today, then I suggest you study the Book of Revelations. Or not, one of the promises of the Bible was free choice.

None of which would be recognised in an impartial court of law (except in parts of the USA and Israel, exempted).
No court would/could uphold a claim of possession of land/property based on the writings in the Bible.
In short, it's waffle and it's a flag of convenience.

Saucy said:

Um, no. Is this an Irish thing? Can someone translate? I am not good with nautical references.

So when Arafat dies, who will be the next scapegoat?

The US and Israel have continually portrayed Arafat (who was democratically elected by the Palestinians) as being the main obstacle to peace.

So who will they blame now? The terrorists? Bin Laden? Liberals?

It's not Irish. Just think of it for what it implies. 'A bit of help' OK Saucy Sailor.
They'll be working on the next scapegoat right now. It's a must have accessory.
Has Yasser indicated tha he would like to be buried in the Temple Mount bone orchard. I would have thought that Ramallah would be much nicer.

FredC said:

They'll be working on the next scapegoat right now. It's a must have accessory.

Yes, a scapegoat is de rigeur for the Bush administration. Always in vogue. Early in the administration, they tried to blame Clinton. When that didn't stick, they began their campaign against Arafat.

I predict that they will try to scapegoat John Kerry or the gays. 🙄

limerickman said:

The Bible contains many book written by different (and in some cases) unknown
writers.

I think that the legal deeds in the possession of a Palestinian as he/she is being terrorised from his house in 1948, hold more sway than a note in a book, by an unknown writer, that forms part of the Bible.

It all depends on your point of view. If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God then "legal" deeds are superfluous. You might call it a case of Eminent Domain. In California, say, you might own the deed to a house; however, if the Power Company suddenly shows up with a right of way dating back to a Spanish Land Grant that was several hundred years old, guess who's moving with little or no compensation. Such a case happened when I lived out there many years ago. Many would look upon the Bible as that "Land Grant".

The displacement of peoples is hardly new. The modern Israel is formed and a Palestinian loses his home. The Puritans land at Plymoth Rock and the American Native population eventually ends up on Reservations. The Normans invade England. The Romans absorb the Etruscians. Do you turn the clock back? Can you turn the clock back? Ought you turn the clock back. Do I move back to England forcing someone to move back to Normandy or Saxony? If you start it, where do you stop it?

The displacement of peoples is hardly new. The modern Israel is formed and a Palestinian loses his home. The Puritans land at Plymoth Rock and the American Native population eventually ends up on Reservations. The Normans invade England. The Romans absorb the Etruscians. Do you turn the clock back? Can you turn the clock back? Ought you turn the clock back. Do I move back to England forcing someone to move back to Normandy or Saxony? If you start it, where do you stop it?[/QUOTE]

Excellent point. why people are still asking whether or not Israel should exist or where is should be located is worthless. it does not help the current situation. and that happens to be one of the main problems with the situation- Palestinians don't think that Israel should even exist, and they want to push the Jews into the sea. they have said this over and over again. it's very difficult to reason/negotiate with people that don't think that you should even exist (or even recognize that you currently exist, for that matter). did u know that Palestinian textbooks do not show Israel on their maps?

limerickman said:

None of which would be recognised in an impartial court of law (except in parts of the USA and Israel, exempted).
No court would/could uphold a claim of possession of land/property based on the writings in the Bible.
In short, it's waffle and it's a flag of convenience.

An impartial court of law is a contradiction in terms. No law court is impartial. It is prejudiced in favor of the society it purports to represent. Whether you are a terrorist or just some poor slob pulled in for driving under the influence, you are going to lose your case not because what you did was wrong, but because what you did was perceived by those who hold the power as wrong. And that changes with whichever way the wind is blowing. Once upon a time cocaine, heroin, and a bevy of other drugs were legal. It's really hysterical to look at some of the magazines from the early 1900s and read the ads for Bayer Heroin and Bayer Cocaine which were over the counter drugs. Then in 1919, they were made illegal and Bayer company had to fall back on its worst seller, Bayer Aspirin to keep afloat.

So, it's not a waffle at all. Since the Israelies are in charge, it's how they intrepret the "land grant" thats valid whether anyone likes it or not.

Trekker2017 said:

It all depends on your point of view. If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God then "legal" deeds are superfluous. You might call it a case of Eminent Domain. In California, say, you might own the deed to a house; however, if the Power Company suddenly shows up with a right of way dating back to a Spanish Land Grant that was several hundred years old, guess who's moving with little or no compensation. Such a case happened when I lived out there many years ago. Many would look upon the Bible as that "Land Grant".

The displacement of peoples is hardly new. The modern Israel is formed and a Palestinian loses his home. The Puritans land at Plymoth Rock and the American Native population eventually ends up on Reservations. The Normans invade England. The Romans absorb the Etruscians. Do you turn the clock back? Can you turn the clock back? Ought you turn the clock back. Do I move back to England forcing someone to move back to Normandy or Saxony? If you start it, where do you stop it?

Those that invoke the ownership of Jerusalem - God-given land designated for the Jews as one poster suggested - on the pretext of what is in the Bible, will have a very difficult time getting their main witness to appear for them in court !

This exercise is exploring ownership is a smokescreen.
The fact of the matter is that people living in Palestine were forcibly removed from their property to make way for the creation of the statelet called Israel.
This is the fact of the matter.
And for those who retrospectively try to contenance that action by quoting
sentances from the Bible, are waffling.

The displacement of the Palestinians took place in 1948.
People can invole Saxons and Viking and whatever else : this discussion pertains to very recent history.

[e]QUOTE=LeesiThe displacement of peoples is hardly new. The modern Israel is formed and a Palestinian loses his home. The Puritans land at Plymoth Rock and the American Native population eventually ends up on Reservations. The Normans invade England. The Romans absorb the Etruscians. Do you turn the clock back? Can you turn the clock back? Ought you turn the clock back. Do I move back to England forcing someone to move back to Normandy or Saxony? If you start it, where do you stop it?[/QUOTE]

Excellent point. why people are still asking whether or not Israel should exist or where is should be located is worthless. it does not help the current situation. and that happens to be one of the main problems with the situation- Palestinians don't think that Israel should even exist, and they want to push the Jews into the sea. they have said this over and over again. it's very difficult to reason/negotiate with people that don't think that you should even exist (or even recognize that you currently exist, for that matter). did u know that Palestinian textbooks do not show Israel on their maps?[/QUOTE]

Are you Jewish, by the way ?

You are aware that Yasser Arafat agreed to recohnise the Israeli statelet ?
Do you recall the meeting at the White House with Rabin and Arafat and Clinton ?
Remember they shook hands on the White House lawn ?
Arafat agreed to recognise Israel.
So why do you say [/QUOTE] Lessie "Palestinians don't think that Israel should even exist" [/QUOTE].

I do not think that Israel should exists - in it's present location.
And it's not pointless to raise this issue because it is evident that the vast majority of posters, either through a lack of knowledge of history or willfull intent to distort history, are not aware of the Balfour Declaration, 1948 Jewish/Israeli atrocities and ongoing atrocities against the Palestinian people.

FredC said:

Look everybody just leave this mythical God thing out of all attempted resolutions, and get down to human beings and common sense. I did notice that Bush and other US politicians kept banging on about God this and God that. That doesn't happen here in the UK.

I agree wholeheartedly. With all of "dubya's" bandying about of god this..., god that..., he might as well convene the congress in a church & finish bulldozing down the separation of church & state. The republican majority wouldn't mind 😉 .That's what they want isn't it ? Close down the capitol rotunda & be done w/ it. Then they will realize their dream of making this country (the U.S.) a capitalist/theocracy. Just one step behind Iran & looking at the primary result's for Iraq, bush may have succeeded in creating a theocracy there too. What would we do w/o those geniuses

davidmc said:

I agree wholeheartedly. With all of "dubya's" bandying about of god this..., god that..., he might as well convene the congress in a church & finish bulldozing down the separation of church & state. The republican majority wouldn't mind 😉 .That's what they want isn't it ? Close down the capitol rotunda & be done w/ it. Then they will realize their dream of making this country (the U.S.) a capitalist/theocracy. Just one step behind Iran & looking at the primary result's for Iraq, bush may have succeeded in creating a theocracy there too. What would we do w/o those geniuses

Just reading the Sunday broadsheets here, and I see Gary Hart's analysis suggests that the democrats need to try to regain, what he now calls the middle ground ie the religious vote.

He suggests that the 2004 result is the death knell for Hilary Clinton to run in
'08 and he suggests that the Dems need to get a candidate who will make
a compelling case for the God, Gays, Gun crowd.
He suggests that Howard Dean's outright opposition to Iraq - in hindsight - might have won the day, given how Iraq dominated the debate and Kerry's
record of supporting and then not supporting the war in Iraq.
Although the more I read, the more it becomes apparent that Iraq, although a
factor, was not the decisive factor in getting Bush elected.

limerickman said:

Just reading the Sunday broadsheets here, and I see Gary Hart's analysis suggests that the democrats need to try to regain, what he now calls the middle ground ie the religious vote.

He suggests that the 2004 result is the death knell for Hilary Clinton to run in
'08 and he suggests that the Dems need to get a candidate who will make
a compelling case for the God, Gays, Gun crowd.
He suggests that Howard Dean's outright opposition to Iraq - in hindsight - might have won the day, given how Iraq dominated the debate and Kerry's
record of supporting and then not supporting the war in Iraq.
Although the more I read, the more it becomes apparent that Iraq, although a
factor, was not the decisive factor in getting Bush elected.

Something must be seriously wrong if the american public elect's the guy who lost all three debates. It baffles the mind. Especially after all of the scandals-Cheney war profiteering, abu-ghraib, 400 ton's of explosives turn up missing , Bremer's announcement that the US military was woefully inadequete in #'s, Gen. Clark's statement that bush had him looking for evidence on iraq that was'nt there in the 1st place, babylonian museum looted due to inadequete planning , bush's utter inability to speak the english language-by any standard, cozying up to the religious right w/ the marriage amendment; which was just a sacrificial lamb that they knew would'nt pass anyway, bush's gutting of the clean air act, cheney allowing energy buisiness leader's & lobbyist's to write energy legislation, cheney using scare tactic's to get people to vote for their party, the bush family's long history of dealing w/ the bin-laden's, ect...

I do not think that Israel should exists - in it's present location.
And it's not pointless to raise this issue because it is evident that the vast majority of posters, either through a lack of knowledge of history or willfull intent to distort history, are not aware of the Balfour Declaration, 1948 Jewish/Israeli atrocities and ongoing atrocities against the Palestinian people.[/QUOTE]

You don't think Israel should exist; I happen to feel that its existance is the fulfullment of Biblical prophecy. Just the way I happen to believe that the EU is the Ten-Toed kingdom from the Book of Daniel. Now, according to the Bible, the only way to prove that a prophet is a prophet is to see if his prophecies come true. According to my count, the fact that Israel does exist adds credence to Jeremiah and Daniel. And as far as the Balfour Declaration goes, it has as much relevancy as anything the US might have written and signed about Iraq. Whatever we set up, the Iraqis will redo when and if we leave no matter what kinds of documents or media gripping names we give them. So there is and was no reason to expect the "native" population to hold to an agreement named for an Englishman. Who would expect the Iraqis to hold to an agreement called "The Bush Declaration"?

There is a reason for everything that is happening now. Where you see a world of random acts, I see a world spinning on a collision course with an ending that was written for it when time began.