[Ghost of V]

I am glad you don't agree with killing the mentally handicapped. Many cultures have killed slow people at birth or during adolescence because they were viewed as evil or vile in some way. It is good to know that my man YHWH smiles upon them because I have several in my family.

One thing I don't understand though. You say that "everyone is favored by God until they start killing people and blowing things up", which you attribute to Muslim extremist ideology. However, you are on record all over this forum supporting the murder of these people and even innocents who are caught in the crossfire. From what you have said it seems like you, Yaakov, would not be favored by God.

Is God OK with killing people who kill people? OR is this just a huge double-standard?

If God is OK with killing people who kill people: Shouldn't these killers of killers be killing themselves?

[Lord Dave]

LORD DAVE, I would recommend growing up, and acting like an adult. So, one more enemy. Take a number, get in line, asshole.

Are you suggesting that Adults don't hate others based on the opinions expressed by someone claiming to represent the group in some fashion?  Because I got some horrible news for you if that's the case...

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

BLANKO, I am inclined to agree that it IS literal anti-Semitism. The only reason I choose not to report it to Moderators is that I don't want the moderators to know my e-mail address at present. I know the Administrators have it. But the Moderators only get it apparently when you submit a Moderation Report request. Because I like to tread rather lightly on the "Net" I'll avoid sending him to Mods.

Besides, I've had far more important people hate me in the world either because I'm a Jew OR for personal reasons. So, LORD DAVE,  I tell you what. Why don't you bend over and crack a smile for us, asswipe. Just because you've got shit for brains doesn't mean the rest of us are in that boat.

Actually, as pointed out, VAUXHALL, in one other thread, I tend to keep myself limited to one or two threads, since I know my views are pretty hard-core.

I think the Bible (as in the Jewish Bible) is pretty clear that it permits execution for murder. If someone murders another person without cause, the community of Israel was duty bound to take that person's life.

Remember, VAUXHALL. whether you care to admit it or not, ISIS, Al Quaeda, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, have told us that they are at war with us. They deserve credit for one thing. The bastards are honest. They've never lied to us or anyone else about how they feel. They WANT to destroy Western Civilisation. In the words of a recent ISIS defector. "First they will make a Caliphate of the Arab World. Then they will go after other countries."

When someone does you the favour of TELLING you that he doesn't fucking like you, that he intends to convert you, force you to live as a second-class citizen and pay a tax, or kill you, and when he informs you that he is GOING to take over your shit no matter what he has to do to achieve that, it is best that you take him seriously. And I mean, VERY seriously.

Under those circumstances, the enemy is being bluntly straightforward and honest. It is best we do so as well. The ONLY way to deal with that kind of honesty is honesty of our own. Namely, the kind that says, "Ah, no. You are not taking over my shit, I am not converting, paying a Jizya tax, or being killed. And I will kill you to prevent those things from happening." They want to be Shahids (Martyrs)? Good. Then lets make them such.

I choose to live by the principle that says the following: rather than dying for my country or ideals or whatever, I should prefer to make the other poor bastard die for his.

The Torah, and the entire Jewish Bible, takes account for punishing murder, and also for defending the House of Israel in war. And yes, Jews everywhere are, or should be, at war with ISIS and EVERYTHING they represent. And guess what: Picking up a fucking weapon, and being prepared to use it, may become necessary to defend yourself and all you hold dear whether you are a Jew, a Christian, an Israeli, or an American. These ISIS bastards want all of us paying Jizya, converted, or dead. I choose none of the three.

Actually, no, DAVE. I'm merely suggesting that your a pompous, blowhard, asshole. Get over yourself.

[beardo]

I don't hate you Yaakov. I was just messing around. Calm down.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

BEARDO, relax. I overreacted. You're cool.

[Blanko]

BLANKO, I am inclined to agree that it IS literal anti-Semitism. The only reason I choose not to report it to Moderators is that I don't want the moderators to know my e-mail address at present. I know the Administrators have it. But the Moderators only get it apparently when you submit a Moderation Report request. Because I like to tread rather lightly on the "Net" I'll avoid sending him to Mods.

I don't know where you got that idea. Moderators do see your email.

Also, again, no action will be taken against anti-semitism unless it's a targeted insult or deliberately off-topic. If we had a policy of punishing people for disdain against specific ethnicities, then you would have been banned several times over, you can be sure of that.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

BLANKO, you might have a point on that last. I thought only admins had my e-mail. Oh, well. Doesn't matter. I still don't feel the need to report him. He's an ass. I deal with them regularly.

[fappenhosen]

I would suggest to you that the Arabs do not hate the Jews because the Arabs are Muslim and we are religiously otherwise. I would suggest that that hatred goes back to Abraham's two sons, Isaac (the Son of the Promise, and father of the Jewish People), and Ishmael (the father of the Arab People). THAT is how far back you need to look, NOT to Mohammed.

And this is why religion poisons everyithing.

Someone wrote a storybook once, in which they simplistically claimed one group of people are decended from one person and another group of people are descended from another. The odds alone for this to be true are staggeringly improbable.

There is no evidential basis for your story book. You'll get along with people a lot more, and your life will be easier, if you don't cling to its idiotic, medieval and feudal notions of tribal hatred.

[Lord Dave]

Yaakov, you've insulted me, other members, arabs, muslims, and most of the people on the planet multiple times.  You have implied that most jews believe as you do: that the jewish people are superior.  You call anyone who challenges the cultural, intellectual, and moral superiority of the Jew, "children".   

You think anyone who dislikes jews is either anti-semite or barbarians.

If this kind of behavior is what it means to be an adult, then call me Huck Finn.

[beardo]

But Dave! The Jews are Gods chosen! Of course they are superior!

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

And I would suggest, FAPP, that you have a personal problem. The Bible (The Jewish Bible) has continued to be proven correct on everything it has talked about. Archaeology has indicated so far that as far back as we can go, the Bible has been accurate. I have no doubt that Abraham will be proven as well when archaeology has gone back far enough to do it.

Since Israelite Faith dates BACK to Abraham himself, it is rather difficult to argue that he never existed. If he never had existed, where would Hebrew Faith have come from? He WAS the first Hebrew! It should be noted that Judaism is not just a religion. It is a civilisation. Religion may be its most important element, but that is NOT all there is to it. And it never would have existed if it had not for Abraham following his God's command to leave his home in Ur and make for Canaan.

Judaism has been around for 4500 years. Abraham was around 4500 years ago. What else could it have been?

QUOTE: "Yaakov, you've insulted me, other members, arabs, muslims, and most of the people on the planet multiple times.  You have implied that most jews believe as you do: that the jewish people are superior.  You call anyone who challenges the cultural, intellectual, and moral superiority of the Jew, "children".   

You think anyone who dislikes jews is either anti-semite or barbarians."

Actually, I grant I've insulted Muslims and Arabs. I have NOT insulted others on the planet. I have NOT implied anything about what other Jews think or do not think. I have insulted you, because I do think you are an idiot, yes. Other members in some cases, yes, in other cases no. Yes, anybody who dislikes Jews is by definition an anti-Semite and yes, a barbarian. what else would you call them? If I hated Black people (I don't) I would be called racist. What other word would there be for it? And yes, I do perceive my own culture as somewhat superior to others, but that is natural. Any person who DOESN"T see their own culture as superior to others is going to commit cultural suicide. That is a case of Felony Stupid.

So, for the record. I don't like Arabs, or Muslims generally. I do think Lord Dave is a fucktard. Anyone who dislikes Jews IS an anti-Semite, just as anyone who disliked Blacks would be a racist. And any rational human should prefer his own culture to that of another. To further clarify, I am an English Jew. I prefer the English and Jewish civilisations as the most civilised as of the world.

I know, I know, that is going to sound not Politically Correct. Well, tough shit. Wake up, my friends. Political Correctness is NOT one of my strong points.

[Rama Set]

Why would Abraham have to exist for Judaism to exist?  People make up fictions to suit their needs all the time.

How far back has archaeology in Israel gone?  I mean there is still no archaeological proof for the Temple of Solomon which was supposedly destroyed in 537BC.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Actually that would be 587-586 BCE. And the only reason that that subject hasn't been looked into more closely is because of the, yes, you guessed it, Muslims, whose Dome of the Rock currently defaces Temple Mount. It should be removed piece by piece so as not to damage the grounds beneath it and restored in Mecca or Medina. Refusal for this offer means it should be removed piece by piece and then blown up.

There is some evidence for the Exodus, albeit not in the numbers the Bible uses, which may be taken as symbolic. THAT is how far back it goes.

As far as the Temple goes, they were doing research recently, looking for the Ark of the Covenant, trying to find it, and were coming very close to finding it, when they had to stop because the so-called "Palestinians" began to riot. IF they were to find the Ark, that would prove that we had rights to the Temple Mount. Instead of simply shooting the rioters (the best option in my opinion), they found it PC to stop research. The reason I say "coming very close" is because they had reached a door beyond which the evidence in the Bible, if I am not mistaken (and I might be; I might be referring to some other source) indicated the Ark would be.

As for Abraham, you do make a good argument. However, Jews and Arabs are clearly related to each other. They are both Semitic, and share certain things in their common descent that neither of them shares with non-Jews/non-Arabs. I may not like the Arab, but he is unfortunately a half-brother. I'm guessing he got his savagery from his Egyptian slave side.

[Tau]

Actually that would be 587-586 BCE. And the only reason that that subject hasn't been looked into more closely is because of the, yes, you guessed it, Muslims, whose Dome of the Rock currently defaces Temple Mount. It should be removed piece by piece so as not to damage the grounds beneath it and restored in Mecca or Medina. Refusal for this offer means it should be removed piece by piece and then blown up.

There is some evidence for the Exodus, albeit not in the numbers the Bible uses, which may be taken as symbolic. THAT is how far back it goes.

As far as the Temple goes, they were doing research recently, looking for the Ark of the Covenant, trying to find it, and were coming very close to finding it, when they had to stop because the so-called "Palestinians" began to riot. IF they were to find the Ark, that would prove that we had rights to the Temple Mount. Instead of simply shooting the rioters (the best option in my opinion), they found it PC to stop research. The reason I say "coming very close" is because they had reached a door beyond which the evidence in the Bible, if I am not mistaken (and I might be; I might be referring to some other source) indicated the Ark would be.

As for Abraham, you do make a good argument. However, Jews and Arabs are clearly related to each other. They are both Semitic, and share certain things in their common descent that neither of them shares with non-Jews/non-Arabs. I may not like the Arab, but he is unfortunately a half-brother. I'm guessing he got his savagery from his Egyptian slave side.

If they found the Ark, wouldn't they have to demonstrate its supernatural powers before you could make any claims about it proving the Bible? Otherwise it would just be an old fancy chest that legends were written about.

[canofpepsi]

If they found the Ark, wouldn't they have to demonstrate its supernatural powers before you could make any claims about it proving the Bible? Otherwise it would just be an old fancy chest that legends were written about.

the bible proves the bible, we need nothing more

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Actually, I agree with Tausami. And I think that's what A LOT of people are VERY afraid of. And I don't know that I can accept the idea that the Bible proves the Bible. That sounds like awfully circular logic to me. I mean, I agree, often-times there are things in the text historically that do verify things that were reported earlier. But you HAVE to have external witnesses also. You can't just have a closed circuit there. That's like North Korea only allowing its people to use in-country intranet, rather than internet. They end up not knowing anything about what's going on in the world, or even in their own country.

If the Bible cannot stand up to external view, what is its value? Any decent Bible timeline will show both Biblical events and secular events drawn from history. Archaeology will prove the Bible right, eventually, though it may take a long time to get there. CANOFPEPSI, faith is a good thing, and I admire it, but blind, dumb faith is a bad idea for anybody, Jewish or otherwise. We have to let secular wisdom inform our faith, or we are fools.

So, there you are. I'm not advocating a complete secularisation of holy things. That would be absurd. As an example, I do not agree with 95% of the so-called 'modern biblical scholarship" of the last 120 years or so. But some limited application of both Literary and Historical Criticism to the Bible is NOT a bad thing! Granted, that can be overdone.

Liberation theology and the Fundamental Option for the Poor is relevant, although it too, can be turned into something a bit to radical. But fundamentally, religion of any sort has to open itself to criticism of its own behaviour, and criticism of its own holy texts. To do otherwise is to negate its own purpose in the world of ideas.

A lot of people in this thread have taken a dislike to me. That's fine. I can live with that. I have very strong views, and I believe they are correct ones. But not everyone in Judaism agrees with me. In fact, the majority probably do not, at least not with the stridency that I hold them. And many would adamantly disagree.

But, the purpose of this thread is NOT so you like me. The purpose of the thread is to debate and come away more knowledgeable. I have given you my own personal opinions on all kinds of shite. If anyone has questions generally for Judaism as a whole, I shall try to answer them, irrespective of my personal beliefs. But note that my beliefs are PART of what make up Judaism. I am on the right wing, granted. And there are some on the radical left wing of Judaism. That's ok. I don't judge them for how they choose to be Jewish, as long as they afford me the same courtesy. Most people fall into the vast middle.

And you will find that, aside from the conflicts in the Middle East, I am generally a fairly rational human being. I have ALWAYS admitted here and elsewhere that this IS NOT a subject  that I can discuss rationally, just because I get so infuriated by it. Pick any other topic, and we can have a constructive conversation. But this one... well, that's harder.

[Rama Set]

Actually that would be 587-586 BCE. And the only reason that that subject hasn't been looked into more closely is because of the, yes, you guessed it, Muslims, whose Dome of the Rock currently defaces Temple Mount. It should be removed piece by piece so as not to damage the grounds beneath it and restored in Mecca or Medina. Refusal for this offer means it should be removed piece by piece and then blown up.

There is some evidence for the Exodus, albeit not in the numbers the Bible uses, which may be taken as symbolic. THAT is how far back it goes.

As far as the Temple goes, they were doing research recently, looking for the Ark of the Covenant, trying to find it, and were coming very close to finding it, when they had to stop because the so-called "Palestinians" began to riot. IF they were to find the Ark, that would prove that we had rights to the Temple Mount. Instead of simply shooting the rioters (the best option in my opinion), they found it PC to stop research. The reason I say "coming very close" is because they had reached a door beyond which the evidence in the Bible, if I am not mistaken (and I might be; I might be referring to some other source) indicated the Ark would be.

As for Abraham, you do make a good argument. However, Jews and Arabs are clearly related to each other. They are both Semitic, and share certain things in their common descent that neither of them shares with non-Jews/non-Arabs. I may not like the Arab, but he is unfortunately a half-brother. I'm guessing he got his savagery from his Egyptian slave side.

They are related to each other because they are from the same piece of land not necessarily because there were two brothers named in the bible. This is the problem with cherry-picking bible passages to be historical without outside support. You are assuming on no evidence that the life of Abraham is historical and not metaphorical. Why?  The only reason I can see is because you need it to support your supposedly privileged place in God's order. No covenant and the Jews are nothing more than a small tribe of particularly war-loving people who worshipped an obscure thunder god which the Roman's brought to prominence.

If you were rational, this would be your default position until there is evidence to show Abraham actually existed. 

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Again, your argument is well turned. But there IS a Covenant, and has been one for 4500 years. As long as there have been Jews, there has been a Covenant. Go back to any point in the entire history of the Jewish People. You will find a Covenant People. Until such time in the historical timeline as we don't exist (ie, before our existence), there was a People, the Jews, who embodied the Covenantal ideal. I am not going to convince you. And that is fine. I don't have to. This is what I believe. You can choose to disagree with it. But it is rational based on my understanding of history. As long as Jews have been Jews (and before that Israelites, and before that Hebrews), there has been a Covenant. That Covenant had to start somewhere. And Hebrews began to exist with Abraham. Archaeology will one day prove me right. Until then, I am not going to lose any beauty sleep about it.

[fappenhosen]

And I would suggest, FAPP, that you have a personal problem. The Bible (The Jewish Bible) has continued to be proven correct on everything it has talked about.

You have got to be shitting me. This is the moment when we all realise we're not engaged in conversation with a rational person.

Anyway...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_Bible (cool segway back to this site btw)
http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/errors.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

The Bible was written by people that pretty much shat themselves every night in fear that the sun might never come back. You need to understand and accept this fact.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I NEVER suggested that the Bible was a science book! I don't know WHERE you got that idea. Using the Bible to explain Creation, or anything like that, is absurd. The first 11 chapters of Genesis are legendary material. Anyone knows that. Nor do I think God was being a biology teacher when he told us what to eat! Again, telling us the Earth is flat is nothing beyond explaining what we are looking at. God is not trying to prove any lesson there. A bat is not a bird. So what? It looked like a bird to the Hebrews when it was in the air. Why tell them it was a rodent and confuse them as to what they should be eating or not?

I was referring to historical events, you idiot, not science. The fact that Jews were enslaved in Egypt, and left. The fact that they entered Canaan by means both military and peaceful. The whole timeline on that sort of thing. If God had wanted to teach us science he'd have dropped my Seventh Grade Science Teacher Mr. Dart down there, not the Bible! God, you really are a dumbshit!

And no, the people that did write the Bible were not so stupid as to believe that the sun wouldn't come back. How stupid can you be, you dipshit? They already knew it would. They, and their ancestors had lived on the planet long enough to invent the written word, which takes awhile. Just because you aren't that bright doesn't give you the right to insult the rest of us with your idiocy.