Evidence for God from Science

Rakovsky wrote:Dear Gman,

I sympathize with your words "There should be no two state solution...", but don't completely agree.
My model would be countries with more than one ethnicity, like America, Canada, Switzerland, or Russia which are dedicated to all the ethnicities and religions whose homes they are.
So I believe the ideal situation would be if both the Israelis and Palestinians lived in one state, since they share the same homeland. It should be for all the native ethnicities and religions in it, with equal rights for everyone.

That is exactly what Israel wants... For Arabs and Jews to live together. But many of the extremist Arabs don't want that. This is not rocket science to understand.. Much of this belief comes from the Koran and the hadiths.. Please read it sometime.. On top of that we watch all the violence the Israelis have to go through.. Everyday.

Rakovsky wrote:However, it is hard to make this into an absolute. Since there has been so much fighting, perhaps it would be easier if they had two separate states for some time before they could reunite. Plus, the creation of two states was the original decision of the International Tribunal, the United Nations, so I think we should give a certain measure of acceptance to this concept, even if we would advocate for a better (one state) result.

It won't happen because one seeks to destroy the other.. It's very simple to understand. It doesn't matter what the UN says or doesn't. It's a spiritual problem.

Rakovsky wrote:I am confused by your words:

Gman wrote: Either you are with Israel or you are not. There are no negotiations...
Choose your side or be left out in the dark.

Naturally, as Christians, we must love everyone, including Israelis and Palestinians, and even our enemies. This love is not supposed to be negotiable. I wish the Israeli State and Palestinians well, and hope for their peace, safety, and well-being. My government has allied with them, but I am not an Israeli citizen.

We are to love our enemies.. However corporately a country has to function under corporate laws where rules and the protection of the innocent abound..

Rakovsky wrote:Your words remind me of Jesus' words that you must either be for Him or against Him, and he rued that some were "lukewarm". Here Jesus was talking in a spiritual sense about us as a religious community. And if we define Israel as a national community, I am not sure we can use this phrase ("with them or against them") in the same way, since a good portion of the nation isn't with Jesus.

Christians always stand by the side of the Jew. We are brothers... And God still honors them through the covenants which are still into play today.

Rakovsky wrote:For St Paul, this was a cause of sorrow, as he said "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh". (Romans 9:3).
St Paul believed that those separated from Jesus weren't together, like branches separated from a common tree. However, at the same time he warned us against looking down on them, since we ourselves could lose faith and be cut off. Plus, Paul gave his hope that all of them would come to the true faith.
So we can't talk about the dilemma of being "with" the State of Israel or "against" it in the same way the phrase is used in the New Testament.

Again.. God has not rejected the Jews.. Romans 11:1-2. All the land covenants are still in play..

Rakovsky wrote:That is why I cannot agree with your statement "We Christians must submit to Jewish Zionism."
If Zionism is simply the return of the people to their homeland, there is nothing really to "submit" to. It is just a pleasant migration of people, a "coming-home."

It's their homeland... Not the Arabs, not the gentiles.. We are to protect and love our brothers as commanded.

Rakovsky wrote:If Zionism is defined as a national political movement, then Christianity isn't subordinate to it. For example, I have some sympathy for the Zealots' nationalist movement for independence from the Romans. If separated from the issue of the Palestinians, the Zealots were in many ways the predecessors of the modern Zionist movement. Yet Jesus' followers did not submit themselves to the Zealots or the military revolts. Instead, their way was to seek peace with the Romans. And while the Romans expected him to be a Messianic rebel leader, Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world.

Now you could point out that Christians "submitted" to the Roman Empire in the sense of accepting it as their political authority. But that does not mean they supported or favored the Roman political or religious system. Likewise, we may "submit" to the US government in the sense of accepting its authority, but I don't think we should submit our faith to our own secular government.

So just as Christianity did not submit itself to the nationalist movement of the Zealots, I don't think Christians should subordinate their religious or poltiical beliefs to the earthly Israeli political system.

Christians should be willing to submit themselves to Jewish Zionism for many reasons.. On top of that, it's the first front battle to the evils of Sharia law. It protects democracy, it protects the rights of women, it protects voting rights for both the Arab and Jew. It breaks up dictatorships... I don't see any reason why anyone, especially a Christan, would be against Israel. Unless of course one has an alternative motive such as a promoter of Sharia law..

Rakovsky wrote:Your words here are basically in agreement with St Paul:

Ok... In a nutshell, the Jews are not saved.. They have been blinded. However, God is in the process of setting them up for conversion..

Except that I don't want to be judgmental and say for sure Christian Jews are "not saved" and going to hell. I don't want to imagine that I know for sure how God will judge each person, especially because He is all forgiving.
Christ has died to save the whole world, so it seems perhaps everyone has been saved, but not everyone has taken this gift.

Of course we can't go by labels.. Who God judges is up to him... However, doctrine is a different matter.. In fact I would say there will be people of all nations in heaven.

Rakovsky wrote:Similarly, I am not sure that "God is gathering them specifically to Israel for this reason (ie. setting them up for conversion)"
First, the rule from the Torah seemed to be that if the people rejected God, He would gove them a hard time until they accepted Him, and then God would protect and bless them. Returning to the land would naturally be a blessing.
Second, the traditional concept in Rabbinical Judaism was that it would be the Messiah who would gather up the people. This is like a shepherd gathering sheep.
And this Rabbinical view at least sounds right to me, based on passages like Isaiah 11:12

• "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Not sure what you stating here. God HAS blessed Israel greatly... Have you ever been there? All the beautiful roads and forests.. And protection? In 60 years they are a world power? Also many of the Jews are living Godly lives...

Rakovsky wrote:You noted: "The Jews are God's first love under the patriarchs..."
But don't you think God's human creation, Adam, would be God's "first love"? Or what about Noah and Abraham? The Jewish people I don't think were separate until Judah was born. It just seems like there were persons or groups who God loved prior in time to their being a separate group.

God has a special love of the Jews based on the sacrifice Abraham gave to God... His only begotten son. God is going to honor that... So?

Rakovsky wrote:I find the following confusing:

The OT land covenants are all still in play today which is why we must honor that system... God has locked a covenant with them that he will NOT break and is still married to them. God cannot go back on His word... He never will.

If the land covenant between the people and the physical land is still in force, this must mean that the Old Testament is still in force.

Looks like you are catching on.. Correct.

Rakovsky wrote:If so, what about Jews who become Christian? Must they still follow the Old Testament commandments, like the strict things in Leviticus?
And what about St Paul's idea about the whole Church being Israel?

Torah is still in play.. Yes. Laws and such.. However, it is spirit of Torah that is in play..

Rakovsky wrote:If the whole Church, including uncircumcized persons, is Israel, wouldn't the promises to Israel about its land open up to all the Christians?
And as far as the covenant being locked, what about Zechariah 11, where it says the Shepherd broke the staff called Covenant? I am not saying you are wrong this though, because St Paul himself said that the promises remain despite the people's rejection.

Yes Jews are still under the honor system.. Romans 11:28-29.

Rakovsky wrote:Why would a promise about the people simply returning to their land require a partly-religious nonChristian government?

Non Christian? Funny.. Many many reasons.. Christ will be reigning from there eventually.. Christians are married to Israel too... This isn't just just a Jewish thing. We want it too... And we support Zionism because we believe it is best for all people, all Arabs, everyone..

Rakovsky wrote:And finally, would the promises be for everyone descended from the ancient Israelites, or only those who belong to the religious community?

The idea the Old Testament Land Covenants are still in force and concern limited physical land for a limited nationality seems to raise alot of issues from a Christian point of view.

Many of us through genetic studies are also finding a Jewish bloodline too... And ancestry searches help too.. More of us are coming. Get ready. We want our identities back..

Dear Murray,

Your words show sensitivity when you say:

Murray wrote:You must remember these people live their entire lives in refugee tent camps, i do not believe that accepting that is the christian thing to do.

Here, you see millions of people living in refugee camps, dispossessed of their homes, banned from returning, and your heart calls you to concern for them.
And you recognize that like the Good Samaritan taking care of the robbed person, and giving him shelter, Christianity also calls us to care for the refugees who, like the traveler, have been beaten or robbed. (Luke 10:25-37):

34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

And when I think of this story, I realize that I myself often act like the pharisee, that I might not go out of my way to help others. And when I do, I feel a good, almost magical feeling inside of me.

You added:

What should really happen is... start helping refugees migrate to other Muslim countries if they hate living in Israel so much.

Actually, the refugees generally don't hate the idea of living in Israel, as Gman pointed out- many of them even would prefer living there. The reason for this is that Israel is a prosperous country (and whether or not this is due to foreign investment is beyond the point) that generally allows basic political freedoms for citizens who live within its recognized 1967 borders. In fact, the main demand of the Palestinians is to exercize their "Right of Return" and return to their ancestral homes in what is now Israeli territory.

Fred Strickert, professor of religion at Wartburg College, writes:

The Right of Return: An Issue of Concern to Christians

With the road map accepted as a framework for further peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis, one of the more controversial issues remains the right of return for Palestinians who fled or were forced out of former British Mandate Palestine in 1948, at the creation of the state of Israel. The issue affects nearly 4 million people who are descendents of the 700,000 Palestinians denied a return to their homes after the 1948 war—despite U.N. Resolution 194, which called for a solution to the refugee problem. Among all the refugees in 1948, 50,000 were Christian families, many of whom lived in the towns of Jaffa, Lydda, Ramle, and throughout the Galilee. A significant portion also came from the western part of Jerusalem. Refugees made up 35 percent of the Christian population of the holy land.

Elias Chacour
Perhaps the best known refugee story from this period is that of Father Elias Chacour from the village of Kufor Biram in northern Galilee. Traveling throughout the Midwest he told audiences about his experience made famous in the book Blood Brothers. Father Chacour describes how his and other families in Kufor Biram showed hospitality to Jews coming to the area following the Holocaust. They were moved by their stories and could not believe how anyone would have treated them as the Nazis did. The villagers had no concern that their lives would change. The Israel partition plan of 1947 had designated northern Galilee, with its high Arab population, as part of the new Palestinian state.

Operation Hiram—a 60-hour campaign from Oct. 29-31, 1948 [was] designed, according to a New York Times article, "to eliminate the Arab-held bulge descending into Galilee from Lebanon." On the night of Oct. 30, area villages were bombed, including Jish, just two miles to the southwest, and a horrible massacre took place in Safsaf. Still, the villagers trusted the Israeli army when they were told to leave their homes "temporarily" for "security reasons." Some hid in caves, others went to the now-deserted village of Jish, others still went north into Lebanon. None were ever allowed to return to their home village. Families were split because those heading north were never allowed back into Israel. When the armistice lines were drawn, Biram and surrounding villages were part of Israel.

The residents of Biram chose the legal system in an attempt to retrieve their land and homes. The case went to the Israeli Supreme Court which ruled in their favor, stating that they be allowed to return to their homes in Biram by December, 1953.The villagers packed their bags and made the hike in order to be home by Christmas. However, the Israeli army had other plans. In spite of the court ruling, they bombed the village so that not a single home was left standing. When the villagers arrived, not only did they face this utter disappointment, but they were once again expelled from the land which was then allotted to a newly established Kibbutz Bara'am. As recently as 1997, former residents of Biram have presented formal appeals to the Israeli government.In October 2001 the Israeli Security Cabinet ruled once again against the return of the residents of Biram.

The fate of over 400 destroyed Palestinian villages have been documented in All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948, edited by Walid Khalidi and published in 1992 by the Institute for Palestinian Studies.
//wrmea.org/component/content/article/252/4665-the-right-of-return-an-issue-of-concern-to-christians.html

I basically agree with you that "in order to keep peace in the meantime, talks must continue."
But at the same time, the peace talks are a challenge, and by themselves might not solve things.

And we can see that peace agreements may not solve things by looking at our own experience. During the wars between the US army and the native Americans, over and over there were many treaties signed. The army, with vastly superior force that claimed the land, was negotiating with a vastly inferior one. The treaties with the tribe were considered broken, for example, when a few individual Indians attacked settlers. And at the end of the process, the pioneers founded modern cities on the best land, and the Indians were pushed onto smaller and worse land, called "reservations."

The Indian Chief Joseph said: "I am tired of talk that comes to nothing It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words and all the broken promises. There has been too much talking by men who had no right to talk."

Now in my view it was better for the Indians to keep talking, because the alternative would be for them to have to fight a war with sticks and arrows they couldn't win. At least when there is communication going on, our forefathers were less likely to view the native peoples as simply wild animals for hunting, according to the saying "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." In any case, peace treaties would have been necessary to give order to relations with the Indians, so naturally there should be talks at some point.

I don't know: What do you do when you have the choice between negotiating and resisting a vastly superior force that controls your land and wants to subjugate you?

Now when we look at the Palestinians' peace negotiations, we see they have not yet been completely dispossessed like the native Americans, but there are the same kinds of challenges.
On one hand, Israel has one of the world's strongest armies and has superior military control over the occupied territories. The Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, couldn't force it out even if it wanted to, as shown by the overwhelming casualty rates in previous decades' uprisings. Over and over, the two sides have negotiations and sign agreements, like at Oslo.

The PLO claims:

Article 31 of the [1993 Oslo] Interim Agreement provides that “the two parties view the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period.” Article 31 also provides that “neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”
Despite these articles and in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel has since 1993:
Doubled the number of settlers living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. There are now approximately 400,000;
Increased the number of illegal housing units in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (excluding Occupied East Jerusalem) by 62%;
Confiscated more than 60,000 acres of Palestinian land for colony construction and related by-pass roads, uprooted 220,000 trees and demolished 690 homes in the West Bank alone; and
Removed from official government maps the Green Line separating Israel from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, thereby failing to recognize the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a “single territorial unit”.

But perhaps the Palestinians' interpretation of the Oslo accords is wrong, and they simply weren't able to get better terms during hte negotiations?
And like the US government choosing the best resources for our settlers, the Israeli government confiscates the occupied territories' natural resources. The confiscation of 80% of the West Bank's water is the more commonly cited example, but there are also quarries:

These quarries, occupying an area of 1,673.3 hectares (4,183 acres), are built on land that Israel confiscated after the signing of the Oslo I agreement of 1993. These quarries represent a systematic pirating of Palestinians' natural resources and the destruction of their environment.

//www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=590

At a press conference this summer with Obama, Netanyahu referred to his positions on settlements (on the West Bank), borders(past the green line), and refugees(no return) simply as "realities" that the Palestinians must accept.

So ultimately there must be peace negotiations to give order to arrangements between the Israelis and Palestinians. But I understand the widespread Palestinian disillusionment with peace talks. They are a challenge: What is there to talk about when one side has vastly superior military force, controls your territory, and considers its settlements that are displacing your population "realities"?

Rakovsky wrote: Here, you see millions of people living in refugee camps, dispossessed of their homes, banned from returning, and your heart calls you to concern for them.
And you recognize that like the Good Samaritan taking care of the robbed person, and giving him shelter, Christianity also calls us to care for the refugees who, like the traveler, have been beaten or robbed. (Luke 10:25-37):

But as Christians we also have to discern between right and wrong.. In this case these Arabs moved AFTER they attacked Israel.. In other words, they put this on themselves... Again, the Israelis had no intention of fighting OR expanding their territory. These Arabs however wanted to destroy this small Jewish state.. Off the map. The true aggressors in this case were these Arabs.. And when they were repelled, they lost their land..

They shouldn't have started this war in the first place.

Rakovsky wrote:

34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

And when I think of this story, I realize that I myself often act like the pharisee, that I might not go out of my way to help others. And when I do, I feel a good, almost magical feeling inside of me.

It's good that you don't act as a pharisee.. I hope you also realize that women's rights are also important as well as the rights of all people. On top of that I wish that you love the Arabs. The Arabs need to be loved and be given rights.

Rakovsky wrote:You added:

What should really happen is... start helping refugees migrate to other Muslim countries if they hate living in Israel so much.

Actually, the refugees generally don't hate the idea of living in Israel, as Gman pointed out- many of them even would prefer living there. The reason for this is that Israel is a prosperous country (and whether or not this is due to foreign investment is beyond the point) that generally allows basic political freedoms for citizens who live within its recognized 1967 borders. In fact, the main demand of the Palestinians is to exercize their "Right of Return" and return to their ancestral homes in what is now Israeli territory.

All of the proof shows that Israel has ALWAYS been the land of the Jews.. Always.. There has always been a presence of Jews in the Holy land even after 70 AD. And the Israelis are willing to allow these Arabs to become part of Israel. They do not want them to move.

Rakovsky wrote:With the road map accepted as a framework for further peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis, one of the more controversial issues remains the right of return for Palestinians who fled or were forced out of former British Mandate Palestine in 1948, at the creation of the state of Israel. The issue affects nearly 4 million people who are descendents of the 700,000 Palestinians denied a return to their homes after the 1948 war—despite U.N. Resolution 194, which called for a solution to the refugee problem. Among all the refugees in 1948, 50,000 were Christian families, many of whom lived in the towns of Jaffa, Lydda, Ramle, and throughout the Galilee. A significant portion also came from the western part of Jerusalem. Refugees made up 35 percent of the Christian population of the holy land.

That is simply not true... The Christian populations are only about 8 percent of the West bank.

"The population of the West Bank is 75 percent Muslim while 17 percent is Jewish. The remaining 8 percent are Christians and others."

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_bank#Religion

On top of that, these Christians must want to live under Muslim controlled Sharia Law if they don't want Israeli's democracy.. They must want to live as Muslims along with the other 75 percent.

Rakovsky wrote:
The fate of over 400 destroyed Palestinian villages have been documented in All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948, edited by Walid Khalidi and published in 1992 by the Institute for Palestinian Studies.

Again... These Arab thugs were the aggressors.. They murdered hundreds of Jews after they tried to start a war with them.

Rakovsky wrote:I basically agree with you that "in order to keep peace in the meantime, talks must continue."
But at the same time, the peace talks are a challenge, and by themselves might not solve things.

These aggressive Arabs do not want peace.. They want the total destruction of Israel. They are programed for destruction..

We in the west are not as fooled as you think..

Rakovsky wrote:And we can see that peace agreements may not solve things by looking at our own experience. During the wars between the US army and the native Americans, over and over there were many treaties signed. The army, with vastly superior force that claimed the land, was negotiating with a vastly inferior one. The treaties with the tribe were considered broken, for example, when a few individual Indians attacked settlers. And at the end of the process, the pioneers founded modern cities on the best land, and the Indians were pushed onto smaller and worse land, called "reservations."

The Indian Chief Joseph said: "I am tired of talk that comes to nothing It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words and all the broken promises. There has been too much talking by men who had no right to talk."

Now in my view it was better for the Indians to keep talking, because the alternative would be for them to have to fight a war with sticks and arrows they couldn't win. At least when there is communication going on, our forefathers were less likely to view the native peoples as simply wild animals for hunting, according to the saying "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." In any case, peace treaties would have been necessary to give order to relations with the Indians, so naturally there should be talks at some point.

Again this is another silly remark... Again. The Jews have ALWAYS been present in Israel. ALWAYS.. There has always been a population of Jews in the Holyland. For over 4 thousand years... No way can you compare the American Indians to the Arabs.. Do you think we are that stupid? Please know your history...

Rakovsky wrote:I don't know: What do you do when you have the choice between negotiating and resisting a vastly superior force that controls your land and wants to subjugate you?

Now when we look at the Palestinians' peace negotiations, we see they have not yet been completely dispossessed like the native Americans, but there are the same kinds of challenges.
On one hand, Israel has one of the world's strongest armies and has superior military control over the occupied territories. The Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, couldn't force it out even if it wanted to, as shown by the overwhelming casualty rates in previous decades' uprisings. Over and over, the two sides have negotiations and sign agreements, like at Oslo.

When Israel first started in the HolyLand they had no army... Nothing. Just tractors and rakes.. But these aggressive Arabs decided to start a war with them after the Jews extended their friendship to them. But since they have been attacked, God has richly blessed the Jews.

Rakovsky wrote:The PLO claims:

Article 31 of the [1993 Oslo] Interim Agreement provides that “the two parties view the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period.” Article 31 also provides that “neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”
Despite these articles and in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel has since 1993:
Doubled the number of settlers living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. There are now approximately 400,000;
Increased the number of illegal housing units in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (excluding Occupied East Jerusalem) by 62%;
Confiscated more than 60,000 acres of Palestinian land for colony construction and related by-pass roads, uprooted 220,000 trees and demolished 690 homes in the West Bank alone; and
Removed from official government maps the Green Line separating Israel from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, thereby failing to recognize the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a “single territorial unit”.

But perhaps the Palestinians' interpretation of the Oslo accords is wrong, and they simply weren't able to get better terms during hte negotiations?
And like the US government choosing the best resources for our settlers, the Israeli government confiscates the occupied territories' natural resources. The confiscation of 80% of the West Bank's water is the more commonly cited example, but there are also quarries:
These quarries, occupying an area of 1,673.3 hectares (4,183 acres), are built on land that Israel confiscated after the signing of the Oslo I agreement of 1993. These quarries represent a systematic pirating of Palestinians' natural resources and the destruction of their environment.

//www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=590

It sounds to me that you would rather live under Sharia Law...

Rakovsky wrote:At a press conference this summer with Obama, Netanyahu referred to his positions on settlements (on the West Bank), borders(past the green line), and refugees(no return) simply as "realities" that the Palestinians must accept.

So ultimately there must be peace negotiations to give order to arrangements between the Israelis and Palestinians. But I understand the widespread Palestinian disillusionment with peace talks. They are a challenge: What is there to talk about when one side has vastly superior military force, controls your territory, and considers its settlements that are displacing your population "realities"?

These Arabs created Israel.. How? By attacking it... They kept attacking and attacking... God and Israel wanted them to live in peace.. But they didn't want that, they wanted to wipe Israel off the map.. And God now has raised up Israel to defend her. So keep on attacking Israel... Because God is going to make it even bigger... I'm sorry you backed the wrong horse..

So you think Israel should be one Jewish state, and that peaceful Palestinians should be absorbed into it as citizens or to neighboring countries, Gman?

Seems very simple and reasonable to me, at least.

Israel is already small enough, and it is a strong democracy. I don't think that Palestinians really NEED to have their own state when they can just be part of Israel, and if they are that extreme about their religion that they can't even be part of a democratic Jew-based law then they can just go to a nearby Islamic state. There are plenty of options. And even within Israel there are ways to give the Palestinians further "rights", such as establishing territories...

kmr wrote:So you think Israel should be one Jewish state, and that peaceful Palestinians should be absorbed into it as citizens or to neighboring countries, Gman?

Seems very simple and reasonable to me, at least.

Yes.. Israel should be one state WITH all the Palestinians too.. This is what Israel wants too.. This way the Arabs will flourish. God wants all the Arabs to flourish under the Jewish State. This way they will get their voting rights, democracy, and much needed jobs. But people like Rakovsky don't want that. They think that the oppressive evil laws of Sharia are better for them. The Sharia laws have totally destroyed these poor Arabs, therefore we need to uphold democracy in this area.

Therefore if you truly love the Arabs, you let them live under a democratic system where they are protected and given back their legitimate rights. As human beings.. God truly LOVES the Arabs...

kmr wrote:Israel is already small enough, and it is a strong democracy. I don't think that Palestinians really NEED to have their own state when they can just be part of Israel, and if they are that extreme about their religion that they can't even be part of a democratic Jew-based law then they can just go to a nearby Islamic state. There are plenty of options. And even within Israel there are ways to give the Palestinians further "rights", such as establishing territories...

That's it... Under the Jewish state they don't even have to give up their Muslim religion.. It's a win situation for ALL!! AND the Muslims get to keep the temple mount too...

Was a message deleted yesterday?

Dear Moderator,

Hello. I believe I posted here yesterday, trying to answer KMR's question about whether we thought it would be best for the Holy Land to have a democracy or a government based on religious law. Perhaps I am confused and didn't post anything.

If I posted here yesterday and the post was removed, would you please tell me why?

Rakovsky wrote:Was a message deleted yesterday?

Dear Moderator,

Hello. I believe I posted here yesterday, trying to answer KMR's question about whether we thought it would be best for the Holy Land to have a democracy or a government based on religious law. Perhaps I am confused and didn't post anything.

If I posted here yesterday and the post was removed, would you please tell me why?

I checked and did not see any posts deleted. In any case, if we are to delete a post it is usually accompanied with a warning so most likely your post did not go through for whatever reason. Most often what happens is in between the time you type your post and click submit, if in the mean time another post was submitted then your post requires yet another submit for it to actually post. Maybe that's what happened.

Hey, thanks Byblos!

Your avatar is kind of cool, by the way.

I wanted to ask you what you thought was the best way to approach discussing the topic of the Holy Land. I think it's an important topic because the native Christians are the descendants of the first Christians. I would like to be respectful and have a positive discussion about it. I think this would bring out different points of view and help to arrive at the best understanding of the conflict.

Peace

Rakovsky wrote:Hey, thanks Byblos!

Your avatar is kind of cool, by the way.

I wanted to ask you what you thought was the best way to approach discussing the topic of the Holy Land. I think it's an important topic because the native Christians are the descendants of the first Christians. I would like to be respectful and have a positive discussion about it. I think this would bring out different points of view and help to arrive at the best understanding of the conflict.

Peace

We don't allow anti-Semitic posts on this forum. There is too much anti-Semitic stuff on the internet already and we are not a part of that..

I don't know how much credibility this has, but I saw on the 700 club of all things, a interesting headline stating that Israel plans on attacking Iran's nuclear plants sometime either this Christmas or sometime early next year. If true, this could be big.

DRDS wrote:I don't know how much credibility this has, but I saw on the 700 club of all things, a interesting headline stating that Israel plans on attacking Iran's nuclear plants sometime either this Christmas or sometime early next year. If true, this could be big.

Yes.. Many prophets are predicting war.. This may be one of Ezekiel's war.. Not the big one yet..

Keep tight.

Gman wrote:

DRDS wrote:I don't know how much credibility this has, but I saw on the 700 club of all things, a interesting headline stating that Israel plans on attacking Iran's nuclear plants sometime either this Christmas or sometime early next year. If true, this could be big.

Yes.. Many prophets are predicting war.. This may be one of Ezekiel's war.. Not the big one yet..

Keep tight.

I sure will and from the way things look this morning, business is really picking up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500188_162- ... s-capital/

kmr wrote:So we all know that Pres. Obama is requesting that Israel give up its claims on West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But I was wondering what all of your positions on the matter were. Do you think:


- Israel should be one complete state either governed by religious law (by the Jews or Palestinians), or inhabited by only one ethnic group (Jews or Palestinians)

- Israel should be one state governed by democracy (even with a Palestinian majority)

- Israel should be divided into Jewish and Palestinian states (more or less land to the Palestinians?)

- Israel should be one country with limited, small area or temporary self-rule (Palestinians or Jews) in some areas

- A different proposal?


If you choose a position, why do you think it should be so? Unfortunately, I live in an area of the country that is so utterly liberal, that if a school kid says "I believe Jesus Christ is the way to be saved," or, "I do not support abortion," or even, "I think Fox news is a legitimate news source," the other kids will start laughing at him, calling him prejudiced, or even saying "Well, I guess we can still be friends, even if you believe in all that magic stuff." Obviously, it can be really hard to get balanced opinions when you live in such a place. So, I'd really appreciate some of your views!

They should love the Palestinians as they love themselves

Widge wrote:
They should love the Palestinians as they love themselves

And if you really love the Arabs you would have let them become part of Israel instead of having them live under the oppressive doctrine of Sharia law.