Anti-Semitism?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
The list was about the decline of America. Examples of decline are not neglecting any and all progress, they are showing decline.

It was not meant to be a comprehensive historical account of the past 50 years. It had a theme.
If the list contradicted the theme, it would be an unthemed list.

You have used this same argument on several threads, and it is not a logical or ethical argument.

If you don't agree with the conclusion of a list, make a counterlist,
but don't call the first one dishonest. A dishonest list has lies in it.

I will admit that I was far too harsh when correcting you in the other post, and I hope I can reconcile with you.
the list was clearly meant to establish a historical decline of the united states since 1948 in support of the author's main thesis...but as i pointed out the list was not even remotely representative of american history since 1948...

the bottom line is that an inaccurate representation of the facts was used to support an assertion...and this is just as dishonest as posting a picture of albino crows and then making the assertion 'crows are white'...
 
U

Ukorin

Guest
you completely fail to understand the nature of ad hominem fallacies...

the argument ad hominem is classified as a fallacy of relevance...in other words the argument is a fallacy because the character of the person making the claim is irrelevant to the question of the truth or falsity of the claim...it is not the assessment of the person's character that makes the argument a fallacy...it is the irrelevance of this assessment that makes the argument a fallacy...

so when the discussion at hand is specifically a debate about the character traits driving an act or opinion...such as the question 'is criticism of israel anti semitic?'...then an assessment of character is completely relevant and therefore not ad hominem...

and furthermore if a person's assertions can be shown to be directly derived from false premises...then the argument has been refuted... for example if an attempted mathematical proof can be shown to be dependent on a false mathematical assumption such as '2 + 2 = 5'...then the proof has been invalidated...regardless of how well reasoned the rest of the proof is...

likewise if anti zionism can be shown to be directly derived from anti semitic prejudice...the baselessness of which should be self evident...then anti zionism is discredited...
Sorry, but you are speaking about something you have not studied. It is true that ad hominem is classified as an argument of relevance, but you don't seem to grasp the point (which tells me that you grabbed this definition off something like wiki rather than from instruction).

Ad hominem means "against the man" in Latin. An ad hominem is an argument that places agenda, motive or direct person attack upon the opponent, or brings up past faults.

If the rebuttal neglects to deal with the points of the opposition by declaring that the opponent is (insert anything here), then it is an ad hominem, and not relevant, because it has not rebutted the points of the argument.
A person's character or motivation does not change whether or not their points are valid.

If I make money by turning recycled material into new merchandise,
and I am arguing that recycling is better for the environment,
does my possible motive of greed destroy the validity of my argument?

If I am a thief, and on trial,
and my argument is that the death penalty is too harsh for thievery,
does my motive of self preservation destroy the validity of my argument?

Motive and debate do not mix.
Character and debate do not mix.
Bringing either up in a debate is called ad hominem, and is usually unethical (especially if the motive is not proven within the argument).
 
Dec 26, 2012
5,853
137
0
All prophecies pointing up to the cross and including it were literally fulfilled.
Why do you think now all of a sudden they might be spiritually fulfilled,?
Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth was literally fulfilled, why would the same prophet speak prophecies to be later fulfilled spiritually?
Which of those I listed in post #67 have already been fulfilled?
Wrong,not ALL of the prophecies about the cross were fulfilled LITERALLY.

Genesis 3

14The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;15And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

Unless Jesus actually went and stomped on a serpents head and He crushed the serpents head,and the serpent actually bruised His heel IT WAS NOT FULFILLED LITERALLY. It was fulfilled spiritually.


Isaiah 7

14"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

Matthew 1

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Mary was told to name Him Jesus NOT Immanuel.


Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD Malichi 4:5

Matthew 17
10
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?

11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

John the Baptist was NOT Elijah. Yet Jesus say he was Elijah come again.

Again NOT ALL of the prophecies of Jesus 1st coming were fulfilled LITERALLY.

I don't have a whole lot of time to go into the rest at this time,and there are others who have gone into those and do a very good job of it.
 
U

Ukorin

Guest
the list was clearly meant to establish a historical decline of the united states since 1948 in support of the author's main thesis...but as i pointed out the list was not even remotely representative of american history since 1948...

the bottom line is that an inaccurate representation of the facts was used to support an assertion...and this is just as dishonest as posting a picture of albino crows and then making the assertion 'crows are white'...
If you took a logic course, you would find amazing improvement in your argument skills.
I know you think you've right, and it seems I can't convince you that you're wrong.

I will try once more:
Here is a list. Is this dishonest?

New cars are worse now than they were 50 years ago.
They now last less than ten years on average, where they used to last 30.
They now get totaled in most accidents over 20 mph at impact, where they used to just dent a bit.
They cost more to fix than they used to,
It is nearly impossible to fix most of them yourself because of the computer systems and compact nature of under the hood, where old cars were easy to fix at home because everything was analog and spaced out.


Because of the nature of the list, it is not dishonest for me to not bring up mpg, airbags, or emmisions.
My opponent can bring those things up, and then we weigh out the significance of each.

In a debate, each side brings their own evidence.
To say this practice is dishonest
is ridiculous.
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
Sorry, but you are speaking about something you have not studied. It is true that ad hominem is classified as an argument of relevance, but you don't seem to grasp the point (which tells me that you grabbed this definition off something like wiki rather than from instruction).

Ad hominem means "against the man" in Latin. An ad hominem is an argument that places agenda, motive or direct person attack upon the opponent, or brings up past faults.

If the rebuttal neglects to deal with the points of the opposition by declaring that the opponent is (insert anything here), then it is an ad hominem, and not relevant, because it has not rebutted the points of the argument.
A person's character or motivation does not change whether or not their points are valid.

If I make money by turning recycled material into new merchandise,
and I am arguing that recycling is better for the environment,
does my possible motive of greed destroy the validity of my argument?

If I am a thief, and on trial,
and my argument is that the death penalty is too harsh for thievery,
does my motive of self preservation destroy the validity of my argument?

Motive and debate do not mix.
Character and debate do not mix.
Bringing either up in a debate is called ad hominem, and is usually unethical (especially if the motive is not proven within the argument).
when motive and character are the -subject- of the debate...then consideration of motive and character are relevant...and in that case there is no ad hominem fallacy associated with mentioning a person's motive or character...as long as the person whose motive and character you have mentioned is a person relevant to the subject of the debate...

in the topic 'is criticism of israel anti semitic?'...the motive and character of critics of israel are subject matter for the debate...so it is not a fallacy to bring it up...in fact -not- bringing it up would be a failure to address the topic...
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
If you took a logic course, you would find amazing improvement in your argument skills.
I know you think you've right, and it seems I can't convince you that you're wrong.

I will try once more:
Here is a list. Is this dishonest?

New cars are worse now than they were 50 years ago.
They now last less than ten years on average, where they used to last 30.
They now get totaled in most accidents over 20 mph at impact, where they used to just dent a bit.
They cost more to fix than they used to,
It is nearly impossible to fix most of them yourself because of the computer systems and compact nature of under the hood, where old cars were easy to fix at home because everything was analog and spaced out.


Because of the nature of the list, it is not dishonest for me to not bring up mpg, airbags, or emmisions.
My opponent can bring those things up, and then we weigh out the significance of each.

In a debate, each side brings their own evidence.
To say this practice is dishonest
is ridiculous.
i have taken a logic class...i have a hard time believing you have because you are still insisting that deliberately selecting an unrepresentative sample to support an assertion is not dishonest...

the example you just gave is not dishonest...however it is not an accurate analogy for the list posted earlier...let me modify your example so that it is more like the case in question...

the assertion is that new cars are worse now than they were fifty years ago...
to support your assertion you produce a number purporting to represent the average lifespan of a representative sample of all cars...but actually you deliberately omitted all cars that lasted more than ten years from your data before calculating your average...
you also argue that new cars get totaled in most accidents over twenty miles per hour...but your evidence is a list of accident reports from which you have deliberately deleted all cars that did not get totaled in an accident over twenty miles per hour...
you also argue that cars cost more to fix than they used to...the evidence you present for higher present day costs is a list of repair costs for ferraris only...

in each case your evidence was deliberately filtered so as to misrepresent the totality of data in such a way that your argument deceptively appears to be supported by the data...to say this -isn't- dishonest is ridiculous...
 
U

Ukorin

Guest
when motive and character are the -subject- of the debate...then consideration of motive and character are relevant...and in that case there is no ad hominem fallacy associated with mentioning a person's motive or character...as long as the person whose motive and character you have mentioned is a person relevant to the subject of the debate...


in the topic 'is criticism of israel anti semitic?'...the motive and character of critics of israel are subject matter for the debate...so it is not a fallacy to bring it up...in fact -not- bringing it up would be a failure to address the topic...
How are you not getting this?


If the debate is questioning if criticism of Israel is antisemitic, then the debate is about proving that criticizing Israel it antisemitic,
NOT about proving that your opponent is antisemitic.


There is no debate circumstance where it is appropriate to label your opponent. There is no scenario where that information is relative (unless the debate is a trial where character/motive plays a role in probability). In all other debates, it is distracting from the debate point instead of refuting the points.


Labeling someone as antisemitic in a debate about what defines antisemitism is pure ad hominem, unless the person labels themselves as antisemitic.


You would need to first prove that criticism of Israel always comes from an antisemetist,
and then you could label the person as antisemitic based on their criticism of Israel,
but even that is not an ethical practice, however it is at least logical.


If you are debating "is criticizing Israel is antisemitic"
And your response is:
"Criticizing Israel is antisemitic, because people who criticize Israel are antisemitic. They are antisemitic because they criticize Israel."
You would have circular reasoning.
This is why you cannot label someone as antisemitic in a debate about the definition of antisemitism: it is circular.
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
How are you not getting this?


If the debate is questioning if criticism of Israel is antisemitic, then the debate is about proving that criticizing Israel it antisemitic,
NOT about proving that your opponent is antisemitic.


There is no debate circumstance where it is appropriate to label your opponent. There is no scenario where that information is relative (unless the debate is a trial where character/motive plays a role in probability). In all other debates, it is distracting from the debate point instead of refuting the points.


Labeling someone as antisemitic in a debate about what defines antisemitism is pure ad hominem, unless the person labels themselves as antisemitic.


You would need to first prove that criticism of Israel always comes from an antisemetist,
and then you could label the person as antisemitic based on their criticism of Israel,
but even that is not an ethical practice, however it is at least logical.


If you are debating "is criticizing Israel is antisemitic"
And your response is:
"Criticizing Israel is antisemitic, because people who criticize Israel are antisemitic. They are antisemitic because they criticize Israel."
You would have circular reasoning.
This is why you cannot label someone as antisemitic in a debate about the definition of antisemitism: it is circular.
you are still misunderstanding the ad hominem fallacy as a fallacy of relevance...

the subject of the debate is...'is criticism of israel anti semitic?'

if your opponent takes the position 'criticism of israel is not anti semitic'...and your reply was 'you are an anti semite so your position is unjustifiable'...then -that- would be an ad hominem fallacy...

but it is -not- an ad hominem fallacy to do as i did earlier in this thread for example...namely to list the most common types of criticism of israel and to show that they fit the definition of anti semitism...this is just normal argumentation...

your problem is that you cannot get past the negative connotation of anti semitism and therefore you are more or less assuming that -any- attribution of anti semitic motivations in a debate is an ad hominem argument...even when anti semitic motivation is material to the debate...
 
U

Ukorin

Guest
i have taken a logic class...i have a hard time believing you have because you are still insisting that deliberately selecting an unrepresentative sample to support an assertion is not dishonest...

the example you just gave is not dishonest...however it is not an accurate analogy for the list posted earlier...let me modify your example so that it is more like the case in question...

the assertion is that new cars are worse now than they were fifty years ago...
to support your assertion you produce a number purporting to represent the average lifespan of a representative sample of all cars...but actually you deliberately omitted all cars that lasted more than ten years from your data before calculating your average...
you also argue that new cars get totaled in most accidents over twenty miles per hour...but your evidence is a list of accident reports from which you have deliberately deleted all cars that did not get totaled in an accident over twenty miles per hour...
you also argue that cars cost more to fix than they used to...the evidence you present for higher present day costs is a list of repair costs for ferraris only...

in each case your evidence was deliberately filtered so as to misrepresent the totality of data in such a way that your argument deceptively appears to be supported by the data...to say this -isn't- dishonest is ridiculous...
Let's look at the list again. We will see a highly opinionated list, with a few irrelevant points,
but it's intention is stated, and it can be either accepted or countered by any following arguments.

Well, the fact is that America is the world's greatest benefactor and blesser of Israel. We bless the Jews in countless ways, and yet, consider the many curses that America is now suffering:


  1. America is now suffering a staggering economic collapse; with banks and corporations failing, prices skyrocketing, real estate being dumped, jobs being lost, the whole bit. Our federal deficit and national debt are staggering.
  2. America is riddled with narcotics, meth, and other illegal drugs.
  3. America is saturated to the hilt with pornography and blasphemy against God.
  4. America’s political leaders consistently lie, cheat, fornicate, kill and otherwise disgrace our once, great country.
  5. The whole world thinks of the United States as a rogue, warmongering nation led at the top by a moron, George W. Bush.
  6. The United States is now engaged in two foreign wars simultaneously. Over 4,000 of our young people have been slain and tens of thousands maimed with limbs torn off by roadside bombs in far-off Iraq. Thousands more are casualties of the Afghanistan conflict, a war we are losing to the dreaded Taliban. And our crazy, bamboozled leaders, manipulated by the powerful Jewish lobby (ADL, AIPAC, AJC, etc.) are hankering to plunge headlong into yet a third war—against Iran.
  7. America is suffering an illegal alien invasion. Some 20 to 40 million illegals are inside our nonexistent borders—no one really knows the real number, but it’s huge. Their care and welfare is costing us tens of billions per year, and the illegal aliens are taking millions of jobs away from unemployed and desperate American workers.
  8. Our Christian TV evangelists—men like Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, and Paul Crouch—push positive thinking, feel good theology, and a smorgasboard of other nonsense.
  9. Our nation’s warped children are showing sick effects of having imbibed too much "gangsta" rap and heavy metal rock music and watching too much sorcery and occult TV cartoons. Many youngsters are on Prozac, Ritalin, and other mind-altering drugs.
  10. Our nation’s teenagers and even many adults idolize and want to be just like their decadent idols—Madonna, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and the rest of the Motley Crew of Hollywood. Oh yes, there’s also Whoopi Goldberg, Rosie O’Donnell, and similar cretans—all of whom are adored, admired, and paid fabulously for their vulgar, profane jokes, blasphemous conduct, etc.
  11. Crime waves roar not only in American cities, but in small town America. Rapes, murders, kids killing parents, parents killing kids, car jacking, the list goes on and on. Lock your doors, folks, the bad guys are now breaking down doors to rob suburban dwellers, too.
  12. The police in America are corrupt, abusive, and often incompetent. Call 911 in many locales and nothing happens. But get on someone’s blacklist and a black-uniformed, masked police Swat Team may just show up at your residence, ready to slay your pets, frighten your kids into tears, and take you and the Missus off to jail. Then, they discover, "Whoops, wrong house."
  13. Virtually every merchant, every appliance repairman, every auto mechanic in America has become a shyster, ripping consumers off. Identity theft is commonplace.
  14. Bribes and pay-offs are now S.O.P. for city officials and politicians, from lowly city councilmen to the halls of Congress.
  15. America is rapidly becoming a Police State, as our liberty and constitutional rights are systematically stripped from us, and Big Brother’s high-tech spy apparatus bears down on citizens more each day.
  16. We have just handily elected as President a man, Barack Obama, who endorses both gay marriage and the horrors of partial-birth abortion.
    READ THIS LIST OF AMERICA'S WOES OVER ONCE AGAIN, AND TELL ME, IS AMERICA REALLY BEING BLESSED BY GOD FOR ITS GENEROSITY, INFLUENCE AND MONEY GIVEN TO ISRAEL AND THE JEWS?
If you want to debate the validity of this list, why not make a list of direct counterpoints,
rather than just writing off the whole list as "dishonest" without even giving a direct example.
Rather than give more analogies, show the dishonesty directly.

It is one thing to disagree with an unproved conclusion, which is what each of the points in this list are, and as is the title of the list because the evidence in the list is not proven,
it is an entirely different thing to claim the list is dishonest because the opinions are left unproven.

Your only ethical choices are to prove them wrong, disagree without proof, or ignore it entirely.
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
the biggest problem is that most anti zionists don't realize that anti zionism is -by definition- an anti semitic prejudice...dozens of other ethnic groups have a secure and independent state in their ethnic homeland yet only in the case of the jews is the validity of their state questioned...this is pure discrimination by esteeming one ethnic group less than the others...

another problem is that a lot of christians aligned with the anti zionist camp assume that 'christian zionism' is the only type of zionism and that -all- forms of zionism must therefore be opposed on doctrinal grounds...this ignores the fact that most jewish zionists are not religious at all...and that a christian can be a zionist without holding to the dispensational doctrines of 'christian zionism'...

and yes there are anti semitic jews...in every ethnic group there is always a fringe that despises their own people...for example there is a russian activist who has stated that all russians should be destroyed...does the fact that he is russian protect him from charges of hatred against russians?
Actually, Zionism has an ambiguous definition depending on whether we consider the occupied territories part of Israel or not. Some professed 'Zionists' advocate the perpetual illegal occupation of the Palestine territories, while other Zionists advocate simply the existence of a Jewish and/or Israeli state depending on their views, while other Zionists advocate expansion of the currently occupied Palestinian territories.

Also note that not all Jews are Israelis, not all Israelis are Jews, not all Jews are Zionists, not all Zionists are Jews, not all Israelis are Zionists and not all Zionists are Israelis so being against a particular form of Zionism can't be said to be automatically anti-Semitic, or anti-Jewish.

So, if by 'anti-Zionism' we mean being against the further expansion of the Jewish territory then anti-Zionism is not in itself automatically anti Semitic, and if by 'anti-Zionism' we mean being against the current occupation of the Palestinian territory then anti-Zionism is not automatically anti-Semitic.

And to further illustrate the ambiguity of these terms, anti-Semitism is at first glance being prejudiced against what is Semitic, and Arabs are Semitic, yet the dictionary defines anti-Semitism as being prejudiced against only Jews, much like some dictionaries define racism as being prejudiced only towards black people, thus discrimination against a white man may not be considered 'racism' to some, just like discrimination towards Palestinians may not be considered anti-Semitic, which it mostly isn't.

And to even further ambiguate these arguments, if anti-Zionism is prejudice against a Zionist, then what form of thought against those Zionists constitutes 'prejudice'? If I say, 'I'm against Zionism in the sense that Jews wish to keep occupied territories that aren't legally theirs', my motive for being against that may be nothing more than a sense of upholding international law, rather than a deliberate singling out of Jews, thus I might also believe that those who have taken over Syria at present are just as culpable as those Zionists who believe in the illegal occupation of Israel, which in my eyes is not prejudice against Jews, or Zionists.

For prejudice is a dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions.
 
Last edited:
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
** .... just as culpable as those Zionists who believe in the illegal occupation of Palestine**
 
L

Linda70

Guest
There is no "illegal occupation of the Palestine territories"...perpetual or otherwise. This land belongs to the Jewish people...God gave it to them (Genesis 12:1-3, 7; Genesis 13:14-18; Genesis 15:18-21). The Arabs (who call themselves Palestinians) are "squatters" on the land which does not belong to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
U

Ukorin

Guest
you are still misunderstanding the ad hominem fallacy as a fallacy of relevance...
I most definitely am not. You are not understanding what relevance is.
I proved to you that a person's personal beliefs are only relevant in a trial debate, and no other.
This is not a trial debate.
the subject of the debate is...'is criticism of israel anti semitic?'

if your opponent takes the position 'criticism of israel is not anti semitic'...and your reply was 'you are an anti semite so your position is unjustifiable'...then -that- would be an ad hominem fallacy...

but it is -not- an ad hominem fallacy to do as i did earlier in this thread for example...namely to list the most common types of criticism of israel and to show that they fit the definition of anti semitism...this is just normal argumentation...
I can agree with you here, if what you propose happened is what actually happened.
It still does not excuse slinging labels around.
Again, my only argument of you using ad hominem was dealing with the "dishonest" comment.
The rest of my arguments were general, dealing with the use of the term "antisemitic" in debate and in general.
your problem is that you cannot get past the negative connotation of anti semitism and therefore you are more or less assuming that -any- attribution of anti semitic motivations in a debate is an ad hominem argument...even when anti semitic motivation is material to the debate...
This is false.
The opponents motive is NEVER RELEVANT information to a debate (unless it is a trial).

It doesn't matter if the connotation of the word is, positive or negative, it doesn't belong in an argument.

If we replace the word "antisemitic" with "philanthropic(gives to charity)" the irrelevance remains, regardless of the debate topic.
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
There is no "illegal occupation of the Palestine territories"...perpetual or otherwise. This land belongs to the Jewish people...God gave it to them (Genesis 12:1-3, 7; Genesis 13:14-18; Genesis 15:18-21). The Arabs (who call themselves Palestinians) are "squatters" on the land which does not belong to them.
You do realize the word 'illegal' means 'against the law'? Americans like the term 'illegals', which means 'a person living in a country without legal authorization'. Now, let's say a Mexican waltzes into your country, they're an illegal, under the laws of Earth, right?

So, under the same laws of Earth, the Israelis who occupy the Palestinian territories are 'illegals', because they illegally occupy ground they aren't legally allowed to occupy, in a state that is not legally theirs.

Your unverifiable, highly debated religious beliefs on who owns that land have absolutely no bearing on the legality of ownership as exists on planet Earth. The fact is, the Palestinian territories Israel occupy, ARE illegally (against the Earth's law) occupied.
 
L

Linda70

Guest
Esanta,

You are totally clueless about Zionism. There is no land called Palestine:

Dave Hunt: Because the world loves to follow lies, especially against Jews and against Israel. We have a controversy in the Middle East right now. The basis of the controversy is there are two people who have a claim to this land. On the one hand are the Jews, the Israelis, and their claim goes back 4,000 years. They have a title deed from God, they trace themselves through Abraham. All three, Muslims, Christians and Jews agree that God gave this land to Abraham, and to his heirs. So, the question is, who are the heirs? We have a conflict over there. Christians are not claiming the land, but there is a group of Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, and they claim that they are descended from the original Palestinians, going back thousands of years, through Ishmael. Ishmael was Abraham’s first son, and ordinarily the first son would inherit, but he was the son of Abraham through, not his wife Sarah, but through Sarah’s maid Hagar. Then we have the Jews, who claim—well, sadly Tom, most of them don’t even claim it as they legitimately should. They don’t believe in God, they don’t believe in the promises, and so forth. But they have a right to claim it, being the descendents of Isaac and Jacob. Twelve times God has called the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; two hundred and three times He is called the God of Israel. Well, who are the Palestinians? Well, first of all you go to Genesis chapter 12, and it’s very clear. There was no such place as Palestine, there were no such people as Palestinians, they were Canaanites, this was a land of Canaan. It says: Into the land of Canaan Abraham came, and the Canaanite was in the land, this is already settled. Now, who were the parents of Ishmael that the Arabs claim they are descended from, and he must have been an original Palestinian if they are descended from the original Palestinians. His mother was an Egyptian, Hagar the Egyptian. His father was Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees, and when Abraham and his entourage arrived in Canaan that land had already been settled with Canaanites, Hittites, Jebusites, you name them, a number of different groups, but they were all called Canaanites. Well then, how can the Arabs be descended from the original Palestinians? There were no original Palestinians. That land was called Canaan. Because of the wickedness of these people, God gave it to the Jews and He told them to wipe out all of these people and they are pretty much extinct to this day, you couldn’t trace yourself back to any of them. Now we have descendents of a man whose mother was Egyptian, his father was a Chaldean, and when they arrived in Canaan it was already settled and they called themselves descendents from the original Palestinians. Now, that land became Israel, when Israel conquered it, it became Israel. It was called Israel for more than a thousand years. How did it become Palestine? In 130 AD, the Romans, who had destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD, they began to re-build it as a pagan city dedicated to Jupiter and they started to erect a temple to Jupiter on Temple Mount. That upset the Jews, obviously, with good cause and they re-belled. There was an uprising, at first it was quite successful, until the Romans brought in more legions and they eventually destroyed more than a thousand Jewish villages. This land was inhabited by Jews, not by Arabs, and certainly not by Muslims! Islam didn’t even exist at that point. So, they destroyed more than a thousand villages. They killed more than 500,000 Jews, thousands were sold into slavery, and they scattered, they fled, another Diaspora. And in anger the Romans renamed Israel, Provincia Syria-Palestina, after the Philistines, the chief enemy of the Jews. It was just an angry nickname they gave to it. From then on, everyone living there was called a Palestinian. Well, who lived there? The Jews, there were no Arabs there.

The Truth About Palestine | thebereancall.org
 
Last edited by a moderator:
U

Ukorin

Guest
Earlier in the thread, I feel I thoroughly proved that criticizing a government is not the same as criticizing the citizens.

Can anyone prove this wrong?
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
Esanta,

You are totally clueless about Zionism. There is no land called Palestine:
The author of your article, there, Dave Hunt, is really quite insane.

''Hunt was a strict Biblical Creationist - refutations of evolution were a frequent topic of his radio programs, Search the Scriptures Daily and According to God's Word. He has stated that "I think that you would have to be, in my opinion, an idiot to think that this universe happened by chance."
Hunt believed occult or pagan influences are pervasive in modern culture - this includes evolution, as well as all forms of psychology, some forms of entertainment, all forms of science-fiction or fantasy - especially Harry Potter - yoga, some forms of medicine, environmental concern or conservation and much of public education. His book Occult Invasion is dedicated to this area, while several other books mention it in part''. - Wiki.

So let me get this straight, you base your opinion on Zionism on an article that doesn't actually use the word Zionism once, nor provide a definition of Zionism, which claims no Arabs lived in Palestine at any point from 70AD until nowadays, (Ottoman history? Syrian history? Anyone?), written by a man who thinks the world is 6000 years old, Harry Potter is evil, psychology is demonic and environmental concern is devilish?

Yea. I think I'm about done taking you seriously.
 
Dec 26, 2012
5,853
137
0
The author of your article, there, Dave Hunt, is really quite insane.

''Hunt was a strict Biblical Creationist - refutations of evolution were a frequent topic of his radio programs, Search the Scriptures Daily and According to God's Word. He has stated that "I think that you would have to be, in my opinion, an idiot to think that this universe happened by chance."
Hunt believed occult or pagan influences are pervasive in modern culture - this includes evolution, as well as all forms of psychology, some forms of entertainment, all forms of science-fiction or fantasy - especially Harry Potter - yoga, some forms of medicine, environmental concern or conservation and much of public education. His book Occult Invasion is dedicated to this area, while several other books mention it in part''. - Wiki.

So let me get this straight, you base your opinion on Zionism on an article that doesn't actually use the word Zionism once, nor provide a definition of Zionism, which claims no Arabs lived in Palestine at any point from 70AD until nowadays, (Ottoman history? Syrian history? Anyone?), written by a man who thinks the world is 6000 years old, Harry Potter is evil, psychology is demonic and environmental concern is devilish?

Yea. I think I'm about done taking you seriously.
HMM So some people say that Arabs DID not live in the land of Israel? How then did the dome of the Rock get built in 689 AD? And who did Pope Urban II send Crusaders against into Jerusalem in 1095? :confused:

And where did all the Samaritans go? Strange that Samaria was at one time the Northern Kingdom along the West Bank. Where oh where did they go? Could it be that some CONVERTED and then intermarried with the Arabs? How about some of the Jews? Could it be that the Palestinians are related to ISAAC as well as Ishmael?
 
L

Linda70

Guest
The author of your article, there, Dave Hunt, is really quite insane.

''Hunt was a strict Biblical Creationist - refutations of evolution were a frequent topic of his radio programs, Search the Scriptures Daily and According to God's Word. He has stated that "I think that you would have to be, in my opinion, an idiot to think that this universe happened by chance."
Hunt believed occult or pagan influences are pervasive in modern culture - this includes evolution, as well as all forms of psychology, some forms of entertainment, all forms of science-fiction or fantasy - especially Harry Potter - yoga, some forms of medicine, environmental concern or conservation and much of public education. His book Occult Invasion is dedicated to this area, while several other books mention it in part''. - Wiki.

So let me get this straight, you base your opinion on Zionism on an article that doesn't actually use the word Zionism once, nor provide a definition of Zionism, which claims no Arabs lived in Palestine at any point from 70AD until nowadays, (Ottoman history? Syrian history? Anyone?), written by a man who thinks the world is 6000 years old, Harry Potter is evil, psychology is demonic and environmental concern is devilish?

Yea. I think I'm about done taking you seriously.
I know all about Dave Hunt and I have read all his books and heard most of his messages. He was a man of God and a lover of Israel (which you are not). As a matter of fact, since you disagree with all of the Bible and obviously all born again Christians, I am finished discussing anything with you. Here is what Jesus said about people such as yourself:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Zionism is very simply the belief that the Promised Land (Israel) was given to Abraham and his heirs (through Isaac, not Ishmael) and belongs to the Jews, who have the right to return and to claim it as their own. Zionism is not an attempt by the Jews to take over the world as some "anti-Zionists" (like yourself) falsely claim.

I would definitely believe Biblical truth from a man of God (such as Dave Hunt) than to listen to the nonsense you are spewing on this forum. Your nonsense is totally devoid of any Biblical truth whatsoever.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,742
3,670
113
You do realize the word 'illegal' means 'against the law'? Americans like the term 'illegals', which means 'a person living in a country without legal authorization'. Now, let's say a Mexican waltzes into your country, they're an illegal, under the laws of Earth, right?

So, under the same laws of Earth, the Israelis who occupy the Palestinian territories are 'illegals', because they illegally occupy ground they aren't legally allowed to occupy, in a state that is not legally theirs.

Your unverifiable, highly debated religious beliefs on who owns that land have absolutely no bearing on the legality of ownership as exists on planet Earth. The fact is, the Palestinian territories Israel occupy, ARE illegally (against the Earth's law) occupied.
Esanta,
This is a Christian Forum...not necessarily pro Zionist. There is not a Christian here that would agree with your concept of 'earth law'. There is no such thing as 'earth law' unless it is made up by man. Christians believe the earth is the Lord's and to who so ever He gives parts of it to.
Christian's believe God's law trumps man's law (man's law) whenever there is a conflict between the two. So I wish you, as a non christian, would refrain from spreading your anti biblical rhetoric by attacking as you did above in bold. .

Now from a pro Zionist position...

I'll give to you and to your descendants the land to which you have traveled—all the land of Canaan—as an eternal possession. I will be their God."
(Gen 17:8)



Jacob reminded Joseph, "God Almighty revealed himself to me at Luz in Canaan and blessed me. He told me, 'Pay attention! I'm going to make you fruitful and numerous. I'm going to build you into a vast nation of people and then I'll give this land to your descendants for an eternal possession.'
(Gen 48:3-4)


You and some other Christians may not agree with the above verses but all Christians do agree it is God that determines land allotment not the earth.