Posted on 12/24/2001 8:36:44 AM PST by KQQL
Vatican Condemns Israel’s Ban on Arafat’s Travels to Bethlehem
(IsraelNationalNews.com) The Vatican today publcly condemned Israel's ban on Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat from travelling to Bethlehem. The Vatican is reported as attempting to convince Israel to reverse the decision
Your second point about communism being a religion is more accurate than the effort to lay medieval inter-state wars at the feet of the church.
Communism, of course, isn't a religion, but is, rather, a socialist political philosphy/ideology.
I agree with that about communism and about religion in general. But not about Christianity. It rises or falls on the evidence for the resurrection. If one cannot create reasonable points that such actually did occur, then Christianity falls on its face. Xty was, after all, within the period of written history and many non-Christian opinions were written about the resurrection by non-believers.
You are only arguing tangentially, to distract from the stupid things you said before.
You, weikel, can't hold a candle to this pope, either intellectually or morally.
Exactly. They didn't kill because they were protestant. No more than the Hapsburgs killed because they were Catholic. Their Catholicism was incidental to their military activities. And their army was equally secular to that of Britain, under power of the state and not the Church. (In fact, more secular, since the two were the same when Britain wiped out the last Tasmanians). The religion of the soldiers has no bearing on the situation.
Help me out and name some if you can.
You'd be hard pressed to find someone who does not view most of these leaders as great.
Interestingly, they're all dead except for the Dalai Lama. What do you feel makes the Dalai Lama transcend religion with his greatness?
Moses and Abraham are from over 5,000 years ago and it's hard to know for sure what they did unless you believe in a literal translation of the Bible.
Martin Luther King did not accomplish great things with regard to religion. His greatness is about the unification of races so I'm not sure if he qualifies in this debate.
Buddha is 2500 years old and I don't know that much about him.
Confucious is also around 2500 years old and I don't know what religion he even represents.
Gandhi is your only cited example that would probably qualify for teaching the then new concept of passive resistance.
One you din't list was Mother Teresa who does not qualify as a leader but does qualify as someone religious whose greatness transcends their religion. To me it's people like Mother Teresa that are the true measures of greatness, not the so-called leaders.
Interestingly, they're all dead except for the Dalai Lama. What do you feel makes the Dalai Lama transcend religion with his greatness?
Moses and Abraham are from over 5,000 years ago and it's hard to know for sure what they did unless you believe in a literal translation of the Bible.
Martin Luther King did not accomplish great things with regard to religion. His greatness is about the unification of races so I'm not sure if he qualifies in this debate.
Buddha is 2500 years old and I don't know that much about him.
Confucious is also around 2500 years old and I don't know what religion he even represents.
Gandhi is your only cited example that would probably qualify for teaching the then new concept of passive resistance.
One you din't list was Mother Teresa who does not qualify as a leader but does qualify as someone religious whose greatness transcends their religion. To me it's people like Mother Teresa that are the true measures of greatness, not the so-called leaders.
That is your perception. You will have to define "very quick". Perhaps your definition is different than mine.
You (and others) accuse people of being racist... anti-Semitic... whatever, and yet at the same time you have no problem criticizing the actions of Muslims, Poles and Catholics. It all seems very hypocritical to me.
Actually, I rarely use the terms "anti-Semitic" or "racist" towards an individual. I usually imply Jew-hatred through pointed questions. And, while I do criticize Muslims for murdering Jews, I can't recall ever criticizing either Poles or Catholics. In fact, usually I defend Catholics. Since I feel about Poles the way Menachem Begin did (who experienced their "love" first hand), I don't waste time criticizing them.
State a negative about Israel or some in the Jewish community and its anti-Semitic...
At this point I will ask you to provide me with five examples. Since you seem so sure of this, providing a few examples and references to support your argument will not be much of a problem, will it? If it is, I invite you to point it out in the future.
but attack non Jews and that's just fine in your book.
As you can tell, I have argued with those who I felt have attacked non-Jews unfairly.
That's just how appears to me... and I suspect to many on this forum.
Since you and many others on this forum do not seem to care how you are perceived by the supporters of Israel, why are you making such an issue of this? BTW, how it "appears" to you may not be how it appears to others. And since their perception may be that you don't care, why should they?
But to be fair... I don't think you're the worst fanatic on FR
I'm a "fanatic" but not the worst one? Thanks so much. And you whine about being called an anti-Semite?
My response to you was partially fueled by the absolute brutalization I received on another thread of which I participated..... the one which stated that any criticism of Israel was equivalent to anti-Semitism. Of course that's absurd
You will have to provide me with a specific reference where I or anyone else said that "any criticism of Israel is equivalent to anti-Semitism". I would agree that this is absurd. However, there are SOME criticisms that are equivalent. And there are patterns of criticism which betray the anti-Semitism of the poster.
Hell, if that were true how could anyone ever have a stimulating conversation about it. Its not very interesting when everyone just agrees with everything in a conversation.
People can disagree without being nasty. However, when they are nasty, they are not looking for a "stimulating conversation". They are looking to express their negative emotions and they are picking a fight. Then, they whine when someone recognizes them for what they are.
You have to remember that not all of us on this forum have a personal stake in Israel as you and a few others appear to have.
By "personal stake", do you mean that the lives of the people of Israel are not as valuable to you as they are to me? Because that is my personal stake in Israel - the lives of the Jewish people. Please DO NOT take this as an implication of anti-Semitism. It isn't. If you don't have a "personal stake", i.e., something you care about, why get involved? For the "pleasure" of arguing? To test your debating skills?
When I make a statement that may seem negative ... its just something to discuss... not an opening salvo in a war. Its a bit of a shock when such an insignificant (as I believed) comment is met with all kinds of attacks, insults, and charges of anti-Semitism.
I find it hard to believe that a single statement which "may seem negative" brings all this horror upon you. Do you have examples?
You and some of the others on this forum should be glad that some of us are even interested in your favorite topic... It gives you someone to argue with.
Thank you. However, I am not interested in argument, but in education. Speaking for those of us in this forum who are not glad that some of you are interested in our favorite topic, if you have questions and ask them respectfully, we would be happy to answer them. However, if all you can do is make negative statements which you cannot support, we would just as soon live without you.
Just lay off on the insulations ok? Its not playing nice.
Tell you what. Lay off the provocative language and I'll lay off the insinuations. If you can bring yourself to criticize with the intent of correcting what you see as a moral wrong, I'm willing to be there will be a lot less name calling. Even better if you couch your criticism in terms of a question. And if someone does call you a name, you can ping me to your defense. Or if I am guilty of it, you can call it to my attention. Sound fair to you?
Yes, you do, and it hasn't gone unnoticed or unappreciated by me. Thank you, BenF.
Thank you for your kind words and support, onyx. It is much appreciated.
This really sums the whole thing up, doesn't it? What you have essentially done here is cast the entire debate in exclusively religious terms. While this may be correct, are you sure you want to go down this road? Making arguments such as "God promised Israel to the Jews" in a secular, or even a religious, but non-Jewish, environment is nonsensical because it is based on a presumption that there is a single understanding of God's will that always coincides with Israel's best interests in the world. The problem here is that every other religion can make the same claim.
The danger here for Israel is that the relevance of Judaism in the modern world comes into serious question. From an outsider's perspective, it would seem that every Jew who relies on this "Divine plan" as an argument in support of their cause in this issue must justify to himself that this "Divine plan," is still, in fact, applicable. In light of modern Israel's development as a thoroughly secular state, I wonder if it still is.
Did you NOT read the title of this thread?" Vatican Condemns Israel’s Ban on Arafat’s Travels to Bethlehem". If the rome cult deigns to make these silly little pronouncements the debate is already in "exclusively religious terms". Since the rome cult also falsely claims control over Christianity, the Biblical basis or, as usual when catholic idiocy is concerned the LACK of Biblical basis for their position is a reasonable matter to examine.
As usual, the pope needs to shut his trap and mind his own own business.
If that is the case, then why did the government of Israel think it was so important for the Vatican to recognize the state of Israel?
In other words, the pope must shut his trap and mind his own business unless he is saying or doing something in support of Israel, right?
The rome cult falsely claims not only to be Christian but preeminent over ALL of Christianity.
In both a theologiacl as well as political sense the pope is wrong, as usual.
GENESIS 17:1 ¶ And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
GENESIS 17:2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
GENESIS 17:3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
GENESIS 17:4 ¶ As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
GENESIS 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
GENESIS 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
GENESIS 17:7 ¶ And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
GENESIS 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
When he is trying to dictate that a terrorist be allowed to do a PR stunt in a land where he and his minions have caused numerous deaths, YES j2p2 DEFINITELY needs to shut up. What next, will j2p2 tell America to allow osama bin laden to visit New York City?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.