Israel and Palestine

[conpiracymonki]

[b][size=1]
Let's put it this way.

You've been forced out of your homeland atleast two thousand years ago. Now another people live there mainly. They've been living there for those past two thousand years.

Now a group of friendly people take over that land, and give you back half of what you want. Even though you are actually now the small minority, you now have half the land. Now obviously those people will want their land and homes back. And obviously they're going to put up a fight. So now their friends come in to help them and get whooped quite a few times by you and your bigger friends.[/b]

Now be real here. Who does the land belong to? And I don't even mean the Palestinians as Muslims, but as the Palestinian people.
[color=white]AJ - putting things in a different perspective[/color][/size]

[Dan L]

[quote] [url]http://www.science.co.il/Israel-history.asp[/url]

Quote from Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998

"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store."

The people of Israel (also called the "Jewish People") trace their origin to Abraham, who established the belief that there is only one God, the creator of the universe (see Old Testament). Abraham, his son Yitshak (Isaac), and grandson Jacob (Israel), are referred to as the patriarchs of the Israelites. All three patriarchs lived in the Land of Canaan, that later came to be known as the Land of Israel. They and their wives are buried in the Ma'arat HaMachpela, the Tomb of the Patriarchs, in Hebron.

The name Israel derives from the name given to Jacob (see Old Testament). His 12 sons were the kernels of 12 tribes that later developed into the Jewish nation. The name Jew derives from Yehuda (Judah) one of the 12 sons of Jacob. So, the names Israel, Israeli or Jewish refer to people of the same origin.

The descendants of Abraham crystallized into a nation at about 1300 BCE after their Exodus from Egypt under the leadership of Moses (Moshe in Hebrew). Soon after the Exodus, Moses transmitted to the people of this new emerging nation, the Torah, and the Ten Commandments. After 40 years in the Sinai desert, Moses led them to the Land of Israel, that is cited in The Bible as the land promised by G-d to the descendants of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The people of modern day Israel share the same language and culture shaped by the Jewish heritage and religion passed through generations starting with the founding father Abraham (ca. 1800 BCE). Thus, Jews have had continuous presence in the land of Israel for the past 3,300 years.

The rule of Israelites in the land of Israel starts with the conquests of Joshua (ca. 1250 BCE). The period from 1000-587 BCE is known as the "Period of the Kings". The most noteworthy kings were King David (1010-970 BCE), who made Jerusalem the Capital of Israel, and his son Solomon (Shlomo, 970-931 BCE), who built the first Temple in Jerusalem as prescribed in the Tanach (Old Testament).

In 587 BCE, Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar's army captured Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple, and exiled the Jews to Babylon (modern day Iraq).

The year 587 BCE marks a turning point in the history of the region. From this year onwards, the region was ruled or controlled by a succession of superpower empires of the time in the following order: Babylonian, Persian, Greek Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Empires, Islamic and Christian crusaders, Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire.

[b]Foreign Empires that ruled in Israel[/b]

587 BCE Babylonian Destruction of the first Temple.

538-333 BCE Persian Return of the exiled Jews from Babylon and construction of the second Temple (520-515 BCE).

333-63 BCE Hellenistic Conquest of the region by the army of Alexander the Great (333 BCE). The Greeks generally allowed the Jews to run their state. But, during the rule of the king Antiochus IV, the Temple was desecrated. This brought about the revolt of the Maccabees, who established an independent rule. The related events are celebrated during the Hanukah holiday.

63 BCE-313 CE Roman The Roman army led by Titus conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple at 70 CE. Jewish people were then exiled and dispersed to the Diaspora. In 132, Bar Kokhba organized a revolt against Roman rule, but was killed in a battle in Bethar in Judean Hills. Subsequently the Romans decimated the Jewish community, renamed Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina and Judea as Palaestina to obliterate Jewish identification with the Land of Israel (the word Palestine, and the Arabic word Filastin originate from this Latin name).

The remaining Jewish community moved to northern towns in the Galilee. Around 200 CE the Sanhedrin was moved to Tsippori (Zippori, Sepphoris). The Head of Sanhedrin, Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi (Judah the Prince), compiled the Jewish oral law, Mishna.

313-636 Byzantine

636-1099 Arab Dome of the Rock was built by Caliph Abd el-Malik on the grounds of the destroyed Jewish Temple.

1099-1291 Crusaders The crusaders came from Europe to capture the Holy Land following an appeal by Pope Urban II, and massacred the non-Christian population. Later Jewish community in Jerusalem expanded by immigration of Jews from Europe.

1291-1516 Mamluk

1516-1918 Ottoman During the reign of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566) the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem were rebuilt. Population of the Jewish community in Jerusalem increased.

1917-1948 British Great Britain recognized the rights of the Jewish people to establish a "national home in Palestine". Yet they greatly curtailed entry of Jewish refugees into Israel even after World War II. They split Palestine mandate into an Arab state which has become the modern day Jordan, and Israel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the exile by the Romans, the Jewish people migrated to Europe and North Africa. In the Diaspora (scattered outside of the Land of Israel), they established rich cultural and economic lives, and contributed greatly to the societies where they lived. Yet, they continued their national attachments and prayed to return to Israel through centuries. In the first half of the 20th century there were major waves of immigration of Jews back to Israel from Arab countries and from Europe. During the British rule in Palestine, the Jewish people were subject to great violence and massacres directed by Arab civilians or forces of the neighboring Arab states. During World War II, the Nazi regime in Germany decimated about 6 million Jews creating the great tragedy of The Holocaust.

In 1948, Jewish Community in Israel under the leadership of David Ben-Gurion reestablished sovereignty over their ancient homeland. Declaration of independence of the modern State of Israel was announced on the day that the last British forces left Israel (May 14, 1948).

[b]Arab-Israeli wars[/b]

A day after the declaration of independence of the State of Israel, armies of five Arab countries, Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, invaded Israel. This marked the beginning of the War of Independence. Arab states have jointly waged four full scale wars against Israel:

1948 War of Independence
1956 Sinai War
1967 Six Day War
1973 Yom Kippur War

Despite the numerical superiority of the Arab armies, Israel defended itself each time and won. After each war Israeli army withdrew from most of the areas it captured (see maps). This is unprecedented in World history and shows Israel's willingness to reach peace even at the risk of fighting for its very existence each time anew.

Note that with Judea and Samaria Israel is only 40 miles wide. Thus, Israel can be crossed from the Mediterranean coast to the Eastern border at Jordan river within one hour of driving.[/quote]

I personally don't see the whole argument of the land belonging to the Palestinians.. The Jews have been there since around 1,800 BC. The Palestinians haven't. If you want to get technical about it, then it belongs to Israel.

I don't particularly care about the actions of either side at the moment, as to be perfectly honest they're both as bad as each other when it comes to war practices. Realistically, neither one is on a higher moral level. The Jews would say they follow God the correct way and so would the Muslims in Palestine, but hey, it's a very subjective thing.

So ultimately, the only thing I can see to affect the issue is who the land actually belongs to.. and in my opinion, that would be the Jews.. I say that not just because Judaism is where Christianity came from, and in my opinion the biggest mistake the Jews made was not recognising Jesus as the Saviour, but heh. That's my opinion. The reason I say they own the land is because it's been their land since 1800 BC or something.

[Angelus]

The palestinians have a right to want their land back. If I were them I would be scratching and fighting for every last bit of land I could get back for my people.

Way back when, when the UN divided Isreal and Palistine and set up their boarders this whole thing MIGHT have been settled. But givin todays happenings I do not believe any peacefull solution is on the horizon.
In todays world Isreal is oppressing Palistine, and that adds up to alot of hate.
Isreal goes into the west bank (I believe its the west bank region anyway) and they have bulldozers knock over Palestinian homes and villages. Then Isreal builds jewish settlments there. There are a great number of Palestinian refuges because of this and Isreal wont even acknowledge the fact that they are doing what they are doing.

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Deus Ex Machina [/i]
[B]On that mindset, what's the point in society having laws if people go on breaking the rules all the time? Why don't we just [i]let[/i] people commit crimes instead?[/B][/QUOTE]

Because 90% of the people don't break the laws. But I'll be damned if 90% of all Christians or 90% of all Muslims or 90% of all Jews didn't go against what their text says.

I get judged on a daily basis by people who claim that we shouldn't judge other people.

You can't compare religion to society. I can't come kill you and go "Opps. forgive me father for I have sinned" and be gone with it. Doesn't work that way.

Also, for the majority of it, we do let people commit crimes. I know tons of people who do drugs, who drink and drive, who drink when they are only 18 or 16 or whatever, who steal stuff from various places, who do this, who do that and never get caught. Society doesn't have the ability to be everywhere at once like God, so in a sense, it lets you get away with breaking the law. We only draw the line when it's a really serious crime.

This all doesn't make sense. Religion doesn't make sense and it doesn't make sense that people could follow something that doesn't make sense.

[Vegitto4]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]This all doesn't make sense. Religion doesn't make sense and it doesn't make sense that people could follow something that doesn't make sense. [/B][/QUOTE]

It's called faith. The reason ppl follow religion is because it makes them feel loved, and like they belong there. If they have faith, then whatever doesn't make sense, wont matter. Why does everything have to make sense? Why can't some of us just accept things for the way they are, and thats that? [color=white][SIZE=1]because it's not human nature......[/SIZE] [/color]

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]Because 90% of the people don't break the laws. But I'll be damned if 90% of all Christians or 90% of all Muslims or 90% of all Jews didn't go against what their text says.

I get judged on a daily basis by people who claim that we shouldn't judge other people.[/B][/QUOTE]

90% of people probably do break the laws, as I think you said later in the post.. the thing is, we turn a blind eyes to a lot of it because to be honest, there are much worse things that people can do.

That's also the main problem with religions, the fact that so many people see a few of the rules as "unimportant" or "for other people to follow". And of course, no-one's perfect. But the problem is that they're all excuses, rather than reasons not to go by the rules.

I can't speak for the Muslim or Jew communities, but I [i]know[/i] there is a great deal of imperfection, corruption, and general disrespect in the majority of churches across the US and UK. I know that as a whole, by our own ideal standards, the majority of the Christian religion is pretty much going to hell at this rate. I don't even like being called "Christian" at times, because to me it says "I'm better than you" as opposed to "I'm your servant", which is what it should be. That's all because of the Christians people see around them, the judgemental, self-righteous type. Half of them think it's their God-given right to tell any non-Christians that they're going to hell for their sins, where they of course aren't. But unfortunately by that very action they are, by their own beliefs, condemning themselves.

I just wanted to clear up that I am aware of the corruption and hypocrisy within the church.. but now onto my point.

Yes, a great deal of Christians, Jews and Muslims don't actually obey the rules that have been set out for them, but the thing is, that doesn't make them pointless because they're there as a [i]guideline[/i]. Very few Christians (and probably other religions) actually go as far as to kill someone, but the they sometimes skip it with what they view as the "lesser rules". Of course, there are no lesser rules, but try convincing them that.. and it's the same in society. There are some rules which people just ignore and break anyway, and ultimately, where they draw the line depends from person to person.

Encountering Judgemental people isn't a particularly nice thing. But heh.. ultimately they'll reap what the sow. It's a basic rule of life, whether you actually believe the Bible or not. And if their beliefs are true, then ultimately they'll be held accountable for their actions some day as well.

The thing is, a lot of religious people get it [i]so[/i] wrong, it's kind of sad.. but it's not just about religion.. I dunno about the Muslim/Jewish take on it, but the ideal (biblical) Christian view is that it doesn't matter about the religious ceremonies and practices, and you don't need to do anything to actually be loved by God. Ultimately, it shouldn't be about religious ceremonies, and sacrifices, and who knows what else, to get on God's good side. The point is just to live for God in whatever way you can. Of all the people I know who understand that I can honestly say that [i]none[/i] of them would judge you. The first time I actually went to the church I go to now, I'd just been dismissed from work, for stealing, and they didn't judge me, at all. A lot (the majority) of churches would, and a lot of society in general would, but they didn't.. I personally think it's a shame there aren't a [i]lot[/i] more "Christians" who understand that.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]You can't compare religion to society. I can't come kill you and go "Opps. forgive me father for I have sinned" and be gone with it. Doesn't work that way.[/B][/QUOTE]

and no, that wouldn't work.. for two reasons

1- I doubt you'd be very sincere about it, cos asking God for forgiveness doesn't work quite as simply as that.. as I said, you have to mean it.. and I mean really mean it. If you seriously believed in God then you'd know you couldn't fool him by planning to be forgiven for something you do.

2- I never said being forgiven by God means you don't have to face the consequences. You should be accountable for your actions, and Christians are told to obey the laws of the land. i.e. if the law says you go to prison for killing someone, then off to prison you go. You may be forgiven on an eternal level, but you still have to face up to what you did while on earth.

So yeah.. God doesn't just say "oh, you're sorry.. OK, you can stay out of jail this time.. but don't do it again".

but heh.. I think I just went a little off topic, but yeah.. that's what I meant earlier

[Transtic Nerve]

Ok ok.

[quote][b]It's called faith. The reason ppl follow religion is because it makes them feel loved, and like they belong there. If they have faith, then whatever doesn't make sense, wont matter. Why does everything have to make sense? Why can't some of us just accept things for the way they are, and thats that?[/b][/quote]

To you it makes sense to have faith. To me, I have faith, just not in religion. I think religion is a scam and is against all God really does stand for. I don't look at things from a faith perspective though. I look at it from a "me" perspective and I need things to make sense or I just don't get it. I believe in God, but GOD doesn't have a handbook. Religions have handbooks and those were not written by God, so I can't trust them personally. I trust that being that looks over us and helps us. I don't trust a book, I don't trust what people say the book says. The Bible, the Quraan, and the Torah are books... silly stories as far as I'm concerned. Written by silly people who want nothing more to to play God. thats my opinion though, not saying it's right, hell I dunno. No one does. Which is why you have faith, but is something as personal as faith worth fighting over? Thats what this is all about... faith. Not a book, not a God... faith. So have faith! Everyone should have faith. But don't become blinded by it, because thats when it doesn't become faith anymore, it becomes pure evil.

Dues. Err you have too long a post to quote so yeah.

I think you got it right. I just personally don't see if we are supposed to follow these books, that it would write outrageous things and people who read it only follow certain ones. With the law, everyone follows it, well I should restate that. Everyone has the ABILITY to follow it. You control how fast you drive, you control if you drink and drive, you control if you pull a gun and rob someone. The bible, and other religious text, go against human nature itself... things that aren't in ur ability to follow, and I feel that if we don't have the ability to follow, why is it even there to begin with? It's against the human nature we all are. Which I find absolutely ridiculous. I've never met a pure Christian. I'm never met a Pure Muslim, and I've never met a pure Jew... I'm never met a pure Hindu either. Or a buddhist although thats not so much a religion as it is a way of life. But i've never met a pure one of them either.... Why do people care and try so hard to be "good" Christians or Muslims or Jews, when you can't do it to begin with? Seems rather pointless to me...

[DuoMax]

[quote]I personally don't see the whole argument of the land belonging to the Palestinians.. The Jews have been there since around 1,800 BC. The Palestinians haven't. If you want to get technical about it, then it belongs to Israel.[/quote]

The palestinians have been there far longer han the Israelis. You see, the Palestinians are teh descendets of the original inhabtants of Caana, who were there before the Isaraelites came and conquered and told them to worship their one god or die.

[Justin]

Excellent, Duomax. You are absolutely right. According to the Bible and(I assume) the Torah, the Palestinians decendants [i]were[/i] there first. However, this fact still remains in the hearts of both Christians and Jews--God [i]gave[/i] that land to the Isrealites. So, if that were to be true, what does the rest matter. So, I guess we Americans have no right to be living comfortably in our homes doing much of what we please because this land belong to Native Americans.

In any case, if you're not following a historical standard, the land still belongs to Isreal. They have the military might, and they also have the backing of the largest super power in the world, so I'd honestly like to see someone take the land from them. Even if someone did, I guarantee they'll just get it back.

Again, excellent point, Duomax. I honestly hadn't thought of that until you brought it up. But, their killing of those original inhabitants of Canaan was God's judgment of those original inhabitants. Those people had known God and been His followers as much as the Irealites in the past, but they turned away. God didn't take as kindly to that back in the day. Most people also often assume that those were fairly peaceful people who just happened to be in the way. Not true. By both modern standards and the standards of the time, they were [i]very[/i] unacceptable, to use a friendly term. The starnge thing is, they were no worse than modern day America. I think we better all be thankful God is the merciful God He is.

-Justin

[Kent]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DuoMax [/i]
[B]The palestinians have been there far longer han the Israelis. You see, the Palestinians are teh descendets of the original inhabtants of Caana, who were there before the Isaraelites came and conquered and told them to worship their one god or die. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually you are wrong about that...

Both the palestinians and Jews are basically the same people and infact, both were there for the same period of time since about the same time.

That is why both the jews and palestinians are considered specifically "semetic peoples."

The jews have been in palestine since atleast 1200-1000 bc.

However, citing research from the most recent archaeological evidence and the "western civilazation- volume 1: up to 1715" college level book in front of me; the israelites are now believed to be an ethnic group indigineous to the hill areas of palestine.

This is contrary to the "history" recorded from certain accounts claiming that the hebrews are direct decendants of abraham who migrated from mesopatiania...

Scholars now believe that the accounts of "history" recorded in the early literature, were only accounts of what the hebrews believed of their own past. The centuries between the recording of this history and the actual events depicted there in, allowed for a "problem" in the accuracy of the recording of the events/history.

The bottom line in this is that there is no clear cut answer to the origins of the hebrew people...

The archaeological community is split, therefore, none of us can say with confidence that the hebrews were or were not in palestine since the begining of human existance.

This also applies to the palestinians.

Both parties have rightful claims to the area and both parties have inhabited the land for so long that thre is no question... both groups belong on that land.

The problem is not that the land isnt big enough, the problem is that there are driving forces of hate, which will not allow for any peace in the reigon.

I also want to remind you all that the bible is not historic fact.

It is literature taken as a religious document and guide for living.

Not a legitimate documentation of history.

Only those subjects which can be verified by secondary evidence are considered to be fact.

[Orien_Xel]

Can't we all just get along?

[Justin]

Actually, most historians look to the Bible as one of the most historically accurate texts in existance. And most archeologists agree that Mesopotamia was the 'Cradle of Life.' Whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, it seems the most liklely place in either case.

Also, if you'd ever take time to actually [i]read[/i] the Bible, instead of just posting like you know all things, you'll find the Bible is well more than a simple guide for living. I can go to the corner store and find a good guide for living. Most of it [i]is[/i] presented as a documentation of history.

I'd also like to know where you get the idea that something biblical needs secondary confirmation to be considered fact. Is that your standard, or the standard of some organization you're a part of? It's certainly not mine.

-Justin

[Kent]

First off, I dont appreciate the sarcastic tone you have taken.

I never played the "know-it-all." So please just lay off on the personal angle of attack.

However, to address your questions...

Requiring a secondary source before accepting an entire book of ancient text as a fact is not at all a standard that is found only in certain spots... it is all over and a world wide standard.

Religious text can not be taken in whole as fact when addressing the text from an objective stance.

Events in the bible may have occurred and many have been proven to have occurred, but that does not change the fact that the bible itself is a religious document, not a historic document.

The bible is a work of literature.

This does not exclude it from containing historic events... it only means that other elements of the book might not be factual.

If we were to take all ancient literature as fact, then the works of homer would also be taken as historic fact.

Secondary sources are required for anything, not just ancient religious text.

Do I really need to mention the name of that one man who changed the world forever and in many ways defied most laws of modern science?

I do not know all things as you tried to say I implied.

And often times things are not what they are presented as.

Secondary sources are not an odd request.

Blind faith is an odd request.

Worst of all in this is the fact that I very much consider myself a practicing christian.

However, this does not mean I cannot have doubts or question my beliefs.

Not all of us are so lucky to be sure of our faith.

[tabmow]

The feeling of lets support the palestinians today to chic. How many of you out there are just saying that to go against the mainstreme view of the unconditional support of Isreal. How many of you are making these statement just to go against traditional morals? There are many post here that say I fully suppor tht e Palistinians , but don't condone their suicide bombings. This might be the correct view. The nation of Isreal was legally created by a United Nations vote. The4 United States gave the succesful vote for its creation. So therefore the nation of Isreal has a ligitament basis for existence. There are non Jewish residents of Isreal most of which are law abiding citizens who work for a living and try to get along just as the rest of the world does. Then you come to those who do not support the Isralie State. These groups cry that we should help and support the Palestinians and these group support anti Isralie groups in and out of Isreal. To some they promis power to the poor of the Palestinians they promise $25,000 and martyerdom. The Palestinian people are the victims here. They are trapped between a legitimet country and the forces that do not want an Isralie state. Many claim to support the palestinians , but for what , TO FURTHER THEIR OWN ENDS !!!!!!!. SO be careful if you are playing lipservice to defense of Palestine and the Palestinians. Personally I think they had a good thing going with the Palestinian Authority, but these external busybodies just couldn't give peace a chance. There are those on both sides Islamic militents that can't stand a Jewish State and Isralie Hawks who can't see anything beyond atricities that have been aimed at the Jews. the truth is if there was no conflict these people would not have any power. The nations that support anti -isralie terrorist just want to have a diversion to keep their populations focused on something beyond their own domewstic problems. and focusing on the real problems the Palestinians face is a perfect solution. The Isralies attack the settlements where the terrorist hide out. Every palestinian death is one score for the terrorist and they know this. The suicide bombings began again after there was a hope for peace on the horizion. Thse people began to lose their cause and needed to stir up the pot again. They knew Isreal would retaliate after an attack. The Isralies would do what they thought they had to to defend their land and People. There was hope and promise for peace, but these forces would not have it. Innocents on both sides are being killed , but I think that the question should not be who do you support, because the people of Isreal and the Palestinians should be supported equally. They should also be left alone by external forces who want to disrupt the region. If Iran wants to give money to help build the Palestinian Authority go for it. If the US wants to give Isreal money help its defense against foreign Attackes let them, but if Saudi Arabia is giving $25,000 to start stuff in a Jewish Shoppping Center i.e. a suicide bomber or the US sends in people to disrupt the Palestinian Authority then the line is crossed and that type of intervention is not needed.

[Kent]

Tabmow, I personally appreciate the time you took to write you post and put into it some honest opinions...

However...

You have gotta work on seperating your individual ideas just as we do with normal writting and the idea of the paragraph.

Although it can make for a longer post, it will make for a more "readable" post.

Just hit enter and put an individual line of empty space between each paragraph.

Have fun here on the boards, and please try to take this to mind when you are about to write a post that is one really, REALLY big paragraph.

Thanks.

Oh yea, I should also mention that I agree with some of the things you said... it is the hip thing alot of the time to support the palestinians.

But just like usual, there are spots where I can disagree... sorry.

[Change]

I tend to support the Isralies on the issue, but the Palestinians also have some claim to the land. Most of the major religions have some claim-so here is what we do. We make Jerusalem the first U.N. city. Everyone has some legal claim to it, but no one will act because the all "own" a piece of it and if they try to take it by force they will just anger the rest of the world. The remaining land mass should be devided with a mutual agreement betweent he two intrests, it must be a compromise. To many times has Yassar Arafat turned down a compromise (I'm not sure if he know what it meens). I also think that the U.S. should help to broker the deal between the two peoples, it would make us look good, and give us props with the Arab world.

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve[/i]
[B]The bible, and other religious text, go against human nature itself... things that aren't in ur ability to follow, and I feel that if we don't have the ability to follow, why is it even there to begin with? It's against the human nature we all are. Which I find absolutely ridiculous. I've never met a pure Christian. I'm never met a Pure Muslim, and I've never met a pure Jew...[/B][/QUOTE]

That is a good point.. I mean, the whole point at times with following the Bible is to try and control the bad things that come naturally to us.. and it is pretty impossible to get it perfect.. so yeah.. I see your point.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents[/i]
[B]First off, I dont appreciate the sarcastic tone you have taken.

I never played the "know-it-all." So please just lay off on the personal angle of attack.[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think Justin was being sarcastic at all..

but heh.. the thing is, yes, there are a great deal of parts in the bible which offer guidelines for life, and a few parts which many would argue impossible to believe in.. but the majority [i]is[/i] a historical record of actual events.

Evidence has actually been found that Sodom and Gomorrah existed, and were destroyed in a flood. The Bible pretty clearly says two things. That fire was involved, and that the city was swept away. Both of those can be verified. The details, I forget.. but it's probably floating about the web somewhere too (that's not where I found that information, by the way, it was on a documentary on TV. But it's bound to be out there as well)

The point is, even if it's a book about faith, the majority of it can be verified as historically accurate, whether you believe the miracles or not.

[Justin]

Heh, there's only one point in your post directed to me that I haven't already discussed with you, gokents. That I will get now:

This man who changed the world DID, indeed, defy the laws of science. But...you have to think like this...He is God. God created [i]everything[/i], the laws of science included. If God is all-powerful, which the Christian God is, He can therefore bend, break, defy or destroy [i]any[/i] of His creations. Therefore, defying the rules of physics cannot be used as an arguement. That's a miracle, and can only be explained as such.

-Justin

[Dan L]

one minor off-topic point:

There are a few species on Earth that haven't changed at all since the time of the dinosaurs.

Try to explain that from an evolutionary point of view.. I mean, by now, 65 million years of random change must have changed them in some way. And don't forget that the change IS random. The environment of a creature doens't propagate the change, it only decides what is favourable. Evolution is actually seen as "luck" rather than survival of the fittest, in some ways.

(I'm in no way saying evolution is untrue, I'm just saying that by the laws of evolution that's not possible)

Also, on a similar note, bear in mind that at the rate we're progressing, in a few hundred years we could make a whole new person out of a single cell- and even then we'd be nowhere near God like. Now try and tell me God couldn't make Eve out of Adam's rib.

But anyway.. I've sidetracked a great deal there..

[Mnemolth]

Actually there are organisms that have changed little or not at all for much longer than 65 million years. Some coral species as well as some algae, and probably more I can't remember off the top of my head at the moment.

This in no way goes against Darwin's theory of the the origin of species. In the original text, the phrase 'survival of the fittest' was used. But fittest did not mean strongest it refers to the one that best fits, ie survival of the organisms that best fit their environments. The connotation of survival of the strongest and 'jungle law' was a bastardization brought forth by racist theories based on the 'science' of 'eugenics' during the turn of 20th century.

There is nothing strange about the idea of an organism surviving from the earliest forms. Its not counter to evolutionary theory if you understand what evolution is all about. Change is random, some species have no need to change, and change is [i]non-linear[/i]. The last point is very important.

Although I think its probably best to discuss such things in a separate thread. Then again, the powers that be might not look too well upon such a thread. Its a sensitive topic and much has already been said. Then again, if repetition is a problem I'm not sure about the point of message boards in general. :D

[Guest cloricus]

Justin I can agree with what you are saying but I really don't think Jesus (That is who you are talking about right?) has changed the world very much. It is only the Christians that believe he is the son of god anyway. I know that it has changed a some part of the western world, though you must admit any god could have been put in done the same for people beliefs. (That is making the assumption that the Christian god is just a story. And if it?s not a story why does most of the world not believe in the Christian god?)

And what Jesus did was scientifically possible; we can nearly do most of it now.

Any way what the hell does this have to do with the two countries in question? I thought it was between the Jews and Muslims, not Christians?

Eps ? Meh.

[The Harlequin]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]I'd just like to point out that there are also several "higher" organisms that haven't evolved over millions of years. A lot of your insect eating animals, anteaters, those crazy things beginning with P that I can't pronounce, much less spell, and a few species of insect hunting bats. They don't need to evolve, so they didn't.


But yeah, the Israel Palestine issue was based on religion. It transcends that now.[/font][/color]

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mnemolth [/i]
[B]Actually there are organisms that have changed little or not at all for much longer than 65 million years. Some coral species as well as some algae, and probably more I can't remember off the top of my head at the moment.

This in no way goes against Darwin's theory of the the origin of species. In the original text, the phrase 'survival of the fittest' was used. But fittest did not mean strongest it refers to the one that best fits, ie survival of the organisms that best fit their environments. The connotation of survival of the strongest and 'jungle law' was a bastardization brought forth by racist theories based on the 'science' of 'eugenics' during the turn of 20th century.

There is nothing strange about the idea of an organism surviving from the earliest forms. Its not counter to evolutionary theory if you understand what evolution is all about. Change is random, some species have no need to change, and change is [i]non-linear[/i]. The last point is very important.

Although I think its probably best to discuss such things in a separate thread. Then again, the powers that be might not look too well upon such a thread. Its a sensitive topic and much has already been said. Then again, if repetition is a problem I'm not sure about the point of message boards in general. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Mnemolth, take this from someone who actually studies biochemistry:

Evolution is [b]not[/b] brought about by a [i]need[/i] for change, it just happens. The environment only plays a small part in that it favours certain changes over others. Yes, it is completely random, but over a length of time it is also predictable, you can predict almost exactly how many mutations will appear in a genetic code, and with those mutations, in time, comes slight alteration of the species. For a species to stay exactly the same for that amount of time is near impossible, not because it [i]needs[/i] to change, but because it doesn't have a choice in the matter, or rather, shouldn't.

I'm not saying these species should be a whole new species, that looks and acts completely different, but to not change at all over such a period of time just shouldn't theoretically happen.

And no, it doesn't go against [i]Darwin[/i]'s theory, but I wasn't talking about that. The theory of evolution has come a [i]long[/i] way since then.

[Guest cloricus]

Deus Ex Machina I'm sorry but that's against most things I'm learning in school. I?m in a Christian school by the way.

Quote | Deus -
Evolution is not brought about by a need for change, it just happens.
-

As far as I'm concerned that is complete crap, if that was true why do we have an opposable thumb? You didn't think the need for it to hold basic tools had any effect on it becoming that way. I just find what you?re saying logically incorrect.

As for random, what I see when I look at organisms is not random. Why do plants have viocty "veins", (thingies, looks at Harlequin for right spelling) so they can grow bigger in the competition for sun light. This is an adaptation. So is the multicellular idea, the cells group together to have a better chance of surviving. There are just too many examples that we can see make it so plain that was your saying is very far fetched. Though I can agree that the chance for an organism to evolve is random (that?s why some die out) but I can?t accept that the adaptations they do evolve are random, I see them all as having a purpose. (Or most any way.)

Though considering you?re the biochemistry student you?re most likely right. So can you please explain what the heck you mean a bit better? Thanks.

Eps - Bleh. :P

[Transtic Nerve]

I'd have to agree. As someone who believes in Evolution, maybe not of human from ape, but the general idea of evolution, I have to say that things evolve because their surroundings change.

Dictionary.com says:
Evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

See Synonyms at development.

Why would something change if the world around then was not changing? Or if they did not change the world around them (ie: moving to a different habitat) Species have an instict to be somewhere where they fit in perfectly with their surroundings. It's referred to as harmony in nature. So when the habitat changes, the organism will either a) move to a more suitable habitat or b) change to fit it's current habitat.

Take the Snow Hare as a good example of this.