Israel's International Crisis (escalation #1)

[Phatscotty]

Snorri, when you said, "Analogies are stupid for such a complicated mess " you don't mean weak or ambiguous ones did you?

Well it's more that for analogies to work for the whole thing they quickly develop into "but what if this situation was exactly like Israel?"

Hmmm, maybe she was going for.

Palistinian dude was just relaxing in 1948, Jews show up looking to make the place back into Isreal, sent him packing, that sucks the hooka.
How would you like it if someone came and knocked down your house to build a casino?

Yes, although the Balfor declaration was back a few years before that.

I'm pretty sure they claim the Torah as their rite, Balfor was important though. Who was behind Balfour again???

Scotty reaches out to Player

[Ray Rider]

My view on the situation:
1. Why did Israel board the ship in international waters? Why not wait until it traveled closer? Seems like a major error on the part of the IDF.

2. Why did the "peace activists" "happen" to have stun grenades, fire grenades, and other weapons? And slingshots? Anyone else notice the intentional David vs Goliath symbolism? And to top it off, an Al Jazeera reporter "happened" to be aboard? It appears that they expected and desired a confrontation.

3. Pro-Israelis say that activists fired first; pro-Palestinians say the IDF fired first. Unless there is some hard evidence either way, this point of self-defense is nullified and anyone who claims one side fired in self-defense just shows their bias.

4. How is aid from aid ships going to help in the long run anyway? I don't know much about the situation, but it seems like an industry must be created so the people in Gaza can support themselves. By creating a dependency on the part of the Palestinians, Israel (I say Israel because of the blockade; others are also to blame) are essentially perpetuating the problem.

5. It's fundamentally a win-win situation for the activists. If Israel allowed them through the blockade, it would be a political victory. If Israel didn't and there was violent confrontation (which happened), Israel would be condemned for "attacking peace activists on an aid ship;" another political victory.

I forgot too. Because they killed Jesus?

Speaking of this (it's neither here nor there and my intent is not to derail the thread, but)...

Why do some Christians hate Jews (or allegedly hate Jews) because the Jews killed Jesus? Didn't the death of Jesus work out in the end for Christians? Wasn't that the point: i.e. to kill him so he could rise from the dead? Shouldn't we be thankful to the, what, 50 Jews, that were there for his crucifixition?

Historical hatred for Jews has more to do with their ability to lend money (and thus charge interest) when the Christians couldn't do it. There is similar hatred for banks in 2010, I might add.

I think it tends to be the "Christians" who aren't aware of what is actually in the Bible who oppose the Jews because the crucifixion of Jesus. Their superficial knowledge of the Bible combined with westernized paintings of a European-looking Jesus (and apostles--think of the paining of the Last Supper) lead them to a confusion of the facts. Jesus' death was foretold thousands of years before it happened, and yes the result of His death was positive--it opened up the option of salvation to all of mankind.

I thought this was so true about the situation:

I have no problem with Turkey or humanitarian groups loudly criticizing Israel. But I have a big problem when people get so agitated by Israel’s actions in Gaza but are unmoved by Syria’s involvement in the murder of the prime minister of Lebanon, by the Iranian regime’s killing of its own citizens demonstrating for the right to have their votes counted, by Muslim suicide bombers murdering nearly 100 Ahmadi Muslims in mosques in Pakistan on Friday and by pro-Hamas gunmen destroying a U.N.-sponsored summer camp in Gaza because it wouldn’t force Islamic fundamentalism down the throats of children.

That concern for Gaza and Israel’s blockade is so out of balance with these other horrific cases in the region that it is not surprising Israelis dismiss it as motivated by hatred — not the advice of friends.

Good point. I think the Judeo-Christian heritage in the West is largely the cause of the disproportionate interest in the Israel and what it does compared to Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

I forgot too. Because they killed Jesus?

Speaking of this (it's neither here nor there and my intent is not to derail the thread, but)...

Why do some Christians hate Jews (or allegedly hate Jews) because the Jews killed Jesus? Didn't the death of Jesus work out in the end for Christians? Wasn't that the point: i.e. to kill him so he could rise from the dead? Shouldn't we be thankful to the, what, 50 Jews, that were there for his crucifixition?

Historical hatred for Jews has more to do with their ability to lend money (and thus charge interest) when the Christians couldn't do it. There is similar hatred for banks in 2010, I might add.

I think it tends to be the "Christians" who aren't aware of what is actually in the Bible who oppose the Jews because the crucifixion of Jesus. Their superficial knowledge of the Bible combined with westernized paintings of a European-looking Jesus (and apostles--think of the paining of the Last Supper) lead them to a confusion of the facts. Jesus' death was foretold thousands of years before it happened, and yes the result of His death was positive--it opened up the option of salvation to all of mankind.

I have to say this has little to truly do with religion. It has to do with power. Jews became a convenient target at various points, allowing leaders to point hatred at Jews instead of at the leadership.

In addition, the fact that Jews have historically kept to themselves more than other groups has lead to misunderstandings.
There have been periods when Jews might not have always seemed the best of neighbors. That is, I don't in any way shape or form mean to insinuate they are doing anything harmful or wrong... all that is baloney. BUT, when you are not percieved to participate in a community, won't eat the same food others eat, etc, then it does not lead to understanding. In a time when life is harsh and judgemental, any outsider is an "easier" target than those who are part of the society.

Hatred tends to die down when things are going well and spring up again when times are tough. In the past, Jews made the "ready" target. Now, it is more often other groups.

I thought this was so true about the situation:

I have no problem with Turkey or humanitarian groups loudly criticizing Israel. But I have a big problem when people get so agitated by Israel’s actions in Gaza but are unmoved by Syria’s involvement in the murder of the prime minister of Lebanon, by the Iranian regime’s killing of its own citizens demonstrating for the right to have their votes counted, by Muslim suicide bombers murdering nearly 100 Ahmadi Muslims in mosques in Pakistan on Friday and by pro-Hamas gunmen destroying a U.N.-sponsored summer camp in Gaza because it wouldn’t force Islamic fundamentalism down the throats of children.

That concern for Gaza and Israel’s blockade is so out of balance with these other horrific cases in the region that it is not surprising Israelis dismiss it as motivated by hatred — not the advice of friends.

Good point. I think the Judeo-Christian heritage in the West is largely the cause of the disproportionate interest in the Israel and what it does compared to Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, etc.

I think all of it is wrong. But our interest in Israel is because most Israelis came from Europe and the US and have relatives, friends here.

[joecoolfrog]

I am not Jewish but spent a year working and living in Israel in the early eighties , what struck me immediately was how little was made of religion. Outside of Jerusalem I saw very few people dressed in orthodox fashion ( certainly less than in London or New York ) and there did not seem to be much of a rush to the synagogue during Shabat.
Since then I have come across a lot of Israelis on my travels and they are a pretty pragmatic bunch , they care about security and peace rather than prophesy or divine right. Of course they have a sense of culture ( how could it be otherwise when their country is defined by religion in the eyes of the world ) but the main lesson they take from history is to trust and rely on nobody but themselves.
My point is that it little matters what Palestine was before or what group has historical claim to the land , the Israelis will never leave and will only cede territory if it benefits them strategicaly.
They care next to nothing for international opinion and are immune to serious censure because of the massive Jewish lobby in the USA.
Despite what is commonly thought the average Israeli is neither religious fanatic or zealot , nor do they hate Palestinians en masse. Over the years there have been huge peace rallies in Tel Aviv and a great deal off opposition to the right wing 'settlers ' , this opposition from within has traditionaly curbed excess from the Israeli government.
Unfortunately the last decade has seen a hardening of opinion in Israel because of the terrorist activities of Hamas and others, these groups have avowed to destroy the country and are not going to accomodate compromise. We may well think that the Israelis sometimes go too far but they will not change tack until the International community removes the threat to them.
Incidently I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinians but their plight has not been solely caused by wicked Jews , for 60 years they have been used as pawns and let down by corrupt and self serving leadership

[2dimes]

Interesting how that one spured so much conversation but it was a specific question responding to this.

Israel is so hated in the middle east they are constantly under fire/threat. to protect themselves they have to take preventive measures. the only shame is they let it come this far through their past behaviour and it seems there is no way back.

And they all conveniently forget why they are disliked.

I forgot too. Because they killed Jesus?

Couldn't have anything to do with people insisting God told them they have the right to land where other people have lived for hundreds of years? I wonder how you would feel if the Native Americans decided to act similarly and take your land back?

Pfffft, imaginary fairy tale sky daddy tells™ them to occupy a certain place? Puh-leeeze. We should all lend a hand to annialate Israel and prove once and for all they're full of balogna!! Huh, huh?



P.S. Oka.

Now, Israel is not going to go away. It is here, and for all the harm it has caused, it has also done good things. However, this myopic view that Israel is this sanctified nation and the Palestiniens are just dirty terrorists is a big part of why this issue has escalated so far, instead of being resolved years ago.

You're right, Israel's the bully here's a video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABjE_7uwA0I

[tzor]

Commentary from Star Parker: What divides Israel from Palestinians

In 1957, Golda Meir, a future prime minister of Israel, spoke at the National Press Club in Washington. She said, unfortunately prophetically, "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."

[Snorri1234]

2. Why did the "peace activists" "happen" to have stun grenades, fire grenades, and other weapons? And slingshots? Anyone else notice the intentional David vs Goliath symbolism? And to top it off, an Al Jazeera reporter "happened" to be aboard? It appears that they expected and desired a confrontation.

They didn't have fire grenades or stun grenades or really any other weapons that weren't just shit they found on the boat grabbed during the attack.

And of course an Al Jazeera reporter was on board. Along with a bunch of other journalists. And politicians and shit like that. They weren't trying to be sneaky. The plan was always to go in and complain that Israel stopped them from providing aid to Gaza.

3. Pro-Israelis say that activists fired first; pro-Palestinians say the IDF fired first. Unless there is some hard evidence either way, this point of self-defense is nullified and anyone who claims one side fired in self-defense just shows their bias.

The Israelis fired first. It's just a question of whether they fired live ammo first.

I think the people on the ship jumped to the conclusion that the Israelis were firing at them, which isn't entirely unreasonable since it was the middle of the night and they were on international waters. (also, Israel doesn't have the cleanest trackrecord when it comes to these kind of things.)

4. How is aid from aid ships going to help in the long run anyway? I don't know much about the situation, but it seems like an industry must be created so the people in Gaza can support themselves. By creating a dependency on the part of the Palestinians, Israel (I say Israel because of the blockade; others are also to blame) are essentially perpetuating the problem.

Yes. Aid isn't actually meant to help in the long run.

But in the short run the Palestinians need a lot of stuff and Israel is being a dick about letting them have it. Not even all food and medical supplies are let through.

[joecoolfrog]

I forgot too. Because they killed Jesus?

Speaking of this (it's neither here nor there and my intent is not to derail the thread, but)...

Why do some Christians hate Jews (or allegedly hate Jews) because the Jews killed Jesus? Didn't the death of Jesus work out in the end for Christians? Wasn't that the point: i.e. to kill him so he could rise from the dead? Shouldn't we be thankful to the, what, 50 Jews, that were there for his crucifixition?

Historical hatred for Jews has more to do with their ability to lend money (and thus charge interest) when the Christians couldn't do it. There is similar hatred for banks in 2010, I might add.

I think it tends to be the "Christians" who aren't aware of what is actually in the Bible who oppose the Jews because the crucifixion of Jesus. Their superficial knowledge of the Bible combined with westernized paintings of a European-looking Jesus (and apostles--think of the paining of the Last Supper) lead them to a confusion of the facts. Jesus' death was foretold thousands of years before it happened, and yes the result of His death was positive--it opened up the option of salvation to all of mankind.

I have to say this has little to truly do with religion. It has to do with power. Jews became a convenient target at various points, allowing leaders to point hatred at Jews instead of at the leadership.

In addition, the fact that Jews have historically kept to themselves more than other groups has lead to misunderstandings.
There have been periods when Jews might not have always seemed the best of neighbors. That is, I don't in any way shape or form mean to insinuate they are doing anything harmful or wrong... all that is baloney. BUT, when you are not percieved to participate in a community, won't eat the same food others eat, etc, then it does not lead to understanding. In a time when life is harsh and judgemental, any outsider is an "easier" target than those who are part of the society.

Hatred tends to die down when things are going well and spring up again when times are tough. In the past, Jews made the "ready" target. Now, it is more often other groups.

I thought this was so true about the situation:

I have no problem with Turkey or humanitarian groups loudly criticizing Israel. But I have a big problem when people get so agitated by Israel’s actions in Gaza but are unmoved by Syria’s involvement in the murder of the prime minister of Lebanon, by the Iranian regime’s killing of its own citizens demonstrating for the right to have their votes counted, by Muslim suicide bombers murdering nearly 100 Ahmadi Muslims in mosques in Pakistan on Friday and by pro-Hamas gunmen destroying a U.N.-sponsored summer camp in Gaza because it wouldn’t force Islamic fundamentalism down the throats of children.

That concern for Gaza and Israel’s blockade is so out of balance with these other horrific cases in the region that it is not surprising Israelis dismiss it as motivated by hatred — not the advice of friends.

Good point. I think the Judeo-Christian heritage in the West is largely the cause of the disproportionate interest in the Israel and what it does compared to Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, etc.

I think all of it is wrong. But our interest in Israel is because most Israelis came from Europe and the US and have relatives, friends here.[/quote]

I agree with everything that Player says , I would add that a lot of interest ( read sympathy ) is directed at Israel because of feelings of guilt.

[PLAYER57832]

Interesting how that one spured so much conversation but it was a specific question responding to this.

Israel is so hated in the middle east they are constantly under fire/threat. to protect themselves they have to take preventive measures. the only shame is they let it come this far through their past behaviour and it seems there is no way back.

And they all conveniently forget why they are disliked.

I forgot too. Because they killed Jesus?

Couldn't have anything to do with people insisting God told them they have the right to land where other people have lived for hundreds of years? I wonder how you would feel if the Native Americans decided to act similarly and take your land back?

Pfffft, imaginary fairy tale sky daddy tells™ them to occupy a certain place? Puh-leeeze. We should all lend a hand to annialate Israel and prove once and for all they're full of balogna!! Huh, huh?



P.S. Oka.

Now, Israel is not going to go away. It is here, and for all the harm it has caused, it has also done good things. However, this myopic view that Israel is this sanctified nation and the Palestiniens are just dirty terrorists is a big part of why this issue has escalated so far, instead of being resolved years ago.

You're right, Israel's the bully here's a video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABjE_7uwA0I

There are videos from BOTH sides, some not even edited. I await the official enquiry before deciding on THIS incident.

However, when it comes to how they have dealt with Palestinians for the past 50 years.. yes, they have been a bully.

[silvanricky]

[PLAYER57832]

I see, so what does the poor European response of over 50 years ago have to do with Israel blockading Gaza, refusing to allow the UN and other aid organizations materials needed to build schools, houses, etc.?


That is EXACTLY the assinine "logic" that is why this has escalated as far as it has. Seems that might be reason to allow the survivors to take GERMAN lands, not Palestinian lands! Yet no one seems to be suggesting that.

[2dimes]

Seems that might be reason to allow the survivors to take GERMAN lands, not Palestinian lands! Yet no one seems to be suggesting that.

There's nothing in the torah like "I will give Germany to you and your descendants. I will keep the oath that I swore to your father Abraham." unless you've penciled it in yourself. You'll need to drop that by Israel to let them know if you did. Maybe that would have changed WW II.

[PLAYER57832]

Seems that might be reason to allow the survivors to take GERMAN lands, not Palestinian lands! Yet no one seems to be suggesting that.

There's nothing in the torah like "I will give Germany to you and your descendants. I will keep the oath that I swore to your father Abraham." unless you've penciled it in yourself. You'll need to drop that by Israel to let them know if you did. Maybe that would have changed WW II.

Israel is a political state, not a religious one, despite claims otherwise.

If you want to go back to that, you get into a whole mess of whether it really means the original Jews, who rejected Christ, but still retain a position within God's heart or is expanded to include also Christians, who also honor the commandments, etc, but with a difference.

Furthermore, if the Israelis were willing to pay reasonable market prices to most Palestinians, instead of just claiming that any deed not recognized by Israeli courts is just invalid and therefore that land can be simply taken by anyone Jewish or Israeli, then there would not be such a fight. The Torah condemns theft.

[2dimes]

For the present day state of Israel it only matters if it's in there. It doesn't matter what other things are in it that may contradict it or invalidate it due to, "That was then this is now." You know those things drive this and yet you now say this?

Israel is a political state, not a religious one, despite claims otherwise.

It doesn't matter if that's factual or not. If that was how they felt they might as well just go find another place to take over. The "fair market value" of lands in Greece could be going down and there's less arabs there to fight with. Makes sense to go there or if you're not going to play fair once you take over, Germany like you said.

Are you in total denial that there's purpose in taking back that particular place that they themselves might be in denial or even ignorant of? I'm not a zionist my self but I understand, things may need to happen that I might not fully get or agree with.

[PLAYER57832]

For the present day state of Israel it only matters if it's in there. It doesn't matter what other things are in it that may contradict it or invalidate it due to, "That was then this is now." You know those things drive this and yet you now say this?

You cannot have it both ways. You laid the claim that it was a religious state. I said, no, it is not.

In either case, the way it has acted towards Palestinians is neither exemplary of what I believe God requires of his people, nor what would be allowed by any other nation on earth politically.

[2dimes]

I did not say it was a religious state.

I said,

There's nothing in the torah like "I will give Germany to you and your descendants. I will keep the oath that I swore to your father Abraham."

and it doesn't matter if it is or is not a religious state.

They are motivated to reclaim a particular area partially based on the quote before I changed part of it. You also have all ready posted a similar statement, because even though it may not be a religious state we both know they're motivated by that.

[Snorri1234]

If you want to go back to that, you get into a whole mess of whether it really means the original Jews, who rejected Christ, but still retain a position within God's heart or is expanded to include also Christians, who also honor the commandments, etc, but with a difference.

There is no mess. It means only the jews.

[tzor]

There is no mess. It means only the jews.

There is always a mess; it may not be the mess you expect, but there always is a mess.

Does anyone remember this mess? Here is a 1999 BBC News article about the problems of the integration of Ethiopian Jews into Israel.

[Ray Rider]

I have to say this has little to truly do with religion. It has to do with power. Jews became a convenient target at various points, allowing leaders to point hatred at Jews instead of at the leadership.

In addition, the fact that Jews have historically kept to themselves more than other groups has lead to misunderstandings.
There have been periods when Jews might not have always seemed the best of neighbors. That is, I don't in any way shape or form mean to insinuate they are doing anything harmful or wrong... all that is baloney. BUT, when you are not percieved to participate in a community, won't eat the same food others eat, etc, then it does not lead to understanding. In a time when life is harsh and judgemental, any outsider is an "easier" target than those who are part of the society.

Hatred tends to die down when things are going well and spring up again when times are tough. In the past, Jews made the "ready" target. Now, it is more often other groups.

It is a mix of both power and religion, in my opinion. And I don't think any targets have changed--just look at Iran & company. Perhaps here in the West we are more sympathetic to them atm then has historically been the case, but I doubt it will last very long.

Incidently I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinians but their plight has not been solely caused by wicked Jews , for 60 years they have been used as pawns and let down by corrupt and self serving leadership

Agreed; they have been used as pawns by many nations and various causes. Just take a look at how Jordan has treated them.

They didn't have fire grenades or stun grenades or really any other weapons that weren't just shit they found on the boat grabbed during the attack.

I would advise you to check out the videos some more, then--there were definitely grenades thrown at the soldiers. Possibly those grenades were taken from the soldiers, but I doubt it.

Pro-Israelis say that activists fired first; pro-Palestinians say the IDF fired first. Unless there is some hard evidence either way, this point of self-defense is nullified and anyone who claims one side fired in self-defense just shows their bias.

The Israelis fired first. It's just a question of whether they fired live ammo first.

I do believe you're showing your bias there.

In either case, the way it has acted towards Palestinians is neither exemplary of what I believe God requires of his people, nor what would be allowed by any other nation on earth politically.

I wouldn't say the Israelis (or any nation, group of people, or single individual, for that matter) has treated everyone around them in a manner "exemplary of what I believe God requires of his people..." That's the whole point of the ten commandments (and Jesus' clarification of them)--to show us that no matter how hard people try, we can absolutely never reach approval with God based on our own self effort. However all the way through the Bible you see that God remains steadfast in His promises no matter how much man fails him. Judgment does come from time to time as He chastens His beloved children, but in the end God remains faithful even if His chosen people (the nation of Israel) are not or His bride (the whole body of believers, Jews and non-Jews alike; the church) are not. The book of Hosea is a clear example of this.

If you want to go back to that, you get into a whole mess of whether it really means the original Jews, who rejected Christ, but still retain a position within God's heart or is expanded to include also Christians, who also honor the commandments, etc, but with a difference.

There is no mess. It means only the jews.

You aught to be ashamed of yourself, Player! Even Snorri knows that one! lol

There is no mess. It means only the jews.

There is always a mess; it may not be the mess you expect, but there always is a mess.

Does anyone remember this mess? Here is a 1999 BBC News article about the problems of the integration of Ethiopian Jews into Israel.

I'm not sure how that applies to the subject at hand, however it is interesting to contrast how the Israelis treated these poverty-stricken distant relatives in comparison to how the Jordanians treated their distant relatives, the Palestinians who fled across the river to Jordan.

[PLAYER57832]

If you want to go back to that, you get into a whole mess of whether it really means the original Jews, who rejected Christ, but still retain a position within God's heart or is expanded to include also Christians, who also honor the commandments, etc, but with a difference.

There is no mess. It means only the jews.

You aught to be ashamed of yourself, Player! Even Snorri knows that one! lol

Except Jesus was a Jew, so aren't his followers, by extention also Jews? Actually, the question of whether Christians are or are not Jews is an old one and gets back to what actually makes a Jew versus a Christian. Paul essentially put forward that one did not need to convert to Judaism to be a Christian. I don't intend to get into that debate, becuase it gets into technicalities. (and no, I don't actually think we are Jews). It's just that if you are going to call on the old Testament, then you have to realize there is more than one view on it. I find it interesting that so many just dismiss that whole concept "out of hand", yet... in truth, the question has not truly been 100% resolved.

I agree with a lot of what you said above, just deleted it to avoid repetition. There are no "pure angels" in this. I guess I tend to sound more critical of Israel right now because so many insist on leaping to Israeli "defense" without even thinking that there could be another side. Folks who try to lay that "you either support everything Israel does or you are anti-semetic" are doing everyone involved an extreme disservice.

[Snorri1234]

They didn't have fire grenades or stun grenades or really any other weapons that weren't just shit they found on the boat grabbed during the attack.

I would advise you to check out the videos some more, then--there were definitely grenades thrown at the soldiers. Possibly those grenades were taken from the soldiers, but I doubt it.

Even the video showing all the "weapons" they had put out by Israel didn't include grenades. Or guns.

Pro-Israelis say that activists fired first; pro-Palestinians say the IDF fired first. Unless there is some hard evidence either way, this point of self-defense is nullified and anyone who claims one side fired in self-defense just shows their bias.

The Israelis fired first. It's just a question of whether they fired live ammo first.

I do believe you're showing your bias there.

The IDF didn't sneak on the boat. It's a fair bet that they used smoke-grenades and cautionary paintball-fire to let the others know they were there. It's also not unreasonable to think they fired their paintballs at the activists who resisted.

[Snorri1234]

If you want to go back to that, you get into a whole mess of whether it really means the original Jews, who rejected Christ, but still retain a position within God's heart or is expanded to include also Christians, who also honor the commandments, etc, but with a difference.

There is no mess. It means only the jews.

You aught to be ashamed of yourself, Player! Even Snorri knows that one! lol

Except Jesus was a Jew, so aren't his followers, by extention also Jews? Actually, the question of whether Christians are or are not Jews is an old one and gets back to what actually makes a Jew versus a Christian. Paul essentially put forward that one did not need to convert to Judaism to be a Christian. I don't intend to get into that debate, becuase it gets into technicalities. (and no, I don't actually think we are Jews). It's just that if you are going to call on the old Testament, then you have to realize there is more than one view on it. I find it interesting that so many just dismiss that whole concept "out of hand", yet... in truth, the question has not truly been 100% resolved.

Actually, it's rather simple. According to the jews christians aren't jewish.

[InkL0sed]

If you want to go back to that, you get into a whole mess of whether it really means the original Jews, who rejected Christ, but still retain a position within God's heart or is expanded to include also Christians, who also honor the commandments, etc, but with a difference.

There is no mess. It means only the jews.

You aught to be ashamed of yourself, Player! Even Snorri knows that one! lol

Except Jesus was a Jew, so aren't his followers, by extention also Jews? Actually, the question of whether Christians are or are not Jews is an old one and gets back to what actually makes a Jew versus a Christian. Paul essentially put forward that one did not need to convert to Judaism to be a Christian. I don't intend to get into that debate, becuase it gets into technicalities. (and no, I don't actually think we are Jews). It's just that if you are going to call on the old Testament, then you have to realize there is more than one view on it. I find it interesting that so many just dismiss that whole concept "out of hand", yet... in truth, the question has not truly been 100% resolved.

Actually, it's rather simple. According to the jews christians aren't jewish.

But according to jay, every other kind of Christian isn't Christian.

[2dimes]

You aught to be ashamed of yourself, Player! Even Snorri knows that one! lol

Except Jesus was a Jew, so aren't his followers, by extention also Jews? Actually, the question of whether Christians are or are not Jews is an old one and gets back to what actually makes a Jew versus a Christian. Paul essentially put forward that one did not need to convert to Judaism to be a Christian. I don't intend to get into that debate, becuase it gets into technicalities. (and no, I don't actually think we are Jews). It's just that if you are going to call on the old Testament, then you have to realize there is more than one view on it. I find it interesting that so many just dismiss that whole concept "out of hand", yet... in truth, the question has not truly been 100% resolved.

Actually, it's rather simple. According to the jews christians aren't jewish.

But according to jay, every other kind of Christian isn't Christian.

What sort of Christian do you feel is Christian?

[InkL0sed]

If they say they are, then I'm not gonna argue with them. I don't really give a f*ck about it.