Serial killer in France

[Joe Hutch]

Originally Posted by Mr Pig

Yet they wrote an integrated system that is free of error or contradiction.

Taking it from the beginning, there are two different versions of the Creation in the Bible. Which is correct?

[7_V]

Originally Posted by Joe Hutch

It also depends on whether I was the OT God, who sent His messages via smitings, plagues and such, or the NT God, who is all-loving and all-merciful.

Originally Posted by the bible

"You shall love the Lord God, with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might."

"Don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you"

"Love your neighbour as yourself"

These are the basic tenets of Christianity. OT or NT, Joe?

[avole]

Originally Posted by 7_V

The Palestinians can have their own state. A Jewish-Palestinian state is just another way of saying the end of a Jewish state and subsequently, the end of a Jewish presence in Israel - just as there are precious few Jews in any Muslim country.

As for Israel being a beacon of light to the world, I don't see why they should be any more than say England or Denmark. However, it should be noted that in the fields of water usage, irrigation, desalination, medical electronics, electronics, medicine and a variety of other fields, Israel is doing exceptionally well in difficult circumstances. As for the future, access to venture capital in Israel is, per capita, 20-fold greater than in the rest of Europe. If you take the amount of VC per capita, in Europe, it is $7. In the U.S. it is $72. In Israel it is double that.

They've only been up and running for just over 60 years. Check it out in the next 60.

I don't agree, a country at peace comprising Jews and Muslims in equal measure would be a true beacon of light. Building a fence to keep one group out is not, neither is behaviour like this http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/...5895_3218.html .

I wouldn't say England has been a beacon of light for centuries, if it ever were one. I'd suggest Sweden over Denmark, which has become unpleasantly racist in some of its views.

[7_V]

Originally Posted by avole

I don't agree, a country at peace comprising Jews and Muslims in equal measure would be a true beacon of light. Building a fence to keep one group out is not, neither is behaviour like this http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/...5895_3218.html.

Do you know anything about the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC)? Israel is absolutely correct to leave it and its record on human rights is far higher than many of the members. In fact it's amazing that Israel didn't leave many years ago.

[TheDecameron]

Steve, I had to laugh at the caption below the pic in the article you linked to. "Avigdor Lieberman has cut all ties with the UNHRC.". That's like saying Marine Le Pen or Eugene Terreblanche has cut all ties with the UNHRC. Mercifully neither are in office....

[avole]

Rubbish. It was a childish reaction to a resolution that only one country voted against. What did Israel have to lose if you are correct? It could only have gained - unless, of course, there are problems.

[PaulMB]

Regarding the Bible and the Christian Gospels, almost everything in the Gospels is a re-wording or simplification of principles already laid down in the Jewish Bible, including "doing unto others.." and "love they neighbour..."
Jesus, after all, was not out to found a new religion, but was preaching to the Jews for a "renaissance" of Judaism itself.
The main new element in Christianity was the scenario of Eternal Life, Resurrection, Heaven and Hell. But this idea was constructed by the various Christian hierarchies long after the death of Jesus, starting with St. Paul.

[Still]

And they all lived happily ever after.

Originally Posted by 7_V

Do you know anything about the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC)? Israel is absolutely correct to leave it and its record on human rights is far higher than many of the members. In fact it's amazing that Israel didn't leave many years ago.

Iiuc Israel left the UNHRC due to inability to cope with certain home truths.

[PaulMB]

A single state comprising both Jews and Arabs would last about 10 minutes, just as the 1948 partition plan was already turning into war as the Brits were leaving.
It might just be possible if the whole area of Israel + territories were in a vacuum, without any other country next door, but this is just fantasy of course.
Incidentally, to some degree it already exists in that about 15% of the Israeli population is made up of Moslem Arabs, Christian Arabs and Druse.

[ariegur]

I wonder what should happen to make you understanding this area. Look what happens in Lebanon - before you suggest a state that Jewish people and Palestinians are living together. Two states to two people is the only solution here.

Arye

[Greg]

Originally Posted by PaulMB

Regarding the Bible and the Christian Gospels, almost everything in the Gospels is a re-wording or simplification of principles already laid down in the Jewish Bible, including "doing unto others.." and "love they neighbour..."
Jesus, after all, was not out to found a new religion, but was preaching to the Jews for a "renaissance" of Judaism itself.
The main new element in Christianity was the scenario of Eternal Life, Resurrection, Heaven and Hell. But this idea was constructed by the various Christian hierarchies long after the death of Jesus, starting with St. Paul.

Suffice to say his call for a return to the original values in Judaism were ignored by Judaism 1.0, then a whole heap of baggage added to Judaism 2.0 in the form of the church of Rome. What a pickle.

Who'd have thought Judaism 3.5 would fall out so badly with 1.0. Prophets can be such a pain.

[7_V]

Originally Posted by avole

Rubbish. It was a childish reaction to a resolution that only one country voted against. What did Israel have to lose if you are correct? It could only have gained - unless, of course, there are problems.

Of course, a childish reaction after 6 years of being attacked by this corrupt and utterly biased institution following many years of being attacked by its equally crappy predecessor the UNCHR, which was superceded for being biased and for the human rights record of its members.

You really should know a little about the subject before you post nonsense like this.

[7_V]

Originally Posted by Greg

Suffice to say his call for a return to the original values in Judaism were ignored by Judaism 1.0, then a whole heap of baggage added to Judaism 2.0 in the form of the church of Rome. What a pickle.

Who'd have thought Judaism 3.5 would fall out so badly with 1.0. Prophets can be such a pain.

So, a thread about anti-Semitism and the murder of innocent Jewish children in France has come to be an attack on Israel and now on Judaism itself, a subject which Greg knows next to nothing about.

This thread should be closed.

[Greg]

Originally Posted by 7_V

So, a thread about anti-Semitism and the murder of innocent Jewish children in France has come to be an attack on Israel and now on Judaism itself, a subject which Greg knows next to nothing about.

This thread should be closed.

Not remotely Steve, it was a light hearted remark actually regards the great Abrahamic religions and their obvious challenges.

[Tony L]

Originally Posted by 7_V

This thread should be closed.

<moderating>

That much at least we agree on. As I've said countless times before the Israel / Palestine issue is beyond the scope of this forum. I have to draw the line at publishing fundamentalist ideology, blog-grade idiocy / bigotry / revisionism and general irrationality. I need to keep pfm far above this kind of loony-tunes internet nonsense as it is my place of business.