I didn’t realize that God (the deity, not the poster) was a posting member of this board.
I knew all this. However, pre-UN immigration of Jewish people into Palestine was a trickle compared to the post-UN incursion. It was high in the 1890s to 1910s during the 19th Century re-emergence of of Zionism, but tapered off during the World War I - Interwar Period - World War II era.
Jewish resetlement of their ancestral homeland began under the Ottomans in the 16th century. Jewish settlement increased with the advent of Zionism as the new settlers bought their land from the Ottomans.
**
Had this been done, it would have been fine. This was not done. The palestinians have been railroaded.
**
Completely understandable. If someone were to come and tell the people of Dallas to move because they’re giving the land to someone else, I’d take up arms to defend my home, too.
**
Makes sense. After all, the Arabs were already there.
[]quote]At every step, the British allied themselves with the Arabs against the Jews, and at independence in 1948, the British handed over all their weapons and ammuniton to the Arbas in contravention of UN directives. Despite the allout Arab attacks against the Jews in 1948, the Jews still asked Arabs to stay and build a united Israel. The Arabs ran instead.
[/quote]
If the Iriquois were given control over your home state, forceably, and started dislocating your people to make way for thier new homesteads, how would you react? can you honestly not see that hte Palestinians got screwed here? Or are you a Zionist who doesn’t care?
**
Those were wrong. They should have signed the 1947 accord and had their own state established. But don’t pain the Arabs as the only bad guys here. Israel has not abided by its agreements, either. And let’s not forget proportionality… a Palestinian throws a rock, and Israelis reply with guns.
**
The Arabs had their homes ripped away from them by Israeli invaders who charged into the region with a UN mandate. They should have taken the 1947 deal, accepted the existence of Israel and allowed for the establishment of their own state. The didn’t, which was wrong. But I don’t blame them, because if it were my home, I wouldn’t either. I would kill anyone who tried to take my homeland from me.
Kirk
Learn to read. I said I don’t consider them Christian. Not that God doesn’t. Or that you shouldn’t. They don’t fit my personal standard, so I do not refer to them as such. If you want to, I don’t care. If they fit your personal standard of what constitutes a Christian, then bully for you.
Israel invaded San Francisco?
I assume that it’s not the ‘magic words’ of the Creed, but the intent/meaning behind 'em right?
So what part of the Creed are Baptists missing. For that matter, what part did I miss (other than the Trinity)?
Or is it “magic words”?
Fenris
Actually, it’s lucky for you I found this thread. I happen to be a professional pest control technician. I could probably help take care of all the bugs you’ve got up your butt, if you want.
Sooooo…your standards are higher than God’s?
Or…you’re rejecting God’s standards?
What a vast cultural gap we have. Jews try to live up to God’s standards.
Can Polycarp or Tomndebb or…someone gimme some insight here?
Fenris
Interesting. By your logic, then any individual can define anyone or anything else by whatever their personal standards are, regardless of broader, more accepted definitions, empirical evidence, or even the definitions of the other individual to the contrary.
I hope you see how nonsensical this is.
No, its the intent and the words. Baptists do not believe in regerative Baptism, so they do not ascribe to the creed (“One baptism for the remission of sins.”)
**
I dunno, probably everything after the “Father” paragraph. I’m not that informed about Judaism, not nearly as much so as I would like to be. But I’m pretty sure you all would not buy into Christian beliefs about God the Son or God the Holy Spirit.
Kirk
- Kirkland1244 *,
Your posts sound like a cry for help.
Today, there are quite a number of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors as well as Tricyclic Antidepressants available.
see http://www.coreynahman.com/antidepressantdrugsdatabase.html
Good luck.
Kirk, have you escaped from an institution recently?
Tell you what, y’know that sweater you own? The one with the long sleeves that buckle up at the back? How about you find a friendly nurse to help you fasten it?
Final question: Do you own both a van and an extraordinary amount of duct tape?
Sure. Why not?
**
Yes. No. Maybe. Sorta. Kinda. Nah. Huh?
Hee hee. Such fun. I say things, and people take them seriously. But this is boring now, so I’m going to bow out. Maybe. Probably.
Kirk
And for the record, I just asked my cable modem, and she assures me that I am in no way insane.
No… but I did skip statistics class on thursday.
**
That’s my hug-myself sweater. 
**
No, but I do own a Jeep and an extraordinary amount of West Texas crude oil.
Kirk
This is turning out to be a legendary flameout, one that will rest next to the Freakfreely debacle.
- Kirkland1244 *,
Your posts sound like a cry for help.
Today, there are quite a number of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors as well as Tricyclic Antidepressants available.
see http://www.coreynahman.com/antidepressantdrugsdatabase.html
Good luck.
Heh heh. You posted that twice.
KIRK, your reliance on the Nicene Creed as support for your self-elected position of Arbiter of Christianity is deeply flawed.
First, the Nicene Creed itself is subject to not-insubstantial controversy – specifically, over the inclusion or exclusion of the words “And the Son,” (filoque) which you so thoughtfully bracketed in your posting of the Creed. That phrase is a late addition to the creed, meant to combat Arian heresy. It was accepted by the Roman Church but not by the Eastern Orthodox Church, and to this day presents such a philosophical problem that it is cited as one of the insurmountable stumbling blocks to reunification of the Eastern and Western Catholic churches. So which version do you ascribe to? May we assume that the millions of people ascribing to the version you do not endorse are therefore not Christians?
Second, several legitimate reasons exist for rejecting the Nicene Creed (and every other Creed) on spiritual grounds. These include:
– That the Bible, as the true and only Word of God and does not admit of the taking of Creeds as a prerequisite to belief, since using Creeds in such a way (the precise way you’re trying to use the NC) amounts to a man-made addition to the Word of God, which is forbidden by the Bible.
– That a Christian need not (and should not) attempt to distill the contours of his or her faith into a single statement, and that no church should make the willingness or ability to so distill faith a prerequisite to joining.
– That the Creed does not adequately acknowledge that Jesus was a Man, apart from God.
– Conversely, that the Creed does not adquately acknowledge that Jesus was not (merely) a Man, and was not apart from God.
– That teachings arising from the big-C Catholic church must be rejected (the position held by those who, like you, set themselves up as arbiters of who is or is not Christian, and who deny that Catholics are Christian).
– That some day, somewhere, some nimrod is going to attempt to use a distillation of personal faith as a weapon by which he can declare who is or is not within the family of Christian faith.
And it seems to me that if you believe in God but are unsure as to how He would rule on the issue of who does or does not follow His Son, then you would take a little more care in substituting your judgment for His.
Oh, I see. You’re a troll. To the TM: A thousand apologies for having taken up Board space in attempting to deal with this girl seriously and respectfully.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Kirkland, posting things you do not believe just to stir things up is trolling, and is not allowed on this message board. Unless you shape up from now on, you WILL be banned.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
IANATheologian, but from what I understand, one baptism for the remission of sins does not refer to the rite of baptism in any church. It refers to the baptism of the Spirit, the physical symbol of which is a baptism in water.
If you have issue with whether or not an actual baptism is necessary for salvation, I would suggest you reflect on the dying thief at the Crucifixion.
In any case, you’ve already proven quite well that you don’t know what you’re talking about on quite a number of topics. I don’t blame you for bailing out.