Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
questionmark

Israel lobbies to cut ICC funding

135 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sir Smoke aLot

By all means this entire conflict could benefit from a thorough (key term) investigation OF BOTH SIDES. But when this panel sits to list the crimes of one side only then it becomes irrelevant and obviously biased. As to negotiating prior to hostilities, there is no chance of that any longer. Both sides are firmly entrenched and only a war of literal annihilation will ever truly solve the hatred here.

But Israel has choosen its own way man, they criticize ICC, they also speak of how law must be respected but only if its not Israel who break the law. I do agree that every crime must be punished and even one civilian lost should be enough to take legal action against those who murdered him or anyone who made decision which lead to murders of civilians. Collateral damage is just a sick term, made to justify murders - such thing should be totally opposite to everything that moder societies strive for but that is another story now. Why not simply take full membership in ICC, respect Geneva convention, etc.? Only then, with all cards put on table, could Israel, with full moral and legal right, complain about anything which happens tru ICC's investigation.

Such war, as you say - annihilation, that would not solve anything man but make things more complicated in future for every new possible conflict anywhere in the world. Honestly, you know what i think about this?

Palestinians got this 'investigation'... To calm things down for short period of time and then what happens? Every case made will be swallowed by legal system, possibly forever and never make it to court room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

This is twisted version of history to you only.

I’m not here to argue with you, just correct you, so please believe what you want.

You know Israel could also mobilise troop in it's border and can go on a defensive position.But instead they strike first.Which make them the agressor.

You’re not paying attention. Being the aggressor is a non sequitur point. Both sides were the aggressor. Israel’s preemptive strike was defensive in nature. Nasser’s actions were typical Islamic aggression which is an offensive weapon, meant to intimidate. He initiated the path the Muslims were going to follow. Egg Israel into action and then the Arab League would declare they were only defending themselves and wipe out Israel. Well, it didn’t go according to plan and they got their butts smeared. Now we see Iran doing the same thing according to the techniques of their Prophet.

If the ally forces include Germany in the treaty of versailles after ww1 and behave like a liberator insted of a conquorer then there would not be a WW2

I agree, however, they were conquerors. That would have been nice but you need to look back to the Franco-Prussian War (1870) and the occupation of NE France until reparations was paid. Many French leaders in 1918 thought the terms were appropriate in light of the Armistice in 1871. But we learned the lesson in WWII with the Marshall Plan to include the vanquished (aka Nation Building) but we forgot that pulling out of Iraq. History repeats itself when we refuse to learn because we now have to deal with ISIS.

When do you paint Islam evil?In most of your post.You even said that Israel has every right to kill Palestinian.Didn't you?by the way do you even understand what dows shirk mean?

I don’t paint Islam evil at all. I try to stay away from using that term as a label. I may use it in situations that are appropriate. I said that Israel has a right to defend itself. If it is Palestinians trying to kill them, then I guess that is true. Yes, I know what Shirk means. Why don’t you enlighten everyone here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Please ... in the name of sanity .... STOP the discussion of the '67 war, or take it into it's own thread. Or one of the umpty-dozen existing threads on the topic. (JUST when we thought they'd all safely dropped off the bottom of the list :P )

I only raised it as a JOKE, comparing it with Godwin's Law. I never intended for people to actually DISCUS it.

You’re right but the ’67 War is one of those subjects that will never disappear because of hatred. I hadn’t intended it to go this far (I should have known better). But if we abide by the “should have known better” rule, these forums would die :P) My intent was to show why Israel would want to defund the ICC (because of the hatred of Israel by the vocal few) and I think I’ve made my point with the reaction my posts draw. The ICC has nothing to do with justice. It is just another weapon that can be brought on other nations. Many of the nations that did ratify it probably have not thought it out. They didn’t understand that it conflicts with national sovereignty. The first time a finding of the court conflicts with a nation’s sovereignty, that nation will reject that finding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Well not to be a spoilsport here but Little Adolf and his merry band of Nazi's also claims Sovereignty with their Third Reich's Final Solution amidst the vocal protests of the World ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

And what of the men who fire rockets into Israel ( AT RANDOM) from those congested neighborhoods? Is it your contention that Israel has no right to fire back? If the IDF started using troops to go in to neutralize each rocket launcher it would lead to hundreds of dead troops. To think that any government would willingly sacrifice trained soldiers just for the sake of appearances to a world that would STILL despise them, no matter what, is naive at best. The war crimes are being committed by both sides - but Israel's war crimes are in defense - they wouldn't be necessary if Hamas stopped firing. Of course we know Hamas will never willingly stop until all the Jews in Palestine are either dead or displace. So Hamas has a bleak future.

If my neighbour shoots at you, it's your right to shoot back, but if you hit me it's my right to sue.

The Israelis can shoot at Palestinians who shoot at them, but they have to be held accountable for the loss of innocent lives.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

If my neighbour shoots at you, it's your right to shoot back, but if you hit me it's my right to sue.

The Israelis can shoot at Palestinians who shoot at them, but they have to be held accountable for the loss of innocent lives.

I couldn’t disagree more strongly. If you are being hit then it’s more than likely because your neighbor is shooting within your proximity. The one being shot at by the neighbor does not know you are not part of the shooting. If you get hit, it is the neighbor that is responsible, not the one returning fire in the act of defending himself. In other words, it is Hamas that is responsible for Palestinian deaths. And given the nature of the weapons and mindsets involved, Hamas rockets have killed more civilians that Israeli shells. Your neighbor may be aiming at the passerby, but they are hitting you more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

I'm not here to argue with you, just correct you, so please believe what you want.

In this case you have wasted five miutes typing that post.I prefer to follow my own guts.

You're not paying attention. Being the aggressor is a non sequitur point. Both sides were the aggressor. Israel's preemptive strike was defensive in nature. Nasser's actions were typical Islamic aggression which is an offensive weapon, meant to intimidate. He initiated the path the Muslims were going to follow. Egg Israel into action and then the Arab League would declare they were only defending themselves and wipe out Israel. Well, it didn't go according to plan and they got their butts smeared. Now we see Iran doing the same thing according to the techniques of their Prophet.

Nah Israel's preemptive strike was a clear offense.But say I agree with you still It is Israel who started the war

I agree, however, they were conquerors.

You know when Babor conquered Delhi he acted like a liberator.When Saladin conquered Jerujalem he acted like a liberator as well.If you are a conquerer doesn't mean you have to act like one

That would have been nice but you need to look back to the Franco-Prussian War (1870) and the occupation of NE France until reparations was paid. Many French leaders in 1918 thought the terms were appropriate in light of the Armistice in 1871. But we learned the lesson in WWII with the Marshall Plan to include the vanquished (aka Nation Building) but we forgot that pulling out of Iraq. History repeats itself when we refuse to learn because we now have to deal with ISIS.

For the first time I agree with you(bolded).The invasion of Iraq itself was a mistake(which I am 100% sure you will not agree with).After the invasion leaving Iraq without rebuilding was another mistake

I don't paint Islam evil at all. I try to stay away from using that term as a label. I may use it in situations that are appropriate. I said that Israel has a right to defend itself. If it is Palestinians trying to kill them, then I guess that is true. Yes, I know what Shirk means. Why don't you enlighten everyone here.

You do paint Islam as evil and you have did that in this post as well.i clearly remember that you said Israel has right to kill Palestinian.The topic was "THE TRUTH ABOUT ISRAEL'S LATEST CAMPAIGN" started by Phanteon80.No we use the term shirk in a context which make no sense.So why don't you enlighten me first.Then I will enlighten other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

In this case you have wasted five miutes typing that post.I prefer to follow my own guts.

That’s why I wrote it. Correcting you is a waste of time. But laying out the paper trail is always a good thing to do.

Nah Israel's preemptive strike was a clear offense.But say I agree with you still It is Israel who started the war

See… You didn’t listen to anything that was said. Yes it is offensive. Whenever you take the fight to the enemy it becomes offensive. It no longer stays defensive. Nasser started it. Israel finished it. Muslims have a talent for egging on a fight so that they can claim that they are only defending themselves. They’ve had 1400 years of practice. This one backfired. And if the Moderates don’t start “Backbiting” (Gheebah) the extremists, it’ll backfire even more.

You know when Babor conquered Delhi he acted like a liberator.When Saladin conquered Jerujalem he acted like a liberator as well.If you are a conquerer doesn't mean you have to act like one

If you are a conqueror, you *ARE* a conqueror. By conquering, you are always liberating something.

For the first time I agree with you(bolded).The invasion of Iraq itself was a mistake(which I am 100% sure you will not agree with).After the invasion leaving Iraq without rebuilding was another mistake

The invasion of Iraq was 100% necessary because that region was about to blow just like it did in Syria and neither Saddam nor Qusay would have been able to prevent it. The surge worked but it needed to be followed up just as the British finally defeated the Maratha Empire and then occupied India for a century. Pulling out prematurely is going to be recorded as one of the most boneheaded moves ever in history.

You do paint Islam as evil and you have did that in this post as well.

Being critical of the faith isn’t painting it evil. I’m not slandering the faith.

i clearly remember that you said Israel has right to kill Palestinian.The topic was "THE TRUTH ABOUT ISRAEL'S LATEST CAMPAIGN" started by Phanteon80.

Then you added your own meaning. If the Palestinian was attacking Israel, then Israel has every right to kill Palestinians. Not because the Palestinian are evil or ragheads or just because they are Palestinian, but because they are attacking Israel. There is a gulf of difference there.

No we use the term shirk in a context which make no sense.So why don't you enlighten me first.Then I will enlighten other.

I am using it in a way which makes sense. So I’m not going to play your game. You just chimed in that you know what I was saying when I stated that the Israelis could kill Palestinians and you were wrong, so you’re going to have to prove you understand what Shirk is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

That's why I wrote it. Correcting you is a waste of time. But laying out the paper trail is always a good thing to do.

See… You didn't listen to anything that was said. Yes it is offensive. Whenever you take the fight to the enemy it becomes offensive. It no longer stays defensive. Nasser started it. Israel finished it. Muslims have a talent for egging on a fight so that they can claim that they are only defending themselves. They've had 1400 years of practice. This one backfired. And if the Moderates don't start "Backbiting" (Gheebah) the extremists, it'll backfire even more.

If you are a conqueror, you *ARE* a conqueror. By conquering, you are always liberating something.

The invasion of Iraq was 100% necessary because that region was about to blow just like it did in Syria and neither Saddam nor Qusay would have been able to prevent it. The surge worked but it needed to be followed up just as the British finally defeated the Maratha Empire and then occupied India for a century. Pulling out prematurely is going to be recorded as one of the most boneheaded moves ever in history.

Being critical of the faith isn't painting it evil. I'm not slandering the faith.

Then you added your own meaning. If the Palestinian was attacking Israel, then Israel has every right to kill Palestinians. Not because the Palestinian are evil or ragheads or just because they are Palestinian, but because they are attacking Israel. There is a gulf of difference there.

I am using it in a way which makes sense. So I'm not going to play your game. You just chimed in that you know what I was saying when I stated that the Israelis could kill Palestinians and you were wrong, so you're going to have to prove you understand what Shirk is.

I am not going to waste my time anyway.You know what? I am familiar with the term shirk since I was 12.I clearly understnad what does it mean.Don't try to play games with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

I am not going to waste my time anyway.You know what? I am familiar with the term shirk since I was 12.I clearly understnad what does it mean.

Wow.. that's quite impressive. Just imagine all the things you'll understnad when you reach 13 ? :passifier:

Sorry... that was underhand and cruel. I just couldn't resist.... :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

Wow.. that's quite impressive. Just imagine all the things you'll understnad when you reach 13 ? :passifier:

Sorry... that was underhand and cruel. I just couldn't resist.... :w00t:

Sad fact is what I understand at 12 you couldn't understand it in your 50 :w00t: .

Go and have fun in school :tu:.This time be attentive

Edited by jeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Sad fact is what I understand at 12 you couldn't understand it in your 50 :w00t: .

......

Well, if you're talking about Islamic Scripture (shirk etc), then that is very true, and I am glad of it :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
"As a Jewish youngster growing up in Budapest, an infant survivor of the Nazi genocide, I was for years haunted by a question resounding in my brain with such force that sometimes my head would spin: “How was it possible? How could the world have let such horrors happen?”

It was a naïve question, that of a child. I know better now: such is reality. Whether in Vietnam or Rwanda or Syria, humanity stands by either complicitly or unconsciously or helplessly, as it always does. In Gaza today we find ways of justifying the bombing of hospitals, the annihilation of families at dinner, the killing of pre-adolescents playing soccer on a beach.

In Israel-Palestine the powerful party has succeeded in painting itself as the victim, while the ones being killed and maimed become the perpetrators."

*Read more here from Gabor Maté / The Star:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commen...

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

It is not too late to make peace there, late it is but not too late. As long as there are people who can feel for others, that is. Arrogance and increasing web's of lies and propaganda are doing good for no one, Israel without Arabs can't be Israel and Palestine without Jewish people can't be Palestine. Politicians could start there, instead of fighting over childrens heads.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

It is not too late to make peace there, late it is but not too late. As long as there are people who can feel for others, that is. Arrogance and increasing web's of lies and propaganda are doing good for no one, Israel without Arabs can't be Israel and Palestine without Jewish people can't be Palestine. Politicians could start there, instead of fighting over childrens heads.

I believe there WILL be a peace treaty there. It will be for a period of seven years. It will last for 3.5 before it is broken then Israel will be over run by her enemies. They will have finally listened to the lies and tried one last time. But the victory of their enemies is extremely brief in the grand scheme - only about 3 years and then they are annihilated, never to trouble her again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

I believe there WILL be a peace treaty there. It will be for a period of seven years. It will last for 3.5 before it is broken then Israel will be over run by her enemies. They will have finally listened to the lies and tried one last time. But the victory of their enemies is extremely brief in the grand scheme - only about 3 years and then they are annihilated, never to trouble her again.

Oh my friend, there are lies everywhere and no one alive, individually, or any government, especially any government, in this word - no one is free of lies. This world is built on lies. Israel lies, Israel is being lied to but, as i said, what matters is that those people who support liars are only ones who die - directly as result of manipulation and lies. And they blindly follow, thinking of some just cause while it is something close to normal life which everyone ( especially Palestinians ) desire, before everything else. I would love to see mr. Benjamin and mr. Khaled go in ring and work on their differences - let the majority of people who doesn't like war be free of their struggle for power. Give people education, give them jobs and make them safe socially, give them healthcare and only after everything has been done, without discrimination of anyone, i can put my life on that - that no one would ask for agression after being cared for by his government. But caring on someone elses expense can't be part of formula for sucess and is major stepping stone. Forced treaty is not productive, but it is only way to save more children. People in my country, many of them, lack this things which would 'build' normal life - result is increasing crime, corruption, nationalism... Individual who is constantly bombarded with bad things gets used to them and starts to see solution only tru violence, not tru smiles and shaking hands.

To give - that makes friends. To take from - that makes enemies. In childsplay, in countries realtions.. It's always the same rules which drive us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Oh my friend, there are lies everywhere and no one alive, individually, or any government, especially any government, in this word - no one is free of lies. This world is built on lies. Israel lies, Israel is being lied to but, as i said, what matters is that those people who support liars are only ones who die - directly as result of manipulation and lies. And they blindly follow, thinking of some just cause while it is something close to normal life which everyone ( especially Palestinians ) desire, before everything else. I would love to see mr. Benjamin and mr. Khaled go in ring and work on their differences - let the majority of people who doesn't like war be free of their struggle for power. Give people education, give them jobs and make them safe socially, give them healthcare and only after everything has been done, without discrimination of anyone, i can put my life on that - that no one would ask for agression after being cared for by his government. But caring on someone elses expense can't be part of formula for sucess and is major stepping stone. Forced treaty is not productive, but it is only way to save more children. People in my country, many of them, lack this things which would 'build' normal life - result is increasing crime, corruption, nationalism... Individual who is constantly bombarded with bad things gets used to them and starts to see solution only tru violence, not tru smiles and shaking hands.

To give - that makes friends. To take from - that makes enemies. In childsplay, in countries realtions.. It's always the same rules which drive us.

I agree with you. If the people had their wish I suspect the Palestinians might learn to live with the Jew but to do so they would have to ignore holy writ. There will always be someone who would challenge them for that. Any way, what I was speaking of isn't just something I'd hope for, it's what I believe will happen eventually regardless what other attempts are tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

I agree with you. If the people had their wish I suspect the Palestinians might learn to live with the Jew but to do so they would have to ignore holy writ. There will always be someone who would challenge them for that. Any way, what I was speaking of isn't just something I'd hope for, it's what I believe will happen eventually regardless what other attempts are tried.

May I ask what holy writ you are (specifically) referencing to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

May I ask what holy writ you are (specifically) referencing to?

In a hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah, the Prophet Muhammad said: “Judgment Day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims will kill them.” In another version, it says: “You will fight the Jews – you to the east of the river and they to the west of it.” One of the Prophet’s companions asked him: Which river? He replied: The Jordan River.

I assume if hizzoner said the words himself then it's holy enough, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

Youve been reading your MEMRI sources again I see.

The fact you seriously would pose 'the Palestinians' would attack Israel with this single Hadith verse in mind - or would not be able to live side by side as they were before Zionism - to actually usher in the end times (by their own actions), is absolutely ludicrous. But not unexpected, given you seem to be endowed with the quintessential extremist mindset. You seem to think everyone else has thesame fanatic end times inclinations you do. No wonder you are so fearful of anything that doesnt comform to your contrived version of reality.

As Yeshua preached (ie. Mat 23), so does the Qur'an (and Ahadith) preach that the ruling body of Jews today (ie. Zionism) is dictated by those who call themselves Jews, but have forsaken the true teachings in their hearts. Striving for political and monetary prowess under the guise of priesthood.

Of all prophecied signs of the end- times (Anti Christ ruling as a false prophet from Jerusalem, Yeshua descending from Heaven to kill him etc etc), this verse you quoted (which is ofcourse repeated literally ad naseum by Islamophobe sources) is an extremely obscure one, just like: "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair." ..Which is only 2 verses removed from the one you cut & pasted from your no doubt utterly objective sources. Ofcourse in your mind, all Palestinians are seeking out anyone who is wearing shoes made of hair, and Turks in general.

Would you like me to produce a rich collection of obscure verses from the Old Testament, Talmud - in an effort to demonize both (congregations)? Childsplay, in more senses than one ('extremely easy', 'extremely infantile').

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Youve been reading your MEMRI sources again I see.

The fact you seriously would pose 'the Palestinians' would attack Israel with this single Hadith verse in mind - or would not be able to live side by side as they were before Zionism - to actually usher in the end times (by their own actions), is absolutely ludicrous. But not unexpected, given you seem to be endowed with the quintessential extremist mindset. You seem to think everyone else has thesame fanatic end times inclinations you do. No wonder you are so fearful of anything that doesnt comform to your contrived version of reality.

As Yeshua preached (ie. Mat 23), so does the Qur'an (and Ahadith) preach that the ruling body of Jews today (ie. Zionism) is dictated by those who call themselves Jews, but have forsaken the true teachings in their hearts. Striving for political and monetary prowess under the guise of priesthood.

Of all prophecied signs of the end- times (Anti Christ ruling as a false prophet from Jerusalem, Yeshua descending from Heaven to kill him etc etc), this verse you quoted (which is ofcourse repeated literally ad naseum by Islamophobe sources) is an extremely obscure one, just like: "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair." ..Which is only 2 verses removed from the one you cut & pasted from your no doubt utterly objective sources. Ofcourse in your mind, all Palestinians are seeking out anyone who is wearing shoes made of hair, and Turks in general.

Would you like me to produce a rich collection of obscure verses from the Old Testament, Talmud - in an effort to demonize both (congregations)? Childsplay, in more senses than one ('extremely easy', 'extremely infantile').

No source of any kind would ever sway you and that wasn't my intent. Reasonable people who see Islamic writings and actions for what they are will note that anything negative, ANYTHING, is always shouted down as being misquoted, misunderstood or "Islamophobic" I suppose people of this faith live in harmony and never kill each other while pointing to these texts? You waste time when while you are typing, more people are being brutally dispatched by those practitioners of that "peaceful" religion. Try not to add ridiculous evasions to the insults of our intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

No source of any kind would ever sway you and that wasn't my intent. Reasonable people who see Islamic writings and actions for what they are will note that anything negative, ANYTHING, is always shouted down as being misquoted, misunderstood or "Islamophobic" I suppose people of this faith live in harmony and never kill each other while pointing to these texts? You waste time when while you are typing, more people are being brutally dispatched by those practitioners of that "peaceful" religion. Try not to add ridiculous evasions to the insults of our intelligence.

The irony is that this could also be applied to Christianity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

No source of any kind would ever sway you and that wasn't my intent. Reasonable people who see Islamic writings and actions for what they are will note that anything negative, ANYTHING, is always shouted down as being misquoted, misunderstood or "Islamophobic" I suppose people of this faith live in harmony and never kill each other while pointing to these texts? You waste time when while you are typing, more people are being brutally dispatched by those practitioners of that "peaceful" religion. Try not to add ridiculous evasions to the insults of our intelligence.

People who kill with these texts in hand are indoctrinated extremists who do not know the teachings as a whole, in historical context. Or are simply not able / have no intent to understand it (striving for earthly gains). Do the inquisitions have thesame bearing on the Bible? Ofcourse not. Human folly will always persist, in and outside of religious doctrine. It is an utterly obvious fact the xenophobic trick you are employing against Islam can be equally employed against Christianity and Judaism - reading little snippets here and there with the soul intent to confirm your preconceived 'Islam = AntiChrist' paradigm is not going to work.

But you're right about one thing, I am wasting my time here. A very good evening to you sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

People who kill with these texts in hand are indoctrinated extremists who do not know the teachings as a whole, in historical context. Or are simply not able / have no intent to understand it (striving for earthly gains). Do the inquisitions have thesame bearing on the Bible? Ofcourse not. Human folly will always persist, in and outside of religious doctrine. It is an utterly obvious fact the xenophobic trick you are employing against Islam can be equally employed against Christianity and Judaism - reading little snippets here and there with the soul intent to confirm your preconceived 'Islam = AntiChrist' paradigm is not going to work.

But you're right about one thing, I am wasting my time here. A very good evening to you sir.

Denying that Jesus is the son of God is the very definition of "antichrist". If you feel otherwise then perhaps you'd care to say, here in these fora that you agree that he IS the son of God? No, while I agree that the butchery of these men is way out of the way mainstream individuals interpret those texts, there can be no doubt or credible denial that these texts lend themselves to such interpretations and ultimately it is the MEN who are doing the atrocities that is the target - not Islam. Those who repeatedly carry their water do so for reasons of their own, not because anyone is attacking their religion. It's a tired dodge and as the world bleeds more and more from these attacks it will become a thoroughly useless one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

'He that denies Jesus is the Christ, that denies the Father and the Son', would be the (or more specifically, 'your') definition of the Anti Christ. Which could, or should imo, be interpreted as 'he that denies the Lord (Father) and His Servant' (Son). Moses and Ezekiel were called son as well. The term 'son', was often used in those times to indicate servantship.

Ex. 4:23 And I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’”

You believing that Christ, that anointed one - he that prays to the Father and made manifest miracles by leave of the Father, is actually 'G*d in the flesh', part of a socalled 'trinity', constitutes a reach in regards to a broad spectrum of aspects. And as we discussed before, your logic is such that you would (fanatically) ignore the unequivocal fact Jews openly and explicitly deny the Christ - and thus perfectly fit your own definition - while he is absolutely revered in Islam. If that isnt a clear cut case of blatant bias.. indication of indoctrination, I dont know what is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.