I personally think some of the comments on this site can get pretty ridiculous at times, more importantly, they can utterly obliterate an otherwise important message. However, you know what is said about opinions and how they are like a particular body part (everybody’s got one, and they all stink). The thing I have seen that truly ruins credibility is when atheists/agnostics/whatever pontificate about the Bible, yet they don’t believe in it in the first place.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (193)
sorted by:
Every comment here attacking Christianity and/or the Bible proves my point precisely. If you don’t believe in those things, why would you cite them in your arguments about Israel?
If you’re not a believer, your opinion about modern day Israel should be a stand-alone argument. I feel bad for you, and pray you’ll have the most important awakening in the universe before it’s too late, but at least you can have some credibility in your argument from a purely logical perspective: “I’m an atheist/agnostic/what have you, therefore I don’t believe the Bible is the title deed to a piece of land in the Middle East.”
However, if you claim to be a Christian, but don’t believe in the Bible, you’re beginning every associated argument on the quicksand foundation of not having a logical basis for being a Christian in the first place.
So what's your argument, then? I don't believe modern day israelis have any biological or cultural claim to biblical Israel, and I vehemently oppose any Christian or 'christian' who make any demand of spiritual obligation to ally with the state of israel.
That’s my point- I don’t know what the argument may be without knowing the foundation of your position. If you’re an atheist, or agnostic as your nom de plume might suggest, then I don’t have an argument with you at all because your stance is perfectly logical in that case.
If you do not believe that land belongs to Israel there are three “argument” options as I see them:
Lemmie see if I can make chocolate with it:
I am sure such a discussion indeed would be totally historical and probably intelligent, but I would presume you meant: an intelligent debate about the history?
it depends, of course, what you would consider foundational. It all hinges on assumptions. Going by what John wrote in his gospel, a person could be a christian without what you call, foundational documents. However, a gnostic Christian would probably expand on that, whereas an orthodox christian would feel quite unpleasant. Hence, the albigensian crusade.
As already indicated, the historics cannot be dismissed.
Hold you horses .... I can belief the bible while totally disagreeing with you, since, my understanding of it may depend on: 1. translation used, 2.understanding of the original languages in which it was written, 3. methods of interpretation, 4. suspicions of being left with only a portion of what should have been Christian writings, and 5. the most foundational question: why o why did the Old Testament not mention Gobleki Tepi.
So, when I go through your argument, the belief point is rather moot, isn't it. So, you either come across two types. Either, someone shares your belief regarding the "prophesies" (teachings) or not. And the wider position on the bible is actually moot, isn't it, as you would gladly resort to history.
So, can we then put this whole thing to bed and remain on the topic of history?