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:
- If you’re not a Christian, we could have an intelligent historical debate about inhabitants of the land.
- If you are a Christian, but do not believe in the Bible, we could have an intelligent debate about how you could come to accept a faith without believing in its foundational documents; we could also have the same intelligent debate I’d have with the non-Christian regarding history. -if you are a Christian, and believe in the Bible on almost everything except this topic, our debate would have to be about Biblical interpretation or leaving the Bible out of it entirely and only talking history.
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.
Thank you, OP. Unfortunately too many people on this site are quite ignorant. That is God’s land. The whole planet is His of course, but that particular piece of real estate was set aside. In modern history it seems the reason it’s been constantly divided is because Israel doesn’t accept it as theirs and allows it to be carved up into fake places that make up “Palestine.”
It should not be this difficult to determine whether or not something is satire. I’d elaborate, but I’m running late and I’d like to take my heartworm medication and run around at the bark park for a little while before heading to work. Have a great, Friday everyone.
Hillary: confused, then scared, then fake composure Bill: seemed not included Carters and Quayles: seemed not included Bidens: confused, Doctor Jill got a little nervous Barry and Mike: seemingly unaffected Cheneys: she seemed pissed, he seemed to know/not care. Pences: seemingly unaffected Trumps: definitely not included Laura: confused, then furious Jeb: shocked, then terrified W: calm, but sad/guilty (like he knew before everyone else and had already come to terms with whatever it was)
Man I hope we find out someday soon. This, along with the military personnel coming out to stand behind Trump at that specific moment during his inauguration address, are the two most fascinating events of this century. Sounds like hyperbole, but I’m totally serious.
The other thing people never talk about is it occurred at the exact moment Paul Gosar (House) and Ted Cruz (senate) objected to certification of the Arizona electors, triggering what SHOULD HAVE been a two hour debate, televised to the entire world, over the legitimacy of the election. That’s the moment we had been waiting for for two months- two hours, with the world as a captive audience, exposing election fraud in AZ, followed by another two hours each for GA, MI, PA, and WI, and the opportunity to put forth a slate of alternate electors in each. We’re supposed to believe THAT was the moment our side decided to storm the Capitol? Knowing full well the ten hours of worldwide coverage of election fraud being exposed, and the last chance we had to prevent the election from being stolen, would be over before it started and any additional attempts to talk about election fraud would be met with accusations of “trying to incite another insurrection.” As my southern friends might say, that dog don’t hunt.
You’re spot on, but I fear the justification you provided was your undoing. We don’t ask for anyone to grant our constitutional rights. The way to beat any remaining mandates is to state, “I am asserting my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religious beliefs.” Period, end of argument. We don’t need to explain our religious beliefs to be able to freely exercise them any more than we have to explain why we might want to “take the 5th” if accused of a crime, or why we wouldn’t give permission for the police to search our home without a warrant, emergency, or exigency.
Thanks, all. So to summarize: a biological male pretending to be a woman, who uses his natural physical advantage to crush all biological female opponents, is a woman; a biological woman pretending to be a man, who murders six people, is also woman. Got it. Also, guns are bad.
I replied yesterday, but the comment disappeared so posting again. Two questions for you: 1) are you Christian? 2) purely from a secular historical point of view, can you explain what “Palestine” is and who are its people?
Not at all what I wrote. The more accurate alternate title might be “Since I don’t believe in unicorns, it would be silly for me to argue that male unicorns are always blue and never green.”