| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Elroy Willis" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2007 07:52:55 AM |
| Object: |
Six Day War |
I recently watched a documentary about the so-called "six day war" in
the middle east, and wonder why Israel didn't just take over the
temple mount hill in Jerusalem when they had control of the area.
The show I watched ended at that point, with one Jewish rabbi wanting
to take it over and blow up the Muslim mosque, but then Israel ended
up giving control back to the Muslims. What happened?
Israel could have gone up there and taken it over, but instead they
backed down and let the Muslims retain control of it. It seems they
were afraid to go up there and take control, or of what might happen
if they tried.
If the Jewish god really exists, wouldn't he have helped them take
control and restore his throne on the temple mount?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
08 Jan 2007 12:14:38 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
I recently watched a documentary about the so-called "six day war" in
the middle east, and wonder why Israel didn't just take over the
temple mount hill in Jerusalem when they had control of the area.
The show I watched ended at that point, with one Jewish rabbi wanting
to take it over and blow up the Muslim mosque, but then Israel ended
up giving control back to the Muslims. What happened?
Israel could have gone up there and taken it over, but instead they
backed down and let the Muslims retain control of it. It seems they
were afraid to go up there and take control, or of what might happen
if they tried.
One very simple reason is that in 1967 Israel was willing to give back
the land it had captured in exchange for peace. As usual, the
Palestinians and their Arab controllers were too short-sighted to act in
their long-term interests, so the situation remains as it is.
There was no strategic value in driving the Muslims off the Temple
Mount. It is a sacred site to Muslims, and damaging it would have
eliminated any hope of peace at that time.
Tactically, it provided very little value, not worth the cost in
soldiers and materiel. Plus, it might have galvanized the Arabs to fight.
Additionally, Israel defends the site for Muslims, so they have to work
together, not a bad thing. Israel treats the Muslims better than they
did Jews, because Jews were not allowed to visit the Kotel (Western
Wall) prior to 1967.
And when there is peace it will be a monument to the abilities of Jews
and Muslims to get along.
If the Jewish god really exists, wouldn't he have helped them take
control and restore his throne on the temple mount?
This is such a petty question in the scheme of things that it does not
merit a response.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
09 Jan 2007 09:18:20 PM |
|
|
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
<snip>
If the Jewish god really exists, wouldn't he have helped them take
control and restore his throne on the temple mount?
This is such a petty question in the scheme of things that it does not
merit a response.
I thought it was pretty relevant. The Jewish god is supposed to be
the creator of the entire universe, and all-powerful. It's funny that
his temple has been destroyed twice now. Guess he was out to lunch
when those destructions happened, or he was mad at the Jewish people
because they were sinning too much at the time, according to the
priests.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
12 Jan 2007 08:21:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:18:20 -0600, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<oim8q2tn1uqvgofj7g0edgvv37osfqfeo7@4ax.com> wrote:
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
<snip>
If the Jewish god really exists, wouldn't he have helped them take
control and restore his throne on the temple mount?
This is such a petty question in the scheme of things that it does not
merit a response.
I thought it was pretty relevant.
That you think it was relevant, and others think it is petty, is quite
informative. You see everything around you in terms of proving the
existence or non-existence of God. Most others don't.
The Jewish god is supposed to be
the creator of the entire universe, and all-powerful.
Yes. How is that relevant to the political question? Pretty much you
are asking why the Jews were not destructive. Finding out they were
not destructive does not lead you to question your personal views of
religious people but it should.
It's funny that
his temple has been destroyed twice now. Guess he was out to lunch
when those destructions happened, or he was mad at the Jewish people
because they were sinning too much at the time, according to the
priests.
Like he said: petty.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
13 Jan 2007 08:20:00 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> in
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
<snip>
If the Jewish god really exists, wouldn't he have helped them take
control and restore his throne on the temple mount?
This is such a petty question in the scheme of things that it does not
merit a response.
I thought it was pretty relevant.
That you think it was relevant, and others think it is petty, is quite
informative.
Yeah, there's been a whole two people who think it's petty. Cactus
and you. Wow.
You see everything around you in terms of proving the existence or
non-existence of God. Most others don't.
If they actually believe their god exists, you'd think they'd pay more
attention to the details. They'd rather pay their tithes, I guess.
The Jewish god is supposed to be the creator of the entire universe,
and all-powerful.
Yes. How is that relevant to the political question? Pretty much you
are asking why the Jews were not destructive. Finding out they were
not destructive does not lead you to question your personal views of
religious people but it should.
Actually it does lead me to question more. I found out the Jews won't
even go up onto the temple mount if they could, by order of the rabbis
who say that since nobody knows where the holy of holies was exactly,
it's too dangerous for anybody to go up there because they might
accidentally walk on sacred ground without being properly purified
beforehand. That's part of the whole red heifer thing, according to
the articles I read.
It's funny that his temple has been destroyed twice now. Guess he
was out to lunch when those destructions happened, or he was mad
at the Jewish people because they were sinning too much at the time,
according to the priests.
Like he said: petty.
But that's exactly what rabbis and priests say to make up excuses for
the inaction of their god. Why do people keep listening to them
instead of realizing they're just making up ridiculous excuses?
I recently read a post about some rabbi claiming that the German Jews
deserved the holocaust because they'd been doing something wrong
or "fallen away" from the Jewish god, and I find it detestable, yet
that's exactly what the ancient Jewish priests said in the Bible
whenever Israel was destroyed or they lost a battle.
It was always something the Israelites did wrong, instead of the
inaction of a god that doesn't really exist and therefore couldn't
actually do anything to help them, just like during the Nazi
holocaust.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
13 Jan 2007 07:48:15 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> in
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
<snip>
If the Jewish god really exists, wouldn't he have helped them take
control and restore his throne on the temple mount?
This is such a petty question in the scheme of things that it does not
merit a response.
I thought it was pretty relevant.
That you think it was relevant, and others think it is petty, is quite
informative.
Yeah, there's been a whole two people who think it's petty. Cactus
and you. Wow.
Why do you think it so important?
You see everything around you in terms of proving the existence or
non-existence of God. Most others don't.
If they actually believe their god exists, you'd think they'd pay more
attention to the details. They'd rather pay their tithes, I guess.
The Jewish god is supposed to be the creator of the entire universe,
and all-powerful.
Yes. How is that relevant to the political question? Pretty much you
are asking why the Jews were not destructive. Finding out they were
not destructive does not lead you to question your personal views of
religious people but it should.
Actually it does lead me to question more. I found out the Jews won't
even go up onto the temple mount if they could, by order of the rabbis
who say that since nobody knows where the holy of holies was exactly,
it's too dangerous for anybody to go up there because they might
accidentally walk on sacred ground without being properly purified
beforehand. That's part of the whole red heifer thing, according to
the articles I read.
It's funny that his temple has been destroyed twice now. Guess he
was out to lunch when those destructions happened, or he was mad
at the Jewish people because they were sinning too much at the time,
according to the priests.
Like he said: petty.
But that's exactly what rabbis and priests say to make up excuses for
the inaction of their god. Why do people keep listening to them
instead of realizing they're just making up ridiculous excuses?
Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague (who is credited BTW with creating the golem)
and some colleagues put G-d on trial for allowing some particularly
vicious pogroms that year. IIRC they convicted G-d, but I don't recall
the penalty.
I recently read a post about some rabbi claiming that the German Jews
deserved the holocaust because they'd been doing something wrong
or "fallen away" from the Jewish god, and I find it detestable, yet
that's exactly what the ancient Jewish priests said in the Bible
whenever Israel was destroyed or they lost a battle.
We've outgrown that attitude for the most part. But we have our
fundamentalists, kooks and nut cases just the same as other religions.
As the saying goes, "Jews are just like everybody else, only more so."
It was always something the Israelites did wrong, instead of the
inaction of a god that doesn't really exist and therefore couldn't
actually do anything to help them, just like during the Nazi
holocaust.
The primary exponent of this view today is Pat Robertson. Note that he
is not Jewish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
14 Jan 2007 10:22:38 AM |
|
|
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
<snip>
But that's exactly what rabbis and priests say to make up excuses for
the inaction of their god. Why do people keep listening to them
instead of realizing they're just making up ridiculous excuses?
Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague (who is credited BTW with creating the golem)
and some colleagues put G-d on trial for allowing some particularly
vicious pogroms that year. IIRC they convicted G-d, but I don't recall
the penalty.
Did he die a natural death, or was he smited somehow soon after that?
Interesting title his uncle Jacob had - "Rabbi of the Reich of the
Holy Roman Empire."
Were some German rabbis actually tied in with the Roman Catholic
church back then?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
14 Jan 2007 08:06:28 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
<snip>
But that's exactly what rabbis and priests say to make up excuses for
the inaction of their god. Why do people keep listening to them
instead of realizing they're just making up ridiculous excuses?
Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague (who is credited BTW with creating the golem)
and some colleagues put G-d on trial for allowing some particularly
vicious pogroms that year. IIRC they convicted G-d, but I don't recall
the penalty.
Did he die a natural death, or was he smited somehow soon after that?
A natural death, at a ripe old age, well into or past his 80's. In fact
he is regarded as one of the great sages of our tradition. See
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Rabbi%20Judah%20Loew%20ben%20Bezalel
Interesting title his uncle Jacob had - "Rabbi of the Reich of the
Holy Roman Empire."
Citation? He did get along with the secular authorities. See the link
above for more details.
Were some German rabbis actually tied in with the Roman Catholic
church back then?
I doubt it. Catholic-Jewish relations were not good back then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
15 Jan 2007 11:14:37 AM |
|
|
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
<snip>
But that's exactly what rabbis and priests say to make up excuses for
the inaction of their god. Why do people keep listening to them
instead of realizing they're just making up ridiculous excuses?
Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague (who is credited BTW with creating the golem)
and some colleagues put G-d on trial for allowing some particularly
vicious pogroms that year. IIRC they convicted G-d, but I don't recall
the penalty.
Did he die a natural death, or was he smited somehow soon after that?
A natural death, at a ripe old age, well into or past his 80's. In fact
he is regarded as one of the great sages of our tradition. See
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Rabbi%20Judah%20Loew%20ben%20Bezalel
Interesting title his uncle Jacob had - "Rabbi of the Reich of the
Holy Roman Empire."
Citation? He did get along with the secular authorities. See the link
above for more details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Loew
"The Maharal was probably born in Poznan' (now in Poland) to Rabbi
Bezalel (Loew), whose family originated from the German town of Worms.
His uncle Jacob was Reichsrabbiner ("Rabbi of the Reich") of the Holy
Roman Empire, his brother Chaim of Friedberg a famous rabbinical
scholar. "
Were some German rabbis actually tied in with the Roman Catholic
church back then?
I doubt it. Catholic-Jewish relations were not good back then.
I didn't think so.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
15 Jan 2007 04:51:48 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
<snip>
But that's exactly what rabbis and priests say to make up excuses for
the inaction of their god. Why do people keep listening to them
instead of realizing they're just making up ridiculous excuses?
Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague (who is credited BTW with creating the golem)
and some colleagues put G-d on trial for allowing some particularly
vicious pogroms that year. IIRC they convicted G-d, but I don't recall
the penalty.
Did he die a natural death, or was he smited somehow soon after that?
A natural death, at a ripe old age, well into or past his 80's. In fact
he is regarded as one of the great sages of our tradition. See
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Rabbi%20Judah%20Loew%20ben%20Bezalel
Interesting title his uncle Jacob had - "Rabbi of the Reich of the
Holy Roman Empire."
Citation? He did get along with the secular authorities. See the link
above for more details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Loew
"The Maharal was probably born in Poznan' (now in Poland) to Rabbi
Bezalel (Loew), whose family originated from the German town of Worms.
His uncle Jacob was Reichsrabbiner ("Rabbi of the Reich") of the Holy
Roman Empire, his brother Chaim of Friedberg a famous rabbinical
scholar. "
Interesting, thank you.
Were some German rabbis actually tied in with the Roman Catholic
church back then?
I doubt it. Catholic-Jewish relations were not good back then.
I didn't think so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
15 Jan 2007 09:04:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:14:37 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<hgdnq2tdn4nl53vcmvhfgq5islq650np1g@4ax.com> wrote:
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
<snip>
But that's exactly what rabbis and priests say to make up excuses for
the inaction of their god. Why do people keep listening to them
instead of realizing they're just making up ridiculous excuses?
Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague (who is credited BTW with creating the golem)
and some colleagues put G-d on trial for allowing some particularly
vicious pogroms that year. IIRC they convicted G-d, but I don't recall
the penalty.
Did he die a natural death, or was he smited somehow soon after that?
A natural death, at a ripe old age, well into or past his 80's. In fact
he is regarded as one of the great sages of our tradition. See
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Rabbi%20Judah%20Loew%20ben%20Bezalel
Interesting title his uncle Jacob had - "Rabbi of the Reich of the
Holy Roman Empire."
Citation? He did get along with the secular authorities. See the link
above for more details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Loew
"The Maharal was probably born in Poznan' (now in Poland) to Rabbi
Bezalel (Loew), whose family originated from the German town of Worms.
His uncle Jacob was Reichsrabbiner ("Rabbi of the Reich") of the Holy
Roman Empire, his brother Chaim of Friedberg a famous rabbinical
scholar. "
Let us know when you figure out that the Holy Roman Empire is not the
Catholic Church.
Were some German rabbis actually tied in with the Roman Catholic
church back then?
I doubt it. Catholic-Jewish relations were not good back then.
I didn't think so.
Of course "tied in" is about as vague as Shrubs claims of "a
relationship" between al Qaeda and Saddam.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
16 Jan 2007 07:02:32 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> in
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Interesting title his uncle Jacob had - "Rabbi of the Reich of the
Holy Roman Empire."
Citation? He did get along with the secular authorities. See the link
above for more details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Loew
"The Maharal was probably born in Poznan' (now in Poland) to Rabbi
Bezalel (Loew), whose family originated from the German town of Worms.
His uncle Jacob was Reichsrabbiner ("Rabbi of the Reich") of the Holy
Roman Empire, his brother Chaim of Friedberg a famous rabbinical
scholar. "
Let us know when you figure out that the Holy Roman Empire is not the
Catholic Church.
I never said they were the exact same thing, but I did do some more
reading and learned some new things. Charlemagne, credited with
founding the Holy Roman Empire, was coronated by Pope Leo III, so the
start of the empire was tied in to the Roman Catholic church as I see
it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
"It originated with the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III on
Christmas Day 800 A.D. and lasted until the abdication of
Emperor-elect Francis II in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars."
If Charlemagne hadn't sought coronation by the current Roman
pope, how would things have worked out differently for him, do you
think?
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558731/Holy_Roman_Empire.html
"However, the principal area of the empire was the German states. From
the 10th century, its leaders were German kings, who usually sought
but did not always receive coronation as emperor by the popes in
Rome."
Since they usually sought coronation by the popes in Rome, I consider
that as being "tied to" Rome and the Roman Catholic
Church.
Were some German rabbis actually tied in with the Roman Catholic
church back then?
I doubt it. Catholic-Jewish relations were not good back then.
I didn't think so.
Of course "tied in" is about as vague as Shrubs claims of "a
relationship" between al Qaeda and Saddam.
See above. Seeking out to be coronated by a Roman pope fits the
description of "tied in" in my opinion. Why would the German kings
care about getting some pope's approval or coronation if it weren't
to bolster their power and public appeal by being approved of by some
Holy church?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
16 Jan 2007 11:16:55 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> in
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Interesting title his uncle Jacob had - "Rabbi of the Reich of the
Holy Roman Empire."
Citation? He did get along with the secular authorities. See the link
above for more details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Loew
"The Maharal was probably born in Poznan' (now in Poland) to Rabbi
Bezalel (Loew), whose family originated from the German town of Worms.
His uncle Jacob was Reichsrabbiner ("Rabbi of the Reich") of the Holy
Roman Empire, his brother Chaim of Friedberg a famous rabbinical
scholar. "
Let us know when you figure out that the Holy Roman Empire is not the
Catholic Church.
I never said they were the exact same thing,
Actually you sure implied it. You saw that some rabbi had some
official position of some sort in the *HRE* and then asked about the
rabbi and the RCC.
but I did do some more
reading and learned some new things. Charlemagne, credited with
founding the Holy Roman Empire, was coronated by Pope Leo III, so the
start of the empire was tied in to the Roman Catholic church as I see
it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
So now you have read a wikipedia article on the HRE. That and a half
dozen really good books and you might start to have a reasonable idea.
I am serious, you are talking about hundreds of years of complex and
well documented history.
"It originated with the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III on
Christmas Day 800 A.D. and lasted until the abdication of
Emperor-elect Francis II in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars."
If Charlemagne hadn't sought coronation by the current Roman
pope, how would things have worked out differently for him, do you
think?
If my grandmother had a beard she would have been my grandfather. IOW,
yes, if *anything* were different then things would be different. If he
had shown up a day earlier or later things would have been different.
The difficult and interesting part is to try to figure out how things
might have been different and how that would have changed things.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558731/Holy_Roman_Empire.html
"However, the principal area of the empire was the German states. From
the 10th century, its leaders were German kings, who usually sought
but did not always receive coronation as emperor by the popes in
Rome."
Since they usually sought coronation by the popes in Rome, I consider
that as being "tied to" Rome and the Roman Catholic
Church.
And since you read and write about them you are "tied-in" as well. It
is a meaningless term. There was not only a connection, it was
important and changed dramatically over the years. 800 was not 1100
which was not 1400.
Were some German rabbis actually tied in with the Roman Catholic
church back then?
I doubt it. Catholic-Jewish relations were not good back then.
I didn't think so.
Of course "tied in" is about as vague as Shrubs claims of "a
relationship" between al Qaeda and Saddam.
See above. Seeking out to be coronated by a Roman pope fits the
description of "tied in" in my opinion. Why would the German kings
care about getting some pope's approval or coronation if it weren't
to bolster their power and public appeal by being approved of by some
Holy church?
So now try and answer your question if you actually care. Read up on on
the very complex, important, and interesting relationship between the
various emperors and the various popes. Then try to figure out why you
got to this point when you discovered some kind of "tie-in" between a
rabbi and the *Holy Roman Empire*.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
14 Jan 2007 12:44:26 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 16:22:38 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<dolkq25bmh00rkchj8stooct23njc8iehs@4ax.com> wrote:
cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
<snip>
But that's exactly what rabbis and priests say to make up excuses for
the inaction of their god. Why do people keep listening to them
instead of realizing they're just making up ridiculous excuses?
Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague (who is credited BTW with creating the golem)
and some colleagues put G-d on trial for allowing some particularly
vicious pogroms that year. IIRC they convicted G-d, but I don't recall
the penalty.
Did he die a natural death, or was he smited somehow soon after that?
Interesting title his uncle Jacob had - "Rabbi of the Reich of the
Holy Roman Empire."
Were some German rabbis actually tied in with the Roman Catholic
church back then?
Do you really think that the Holy Roman Empire is the Roman Catholic
Church?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
12 Jan 2007 08:24:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:52:55 GMT, Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
I recently watched a documentary about the so-called "six day war" in
the middle east, and wonder why Israel didn't just take over the
temple mount hill in Jerusalem when they had control of the area.
The show I watched ended at that point, with one Jewish rabbi wanting
to take it over and blow up the Muslim mosque, but then Israel ended
up giving control back to the Muslims. What happened?
Israel could have gone up there and taken it over, but instead they
backed down and let the Muslims retain control of it. It seems they
were afraid to go up there and take control, or of what might happen
if they tried.
If the Jewish god really exists, wouldn't he have helped them take
control and restore his throne on the temple mount?
Why? The fictional character didn't lift a finger to save 6 million
people in Nazi Germany.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
13 Jan 2007 08:22:53 AM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism
I recently watched a documentary about the so-called "six day war" in
the middle east, and wonder why Israel didn't just take over the
temple mount hill in Jerusalem when they had control of the area.
The show I watched ended at that point, with one Jewish rabbi wanting
to take it over and blow up the Muslim mosque, but then Israel ended
up giving control back to the Muslims. What happened?
Israel could have gone up there and taken it over, but instead they
backed down and let the Muslims retain control of it. It seems they
were afraid to go up there and take control, or of what might happen
if they tried.
If the Jewish god really exists, wouldn't he have helped them take
control and restore his throne on the temple mount?
Why? The fictional character didn't lift a finger to save 6 million
people in Nazi Germany.
It was because they were sinning too much, so he decided to lift his
"finger of protection" for a while, to teach them another lesson like
he did in the Bible stories.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Day War |
15 Jan 2007 07:23:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:22:53 GMT, Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism
I recently watched a documentary about the so-called "six day war" in
the middle east, and wonder why Israel didn't just take over the
temple mount hill in Jerusalem when they had control of the area.
The show I watched ended at that point, with one Jewish rabbi wanting
to take it over and blow up the Muslim mosque, but then Israel ended
up giving control back to the Muslims. What happened?
Israel could have gone up there and taken it over, but instead they
backed down and let the Muslims retain control of it. It seems they
were afraid to go up there and take control, or of what might happen
if they tried.
If the Jewish god really exists, wouldn't he have helped them take
control and restore his throne on the temple mount?
Why? The fictional character didn't lift a finger to save 6 million
people in Nazi Germany.
It was because they were sinning too much, so he decided to lift his
"finger of protection" for a while, to teach them another lesson like
he did in the Bible stories.
The victims had no choice other than to follow the script.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
