Did Anything in The Old Testament Exist

[GanjaFreebird]

It would be national suicide, a precursor to the new Palestinian majority setting up yet another Islamic fundamentalist state.

And obviously the Israelis would be total fuckin' idiots to allow such a thing to happen, which of course they aren't.

Specifically, they share Jewish culture.

Exactly!

There is isn't one law for Palestinians and one law for everyone else.

It's ridiculously hypocritical for the pro-Palestinians to cite international law chapter and verse when it suits their purposes, then try to claim it has no jurisdiction when it doesn't.

[GanjaFreebird]

Kamandi, yes we know the zionist regime is racist insanity. But lets get back to discussing the mythology of the Old Testament. That way we can uncover what they base their madness on.

That's no more relevant than the "madness" of their Islamist enemies and its roots in the Muslim religion...the point is, Israel exists and most Israelis do not want to give their country away to those barbarians. They will only give half of it away, and that's more than nice of them. If anybody doesn't like it, they can try and do something about it and get their asses nuked. You know damn well from personal experience that most Israelis are secular and many of them would even agree with some of your observations on religion, but the point is, they still aren't going to go anywhere, and they still won't give their country away to the Arab Muslims, no matter WHAT any of them may think about religion in general, or Judaism in particular. So obviously, you are wasting your time here. This is not about religion, this is about keeping our country the way we want it to be, and not turning it into Jordan, no offense.

[Malcolm Wright]

Even though I don't believe in the Christian God, I think it is highly likely that many of the so-called supernatural phenomena of the Old Testament actually occurred as described.

The power of belief is far more potent than we usually give it credit for. Spontaneous healing, psychic phenomena, and other assorted miracles all are enabled by the power of many people believing the same thing.

It is more than just considering that a shared faith causes shared hallucinations: it appears to generate very real manifestations, in all cultures. However the number and degree of such manifestations appears to be proportional to the power of belief, and in many modern secular societies, that power is a shadow of what it once was. In the times of the Old Testament in Mesopotamia, it was extremely potent.

M

[Archaix]

Debatable. Here's the most recent credible poll, from the PSR:

Which really proves my point. And look at this:
Q.04: Generally, do you see yourself as:
1) supportive of the peace process 63.2%
2) opposed to the peace process 18.7%
3) between support and opposition 17.0%

International laws says they do have to accept two states, as per UNSC 242, and that's the way it will be.

I suppose you don't really have any opinions of your own.

No, what happened with Lebanon and Sudan would occur: fratricidal civil war.

Both inconceivably poor, postcolonial states with absolutely no sense of a singular, multicultural identity, modern citizenship or the value of a secular state. You're stuck on proximate rather than ultimate factors again.

You're a liar. You cited no historical account of MacMahon's promise to the Arabs, and you were refuted with a citation.

I'm not obliged to to cite a 'historical account' of MacMahon's promise, and in any case it was covered in this book, which I cited in a related WWI comment just underneath. So you've still yet to show one instance of an un-backed-up point, and exactly where I have lied. I, on the other hand, have pointed out exactly where you've lied all along, as well as being childish, relying on law instead of answering the point, name calling as a form of evasion (specifically, 'bullshit'), etc. I'm losing the patience to deal with your crap, fraud.

The power of belief is far more potent than we usually give it credit for. Spontaneous healing, psychic phenomena, and other assorted miracles all are enabled by the power of many people believing the same thing.

Any scientific evidence of this at all? I remember Dawkins' study of Lourdes faith-healing and showing how cure rates for pilgrims are no higher than anyone else -biased as he is, I think he'd carry out or use an accurate study.

It is more than just considering that a shared faith causes shared hallucinations: it appears to generate very real manifestations, in all cultures. However the number and degree of such manifestations appears to be proportional to the power of belief, and in many modern secular societies, that power is a shadow of what it once was. In the times of the Old Testament in Mesopotamia, it was extremely potent.

How do you know it wasn' just a shared delusion? A great many unbelievable things are attributed to Siegfreid in the Nibelungenlied, but no one really thinks those things really happened -so why privelege the OT?

[Malcolm Wright]

Any scientific evidence of this at all? I remember Dawkins' study of Lourdes faith-healing and showing how cure rates for pilgrims are no higher than anyone else -biased as he is, I think he'd carry out or use an accurate study.

I'd like to take a look at Dawkins study - I tried to find it but didn't have any luck.
Faith healing is soundly backed up by the placebo effect, which is simply evidence of the extent to which the mind can cure physical ailments. The placebo effect springs purely for what the patient believes. It stands to reason that faith provides an amplified version of the placebo effect, since the power of belief in a medication is generally of a lower order than the power of belief in a god-like force.
We're not NECESSARILY talking about anything that defies the accepted understanding of healing here: merely the very potent factor of one's own mind in the healing process.

How do you know it wasn' just a shared delusion? A great many unbelievable things are attributed to Siegfreid in the Nibelungenlied, but no one really thinks those things really happened -so why privelege the OT?

It is not possible to make blanket statements, and I am not claiming to know how much of it is shared delusion, and how much of it is manifested reality - I'm merely stating support for the distinct possibility that much of the seemingly supernatural events in the OT may be rather literal. Not because they reflect an objective reality, but rather because they may reflect a manifested subjective reality (not to be confused with a hallucination or delusion).

M

[Archaix]

I think the main difference between a placebo and faith healing is that one is biological false confidence based on a real cure (albeit something remarkable that I don't understand) and the other an intercession from someone else, which doesn't necessarily give the body false confidence -the person in question might not be religious, not believe enough that intercession can cure them or will happen, or even know people are praying for them (or to what extent).

I heard of Dawkins' study through a documentary he did, which was probably based on The God Delusion. I've not read the book, however, so I don't know for sure.

[Šñøü†ê®]

Folks, keep in mind we are discussing THE OLD TESTAMENT. It really is not about spiritual things that are real. It is basically the mythological history of 12 tribes of nomads and their superstitions.

[Malcolm Wright]

My bad - just read the thread topic and ran with it without really looking at where this was taken! It would be a cool other thread to make though. Got to run for now.

M

[Cyclone Ranger]

I read the book.

Tessler does not claim that MacMahon ever promised the Palestinians an independent state, although he does believe the Palestinians had a national consciousness before the Sixties, without suggesting any evidence to that effect.

You are welcome to cite an actual verbatim passage from the text to the contrary, but I know in advance that you will not, because none exists. If that's not so, here is his email from his faculty page at U. of Michigan: tessler@umich.edu

I'm sure he will support you, if your reading of his book was accurate.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Note that MacMahon, who was simply acting as an intermediary for the British foreign policy minister, did not have the authority to grant such a promise anyhow. From Churchill's White Paper:

it is not the case, as has been represented by the Arab Delegation, that during the war His Majesty's Government gave an undertaking that an independent national government should be at once established in Palestine. This representation mainly rests upon a letter dated the 24th October, 1915, from Sir Henry McMahon, then His Majesty's High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sharif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the Kingdom of the Hejaz. That letter is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty's Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon's pledge

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/mideast.asp

[Archaix]

I read the book.

Tessler does not claim that MacMahon ever promised the Palestinians an independent state, although he does believe the Palestinians had a national consciousness before the Sixties, without suggesting any evidence to that effect.

You are welcome to cite an actual verbatim passage from the text to the contrary, but I know in advance that you will not, because none exists. If that's not so, here is his email from his faculty page at U. of Michigan: tessler@umich.edu

I'm sure he will support you, if your reading of his book was accurate.

The passages from p145 discuss British promises, and specifically says on p146: “The British promised to support the emancipation of the Arabs if the latter would become their allies in the war”. Incorporation into a new, Arabic state was apparently what residents of Palestine were prepared to tolerate according to local elites, and not a 'Jewish state' made up of immigrants imposed on Palestine. According to the University of Michigan's Vice Provost for International Affairs and a research professor at the Center for Political Studies (who you apparently know much more than), the Palestinians could be considered a discrete cultural group at this point, in numerical superiority to Zionist settlers, with legal property rights in the area and a long tradition of their own in the land.

Seeing as you already have the good professor's email address, how about sending him an email telling him how much more knowledgeable you are? Given all your apparent experience and expertise in critical studies of history, knowledge of social theory and superb comprehension skills, I mean.

Note that MacMahon, who was simply acting as an intermediary for the British foreign policy minister, did not have the authority to grant such a promise anyhow. From Churchill's White Paper

The Palestinians contacted by the British were obviously led to believe they would achieve independent statehood, and the territories mentioned have been described by Tessler as 'vague'. It seems that the British government of 1922 were trying to backtrack and support Zionists, downplaying their association with Palestinians. In fact, that whole document seems to assume Palestine is a coherent territorial unit with an Arabic population, and continues directly on from your sentence with this:

Nevertheless, it is the intention of His Majesty's government to foster the establishment of a full measure of self government in Palestine. But they are of the opinion that, in the special circumstances of that country, this should be accomplished by gradual stages and not suddenly … During this period the institutions of the country will have become well established; its financial credit will be based on firm foundations, and the Palestinian officials will have been enabled to gain experience of sound methods of government. After a few years the situation will be again reviewed, and if the experience of the working of the constitution now to be established so warranted, a larger share of authority would then be extended to the elected representatives of the people.

You seem to have dropped several mad ideas by the way, such as:

• Palestinians not wanting peace (disproved with your own evidence)
• war being solved by fragmentation into mini-states rather than nation-building (disproved by my evidence)
• how exactly the Israeli Intelligence document from 1948 is false (no evidence given)
• how Zionist terrorism is justifiable but Palestinian terrorism is not (contrived and evasive definitions of the term 'terrorism' given)
• how law can legally be applied to a worldwide ethnicity in perpetuity, particularly in an already-inhabited area (it can't?)
• how Palestinian desires don't matter (because you're prejudiced?)
• how a religious state is preferable to a secular one (contrary to all good sense and liberal ideals)

I wasn't even trying with that list, either. There's probably a few more howlers out there still.

[Cyclone Ranger]

The British promised to support the emancipation of the Arabs if the latter would become their allies in the war”. Incorporation into a new, Arabic state was apparently what residents of Palestine were prepared to tolerate according to local elites, and not a 'Jewish state' made up of immigrants imposed on Palestine.

Now we're making some progress: the Palestinians were not promised an independent state, but rather integration into a pan-Arabic Hashemite state, as a replacement for the Ottomans.

I would imagine that's as close as you ever come to admitting you were wrong.

[GanjaFreebird]

Even though I don't believe in the Christian God, I think it is highly likely that many of the so-called supernatural phenomena of the Old Testament actually occurred as described.

EXACTLY!!

[GanjaFreebird]

Which really proves my point. And look at this:
Q.04: Generally, do you see yourself as:
1) supportive of the peace process 63.2%
2) opposed to the peace process 18.7%
3) between support and opposition 17.0%


I suppose you don't really have any opinions of your own.


Both inconceivably poor, postcolonial states with absolutely no sense of a singular, multicultural identity, modern citizenship or the value of a secular state. You're stuck on proximate rather than ultimate factors again.


I'm not obliged to to cite a 'historical account' of MacMahon's promise, and in any case it was covered in this book, which I cited in a related WWI comment just underneath. So you've still yet to show one instance of an un-backed-up point, and exactly where I have lied. I, on the other hand, have pointed out exactly where you've lied all along, as well as being childish, relying on law instead of answering the point, name calling as a form of evasion (specifically, 'bullshit'), etc. I'm losing the patience to deal with your crap, fraud.


Any scientific evidence of this at all? I remember Dawkins' study of Lourdes faith-healing and showing how cure rates for pilgrims are no higher than anyone else -biased as he is, I think he'd carry out or use an accurate study.


How do you know it wasn' just a shared delusion? A great many unbelievable things are attributed to Siegfreid in the Nibelungenlied, but no one really thinks those things really happened -so why privelege the OT?

No offense, but CR totally pwned you on this one, you didn't prove a single thing in favor of the Palestinians, while he provided historical and biological facts in favor of the Jews, sorry, but that's just the truth.

[GanjaFreebird]

How do you know it wasn' just a shared delusion? A great many unbelievable things are attributed to Siegfreid in the Nibelungenlied, but no one really thinks those things really happened -so why privelege the OT?

Because God gave us the OT. Don't underestimate Judaism!

[GanjaFreebird]

Folks, keep in mind we are discussing THE OLD TESTAMENT. It really is not about spiritual things that are real. It is basically the mythological history of 12 tribes of nomads and their superstitions.

You WISH that Judaism was false because you are ashamed of your Jewish ethnicity, but even if God doesn't even exist, you're still Jewish, we're still Jewish, and we aren't giving Israel away to the Arabs, get over it!

[GanjaFreebird]

The passages from p145 discuss British promises, and specifically says on p146: “The British promised to support the emancipation of the Arabs if the latter would become their allies in the war”.

The Palestinians were on Hitler's side, I rest my case.

ncorporation into a new, Arabic state was apparently what residents of Palestine were prepared to tolerate according to local elites, and not a 'Jewish state' made up of immigrants imposed on Palestine.

So another Arab state is good but a Jewish state is bad? Why is that? Are you a racist?

the Palestinians could be considered a discrete cultural group at this point, in numerical superiority to Zionist settlers, with legal property rights in the area and a long tradition of their own in the land.

BS, there were only 300,000 of the TOTAL in the ENTIRE "greater palestine" and most of Jordan combined, before the Zionists came. And what about the indigenous Palestinian Jews who were being murdered by the Arabs in Hebron? They don't count either?

Palestinians not wanting peace

People who DO want peace will compromise with Israel, accept 2 state solution (Jewish and Arab) and will stop terrorism and not vote for Hamas. That's not an opinion, but a fact. They want the entire land and the Jews out of there, that's what they want, and they aren't getting it.

how Zionist terrorism is justifiable but Palestinian terrorism is not

1. What happened in 1945 is not relevant in 2012.

2. Again, I care about my people, NOT about my enemies, regardless of who they are.

how law can legally be applied to a worldwide ethnicity in perpetuity, particularly in an already-inhabited area (it can't?)

It was, just ask UN.

how Palestinian desires don't matter

Hitler had those desires too.

how a religious state is preferable to a secular one

Right, but name me any Arab secular states. Israel is a secular liberal almost-socialist democracy, on the other hand!

Now we're making some progress: the Palestinians were not promised an independent state, but rather integration into a pan-Arabic Hashemite state, as a replacement for the Ottomans.

I would imagine that's as close as you ever come to admitting you were wrong.

In other words...Jordan!! EXACTLY!!

[Cyclone Ranger]

It would have been like a much larger Jordan, that would have replaced Jordan and most of Syria, and included Palestine.

[Cyclone Ranger]

You WISH that Judaism was false because you are ashamed of your Jewish ethnicity, but even if God doesn't even exist, you're still Jewish, we're still Jewish, and we aren't giving Israel away to the Arabs, get over it!

We couldn't even iif we wished to, because the WASPs would never let us.

[Cyclone Ranger]

As always, your post was filled with distortions, misquotes, and outright lies. To wit:
[*]Palestinians not wanting peace (disproved with your own evidence)

As mentioned, highly debatable, based on the evidence.

[*] war being solved by fragmentation into mini-states rather than nation-building (disproved by my evidence)

You gave zero evidence, other than your opinion, and your flake sociological theory that separate nations would cause divisiveness, but being shoved together would make everyone forget their religious differences.

The evidence suggests such states generally dissolve into genocide.

Your only response was that Yugoslavia, Sudan, and Lebanon are poor, but that's a distinction without a difference, because the Palestinians are also dirt-poor, and will likely remain so, given their rates of literacy, birth, female participation in the work force, etc.

A two-state solution with an enforceable final status disposition and peace agreement would quickly end the conflict, while your proposed one-state solution would cause civil war and chaos to erupt.

[*]how exactly the Israeli Intelligence document from 1948 is false (no evidence given)

For the reason stated: Israeli intelligence didn't exist in 1948; and Morris' opinion was based on a selective reading of the evidence.

[*]how Zionist terrorism is justifiable but Palestinian terrorism is not (contrived and evasive definitions of the term 'terrorism' given)

I don't agree that attacking a military installation was terrorism because it wasn't aimed at civilians, and some definitions concur. Nevertheless, there is no accepted definition in international law that's universally agreed on.

[*]how law can legally be applied to a worldwide ethnicity in perpetuity, particularly in an already-inhabited area (it can't?)

For one, it was only a "worldwide ethnicity" due to the existence of a diaspora. Prior to that existence of that diaspora, the global Jewish community was centered on Palestine, and began there. Hence, it was the homeland of the Jews.

Moreover, while the area was inhabited, it was unincorporated; it was ultimately held as a land trust by the UN, to dispense with as it saw fit. The UN Charter supports self-determination for all people, so they partitioned the territory between the two major groups, giving each the areas where they held a majority.

[*]how Palestinian desires don't matter (because you're prejudiced?)

Selective quoting. I said Palestinian desires for a "one-state solution" don't matter, because the UNSC has already determined that a two-state solution will be the resolution. That doesn't mean Palestinian desires don't matter in any way.

[*]how a religious state is preferable to a secular one (contrary to all good sense and liberal ideals)[/list]

Bullshit. I said there is no reason you can't found a state on religion, not that a religious state is preferable. Moreover, Israel is in fact an officially secular state which was founded primarily by socialistic atheists like Theodore Herzl and Chaim Weizmann.