fakeitormakeit2

I do feel as though the Danish cartoonist had all the rights and ability to do what he did, but just because we can do something doesn't mean we should if it's disrespectful. The actions of the cartoonist are not just justified nor are the extremist who attacked him. And I also rather detest those who say "Islam isn't as bad as Christianity, because Christendom caused the Crusades". Each situation is different, and we must judge ourselves according to the situation, we cannot compare unalike situations. But alas people are foolish and they have long tongues so in the end, my Muslim friend, I, a non-Muslim Middle Eastern, and you, a Muslim, are both just "towel heads" to the ignorant. The ignorant are like those who refuse to distinguish between art. They do not know the beauty which they miss. But there's also a very good Arabic saying, before listening to the words of an insult you should look at what mouth it came out of first. I find this a very appealing saying, especially in this modern world of ignorant and cultureless idiots.

Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature. We exemplify natural selection and survival of the fittest, because if we wanted to, we could use our power to destroy everything else. However, with a different approach we have the obligation to maintain nature as we are the dominant nature. But back on topic, I think it depends on the mentality in which you bring children into the world. Someone having one kid could be selfish were as someone with 10 kids is not, simply because the person with one neglects their kid and taught it would be "fun" to have a child but cannot support them. Meanwhile, Mr. and Mrs. 10 love all their kids equally and support themselves. But overall, it is our nature to reproduce and its selfish if we have the financial means and time to provide for children. If we aren't stable in those regards, I find it would be selfish to not be able to control yourself if your headed to a path of stability and you just wanna pop some out.

We cannot return to the gold standard. It would be restrictive on our economy, as well as it would be us purposely reducing the value of our currency because countries we send aid money to have a tendency to purchase gold from the US gov. so in turn we'd be paying to reduce ourselves (well we are already doing that, but it would be even worse). And saying that because we took ourselves off the gold standard is why our currency has been constantly decreasing is the logical fallicy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Our economy profited heavily from the European wars were European nations had to buy American resources to fight each other, and now that Europe has a continental peace since WW2 and more over since after the fall of the USSR, our economy is falling as we cannot compete because we've lost our edge.

I would agree. I also get irritated by people under the age of 13 who proclaim their maturity but fit under the description of a typical annoying brat. Some kids under 13 are cool, but as you said majority are not so much. But eh, I would consider myself pretty mature now, but I if I recall correctly I was kind of immature in some regards. I'm 16 & a jr., 17 in July. I consider it pretty bad that I'm still playing Runescape now that I see that the average is younger.

What should I make to get to 68 summoning? I'm currently lvl64. And also, about how much will that cost me in GP and charms?

Yes, I rather enjoy the BBC.

I have trimesters. I like trimesters better than semesters. Less finals. This is very true. Everyone always gets midterms, a lot of my teachers don't bother giving tri-exams.

I picked my courses for next year already, hope they're more entertaining then this year (Junior): -Italian IV Honors -Chemistry AP -Microeconomics AP -Peer Leadership -Art History AP -English IV Honors -Calculus AB -Theology Seminar Is anyone else taking US History AP? I find it so extremely boring compared to World History AP I took last year, and the test was a joke. Oh and everyone has semesters, my school has to be special and have trimesters >.>

Countries you listed like Syria, France Britain have been long established but just have gone by different names and some different form of political status such as Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc, France use to be Gaul long ago, etc. It’s different for Israel when the majority of your current inhabitants have been gone since 600BC and some people who follow the same religion decide to return 2500yrs later. 2) Actually if you want to play “there first” game, the Amorites, a name synonymous with the word Canaanite, were originally there, even stated in the Old Testament Syrians are the closest descendants of these people. People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians. As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese, even when the kingdoms of Judah and Israel still existed. Also, what is now eastern Israel was often under the control of Edomites and sometimes Moabites would come, these people are now the Jordanians. So would you still like to argue “there first” with me? And don't argue the Jews were there before they went to Egypt because that isn't true, those were called Hebrews, deeming them Jews is a retrospection, even then it is believed Abraham came from a Mesopotamian city state, and the Amorites were already present. 3) Zionists are the Jews who want a Jewish state centralized around Zion, the temple mount, Jerusalem. Majority of Jews are not Zionists but they are sympathetic to their cause, seeing as how it led to the establishment of their current state. As for Anti-Zionist Jews, those are very rare, and most only speak against Israel because it has the Messianic star [of David] as its symbol/on its flag and they believe since there isn’t a Messiah on the throne [Originally before the Christian idea, Messiah is someone of an anointed one of the line of David] it is not the same as the state of Israel that God established, therefore it is basically a mock-state-of-God. 4) First of all, I’m not surprised. I’m Lebanese. I know the facts. However I respond to your question with this question: Do you blame the Native Americans who attacked the expanding Americans who tried to take their land? And by the way you’re wrong. Lebanon did not officially send troops, it was Pan-Arab sympathizers in Lebanon, the official government never sent troops as the official head of state is a Maronite and the Patriarch commanded they stay neutral with Israel unless Israel makes an offense. What external observers do not realize is that there are two factions in Lebanon (well really there’s like seven, but I’m not going to get into that) there’s the pro-Hezbollah which are the Muslims who support Pan-Arabism and then there’s the pro-Kataeb, the Christians who just want to be left the [bleep] alone. 5) Jews from the Middle East, some of the nicest people I have met and known. Some good friends of mine are these people. Good people. But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists who support the acquisitioning of land at others expense. Even if we completely disregard the Palestinians now, they took over Southern Lebanon (the Christian factions who were in control at the time were pro-Israel, although they refused to secede the land back), then the Israeli’s also took Golan Heights from Syria, that’s just an insult right there. And they were suppose to stop expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, but they’re still to stop. I have Palestinian friends, Christian too, they were pulled out of there houses and told to get the [bleep] out because their property now belonged to Israel. 6) I’m aware of this, but people from Greater Syria (AKA the Levant) call themselves Semites, because they are legitimately genetically Semitic. 7)So I hope now it makes more then “1 bit of sense.” as you said. For comfort purposes I have numbers your answers and accordingly numbered my responses to your answers. 1) Notice that all the countries you've named, whether were there for centuries or not, have the very same things in common- Their people share the same language, history, culture, etc. The Jews are no different than that. Also, a question I'd really love you to answer- If we take into account the absurd biased opinion that Israel is unjust in every way, what do you expect? That Israel would just fold up and leave? What of all the citizens? Where would they go? 2) You've already said it all. Hebrews were there first, even before they came back from Eygept. A little "did you know?": Jews are descendants of the Judah tribe, 1 of the 12 that together formed the Hebrew 'populace' (the twelve tribes are- Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Gad, Naphtali, Asher, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, The Benjamin and Levi tribes "joined" the Judah tribe and have together formed what you know today as Jews). Those that came back from Eygept were Hebrews. Let me requote you here, serveral times- "Syrians are the closest descendants of these people.", " People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians.", "Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc", "As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese" Have you noticed what all these quotes have in common? Population X are the descendants of Population Y. Jews, by all means, are descendants of the Hebrews, and if the Hebrews were there first, so were the Jews. So would you still like to argue “there first” with me? 3) I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Judiasm and Zionism have contradicting principles and because of that many religous Jews are now Anti-Zionst (I even had a school project on that few years back). Also, your definition of Zionism isn't much different than the one I presented (it's actualy more accurate, but it still makes sense- People with the same language, history, culture and idiology wanting to become a nation.) Not unlike Poland, a relatively "young" country that only recieved it's right to form a nation after WWI, even though the population itself existed much earlier. Would you say Poland doesn't deserve it's territory and right to be a country? 4) No, I don't blame them for fighting Spain. I would like to point some differences here though- Spain went out looking for territory and gold, basicly trying to expand itself- the Native Americans were defending themselves against the weird soldiers with the 'thunder sticks'. Israel, first of all, couldn't have tried to expand itself because in order expand you must first exist- and that's what they were trying to do- become existant. Secondly, Israel is not only outnumbered by it's neighbors, but it is was much weaker because it was a country in it's first days, and the citizens had to both fight for their country, and build it, at the same time. Also, I assure you Israel would become a nation of peace with anyone who wants it. Personaly, I think it's wrong (let's not get into that though), but Israel would willingly live in harmony with it's neighbors if they only ask (you have proof for that- Jordan and Eygept). Also, sorry for my mistake. Not that the information was crucial to our discussion, but still sorry. 5) "But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists" Sorry, but do you even know what the meaning of Imperialism is? According to Wikipedia- "Imperialism is considered the control by one state of other territories." How is Israel one state controlling other territores? It couldn't have because it was formed where it is right now and have not sent forces with the intention of conquering any land or recources. As for their taking over Southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. First of all, all land conquered by Israeli forces was conquered within war that was initiated by the conquered. Secondly, Israel had conquered much, much more than what it has in it's possesion. Israel had given up land in the favour of promised peace (that actualy wasn't always achieved, which means Israel had given up territory in the favour of lies about peace i.e. nothing). For instance, during the Yom Kipur war, you might know it as حرب أكتوبر , Israel reached about 35 KM away from Damascus, and 101 KM away from Cairo. 6) That still doesn't change the 'accepted' definition of Antisemite. 7) Nope, not really. It actualy makes less sense now. Edit: That is not only insulting and offensive, but is also absolutly preposterous. ISRAEL'S INTENTION IS NOT TO CONQUER IT'S NEIGHBORS. It may be new to you, but Israel would go very far in the name of peace. I had already mentioned in this post that I don't believe in these values of peace with those who seek to only harm you and make you go elsewhere, at any price. But Israel is *almost* all for it. Throughout the years, Israel had given up territories again and again, territories that were conquered during wars Israel did no even initiate, thinking peace would be achieved that way. At most (you could say all, as some cases are contriversial, but let's settle on most) cases, Israel was doing wrong when giving up territories, because it achieved nothing, defnietly not the peace it had longed for. never have I thought I'd see the day a member of the Tip.it community would accuse Israel for being alike to Hitler, or compare them. I'm well aware that this accusation is nothing new, but I thought the Tip.It community is more mature than that. [/hide] You selectively take things and bend them out of context. You were like you said it yourself the Hebrews were there first, when I then later go on to say Amorites were in the land of that region prior to Abram(Abraham). So I can see you have the ability to read, but also the desire to only read and refer to sections instead of a whole idea. I find it funny how you say what, Israel and its citizens are to just fold up and leave? Where would they go? The Jews had no problem crushing the Palestinians and throwing them out of their own lands, so I'm sure the Jews can have the same done to them. You also go on a big rant about what I say is nonsense, etc. and then have the nerve to be so immature as to compare Israel with Hitler. It is you, madam, that is the immature; for the multitude of insults you fling and then expect no rebuttal on a statement and then feel insulted when one expresses their opinion. And as for who ever called me a media sheep? Seeing as how my family is not only from the region, but lorded over some of it for a short time (a few hundred years), and having the experience with speaking with both Jews from the Middle East and other Arabs, it is you who is a media sheep. I have primary sources. You have what? The ideal the media gave you that " rool nummer one, everyonez in da middle east is a muslims. rool nummer... sefen, them muslims is bad, we gotts ta shoot em, shoot em good! Help er friends in da hur country of Iseral!" [Which is the same stupidity that has made the US support a banished Saud, Osama bin Laden, and he has proven his alliance, no?]. To me it sounds like you couldn't counter my points and decided to pick what you like best, answer it, and for the rest just call me immature. As for your supposed opinion. Well, when an opinion is based 99% on hatred, is mostly unfounded and is sticking to what it sees as facts, I believe it is okay to call it immature. Funny, it seems like you do as you judge against others. I will no longer post in this thread, I'd rather not be discredited and called immature by someone of extreme arrogance.

[hide] Countries you listed like Syria, France Britain have been long established but just have gone by different names and some different form of political status such as Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc, France use to be Gaul long ago, etc. It’s different for Israel when the majority of your current inhabitants have been gone since 600BC and some people who follow the same religion decide to return 2500yrs later. 2) Actually if you want to play “there first” game, the Amorites, a name synonymous with the word Canaanite, were originally there, even stated in the Old Testament Syrians are the closest descendants of these people. People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians. As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese, even when the kingdoms of Judah and Israel still existed. Also, what is now eastern Israel was often under the control of Edomites and sometimes Moabites would come, these people are now the Jordanians. So would you still like to argue “there first” with me? And don't argue the Jews were there before they went to Egypt because that isn't true, those were called Hebrews, deeming them Jews is a retrospection, even then it is believed Abraham came from a Mesopotamian city state, and the Amorites were already present. 3) Zionists are the Jews who want a Jewish state centralized around Zion, the temple mount, Jerusalem. Majority of Jews are not Zionists but they are sympathetic to their cause, seeing as how it led to the establishment of their current state. As for Anti-Zionist Jews, those are very rare, and most only speak against Israel because it has the Messianic star [of David] as its symbol/on its flag and they believe since there isn’t a Messiah on the throne [Originally before the Christian idea, Messiah is someone of an anointed one of the line of David] it is not the same as the state of Israel that God established, therefore it is basically a mock-state-of-God. 4) First of all, I’m not surprised. I’m Lebanese. I know the facts. However I respond to your question with this question: Do you blame the Native Americans who attacked the expanding Americans who tried to take their land? And by the way you’re wrong. Lebanon did not officially send troops, it was Pan-Arab sympathizers in Lebanon, the official government never sent troops as the official head of state is a Maronite and the Patriarch commanded they stay neutral with Israel unless Israel makes an offense. What external observers do not realize is that there are two factions in Lebanon (well really there’s like seven, but I’m not going to get into that) there’s the pro-Hezbollah which are the Muslims who support Pan-Arabism and then there’s the pro-Kataeb, the Christians who just want to be left the [bleep] alone. 5) Jews from the Middle East, some of the nicest people I have met and known. Some good friends of mine are these people. Good people. But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists who support the acquisitioning of land at others expense. Even if we completely disregard the Palestinians now, they took over Southern Lebanon (the Christian factions who were in control at the time were pro-Israel, although they refused to secede the land back), then the Israeli’s also took Golan Heights from Syria, that’s just an insult right there. And they were suppose to stop expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, but they’re still to stop. I have Palestinian friends, Christian too, they were pulled out of there houses and told to get the [bleep] out because their property now belonged to Israel. 6) I’m aware of this, but people from Greater Syria (AKA the Levant) call themselves Semites, because they are legitimately genetically Semitic. 7)So I hope now it makes more then “1 bit of sense.” as you said. For comfort purposes I have numbers your answers and accordingly numbered my responses to your answers. 1) Notice that all the countries you've named, whether were there for centuries or not, have the very same things in common- Their people share the same language, history, culture, etc. The Jews are no different than that. Also, a question I'd really love you to answer- If we take into account the absurd biased opinion that Israel is unjust in every way, what do you expect? That Israel would just fold up and leave? What of all the citizens? Where would they go? 2) You've already said it all. Hebrews were there first, even before they came back from Eygept. A little "did you know?": Jews are descendants of the Judah tribe, 1 of the 12 that together formed the Hebrew 'populace' (the twelve tribes are- Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Gad, Naphtali, Asher, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, The Benjamin and Levi tribes "joined" the Judah tribe and have together formed what you know today as Jews). Those that came back from Eygept were Hebrews. Let me requote you here, serveral times- "Syrians are the closest descendants of these people.", " People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians.", "Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc", "As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese" Have you noticed what all these quotes have in common? Population X are the descendants of Population Y. Jews, by all means, are descendants of the Hebrews, and if the Hebrews were there first, so were the Jews. So would you still like to argue “there first” with me? 3) I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Judiasm and Zionism have contradicting principles and because of that many religous Jews are now Anti-Zionst (I even had a school project on that few years back). Also, your definition of Zionism isn't much different than the one I presented (it's actualy more accurate, but it still makes sense- People with the same language, history, culture and idiology wanting to become a nation.) Not unlike Poland, a relatively "young" country that only recieved it's right to form a nation after WWI, even though the population itself existed much earlier. Would you say Poland doesn't deserve it's territory and right to be a country? 4) No, I don't blame them for fighting Spain. I would like to point some differences here though- Spain went out looking for territory and gold, basicly trying to expand itself- the Native Americans were defending themselves against the weird soldiers with the 'thunder sticks'. Israel, first of all, couldn't have tried to expand itself because in order expand you must first exist- and that's what they were trying to do- become existant. Secondly, Israel is not only outnumbered by it's neighbors, but it is was much weaker because it was a country in it's first days, and the citizens had to both fight for their country, and build it, at the same time. Also, I assure you Israel would become a nation of peace with anyone who wants it. Personaly, I think it's wrong (let's not get into that though), but Israel would willingly live in harmony with it's neighbors if they only ask (you have proof for that- Jordan and Eygept). Also, sorry for my mistake. Not that the information was crucial to our discussion, but still sorry. 5) "But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists" Sorry, but do you even know what the meaning of Imperialism is? According to Wikipedia- "Imperialism is considered the control by one state of other territories." How is Israel one state controlling other territores? It couldn't have because it was formed where it is right now and have not sent forces with the intention of conquering any land or recources. As for their taking over Southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. First of all, all land conquered by Israeli forces was conquered within war that was initiated by the conquered. Secondly, Israel had conquered much, much more than what it has in it's possesion. Israel had given up land in the favour of promised peace (that actualy wasn't always achieved, which means Israel had given up territory in the favour of lies about peace i.e. nothing). For instance, during the Yom Kipur war, you might know it as حرب أكتوبر , Israel reached about 35 KM away from Damascus, and 101 KM away from Cairo. 6) That still doesn't change the 'accepted' definition of Antisemite. 7) Nope, not really. It actualy makes less sense now. Edit: That is not only insulting and offensive, but is also absolutly preposterous. ISRAEL'S INTENTION IS NOT TO CONQUER IT'S NEIGHBORS. It may be new to you, but Israel would go very far in the name of peace. I had already mentioned in this post that I don't believe in these values of peace with those who seek to only harm you and make you go elsewhere, at any price. But Israel is *almost* all for it. Throughout the years, Israel had given up territories again and again, territories that were conquered during wars Israel did no even initiate, thinking peace would be achieved that way. At most (you could say all, as some cases are contriversial, but let's settle on most) cases, Israel was doing wrong when giving up territories, because it achieved nothing, defnietly not the peace it had longed for. never have I thought I'd see the day a member of the Tip.it community would accuse Israel for being alike to Hitler, or compare them. I'm well aware that this accusation is nothing new, but I thought the Tip.It community is more mature than that. [/hide] You selectively take things and bend them out of context. You were like you said it yourself the Hebrews were there first, when I then later go on to say Amorites were in the land of that region prior to Abram(Abraham). So I can see you have the ability to read, but also the desire to only read and refer to sections instead of a whole idea. I find it funny how you say what, Israel and its citizens are to just fold up and leave? Where would they go? The Jews had no problem crushing the Palestinians and throwing them out of their own lands, so I'm sure the Jews can have the same done to them. You also go on a big rant about what I say is nonsense, etc. and then have the nerve to be so immature as to compare Israel with Hitler. It is you, madam, that is the immature; for the multitude of insults you fling and then expect no rebuttal on a statement and then feel insulted when one expresses their opinion. And as for who ever called me a media sheep? Seeing as how my family is not only from the region, but lorded over some of it for a short time (a few hundred years), and having the experience with speaking with both Jews from the Middle East and other Arabs, it is you who is a media sheep. I have primary sources. You have what? The ideal the media gave you that " rool nummer one, everyonez in da middle east is a muslims. rool nummer... sefen, them muslims is bad, we gotts ta shoot em, shoot em good! Help er friends in da hur country of Iseral!" [Which is the same stupidity that has made the US support a banished Saud, Osama bin Laden, and he has proven his alliance, no?].

If the Jews deserve the land then it's basically completely on the basis of might makes right because people seem to forget there were people living there before the Hebrews, before the Israelites and before the current state of Israel. That's kind of why if you read in the Old Testament why everyone occasionally gets mad and then attacks Israel, not because people are jealous, people just don't like their stuff getting taken, rightfully so. The expanse of the [Modern State of] Israel into the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Southern Lebanon and Golan Heights, their acquisition of Palestine in general, is comparable to Hitler's notion of needing living space for the Master race.

Countries you listed like Syria, France Britain have been long established but just have gone by different names and some different form of political status such as Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc, France use to be Gaul long ago, etc. It’s different for Israel when the majority of your current inhabitants have been gone since 600BC and some people who follow the same religion decide to return 2500yrs later. Actually if you want to play “there first” game, the Amorites, a name synonymous with the word Canaanite, were originally there, even stated in the Old Testament Syrians are the closest descendants of these people. People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians. As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese, even when the kingdoms of Judah and Israel still existed. Also, what is now eastern Israel was often under the control of Edomites and sometimes Moabites would come, these people are now the Jordanians. So would you still like to argue “there first” with me? And don't argue the Jews were there before they went to Egypt because that isn't true, those were called Hebrews, deeming them Jews is a retrospection, even then it is believed Abraham came from a Mesopotamian city state, and the Amorites were already present. Zionists are the Jews who want a Jewish state centralized around Zion, the temple mount, Jerusalem. Majority of Jews are not Zionists but they are sympathetic to their cause, seeing as how it led to the establishment of their current state. As for Anti-Zionist Jews, those are very rare, and most only speak against Israel because it has the Messianic star [of David] as its symbol/on its flag and they believe since there isn’t a Messiah on the throne [Originally before the Christian idea, Messiah is someone of an anointed one of the line of David] it is not the same as the state of Israel that God established, therefore it is basically a mock-state-of-God. First of all, I’m not surprised. I’m Lebanese. I know the facts. However I respond to your question with this question: Do you blame the Native Americans who attacked the expanding Americans who tried to take their land? And by the way you’re wrong. Lebanon did not officially send troops, it was Pan-Arab sympathizers in Lebanon, the official government never sent troops as the official head of state is a Maronite and the Patriarch commanded they stay neutral with Israel unless Israel makes an offense. What external observers do not realize is that there are two factions in Lebanon (well really there’s like seven, but I’m not going to get into that) there’s the pro-Hezbollah which are the Muslims who support Pan-Arabism and then there’s the pro-Kataeb, the Christians who just want to be left the [bleep] alone. Jews from the Middle East, some of the nicest people I have met and known. Some good friends of mine are these people. Good people. But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists who support the acquisitioning of land at others expense. Even if we completely disregard the Palestinians now, they took over Southern Lebanon (the Christian factions who were in control at the time were pro-Israel, although they refused to secede the land back), then the Israeli’s also took Golan Heights from Syria, that’s just an insult right there. And they were suppose to stop expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, but they’re still to stop. I have Palestinian friends, Christian too, they were pulled out of there houses and told to get the [bleep] out because their property now belonged to Israel. I’m aware of this, but people from Greater Syria (AKA the Levant) call themselves Semites, because they are legitimately genetically Semitic. So I hope now it makes more then “1 bit of sense.” as you said.

The technological advances and strategic changes in war are quite saddening. War use to be an art. Now its just slaughtering people. Attacking an unarmed civilian? No concept of honor or sport.

I got three questions. 1) Is zionism religious extremism or nationalism? It's extremism because the Jews who aren't even genetically Semitic anymore feel the right to take land from other peoples who have lived there for the last 2400yrs. The only reason why they are allowed to carry their injustice of land stealing is because might makes right. 2) Do jews have a godly right to trash human rights in Israel? No. First of all, if God is suppose to be an all loving being, He would not approve of their evil. They are attacking others who believe in the same god. 3) Is it possible to criticize Israel without instantly becoming antisemitic in the process? I am a Semite. I have no problem with Jews. I have a problem with supposed "Israelis". Thanks, this is not me trolling but a serious attempt at trying to understand the world a bit better.

I'd hate to burst your bubble, but you move to the West... Silly me, that's what I meant. Thanks for catching my mistake. East to west is the path of the sun in the sky.

It's not "bits" of the Bible, it is the entire base and central idea of the religion that is could be considered extreme. The fact that most people aren't following it doesn't mean the religion is not extreme, it just means that most people who preach about following the religion are both hypocrites and sinners. You were obviously taught in a literalistic mindset. One thing that must be understood when reading the Bible is that 1 it shows the evolution of the Judeo-Christian beliefs in what God's will is for His people, people's understandings change. 2 Everything is not literal. You say I was taught only "nice" parts, which I laugh, because I've basically had to read the whole Bible through, and you're right, every part is nice. How can you interpret everything literal if the Bible is comprised of different sources, and for instance in Revelation it speaks of horrible monsters, etc. but really theologians are almost certain it refers to different empires? You also speak outside of a culture mindset. I being Middle Eastern know that a lot of parables and metaphors are used in common speech to help explain a point. For instance a common middle eastern saying, yusraq al kohl min al ayn, he steals the makeup off a girl's eye. Do you really think that is a literal saying?

lololololololol

Oh yes, and I've realized. Light a fire. Which way do you always move? East towards the sun. I just thought that was a bit interesting. And I can think of a few altars off the top of my head that point in the Eastern direction, which is a characteristic of some Christian denominations. ^Oh and good thing you're not a theology major, using language like gaining God's grace is the misunderstand that caused the Protestant Reformation :P.

First of all there is no such thing as a necessary evil. Either you need it or you don't. War, when used properly is a device of peace. War, when used wrongly, is a device of greed. Will mankind ever be rid of war? No. There will always be those who want more and the only way to seize it is through war. Humans have an aggressive nature. There are also those who think they are freeing others by waging war. Think of it this way, we could have all just kept giving Hitler what he wanted and let him take over the world and "cleanse" us, or we (the world other then Nazi Germany and allies) could have waged war and stopped him, which we did. Is war good/bad/neither? As I said, it depends how you use it. It is just like money. You can use money to help people, or you can use it to buy drugs and snort cocaine all day. Are the soldiers who fight war good/bad/neither? Once a soldier has VOLUNTARILY joined a military, they are to do as commanded since they by joining sacrificed their own free will to serve under the instructions of their superiors. If they voluntarily joined an evil cause, i.e. the Nazis, then they are just as evil as Hitler, if not worse because they agreed to bear the burden. If they thought by joining Hitler, they would somehow save the world from destruction and help everyone, then they were not evil but in fact good. Is war ever the answer? Yes. For instance the Maronites in Lebanon have been there for the last two millennia, on and off having it declared an autonomous region. The Muslims think they can just come in and take over. After 1100yrs of the Maronites trying to use diplomacy and the Muslims having complete resolve to take over with any force necessary, the Maronites have all right to stomp out any opposition. That is an extreme example. Sometimes people jump to war too quickly as an answer, or for a means to acquire what we want, which is evil since our reasoning is based on greed.

That's probably the biggest load of BS I've ever read on this forum. Sorry. You'll also note that there were many Christians involved in the abolition movement and later the 1960s civil rights movement which had many of its leaders actively involved in their respective churches. Please read the Bible more often before you attempt to call me out. The Bible gives directions on how to sell your daughter into slavery, and it says one of the sons of Noah is destined to be slaves of the other brothers. http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm For more information of slavery in the Bible. Never try to call me out on a subject because of your ignorance. The link also applies to your post. The Bible encouraged selling daughters and children into slavery. What do you make of the story of Moses then? The story of Moses was only meant to be about freeing his "Chosen" people, not saying slavery is bad. My friend, you have many misconceptions someone would make about the Bible if they are an outsider looking in, rather then someone who knows what they speak of because they have studied it. Where it gives instruction for the selling of the slaves and the like, that is sound in the Old Testament, amongst the Torah. Jesus is a newer understanding of the Torah, instruction of God. The laws, such as the kosher laws, are not followed by Christians because Jesus gave new instruction himself which replaced the old ones, that were created by Jews for the purpose of society and not for morality. When Jesus says slaves obey your earthly masters, he isn't approving of slavery, it was merely a common practice at the time and he was saying rather then going and causes violence against your master just do as they say, because there is a higher power. Hence, things in consistency with this is turn the other cheek, and if someone forces you into one mile of labor, do five. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. These are things Jesus said which calls one to be non-aggressive, not approving of slavery. In Timonthy, again, Christians are called to give their masters full respect so that God's teachings are not shamed. Its like being the bigger man and avoided confrontation and teach the way of a good person. As for you say one of the sons of Noah will become the slave of another? I have never read or heard of that in the Bible. However, that is a possible passage. But you cannot look at that literally. Or perhaps you can. It would just mean that the people of one reason will get their [wagon] kicked by the ones of another since supposedly everyone is a descendant of Noah, that's all that that means, not that God supports slavery. As for you say Yahweh commanding Moses to lead his people out of the Egypt was only meant to be about freeing the "chosen" people, you are right. It wasn't saying slavery was wrong. Yahweh gave Moses a theophany which was to show that the Jews were being watched over, and later on in Deutronomy, God reminds the Jews to treat people nicely because it was He who let them out of Egypt. It is a part of a conditional covenant, they disobey the commands of Yahweh, they end up in the crap they were before. Which is what they ultimately end up believing because the North is linked with idolatry and then the Assyrians crush and deport them, and later on Babylon takes over the South. It is very easy to say the Bible is "evil" if you look at small pieces and disregard other pieces and its history. However, if you look at it in a whole and know its background, it's not so easy. And while you Americans enslaved Africans, my ancestors (the Phoenician/Lebanese people) refused to have slaves, even though they were surrounded by slave trade, that's why a lot of people in the middle east are quite dark and the Lebanese people are really white, because we never had slaves so we never had sex with them. Lebanese are dominantly Christian. You must look at the Bible as poetry and works of inspiration, not as something that is blatantly written.

You're Jewish. Old Testiment still applies to us, buddy. We were the ones that wrote it. Sort of. Read up on your Leviticus. But yeah, seperation of church and state would be a nice amendment to follow, wouldn't it? 1) I hate these topics 2)The Bible doesn't say Homosexuality is bad; simply homosexual rape is bad. 3) There already is separation of church and state, simply not separation of church and those who run the state. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female" Leviticus 18:22 And the argument that homosexuality itself isn't bad but homosexual rape is bad (from the Biblical perspective) is an idea from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah were the Sodomites try to sodomize the angels of God and then God destroys the area with fire and sulfur.

Well the way I see a funereal is its a memorial for the dead person. They should be celebrated and their life's challenges and good times be recalled, which involves joking. However I got very annoyed when I recently went to someone's funereal and people were talking about each others kids and jobs, no relation to the person, and they were laughing obnoxiously. Death is good if the life of the person was good. Death is simply the next stage of a continued life. What people cry over is just a shell and is no longer the person.

I find that ironic now seeing as how MJ is dead.

I hate the cold so much. And where I live (NY Metropolitan area) I wouldn't say its the coldest winter, but its so friggin annoying. It keeps snowing but no school off, and then I'm late for school because it takes like an extra 2hrs because of the roads. In fact, that happened yesterday -.-

I think people are too paranoid over the religious influence on government. First of all, if you have religion you cannot seperate morality/an idea from your opinion of politics and your religion, it doesn't work like that. If we had a government isolated from religion we could only elect atheist/agnostic politicians, which would be a persecution against people of religion. Secondly, actual religious figures don't actually do anything in terms of politics of the USA. I remember a Bishop in my area said something something don't vote for Obama, and then the Gov threatened to remove the diocese's tax exemption. Third of all, religion brings morality, as well as in this current situation relief funds to Haiti, so it betters society as a whole. And yes, the founding fathers were theists and they believed America was not a Christian nation, but they were wrong. Everyone in the USA is predominately Christian. All politicians are predominately Christian. Laws passed in the US have strong Judeo-Christian links from the get-go.