Hatemail #23. Author: Jeff.

Look, I get what you're saying about separation of society. This occurs both in capitalism and communism (both of whom have been "courting" Arab/Muslim society for 50+ years). It happens in America, too. The poor stay poor while the rich get richer. What I'm (apparently) missing is what any of that has to do with the US, the UN or Israel.

"Imagine, what would happen, when there would be NO Israel? What would rich warmongers tout a war towards to keep siphoning oil money into mega-profitable for everyone arms deals?"

Again, I don't mean to insult you here, but I don't think world history is on your side of this. Consider the way America played Iran and Iraq against one another. We had put the Shah in power, so he was our guy for a long time. Then he was overthrown, and all of a sudden, we backed Saddam, became HIS best customer. Then they started fighting (Which had NOTHING to do with Israel, btw) and we decided the best thing to do would be to give at least token support to each side, under the table, in a way that was plausibly deniable, and sell arms to both. Now, of course, this is GROSSLY oversimplified, but this was one huge conflict in the Middle East, which the US had our hand in, that didn't have the SLIGHTEST BIT to do with Israel. It would have happened just the same with or without Israel.

Or take Gulf War 1. Most Americans don't seem to understand that Kuwait had reneged on a contract with Saddam regarding oil drilling. If your house is on 75% of the oil field, and my house is over 25%, you're supposed to give me 25% of your profts, and I'm supposed to give you 75% of mine. That was the deal for decades. Kuwait stopped paying Saddam, and since he THOUGHT he was our guy, he invaded and took over the oil fields. Again, ANOTHER Arab conflict over money and oil that would have gone the exact same way with or without Israel.

It`s just a humongous peace of performance art, called "Inhuman Greed".

Well said.

[Alice Shade]

I never said, that Iran/Iraq are directly linked with Israel.

I`m saying, that all of that are links of the same chain.

Which, ultimately, is segregation of Middle East into warring small nations, too dispowered by struggle with each other and Israel (which unlike arabs is getting open and clear support from both UN and USA) to unite and dictate the oil prices.

Israel is meant as a constant reason for war - reason why USA and UN would give arabs economical sanctions and regulate their science from "moral high" and world-wide supported position. In the backwards motion, it`s also a reason for arabs to keep on waging a futile war, and thus, expend their best resources, minds and men on that sinkhole, instead of putting them together to reunite and set their own oil empire.

While I agree, that there is enough of arab in-fighting without Israel, Israel is just too useful a "tool". Without it, provoking arabs into fighting each other would be much harder and bloodier.

Think of Israel as of Damocles sword constantly hanging over the arabs. As soon as arabs start to jerk around, they get poked with it.

[Digs]

Originally Said by Unregistered

Ah, but see, that's a self-fulfilling prophecies. It doesn't require anything outside yourself. You give weak arguments, and then prophecy that they will not be adhered to? That's fine, but the G-d of Israel prophesied the regathering of Israel, prophesied that one day foreign kings could stand afar off FROM Babylon, and see the smoke of her burning... Prophesied CNN, thousands of years ago(Rev 18).

The prophecies you're suggesting are fulfilled are largely sourced and verified from the same place. If I write a fictional book stating that an event will happen later in the book, and it does, well golly, I guess I'm a prophet.

As for events you suggest are prophecied and fulfilled outside of the book, that's what we call rationalisation. I can describe a series of random events in moderate detail and trust that they will happen eventually, as long as enough fools are willing to construct justifications for the silly belief that everything I say will come to pass in some meaningful way relevant to them.

Alice, when you put it that way, I guess I don't really mind Israel. It destabilises a potentially dangerous region without any need for pesky prolonged war by any nation other than Israel, at the cost of the occasional supplied F-15-ACTIVE or whatever unit is needed. If the Allied leadership was actually thinking that when they established the nation, they were pretty shrewd customers, and they put a lot of people into a terrible situation for the accomplishment of a reasonably noble goal.

I disagree. A prophecy IS rather pointless if verified from the source of the prophecy, but I'm not aware of that being the case in any important biblical prophecies, unless you make the same mistakes Christians do, of viewing "the Bible" as a single book, rather than a collection of 60-100+ separate books (depending on which version).

Take Messianic prophecy, for example. The prophecies themselves are in such books as Genesis, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.. and their fulfillment is thousands of years later, in such books as Matthew, Mark and John. It's not really the same source. They're simply printed together because of their relevance to one another. However, since so many of my brethren make the mistake of seeing "the Bible" as a single book, I can't exactly fault nonbelievers for doing likewise.

As to the detail, you seem a little confused. What you're saying about rationalization fits great for pseudo-prophets, from the Oracle at Delphi, to Nostradamus, and up to the modern day fakers like Edgar Cayce and John Edwards. They all speak vaguely, in terms that could be taken a million different ways, and applied to a million different situations.

That's not the case with the Bible. There ARE cryptic (gnostic) prophecies, but those came AFTER a command to seal up parts of the Word until the end of days (which is in Isaiah, I believe).

We can take THIS back to the Messianic prophecies. They were not at ALL vague. They were SO specific, as to often be, in fact, REDUNDANT. They were so specific, that every man in history, save one, has failed the test of prophecy.

Even non-Messianic Jews have to grasp at straws to deny it. Go to www.jewsforjudaism.com or any other anti-missionary site, and the passages they'll cite don't even MENTION messiah (like the notion that Messiah is to rebuild the Temple).

An example of redundancy- Messiah must be a descendent of Abraham(Genesis 12:3; 18:18), Judah(Genesis 49:10), King David(Psalm 132:11 and Jeremiah 23:5,6; 33:15,16).. It would seem more detail than necessary wouldn't it? If King David was a descendant of Judah, and Judah was a descendant of Abraham... But the prophecy was given at the beginning, as part of the Abrahamic covenant, and repeated to future generations (just like the larger Abrahamic covenant was repeated to Isaac and Jacob).

The other prophecies are JUST as specific. He is to be a prophet like Moses, a priest after the order of Melki-tzedek, born in Beit-Lechem, but begin His ministry in Galilee... Some of the prophecies are even SO specific as to have probably appeared contradictory. He is to be buried with the rich, although He is to have been born to humble roots, be mocked, rejected, pierced (yet have no bones broken, as our eternal Pesach lamb), even forsaken by His own apostles, and sold for 30 pieces of silver. I mean, how specific can you get? We have the exact price paid for His life, recorded in Zecharyah 11.

[Digs]

The prophecy of the Messiah having been fulfilled is not a certain thing. Bring me a pound of Jesus, please? Perhaps the Shroud of Turin? The dust that remains of the corpses of the apostles? I mean, really, anything to suggest that this figure actually existed. Maybe the Romans kept records of the guys they nailed to boards.

Even if he did exist, it's entirely possible and more parsimonious to think that the man happened to have the events described in the older book happen to him than it is to believe that an omnipresent, omnipotent entity forced these events to happen with a power completely beyond comprehension. It is possible that a god's intervention made the events fit the prophecy, but Ockham's Razor and logical parsimony tell us that it was circumstance, as there is no compelling evidence to suggest that any god exists at this moment in time.

Consider also that Jesus was, according to the book you're citing, learned in the ways of religion from an extremely early age. It's possible that, if he existed, he lived his life attempting to fit the mold set by the prophecies of the book.

Bring me a pound of Aristotle? How about a bushel of Napoleon, or a cup of Washington? How do we know any of these existed?

It's been beat into the ground, and only those that refuse to give an inch in spite of evidence still cling to this thoroughly disproven theory.

If you're gonna say He didn't exist, then you'll need to explain why the historian Josephus, himself NOT a believer in Yeshua as Messiah, went along with the gag, and spoke of Him and His followers as very real people. I don't really expect an answer, and after that, neither do I expect to see any other argument out of you compelling enough to warrant an answer. But I will be watching, you could surprise me.

And I suppose the apostle Judah, also knew the prophecy, knew that Yeshua wasn't REALLY the Messiah, but made sure the price was 30 pieces of silver, just to fool everybody, too? If the prophecies only dealt with events in His life, you'd have a point. But some were determined true or false at his very birth. Others involved the way people would interact with him. Still more were determined by the events of His death and beyond. His accusers would have known the prophecies, too. Why not just break his finger, to make sure He couldn't have fit them all?

Every religion claims it's the only way to heaven either way so like,
that's almost the same as saying "your religion is false, mine is superior and true"
which is basically just as good as saying "your god doesn't exist"

[Alice Shade]

Actually...

Considering, that bible was translated so many times, and noone as of now speaks the original languages bible was written in, it would be quite fair to recognise the possibility of "retrograde" prophecy. As in, intentional mistranslation of original text to fit the text to already occured event.

As for Jesus not existing - it is entirely fair to suggest that he could`ve existed. Alas, the only source, which suggests so, is Bible. While Aristotle, Napoleon, Washington and etc. were all referenced in a wide array of works from all angles. Whereas Jesus is only cited in bible, and all the references in other works reference to bible, rather then Jesus himself.

Actually, there information about Jesus outside of bible and several artifacts (like Shroud of Turin) is so meager, that it makes hard to even make up an approximate portrait of Jesus.

[Digs]

Excellent points all, Alice. I'd like to add that I'm also not basing an entire worldview around the existence of Aristotle and company, let alone claiming that suggesting they didn't exist is offencive to me. Those historical figures might've existed, and really we have more evidence that they did than that Jesus did, but I won't shed a tear if it turns out they didn't.

I am wicken and I believe that a god's are only user friendly ways to gather power from the universe. if people truely believe google is god than it is a path way to power.

E_Wade_L