By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Hamas legalizes Crucifixion

blackstar said:
over 350 people are dead in 4 days and people ask "how terrorists are born?"

@stickball: when did we start considering the collateral damage as "an ok" thing?

Always?

You should see the collataral damage numbers during WW2.  Heck, back then both sides would target civilians on purpose to demoralize their opponents.

People are actually just makign a slow move to not accepting it now...

even then people are more then willing to forget it so long as you actually kill your target.

"100 dead but one of those 100 is one of the top 5 on the terrorist watch list?  Yeah ok."

 



Around the Network
mrstickball said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:

 I never said it destroyed his credibility, only cast doubt on it, only made it uncertain, also it is unlikely that Jesus's brother would live to the 80's-90's AD, as people died much earlier back then, heck even to the 60's AD would have been a feat for a man who was a contemporary of Jesus

 

True but it wasn't until the fighting that it really became them seeking independence, even earlier what they were seeking was fair representation.

 

Also while I don't blame Israel for going to war, I do blame them for targeting civilians, if you allow civilians to be targeted in war, then there was nothing wrong with 9/11 it was just a brilliant military strike, no matter how many civs are killed

James was younger than Jesus....He lived about 30yrs after Jesus' death. Josephus mentioned James at length, as he was the head of the Christian Church in Jerusalem until 62AD when he was murdered by the Jews via stoning. If you read Josephus' works, his work 'Antiquity of the Jews' was the written history of the Jewish faith, and how Christianity had effected it. If Christianity did not exist by 93AD....Then I sincerely question why Josephus would mention something that did not exist? Either Josephus was a liar, and every other book he wrote, would be struck as invalid (he wrote earlier than 93AD, as his first book The Jewish Wars was written in 74AD). He was born in 37AD, so he may have met James in person, or interviewed people that knew James and Jesus, personally.

Also, I'd really love to know how Israel is the one targeting civilians. Last I checked, Israel was boming Hamas targets, and the civilians were in collateral damage - but not the targets.

Interestingly Josephus WAS a liar.

He got his position by agreeing to be the last person to comit suicide after killing everyone else in his revolutionary sect....

and instead he surrendered.

Though historically he's mostly seen as accurate outside of the embelshment with his own sect of Jewish revolutionaries, in which he made them look better then they were because the Roman emperor of the time... i'm forgetting his name... didn't have any great conquests.

 



Avinash_Tyagi said:
Final-Fan said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Final-Fan said:
Crucifixion was FAR from the only mode of execution used by the Romans.  They actually had quite a few ways to put people to death.  Aside from crucifixion, being burned alive or being exposed to savage beasts were two "low class" methods.  At the upper end of the scale can be found decapitation, poison, and strangulation.  I bet there were others, too. source
Possibly, but you asked why Crucifixition and not something more presigious, well none of those methods seem presitigious, but crucifixtion sounds the best when you're talking about someone dying for the sins of others

Why do you say that?  Are you sure it doesn't seem that way simply because of all the stuff Christians have built up around it?  That would probably have happened with whatever way he was killed.

 

 Nah, as Crucifixtion sounds the slowest of the ones you mentioned

 

Hmm. I guess I should yell at the all the scholars' books I read when studing Old and New Testament history..Because they all said things counter to your arguments.

 

I'm also going by scholar arguments, perhaps this proves that thier is no certainty in the questions of christ, and that there is much disagreement


Not any credible scholars arguements.  The accepted consensus is that he exists, and basically people who suggest otherwise are full of it.

In otherwords... said scholars aren't credible.. and just in it for a quick buck.

Based on your standard... there is no certantity humans evolved from anything.



Also... people can blame Hamas and cry about the poor Palestinian people...

but that doesn't really work.

It did years ago... but not anymore.

Why? Hamas is the legally elected government of Gaza. An election in which international observers said was held legally and mostly honestly.

The Palestinians are as responsible for Hamas. At least the majority that voted for them.



who derailed this thread?

370 dead palestinians, 3 dead israeli's.



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

Around the Network
fkusumot said:
ssj12 said:

It makes perfect sense if you look at the confines of what it means to do a crucifixion. The only time it was used was when someone did something horrid against the empire or shook the general order of things.

If it is not used in the way it was originally meant to it would fall into basic torcher rather than defending the beliefs of your kingdom.

The crucifixion of Christ was justifiable but if some random joe gets crucified without stirring up a load of crap like Jesus did that it is not justifiable.

Wut? I thought Jesus was crucified with some petty thieves. Which Bible you been reading ssj?

Also, I thought Pontius didn't want to crucify Jesus but he bowed to political pressure. That makes it justifiable?

Keep in mind that's from a book... put together by the Romans... and also written at the time where if a roman was cast in a poor light your likely to get yourself killed.

But yeah.  Crucifixition was more of an embarresment execution then anything else.

Jesus would of been seen as a "Rebel" hence the crucifixion.

 

 



Not so KasZ, what you are stating is that there are many who accept the theory that he exists but theory isn't necessarily fact



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Final-Fan said:
ssj12 said:
fkusumot said:
ssj12 said:
It makes perfect sense if you look at the confines of what it means to do a crucifixion. The only time it was used was when someone did something horrid against the empire or shook the general order of things.

If it is not used in the way it was originally meant to it would fall into basic torcher rather than defending the beliefs of your kingdom.

The crucifixion of Christ was justifiable but if some random joe gets crucified without stirring up a load of crap like Jesus did that it is not justifiable.
Wut? I thought Jesus was crucified with some petty thieves. Which Bible you been reading ssj?

Also, I thought Pontius didn't want to crucify Jesus but he bowed to political pressure. That makes it justifiable?
I havent touched a Bible since yesterday since two copies where at my register at WalMart. Otherwise havent touched one since I was 8.

Anyways it was the Romens that called for the crusifixion of Jesus.

I thought the Romans were the ones who did the crucifying, but the Jews were the ones pushing for it. 

Yeah... that's the part of the bible that never really made sense, and i'm almost positive was written that way to cover their asses from getting killed.

Just how i'm sure most of the apostles were probably never martyred.

Cause like, the regular people seem to go "Yay Jesus!"  to "Kill Jesus no matter what!" in a matter of minutes.

Unless it's like, mostly different people and the bible was just inflating how many people loved jesus.

Then again the "Common murderer" described in the bible was actually a Jewish rebel who fought for his people and not a common murderer.

So it may of just been that they were for the more proactive revolutionary.



Avinash_Tyagi said:
Not so KasZ, what you are stating is that there are many who accept the theory that he exists but theory isn't necessarily fact

Just like evolution?

Find me a credible expert who disbeleives in the evolution of man.

Then i'll believe there is a credible expert who disbelieves in the existence of jesus.

The problem is your definition of a "certantity" is untenable.

There is no reasonable reason to believe jesus did not exist.

I mean, i may as well claim there is no proof anyone exists.



Comrade Tovya said:

Uh, no, my story is a fact.  She is one of the nicest and most honest people I have ever known.  She's got the demeanor of a nun, so I highly doubt she would lie to me about that (because she loves her family, and wouldn't want to paint them negatively).

You are very rude.  I don't mind if you dislike the story, but it doesn't change the face that it actually happened.  So get over it.  I know you have a reason to be biased (because of your wife), and you used racially anti-Jewish motivated speech in your post...

What the hell is the "Jewish Lobby" (as you said in the post prior to your response to me)?  There is no such thing, and it only exists amongst anti-Semites.  Now there is an "Israel Lobby" but it has more Christians as members than Jews.  So trust me, there's no Jewish conspiracy here... and to even pretend like there is makes you look mentally feeble.

Now on to your "responses" as to why the story never happened:

A) Yes, the border patrol would let someone like her through.  She is an American citizen, and this event happened prior to the latest intifada, so border regulations were quite lax at this time.  Considering that you've never been to Israel nor passed through a check point, please don't pretend like you know anything about Israeli security.

B) Her father raised money for Arafat (prior to his death) via the Holyland Foundation, so I assure you they were more than welcome by Arafat and his cronies (and certainly her own family whom was supported by her father via money transfers from here in the states).  Like I previously stated, this happened prior to the latest intifada, and Arafat was alive and well then.

C) I'm not saying that EVERY Palestinian is taught violence, just as every child who grows up in Compton doesn't join a street gang. But it has been proven that their ministry of education has indoctrinated their youth to perform violence against Jews.

What I am saying is a matter of fact that can be verified yourself (EXAMPLE 1, EXAMPLE 2, please tell me if you want more examples).  The Palestinian Ministry of Education has been called out globally by th UN and other groups for teaching children how to fight at a young age, and learning Jew-hatred as a part of that education. This is not a matter of opinion, but a documented matter of fact.

 

Sorry, I still think your full of it.

You described her in your original as a non-Muslim, with lots of tats, and so on. Then you described her as Muslim in a later post, unless you know two Palestinian-Jordanian women, when discussing out of the blue that your are not a Arab/Muslim hater.

I know Arab society very well, in particular Palestinians. If her family was anywhere near as radical as you claim, she would not be welcomed, at least not by anyone outside of her immediate family.

Also, even before this last uprising, Israel would not have let any Arab into Palestine with string connections to known terrorists, especially one who has sent money. This is Israel we are talking about. The same country who will destroy the homes of people's families they decide are 'terrorist'. Usually that just helps in their illegal expansions.

I never said there have been no incidents of taught hatred. But, that is not what your were trying to display. You are trying to convince us that all Palestinian youth are taught to carry AK-47s and hate/kill Jews. That simply is not so. Sure, the radical families, like Hamas, surely do this. But so do the terrorist Jews living in the settlements. That's why their youth go through local Arab villages causing fights, damage, and death to innocents nearly daily.

Also, for the record, I may not of actually been there myself, however, I spent over 5 years of phone conversations with four American-born 6-10 year old brothers who were terrified of Jewish soldiers and Jewish mobs, not because of thier education or parents, but because of what they witnessed.

Hiding on their floors at nights as Jewish Mobs of terrorists/settlers came through their village rampaging, shooting guns, beating up/killing any unlucky or foolish Arab who stepped outside. Never looking a IDF Soldier in the face for fear of getting hit.

Also AIPAC is not a Christian based lobby. It is a Jewish-Israeli lobby that is funded by a great majority of Jewish Americans both here and in Israel. Thus, it not racist/anti-semetic in the least to consider it a Jewish Lobby.