• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

So Bibi Wants To Begin The "Final Solution."

We've been over all this already.

You can't use religion as the basis for a claim to an ancestral homeland.

Kate Capshaw is Jewish, but the area around Jerusalem isn't her ancestral homeland. Her ancestors are European. Her husband is Jewish and while he has mostly Canaanite Hebrew ancestry, he also has some European ancestry. Their children are Jewish and can claim _some_ Canaanite Hebrew ancestry, but their claim to the Jerusalem area as their homeland is nowhere near as strong as that of a person with _only_ Canaanite Hebrew ancestry.

The author of that linked article appears to think there's some confusion about Jews having originated in the area. There isn't. It's just that like it or not, Jews aren't the only ones descended from the ancient Hebrews.

Biblical scholars use the term Hebrews to designate the descendants of the patriarchs of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)—i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (also called Israel [Genesis 33:28])—from that period until their conquest of Canaan (Palestine) in the late 2nd millennium bce.
Hebrew | people | Britannica.com
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hebrew

Archeologists use the term Canaanite to indicate the indigenous population of the Levant in ancient times. Hebrews were one of several ethnic groups within the larger group called Canaanites, which is why I have been using both 'Hebrew' and 'Canaanite' to describe the particular ancestry we are discussing.

I realize you have a hard time confronting the fact that a lot of Jews living in the Jerusalem area accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior over the past 2,000 years, and a lot of Jews and Jewish-descended Christians came to believe that there was but One God and Mohammad was His Prophet. Well, it happened so maybe you should just accept it and move on.
 
We've been over all this already.

You can't use religion as the basis for a claim to an ancestral homeland.

Kate Capshaw is Jewish, but the area around Jerusalem isn't her ancestral homeland. Her ancestors are European. Her husband is Jewish and while he has mostly Canaanite Hebrew ancestry, he also has some European ancestry. Their children are Jewish and can claim _some_ Canaanite Hebrew ancestry, but their claim to the Jerusalem area as their homeland is nowhere near as strong as that of a person with _only_ Canaanite Hebrew ancestry.

The author of that linked article appears to think there's some confusion about Jews having originated in the area. There isn't. It's just that like it or not, Jews aren't the only ones descended from the ancient Hebrews.

Biblical scholars use the term Hebrews to designate the descendants of the patriarchs of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)—i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (also called Israel [Genesis 33:28])—from that period until their conquest of Canaan (Palestine) in the late 2nd millennium bce.
Hebrew | people | Britannica.com
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hebrew

Archeologists use the term Canaanite to indicate the indigenous population of the Levant in ancient times. Hebrews were one of several ethnic groups within the larger group called Canaanites, which is why I have been using both 'Hebrew' and 'Canaanite' to describe the particular ancestry we are discussing.

I realize you have a hard time confronting the fact that a lot of Jews living in the Jerusalem area accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior over the past 2,000 years, and a lot of Jews and Jewish-descended Christians came to believe that there was but One God and Mohammad was His Prophet. Well, it happened so maybe you should just accept it and move on.

An extremely small number of xtians/Judeo people voluntarily converted to the barbaric muslim faith. And even that tiny percentage did not do so voluntarily. The whole Middle East and a large part of North Africa were conquered by the islamic hordes!
 
Archeologists use the term Canaanite to indicate the indigenous population of the Levant in ancient times. Hebrews were one of several ethnic groups within the larger group called Canaanites, which is why I have been using both 'Hebrew' and 'Canaanite' to describe the particular ancestry we are discussing.

I realize you have a hard time confronting the fact that a lot of Jews living in the Jerusalem area accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior over the past 2,000 years, and a lot of Jews and Jewish-descended Christians came to believe that there was but One God and Mohammad was His Prophet. Well, it happened so maybe you should just accept it and move on.

An extremely small number of xtians/Judeo people voluntarily converted to the barbaric muslim faith. And even that tiny percentage did not do so voluntarily. The whole Middle East and a large part of North Africa were conquered by the islamic hordes!

I once found a source that claimed the Arabs of the Negev are actually Jews who were forced to convert to Islam by the Mamluks. He pointed to historical accounts and similarities between their language, customs, and culture and that of Palestinian Jews as evidence. And of course, there's the DNA evidence that shows an extremely close relationship. He also said it was the reason Palestinian Muslims were largely secular; they didn't really embrace Islam because it was forced on them.

I'll see if I can find it again.

Anyway, it's just more evidence the Palestinian Muslims and Christians are descended from the same ancestors as the Palestinian Jews.
 
Anyway, it's just more evidence the Palestinian Muslims and Christians are descended from the same ancestors as the Palestinian Jews.

If that's the case, then the argument or 'rule' that says foreign or Diaspora Jews had more 'right' than the locals to the land is weakened. But then, the person or people advancing that argument/rule often simultaneously don't apply it to modern Palestinians, who because the displacements were much more recent, arguably should benefit more from the same argument/rule. Furthermore, the argument/rule is not being applied to other situations around the world such as where white people have moved into non-white countries (of which there has been a LOT). I'm not sure this argument/rule is making a lot of sense. :confused:

If this argument/rule were being applied consistently, wouldn't, for example, most of the USA have to be given back to the Native North Americans?

To me, it's deeply ironic that such a claim has been adopted as being valid by many in one group (white, non-jewish Americans) about another group (jews) when the first group are effectively guilty of not applying the rule to their own group. Very odd. How on earth did it come about? At what point did some non-jewish American whites start to think it made sense, without being self-contradicting, to advocate for the jews, on that particular basis?

Doublethink. That's my guess.
 
Anyway, it's just more evidence the Palestinian Muslims and Christians are descended from the same ancestors as the Palestinian Jews.

If that's the case, then the argument or 'rule' that says foreign or Diaspora Jews had more 'right' than the locals to the land is weakened. But then, the person or people advancing that argument/rule often simultaneously don't apply it to modern Palestinians, who because the displacements were much more recent, arguably should benefit more from the same argument/rule. Furthermore, the argument/rule is not being applied to other situations around the world such as where white people have moved into non-white countries (of which there has been a LOT). I'm not sure this argument/rule is making a lot of sense. :confused:

If this argument/rule were being applied consistently, wouldn't, for example, most of the USA have to be given back to the Native North Americans?

To me, it's deeply ironic that such a claim has been adopted as being valid by many in one group (white, non-jewish Americans) about another group (jews) when the first group are effectively guilty of not applying the rule to their own group. Very odd. How on earth did it come about? At what point did some non-jewish American whites start to think it made sense, without being self-contradicting, to advocate for the jews, on that particular basis?

Doublethink. That's my guess.

Here it is: Most Palestinians Are Descendants Of Jews .

There's also this: The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians

And this, The origin of Palestinians and their genetic relatedness with other Mediterranean populations, which affirms:

Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian peoples in ancient times. Thus, Palestinian-Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious, but not in genetic, differences.

This woman has an interesting perspective on how Jewishness is often presented as something very European while the experiences and heritage of Middle Eastern Jews is ignored. Her dual identity as both an Arab and a Jew is hardly worth noting within her family and community, but bewilders those who have been taught to think 'Arabs' and 'Jews' are antonyms: Reflections By An Arab Jew
 
Last edited:

Typical pro-Palestinian BS: ignore modern-day Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc. terrorism and instead focus like a laser beam on what some Israeli did 60 years ago.

I know, Derec: Yo haven't changed one bit. You always seem to find the wrong side of ANY ISSUE and aggressively prosecute the victims.
 

Typical pro-Palestinian BS: ignore modern-day Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc. terrorism and instead focus like a laser beam on what some Israeli did 60 years ago.

I know, Derec: Yo haven't changed one bit. You always seem to find the wrong side of ANY ISSUE and aggressively prosecute the victims.

Of course the victims are as always the followers of a pedo terrorist warlord! The founder of the most barbaric, bloodthirsty backward ideology ever conceived! Even more thirst for blood than the Aztecs ever were!
 
I know, Derec: Yo haven't changed one bit. You always seem to find the wrong side of ANY ISSUE and aggressively prosecute the victims.

Of course the victims are as always the followers of a pedo terrorist warlord! The founder of the most barbaric, bloodthirsty backward ideology ever conceived! Even more thirst for blood than the Aztecs ever were!

Ah, so going with Islamophobia as an Ad-Hom basis against them, I see.

I'm not going to apologise for Islam; I think all religions are pretty scummy, but my Muslim neighbors don't bang children or wage land wars in southeast Asia, so I'm gonna go with "irrelevant trivia".
 
I presume you are aware that the term " islamophobia was created by CAIR, who long ago should've been called out for what it is, the Islamic Brotherhood that's even been banned in some Arabic countries, to silence criticism of the most retrograde ideology ever created?
 
I presume you are aware that the term " islamophobia was created by CAIR, who long ago should've been called out for what it is, the Islamic Brotherhood that's even been banned in some Arabic countries, to silence criticism of the most retrograde ideology ever created?

And there he goes sliding smoothly into the Genetic fallacy. The origin of the term or original intent does not leverage against the function of the idea or term in place.

It is an irrational criticism of modern Muslims to say their prophet was a pedophile.

As it is, I would consider Christianity much more retrograde. Their churches, and especially yours, it seems, have reversed against pretty much every single thing your prophet said with regards to poverty, caring about immigrants, divesting of wealth to the poor, caring for children, and supporting the state through paying taxes.
 
I presume you are aware that the term " islamophobia was created by CAIR, who long ago should've been called out for what it is, the Islamic Brotherhood that's even been banned in some Arabic countries, to silence criticism of the most retrograde ideology ever created?

And there he goes sliding smoothly into the Genetic fallacy. The origin of the term or original intent does not leverage against the function of the idea or term in place.

It is an irrational criticism of modern Muslims to say their prophet was a pedophile.

As it is, I would consider Christianity much more retrograde. Their churches, and especially yours, it seems, have reversed against pretty much every single thing your prophet said with regards to poverty, caring about immigrants, divesting of wealth to the poor, caring for children, and supporting the state through paying taxes.

What do you call some guy who marries a 6 year old child? Normal?
 
I presume you are aware that the term " islamophobia was created by CAIR, who long ago should've been called out for what it is, the Islamic Brotherhood that's even been banned in some Arabic countries, to silence criticism of the most retrograde ideology ever created?

And there he goes sliding smoothly into the Genetic fallacy. The origin of the term or original intent does not leverage against the function of the idea or term in place.

It is an irrational criticism of modern Muslims to say their prophet was a pedophile.

As it is, I would consider Christianity much more retrograde. Their churches, and especially yours, it seems, have reversed against pretty much every single thing your prophet said with regards to poverty, caring about immigrants, divesting of wealth to the poor, caring for children, and supporting the state through paying taxes.

What do you call some guy who marries a 6 year old child? Normal?

I call them dead many centuries ago.

Edit: as I said, Jesus, if he ever lived as anything more than a character in a story, did and said a lot of stuff that HIS ostensible followers don't pay attention to. If people can distort the love that pervaded the philosophy of Jesus into "God Hates Fags", Islamic people, I think, can pivot away from child brides just as easily. I don't see my Jewish friends stoning gay people after all.
 
What do you call some guy who marries a 6 year old child? Normal?

I call them dead many centuries ago.

Edit: as I said, Jesus, if he ever lived as anything more than a character in a story, did and said a lot of stuff that HIS ostensible followers don't pay attention to. If people can distort the love that pervaded the philosophy of Jesus into "God Hates Fags", Islamic people, I think, can pivot away from child brides just as easily. I don't see my Jewish friends stoning gay people after all.

Jesus never preached to kill unbelievers. In fact he preached to turn the other cheek. And taught his apostles that upon entering a town that rejected their message of peace and love, to simply dust off their garments and move on to the next town/village. The terrorist Mo taught the complete opposite. Behead anyone who refused to convert to islam. There do exist good translations of the blood soaked quran and hadiths into English. I suggest you get hold of a copy and read the thing.
 
What do you call some guy who marries a 6 year old child? Normal?

I call them dead many centuries ago.

Edit: as I said, Jesus, if he ever lived as anything more than a character in a story, did and said a lot of stuff that HIS ostensible followers don't pay attention to. If people can distort the love that pervaded the philosophy of Jesus into "God Hates Fags", Islamic people, I think, can pivot away from child brides just as easily. I don't see my Jewish friends stoning gay people after all.

Jesus never preached to kill unbelievers. In fact he preached to turn the other cheek. And taught his apostles that upon entering a town that rejected their message of peace and love, to simply dust off their garments and move on to the next town/village. The terrorist Mo taught the complete opposite. Behead anyone who refused to convert to islam. There do exist good translations of the blood soaked quran and hadiths into English. I suggest you get hold of a copy and read the thing.

And yet we still have Christians in the US who call for the death penalty for homosexuals, executing the convict instead of doing for the least of these, rejecting the foreigner as less than a citizen, and supporting a racist, narcissistic liar, traitor, and rapist.

It's almost as if people are capable of believing something different than their books when convenient.

So if we reject your message of "peace and love", maybe you should do as the apostles are claimed to have done and go pound sand.

I have as much interest in re-reading the holy documents of Islam as you apparently have in reading your own book, though. One reading was enough for me.

Maybe one day you will be able to process that what a church believes and what their holy book teaches en-todo is generally unrelated.
 
There are a handful of fundamentalist xtians around that can't be denied, but in comparison it's like a tiny pimple on a teenager. The over 33.000 terrorist attacks worldwide which have caused thousands of deaths and destruction just since 9/11 are 99.9% followers of the pedo, and bloodthirsty so called messenger of allah!

This article says it all..........................................https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/08/...tians-muslims-are-the-ones-left-with-no-unity
 
Back
Top Bottom