Search This Blog

Sunday, May 25, 2008

A belated Happy 60th, Israel (part 1)

Let’s not mince our words

 “Israel shouldn’t have taken land that didn’t belong to them. “Thou shalt not steal”

 “[The Jews] displacement of the people in Palestine was real, cruel and wrong…[and the Arabs] were removed by violence.”

 “[The Jews instigate] collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza, which contravenes the Geneva convention.”

 “The Jews took the land by force. They did it with some viciousness….I think the West is becoming less supportive of Israel [because the Jews have caused] the dreadful conditions imposed on the state of Palestine, the overkill of many Israeli reprisal attacks and the assassination campaigns that also caused civilian casualties and…it is hard to justify the way Israel came into being…and the US kow towing to Israel’s demand….Israel has a right to exist insofar as…nothing can [now] be done about it. But, until it owns up to the atrocities it has perpetrated in doing so I will refrain from being overjoyed about its birthday.”

 “[The Jews caused] the Gaza blockade and the collective punishment of the 1.4 million citizens of Gaza [and caused] raw sewage [to pool] in the streets.”

One could be pardoned for thinking that the above represented the typical “incontestable facts” a Green Left Weekly tout spits at you when challenged about Israel. They could even be understood as one of those Leninist-inspired reinventions of history that a tenured Political Science lecturer drones on about at a Peace and Conflicts’ meeting. It’s a hoary and familiar line: Denying all the time that they are racist, they hold up Israel as the world’s number 2 bad boy and that these awful Jews upset the region’s peace and stability by invading and stealing the Arabs’ land. For 2,000 years, the polemic implies, not a Jew in sight and all those happy-chappy Arabs were growing the world’s best oranges and actually, if asked, could promptly produce the deeds to all that land.

Imagine, then, how surprised I was when recently checking the Sydney Diocese’s website to read the above anti-Semitic rants. And who were the interlocutors responsible for this bilious swill? It’s the same old gang of heretics who periodically leave the safe haven from behind their mothers’ skirts and venture over to this site to try and score a few self-righteous points and who, not arrogantly satisfied with beating up on Moses, are now zealously committed to taking up the cudgels against all Jews (the exceptions being the self-loathing Jews, like Antony Loewenstein, who for reasons known only to themselves and their psychiatrists, routinely betray their Jewish culture). On earlier posts I’d stated that the Anglicans’ liberal postmodern understanding of Genesis exposes a deeply-rooted anti-Semitism (“Well, just because Moses talked to the Creator doesn’t necessarily mean he’d have a clue about the age of the Earth, would it! It just wouldn’t be an important issue for him. In any case, we know far more about the universe than Moses did.”); and so now that it has come to the surface can I say, I told you so?

From its beginning this blog explicitly communicated that it was dedicated to exposing the parlous state of the Sydney Anglican Diocese’s creation theology, if indeed they even possess one. Before long we were accused of being one-topic wonders, as though this criticism summarily negated our arguments and was sufficiently robust to challenge our love of truth for truth’s sake. These anti-Semitic attacks require a response but nevertheless, its rise is unsurprising. As our Lord said, “Wherever there is a dead body, there the vultures will flock”

Before I rebutt these Anglican anti-Semites’ pseudo-arguments I want to present an analogy.

During the 80’s I lived in London for 3 years. In all that time I never paid a penny in rent as I squatted properties owned by the Crown, local councils or housing which was plainly abandoned. Not once did my friends and I consider ourselves the actual owners of the property. We fully understood the concept of an absent landlord. That is not to say that we didn’t argue our case in court when we thought, for example, the Crown was being unfair to kick us out of a house that they had bought from a private owner in order to demolish and that the plans for this had been shelved.

Another thing we didn’t do was to attack the returning owners with knives and rocks, plant bombs in their places of entertainment and recreation or fire rockets at the schools where their children attended. And, most importantly, we didn’t cry, “God is great!”, “Praise be to God” or “Death to the owner of this house!”

Let me not be misunderstood: I am unequivocally stating that the Muslims’ demand for this Jewish land is the moral equivalent to my arguing that I had a right to live permanently in the squatted houses in London.

Let’s blame the victim.

One of these Anglican anti-Semites, Gordon Cheng (Remember him? He’s our armchair naturalist, the creationism-can’t-be-true-because-koala-pouches-are-poorly-designed-so-much-so-that-baby-koalas-are-falling-out-of-trees-all-over-the-place-and-therefore-God-couldn’t-have-designed-them guy!), believes that these Arab Muslims have been hard-done by. He states that the Jews “shouldn’t have taken land that didn’t belong to them”, citing the 8th commandment to make his case watertight. So what moves these Anglicans to express such wicked ideas? It could be they are what they are, anti-Semitic and are consequently inexcusably immoral. However, judging by how factually vapid their posts are, I tend to think that they are intellectually lazy and can’t be bothered to pursue a moderate amount of historical investigation. What follows is a snapshot of Jewish history in the Levantine, the Jewish place of origin and homeland.

 Romans invaded Judea in 63 B.C.
 Romans put down Jewish independence revolt in 135 AD leading to deaths, expulsion or slavery of Jewish population from in and around Jerusalem
 Muslims invade in and steal all the land from Jewish owners in 638 AD
 In 1917 the Balfour Declaration signed by English promising the right to Jews to set up a state for themselves in the Middle East.
 Israel is again an independent country in 1948, the only human rights’ based, democracy in the region

There you have it: Jews owned the land; dispossessed by a European colonial power; moved back in, again disposed by another colonial power, albeit a local one; reasserted their ownership of the land after 1300 years of Islamic squatting.


A Judea without Jews

The anti-Semite gang over at Anglo-land tacitly perpetuates the myth that the “country” of “Palestine” was productive and had had generations of the same Arab families living in it, working the land and exporting its goods to the world. Then these rascally Jews invaded and just took over all those highly efficient farms and factories. Apparently it had never entered these guys’ minds that the Jews may have even bought land from Arabs very willing to accept cash for quite unfertile land. I guess this is why Jordon’s King Abdullah once remarked that “the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in…weeping [about it].” Benny Morris, one of the darling of the Left, revisionist historians, stated that “[h]istorians have concluded that only ‘several thousand’ families were displaced following land sales to Jews between the 1880s and the late 1930s.” As John Lewis Burkhardt stated in the earliest part of the 19th century, “[f]ew individuals…die in the same village in which they were born. Families are continually moving from one place to another…in a few years…they fly to some other place, where they have heard that their brethren are better treated.”

One important fact that the Anglican anti-Semites are unaware of is that the majority of the land before 1948 was "owned" by wealthy, absent Arab landlords living in Damascus or other major cities in the Ottoman Empire. Most of the land was farmed by Arab serfs or tenants. They weren't the actual "owners", so when the Jews bought land they bought it from the "owners" outside of what's now Israel.

Apparently it never occurred to these anti-Semites that Jews may have lost land and valuables far exceeding that of the Arabs when they were thrown out of Arab states after the establishment of Israel. Have Jews anywhere, at any place, asked for compensation? (Several years ago one estimate of the loss was set at $US30 billion!)

This Anglicans’ anti-Israel stance and the arguments supporting it are not dissimilar to the Left’s. It recalls Maxime Rodinson’s perspicacious insight that “the anti-colonial left, whether Christian or not, often goes so far as to sanctify Islam and the contemporary ideologies of the Muslim world…Understanding has given away to apologetics pure and simple.”

So what is the alternative?

The mantra of the Left is the right of return. The Anglican anti-Semites probably know very little about this, judging by their wholesale ignorance of Middle Eastern history. Nonetheless, cerebrally it takes little effort to see what that would lead to: Israel would no longer be Israel but would become just one other undistinguished, underdeveloped, corrupt, backward Muslim state. (Here’s a quick quiz I usually give to anyone dumb enough to support Israel’s enemies: Take a look around the room you’re in and point out one object that was actually invented by a Muslim, one which significantly improved modern living. And please, don’t say algebra – the Babylonians were doing quadratic equations in three unknowns more than 1000 years before Muhammad. Nor mention 0 as this was most likely an Indian “invention” but it took Venetian accountants to put it to its best use.)

So what would Israel look like if it were no longer a country that could guarantee the safety of its Jewish (and non-Jewish!) citizenry? Well, we know what it would be like. 1400 years of living under Sharia leaves remarkable testimony to the barbarism of these societies. But first a word from our sponsor, Muhammad:

 ‘Fight against such of those who have been given the Scriptures as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.’ (Sura 9:29)
 'That is because they [i.e. Jews] say: We have no duty to the Gentiles. They knowingly speak a lie concerning Allah.' (3:75)
 'And of the Jews: listeners for the sake of falsehood, listeners on behalf of other folk.' (5:41)
 ‘[The Jews] distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may think that what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture.' (3:78)
 'If a lucky chance befall you, it is evil unto them [Jews], and if disaster strike you they rejoice thereat.' (3:120)
 'And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it, and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretences.' (4:161)
 'Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who heareth not, and Listen to us!, distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: We hear and we obey; hear thou, and look at us, it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save for a few.' (4:46)
 'They restrained not one another from the wickedness they did. Verily, evil was what they used to do!' (5:79)
 'Ye [Muslims] are more awful as fear in their [the Jews'] bosoms than Allah. That is because they are people who understand not. They will not fight against you in a group save in fortified villages or from behind walls. Their adversity among themselves is very great. Ye think of them as a whole whereas their hearts are diverse.' (59:13-14)
 'And thou wilt find them [Jews] greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters.' (2: 96)
 'Or have they even a share in the Sovereignty? Then in that case, they would not give mankind even the speck on a date stone.' (4: 53)
 And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them[the Jews]: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.” (2.65)
 Therefore when they revoltingly persisted in what they had been forbidden, We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated. (7.166)

Thank you, Muhammad, for your candidness and clarity of purpose. Let’s now see if your contemporaries and later followers carried through with your message.

* Ibn Taymiyya, the famous and influential 14th century legal scholar, wrote that “[e]ven when the Muslim conquest was achieved through surrender and a peace treaty resulting in the Jews and Christians being allowed to retain their places of worship, nevertheless even then Umar laid down the condition that new ones were not to be erected in the conquered territories, and certainly not in the cities founded by Muslims. In the case of lands that had been conquered by force and in which the Muslims have built cities, they are even empowered to remove the synagogues and churches already standing, so that no more synagogues and churches would remain, unless authorities had been granted by a contract.”

* Ibn ar-Rijal, writing in 17th century Yemen, stated that “[i]f the Jews ignore these conditions and conduct their funeral processions in broad daylight and embellish and beautify their synagogues..they must be humiliated by the destruction of their synagogues…it is a principle to destroy synagogues, so that the only trace of them is to be found in their books of history.”

* In Persia a little more than a 100 years ago Jews were “forbidden to leave their houses when it rains or snows [to prevent the impurity of the Jews being transmitted to the Shiite Muslims].

These are not isolated instances but form the quintessential history of Islam because of the Koran’s and hadiths’ calls to transform the Jew to dhimmi status, a second-class “citizen”. And these Anglican anti-Semites want the Jews to share the land with these guys. Have these anti-Semites had a corporate lobotomy?

God no longer keeps a covenant with Israel

The Anglican’s anti-Semitic argument runs something along the line that since modern Eretz Israel was founded upon a secular basis, then they, the Jews, have no legal or religious right to the land because God was not involved. Armchair philosophers, like these anti-Semites, always have problems relating the real world to the ideas in their own heads. Conversely, we realists have a real problem relating their ideas to the real world. So, consider the following:

• When I was living in Israel for the second time, some 16 years ago, one Jewish Christian mentioned to me that it was estimated that of the 15 million or so Jews in the world, at least 150,000 were Fulfilled Jews, that is, Jews who believed Jesus was ha-Meshiach.
• Several of my Israeli friends were Fulfilled Jews and they often spoke about the secret network of FJs in Eretz Israel
• The ultra-orthodox in Israel fought to ban FJs from the land, particularly the Russian ones who were then flooding into Israel as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Bloc
• Last Saturday two of my secular Israeli friends and I ate pork at Cabramatta (heavy emphasis on ‘secular’!). One of them, unprompted, mentioned how another Israeli secularite acquaintance of his, reported, without any malice, how he’s been noticing just how many Messianic Jews there are in Israel lately.
• Sure, the Bible is mentioned on the Anglican Forum and various verses are thrown up in support of their racist worldview that God can’t be behind Israel’s contemporary existence, an appearance 2000 years after a European colonial power forcefully removed Jews from Eretz. Yes, what was nothing more than a Jew’s perfunctory petition to heaven, now, in these end days, against ALL odds, we witness Jews from inside and out gathered together and now run their own country. And this is what is so manifestly obtuse about these Anglican anti-Semites: If God is the God of history and God has his finger, so to speak, in everything, are these lads actually implying that against God’s will, these Jews somehow, miraculously, out-witted God and established a return of worldwide Jewry? Well, are they?
• Much has been made out of the secular nature of modern Israel and how this ipso facto indicates that God can’t be behind this “evil”. So, in other words, God can’t use an “evil” to bring good! Ever heard of the cross, you anti-Semites over there at Anglo-land? It’s because Israel is secular that Christians can go there and can establish missionary work. Maybe if you’d go and live in Israel, you anti-Semites, you’d learn something. If the Muslims or the ultra-religious Right were in charge you’d never be able to step a foot there.
• Following from this, religious Jews have previously tried to establish a religious Israel and failed. For example, the Maccabeans tried but were eventually ousted. And this is why quite possibly Israel today was founded as a secular state.
• Given what the message of Sura 9:29 is and what Christians would expect under a country run along Islamic jurisprudence, the security of Christians within Israel is guaranteed by the fact that there is a secular society there.

Move over Jew: We have taken your place in Abraham

Some of these Anglican anti-Semites even have the chutzpah to argue for some sort of covenantal replacement theology in which the Church is the real Israel. This of course self-righteously presumes that Jews no longer seek the Messiah.
A warning against your hubris.
“Now a word to you who are Gentiles. I should like you to know that I make as much as I can of my ministry as "God's messenger to the Gentiles" so as to make my kinsfolk jealous and thus save some of them.
“For if their exclusion from the pale of salvation has meant the reconciliation of the rest of mankind to God, what would their inclusion mean? It would be nothing less than life from the dead! If the flour is consecrated to God so is the whole loaf, and if the roots of a tree are dedicated to God every branch will belong to him also.
“But if some of the branches of the tree have been broken off, while you, like shoots of wild-olive, have been grafted in, and don't share like a natural branch the rich nourishment of the root, don't let yourself feel superior to those former branches. (If you feel inclined that way, remind yourself that you do not support the root, the root supports you.) You may make the natural retort, "But the branches were broken off to make room for my grafting!" It wasn't quite like that. They lost their position because they failed to believe; you only maintain yours because you do believe. The situation does not call for conceit but for a certain wholesome fear. If God removed the natural branches for a good reason, take care that you don't give him the same reason for removing you.
“You must try to appreciate both the kindness and the strict justice of God. Those who fell experienced his justice, while you are experiencing his kindness, and will continue to do so as long as you do not abuse that kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off from the tree. And as for the fallen branches, unless they are obstinate in their unbelief, they will be grafted in again. Such a restoration is by no means beyond the power of God. And, in any case, if you who were, so to speak, cuttings from a wild-olive, were grafted in, is it not a far simpler matter for the natural branches to be grafted back onto the parent stem?
“Now I don't want you, my brothers, to start imagining things, and I must therefore share with you my knowledge of God's secret plan. It is this, that the partial insensibility which has come to Israel is only to last until the full number of the Gentiles has been called in. Once this has happened, all Israel will be saved, as the scripture says: 'The deliverer will come out of Zion, and he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob, for this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins'.”

A last word

You may have asked yourself why I am so harsh in tone against these Anglican anti-Semites. Martin Luther King expressed it well:

"You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.
"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.
"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.
"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.
“This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.
"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.
"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!
"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.
“Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

121 comments:

neil moore said...

John, thanks very much for your very helpful blog.

I just don't understand the group of people who attacked Andrew Tilsley on the Sydney Anglican Forum for his expressed sympathy for the people of the State of Israel. They demonstrate a hatred for Jewish people yet they claim to be Christians. I just can't reconcile their behaviour with the behaviour of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Maybe they have no relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ?

Neil Moore

sam drucker said...

I appreciate your informative and frank posting John. The people you are responding to have a habit of seeing a history recorded and set before them but refuse to believe it.

"Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand." (Matt. 13:13)

Sam

Ktisophilos said...

Good post John. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Anglonasties with such a low view of the Hebrew scriptures would also have a low view of the Hebrew nation in the ancient land of the Hebrews.

Even the lefty secularist Alan Dershowitz has a superb book called The Case for Israel, that blows Cheng's pseudo-history out of the water. This also documents the Nazi ties of Arafat's mentor, uncle and self-described hero, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini. This evil man spent the war years with Hitler, recruited Bosnian Muslims for the Handžar division of the Waffen SS, because he shared Hitler's goals of the extermination of the Jews. He even urged his friend Eichmann to expedite the "final solution". See some video footage of al-Husseini with Hitler and his SS troops and an article by Dershowitz on this irrefutable connection.

geoffc said...

Hi John

Why have you put certain statements in brackets, such as;
[The Jews]
[The Jews instigate]
[because the Jews have caused]
[The Jews caused]

??

Did anyone who you've quoted actually used those terms or have they been added by you?

John said...

Brackets such as these [] are the accepted academic standard when the words are not explicitly used but the sense is unambiguously present.

Thus, for example,“[The Jews] displacement of the people in Palestine was real, cruel and wrong", logically indicates the it was the Jews doing this to the "Palestinians", though the actual words are not used in this particular sentence. The words would have been stated a sentence or so previously. The original anti-Semite writer had stated this earlier and I just completed the tacit sense of the sentence.

In any case, you're not suggesting that someone else did this to the "Palestinians", are you?

BTW, did you regard the Anglicans as being anti-Semitic or are you quite happy to believe they were not? That is, are you willing to stand by while our Jewish brothers and sisters are libelled?

geoffc said...

Using the term 'The Jews' is different to using the term 'Israel'. One could imply the whole people group, the other the government.

Eg. 'The USA invaded Iraq', means something completely different to 'the people of USA invaded Iraq'.

Many objections to "Israel" are to the actions of the secular government, and other governments that allow the secular government of Israel to permit perceived attrocities. My understanding is that those on the Syd And forums would be objecting to the government's actions, not the people of Israel.

It is worth noting there are many pro-Palestinian Jews living in Israel who object to what the government is doing.

So I think you've misrepresented (not necessarrily intentionally) those on the Syd And forums as having a problem with the people of Israel.

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Geoff,

Ever visited Israel? Ever worked there? Ever worked in an Arab state? How many times have you read the Koran, hadiths, Ibn Tammiya? What about Ghazzali? What is a dhimmi? Read Bat Yeo'r's books? How many books and papers have you read? Do you read and speak Arabic? Ever been to Libya and listened to an anti-Semitic rant? Ever hitched a ride with an Israeli Arab who worked with you from the Green Zone to the Old City and had him inform you that he would never go back if the Arabs got their "Palestine"? What "pro-Palestinian Jews living in Israel" do you personally know who object to what the government is doing? Ever taken a stroll through Gaza or the West Bank? Ever sat with Muslims in Lakemba? Ever been to Lakemba Mosque and met the sheik? Ever slept in a Muslim house? Ever spoke to 500 Muslims in olne meeting?

In other words, are you a qualified mechanic to tell me how to fix my Ducati?

Geoff, please don't come on here and present such a poor argument without first doing your homework. Your mates know nothing about what's happening in Israel. None of them has lived there or read much except the broad sheets and listened to the ABC's Tony Jones' racist interviews. Islam wants to rid the world of Jews or make them slaves. How DARE you accuse the Israelis of terrorism, you closet anti-Semite! Are you out of your mind, you racist! Can't you read my plain blog in English?

Geoff, you have ZERO qualifications to utter any comment on this subject. Go away!

John said...

Be honest Geoff: what was the point of your "question" about the brackets?

And why do you care what I say about you and your anti-Semite Anglican bed-buddies?

John said...

Geoff,

Go away and read Dershowitz. Also, as I suggested in my original post, read Morris. Read Bat Ye'or's 'The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam'. Then come back and tell me how correct your anti-Semites are? That is, tell me that the Arab Muslims are right and God's Chosen are criminals!

BTW, has Gordon Cheng been sharing his crack cocaine with you?

John said...

Geoff dumbly argues: "'The USA invaded Iraq', means something completely different to 'the people of USA invaded Iraq'."

Oh, don't be a knucklehead pal! Israel is a country for Jews. It's just an historical accident and the kindness of the Jews that has so many Arabs living there. Your disingenuous argument is so obvious. What a dumb argument! Do you think that any Muslim in the world doesn't think Israel = Jews?

Here's something to get educated with:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D0602906-842D-46D6-8467-C1D69912B7EA

John said...

Geoff,

Ever been threatened with an Arab jail for being a Christian? Ever been threatened with death by 200 Muslims for being a Christian? Ever been bashed by Muslims for being a Christian?

Go away, Geoff. You know nothin' about Islam? You know nothin' about Jews and Israel? You anti-Semite!

geoffc said...

I lived in a Arab country for a little bit. I was off to visit a missionary hospital, but the day before I went there a Muslim went in with a gun and shot 3 american missionary doctors dead. It was devastating.

And yeah, I've heard the anti american, anti israel and anti christian propaganda that gets yelled from the mosques, and is graffitied all over the streets, and I don't agree with it at all.

My issue was simply that it looked as though you interpreted thse on the SA forums unfairly.

But I will do as you please, and go away.

John said...

Geoff,

You still refuse to get it.

Apparently, your only concern is that you believe that I've misrepresented your anti-Semite buddies. Let's take a few of their comments again.

1. “Israel shouldn’t have taken land that didn’t belong to them. “Thou shalt not steal”

Here Gordon Cheng states the Jews are thieves. How have I misrepresented him? Well, maybe if you don't believe steal=theft. Maybe it means 'taking out a loan'.

2. “[The Jews] displacement of the people in Palestine was real, cruel and wrong…[and the Arabs] were removed by violence.”

Here the writer accuses the Jews of being very violent. No mention of the Arabs' behaviour at the time. Again, please inform readers how I have misrepresented these racists.


3. “[The Jews instigate] collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza, which contravenes the Geneva convention.”

Yes, here we have the Jews being called international criminals. Why didn't the writer say how it's against the Geneva Convention to specifically target civilian populations with rockets etc as the Hamas Government does in Gaza? (BTW, did you condescend and look at the link I posted which gives a tally of the rockets that are fired virtually every day at Israel by the Arab Christians? How silly of me. Did I say Arab Christians firing rockets? Oh gee, who could it be? And I wonder where all the fuel and metal comes from that these rockets are made of? Would it all come from Egypt? Jordan?)

4. “The Jews took the land by force. They did it with some viciousness….I think the West is becoming less supportive of Israel [because the Jews have caused] the dreadful conditions imposed on the state of Palestine, the overkill of many Israeli reprisal attacks and the assassination campaigns that also caused civilian casualties and…it is hard to justify the way Israel came into being"

Well, in for a penny in for a pound. Let's throw everything at the Jews: inhumane, violent, murdering thieves!

Oh yes, Geoff, I apologise for being so hard on your anglo-bed buddies. I really libelled them. I really lied about their words and their intentions. OH bad boy John [Whack, whack, whack!!]

How dare you come on this site and expect me to explain my actions. Your sickening racists friends need to apologise to worldwide Jewry for their SINFUL anti-Semitism. But as we know, they are full of their pride always believing themselves without sin. Go away and be led by these blind men to a trench!

geoffc said...

I don't think Gordon Cheng would be blaming the people of Israel for stealing the land. I think you've misinterpreted him.

I think the same with point point 2 and 3. Those quotes sound as though the author of them is blaming the actualy people, actual Jews, while to me it seemed as though they were speaking gainst the actions of the state. That's just how I've intepreted what they say, and I thik it is the correct interpretation. I think you've misunderstood people and falsley labelled them anti-semitic.

geoffc said...

lol. I also noted you deleted your post about asking the question of whether I've lived in an Arab country or not, and whether or not I've heard the anti-israel propaganda first hand.

Why did you delete that question?

geoffc said...

Oh wait, no you didn't. My mistake, sorry John

John said...

Geoff said: "I don't think Gordon Cheng would be blaming the people of Israel for stealing the land. I think you've misinterpreted him."

So who did "steal" the land"?

geoffc said...

As far as our discussion is concerned it doesn't really matter. I definately wouldn't say "The Jews stole the land". My understanding was in 1948 Israel was given the land? That is hardly the fault of the Israeli people, let alone the descendants of Israeli families since then.

My issue was the way you've seemed to misrepresent people. You made it sound through adding 'the jews' to the quotes that they have issue with all the people in Israel; men women and children who I'm sure had no decision whatsoever of where they were to be born and raised.

It is actually misquoting them, which is not only unfair but makes your anti-semite claim redundant.

neil moore said...

Geoff, Gordon Cheng has said a dreadful thing. You are playing with words to try and defend him.

He used the words. He knew what he was saying. He had all opportunity to be selective in who he was accusing. However, he chose to leave it in no doubt that he as accusing the Jews of stealing the land they now occupy as the nation of Israel.

Gordon Cheng is indefensible on this.

Neil Moore

John said...

PLease, Geoff, don't treat us as children. Here's Gordon's exact words: “Israel shouldn’t have taken land that didn’t belong to them. “Thou shalt not steal." So some group of people stole something that belonged to another group of people. So, who are these two groups of people?

He states that Israel stole Arab land. Who are Israel? Are they goyim? Are they Sudanese? Are they Sydney Anglican heretics? Are they the Mr Whippey man? The Jolly Green Giant? No, none of these. Israel is a synonymn for Jew. Gordon meant Jew. He meant, apropos, let's say,...hmm...from 1900 until 1948, he meant Jewish settlers. He meant people who can trace their heritage back to Jacob, Isaac and Abraham came into land that was not theirs, took land that wasn't there and these people were Jews i.e. Israel. Gordon said this or are you Gordon's lapdog?

In any case, you've admitted you know diddly squat about what happened. In fact, Jewish settlers BOUGHT most of the land. Of course, this is not even including Jews who were already owners of land there.

Geoff, planning to visit an American Hospital and feeling devasted by 3 murders by a Muslim hardly qualifies you as a Middle Eastern expert.

BTW, you wrote, "I've heard the anti american, anti israel and anti christian propaganda that gets yelled from the mosques". English is never spoken by the imam at salat. How did you know what they were saying?

Again, BTW, how many Israeli friends do you have? How many books have you read on MIddle Eastern politics? Have you read the Koran from cover to cover?

geoffc said...

"I advocate the right of Israel to exist , I oppose Palestinian terrorism, I oppose Israeli injustices toward Palestinians (which do occur at times) and I oppose Arab nations’ injustices to their minority groups."

Gordon Cheng said this was essentially my view. Sounds pretty different to how you made him sound. He doesn't sound anti-semite at all, rather he sounds balanced, regardless of whether his view on Israel is correct or not.

But he informs me he no longer reads this site, so I doubt he really minds what you'e saying.

Warwick said...

Geoffc I wouldn't know Gordon Cheng if I fell over him but balanced is definitely not a word I would use to describe what he writes.

What he has written about Israel is anti-Semitic, wrong, and foolish. It appeared to me as a toned-down version of what I have read on Islamic sites, and the word balanced does not come to mind when considering what they write. Quite often it is hate-filled rambling. Fancy a Christian giving philosophical support to these murderous people. Shame on him.

No wonder common sense prevailed, leading to the removal of this anti-Semitic thread.

Your defence of such an unbalanced dribbler does you no credit.

You say he does not follow this site. Sounds good to me as it saves us having to read more of the rude nonsense such as he wrote in the past.

John said...

Well, Geoff, your mate Gordon simultaneously believes in "the right of Israel to exist" and that “Israel shouldn’t have taken land that didn’t belong to them."

So, if I steal my neighbour's car and drive it for a few years you'd uphold, along with Gordon, my right of ownership of that car?

Geoff, I'm not expecting an answer as you've demonstrated to all of us that you're dishonest and evasive.

Actually, we don't care what you think because you're an anti-Semite. You obviously believe that Israel i.e. Jews, stole Arab land. This makes you an anti-Semite. You don't care about those little incidental things like historical facts that tell us (even from Islamic sources like al-Baladhouri) that Islam stole Judea from the Jews.

Yes, that's the epistemological tool: balance. In other words, you and Gordon are fence-sitters. Not interested in truth but merely what sounds good and nice and pretty, in a nice middle-class Anglican kind of way. Yes, you and Gordon can claim that Israel stole land and it makes not a difference "whether [t]his view on Israel is correct or not" as long as it balanced. Have you forgotten to take your meds this morning, you anti-Semite coward?

So, Gordon doesn't read our blog. Damn, I'll have to go and cut my wrists again!

geoffc said...

"So, if I steal my neighbour's car and drive it for a few years you'd uphold, along with Gordon, my right of ownership of that car?"

It's not the same at all. Those who first entered the land of Israel cannot be compared to someone who steals a car, and Gordon isn't implying that either. The analogy fails in so many areas, such as 1 person steals a car and i responsible,while a whole nation is not responsible for taking land. It is easy to give back a car, it is not easy to make homeless a large people group who had nothing to do with the aquiring of the land in the first place.

And it is interesting for you to say that Gordon is rude (though maybe he has been), when it is rare that I ever read such vile and hurtful comments such as I do here. Asking me if I snort crack cocaine wih Gordon? What is the point of that? Or saying "Have you forgotten to take your meds this morning, you anti-Semite coward?"

But I'm not sure if it is worth it anymore, having these discussions, it isn't getting anywhere. What I think is clearly obvious, you don't, and what you see as clearly obvious, I don't.

One interesting thing I would like you to blog on is substituionary atonement. SA's hold to this very highly, and you don't, so I wonder why this has not had much time on your blog. SA's would view not holding to this as heresy, so I gather you feel the opposite.

Ktisophilos said...

Criticising Israel may not be antisemitic, but it definitely smacks of antisemitism to single out Israel for criticism but ignoring far worse crimes by its enemies.

Goebbels Cheng blissfully ignores that Israel's enemies want to push her into the sea, which is not surprising since one of their heroes, al-Husseini, was a staunch Nazi supporter.

This same Goebbels turns a blind eye to deliberate targeting of Israeli civilicans. But he squawks piteously when Israel tries to defend itself from these murderers and accidentally kill civilians, among whom the cowardly terrorists hide.

Some Arabs left Israel because Israel's enemies urged them to leave, with the promise that they could return after the Jews were exterminated. Conversely, Jewish families that had lived in Arab lands for centuries were forced out.

As I said, not all criticism of Israel is wrong. I criticise them myself—for being too lenient! E.g. this futile "land for peace" just allows murderers another stanging ground for attacks. Rather, Israel should make it "peace for land": you give us peace for 6 months, and we will give you land. And if there is war after that, we take the land back, because it was evidently received under false pretenses.

Also, next time another nation attacks, Israel should not stop after merely neutralizing the threat, but invade the enemy's capital and execute the leaders.

Critias said...

I was interested to read in a recent Daily Telegraph (this link also applies: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31363) about the 12 year old boy who was allegedly killed by Israeli gunfire: it was a hoax!

The West has been falling over itself to give credibility to the 'Palestinian' factions that now control displaced Arabs; but whose only mission is to eliminate Israel; not for any reason other than a religious imperative on their part. The reason is that Israel represents the undoing of Islamic triumphalism and domination of land. That's it: pure and simple. There are no other issues. The Arab people subjugated are kept in their parlous state by their leaders wanting to use them as pawns in their endless war. Israel has held out too many hands of peace and should now, in my view, act with decisive military force to do its duty as a government to protect its people.

John said...

1. I wrote: "So, if I steal my neighbour's car and drive it for a few years you'd uphold, along with Gordon, my right of ownership of that car?"

Geoff replied: "It's not the same at all. Those who first entered the land of Israel cannot be compared to someone who steals a car, and Gordon isn't implying that either."

Hang on. Gordon wrote: “Israel shouldn’t have taken land that didn’t belong to them. “Thou shalt not steal." Why aren't these analogous?

So who IS Gordon accusing of theft? The Jews who first came to Israel!

Man, you sure you haven't been sneakin' some of Gordon's crack cocaine? Not even a little?

2. Geoff wrote: "The analogy fails in so many areas, such as 1 person steals a car and i responsible,while a whole nation is not responsible for taking land. It is easy to give back a car, it is not easy to make homeless a large people group who had nothing to do with the aquiring of the land in the first place."

So, you do agree with Gordon that Israel stole the land. That is, you deny any of the history that is on record that says RETURNING Jews (i.e. coming back to their national homeland because Europeans, Turks and Arabs had kicked them out, had continually refused them right of return or had made life so miserable that they had to leave) BOUGHT the land.

Now, Geoff, I want you to show us that you are a man and not a craven lad and you will stand up for your convictions and repeat for the record that "Returning Jews stole Arab land". That is, for the record, I want you to repeat what Gordon has already written about returning Jews i.e they are thieves.

And actually, your slippery attempt at an escape from my analogy fails. The reason is quite easy to see if you actually knew something about Israeli history. Israel has given back land before. In fact, they've given back land far in excess in land area to that of Israel's. They've given back all of Sinai, a land that probably has much mineral worth and may even include oil. They not only gave back Sinai but all the hotels, infra-structure etc that they had constructed for the time they "squatted" it. You see, they recognised that they really didn't own that land so they gave it back under a peace deal. The same thing is happening for Golan, though here it's a case of obtaining the lesser of two evils i.e. a young and slightly whacky Assad over an evil Hizbollah.

But they will never give Eretz back because it was never Arab. You believe, as all anti-Semites do, that Israel stole this land. Don't you ever read the Bible, man? Instead, you prefer to align yourself politically and ideologically with the ultra-right, the maniacal Left and the mad mullahs and their followers.

Apart from self-loathing dishonest Jewish academics as Pappe, I don't know any Israeli who would for one second believe their great, great grandparents stole the land. This means that all Israelis are in support of what the first Zionists did. That is, they align themselves with the people you and Gordon accuse of being thieves. That is, they are, according to you, driving a stolen car, and they are not giving it back.

Run, hide, throw distracting self-righteous motes at me, but the real log is in your eye - you are an anti-Semite, through and through. Israel never stole nuthin'! They merely took and bought back something that had always belonged to them.

It's no use writing things like "What I think is clearly obvious, you don't, and what you see as clearly obvious, I don't." I can tell you have never read anything on the issue. It's also clear that Gordon and the other Anglo-anti-Semites have never. Their idea of understanding 3,500 years of Jewish history is to scan Wikipedia. You pseudo conservatives have such an emasculated, impoverished view of the history of the early Earth (i.e. Genesis 1-11 and even Exodus), written by Jews, why wouldn't you have a similarly dim view on modern Jewish history.

There are all shades of anti-Semites. Some say "In the end days, even the bushes shall scream out, "There is a Jew hiding behind me! Come and kill him". Others create a machanised death industry to remove them from this planet. Others just plant a seed into people's minds by denying the Jewish nation a real historical right to their own homeland by saying that from the beginning they stole the land, thus in actual fact permanently laying a foundation that Israel is a robber nation. You've just aligned yourself with the latter. Doesn't change anything - you, Cheng, Tough, Stevens, are still anti-Semites. What's worse is that you are proud of it in your own eyes as though you have shown great learning.

Ktisophilos said...

Sharon and Arafat finally agreed to negotiate. But Sharon requested that they should follow Jewish tradition by starting off with a story, and Arafat grudgingly agreed.

Sharon:
"Once, while the Israelites were wandering the desert for 40 years, Moses took a swim in an oasis. But when he got out of the water, he found his clothes missing. He demanded to know what had happened, and the rest of the children of Israel said,
'That's obvious — the Palestinians stole them.'"
At that point Arafat furiously interupted and said:
"Just wait a minute here — there were no Palestinians there at that time!".
Sharon responded:
"I rest my case!"

John said...

Yes, Kt, an oldie but a goldie.

geoffc said...

Your comments that I am a craven lad and a coward will hold water when you start using your real name or meet up with the people who have requested it. I'm happy to get lunch or a coffee some time if you are?

I don't know enough to comment on who stole the land, nor have I ever stated that I did. I don't know how many times I have to say that is not what I am concerned about when I post here. I am concerned at the way you have misrepresented and misquoted people on the SA forums, by writing "The Jews" instead of "Israel". They actually meant different things in the context that you took them out of. That's what I have been trying to argue, the whole time. You can save all the information your dropping about the middle east for another discussion, a there is no need for you to tell me how ignorant I am of ME politics and history for I have never claimed otherwise.

PLease take it easy guys and aim to be a bit more gentle. Fair enough, fire up about the arguments, but your attacks on people (myself included) are too much. Andrew Tisley is a good example of how to argue these things. He seems quite similar in theology and thought to you guys, but when I had lunch with him he was a super gentle dude and we had quite a good chat, and I got to understand his position much better.

It's obvious you guys feel as though you have been stung be the SA's, but I hope and pray there would be a better way for you to move forward with it. As I read (especially you John) I imagine you getting quite heated and stressed, and I imagine it is not doing wonders for your health. It comes across that way anyway.

Ktisophilos said...

The AngloNasties like Goebbels Cheng can't get out of it. "Israel" is just code for "the Jews", and "anti-Zionism" is just code for "anti-semitism". They are merely politically correct phrases for objectional positions.

Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jews, and there has been continuous Jewish occupation through the ages. There was never any Palestinian Arab national identity until the PLO terrorists invented it.

No other country has been singled out for abuse the way Israel has, and that is anti-semitism. This is the only country in the region with full human rights, the rule of law and democracy. Yet whenever it defends itself against thugs who blow up school buses and bomb weddings, the likes of Goebbels Cheng whinge. But of course, never at the terrorists who target Israeli citizens and then scurry back to hide among their own citizens.

John said...

1. Geoff wrote: "Your comments that I am a craven lad and a coward will hold water when you start using your real name or meet up with the people who have requested it."

I honestly can't make sense of what you say, Geoff. You come on here to support Gordon Cheng and criticise me that I've misrepresented his words. Gordon (not to mention the other half dozen or so anti-Semites over there in the Anglo-asylum) has claimed that Israel stole land from the Arabs. Now, LOGICALLY, Gordon can only be referring to one racial group i.e. Jews. These Jews were the first Zionist settlers. He says that they stole land from the Arabs. He used those words. You say this is not what he meant. Now, you are either quite crazy or an idiot because Gordon said this. I can't see how you can contest this as he clearly wrote it.

You say I'm mistaken and I've asked you to explain how. All you do is to repeat over and over again the words that he didn't mean this. I ask you to explain how he is being exculpated by your insistence that he didn't mean Jews. You just spew forth denial and evade all my questions. For this you are a COWARD because you are intellectually dishonest.

Taking some perceived moral highground won't free you from blame. You support an anti-Semite arrogant bigot who actually is an ordained minister of the Anglican Church. You have come on here to defend this racist. You have aligned yourself with this no body man.

And you are under some sort of delusion of grandeur that I really should meet people from the Anglo-loony tune site.

I've asked on a number of occasions what meeting any of these heretics would accomplish. No response!

I've also stated that there really is nothing new to discuss that hasn't already been said or that can't be found on any other site dealing with the same issues.

The problem isn't going to be solved by discussion. What has to happen is that men like Tough, Cheng, Stevens have to lose a whole lot of that Anglo hubris that believes whatever they say must be right. Geoff, the sun doesn't shine out of their corporate bottoms.

2. Geoff wrote: "I don't know enough to comment on who stole the land, nor have I ever stated that I did."

You are mad, aren't you? Or is English your second language?

Gordon said some people called Israel stole land. For the 40th time, who does Gordon think Israel is?

By now I don't give a toss what you think because you've proved to be incapable of even a mildly intellectual subject. What concerns me is that you want to defend this anti-Semite pig with an argument that is pure juvenile nonsense.

That's right, you don't know anything about Israel's history but you want to defend a man who made a criminally racist comment about Israel.

Are you and Gordon lovers or something? Are you actually Gordon? Are you Gordon's twin? I don't think I've come across such dangerous sycophancy before.

3. Geoff wrote: "I don't know how many times I have to say that is not what I am concerned about when I post here. I am concerned at the way you have misrepresented and misquoted people on the SA forums, by writing "The Jews" instead of "Israel". They actually meant different things in the context that you took them out of."

Well, we're all waiting for you to explain what that difference is. But you won't because you're intellectually dishonest and more concerned with the image of a man than truth.

And I've asked you half a dozen times to explain what the difference is. You've refused. I've set out an argument that says the people Gordon is accusing of theft are the first Zionist Jews. Israel's existence is based on these men and women's actions. They were Jews.

4. Geoff wrote: "PLease take it easy guys and aim to be a bit more gentle. Fair enough, fire up about the arguments, but your attacks on people (myself included) are too much. Andrew Tisley is a good example of how to argue these things. He seems quite similar in theology and thought to you guys, but when I had lunch with him he was a super gentle dude and we had quite a good chat, and I got to understand his position much better."

Once again the Anglo-heretic setting the standard as though he has a right to do this and dictate the terms of engagement.

Yes, and we all read how Andrew and Diana were treated by the anti-Semites, these enemies of Jews!

If Andrew was being treated so wonderfully by these arrogant little boys why did he ask to get his thread removed and refused to participate any more?

5. Geoff wrote: "It's obvious you guys feel as though you have been stung be the SA's, but I hope and pray there would be a better way for you to move forward with it. As I read (especially you John) I imagine you getting quite heated and stressed, and I imagine it is not doing wonders for your health. It comes across that way anyway."

I'm 50. Never felt better. Want an hour on the squash court with me or a gentle 30 km bike ride?

Heated? Never. This is me! Just because your personality is all jello like doesn't mean that we all should be. What did our Lord heatedly call the religious leaders? Ah yes, "hypocrites and white-washed tombs with dead men's bones inside".

geoffc said...

"Gordon said some people called Israel stole land. For the 40th time, who does Gordon think Israel is?"

"Well, we're all waiting for you to explain what that difference is. But you won't because you're intellectually dishonest and more concerned with the image of a man than truth."

I've tried. I said he has been reffering to actions and motives of the state, not the whole people group. Saying "The Jews are liars" is racist, but saying "Israel stole the land" is the same as saying "The USA unfairly invaded Iraq". They aren't racist comments. Am I being racist when I say that "the US unfairly invaded Iraq?" (and please don't accuse me of ACTUALLY saying this, I'm trying to make a point). No, I'm not at all.

who does Gordon think Israel is? In general, the people of Israel, the Jews. BUT, in the context of what he was saying, he was not laying all the blame on the Jews, saying "Israel stole the land" could have either implied that it was the actions of the state, or even the actions on the United Nations, or whoever! but I don't think he is being anti-semetic.

In the bible I now that "The Jews" reffered to the tribe of Israel, and the words were synonymos (sic?), but they aren't being used the same in the context on the forums do you see what I m getting at now? Probably not, and you're going to call me an idiot and all other kinds of things which make me feel super.

You can't seem to see this. I'm not being dishonest, I'm trying my best to point out what I think as obvious. So hey, maybe it's me, but I don't see how.

And yes, I would LOVE to go for a cycle or play some squash. I would LOVE to meet you. Can we? You've made the offer, when can we do this? The reason is that over the web communication can be somewhat misguided, and it would be easier to communicate. I'm the first to admit I am a lousy communicater when it comes to writing. So please, if you'e keen for a squash game, or a cycle ride, let's do it.

John said...

Geoff wrote: "Using the term 'The Jews' is different to using the term 'Israel'. One could imply the whole people group, the other the government."

I'd missed this earlier.

Geoff, technically pre-1948 there was no Israeli Government, so there was official political body to illegally take land away. The land that you anti-Semites are referring to, the same land that Gordon is saying was stolen, is all the land that Jews possessed before 1948. The Israeli Government didn't own land because there was no Israel.

So it comes back to this: Who is Gordon referring to when he says that this land was stolen by someone?

So far you have merely ducked and weaved and tried to put the onus of argument on to me. Gordon has made an accusation that someone stole land. Since there was no recognised government before 1948 it can only be a group of people who are culturally and racially called Jews.

Face it Geoff, you guys are anti-Semites. You believe that the Jews are ignorant about the age of the Earth, that they were just primitives who couldn't understand big numbers like 6 billion and so God had to make allowances for their lack of intellect and had to tell them that he made the Earth in 6 days because that's all their underdeveloped brains could handle. Saying that the Jews were robbers is just a cherry on an already existing cake of anti-Semitism.

geoffc said...

"Geoff, technically pre-1948 there was no Israeli Government, so there was official political body to illegally take land away. The land that you anti-Semites are referring to, the same land that Gordon is saying was stolen, is all the land that Jews possessed before 1948. The Israeli Government didn't own land because there was no Israel. "

How did they acquire the land?

neil moore said...

I cannot believe what I am reading from Geoff - 'weasel' words to defend anti-Semites.

Clear as day, Gordon Cheng accused all those of Jewish heritage who entered the land in 1948 to take up residence, as being thieves. Their descendants who reside in the land are also allegedly condoning or participating in the 'theft'.

It is sad reflection on the Diocese to attempt a manipulation of words such as Geoff is employing. I repeat. A dreadful and anti-Semitic statement was made by Gordon Cheng.

Neil Moore

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Geoff,

I've already told you several times in my posts, Geoff, how they acquired the land but you're not interested because all you're concerned with is defending anti-Semites, like Gordon Cheng, who makes wild unsubstantiated claims against Jews. Because I've already told you I think your question is disingenuous.

Many years ago I was living at the Green Zone on the edge of Jerusalem. One day I shared lunch at Ramat Rachel's dining hall with some American visitors. I asked them what they were doing here and they pointed across the rocky plateau that you gazed to from the window to a lone monument lying some several hundred metres away. I'd never bothered to walk across that part so I was interested in what it was. They said that in the 1920's or 1930's their relative had bought land here and had started up a small settlement. The then Nazi-loving Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini and his men had raided their little camp and cut off their heads as an on-going campaign to rid that area of Jews. Their relatives had been victims of that massacre and they wanted to see the memorial to this barbaric act.

My bedroom was....now I'm sending you a clear message here because I know how you heretics have problems reading straightforward historical prose so I've included an explanatory word... literally 6 metres from King Hezekiah's summer palace. Just imagine that, eh. Here was the 2,500 year old ruins (or 1100 years before Muslim Invasion) of an ancient Jewish king's summer residence, and we would just lounge around in the ruins drinking our beer and smoking our goy cigarettes (people in the know will understand that joke in Hebrew!). From its vantage point you could look down to Bethlehem and Rachel's tomb (2,500 years before MI). On the horizon you could just make out Herod's desert palace (600 years before MI).

And you ask how the Jews acquired the land. They never lost the deed to it. Their mark of ownership is everywhere!

Let me ask you a question: How did the Muslims acquire the land.

LET ME REPEAT: HOW DID THE MUSLIMS ACQUIRE THE LAND?

John said...

In trying to exonerate Gordon from a charge of anti-Semetism, Geoff has written: "I said he has been reffering to actions and motives of the state, not the whole people group. Saying "The Jews are liars" is racist, but saying "Israel stole the land" is the same as saying "The USA unfairly invaded Iraq". They aren't racist comments. Am I being racist when I say that "the US unfairly invaded Iraq?"

The point is this: Israel is a country for Jews. Blame governments of Israel , which have been voted in by a Jewish majority, you are blaming Jews because they support the government's actions.

In any case, the land that Gordon is speaking about is the land that Jews settled before 1948. He has said that Israel stole land. He means Jews. He doesn't mean anyone else but a group of Jews, elected or not.

The USA is not a racial identification. Israel began as a homeland (principally) for Jews. The USA's decision to invade Iraq is a consequence of a government decision. "Stealing" land from Arabs was an act, I assume, taken by groups of Jews who had been acting independently from government. For example, when European settlers had started to first come over in the late 19th century, that area of the world, officially known as Southern Syria, was under Ottoman control. This continued until after WW1. The Brits took over and still there was no Israeli government but Jews were still acquiring land. The Israeli Government didn't come into existence until after WWII.

Gordon is referring to either pre-1948, and thus means Jews, or he is referring to after 1948 which was land that the Jews had bought and had been given by the UN in order to fulfill, partly, the obligation of Balfour Declaration.

In either case, the Jews never stole land. Gordon (and the others) must apologise for such a crude and false accusation.

Geoff said: "Who does Gordon think Israel is? In general, the people of Israel, the Jews. BUT, in the context of what he was saying, he was not laying all the blame on the Jews, saying "Israel stole the land" could have either implied that it was the actions of the state, or even the actions on the United Nations, or whoever! but I don't think he is being anti-semetic."

The 'whoever', in particular, does make it anti-Semetic. That he has accused a group of people of theft, which is historically false in any case, by singling them out on racial and cultural grounds without applying the same standard or charge to the Arab Muslims who certainly DID acquire their land by theft, murder and destruction, shows he is an anti-Semite. That Arab Muslims admit in their own history that they stole the land from Jews and Gordon ignores this and accuses the Jews of theft again shows his anti-Semitic persona.

geoffc said...

man, so many questions to answer, and I have to say I cn't answer them all.

John, I have no idea how the palestinians obtained the area, I really don't. But if we couldkeep the discussion revolving around language, that would be helpful for me, and I think it is key to trying to sought this out.

Is Gordon Cheng saying that Jerry Seinfeild is giulty of crimes, or Steven Spielberg? I don't think he is. But they are both Jewish. I honestly believe when Gordon cheng says Israel stole the land (and based on your information, he is incorrect), he is not laying the blame and reponsibility on every single Jewish person. He is saying those who are involved are responsible, and it is incorrect to say that every single Jewish person has been involved in how they got the land. Jerry Seinfeild and Steven Spielberg can not be credited with anything Israel has done as far as I can see. They can associate themselves because they are Jewish, but it doesn't give them credit or make them accountable. Right or wrong, Gordon's is accusing those who are responsible, and he is not accusing every single jewish person by saying "Israel".

What about in the gospel of John were John continually refers to "The Jews". Have a read, he makes some startling accusations. But when he does say this, is he refering to all the Jewish people? No, he couldn't be. Jesus was a Jew, and so was his disciples. So clearly John was able to use the term "the Jews" without referring to the whole people group. In the same way, Gordon has used the term "Israel", without reffering to every single Jew. Thus both John and Gordon are not anti-semitic.

Warwick said...

Geoff if a man in a red hat told you fibs over and over again, you would become suspicious of men in red hats, considering the next who arrived was also a fibber. You are one in a line of people who have blogged here, appearing to be genuine, stating they were open-minded, just wanting to understand the issues. However it didn't take long to discover each was just another man in a red hat! I don't remember one of them turning out to be genuine. Maybe you will be the exception but your defense of Cheng’s foolish claims points the other way.

Consider what Cheng’s wrote:

“Israel shouldn’t have taken land that didn’t belong to them. “Thou shalt not steal”

As a Christian I accept that Israel is an ancient Jewish state, given to them by God.

At various times God allowed them to be defeated and exiled because they turned their backs on Him, and His prophets. The land however was still theirs, and only God can change that. In their battles with the Roman invaders large numbers were killed and most others exiled around AD 137, after the Bar Kokba revolt, if I remember my history correctly. None the less there remained a Jewish presence in Israel even after this time, right up to the present. In the late 1800’s Jews began buying back their own land from the Ottoman invaders. The Ottoman Empire was defeated along with their German allies in WW1 and their stolen lands taken from them.

After WW11,on 29.11.47, the UN General Assembly voted (33 to 13) to establish a Jewish state, a homeland for Jews. This was not some new idea as both Jews and gentiles had been pushing for a Jewish state for decades.

The Arabs, who had invaded and stolen the land would not accept this UN decision and war between the Arabs and Jews broke out.

So Geoff to sum up:
Israel is the land God gave the Jewish people and he has never changed His mind on that. He never gave it to Muslims, or anyone else.
Jews have lived in Israel, their God-given land, for thousands of years even after the AD 137 exile.
In the 1800’s Jews began buying back their own ancestral land from the Ottoman invaders.
In 1947 the UN voted, by an overwhelming majority, to give land to the Jews so they could establish their own state, which they did in 1948.

For Cheng to say they stole the land is not the truth and is a common anti-Semitic claim.

Geoff it appears to me you are bending back so far to excuse Cheng that you are Pentecostal prostrate. You have tried to force some distinction between Israel and the Jews, as an apologist for Cheng, but this makes no sense as you cannot separate the Jewish people from their own state Israel. Those there, and those who returned to their God-given land, were Jews and Israel is the name of their Jewish country. When Cheng says Israel stole the land he is therefore saying Jews stole it as those Israeli’s who fought to retain it were Jews.

geoffc said...

Genuine? From the outset I've made known I had a problem with the way people have been misrepresented on the SA forums. That is why I have posted. I'm not here to discuss Israel. My problem is your interpretation of people who say they disagree with the way Israel does things. You've interpreted them as being anti-semitic, I think that is wrong.

Warwick, you said:
"You have tried to force some distinction between Israel and the Jews"

It all depends on how you use the word "Israel" though, doesn't it?
I can use the term "Israel" quite easily in a way that doesn't denote the whole people group.
Eg. Israel is a country
Israel attended the olympic games
Israel were victims of a terrorist attack
Israel attended the United Nations Conference

And I would like to see how you interpret John's use of the words "The Jews". In his gospel the term is mostly used in a negative way, as opponents of Jesus. But we both know that when he refers to the Jews he is not reffering to every Jewish person, nor is he making an anti-semitic charge (though many accuse John of doing so).

The bible refer to Israel as the people group, and we too can refer to the people group as a whole by calling them Israel.
Eg. All Israel will be saved. Israel are descendents of Abraham.
But i still believe that it can be used in the same way we talk about "Australia", or the "USA". If I say "Australia treated the aboriginies harshly", I am not making a racist comment.
When I was following the thread, that is how I interpreted the use of the word "Israel", and I think it is the correct interpretation.

Cheers

Geoff

Warwick said...

No Geoff it does not depend upon the definition of Israel. Israel is a Jewish state and Israeli's are Jewish.

The point is Cheng said the land was stolen. I would point out to him that the next commandment after the one he quoted is 'You will not bear false witness against your neighbour' that which he has clearly done.

Therefore I repeat with a few modifications to aid simplicity:


'So Geoff to sum up:

Israel is the land God gave the Jewish people and he has never changed His mind on that. He never gave it to Muslims, or anyone else. They inhabited this land for thousands of years. Therefore they did not steal it!

Jews continued to live in Israel, their God-given land, even after the AD 137 exile, up to present times. Therefore they did not steal it!

In the 1800’s Jews began buying back their own ancestral land from the Ottoman invaders. Therefore they did not steal it!

In 1947 the UN voted, by an overwhelming majority, to give land to the Jews so they could establish their own state, which they did in 1948. Therefore they did not steal it!

So it is their ancestral land.

They also purchased land in latter times.

It always had a Jewish presence.

The UN agreed they should have their own state and ceded land to them.

Please explain when Cheng's imagined theft occurred.

neil moore said...

Geoff continues with weasel words even to the border of lying. It is a ploy of many to twist an argument to make it look better than it actually is. It is a "cleaner" way to lie (in their mind).

Geoff, there is a law in Australia and many other countries. If you receive stolen goods you are complicit in the crime. In Gordon Cheng's view all who are descendants of Jacob and who have taken up residence in the nation of Israel from 1948 have received stolen goods. There are an awful lot of Jews in this group.

The man made an anti-semitic statement and now is hiding behind a poor defender of him.

Neil Moore

geoffc said...

Hi Warwick. If all that informatio is correct, it makes Gorden Cheng wrong, not anti-semitic. This has been my point all along.

"Geoff, there is a law in Australia and many other countries. If you receive stolen goods you are complicit in the crime. In Gordon Cheng's view all who are descendants of Jacob and who have taken up residence in the nation of Israel from 1948 have received stolen goods. There are an awful lot of Jews in this group."

This is clutching at straws. Under that law, if I am to steal a car and I take my children fo a drive in it, does this make them guilty of being complicit in the crime? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. My children had no choice in it, and they are my responsibility, and it makes me guilty. They are an innocent party.

What you've said here I think shows you are starting to understand what I am saying, and now addressing my point. You will need a better argument than this to prove that Gordon was making anti-semitic comments.

At best you have that he made a false statement, which could well be true. But you haven't proved he is anti-semitic.

John said...

Geoff wrote: "This is clutching at straws. Under that law, if I am to steal a car and I take my children fo a drive in it, does this make them guilty of being complicit in the crime? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. My children had no choice in it, and they are my responsibility, and it makes me guilty. They are an innocent party."

You arrogant man!

This is a STRAW MAN argument. All of modern Israel celebrates what their grandparents etc did, as I pointed out to you. You are nothing but an armchair critic, like your boyfriend Gordon Cheng.

Gordon is an anti-Semite. We define what anti-Semitism is, not you hubristic Sydney Anglicans. Just like we don't allow you guys to heretically explain the Bible to us because you do not have the expertise or honesty to do this.

You've picked your side. The line is drawn.

geoffc said...

"We define what anti-Semitism is"

Oh okay. This makes things different then dosn't it. I was arguing along the lines that anti-semitism is the same as racism. Maybe if you go back through my comments, and change all the times I wrote 'anti-semite' and replace it with 'racist' maybe?

Sorry if I came across as arrogant, not my intentions at all. I stand by what I say though, and I think you are wrong incalling Gordon Cheng 'anti-semite' (my definition of the term, which apparently I'm not allowed to do).

Yet don't you think it is a little arrogant to say you are the only ones to define anti-semitism?

And it isn't a straw man argument. I was trying to show that even if Gordon Cheng is ight in saying Israel stole the land, it doesnt meant that all Israel would be morally culpable.

John said...

I believe it was Goebbels who stated, "We will tell you who is Jewish, not you!" I'm just turning the tables on you.

Yes, it is a straw man argument because your stolen car analogy is ill-fitting because in reality the children in the back (i.e. today's Israelis) are cheering their dad the "thief" on. The children are culpable for their father's crimes.

In any case, how dare you try to exculpate Gordon Cheng by trying to alter the reality of how Israelis feel about their land by making them out to be like innocent children. It just shows how much you know about Israel. I never met an Israeli Jew who didn't believe in the state. They may disagree with their government's actions with regard to peace deals or fighting Hizbollah, but they fully support what happened 1948 and before i.e. the establishment of Israel.

Gordon and the others believe that all that was wrong as it was based on theft. That is, they deny that Israel has a legitimate right to the land. When you single out Jews for criticism and call them oppressive, murderers, thieves etc, and do not examine what the Arabs did, then you are an anti-Semite. In fact, it appears that they really don't care what the Arabs did. This means they are anti-Semitic.

You guys are so full of yourself that you believe that you have the right to play with Genesis 1 and make it say whatever you want it to say in order to fall in with the theories of the heathen. You are now doing the same with the Jews' right to their own land by distorting history.

Gordon and his mates are weak men. They may believe that they are strong but their "strength" is only in proportion to their arrogance.

The question remains over why did Gordon and his mates feel it so necessary to throw cold water on the good intentions of Andrew. Andrew, out of the goodness of real Christian love, decided to wish Jews a happy anniversary against all odds of surviving this far. This gang of cowards smelt blood. They accused him of, as I recall, being provocative. They gathered around him and went in for the kill. Andrew being a nice guy left. You guys wouldn't dare do that to me because I know how weak you are. Faced with historical facts that show how stupid you people are and how mean-spirited you appear, all you can do is to inject facile analogies, muddy the waters over definitions, and believe the most important thing to this ghastly incident is to rescue the reputation of an arrogant heretic. You don't even have the decency to admit, after all our proof, that the Jews did not steal land. You just continue to prattle on about Gordon's reputation. Your whole action disgusts me. I think your life is far too comfortable and need to be put into some perspective to see just how upsidedown you see the world.

Have you even bothered to instruct Gordon that his history is way wrong and that he should take back his statements? Or are you going to continue to press the point that that is irrelevant?

Warwick said...

Geoff not all who live in Israel are Jews but the overwhelming majority are. Israel is a land and a people, the name of the land, and the name of the vast majority of its people who are descended from the man Israel. It is complex so let us simplify it:

Let us remove 'Israel' from Cheng's statement as it seems to confuse some and substitute 'X.' He says X stole the land and I asked-when did this theft occur? I think you now get the point and I am thankful for that.

So you now agreee that Cheng has his facts wrong. But where did he and the other Israel bashers get their information? Surely only from those opposed to Israel. As I see it anti-Israel is the same as anti-Jew and by definition anti-Semitic, Jews being Semites. The hateful things they have collectively written brings to mind God's word-I will bless those who bless me and curse those who curse me. As Israel is His chosen people, and land, then the angry things they have written constitute cursing as they are attacking God's people. Remember they are His chosen people because He chose them not because they always choose and follow Him.

As we cannot separate Israel from Israeli's, most of whom are Jews, it is both ignorant of fact and I believe anti-Semitic to write the hateful things he and others have written about God's chosen people, our family, who are fighting for their very survival against a numerous, powerful, wealthy and implacable foe.

To criticize Israel for inflicting civilian casualties is ridiculous as Israel's terrorist foes purposely target civilains, as the facts show. Such nonesnse from wimps who have no sympathy for a people constantly under murderous attack! Do they know what it is like to live daily under deadly threat? Have they had to hose the bodies of their countrymen out of restaurants etc when targeted by a suicide bomber? I call them cowards.

Surely we Christians who are grafted in to the line of Israel should support His chosen people.

geoffc said...

"Yes, it is a straw man argument because your stolen car analogy is ill-fitting because in reality the children in the back (i.e. today's Israelis) are cheering their dad the "thief" on. The children are culpable for their father's crimes."

:-) I think you would be stretching it to find a court of law that would convict the children though.

Anyways, it seems 'anti-semitism' is anyone who opposes practices or policies of Israel. If I object to what Israel has done, and is doing, that makes someone anti-semitic? I don't think that is right. I thought anti-semitism would be "I disagree with what Israel is doing because hey are Jews". It's the same as racism I always assumed, but obviously not.

"As I see it anti-Israel is the same as anti-Jew and by definition anti-Semitic, Jews being Semites"

I disagree. Because if someone is anti-Israel based on their actions, they have reason for being anti-Israel, it is not purely based on race. And Gordon has said before, which you have ignored, that he condemns acts of voilence from both sides of the conflict. Whether he is right or wrong, it is not anti-semitism, because the decision is not based on race, rather their actions.

If you guys think that opposing acts of Israel and condemning their (perceived, not necessarily true)actions is what constitutes anti-semitism, you are actually promoting a kind of positive racism. And PLEASE note, when I say "opposing acts of Israel", I DO NOT mean "opposing acts of the Jews". They can mean different things :-)...I think it is the definite article that makes this so.

If you guys believe that anti-semitism is the same as racism, where the decision to oppose Israel is based on race, then you are yet to prove that those on the SA forums are anti-semites.

neil moore said...

Geoff's analogy of the children in the stolen car is relevant only if he takes it to its logical end ie that the children grow up, they know the car is stolen yet take over driving the car themselves. For such is the only comparison with what is going on in Israel today ie if the anti-semitic charge of theft made by Gordon Cheng is valid. The children who entered the land in 1948 have grown up and regard the land as their own so they are as guilty of theft as their parents in Gordon Cheng's eyes.

But then, Geoff argues a childlike defence - perhaps he is just a Peter Pan, has never grown up and his children in his analogy don't grow up either and are therefore never guilty of complicity in their parents' alleged offence?

The reality is that a multitude of adult descendants of Jacob as well as a sizeable number of proselytes migrated back to their 'homeland' post 1948.

Gordon Cheng made an anti-semitic statement.

Neil Moore

geoffc said...

"The children who entered the land in 1948 have grown up and regard the land as their own so they are as guilty of theft as their parents in Gordon Cheng's eyes."

But that's not anti-semitism. In the sense that it is not a racist comment, it is based on perceived actions and morality, not on race.

So if you have proved that Israel is always synonymous with "The Jews" (which I am not actually convinced of, as yet), you have been saying that the anti-Israel comments ade by members of the SA forums are based on false assertions of Israel's history and governance, not on their race. This in my understanding is not anti-semitism.

What is your definition of anti-semitism?

geoffc said...

I found this definition on wiki, by some professor dude.

'To anti Semties, "Jews are not only partially but totally bad by nature, that is, their bad traits are incorrigible. Because of this bad nature: (1) Jews have to be seen not as individuals but as a collective. (2) Jews remain essentially alien in the surrounding societies. (3) Jews bring disaster on their 'host societies' or on the whole world, they are doing it secretly, therefore the antisemites feel obliged to unmask the conspiratorial, bad Jewish character." '

I was arguing that the way John quoted the forum folk by adding the "The jews" in closed brackets, he was making them sound like point 1).

This guy is saying viewing the Jews collectively (in a way that says 'the jews do this...)is anti-semitical. I would agree. I don't think the SA guys were doing that, but I believe John was making them sound that way.

This brings bad to my original argument. Saying "Israel" is much different to saying "The Jews" in certain contexts.

geoffc said...

This one too

"The EUMC (Eurpean monitoring centre on racism)also discussed ways in which attacking Israel could be antisemitic, depending on the context, while clarifying that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

Which is that the SA forum guys did. I should have done this earlier!

John said...

I asked Geoff the following question: "Have you even bothered to instruct Gordon that his history is way wrong and that he should take back his statements? Or are you going to continue to press the point that that is irrelevant?"

So, Geoff, have you?

Warwick said...

Geoff return to the comments made by SAD folk, at the beginning of John's blog. Remember these comments were removed from the Anglican site, and obviously for good reason.

These comments are unfactual and expose a contempt for Israel and its people. I do not imagine these comments are representative of many informed Anglicans but only those of the lunatic fringe with whom bloggers here have debated.

They say- Israel stole the land, the displacement of people was real cruel and wrong,they instigate collective punishment of Palestinians, took the land by force, viciousness, overkill of reprisal attacks, has perpetuated attrocities.

You now know that 'X' did not steal the land but that it was given them by God, they have inhabited it for thousands of years, they bought much of their own land back, and it was given to them by vote of the UN. They have battled for decades to hold onto their little patch of land.

You know they are a very small nation, both in area and population surrounded by people who will not allow them rest,who have sworn to anihilate them. So to say they fight hard to survive is not something any Christian should lament but something a true Christian would pray about asking God to protect His nation from their numerous murderous foes.

The facts surrounding this issue are common knowledge. The anti-Semites are either:

1) Were ignorant of reality but now know the facts and therefore should without reservation apologize for their incorrect, unChristian, hurtful comments.

2)Or they were well aware of the falseness of their statemments but made them anyway as they are at heart anti-Semitic.

3) That either way, whether 1 or 2 they should apologize for their unpleasant statements made in ignorance or confess their sin of anti-Semitism.

Fair enough Goff?

geoffc said...

No john I haven't said anything to Gordon Cheng. I can't instrct him, I'm not his Father.

Warwick

I think you're on to it now. Point 2) is definately anti-semitism, but you haven't proved that about the SA guys. If you guys are correct about your information, they would belong to category 1, but that DOES not make them anti-semitic. The worst the can be charged of is ignorantly and foolishly making comments about Israel when they shuld have done more research.

Gordon has said he opposes acts of voilence on both sides. He as also said he does not agree with the stealing of land (he may be wrong, yes). Neither of these are anti-semitic, all they show is that Gordon opposes voilence and the stealing of land. Worst he has done is not get the facts straight.

But warwick, concerning point 1), how would they now knw the facts? do you assum they are reading this blog or went out and read a few books after?. You can't say they now know the facts, you have no idea what they know.
The thread was pulled because Andrew Tisley had his account deleted, and somehow this made all the threads he was involved in be deleted as well. It was an administrative error, and had nothing to do with the content.

So warwick, if they are point 1), they are not anti-semitic are they?

Thanks

Geoff

Ktisophilos said...

Geoffc: "Gordon has said he opposes acts of violence on both sides."

Goebbels Cheng's moral equivalence is typical of the modern antisemite. Fact remains, the Palestinian violence deliberately targets Israeli civilians. Israeli violence is directed at these murderers. Any civilians deaths are accidental, and largely the result of the cowardly way in which the terrorists hide among them. Under the international rules of warfare, it's the terrorists who are responsible for endangering civilians. But according to the modern antisemites, Israel is the one country that's not allowed to defend its citizens.

neil moore said...

You just refuse to listen don't you Geoff?

Your blind ignorance of truth - a symptom of the arrogance of the Diocese - will not allow you to acknowledge the truth being made.

You can quote as much of the lower mind's encyclopaedia ie Wickipedia, as you like. It just won't carry you.

I refer to a more reliable guide on prejudice ie Matin Luther King, and I restate what he said and has been already provided by John in his blog.

"You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.
"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

Gordon Cheng made an anti-semitic statement and therefore disloses an anti-semitic nature. You defend him with twisted words and analogies. You are as Gordon Cheng and need to repent.

Neil Moore

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Geoff said: "No john I haven't said anything to Gordon Cheng [about his misrepresentation of Israel i.e. calling them thieves when they are not]. I can't instrct him, I'm not his Father."

No, that's right, I wouldn't expect you to actually do the ethically correct and manly action of rebuking a brother for his false actions against a group of people. He called them thieves. There is no historical veracity in that, yet all you care about is rebuking us for putatively falsely accusing him of being an anti- to do with Semite. Yep, your actions, or lack of, are certainly one to aspire to.

Would the lack of honour in your action have anything to do with the "exalted" position that Gordon has in your eyes within your cult?

And why haven't you come to the defence of the others who levelled even worse accusations against Jews? Why haven't you asked them to apologise?

Imagine this: "Yes, your honour, as my first witnesses I want to quote Wikipedia and some dude professor."

The judge interrupts, "There is no need, Geoff. Such high standing testimonies as the anti-Christian Wikipedia and that dude what's-his-name wins you the case. I find in favour of the Sydney Anglican Heretics."

No, you're not his father but you certainly are his lapdog or something.

Warwick said...

Geoff I am convinced the SADists were well aware of the historical and Biblical realities when they wrote their crude, incorrect comments.

Otherwise they must be very ignorant people as the facts we have placed before you are in the common public domain, and in Scripture. But they don't accept all Scripture as being historically correct do they! And most likely that's where the problem lies.

Yes I do believe they follow this blog as various of them make comments about it on other blogs.

Also I would have thought that you who battle so strongly in your defence of them would have by now at least shown them their factual errors. If you have not done this you are honour bound, as their Christian brother to confront their sin.

I think you have been given a more than fair run on this site so maybe it's time for you to sign off.

geoffc said...

It is not about running to their defence, it's about truth.

It's the second time I've entered discussion on this website. The first time was when someone posted that in an Anglican Church one would not hear that God created them in his image because they believe in evolution. The second time is because you have called people anti-semites.

It both case I beleive you have made false accusations. Both are very serious accusations, and hardly well founded, and I've done my best to try and show how you've done that.

As far as engaging with you about ISrael and 6 day creationism, it is something I never want to do, because you guys aren't very good at it. You aren't balanced at all, and rip to shred all your opponents, not with good arguments, but with personal attacks.

you are free to write about 6 day creationism and zionism. Go for it! Both positions are about taking scripture seriously, which is excellent, and people like Andrew T are worthy of praise for holding to such a high view of scripture. But when I see false charges of anti-semitism and poor conclusive statements, I will comment. Both times I've tried to(probably poorly at times, I'll admit)persuade you through humble argument.

Can we cut a deal? I love you guys, and you love me. Let's pray for each other. We can both pray that the other person would come to a full knowledge of the truth in the bible, in all things. PLease pray these things for me, that any errors in my thinking would be brought to mind and I that I would repent of them. I'll do the same for you. Neither of us are perfect so we all think the wrong thing somewhere, and neither of us seem capable of convincing the other person, so we can trust the Holy Spirit to hopefully set things straight.

I also think it would be valuable (and confusing you haven't already) for you to post about penal substitution. I have read on other blogs that John is not in favor of such theology, yet it is something SA's hold very highly to, and actually view opposing it as liberal theology. I personally find it strange that if you hold to such a high view of scripture, what your problem with it is.

But I can make this my last post if you want, unless you ask me more questions, or in later posts say something about me or anyone that I think is false and needs correcting.

Thanks for the ride

Geoff

geoffc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Geoff,

You talk about 'balance' but in fact, you really don't exhibit this in your argument.

Even if we were incorrect about accusing the Anglo heretics of being anti-Semites, that there was no malice behind their accusations, the fact remains that they were wrong, that Israel didn't steal land, that Israelis have a right to protect themselves against their enemies, just like you and I do against ours. So, whatever the wrongness of our supposed false accusation against your mates, they too have committed a sin by falsely accusing others of crimes which they did not commit.

So, why does it only work one way with you? You expect, no, demand, that we apologise but you have made no concession to us in our demand that you should go and seek an apology from these others. You act as a go-between for them to salvage their tarnished name but you won't do the same for those that can't defend themselves and who daily suffer far beyond what you can ever imagine.

I think your prayers for whatever are an attempt to avoid the moral responsibilty that is pressing on you. Surely your conscience speaks to you. After all, you have come on here to plead a case.

geoffc said...

Hey John. I don't remember demanding you apologise. Why did you say this?

If the SA's are wrong, then yes, they need to repent of falsely accusing others of crimes. But that is not what I came here to talk about.

And I will ask GC where he got his information that "israel stole the land". I think that would be a good idea. Of course I won't talk to you guys about it, for reasons stated above.

John said
"I think your prayers for whatever are an attempt to avoid the moral responsibilty that is pressing on you"

think what you want. I prayed for you guys already what I said. I will again. I hope out of of love you would do it for me (whether you consider me Christ's or not).
I love you guys, even though I find it hard too because of the nature of your comments, and will pray for you.

neil moore said...

Geoff said "As far as engaging with you about ISrael and 6 day creationism, it is something I never want to do, because you guys aren't very good at it."

Please demonstrate your case.

Neil Moore

geoffc said...

Things like this;
"Geoff, please don't come on here and present such a poor argument without first doing your homework. Your mates know nothing about what's happening in Israel."

countless examples of this. I wasn't trying to argue this point, I was talking about how he interpreted them, but he jumps at this anyway. the topic always wants to be guided to the direction so you can just shout stuff at me.

These words
"How DARE you accuse the Israelis of terrorism, you closet anti-Semite! Are you out of your mind, you racist! Can't you read my plain blog in English?"

Again, never accused them of terrorism. Where the heckles did that come from? Not to mention calling me racist.

"Geoff, you have ZERO qualifications to utter any comment on this subject. Go away!"

Well this is just a bit rude, but also an example of John not realising what I was actually trying to talk about.

"BTW, has Gordon Cheng been sharing his crack cocaine with you?" this isn't a helpful way to engage with people

"Geoff dumbly argues:"
very nice

"Go away, Geoff. You know nothin' about Islam? You know nothin' about Jews and Israel? You anti-Semite!"

John starts to make a bit of headway here, but it's about a third of the way into the comments when he says...
"Apparently, your only concern is that you believe that I've misrepresented your anti-Semite buddies."....finally!!!

"Oh yes, Geoff, I apologise for being so hard on your anglo-bed buddies."...what's the point of this?

Once again, trying to steer the conversation his way, John says
"So who did "steal" the land"?"

"Again, BTW, how many Israeli friends do you have? "
Why does it matter? I get the feeling John just wants to talk about all the stuff he has read and how he has lived there

I could keep going down, but my point is it feels like you guys just hear what you want to hear, and also shoot down with all these attacks people who try to engage with you. To me, that makes you not very good at it.

Cheers

Geoff

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Yes, I see how you must of really prayed in love...for what?

I stand by everything I wrote! Everything! You still know nothing. You still are arrogant. You continue to play with words and avoid answering questions.

Geoff's case so far: Geoff apparently believes he has a divine right wrapped in some sort of sanctimony ("I'll pray for you." etc) to plead his case that his boyfriend Gordon Cheng isn't really an anti-Semite because even though the Jews may have not stolen the land (not that Geoff has even conceded this), as Gordon accuses them of, he didn't mean anything by it and it certainly has nothing to do with them being Israelis because, after all, he's read Wikipedia and although he's never worked in the Middle East, written a paper about the situation or even read research papers ("I can quote one professor dude, though"), and he nearly once went to a hospital but some guys were killed there and it really annoyed him, so he can throw the weight of his support behind his pal Gordon because Gordon has been accused of a really severe thing and Gordon's such a lovely guy and everyone in the Diocese loves him and he really is a great servant of God and he went to Moore and Moorites can do no wrong and even if they could Goeff couldn't point this out to them because he never went there and it really is up to them to do this, behind closed doors, in the privacy of their bedrooms, away from all the homosexuals, and women priests, that are invading the Anglican Church, worldwide...

What else?

Geoff argues: Gordon isn't an anti-Semite but just thinks these guys are thieves and stole Arab land.

When asked who "they" are, Geoff at first refuses to answer and then says he isn't saying it's the Jews but just some of them. When asked again who, it's probably the Government, and when asked which and when, no answer but regurgitates our own analogy, having originally denied its usefulness about dads being the only culpable group and not the children. Having it explained several times that you couldn't count on 1 hand the number of Israelis and Jews worldwide who denounce the original settlers whose actions led up to the founding of Israel in 1948, thus making the children really guilty of receiving stolen goods, Geoff ignores this point, only wanting to exculpate his pal Gordon.

When suggested that the reestablishment of Israel in 1948 and the history that led up to it may have had God's hand behind it -in which case Gordon has some explaining to do later on- it's ignored, once again because Geoff's obsessed about Gordon and his reputation.

So, no matter how much learning and experience a person has on this subject, no matter how many Muslims and Jews a person has sat down with, all over the world, and thrashed this subject out, an Anglican minister can accuse an invisible and undefined group (let's call them Jews) of land theft and when it's pointed out to them that that didn't occur, it becomes a case of 'How dare you falsely accuse someone.'

Let me repeat it: Has Gordon being sharing his crack pipe with you again?

geoffc said...

"Yes, I see how you must of really prayed in love...for what?"

I tried, let God be the judge of my heart. I prayed for you what I said I would, and I hope you do of me as well.

"I stand by everything I wrote! Everything! You still know nothing. You still are arrogant. You continue to play with words and avoid answering questions."

And this is why I choose not to engage with you in these topics. It's too hard and frustrating, and that's not because of your knowledge. You haven't answered all my queestions either John.

"... so he can throw the weight of his support behind his pal Gordon..."

this is another example Neil. John keeps thinking this is about knowledge of Israel's history, when the whole time I've been arguing about the way language is used. Language can be used in different ways. I can say 'Israel' and mean the whole people group, the government, Jacob, the land, or an olympic team, and I'm sure much more.

Warwick said...

Geoff if you have done your research you will now know that Israel did not steal the land as others falesly claim.

A direct question which requires a direct answer: Did God actually historically give Israel, His chosen people, the land we call Israel?

This requires only a yes or no answer.

The second question which naturally follows from this is: If so then why does Cheng claim they stole it?

As a study of recent history will show you the Arabs did not accept the UN resolution and fought to hold onto land THEY had no good title to. The people of Israel, Israeli's one and all fought for their very survival, and by necessity continue to do so.

But the AngloNasties * attack Israel, which is a people, for having the audacity to defend their God given, UN given land. What hypoctites!

* I coined the term AngloNasties to describe some truly unpleasant members of the SAD. It is not a term I would ever apply to the vast majority within the SAD but just the creeps.

Geoff does using 'creeps' suggest I have no respect for them? Not at all just no respect for their behaviour and attitudes, illustrated by the terms of abuse and ridicule they use in regard to those who believe in such things as 6-day creation. Peter Jensen once described such people as 'hillbillies'!

John said...

Geoff writes: "when the whole time I've been arguing about the way language is used. Language can be used in different ways. I can say 'Israel' and mean the whole people group, the government, Jacob, the land, or an olympic team, and I'm sure much more."

You are an extremely dishonest man. As Warwick has just said, and I have on many occasions asked, if Gordon Cheng, your mate, hasn't made an error, then you or he can tell us exactly when Israel/Jews stole the land. That you won't say precisely who or when, but keep up this childish pretense that you've actually answered this question only illustrates the perverted psychology that you guys have nurtured. People who live in the real world can immediately recognise this duplicity. You've become so used to this way of dealing with people and deceiving yourself that you cannot see how rotten on the inside you've become. You could give the heathen a lesson or two!

And what is this hypocrisy about 'language'? When we creationists come to keep you on the straight and narrow regarding language, you ignore our arguments, and then love telling the world how useless our arguments are.

Geoff said: "I prayed for you what I said I would"

Yes, Geoff, so did the Pharisee and the tax collector.

neil moore said...

Geoff C, after having considered all the evidence, I have found you guilty of obfuscation.

You are sentenced to continue being the person you actually are.

Neil Moore

geoffc said...

"I have found you guilty of obfuscation"

lol. I assure you I'm not doing so intentionally.

I'll continue to work on my clarity of speech.

"As Warwick has just said, and I have on many occasions asked, if Gordon Cheng, your mate, hasn't made an error, then you or he can tell us exactly when Israel/Jews stole the land."

I don't know. All I'm saying is; "Israel stole the land" is not necessarily an anti-semtical comment. At worst it is grossly false and needs correcting.

John said...

So, Geoff, if I say Catholic priests are homosexuals, the only thing one can draw from that is "at worst it is grossly false and needs correcting."? Surely it implies that I'm anti-Catholic as well!

geoffc said...

Well it is a similar thing to racism. You are saying that because someone is Catholic they are therefore homosexuals.

Gordon may be anti-Israel, but that does not necessarily make him anti-semite. You would have to ask him what being anti-Israel is to him. If being anti-semite is opposing voilent acts of Israel, that is not a correct view of what an anti-semite is. However, if someone were to say they are anti-israel because they don't like Jews, or because they think all Israeli's make silly decisions, or anything that aims to make the Jews viewed collectively (eg. because Jews are gamblers, NOT, Jews are descendants of Israel, or God's chosen people)

Saying "Israel stole the land" is not anti-semetic.

John said...

So, Geoff, Gordon doesn't believe that Israel is a country full of and for Jews?

As a goy, can I automatically become an Israeli citizen? No.

If I am a Jew can I? Yes, automatically I have the right of return.

The right of return to what? A country established for Jews.

Gordon, like you, knows that Israel is a Jewish country.

You still have not outlined what Gordon believes but you just intend muddying the waters to make others forget that Gordon accused corporate Israel, a Jewish nation, of theft. That makes him an anti-Semite.

If you don't believe me, go to Bondi and ask any Jew there and see if they think I'm wrong. And while you're there repeat the other claims from Mark Tough and Luke Stevens and see if they think these guys aren't anti-Semites.

If you believe as a Christian that offending a very large group of non-Christian people is a demonstration of the love of Christ then one has to think you really don't understand the Gospel.

geoffc said...

"So, Geoff, Gordon doesn't believe that Israel is a country full of and for Jews?"

Yes he does

"Gordon accused corporate Israel, a Jewish nation, of theft. That makes him an anti-Semite'

No it doesn't, it means he disaproves of their actions. From this it seems you misunderstand what anti-semitism is. If Gordon said "Jews are theives", that would be anti-semitism. I have a feeling you won't get the difference though.

"If you believe as a Christian that offending a very large group of non-Christian people is a demonstration of the love of Christ then one has to think you really don't understand the Gospel."

You don't really believe this statement. The gospel is offensive to everyone who isn't a christian. And preaching it is an act of love.

This is really interesting actually. You accuse the SA's of being friends with the world, then you say that offending a large group of non-christians is unchristian? What about all the non christians scientists you guys offend? I'm pretty sure you don't mean that statement, or understand what you have just written. I will assume it was a mistake.

Eric said...

Geoffc, Gordon is factually wrong on Israel's founding, and seemingly its history, so to abuse the truth in this case looks prima facie like antisemitism; incidently it is identical to the smear propaganda that emanates from Israel's enemies, who are purely religiously motivated to see Islam dominate the region (the world, in fact).

BTW, If you accuse Israel of theft, then, as Israel is basically made up of Jews, the accusation has been automatically leveled at Jews, has it not? Maybe not all Jews, but some, and a very large number of Jews, acting in their nation state, so, at least those Jews!

In formal terms the Bible tells us of the offense of the gospel, but I've met people who are quite pleased to hear it! Preaching it is an act of love, but only if done in a loving way, so that people can connect the gospel to their life world and make sense of it... which brings me to your barb about 'offending' non-christian scientists...

What is the offense? Identifying some scientists' ideas as materialist? Stephen J Gould was quite happy with that idea; I'm sure many other scientists are too. So, is disagreement offense? Bang goes any critical engagement.

The point of SAD's flirting with the world is in the adoption of its materialism as an explantatory grid through which to understand the Bible, instead of using the Bible as the explanatory grid through which to make theology and proclaim the gospel.

Eric said...

I thought I'd comment a little more on the idea of 'offending' some scientists.

Creationists of course do offend scientists (and a whole bunch of athiests with philosophical commitment to naturalism/materialism; their religion, in short) but the offense is not about science. It is about the exposure of their conflation of presuppositional, or religious, adherence; usually to materialism, even for Christians who work in science, sadly, with the work of science.

It is when science is made a purely material exploit that creationists (and this should include all Christians who adopt Biblical thinking) level their criticism because the attempt is made, even if unconsciously, to trade illegitimately on the proven capital of science: its a case of take my religion with my science, or take nothing.

But as a large number of commentators have pointed out, science came about because of creationist presuppositions: the birth of modern science was made possible and informed by biblical creationism, as we'd call it today; and the realist approach to the world that is encouraged by a Biblical realism. If that is jettisoned, then science, which itself is impossible on purely materialist presupppositions (I would mention C S Lewis's criticism of materialisms self refuting nature, as an example), will also collapse...eventually.

Indeed, the evidence is in. I can't cite details, but I read in Southern Cross years ago a report of a survey (in the USA, of course, where all such surveys are done, it seems) that indicated people who accepted 'evolution', thus, 'materialism' were more likely to accept astrology, new age spirituality and non-rational ideas, than Bible believers, who were not.

Warwick said...

Eric you are right again; the survey was entitled 'Superstitions: Old and New' by William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark, printed in the Skeptical Enquirer Summer 1980.

Some comments therein:

'We must not assume however, that fundamentalists reject science as a whole any more vehemently than do other groups.'

'It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science. Here they have registered opposition to but a siingle theory, one that directly contradicts the Bible.'

'On the contrary we shall see that they (religious liberals and the irreligious)are much more likely to accept the new superstitions.'

'It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudosciences proliferating in our society today.'

'Thus those with no religion or only nominal religion are especially likely to accept deviant, exotic alternatives to Christianity, just as they are likely to accept Darwin.' Apparently they are open to new ideas of many kinds, rather than accepting Darwin because they are well-informed secular rationalists.'

'In fact those with no religion are the most favourable towards occultism'

'Therefore a further decline in the influence of traditional religion may not inaugurate a scientific Age of Reason but might instead open the floodgates for a bizarre new Age of Superstition.'

All this came as a great shock to atheists Bainbridge and Stark who would have expected the opposite.

Interestingly the percentages who believed evolutionary theory could not be true were:

Congregationalists, Methodists, Episcopalians (US Anglicans) 11%

Presbyterians, American Lutherans, American Baptists 29%

Church of Christ 78%

Nazarenes 80%

Assemblies of God 91%

Seventh Day Adventists 94%

Interestingly for those here is the very low percentage of US Anglicans who reject Darwinism, and therefore more open to accept new superstitions.

Are people in the SAD so blind they cannot see that their acceptance of theistic-evolutionary beliefs has launched them onto the same 'railway line' as their liberal US brothers, leading to the same 'station' called disbelief, just one stop before the end of the line station called 'Hell?'

neil moore said...

As the world and its variety of false religions go after Darwin then we have another tool to set us apart and reason for the mind of the lost - Jesus Christ in His Creative work and his Redemptive work.

Neil Moore

John said...

Stark and Bainbridge wrote: "Apparently they [i.e. liberals] are open to new ideas of many kinds"

This is reflected in the SADS ready acceptance of this new idea that if a biblical passage contains literary devices, like repetition, chiasmus, numbers, etc, then the passage is not historical prose. They will defend zealously this new fangled explanation but will "not follow the old roads".

I've been informed that John Dickson proposed this to an ISCAST audience at UNSW a few years ago and people were delighted by his novel theory. It was kind of ironic because no one tested his ideas for their soundness and yet many of these guys were scientists who should know better.

The second irony is that these same guys castigate creationists for, supposedly, not testing their theories against data. Pot calling the kettle black, I'd say!

Eric said...

Now that's an eye-opener! They think that chiasmus is a 'literary device' that makes a text non-real (non-literal). How bizzare. Are we now to go through the OT and the NT and relegate every chiastic text to the status of non-history, when chiasmus if found probably in EVERY book, and repeatedly, including in the gospels.

If that's their view, then they have a strange approach to texts, is all I can say, and an even stranger response to the inspiration of the scriptures.

As I understand it chiasmus is a structuring technique that helps give texts form; very important when modern typographic tools were not available. It is also a means of building emphasis and making texts memorable. Nothing to do with making them non realist!!

John said...

I guess that is all part of that SAD-centred way of investigating the world. To hell with what the Classic/Jewish cultural understanding was. We know better than Moses even!

Re chiasmus, there is a chiastic passage in John encapsulating the trial, crucifixion and resurrection account. By SAD/Dickson view, this account is not historical.

Well, hello liberalism!

Ktisophilos said...

Does Dickson believe the following account of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7:6 is historical, given its chiastic structure:

A "Do not give what is holy to dogs,
B and do not throw your pearls before swine,
B’ lest they trample them under their feet,
A’ and turn and tear you to pieces"

And don't these SADs believe that Abraham is historical (although not apparently his ancestry in Gen. 5,11)? So what about the account of God appearing to him in Genesis 17:1-25:

A Abram's age (1a)
B The LORD appears to Abram (1b)
C God's first speech (1b-2)
D Abram falls on his face (3)
E God's second speech
(Abram's name changed, kings; 4-8)
X Central focus: the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision (also God's third speech; 9-14)
E' God's fourth speech
(Sari's name changed, kings; 15-16)
D' Abraham falls on his face (17-18)
C' God's fifth speech (19-21)
B' God "goes up" from Abraham (22)
A' Abraham's age (24-25)

Ktisophilos said...

Does that Anglocompromising poseur Dickson believe that the Passion narratives of John 18:1–19:42 are historical, given that they have the following chiastic structure?

A Conflict in the Garden. The Brook Kidron (River of Death). Judas and Peter. (Principle of substitution) (18:1-9)
B Inspection of the Passover Lamb by High Priest (18:10-27).
C Jews demand death based on the law. Evil doing = working miracles (18:28-32).
D From where is your kingdom? (18:33-38a).
E Not guilty of rebellion (18:38b-40).
X Bearing the curse of Adam. Crown of thorns/scarlet robe
(19:1-3).
E' Not guilty of falsely claiming to be the Son of God (because of course he is the true Son of God) (19:4-8).
D' From where are you? (19:9-11).
C' Jews demand death based on their loyalty to Caesar (Representative of the god of this world) (19:12-16a).
B' Death of the Lamb of God crushing the Head of the Serpent and offering a World Sacrifice. (Principle of Substitution) (19:16b-30).
A' Royal Burial in the Garden. New River of Life. Joseph and Nicodemus. (Principle of
Substitution) (19:31-42).

Ktisophilos said...

The whole Gospel of Mark has been arranged in chiastic form:

A Beginning - John points to Jesus 1:4-8
B Jesus' baptism - The splitting of the heavens, "You are my son," 1:9-11
C Jesus is tested in the wilderness 1:12-13
D The parable of the sower 4:1-9
E Raising of the young girl 5:21-43
F The death of John the Baptist 6:14-29
G Stilling of the second storm (exorcism of the deep) 6:45-52 H Peter's confession 8:27-30
X Jesus' first passion prediction 8:31-33
H' Transfiguration 9:2-10
G' Exorcism of possessed boy 9:14-29
F' Appearance of the rich (young) man 10:17-22
E' Raising of the young man in Secret Mark (followed Mark 10:34)
D' Parable of the vineyard 12:1-11
C' Jesus is tested in the temple 12:13-27
B' Jesus dies, the temple veil is split "Truly this was God's son." 15:33-39
A' The "post-runner" the young man, points to Jesus 16:1-8

Warwick said...

And here's me thinking Chiasmus was Zeugma's mother in law!

neil moore said...

You just can't say that Ktisophilos!

Don't you know who you are disparaging?

It is John Dickson - the JOHN DICKSON!!!

This man is the hope of the Diocese. He has been nurtured, feted, appraised, upbraided, caressed and put on the pedestal that few before him have ascended.

His interpretation of Genesis is now the retreat of the Diocese since the Framework Hypothesis crumbled.

Don't do this!!! Don't do it!!!
To whom shall we turn? What are we worth if we have no "Go to man".

No, leave our Diocese and our hero alone. We might be in error but we are comfortable.

Neil Moore

John said...

KT,

John Dickson and his followers are just another example of the influence of postmodernism: allow the reader to control the meaning, not the text or the writer.

Chiasmus was a ubiquitous technique in ancient writing and did not indicate ahistoricity. It was a useful device because it, inter alia, assisted memorisation of lengthy passages and allowed the most important statements to be located at the centre.

The irony of all of this is that Dickson teaches ancient history at a tertiary level yet he has failed to recognise that ancient writers incorporated these literary devices into their historical projects.

Dave Lankshear said...

"You may have asked yourself why I am so harsh in tone against these Anglican anti-Semites."
Not any more — I know why. You're obsessed to the point of being quite ill. Please see a doctor.

Ktisophilos said...

Does Dave Lankshear share Goebbels Cheng's antisemitism?

Dave Lankshear said...

You see, that's what I love about this site, the stinging nasty personal insults for... what? I maintain that your being so far outside the 'mainstream' science has left most of you bitter and twisted by hate.

Why would I bother defending myself against people as irrational and, to be blunt, ill as yourselves? You've isolated yourselves into this cosy little online huddle where you congratulate each other for truly spiteful posts, and completely socialise one-another into further acts of nastiness against your Christian brothers.

There's a difference between being vigorous in theology and being completely psychotic.

So please retract that nasty personal accusation, or this conversation is over. If you want to know what my theology is, I'll discuss that with you, but if you want to attack a straw-man, you don't need me around to do it. You can entertain yourself that way all you like.

Ktisophilos said...

Stop whinging. Lankshear never minded all the nasty stuff that Goebbels Cheng and the other AngloNasties dished out against creationists and now Israel, but he's hypersensitive when the victims of said AngloNasties answer back.

Dave Lankshear said...

Stay on subject.
And I did mind, and he did apologise, and you haven't.

gwen said...

Over at his site Dave Lankshear attempted a response to John's intelligent probing but, being unable to offer anything intelligent, Dave Lankshear reponded repeatedly in personal jibes. I then will respond to Dave Lankshead in the way he only knows how.

David I think you have to much Peak Oil between your ears!

Gwen

John said...

Dave reckoned that "he did apologise"

Sorry, I must have been asleep, but who from your time-space continuum apologised?

Dave Lankshear said...

Gordon lost his temper at one point and posted something inappropriate. SA's were offended, you guys got all offended, he apologised and retracted it. Meanwhile good old "heretics" continues to post slanderous, filthy, liable rubbish.

nice to see that verse about 'correcting with gentleness' being obeyed, but I guess you guys have got more important things to do... like defend Genesis 1 as literally describing what happened, rather than a literary theological rebuke to THE pagan epic of the day.

Warwick said...

DaveL we have all said and done things for which we as Christians have had to apologize. So please cut and paste Gordon's apology here or have him repeat his apology here.

Otherwise anyone reading here is obviously quite free to believe you fibbed.

John said...

Dave wrote: "nice to see that verse about 'correcting with gentleness' being obeyed"

What, you actually took that literally? Didn't you recognise Paul's pun in Koine serving as a polemic jest against the similar pun in 5th century Akkadian. Boy did we intellectuals just roll over laughing at Paul's keen sense of dark humour. Now, Dave, see if you had done an Arts Degree instead of learning how to kiss ass, I mean kick ass, then you may have seen the poetic/metaphoric/ironic/literary device levity of Paul.

Dave Lankshear said...

Warwick, this all started because I linked to the Enuma Elish and enjoyed the link Craig S provided and John started attacking my faith but refusing to answer my questions about the Enuma Elish.

I'm sorry if you're salivating over having a big row over your hobby horse, but I'm not here to play 20 questions with you, and I'm not going to be interrogated by you.

Dozens of different scientific disciplines rely on certain understandings of the age of the universe, from astronomy and the speed of light through to discovering oil, from global warming and the age of the ice caps and the data that is trapped their through to other geological processes, ALL indicate to hundreds of thousands of scientists that we live in a very old universe and world, and either:

1. God is a trickster and made it 'look old', such as providing instant starlight already beamed across billions of lightyears of space to the earth (which makes the universe LOOK really old). This reply means that God willingly made a universe that LOOKS old to modern scientists, but of course calls into account the character of the creationist god who then sounds more like Coyote than the God I read about in the bible, OR:

2. There's a massive worldwide conspiracy against the modern scientific enterprise so powerful and awful that I'm doomed to never getting to the truth anyway, especially as a non-scientist, so why bother? I'm saved, that's what is important.

So I'm just too BORED to even try to attempt debating where I see modern science, I'm honest enough to admit I'm not a scientist, many here put on 'airs' about their own level of scientific understanding but I'm not going to help them indulge that either. I'M NOT GOING TO DEBATE IT WITH YOU! I hope we are clear on that.

The sole reason I am here is that John started swearing on my blog and writing really unfair arguments, and so I closed the blog... but he never completed the argument. He never answered my questions about the Enuma Elish and inter-textual references, and I thought you should all know that. So wipe your mouth, stop salivating about a new scientific debate with me taking months or years and involving my reading the next 200 creationist books or so, because I'll just laugh if you suggest it.

Warwick said...

Dave one common trait of those who accept long-ages and evolution is an unwillingness to debate the issues. It doesn't matter whether it is on this site, or a US site I blog on, or face to face, people are strong on rhetoric and correspondingly weak on substance.

On this site Healeyhatman wrote confidently about how some undisclosed dating method proves billions of years. I have asked him to explain how this works and his reply had the substance of-I refuse to reply on the grounds that it may incriminate me. He said that if he gave an explanation I would only give evidence of where it is wrong. Too right I would, and why not?

I have done quite a little study on this issue and corresponded with a few long age 'experts' in the field and found them evasive. I had some correspondence with Dr Tom Higham a carbon 14 specialist at an English university regarding the discovery of timber in nearby limestone which was carbon dated at around 20,000 yrs old. This is a problem as evolutionists date this limestone at about 30 million years. This is an error of about 1500 times magnitude. I trust you see the real problem. Tom replied that it was probably because of contamination or poor lab. work. I replied that I would supply a Ph.D. scientist to accompany him to assure no contamination occurred and to assist in the lab. work to assure it was properly done. Understandably Tom declined to take part. He would not dare because the presence of 14C in the timber would show the age of the limestone to be in the thousands of years, not millions. He would become very unpopular with his colleagues having assisted creationists defend their beliefs! Imagine what Dawkins would do with him!

The presence of 14C elsewhere has shown many other supposedly ancient rocks to be quite 'young'.

In in Hawaii basalt known to be 200years old because of eye-witness reports dated at up to 3 billion years old. My calculator isnt able to compute the degree of error.

Carbon 14 has been found in diamonds supposedly billions of years old, but obviously not.

But hey none of this will affect you because you 'know' we are wrong not that you know how you know Dave. You and others assume we who believe in a young earth are scientifically illiterate or just avoiding 'facts' when the reality is the other way around.

Another common trait of long-agers is to admit they are not scientists, not really boned up on the subjects, but none the less convinced we are wrong.

Dave Lankshear said...

I know Christians who are TE's and Christians who are YEC's. You guys are the only Christians I know that attach such hatred and bile to the whole thing... if indeed you really are Christians. John's not even sure about his atonement theology!

So he writes with hatred and scorn in his blog, and is so appalling that the Creationists on Sydney Anglicans, the very guys you were trying to write in support of on this blog, were HORRIFIED and DISGUSTED by this blog. That's got to tell you something.

On the C14 thing... there's debate even about those facts that you present as so solidly, and that's just as an outsider 'skimming' the subject on various science forums that I mainly go to for ENERGY information.

Now, we have a lazy church that's been dulled into inactivity by modern entertainment, and you want them to get all revved up and .... preach the gospel? No! Deal with an important humanitarian crisis such as the approaching end of the oil age? No! Read books and books and books about how the WHOLE modern scientific enterprise is misguided, and only a few select creationists have it right, and .... (yawns) I'm done with this trolling blog. This is going nowhere. You've obviously attracted STACKS of readers to your blog with your insightful and polite and RELEVANT replies. Goodbye.

Ktisophilos said...

More straw man by the non-scientist Lankshear:

"1. God is a trickster and made it 'look old', such as providing instant starlight already beamed across billions of lightyears of space to the earth (which makes the universe LOOK really old). This reply means that God willingly made a universe that LOOKS old to modern scientists,"

I think it looks young. In fact, we don't see age; we infer it by interpreting observations according to a framework. You managed to ignore Warwick's point about 14C in diamonds, which shouldn't be there if they were over a million years old.

Of course, informed creationists don't believe the light created in transit theory, another dishonest straw man, typical of the AngloCompromisers. See what informed creationists really think about distant starlight.

"but of course calls into account the character of the creationist god who then sounds more like Coyote than the God I read about in the bible, OR: "

Who is the real trickster? The likes of Lankshear and Dickson trick themselves by ignoring the clear historical narrative that God revealed in Genesis, preferring instead godless uniformitarian "science".

In fact, they make God the trickster, for writing an account that has misled most Jews and Christians for millennia into thinking that God really created in six days.

"2. There's a massive worldwide conspiracy against the modern scientific enterprise so powerful and awful that I'm doomed to never getting to the truth anyway, especially as a non-scientist, so why bother? I'm saved, that's what is important."

We leave conspiracy theories to peak oil paranoids. It's not necessary here; it's a matter of a shared materialistic world view.

Ktisophilos said...

Goebbels Cheng repeatedly attacked YEC, and worse, attacked the One who designed the wonders we see on account of Cheng's ignorance of koala pouches. More recently, he has shown his antisemitic true colours by calling Israel "thieves", and ignoring the wanton violence against them by people who want to exterminate all Jews. I've not seen his apology.

geoffc said...

" More recently, he has shown his antisemitic true colours by calling Israel "thieves", and ignoring the wanton violence against them by people who want to exterminate all Jews. I've not seen his apology."

I provided a quote earlier to show this wasn't the case. He said he opposed voilence from both sides.

Warwick said...

Dave you said 'On the C14 thing... there's debate even about those facts that you present as so solidly, and that's just as an outsider 'skimming' the subject on various science forums that I mainly go to for ENERGY information'

Please excuse this old hillbilly but what are you talking about? What facts are debated?

Ktisophilos said...

Oh how big of Goebbels Cheng to condemn "violence on both sides". That's like an alleged condemnation of Hitler by pointing out violence on both the Allied and Axis side as if they were morally equivalent.

geoffc said...

Maybe. But you didn't originally say that. You misrepresented him.

John said...

GeoffC said: "I provided a quote earlier to show this wasn't the case. He said he opposed voilence from both sides."

So what! Such insipid comments is only indicative of a weak man. He sounds like a Jehovah Witness, our buddy Gordon.

So when Jesus went into the Temple and whipped the money changers out does Gordon oppose that violence too.

I tell you something Geoff, if a man came into my house and touched my wife, my kid, I would literally slice his throat open and then pull his eyes out. Any man with red blood would take another man's life for hurting what was not his. Are you some sort of girly boy or would you do the same as I to protect your family? Or would you be like that wimp Gordon and tell the intruder, "Now, now, I oppose your violence."

The Israelis are only doing the same to protect their "family". The West allowed 6 million, almost half their race, to die in camps. Never again. The Muslims want to do it again or to have them as dhimmi. Gordon's effeminate hippy crap makes me puke. Oh, Gordo opposes violence on both sides. Who does that nancy whacko think he is? He's just another Christian bigot who disguises his anti-semitism by his peace rhetoric.

As an Irish mate of mine said, "A pacifist is just another synonym for coward."

gwen said...

Dave Lankshear said: "You guys are the only Christians I know that attach such hatred and bile to the whole thing... if indeed you really are Christians"

Again personal attacks as a response to intelligent debate from other posters here.

You really haven't got much to contribute to the world Dave, have you? Even on environmental issues, do you really contribute anything except buy The Greens newspaper?

Gwen

gwen said...

BTW, it would be a sin to tell a lie. That said I must ask GeoffC - Are you Gordon Cheng?

Gwen

geoffc said...

"and ignoring the wanton violence against them by people who want to exterminate all Jews. I've not seen his apology."

I was responding to this. It's a false statement. That's all.

geoffc said...

@Gwen - No. It would take a certain type of character to not use their real name.

You'd have to be scared about something wouldn't you?

John said...

Oh, here we go...once again. Repeat the same lie that Gordon has been slandered, that he didn't accuse the Jews of anything.

But he did. Or are you now lying for Gordon or just so wrapped up in protecting SADS from any attack that you'll obfuscate to the nth degree to make sure people can't remember what Gordon and the other horrible anti-Semites said?

To refresh everyone's memory concerning what Luke Stevens, Gordon Cheng et al said:

1. “Israel shouldn’t have taken land that didn’t belong to them. “Thou shalt not steal”

i.e. Jews are thieves

2. “[The Jews] displacement of the people in Palestine was real, cruel and wrong…[and the Arabs] were removed by violence.”

i.e. Jews are thieves and murderers


3. “[The Jews instigate] collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza, which contravenes the Geneva convention.”

i.e. Jews are international criminals

4. “The Jews took the land by force. They did it with some viciousness….I think the West is becoming less supportive of Israel [because the Jews have caused] the dreadful conditions imposed on the state of Palestine, the overkill of many Israeli reprisal attacks and the assassination campaigns that also caused civilian casualties and…it is hard to justify the way Israel came into being…and the US kow towing to Israel’s demand….Israel has a right to exist insofar as…nothing can [now] be done about it. But, until it owns up to the atrocities it has perpetrated in doing so I will refrain from being overjoyed about its birthday.”


i.e. Jews are thieves, murderers, international war criminals

4. “[The Jews caused] the Gaza blockade and the collective punishment of the 1.4 million citizens of Gaza [and caused] raw sewage [to pool] in the streets.”

i.e. Jews caused the spread of diseases

So, point all of us here to the apologies from these anti-Semites. Or is it mythical like your views on Genesis 1, Exodus 20 and 31?

Ktisophilos said...

Next will Goebbels Cheng be dusting off The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and the Blood Libel, both very popular in the lands surrounding Israel?

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,