Who would Jesus kill?

[Guest]

I have no idea who the people you have quoted are. Are you suggesting the fact that they are scholars makes their viewpoint infallible, or that they are Jewish? Or is life more complicated than that?

If you're the type to defer to academe, here is what world renowned new testament scholar Kittle had to say in 1946:

Christianity in Germany bears a greater responsibility before God than the National Socialists, the SS, and the Gestapo.

Is he infallible too?

You don't who Golda Meir is? Then you are truly ignorant.

From Wikipedia:

Golda Meir (born Golda Mabovitz, May 3, 1898; died December 8, 1978) was one of the founders of the State of Israel. Meir served as the Minister of Labor, Foreign Minister, and then as the fourth Prime Minister of Israel from March 17, 1969, to June 3, 1974. As BBC put it, Golda Meir was the "Iron Lady" of Israeli politics years before the epithet was coined for Margaret Thatcher. David Ben-Gurion once described her as "the only man in the Cabinet." She is the first (and, to date, only) female Prime Minister of Israel, and was the third female Prime Minister in the world.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golda_Meir

Ignoramus . . .

[Guest]

The state of Israel must invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the methods of provocation and revenge.... And above all, let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." (From the diary of Moshe Sharett, Israeli's first Foreign Minister from 1948-1956, and Prime Minister from 1954-1956).

Hmm. Nice guy.

When one cannot refute the substance of a statement, one attacks the person making the statement. That describes the logical fallacy called ad hominem, which is what you are reduced to.

That he was a radical Zionist doesn't make him a liar or suggest any motive for him to lie about what the Catholic Church had "done in the various countries to rescue Jews."

He is referring th actions by the Catholic Church to rescue Jews.

[Guest]

The state of Israel must invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the methods of provocation and revenge.... And above all, let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." (From the diary of Moshe Sharett, Israeli's first Foreign Minister from 1948-1956, and Prime Minister from 1954-1956).

Hmm. Nice guy.

When one cannot refute the substance of a statement, one attacks the person making the statement. That describes the logical fallacy called ad hominem, which is what you are reduced to.

That he was a radical Zionist doesn't make him a liar or suggest any motive for him to lie about what the Catholic Church had "done in the various countries to rescue Jews."

He is referring to actions by the Catholic Church to rescue Jews.

And note that Meir and Sharett lived during the period they are describing.

[Guest]

I have made not one ad hominem attack in five pages. Are you finally admitting that your many ad hominem attacks on me (fool, knave, anti-christian bigot etc etc) meant that you couldn't refute the substance of my statements? if you could, you haven't yet...

"The state of Israel must invent dangers"
"That ... doesn't make him a liar"

hmmm

[Guest]

And note that Meir and Sharett lived during the period they are describing.

Oh that's alright then

[Guest]

And note that Meir and Sharett lived during the period they are describing.

Oh that's alright then

Yes, it is relevant that Meir and Sharett lived during the period they are describing to the extent they are describing contemporaneous actions and deeds. They are not historical revisionists with an anti-Catholic or anti-Christian agenda.

[Guest]

I have made not one ad hominem attack in five pages. Are you finally admitting that your many ad hominem attacks on me (fool, knave, anti-christian bigot etc etc) meant that you couldn't refute the substance of my statements? if you could, you haven't yet...

"The state of Israel must invent dangers"
"That ... doesn't make him a liar"

hmmm

You ad hominem is directed at Sharett because you cannot refute the substance of what he said.

What next? That he was an adulterer?

Why would Sharett fabricate the Catholic Church's actions "done in the various countries to rescue Jews?

[mogadishu]

wtf? where's my ad hominem attack on sharret? you seem to be making this up as you go along...

[Guest]

I have made not one ad hominem attack in five pages. Are you finally admitting that your many ad hominem attacks on me (fool, knave, anti-christian bigot etc etc) meant that you couldn't refute the substance of my statements? if you could, you haven't yet...

"The state of Israel must invent dangers"
"That ... doesn't make him a liar"

hmmm

You ad hominem is directed at Sharett because you cannot refute the substance of what he said.

What next? That he was an adulterer?

Why would Sharett fabricate the Catholic Church's actions "done in the various countries to rescue Jews"?

And how will you attack Golda Meir?

Was she lying because she was ugly?

[mogadishu]

There's no need to attck the substance of either of them, because they're statements are not factually substantive. They're value judgments. where do they back up what they say?

[Guest]

wtf? where's my ad hominem attack on sharret? you seem to be making this up as you go along...

You are unable to refute his statement about the Catholic Church so you are calling him a liar based on something totally unrelated.

That is called ad hominem.

[mogadishu]

Where do I say he was a liar? Where?

Incidentally, you have made four ad hominem attacks on me already. Do you suddenly dislike this type of fallacious reasoning?

[mogadishu]

You are unable to refute his statement about the Catholic Church so you are calling him a liar based on something totally unrelated.

In a personal opinion, which is not backed up by evidence, there's nothing to refute.

[Guest]

There's no need to attck the substance of either of them, because they're statements are not factually substantive. They're value judgments. where do they back up what they say?

Really?

Sharret describes actions of the Catholic Church "done in the various countries to rescue Jews." That's not a value judgment.

The Romanian rabbi I quoted describes actions of the Catholic Church. That's not a value judgment.

And this is the "factually substantive" statement without "value judgments" in support of your accusations: "Christianity in Germany bears a greater responsibility before God than the National Socialists, the SS, and the Gestapo."

Please . . . you're embarrassing yourself now.

[mogadishu]

.....