apparently not.

This is not the way to go as this is stooping to the level of the Muslims burning churches in Iraq and Egypt. But having said that isn't this a bit HYPOCRITICAL? ''The Palestinian Authority described the mosque burnings as "hate crimes" Please with the history of the PLO and Hamas?

There will be no doubt a multitude of replies to this question all giving the same basic answer: "Religion, it causes all wars." And they will be right. All wars are caused by religion because all wars are caused by fallen human nature which is very religious.

It is that way because a major component of our fallen nature is self worship. "...you shall be as God" is a hereditary heart belief that we are all stuck with.

So in a sense, all wars have been religious wars.

This problem is exclusively100% religious. The absurdity of believing every current and prior religions are all false, and only one religion is the true word of god, makes for mental illness, horrible violent neighbors and a very poor conscience.

Thanks god.

The Palestinian Authority ...in a statement called on the international community to hold the Israeli government responsible for settler violence.

Sheer and utter stupidity, if a few Americans went to Canada and started burning mosques there, would the Canadian government blame Obama? They would be laughed straight out of office. Although there are many things we can rightfully blame on Obama, and Bush2, the actions of a few individuals are not among those things!

King Dave,

"This problem is 100% religious. The absurdity of believing every current and prior religions are all false, and only one religion is the true word of god, makes for mental illness, horrible violent neighbors and a very poor conscience."

There may be a certain amount of truth in that, but I think militant atheism is just as bad as militant religion. They both involve trying to force one's own world view on others.

peacelover @ 20.2, bear in mind that this was has been going on much longer than the 1948 establishment of the Jewish homeland. You have to look, instead to the days of Moses. And the Palestinians are not the only 'bad guys' in the equation, either. The desecration has been a two-way street. It has been interesting to watch as one side or the other gains the upper hand and the opposition, who previously had no interest in talking peace, suddenly decides they are ready to sit down at the table. Then, when peace or peace talks break down, the fighting returns with renewed force. Eventually, ten years or fifty or whatever, the tide turns. The 'other' side now owns the side of dominance. Then the previously in control body is now the 'downtrodden' and they are ready to negotiate peace. (One has only to look back at the many 'overnight settlements' - modular buildings Israelis put up in the middle of the night and filled with families inside the Palestinian territories in the '60s to see how Israel has been just as much of an abuser of the relationship with the Palestinians as any Palestinian forces)

Shimon Peres has taken a giant leap forward in condemning the attacks. It will be interesting to see if he is really willing to 'put his money where his mouth is'. And Bibi Netanyahu must also be praised for his determination to 'rein in' the militant settlers. But, unless the government acts quickly (oops! too late) and decisively and in no uncertain terms takes action to punish the militant Israelis, it is nothing more than lip service.

The United States has, heretofor been in the minority in blindly supporting Israel to the detriment of Palestine. It is only in the past few years that the U.S. has started to move more in line with the majority of the rest of the world in a more moderate, objective stance where the Palestinian/Israeli conflicts are concerned and decried the illegal activities perpetrated by Israelis against Palestinians.

Perhaps, had the United States been more dispassionate forty or sixty years ago and viewed the wars with a more detached, objective eye, the Palestinians might not feel such animosity towards the nation as a whole. Hm?

Off hand I can't think of a single war over Atheism.

Dick, can you think of an atrocity commited by an athiest though? We're human, religious or not, the common denominator in any conflict of atrocity is that they were committed by humans not by a particular group or religion.

Dick, can you think of an atrocity commited by an athiest though?

No Alias .. there's a big difference in an atrocity committed BY an atheist ... and atrocity and wars IN THE NAME OF atheism. How many atrocities can you think of that are committed IN THE NAME of atheism?

Now, how many in the name of (fill in the blank) religion?

As a Jew, as a Zionist, I 1000%, categorically deplore this heinous act.

Dick, can you think of an atrocity commited by an athiest though?

Dick said 'war', but changing the parameters to 'atrocity' makes it a pretty broad category that just about any bill would fit.

The key is in what name were those atrocities perpetrated?

Atheism is not a belief or philosophy that people kill for. Killing 'in the name of Atheism' makes no more sense than if you were killed by a fat person in the name of 'fatness'.

Maybe to make it more clear I need to flip it around - the Inquisition was not perpetrated in the name of "theism", it was done in the name of religious doctrines. The belief systems of a religion are what inspired Inquisitors to torture and kill, not just "Theism"....

To head you off, I know you will bring up Stalin or something. That logic does not follow, though. Religious people may have been killed by him, but not in the name of atheism. The killing was done because of the perceived threat of organized religion to Stalin's regime, and many religious institutions were directly opposed to Stalin. So it has more to do with a establishing his Dictatorship than anything atheism.

hummmmmmmmmm

"Suspicion fell on Jewish extremists widely assumed to be behind stepped-up violence against Palestinians and the Israeli military."

It would be "rewarding" to see the Israeli military to bulldoze the unauthorized Jewish settlements and attack them with tanks and gunships as they have the Palestinians over the years. Israel suffers continuing loss of world support because of the "Fairness" issue. If they want to have any hope of renewing it ... treat these Israeli "terrorist" settlers for what they are ..Terrorist !

Without a display of good faith, Israel, in the long term, is doomed to everlasting war with its Palestinian population ...

Kind of funny when Netanyahu is the good cop in the good cop/bad cop routine. And this is a man who is congenitally unable to compromise even when it is blindingly obvious that his own country needs it.

Hey, I'll gladly admit to the wrong doings of my religious organization.

My faith teaches me about the great leveling of humanity, that none is more justified than the other, that we are all capable of violence and malice. I'm excusing the actions of those throughout history who cloak themselves in religion and act unjustly or violently, I'm simply saying you can't throw a stone at a religious man for being violent without also pointing to the irreligious' violence.

I realize I changed the perameters but I want to include all of humainty in our propensity for violence and not exclude the violence of some because it was not official acts of war.

Also, Stalinist USSR, an athiest government commited heinous acts against their satilites states.

Also, Stalinist USSR, an athiest government commited heinous acts against their satilites states.

But not in the name of atheism. Atheism wasn't used to justify, motivate, or otherwise inspire killing.

Atheism is the lack of a belief. There is no system of beliefs tied to atheism because it's simply not possible for a non-belief to have beliefs lol. It's about as logical as saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby.... or that your favorite activity is inactivity...

That's the difference, Adam, as I have already explained above yet you seem unwilling to accept. The comparison of religious zealots to atheists is empty on its face and only indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is.

You're also forgetting the Christian genocide of Jews in the 1940s. Given that for some reason they like to bring up the Holocaust whenever there's an article about Israel, Christians wouldn't be so quick to forget the blood on their hands.

Shuklack:

Who cares though?

The question is, would the number of atrocities be reduced without religion? Over time, I don't think so. Which leads me to believe that even when people are claiming acts of war or atrocities in the name of religion, it's more of an excuse or facade than anything else. It's ultimately the human element that is the cause.

Although I do think that Islam produces more violence than other religions in today's world. From what I understand, Islam is a very beaurocratic religion, which can easily result in abuse of power by those at the top.

I think I have to side a bit with Adam on the Stalin aspect. Since religion was basically made illegal in USSR, people were killed in the name of non-religion, aka atheism. While I agree that Stalin's motives were really just political, and not based on a hate of the religious, I find it hard to deny the fact that people were killed because they would not abandon their religion and espouse a doctrine of non worship.

Mitty, you just yourself admitted that they were killed because of politics, not religion.

Same thing with a lot of the supposedly religious wars. Someone at the top grips on some piece of doctrine to further his politcal aspirations. I really don't see the difference. It's the "icon" that we are comparing here. Stalin made religion illegal because religion didn't fit in with Marxism, but it was actually because the various religious organizations opposed him. No different than kings sending their armies to the holy land in the name of Christendom, when all they really wanted was an excuse to pilliage and possibly expand territory and influence.

Who cares though?

I do - that very fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes atheism is the primary cause for why religious people are more likely to trust a rapist than an atheist.

I can't help but care to correct irrational misconceptions and hatred directed toward any group due to fuzzy logic and thought-terminating cliches.



Someone at the top grips on some piece of doctrine to further his politcal aspirations.

Agreed, but I don't think you udnerstand the difference. In those cases, religion is used as a tool to influence and motivate such violence. Doctrines and the innate authoritarian nature of religious dogma acts as a catalyst for such things. Atheism has no dogma, no set of beliefs, and no doctrine. Atheism is simply the lack of belief. It cannot, by its nature, be used to justify violence... there are no passages, no doctrine, no beliefs to twist and to cite in order to do so.

Like my example of the Inquisition above, Theism alone is not the motivating factor for religious violence - it's the set of doctrinal beliefs and assertions that accompany a religion that do that. Atheism, being the lack of theism, is even more incapable of motivating such things.

N, your second question is spot on.

The question is, would the number of atrocities be reduced without religion?

I agree with you in assuming an absence of religion would not translate into less violence. I'm just suggesting that we must blame mans inhumanity towards man not God. I guess we can blame religion if we must but these are preversions of religion; again the nature of man is at play here.

At that point though, all you do is argue semantics. Saying that the beleif in nothing is not a beleif is in itself fuzzy logic. We're really just splitting hairs here though. All I'm saying is that I land on the side of Stalin outlawing and killing people when necessary, because he wanted to impose the absence of religion. In my mind, that is the same as atheism. Not the killing part, just absence of religion.

What the Israelis have done is called Terrorism! They are terrorizing the Palestinians day in and day out with the Israeli govt backing up these terrorist settlers bent on wiping out the Palestinians. Israel is just putting on a show acting as if they want the terrorism against the Palestinians to stop when in fact its Israel who is supporting these terrorist settlers to carry out guerilla warfare. I dont seee Obama speaking for the palestinians and asking that they be protected, but if it happens to the Jews Obama would wear his yamaka and start crying about religious persecution

Palestinians should just pick up and leave. Go to Jordan. It's not worth the fight and some fleeting sense of nationalism won't matter in the future. I mean if it were me and I was being harrassed I would leave. No amount of pride or nationalism would keep me in a situation I could easily bow out of. If the Israeli government is a bully why continue sitting in their seat on the bus? I know, I know; principles, right? Who needs principles when you're being treated as a second class citizen. The world is a big place, with beatiful places to live. I would suggest the Jews leave but they seem pretty entrenched in the region and I don't want to come across anti-semetic.

All I'm saying is that I land on the side of Stalin outlawing and killing people when necessary, because he wanted to impose the absence of religion. In my mind, that is the same as atheism. Not the killing part, just absence of religion

Yes, he wanted to impose the absence of religion -> for political purposes. He did not want to impose the absence of religion for absence of religion's sake. Afterall, what would be the motivation? Atheism has no higher-power to reward him for establishing atheism, atheism has no doctrines that he had to abide by....

That's the difference. The religious seek to impose God for God's sake, for the sake of the religion, in the name of the religion. That simply can't be done with atheism.

It's not a semantic argument, it's a logical argument. It only seems semantic in your eyes because your understanding of atheism is that it's the philisophical equivalent of a religion. It's not. It can't be by it's very nature. That very misconception is the root cause of your inability to comprehend atheism as a non-player.

Treating atheism like it's a religion would be akin to treating "not stamp collecting" as a hobby.

But shuklack, treating a religious man as though he is different from the irreligious man would be akin to stamp collecting and saying you're not stamp collecting. They are both men, they are the same and have the same propensity for violence

I find it funny, most of the time I am talking to the religious and trying to explain to them they have no moral authority over an irreligious person. I'm normally trying to convince the Christian they are not superior and it's not religion alone that creates morality. Now here I am trying to convince an athiest that he has no moral authority over the religious and that the recognition of our equality as men and women, to do moral things and to do violence, is true enlightenment.

Is religion used as a justification for violence? Yes. But that is not religions' fault that is mans fault.

But that is not religions' fault that is mans fault.

I'd agree from an atheist perspective - since man is who created religion.

But from the perspective of a religious person, the religion was handed down from a higher authority - therefor the influence and motivation that religion provides is not the work of man, but of a 'higher power'.

Ok, I'm abandoning Stalin, because I was just expressing an opinion there. But I must point out a flaw in your hobby analogy. You compare atheists to the non stamp collectors. But there are a great many atheists who actively promote their world view.

The "non stamp collector" atheist would look at Christmas and wonder why all the crazy Christians believe that nonsense.

The "anti-stamp collector" atheist puts up billboards and displays in public places to try and convince the Christians why they are crazy.

It is this active "proselytising" and organizations that exist around atheism that do in fact make it akin to a religion.

Ok, I'll allow you the concession that religion has and can influence people to be violent but I will also say that religion has influenced many people to do wonderful things. I will allow you the concession that religion has been the catylist for violence but I will not concede that it is Gods influence.

Will you concede that all men, religious or not, have the propensity for violence and it is not religion alone that influences men to be violent and therefore religion cannot bare the entire blame for said violence? If you don't want to, I'm not twisting your arm. That's just what I believe.

If one looks carefully at the Graffiti on the Walls of the burned Mosque, THAT is NOT Hebrew writing!!!

The Media, and others are quick to jump on the Jews for everything that goes wrong.

It was a Set Up--wait for furhter information or do research on the Internet re: this Subject.

The "anti-stamp collector" atheist puts up billboards and displays in public places to try and convince the Christians why they are crazy.

Good point - The non-stamp-collector doesn't go out and advocate not collecting stamps.

But the analogy was meant to illustrate what 'atheism' means, not so much illustrate the actions of some atheists.

Yet, in my experience with atheists it's not so much that they are out there trying to score converts, they are out there trying to ensure people understand the atheist perspective and simply challenge people to put their religious beliefs into perspective. It's more to get religious people to realize that not everyone believes what they believe, and the reasons why not everyone believes it.

It's more about protecting the secular rights of everyone from the majority religionist who does not seem to accept that not everyone is religious and that it's ok (and makes perfectly good sense) not to be religious.

It's basically saying "our position is legitimate, and this is why. Is yours? Why? What makes yours more legitimate than mine?" - it's not about converts, because after all - what motivation is there to get someone to convert to nothing? It's about putting things into perspective and exposing the hypocrisies that some lord over others as truths.



Will you concede that all men, religious or not, have the propensity for violence and it is not religion alone that influences men to be violent and therefore religion cannot bare the entire blame for said violence? If you don't want to, I'm not twisting your arm.

I agree with that. My argument was simply about comparing atheism and religion and their roles in the violence that men inflict.

You're alllllright Shuklack. You're alright.

Shucklack-

I think we pretty well see eye to eye there. As with any movement there are always the nuts who give others a bad rap. I've known some pretty nasty atheists, but I've known some very nice ones as well. I don't think being atheist is a reason to dislike someone, any more than them espousing a particular religious view is.

As for the position of religion being legitimate, it's just a matter of faith. An atheist has no faith in there being a deity, the religious do. Spirituality rests outside of the five senses, so it's really not something that's even worth arguing. It's all up to an individual's interpretations of what they feel.

Huh?

Yah, what?

Poetic, but pointless, Sox. They're all just fairy tales.

I agree. I also see atheists becoming extreme and attempting to force their view on others. This is more a problem of human nature in thinking that they are right and the other persons view as wrong.

I also see atheists becoming extreme and attempting to force their view on others

You do? Where? If you mean a billboard in a park among lots of other religious billboards, I'd hardly call that extreme.

Yeah, name ONE, Full House. I DARE you.

I don't believe anything the Palestinians report.

Wait for further information.

SNAPPA--pls read what the Holocaust was about---this is not near the intensity or destruction of 11,000,000 lives killed barbarically in Germany during the 30's. Ask Holocaust Survivors, not all Jews.

BTW: Pearl Harbor being bombed by the Japanese was not a religious War, and neither was the Korean War

This is a good Article for all the Jew Haters to come out.

The Middle Eastern Countries/N. African Countries, presently are all killing themselves. If there were no Jews, they would all be dead. Warriors of the worst kind.

Syria, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Tunisia; blood baths.

Hawaii, i think this article like many others showing that the terrorist Israelis DO NOT WANT PEACE but rather the destruction and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. I dont know how much more obvious it can become that Israels main goal is to wipe Palestine off the map so they can claim their land, right now the are using the terrorist jewish settlers to carry out their attacks. The terrorist Jewish settlers who have been inbreeding for centuries have finally lost their mind and like savage animals are destroying anything in their path

The Nazis did the exact same thing with the synagogues in Germany.

Yes. It was a sanctioned, organized pogrom that destroyed hundreds of Synagogues, businesses and there were attacks all over the country.

The acts taking place in Ramallah are the acts of extremist thugs, and the Israeli Government isn't going to stand for it:

Netanyahu tells Likud meeting "the law is the law, justice is justice," says he won't let radicals "start a religious war, set fire to mosques, attack Jews or non-Jews."

Israel will not allow anyone to harm its police officers or soldiers and anyone who does so "will pay a high price," Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the Likud Central Committee in Tel Aviv Thursday night.

"The law is the law and justice is justice," Netanyahu said, asserting that those who attack IDF forces in Efraim and in Bil'in will be treated the same.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=249662

These thugs and criminals are not going to get away with their despicable acts.

Patriot:

Wrong--

The Israeli's have done more to help the Palestinians than any other country. They have given away most of their land to the Palestinian demands--Palestinians are on Israel's doorstep. Ever heard of HAMAS--leading the Palestinian Government--Abbas willing to let them continue the suicide bombings for fear of his life from HAMAS?---What about the late PLO Leader, Arafat?

Netanyahu is willing to give them more land if they can stop the Violence and murders (they continue to cause havoc on this little State)--

For all the concessions made to Palestine, the Palestinians want to wipe the Israeli's off the face of the earth.

Pls. do the research--It is Israel land, and the Israeli's are far from Terrorists.

Have you been to Israel? Have you been to Palestine, and seen the way their Government treat the lower class (all people)---they are illiterate, no schooling, no nothing.

Your opinion against my experience. Wrong, and more wrong. Very naive thoughts.

Hawaii: I dont need to go to Israel to see how they have commited genocide against the Palestinians. Its been 63 years since the genocide against the Palestinians have been going on with no end in sight, just naive thinking from people like you who believe murdering innocent Palestinian women and children is a way of helping the Palestinians. What kind of twisted thinking does Israelis like yourself have?

Netanyahu is willing to murder the Palestinians, not give them more land(which is theirs). Nutty yahu appeared before the U.N. and performed an incredible show saying he wants peace, guess what? the next week he murdered Palestinians and took their homes than approved Jewish settlements on Palestinians land that was still fresh with Palestinians blood, and you think hes a good guy?

Pls do your research, Israelis are the epitomy of terrorism

Ignorant much? The Israelis have been bending over backwards trying to reach a peace agreement, then Hamas starts in with another round of terrorist attacks, and the PLO insists on unrealistic demands, and it's back to square one.

They are both like spoiled children, Prohibition...each refusing to do the right thing because of something that the other did....yadda yadda.

Both sides have shown that they cannot be effective members of the world community. Neither is able to police themselves effectively.

The only they they both do is to point fingers and lay blame on the other.

How infantile.

Jet, it also takes an incredible amount of humility to admit their wrongs and move past the bickering. Also a sense of nationalism and jingoism is clouding their better judgement.

To take a page from King Solomon's Ecclesiastes, if my interpretation is correct, our pursuits and desires are fleeting, vapid and to spend such time on them, in view of a larger reality and things that matter more, is useless. Trying to define borders and bickering about who's fault it is and worrying about national dominance will, one day, be of little consequence. From dirt we came, to we will return.

The bible is not history and should never be taken as literal truth. It is a collection of stories and for anyone who has ever played Telephone as a kid will know, stories are changed by each person who repeats it.

Don't you just love it how zealots and their supporters only use the Bible when it supports their view? Anything other than that its 'don't use the Bible!'

Feh...

How about this....screw the Bible as an instructional manual on how countries should behave. It doesn't work with individuals, so why should it work with countries?

John,

Every piece of real estate has been challenged by conquerors. The Hebrew's book tells about the Hebrew's ambitions that ends with their nation possessing turf the size of New Jersey. Their Self-declared Enemies want the entire world and are doing everything in their power to do so. Including but not limited to "New Jersey"

I find it hard to believe hat Jews could infiltrate a mosque in a predominately zealous Moslem area where Jews can be beaten on sight or worse.

The mosque was reported to be "doused" with gasoline. Looks like a burn spot on a rug that is overdue for replacement. This is not a very tactically effective move given the risk to the "accused". I think this was staged by those that want us to not to realize that "settlers" are Jewdians that desire to live in Jewdea- the place that moslems renamed "west-bank" 40 years ago. We know what they do with synegogues anywhere in the world once they are confident they have complete control.

We live in the New Testament age now.

Old Testament also said that of all the nations, only one represented God. The others did not. They were considered dogs in the eyes of Jews. "You only have I known of all the families of the earth:..."

Meezermom59, while, strictly speaking, one may not consider the Bible to be history, it is just exactly that. Yes, there are many instances ... too many ... where politics and religious bias have re-written large segments of the book. the same can be said of any other history book as well. Even the stories of WWI, WWII and other major historical events find themselves altered to suit the sentiments of the authoring society. But, at the heart of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, taken from the Torah, is a collection of oral history stories which, just like any other globally important events through the ages, were written down so that, when those who remembered the stories were gone, the history of the clan or society would be remembered.

So, on the face of it, no, the Bible is not a history book, it is, as you say, just a collection of stories. But, giving respect to those people of two and three millenia past, coupled with a few extant documents from the time which, btw, corroborate much of the historical data in the Bible, it is as close to history as they could get.

Ixor Kleb @ 9.4, two things you failed to consider in your rant. This is not the first attack on a mosque, merely one in a series of assaults. Second: the attack occurred just before 5:00 a.m. when the worshippers were coming for morning prayer.

Don't jump to biased conclusions. Take all factors into consideration. And, btw, just because some Zionist zealots are fire-bombing mosques does not automatically mean all Jewish people are Zionist zealots. Take a more moderate look at the situation and you might realize there is some right and some wrong on both sides of the line in the sand.

So, on the face of it, no, the Bible is not a history book, it is, as you say, just a collection of stories. But, giving respect to those people of two and three millenia past, coupled with a few extant documents from the time which, btw, corroborate much of the historical data in the Bible, it is as close to history as they could get.

OK. So Prometheus really did give man fire. Thanks for clearing that up.

Insightful.

Tyler: it seems to me that only when its comes to Jews do you put your foot down, can YOU respect everyone and please also delete posts which also have the same negativity to the Palestinians? Im just saying Tyler is it wrong for you to be fair to EVERYONE? and not only to the Jews

I'm fine with foreign aid to good causes. But Israel has caused the deaths of Americans, so that clearly takes them off of that list. Send foreign aid to nations that need our help, but not ones that represent a threat to the United States.

But Israel has caused the deaths of Americans

America has caused the deaths of many innocent people, as have other nations.

Usually it's an accident.

To toss Israel to the terrorists because of one mistake 45 years ago seems kind of biased.

Those other nations don't give us financial aid. And I'm not talking about the deaths they caused 45 years ago, I'm thinking about the ones they inspired ten years ago. Nearly hree thousand deaths in one day.

Wow! Someone else who actually thought that it just might be slightly possible that it could be arab extremists who did this and blamed the jews for it! I am totally shocked there is someone out there thinking. After all, no one saw who did this and it is just the opinion of the arabs there that it is the settlers because there were Hebrew words written inside. However, almost all the people in that area do speak Hebrew! It is a common language and the terrorists do need to be able to speak it and write it easily to move about in Israel.

and its also possible we will see world piece and iran wont go nuclear... its obvious who did it, as a religious people they would not destroy their temples, just the opposite, they will protect them.

whomever did it, they need to be held accountalbe, punished for their crimes and must pay restitution... or just handed over to the palestines and let them extract justince

I'm speechless, almost. This isn't the first attack by Israeli gangs on Palestinian property--they proudly state they are going to continue the attacks as payback for any action against settlements. And yet you have the gall to suggest it must be Palestinians destroying their own religious sites as part of some devious plot to make Jews look bad!

The arrogant insanity of the Israeli mind knows no bounds.

#82.1

Flagged.

CoH violation.

Actually, if it had been Palestinians burning a synagogue, they'd be called militants, not terrorists. It seems that the Jews can no nothing right, and the Arabs can do nothing wrong. Take a look at coverage for the area - you'll see that's true.

is it just me that finds jarrods comment offensive?

And if this mosque was in the United States, they'd be called "Tea Party Patriots."

If it had been a Palestinien setting fire to a synagogue it would not even have been reported by MSNBC. My thoughts on this is that Jewish people don't do this kind of act, I think it was done by an arab trying to make it look like the Jewish people doing it. I never heard of Jews writting Hebrew Graffiti on the walls, never! It just sounds so stupid.

Well, you could try taking your head out of the sand. I guarantee you'll see a lot of things you didn't see before.

Seriously, eh?

is it just me that finds jarrods comment offensive?

Not at all.

Just a matter of time for that one......and none too soon.

Man was created with a vacuum in his heart that only God can fill. If he does not connect to God, he will fill that vacuum with something else - his or some other man's philosophy. Diety said, "Let us make man in our image ..."

God is spirt. And man is spiritually dead, if he does not have Him. Man will worship a false god, totem pole, cash cow, etc.

Poetic, but it's still just a fairy tale, Lucille. I could write the same sentence about Osiris or Santa Claus.

Religious people all suck!!

Even Mother Theresa?

"...my persecutors shall stumble, and they shall not prevail...."

That's a promise. He is not a man that he should lie

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

The bible is not fiction. It is truth. For all those that oppose it let me clear about one thing: man did not write it.

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

It's called inspiration. Revelation. Illumination.

Camelpucky..Lucy

The bible is not fiction. It is truth. For all those that oppose it let me clear about one thing: man did not write it.

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

It's called inspiration. Revelation. Illumination.

Every religion ever dreamed up claims the same thing. But, of course, your book is the only one that is right or true.

Supposedly, god spoke to Mohammed too, and after the bible was written. Written by the one actually hearing the words, not written hundreds of years later by people living on a completely different continent. What proof do you have that his prophesies are any less valid than the ones you follow?

You do know what we call people that hear voices in their heads, right?

Lucille - you're right - the Bible is NOT fiction and it's not a 6,000 calendar or almanac - it's fantasy pure and simple. Enjoy it for what it is and don't worry about what it isn't. If you are able to extract inspiration from it - fine.