More Irrational Talk about Israel from Superstitious Bible Thumpers
More superstitious talk about how the world should support a nation composed of the modern ethnic group that has named itself "Israel" located in Palestine, from Farah at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51580 . People like Farah opine that we have to attempt to maintain the so-called "Israel" in Palestine because God promised Palestine to this so-called "Israel".
Yet Farah admits that "Israel" could lose Palestine because of its shortcomings and sins, in his own words, he declares that "Israel is being led by men unworthy of God's sovereign promises to bless the Jewish state forever" .
Thus what Farah is saying is that when God promised Palestine to "Israel", God was saying not that "Israel" will always inhabit Palestine, or that the world should always support some kind of "Israel" in Palestine, but that God's will is that Israel should inhabit Palestine although this will of God could end up not being done for various reasons such as the "unworthiness", the shortcomings of the Israelis.
So then how can Farah and persons like him, insist that the world should sponsor this "Israel" in Palestine, simply because God allegedly promised the land of Palestine to this so-called "Israel", when they themselves admit that the "Israelis" could prove unworthy of God's supposed promise?
Even according to Farah's own superstitious self, the promise might not come true because of "Israeli" shortcomings and "unworthiness". Yet Farah insists on ignoring the role of such shortcomings and "unworthiness" in the "Israeli" Jewish national life in his stubborn advocacy of the idea that we must sponsor this "Israel" in Palestine because according to Farah God promised Palestine to this "Israel".
If indeed the situation is that this land that is promised to "Israel" might not go to "Israel" because of "Israel"'s sins, then how can the so called promise of the land to "Israel", be the basis for such unconditional manic support for the establishment of this so-called "Israel" in Palestine?
This people that calls itself "Israel", regarding which Farah says we are obligated by Biblical scripture to establish them in Palestine, has been in the eyes of many astute observers been guilty of "unworthiness" not just during its most recent war this year, but for many hundreds of years.
In attacking the Israeli government, Farah sets forth the notion that a nation should always keep fighting for the goal it set out to accomplish no matter how the fighting goes. This is of course irrational. Often-times in history, nations have improved their position be giving up on projects that were not working out.
Farah declares that allowing the enemy to gain a victory constitutes treason. This again is an irrational contradiction of common sense and the lessons of history. Nations have often improved their position by allowing the enemy a victory.
Farah avers that since "Israel" is less secure now than it would have been had it kept fighting, therefore of course Israel should keep fighting. Yet again, an irrational contradiction of common sense and the lessons of history. A nation can do things that improve its security, but that produce a lower cost-benefit than alternative actions would.
Methinks Farah is one of many conservative commentators who writes too much, and thinks and listens to little. Plus he is a rude and agnry man, as if he was ignorant that the Christianity that he professes condemns rudeness and anger.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
Yet Farah admits that "Israel" could lose Palestine because of its shortcomings and sins, in his own words, he declares that "Israel is being led by men unworthy of God's sovereign promises to bless the Jewish state forever" .
Thus what Farah is saying is that when God promised Palestine to "Israel", God was saying not that "Israel" will always inhabit Palestine, or that the world should always support some kind of "Israel" in Palestine, but that God's will is that Israel should inhabit Palestine although this will of God could end up not being done for various reasons such as the "unworthiness", the shortcomings of the Israelis.
So then how can Farah and persons like him, insist that the world should sponsor this "Israel" in Palestine, simply because God allegedly promised the land of Palestine to this so-called "Israel", when they themselves admit that the "Israelis" could prove unworthy of God's supposed promise?
Even according to Farah's own superstitious self, the promise might not come true because of "Israeli" shortcomings and "unworthiness". Yet Farah insists on ignoring the role of such shortcomings and "unworthiness" in the "Israeli" Jewish national life in his stubborn advocacy of the idea that we must sponsor this "Israel" in Palestine because according to Farah God promised Palestine to this "Israel".
If indeed the situation is that this land that is promised to "Israel" might not go to "Israel" because of "Israel"'s sins, then how can the so called promise of the land to "Israel", be the basis for such unconditional manic support for the establishment of this so-called "Israel" in Palestine?
This people that calls itself "Israel", regarding which Farah says we are obligated by Biblical scripture to establish them in Palestine, has been in the eyes of many astute observers been guilty of "unworthiness" not just during its most recent war this year, but for many hundreds of years.
In attacking the Israeli government, Farah sets forth the notion that a nation should always keep fighting for the goal it set out to accomplish no matter how the fighting goes. This is of course irrational. Often-times in history, nations have improved their position be giving up on projects that were not working out.
Farah declares that allowing the enemy to gain a victory constitutes treason. This again is an irrational contradiction of common sense and the lessons of history. Nations have often improved their position by allowing the enemy a victory.
Farah avers that since "Israel" is less secure now than it would have been had it kept fighting, therefore of course Israel should keep fighting. Yet again, an irrational contradiction of common sense and the lessons of history. A nation can do things that improve its security, but that produce a lower cost-benefit than alternative actions would.
Methinks Farah is one of many conservative commentators who writes too much, and thinks and listens to little. Plus he is a rude and agnry man, as if he was ignorant that the Christianity that he professes condemns rudeness and anger.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 5:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home