The clergy in the church have testified numerout times that they're not hostages, as have others on the outside. If such statements were being made only for public consumption, it wouldn't explain the vehemence from the Vatican and Rome that the Israelis need to back off.
You appear to have surrendered to the secularist notion that all right and all law come from men. You're wrong there too.
That wasn't much of a flaming, was it?
Let's see one side tries to limit civilian casualties the other to create civilian casualties. And this is not good guys vs. bad guys? What am I missing here?
The clergy in the church have testified numerout times that they're not hostages, as have others on the outside. If such statements were being made only for public consumption, it wouldn't explain the vehemence from the Vatican and Rome that the Israelis need to back off.
Then they have chosen sides in this and they should be treated in exactly the same way that the peaceniks in Arafat's compound are being treated. I am not a respector of persons when it comes to that.
You appear to have surrendered to the secularist notion that all right and all law come from men. You're wrong there too.
Where did you get that idea? I quoted scripture to prove my point. There was no rush by the early church to locate and sanctify the birthplace of Jesus or any other so called "Holy Site." God is in the hearts of those who serve him. The only places that are Holy are those He Himself declared holy.
Would I be sad if the church building was destroyed? Of course, but it is not worth protecting with human life. Wars have raged around this spot before and wars will continue to rage around it until the end of the earth it's self.
That wasn't much of a flaming, was it?
No, you were very polite. I tried to be just as polite in disagreeing with you.
a.cricket