Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
"..... The Holy Land was promised to the Jewish people and absolutely no human being on this earth has a right to relinquish even one inch of this land," Gerlitzky stated.

Good for the Rabbi! He knows God's Word. Why doesn't the Pope know the Bible? There is no way he can know it and say what he did. So much for being infallible.
38 posted on 05/13/2009 6:46:11 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: presently no screen name
It wouldn't be politically correct for the Pope to follow the Bible....he's politicking...and in the arena of international politics...he'd rather appeal to the secular authorities. The Catholic Church, in my humble opinion, has done the same thing on the issue of Capital Punishment...I'll quote Scalia, "At least the new doctrine should have been urged only upon secular Europe, where it is at home."
42 posted on 05/13/2009 6:52:50 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: presently no screen name

I don’t mean to be argumentative but where in the Bible does it say that a Palestianian state can’t be established? The jews were promised a homeland but I don’t see that being inconsistent with a Palestianian state in a theoretical sense. I saw theoretical because security problems makes establishing a Palestian State a bad idea but that is a separate issue and not my point. I’m saying the Bible doesn’t include a map stating the boundaries of Jordan, Eqypt and these nations. These are worldly matters not spiritual matters.

Now Gerlitzky is worried about a thing called anniliation from Iran. So I can understand where he is coming from. I cut him tons of slack and wish him well. But I’d like to hear the Pope’s side of the story. I’ll bet the Pope just stated his position and did not demand anything. After all the Pope is not saying much different than most leaders in the U.S. are saying including both Bush and Obama. I don’t necessarily agree with it but it is not radical, it is mainstream, conventional political thinking and it doesn’t conflict with the Bible.

Having said that I don’t agree with a Palestian State only because I don’t think security is possible but thats the only reason. If security could somehow be managed I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But that would be an academic position givin what we know about muslims and how maintaining security in such a situation is infeasible


66 posted on 05/13/2009 7:32:50 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson