A brief history of Islamic theft

It's What They Do!

That does undermine the "religion of peace" claim.

Actually they left it to go to Egypt and came back to reclaim it. People had settled there so they forced them to move.

False.

Archeological fact. You can contest whether it was moral or whether is was legal, but you can't contest that it happened.

Cool, prove it.

All you gotta do is look it up. Its a well known fact in archaeological circles. From the exodus from the middle east to Egypt and back.

False.

False? So you don't think you should look it up or....?

No, I'm not going to do your homework for you, you silly troll.

You would be doing YOUR homework for YOU.

No, you lazy sod.

Citation needed. What's your evidence for that claim?

Apparently you fail basic Bible.

Stolen by conquest from the native Philistines who had lived there for centuries if not millennia.

Which book, chapter and/or verses of the Bible say that? Plus, the fact remains that Muslims violently stole those sacred sites; two wrongs don't make a right.

You should try reading the whole thing. Relevant here are things like Exodus, Deuteronomy, Kings, Chronicles, stuff like that.

Why is it that those who pound the Bible the hardest have almost never read the whole thing, and those who are most skeptical of it are the ones who have?

Hmmmm....

Plus they left the Temple Mount to go to Egypt so they wouldn't starve during famine and came back to reclaim it. People had settled there so they forced them to move. Their reason for leaving is recorded in Genesis.

Typical "skeptic", cherry-picking from the Bible to push their agenda against it. A lot of people skeptical of the Bible only read all of it after choosing to oppose it so they can cherry-pick it. And more people than you think promote the Bible and have read the whole thing (especially among the clergy).

No agenda - just somebody unafraid to look at and see its contradictions and historical fictions.

Canaan was inhabited. It was not under the ownership/rule of Yaakov. It was taken by bloody, genocidal conquest and force. The Israelites were such savages they in some cases massacred even every animal.

If you knew your Bible better, you would have already known this.

Citation needed regarding "contradictions and historical fictions", or should I take your words on faith?

More on that whole situation here. https://bibleproject.com/blog/why-did-god-command-the-invasion-of-canaan-in-the-book-of-joshua/ Jacob lived among the Caananites prior to the famine, then left.

Also, why did you respond to me but not lokiare when they made the same point?

Answering you answered lokiare in the same step.

So now you're reduced to defending it. But Joseph had no rulership status, it was conquest. Jericho wasn't a "military outpost," it was possibly the oldest continuously inhabited human city. And your apologist friend's arguments are things like, "well, they might not have been really nice guys, so they must have deserved it."

No. You can't get around it. Conquest is conquest. Genocide is genocide. Commanding the killing of every living thing down to even animals is just savagery.

Lokaire won't see replies to me, you have to reply to them.

And you've been reduced to making strawman arguments. The argument wasn't that they might not have been nice guys; the argument is that they were not nice - they were doing many terrible things (including killing themselves). Plus the Canaanites rejected peaceful negotiations and requests.

It seems as soon as you see a question you can't find an answer for where anything relating to God, gods, Christianity and/or religions is concerned, you assume the worst.

Unlike us, God knows the future. God did not order the extermination of these people to be cruel, but to prevent even greater evil from occurring in the future. That and, ever heard of the concept of making an example of someone?

Or so you believe. From one side of reported history. As "interpreted" further by Christian apologeticists who try to talk black into white as necessary.

Your argument boils down to, "Yeah they violently conquered Canaan and slaughtered not just the inhabitants but even their animals - but they deserved it."

Up to you to finally confront yourself for what that is.

It's ticklish for you to appeal to archeology, since that's in the process of slowly devastating many of your dearest biblical assumptions, from the exodus to the legends of the conquest of Canaan itself.

History is undoing your axioms. Good luck dealing with it.

Citation needed for your claims about history. And your argument boils down to "I hate the group that did it and their cause, so it was bad and to hell with the circumstances."

You clearly have never read the entire book like I did (carefully, when I was a biblicist).

I don't hate anybody - but congratulations, that means you just violated the commandment against false witness, which is basically no different than you committing adultery.

Now for the citation. I'll give you just one, because you need to get off your lazy @$$ and go read the thing yourself.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Samuel-15-3/
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

For the historiography, again, get your illiterate butt in gear and learn to use the internet. This is only one example, that simply tells you where history has moved to in questioning the texts when they do not square with the archeology and facts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
"The Exodus (Hebrew: יציאת מצרים, Yeẓi’at Miẓrayim: lit. 'Departure from Egypt') is the founding myth of the Israelites.[1][a] It tells of their departure from Egypt, the revelations at biblical Mount Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan.[2] Its message is that the Israelites were delivered from slavery by Yahweh their god, and therefore belong to him by covenant.[1]
The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of the Israelites, who appear instead to have formed as an entity in the central highlands of Canaan in the late second millennium BCE from the indigenous Canaanite culture.[3][4][5] Most modern scholars believe that the story of the Exodus has some historical core,[6] but the Bible was never intended primarily as a historical document, and contains little that is accurate or reliable.[7]

You want to believe, go ahead. But don't whitewash over the fact IN THE BIBLE TEXT ITSELF of the Canaanite genocide.

I seriously can't believe you claim to be Christian and not know this.

Oh wait, most Christians are bible-illiterate, so actually yes I can.

End of discussion. Go fix your vast ignorance yourself.

There's a difference between making an incorrect assumption and defamation... plus I also said you hate the cause, and you didn't deny that.

I never denied the genocide of the Caananites or the Amalekites, I said they had reasons for happening - similar to why the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened. Plus our original argument is that the Israelites were not thieves when they took the Temple Mount.

I don't know where your Wikipedia text came from, as this is what I got. By the way, Wikipedia is biased. Eg; even though the Exodus not happening would also undermine the Talmud and the Qu'ran, the text singles out the Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Origins_and_historicity
"There are two main positions on the historicity of the Exodus in modern scholarship.[3] The majority position is that the biblical Exodus narrative has some historical core, although the details have been clouded and obscured over time, and there is little of historical worth in the current biblical narrative.[7][6][1] The other main position, often associated with the school of Biblical minimalism,[24] is that the Exodus has no historical basis."

The problem with both positions is they jump to conclusions based on lack of evidence; they haven't found evidence that disproves the Exodus. They also don't go into detail about how the searches were conducted and rule out the miracles which Scripture explains are how the Israelites survived in the desert (such as God giving them Manna - check Exodus 16).

"Proof” of prehistoric events is very rare. Mountains of obvious evidence seldom survive three thousand years, even for a significant event. It’s only reasonable to look for remnants, circumstantial evidence, collaborating artifacts, and perhaps some random documents. Of course, insisting that evidence must be found outside the Bible is, itself, an unfair bias. Scripture is part of ancient written records, whether people like you appreciate that fact or not.

Nature isn’t prone to preserving remains for long, either, let alone for three thousand years. Worse, one of the consequences for disobedience, about which God warned Israel, was improper burial (Deuteronomy 28:26; cf. 1 Corinthians 10:5). Hasty or slipshod burial would allow scavengers and the elements to eradicate a body relatively quickly. This means there is no “lack” of Hebrew graves or bones in the wilderness—there’s no rational reason to expect such remains to be abundant.

P.S Even if you were right, the fact remains that Muslims still violently stole those sacred sites I listed, two wrong's don't make a right.