Steve Hays provides yet another response (“Dupes for Hamas”) to our exchange. I’d love to continue to respond to his questions (e.g. discussing such events as Deir Yassin massacre...
Once again, Jamin unwittingly illustrates what’s so wrongheaded with his approach. His gullibility. His one-sidedness.
He suffers from instant-expert syndrome. That’s why Manata had to correct his excursions into logic, as well as his excursions into Molinism.
What about the so-called “Deir Yassin massacre”? The difficulty in assessing this case is that we’re confronted with conflicting accounts. To take a few examples:
You have biased Arab sources and biased Jewish sources, so who’s right and who’s wrong?
Is Jamin qualified to sift the evidence? Does Jamin know modern Hebrew and Arabic? Does Jamin have access to the primary sources? Has Jamin been to the site? Has Jamin interviewed survivors? Has he combed through archives?
If Jamin were prudent, he’d suspend judgment. He has no expertise to properly investigate and evaluate this incident. But he doesn't know his limitations.
And it is by all means clear that Steve does not want to (and perhaps, because he cannot) provide a positive case for his own position, let alone summarize it...so in this part we realize that Steve has no interest in talking about the fundamental issues of present-day Israel and Christian theology.
I realize that it’s in Jamin’s self-interest to change the subject, but the thesis of my initial post was very modest and narrowly-targeted. So, no, I don’t have to chase Jamin down diversionary rabbit trails.