Palastine tragedy -

[observer]

Suggest you visit the "Holy Land" Gman; in particular the illegal settlements built by zionist extremist sects, who claim a God given right to re-claim their biblical "Holy Land", even the parts that were owned and settled by Palastinian Arabs.

[Bazj]

religion, religion, religion...... what a load of mystical old tat

 

Invented by people so they could rule and dictate to those not quite as up with the real world as they were...

[Jerry]

Baz -- I had to call up your post since it was listed in the Most Recent board. I have to side with the G-man on this. The conflict in Israel is not religious and never has been. It's a cultural attitude by Arabs to deny anyone else's right to exist unless they SUBMIT to Arab authority and sharia laws.

 

Pretending it's a religious conflict or even a land boundary conflict is pure blindness to events of the last 60 years.

 

As for the nuclear option - you can't nuke ignorance.

[asperity]

G'Man I'm afraid you are fixated by religion. What I want to see is the good education provided by church schools also provided by state schools. If some schools want to brainwash children with biblical myths fine but don't expect me to pay for it!!

[observer]

Errrm, you say "it's not religious" Jezz; then go on to say " anyone who won't submit to Sharia Law"? Errm, I thought Sharia Law was born out of their religion?! FACT: Israelis have created settlements on Arab Land and disposed them at the same time. Having suffered the Holocaust (of which we are constantly reminded); they have now reversed their role, and back it up with a US financed Nuclear Arsenal, which the West condones while not allowing Arab Nations the luxury of - two faced or what?

[Jerry]

Pish tush.

[observer]

Concise, if nothing else!

[Jerry]

That was never five minutes, just now!

[Goonerman]

OK, let's see.

 

Indeed, there have been religious settlers who have displaced Palestinians. The exceptions which prove the rule.

 

There is truth Obbs in some points about the West and Israel, but it's not nearly as simple as that. Many Arabs, who have farrrrrr more land than Israel has, do not want Israel to exist at all. It takes two sides to make a conflict and be unjust to each other.

 

What about the Jordanian betrayal of the Palestinians?

 

Also, I was in Israel in 1998 and I was appalled by how both the Israeli Government and the PLO oppressed the Palestinians alike. Most of them try to commute from Bethlehem to Jerusalem to earn an honest wage, only to get stuck in searches and roadblocks by Israel in which it takes them hours each just to get in and out. And Israel's tactics are often about blowing the baby out of the bathwater. Oh no, don't just get the terrorists- just blam the whole town! (Ariel Sharon was particularly guilty of this.)

 

Asp. I'm not fixated by religion. My personal relationship with Jesus isn't 'religious', and my suspicions that there are elements in society who want to exploit, misuse or suppress religion are a separate issue to do with democracy and my desire to encourage people to avoid the generalisation religion=violence otherwise my own rights will be violated, then it will cease to be a separate issue.

 

I was talking about RE and Assemblies, Asp, not brainwashing. RE and Assemblies are too general and bland and harmless to be in that territory. I always thought RE and Assemblies were garbage and a sure way of putting kids off religion or God. Instructing a person in a religion at home or in Sunday School or Church is a totally different discipline, as is theology and historically pursuing the Quest for the Historical Jesus for example again different .

 

As for 'biblical myths' , that is a sweeping and highly debatable point.

 

How do you define 'brainwashing'?

 

Sociologically studying religion, sacred or secular, including Secular Humanism, is important. Otherwise, religious and secular people will end of pointing fingers at each other and end up in conflict. Like this view that if you believe in God you will turn to the Dark Side and start killing people automatically.

 

I would say, Asp, that it is indeed consistent to improve State Schools to Church Schools standards. But if you want religion totally removed from education, don't use the Church Schools. Get rid of them.

 

That would be fine by me anyway, as a Nonconformist I want to see the Church of England disestablished and so prevent its misuse by outsiders. Then it can finally split up into separate denominations as it is destined to do anyway. Then the Evangelicals can concentrate on promoting the Gospel without hindrance.

 

PS I have all sorts of interests Asp. But then stereotyping is always the easier way. We'd get on a lot better in the flesh. Here I get into debate mode, as people in the UK now are totally out of touch and think the Church is producing a generation of killer buck-toothed Dick Emery vicars and where singing 'Amazing Grace' is a sinister exercise in brainwashing a new generation of suicide bombers. The phrase 'All Gas and Gaiters' has a whole new meaning.

 

I was laughing at a ridiculous Channel 4 documentary the other week in which ordinary Christians were made to look creepy. It had a sinister monotone musical drone with a doleful commentator droning on about 'religious fundamentalists like this woman are trying to impose their views on society'. People are so out of touch now they probably think watching Songs of Praise will turn them into mass murderers.

 

Puts a whole new light on my love of eating jelly babies.

[asperity]

I've got nothing against religion per se. I just object to it being forced onto other people. Persuasion is one thing but religious education goes beyond that with the use of threats (fire and brimstone, eternal damnation) or vague promises (eternal salvation, paradise, all the virgins you could ravage, though how anyone can reconcile paradise with being surrounded by a load of squabbling women is beyond me!) As for the bible, well prove to me its not a load of fairy tales! There are so many inconsistencies as to make it laughable. Okay I will conceed that parts of it do show how we should treat our fellow man but frankly you don't need some deity up in the sky to point that out, just some human who has had a bit of time to think about it. Believe what you want but don't make my survival depend on believing the same things as you.

[observer]

You'll be pleased to note Gman; that the Iraelis plan to "take out" any Iranian Nuclear Establishment, possibly using nukes; which provides a solid reason and requirement for the Iranians and other to possess such weapons in the first place. The hypocracy in all this of course; is that while the West argues for nuclear non-proliferation and applies it to Iran. Israel, India and Pakistan are allowed to have such weapons.

[Jerry]

Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished...

 

To take arms against a sea of opposing troubles and by opposing, end them.

[observer]

Problem is; it no longer "ends them"; but acts as a recruiting sergeant for another generation of hatreds.

[Jerry]

I believe Prince Hamlet recognized futility in that soliloquy, as did I.

[observer]

Futility is in the mind of the beholder!

[Goonerman]

First, in response to Asperity, I would never dream of forcing anyone to believe anything. (Because apart from it being wrong, the mind cannot be changed except internally- and such forced 'conversions' are stupid, evil and not real. Like for example when the Catholics persecuted the Jews and kicked them out of Spain, and they went elsewhere only to get more harassment- so the Potuguese Jews 'converted' to avoid trouble- but once religious freedom came, they switched back to being Jewish, and came to England upon Oliver Cromwell's decree welcoming them back, founding amongst other things Beavis Marks Synagogue in London and giving us Fish and Chips ( a Portuguese Jewish dish, believe it or not! )

 

Yip, Persuasion is the way. That's actually the method Jesus laid down in the Great Commission. In Acts the early Christians used debate quite a lot. See especially Paul's approach to the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers in Acts 17.

 

Threats of Hell. Hmmm. That stems from God being the source of good, so to lose out on Him rejecting Him means in Eternity losing all that is good.

 

For Heaven, the lynchpin here is the historic evidence concerning the Resurrection- alas the Early Christians thread on this site has not survived the change of site. I do have the stuff saved on that, but work from the point of view that I've done more 'proving' than is reasonable on this site, having introduced in threads the best philosophical arguments for the existence of God, miracles, the science of miracles, and so on. (Take a look around, they are still there, they did survive the change.) But I'm not going to reiterate all that again. If you didn't believe that the first time, fine, I'm not going to cover the same territory again. All that has been done. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. I've moved on from that.

 

Inconsistencies? Ahh, I can guess the main ones. All very easy to answer.

 

Like an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, for example. Or love your enemy. Well, the first relates to crime, punishment and compensation. The other is about personal relationships. That's just one sample. Context always clears these 'inconsistencies' up, I've found from experience.

 

It's also simplistic to say the Bible teaches a 'god in the sky'. I don't believe in a sky-daddy or a sky-fairy, or an old man with white hair or anything like that. As King Solomon said, even the highest heavens cannot contain God.

 

As for the business about how we should treat our fellow man, if it is so obvious from reflection how we should treat others, why are people of all backgrounds and creeds so cruel? Why are most jobs hotbeds of conflict where you have to watch your back while bosses and colleagues spend their time trying to stitch each other up?

 

One last question for clarification, Asp. What do you mean by "don't make my survival depend on believing the same things as you."

 

(By the way, as an aside, what I believe is not important. What God believes, if He is real, is what is important. I'm just the messenger boy, the carrier pigeon. Nothing more. And if I am wrong, well, I'm wrong. The truth doesn't depend on me. It's the other way round!)

 

Secondly, Obbs. Why on Earth would I be pleased about Israel pointing nukes at Iran?

 

That said, Iran is known to want to attack others. Israel only want to defend. Well, in this case.

 

The point is we need to create a situation whereby nukes aren't 'needed' at all. One day they won't. In fact, there will be no weapons at all. One day, Israel and the Arab and Iranian worlds will be reconciled. It's the in-between period between now and then which worries me. But there will never be a nuclear war. Not now. Not ever.

 

PS, Asp, on reflection, again, you are mixing RE up with Sunday School!

 

RE by definition is neutral, non-confessional, almost sociological and is a rather secular look at the matter. It's more a description of practice and society and a cursory look at some of their stories to illustrate belief. (Plus 'threats' of Hell belong to adult sermons in pulpits, though all doctrines are taught in Sunday School.)

[observer]

.. and your point IS?!

[Mary]

I believe this thread started out like: Well things are really kicking off in Palestine, an eye for an eye etc etc - but wait; wasn't Tony Blair given a job as the Middle East Envoy - seems that's another job he's flunked.

Several have bashed religion, politics and education.

 

Goonerman I take offense to your need to put each of us in a hole - you are this , you are that, etc...

 

A wise man once said "If your not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem"

 

There is no set answer to geopolitical problems as we are all human and flawed and tend to believe what we like - and I guess we always will.

 

Now to those of you who catch my drift - congratulations. For those of you who don't - oh well!!

[Goonerman]

Hmmm. Easily offended.

 

"Constant need to put us in a hole- you are this, you are that."

 

Where do you get this idea from?

 

Funny, teachers are paid to do this sort of thing.

 

Aren't you doing exactly that?

 

"A wise man once said "If your not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem"

 

There is no set answer to geopolitical problems as we are all human and flawed and tend to believe what we like - and I guess we always will.

 

Now to those of you who catch my drift - congratulations. For those of you who don't - oh well!!"

 

Yes, and you don't.

 

All I was doing was taking an interest in the topic and the wider implications, like anybody else, but all you do is chase me around and try to stifle me at every turn, leaving everyone else free- as well as having misused a chest infection to imply my lack of mental fitness to post on one occasion- an insult Busby picked up on.

 

Tolerance shouldn't have a breaking point. Otherwise label it something else. Keep the emotiveness out of it!

 

Oh. And tolerance isn't good enough. As it is merely tolerance. Nah, I'm just tolerant. Very tolerant.

 

Translation: Not really, I cannot stand that person's viewpoint, or that person, but to feel better, I'll pretend while deep down I am gritting my teeth and deep down look forward to turning on him as I cannot stand him or his view at all in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

If I have such a constant need, why am I missing for so long?

 

Answer: I'm doing other things. Visiting New York and Rome. Watching Apollo 16. Talking to friends. Drinking Coke. Laughing at cartoons. Writing fun Doctor Who/Smallville crossover stories. Doing my studies. Going to the toilet! Travelling on the bus. And spending less and less time using the internet as a social tool. Preparing for the big move to London. Changing my career. Seeing Jean-Michel Jarre play Oxygene live in Dublin.

 

But the most dogmatic fence-sitter in history cannot see this. Try reading the first paragraph in my previous post in reply to Asperity, as it completely disproves your claims about me.

 

PS You know fine well what my real views and motivations are from our msn chats, so stop talking through your hat.

[Goonerman]

Plus, when I was first here 3 years ago, I gave a good cogent argument for an intricate, multi-layered solution to political problems of these kinds favouring concepts of power-sharing, devolution, federalism, consociationalism, reconciliation, etc., and you acknowledged that at the time.

 

I'm still the same person I was then.

 

Which is precisely the cause of my critique of any position making sweeping generalisations about Jews, Palestinians, why I agree Blair is not the man for the job in the Middle East, and why throwing one's hands up and saying "I know nothing!" is woefully inadequate.

 

Remember, I have successfully persuaded one rising star within extremist circles to renounce a belief in violence. Can you say the same? No need to answer that to me. It's an open-ended, non-judgemental question.

[asperity]

Gman, having never been to "Sunday School" I've absolutely no idea what goes on there. However having been educated at a Catholic Grammer School (Irish Christian Brothers) I know all about the promises of hell fire and damnation. All tosh.

[Mary]

Ok I will try to come at this in a different direction - everyone has opinions - some are based on facts, some are based on beliefs and others are based on what they are told by people the respect or fear.

 

The point I was trying to make was: through the way in which you choose to debate a subject, I feel, you think we have no knowledge or understanding of said facts and that you do. I am offended by this. Time and time again I have said nothing. The one time I do you go on and on taking what I said apart and out of context to make yourself a victim of a misunderstanding. And your not. You are just debating in the old fashioned way.

 

But you will be you and I will be me - I do not wish to quibble over those things I have no control. So be my guest and enjoy.

[Goonerman]

I can see signs of a rapprochement between us in time. BUT- is my style more objectionable than people tarring Israelis with the same brush and Palestinians with the same brush on this thread- or going one step worse than this, the reference to nuking them! Is that more objectionable?

 

OK, so you think I get on as if you know nothing but I know this that and the other so much better than everyone else. It's not like that. I see enough to see that people here are not as in touch with those who are really in the know (and I do read from all sides of the fence) on the topics I am strong on as they should be. That is not the same as saying I'm better. Well, since no-one's come up with stuff on aspects of Form Criticism, or Redaction Criticism, or things like that in the History section, say on a particular topic, it's kind of frustrating in a way. When I'm typing this stuff I'm focussed on the topic, not on me as a person. I just wish someone could say something about, I don't know, something about heilegeschichte, or throw in something about say, the Third Quest, whether I agreed or not with it just as an example from the top of my head.

 

Clue: my discussion style would be different precisely if I wasn't accused of thinking I was better or that I was somehow contributing to terror. Or diverting the thread.

 

Oh well, in the post-modern age I will have to switch back to the anecdotal style of my early days in here and ditch the other route. But I so wish someone would rugby-tackle sweeping generalisations about Israelis, Palestinians, or whatever, instead of just merely pointing out (correctly) that we don't know the realities of living in such a situation. We need to be more pro-active in that regard.

 

I wonder why people are harder on those who are painfully honest in their criticism of extremism than those who actually are extremist? Just as an example.

 

Actually, I've had too many anvils thrown on my head in the past two years alone to have any ego left. As a work colleague of mine points out to me, and I agree with him, "Just remember, the one rule you must never forget is that no matter what you do, how well you do it or not do it, it's always going to be wrong!" Too right. As the Eagles sang, "Same dancers in the same old shoes. You get too careful in the steps you choose. You don't care about winning but you don't wanna lose..."

 

"Victim of misunderstanding"? I'm not a victim of anything. I do think that often the internet is rife though with misunderstanding, manipulation, etc., and that it is difficult to tell for a referee in football, for example, if a player is charging in hard on the ball or the person. Plus if two worldviews talk, they talk at each other. And then there is the matter of apodictic versus casuistic. The propositioners versus the if-then what-iffers. I'm definitely both, but my own culture has shaped me to express even my what-if and if-then stuff in propositional terms, the thou shalt and thou shalt not style.

 

I'll put my points as questions in future, perhaps. That's more how I do things in actual conversations.

 

I saw something recently in a book I have which made me laugh. It's co-authored by Dave Scott and Alexei Leonov, two giants in the history of exploration, in their case, outer space. Dave Scott was sent over to the Soviet Union as part of the NASA team in negotiating the necessary engineering compromises for creating compatible systems and new mutual docking mechanisms for the very different Apollo and Soyuz spsaceships (Apollo needed a new entire docking module for the Command Module to dock with and pull out of the rocket before it could mate with Soyuz). He described the chief engineer, a former assistant of the legendary Chief Designer, Sergei Korolev, as a nice man but very difficult. That sounds like me. I'll confess to being very difficult. Ask my brother. But, in my view, no-holds barred debates do get results- and darned better results than other methods. (Look at the picture of Dave Scott and Alexei Leonov going over the Soyuz simulator. There's so much going on between those two in just that one split second!) Put it this way- when I have ever chatted with a Catholic about a solution for Northern Ireland, we find ourselves able to come up with the solution in five minutes. This happened long before the Agreement. And what's more, we found we often had the same assessment of strengths and weaknesses of a United Ireland, for example.

 

But is this all not a distraction from the point of this thread?

 

Asp, Sunday School is simply a thing on Sundays in Protestant churches where kids go and sing choruses, do a memory verse, and go off into little classes with basic instruction on Bible stories. As for the Christian Brothers, I have heard some horror stories about them from many Catholics who suffered in their classes. Which causes many to be turned off Catholicism. And anyway, it shouldn't be about Hell but about how to avoid it, and the positive alternative that's on offer- as a free gift which anyone can claim. But since you dismiss it as tosh, well, fair enough. But I wonder is it tosh in your mind objectively or tosh because the Christian Brothers kept threatening you? Just a thought. Both, maybe. Not for me to say.

[Jerry]

G-man, I appreciate your posts - if you ever go elsewhere please advise me where to to look for them.

 

I was about to write 'Mary wishes we could all make nice and civilized, uplifting informational and educational posts', but that would be wrong of me to characterize another poster, so I won't.

 

For myself, I'm unable to even think about making nice with Islam or the recently invented Palestinian refugees. I'll wait wait until they wish to make nice -- which I don't think we will see for centuries yet.

[Goonerman]

As for me, I will continue to treat Muslims with kindness and friendship. What they do with that is up to them. There are two principles at work here- yes, we must continue with intelligence gathering against terrorist crime, and engage in diplomacy- and involve ourselves in Hearts and Minds.

 

But I think reconciliation is something far tougher than any liberal thinks, and it is not about always being pretty. But- its far better than the alternative. Like in football- I love slick passing- look at Spain- but sometimes it's about that hard but fair tackle, going in hard on the ball- knowing it could still sting a person's shin without causing real injury, including stinging your own toes, stretching a groin, here or there, and sometimes you just have to hoof that ball high and out of the pitch. And of course, in Rugby Union, gameds are sometimes won through constant touch-kicking, shoving matches winning tries through scrums and forcing your opponents into being offside getting penalties. But all within the rules. No hacking, pushing, shirt-pulling.

 

Alas, the liberals like to dive a lot!

 

The truth is, the bottom line is that Liberals and Post-Modernists can never beat people like me face-on. At least Liberals are Modernists who have some kind of objective reality or interpretation of a meta-narrative. Post-Modernists deprive themselves of that from the off. So of course they can never face people head-on. Take note that their ancient ancestors, the Greek solipsistics, fell apart after some 30 years. So they resort to manipulation. The irony is that I use the methods laid down by the modernist liberals, but offer correctives from actual hard-data of other disciplines which provide scientific information which knock on the head their conclusions, not least in the collectiona nd shaping of oral traditions. (Hint- I've been distrusted by a lot of my fellow Christians due to these methods, and by my politics, even though I am genuinely conservative. Boy have I had my run-ins with Fundamentalists, where an innocent comment results in BOOM and suddenly there is all this, wow, cod-psychology going on! Fundies on my side of the fence think they are going back to teh faith of the Fathers, whereas they are really Post-Modern in that sense without realising it. Paradoxically they still believe in objective truth at the same time but wonder why they get wapped by Modernists and Post-Modernists in discussions!)

 

The most telling remark was from someone who said that everybody else was 'probably more accurate' than me on a topic, even though liberals reject the views in question by and large, a closer look for example at the claims of the old discredited religiongeschichte school in Germany in the 19th century being their ultimate source.

 

Take note of this Jerry. You know we differ in that you are Unitarian and I am Trinitarian. I've defended my Trinitarian views in the past, but take note I have never tackled you personally on it. I've held back from a full critical look at Islam and Catholicism, acknowledged there is an ethical basis in Islam (in spite of the terrorism done in its name), Islam is far from being monolithic, it it was, then even the negative side to Islam would not exist (the conflict within Iraq between Shi'as and Sunnis), they have their heretics (Ahmadiyya), and similar Creationist/Evolutionist controversies and petty Qu'ranic disagreements over the Uthman Recension just like the ming-mongs in my circles get me on the whole AKJV/TR business (the textual tradition , for example (but Muslims try to pretend to me that the Qu'ran's copies are all identical to the last syllable- as if- the very acts of Uthman confirm otherwise, so why the need for Uthman to try to make the manuscript uniform at all? It's as bad as one friend who thinks the Bible was divided into chapters and verses from the start:wink: )

 

Anyway, all this diverts from the Israel-Palestine scene. Actually, the solution to Israel-Palestine will not take centuries. The very stalemate will force a rapprochement as the pragmatists take over. I've seen it all before. Trust me on that one.