or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › All old Israel/Lebanon threads merged in here
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

All old Israel/Lebanon threads merged in here - Page 13  

post #481 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
It was doing that, obviously it didn't work. Israel withdrew from Lebanon, from the gaza strip, and was starting to dismantle west bank settlements, and the terrorist attacks continued.


Since 2000 you got from 2000,000 illegal settlers growing to 400,000. 4,000 crying people with beards in Gaza and taking down a few wig wams in West Bank does not a peace process make. ... All the while increasing building in other illegal areas. In punity of murder in West bank and Gaza from Settlers/Army, continued targeted assinations, closure of access in/out, tax revenues and severe shortage of food - do you want me to go on, casual massacres on beaches...Deafening sonic booms all through the night millions living terror. You wonder why there was some reply? what you got was an attack on Israeli army post. these pathetic missles they use make scud missles look like weapons of mass destruction.
One attack on an army on the border of Lebanon - and Israel closes Lebanon.
Quote:
Israel has two options: destroy its enemies, or be destroyed - peace can only come after one or the other is achieved, your suggestions will not lead to peace.

The enemies will grow the more you destroy - simply it aint possible. It will be the end quite simply you'll get a revolution in Egypt and probably Pakistan. You think you can control and win your self styled mini Armageddon?
Quote:
"Normal people, crappy government" - great, they will like it when the government goes away and we replace it with a representative democracy.

But they won't be prepared to be sacrificed by bombs to achieve that. Perhaps you would? I wonder while your stated aim is being achieved how much more Israel would be prepared to grow during your proposed restructing and a cool 200,000 +100,000 (only) arabs die?.

Can't you see this plan has absolutely failed in Iraq. Yet. Why would it be succesful in Iran/Syria...
post #482 of 882
If MidEast Islam wants dialogue, which I really doubt they do we wouldnt be having terrorist attacks year after endless year. Arafat had 98% of everything he wanted but lets face it there are people who deny Israels right to exist and the only thing they will except is a destroyed Israel. Thats Hezbolla,Hamas,Syria,Iran,,,Its sad as heck for the people just wanting to live their life who live in Lebanon. If the U.S. was Israel would we be so tolerant? I doubt it very very much.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
post #483 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
lets face it there are people who deny Israels right to exist

Why does it have one? With what kind of justification can a nation, all of a sudden, be created where previously, a different nation was situated? Sounds like annexion to me.
post #484 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by New
I agree.

Here is an interesting read:

What Does Israel Want? by Ilan Pappe, 14 July 2006

Imagine a group of high ranking generals who simulated for years Third World War scenarios in which they can move huge armies around, employ the most sophisticated weapons in their disposal and enjoy the immunity of a computerized headquarters from which they can direct their war games. Now imagine that they are informed that in fact there is no Third World War and their expertise is needed to calm down some of the nearby slums or deal with soaring crime in deprived townships and impoverished neighborhoods. ...

I'm sure it's true that armies like to have war, and aren't very good at other kinds of operations. It's probably why the US invaded Iraq.

I'm not sure about Olmert. It almost seems like he's trying to build up his warring credentials like Sharon, in order to make his (future) peace overtures more credible.

But let me turn this back around at you: The argument I hear, even from the Bush administration, is that Israel should respond proportionally. What does that mean? If Hizbollah/Hamas takes 2 Israelis, Israel is allowed to kill 2 in return? That just means that Hizbollah can continue indefinitely.

It seems to me that if a country is attacked at will, that country should use whatever force is necessary to stop all future attacks, rather than just responding proportionally to every individual attack.
post #485 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Why does it have one? With what kind of justification can a nation, all of a sudden, be created where previously, a different nation was situated? Sounds like annexion to me.

You can't fix history Chucker. It exists and it has a right to exist because of that....
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
post #486 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Why does it have one? With what kind of justification can a nation, all of a sudden, be created where previously, a different nation was situated? Sounds like annexion to me.

You seem to forget that the whole region was controlled by the Turks up through WW1 and the Brits after that. The surrounding middle eastern countries weren't created until the 1930s and again those borders were entirely arbitrary.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #487 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You can't fix history Chucker. It exists and it has a right to exist because of that....

I realize that. I was questioning the assertion that the state of Israel has the right to exist. And by that, I obviously don't mean "the people of Israel", no, I mean the state. And I don't mean either that the people don't deserve a state; of course they do. But whether it's justifiable that the UN sanctions them taking away land from others is another question

and judging by the continuous attacks between the two countries, it's a heavily and violently debated one.
post #488 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
No, it is the same old bs by a pollitician. "I don't want to attack, even though I said I did and I am preparing for an attack - but one might happen anyway because I can't control the situation".

Hello, this is from a US intelligence report. It is a documentation of how Egypt was worried about an Israeli attack in the days prior to the 5th of June 1967.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
post #489 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by New
Give the palestinians a break. Negotiate.

They did...and then they elected Hamas. What more can you ask as an olive branch than a unilateral pull out of Gaza?

Nothing. Give them a Roman peace.

Vinea
post #490 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
They did...and then they elected Hamas. What more can you ask as an olive branch than a unilateral pull out of Gaza?

Nothing. Give them a Roman peace.

Vinea

BS, They elected hamas because Fatah wasn't getting anywhere, partially because Israel was not giving them a break.

The pullout of Gaza, accompanied by shut borders, was a totally different kind of branch.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
post #491 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by New
BS, They elected hamas because Fatah wasn't getting anywhere, partially because Israel was not giving them a break.

Electing Hamas resulted in Mirkavas back in Gaza...yes, that was a grand improvement. Was there any doubt in anyone's mind that the end result of electing Hamas wasn't some major ass kicking? While Fatah was in power the PA had some plausible deniability that Israel could accept to save face and not stomp them.

With Hamas there is no such pretense. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Vinea
post #492 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
But let me turn this back around at you: The argument I hear, even from the Bush administration, is that Israel should respond proportionally. What does that mean? If Hizbollah/Hamas takes 2 Israelis, Israel is allowed to kill 2 in return? That just means that Hizbollah can continue indefinitely.

Well in any kind of military respons, poroptional or not, on has to calculate the effects. The whole reason Hizbollah is so powerful in southern Lebanon right now, is because the were the only ones who stood up to the 18-year long israeli occupation of that area. When Israel finally left, they where celebrated as heros. And like Hamas, they have several branches, their welfare services are better than the service run by the lebanese state (if any). So, like Hamas, Israel has efficiently, by disproportionate measures of force, created a climate where these organizations practically thrive.

But that's the past. If you asked Hizbollah, I bet they would argue that they are the ones that are responding to agression, like Israel argues. So that leaves an analaysis on what the parties actually want to achive.

- Could Israel exchange the Sheeba farms for security? Would Hizbollah reduce their agression? Maybe, maybe not.

- If Israel withdrew from the Golan heights, would that lessen Syrias interest in funding Hizbollah and demanding less agression. Most certainly. Would such a withdrawal guarantee israeli security? Maybe with a UN force present.

- Would a different approach to the palestinians lessen Hizbollahs cause? I'm certain it would. But it would have to be a radically new approach.

As you see, I think the solution lies with the root causes. Anything else is like watering the lawn of a burning house.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
post #493 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
Electing Hamas resulted in Mirkavas back in Gaza...yes, that was a grand improvement. Was there any doubt in anyone's mind that the end result of electing Hamas wasn't some major ass kicking? While Fatah was in power the PA had some plausible deniability that Israel could accept to save face and not stomp them.

With Hamas there is no such pretense. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Vinea

I agree, such is democracy. We had a silly priest for prime minister for several years.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
post #494 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
A war? No. Starting a war because a neighboring country is moving its troops around is like shooting someone because he/she put his/her hand in his/her pocket. It could be a gun they're reaching for - but it could also be some candy.

If someone is nervous and is pointing a gun at you it is generally wise not to stick your hand in your pocket for any reason.

A theory is that the Russians instigated this particular war giving provacative intel to the Syrian and Egyptians to make them act in an even more belligerent manner toward Isreal. Certainly Egypt wasn't in position for war when it started but certainly the blockade was provocation enough for war.

Had the US gotten its diplomatic act together and actually ended the blockade the war likely would have been averted.

Quote:
A lot of people are provoked, provoke, and instigate provocation every day. That doesn't mean that one should fight with them. There are daily provocations in the Grecian-Turkish border but whens the last time you heard them starting wars about it?

1974. Turkish invasion of Cyprus after Greek officers in the Cypriot National Guard attempted a coup. Short war admittedly.

Vinea
post #495 of 882
I've been on vacation since the 6th, so I've been following these major developments any way I've been able to...newspapers, TV news, cell phone news service, etc.

It would seem to me that Israel has had enough. Enough of hezbollah, Hamas, Iran et al. Olmert decided to send a message that he wasn't going to be fucked with. I'd say that message has been received, to an extent.

I read some of the posts in this thread, and it occurs to me a unifying theme is "what comes next?" At this point I have to wonder if we (the US) aren't going to get involved militarily. If Israel is correct about Iran essentially performing the attack on the warship by proxy, I wonder if we as Israel's ally are going to stand for that. I mean, will Israel go to "open war" with Iran too...by itself? Somehow I doubt it.

A second point I read related to Lebanon "not being Hezbollah." I disagree. Lebanon and Syria are essentially run by terrorists. Israel, in my opinion, has had enough of surrounding Arab nations looking the other way (perhaps even encouraging) with regard to terror. They've decided to do something it about this time, obviously.

A final point: My wife is friend's with a crewman on the USS Albuquerque. Let's just say he's not even allowed to talk about his specific duties on the ship, mmmmk? Anyway, the point of the anecdote is that she got an e-mail a few days ago from this guy. We knew he was in the gulf area already...but this e-mail said "you might not hear from me for a while...we're going to do what we get paid to do soon." I don't know that it means anything...but it further made me wonder whether or not the US will get involved militarily.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #496 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I've been on vacation since the 6th, so I've been following these major developments any way I've been able to...newspapers, TV news, cell phone news service, etc.

It would seem to me that Israel has had enough. Enough of hezbollah, Hamas, Iran et al. Olmert decided to send a message that he wasn't going to be fucked with. I'd say that message has been received, to an extent.

I read some of the posts in this thread, and it occurs to me a unifying theme is "what comes next?" At this point I have to wonder if we (the US) aren't going to get involved militarily. If Israel is correct about Iran essentially performing the attack on the warship by proxy, I wonder if we as Israel's ally are going to stand for that. I mean, will Israel go to "open war" with Iran too...by itself? Somehow I doubt it.

A second point I read related to Lebanon "not being Hezbollah." I disagree. Lebanon and Syria are essentially run by terrorists. Israel, in my opinion, has had enough of surrounding Arab nations looking the other way (perhaps even encouraging) with regard to terror. They've decided to do something it about this time, obviously.

A final point: My wife is friend's with a crewman on the USS Albuquerque. Let's just say he's not even allowed to talk about his specific duties on the ship, mmmmk? Anyway, the point of the anecdote is that she got an e-mail a few days ago from this guy. We knew he was in the gulf area already...but this e-mail said "you might not hear from me for a while...we're going to do what we get paid to do soon." I don't know that it means anything...but it further made me wonder whether or not the US will get involved militarily.


Oh god! Let's hope not!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #497 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001

A final point: My wife is friend's with a crewman on the USS Albuquerque. Let's just say he's not even allowed to talk about his specific duties on the ship, mmmmk? Anyway, the point of the anecdote is that she got an e-mail a few days ago from this guy. We knew he was in the gulf area already...but this e-mail said "you might not hear from me for a while...we're going to do what we get paid to do soon." I don't know that it means anything...but it further made me wonder whether or not the US will get involved militarily.

Sailors also swab decks. Maybe he is too embarassed to talk about his job.
post #498 of 882
The US media's take on the worsening Middle East, re. civilian casualties:

(a) Israeli civilians are been killed in the Hezbollah attacks: "Terrible, tragic".
(b) Canadian civilians have been killed in Israeli bombing: Unfortunate, couldn't really be avoided".
(c) Lebanese civilians have been killed by Israeli bombs: "Whatever".

Predictable... and that's CNN, which airs its duplicity rather more subtlely than Fox News, or the Bush Administration. I still haven't worked out how many Lebanese (or Palestinian) lives are worth one Israeli life, as far as the US Government is concerned. 5? 20? 100?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #499 of 882
Writing from Jerusalem, Israeli peace advocate and author Reuven Kaminer explains:

It is indeed probable that Israel, carried away by an attack of self righteousness, has forgotten its main task in the region: to maintain a modicum of calm and normality in order to block developments that could harm the basic interests of the United States or Israel. Israels pretensions to maintain a quiet occupation without any challenges has hurled the region into a new round of war and destruction. Israel, quite clearly guilty of serious crimes against humanity by creating a major humanitarian crisis in Gaza in the south, has gone on a campaign of aggression against Lebanon in the north.

In accordance with the norms of the special relationship, Washington has issued the obligatory condemnation of the Hezballa and cited the responsibility of the Syrians and the Iranians. At the same time, Washington has made every effort to ignore the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It is still not clear how the U.S. and Bush are involved in Israels recent escapades. Bush is, of course, up to his neck in Iraq. Though we must countenance the possibility that there are some forces in Washington which might be playing with a monstrous scheme for a wider conflagration in the entire Middle East, it is too early to see the recent Israeli adventures as a prelude to a wider aggression and hard to believe that Washington is ready for all out confrontation with Iran and Syria.

Meanwhile, with Israel choking Lebanon and starving Gaza, it will be more and more difficult for (even) Bush to justify all this under the cynical caption of Israel has the right to defend itself. After all, Lebanon, now being pulverized by IDF bombs, was supposed to be the U.S.star pupil in democratic transformation.

Israel has made its move: it demands that the world recognize its right to a deluxe, resistance free occupation or it will go to war. The international community will have to take a stand on this issue, sooner rather than later. At the heart of this crisis: the refusal of the international community to fulfill its duty to establish a just peace based on the creation of an independent, viable Palestinian state. History will not bypass this requirement.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
post #500 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Sailors also swab decks. Maybe he is too embarassed to talk about his job.



That is pretty funny, but the Albuquerque is an SSN, submariners tend to be pretty closed mouthed about what they do! 'Silent Service' has more than one meaning, particularly if they are a 'nuke' (an engineer).
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
post #501 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by New
After exchange of pleasantries, Nasser said he became worried and afraid of Israeli attack because of speeches and his own intelligence of mobilization by Israel

I'll readily admit I'm not an expert on the '67 situation, but this seems almost hilarious to me.

Doesn't that say that he made speeches, which were tantamount to a declaration of war against another country, and then got worried the other country would take him seriously?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
post #502 of 882
It's hilarious to think that speeches were a reason for war.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
post #503 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by New
Would Hizbollah reduce their agression? Maybe, maybe not.

Isn't that really the problem, from Israel's perspective? What's the point of compromising when it's not at all clear that there will be anything but increased violence in return? Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas even accept the premise of an Israel. How do you compromise under those conditions?
post #504 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
I'll readily admit I'm not an expert on the '67 situation, but this seems almost hilarious to me.

Doesn't that say that he made speeches, which were tantamount to a declaration of war against another country, and then got worried the other country would take him seriously?


It is, and of course it was not the speeches alone.

But if you familiarize yourself with mideastern politics you'll see that the speeches are hilarious. And it takes some time to accept that the speeches and the rhetoric, are not the actual politics. It's propaganda.

You have the same situation in with communism. The absurd use of slogans. And looking at the US from the outside. The speeches of Bush sounds equally absurd at times. Like the "axis of evil" and stuff.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
post #505 of 882
Yes, as we teeter on the verge of WW3 and potential global annihilation due to the antics of the usual crypto-fascist madmen and psychopathic sickos, it seems that all is not gloom and doom.

Christian Fundamentalists - the 'good' mirror-image of the Muslim Fundamentalists and the chief architects and supporters of war, Bush, Israel and Islamophobia - have been speaking out with their own unique take.

The fundie message board Rapture Ready has been the venue for the ongoing dialogue and features such gems as the following:

Quote:
I too am soooo excited!! I get goose bumps, literally, when I watch what's going on in the M.E.!! And Watcherboy, you were so right when saying it was quite a day yesterday, in the world news, and I add in local news here in the Boston area!! Tunnel ceiling collapsed on a car and killed a woman of faith, and we had the most terrifying storms I have ever seen here!! But, yes, Ohappyday, like in your screen name , it is most indeed a time to be happy and excited, right there with ya!!

And the classic:

Quote:
For the first time in my Christian walk, I have no doubts that the day of the Lords appearing is upon us. I have never felt this way before, I have a joy that bubbles up every-time I think of him, for I know this is truly the time I have waited for so long. Am I alone in feeling guilty about the human suffering like my joy at his appearing some how fuels the evil I see everywhere. If it were not for the souls that hang in the balance and the horror that stalks man daily on this earth, my joy would be complete."

And......

Quote:
"Days like today it's all I want. Other days because of others I want one more. But what a privilege to be apart of the rapture. I can hardly wait!!"

Probably 'days like these' are not exactly what the women and kids being massacred want but still, this board has achieved a kind of cult status and is featuring heavily on various blogs.

Strangely for people so set in their 'faith' they are not so willing to share it this time - unlike when infesting other people's countries on 'conversion' missions' and the posts have been pulled from the board. Odd.

Still. They are cached and many blogs are covering it here, here, and here.

But the big question really is - and always has been as I never tire of pointing out - the following:

IF these nutters believe in this rapture nonsense (a theological abortion in no way implicit in Christ's teaching but that's another story) and if they believe the current war and mass-slaughter in (or by) Israel is a necessary precursor to it [which it is now proven they do actually believe but we knew that already]....

And

IF these nutters are in positions of political power and have influence on Presidential decisions [they are and they do]

THEN surely - as I have always said - they had a large part directly and indirectly in making this happen. It doesn't get any more dangerous - or evil - than that.

There is such a thing as the demonic. And the first thing it does is define the term 'demonic' as the opposite of itself.

Anyway, they may be right and we may all be going to die. Just thought we should give credit to the guys who made it all possible. I suppose death might not be so bad in many ways - they've certainly ruined the world I used to know and there is a bright side: the burning hellfire they so earnestly wish for people like me and any other normal person reading this is undoubtedly a crock of shit.

We may even get some sort of paradise - for sure we will be in opposite areas of confinement and that's good enough for me.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #506 of 882
Jesus would be ashamed.
post #507 of 882
I love Jesus but I am not like what you cut and paste in your opening post.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #508 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I love Jesus but I am not like what you cut and paste in your opening post.

Fellows

But you are not a fundie are you....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #509 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I love Jesus but I am not like what you cut and paste in your opening post.

Fellows

Also I should say - this is an attitude I don't understand and never have.

If I post against what are known as 'fundies' (I didn't invent the term) then many people (not necessarily you) who I would regard as not fundies at all leap to the defense, or at least defense of Christianity - but Christianity is not being criticized. A perversion of Christianity is.

I can understand in certain people's case as I am relatively sure that they are actually fundies and more or less fit into the commonly known belief structure of such, it's only natural that they should feel criticized. But others who are more in line with Christ's message and spirit? I don't get it.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #510 of 882
Thread Starter 
You cannot ask outsiders to evaluate what is "true" Christianity and what is "perverted" Christianity. They have Biblical sources for their views and it is not anyone else's job to make any value determinations about those sources being legitimate or illegitimate.

The simple fact that Christian belief allows for such a wide range of nuttery is an inherent attack on Christian belief itself without any persecutors needed. Sorry, but that's how it is.

Very very few in this nation will do the same Gumby-on-a-Twister-board routine to defend other religions, but will go to great strides to defend their own. The whole "Americans saying Islam is a religion of peace" movement died sometime in early 2002, as soon as we started dropping bombs and needing to dehumanize those women and children we started killing en masse.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #511 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
We may even get some sort of paradise - for sure we will be in opposite areas of confinement and that's good enough for me.....

If you believe in life after death, then in my book you are just as crazy as they are. Their beliefs have more negative impact on the real world, but it isn't any more or less crazy than any other religion.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
post #512 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
You cannot ask outsiders to evaluate what is "true" Christianity and what is "perverted" Christianity. They have Biblical sources for their views and it is not anyone else's job to make any value determinations about those sources being legitimate or illegitimate.

Christianity is and must be derived from the Bible. I cannot start a 'Christian' sect that sacrifices goats to Satan for example and claim your above rationale.

So you are right in saying that the source is the Bible but you are wrong in saying that there is a Biblical source for many of these fundie beliefs. There is no such source for very many of them and the 'Rapture' is certainly one such.

This can be clearly seen by the fact that what is commonly called 'the Rapture' is not agreed upon by theologians - as such it is divided into two frameworks: pre-tribulationism (and mid-tribulationism) and post-tribulationism which are contradictory. Ie they cannot both be true. In the first, the rapture and the Second Coming are separate events, in the second simultaneous. They cannot both be right.

Further, the general sense of its understanding is a kind of dumbed-down US version that owes more to people like La Haye and snake-oil hucksters than it does to serious theology or Biblical exegesis - and this would be the view of any serious Biblical scholar or Theologian that is not themselves a fundie (as such people virtually never are - it is a contradiction in terms).

Quote:
The simple fact that Christian belief allows for such a wide range of nuttery is an inherent attack on Christian belief itself without any persecutors needed. Sorry, but that's how it is.

Well, as I believe in the teaching of Christ myself then you have a philosophical problem. It is also actually a theological one because you will doubtless remember the words of Christ where he explains that many who will call themselves Christians in future times will be the furthest from it. Perhaps he is attacking Christianity?

Perhaps God is also when HE states He will say to these people "Depart from me - I never knew you".

Quote:
Very very few in this nation will do the same Gumby-on-a-Twister-board routine to defend other religions, but will go to great strides to defend their own. The whole "Americans saying Islam is a religion of peace" movement died sometime in early 2002, as soon as we started dropping bombs and needing to dehumanize those women and children we started killing en masse.

Well, that's a different story and perhaps a peculiarity of US brands of Christianity. I don't know. Certainly it is not the case in Europe (except in relation to fundie varieties of Christianity who virtually always have a US-centric view).

BTW: it is not so much the theology (or lack of it) but more the attitude. I think one can certainly make a case that those 'excited' by wars which entail innocent deaths because of a selfish desire for some sort of reward are perhaps out of step with the Christian message.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #513 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
If you believe in life after death, then in my book you are just as crazy as they are. Their beliefs have more negative impact on the real world, but it isn't any more or less crazy than any other religion.

In your book. I can respect that. I would disagree that it is crazy to believe in the possibility of life after death as is clearly a possibility - just as it is a possibility that there is none.

It is crazy to say one way or another and claim knowledge of it I agree - but how can a belief be crazy? Belief is not knowledge.

Of course some people do indeed claim such knowledge and I would agree, often these give the impression of being totally deranged - I'm not a doctor though.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #514 of 882
So they believe the current ME situation is a pecursor to the End of Times. They are expressing joy because they believe Jesus Christ's return is imminent.

I think they're wrong on both counts, and I think they're joy is misguided in light of the human suffering taking place

What I resent is seg's continued portrayal of these wack-a-doos as being representative of Christians in general...or even representative of most fundamental, born again Christians. They are not. The Christians I know would look at the current ME situation and wonder if it signified Christ's return. They wouldn't express hysterical joy at all the killing going on.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #515 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
In your book. I can respect that. I would disagree that it is crazy to believe in the possibility of life after death as is clearly a possibility - just as it is a possibility that there is none.

It is crazy to say one way or another and claim knowledge of it I agree - but how can a belief be crazy? Belief is not knowledge.

Of course some people do indeed claim such knowledge and I would agree, often these give the impression of being totally deranged - I'm not a doctor though.

Not only is there no reason to believe in life after death, no evidence at all, but it is pretty obvious why people came up with the whole concept in the first place (to help deal with fear of death).

Believing in something which has no supporting evidence, while knowing that you (and society as a whole) have a vested emotional interest in that belief being true - that is crazy.

You can see how religion formed (early attempts at explaining the world), why it formed (control of society, tools to deal with fear/death/uncertainty), but you still believe that those old witch doctors early guesses were right! crazy.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
post #516 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
What I resent is seg's continued portrayal of these wack-a-doos as being representative of Christians in general...or even representative of most fundamental, born again Christians.

Resisting the urge to say I resent that resentment I shall merely say that I have never implied any such thing and have said so - even to you - on may occasions. Even in this very thread.

Strangely, when I slag-off extreme Islamists such as the Sauds or the Taleban I don't see anyone foaming at the mouth claiming I am saying they are representative of Islam.

I really think you have a blind spot here. I am not slagging them off for being Christians or Muslims as I deny they are.

I am slagging them because as you say, they are 'wack-a-doos' and to have two religions you believe in, love and respect brought into disrepute by such is not something that I think is such a good thing.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #517 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Not only is there no reason to believe in life after death, no evidence at all, but it is pretty obvious why people came up with the whole concept in the first place (to help deal with fear of death).

Believing in something which has no supporting evidence, while knowing that you (and society as a whole) have a vested emotional interest in that belief being true - that is crazy.

You can see how religion formed (early attempts at explaining the world), why it formed (control of society, tools to deal with fear/death/uncertainty), but you still believe that those old witch doctors early guesses were right! crazy.

This is just your opinion - your belief in fact. You may even be right and because of that I respect your belief even though I have a different belief of my own.

If, however, you start to claim you know this for a fact - ie whether life continues after death - then would feel duty bound to withdraw that respect on the grounds you are a fundie.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #518 of 882
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
This is just your opinion - your belief in fact. You may even be right and because of that I respect your belief even though I have a different belief of my own.

If, however, you start to claim you know this for a fact - ie whether life continues after death - then would feel duty bound to withdraw that respect on the grounds you are a fundie.


Then how come you don't respect the end of world-ers? In a world where every wacko belief with no proof is just as valid as any other, you seem to be drawing some arbitrary lines...
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
post #519 of 882
This is one of those things that makes it hard to know sometimes who's being serious and who's being satirical:
Quote:
If He tarries, I will just have time to get my hair and nails done (you know let all I come into contact with know of my Bridegroom and what He has/will do). So i am all spiffied up for Him when He does arrive to take me home. No disappointment, just a few last minute details to take care of to be more pleasing to look at.

The context is which this was posted makes me think the above was meant seriously, and I can, sadly enough, imagine the Tammy Faye Bakker clones who think this way in real life.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #520 of 882
Btw, here is the Fundamentalism Wiki.

Quote:
In comparative religion, fundamentalism has come to refer to several different understandings of religious thought and practice, through literal interpretation of religious texts such as the Bible or the Qur'an and sometimes also anti-modernist movements in various religions.

Fundamentalism is a continuing historical phenomenon, it is increasingly a modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture, even where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents' religion.

The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite possible contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship.

Similarly, Fundamentalism, as the term is used today, is a fairly recent creation closely linked with the historical and cultural contexts of 1920s U.S. Protestantism (e.g. the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy in the Presbyterian Church).

This is pretty much how I would understand and employ the term and imo, based on these criteria alone - regardless of doctrinal positions - there are numerous grounds for arguing that fundamentalist interpretations of any given religion must, by definition, be erroneous.

For example: literalism is not an essential component of many religions in the original formulations - clearly both Jesus and Muhammad extensively utilized metaphor and parables that are antithetical to literal interpretations.

Secondly, obviously Fundamentalism is a product of post-modern culture. As such it is at odds with teachings that are not so. Unless, that is, the Fundamentalist interpretation claims the status of a new divine dispensation. Because that is what a Revelation is: a new dispensation.

Of course, theologically, no new movement can claim this without being schematic so they fall back on trying to portray the new post-modern development as somehow 'original'. This cannot be as it is demonstrably a modern phenomenon but moreover, it is also the area where Fundamentalism can be proved wrong as it is quite clearly different and in some cases contradictory, when compared with the original Scripture.

This is the case in both Islam and Christianity and maybe other religions too.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › All old Israel/Lebanon threads merged in here