Moving on from the discussion HERE:
… The problem though, as I see it, is an enormous missunderstanding in the West as to what “moderate” means in the context of Islam. Hardly a commentator or pundit takes the time to determine the meaning of “moderate Islam”, yet casually tosses the term about willy-nilly.
Let me suggest therefore, a definition for moderate Muslim based in Western values … a definition that just may challenge our understanding. After all, we constantly read about and hear the term, “moderate Muslim majority” , as if it is a fact. I don’t at all intend to censure or judge the basic “goodness” of any man or woman, but do want to demonstrate that casual use of the term “moderate Muslim” may be ill-conceived.
keep reading …
An Interview to Think By:
Joe, thanks for sharing your insights. I too grew up intellectualized into believing that religion was nothing more than fairy tales. then when I realized I would have to decide whether to give my kids their Jewish heritage, I began to read the Bible with adult eyes, and with the commentaries of the sages. I began to see that everything that I thought was lame, was actually not lame at all and that the story was continuing every day.
tommorrow morning we start the yearly reading again – In the beginning (Parshat Breisheit)
ex-liberal
May God give light to your minds as you read.
Peace my brother
Ex-liberal,
For religious moderation in religion it is necessary to take the book of faith with a grain of salt. It is necessary to understand that the torah/bible/koran/Mahayana/Book of the Dead is an exciting transcription of the oral history of a place and time. If God dripped out of every word in these books how is it possible that there are contradictions?
Did God make mistakes writing his holy book(s)?
Is it God’s will that one faith destroys another? One People destroy another? If God is perfect, how does war exist? What’s the point of praying for the Canadiens to win tomorrow when I know that there will be an offsetting prayer from a leafs fan?
Understanding that the holy books were written 1400-5000 years ago should be a quick indicator that they are not necessarily the best guiding light. Think about it this way: Your parents aren’t very good with computers, and your kids are. You could say that there are things learned in the newer generation that were never learned by older generations. Did grandpa ever figure out how to use the microwave? I don’t think so, so it’d be better not to take his advice on living a modern life as absolute truth. There are no absolutes. Everything, including God, needs to be seen in shades of gray.
Jon
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
St Paul in writing in his first letter to the Corinthian Church. NIV translation
“I also absolutely maintain that Islamic fascism would have emerged EVEN IF ISRAEL NEVER EXISTED. The existence of Israel is a current smokescreen for Islamic fascism”
Caps lose arguments. ET, you’re blinded by your own petard. Stick your fingers into your eyes and clear the gunk. Islam cannot exist without the Pentateuch. It can’t exist without Christ.
The problem with your mode of thinking is that you can’t consider the metaphysical (or even history, for that matter) in order to arive at wisdom. It’s a harsh trap you’re in. Do you at least know the story of Abraham and his legitimate and illegitamate sons?
We are living the story.
If God is perfect, how does war exist?
Jon, I think some of us project our sensibilities onto God to attempt to understand; we will not. The Old Testament tells of a fire and brimstone God; war is unfortunately part of the human experience. I believe God wants to see the triumph of the human spirit against all trials and tribulations; through these events we can come closer to God. Science will also ultimately bring us closer to God.
Great post Joe.
Apollyon
Thank you
May God bless you, this restful day, with peace beyond understanding.
there is no such thing as a moderate muslim. it would be apostacy. islam must be over all. it cannot coexist with other faiths or a secular society. please don’t give turkey as an example, the time frame is too short and things are going to change there. read the koran. a true believer will never be moderate.
I hate to add anything to a 100+ post debate of the origins of the middle east, but its too bad the topic was so badly hijacked, because its NOTHING to do with Israel (and all of your discussions are quite immaterial to the thread intent).
And that was: the relativistic nature of a definition of “moderate”, and that the west’s definition of “moderate” is contextually very different from that of Islam’s believers, and the further corollary that the WEST has a problem with “moderate Islam”, because the WEST doesn’t understand “moderation” the way ME Islamists do.
The thread wasn’t about history lessons, it was about East-West relativism, history be damned, which IMO, is a far more serious and pressing concern.
It is interesting that the main response to my socioeconomic analysis of a situation – is a religious response. That’s similar to the Islamic fundamentalist response to questions about ‘why do you do what you do’? They too explain their behaviour as based within religion. I think this is a totally inadequate explanation.
Ideological or purely theoretical analyses can’t dominate reality; the scholastics eventually had to learn that basic fact and were sidelined. Reality has its own ways of refusing to be ignored – and reality is material. It is also reason (logical organization). On these two basics, material existence and reason – I stand by my arguments.
The claims that because I deal with the economy, then I am a Marxist – are nonsense. Is every Winner of the Nobel Economic Prize a Marxist???
Joe – you obviously don’t know anything about the difference in social structure between a population that is urban and one that is rural. The two forms of social organization require a different social, economic and political organization. You don’t know this.
And no, one doesn’t ‘choose’ to industrialize or not. It depends on the size of the population. In this era, the ME states have no choice but to industrialize. And industrialism requires a middle class. You don’t know any of this infrastructure. You think it’s all ‘choice’; it isn’t. Population size is related to the economic mode. Political structure is related to them both.
irwin daisy – I am well-versed in history – and reasonably in metaphysics (I’m a fan of Aristotle and Peirce); that’s why I repeat – in CAPS – that ISLAMIC FASCISM WOULD EXIST EVEN WITHOUT THE EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL. The two are unrelated to each other. Islamic fascism is directly related to a dysfunctional economic-political structure of tribalism.
Joe- I’m not a fan of Augustine; I’m sure you are aware how much better Maximus’ argument is in the Arian-Athanasian debate. Augustine just rants. But then, I’m in favour of the Arian argument.
So- none of us are going to agree with each other. I guess that’s where it stands.
Skip,
Trying to discuss moderation in Islam without talking about Israel is like trying to figure out why your dog got hit by a car, without looking at the street. There’s a reason why many discussions of moderate Islam turn to Israel… A MODERATE WOULDN’T APPROVE THE SUICIDE BOMBING OF ANOTHER COUNTRY. A moderate knows that “truth” is better if you add salt.
Apollyon,
I have a hard time believe that just because there was war in the Old Testament, it means that God approved of it. That was essentially my point earlier. To take the bible at face value is to accept that it is divine. If it was divine there would be no room for translation or contradiction.
You are all missing the point entirely, and that is, there is a fundamental difference in the definition of “moderate”, as is currently understood in the West, for religious, cultural, and technological reasons, and that of the Islamist world. The historical roots are irrelevant. What matters is that the difference exists, and the societal outcome of the difference is significant. What matters is that the West has a lay definition of “moderate” which is NOT consistenT with the Islamist’s lay definition of “moderate”. Therein lies the rub.
The historical roots of the Middle East are totally irrelevant. They are only rationalizations for the difference, and espousing them ad nauseum, do not alter the chasm that exists in the lay beliefs of the genral public on both sides of the chasm. This is not a discussion for eggheads; it speaks to the core beliefs of the masses.
If God is perfect, why is there war?
Two answers. God gives us free will, and we are far from perfect ourselves.
For the atheist types, the question may be: if nature is perfect, why is there war? Same answer, though.
skip- I disagree; I think the historical roots of the mode of belief, ‘moderation’ are vitally important.
The West went through a socioeconomic and political transformation from the medieval peasant agriculture based around the manor, to a large scale agricultural market economy – with a concomitant rise in population. This required a different sociopolitical organization – ie, a middel class.
The ME didn’t approach this era until post WWII; its ‘feudal system’ is fighting the required change to a modern economy (market/industrial) and political system (middle class/democracy).
The historical realities are vital in understanding. If you don’t know this history of both areas, then you are reduced to explaining the conceptual differences as due to ‘religion’ or ‘ideology’ or ‘culture’. Wrong.
shamrock – I am, as you know, an atheist. Your basic assumption of a priori perfection – a Platonist Ideal (I dislike Platonism!) is disputable. Nature isn’t ‘perfect’. No spatiotemporal reality is perfect.
I suggest you check out the difference between Formal and Informal Properties (Godel). The Formal is a pure abstraction, never materialized; it is ‘perfect’ because it is never ‘actual’; it is aspatial and atemporal.. But all of life is material or ‘Informal’, ie, spatiotemporally formed, and therefore, it never fully represents the Formal Idea.
Furthermore, all of life is dynamic, it is interactive. That requires imbalance of energy content/power/mass etc. This imbalance enables interaction (a bowl of homogeneous jello doesn’t interact). So – inequality is basic to life. Most of the time the interactions are collaborative, but, when the imbalance becomes too great, the interaction can be violent.
ET wrote
“It is interesting that the main response to my socioeconomic analysis of a situation – is a religious response. That’s similar to the Islamic fundamentalist response to questions about ‘why do you do what you do’? They too explain their behaviour as based within religion. I think this is a totally inadequate explanation.”
Did you ever think that the reason we keep going back to religion is because Islam is a religion? Or that the reason that your analysis is not given great credence is because your socioeconomic analysis is based on your apparently unshakable belief that socioeconomics is The God before which all other gods must bow? I call that kind or theory a doughnut theory. Kinda sugary sweet dough but there is a gaping hole in the middle.
What I and a good number of other posters have been trying seemingly in vain is to get through to you that there are reasons far beyond socioeconomic ones for the ways people to behave towards each other. There are things beyond socioeconomics that span centuries, societies and cultures and have a for greater impact on society than socioeconomics. The Jewish culture spanning thousands of years practiced, believed, held as highest truth a source of wisdom and inspiration where ever it is practiced in the world.
The Jewish tradition’s greatest offspring Christianity modifying cultures and socioeconomics throughout the world. From the slums of Nairobi to poshest neighbourhoods in New York, London, Paris even under the cruellest dictators and most repressive communist regimes Christianity has spread and continues to play a vital roll in the kind of society people live in.
The same with Islam. The answers if offers, I disagree with, but to the people who adhere to it do so not because of socioeconomics but because it offers them a hope for the future beyond the here and now. It offers a way to live a live that is holy and spiritual. If offers them a way to organize and govern their society. The society it produces is not one I would choose to live in but then again I am a Christian and not a Muslim.
Finally before you accuse me of not understanding socioeconomics why don’t you try to attend a faithful church for a year or two and come to an understanding of religion. If your heritage is Jewish I would suggest you might feel more closely aligned with a synagogue. Go there for a year or two and make an honest effort to discover the real mover and shaker of this world His own creation of which you and I are just tiny threads in His great story line.
God bless
I have a hard time believe that just because there was war in the Old Testament, it means that God approved of it.
Jon, not only did God condone war He demanded that the children of Eretz Israel destroy its enemies. I am by no means a biblical scholar and would defer to Joe for more in-depth analysis, but again I think good people like yourself project your kind sensibilities onto God, almost giving Him a grandfatherly image. As a Jew I’ve been asked many times to reconcile how God could have chosen the Jews as His people yet inflicted them with unspeakable hardship, persecution and genocide. I can not begin to understand God’s plan but what I can say is that I have always believed, from birth, and my faith is unshakable against all odds. The human experience wasn’t designed to be painless and void of hardship; with good comes evil, with day comes night; through conflict and difficulties is where the human spirit can soar. I’m having difficulty articulating my thoughts, hope that didn’t sound too much like a ramble.
A passage I really like……..
Deuteronomy 20:1-4
“When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you. 2 When you are about to go into battle, the priest shall come forward and address the army. 3 He shall say: “Hear, O Israel, today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not be terrified or give way to panic before them. 4 For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory.”
Wow ! What a thread. Makes it easy to understand how religious wars start. My belief is better than your belief. Prove it. Impossible — it’s a belief. Same goes for AGW belief.
Fundamentaly flawed alright. The fanatical ones have extreme jealousy of our western ways and so bombed one of it’s symbol — with our planes. But partied before hand in Las Vegas. What’s wrong with this picture ?? And why the western underground movement giving them a pass ?? Why do the moderates not stand up ?? Same reason we are reluctant to come forward at a crime scene ? Hassel once involved — justice system more geared to helping the perpetraitor than the victim. Witnesses may have to ‘lay low’ when the perpetraitor gets off.
joe, thank you for your kind and sincere words; I appreciate them, but, my answer is ‘No’.
I do not accept the notion of a Metaphysical Intentionality, ie, God.
What bothered me about the fact that most posters resorted to religious claims of justification of action in the ME, is that both sides are making that claim! Both sides claim: ‘God gave ME the land’; God chose US;’ etc. This, to me, is irrational and against the tenets of reason.
I am an atheist; I do not accept any concept of an essentialist or a priori metaphysicalAgent-of-Intentionality. I have been called many names because of this. I’m told that because I reject God, then, I am incapable of morality. What an ignorant statement – to conclude that a human being cannot think and reason to a moral existence, but must rely on an external authority to tell them the difference between right and wrong.
I’m told that because I’m an atheist, I must be a communist. [Notice how on this thread, I’m accused of being a Marxist, because I base my analysis on the economic structure of a society! That ignorant statement thus means that ALL economists, including ALL who won the Nobel in Economics, are Marxists!] And of course, I’m constantly told that I’m a ‘leftist’ because these same people assume the direct correlation between ‘socialism’ and ‘atheism’. Again, they are wrong.
What these comments have in common, is that they reject the notion of Reason in our world. I refer you to Pope Benedict’s excellent speech, known as the Regensburg speech of Sept 12/06. In it, he says that “not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature” and he notes that for the Muslim, ‘God’s will is transcendent and not bound up with “any of our categories, even that of rationality”.
Benedict’s focus on the essential nature of Reason – is quite frankly, very Aristotelian. [Although he rejects Duns Scotus in favour of Augustine and Aquinas; and I prefer Duns Scotus to the latter two- who are both Platonists.]
And this focus on Reason, is where I locate myself. Not in any transcendent Agent of Intentionality. But in a certainty that the natural world operates within Reason. That is, the organizational properties that we see in the chemical, physical, and biological realms are all just that -organized, systemic, interactive, according to Developing Rules of Interaction and Stability. This is the work of Reason. The Universe is a result of Reason. But not God.
I acknowledge the same work of Reason in the organization of societies. That is, a society can be understood almost as an organism. A population living in a marginal ecology can only support itself by hunting/gathering. It will organize itself – by the Six Systems of Social Organization [economic, political, legal, family, educational, religious] in a particular way.
A population living in a richer environment can develop an economy that will support a larger population. Its Six Systems must be structured very differently. …and so on. That’s why I say that the ME nations have no choice but to become industrial. Their populations are too large for any other economic mode.
Notice also that Benedict rejects the isolation of reason to science, to the empirically verifiable – a Platonic view. And he rejects Kant’s isolation of reason from ‘faith’.
I consider the statements made by many on this thread, about the validity of Israel due to the word of God, as issues of faith, a faith isolated from Reason. One has to ask ‘what is faith’? It is only a belief that the Universe is, indeed, a continuous act of Reason.
No agent of intentionality, no God who chooses land for a people, no determined future. Just a continuous organization of energy/matter according to the basic Reasoning or logical ordering principles of matter. That’s all. Among the most complex species, homo sapiens, our capacity to articulate this Reasoning, means that we are responsible for our behaviour to others. Therefore, we can’t say that we ‘go to war’ because ‘God wills it’; or ‘God gave us the Land’. We, ourselves, must justify our actions within basic ethical and moral standards.
So- thank you for your suggestion and its good intentions, but, I will have to refuse it.
Apollyon,
I am aware of the scriptural history (I was a former youth group leader, and I dated a religious studies/Islam/International Relations Student for 5 years), but I had a watershed moment when I was younger about belief. I am rational, that’s why I’m an engineer, and that’s why I had to divorce myself from the idea of a god.
I was also a youth exchange student to Thailand during high school. I figured out that if I actually believed the things I professed to believe as a youth group leader, those who were kind and caring to me would go to hell. They had knowledge of Jesus, but would not pray in his name as a means to get to God. They were nice people, but doomed to hell.
The other thing that coalesced in my mind when I was overseas (I was only 17), was that I’d never seen any evidence of god. By this point I was thinking like a scientist.
Problem: How does one know God?
Hypothesis: Act well and follow his instruction.
Material: The good book, some close friends.
Method: Prayer and the golden rule.
Observation: Starvation, genocide, terrorism, war, murder, rape, honour killings.
Conclusions: No god.
Application: Religion is a placebo (in my mind). It helps people bring themselves through a terrible life of starvation and serfdom by convincing them that there is something better after this life.
I’m now what you could call a post-theist. I’m already in heaven. It’s not perfect, but comparatively speaking I have it pretty good and I’m not relying on the afterlife to make up for sacrifices in this life.
You are welcome ET except I would add that you are not being very scientific in your approach. Rejecting something because I reject the very idea of it is a bit silly don’t you think? After all the essence of science is experimentation to prove or disprove a theory. Rosy O’Donnel says fire doesn’t melt steel. As I scientist I would take and put steel into a hot fire and see if the steel melts. Rosy is wrong and I just proved it. I tell you that there is a God in whom we live and breath and have our being. Prove me wrong. If you are a better scientist than Rosy O’Donnel prove me wrong but don’t simply dismiss what I am saying based on your own strongly held prejudices and preconceptions. From my own expeience I can say that in my former loud and proud atheism I was nothing more than an opinionated hack. I had nothing to back up my firmly held beliefs because I had never opened myself to possibility that there is ……..
God Bless
Shabbat Shalom to Apollyon and ex-liberal too.
(I have a high regard for ET, but, on this issue, I do not agree at all.)
ET:
Afterthought/loose-ends: In the matter of compensation: it is the party responsible for damages which is legally/ethically expected to mitigate these damages with compensation. However, Israel simply did not cause the refugee crisis: the Arab countries did. I gather that after 1948 the Arabs of Palestine were angrier with the Arab countries than they were with Israel.
Also, please remember that the Arabs of Palestine were actively discouraged by the Arab countries from filing claims: because to do so would constitute tacit acceptance of the State of Israel.
CAPS – that ISLAMIC FASCISM WOULD EXIST EVEN WITHOUT THE EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL. The two are unrelated to each other.
I agree with the CAPS part but not with the lower case. This is a logical error on your part. the two are vitally related. The hatred of Jews is foundational to the Koran and pre-dated Israel, but the desire for the destruction of Israel is this reality manifest in the real world.
Finally, this whole conflict was never a “nationalist movement”. The invented people — the “Palestinians” (remember the word came into existence only after the Six-Day War in 1967) never ever had national aspirations. They stuck with the Ottomans to the bitter end; they had no issue with Egypt’s occupation of Gaza after 1948 and no issue with Jordan’s occupation of the West Bank.
The invention of the “Palestinian people” was a brilliant propaganda coup which re-framed the conflict from Israel/David vs. Arabia/Goliath, TO “Palestinians”/David vs. Israel/neo-colonialist/zionist/neo-nazi Goliath vs. Arabia/David.
With help from the Nazis. And I gather the PLO was actually put together by the Soviet Union.
Finally as mentioned in long-ago threads, the fatal flaw in your position is your wilfull and disturbing blindness/deafness to one cold stark undeniable reality, which is this: both the good-cop-terrorists of Fatah and the bad-cop-terrorists of Hamas make it perfectly plain (especially in Arabic) — and have never strayed from this position — that they desire a single state in the whole area of Palestine with Jews as dhimmis to be persecuted and reduced to zero over time. Just as the last Jew has left Kosovo.
Finally, and again: the Arabs don’t want a two-state solution; they feign this for Western consumption. They want a SINGLE STATE and a judenrein ME. Your stubborn, pigheaded insistence on this mirage actually bolsters the islamofacists making you an unwitting party to the destruction of Israel.
me no dhimmi. As usual, I disagree with you.
I disagree that it was only the Arab countries that caused the refugee crisis and that Israel was ‘guilt free’. I think that Israel was heavily involved in getting the Palestinians out of their homes and farms; remember, they wanted a Jewish majority. So- we disagree on this point.
Agreed – the Arab countries discouraged the Palestinians from filing for compensation, because that would acknowledge no ‘right of return’. But, Israel’s 1948-50 Knesset Laws were geared to preventing any return and any claims to land ownership (Absentee Laws).
Disagree. As I’ve said, Islamic fascism would exist and emerged, without Israel. Its cause is political tribalism in the Arab States. They are USING the Israeli existence as a cover to export their fascism. So, rather than the arab people turning against their tribal leaders, they are diverted to ‘hate the west and Israel’.
The word ‘Palestine’ did not come into existence in 1967; it was in existence for centuries, and indeed, the British used it – and even had a stamp with the term on it. But, trying to state that a nation can’t be legitimate unless it had the same name from the ‘beginning of time’ is an invalid argument.
Agreed – the Palestinians didn’t, during the Ottoman era, have nationalist aspirations; they were content to live in their homes and farms under Ottoman and British mandates. They were not, however, content to be expelled from these same homes and farms to set up a nation, in which they were not welcome by virtue of their religion.
Since they were expelled – the notion of a homeland for them became relevant.
Disagree – I disagree; the Palestinians do want a two state solution. Don’t merge all Arabs together. The Arab States of Iran, SA, Jordan, Egypt, etc don’t give a damn about the Palestinians. I’m talking only about the Palestinians.
I am neither a pig nor pigheaded. Nor am I an Islamic fascist. I could critique your stubborness, your refusal to acknowledge that the land was NOT empty (as you’ve previously implied); that the land was NOT improperly farmed; that God didn’t give it to any ‘chosen people’. and so on. So- we’ll have to continue to disagree.
joe – No, there’s no way that a physical being can prove or disprove the existence of a metaphysical being.
Therefore, comparing the testing of fire melting steel is an invalid analogy. Both fire and steel are physical realities and can interact directly with each other.
‘God’ is not a physical reality, and again, no physical reality can affirm/deny the existence of a metaphysical reality. It’s not in the realm of science (see Karl Popper on that).
So- ‘testing’ whether/not there is a god, is not a scientific act. And, I’ve long ago studied the various theoretical arguments, whether from Anselm’s’ a priori ontology, Aquinas’ Five a posteriori arguments, and so on and the arguments pro and con.
They are logically fascinating – but – I remain an atheist. and, by atheist, I don’t mean a relativist or positivist; I am Aristotelian and believe in Universals as Real, as well as Particulars. But, there is no metaphysical agent of intentionality in my world view.
ET:
I never said the word “Palestine” was invented, only the concept of a “Palestinian people” as commonly used today. If I thought it was of any use I could probably find a bunch of Arab elite quotes on this matter. I remain of the view that there was no “Palestinian people”. No distinct language, culture, religion, art, national aspirations. Again, the word “Palestinians” (not Palestine) was INVENTED post 1967. Before that it was merely Arabs. For the propaganda reasons already discussed.
As others have mentioned, I’m sure, the Jerusalem Post used to be the Palestinian Post, the Jerusalem Symphony the Palestinian Symphony. A Jewish military group (name escapes me) included the name Palestinian.
I never said the “land was empty”. Ever. In fact, the Zionists themselves recognized the error of their belief that they were “a people without a land, coming to a land without a people”. But it also true that the Zionists had no intention, contra Benny Morris and the New Historians, of ejecting Arabs. That is simply not ture. That’s a slander.
And as other have pointed out, I’m sure, there ARE 1,000,000 Arabs in Israel enjoying the best human rights regime in the entire ME, including even members of the Knesset.
Alan Dershowitz, in this The Case for Israel, makes a good point: today it’s almost impossible to know the exact make-up of the refugees, Jewish or Arab. Many of the Arab elites left early; definitely a sizeable portion of the refugees were urged to “step aside” to allow the slaughter to proceed in order to return for the loot later; and YES, we agree, a certain portion were “pushed from their homes”. This is a fact. But be realistic ET please: the Arab countries were the aggressors here and, repeating, these so-called “Palestinians” were Arabs. You can imagine the mortal fear of the Jews. Please remember Haj Amin Al-Hussein, the “Palestinian” Hitler, the 1936 Arab revolt, the pogroms, his Nazi radio addresses, his complicity in the European genocide and full intention to visit one upon the Jews of Palestine after the expected victory.
You’ve got to get out of your head (c’mon, you know this is a occupational hazard) and try to put yourself on the ground here and see how the so-called “Palestinians” would be perceived during this 5 Arab country onslaught. Imagine the chaos, the existential fear.
The expulsion of enemy people is a common result of war, we both know this. Again, I hold to my view that THE CAUSE of the refugee crisis, including the necessary expulsion, was the ARAB INVASIONS.
OK I’ll make this concession: perhaps the people themselves — if it was at all possible to divine this — want done with this, want a two state solution. Perhaps. But that matters not one whit, ET. When I make this claim I refer to the people who count: the Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, elites who decide these matters. But also remember, they elected Hamas. Oh, I know, I know, they were less corrupt and would get the garbage collected on time, etc.
But I sincerely doubt it!
Gaza? What happened?
Israel’s world-beater high-tech Greenhouse. Left intact, not destroyed in spite. The possible basis for some kind of real economy. Destroyed by the barbarians.
Finally: restating, “The Palestinians”, meaning the politicians, are not seeking a two-state solution except perhaps as a launching ground for the final push. Neither Fatah nor Hamas recognize Israel’s right to exist. Nothing good can happen until that changes.
Me No Dhimmi, excellent points
“they wanted a Jewish majority” – ET states this in many of her posts and I don’t get why this is so bad – oh those mean old nasty Jews don’t want to live as dhimmis anymore – how dare they want a Jewish state where everyone is equal before the law (check out the decisions of the Israel Supreme Court). hmm, the Arabs/Muslims have something like 22 states where they are the majority and surely do not have state holidays for Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Passover, etc. The French have France, the Germans have Germany, the Italians have Italy, how dare those Jews presume that on that teeny tiny plot of land where their history is writ large (Jerusalem, Hebron, Jerico, Bethleham, Shechem, BeerSheva, etc)they should be sovereign? How dare those Jews want Judea? I’m sure ET does not want to live in a Muslim majority country where she is a dhimmi. Oh and not that it would matter to you, but I’m certain if I had more time I could find the large amount of evidence that shows that in Haifa and other places where lots of Arabs lived, in 1947 before the war broke out, ews drove around asking their Arab neighbours not to flee.
“But, Israel’s 1948-50 Knesset Laws were geared to preventing any return and any claims to land ownership (Absentee Laws).”
as I said before sort of like the Americans did not want British Loyalists back after their war of Independence. Again how dare those Jews not let their sworn enemies live among them? No wonder they suicide themselves, right ET?
ET you are making the assumption that God is metaphysical and therefore can not be proven. I’m telling you just as people for thousands of years have been telling you that God not only exists but He wants to have a relationship with you! Prove me wrong. Prove that endless list of witnesses are all wrong. Don’t sit back and read some highbrow’s dissertation on the existential necessity of Reason. We can all read the philosophers and we can all reach out own reasons for not reaching out to what we think doesn’t exist. That’s not the point.
When I was studying to be an engineer I came across a complex mathematical formula that proved it was impossible for anything to go faster than the speed of sound. At that time I was playing around with the Air Reserves and came to know quite a few fighter pilots. At that time they were flying the CF-104 Starfighters. These pilots all assured me that they could fly the “104” faster than the speed of sound. One of my friends was a test pilot and he told me that on one occasion he was clocked on radar doing 23 miles ( close to 40 km) a minute. Now who was I to believe. I had never flown faster than the speed of sound. The little airplanes I flew didn’t go much over 150 miles an hour and the math I had seen Proved these jet jockeys were liars. Watching the aircraft on radar and hearing the sonic boom convinced me that my pet theory was indeed wrong.
Back to you are you going to be a better scientist and do the experiment or are you going to do a highbrow version of Rosy O‘Donnel?
I am rational, that’s why I’m an engineer, and that’s why I had to divorce myself from the idea of a god.
Jon, I have several engineers in my family and
they all believe in God. Einstein believed in God. Some of the greatest scientists have believed in God. Renowned atheists such as Anthony Flew now believe in God because of technological advancements in research [in his case primarily DNA].
I myself am not an engineer but I am a successful business owner. The fact that you’re an engineer has nothing to do with whether there is a God. The ultimate engineer is God.
was that I’d never seen any evidence of god.
God is all around us. You will never see God and the last people He would show himself to are those that demand to see Him and then they’ll believe. It doesn’t work that way. God doesn’t need to prove Himself to any of us, we need to prove ourselves to Him.
Sounds like you have some interesting stories.
By this point I was thinking like a scientist.
Science and God are not mutually exclusive, that’s what liberals wound have you believe. Through science we will come closer to God.
“Any halfwit can jump up and down denouncing God, but for a half-century professor Anthony Flew has been considered probably the number one living intellectual proponent of religious skepticism and atheism. If Madalyn Murray O’Hair had ever actually engaged in logical debate about atheism, it would have most likely been Anthony Flew’s books she’d have read to bone up.
Now at age 81, Flew says he believes in some kind of God. Basically, over some period of time he’s come to accept the “design” argument that says that there’s simply too much complexity in DNA for life to have developed without some kind of intelligent guidance.
That’s still a long way from being a Christian, or believing in an afterlife. He would describe himself as a “deist,” the same religious generalization prefered by Thomas Jefferson.
I’m not going so far as express positive belief in something that I don’t understand like this, but I’m sympathetic to the underlying point. That is, fumbling Darwinian evolution really doesn’t seem like a realistic explanation of the complexities of a human DNA.”
~~~~~~~~~
“British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.
At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.”
Regarding the word “Palestine”……..
“The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from “Plesheth”, a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as “Philistine”. Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine’s invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.
The Philistines reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers – chiefly from the Mediterranean islands – overran the Philistine districts.
From the fifth century BC, following the historian Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean “the Philistine Syria” using the Greek language form of the name. In AD 135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to blot out the name of the Roman “Provincia Judaea” and so renamed it “Provincia Syria Palaestina”, the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name “Provincia Syria Palaestina” was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized “Palestine” is derived.
This remained the situation until the end of the fourth century, when in the wake of a general imperial reorganization Palestine became three Palestines: First, Second, and Third. This configuration is believed to have persisted into the seventh century, the time of the Persian and Muslim conquests.
The Christian Crusaders employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of the “three Palestines.” After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation. The name, however, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River. The Ottoman Turks, who were non-Arabs but religious Muslims, ruled the area for 400 years (1517-1917). Under Ottoman rule, the Palestine region was attached administratively to the province of Damascus and ruled from Istanbul. The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.
The name “Falastin” that Arabs today use for “Palestine” is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman “Palaestina”. Quoting Golda Meir:
The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation’s supposed ancient name, though they couldn’t even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity. [In an article by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, November 25, 1995]”
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php
Do you know what is rather disturbing about this discussion? It’s the vehemence of the exhortation to me, that I must, absolutely must, believe in god. That I must not be an atheist.
Joe – your comparing me to Rosie O’Donnell, with her stupid remarks about steel-fire, because I don’t believe in god – is really quite offensive. The reality or non-reality of the existence of god can’t be compared to the simple physical properties of steel and its behaviour when heated.
I’m not stupid; I’ve analyzed the situation, and I’ve made my decision. I’d appreciate some respect for that decision.
Fundamental Muslims treat my decision with the same rejection as you people are treating it. That is, my view is rejected as unacceptable and I am treated as someone who is ignorant and unscientific (Joe) or someone, a ‘halfwit’, who rejects Truth but who will eventually see Truth (Apollyon).
I, myself, haven’t chastized any of you, for your belief in god, haven’t denigrated your rationality, your capacity to come to a decision. Therefore, I’d appreciate the same courtesy.
I have made my choice; I think it’s up to you people to respect it. You have made your choice; I respect it. But, I have no wish to convert you, and expect you to show me the same courtesy.
ET, that term “halfwit” was used by the author I quoted, I wouldn’t apply that term to you or Jon. The author, imao, is referring to those who haven’t thought out the subject or done any reading on the matter [both sides] but reflexively deny the existence of God because He hasn’t shown himself to these narcissistic individuals.
In fact, I support ET in her comments re: God, in whom I don’t believe either, and nor do I believe that morals depend on a belief in God.
As to “God’s chosen people” — that phrase is seriously counter-productive in today’s great debate on the Arab-Israel conflict and Israel’s just cause.
ex-liberal, yes, it is true that the mayor of Haifa begged the Arabs to hold fast. I know this happened, but am not certain it was Haifa.
The thing in the debate is to avoid theology altogether. Keep it secular. Dershowitz also asks us to apply some kind of statute of limitations on grievances if we are to get anywhere. But yes, OK to provide as much historical data as possible to counter a central plank in the jihad propaganda that Jews have no connection to the land. Read Dore Gold’s “Fight for Jerusalem” for superb coverage of this issue.
The Jews had a just claim. They did not steal the land. They did not pre-plan an expulsion. They offered compensation tho, I argue, they had no moral obligation to do so. They have never been the aggressor. They have desperately sought peace. They are not to blame for the refugee crisis. They fought a defensive war against huge odds and Arabs in the area left of their own volitiion, but were also expelled — which is a just action in a just defensive war.
AND, given its existenially precarious position since 1948 I maintain that Israel is a light onto the world — the planet’s greatest democracy.
As to “God’s chosen people” — that phrase is seriously counter-productive in today’s great debate on the Arab-Israel conflict and Israel’s just cause.
Me No Dhimmi, Arabs don’t deny this reality of the Bible. Muslims consider Moses, Abraham and Jesus to be prophets. As far as I’m concerned Jews remarkable history against all validates the title.
***against all [odds] validates the title.
AND, given its existenially precarious position since 1948 I maintain that Israel is a light onto the world — the planet’s greatest democracy.
Me No Dhimmi, I appreciate your comments.
Israeli politics is unfortunately very splintered; like the joke goes, two Jews will give you three opinions. But Israel is undoubtedly a light unto the world.
As far as I’m concerned Jews remarkable history against all [odds] validates the title.
Let me also add that no group of people has contributed more to humanity in the history of the world.
…..I maintain that Israel is a light onto the world ……
From Encarta……….
“A third major concept in Judaism is that of the covenant (berith), or contractual agreement, between God and the Jewish people. According to tradition, the God of creation entered into a special relationship with the Jewish people at Sinai. They would acknowledge God as their sole ultimate king and legislator, agreeing to obey his laws; God, in turn, would acknowledge Israel as his particular people and be especially mindful of them. Both biblical authors and later Jewish tradition view this covenant in a universal context. Only after successive failures to establish a covenant with rebellious humanity did God turn to a particular segment of it. Israel is to be a “kingdom of priests,” and the ideal social order that it establishes in accordance with the divine laws is to be a model for the human race. Israel thus stands between God and humanity, representing each to the other.
The idea of the covenant also determines the way in which both nature and history traditionally have been viewed in Judaism. Israel’s well-being is seen to depend on obedience to God’s commandments. Both natural and historical events that befall Israel are interpreted as emanating from God and as influenced by Israel’s religious behavior. A direct causal connection is thus made between human behavior and human destiny. This perspective intensifies the problem of theodicy (God’s justice) in Judaism, because the historical experience of both individuals and the Jewish people has frequently been one of suffering.
Much Jewish religious thought, from the biblical Book of Job onward, has been preoccupied with the problem of affirming justice and meaning in the face of apparent injustice. In time, the problem was mitigated by the belief that virtue and obedience ultimately would be rewarded and sin punished by divine judgment after death, thereby redressing inequities in this world. The indignities of foreign domination and forced exile from the land of Israel suffered by the Jewish people also would be redressed at the end of time, when God would send his Messiah (mashiah, “one anointed” with oil as a king), a scion of the royal house of David, to redeem the Jews and restore them to sovereignty in their land.”
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556154/Judaism.html
The Jews wrote the bible. Therefore they wrote their own history but what do I know. All religion is based on 10% fact the rest is dogma and made up as they went. This was done to keep the people under the thumbs of the powers that be.
There is no such thing as a chosen people. Jews wrote this about themselves and no one questions it. If they do they are branded anti jewish. It’s all a load of crap.
Apollyon writes, “Let me also add that no group of people [Jews] has contributed more to humanity in the history of the world.”
Of course, the foundation of the West is JUDEO-Christian. That’s a fact. However, I think a case could be made that Christians, as a group, despite their lapses, have also contributed a huge amount to the world. Besides being the foundation of education, medicine (hospitals), democracy, the arts, etc., in the West, which group seems to appear at the site of disasters anywhere in the world, whatever the religion of the victims, to give aid and comfort?
While most religions corral time, treasure, and talent for their own, Christians are outward looking as well and tend to give much away to non Christians.
I’m not disputing the immense importance of the Jewish people: I believe–as revealed by God, not themselves, as ok4ua implies–that the Jews are, indeed, God’s chosen people. Actually, the book, The Gifts of the Jews, by Thomas Cahill, does, indeed, attribute much of the “good” of the West to the worldview of the Jews. So, perhaps, Apollyon, you are right!
(ok4ua, your ignorant, crass, and unpleasant sneers are most unwelcome. If you have a point to make, please dignify it with some evidence of clear thinking and good will.)
Ok4ua
I would agree that your comments would be “ignorant, crass, and unpleasant sneers” and very “unwelcome” to anyone with a narrow view and understanding of religious history. (Excluding snobbish arrogance of course). The “only my opinion counts” basis of all fundamentalisms that the legitimately sane world has been left to deal with should not deter your opinions. I mean this in good will.
…, I think a case could be made that Christians, as a group, despite their lapses, have also contributed a huge amount to the world.
It’s undeniable, lookout.
The Jews wrote the bible. Therefore they wrote their own history but what do I know.
Apparently nothing; the rest of your comment is pure gibberish.
ok4ua, wrote, “There is no such thing as a chosen people. Jews wrote this about themselves and no one [sic]
questions it. If they do they are branded anti jewish [sic]. It’s all [sic] a load of crap.”
And, according to Knight 99, I’M narrow minded if I think this screed, including the factual and grammatical errors, is “ignorant, crass, and unpleasant”? (Notice that I didn’t “sic” ok4ua’s opinions. I don’t agree but it’s a free country.)
ok4ua has a right to his/her opinions and, yes, has a right to make “ignorant, crass, and unpleasant” comments. However, doing so hardly enhances either this person’s argument or welcome at this site.
That said, I have no problem with Apollyon’s riposte to ok4ua, which that person richly deserves. (People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.)
Apollyon, as you may have surmised, I have a very high regard for the Jewish people–in the words of John Paul II, Christians’ “older brothers and sisters in faith”. Thank you for your comment.