World destabilising to alarming degree

[chump]

"Who threw the first stone??...."...no ,it isn't a good question ,it's the worst type of question if you have any interest at all in resolving a current problem situation...it's exactly what I referred to earlier in the thread. Bottomline ,you can expend your efforts on what happened 'yesterday' and a lot of people seem to prefer that , or you say to hell with what happened 'yesterday' ,who blew the legs off grandpop is immaterial , let's start from the point we don't like what we have today and how do we make sure that tomorrow is different for our kids. The former is selfish indulgence and the latter is constructive problem solving based upon what is best for those that we care about. The problem with group/religious chumpos in this context is they typically have to give up their 'reason for being' if they adopt the latter process. That is , only a continuation of the current problem situation delivers their purpose in life , any change just cuts out the ground from beneath the foundation they have built their life upon. They go from the people with the 'voice' and 'influence' to just being another Joe public. However , that's usually the way things go until the current problem reaches such a pitch that all of the 'yesterday's' become less important than the hell that's on your doorstep today..then the minds of reason begin to consign the group nuts to the back pews until the next time.
I invite you to go to court a few times , or try a few failed marriages. Observing ,or participating in either should demonstrate my point clearly and yet these are only microcosms of all larger disputes between races / nations. LOL...for the most part I've limited my experience to observation although there's time yet

 

[ian]

"Who threw the first stone??...."...no ,it isn't a good question ,it's the worst type of question if you have any interest at all in resolving a current problem situation.....,

who blew the legs off grandpop is immaterial...

What if it was your grandpop???

 

[roguetrader]

"Who threw the first stone??...."...no ,it isn't a good question ,it's the worst type of question

I disagree, I think it is a very valid question.

Bottomline ,you can expend your efforts on what happened 'yesterday' and a lot of people seem to prefer that

I think that reinforces the question, unless the first stone was thrown yesterday, invariably it wasn't.

the latter is constructive problem solving based upon what is best for those that we care about.

It is short-sighted, unrealistic, and doomed to fail in the long run. Mans progress on this planet is a testimony to his inability to learn from his past mistakes, your "let's not worry about what happened in the past, let's just move on." approach seeks to maintain that level of achievement

 

[Directional]

It all comes back to incompatible religious beliefs and the releigion of both the jews and the arabs states being in total, uncompromisable opposition.

The jews beleive that Isreal and Jerusalem is the promised land, their defacto inheritance. To give up the promised land or even to make concessions in this regard is to deny their faith.

The palestinians and the arabs in general, as muslims, beleive that the land of palestine is a muslim land, and it was for a while until modern Jews moved in around 1947 and declared a state. Muslims used to pray toward Jerusalem before it was changed and they aim toward mecca now.

Jews and Arabs even fight over which son of Abraham was truly the son of promise. The Old Testament says it was Isaac. The Qu'ran says it was Ishmael. The Qu'ran teaches that it was Ishmael that Abraham almost sacrificed to the Lord, not Isaac.

There can be no compromise between these two sides while religion and state interests are one and the same.

 

[roguetrader]

and the releigion of both the jews and the arabs states being in total, uncompromisable opposition.

Do you think christianity is any less in opposition?

 

[charliechan]

I had planned to refute your claim citing Hitler, but thankfully did some homework first ... http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=murphy_19_2.

I think it is the 'fundamentalist' approach to all religions that is the problem, the literal interpretation of certain texts. The bible is full some dreadful stuff ...http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html and a literal interpretation of these texts would seem to justify any amount of war-mongering and war-crimes. Perhaps fundamentalism is the cynical manipulation of belief by a few individuals to suit their own ends, or a more widespread attempt to justify acting on prejudices and perceived injustices.

quite.

just like some of the interpretations in the second link present some very distorted views selected texts in the bible which could be used to stir up more unnecessary hate and mis-understanding - just like a small majority of arabs with extreme versions of islam

 

[Directional]

Do you think christianity is any less in opposition?

do you think Jesus advocates the actions of most christians?

 

[chump]

We'll have to disgree then Rogue ,I have yet to see any problem be resolved whilst the parties in question showed more interest in raking through the ashes of what has happened in the past than they show in what will happen tomorrow and will that be different...no, you can spend a lot of worthless resources searching the past trying to find the 'truth' , allocate blame , who did what to whom and why (oh it'll give plenty of opportunites for people to get the load off their chest and more) but,...complete codswallop that invariably depends on little more than subjective perception , and if that's the way you wish to go then when you wake up tomorrow the problem will still remain exactly the same except of course raking throught he ashes will usually siffice to raise the particpants blood pressure sufficiently that any solution get's pushed even further away.
We probably remain in disagreement ,but let's accept it and move on.(actually I think you misunderstood what I meant by the word 'yesterday' , I was using it in two ways ,one to refer to the history behind a problem and secondly to denote the frame of mind that people have ...that is looking back rather than forward).

"What if it was my grandpop"..indeed ,now that is a better question. Let's assume that it was..would my visiting my retribution on the person in question do anything meaningful towards resolving the wider conflict ? I don't think so. I'll accept it would appease me personally (selfish indulgence) ,but like most things in life it would likely come at a cost of perhaps even more of the same in the future for my kids to deal with. Let's be clear on this there is a world of difference between defending yourself to prevent an action happening to you, or your loved one's and the action that you take after the event has already occurred. If you can't see that then all I can suggest is think about it.

 

[TWI]

Chumps comments are equally relevant to how one has should approach tading.
I agree with him.
Anybody with a wife knows it is better to start with the situation as it stands and not consider dragging up the past unless you want to escalate matters..

 

[ammo]

could this be an instigated ploy ,by hezbollah in league with the greedy arab nations and american and british oil companies(there is no oil produced in israel or lebanon) to jack up the oil once again we had an imaginary oil crisis in 1973, since that shortage we came up with another 33 years of gushing oil.






















9

 

[ammo]

jews

...you forgot to mention the major tier 1 american investment banks whos ceo's, chairman etc tend to find themselves making fed policy when they leave, which also tends to affect wider american interests and foreign policy. follow the money.

going back to the Bible and religion though - wasn't all this also prophesised?

thank god for greenspan and wasnt christ a hated jew

 

[roguetrader]

We'll have to disgree then Rogue ,

Yeah, sorry, my reply was not particularly constructive , or open to much discussion, as it will take a bit of time to reply to your post with the thought it deserves, I'll expand my thoughts later

 

[ammo]

the jehova witnesses have told me that the bible mentioned seven great rulersof the wrld ther is not any mention of the 8th. they suggest that when the 7th ruler is gone , they believe it to be the u.n., that the end will come. no one can predict but its room fr thought

 

[ammo]

under pompous in the dictionary excessive self esteem exaggerated dignity

 

[roguetrader]

do you think Jesus advocates the actions of most christians?

LOL, Arb, not really sure of the point your making there but I think the question is rhetorical.
My point was that it is too simplistic to dismiss the Arab Israeli situation as "irreconsilable religious difference of opinion"
For example christianity believes that Jesus Christ, the son of God came to earth and died on the cross so that the sins of the world could be forgiven (assuming my religion is not too rusty) Interestingly both Moslem and Jew would be in agreement that this was not the case, they do not accept that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and thus would not have had that mission. Result, a disagreement with the very core of christianity, there is no room for compromise on those beliefs.
Perhaps they should unite to take us out.
It's another case where as somebody mentioned before, religion provides a convenient scapegoat

 

[Jbat001]

LOL, Arb, not really sure of the point your making there but I think the question is rhetorical.
My point was that it is too simplistic to dismiss the Arab Israeli situation as "irreconsilable religious difference of opinion"
For example christianity believes that Jesus Christ, the son of God came to earth and died on the cross so that the sins of the world could be forgiven (assuming my religion is not too rusty) Interestingly both Moslem and Jew would be in agreement that this was not the case, they do not accept that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and thus would not have had that mission. Result, a disagreement with the very core of christianity, there is no room for compromise on those beliefs.
Perhaps they should unite to take us out.
It's another case where as somebody mentioned before, religion provides a convenient scapegoat

Ah, but it's even worse than that. At least if we were all worshipping entirely different deities, we could have an honest conflict. As it is, all the Abrahamic religions have a core set of events at the centre of them, but all followers have a differing view of their significance! Muslims would revere Jesus and study his teachings, but never say he was the son of God. Likewise, Jesus crops up in the Talmud, but only as a rabbi. It's arguing over these core events, and most importantly, over the key geographical locations relating to them (Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock?) that's causing all the aggravation.

Add to that the fact that people are inventing historical truths to halp their cause. Did you know that apart from the interwar British 'Mandate of Palestine', there never was a state called Palestine within the borders of the land we now call Israel? There might be the beginnings of a national consciousness and embryonic statehood now, but no such state existed in history. The name 'Palestine' comes from 'Falastin', the name given by the Roman Emperor Hadrian to the region in order to try and atomise and fracture local identities and thus do that great Roman trick, dividing and conquering. When he did it, the name Falastin/Palestine was considered extremely derogatory!

While I cast no aspersions on the rights (or lack of them) of either the Jews or Arabs to the land of Eretz Yisrael, I do wish people would have some regard for historical fact.

 

[Directional]

The name 'Palestine' comes from 'Falastin', the name given by the Roman Emperor Hadrian to the region in order to try and atomise and fracture local identities and thus do that great Roman trick, dividing and conquering. When he did it, the name Falastin/Palestine was considered extremely derogatory!

I thought the name had its root in the biblical name "Philistines" who were amongst the original residents of the land of canaan before is Isrealites moved in from their 40 year picnic in the wilderness.

Though I suppose even that name has derogatory overtures - if you call someone a philistine, your basically saying he's an unrefined savage.

 

[Directional]

Interestingly both Moslem and Jew would be in agreement that this was not the case, they do not accept that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and thus would not have had that mission. Result, a disagreement with the very core of christianity, there is no room for compromise on those beliefs.

Ironically, the Jews rejected Jesus as they didnt think he was the messiah prophesied in the Old Testament (even though it was also prophesied that the majority of Jews would reject the messiah). The modern day Jews are still waiting for their messiah. I'd imagine they will be waiting a very long time.

The Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, but not the son of God. Whats a bit contradictory about this is that the Koran itself says in numerous places that the bible is the word of god - both the Torah and the "Injil" - the gospels: The Koran calls the Torah and the Injīl “the Book of Enlightenment.” (Āl ‘Imrān [3]:184; Fāṭir [35]:25) Scores of Koranic verses state that these books are from God. (Al-Baqarah [2]:89; Al-An‘ām [6]:92) Concerning both the Torah and Injīl, we read: “Wherein is guidance and a light.” (Al-Mā’idah [5]:44, 46, MMP) Furthermore, Al-Mā’idah [5]:46 says about the Torah: “Therein is the (plain) command of God.” Many of the great interpreters (such as Al-Jalālayn, Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī, Al-Ṭabarī, and Al-Bayḍāwi acknowledge that according to the Koran, the Torah is called “the Book of God” (Āl ‘Imrān [3]:23) and “the Book which helps to make things clear.”

According to these Koranic verses, a muslim cannot accept the Koran as the word of God, if he does not also accept both the Torah and the Injil. If you beleive the Koran, you should also beleive what the bible says about Jesus.

Like most Christians dont study the bible for themselves, most muslims dont really study the Koran for themselves and will rather sit in a mosque like a christian sits in church and be told what to believe, rather than finding out for themselves.

 

[fxmarkets]

Chumps comments are equally relevant to how one has should approach tading.
I agree with him.
Anybody with a wife knows it is better to start with the situation as it stands and not consider dragging up the past unless you want to escalate matters..

crikey lol ( re wife, they are from venus or some other world ) yes, chump is bang on and his posts frequently read like "Poetic Wisdom"



Fx.

 

[TheBramble]

I do wish people would have some regard for historical fact.

Without wishing to seem glib: One man's 'fact' is another man's fiction.

And equally without wanting to divert this thread down the religion/deity track, which IMLTHO is nowhere it needs to go given the title of the thread....

Historical fact.

OK. How about this one....?

Wouldn't it be nice to have some contemporaneous evidence as to the existence of this Jesus figure?

I mean, the bible goes on and on and on. And there were a number notable commentators and authors kicking around that part of the world as about that time. And we're talking about a figure of immense national importance and impact 'at the time of his alleged existence'. Er...so where are the contemoraneous references to him. Or his bunch of zealots? There are none. None whatsoever.

What you get is what you are allowed to get courtesy of the Council of Nicea (the first council - not the second) 325AD.

I don't know what else a deity would have to to to get published these days....

Water to Wine. Raise the Dead. Cure the Sick. Feed a multitude. Raise himself up from the Dead. And by far the greatest and most interesting miracle - Water ski without apparent flotation aid. (Actually, water to wine is probably up there as a bonza Friday night trick). Any one of them and Max Clifford would be on the blower in a blink...

All these things and many more and there's not a whisper about him in any contemporaneous writings - just the good old bible. Don't get me started on the bible. And people BELIEVE it as gospel

I just don't know how you'd keep yourself out of the 'news' after doing all or any of that that stuff.

And the drawing power to this day. Based on what? Historical fact? There is none whatsoever for the existence of Jesus yet the last 2000 years has been mesmerised with him. Hierarchies of enormous (and continuing) power have risen on the back of the myth. Myth - not fact.

So, historical fact, smacked.

Get rid of the deities. Get rid of the religions and the priests and the places of worship and the icons and the zealots and the fundamentalists - and let's get real and acknowledge international conflict for what it is.

Get rid of everyone that isn't like me and the World will be OK.