World destabilising to alarming degree

[charliechan]

i believe there is historical fact as to his existence. the romans have tax records etc. there is no doubt that someone called Jesus did exist, and he did claim to be the son of God. i dont think there are many who dispute that - if that is what you are asking (got one eye on the screen here)

the gospels are written records of his miracles by the observers. that is all the proof we have. there were no phone-cams in those days

as to whether he was resurrected, well i found the argument put forward by mark ritchie (see earlier post) to be the most convincing.

as for the general direction of the thread - well i dont think its the end of the world quite yet. people have been making these types of predictions since i can remember. wasnt the world supposed to end with a us v ussr nuke competition? then there was the nostradamus predictions resurfacing in the 90's, now the jews in 2000s.

maybe hitler and the cyclon-b crew was the closest we have came to date - but fortunately, we overcame him - good did prevail. and how have we been repaid? israel! thanks a lot reuben. will good prevail in this case? i cant see how as both sides are engaged in a tit for tat that has no sight as chump explains very well - so unless someone intervenes, then its only going to get worse. who will intervene? i cant see it being the usa, the uk, or the un. germany has a bad track record with these people and it will be a pr nightmare. maybe it will be the russians, or perhaps china if israel starts hitting iranian oil supplies - but uncle sam may say something about that also.

any ideas?

 

[Directional]

And there were a few notable other 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 extemporaneous references to him. Or his bunch of zealots? There are none. None whatsoever.

Jesus is referred to in pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings outside the New Testament. The Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting. In the pages of his works you can read about New Testament people like the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, King Herod, John the Baptist, even Jesus himself and his brother James. There have also been interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels. For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem. Indeed, the tomb beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is in all probability the tomb in which Jesus himself was laid by Joseph of Arimathea following the crucifixion. According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University,

"Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death."

If we want any details about Jesus’s life and teachings, we must turn to the New Testament. Extra-biblical sources confirm what we read in the gospels, but they don’t really tell us anything new.

 

[TheBramble]

i believe there is historical fact as to his existence. the romans have tax records etc. there is no doubt that someone called Jesus did exist, and he did claim to be the son of God. i dont think there are many who dispute that - if that is what you are asking (got one eye on the screen here)

the gospels are written records of his miracles by the observers. that is all the proof we have. there were no phone-cams in those days

Have you seen these records yourself? Know anyone that has? Know anyone that knows anyone...? Or is it just something that's 'accepted' without investigation?

I am saying there is a doubt over the existence of Jesus. We have only the bible for his record. A dubious document at best.

The gospels were not written by contemporaneous observers, but many years after his apparent departure from this realm. Emendations continued for many hundreds of years after that.

Lack of discipline led me to reply again off topic. Perhaps if it's a theme of interest it can be moved to a new thread, but otherwise, let's get back to killing those that aren't the same as us.

 

[charliechan]

ok i wont go on about it - suffice to say that no i havent seen these records my self, but i did see some chap on the tv looking at them - so it must be true

yes the gospels were written a while after - but i believe they are based upon previous scripts written at the time. may be arb knows - he seems to know more about this stuff than moi.

 

[wasp]

Course he existed, theres even a film........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0&search=life of brian

PS... Do you guys actually find any time to trade?

 

[TheBramble]

PS... Do you guys actually find any time to trade?

Only insults. Wanna see my accounts?

 

[SOCRATES]

..:cheesy:..

 

[roguetrader]

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

Yes Chump I think, upon reflection, maybe you are right, we will have to agree to disagree. Your approach to history differs from mine and that difference in approach means that maybe for you avoidance of history is best. From what you have said looking at history for you means abandoning the forward view, your view on history seems to be that it's only purpose is to justify your current position, sadly that is the way most of mankind uses history. Rather than look to learn from the mistakes, to see what happened and why , and could we have done it differently, and combining this with the view to the future so that we do not repeat the same mistakes, a concept I admit that requires hard work, courage, and character, a willingness to admit our mistakes, but is possible nonetheless.
In that extent you are right, if your mind is closed to what can be learnt there, then there is nothing of value for you there
Consider it a third option to your two. Your two options being to either look back at history and dwell on the misfortune, the wrong that was done so that it can be used to fuel the hatred and bitterness. Or forget it all pretend it never happened and blunder on through existence doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over agian until extinction

 

[chump]

You've misunderstood me Rogue..I'll give you an example... Party A & B have a contract and something awry goes wrong with it ...both think they are in the right and both engage the legal process to 'defend' their rights and so it goes for the next couple of years as their legal representation swap insults on their behalf. No commonsense talk get's through to either of them from their legal representation as they both clearly know why they are in the right ,they can remember every syllable unttered ..LOL ..every gesture , their interpretation of the documentation is very clear LOL etc etc... their problem is at a stalemate and the only thing moving is their legal bill whilst they are firmly anchored in looking behind them at the 'truth' & 'rightness' of the situation. Hey there's principles involved to be defended don't you know

That's the way it stays until one day at least one of them wakes up and starts to consider what it's cost so far in money & aggravation. That one starts looking now not at the past of who's right & who's wrong ,but at what bills he might yet receive if he does not put an end to the nonsense . He's changed his mindset ,today and the thought of an unchanged tomorrow actually hurts more then the yesterdays he's been busy trying to defend and he's changed his stance , or the emphasis. He's now more concerned about changing tomorrow than he is about defending the historic events.
I could give you umpteen such examples. This does not mean you don't learn from yesterday's mistakes at all . It means if you want to solve a current problem you can't keep doing what you did yesterday and expect something to change when what you did yesterday and all the yesterday's before that one clearly failed to solve your problem.
I should add that the more adamant a person is at establishing their universal right to the 'truth' the less likely you are to get a change of mindset.
Hope that helps explain my view for you.

 

[roguetrader]

Again it comes down to approach, neither party is approaching the problem with the remotest view that they could be wrong, perhaps there"s another point of view, maybe it is possible for both to be right, when looked at from different contexts, that's approaching the past with an "open mind" Maybe the contracts should be worded differently, "something learnt" for the future. "Maybe mistakes have been made by both of us" again an "open mind" leading to "things learnt" for the future. My brother works for a little corporate litigation firm in the city, I am familiar with the shenanigans of lawyers. PartyA's counsel probably told him that "Strictly speaking if you interpret the contract in the way that Party B is then he's right, but we're not gonna interpret it that way cause we're out to win." That's not a justification not to look at history, it's not a flaw in the concept of looking at history, it's a flaw in what an individual, or party may do with it.
Perhaps you mis-understand me, I haven't said looking at history can't be used for bad, your view of what is to be gained from history, or what isn't is clear evidence of that
History is not at fault here, but the unwillingness of the participants to review it with an open mind, there was no evidence of any objective for reconciliation with your people, like you I'd say they have nothing to learn from history, because they are unwilling to admit anything or give any quarter.
Incidently, if either or both of them were actually comitted to reconciling the situation, as opposed to winning at all costs then they would have been looking to the future all along, there would have been no need to "wake up" to it. Looking to at the past or the future does not have to be done to the exclusion of the other, another point I thought I had already made You seem to concentrate on the behavoir of extremists, history for them is indeed a minefield and throw the baby out with the bathwater

 

[roguetrader]

Your philosophy of "forget the past and look to the future" is an attractive idea, but only after the past has been resolved and the necessary lessons taken on board since forgetting probably won't happen..
The Middle East is living proof of this, as are countless other recurring wars, each encounter comes to an end because one side or the other realises that for now the cost of continuation will be too high. Make no mistake, where there has been no resolution there is always a reluctant party.
They agree to "put it all behind them" "forget the past" but of course they never do. One party invariably has been forced to "look to the future" simply because the current cost is too high, but it will have it's day.
Since nothing has been resolved the wrongs or perceived wrongs of the past fester until the one that most reluctantly "looked to the future" feels it has a shot at settling the score.

So a "who threw the first stone" or "raking over the ashes of the past" as you put it is the answer?
Well like everything in life, nothing is quite that simple. both parties still have to be willing to try to come to some sort of agreement. But if they are willing to find agreement, then why go near the past, just forget and move on? Because that approach has no foundation, it's just 10 seconds of words with no substance or understanding. "We forgive and forget, let's move on."

Only by examining the history of what has happened will both sides acknowledge and realise that mistakes were made by both sides, that wrongs were committed by both sides, in many instances one side will have been wronged by something that the perpetrator did not even know constituted a wrong, that can be prevented from happening in the future simply by the effort to understand. Both sides will find they have to admit wrongs, there is never only one at fault, in doing so both sides will "lose face", but that is ok for each side because the other is also "losing face" In a scenario where one side backs down for whatever reason, he is the only one that loses face,
Whenever an individual, party, or nation loses face unilaterally it fosters resentment, even among western cultures.

When someone has been wronged, they feel the need to have the person who wronged them understand the pain caused, to see some remorse for the act, this gives meaning to the act of forgiveness and is a necessary step in the healing process. The time you describe as "wasted" is time taken to foster understanding and build a foundation from which they can move on. The reason this has a chance of working, and it is still only a chance is because it is forgiveness built on understanding. Your approach at best is forgiveness built on forgetting, this cannot work because humans do not forget, at least not in a time-frame they can remain at peace in. Humans measure time by events, "the week I had my appendix out" "the summer my wife screwed the milkman" "the summer Dianna died" Time for us is a timeline of events, so forgetting is a non-starter.

Of course this will not work for everyone, some will have already let things go too far to reach understanding, trying simply to forget, for them there is now simply too much history, and sadly I feel for them there is no solution save for one to destroy the other.
Even for those with a managable amount of history and a willingness to try, in a world where the "quick fix" easy solutions and short cuts are the order of the day, the effort may prove too much.

 

[thepoliteone]

Of course, there's a couple of points in the current escalation that seem to have slipped past the mainstream media conveniently...

- Israel blew up a Palestinian beach a few weeks back killing civilians, but that's forgotten about because one soldier got captured (and how do Israel know he's not being held in one of the buildings they've blown up?)

- The soldiers captured by Lebanon were on the Lebanese side of the border, and Israel was flying jets over Lebanon 2/3 months ago.

- Israel had planned several weeks ago to capture Hamas officials in any conflict (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/732528.html)

But I thought the differing quotes from G8 are interesting:
Bush - "As a sovereign nation, Israel has every right to defend itself against terrorist activity"

Putin - "We condemn any terrorist act including hostage-taking but we have the impression that besides the return of its abducted soldiers, Israel is pursuing other, wider goals"

~sigh~ Hope it all ends before many more people are hurt that's all.

-TPO.

 

[Quenkish]

Shut up scaremongoring you twit, Israel has been continually criticized for over half a century as has the US been commiting war crimes for the same period

Don't listen to this stupid bear

twalker is the most well informed, sensible and knowledgable contributor to this forum!

 

[Directional]

twalker is the most well informed, sensible and knowledgable contributor to this forum!

Agreed. JasonC2 only made himself look a twit with that silly, ill-considered big font flame

 

[TWI]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Looking back at a document written in 1996, the one that caused all the controversy by talking about the need for "A New Pearl Harbour" to allow US foreign policy goals to be achieved. The one that got all the 911 conspiracy theories going. We see further evidence that the plan is progressing to the next stage.

Amazingly, it is all here on the web and so we see this entire thing was mapped out 10 years ago.

"In 1996, a group of pro-Israeli Americans – including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – prepared a policy statement for then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that proposed a strategy of regime change as the only solution for Israel's growing encirclement and isolation. The main problem, they averred in "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," was Syria, and the troublesome border with Lebanon:

"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."

But this could occur only if Iraq was taken out first:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.""

If you look who signed the "Statement of principles" on this website then you will see a list of whos who in the US power stakes.
Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

If the plan is played out, and hopefully it will not be, then Syria and Iran will be dragged in.

One thing for sure is that Energy markets are going to be the best barometer of how serious any escalation of this situation is. If Iran, as they have threatened, decides to create havoc in the Straits then $100+ crude is certain.

I would hope that G8 are sorting out their differences in St Petersburg so that if there is a wider conflict it does not fragment the World along nuclear capable lines because if that should happen things could really kick off.

 

[TWI]

Quenkish & Arbitrageur, thank you for your comments.

 

[charliechan]

did anyone see newt greengrinch (spelling) on newsnight last night. he is one of the most influential people in herr bushs neo-con camp - and has similar ideas to john bolton - but thankfully a little more diplomatic in his delivery.

anyway, hes already calling this world war 3, and trying to convince us all that iran also mentioned briton and europe in their speech regarding driving israel into the sea. this scared me.

what scared me was how this moron should blatantly lie about what was said in a pathetic attempt to get us all wound up and willing to join in on herr bushs crusade on behalf of israel. twalker summed it up well a few days ago in the nazi quote - scare people witless about the 'enemy' and they will follow you to the death - words to that effect.

i honestly believe herr bush and israel are a far greater threat to the future of civilisation than a few rags with ak47's and a scud.

makes my blood boil.

 

[Directional]

a few rags with ak47's and a scud.

LOL :cheesy:
nicely surmised CC

 

[dc2000]

a pathetic attempt to get us all wound up and willing to join in on herr bushs crusade on behalf of israel

not the first time there has been miss truth's from the US administration, did anyone catch the Blair Bush chat at the G8 what amazed me was not Bush's four letter comment but the fact that Blair is so keen to make bush happy. maybe he's not heard of " once bitten twice shy" or maybe he needs to grow a set of go-nads

 

[TWI]

Good link here

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ahrari.php?articleid=9319

The propaganda machine is in action and it is being made all so black and white by our fabulous mainstream media. Hating the right people before we kill them makes it so much easier on the conscience.

Nice to see Children getting in on the act.