Israel commits war crimes

If you accept my argument that organised religion is about the privatisation of G0d, then sometime it should occur to you that it's ridiculous to even think that the lowly human species could "own" G0d. And in the same way that we can never really own G0d, we can never really own land.
Click to expand...
But I dont. I dont believe that any one religion owns g0d but rather subscribe to the belief that we're all seeing different sides of the same one. Hence my dislike/distrust of organised religion.

Also, land is pretty tangible.
 
The Intergalactic Pirate wins this one. Now all the rest of you can stfu thanks ;)
 
Sunnic said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5230192.stm

so now do you people see the light????

Israel does not want to stop bombarding even thou Lebanon is calling for a cease fire.

i guess they really want to wipe out Lebanon
Click to expand...

If they wanted to wipe out Lebanon it would be gone already. I also don't see anything in that article about a Hezbolla cease-fire or them returning the Israeli soldiers.

BlueCollar said:
I really want to wipe out this endless, pointless discussion.
Click to expand...

Feel free to leave it whenever you want.
 
I can't leave it, I'm like a moth trapped in front of a candle flame.
 
bwana v.14 said:
But I dont. I dont believe that any one religion owns g0d but rather subscribe to the belief that we're all seeing different sides of the same one. Hence my dislike/distrust of organised religion.

Also, land is pretty tangible.
Click to expand...

Ok, I agree to a certain extent that all organised religion see "different sides of the same" G0d. However, I reject the infalibility claim that ALL organised religions adopt. One cannot logically accept that every religion is infallible, simply because the nature of organised religion is such so as to be mutally exclusive. In other words, you cannot simultaneously endorse all religions 100% because every religion claims to be the only 'true' religion. All religions cannot be 'the only true religion' at the same time.

Since we therefore cannot logically claim that each religion is the 'only true religion', we therefore have to accept one of the following:
A) All religions follow the same G0d, but one religion is more right than all the others - i.e. one religion is infalible
B) All religions follow the same G0d, but none of these religions are infallible.
c) There is no G0d

I am inclined towards (B). I emphatically reject the idea that a single religion is without fault, i.e. that a single religion is the 'one true religion'. I admit faults on the part of every organised religion. If we admit that organised religion is therefore fallible, then can we trust in any organised religion's claim that G0d 'wants' them to have some piece of land?

Last point- just because land is tangible doesn't solve our problem of identifying an authority who has the inalienable right to decide who owns the land. IMHO, anything that is life-giving not only should not, but also cannot be privatised in such a manner that no further conflict over such ownership will occur. This includes earthly, 'tangible' things such as land and water; and it also includes more abstract things such as G0d, love, hope etc.
 
Last edited:
To clear up some inaccuracies:

1. Israel left Lebanon 6 years ago.
2. The Sheeba farms are not part of the Lebanon, they were part of Syria.
3. Land 'won' in a legitimate war can be retained by the victors.
4. Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and has a lot of support in the South of Lebanon.

Think about this analogy:
Israel has a right to defend itself. If three villains enter my house with guns and kill my wife, should I limit myself to shooting just one of them? Should I let the others go so my actions are 'in proportion'? This is just nonsense! The two should just be left to knock ten bells out of each other until there is a winner. If not, this trouble will never end.

And why on earth doesn't Lebanon just surrender? That way, the fighting has to stop
.... Instead they just keep whining like a girl about Israel being unfair.
 
Debbie2 said:
Since we therefore cannot logically claim that each religion is the 'only true religion', we therefore have to accept one of the following:.....
Click to expand...
Sorry - logic and religion do not mix. :)
 
Debbie2 said:
Ok, I agree to a certain extent that all organised religion see "different sides of the same" G0d. However, I reject the infalibility claim that ALL organised religions adopt. One cannot logically accept that every religion is infallible, simply because the nature of organised religion is such so as to be mutally exclusive. In other words, you cannot simultaneously endorse all religions 100% because every religion claims to be the only 'true' religion. All religions cannot be 'the only true religion' at the same time.

Since we therefore cannot logically claim that each religion is the 'only true religion', we therefore have to accept one of the following:
A) All religions follow the same G0d, but one religion is more right than all the others - i.e. one religion is infalible
B) All religions follow the same G0d, but none of these religions are infallible.
c) There is no G0d

I am inclined towards (B). I emphatically reject the idea that a single religion is without fault, i.e. that a single religion is the 'one true religion'. I admit faults on the part of every organised religion. If we admit that organised religion is therefore fallible, then can we trust in any organised religion's claim that G0d 'wants' them to have some piece of land?

Last point- just because land is tangible doesn't solve our problem of identifying an authority who has the inalienable right to decide who owns the land. IMHO, anything that is life-giving not only should not, but also cannot be privatised in such a manner that no further conflict over such ownership will occur. This includes earthly, 'tangible' things such as land and water; and it also includes more abstract things such as G0d, love, hope etc.
Click to expand...

You are young,and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as a judge of the highest matters.
Plato, Dialogues, Theatetus
Greek author & philosopher in Athens (427 BC - 347 BC)
 
ajak said:
You are young,and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as a judge of the highest matters.
Click to expand...

I hope my opinions do change because it's a sign of growth. I hope my opinions change for the exact same reason we don't elect 16 years olds to be president.

You tell me to "refrain from setting [myself] up as a judge of the highest matters". Yet isn't this exactly what organised religion does? It is organised religion which presumes to know G0d in His/Her/It's entirety; not me. I don't claim to know G0d, but I do claim to know what is NOT of G0d.
 
Debbie2 said:
I hope my opinions do change because it's a sign of growth. I hope my opinions change for the exact same reason we don't elect 16 years olds to be president.

You tell me to "refrain from setting [myself] up as a judge of the highest matters". Yet isn't this exactly what organised religion does? It is organised religion which presumes to know G0d in His/Her/It's entirety; not me. I don't claim to know G0d, but I do claim to know what is NOT of G0d.
Click to expand...
Deds,i dont want to fight with you,but you have NO IDEA what is not of G0d.I wil send you a pm with a link.You read,and then decide.
 
Good enough for me ajak.

Edit: This discussion is endless because of the inherent paradoxes of universal laws.
 
Last edited:
Debbie2 said:
Good enough for me ajak.

Edit: This discussion is endless because of the inherent paradoxes of universal laws.
Click to expand...
No - there is only one (primary) universal law: love all people as your family, we are all one, and all equal under the sun.
 
Last edited:
There is a huge difference between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism. I don't think people are truely anti-semitic as many would want us to believe to make it seem that people are purposely against a religion, rather people are against an exclusiveness imposed on land as in the State of israel thats is that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.
 
Why not be outraged when Jews die.

It is glaring in its absence when Arabs kill Jews: When they blow up busloads of Jews, pizzerias full of Jews, or discotheques full of Jews. There is no comparable outrage when Arabs bludgeon Jewish schoolboys to death, or dismember Jewish soldiers, or explode themselves in the midst of mostly elderly Jews celebrating their Passover. There was no whiff of it when a rocket hit a Haifa train shed on July 17 and killed eight workers – eight civilians; eight innocent people; eight Jews.
http://www.stangoodenough.com/2006/07/30/reserved-rage/
 
Last edited:
Directing military force in such a way that it kills hundreds of civilians is unacceptable behavior, and any group, tribe, or nation that does so loses all moral standing. Those who are defending this behavior need to have a close look at the axioms and arguments that lead them to such a deeply broken conclusion.

http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2006/07/22/Lebanon-Roundup

750 dead Lebanese vs 51 Isreali's civilians ... it certainly crystal clear to me who is the terrorist in this conflict.
 
tibby.dude said:
750 dead Lebanese vs 51 Isreali's civilians ... it certainly crystal clear to me who is the terrorist in this conflict.
Click to expand...
It's not a football match where we have to keep score . The USA killed many civilians in Serbia - how many Americans died in that conflict? {They also killed millions of Japanese with two A-Bombs.} A resident of Beirut killed many people in the 9-11 attacks but the hijackers were only a handful.

It's not the numbers, but rather the quantity and quality of weapons you have at your disposal that will affect the final tally.
 
Sunnic said:
it is illigetimate... everyone knows that well everyone except ignorant people :) who know that they stole the land from Philistine.
Click to expand...
Just a quick note - you do know that the Isralies were kicked out of that part of the world a couple of hundred years after Christ by the Romans, so following that line of thought they actually came back to their origional land

Of course in that space of time the Palistians came along, finding no one there - that is the simple reason that the whole middle east conflict is so complicated

I'm not taking sides here (I hardly know anything of the complexities of the situation, which I believe you need before you can take an educated side) - just pointing out some stuff I happen to know :)
 
tibby.dude said:
Directing military force in such a way that it kills hundreds of civilians is unacceptable behavior, and any group, tribe, or nation that does so loses all moral standing. Those who are defending this behavior need to have a close look at the axioms and arguments that lead them to such a deeply broken conclusion.

http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2006/07/22/Lebanon-Roundup

750 dead Lebanese vs 51 Isreali's civilians ... it certainly crystal clear to me who is the terrorist in this conflict.
Click to expand...

And you have the nerve to say others are coming to "broken conclusions". Perhaps you can't think for yourself and just believe everything that you are told... in that case its almost understandable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X