Israel and Palestine

[oregano]

My main question...is who would want Israel anyway? Its a small, fairly insignificant piece of land (in real world considerations anyway). Why cant either the Palestinians or the Israelis find an island somewhere and live there...seriously...this is pathetic

 

Well, besides the huge huge huge religious significance it has to Jews, Christians, and Muslims (umm, what do you think the Crusades were?), it is all the Jews really need as a home. And there aren't that many islands left that aren't civilized/habitable.

In ancient times it was our home, and we just want it to be our home now.

[gwprod12]

And most people do not object to you wanting it to be your home. The palestinians want it to be their home as well. So, do not blind yourself to the fact that the palestinian people have an equal, if not better, moral claim to your territory.

[yossicl]

And most people do not object to you wanting it to be your home. The palestinians want it to be their home as well. So, do not blind yourself to the fact that the palestinian people have an equal, if not better, moral claim to your territory.

And currently they kill one each other… and you talk on better moral…

I suggest you to wake up from your dreams…

And GOD work for us in mysterious ways…

Edited December 20, 2006 by yossicl

[killbot1000]

You're not proving any points by dealing with the god chit chat, seriously, were all violent, the jews are just as bloodthirsty as the rest of the world, theres not really a difference between Palestinians and Israelis, we're all people, clamoring for what we want, thats all.

[yossicl]

You're not proving any points by dealing with the god chit chat, seriously, were all violent, the jews are just as bloodthirsty as the rest of the world, theres not really a difference between Palestinians and Israelis, we're all people, clamoring for what we want, thats all.

I don’t need to prove you anything because I’m not GOD spokesman or GOD messenger.

 

The Arabs (who currently call themselves Palestinian) was killing Jews before 1948 and violation against Jews in other parts of the world doesn’t stop in our territory so it is obviously not the land domination issue.

 

You are living in other stratosphere that’s for sure.

Nobody threaten to annihilating you and/or wiping you out of your home and your land. You cannot feel our feeling you cannot even touch it but you have a lot of complains against us.

 

We are not bloodthirsty we are normal human who despised people like you who try to tell us how to live or where to live and trying to judge us as we are guilty in the Arabs/Palestinian brutality behavior.

[oregano]

And most people do not object to you wanting it to be your home. The palestinians want it to be their home as well. So, do not blind yourself to the fact that the palestinian people have an equal, if not better, moral claim to your territory.

 

True...if you don't believe there are any israel-hating arabs in the middle east or anywhere else...WHICH THERE ARE!

come on, almost every arab in the middle east wants israel to be gone forever

its in the Koran or whatever: "the savior will not come until three ancient cities are controlled by muslims: Mecca, Jerusalem, and [some other city that is already under Muslim control, i forget the name]"

 

well, that just leaves jerusalem, WHICH IS UNDER JEWISH CONTROL, in case you forgot

so muslims believe that the world wont be at peace until they control jerusalem, and they will do anything to get it

Edited December 23, 2006 by joseafus

[gwprod12]

Islam controlled all three of those cities for quite some time. If a savior didnt appear then, I dont think he's gonna.

[Mebster]

Palestinian deaths rose in 2006

 

Palestinian militant killed by Israeli forces in wheeled into hospital in the West Bank

About half of those killed by Israeli forces were not involved in hostilities

Israeli security forces killed 660 Palestinians in 2006 - three times more than in 2005, according to an Israeli human rights group.

 

B'Tselem, which monitors human rights in the occupied territories, said the figure included 141 children.

 

At least 322 had taken no part in hostile acts, the group said.

 

In the same period, the number of deadly Palestinian attacks on Israelis has fallen - 23 Israelis were killed in 2006 compared with 50 last year.

 

The Israeli military renewed ground operations in the Gaza Strip after militants captured an Israeli soldier in a border raid in June.

 

Since June, Israeli troops have killed about 405 Palestinians in Gaza, including 88 children. More than half of the casualties were civilians, B'Tselem said.

 

As of November, 9,075 Palestinians were being held in Israeli jails. This number included 345 minors, it said.

 

Of these, 738 (22 minors) were being detained without trial and without knowing the charges against them, the group said.

 

BBC News

 

What more is there to say?

Edited December 30, 2006 by AcePlayer

[yossicl]

Palestinian deaths rose in 2006

 

Palestinian militant killed by Israeli forces in wheeled into hospital in the West Bank

About half of those killed by Israeli forces were not involved in hostilities

Israeli security forces killed 660 Palestinians in 2006 - three times more than in 2005, according to an Israeli human rights group.

 

B'Tselem, which monitors human rights in the occupied territories, said the figure included 141 children.

 

At least 322 had taken no part in hostile acts, the group said.

 

In the same period, the number of deadly Palestinian attacks on Israelis has fallen - 23 Israelis were killed in 2006 compared with 50 last year.

 

The Israeli military renewed ground operations in the Gaza Strip after militants captured an Israeli soldier in a border raid in June.

 

Since June, Israeli troops have killed about 405 Palestinians in Gaza, including 88 children. More than half of the casualties were civilians, B'Tselem said.

 

As of November, 9,075 Palestinians were being held in Israeli jails. This number included 345 minors, it said.

 

Of these, 738 (22 minors) were being detained without trial and without knowing the charges against them, the group said.

 

BBC News

 

What more is there to say?

The Muslim Blood Price

http://omedia.org/Show_Article.asp?Dynamic...hreadID=1014017

 

From here on out let us ask: how many Arabs and Muslims were killed in the course of those years by other states, such as Russia or France, and how many Arabs, Muslims and others were killed by Arabs and Muslims specifically. The following data has been assembled from studies conducted by various research institutes, academic bodies, international organizations (such as amnesty and other human-rights watch entities), the UN and the governments of some of the countries in question.

 

Often the statistics contradict and conflict with each other. The differences are often in the hundreds of thousands or even in the millions. We may well never know the exact figures. But even the lowest commonly accepted estimates, which form the basis for the below data, paint a mesmerizing and appalling picture. Moreover, the plethora of Arab- and Muslim-related conflicts during this period of time has made it very difficult to cover or even mention them all in a single article, and even the ones that have been left out of this one surmount the entire Israeli-Arab conflict in terms of casualties and brutality.

 

Algeria: several years after the establishment of the State of Israel, another war of independence broke out. This time it was Algeria who rose up against France, in the years 1954-1962. The number of victims on the Muslim side is under dispute. Official Algerian sources estimate it at over a million. Some western research institutes find this number acceptable.

 

French sources tried to claim that only a quarter million Muslims were killed, in addition to approximately 100 thousand French collaborators. However, these estimates are widely considered to be biased and understating. Today there is no dispute that the French killed at least nearly 600 thousand Muslims. And it is France that incessantly preaches to Israel, which in its entire history has barely scratched a tenth of this figure, even by the broadest of estimates.

 

The massacre in Algeria didn't end then. In the 1991 election, the "Islamic Salvation Front" came to power. The election's results were then immediately annulled by the military. Ever since then a civil war has been waged between the military-supported regime and several Islamic factions. According to various estimates, this conflict has claimed approximately 100 thousand victims thus far. Most of them innocent civilians. Most of these killed in the course of horrific massacres of entire villages – toddlers, women, elders and all. Massacres in the name of Islam.

 

Algeria recap: 500 thousand to 1 million in the war of independence against France; 100 thousand during the civil war of the nineties.

 

Sudan: The Most Severe Series of Crimes Since WWII

 

 

Sudan: a country torn apart by a streak of killing rampages, almost all between the Arab-Muslim populated north, which holds control of the country, and the black populated south. This country has seen two civil wars, as well as a government-sponsored massacre that is being carried out in the region of Darfur during recent years.

 

The first civil war raged between the years 1955-1972. Moderate estimates speak of 500 thousand victims. In 1983 the second civil war broke out. However, it was not a war at all, but rather a systematic carnage – true genocide. The goals were Islamization, Arabization and mass deportation, often escalating into eradication, also for the sake of seizing the region's vast oil-fields. This "war" has claimed 1.9 million victims.

 

The distribution of this figure between Muslim and non-Muslim victims is unclear. The Nuba Mountains region, populated by many black Muslims, has also seen its share of atrocities. No blacks get special treatment, even Muslim ones. Ever since extreme Islam came to power, under the spiritual guidance of Dr. Hassan al-Turabi, things only got worse. Apparently this has been the most severe series of crimes against humanity since World War II.

 

It featured ethnic cleansing, displacement, mass murder, slave trade, imposition of Islamic law, separation of children from their parents and more. Millions have turned refugees. As far as could be traced, no hundreds of publications have been written in defense of the Sudanese Right of Return nor have petitions and appeals been signed by intellectuals, denouncing Sudan's right to exist.

 

Events of recent years have mostly revolved around the region of Darfur. Again, Muslims (Arabs) murdering Muslims and pagans (blacks), and the numbers are unclear. Moderate estimates speak of 200 thousand victims; higher ones speak of 600 thousand. Nobody knows for sure. And the massacre goes on.

 

Of all the atrocities committed in Sudan, most are being carried out by the Arab-Muslim government, and most victims, if not all, are blacks of all religions, including Muslims.

 

Sudan recap: 2.6 million to 3 million.

 

Afghanistan: a Ceaseless Procession of Mass Murders

 

Afghanistan: a ceaseless procession of mass murders has taken place, both internal and outward. The Soviet invasion, which commenced on December 24th 1979 and ended on February 2nd 1989, has left a million dead. Other estimates recount 1.5 million civilian casualties, as well as 90 thousand troops.

 

After the withdrawal of the Soviets, Afghanistan has undergone a series of strife and civil warfare between the Soviet-supporters, the Mujahideen and the Taliban. Each faction in turn has committed mass murder of its opponents. The total number of casualties of these civil wars, until the invasion of the American-spearheaded coalition forces in 2001, is approximately 1 million.

 

Some complain, not without justification, about the slaying of Afghans during the coalition strikes against the Taliban government and during the coalition pursuit of Al-Qaeda. However, the invasion of Afghanistan caused a relatively low number of deaths – less than 10,000. Were it not carried out, the previous annual average of over 100 thousand deaths in the course of internal genocide would have likely been maintained.

 

Afghanistan recap: 1 million to 1.5 million as a result of the Soviet invasion; approximately 1 million in the course of internal warfare.

 

Somalia: Never-Ending Civil War

 

Somalia: since 1977 this East-African Muslim country has been submerged in a never-ending civil war. The death toll is estimated to be in the vicinity of 550 thousand people. Muslims killing off Muslims (mostly). Peace-keeping intervention efforts by the UN and later by US forces have both failed.

 

Most victims did not fall on the field of battle, but rather as a result of starvation or assaults intentionally directed at civilian population, such as bombardments of civilian population for its own sake (massive bombardments of rival regions, such as the one in Somaliland, in which 50 thousand were killed).

 

Somalia recap: 400 thousand to 550 thousand casualties of civil war.

 

Bangladesh: One of the World's Three Biggest Genocides

 

Bangladesh: this state aspired for independence from Pakistan. Pakistan retaliated with a military incursion that wreaked havoc. Again, this was no war, it was a massacre. Between 1 million and 2 million people were systematically executed during the year 1971. Some researchers define the events of that year in Bangladesh as one of the world's three biggest genocides (after the Holocaust and the Genocide of Rwanda).

 

An inquiry committee commissioned by the Bangladeshi government counted 1.247 million civilian victims who found their deaths at the hands of the Pakistani military. There are many reports of specialized Pakistani death-squads of "Muslim soldiers sent to mass-butcher Muslim peasants".

 

The Pakistani military was subdued only after the intervention of India, which was upset by influx of refugees – millions – from Bangladesh. Even after the Pakistani withdrawal, 150 thousand Bengalis were murdered in the course of retaliatory raids.

 

Bangladesh recap: 1.4 million to 2 million.

 

Indonesia: The Massacre Began With a Communist Insurrection

 

Indonesia: the world's largest Muslim state is in close competition with Bangladesh and Rwanda for the dubious title of "Biggest Massacre after the Holocaust". The massacre began with a communist insurrection in the year 1965. Here too there are conflicting estimates but the current consensus is approximately 400 thousand Indonesians that were killed during the years 1965-1966, though more rigorous estimates are much higher.

 

The massacre was carried out by the military, whose prominent figure was Haji Mohammad Soeharto, who then took the reins of power for the next 32 years. One of the researches of those years reports that the man in charge of quelling the rebellion – General Sarwo Edhi – himself admitted that: "we didn't kill one million, but two millions", and "we did a good job of it". We'll stick to the lower, more widely accepted estimates.

 

In 1975, after the end of the Portuguese dominion, East Timor proclaimed its independence. Soon thereafter it was invaded by Indonesia, which then held rule over the region until 1999. During those years a 100 to 200 thousand people were killed in the region, in addition to a total obliteration of its infrastructures.

 

Indonesia recap: 400 thousand people, plus 100 thousand to 200 thousand in East Timor.

 

Iraq: Carnage at the Hand of Saddam Hussein

 

Iraq: Most of the carnage and devastation prevalent in Iraq during the past few decades was at the hand of Saddam Hussein. Here, too, we are dealing with a regime that has caused millions of deaths. Constant death. One of the pinnacles of this killing-spree was during the Iran-Iraq war, in a conflict over Shatt al-Arab, the river formed by the confluence of theEuphratesand theTigris, a conflict that led nowhere other than to extensive destruction and mass demise. Estimates speak of 450 thousand to 650 thousand Iraqi fatalities, and of 450 thousand to 970 thousand Iranian fatalities. Jews, Israelis and Zionists, as far as is known, were nowhere around.

 

The waves of internal cleansing, some political (opposition), some ethnic (the Kurd minority) and some religious (the sovereign Sunni minority versus the Shiite majority) yielded an enormous amount of victims. Estimates range from a quarter million people – according to Human Rights Watch – to a full million according to local sources. Other international organizations often refer to half a million casualties.

 

In the years 1991-1992 Shiite upheaval arose in Iraq. There are various conflicting estimates as to the number of casualties resulting from that upheaval. Numbers range from 40 thousand to 200 thousand. To the Iraqis that were killed we should add the Kurds, of who 200 thousand to 300 thousand were exterminated during the genocide of the '80s and '90s.

 

Half a million additional Iraqis died of disease due to lack of medicine, supposedly brought on by the sanctions imposed on Iraq following the First Gulf War. Today it is clear that this was nothing other than a continuation of Saddam's genocide of his own people. Buying sufficient medicine was well within his reach, he had the resources and funds to purchase food and build hospitals to accommodate every child in Iraq, but Saddam preferred to finance the construction of palaces and to trade franchises for favors with western and Arab captains of industry. These facts are currently being revealed as the corruption surrounding the UN-run "Oil-for-Food Programme" is being investigated.

 

The Iraqis continue to suffer. The currently ongoing civil war there – though some do not like to use this term to describe the mutual slaughter of Sunnis and Shiites – has taken a toll of tens of thousands of victims. The number of Iraqis killed in this conflict since the coalition forces took over Iraq is estimated at 100 thousand.

 

Iraq recap: 1.54 million to 2 million victims.

 

Iran recap: 450 thousand to 970 thousand victims.

Lebanon: Lethal Civil Strife

 

Lebanon: the Lebanese civil war took place between the years 1975 and 1990. At certain phases Israel became involved, especially following the First War of Lebanon in 1982. However, there is no dispute that a substantial part of the casualties fell during the first two years.

 

A conservative estimate would be that over 130 thousand Lebanese were killed during the fighting. Most of these in the course of infighting, due to religious conflicts, ethnic conflicts, and the oft-shifting Syrian support of the various factions. The highest estimates speak of no more than 18 thousand casualties – mostly combatants – caused by Israeli activity.

 

Lebanon recap: 130 thousand victims.

 

Yemen: Hundred of Thousands Casualties of Infighting

 

 

Yemen: the civil war raging in Yemen between the years 1962 to 1970, with Egyptian and Saudi involvement, claimed 100 thousand to 150 thousand Yemen lives, and an additional 1000 Egyptian and 1000 Saudi lives.

 

Amongst other horrors, Egypt committed several atrocities, amongst which was the use of gas against the Yemenites. Riots causing several thousands of additional deaths followed in the years 1984 to 1986.

 

Yemen recap: 100 thousand to 150 thousand killed.

 

Chechnya: Russia's Refusal to Emancipation Led to War

 

Chechnya: Russia refused the claims of the Chechen Republic for emancipation, an act which led to the First Chechen War from 1994 until 1996. The war took a toll of 50 thousand to 200 thousand Chechen victims.

 

Russia spared no means, but failed miserably. This did not serve the Chechens however, for their eventually emancipated republic lay in ruins.

 

The Second Chechen War began in 1999 and officially ended in 2001, though it hasn't really ended at all, and the death toll is estimated at 30 thousand to 100 thousand.

 

Chechnya recap: 80 thousand to 300 thousand casualties.

 

Now Aceplayer do you have more something to say?

[hm_ok]

hi, i think most people are not really involved in that situation but try to judge it this or that way for of one or the other reason. most people don't even know somebody facing the daily hardship in the occupied territories or the constant fear of suicide bombers in tel aviv. yet it is a polarizing issue. one tends to think about it, but fails to find a solution for it, or stands on one side, but the arguments are either plain emotional (racist) or inherited. that is because the process of a state being installed out of the blue (not out of nothing) has never been witnessed before. also, the fashion of the suicide bombings often suggest an evil background, whereas if you think it through, no one will blow himself up until it is the very last thing you can do. so these people seem to be quite at the end of their possibilities. imagine they would not do it. accept the steady shooting all day in some parts of gaza, the cutting of water and restriction of movement? that's what they're already doing!

 

the mere question of why the state was installed can be sometimes greeted with irrational arouse. the motiv is of course unquestionable, but it shrinks every time palestinian human rights are violated.

 

might also wanna check those out....

 

http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm

 

quite interesting stuff

[gwprod12]

I would like to point out that when you say "people dont blow themselves up until/unless it's the last thing to do", that is incorrect. A better way of saying it might be "people dont blow themselves up until/unless they THINK it's the most effective means". I dont want people falling into the false conciousness trap of the "no choice" paradigm. There's always a choice, it just might not be a good one, or you might not know about it. It is however fair to say that people dont become suicide bombers on a whim. People balance risk vs reward. For instance. If I were diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, I might think to myself "Well, I'm going do die in an unpleasant way, maybe I should do something with my death, instead of just wasting away". When the reward vs the risk is calculated, a choice becomes reasoned and is not insane. The insanity lies in what Nietzche called the will to power. When someone is convinced that their own selfishness lies in an act, nothing will stop them from doing it, no matter how self-destructive. Hence the throwing oneself in front of a bus to save a child mentality can be equated to blowing oneself up to advance the cause of your people. Morality, Religion and Nationalism all turn the natural animalistic desire to advance oneself and have power over others into the irrational desire to be powerful by manifesting the goals of others into the selfish. Thus causing Martyrs and Saints. Two sides of the same coin.

 

</rant>

[tomazzzi]

for me israel have nothing to do in palestine

 

the land used to be palestine & not israel, many people forget it beginning with israelians.

 

whereever they are israel always found a way to do the war with someone

 

i m just fed up with israelians, they sucks

 

just let the plalestinians live in peace in their land !!!!

 

i just understand them when i ear they don t want to reconize the israel state, i ll do the same ....

[hm_ok]

I would like to point out that when you say "people dont blow themselves up until/unless it's the last thing to do", that is incorrect. A better way of saying it might be "people dont blow themselves up until/unless they THINK it's the most effective means". I dont want people falling into the false conciousness trap of the "no choice" paradigm. There's always a choice, it just might not be a good one, or you might not know about it. It is however fair to say that people dont become suicide bombers on a whim. People balance risk vs reward. For instance. If I were diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, I might think to myself "Well, I'm going do die in an unpleasant way, maybe I should do something with my death, instead of just wasting away". When the reward vs the risk is calculated, a choice becomes reasoned and is not insane. The insanity lies in what Nietzche called the will to power. When someone is convinced that their own selfishness lies in an act, nothing will stop them from doing it, no matter how self-destructive. Hence the throwing oneself in front of a bus to save a child mentality can be equated to blowing oneself up to advance the cause of your people. Morality, Religion and Nationalism all turn the natural animalistic desire to advance oneself and have power over others into the irrational desire to be powerful by manifesting the goals of others into the selfish. Thus causing Martyrs and Saints. Two sides of the same coin.

 

</rant>

 

if you mean by "bad choice" accepting a map of the west bank scattered with many jewish settlements, being ripped through by israeli street, being stripped of important water resources and so on, i do think that not accepting it is the only good choice in that case. have you seen the map?

 

so it is better to direct a bomb into a civilian area, aiming at terrorists but reaching civilians, too? the argument against suicide bombers is that they come totally unforeseen, and that is regarded as dirty, as unfair. the only difference on the israeli side is that they are painted in camouflage, shoot much bigger weapons and call themselves "defense force".

 

imagine again: the palestinians have no army. yet they are subjected to hardship that comes not from the heavens, but from israeli occupation, gaza being the most densly populated place on earth. take the suicide bombers away and they are left with stones. i am not defending any type of violence, and blowing yourself up with many others seems to me a disgusting thing. but the rational behind it must not be overlooked. it is despair, and not patriotism. the hate has do be deep in order to carry out such things. it doesn't get deep without quite a bit of stuff happening. it is a bad rational, but it is one.

 

i don't want to say anything and i don't know a hell about the whole thing, but i can imagine being a palestinian is not an easy job. and considering the relation of power all in all with the americans and so on, it seems not a very balanced thing. the power is on one side, but if the goal were so obviously right, wouldn't they have succeeded all along? no, there is a big obstacle to that, and that seems to be the palestinian people.

 

one possible solution to hat is removing them all from there. possible, but not nice.

 

another is to remove the beliefs of those people clinging on to the holy places which are the biggest of all obstacles. impossible on either side, both very religious.

 

third, they could live in peace together. why not? because of ethnical differences? there are suppositions of being careful to not let the demographic numbers get uneven concerning the jewish part of the people of israel. we can't let arabs outnumber us here! and i think they shouldn't. but what kind of neighborhood is that? where you are constantly afraid of your neighbors, carry around big guns at your garden fence, securing it to all sides, shooting at them all the time?

[killbot1000]

All I have to say is that both Palestein and Israel are {censored}ed up...

[one_7]

israel is a result of europe's guilty feeling towards jews especially germany..israel shouldn't exist..a true jew will agree with this statement..all jews who stay in israel are zionist..

 

but trust me..there will be one day in which all jews will suffer..and Palestin will regain the land back...the days are coming...

 

@yossicl=zionist

Edited January 21, 2007 by hazwan

[one_7]

FYI all the Jews around the world even if they have different "home-land-culture” are praying the same prayer with the same holidays from generation to generation as our ancestor where doing 3,500 years ago in the land of Israel.

So maybe my argument doesn’t fit to your opinion and your arguments are empty... but who cares?

 

the same prayer..are you sure??you people disobey command of ALLAH..

[Mebster]

FYI all the Jews around the world even if they have different "home-land-culture” are praying the same prayer with the same holidays from generation to generation as our ancestor where doing 3,500 years ago in the land of Israel.

So maybe my argument doesn’t fit to your opinion and your arguments are empty... but who cares?

I've been out of this for a while so excuse me if i misunderstand anything.

Ok correct me if I'm wrong but in history didn't Moses leave the jews for a few days and then returns to find that they've all completely forgot all of his teachings and their God and instead erected another (a cow out of all bleeding thing)?

 

If you can completely forget the teachings of Moses in a matter of days and then go off in your own paths (to doom i guess) then what is there to say that you're not on another path to doom? I mean if you couldn't even be left for a few days without getting up to mischief then how do you expect any of us to believe you've been following his teachings for 3500 years?

 

And remember Moses supposedly saved you all with a miracle of the splitting of the river? If you can forget all his teachings even after a miracle you all witnessed, then there's no chance for you all.

[one_7]

I've been out of this for a while so excuse me if i misunderstand anything.

Ok correct me if I'm wrong but in history didn't Moses leave the jews for a few days and then returns to find that they've all completely forgot all of his teachings and their God and instead erected another (a cow out of all bleeding thing)?

 

If you can completely forget the teachings of Moses in a matter of days and then go off in your own paths (to doom i guess) then what is there to say that you're not on another path to doom? I mean if you couldn't even be left for a few days without getting up to mischief then how do you expect any of us to believe you've been following his teachings for 3500 years?

 

And remember Moses supposedly saved you all with a miracle of the splitting of the river? If you can forget all his teachings even after a miracle you all witnessed, then there's no chance for you all.

 

agree with aceplayer..

[killbot1000]

I happen to take the belief that there were no miracles of that proportion. If things that amazing really happened, they would still be happening...Not that I dont believe its possible, however the possibility that the story became legend and was exaggerated is far more likely as this falls in line with what people do when they tell stories, they add their own little touches, and try to make it more interesting, until its so outlandish that it doesnt really make any sense.

 

 

Also, where was god before these religions got started? Nowhere

 

Also, the idea of god has changed over time whether we want to believe it or not. Judaism used to acknowledge the EXISTANCE of other gods, but said that their own PATRON GOD was the strongest and smartest out of all of them, and that was the god you were supposed to warship.

 

Also, to reply to Yossicl, I don't think jewish people are bad people or anything, I just dont think they are any more important than the atheist or the buddhist. Whether you want to beleive it or not, Judaism is a tad sexist and ETHNOCENTRIC. That arrogance when it comes to religion causes a lot of problems worldwide. Many other religions have this problem as well, I mostly point to the religions of the Abrahamic tradition (christianity, islam, judaism). They seem to have the most problems with this...just my observation.

Edited January 23, 2007 by killbot1000

[consolation]

I don't think there is a religion that's not at least a tad sexist. They are made up by people so are a product of their age. Eastern religions are just as bad.

[Mebster]

killbot I wasn't trying to suggest that the miracles of Moses are a fact (although i believe in them).

 

I was instead trying to point out the bigger picture, which is how a group of people who are so good at being mislead can come out and say they are following the same religion as their ancestors did 3000 years ago. If they were able to forget in 30 days (i think) given they witnessed a miracle who would believe that it didn't get changes another 30 days (never mind 3000 years) after Moses's passing.

 

Also, where was god before these religions got started? Nowhere

This is a question I've heard several times in relation to Christianity and Judaism. In Islam Adam was a servant and prophet of Allah. There were others before Adam but then gets into a lengthy discussion of what my knowledge is limited. Islam (submission to Allah) in one for or another (..., Judaism, Christianity, Islam) has always been around although it had different names and at different times had adjusted teachings. The Qur'an is the end the sequence of books that have been revealed (5 in total i think).

 

sexist

In the western society sexist is a word people like to throw around without really thinking what i means to others. Islam certainly has different restrictions between men and women but these if you look into them (with a western predegist view) ALL have a good reason and so will not be considered sexiest in many societies. For example in many countries men are able to walk around topless in public but women would be arrest for indecent exposure for doing the same thing. Is this sexiest? No.

[killbot1000]

Aceplayer, the issue is not society, that has its own set of problems (and for the record, if a woman WANTS to walk down the street topless, I have no problem with that, if men can do it, women IN THEORY should be allowed to as well, this however does not mesh well with society and the standards we have built up around it. I happen to not share society's goals, atleast not all of them. When I say that these religions are sexist, this is what I mean:

 

 

Bible (both a mix of new and old testaments):

 

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (blatantly sexist)

 

-Corinthians 14:34 - 35

 

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. (men rule women...what else is new)

 

-Ephesians 5:23 - 24

 

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. (She is obligated to do what her husband says as long as hes alive, when hes dead, she can do her own thing...)

 

-Deuteronomy 22:5

 

 

How then can man be justified with God? or , how can he be clean [that is] born of a woman? (everybody that is born is unclean, because they came from a woman hahaha why do people still listen to this {censored}?)

 

-Job 25:4

 

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God. (Let's throw all those women wearing pants into the fiery cauldron of hell)

 

-Deuteronomy 22:5 *

 

 

The Qu'ran:

 

They ask you about menstruation: "It is harmful; you shall avoid sexual intercourse with the women during menstruation; do not approach them until they are rid of it. Once they are rid of it, you may have intercourse with them in the manner designed by GOD. GOD loves the repenters, and He loves those who are clean." (whoever said that the qu'ran has no scientific contradictions needs to get their eyes checked, it is absolutely not harmful for women to have sex during menstruation, and it certainly isn't dirty...)

 

- Sura 2:222

 

Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females. (This seems to a be a common theme according to the qu'ran, 1man = 2 women, simple...)

 

-4.11

 

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart; and scourge (beat) them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great. (if women disobey, it is ok to beat them....just like a REAL man should)

 

-4.34

 

A male shall inherit twice as much as a female. If there be more than two girls, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance, but if there be one only, she shall inherit the half. Parents shall inherit a sixth each, if the deceased have a child; but if he leave no child and his parents be his heirs, his mother shall have a third. If he have brothers, his mother shall have a sixth after payment of any legacy he may have bequeathed or any debt he may have owed.

(Here's the 1 man = 2 women thing again...weird)

 

-4.11-4.12

 

 

I'm not saying that the western tradition isn't sexist either, it is, but whether you want to hear it or not, the middle east still has to play catch up when it comes to basic rights and freedoms. I'm not saying there aren't things in the west that need to be addressed (a lot of things do). But this subject is in regard to sexism, and these religions are pretty damn sexist, the only reason why things aren't actually more sexist, is because most people think that the word of god is a little too harsh and they decide not to follow what "he" says, now if the majority of people don't follow the word of god, because its a little too harsh, isn't there something with the "word of god"?

 

Also, in regards to Judaism always being there...it wasn't always there, that's what I'm trying to say, we have been brainwashed into thinking that the world started with these religions, and it didnt, there was over 4 billion years of earth before these religions started, 100,000 years of human societies, and about 5,000 years of civilization. At the very best, Judaism (which was the first of these religions) started when civilization started in ancient Mesopotamia. But this does not account for the thousands of years before this when humans were worshiping nature and the like. Which brings me to my final point. Ever wonder why all these "holy word of god" religions started in the Middle East? People (for one reason or another, don't ask me why) have the urge to make things holy. If you live in a forest, the trees and the animals that give you life are holy, or the elements, etc. But the Middle east has very little nature to speak of, it is a sparse land, and you cant make the sand holy, because sand (in the context of a desert) takes away life rather than give it, therefore the only thing left to make holy is the written word, since its the only thing we have left. Its a common mythological theme that has been used in the region for thousands of years, just like nature worship has been common in many lush societies for thousands of years until the introduction of Christianity, and the only reason why that succeeded to such a great degree is because it made concessions for Pagans, many of the rituals and practices in the bible are meant to cater to pagans in order to convert more of them.

 

Its not God, its history !

Edited January 24, 2007 by killbot1000

[consolation]

Also, in regards to Judaism always being there...it wasn't always there, that's what I'm trying to say, we have been brainwashed into thinking that the world started with these religions, and it didnt, there was over 4 billion years of earth before these religions started, 100,000 years of human societies, and about 5,000 years of civilization. At the very best, Judaism (which was the first of these religions) started when civilization started in ancient Mesopotamia. But this does not account for the thousands of years before this when humans were worshiping nature and the like. Which brings me to my final point. Ever wonder why all these "holy word of god" religions started in the Middle East? People (for one reason or another, don't ask me why) have the urge to make things holy. If you live in a forest, the trees and the animals that give you life are holy, or the elements, etc. But the Middle east has very little nature to speak of, it is a sparse land, and you cant make the sand holy, because sand (in the context of a desert) takes away life rather than give it, therefore the only thing left to make holy is the written word, since its the only thing we have left. Its a common mythological theme that has been used in the region for thousands of years, just like nature worship has been common in many lush societies for thousands of years until the introduction of Christianity, and the only reason why that succeeded to such a great degree is because it made concessions for Pagans, many of the rituals and practices in the bible are meant to cater to pagans in order to convert more of them.

 

Its not God, its history !

 

 

I think it is more to do with societies developing towns and cities = no need for nature worship. At the time the middle east was quite lush with forests etc around the tigris/euphrates rivers and the coasts. Even now, desert makes up the minor portion of the area. A similar pattern can be seen in the Eastern religions. BTW, islam, judaism, christianity are considered western religions.

Edited January 24, 2007 by consolation

[killbot1000]

I think it is more to do with societies developing towns and cities = no need for nature worship. At the time the middle east was quite lush with forests etc around the tigris/euphrates rivers and the coasts. Even now, desert makes up the minor portion of the area. A similar pattern can be seen in the Eastern religions. BTW, islam, judaism, christianity are considered western religions.

 

 

My apologies, when I meant western, I meant western Europe before the introduction of Christianity to a significant degree. But, societies and towns existed with nature warship, look at the Greek and Roman gods, pretty much all about nature. I realize the entire middle east is not a desert, however, I'm pretty sure it wasn't incredibly lush, surely more lush than it is now, and surely enough to sustain life, but I don't believe it was anything incredible.

 

And you bring up an interesting point about cities and societies = no need for nature worship. Couldn't one argue that in todays society with technology and science, one doesnt really need the bible or the qu'ran anymore? Isn't it a little outdated?

[yossicl]

''I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantegous to themselves... For myself, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.'' -- Aldous Huxley in Ends and Means, 1937.