Religous Extremism

[Saru Inc]

One more non-trolling question:

If God is all-mighty (?), why doesn't he just get rid of hell and the devil and such?

 

(I am not religious, I don't go to church or anything, haven't read the bible or any religious text, but I wouldn't say I don't believe in Him or anything, I just don't worship. But I have a friend who is christian, and we talk about this kind of stuff once in a while, and he hasn't really given me a clean answer. I'm just wondering this.)

 

 

Maybe no one knows, maybe someone does know; but maybe we don't have to know. I ask the same thing.

[Flyingjj]

the fact that you're arguing christianity in an extremism thread makes me wonder if you know any christian

 

most christians go to mass because they want something from God, or the social aspect of it, etc, but not because they think they'll go to hell if they don't go. quote the old testament as much as you want, but i'm telling you know that VERY VERY few christians have ever read the old testament, let alone the entirety of the bible.

 

christianity is a very passive religion... to call them extremists is such a joke.

 

The fact that you're trying to pass off Christianity as passive is a joke. The religion is extreme, it's followers are just passive. I'm not calling most of the followers extremist, but I am saying that the religion is extreme. It's like how people say that Islam is extreme, when not all Muslims take it that far.

You're right. It is like how people say that Islam is extreme, when not all Muslims take it that far. In fact, very, very, VERY few Muslims take it that far. That's why Islam is NOT an extreme religion, and neither is Christianity. No wide sweeping encompassing terms such as Christianity or Islam can be called extreme. It is only ever certain sects of these very broad categories that could ever be called extreme.

 

You seem to be defining a religion based entirely on its written texts, which should never be the case. No religion is based entirely off of a written authority. A religion is the practices and beliefs of a group of people and how they put those beliefs into practice.

[Alg]

Or the texts are the foundation by which the worshipers build their houses.

[stonewall337]

Many of the founding fathers are actually considered Deists. Patrick Henry was putting his personal views, not the views of all of them. Also, this country was found due to money, and people wanting to make a profit. If it wasn't for that, then religion would have never made it's way over here. This country was not brought up on Christian values, otherwise this nation would have failed miserably. The idea that this nation is brought up as a Christian nation mocks the founders, because it was meant to be religious freedom, not freedom based on religion.

 

Actually, the belief that many of the founders were deist is typical reinvention of history by the public school system, etc. If you actually read their own writings, you will see that although some were, and others were agnostics, such as Franklin, the majority were Christians.

[Alg]

Many of the founding fathers are actually considered Deists. Patrick Henry was putting his personal views, not the views of all of them. Also, this country was found due to money, and people wanting to make a profit. If it wasn't for that, then religion would have never made it's way over here. This country was not brought up on Christian values, otherwise this nation would have failed miserably. The idea that this nation is brought up as a Christian nation mocks the founders, because it was meant to be religious freedom, not freedom based on religion.

 

Actually, the belief that many of the founders were deist is typical reinvention of history by the public school system, etc. If you actually read their own writings, you will see that although some were, and others were agnostics, such as Franklin, the majority were Christians.

Not really. Public schools won't touch religion with a ten foot pole. They don't teach anything about the founding fathers' religions.

If anything it came about with Dan Brown and/or the recent obsession with Freemasonry.

[RexMilotic]

Yet when it comes to the writing on the Constitution, and what we use a law, it could be considered that it's from a deist/ agnostic/ atheist view.

[Romy]

I got three questions.

 

1) Is zionism religious extremism or nationalism?

It's extremism because the Jews who aren't even genetically Semitic anymore feel the right to take land from other peoples who have lived there for the last 2400yrs. The only reason why they are allowed to carry their injustice of land stealing is because might makes right.

2) Do jews have a godly right to trash human rights in Israel?

No. First of all, if God is suppose to be an all loving being, He would not approve of their evil. They are attacking others who believe in the same god.

3) Is it possible to criticize Israel without instantly becoming antisemitic in the process?

I am a Semite. I have no problem with Jews. I have a problem with supposed "Israelis".

 

Thanks, this is not me trolling but a serious attempt at trying to understand the world a bit better.

 

 

 

That makes not 1 bit of sense.

 

First of all, the reason there are so many countries is that groups with certain things in common (whether it be language, idiology, religion, culture, history etc) would like to form a nation- Just like France, the USA, Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Britain, and any other, really.

Zionism, is exactly that. A group with the same religion, history, language, culture and possibly idiology aswell, working it's way on becoming a nation.

Not to be petty, but considering the History part, Jews were "there first". Other than that, there isn't one other place in which Israel could build (and I'm not saying that without knowing. Before it was officialy decided that Israel would become a country where it is now, many have tried other places).

 

Nowdays, there are those that call themselves Zionists and do whole other things- That does not mean they are Zionists, nor does it mean the meaning of Zionism has changed. And by the way, their numbers are much, much, much lower than you probably think, for 2 reasons: (1)because Judiasm, in a way, has many different principles than those of Zionism, which makes the vast majority of the religious either Anti-Zionist, or simply not Zionist. (2) Those who aren't religious are more than usualy not extremists either.

 

 

Secondly, you make it sound like Israel had decided to camp there and just attack all of its neighbors. You might be surprised, but there isn't 1 war Israel initiated (perhaps except for The Six Days War, and that's because the Israeli Intelligence found out Eygept is planning on attacking Israel the next day).

In addition, 1 day after Israel's Decleration of Independance, All Arab countries around it (Jordan, Eygept, Syria, Lebanon, and even the Arab Legion and Iraq) went to war against Israel. The Palmach, God knows how, succeeded in both making some of them retreat, and forming temporal agreements with the rest.

 

 

Third, dare I ask what your problem with Israelis is?

 

Oh, I'd just like to point 1 thing. All 3 main relgions' (Islam, Christianity and Judiasm) members are Semite by the original definition of the word. However, nowdays the word Antisemite means hatred towards Jews, and not all 3 main relgions.

[n_odie]

 

That actually confuses me. Without having hell as a consequence for not following God, I see no reason to even bother following it. I mean, you could take all the good parts out and create a philosophy on it, but wouldn't be the same as a religion.

 

Hell promotes a morbid fear of God. In contrast, a person who learn the truth about God and comes to love him will grow to have a healthy fear of him. Psalm 111:10 says something along the lines that all that fear God love him. This fear of God is, not abject terror, but awe of and profound reverence for the Creator. Basically it should give us a healthy fear of displeasing him.

 

The concept of "hell" in the Bible (insofar as the New Testament is concerned) is referred to (if the word is even used in a particular translation, as use of the word hell is decreasing in newer translations) as a place separate from God, a place where there will be "much weeping and gnashing of teeth." It's common conception of a fiery place of doom comes from the existence of "Gehenna," which was, if I remember correctly, a physical place on earth where garbage was thrown into and burned.

 

Common theology has most definitely expanded on the Biblical conception of hell. Sometimes I wonder how we came to our current conception of it.

 

Spot on.

In Jesus day, the inhabitants of Jerusalem used the Valley of Hinnom as a garbage dump. They threw the bodies of criminals into this dump and kept a fire constantly burning there to dispose of the rubbish and the carcasses.

 

The ancient Egyptians believed in "a fiery hell." Than later some Jewish sects addapted the belief of a soul living forever, sayin "bad souls go to a dark and tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments."

 

If I recall correctly, these beliefs infected Christianity around the second century C.E. and into the middle ages as justification of religious purging.

 

 

One more non-trolling question:

If God is all-mighty (?), why doesn't he just get rid of hell and the devil and such?

 

(I am not religious, I don't go to church or anything, haven't read the bible or any religious text, but I wouldn't say I don't believe in Him or anything, I just don't worship. But I have a friend who is christian, and we talk about this kind of stuff once in a while, and he hasn't really given me a clean answer. I'm just wondering this.)

 

That's kinda Christianity 101. Basically, when Satan deceived Eve/Adam into thinking she had the right to rule it brought into play an issue of Universal Sovereignty (FF Spell check ftw). God could have just wiped Adam and Eve and started over but that wouldn't be loving nor would it have proved that God has the right to rule. This is because not only Adam/Eve/Satan where watching, you had the angels as well. So God right now is letting mankind learn the hard way that as God, he has the right to rule.

 

It's very similar to a parent who tells his kid not to touch a "glowy red circle" on the stove but the kid keeps reaching for it again and again. A parent very well may let the kid touch it so that the it can learn.

 

Guess thats how my brain connects it. God doesn't just undo it because that would just prove whos the strongest, not who is right.

 

 

 

(Oh crap, I started religion rambling. <.<)

[i_love_burritos]

All religion is extreme, just in varying degrees of acceptability.

 

That made no sense at all.

[Barihawk]

N_Odie, I am pleased and impressed by the quality of your post.

[Faux]

I'm still annoyed by how the Canadian government didn't take a stance against the burka like the French did.

 

In our country we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,

[Faux]

The fact that you're trying to pass off Christianity as passive is a joke. The religion is extreme, it's followers are just passive. I'm not calling most of the followers extremist, but I am saying that the religion is extreme. It's like how people say that Islam is extreme, when not all Muslims take it that far.

Yeah I'm not going to disagree with you. As far as I'm concerned, the Bible is just a work of fiction

[magekillr]

The religion is extreme, it's followers are just passive.

 

Yeah, this is more or less where I stand regarding this entire topic; the Abrahamic religions are extreme. I don't know why we're discussing the religion's extremism itself when the topic "religious extremism" seems to refer more to its extremist believers. I suppose it's applicable to the discussion, though, as the religion itself generates the extremism, but ultimately seems a bit off-topic to me; especially the topic as to whether or not religion is fictitious or not--I happen to believe it is.

 

Oh well, if people wanna debate it they can have at it, but I have no interest in doing so unless my schools are threatened, or people's rights to worship or marry are in jeopardy.

[Perakp]

Thanks for your answer Romy.

I find it hard to understand how they can remain hostile for millennia.

 

And a point on the up-brought religious dogma:

It's very similar to a parent who tells his kid not to touch a "glowy red circle" on the stove but the kid keeps reaching for it again and again. A parent very well may let the kid touch it so that the it can learn.

This is a flawed analogy, it's like saying russian roulette is much like.... something that doesn't do you any comparable amount of harm.

You can't learn anything from going to hell, because you only had one chance and you [bleep]ed it already.

 

Guess thats how my brain connects it. God doesn't just undo it because that would just prove whos the strongest, not who is right.

Makes no sense to me at all.

 

(Oh crap, I started religion rambling. <.<)

Copy that.

[Alg]

Thanks for your answer Romy.

I find it hard to understand how they can remain hostile for millennia.

 

And a point on the up-brought religious dogma:

It's very similar to a parent who tells his kid not to touch a "glowy red circle" on the stove but the kid keeps reaching for it again and again. A parent very well may let the kid touch it so that the it can learn.

This is a flawed analogy, it's like saying russian roulette is much like.... something that doesn't do you any comparable amount of harm.

You can't learn anything from going to hell, because you only had one chance and you [bleep]ed it already.

 

So, kind of like how society treats murder? You did have one chance, screw it up and you're in jail for most/all of your life. That's because you were warned not to, mostly, and the one that warned you is giving the punishment s/he promised from the beginning.

Still proves who is strongest rather than who is right, though. Proving who is right in the Adam/Eve scenario would probably be something along the lines of letting them destroy themselves/eachother/the garden with all their new found knowledge.

 

Probably the reason we have free will, if it was given to us by some kind of creator God, is so that we have the choice not to follow the more extreme rules if they'd be harmful to others. That way the most zealous Christian who followed the rules down to a T but harmed many people isn't going to be rewarded, but an atheist that devoted his life to good for the sake of doing good would.

[RexMilotic]

 

That actually confuses me. Without having hell as a consequence for not following God, I see no reason to even bother following it. I mean, you could take all the good parts out and create a philosophy on it, but wouldn't be the same as a religion.

 

Hell promotes a morbid fear of God. In contrast, a person who learn the truth about God and comes to love him will grow to have a healthy fear of him. Psalm 111:10 says something along the lines that all that fear God love him. This fear of God is, not abject terror, but awe of and profound reverence for the Creator. Basically it should give us a healthy fear of displeasing him.

 

Well, looking at it from my point of view, that seems like an ineffective method compared to the current one for spreading the ideas. I personally have no use for a God murders his creations because of how he creates them, and without having the hell option as a secondary, then I would probably never have believed in his as a child either.

[fakeitormakeit2]

First of all, the reason there are so many countries is that groups with certain things in common (whether it be language, idiology, religion, culture, history etc) would like to form a nation- Just like France, the USA, Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Britain, and any other, really.

Countries you listed like Syria, France Britain have been long established but just have gone by different names and some different form of political status such as Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc, France use to be Gaul long ago, etc. It’s different for Israel when the majority of your current inhabitants have been gone since 600BC and some people who follow the same religion decide to return 2500yrs later.

 

 

Not to be petty, but considering the History part, Jews were "there first". Other than that, there isn't one other place in which Israel could build (and I'm not saying that without knowing. Before it was officialy decided that Israel would become a country where it is now, many have tried other places).

Actually if you want to play “there first” game, the Amorites, a name synonymous with the word Canaanite, were originally there, even stated in the Old Testament

Yet I destroyed the Amorites before them, whose height was like the height of cedars, and who was as strong as oaks; I destroyed his fruit above, and his roots beneath. Also I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and led you forty years in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorites

Syrians are the closest descendants of these people. People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians. As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese, even when the kingdoms of Judah and Israel still existed. Also, what is now eastern Israel was often under the control of Edomites and sometimes Moabites would come, these people are now the Jordanians.

 

So would you still like to argue “there first” with me?

 

And don't argue the Jews were there before they went to Egypt because that isn't true, those were called Hebrews, deeming them Jews is a retrospection, even then it is believed Abraham came from a Mesopotamian city state, and the Amorites were already present.

 

Nowdays, there are those that call themselves Zionists and do whole other things- That does not mean they are Zionists, nor does it mean the meaning of Zionism has changed. And by the way, their numbers are much, much, much lower than you probably think, for 2 reasons: (1)because Judiasm, in a way, has many different principles than those of Zionism, which makes the vast majority of the religious either Anti-Zionist, or simply not Zionist. (2) Those who aren't religious are more than usualy not extremists either.

Zionists are the Jews who want a Jewish state centralized around Zion, the temple mount, Jerusalem. Majority of Jews are not Zionists but they are sympathetic to their cause, seeing as how it led to the establishment of their current state. As for Anti-Zionist Jews, those are very rare, and most only speak against Israel because it has the Messianic star [of David] as its symbol/on its flag and they believe since there isn’t a Messiah on the throne [Originally before the Christian idea, Messiah is someone of an anointed one of the line of David] it is not the same as the state of Israel that God established, therefore it is basically a mock-state-of-God.

 

Secondly, you make it sound like Israel had decided to camp there and just attack all of its neighbors. You might be surprised, but there isn't 1 war Israel initiated (perhaps except for The Six Days War, and that's because the Israeli Intelligence found out Eygept is planning on attacking Israel the next day).

 

In addition, 1 day after Israel's Decleration of Independance, All Arab countries around it (Jordan, Eygept, Syria, Lebanon, and even the Arab Legion and Iraq) went to war against Israel. The Palmach, God knows how, succeeded in both making some of them retreat, and forming temporal agreements with the rest.

 

 

First of all, I’m not surprised. I’m Lebanese. I know the facts.

 

However I respond to your question with this question: Do you blame the Native Americans who attacked the expanding Americans who tried to take their land?

 

And by the way you’re wrong. Lebanon did not officially send troops, it was Pan-Arab sympathizers in Lebanon, the official government never sent troops as the official head of state is a Maronite and the Patriarch commanded they stay neutral with Israel unless Israel makes an offense.

 

What external observers do not realize is that there are two factions in Lebanon (well really there’s like seven, but I’m not going to get into that) there’s the pro-Hezbollah which are the Muslims who support Pan-Arabism and then there’s the pro-Kataeb, the Christians who just want to be left the [bleep] alone.

 

 

Third, dare I ask what your problem with Israelis is?

Jews from the Middle East, some of the nicest people I have met and known. Some good friends of mine are these people. Good people.

 

But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists who support the acquisitioning of land at others expense. Even if we completely disregard the Palestinians now, they took over Southern Lebanon (the Christian factions who were in control at the time were pro-Israel, although they refused to secede the land back), then the Israeli’s also took Golan Heights from Syria, that’s just an insult right there.

 

And they were suppose to stop expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, but they’re still to stop. I have Palestinian friends, Christian too, they were pulled out of there houses and told to get the [bleep] out because their property now belonged to Israel.

 

Oh, I'd just like to point 1 thing. All 3 main relgions' (Islam, Christianity and Judiasm) members are Semite by the original definition of the word. However, nowdays the word Antisemite means hatred towards Jews, and not all 3 main relgions.

 

I’m aware of this, but people from Greater Syria (AKA the Levant) call themselves Semites, because they are legitimately genetically Semitic.

 

 

So I hope now it makes more then “1 bit of sense.” as you said.

[The_Gabe]

I've lived in Israel, I've seen what is happening there. From my bias opinion, we deserve the land.

[fakeitormakeit2]

I've lived in Israel, I've seen what is happening there. From my bias opinion, we deserve the land.

If the Jews deserve the land then it's basically completely on the basis of might makes right because people seem to forget there were people living there before the Hebrews, before the Israelites and before the current state of Israel. That's kind of why if you read in the Old Testament why everyone occasionally gets mad and then attacks Israel, not because people are jealous, people just don't like their stuff getting taken, rightfully so.

 

The expanse of the [Modern State of] Israel into the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Southern Lebanon and Golan Heights, their acquisition of Palestine in general, is comparable to Hitler's notion of needing living space for the Master race.

[Romy]

1)

First of all, the reason there are so many countries is that groups with certain things in common (whether it be language, idiology, religion, culture, history etc) would like to form a nation- Just like France, the USA, Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Britain, and any other, really.

Countries you listed like Syria, France Britain have been long established but just have gone by different names and some different form of political status such as Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc, France use to be Gaul long ago, etc. It’s different for Israel when the majority of your current inhabitants have been gone since 600BC and some people who follow the same religion decide to return 2500yrs later.

 

2)

Not to be petty, but considering the History part, Jews were "there first". Other than that, there isn't one other place in which Israel could build (and I'm not saying that without knowing. Before it was officialy decided that Israel would become a country where it is now, many have tried other places).

Actually if you want to play “there first” game, the Amorites, a name synonymous with the word Canaanite, were originally there, even stated in the Old Testament

Yet I destroyed the Amorites before them, whose height was like the height of cedars, and who was as strong as oaks; I destroyed his fruit above, and his roots beneath. Also I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and led you forty years in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorites

Syrians are the closest descendants of these people. People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians. As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese, even when the kingdoms of Judah and Israel still existed. Also, what is now eastern Israel was often under the control of Edomites and sometimes Moabites would come, these people are now the Jordanians.

 

So would you still like to argue “there first” with me?

 

And don't argue the Jews were there before they went to Egypt because that isn't true, those were called Hebrews, deeming them Jews is a retrospection, even then it is believed Abraham came from a Mesopotamian city state, and the Amorites were already present.

 

3)

Nowdays, there are those that call themselves Zionists and do whole other things- That does not mean they are Zionists, nor does it mean the meaning of Zionism has changed. And by the way, their numbers are much, much, much lower than you probably think, for 2 reasons: (1)because Judiasm, in a way, has many different principles than those of Zionism, which makes the vast majority of the religious either Anti-Zionist, or simply not Zionist. (2) Those who aren't religious are more than usualy not extremists either.

Zionists are the Jews who want a Jewish state centralized around Zion, the temple mount, Jerusalem. Majority of Jews are not Zionists but they are sympathetic to their cause, seeing as how it led to the establishment of their current state. As for Anti-Zionist Jews, those are very rare, and most only speak against Israel because it has the Messianic star [of David] as its symbol/on its flag and they believe since there isn’t a Messiah on the throne [Originally before the Christian idea, Messiah is someone of an anointed one of the line of David] it is not the same as the state of Israel that God established, therefore it is basically a mock-state-of-God.

 

4)

Secondly, you make it sound like Israel had decided to camp there and just attack all of its neighbors. You might be surprised, but there isn't 1 war Israel initiated (perhaps except for The Six Days War, and that's because the Israeli Intelligence found out Eygept is planning on attacking Israel the next day).

 

In addition, 1 day after Israel's Decleration of Independance, All Arab countries around it (Jordan, Eygept, Syria, Lebanon, and even the Arab Legion and Iraq) went to war against Israel. The Palmach, God knows how, succeeded in both making some of them retreat, and forming temporal agreements with the rest.

 

 

First of all, I’m not surprised. I’m Lebanese. I know the facts.

 

However I respond to your question with this question: Do you blame the Native Americans who attacked the expanding Americans who tried to take their land?

 

And by the way you’re wrong. Lebanon did not officially send troops, it was Pan-Arab sympathizers in Lebanon, the official government never sent troops as the official head of state is a Maronite and the Patriarch commanded they stay neutral with Israel unless Israel makes an offense.

 

What external observers do not realize is that there are two factions in Lebanon (well really there’s like seven, but I’m not going to get into that) there’s the pro-Hezbollah which are the Muslims who support Pan-Arabism and then there’s the pro-Kataeb, the Christians who just want to be left the [bleep] alone.

 

 

5)

Third, dare I ask what your problem with Israelis is?

Jews from the Middle East, some of the nicest people I have met and known. Some good friends of mine are these people. Good people.

 

But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists who support the acquisitioning of land at others expense. Even if we completely disregard the Palestinians now, they took over Southern Lebanon (the Christian factions who were in control at the time were pro-Israel, although they refused to secede the land back), then the Israeli’s also took Golan Heights from Syria, that’s just an insult right there.

 

And they were suppose to stop expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, but they’re still to stop. I have Palestinian friends, Christian too, they were pulled out of there houses and told to get the [bleep] out because their property now belonged to Israel.

 

6)

Oh, I'd just like to point 1 thing. All 3 main relgions' (Islam, Christianity and Judiasm) members are Semite by the original definition of the word. However, nowdays the word Antisemite means hatred towards Jews, and not all 3 main relgions.

 

I’m aware of this, but people from Greater Syria (AKA the Levant) call themselves Semites, because they are legitimately genetically Semitic.

 

 

7)So I hope now it makes more then “1 bit of sense.” as you said.

 

 

For comfort purposes I have numbers your answers and accordingly numbered my responses to your answers.

 

1) Notice that all the countries you've named, whether were there for centuries or not, have the very same things in common- Their people share the same language, history, culture, etc.

The Jews are no different than that.

 

Also, a question I'd really love you to answer- If we take into account the absurd biased opinion that Israel is unjust in every way, what do you expect? That Israel would just fold up and leave? What of all the citizens? Where would they go?

 

2) You've already said it all. Hebrews were there first, even before they came back from Eygept.

 

A little "did you know?": Jews are descendants of the Judah tribe, 1 of the 12 that together formed the Hebrew 'populace' (the twelve tribes are- Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Gad, Naphtali, Asher, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, The Benjamin and Levi tribes "joined" the Judah tribe and have together formed what you know today as Jews). Those that came back from Eygept were Hebrews.

 

Let me requote you here, serveral times- "Syrians are the closest descendants of these people.", " People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians.", "Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc", "As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese"

Have you noticed what all these quotes have in common? Population X are the descendants of Population Y.

Jews, by all means, are descendants of the Hebrews, and if the Hebrews were there first, so were the Jews.

 

So would you still like to argue “there first” with me?

 

3) I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Judiasm and Zionism have contradicting principles and because of that many religous Jews are now Anti-Zionst (I even had a school project on that few years back).

 

Also, your definition of Zionism isn't much different than the one I presented (it's actualy more accurate, but it still makes sense- People with the same language, history, culture and idiology wanting to become a nation.)

 

Not unlike Poland, a relatively "young" country that only recieved it's right to form a nation after WWI, even though the population itself existed much earlier. Would you say Poland doesn't deserve it's territory and right to be a country?

 

4) No, I don't blame them for fighting Spain. I would like to point some differences here though- Spain went out looking for territory and gold, basicly trying to expand itself- the Native Americans were defending themselves against the weird soldiers with the 'thunder sticks'.

Israel, first of all, couldn't have tried to expand itself because in order expand you must first exist- and that's what they were trying to do- become existant.

Secondly, Israel is not only outnumbered by it's neighbors, but it is was much weaker because it was a country in it's first days, and the citizens had to both fight for their country, and build it, at the same time.

Also, I assure you Israel would become a nation of peace with anyone who wants it. Personaly, I think it's wrong (let's not get into that though), but Israel would willingly live in harmony with it's neighbors if they only ask (you have proof for that- Jordan and Eygept).

 

Also, sorry for my mistake. Not that the information was crucial to our discussion, but still sorry.

 

5) "But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists"

 

Sorry, but do you even know what the meaning of Imperialism is? According to Wikipedia- "Imperialism is considered the control by one state of other territories." How is Israel one state controlling other territores? It couldn't have because it was formed where it is right now and have not sent forces with the intention of conquering any land or recources.

 

As for their taking over Southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights.

First of all, all land conquered by Israeli forces was conquered within war that was initiated by the conquered.

Secondly, Israel had conquered much, much more than what it has in it's possesion. Israel had given up land in the favour of promised peace (that actualy wasn't always achieved, which means Israel had given up territory in the favour of lies about peace i.e. nothing). For instance, during the Yom Kipur war, you might know it as حرب أكتوبر , Israel reached about 35 KM away from Damascus, and 101 KM away from Cairo.

 

6) That still doesn't change the 'accepted' definition of Antisemite.

 

7) Nope, not really. It actualy makes less sense now.

 

 

Edit:

The expanse of the [Modern State of] Israel into the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Southern Lebanon and Golan Heights, their acquisition of Palestine in general, is comparable to Hitler's notion of needing living space for the Master race.

 

That is not only insulting and offensive, but is also absolutly preposterous.

 

 

ISRAEL'S INTENTION IS NOT TO CONQUER IT'S NEIGHBORS.

 

It may be new to you, but Israel would go very far in the name of peace. I had already mentioned in this post that I don't believe in these values of peace with those who seek to only harm you and make you go elsewhere, at any price. But Israel is *almost* all for it.

 

Throughout the years, Israel had given up territories again and again, territories that were conquered during wars Israel did no even initiate, thinking peace would be achieved that way. At most (you could say all, as some cases are contriversial, but let's settle on most) cases, Israel was doing wrong when giving up territories, because it achieved nothing, defnietly not the peace it had longed for.

 

never have I thought I'd see the day a member of the Tip.it community would accuse Israel for being alike to Hitler, or compare them. I'm well aware that this accusation is nothing new, but I thought the Tip.It community is more mature than that.

Edited February 3, 2010 by romy

[depresins]

Another media sheep.

 

Those muslim neighbours you like? That christian who has a friendly chat to you? THEY are the rebels. Not the other way around. Read some religious text.

 

Religious extremism is GOOD for the majority of the population.

[Romy]

Another media sheep.

 

Those muslim neighbours you like? That christian who has a friendly chat to you? THEY are the rebels. Not the other way around. Read some religious text.

 

Religious extremism is GOOD for the majority of the population.

 

Nothing is good when taken to the extreme. Definetly not beliefs, ways of life, and points of view.

[magekillr]

Lol, well now that the discussion has changed, I'll be happy to join in:

 

ISRAEL'S INTENTION IS NOT TO CONQUER IT'S NEIGHBORS.

 

What tripe. Israel has long supported security and imperialism over peace. Their government that is essentially headed by a fascist POS, Avigdor Lieberman, is not interested in peace.

 

Israel is an oppressive government that is occupying land which does not belong to them; this includes the land circa 1967, and their illegal settlements. Their nation is essentially an apartheid state that should be rebuked by the world over, not supported or praised. Their war crimes are growing unbearable, and the fact that they never face punishment for them is probably worse. How people continue to defend their government after the siege on Gaza last December and January is beyond me.

 

It doesn't matter, though, because they're only delaying the inevitable. Either the Israeli government can stop their settlements and make peace with the Palestinians, following the two-state solution and achieving their "Jewish state," or they can continue their expansion of settlements, boxing themselves in to be the only apartheid state in the region; so much for being the only democratic state in the region, eh, Lieberman? They're trying to do what China did with Tibet: send their settlers into the land and defacto annex it. One problem: the Palestinian demographic represents the region by overwhelming margins, and unlike the Tibetans with Hahn Chinese in their lands, the Palestinian culture and demographic cannot be overtaken by Jewish-Israeli settlers. I don't like to say Jewish when I talk about Israel because they're not synonymous, but most of the settlers are extreme Zionist Jews.

 

So you have two choices, Israel, and this is not a false dichotomy: peace, or apartheid.

[Faux]

Israel is an oppressive government that is occupying land which does not belong to them

How do you feel about living in the US?

[Alg]

Israel is an oppressive government that is occupying land which does not belong to them

How do you feel about living in the US?

You could probably find someone who can apply that to every country today :lol: