This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]
[QUOTE="Philokalia"]
Lol Judaism a major religion.
theone86
It is a major religion.
Christianity, Judaism, and islam are the 3 major religions.
Lol taking Philokalia seriously.
I just wanted to sound smart is all.
I stopped taking philo seriously a while ago.
I just wanted to sound smart is all.
I stopped taking philo seriously a while ago.
DJ-Lafleur
Sounding smart is fine, but judaism has never been what we might call a major religion, like how Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and the like have been. Though Judaism has influenced virtually the entire world up to this point via Christianity.
Well nevermind then...
[QUOTE="themajormayor"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
Yeah, piss poor to compare a country that takes land that doesn't belong to them and puts restrictions on where the previous occupants can move and live to a country that takes land that doesn't belong to them and puts restrictions on where the previous occupants can move and live.
theone86
Let's see here the previous occupants were Jordan and Egypt who indeed OCCUPIED those areas. Israel was attacked from these areas and subsequentlyseized them. In other words a defensive action. And no Israel does not place any restrictions on Jordan or Egypt in that sense. And when did most if not all of the restrictions on the Palestinians came about (which is what I assume you are talking about)? After years of terrorism. Those lands are pretty much forced upon Israel.
So yes it is a piss poor comparision.
Seizing territory is not a defensive action, and since signing a treaty that ceded some of that territory they have continuously occupied it whenever it suits their fancy. I wonder how the U.S. would react if Mexico ever decided to deploy their military in Texas, it would just be defensive so no harm done, right?
Of course it is, if said territory is used to attack you. And you need to elaborate on the second part of that sentence.
If USA started a war and attacked Mexico from within Texas I wouldn't see any problem.
Oh great, so any time militants use a country as a staging ground that gives other countries the right to forcefully restrict an entire population of people? Good to know, so if a U.S. citizen ever commits a terrorist attack against Canada they can just build a wall around us and restrict our travel, thanks for the precedent.
Of course, after terrorist attacks causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people that is certainly the most peaceful way to try to stop the bloodshed. And indeed terrorist related casulties have decreased with about 95% since the building of the barrier. And this wasn't rare occurances by a few individuals. This is an actual conflict.
Also, similar arguments were used by European colonists to defend their aggression against Native Americans even though they were the ones who first seized the land, so again, apt comparison.
Was the seizure preceeded by Native Americans launching a war? No so still a piss poor comparision.
[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]Do you what an Amalekite is?Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
1 Samuel 15:3
:roll:
themajormayor
According to the relevant Wikipedia entry, they were the Canaanites and Amorites of biblical times.
However, Wikipedia goes on to say that some contemporary rabbis identify the Palestinians as Amalekites:
The Palestinians have been associated with Amalek since 1974 when Rabbi Moshe Ben-Tzion Ishbezari of Ramat Gan made the association in a book. The equation began to circulate in Gush Emunim circles, and its full implications were spelled out by Rabbi Yisrael Hess in 1980. A former campus rabbi of Bar-Ilan University, Hess published in the university's student paper in February 1980 an article on "The Genocide Commandment in the Torah", in which he concluded that:
"The day is not far when we shall be called to this holy war, to this commandment of the annihilation of Amalek."
Wikipedia
/threadTBF Jews really never had a chance to persecute others.
themajormayor
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="themajormayor"]
Let's see here the previous occupants were Jordan and Egypt who indeed OCCUPIED those areas. Israel was attacked from these areas and subsequentlyseized them. In other words a defensive action. And no Israel does not place any restrictions on Jordan or Egypt in that sense. And when did most if not all of the restrictions on the Palestinians came about (which is what I assume you are talking about)? After years of terrorism. Those lands are pretty much forced upon Israel.
So yes it is a piss poor comparision.
themajormayor
Seizing territory is not a defensive action, and since signing a treaty that ceded some of that territory they have continuously occupied it whenever it suits their fancy. I wonder how the U.S. would react if Mexico ever decided to deploy their military in Texas, it would just be defensive so no harm done, right?
Of course it is, if said territory is used to attack you. And you need to elaborate on the second part of that sentence.
If USA started a war and attacked Mexico from within Texas I wouldn't see any problem.
Oh great, so any time militants use a country as a staging ground that gives other countries the right to forcefully restrict an entire population of people? Good to know, so if a U.S. citizen ever commits a terrorist attack against Canada they can just build a wall around us and restrict our travel, thanks for the precedent.
Of course, after terrorist attacks causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people that is certainly the most peaceful way to try to stop the bloodshed. And indeed terrorist related casulties have decreased with about 95% since the building of the barrier. And this wasn't rare occurances by a few individuals. This is an actual conflict.
Also, similar arguments were used by European colonists to defend their aggression against Native Americans even though they were the ones who first seized the land, so again, apt comparison.
Was the seizure preceeded by Native Americans launching a war? No so still a piss poor comparision.
The Israelis use land that they ceded long after the war was over and the treaty signed, so no the qualifier you added does not need to be added. Moving into territory that was ceded in a treaty is exactly what Israel did and exactly what Mexico would be doing in my example without provocation.
Okay, so we agree, any time a terrorist attacks another nation that nation has the right to forcefully restrict the movements of the citizens of whatever nation that terrorist hailed from. Better call Ireland, the UK is go for the new wall.
The seizure of the territory that is now Israel was not preceeded by Palestinian aggression. You take away people's land and they're pissed off, whodathunk? But I guess aggression is only aggression when the people whose land you're taking actually fight back, it's never aggression when you're just taking the land in the first place.
It is often considered to be one of the five world religions. Probably when talking about influence and not number of adherents. themajormayorI'd argue that it wasn't as influential as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism. Three of those religions conquered entire continents. The other two have lasted over 2500 years and defined the countries they came from on the world stage. Judaism, I'd argue, has never been largely important, merely a convenient scapegoat for the popular religions to rag on.
[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="Stesilaus"] Do you what an Amalekite is? Stesilaus
According to the relevant Wikipedia entry, they were the Canaanites and Amorites of biblical times.
However, Wikipedia goes on to say that some contemporary rabbis identify the Palestinians as Amalekites:
Interesting. Didn't know that.The Palestinians have been associated with Amalek since 1974 when Rabbi Moshe Ben-Tzion Ishbezari of Ramat Gan made the association in a book. The equation began to circulate in Gush Emunim circles, and its full implications were spelled out by Rabbi Yisrael Hess in 1980. A former campus rabbi of Bar-Ilan University, Hess published in the university's student paper in February 1980 an article on "The Genocide Commandment in the Torah", in which he concluded that:
"The day is not far when we shall be called to this holy war, to this commandment of the annihilation of Amalek."
Wikipedia
Well the thing is Amalekites are said to be people that only lives for the detruction of Jews. So for example Haman was for sure an Amalekite and the Nazis I've heard are interpreted as Nazis. And wouldn't you agree with what the bible says in this case if this was true?
Look up purimfest 1946. It's very interesting
TC, you asked if Judaism is the world's most peaceful major religion. This sounds like a spiritual question, and should not be muddied by issues of politics or historical/biblical events. So I'm going to give my spiritual perspective on your topic:
No. Judaism would not qualify as the most peaceful major religion. IMHO, religions which are founded upon the premise that there is a group of "chosen people" which God favors ultimiately give rise to elitism, bigotry, discrimiation, and hatred for those who are not "chosen." When people begin to classify their fellow men/women into "chosen" and "not chosen," inequality is the natural result. Inequality breeds violence and the struggle of the oppressed to overcome their dominators. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all based upon this premise, unfortunatley.
I believe that religions which are premised upon individual self-enlightment through contemplation, non-violence, and respect for all living creatures have a better shot at being the most peaceful.
Note that the answer does not address which relision is the "right" religion. That is a matter of individual choice and has no bearing on your original question of which is the most peaceful.
The Old Testament doesn't espouse non-voiolence, so no, it is not the most peaceful religion. The Abrahamic religions are all similar.
[QUOTE="themajormayor"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
Seizing territory is not a defensive action, and since signing a treaty that ceded some of that territory they have continuously occupied it whenever it suits their fancy. I wonder how the U.S. would react if Mexico ever decided to deploy their military in Texas, it would just be defensive so no harm done, right?
Of course it is, if said territory is used to attack you. And you need to elaborate on the second part of that sentence.
If USA started a war and attacked Mexico from within Texas I wouldn't see any problem.
Oh great, so any time militants use a country as a staging ground that gives other countries the right to forcefully restrict an entire population of people? Good to know, so if a U.S. citizen ever commits a terrorist attack against Canada they can just build a wall around us and restrict our travel, thanks for the precedent.
Of course, after terrorist attacks causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people that is certainly the most peaceful way to try to stop the bloodshed. And indeed terrorist related casulties have decreased with about 95% since the building of the barrier. And this wasn't rare occurances by a few individuals. This is an actual conflict.
Also, similar arguments were used by European colonists to defend their aggression against Native Americans even though they were the ones who first seized the land, so again, apt comparison.
Was the seizure preceeded by Native Americans launching a war? No so still a piss poor comparision.
theone86
The Israelis use land that they ceded long after the war was over and the treaty signed, so no the qualifier you added does not need to be added. Moving into territory that was ceded in a treaty is exactly what Israel did and exactly what Mexico would be doing in my example without provocation.
Do you have an example of this?
Okay, so we agree, any time a terrorist attacks another nation that nation has the right to forcefully restrict the movements of the citizens of whatever nation that terrorist hailed from. Better call Ireland, the UK is go for the new wall.
Not "any time". But if these "nations" are at conflict and terrorist attacks has caused thousands of casulties then within that war building a barrier to prevent terrorists from entering the country is really not out of bounds.
The seizure of the territory that is now Israel was not preceeded by Palestinian aggression. You take away people's land and they're pissed off, whodathunk? But I guess aggression is only aggression when the people whose land you're taking actually fight back, it's never aggression when you're just taking the land in the first place.
No it was preceeded by Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian agression, cause these were the previous occupants, not the Palestinians. Israel never took any Palestinian land, they took land from Jordan, Egypt and Syria. In any case Palestinian terror groups such as the PLO (later recognized as the sole representat of the Palestinian people) were attacking Israel before the war. In fact they had been for several years.
No.
Hebrew Hammer
No.
Hebrew Hammer
imaps3fanboy
Maps
<3
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="themajormayor"]
themajormayor
The Israelis use land that they ceded long after the war was over and the treaty signed, so no the qualifier you added does not need to be added. Moving into territory that was ceded in a treaty is exactly what Israel did and exactly what Mexico would be doing in my example without provocation.
Do you have an example of this?
Okay, so we agree, any time a terrorist attacks another nation that nation has the right to forcefully restrict the movements of the citizens of whatever nation that terrorist hailed from. Better call Ireland, the UK is go for the new wall.
Not "any time". But if these "nations" are at conflict and terrorist attacks has caused thousands of casulties then within that war building a barrier to prevent terrorists from entering the country is really not out of bounds.
The seizure of the territory that is now Israel was not preceeded by Palestinian aggression. You take away people's land and they're pissed off, whodathunk? But I guess aggression is only aggression when the people whose land you're taking actually fight back, it's never aggression when you're just taking the land in the first place.
No it was preceeded by Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian agression, cause these were the previous occupants, not the Palestinians. Israel never took any Palestinian land, they took land from Jordan, Egypt and Syria. In any case Palestinian terror groups such as the PLO (later recognized as the sole representat of the Palestinian people) were attacking Israel before the war. In fact they had been for several years.
Oh, right, not any time, just when the major western powers deem it to be the right time. Just like we're always totally against foreign leaders with whom we disagree and will go so far as to assassinate them, but war criminals who rule with an iron fist are fine, until we don't need them any more and the country in question is plunged in civil war. Justified when it fits our purposes, unjustified when it doesn't, the one true moral law in this world.
They never took any Palestinian land because Palestine was just a loose name for the indigenous people and not an officially recognized country, kinda like American land before we took it from the natives. The indigienous people, by the way, were NOT hostile before they were forcefully evicted from their homes AND were composed of a diverse culture that included Muslims and Christians who lived together peacefully. But yeah, of course, not at all the Israelis' fault for just setting up a country wherever they damn well pleased or the western powers' fault for helping them do it, it's all those b*tchy natives and their not wanting to have their land repossessed.
Nope. As i've stated before, i consider all organized religions to be bs and an obstacle to the progress of man/society. l4dak47
[QUOTE="themajormayor"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
The Israelis use land that they ceded long after the war was over and the treaty signed, so no the qualifier you added does not need to be added. Moving into territory that was ceded in a treaty is exactly what Israel did and exactly what Mexico would be doing in my example without provocation.
Do you have an example of this?
Okay, so we agree, any time a terrorist attacks another nation that nation has the right to forcefully restrict the movements of the citizens of whatever nation that terrorist hailed from. Better call Ireland, the UK is go for the new wall.
Not "any time". But if these "nations" are at conflict and terrorist attacks has caused thousands of casulties then within that war building a barrier to prevent terrorists from entering the country is really not out of bounds.
The seizure of the territory that is now Israel was not preceeded by Palestinian aggression. You take away people's land and they're pissed off, whodathunk? But I guess aggression is only aggression when the people whose land you're taking actually fight back, it's never aggression when you're just taking the land in the first place.
No it was preceeded by Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian agression, cause these were the previous occupants, not the Palestinians. Israel never took any Palestinian land, they took land from Jordan, Egypt and Syria. In any case Palestinian terror groups such as the PLO (later recognized as the sole representat of the Palestinian people) were attacking Israel before the war. In fact they had been for several years.
theone86
Oh, right, not any time, just when the major western powers deem it to be the right time. Just like we're always totally against foreign leaders with whom we disagree and will go so far as to assassinate them, but war criminals who rule with an iron fist are fine, until we don't need them any more and the country in question is plunged in civil war. Justified when it fits our purposes, unjustified when it doesn't, the one true moral law in this world.
Eh this is something you need to take with your country's leaders. My country is neutral in most cases, I think.
They never took any Palestinian land because Palestine was just a loose name for the indigenous people and not an officially recognized country, kinda like American land before we took it from the natives. The indigienous people, by the way, were NOT hostile before they were forcefully evicted from their homes AND were composed of a diverse culture that included Muslims and Christians who lived together peacefully. But yeah, of course, not at all the Israelis' fault for just setting up a country wherever they damn well pleased or the western powers' fault for helping them do it, it's all those b*tchy natives and their not wanting to have their land repossessed.
This is such a mess. First of Jews are indigenous just as much as the Palestinians, or more depending how you define the word indigenous. Secondly no Palestine was not named after Palestinians. The region was named Syria Paelestina in the 2nd century by Romans, long before Palestinians even existed. When do you think the "indigenous people" started to be hostile? Answer me that. Cause it was long before any "evictions".
Oh and what about the Jews who have lived there continuously for Milena? You just happened to forget about them?
Israel was formed on a land where the majority was Jews... I guess it would have been more fair to make that part of another Arab State instead? After all they only have about 10,000,000 km2. And you're saying all the hostility against the Jews is justified because Muslims and Christians were living in peace?
The Western Powers helped the Palestinians just as much. Ever heard of the 47 partition plan? The only thing is, they REJECTED it. And they didn't have any land to be repossessed to begin with! They REJECTED any land.
[QUOTE="themajormayor"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
The Israelis use land that they ceded long after the war was over and the treaty signed, so no the qualifier you added does not need to be added. Moving into territory that was ceded in a treaty is exactly what Israel did and exactly what Mexico would be doing in my example without provocation.
Do you have an example of this?
Okay, so we agree, any time a terrorist attacks another nation that nation has the right to forcefully restrict the movements of the citizens of whatever nation that terrorist hailed from. Better call Ireland, the UK is go for the new wall.
Not "any time". But if these "nations" are at conflict and terrorist attacks has caused thousands of casulties then within that war building a barrier to prevent terrorists from entering the country is really not out of bounds.
The seizure of the territory that is now Israel was not preceeded by Palestinian aggression. You take away people's land and they're pissed off, whodathunk? But I guess aggression is only aggression when the people whose land you're taking actually fight back, it's never aggression when you're just taking the land in the first place.
No it was preceeded by Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian agression, cause these were the previous occupants, not the Palestinians. Israel never took any Palestinian land, they took land from Jordan, Egypt and Syria. In any case Palestinian terror groups such as the PLO (later recognized as the sole representat of the Palestinian people) were attacking Israel before the war. In fact they had been for several years.
theone86
Oh, right, not any time, just when the major western powers deem it to be the right time. Just like we're always totally against foreign leaders with whom we disagree and will go so far as to assassinate them, but war criminals who rule with an iron fist are fine, until we don't need them any more and the country in question is plunged in civil war. Justified when it fits our purposes, unjustified when it doesn't, the one true moral law in this world.
They never took any Palestinian land because Palestine was just a loose name for the indigenous people and not an officially recognized country, kinda like American land before we took it from the natives. The indigienous people, by the way, were NOT hostile before they were forcefully evicted from their homes AND were composed of a diverse culture that included Muslims and Christians who lived together peacefully. But yeah, of course, not at all the Israelis' fault for just setting up a country wherever they damn well pleased or the western powers' fault for helping them do it, it's all those b*tchy natives and their not wanting to have their land repossessed.
Christians were seen as subordinate before 1947.. do you even know what you're talking about?Yeah you're right, I addressed some of the options though in the OP.It is hard to confirm such a bold statement when people can't even agree on the terms "peaceful" and "major".
one_plum
Also I found it funny that very active atheists would be against the most secular country in the Middle East. Honour killings are LEGAL in the WB for chrissake and don't get me started on Hamas. Israel in comparision is a haven for gays, women, opressed religious minorities etc.
[QUOTE="themajormayor"]It is often considered to be one of the five world religions. Probably when talking about influence and not number of adherents. ZevianderI'd argue that it wasn't as influential as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism. Three of those religions conquered entire continents. The other two have lasted over 2500 years and defined the countries they came from on the world stage. Judaism, I'd argue, has never been largely important, merely a convenient scapegoat for the popular religions to rag on. Missed this post. Well I pretty much agree with you. I think it's only considered a world religion because Christianity and Islam is influenced by it. And it's peculiar Confucianism isn't mentioned often when talking about the 5 world religions, good point...
[QUOTE="l4dak47"]Nope. As i've stated before, i consider all organized religions to be bs and an obstacle to the progress of man/society. kingkong0124The Scientific Method, orphanages, universities, and the giving of money to the poor (a thing that might not have been done if it wasn't for the claimed benefits that you will receive for charity in the afterlife had not been stated) and much more have all come from religion.
The scientific method has come from religion....:?
The problem with the responses is most of you are kids who don't understand a thing abuut Judiasm and therefore waant to make a mockery of it. 'The pics you have next to your name prove just how immature you are so don't talk about something you know nothing about. Maybe you'll understand it when you're older.
How does one rank the peacefulness of a religion? The teachings or the so called "followers"? I'm assuming TC is ranking based on the latter. I instantly call BS at the notion of such. This is like judging an anime based on its fans. Humans in general are flawed and that itself should not speak for a religion.Princess_Lime
No, that title clearly belongs to Bhuddism.
[spoiler]
Hi, Fox. 
[/spoiler]
[QUOTE="C2N2"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] Peaceful doesn't mean pacifistic. You can be peaceful and defend yourself. themajormayor
Exactly... I hate when people bash the state of Israel as violent Zionist when literally all of their military action is defensive... Yes, I agree the apartments and extension into the West Bank is wrong, the minority status of Arabs in Israel is not right (but what do you expect in a state where Judaism is the state religion)...
But to criticize Israel for retaliating against rocket attacks from Gaza is rediculous... There is no justification for attacks against a sovereign nation recognized internationally, any arguement advocating violence is wrong. If you want to challenge Israel, do it publicly in the media don't use terrorist tactics as that gives Israel justification for retaliation and only strengthens international support for them.
Judaism is not the state religion IIRC. And what do you mean with "minority status"?Arab Muslims being the minority in Israel, despite being allowed in the Knesset, still have no real power... Obviously their views on certain things conflict with that of Jews, yet they have no power for change in Israel as they only represent a fifth of the population there...
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="themajormayor"]
themajormayor
Oh, right, not any time, just when the major western powers deem it to be the right time. Just like we're always totally against foreign leaders with whom we disagree and will go so far as to assassinate them, but war criminals who rule with an iron fist are fine, until we don't need them any more and the country in question is plunged in civil war. Justified when it fits our purposes, unjustified when it doesn't, the one true moral law in this world.
Eh this is something you need to take with your country's leaders. My country is neutral in most cases, I think.
They never took any Palestinian land because Palestine was just a loose name for the indigenous people and not an officially recognized country, kinda like American land before we took it from the natives. The indigienous people, by the way, were NOT hostile before they were forcefully evicted from their homes AND were composed of a diverse culture that included Muslims and Christians who lived together peacefully. But yeah, of course, not at all the Israelis' fault for just setting up a country wherever they damn well pleased or the western powers' fault for helping them do it, it's all those b*tchy natives and their not wanting to have their land repossessed.
This is such a mess. First of Jews are indigenous just as much as the Palestinians, or more depending how you define the word indigenous. Secondly no Palestine was not named after Palestinians. The region was named Syria Paelestina in the 2nd century by Romans, long before Palestinians even existed. When do you think the "indigenous people" started to be hostile? Answer me that. Cause it was long before any "evictions".
Oh and what about the Jews who have lived there continuously for Milena? You just happened to forget about them?
Israel was formed on a land where the majority was Jews... I guess it would have been more fair to make that part of another Arab State instead? After all they only have about 10,000,000 km2. And you're saying all the hostility against the Jews is justified because Muslims and Christians were living in peace?
The Western Powers helped the Palestinians just as much. Ever heard of the 47 partition plan? The only thing is, they REJECTED it. And they didn't have any land to be repossessed to begin with! They REJECTED any land.
If you live in a western country then I doubt yours is an exception. Every major European power and the U.S. have meddled in the affairs of other countries in some way and taken it upon themselves to determine the best course of action for those countries. Some less than others, but still there are few exceptions.
The Jews are indigenous, but they didn't have any more of a claim to that land than the local Christian or Islamic population. Why didn't we make a Christian or Islamic state? Why didn't we make a secular state that reflected religious and ethnic diversity? No, we went in and decided that a certain tract of land where a diverse people were living belonged solely to one ethnic group based on a holy book of all things. I seriously doubt we would be having this same discussion had the borders been based on something written in the Koran.
I also never said the name Palestine was named for Palestinians, I said Palestine was a loose name used to categorize the people indigenous to that region. If you want to play semantics here then go ahead, my point was that Palestine wasn't an OFFICIALLY recognized state so they didn't have a claim to the land on that grounds, but they were settled in that region and made it their home and that IS grounds for a claim to land.
I also never said the hostility was justified, but it is to be expected. I also don't see how you can make a distinction that one act of hostility is justified but another isn't. Oh yeah, it's all fine and dandy to draw partitions against the consent of a settled population, build a wall around them and restrict their travel, siphon off their water supply, and anything else under the sun, but if THEY ever do anything then suddenly we're riding the moral high horse. Aggression is not justified on either side, but that includes Israeli acts of aggression. To say that everything on the Palestinian side is simple terrosim and everything on the Israeli side is completely justified is ridiculous. Israelis have to own up to the fact that even though they may have a right to exist now they had no clear claim to the land when they were first established, that they have signed agreements that they continuously violate both in conducing military exercises and in building new developments, that their practices of strict control over travel and overuse of the local water supply objectively hurt the Palestinian citizens, and they have to make overtures of peace to the Palestinian people. This is what gets solely lost in your side of the dicsussion, there are real people who live in Palestine and have nothing to do with terrorism that suffer every day from thsi conflict. And when things go completely wrong for them, when they lose their livliehoods, when they lose their homes, when they're living on shantytowns on the highways, is it any wonder that a small portion of the overall population turns to terrorism? This isn't trying to justify terrorism, this is trying to understand the situation in order to find a way to fix it. Writing the entire Palestinian population off as terrorists and saying that everything Israel does is justified does no good, it just makes current grievances all the more volatile.
The 47 partition wasn't a choice, it was an ultimatum. We hand them a partition, if they don't like it then we force our own boundaries on them. Again, totally justified because we're the west and we can do anything we want.
Also I found it funny that very active atheists would be against the most secular country in the Middle East. Honour killings are LEGAL in the WB for chrissake and don't get me started on Hamas. Israel in comparision is a haven for gays, women, opressed religious minorities etc.
themajormayor
I'm not against Israel, I'm against Israel's unjustified actions and perpetuation of unrest in that region. Also, way to be fallacious. I'm a secularist, Israel is secular, therefore I should support everything Israel does. Sorry, doesn't work that way. I'm also against honor killings and religious-based discrimination.
Being for secularism, I am for the best way to implement secularism and make it long-lasting. I don't think that allowing a secular nation to take land that it has no claim to and displace its current residents is going to do that. I don't think that trying to push secularism on an unreceptive population is going to do that. I don't think that perpetuating a conflict that adversely affects to many people is going to do that. I think the only way to truly establish a long-lasting secularism in those types of countries is to open up an intellectual dialogue with them. convince them of the merits of secularism, and show them that it's not trying to be an imposition on their culture. I don't think that's easy to do when their country is essentially occupied, travel restricted, and when they have more pressing concerns than the intellectual merits of secularism. When you're trying to think of how you're going to feed your family you don't much care what soem literature. It's called a pre-potent need, the process of reaching out culturally cannot take place while the Palestinian people remain in their current state.
No, I don't. How many violent Buddhists have you heard of?BranKetraA lot more than you clearly have. The first Dalai Lama was installed as head of state by Altan Khan, the Mongolian warlord whose people later helped Tibet conquer China. Most of the Dalai Lamas since (except the current 14th and the lazy, womanizing drunks) have been extremely militaristic. I don't think I should even have to mention the samurai and Rinzai Zen in Japan. Or the current events in Burma. It makes me wonder how much people actually learn about Buddhism before singing about it from the rooftops as this peace-living, hate-less, selfless "way of life" or "philosophy". I don't think actual Buddhists got that memo.
jewish ppl are persecuted palestinians now...so no....i would have to say buddhists are the most peacefulDo you think Judaism is the world's most peaceful major religion? Throughout its history, the Jewish peoples have always been persecuted by others. Even adherents of my own religion of Christianity have done a lot of bad in this world, albeit they were not good Christians at that. Do you agree? Major religions constituting the 3 obvious Abrahamic ones, Buddhism, Confucianism (although not really a "religion"), Shintoism, Hinduism, etc., not some random a** Pastafarianism or such.
kingkong0124
[QUOTE="BranKetra"]No, I don't. How many violent Buddhists have you heard of?ZevianderA lot more than you clearly have. The first Dalai Lama was installed as head of state by Altan Khan, the Mongolian warlord whose people later helped Tibet conquer China. Most of the Dalai Lamas since (except the current 14th and the lazy, womanizing drunks) have been extremely militaristic. I don't think I should even have to mention the samurai and Rinzai Zen in Japan. Or the current events in Burma. It makes me wonder how much people actually learn about Buddhism before singing about it from the rooftops as this peace-living, hate-less, selfless "way of life" or "philosophy". I don't think actual Buddhists got that memo.Now that I think about it, I recall the samurai. On the other hand, I admit that I don't know much about the Tibetan monks beyond hearsay nor have I been paying any attention to Burma.
[QUOTE="BranKetra"]No, I don't. How many violent Buddhists have you heard of?ZevianderA lot more than you clearly have. The first Dalai Lama was installed as head of state by Altan Khan, the Mongolian warlord whose people later helped Tibet conquer China. Most of the Dalai Lamas since (except the current 14th and the lazy, womanizing drunks) have been extremely militaristic. I don't think I should even have to mention the samurai and Rinzai Zen in Japan. Or the current events in Burma. It makes me wonder how much people actually learn about Buddhism before singing about it from the rooftops as this peace-living, hate-less, selfless "way of life" or "philosophy". I don't think actual Buddhists got that memo. Holy sh!t. I've disliked Buddhism ever since I got turned off by the misogyny inherent in Theradava Buddhism, but I never knew it was even worse.
Being a Christian I find the Jewish to be very interesting. I call them the Grandaddies of Christianity since they are in the bible and were spoken to by God first. It's cool if you don't believe that and I don't have an issue with Athiests and people with different beliefs. You're all cool in my book. Anyway the way I see it by reading the bible it goes like this. God->Jewish->Christianity. God was here first, the Jewish were the first to worship God (Judging from the bible) then when God sent Jesus to the earth, the day he was crucified Christianity formed.
Holy sh!t. I've disliked Buddhism ever since I got turned off by the misogyny inherent in Theradava Buddhism, but I never knew it was even worse.ghoklebutterI think it's about goddamn time I put together an expose on the religion for OT. If anything gets my blood boiling it's seeing people misrepresenting one of the best kept secrets in the history of the world... that surprisingly, isn't hard to learn about. Any history book, or intro book on Buddhism will tell of all these things (but depending on the author, might try spinning it in an apologistic manner). There are very few instances where I can think of, where the "non-violent philosophy" Westerners seem to praise so much actually occured. And the Tibetans, the group with Mr. Peace-and-Love running around the world telling people to be non-violent and loving are the worst offenders of them all. The second time I considered becoming a Buddhist, seriously becoming one, I discovered the little secrets about Tibetan history that nobody talks about anymore. Things that turned me completely off the entire religion. One of the more recent ones is Dorje Shugden controversy. Which requires a little more explanation than a Gamespot post could handle. -- Overall, despite the words of wisdom sprinkled among the Pali Canon, and various Mahayana texts, Buddhism is very much a woman-hating (women can't be enlightened; they must be reborn a man), sex-hating (while sex for procreation is great, it distracts from monastic practices), life-hating (denying the beauty and importance of this life in favour of a better rebirth; especially in Pure Land), lay-hating (lay people can only give material offerings, especially money, to the temples in order to gain a rebirth favorable to becoming a monk) religion that has more often than not used violence to settle it's differences. It disgusts me. And I always thought the Buddha was actually on to something with his ideas... too bad human nature got in the way yet again. It's funny too, because according to Buddhist myth, the Buddha, once achieving enlightenment, didn't think people would understand, and had to be coaxed by Indra (the Hindu god) to share what he found with humanity. And according to Zen myth, only one person out of his entire following, grasped the true truth of it all, and kept it secret for 1000 years. It amazes me how people can reconcile and legitimize these beliefs in a Western, secular society. They just LOVE to cherry pick too. GOD... [/rant]
As a Jew (though more ethnically and not religiously) Judaism does have peaceful ideas, however I don't know if I would call it the most peaceful religion, there are a few bad Jews out there, some are racists and look down on Gentiles (non Jews) while a few others are religious extreamists. But that's not the majority.
What I will say is that Judaism is the most influential and fair religion. Influintial is a fact, not an opinion, the teachings and beliefs of the Hebrew Bible, called The Torah (Hebrew Translation: To Teach, To Instruct) has not only been the foundation of the other Abrahamic faiths, but have also influenced entire countries and socieities. The American values were founded partly (there were of course many other influences) on hebrew teachings.
Fair is an opinion, but there are several aspects of Judaism that I like. For one Judaism does not teach that Jews are the only ones who get to heaven, a Gentile can earn Gods favor simply by following the Noahide laws, wich are pretty easy (don't murder, don't steal, don't eat human flesh, don't practice sexual perversions ect...).It also dones't try to convert people, people can only be converted by their own free will. It's not forced or seeked.
+1As a Jew (though more ethnically and not religiously) Judaism does have peaceful ideas, however I don't know if I would call it the most peaceful religion, there are a few bad Jews out there, some are racists and look down on Gentiles (non Jews) while a few others are religious extreamists. But that's not the majority.
What I will say is that Judaism is the most influential and fair religion. Influintial is a fact, not an opinion, the teachings and beliefs of the Hebrew Bible, called The Torah (Hebrew Translation: To Teach, To Instruct) has not only been the foundation of the other Abrahamic faiths, but have also influenced entire countries and socieities. The American values were founded partly (there were of course many other influences) on hebrew teachings.
Fair is an opinion, but there are several aspects of Judaism that I like. For one Judaism does not teach that Jews are the only ones who get to heaven, a Gentile can earn Gods favor simply by following the Noahide laws, wich are pretty easy (don't murder, don't steal, don't eat human flesh, don't practice sexual perversions ect...).It also dones't try to convert people, people can only be converted by their own free will. It's not forced or seeked.
ShadowMoses900
Another good aspect is just how accurate some Jewish teachings are for a better life. For instance circumcision, oddly coming about just from a tribe in the Middle East (the Israelites) and it has numerous health benefits including less risk of contracting STD's and bacterial infections, as well as remaining clean. It was in fact several Jewish values that kept them alive during the Black Plauge, Jews didn't catch it like the Europeans did because Jews had to keep their homes and bodies clean for religious reasons.
What's interesting though is that the word Israel means in Hebrew "Struggle or Suffer with God" while Islam means to "Submit to God". One struggles (or suffers) with God and the other one Submits. Kind of interesting huh? Though all that being, we Jews are a varied people, we have many different views on things, we probably agree less with each other than any other ethnic or religoius group (Jews are both).
However one thing we all do share is a sense of culture and identity, a kinship to each other and to Israel, either by conversion or by blood, either by religion or heritage, we share a bond. And our story is one of survival, against all odds we survived, logically we should have been dead a long time ago, but we arn't, we are still here and always will be.
IMO that is part of our eternal covenant with God, we can't escape it and we are here for a purpose. Perhaps to be an example to others or to fufill that purpose when God deems it nesseccary.My Jewish background is very important to me, it drives me to learn about the worldd and yet has always kept me humble.
I can relate with the Blacks, the Hispanics, the Homosexuals, the Asians, the Nerds, the Dorks, the outcasts, the downtrodden, any group of people who face oppression.My Jewish ancestery reminds me that I too come from oppressed roots, we are the ultimate minorities, perhaps we were destined to be so. But it helps me understand the struggles of others, and for that I am grateful. Plus Jesus was one of us, so that means we win lol.
I suppose I should have explained earlier. In regards to Buddhism, I was talking about the original teachings of the Buddha, including The Four Noble Truths, Karma, and the cycle of rebirth. I don't know about what came afterwords.
Although there may be people claiming to be Buddhists or a follower of any religion, if they are part of a sub branch who do a lot of things which totally or in some major way conflict with the original teachings--In this case, I believe they do. Specifically the violence except in certain cases (evil)-- I don't see how the original version is tarnished besides the stigma that comes with being grouped with the bad ones.
[QUOTE="themajormayor"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
Oh, right, not any time, just when the major western powers deem it to be the right time. Just like we're always totally against foreign leaders with whom we disagree and will go so far as to assassinate them, but war criminals who rule with an iron fist are fine, until we don't need them any more and the country in question is plunged in civil war. Justified when it fits our purposes, unjustified when it doesn't, the one true moral law in this world.
Eh this is something you need to take with your country's leaders. My country is neutral in most cases, I think.
They never took any Palestinian land because Palestine was just a loose name for the indigenous people and not an officially recognized country, kinda like American land before we took it from the natives. The indigienous people, by the way, were NOT hostile before they were forcefully evicted from their homes AND were composed of a diverse culture that included Muslims and Christians who lived together peacefully. But yeah, of course, not at all the Israelis' fault for just setting up a country wherever they damn well pleased or the western powers' fault for helping them do it, it's all those b*tchy natives and their not wanting to have their land repossessed.
This is such a mess. First of Jews are indigenous just as much as the Palestinians, or more depending how you define the word indigenous. Secondly no Palestine was not named after Palestinians. The region was named Syria Paelestina in the 2nd century by Romans, long before Palestinians even existed. When do you think the "indigenous people" started to be hostile? Answer me that. Cause it was long before any "evictions".
Oh and what about the Jews who have lived there continuously for Milena? You just happened to forget about them?
Israel was formed on a land where the majority was Jews... I guess it would have been more fair to make that part of another Arab State instead? After all they only have about 10,000,000 km2. And you're saying all the hostility against the Jews is justified because Muslims and Christians were living in peace?
The Western Powers helped the Palestinians just as much. Ever heard of the 47 partition plan? The only thing is, they REJECTED it. And they didn't have any land to be repossessed to begin with! They REJECTED any land.
theone86
If you live in a western country then I doubt yours is an exception. Every major European power and the U.S. have meddled in the affairs of other countries in some way and taken it upon themselves to determine the best course of action for those countries. Some less than others, but still there are few exceptions.
The Jews are indigenous, but they didn't have any more of a claim to that land than the local Christian or Islamic population. Why didn't we make a Christian or Islamic state? Why didn't we make a secular state that reflected religious and ethnic diversity? No, we went in and decided that a certain tract of land where a diverse people were living belonged solely to one ethnic group based on a holy book of all things. I seriously doubt we would be having this same discussion had the borders been based on something written in the Koran.
I also never said the name Palestine was named for Palestinians, I said Palestine was a loose name used to categorize the people indigenous to that region. If you want to play semantics here then go ahead, my point was that Palestine wasn't an OFFICIALLY recognized state so they didn't have a claim to the land on that grounds, but they were settled in that region and made it their home and that IS grounds for a claim to land.
I also never said the hostility was justified, but it is to be expected. I also don't see how you can make a distinction that one act of hostility is justified but another isn't. Oh yeah, it's all fine and dandy to draw partitions against the consent of a settled population, build a wall around them and restrict their travel, siphon off their water supply, and anything else under the sun, but if THEY ever do anything then suddenly we're riding the moral high horse. Aggression is not justified on either side, but that includes Israeli acts of aggression. To say that everything on the Palestinian side is simple terrosim and everything on the Israeli side is completely justified is ridiculous. Israelis have to own up to the fact that even though they may have a right to exist now they had no clear claim to the land when they were first established, that they have signed agreements that they continuously violate both in conducing military exercises and in building new developments, that their practices of strict control over travel and overuse of the local water supply objectively hurt the Palestinian citizens, and they have to make overtures of peace to the Palestinian people. This is what gets solely lost in your side of the dicsussion, there are real people who live in Palestine and have nothing to do with terrorism that suffer every day from thsi conflict. And when things go completely wrong for them, when they lose their livliehoods, when they lose their homes, when they're living on shantytowns on the highways, is it any wonder that a small portion of the overall population turns to terrorism? This isn't trying to justify terrorism, this is trying to understand the situation in order to find a way to fix it. Writing the entire Palestinian population off as terrorists and saying that everything Israel does is justified does no good, it just makes current grievances all the more volatile.
The 47 partition wasn't a choice, it was an ultimatum. We hand them a partition, if they don't like it then we force our own boundaries on them. Again, totally justified because we're the west and we can do anything we want.
Adressing your boled, because the term Jew refers to more than just a religion, it is also an ethnic group as well, people who are by blood, descended from Abraham and Issac, the Israelites. It is also a religion as well and one that anyone from any ethnic group can convert to, however Jews are still an ethnicity.
To give you an example look at some Native American tribes, they are thier own unique ethnic group, however they do adopt outsiders into their tribes and they become kin to them. Does that mean their tribe isn't an ethnicity? No of course not, just one can adopt and become a member, or one can be born with tribal descent. Being Jewish is similar.
There is no such thing as a Christian land or Muslim land because those are just religions, however there is such a thing as a Spanish land, a German land, an Irish land, a Japanese land ect...because they are their own unique ethnic group, they have their own language, their own cultures their own religious beliefs ect...Jews are the same way.
They have their own ethnic group (Hebrew), their own languae (Hebrew and Yiddish primarily), thier own cultures (a continutation of Israelite cutlure) and their own religion (Judaism, which anyone can convert to and practice.) That's why there is a Jewish land (Israel), it makes sense.
I suppose I should have explained earlier. In regards to Buddhism, I was talking about the original teachings of the Buddha, including The Four Noble Truths, Karma, and the cycle of rebirth. I don't know about what came afterwords.BranKetraThe problem is, there is no way to know what the "original" teaching of the Buddha was. The earliest textual record is the Pali Canon, which was codified several hundred years after his death, and contains significant amounts of myth and superstition... something the Buddha warned against becoming a distraction in other sources. To me, this suggests that it would be impossible to derive the "essence" of the teaching without a significant amount of subjective interpretation. Also, more recently, the historicity of the Buddha has been called into question. It is being argued that Siddhartha Gautama was not an actual person, and the story of his life was constructed around various popular figures at the time. Much like Jesus, there is scant evidence to suggest he ever existed in an historical sense, despite the origination of the religion and it's spread (which was mostly thanks to Ashoka, who conquered most of India and then installed Buddhism as the state religion about 100-150 years after the Buddha's supposed death). A religion cannot be defined by it's teachings alone. The Buddha himself is said to have claimed that practice is infinitely more important than theorizing, and ironically, it didn't even take a single generation for that to become an irrelevant factor in the community that survived him (schisms were extremely common within the first few hundred years of the religion, despite the Buddha claiming it was the greatest of sins to split the sangha (community)). A religion is defined by two things: 1) what it claims as the ideal forms of practice and belief, and 2) how the followers of the religion uphold those practices and beliefs in the real world. And if history is all too good to me, it didn't take long for Buddhism to become something that the Buddha would not have wanted any part of... especially when Mahayana showed up. He was a pragmatic atheist who placed sole responsibility of wisdom (the transcendant kind) upon the individual, and denied authority in every sense of the word. We are supposed to approach any thing we see with scepticism, objectivity and only accept it if we feel it is of benefit for ourselves and those around us, and, most importantly, we can live up to it. A couple hundred years after his death, the Buddhist monastics were arguing about what the appropriate behavior of monks and nuns should be, and came up with a list of over 200 things they were to avoid. Even more for women. If they were realizing the Buddha's teachings of light-hearted enjoyment of life within the moment, concerned neither of the past not future... then they were doing a terribly sh!tty job of it. Don't even get me started in on ritualized sex in Tibetan Buddhism that turned women into literal objects meant solely as implements to further a man's path to enlightenment. And the extremely complex, secretive rituals only the initiated could participate in. Sometimes requiring years of repetitive self-torture (100,000 repetitions of a mantra, or 100,000 prostrations) in order to "open the mind". Or the extremely consistent allegations of sexual abuse and monetary swindling in the Western Buddhist movements. Buddhism's hands are not clean. And the Dalai Lama is not an individual to respect (loathe is the apt term, considering how much he plays the victim card and sweeps history under the rug).
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment