OT: God's Warriors

[jn]

Skandery your analogy is quite inaccurate in one regard  Indians were the only inhabitants of America prior to Europeans.  There is no question that if being in one place gives an ethnic group priority then then America is theirs. The area around Jerusalem has been ruled and/or inhabited by many, many different groups, each of whom has at that time written their own version of history about it.  If you are judging claims based on when they first lived there, well, the first inhabitants have long since ceased to exist and the Palestineans would come behind Italians, Turkomen, Sephardic (sp?) Jews, etc.

That said, your overall argument is certainly something I think Americans should consider. 

P.S.  I can think of nothing even remotely resembling a viable solution for the area.

[Skandery]

Skandery your analogy is quite inaccurate in one regard  Indians were the only inhabitants of America prior to Europeans.  There is know question that if being in one place gives an ethnic group priority then then America is theirs. The area around Jerusalem has been ruled and/or inhabited many, many different groups, each of whom has at that time written their own version of history about it.  If you are judging claims based on when they first lived there, well, the first inhabitants have long since ceased to exist and the Palestineans would come behind Italians, Turkomen, Saffardic (sp?) Jews, etc.

You're right, jn, the land around Jerusalem is in the ancient land of Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization.  Ethnicities, kingdoms, governorships, empires, and holy states have taken residence in that area for nigh on 8,000 years.  The descendants of these different groups, and especially the brash groups of Monotheistic followers, who believe this land is divinely gifted will always contest it for religious reasons.  Though it is simply a fact that Arab Palestinians have claimed and lived in that land for the last 1500-2000 years.         

So lets pare the argument down and strip religion and history completely.  You have a recognized, bordered country with a certain population.  The population chooses the best form of representation and goes about setting up a recognizable government.  The problem is that in the last 50 years, the bloodshed has hardened both sides to the point that neither of them will agree to co-exist under one nation with equal Democratic rights (which would be the fairest thing to do, if you think Democracy is fair).  General election of ALL inhabitants of that national border--then again if elections were truly fair-- the government would most likely resemble the demographics, mostly Arab, something the Israeli's and Americans wouldn't stand for.       

As an aside, I think its interesting how often the Arab Palestinian Christians are ignored as well.  American Evangelical Christians  support the right of Jews to occupy the holy land of Israel even if it means the continued displacement and suffering of Arab Christians.   

[Lurker]

Why does God, if she is all powerful, need warriors?

Are these people "God's" warriors or the warriors of men who proclaim themselves to be God's representatives on earth?

What proof is there that Jesus was God?  Jews & Muslims don't believe this.  Christians point to the bible as proof but then as Rick has pointed out the bible was written and edited by men.  And who truly knows what motivated those men to write.

All of this has to do with "organized religion" as opposed to true faith or belief.  And organized religions are institutions designed by man that fall into the same trap as any man-made organization: the goals of the organization is to be self perpetuating and to weild power.  If all these "warriors" truly believed in the words of their various prophets then there would be no need for warriors.  It is truly amazing how current "religous leaders" know the intentions and thought processes that gripped the minds of men several centuries earlier.  Not to mention the context of those writings in historical prospective and the evolution of language over the years.

My final question: is true belief/faith in a supreme being the cause of the conflict or is it the actions of the men in charge of the organized religions trying to expand their control and power?

[Joe Vancil]

Whose ready for an analogy, I think I have good one. 

Who can tell me who the Indians, Americans, and Aliens are in this analogy? 

This was already address in Star Trek Deep Space 9.

Actually, unless you're referring to the parallels of the Maquis to the situation, then it's not a DS9 episode; if you're actually referring to American Indians, the episode is from the Next Generation.

[JoMal]

Guys, religious dialogue is a very dangerous premise. That said, JoMal steps into the controversy.

The First Council of Nicaea and a series of subsequest Fourth Century councils attended by the Bishops of the Church worked to establish commonalities regarding the various Christian beliefs being followed in those times. These were men, not God, and the controversies they fought over were not presided over by a Supreme Being, but the interpretations of what that Being really meant by his words, and by a group of bishops numbering from 100 to 300. It was during these councils that our current Christian beliefs came to pass.

In those councils, they disgarded widely held beliefs and pronounced others as the true word of God. Up to then, the disgarded beliefs were held in the same high esteem and thought to be the true word of God just as much as the final consensus beliefs came to be.

Many of the same pagan beliefs of ancient Rome were conveniently incorporated into the Christian religion - making it more palatable to accept by the average bricklayer.

So before going off and stating the Bible is the true word of God and our faith in that word must be unquestioned, remember that those very words were questioned very much prior to their inclusion in God's book,

[Skandery]

Lurker those are good questions and points you bring up and to answer them in one concise statement:  Religion is an excuse.

The power hungry will use religion as the excuse to whatever agenda they want to further, and most of the time the agenda is personal.  When Ariel Sharone used his visit to the "Temple Mount" to rise violence and thereby win the Israeli elections, he used the Jewish religious claim to the Temple Mount as an excuse to grab power.  When Osama Bin Laden invokes the word "Jihad" to an angry 15 year old living in gutters and sewage who has only known poverty and powerlessness to strike against a Jewish Hotel, he is using religion as an excuse to further the relevance of his radical group.  When an evanlegical priest calls his congregation to pour money into the Zionist movement, all the while taking a healthy cut to line his own pockets, he's using religion as an excuse to become wealthy.    

Those who thirst for power and wealth will use any means at their disposal to acquire that power and wealth, and Religion is one of the easiest things to abuse because people are define themselves through their faiths.  It is easy to manipulate and twist their faith to further your own goals and self-interest provided your charismatic enough.  It is insidious for these people to pervert other's faith in these shameless grabs for power but I never blame the Religion or the Faith, only the people and establishments who perpetuate religious conflict for gain.          

[JoMal]

There is one other idea that I have considered regarding how the concept of God came to be.

Man did not have the knowledge to write or retain the ideas of previous generation for centuries prior to the invention of written language. This did not deter the advent of events worthy of recording. At one time in ancient tribal eras, it is quite possible one man rose up that was awe-inspiring and almost magical in his intelligence and abilities, so much so that when he died, his memory was cherished and his actions and deeds were passed verbally down to subsequent generations. After some time, his existance as a man was lost in the retellings, as his stature and inspirational actions were inhanced, to the point where he became elevated to a God-like being of immense power and to worship His name was a blessing.  

Clearly, man needs some kind of religious beliefs, so the creation of God by man, and then changing it to be the other way around has some precedence in how man has worked out other problems.

[Lurker]

Lurker those are good questions and points you bring up and to answer them in one concise statement:  Religion is an excuse.

The power hungry will use religion as the excuse to whatever agenda they want to further, and most of the time the agenda is personal.  When Ariel Sharone used his visit to the "Temple Mount" to rise violence and thereby win the Israeli elections, he used the Jewish religious claim to the Temple Mount as an excuse to grab power.  When Osama Bin Laden invokes the word "Jihad" to an angry 15 year old living in gutters and sewage who has only known poverty and powerlessness to strike against a Jewish Hotel, he is using religion as an excuse to further the relevance of his radical group.  When an evanlegical priest calls his congregation to pour money into the Zionist movement, all the while taking a healthy cut to line his own pockets, he's using religion as an excuse to become wealthy.    

Those who thirst for power and wealth will use any means at their disposal to acquire that power and wealth, and Religion is one of the easiest things to abuse because people are define themselves through their faiths.  It is easy to manipulate and twist their faith to further your own goals and self-interest provided your charismatic enough.  It is insidious for these people to pervert other's faith in these shameless grabs for power but I never blame the Religion or the Faith, only the people and establishments who perpetuate religious conflict for gain.          

My point exactly.  Now take the entire Israeli/Arab/Palenstine mess and evaluate it using this premise as the underlying principle.  In other words...it has nothing to do with true religion.

[Skandery]

My point exactly.  Now take the entire Israeli/Arab/Palenstine mess and evaluate it using this premise as the underlying principle.  In other words...it has nothing to do with true religion.

Nonetheless, you cannot ignore these people or the followers they dupe.  For better or worst, Religion has slowly gained momentum in the geo-political spectrum across the World--even relatively secular Western society--since the 1970s.  The deep seeded rift between Islamic and Judeo-Christian peoples is growing wider and more violent largely under these radicals who are dictating the terms of engagement.  The moderate majority who adhere to these faiths have to begin to care and take as strong a stance against violence and hegemony as these so-called "Warriors". 

     

[Joe Vancil]

My point exactly.  Now take the entire Israeli/Arab/Palenstine mess and evaluate it using this premise as the underlying principle.  In other words...it has nothing to do with true religion.

Lurker,

     You know, I don't think I can agree with that.

     I believe that there *IS* a component of religious belief in terms of whether there should or shouldn't be a country called "Israel" located where it is at.  And I think there's a component of religious belief as to why it is where it is, and a bit of religious belief in opposing it being there at all.

     In short, even if the conflict were not being exacerbated by outside forces that have no real interest in the religious portion of the conflict, I believe the conflict would still be there.

                                                                                       Joe

[WayOutWest]

Actually, unless you're referring to the parallels of the Maquis to the situation, then it's not a DS9 episode;

Yes I was referring to the Maquis and also the Bejorians.  With the Federation, Cardassians and Dominion all playing a role in some form that was described by Skandypants.  The Maquis arc ended in DS9, they were wiped out by the Cardassians with the aide of the Dominion. 

[Skandery]

     You know, I don't think I can agree with that.

     I believe that there *IS* a component of religious belief in terms of whether there should or shouldn't be a country called "Israel" located where it is at.  And I think there's a component of religious belief as to why it is where it is, and a bit of religious belief in opposing it being there at all.

     In short, even if the conflict were not being exacerbated by outside forces that have no real interest in the religious portion of the conflict, I believe the conflict would still be there.

I disagree.  The kind of conflict I've been discussing entails fighting, killing, etc. 

There would be disagreement, not conflict.  It is written in the Bible that Jesus was killed by the hand of the Romans and the heart of the Jews.  There is also disagreement about the effect of the so-called re-birth of Israel.  Jews believing in "The Redemption" or the coming of the Messiah and Christians believing in "The Rapture", where Jesus makes his return and all who take him as their Messiah being raptured straight to Heaven and those who don't (even Jews) will be sent to Hell.  So in Christian Holy scripture, Jews were responsible for the death of the Messiah and there is huge disagreement between them over what happens when Israel is established.  Yet, there is a strong Judeo-Christian alliance: religiously, politically, economocially, and militarily.  Why? 

Simple religious difference, in and of inself, would not be responsible for the kind of conflict that has gripped Palestine/Israel for over half a century.

[Joe Vancil]

Gotta call you on this one, Skander.

Islam looks at the Jews as being cast away from God because of their rebellion against him.  Why should they be given this land, this "inheritance," when they've essentially been "cut off" from it?  Similarly, the Christian still considers the part of Revelation which points to the nation of Israel coming back as a nation.  Ideologically, the two are at odds.

(As for the Christian view of the "Rapture," the view you represent leaves out the Great Tribulation, leaves out the Millinieual Reign of Christ, and the Great White Throne judgment, all of which occur before the Lake of Fire.)

Simple relgious difference could very easily cause the same conflict that we're seeing anyway.  Or, perhaps, it DID cause it, and the flames were just fanned by those who sought to gain something.  Either way, same result.

[WayOutWest]

So in Christian Holy scripture, Jews were responsible for the death of the Messiah and there is huge disagreement between them over what happens when Israel is established.

The Jews were as responsible for killing Christ as they were for the sun rising in the East and setting in the West.

[rickortreat]

The term "occupied territory" is used because of the "legal" situation of the land.  The United Nations has clearly dilineated the border for Palestinians to live in within the West Bank and Gaza.  The World Court at the Hague has clearly opined that this is the place where the hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinian refugees may set up a government, build residential and commercial areas, become (for all purposes) a legitimate, contiguous Palestinian State.  The land that Israel "occupied" during the 1967 "Six Day War" has never been recognized as Israeli land by any World Authority or any Geneva Convention.

Who and what is the United Nations that it gets to decide anything?  Much less the World (sic) Court.  War is what draws the lines on the ground, always has and probably always will.  The UN has no teeth, because it depends on Nations to support it with military power.  It's a bunch of crap, because it's hypocritical- the Tibetans are an occupied people in their own land, as are many tribal nations in Russia.

California doesn't belong to Spain or Mexico, even though it once did.  According to the Catholic Chuch, it should belong to Portugal!

Well, the UN isn't going to go to war with the US to have them return California to Mexico!  And as much as they moan and scream, they're not about to assemble an army to take Palestinian land back from Israeli control!

The UN is filled with sanctimonious whores who appoint the head of the human rights commission to someone from the Sudan.  What they say means nothing, and their legal standing only matters to those who like the rulings they bring out.

What would happen if Israel decided to declare war on Palestine (or maybe just Gaza) and drive the indigenous people out?  Do you really think those pussy Europeans would send a force to protect the Gazans?  How about the Russians, or the Chinese?   

It is force and the willingness to use it that determines borders.  No one is going to save Tibetans from China, or the Kurds from the Iranians and Turks.  Legal standing my butt!