Religion, who cares?

[Damo1977]

Who really believes in the fairy tales of religion, weither it is, Catholic, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, Zionism etc.

[The Avon Lady]

Zionism is a religion?

Really?

Fascinating!

:shifty:

[Damo1977]

is it the Jewish religion and Zionism is a religion

[The Avon Lady]

is it the Jewish religion and Zionism is a religion
No more than Marxism is a religion. It's true that you can use a weak defintion of the word "religion" to mean "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" but then you should list all the "ism's" in this world.

Judaism is a religion in the most elementary sense of the word. Zionism is not. Never has been. Hence there are people who are totally aetheistic believers and practitioners of Zionism.

[joea]

Zionism is a political movement, and just to confirm something Avon Lady, is it true many Zionists were marxists??? Read somewhere about the early kibbutz having pics of Marx and Engels around, damn can't recall where I read that quote. :hmm:

[Sixpack]

I can not participate in this poll because of the limited choices.

I am not a religious man, in terms of church-going, but I believe in a divine creator who works in mysterious ways. I also think it's generally good for people everywhere to go to church and hear a message of peace, heaven, social behavior and basically learn about the bigger scheme of things.

I however take religious books and the often shameful orthodox stuff that comes with it with a bag of salt. It often works out wrong. Religion (as in sects) bonds small communities, sure, but separates people in the bigger picture. The world has become a global village. We must acknowledge religions are a cultural phenomenon and being born a Christian, a muslim or whatever, is primarily a matter of geographical coincidence.

To wrap it up:

* 1 creator of heaven (in whatever shape or form nobody knows), earth & mankind.
* Religious differences, hate and fanatism equals (=) human bogus.


It's basically simple. We really don't need the (entire) books for that.

[The Avon Lady]

Zionism is a political movement, and just to confirm something Avon Lady, is it true many Zionists were marxists??? Read somewhere about the early kibbutz having pics of Marx and Engels around, damn can't recall where I read that quote. :hmm:
Plenty of Zionists were Marxists. We still have a few such oddballs around. Plenty were capitalists. Plenty were conservatives. Plenty were liberals. Plenty were religious. Plenty were secular.

I think a link (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html) would be in order at this time.

[jumpy]

No.
I have no faith in any recognised sense of the word. There might be a 'God' but whatever the case, no petty smallminded view in human doctrine can fill the gap reserved for truth. Call it what you will, but to my mind all religion and so called 'holy' beliefs are nothing more than a panacea for the great unwashed masses.

[TLAM Strike]

What we humans perceive as God(s) is just the Universe its self, and (possibly) beings with a higher level of technology/higher level of consciousness (like noncorporeal beings) and that doesn’t need to be worshiped, respected and understood yes but not worshiped.

But that’s not to say Religion is a bad thing, if it helps you to understand your place in the universe, give you guidance and respect for your fellow man then its doing good.

[U-552Erich-Topp]

:) More 2000 year old fairy tales again????

[Grom]

You western world people have forgot about religion. Religion was always nearby, it creataed the traditions (like christmas). How many of You celebrate christmas ? I dont have to ask, sure almost every one. Why then ? Because of decorations ? Because of friends ? Ofcourse no. You celebrate these days because of tradition. Because You growed in this since You remember. another thing is that either this is traditional celebration or not, in western world it lost its sense. This is not shopping, Santa Claus is not Disney cartoon movies product. He is religion product, the same like many many things waht You meet every day, and You dont even know about it.

[Skybird]

Santa Claus is not Disney cartoon movies product. He is religion product, the same like many many things waht You meet every day, and You dont even know about it.

Have a brake, have a coca cola, my friend.

[Bort]

As Marx said, "religion is the opiate of the masses." When someone uses god to control others it sickens me. People should be able to make up their own minds about god and nature and not follow the teachings of idiots like this. :nope:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4427144.stm

[CCIP]

I think the poll title is far too provocative to evoke an objective response.

Myself, I'm against any dogma and religious organization. But I welcome spiritualism, whatever form it may take.
Quakers are kinda cool, too :hmm:

[Iceman]

Vanity of Vanites ALL is Vanity...No thing new under the sun.I do NOT believe in religion...I believe.

[Gizzmoe]

But that’s not to say Religion is a bad thing, if it helps you to understand your place in the universe, give you guidance and respect for your fellow man then its doing good.

I agree with that. Personally I don´t believe in any gods or any kind of religions.

[Skybird]

No.

The word "holy" does not exist in my repertoire. :) "God" or "miracle" are placeholders only that are meant to hide the gap in our understanding and knowledge of what man is, what cosmos is, and what man's relation to it really is. But believing is not knowing, that is why such concepts only by random chance can hit a valid aspect of our subjective perception of reality. I see no need in doing so, and it holds no chances and no comfort.

In the end all that space that we consider to see "out there" is just our own minds.

"Die Wirklichkeit wird weniger ge-funden, als vielmehr er-funden." Glasersfeld)

[Grom]

Have a brake, have a coca cola, my friend.

I don like coke my friend.

Just one thing i wish to sceptic like You. Try to find anything about gent with surname "Pio". When You read then we can talk about religion.

Another thnig is about mr.Marx. I had to eat this comunistic crap of them for few years, and they still lost. Guess why ?

Overall if You wish to discuss about God, religion and more. Bring then some really arguments not coca cola my friend. And if You are trying to be smart, then answere Yourself what do You really know about todays popular person of Santa Claus. Didnt You ever try to find out who was he ? And where did he comes from ? Why him ?
Is easy to staring with ignorance, and say take a break friend. But You have no arguments. Empty words and Your subjective feelings.
Thats is not much, actually this is nothing.

You dont believe, all right no probs. You don go to the church, well doesnt matter for me. But if You are trying to discuss about anything then bring with You some arguments, and first of all have the knowledge about the subject.
;)

[Abraham]

The poll is so poorly worded that it hardly leaves anybody who is serious about his religion a choice.
You could as well have asked: "do you vote to be considered stupid by me or not?"
Usually the formulation of polls like this - we've had more - characterizes the knowledge and objectivity of the author more than anything else. Calling "Zionism" a religion just proves that point.

Were the question: "Religion, who cares?" I would have voted: "Yes!".
I am a convinced (Protestant) Christian and aware of the cultural luggage it provides me with. I stand in a Western European 'Judeo-Christian' tradition of which I am proud. I am also very aware that humans are by definition religious creatures anyway. I accept the limitations of the human mind to understand the whole creation. I also recognize the challenge for us humans to learn, educate and think...

[Skybird]

Have a brake, have a coca cola, my friend.

I don like coke my friend.

Just one thing i wish to sceptic like You. Try to find anything about gent with surname "Pio". When You read then we can talk about religion.

Another thnig is about mr.Marx. I had to eat this comunistic crap of them for few years, and they still lost. Guess why ?

Overall if You wish to discuss about God, religion and more. Bring then some really arguments not coca cola my friend. And if You are trying to be smart, then answere Yourself what do You really know about todays popular person of Santa Claus. Didnt You ever try to find out who was he ? And where did he comes from ? Why him ?
Is easy to staring with ignorance, and say take a break friend. But You have no arguments. Empty words and Your subjective feelings.
Thats is not much, actually this is nothing.

You dont believe, all right no probs. You don go to the church, well doesnt matter for me. But if You are trying to discuss about anything then bring with You some arguments, and first of all have the knowledge about the subject.
;)

Abraham, is this guy asking me to write another essay...? :rotfl:

Grom, maybe telephone with coca cola company and learn what they have to do with Santa Claus. You obviously lack the needed info to see the hidden irony in my initial comment.

[Smaragdadler]

Time to spam this thread with some lenghty copy and paste sermon drivel... :zzz:

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.patrick/crowley.jpg

EXISTENCE, as we know it, is full of sorrow. To mention only one minor point: every man is a condemned criminal, only he does not know the date of his execution. This is unpleasant for every man. Consequently every man does everything possible to postpone the date, and would sacrifice anything that he has if he could reverse the sentence.

Practically all religions and all philosophies have started thus crudely, by promising their adherents some such reward as immortality.

No religion has failed hitherto by not promising enough; the present breaking up of all religions is due to the fact that people have asked to see the securities. Men have even renounced the important material advantages which a well-organized religion may confer upon a State, rather than acquiesce in fraud or falsehood, or even in any system which, if not proved guilty, is at least unable to demonstrate its innocence.

Being more or less bankrupt, the best thing that we can do is to attack the problem afresh without preconceived ideas. Let us begin by doubting every statement. Let us find a way of subjecting every statement to the test of experiment. Is there any truth at all in the claims of various religions? Let us examine the question.

Our original difficulty will be due to the enormous wealth of our material. To enter into a critical examination of all systems would be an unending task; the cloud of witnesses is too great. Now each religion is equally positive; and each demands faith. This we refuse in the absence of positive proof. But we may usefully inquire whether there is not any one thing upon which all religions have agreed: for, if so, it seems possible that it may be worthy of really thorough consideration.

It is certainly not to be found in dogma. Even so simple an idea as that of a supreme and eternal being is denied by a third of the human race. Legends of miracle are perhaps universal, but these, in the absence of demonstrative proof, are repugnant to common sense.

But what of the origin of religions? How is it that unproved assertion has so frequently compelled the assent of all classes of mankind? Is not this a miracle?

There is, however, one form of miracle which certainly happens, the influence of the genius. There is no known analogy in Nature. One cannot even think of a "super-dog" transforming the world of dogs, whereas in the history of mankind this happens with regularity and frequency. Now here are three "super-men," all at loggerheads. What is there in common between Christ, Buddha, and Mohammed? Is there any one point upon which all three are in accord?

No point of doctrine, no point of ethics, no theory of a "hereafter" do they share, and yet in the history of their lives we find one identity amid many diversities.

Buddha was born a Prince, and died a beggar.

Mohammed was born a beggar, and died a Prince.

Christ remained obscure until many years after his death.

Elaborate lives of each have been written by devotees, and there is one thing common to all three -- an omission. We hear nothing of Christ between the ages of twelve and thirty. Mohammed disappeared into a cave. Buddha left his palace, and went for a long while into the desert.

Each of them, perfectly silent up to the time of the disappearance, came back and immediately began to preach a new law.

This is so curious that it leaves us to inquire whether the histories of other great teachers contradict or confirm.

Moses led a quiet life until his slaying of the Egyptian. He then flees into the land of Midian, and we hear nothing of what he did there, yet immediately on his return he turns the whole place upside down. Later on, too, he absents himself on Mount Sinai for a few days, and comes back with the Tables of the Law in his hand.

St. Paul (again), after his adventure on the road to Damascus, goes into the desert of Arabia for many years, and on his return overturns the Roman Empire. Even in the legends of savages we find the same thing universal; somebody who is nobody in particular goes away for a longer or shorter period, and comes back as the "great medicine man"; but nobody ever knows exactly what happened to him.

Making every possible deduction for fable and myth, we get this one coincidence. A nobody goes away, and comes back a somebody. This is not to be explained in any of the ordinary ways.

There is not the smallest ground for the contention that these were from the start exceptional men. Mohammed would hardly have driven a camel until he was thirty-five years old if he had possessed any talent or ambition. St. Paul had much original talent; but he is the least of the five. Nor do they seem to have possessed any of the usual materials of power, such as rank, fortune, or influence.

Moses was rather a big man in Egypt when he left; he came back as a mere stranger.

Christ had not been to China and married the Emperor's daughter.

Mohammed had not been acquiring wealth and drilling soldiers.

Buddha had not been consolidating any religious organizations.

St. Paul had not been intriguing with an ambitious general.

Each came back poor; each came back alone.

What was the nature of their power? What happened to them in their absence?

History will not help us to solve the problem, for history is silent.

We have only the accounts given by the men themselves.

It would be very remarkable should we find that these accounts agree.

Of the great teachers we have mentioned Christ is silent; the other four tell us something; some more, some less.

Buddha goes into details too elaborate to enter upon in this place; but the gist of it is that in one way or another he got hold of the secret force of the World and mastered it.

Of St. Paul's experiences, we have nothing but a casual allusion to his having been "caught up into Heaven, and seen and heard things of which it was not lawful to speak."

Mohammed speaks crudely of his having been "visited by the Angel Gabriel," who communicated things from "God."

Moses says that he "beheld God."

Diverse as these statements are at first sight, all agree in announcing an experience of the class which fifty years ago would have been called supernatural, to-day may be called spiritual, and fifty years hence will have a proper name based on an understanding of the phenomenon which occurred.

Theorists have not been at a loss to explain; but they differ.

The Mohammedan insists that God is, and did really send Gabriel with messages for Mohammed: but all others contradict him. And from the nature of the case proof is impossible.

The lack of proof has been so severely felt by Christianity (and in a much less degree by Islam) that fresh miracles have been manufactured almost daily to support the tottering structure. Modern thought, rejecting these miracles, has adopted theories involving epilepsy and madness. As if organization could spring from disorganization! Even if epilepsy were the cause of these great movements which have caused civilization after civilization to arise from barbarism, it would merely form an argument for cultivating epilepsy.

Of course great men will never conform with the standards of little men, and he whose mission it is to overturn the world can hardly escape the title of revolutionary. The fads of a period always furnish terms of abuse. The fad of Caiaphas was Judaism, and the Pharisees told him that Christ "blasphemed." Pilate was a loyal Roman; to him they accused Christ of "sedition." When the Pope had all power it was necessary to prove an enemy a "heretic." Advancing to-day towards a medical oligarchy, we try to prove that our opponents are "insane," and (in a Puritan country) to attack their "morals." We should then avoid all rhetoric, and try to investigate with perfect freedom from bias the phenomena which occurred to these great leaders of mankind.

There is no difficulty in our assuming that these men themselves did not understand clearly what happened to them. The only one who explains his system thoroughly is Buddha, and Buddha is the only one that is not dogmatic. We may also suppose that the others thought it inadvisable to explain too clearly to their followers; St. Paul evidently took this line.

Our best document will therefore be the system of Buddha;

footnote: We have the documents of Hinduism, and of two Chinese systems. But Hinduism has no single founder. Lao Tze is one of our best examples of a man who went away and had a mysterious experience; perhaps the best of all examples, as his system is the best of all systems. We have full details of his method of training in the Khang Kang King, and elsewhere. But it is so little known that we shall omit consideration of it in this popular account.

but it is so complex that no immediate summary will serve; and in the case of the others, if we have not the accounts of the Masters, we have those of their immediate followers.

The methods advised by all these people have a startling resemblance to one another. They recommend "virtue" (of various kinds), solitude, absence of excitement, moderation in diet, and finally a practice which some call prayer and some call meditation. (The former four may turn out on examination to be merely conditions favourable to the last.)

On investigating what is meant by these two things, we find that they are only one. For what is the state of either prayer or meditation? It is the restraining of the mind to a single act, state, or thought. If we sit down quietly and investigate the contents of our minds, we shall find that even at the best of times the principal characteristics are wandering and distraction. Any one who has had anything to do with children and untrained minds generally knows that fixity of attention is never present, even when there is a large amount of intelligence and good will.

If then we, with our well-trained minds, determine to control this wandering thought, we shall find that we are fairly well able to keep the thoughts running in a narrow channel, each thought linked to the last in a perfectly rational manner; but if we attempt to stop this current we shall find that, so far from succeeding, we shall merely bread down the banks of the channel. The mind will overflow, and instead of a chain of thought we shall have a chaos of confused images.

This mental activity is so great, and seems so natural, that it is hard to understand how any one first got the idea that it was a weakness and a nuisance. Perhaps it was because in the more natural practice of "devotion," people found that their thoughts interfered. In any case calm and self-control are to be preferred to restlessness. Darwin in his study presents a marked contrast with a monkey in a cage.

Generally speaking, the larger and stronger and more highly developed any animal is, the less does it move about, and such movements as it does make are slow and purposeful. Compare the ceaseless activity of bacteria with the reasoned steadiness of the beaver; and except in the few animal communities which are organized, such as bees, the greatest intelligence is shown by those of solitary habits. This is so true of man that psychologists have been obliged to treat of the mental state of crowds as if it were totally different in quality from any state possible to an individual.

It is by freeing the mind from external influences, whether casual or emotional, that it obtains power to see somewhat of the truth of things.

Let us, however, continue our practice. Let us determine to be masters of our minds. We shall then soon find what conditions are favourable.

There will be no need to persuade ourselves at great length that all external influences are likely to be unfavourable. New faces, new scenes will disturb us; even the new habits of life which we undertake for this very purpose of controlling the mind will at first tend to upset it. Still, we must give up our habit of eating too much, and follow the natural rule of only eating when we are hungry, listening to the interior voice which tells us that we have had enough.

The same rule applies to sleep. We have determined to control our minds, and so our time for meditation must take precedence of other hours.

We must fix times for practice, and make our feasts movable. In order to test our progress, for we shall find that (as in all physiological matters) meditation cannot be gauged by the feelings, we shall have a note-book and pencil, and we shall also have a watch. We shall then endeavour to count how often, during the first quarter of an hour, the mind breaks away from the idea upon which it is determined to concentrate. We shall practice this twice daily; and, as we go, experience will teach us which conditions are favourable and which are not. Before we have been doing this for very long we are almost certain to get impatient, and we shall find that we have to practice many other things in order to assist us in our work. New problems will constantly arise which must be faced, and solved.

For instance, we shall most assuredly find that we fidget. We shall discover that no position is comfortable, though we never noticed it before in all our lives!

This difficulty has been solved by a practice called "Asana," which will be described later on.

Memories of the events of the day will bother us; we must arrange our day so that it is absolutely uneventful. Our minds will recall to us our hopes and fears, our loves and hates, our ambitions, our envies, and many other emotions. All these must be cut off. We must have absolutely no interest in life but that of quieting our minds.

This is the object of the usual monastic vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience. If you have no property, you have no care, nothing to be anxious about; with chastity no other person to be anxious about, and to distract your attention; while if you are vowed to obedience the question of what you are to do no longer frets: you simply obey.

There are a great many other obstacles which you will discover as you go on, and it is proposed to deal with these in turn. But let us pass by for the moment to the point where you are nearing success.

In your early struggles you may have found it difficult to conquer sleep; and you may have wandered so far from the object of your meditations without noticing it, that the meditation has really been broken; but much later on, when you feel that you are "getting quite good," you will be shocked to find a complete oblivion of yourself and your surroundings. You will say: "Good heavens! I must have been to sleep!" or else "What on earth was I meditating upon?" or even "What was I doing?" "Where am I?" "Who am I?" or a mere wordless bewilderment may daze you. This may alarm you, and your alarm will not be lessened when you come to full consciousness, and reflect that you have actually forgotten who you are and what you are doing!

This is only one of many adventures that may come to you; but it is one of the most typical. By this time your hours of meditation will fill most of the day, and you will probably be constantly having presentiments that something is about to happen. You may also be terrified with the idea that your brain may be giving way; but you will have learnt the real symptoms of mental fatigue, and you will be careful to avoid them. They must be very carefully distinguished from idleness!

At certain times you will feel as if there were a contest between the will and the mind; at other times you may feel as if they were in harmony; but there is a third state, to be distinguished from the latter feeling. It is the certain sign of near success, the view-halloo. This is when the mind runs naturally towards the object chosen, not as if in obedience to the will of the owner of the mind, but as if directed by nothing at all, or by something impersonal; as if it were falling by its own weight, and not being pushed down.

Almost always, the moment that one becomes conscious of this, it stops; and the dreary old struggle between the cowboy will and the buckjumper mind begins again.

Like every other physiological process, consciousness of it implies disorder or disease.

In analysing the nature of this work of controlling the mind, the student will appreciate without trouble the fact that two things are involved -- the person seeing and the thing seen -- the person knowing and the thing known; and he will come to regard this as the necessary condition of all consciousness. We are too accustomed to assume to be facts things about which we have no real right even to guess. We assume, for example, that the unconscious is the torpid; and yet nothing is more certain than that bodily organs which are functioning well do so in silence. The best sleep is dreamless. Even in the case of games of skill our very best strokes are followed by the thought, "I don't know how I did it;" and we cannot repeat those strokes at will. The moment we begin to think consciously about a stroke we get "nervous," and are lost.

In fact, there are three main classes of stroke; the bad stroke, which we associate, and rightly, with wandering attention; the good stroke which we associate, and rightly, with fixed attention; and the perfect stroke, which we do not understand, but which is really caused by the habit of fixity of attention having become independent of the will, and thus enabled to act freely of its own accord.

This is the same phenomenon referred to above as being a good sign.

Finally something happens whose nature may form the subject of a further discussion later on. For the moment let it suffice to say that this consciousness of the Ego and the non-Ego, the seer and the thing seen, the knower and the thing known, is blotted out.

There is usually an intense light, an intense sound, and a feeling of such overwhelming bliss that the resources of language have been exhausted again and again in the attempt to describe it.

It is an absolute knock-out blow to the mind. It is so vivid and tremendous that those who experience it are in the gravest danger of losing all sense of proportion.

By its light all other events of life are as darkness. Owing to this, people have utterly failed to analyse it or to estimate it. They are accurate enough in saying that, compared with this, all human life is absolutely dross; but they go further, and go wrong. They argue that "since this is that which transcends the terrestrial, it must be celestial." One of the tendencies in their minds has been the hope of a heaven such as their parents and teachers have described, or such as they have themselves pictured; and, without the slightest grounds for saying so, they make the assumption "This is That."

In the Bhagavadgita a vision of this class is naturally attributed to the apparation of Vishnu, who was the local god of the period.

Anna Kingsford, who had dabbled in Hebrew mysticism, and was a feminist, got an almost identical vision; but called the "divine" figure which she saw alternately "Adonai" and "Maria."

Now this woman, though handicapped by a brain that was a mass of putrid pulp, and a complete lack of social status, education, and moral character, did more in the religious world than any other person had done for generations. She, and she alone, made Theosophy possible, and without Theosophy the world-wide interest in similar matters would never have been aroused. This interest is to the Law of Thelema what the preaching of John the Baptist was to Christianity.

We are now in a position to say what happened to Mohammed. Somehow or another his phenomenon happened in his mind. More ignorant than Anna Kingsford, though, fortunately, more moral, he connected it with the story of the "Annunciation," which he had undoubtedly heard in his boyhood, and said "Gabriel appeared to me." But in spite of his ignorance, his total misconception of the truth, the power of the vision was such that he was enabled to persist through the usual persecution, and founded a religion to which even to-day one man in every eight belongs.

The history of Christianity shows precisely the same remarkable fact. Jesus Christ was brought up on the fables of the "Old Testament," and so was compelled to ascribe his experiences to "Jehovah," although his gentle spirit could have had nothing in common with the monster who was always commanding the rape of virgins and the murder of little children, and whose rites were then, and still are, celebrated by human sacrifice.

footnote: The massacres of Jews in Eastern Europe which surprise the ignorant, are almost invariably excited by the disappearance of "Christian" children, stolen, as the parents suppose, for the purposes of "ritual murder." WEH footnote: This unfortunate perpetuation of the "blood-libel" myth was later recanted by Crowley. The blood-libel was visited upon early Christians by the Romans and is visited today upon Thelemites by Christian Fundamentalists.

Similarly the visions of Joan of Arc were entirely Christian; but she, like all the others we have mentioned, found somewhere the force to do great things. Of course, it may be said that there is a fallacy in the argument; it may be true that all these great people "saw God," but it does not follow that every one who "sees God" will do great things.

This is true enough. In fact, the majority of people who claim to have "seen God," and who no doubt did "see God" just as much as those whom we have quoted, did nothing else.

But perhaps their silence is not a sign of their weakness, but of their strength. Perhaps these "great" men are the failures of humanity; perhaps it would be better to say nothing; perhaps only an unbalanced mind would wish to alter anything or believe in the possibility of altering anything; but there are those who think existence even in heaven intolerable so long as there is one single being who does not share that joy. There are some who may wish to travel back from the very threshold of the bridal chamber to assist belated guests.

Such at least was the attitude which Gotama Buddha adopted. Nor shall he be alone.

Again it may be pointed out that the contemplative life is generally opposed to the active life, and it must require an extremely careful balance to prevent the one absorbing the other.

As it will be seen later, the "vision of God," or "Union with God," or "Samadhi," or whatever we may agree to call it, has many kinds and many degrees, although there is an impassable abyss between the least of them and the greatest of all the phenomena of normal consciousness. "To sum up," we assert a secret source of energy which explains the phenomenon of Genius.

footnote: We have dealt in this preliminary sketch only with examples of religious genius. Other kinds are subject to the same remarks, but the limits of our space forbid discussion of these.

We do not believe in any supernatural explanations, but insist that this source may be reached by the following out of definite rules, the degree of success depending upon the capacity of the seeker, and not upon the favour of any Divine Being. We assert that the critical phenomenon which determines success is an occurrence in the brain characterized essentially by the uniting of subject and object. We propose to discuss this phenomenon, analyse its nature, determine accurately the physical, mental and moral conditions which are favourable to it, to ascertain its cause, and thus to produce it in ourselves, so that we may adequately study its effects.

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/aba/aba1.html

:stare:...:dead:...:smug:...:sunny:...:doh:...:88) ........-> :roll:

[The Avon Lady]

I didn't read the article but I love the picture. :-j

[Iceman]

I didn't read the article but I love the picture. :-j

LMAO..me to. hehehhehe

[micky1up]

you guys are dumb a religion is by definition something or anything u do everyday check the dictionary so anything is a religion

[Abraham]

I didn't read the article but I love the picture. :-jDidn't care to read the article either, it's the kind of stuff that is actually written not to be read... But is this pink trout?
:D

[The Avon Lady]

I didn't read the article but I love the picture. :-jDidn't care to read the article either, it's the kind of stuff that is actually written not to be read... But is this pink trout?
That guy does look like a pink trout, doesn't he?!

Oh............

You mean the fish...............................

:hmm:

[Abraham]

You're too fishical, lately...

[The Avon Lady]

You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.

I assure you it isn't on porpoise.

Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.

[gdogghenrikson]

The word "holy" does not exist in my repertoire. smile "God" or "miracle" are placeholders only that are meant to hide the gap in our understanding and knowledge of what man is, what cosmos is, and what man's relation to it really is. But believing is not knowing, that is why such concepts only by random chance can hit a valid aspect of our subjective perception of reality. I see no need in doing so, and it holds no chances and no comfort.

well put :up:

[Abraham]

You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...

[The Avon Lady]

You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...
No eel feelings, then?

[Abraham]

You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...
No eel feelings, then?Eel is not kosher, my dear!
My feelings for you make me weak as a sponge...

[The Avon Lady]

You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...
No eel feelings, then?Eel is not kosher, my dear!
Yes, bad for the sole.
My feelings for you make me weak as a sponge...
Better a friend than anemone.

[Abraham]

You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...
No eel feelings, then?Eel is not kosher, my dear!
Yes, bad for the sole.
My feelings for you make me weak as a sponge...
Better a friend than anemone.I rest my knive and fork.
And uhm, when will you cook for me?
Pink trout, please!

[The Avon Lady]

You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...
No eel feelings, then?Eel is not kosher, my dear!
Yes, bad for the sole.
My feelings for you make me weak as a sponge...
Better a friend than anemone.I rest my knive and fork.
And uhm, when will you cook for me?
Let me mullet over.

[Abraham]

You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...
No eel feelings, then?Eel is not kosher, my dear!
Yes, bad for the sole.
My feelings for you make me weak as a sponge...
Better a friend than anemone.I rest my knive and fork.
And uhm, when will you cook for me?
Let me mullet over.Too late! To kill the subject I'll eat my self made paella...

[The Avon Lady]

You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...
No eel feelings, then?Eel is not kosher, my dear!
Yes, bad for the sole.
My feelings for you make me weak as a sponge...
Better a friend than anemone.I rest my knive and fork.
And uhm, when will you cook for me?
Let me mullet over.Too late! To kill the subject I'll eat my self made paella...
Are you trying to clam be up and mussel me out? :hulk:

[Abraham]

You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...
No eel feelings, then?Eel is not kosher, my dear!
Yes, bad for the sole.
My feelings for you make me weak as a sponge...
Better a friend than anemone.I rest my knive and fork.
And uhm, when will you cook for me?
Let me mullet over.Too late! To kill the subject I'll eat my self made paella...
Are you trying to clam be up and mussel me out? :hulk:
Clam you up and mussel you out? That wouldn't be kosher, would it?

[The Avon Lady]

[quote:3c95411f38="Abraham"]You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...
No eel feelings, then?Eel is not kosher, my dear!
Yes, bad for the sole.
My feelings for you make me weak as a sponge...
Better a friend than anemone.I rest my knive and fork.
And uhm, when will you cook for me?
Let me mullet over.Too late! To kill the subject I'll eat my self made paella...
Are you trying to clam be up and mussel me out? :hulk:
Clam you up and mussel you out? That wouldn't be kosher, would it?[/quote:3c95411f38]
No, they're not. They mackerel problem for me.

Why, if I ate one of those, I'd go to the whaling wall and p-ray for frog-iveness.

[Abraham]

[quote:3b2eaa41fa="The Avon Lady"][quote:3b2eaa41fa="Abraham"]You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...
No eel feelings, then?Eel is not kosher, my dear!
Yes, bad for the sole.
My feelings for you make me weak as a sponge...
Better a friend than anemone.I rest my knive and fork.
And uhm, when will you cook for me?
Let me mullet over.Too late! To kill the subject I'll eat my self made paella...
Are you trying to clam be up and mussel me out? :hulk:
Clam you up and mussel you out? That wouldn't be kosher, would it?[/quote:3b2eaa41fa]
No, they're not. They mackerel problem for me.

Why, if I ate one of those, I'd go to the whaling wall and p-ray for frog-iveness.[/quote:3b2eaa41fa]But would C-d(SS224) forgive you? That is the question!

[The Avon Lady]

[quote:2473eccf96="Abraham"][quote:2473eccf96="The Avon Lady"][quote:2473eccf96="Abraham"]You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...
No eel feelings, then?Eel is not kosher, my dear!
Yes, bad for the sole.
My feelings for you make me weak as a sponge...
Better a friend than anemone.I rest my knive and fork.
And uhm, when will you cook for me?
Let me mullet over.Too late! To kill the subject I'll eat my self made paella...
Are you trying to clam be up and mussel me out? :hulk:
Clam you up and mussel you out? That wouldn't be kosher, would it?[/quote:2473eccf96]
No, they're not. They mackerel problem for me.

Why, if I ate one of those, I'd go to the whaling wall and p-ray for frog-iveness.[/quote:2473eccf96]But would C-d forgive? That is the question![/quote:2473eccf96]
This is bassphemy! :x

[Abraham]

[quote:a314f98b98="The Avon Lady"][quote:a314f98b98="Abraham"][quote:a314f98b98="The Avon Lady"][quote:a314f98b98="Abraham"]You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...
No eel feelings, then?Eel is not kosher, my dear!
Yes, bad for the sole.
My feelings for you make me weak as a sponge...
Better a friend than anemone.I rest my knive and fork.
And uhm, when will you cook for me?
Let me mullet over.Too late! To kill the subject I'll eat my self made paella...
Are you trying to clam be up and mussel me out? :hulk:
Clam you up and mussel you out? That wouldn't be kosher, would it?[/quote:a314f98b98]
No, they're not. They mackerel problem for me.

Why, if I ate one of those, I'd go to the whaling wall and p-ray for frog-iveness.[/quote:a314f98b98]But would C-d(SS224) forgive you? That is the question![/quote:a314f98b98]
This is bassphemy! :x[/quote:a314f98b98]Tang(SS306)... that was a Blower (SS325)!

[martes86]

Nice duet and quotes those you're making... :rotfl: :P :P :P

[Col7777]

I was told in another thread it was disrespectful to the original poster to change the topic, but I see it is ok to do it now.

Also it is ok for them to make long posts and expect others to read them but they make fun of other peoples long posts by saying they can't be bothered, so has the topic changed and are we talking about the fish and food now?

[Abraham]

I was told in another thread it was disrespectful to the original poster to change the topic, but I see it is ok to do it now.Tang(SS306)... that was a Blower (SS325)!
:D

[Abraham]

Nice duet and quotes those you're making... :rotfl: :P :P :P
A duet with The Avon Lady? Are you crazy!
Don't you see it's a bloody cut-throat fight I'm in. It's either her or me, no quarters given.
I'm here trying to survive with a couple of ******* English dictionaries, a lists of US WW II submarines and a link to Rex Hunt Fishing Adventures, for C-d's(SS224) sake...
:D

[martes86]

A duet with The Avon Lady? Are you crazy!
Don't you see it's a bloody cut-throat fight, I'm in. It's either her or me, no quarters given.
I'm here trying to survive with a couple of ******* English dictionaries, a lists of US WW II submarines and a link to Rex Hunt Fishing Adventures, for C-d's(SS224) sake...
:D

Hahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Takeda Shingen]

[quote:26d037467b="Abraham"][quote:26d037467b="The Avon Lady"][quote:26d037467b="Abraham"][quote:26d037467b="The Avon Lady"][quote:26d037467b="Abraham"]You're too fishical, lately...
Finny you should mention that.
I assure you it isn't on porpoise.
Alright. I confess. I do it for the halibut.
Wahoo, are we touchy! There was nothing fishy about my intentions...
No eel feelings, then?Eel is not kosher, my dear!
Yes, bad for the sole.
My feelings for you make me weak as a sponge...
Better a friend than anemone.I rest my knive and fork.
And uhm, when will you cook for me?
Let me mullet over.Too late! To kill the subject I'll eat my self made paella...
Are you trying to clam be up and mussel me out? :hulk:
Clam you up and mussel you out? That wouldn't be kosher, would it?[/quote:26d037467b]
No, they're not. They mackerel problem for me.

Why, if I ate one of those, I'd go to the whaling wall and p-ray for frog-iveness.[/quote:26d037467b]But would C-d(SS224) forgive you? That is the question![/quote:26d037467b]
This is bassphemy! :x[/quote:26d037467b]Tang(SS306)... that was a Blower (SS325)![/quote:26d037467b]

Oww! My eyes! :huh:

[Fish]

The poll is so poorly worded that it hardly leaves anybody who is serious about his religion a choice.
You could as well have asked: "do you vote to be considered stupid by me or not?"
Usually the formulation of polls like this - we've had more - characterizes the knowledge and objectivity of the author more than anything else. Calling "Zionism" a religion just proves that point.

Were the question: "Religion, who cares?" I would have voted: "Yes!".
I am a convinced (Protestant) Christian and aware of the cultural luggage it provides me with. I stand in a Western European 'Judeo-Christian' tradition of which I am proud. I am also very aware that humans are by definition religious creatures anyway. I accept the limitations of the human mind to understand the whole creation. I also recognize the challenge for us humans to learn, educate and think...

Leave me out please. I WAS cristian by education, not by definition.

[Abraham]

The poll is so poorly worded that it hardly leaves anybody who is serious about his religion a choice.
You could as well have asked: "do you vote to be considered stupid by me or not?"
Usually the formulation of polls like this - we've had more - characterizes the knowledge and objectivity of the author more than anything else. Calling "Zionism" a religion just proves that point.

Were the question: "Religion, who cares?" I would have voted: "Yes!".
I am a convinced (Protestant) Christian and aware of the cultural luggage it provides me with. I stand in a Western European 'Judeo-Christian' tradition of which I am proud. I am also very aware that humans are by definition religious creatures anyway. I accept the limitations of the human mind to understand the whole creation. I also recognize the challenge for us humans to learn, educate and think...

Leave me out please. I WAS cristian by education, not by definition.
I didn't say all humans are Christians, but religious. Our knowledge is based on presumptions, a trancedental leap of faith in God, a god, Nature, the Unknown, Science, ourselves, you name it. How can I leave you out...?

[The Avon Lady]

Nice duet and quotes those you're making... :rotfl: :P :P :P
A duet with The Avon Lady? Are you crazy!
Don't you see it's a bloody cut-throat fight I'm in. It's either her or me, no quarters given.
I'm here trying to survive with a couple of ******* English dictionaries, a lists of US WW II submarines and a link to Rex Hunt Fishing Adventures, for C-d's(SS224) sake...
:D
This cartoonist must be reading my mind! Today's "Pearls Before Swine":

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/6995/00al.gif

[Abraham]

*SS268*

Finally I can SS425(-fish) VICTORY!
I can now SS390(-i) my SS478 in its SS397(-fish) and lift my finger off the SS237.
Avon Lady, you might call me a SS365 but you are certainly a SS280 yourself. Next time just try SS257 to SS228 away at me, but I warn you, I'm as solid as a SS274, so you'll really have to SS385....
(There is no SS271 of SS240(-l) on my side though. I may have caused you a headache, if so, forgive me and take an SS309).

I can't keep posting that much today, I'm taking a SS275 and tonight I go to my shooting club "SS375". I'm serious!


The Abraham Codes:

SS228 USS Drum
SS237 USS Trigger
SS240 USS Angler
SS251 USS Flounder
SS257 USS Harder
SS268 USS Puffer
SS271 USS Ray
SS274 USS Rock
SS275 USS Runner
SS280 USS Steelhead
SS309 USS Aspro
SS365 USS Hardhead
SS375 USS Macabi
SS385 USS Bang
SS390 USS Plaice
SS397 USS Scabbardfish
SS413 USS Spot
SS425 USS Trumpetfish
SS478 USS Cutlass

[The Avon Lady]

I've stopped playing.

Your last posts are sub-standard.

[Abraham]

I've stopped playing.
Your last posts are sub-standard.
If you're not playing anymore and don't appreciate sub-standards, you'd better leave this site and go to: http://www.sim.com/
:P

[The Avon Lady]

Hey! I'll surf where I want to!

Stop giving me a haddock! :damn:

[Fish]

In my dictionary, religion is faith, "religion" and worship (eredienst).
So, when faith (trust) means religious... then I am religious. ;)

[Abraham]

In my dictionary, religion is faith, "religion" and worship (eredienst).
So, when faith (trust) means religious... then I am religious. ;)
I meant "Faith" as opposite to "Knowledge".
We may think that God exists or does not exists, we may even claim subjective knowledge of His existence, like I do, but no objective knowledge scientific proof exists.

[Hitman]

but no objective knowledge scientific proof exists.


That depends on what you call "proof"

The existance of God can be proven to at least the same degree that ancient civilizations now dissapeared, for example, or that black holes in the Universe :)

How?

Like this:

We all have an input to our intelligence thanks to our senses, we see, smell, taste, touch and hear, but yet ther are concepts that exist and however are not perceived by the senses, but instead by your reasoning ability. For example the numbers as abstract concepts do not exist in the world, there is no physical pure number one, two, three, etc. Same as that you can't find physically abstractions or concepts that go beyond matter, like for example rules or laws. But you know that they exist thanks to your ability to reason.

In that sense, reasoning is a sense able to perceive items, same as other physical senses.

Now, how does that relate to God? Well first of all you gotta define what God is, and re that I consider God firts of all an intelligent being, origin of the universe and its rules, which exists in a different dimension of us, and has no physic representation in our world. How can we then proof his existance? Easy: By looking at his work, at the manifestations of his will and actions.

We are now going back to the example I put before: How do we know that sumerians ever existed? None of us has ever seen a living sumerian, nor their civilization, and even ancient scripts like the Bible and older do not mention them. But yet we take as granted that they existed, and that is tahnks to having found an evidence of their activity: Ruins, scripts in a special language and much more.

At this point it is essential to explain the difference betweebn chaos and order/rules/laws: Chaos is essentially randomness and unpredictability, by definition ilogic. On the contrary, rules, laws and logic are necessarily the product of a rational will. Where there is rational intelligence, there is no chaos, and the opposite.

So when you go walking in the mountain and suddely find a couple of stones set together forming a house, you don't think: "Oh, what a lucky coincidence, chaos in the falling stones has made them come together in the form of a house", but instead you think: "Look, someone has been grouping stones here to do a house" That is, in the particular and rational organization of the matter you recognize the result of an intelligent action with a purpose, i.e. of a WILL

What has that to do with sumerians? Simple. When the archeologist first found ruins and scripts, they did not think: "Look, the wind has eroded this stones and caused this", but instead thought: "Here is the evidence of an intelligent action, caused by a rational mind we can't see, but we know was here"

Take a look now at the universe that surrounds us. Have you ever seen or can you imagine a more perfect organization of matter, governed by constant and precise rules?

What does that tell you? Undoubtedly, it tells you that an intelligent will is behind that. How else could have chaos created such a perfect organization? And even if out of pure luck the matter had organized itself following rules...what could cause those rules to keep being observed trillions, trillions of trillions each tenth of second?

Obviously, rules are not the force that makes the same rule to be pbserved. Rules are abstractions of behaviours of the matter, pure observation results. Where is the strenght or force that causes the rules to be observed precisely again and again? Why, if chaos is the origin, do the rules exist and keep being observed by matter?

It is time to say that any repeated observation of a law is, undoubtedly, the result of an intelligent will. Take the human laws as example: They are abstractions of a desired behaviour, a certain will to have people react like indicated. What causes that people obbey them? The will to do so, no other answer is possible.

What causes the forces of nature to exist and observe rules? A will that they keep so. Any behaviour that follows a pattern is the result of a will from an intelligent creature, with the proper power to force the matter to keep observing the rule. In that sense, the very same protons and electrons that integrate the atoms of our body keep together, in my opinion, because an intelligent will wants it like that. Otherwise, they would spread around in chaos.

Does this sound to you as enough evidence? :know:

[Abraham]

That's your opinion, which I - partly - share by the way. But I don't think you can call it scientific evidence, I would call it a likely thesis (or perhaps subjective knowledge).
Still, if - as you believe to have proven - one God exists, that would have serious ramifications for all of us.
If He has a plan with the Universe, He might just as likely have a plan with individuals like you and me.
He might as well have revealed Himself to us.
And for Someone allmighty who can construe and guide the Universe, performing "religious fairytales" - as Damo1977 called it - would be no more than a minor distraction.
You agree or do my questions go too far in the direction of a monotheistic religion for your taste, Hitman?

[Fish]

No, not at all. :|\

A "intelligent will", exist only in your mind. We, have no clue whats out there, as the litle thinks in a drop of water have, when I look to them through a microscope.

[Sixpack]

Science is merely human discovery of pieces of Work done by the Creator.

Human beings are mortal busy little ants of the Earth, but with a conscience which strikingly seems to relate to a far superior Creator, resulting in faith or denial/rejection. That sets us apart from earth's other creatures.

Mortals who take science as a graduator of all things and think their work of discovery is prove of their personal brilliance are in fact to be pitied, and are certainly not enlightened in my book.

Scientists should only show gratitude for the Gift of Discovery. They didnt create anything !

Creation was done by a much greater Force then these ants can apparently perceive. In this regard a goatherd in a rural village somewhere in Mongolia or even Jemen can be more enlightened than the arrogant scientist who seeks personal glory.

[Hitman]

Abraham wrote:

That's your opinion, which I - partly - share by the way. But I don't think you can call it scientific evidence, I would call it a likely thesis (or perhaps subjective knowledge).
Still, if - as you believe to have proven - one God exists

Fish wrote:

No, not at all.

A "intelligent will", exist only in your mind. We, have no clue whats out there, as the litle thinks in a drop of water have, when I look to them through a microscope.

With greatest respect towards your opinions, I can't see single rational argument in those words, which counterargues what I said :88)

[Fish]

Abraham wrote:

That's your opinion, which I - partly - share by the way. But I don't think you can call it scientific evidence, I would call it a likely thesis (or perhaps subjective knowledge).
Still, if - as you believe to have proven - one God exists

Fish wrote:

No, not at all.

A "intelligent will", exist only in your mind. We, have no clue whats out there, as the litle thinks in a drop of water have, when I look to them through a microscope.

With greatest respect towards your opinions, I can't see single rational argument in those words, which counterargues what I said :88)

What I mean is, we fabricate opinions and arguments in our brains, but we don't know it means something in the universe. We are bound by our possibility's.

[Abraham]

Yep, our knowledge is limited, sometimes very limited. And therefor based on faith, conviction, whatever you want to call it. Very human indeed...

[Wim Libaers]

I didn't read the article but I love the picture. :-jDidn't care to read the article either, it's the kind of stuff that is actually written not to be read... But is this pink trout?
:D

Well, I read it. Interesting. Not necessarily correct, but still interesting.



Now, for my personal opinion: I try not to think about it much. It is an area with much uncertainty, and as far as I can see no good way to get reliable answers. The plethora of religions that are at least in some ways opposed to each other illustrates the problem. Even if they were in agreement, that still would not mean they agreed on the right thing.

So what do I do? In the absence of good information, I postpone forming opinions on the subject. I don't claim there certainly is a God, and I don't claim there certainly is no God. I just accept that I don't know, until I get a good reason to start believing. Of course, standards of proof are subjective. Some "feel" there is a God. As a catholic by education, I certainly have had some special feelings at some moments, during church services. Some might think they have been touched by God or something. Personally, I do not know the cause of those feelings, and I do not want to ascribe them to God just because I do not really understand them (after all, that was what more primitive people did with all things they saw, lightning, the sun, a tree, all were gods). And I do know the mind can perform some strange tricks occasionally, in situations that definitely aren't religious.

I guess that if, at some point, God decides he really wants me to know about him, being omnipotent he'll have no problem to demonstrate his existence in a blatantly obvious way, without requiring me to interpret vague feelings or the conflicting writings of various religions.

I do not see any problem with the kind of God proposed by Hitman. It is not in conflict with anything we know, one just takes the aggregate of rules that govern our universe, both those already known and those yet to be discovered, and perhaps those that will never be discovered because they're too subtle or inaccessible, then defines the cause of those rules to be God. But that seems to add little to saying that those rules merely exist.


By the way, Sixpack, your view of scientists seems to be slightly exaggerated. It strongly resembles some Hollywood and comic book representations of scientists, and a few real ones, but most scientists I know are just very interested in discovering how things work. Of course, I'm doing research myself, so I may be biased here.

[Sixpack]

Most likely you are, Wim :)

Even if you'd one day find a cure against cancer, I just hope you will always remember it was because of the Gift of Discovery that was granted to you. Be thankful.

Some are destined to be great football players, others musicians, and some were born to become determined scientists. They are all 'gifted' in order to put it to good use.

Because we are created, the real glory has to go elsewhere. In this respect muslims stuck closer to the truth than a growing number of westerners who think they can do without.

(note: I havent been to church since early this year when my daughter was baptised, so I fit into the church-abandoning group. I feel I am too busy to go, and whatever excuses. Somehow I think I am doing the wrong thing)

[Abraham]

Straight and honest as always, Sixpack.
And probably right!

I am unbeliever. Not an atheist, just unbeliever. Why? Maybe because I grew up in USSR. Though, I'm bapthised in Russian Orthodox church. It was "in fashion" during a first post-soviet years - to revive religion. Mother brought icons and religios books to home. First, it was interesting - to read those books and to learn prayers. That time I was about 10-11 y.o. But later I was bored of it. Implicit faith just didn't come.
And now, I thing to myself that this is good - I haven't any veil on my eyes. I'm not belong to any religion, so I can respect all of them. And I don't have to call to kill either muslims or christians or buddhists or someone else...

[Abraham]

I'm not belong to any religion, so I can respect all of them. And I don't have to call to kill either muslims or christians or buddhists or someone else...Religious people don't have to do that either!

[Terrax]

Reading these threads has backed up what I have come to believe in the past 2 decades. Most people think that Their religion is the right one, and the rest are wrong. Even in Christianity, the different denominations argue that their's is right, and other denominations are wrong. I was raised in a strict Baptist home, and my Dad was a fire and brimstone minister. There were rules and commandments to be followed to the letter, or you would burn in Hell for all Eternity. In my late teens, I met a Muslim, who would be described as an extremist from the posts I've read on this board. We talked quite a bit about religion, but he had the common view his religion is the right one, and the rest, particularly Christianity, are wrong.

I've done a lot of reading since then on different religions and their histories. The Crusades convinced me that there are no Gods. A Christian God wouldn't have let the Crusades fail to retake His holy land. A Jewish God would have prevented the Holocaust, and all the persecutions the Jews have suffered over the centuries. An Islamic God, though it may have helped kick the Christians out during the Crusades, wouldn't have let a false religion spread over a large part of the planet.

I think religions were created when humans were a young race. People worked very hard just feed themselves, plus dealing with disease, famine, and rival humans who had no qualms about killing each other. They didn't have long life expectancies, and death was a constant companion with tribe and family members. Life was harsh in the extreme, so why live it. So they created Gods. When they had food, it must have been a gift from their God, not the fact that they found the fruit tree or planted the crops. And when they died, their God would take them to a paradise, where the harshness of life would be left behind, and they would be reunited with long dead family members and all would be happy and good.

So that is why early Man got up and toiled in the fields and endured the suffering of everyday life and made offerings to his God. Because when his life would end, he would be with his dead wife and sons who had succumbed to disease or animal attacks, and his God would provide all they needed. If early Man didn't have a glorious afterlife to look forward to, I think quite a few of them would have asked "What's the point, life is so hard" and tossed themselves off a cliff somewhere. So Gods were invented, because Man has to have something to believe in. He couldn't find anything, so he made sonething up himself. Over the centuries, these conjured up beliefs have grown into the Religions we have today.

I have no faith in a Diety, so unless I see some scientific evidence that there is a God, I'm not going to believe in it's existance. That's one of the reasons I haven't posted in these discussions. I believe what I believe, and someone telling me what they feel isn't going to change my mind. It's possible I'm wrong, and that's why, when discussing religions with my Sons, I tell them to do some research, and find the one that feels right to them. Make your own decision based on what you know. Don't believe something just because someone tells you it's true. Back it up with research. Or don't pick a religion at all, it's not mandatory, it's your choice.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm not belong to any religion, so I can respect all of them. And I don't have to call to kill either muslims or christians or buddhists or someone else...Religious people don't have to do that either!
And totally non-religious people sometimes have to.

I'm not belong to any religion, so I can respect all of them. And I don't have to call to kill either muslims or christians or buddhists or someone else...
Religious people don't have to do that either!
And totally non-religious people sometimes have to.
Why? :o Unbelievers has no interest in doing that. They can call to kill some specific enemies. But killing millions of people only because they are praying to other god? No, only religious fanatics can do that.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm not belong to any religion, so I can respect all of them. And I don't have to call to kill either muslims or christians or buddhists or someone else...
Religious people don't have to do that either!
And totally non-religious people sometimes have to.
Why?
Self defense.
Unbelievers has no interest in doing that. They can call to kill some specific enemies. But killing millions of people only because they are praying to other god?
I never said that. Again, I was referring to self defense.
No, only religious fanatics can do that.
And certain commnunist regimes. :lol:

Self defense.
Hmm. Interesting. :hmm: Defence means that someone wants to attack you. Who and why?

And certain commnunist regimes. :lol:
Sure! Communism (at least trying to build it :)) is a religion - with its gods, saints, churches, prayers and devotions :D

[XabbaRus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1643573,00.html

[Abraham]

@ XabbaRus:
I think the subject of your link is Off Topic, but it's scandalous anyway.
It seems to me a political decision by a military tribunal. The captain is a Druze, an old Arab/Palestinian sect, mostly living in Northern Israel, Southern Lebanon and Western Syria...
They are fierce fighters, loyal to Israel and punishing one could perhaps have consequences for the attitude of the group.
I would personally call it murder.

[The Avon Lady]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1643573,00.html
Wow! The lonney left rag called the Guradian strikes again! They just can't resist sinking their fangs into Israel at every which opportunity.

Abraham, you're talking nonsense. The only thing wrong this officer did was to shoot at her after she was dead.

A copy of the IDF Spokesman's press release can be found here (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=27514).

You seem to talk from experience. When you man a position with an enemy that straps bombs to children and have to defend yourself and you fellow soldiers in your position, let us know.

:down:

[Damo1977]

Religion is obselet. (Word is wrong I believe). If the human race hasn't gone forward enough to realise what is right from wrong without reading it from a religious resource, maybe we are doomed, cause that means humans can't think individually and haven't grown mentally in thousands of years.

'Oh wait, I might be wrong, better go find some religious nonsence to put me straight!!!' :rotfl:

[Skybird]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1643573,00.html
Wow! The lonney left rag called the Guradian strikes again! They just can't resist sinking their fangs into Israel at every which opportunity.

Abraham, you're talking nonsense. The only thing wrong this officer did was to shoot at her after she was dead.

A copy of the IDF Spokesman's press release can be found here (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=27514).

You seem to talk from experience. When you man a position with an enemy that straps bombs to children and have to defend yourself and you fellow soldiers in your position, let us know.

:down:

The always-victim-never-guilty-story again.

German TV news RTL 7th November this year. A German filmcrew made an announced visit in a Palestinian school, and interviewed the staff and filmed the location. The reporter only smiled and knowingly nodded his head when he was shown fragments from "gas grenades" and was told by the director that almost every day, at around the same time, an Israeli patrol would show up and start firing smoke grenades into the schoolyard and into the crowds of children (6-10 years). Nonsens, of course, Israel does not do such things. The usual kind of hate-filled Palestinian propaganda. The filming went on. At the end they filmed a wide panorama from a roof or a balcony, the whole school compound. School was over, groups of peaceful boys and girls age 6-10 left the building chatting and laughing and headed for the gate. Then by chance the camera showed an Israeli Jeep or Rover whoch approached slowly from the background - which stopped and then started to lob several rounds right into the crowds of children - which were not attacking, not throwing stones, did not do anything, just heading home. Smoke and tear gas all over the place. Panic broke out, everyone screaming and running around. NOT BEFORE THEN older juveniles ran to that place in help, and started to answer the Israeli friendliness by throwing stones at them. Later the reporter - who was not smiling anymore, but had swollen red eyes and obviously had some kind of trouble with his vision - walked over to that patrol and asked what the hell they were thinking. "no comment", they said, shrugged shoulders and turned away. Later the video was shown the Israeli police chief. He said that the patrol clearly was under attack and had the right to defend itself. Insisting that the video clearly showed there was no attack at all and the patrol moved in completely unharmed and then opened fire on little children who were about hopping and dancing home without even a hint of a provocation, the reporter again was told that it obviously was an attack by the Palestinians. There also were no hostilities reported in the vicinity of that school.

Let’s the director‘s initial statement on regular provocations appear in another light, eh?

It's by far not the first time that our medias were able to come up with evidence for such Israeli provocations. Sometimes it seems to be about crushing education of Palestinians, sometimes about triggering incidents which then are taken as an excuse to go in in force and acchieve whatver is to be acchieved – the real reason for such actions. The director of that school said that usually they come during lessons and shelling smoke grenades into the classrooms, to make education and lessons impossible that way.

Again: we are talking of boys and girls age 6-10 beeing intentionally fired upon with smoke and teargas when laughing and hpping around on a schoolyard and heading home. If I were a Palestinian and see such events happen throughout my youth, it would be my highest pleasure to bomb every Israelis cafe that can reach in return.

In that essay I wrote:
The only people that has understood the real and potentially threatening nature of Islam is probably the Israelis (...); having said that I still would like to ask the Israelis why they love to spill oil into already burning fires so often, but that is a complex and very much different theme for discussion that I will not join, I just mentioned this because I don’t want to give the impression I see Israel as right and just in everything it does – it is not like that.

Back in 2003, military historian Martin van Crefeld made these remarks:

Dutch-Israeli Military Historian -
'We Are Destroying Ourselves'
From: Ingrid Rimland

1-31-3

The ZGram reader who sent me this interview prefaced it as follows:

"The following interview of the Jewish military historian Martin van Crefeld by the Dutch magazine Elsevier was discovered on Indymedia by one of our readers. The views and opinions revealed here expose Israeli policy with a frankness only possible for a Jew. (...) We recommend that our readers give careful study to this interview.

"The prominent Dutch magazine Elsevier has published a conversation with Dutch-Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld. The following has been translated from the Dutch [and then from the German]":

(START)

"We are destroying ourselves."

"In Israel a scenario of doom is taking shape."

Interview with the much reviled Dutch-Israeli Military Historian Martin van Creveld

Professor Martin van Creveld, an internationally known and controversial professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, foresees only extreme developments for the appreciable future. The methods by which Israel is currently combating the Intifada are doomed to failure. The chances for peace and the founding of a Palestinian state are visibly diminishing. A conversation with a pessimist, who, as he himself says, is reviled in his own country.

Interviewer: Your specialty is war. Is what's going on here war at all?

Creveld: Certainly, although the Palestinians have no government, no army, and no [nationality]. Everything is in chaos. That's why we won't win the war, either. If we could identify and eliminate every terrorist, we'd win this struggle within forty-eight hours. The Palestinian administration has the same difficulties. Even in Arafat decided to comply with our conditions and surrender tomorrow, it's virtually certain that the Intifada would continue.

Interviewer: Are there any similarities on the Israeli side?

Creveld: If the dispute lasts much longer, the Israeli government will lose control of its people. For people will say: "If government can't protect us, what on earth can they do for us? If the government can't guarantee that we'll be alive tomorrow, what good are they? We'll defend ourselves."

Interviewer: So Israel is beaten in advance?

Creveld: On that I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing." That certainly applies here. I regard a total Israeli defeat as unavoidable. That will mean the collapse of the Israeli state and society. We'll destroy ourselves.

Interviewer: Is there any point to the recent Israeli military offensive?

Creveld: This offensive is totally useless; it's only further enraging the Palestinians. Perhaps there will be a short-lived calm, but in the end there will even more suicide attackers.

Interviewer: Is there any hope?

Creveld: If I were Arafat, I wouldn't stop either. I'd only cease in exchange for a very far-reaching political accord. And it seems as if we have a government [under Sharon-tr.] that won't make Arafat such an offer. If elections were held today, the Left would be thoroughly beaten.

Interviewer: Some maintain that it is Israel's foreign enemies that keep the country unified.

Creveld: That's right. I only wish that there were foreign enemies, but that isn't the case. We've fought our external enemies for so many years. Each time there was a war, we took a mighty hammer to our foes, and after being defeated a few times, they left us alone. The problem with the Palestinian revolt is that it doesn't come from without, but rather from within. Therefore we can't avail ourselves of the hammer.

Interviewer: Is the solution, then, to keep the Palestinians outside the borders?

Creveld: Exactly, and right now there's nearly unanimous agreement on that. We ought to build a wall "so high, that not even a bird can fly over it." The only problem is: where to put the border? Since we can't decide whether the territories conquered in 1967 should be included, for the time being we improvise a little. We're building a series of little walls, which are much more difficult to defend. From a military standpoint this is very stupid. Every supermarket has gradually acquired its own living wall of security guards. Half the Israeli population is guarding the other half-unbelievable. Aside from the fantastic waste, it's almost totally useless.

Interviewer: Does that mean that the Palestinians stay within the borders?

Creveld: No, it means that they all get deported. The people who strive for this are waiting only for the right man and the right time. Two years ago only 7 or 8 percent of Israelis were of the opinion that this would be the best solution, two months ago it was 33 percent and now, according to a Gallup poll, the figure is 44 percent.

Interviewer: Will that ever be possible?

Creveld: Sure, since desperate times give rise to desperate measures. Today there's a fifty-fifty split on where the border should run. Two years ago 90 percent wanted the wall built along the old border. That has completely changed now, and if things continue, if the terror doesn't stop, in another two years perhaps 90 percent will want to build the wall along the Jordan. The Palestinians talk of "summutt," meaning hang tough, cling to the ground and the soil. I have enormous respect for the Palestinians. They fight heroically. But if we in fact want to strike across the Jordan, we would need only a few brigades. If the Syrians or the Egyptians were to try to stop us, we'd wipe them out. Ariel Sharon is leader. He never improvises: he always has a plan.

Interviewer: A plan to deport the Palestinians?

Creveld: I think it's quite possible that he wants to do that. He wants to escalate the conflict. He knows that nothing else we do will succeed.

Interviewer: Do you think that the world will allow that kind of ethnic cleansing?

Creveld: That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force.

Interviewer: Wouldn't Israel then become a rogue state?

Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under.

Interviewer: This isn't your own position, is it?

Creveld: Of course not. You asked me what might happen and I've laid it out. The only question is whether it is already too late for the other solution, which I support, and whether Israeli public opinion can still be convinced. I think it's too late. With each passing day the expulsion of the Palestinians grows more probable. The alternative would be the total annihilation and disintegration of Israel. What do you expect from us?

This interview was conducted by Ferry Biedermann in Jerusalem.

[The Avon Lady]

The always-victim-never-guilty-story again.
Never? No (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=87558). This case? Yes.
German TV news RTL 7th November this year. A German filmcrew made an announced visit
Announced visit? I'm already suspicious. Perfect to set up the situation in advance. Are you sure you didn't mean unannounced?
in a Palestinian school, and interviewed the staff and filmed the location. The reporter only smiled and knowingly nodded his head when he was shown fragments from "gas grenades" and was told by the director that almost every day, at around the same time, an Israeli patrol would show up and start firing smoke grenades into the schoolyard and into the crowds of children (6-10 years). Nonsens, of course, Israel does not do such things. The usual kind of hate-filled Palestinian propaganda. The filming went on. At the end they filmed a wide panorama from a roof or a balcony, the whole school compound. School was over, groups of peaceful boys and girls age 6-10 left the building chatting and laughing and headed for the gate. Then by chance the camera showed an Israeli Jeep or Rover whoch approached slowly from the background - which stopped and then started to lob several rounds right into the crowds of children - which were not attacking, not throwing stones, did not do anything, just heading home. Smoke and tear gas all over the place. Panic broke out, everyone screaming and running around. NOT BEFORE THEN older juveniles ran to that place in help, and started to answer the Israeli friendliness by throwing stones at them. Later the reporter - who was not smiling anymore, but had swollen red eyes and obviously had some kind of trouble with his vision - walked over to that patrol and asked what the hell they were thinking. "no comment", they said, shrugged shoulders and turned away. Later the video was shown the Israeli police chief. He said that the patrol clearly was under attack and had the right to defend itself. Insisting that the video clearly showed there was no attack at all and the patrol moved in completely unharmed and then opened fire on little children who were about hopping and dancing home without even a hint of a provocation, the reporter again was told that it obviously was an attack by the Palestinians. There also were no hostilities reported in the vicinity of that school.
I'd love to see the film. I'd also be interested in seeing the full reports.

While there are goons in the IDF, too, just like most any other army, the response by Israel's chief of police is not his usual in such cases, unless he knew for sure that the incident is just what he said it was.

Again, you may be right but nothing surprises me (http://www.seconddraft.org/streaming/pallywood.wmv).

(This would be a good time to mention having a view at Pierre rehov's "THE ROAD TO JENIN" (http://www.pierrerehov.com/jenin.htm)).

I do not recall the instance Germany's RTL mentions, and this is alway desired footage by the local leftist TV and press. And these incidents are always reported by the rest of the papers. Interested that it seems to be a total unknown here.

I'd love it to get publicized. Then we could get down to the truth and either toss away some bad apple soldiers or nod our heads again and say those Pallys can't be beat when it comes to being the biggest liars around. Goebels is turning in his grave.
Let’s the director‘s initial statement on regular provocations appear in another light, eh?
Looking forward to the investigation. Don't let it rest, Skybird.
It's by far not the first time that our medias were able to come up with evidence for such Israeli provocations. Sometimes it seems to be about crushing education of Palestinians, sometimes about triggering incidents which then are taken as an excuse to go in in force and acchieve whatver is to be acchieved – the real reason for such actions. The director of that school said that usually they come during lessons and shelling smoke grenades into the classrooms, to make education and lessons impossible that way.
As an Israeli, with friends husband's in active reserves and friend and neighbors' children actively serving, I challenge you to substantiate such rubbish.
Again: we are talking of boys and girls age 6-10 beeing intentionally fired upon with smoke and teargas when laughing and hpping around on a schoolyard and heading home. If I were a Palestinian and see such events happen throughout my youth, it would be my highest pleasure to bomb every Israelis cafe that can reach in return.
It would be my highest pleasure to toss away such soldiers in a dark and cold lockup for a long term without parole. But it has to be true first.
In that essay I wrote:
[quote]The only people that has understood the real and potentially threatening nature of Islam is probably the Israelis (...); having said that I still would like to ask the Israelis why they love to spill oil into already burning fires so often, but that is a complex and very much different theme for discussion that I will not join, I just mentioned this because I don’t want to give the impression I see Israel as right and just in everything it does – it is not like that.
You've bought the left's propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Back in 2003, military historian Martin van Crefeld made these remarks:

Dutch-Israeli Military Historian -
'We Are Destroying Ourselves'
From: Ingrid Rimland

1-31-3

The ZGram reader who sent me this interview prefaced it as follows:

"The following interview of the Jewish military historian Martin van Crefeld by the Dutch magazine Elsevier was discovered on Indymedia by one of our readers. The views and opinions revealed here expose Israeli policy with a frankness only possible for a Jew. (...) We recommend that our readers give careful study to this interview.
Indymedia? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

BTW, we have many self-hating nihilistic Jews here. "Frankness from a Jew" is a worthless assessment.
"The prominent Dutch magazine Elsevier has published a conversation with Dutch-Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld. The following has been translated from the Dutch [and then from the German]":

(START)

"We are destroying ourselves."

"In Israel a scenario of doom is taking shape."

Interview with the much reviled Dutch-Israeli Military Historian Martin van Creveld

Professor Martin van Creveld, an internationally known and controversial professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, foresees only extreme developments for the appreciable future. The methods by which Israel is currently combating the Intifada are doomed to failure.
I agree and disagree. Big deal. Read on.
The chances for peace and the founding of a Palestinian state are visibly diminishing.
If only it were true!
A conversation with a pessimist, who, as he himself says, is reviled in his own country.
There's a hint for you. Nudge! Nudge!
Interviewer: Your specialty is war. Is what's going on here war at all?

Creveld: Certainly, although the Palestinians have no government, no army, and no [nationality]. Everything is in chaos. That's why we won't win the war, either. If we could identify and eliminate every terrorist, we'd win this struggle within forty-eight hours.
This is already nonsense. When fighting terrorism, one should not need to check every individual's ID card and documents.
The Palestinian administration has the same difficulties. Even in Arafat decided to comply with our conditions and surrender tomorrow, it's virtually certain that the Intifada would continue.
Only because once Arafat started the party, the music could not stop. But he never tried anyway. So far this genius professor of ours is uite an amatuer.
Interviewer: Are there any similarities on the Israeli side?

Creveld: If the dispute lasts much longer, the Israeli government will lose control of its people. For people will say: "If government can't protect us, what on earth can they do for us? If the government can't guarantee that we'll be alive tomorrow, what good are they? We'll defend ourselves."
This interview was from almost 3 years ago. A prophecy that hasn't come true.

What's your point, Skybird? So far, it's self-defeating.
Interviewer: So Israel is beaten in advance?

Creveld: On that I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing." That certainly applies here. I regard a total Israeli defeat as unavoidable. That will mean the collapse of the Israeli state and society. We'll destroy ourselves.
There is defintely that certain fear but not for the reasons the old professor states.

EU and American aussaging of Arab demands are placing a major security risk on Israel at the moment. What was once talk of 67' lines (Heaven forfend) has turned to 48' or even 47' lines.

Israel has compromised and compromised and keeps redrawing its red lines lower and lower.
Interviewer: Is there any point to the recent Israeli military offensive?

Creveld: This offensive is totally useless; it's only further enraging the Palestinians.
Typical leftist jackass. Look up the statistics yourself. Since the Netanya Park Hotel suicide homicide bombing on Passover 2002 and Israel's following offensives plus the construction of the security fence, the number of Israeli casualties has been dramatically reduced. And I should know as a volunteer for this organization (http://www.onefamilyfund.org/).
Perhaps there will be a short-lived calm, but in the end there will even more suicide attackers.
Yes and no. Fact is less are successful. Fact also is that Israel has allowed the terrorists to rebuild their infrastructures almost everywhere.
Interviewer: Is there any hope?

Creveld: If I were Arafat, I wouldn't stop either. I'd only cease in exchange for a very far-reaching political accord.
Terrorism pays! Remember that when it hits Europe. You'll see.
And it seems as if we have a government [under Sharon-tr.] that won't make Arafat such an offer. If elections were held today, the Left would be thoroughly beaten.

Interviewer: Some maintain that it is Israel's foreign enemies that keep the country unified.

Creveld: That's right. I only wish that there were foreign enemies, but that isn't the case.
Arafat was bankrolled by the EU. His and the other terrorist organizations were funded via Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and numerous others.
We've fought our external enemies for so many years. Each time there was a war, we took a mighty hammer to our foes, and after being defeated a few times, they left us alone. The problem with the Palestinian revolt is that it doesn't come from without, but rather from within. Therefore we can't avail ourselves of the hammer.
This is gibberish and is precisely the cause of Israel's failure. Isreal never did declare an outright war against the Palestinians and an all out assault with a demnd for uncondition surrender.

We lose.

Skybird, I'll stop here because this professor is typical of the moron intellectuals of the world who have been instructing governments and head of state around the world on how to appease their enemies.

Churchill knew better.

[Hitman]

Skybird wrote:
The always-victim-never-guilty-story again.

Never? No. This case? Yes.


Israelians and Palestinians are, above all, just humans fighting for a piece of land. Nobody can claim to be agressor/victim, there are good & evil men in both sides, and also unfortunately people whose power and influence would diminish to nothing if a peace happened. The main injustice in this all is the conflict itself going on, it is not a matter of winning or loosing it, both sides are loosing equally.

:down:

[The Avon Lady]

Skybird wrote:
The always-victim-never-guilty-story again.

Never? No. This case? Yes.


Israelians and Palestinians are, above all, just humans fighting for a piece of land. Nobody can claim to be agressor/victim, there are good & evil men in both sides, and also unfortunately people whose power and influence would diminish to nothing if a peace happened. The main injustice in this all is the conflict itself going on, it is not a matter of winning or loosing it, both sides are loosing equally.

:down:
More gibberish.

The PLO's, Hamas' and Islamic Jihad's charters have never stopped calling for the outright destruction of Israel.

More European "equivalency" rubbish. :down:

[jumpy]

I think it's clear from this (and other threads) that Avon Lady has some rather strongly oppinionated views on the whole subject...

[Hitman]

The PLO's, Hamas' and Islamic Jihad's charters have never stopped calling for the outright destruction of Israel.


That's because from their point of view Isarel invaded their land and threw out the legitimate owners. Wether they are right or not in that is another matter....I just pointed out that each side thinks he is right. :know:

That's because from their point of view Isarel invaded their land and threw out the legitimate owners. Wether they are right or not in that is another matter....I just pointed out that each side thinks he is right. :know:

The roots of this conflict is so old... In case of terrorist organisations - afaik - it were Jews who created such battlegroups first: Hashomer, Hagana, Irgun Zvai Leumi. It's 1905-1938. The first such Palestinian group is Qassam brigades - around 1935.
In 1947, UN divided Palestina into Jews' and Palestinians' parts. Jerusalem and surroundings supposed to be neutral land. No precise borders were set, no forces were dispatched to enforce this decision. Neither Jews, nor Palestinians were glad. Followed the "Non-declared war"...

[The Avon Lady]

That's because from their point of view Isarel invaded their land and threw out the legitimate owners. Wether they are right or not in that is another matter....I just pointed out that each side thinks he is right. :know:

The roots of this conflict is so old... In case of terrorist organisations - afaik - it were Jews who created such battlegroups first: Hashomer, Hagana, Irgun Zvai Leumi. It's 1905-1938. The first such Palestinian group is Qassam brigades - around 1935.
In 1947, UN divided Palestina into Jews' and Palestinians' parts. Jerusalem and surroundings supposed to be neutral land. No precise borders were set, no forces were dispatched to enforce this decision. Neither Jews, nor Palestinians were glad. Followed the "Non-declared war"...
Our Russian revisionist is at it again. Check your dates. Check your facts. Let me help you:

Myths & Facts - The Mandatory Period (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html).

Hashomer (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Ha-Shomer.html). The word "HaShomer" means the "Watchman" or "guard". What did they have to watch out and guard from? Hmmmm........................ :hmm:

Haganah (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/haganah.html). Here, too, the word "Haganah" means defense. What did they need to defend themselves from? Hmmm..................... :hmm:

Arabs organizing against Jews in 1935? You're off by a few critical years: Arab Riots of the 1920’s (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/riots29.html).

Did you learn about the Middle East from weekly installments in Pravda's Sunday Magazine perhaps?

One last link - lots of old B&W pictures:

Tell The Children The Truth (http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/).