Israel... Why them???

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

that doesn't excuse extrapolating that political difference to justify a claim that islam as a religion is backwards or uncivilized.

I wasn't trying to compare Islam to Western political systems I was trying to compare Mid-Eastern social-political systems to Western ones. I guess as an American I tend view religion and politics as separate entities. Any nation can be civilized regardless of religion; religion just gives a government an excuse to act one way or another.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Sounds like a wise man

If true - I'd like to know the source - it sounds like a vintage British colonial policy statement to me: Divide et Impera!

[Iceman]

This is why....


Exodus 19

[1] In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.
[2] For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount.
[3] And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
[4] Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
[5] Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
[6] And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

For all the earth is His....Heaven His throne...Earth His foot stool...and Isreal is the Jewel of His eye.Always was...Always will be.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

Arab countries are, politically, hundreds of years behind their western counterparts -- any arab with a modicum of sense will freely admit it.

The question I would pose is: Why?
Because of Colonialism?
Because Islam is backward in the field of political theory?
Because Islam prevents free critical thinking about the relevance of the Quran?
Because Islam was not concieved in an area were there were any states and therefor takes on political power - through the Sharia - itself?
(From Roman Catholic history we know that a religion taking up political power is a recipy for disaster...)

Originally Posted by caspofungin

... that doesn't excuse extrapolating that political difference to justify a claim that islam as a religion is backwards or uncivilized.

Indeed, because such strong generalisations hold the seeds of their own destruction.
But a valid question is: Is political theory within Islam devellopping and progressing?
If so, I really would like to be enlightened on that subject.
If not, how can Arab countries ever catch up those hundred of years you mentionned.

Originally Posted by caspofungin

... and your shining lights the greeks and romans didn't exactly have equal rights for all. yet again, people are using a fragment of history, out of context, to justify their hyperbole.

I think the point is that the Greeks struggled (philosophically and politically) with the concept of a 'City State' and the division of political power within it. Their thoughts about dictatorship, democracy and everything in between have shaped the European political culture and the concept of nations as the world knows it today.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

... religion just gives a government an excuse to act one way or another.

While often true, I think Islam forces Muslim governments into a religious/doctrinary direction.
For instance, there is no rational reason why Israel and its Arab neighbours should not have close economic ties for the benefit of all, except for the doctrinairy, backwards, non-political, religious perception that Israel is 'occupying Muslim land.' That religious principle leads to the political conclusion that Israel should 'disappear'.
A non-doctrinairy, progressive, non-religious, political approach is taken by Europe towards (Muslim) Bosnia with regards to E.U. membership.

[caspofungin]

and my point is that even at the high points of greek democracy, they limited the vote to certain segments of society. and kept slaves. and regarded all other societies as, literally, barbarians (the word comes from how the greeks thought non-greeks sounded like).

see the other thread about my comments regarding politics in islam.

and how can the arabs catch up? i don't know. i'm not one of those people that say, "oh, you can't force democracy on people that aren't ready for it." i mean, the statement is true, but i think the arabs are ready for democracy. the problem is, what's the west going to do if they end up voting for a non-secular society? A society based on islamic laws? are they going to respect that country and its laws? or call it backward and ignorant, and try for a regime change?

nothing is going to change as long as the west is interfering in a haphazard, hypocritical manner. how can you claim to be all about democracy, to the extent of starting a war, when all the key allies in the region are monarchies or dictatorships, propped up with western muscle or money?

because that's what the average arab person sees. a two-faced display of hypocrisy and greed, politics at its worst. and somehow they're supposed to think that the democratic system that allows such bs is what's best for them?

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

and my point is that even at the high points of greek democracy, they limited the vote to certain segments of society. and kept slaves. and regarded all other societies as, literally, barbarians (the word comes from how the greeks thought non-greeks sounded like).

I don't think that detracts from their progressiveness.
In the Athenian democratic model the whole male population had the right to vote and there was an elaborate system of representation and checks and balances.
Slavery was seen as a natural phenomenon and slaves were often held in (high) esteem.
You should not look at ancient cultures without realising were they came from and were we have come from since.
And 'barbaros' means nothing else but 'stranger', 'non-Greek' or 'not belonging to the Greek culture'. Its current meaning says more about the high develloped Greek culture then about the Greek attitude towards non-Greeks.

Originally Posted by caspofungin

and how can the arabs catch up? i don't know. i'm not one of those people that say, "oh, you can't force democracy on people that aren't ready for it." i mean, the statement is true, but i think the arabs are ready for democracy. the problem is, what's the west going to do if they end up voting for a non-secular society? A society based on islamic laws? are they going to respect that country and its laws? or call it backward and ignorant, and try for a regime change?

These are indeed the real questions.
As long as (fundamental) Islam forbids any theoretical criticism on its position towards the separation of State and Religion, I don't see much progress for Arab political thinking beyond the narrow limits of the 7th century Arab peninsula. I really wonder whether the Arabs are ready for democracy. At least they should start thinking about it and put religion back where it belongs, in the personal realm.
Your question, caspofungin, is what the West would do if democracy leads to a non-secular society based on Islamic laws.
My answer is that the West should respect that.
My question is more relevant for democracy in the Muslim world: What happens if democracy votes away a society based on Islamic laws? Will democracy prevail or will there be some 'Guardians of the Faith' who will kill democracy as soon as it leads to real Arab progress? Are they going to respect the will of the people?

Originally Posted by caspofungin

nothing is going to change as long as the west is interfering in a haphazard, hypocritical manner. how can you claim to be all about democracy, to the extent of starting a war, when all the key allies in the region are monarchies or dictatorships, propped up with western muscle or money?

Very true, but politics is the offspring of hypocrisy anywhere, isn't it?

Originally Posted by caspofungin

because that's what the average arab person sees. a two-faced display of hypocrisy and greed, politics at its worst. and somehow they're supposed to think that the democratic system that allows such bs is what's best for them?

If they want progress, democracy and Human Rights, they should not sit and wait for changes from abroad but should study Europe's struggle towards progress, democracy and Human Rights and act!

[Col7777]

We keep jumping to the ancient past then back to the present bouncing thoughts and ideas and what is written in various holy books etc.

So a few questions, where did it all start?

We read of times before Christ where people worshiped stones, trees, hills and effigy's etc, it is a general consensus that they were wrong, so who says the God/s that a lot of people today worship are right?

I asked this on a different thread, which God is the right God, is it the one you were brought up to believe in by your parents because they were brought up to believe in him and so on?

Who are the Gods and where are they, where do they exist, where is Heaven?

Who is the Devil, and where does he exist and is there more than one devil, we don't hear much of him till someone does something wrong, then it is his work that caused it, then when something good happens it is Gods work?

If we hear of something very unusual and overwhelming and perhaps unexplainable we say it is a miracle, so when Jesus was born to a virgin it was unexplainable, so it was a miracle, in those days there were no scientists as such so it must have been the work of God.
Did they have the foresight to jump on a bandwagon and say Jesus is the son of God?

Have any of you played Chinese whispers, where you get 6 people, 5 go out of the room then you give a message to the remaining one, the next one comes in the room and the message is passed on and so on, by the time it gets to the 6th person that message is totally different, but we believe what was said thousands of years ago?

I once asked this to a minister and he said 'The message hasn't just been passed on by word of mouth it has been written in the scriptures' I asked him but when did they decide to write it all down, after it had reached the 6th person and after, his reply was, I can see you are not convinced, I wish you well, he shook my hand and went on his way.

[Abraham]

I think your posting is off topic, Col7777.
Israel can claim rights of first possession of Palestina/Judea & Samaria or whatever you call it.
Israel can claim that the country was promised by God, but it does not do that.
As far as international law is concerned it is important that Israel was established in a period of 30 years according to contemporary procedures and with final confirmation of the United Nations. There can not be more doubt about the 'legality' of Israel then about the legal existence of East Timor, Jordan, my own country or any other nation.

The second part of your remark concerns the accuracy of the Scriptures. In general it can be said that the New Testament scriptures are written within a short period after Jezus was on earth, a period of 10 to 60 years. It is difficult to establish how accurate the message was passed by word of mouth, but in those days people realised the importance of messages and usually did their utmost to give an accurate description of the story.
The Old Testament has been passed by word of mouth in an extremely accurate way. That has been scientifically established by comparing relatively new texts with archeological findings. There were minimal if any discrepancies.
You certainly can't compare 'Chinese whispers' to Holy Scriptures or historic sources in general.

But again, this has nothing to do with the topic, which is the question why Israel should be whiped of the earth.

[Col7777]

Sorry I thought religion was mentioned, enough said.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by Col7777

Sorry I thought religion was mentioned, enough said.

It's OK and I don't want to patronise you.
Religion was mentionned although the relation between Israeli's and Arabs is of course a political problem, for which theology can't find a fitting answer. It's just that I didn't see any link between the post and the subject.

[Dan D]

But again, this has nothing to do with the topic, which is the question why Israel should be whiped of the earth.

Improper suggestive form of question here, because it implies that Israel should be wiped off the world map.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by Dan D

Improper suggestive form of question here, because it implies that Israel should be wiped off the world map.

You caught me there!
To be honest I wanted to manipulate the discussion back to the statement of the new Iranian president in a provocative way.

[Iceman]

I simply was trying to answer the question...Why Isreal...From "my" studies the answer or question lol... Why Isreal? ...is crystal clear.God's interest in it has been obvious to all nations for centuries and this in itself makes it a center point of the world.I don't think it matters who lays claim to it....I like the Navajo belief in that it is pure silliness to try to posses something like land that you can not take with you in death....or even George Carlins example in that we are like fleas that the earth will soon shake off.. lol..George does a great Earth impersonation.

[Neptunus Rex]

Originally Posted by I-25

Why is it that when theres a problem israel is always in it???

Because it's the only thing they can agree on. Without it, they would be squabling (or fighting) amongst themselves over everything else.

[caspofungin]

an excellent point