Everyone always seems to head for the Gandhi example whenever the subject of 'passivity' arises. I understand that this is not precisely the same issue as raised by the silly fantasy produced the National Council, but really it's probably close enough.

Had Gandhi been facing an India occupied by, say Uncle Joe or Kindly Old Adolph, we would not be reading about him today. Because he would have picked up in about 24 hours along with anyone who had ever meet him and that would have been that.
Gandhi was successful only because he was facing a certain type of power and indeed apart from that I have read that some in the British Foreign Office considered him as a 'convenience' since he was far less dangerous to them than a 'militant' would have been.

All that aside, was it not violence in 1948 that prevented Israel from being overrun and liquidated almost at the instant of its creation?
Maybe not. Maybe history is wrong and it was really the results of a gigantic camp-out where everyone just got to know one another.

"But maybe a better step, for serious thinkers about religion, would have been to take notice of the fact that not all the faiths involves have the same scriptural foundation." --Cal

I think that is a little too 'nuanced' for the Council. It's only 'bad Western people' who have to behave as if they had a death wish. The 'others' are excused, for one specious reason or another.

Sometimes it just seems that we have used ourselves up, and are living on the fumes of the past. I hope not, but the prevalence of 'insights' such as you have highlighted here, really get me down.

The NCC's statement, however ineffectual and unrealistic, is a breath of fresh air in this atmosphere of hatered and destruction....

And here's another simplistic view on the situation: Israel and the Arabs are like two rotten, tempremental kids that hate each other. They continually fight over their "toys" and point fingers at each other... wahhh! he pulled my hair! or Wahhh he kicked me! You wouldn't expect these kids to resolve their differences alone, would you? It's up to the parent(s) to seperate them and dictate terms... or else!

Simplistic, yes, but if you think about it, it's pretty darn close to what's been going on for the last 60 years. Alas, kids grow up; Israel and the Arabs seem to be eternal rotten youths.

In short, The UN/US should step in, slap these kids on the butt and send them to their "seperate rooms". If they so much as squeak, unload a barrage of economic punishment. And spare me the Israel or Lebanon are soveriegn countries and we don't interfere in their affairs speech.... please!

Reading this message and Nadim's comment have given me a headache. It is very tiring to keep hearing that strawman argument. We need to be thinking real world because we are dealing with very nasty differences in cultures and ways of thinking and doing. India's gaining its freedom from the British and gaining freedom from Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia or todays Islamic dictators would have resulted in very different results.

Gene, Perhaps you keep hearing it because there is some truth to it. If in 60+ years, Israelis and Arabs are not able to resolve their conflict, the rest of the world commnity should step in a dictate the terms. Tough. We're all (the world) severly affected by this conflict and its high we put it behind us and concentrated on more serious matters facing all of humanity like disease, poverty and the environment.... then again who'll make money off of these issues?

Uh, I hate to break it to ya, NCC, but in general your own religion teaches that mankind is fallen, and has a bent to evil.

The reason the "holy land" is so unholy is that bad/evil men in each generation do bad/evil things.

There's no way you're ever going to improve the product when we keep getting babies born into the world who grow up just like their parents.

But go ahead and wish on a star. See how that works for ya.

Nasrallah:
We will destroy the Zionist entity.

Iran:
We will eradicate the Zionist cancer.

Hamas:
We will cauterize the Zionist boil.

Palestinian Authority: We demand that Israel withdraw to the May 1967 border, leave East Jerusalem and allow all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to pre-1967 Israel.

Israel:
Um, gee, sorry folks.

In 2006, Israel left every inch of Lebanon---except for Shebaa Farms, which Syria claims she transferred to Lebanese sovereignty (reminding us once again who really controls Lebanon).

In 2000 and 2001, Israel put offers on the table leading toward the creation of a Palestinian state.

In 2006, Israel left every inch of Gaza.

A breathtaking symmetry....

beat our swords into plowshares. And the lion shall lie down next to the lamb. And there will be war no more.

About 2500 years ago it was a dream and not much has changed in all that time.

“Simplistic, yes, but if you think about it, it's pretty darn close to what's been going on for the last 60 years. Alas, kids grow up; Israel and the Arabs seem to be eternal rotten youths.”

Your morally equivalent remarks are not even close to being accurate. Israel has always been the victim of Arab Jew hatred. The Palestinians are for the most part, anti-Semitic bigots. Am I just shooting my mouth off? Nope, the available polling data easily backs up my position. I am definitely not relying on anecdotal evidence.

1. Had Gandhi pulled what he did with the British 50 to 100 years before he did, he would have been pushing up dasies.

2. Men /women of faith have been beating, torturing and killing other men/women of faith since religion was invented by the first people who invented it. And these Programmed Religious Robots have not only been doing it to those of other faiths and those of no faith, they even do it to those of their own faith.

Religion is a total con job, a failure and the cause of many, many, many times more problems than it helps!

Neil C. Reinhardt
Atheist Vet

Here, read what these American "Christian" leaders say so you can see how loving and caring they are.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/quotes.htm

Neil C. Reinhardt
Atheist Vet

I don't place much credibility or stock in statements made by the NCC pertaining to social or religious matters. They have a very leftist disposition and only speak for a minority.

The Palestinians certainly were not treated fairly when Israel was created in 1947. In theory they deserve their own state, IF they are willing to live along side Israel. But recent events, from Oslo to Gaza, to the current conflict with Hezbollah, make it very difficult for any intellectually honest person to argue that Israeli intransigence is any longer the principal reason for the ongoing conflict.

It may be that many Palestinians are content to live along side the Jewish state, but if so, it is incumbent upon THEM to marginalize the terrorists in their midst, if they do not want the IDF to do it for them.

The same applies to Islam in general with regard to its relations with the rest of the workld. It is up to "moderate" Muslims, NOT the US, to marginalize the fascists in their own ranks. Otherwise, given the current global jihadist campaign which claims Islam as its reason for existence, rational non-Muslims have NO CHOICE but to assume that all Muslims are potential enemies.

If terrorism has been worsened by the war in Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli issue, then what on earth explains the Islamofascist bombing of trains in Mumbai and their plot to behead the Canadian prime minister? Are there Canadian and Indian troops secretly fighting along side us in Iraq ? Did India expel the Palestians from their homeland ?

The war in Iraq, the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, the conflict with Hamas in Gaza, Mumbai, 9/11, London, Madrid, Bali....its all the same war. Contary to what psychopaths like Noam Chomsky may think, it is not a conflict born of alleged Western or Israeli imperialism. Fascist Islam has declared war on civilzation, and Tehran is the head of the beast.

Why can't we all just get along ? Most of us in the West, the East, and, I suspect, most people in the Middle East, DO in fact want to get along with each other. But some do not want to get along. Rather, they want to destroy us. Our task is not to marginalize them, but to liquidate them, for the sake not just of the West, but for the sake of the rest of the world. This is true regardless of the NCC or other selected Leftist morons say, or what other alleged "progressives" may think.

Liquidate them, huh?
If you can only figure out who the "them" are, your answer is real easy.
One question, though. Are noncombatants in Lebanon "them?"

Well said Freeguy. I agree wholeheartedly.

I don't agree with Nadim at all:
If in 60+ years, Israelis and Arabs are not able to resolve their conflict, the rest of the world commnity should step in a dictate the terms. Tough. We're all (the world) severly affected by this conflict and its high we put it behind us and concentrated on more serious matters facing all of humanity like disease, poverty and the environment.... then again who'll make money off of these issues?

Nadim, since when is it any other countries business to "step in" and resolve the conflict between two parties ? How can it be resolved if the two parties cannot agree on terms that will resolve the issue ?

I'm sick of the interventionist attitude of leftists and pro-palestinians. Just sit back and let the conflict continue until the palestinians and hezbollah reject the use of terrorism and accept Israel's existence. Or until Israel is annihilated.

hard thinking from theologists?

That was your first mistake. Not hard thinking, and not theologians-- just moonbats.

What has violence solved these last 60 years?

It's kept the jews from being driven into the sea, hasn't it? That's something.

Liquidate them, huh?
If you can only figure out who the "them" are, your answer is real easy.
One question, though. Are noncombatants in Lebanon "them?"--Scot

I guess that depends on how 'serious' things really are. Does anyone really believe that 'discretion' is anything other than a 'luxury' made possible by the lack of an existential threat? If terrorists hide behind civilians, then this is a very marginal situation.

If it's going to be me or you, I have this sneaking suspicion that the 'rules of engagement' suddenly get redefined.

You don't attack civilians is quite a nice concept and very easy to obey. Right up to the point where its obverse becomes the pre-condition of Victory.

We have managed to convince ourselves that we are 'better' than our predecessors. We are self-delusional. When push comes to shove( and it will if these terrorist monsters are not brought to heel), we will do whatever is required to prevail.

Jono,

"Nadim, since when is it any other countries business to "step in" and resolve the conflict between two parties ? How can it be resolved if the two parties cannot agree on terms that will resolve the issue ?"

Since their continued conflict has had such a negative effect on most of the world for so long. Enough already. Both parties commit atrocities. Neither party can claim moral superiority. We can't morally side with one party to destroy the other. Neither party is intrinsically evil, but both are behaving irrationally and trading emotinally driven acts of violence. I think it's a very simple situation if you boil it down like this.

Do me a favor and stop labeling people who try to bring reason to the issue as lefties or pro-this or anti-that. Don't try to pull any holier-than-thou attitude or quote misinformation. Everyone in this conflict is wrong! Everyone is acting irrationally. It's a brawl. You need to seperate the guys who are punching each other and try to bring order.

for the record, I condemn all acts of violence from anyone at anytime...

FreeGuy, Jono and their ilk,

http://lebanonheartblogs.blogspot.com/2006/07/warning-strong-pictures.html

This is how Israel "defends" itself. If you can honestly stand behind actions that cause this, you are truly a sadist, and an evil human being. What makes these acts less "terror"? What makes their perpetrators different than the "terrorists" they are fighting? Method of delivery? A polished media machine? Go fuck yourself!

Truly horrific pictures. Behold what Hesbollah and Iran and Syria have brought down on the heads of the Lebanese people.

Some Christian New Testament quotes:
Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 12:51
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Luke 22:36
He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

The philosophies of Christianity, Islam, and Judism are the problem, not the solution. That's my opinion

"It's a brawl. You need to seperate the guys who are punching each other and try to bring order."

My (bad?) advice would be:

Choke them out, finish them. You are not responsible for the actions of anyone else (in any country anywhere). If you knock baby assad off and the country falls apart the "world" will blame you while they cry into their 6$ coffee. The M.E. isn't stable and it will remain that way for at least ten years. Iraq is/will be a shithole country and Syria/saudi/iran/"palestine" (so different yet the same) will join them.

You will keep fighting as long as they think they have someone to "brawl" with. Slam them on their head and be done with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyG-k3OY5OU&search=UFC

For what it's worth...

I've never understood the disconnect between the words of Christ and the actions of his followers. By that I mean to say that, yes, Christ was undoubtedly a pacifist, but the vast majority of Christians are not. Is it cognitive dissonance or just an unspoken rule that the Sermon on the Mount need not apply to matters of war and peace? I'm neither a Christian nor a pacifist, so it's no sweat off my back. Still, it makes me wonder. The National Council of Churches is probably dead-on in espousing the views of Christ as they pertain to this current crisis. The fact it matters so little to His followers mystifies me.

Everyone in this conflict is wrong! Everyone is acting irrationally. It's a brawl. You need to seperate the guys who are punching each other and try to bring order.

Why? So one side or the other can rebuild itself and try the same thing again a few years down the line?

No, thanks.

This has gone on for too long already.

Peace will come when Hizbullah goes.

There is a reason why 81% of Israeli public support the attack. As long as Hizbullah is sitting on the border, threatening - there will be no peace.

The same debate has been raging between myself (an ardent pacifist -- note, not passivist) and some friends of mine, who argue "just war."

Yes, the NCC's position is extreme, and most would say "pie-in-the-sky," but consider this: a peace deal brokered in 1978 between Israel and Egypt has withstood the test of time and released Israel from at least one front in its conflict with Arab states. Peace has worked for Israel and Jordan, as well. What has violence gained for either party? Nothing.

No-one, be they Arab or Jew, be it in Gaza, the West Bank, or southern Lebanon, has gained anything through violence.

So, while passive pacifism ("give peace a chance") certainly doesn't solve anything, at least no-one dies because of it. If the parties involved truly desired peace, they would not resort to war.

Yes, the NCC's position is extreme, and most would say "pie-in-the-sky," but consider this: a peace deal brokered in 1978 between Israel and Egypt has withstood the test of time and released Israel from at least one front in its conflict with Arab states.

...yeah, because someone sends the Egyptians a check for several billion dollars US every year.

As I've mentioned before, I am unclear on exactly why the US is paying someone not to start a war they'll lose.

No-one, be they Arab or Jew, be it in Gaza, the West Bank, or southern Lebanon, has gained anything through violence.

The beneficiaries of the current kerfuffle are in Tehran. Apparently the various heads of state at the G8 meeting in St. Petersburg this week have forgotten about their nuclear weapons program in all of the excitement.

Or perhaps they haven't.

"Or to consider the doctrine of just and appropriate use of force as it has been shaped by men and women of faith over the centuries since Augustine."

In his ''City of God," completed in about the year 427, St. Augustine argued that because Jews, as custodians of what Christians designated the ''Old Testament," are living witnesses to the ancient promises that are fulfilled in Jesus, they should be ''scattered" from what he called ''their own land," to give such witness throughout the Christian world. The Jews thus bore witness to the proposition that the Christians replaced them as God’s covenantal partners.

It seems no coincidence that in 429 the Roman emperor, a Christian, abolished the patriarchate of Israel, ending Jewish sovereignty in Palestine until 1948. It's also no coincidence that Christian groups regularly release such vapid, offensive statements whenever Israel defends herself against aggression from yet another violently supercessionist, prosletyzing religous group.

I hate Christians.

It is rather amazing.

Since 1948, the Muslims have openly declared their burning desire to exterminate Israel, not co-exist with it.

They have initiated three major wars of extinction using the combined military might of as many as seven Arab countries simultaneously.

They have conducted multiple intifadas including waves of suicide bombings that have killed hundreds of Israeli men, women and children and wounded and maimed for life thousands more.

They have packed their suicide bombs with ball bearings, rat poison and human feces to maximize the agony of those not killed outright.

They have kidnapped Israeli's, beheaded them and displayed the heads on spikes in the middle of their towns.

They have fired thousands of rockets into Israeli cities, killing dozens and forcing the populations of many towns and cities to live under virtual siege conditions.

They have educated their young in the techniques of terror and taught them to worship death in the service of killing Jews.

They have erected monuments to their leaders like the terrorist Arafat and have elevated monsters like Nasrallah to heroic status as "liberators".

All of this, and some people are still able to blame Israel and, even more preposterously, propose that negotiations or "peace processes" can bring the parties together. There is obviously no limit to the human capacity for evasion and self-delusion.

Let the NCC and all others urging restraint, or negotiations, or the "road map" or any similar nonsense live for a few decades alongside these "peaceful" Muslims -- and then see what they recommend.

>>>I hate Christians.

You mean you hate universalist/unitarians, like the NCC, who call themselves christians but are just run of the mill Leftists.

Israel's strongest supporters today are conservative christians.

Rosignol, I couldn't agree more on the Iran point. And, you're not off-base on the Egypt point. Perhaps it's because we value peace over war? I say withdraw all foreign aid from the region (Israel's #2) and let 'em all have it out.

John W, you have no understanding of the verses you quoted, since they in fact refer prophetically to the hatred of Christians, in particular by the Romans but also by later groups, including for example the Soviets. Oh, and Shmuel, I suppose, to a far lesser extent.

Anyway, as far as it goes, all the Christians I know, many of whom you'd label "fundamentalists" support Israel's right to exist and defend herself, and are bemused by the prevalence of anti-semetism both in the history of Christianity and of Europe. Christ, and all of the disciples, were Jews, after all.

You don't need to look for deep, deep causes as far as the current conflict over there goes; Hitler's (atheistic, "scientific") virulent anti-semitism caught on with his contemporary extremists in the middle east and has remained popular with despots (those spuriously claiming the authority of the State, or of the Prophet) looking to divert anger from themselves.

Anyway, speaking as a Christian, the NCC are a bunch of utter wankers and should be assumed to misrepresent true-to-Christ Christians everywhere in almost all instances. Anytime they get it right, it's by accident.

It seems to me the whole thing is more fuelled by Syria and the old-as-humanity lust for power (and perceived power) than by divergent interpretations of the inheritance of Abraham.

As for Christian pacifism, Christianity as laid out by Christ and his followers largely avoids specific teachings on the role of the State, preferring to work at the level of the individual and the relationships at that level (family, friends, neighbours). But the State does have authority and divine mandate to punish evildoers and criminals, by means of warfare if necessary. No state can act with perfection, only with right intent. If Israel-the-state (or any other) is doing its best to defend its citizens and punish evil men (Hizzbullah in this case) then it is within that mandate.

I spent quite a few years studying the bible, and it appears to me that the christian philosophy/theology doesn't provide a coherent message on this subject. Jesus speaks of peace, forgiving an enemy 77 times and not keeping cout, turning the other cheek and stating that his followers were no part of this world and thus did not fight against the men who came to take Jesus.

One would assume that if "living by the sword" was inappropriate when the life of Jesus was on the line, it would be inappropriate all the time. Of course, Jesus also makes comments about bringing a sword and buying swords. Some people interpert these statements litterlly, others say that he was speaking figuratively (and meant that his teachings would divide the Jewish people, mother against daughter etc). Now, I'm all for personal interpertation of whatever experiences and beliefs make up your existence. However, this, like so many other religious issues, seems one that each group feels 100% sure of. I hear Christians claiming that God is on our side in the conflict in Iraq (and in general). Yet, in every instance in the Bible, where God was on the side of a millitary conflict, there were no lives lost on God's side. Hell, at one point, he was said to have wiped out 185,000 men of the Assyrian army, and the Jews hadn't even left the gates yet, they were sleeping in their beds. Yet, somehow, this Post-CE pacificism of YHVH seems to make no dent in the vividness of the belief by some that God IS on our side. Many of these same groups made that claim in Vietnam, Korea, and every other conflict. Christian leaders blessed the weapons of Americans in WW II, Christian leaders blessed the weapons of Germans in WW II. Both, with the same fervor and certianty. And this appears true of every conflict in Western Europe, where both sides were christian, since about 400 CE.

Now we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict that has existed since we have recorded history of the reigon. If we accept Jewish mythology, its still Jacob and Esau, fighting over inheritence. (With the Jewish state as the children of Jacob and the Arabs as the children of Esau.) Yet, we have no evidence that any of these people ever actually existed.

It's interesting too, to see how religion has ben used to justify the treatment of the Jews throughout history. From being used as an "example", to being persecuted for killing Christ, and now some subset of Christians think that they're still somehow God's chosen nation (though others believe that Jesus' New Covenant replaced the Moasic Covenant, and that the rejection of the Chief Cornerstone led to God removing his favor from that nation).

So many people hold, and have held definate feelings about the metaphysical situation in regard to Isreal. None of them seem to have a completely cohesive or perfect theory, but they all seem to hold on to their personal favorite theory as though it were God given. The Arabs do the same (though they seem to have a much more cohesive, if genocidal, metaphysical theory).

I think that certinty in metaphysics has screwed the Jewish people for 1600+ years. I sure wish that the groups pontificating about the Jewish position in God's plan would think about that. I'm willing to bet the Isrealis would be more than happy for us to.

Hold whatever beliefs you'd like, but when those beliefs start costing lives, then I think there's a serious problem. These Islamic fundamentalists are prime examples of "Dogma Gone Wild (Beiruit Beaches UNCENSORED!)". With the advent of politicized religious belief in this nation now, particularly in regard to those that believe that the Jewish borders were granted by God, or those that think that the Jews are a cursed race for killing the Son of God, it concerns me that we too, perhaps not in the very short run, may find ourselves fighting for some metaphysical theory, instead of a necessary, justified war.

I fully support Isreal defending itself. I fully support Isreal retaliating against Hezbollah launching missles into their nation. I think that they may be doing more harm than good in their current scenario, but only time will tell.

>>>I hate Christians.

You mean you hate universalist/unitarians, like the NCC, who call themselves christians but are just run of the mill Leftists.

No, I mean I hate Christianity, actually. I try not to hate people. But Christianity is just another proselytizing, supercessionist death cult if you ask me.

Israel's strongest supporters today are conservative christians.

Many of whom do so (1) looking forward to the Rapture or (2) out of their stronger dislike for Islam or (3) because of a misguided understanding of "Judeo-Christian values".

Jews are Israel's strongest supporters, and only a Christian would dare, or err, to say otherwise.

Jesus's "turn the other cheek" is not a call to pacifism. He knew how many cheeks God gave us. He didn't say, "If the enemy plucks a hair, let him pluck another."

Hairs = thousands/millions.
Cheeks = 2.

Turn the other cheek means suffer the assholes--not let them kill you.

Moreover, it applies to the individual, not communally. The Bible instructs us not to murder, but there is no instruction against Just War. That concept goes way back in christian tradition. Generally speaking, it is a defensive war. Killing lots of people is sometimes necessary in a Just War. WW2 is a good example to use because it's a war we all agree on. But you get the drift. Killing lots of people and christian morality are not mutually exclusive.

Turning the other cheek is a personal decision, i.e., it's between you and me. If you start applying that to war then you begin to run into moral problems.

For example, if Jews in Haifa are getting rockets rained down on them from Lebanon, is it moral for their leaders to "turn the other cheek" on their behalf while they sit safe and sound in Jerusalem? Of course not, because they have no right to turn the other cheek for others who are actually getting blown up, while they themselves sip cocktails on the beach. That is not moral, that is false piety because they have no right to "turn the other cheek" for other people, only for themselves.

Turning the other cheek is a personal decision you can make only for yourself, not communally for other people. Rather you are commanded to protect the oppressed from the oppressor, and if that entails shelling Hisbollah positions then you do what must be done.

I am very impressed at the high tone and overall respect for facts in these comments. A welcome relief from the BBC web forums.
Was Jesus a pacifist? Isn't that completly anachronistic? While he believed in the primacy of love and compassion, he also recognised the legitimacy of citizenship and its duties (such as paying taxes). Part of citizenship is taking part in warfare to protect your polity. I assume Jesus would never have condoned aggressive or genocidal warfare, but that is a different subject. Israels valiant efforts to maintain itself in a sea of hostility would surely be deemed to be the former rather than the latter, and therefore morally proper. Therefore, to deem the combatants morally equivalent is incorrect. The Palestinians from both a moral and practical standpoint should normalise relations with Israel and get on with their lives. But they seem unable to do that.

Re "the doctrine of just and appropriate use of force as it has been shaped by men and women of faith over the centuries since Augustine":

I believe there is a large number of people in today's world (probably not a majority but a number to be reckoned with) on whom arguments using just war theory are futile. Many people think war is illegitimate, period, regardless of context. I can't see such people changing their minds, short of any kind of truly horrific catastrophe that endangers them immediately and personally.

Emotionally I can sympathize with them because, though I have no personal experience of it, I'm quite sure that the old "war is hell" cliche is probably a gross understatement. But for those of us who can imagine those few circumstances in which fighting a war is not the worst possible option, how can we even have a conversation with those people? There are enough of them that they must be taken into account within the body politic.

Rosignol, I couldn't agree more on the Iran point. And, you're not off-base on the Egypt point. Perhaps it's because we value peace over war?

We do? Since when? ;-)

Back during the Cold War there was quite a bit of value in having a friendly government controlling the Sinai canal, especially when your primary means of projecting power is naval. Being able to go from the Med to the Red Sea made for a much shorter trip, and much faster response times.

But the Cold War has been over for more than a decade, and it's time to re-think some of these arrangments.

I say withdraw all foreign aid from the region (Israel's #2) and let 'em all have it out.

Dunno about that. We don't get along with all of the governments in that region, but we have developed working relationships with most of them... and some of the likely alternatives to the current bunch of thugs would not be an improvement over the current lot.

If there's going to be a change, I would prefer it to be a change for the better, not a change for the worse.

Schmuel,

so you value motives, not deeds. According to you, the Christian Right supports for Israel becasue of a religious belief that Christ will only return after Jews are all in Israel accepting the divinity of Jesus Christ. That is the lie about Christians that the Left spreads to prevent Jews from knowing the truth about Christian support for Israel: that it is rooted overwhelmingly in the beliefs that God promised the return of the Jews to Israel, that Christians are grafted onto the tree of Israel, that God blesses those who bless the Jews, that Israel is a humane democracy and its enemies are bloodthirsty and backward regimes. Lucky for Israel that the few friends it has in the world-- like conservative christians-- aren't deterred by a few assholes like you.

"According to you, the Christian Right supports for Israel becasue of a religious belief that Christ will only return after Jews are all in Israel accepting the divinity of Jesus Christ."

Actually Carlos, to summarize, I gave 3 reasons why I thought the Christian Right supports Israel. You addressed one, and ignoring the others. You also ingnored my general criticisms of Christianity. Then you called me an asshole.

I'm going to add another reason the Christian Right supports Israel: (4) Because the Left doesn't.

I do love it when someone corrects me about my own beliefs and community, but Shmuel and Ratatosk respectively, I am not a millenialist. I simply believe, as do many Christians, that the Jews got the pointy end of the stick once too often and need a nation devoted to protecting them, and that Israel has possibly the only legitimate, compassionate government in the entire region. I hope that Iraq will last long enough to be added to that very short list.

As for support, many public critics of Israel and its existence are Jews (Antony Loewenstein here in Australia) and we do not extrapolate from that that "all Jews" (or almost all, or all the ones we deem "honest" because they conform to our expectations as to what People Like Them Think) are against Israel.

As for having a greater dislike for Islam..... well. Would you, as a hypothetical member of a hypothetical religion that meets your high standards, be inclined to "like" a religion that espouses execution by beheading for any who leave it in favor of yours- or indeed, in favor of none at all? Not all Muslims hold to that practice, but it does feature in all current schools of Sharia law, and does tend to sour relations a bit.

Ratatosk, I cannot help but note that we Christians have our failings heaped at the feet of our religion, but our successes attributed to..... well, no, you've ignored them completely, haven't you? So you're making a historical assessment of Christianity starting no earlier than what, 300AD? And ending no later than, what? 1000 AD? And you're leaving out politics, as you are in your take on the middle East, and assuming that all conflict is driven by religion. From that starting point, you go on to prove logically that if all conflict is driven by religion, then clearly, all conflict is driven by religion. When a political movement co-opts Christianity it is Christianity's fault, somehow, but when a movement co-opts humanism, atheism, science, the arts, or theories of human evolution, it is the fault of.....? Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Mao.... obviously, we must conclude that atheism is responsible for their atrocities?

"so you value motives, not deeds."

Carlos:

Also to be clear, like most normal people, I value both.

Shmuel:"Many of whom do so (1) looking forward to the Rapture"

Some might, but not those in my particular tradition, and even for those who do it is hardly their sole or overriding reason

" or (2) out of their stronger dislike for Islam"

I addressed that, above, but broadly, no. Even less so than 1) which I personally perceive to be a false assertion on par with "Jews only want their homeland because they think God gave it to them"

" or (3) because of a misguided understanding of "Judeo-Christian values"."

I'm sure you mean, a misguided understanding of the concept of "Judeo-Christian values", otherwise you're saying that you know better than Christians what they really believe, or that any action rooted in their core values is invalidated by the existence of their core values.

"I'm going to add another reason the Christian Right supports Israel: (4) Because the Left doesn't."

Now you're really reaching, but possibly couching your assertion in terms of the Christian Right buys you the same spurious loophole as people who criticise "Zionists but not Jews".

"Then you called me an asshole."

After you said that you hate Christians, clarified that to mean ALL Christians regardless any other considerations, added that you hated Christianity, and called Christians everywhere members of a death cult. That kind of sentiment pretty much demonstrates you to be an asshole, and a bigot, by most definitions, including mine, frankly. I wouldn't wear it if you aimed a broadside like that at any other group in that manner, including Country and Western singers- and that, for me, is saying a lot.

Schmuel,

Conservatives christians have supported Israel since it's inception. They were called zionist christians. The best known was British general Charles Orde Wingate, who trained the Haganah to fight like a real army. Knowledgeable jews consider him a zionist hero. I can assure you his support for Israel had nothing to do with the Left.

"only a Christian would dare, or err, to say otherwise"

Oh come ON shmuel, you're plenty smart enough to make a point without that kind of bigotry. ONLY a Christian would say something that silly, eh? Well, that's excellent news for the rest of the world, isn't it? No-one else would be such a self-righteous, pompous, presumptuous, arrogant ass as to so totaly ignore the genuine concerns of an entire people-group in favour of their own overblown self-importance?

Well, for your sake, I do hope that the hotly debated "rapture" really does happen, freeing you of all the foolish, foolish Christians and relieving you of the burden of hating, and correcting on matters of their faith, every last one of them. Cheers then! I'm just going to stand here looking at the ceiling, waiting to float off into space and fondly imagining that I actually support the state of Israel's right to exist.

Sam, I clarified to say that I hate Christianity, but not Christians, because I try not to hate actual people. I appreciate it's a fine and difficult line to walk.

And Christianity is more or less objectively a death cult.

I don't think of myslef as a bigot. I do consider myself against any proselytizing movement, and I am indiscriminate in my opposition to such movements.

Cheers.

"Oh come ON shmuel, you're plenty smart enough to make a point without that kind of bigotry. ONLY a Christian would say something that silly, eh? Well, that's excellent news for the rest of the world, isn't it? No-one else would be such a self-righteous, pompous, presumptuous, arrogant ass as to so totaly ignore the genuine concerns of an entire people-group in favour of their own overblown self-importance?"

Sam, this is difficult to understand but seems a bit nuts. Could you clarify your point?

Sam,

Ratatosk, I cannot help but note that we Christians have our failings heaped at the feet of our religion, but our successes attributed to..... well, no, you've ignored them completely, haven't you?

Well, I think you might want to reread my post, this time without the belief that I'm anti-christian. I was discussing the problems that exist both in history and now, both in Christianity and Islam and specifically in the dogmatic acceptence of a set of religious beliefs, then allowing those religious beliefs to form/support political and millitary action.

The problem isn't Christianity or Islam, the problem, I think, can be described as a dogmatic interpertation of some aspects of these faiths, then acting upon these beliefs through politics (or having these beliefs co-opted by politics). My statements were not screeds against all christians, or christianity as a whole, indeed I stated that it was a subset of Christians who seem to hold this strange conflation of metaphysical and political views. I also never stated that religion was solely responsible for any of these atrocities, only that some people hold dogmatic beliefs which have in the past and present led to an increase in hostilities and have been a contriobuting factor in many conflicts. Too, we see that some people from both sides of any conflict dogmatically claim that God is fighting for them, yet they suffer just an many casualities and sometimes lose the war, a very different sort of "God being on our side" that the Bible records as the case with the Jews.

I would ask that you read my posts carefully before extrapolating that I blame all Christians and somehow support athiests and dictators (who I would point out held equally dogmatic views about their beliefs as do Islamic extremists and some Christian subsets). Hell, I'm mostly glad that the majority of Christians are no longer dogmatic. This country might be a horrific place to live if they were. (Could you imagine if the majority of Americans were like Fred Phelps? Ick!)

>>>I clarified to say that I hate Christianity, but not Christians, because I try not to hate actual people. I appreciate it's a fine and difficult line to walk.

Schmuel,

then I suppose what you think about christianity is irrelevant, because at the end of the day it's CHRISTIANS who support Israel, not christianity.

But you really do have it backwards. Because christianity itself is silent on the matter of jew hatred. Thus is can be used both to hate jews, or love them. Jew hatred or christian zionism reflects the christian, not christianity. But you hate christianity-- which is silent-- but not christians. Do you see how you make no sense?

And when christianity is used to love Israel, instead of hate jews, that pretty much sucks too in your book. I guess some people are impossible to please. But like I said, lucky for Israel it's friends aren't deterred by the likes of you.

"Do you see how you make no sense?"

It's interesting Carlos, to me, you just seem like a moron. Vive la difference.

Clearly I was right the first time about you being an asshole.

Shmuel, you're making some incorrect generalizations about Christians and our support for Israel. I don't expect you to understand something you do not want to understand because it does not fit with your view of your world.

I ardently support Israel for many reasons, some practical and political, and some for purely spiritual reasons. For many reasons, I support Israel because it is the right position to take. I do not support Israel for what I can get out of the relationship, nor for any of the three reasons you gave.

I am often confused by the number of leftist Israelis that do not appear to support their own country, much as our own leftists appear to support our enemies instead of our own country. Leftists from both countries have been remarkably reserved lately.

BTW, leftists in the US cannot be counted among the supporters of Israel, either, so be sure to note that as you survey Israel's friends. This really makes for confusing politics in the US, as most Jews appear to be solid leftist democrats. Go figure...

An earlier comment by someone who was against all violence was most disengenuous. Such a belief can only be short-sighted and selfish. I believe it was Edmund Burke who said "Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Many so-called pacifists are merely more than willing to let others do their fighting for them; they certainly do not volunteer to place themselves under subjugation of the oppressors the rough men oppose.

True and lasting peace comes only through conquest and the destruction of all opposition. Diplomacy only preserves hatreds and the seeds of war.

In America the various Indian tribes fought wars with each other for over 25,000 years. Then came the United States which conquered every tribe. The land is now at peace and so are the tribes (at least what's left of them).

As Caesar points out the Gaulic tribes warred constantly with each as well as occasionally invading Italy. Caesar conquered all of Gaul and all of Gaul was at peace as were the tribes (or at least what was left of them).

Genghis Khan, faced with warring tribes on his western border, destroyed everything in his path across an area so vast it covers 10 time zones. And he brought peace to this vast land that lasted hundreds of years and the warring tribes were at peace (or at least what was left of them).

Even the Middle East has known centuries of peace but these periods of peace have always been created by war.

Properly conducted, war reconciles irreconcilable differences. It focuses peoples' energies on achieving realistic goals. It ends feuds. It washes the slates clean with blood and allows new beginnings. For example, Germany became an economic powerhouse of Europe because the US destroyed their cities and all the cultural baggage they contained. Diplomacy does not end war. If successful, diplomacy merely postpones war. And when war finally comes, as it always does, it is more fierce, more terrible, more horrifying, more catastrophic, more stupid than ever.

As Wellington said, "there is nothing so melancholy as a victorious battlefield".
Unfortunately, each generation must learn this truth. And they must learn there is no reset button.

Another question would be. Is being a pacifist ever immoral?

"Clearly I was right the first time about you being an asshole."

I never disputed your claim that I was an asshole, and no one has adequately disputed my claim that Christianity is, objectively, a death cult.

Shmuel,

it would be an exercise in futility trying to prove it to you. That's the downside to being an asshole.

Glad to hear it Carlos. I'm comfortable leaving it at that.

(I.e. I'm an asshole, and Christianity is a death cult.)

Cheers.

I hate Judaism.

It makes people wear funny hats and sideburns. Oh, and Joshua was a ruthless dick.

Yeah, you can insult Christianity and call it whatever...

But I'm going to be faced with flames and possible comment removal.

Oh, but I don't hate Jews. Does that make it better?

I hate Judaism. It makes people wear funny hats and sideburns. Oh, and Joshua was a ruthless dick.

Sequin: I admire you're honesty. However, I think your anti-semitic criticisms are rather shallow and trivial; your comments regarding hasidic fashion plainly so. And I very much doubt Joshua was much more ruthless than any of his contempories.

I'd prefer to discuss why it's considered offensive to refer to Christianity as a death cult, when it's so apparent that it is just that.

Cheers

"recognizing the success of former peace initiatives "

Had those initiatives worked, would we now have this conflict? duh.............

Great post, Freeguy. One of the few posts that I have read anywhere on the Net that is actually balanced yet realistic. You are quite right - as brutal as it may sound to "Nadim" and his left/arab/muslim fellow travellers, it has come down to a contest between the West and "them". Does Nadim (or the NCC) actually believe that we in North America would put up with what the Israelis have endured (both in terms of bombings and dashed hopes) for even ONE nanosecond. Having family and friends on both sides of the border (I am in Canada) who are just ordinary people, neither Left nor Right, I feel quite confident in saying no - we would retaliate in a way that would shock the shit out of the ME. That goes for all the whiny lefties we have in Canada who would be the FIRST to pull the trigger despite all their pompous bleating. While I recognize our culture is far from perfect (and that this situation defies a simplistic analysis) it is superior to anything the Muslims (or Russia or China) have ever produced. I want the West to win so I agree our task is to destroy these Islamofascists and their enablers of all persuasions so that they cannot destroy us.

schmuel,

yet nowhere have Jews been more safe and prosperous than in America-- the modern cradle of that death cult. Hmmm. Interesting.

Ratatosk; I apologise if I misunderstood your intent. I believe it was a legitimate reading of your post, and I attempted to answer several persistent attitudes towards Christians that you seemed, to me, to be repeating. Again, I apologise if I was going off at a tangent.

Shmuel: I was implying that your statement was self-parodying. While, yes, I did in fact use some exaggeration for my own amusement, it was not "nuts", just keep re-reading until you get it. What surprises me considering your apparent intelligence and critical capacity is that you've made no coherent case for your oft-repeated opinion that "Christianity is a death cult". Please define "death cult" in detail and show me how my religion venerates death; I had always understood death to be considered an intruder by Christians, not a venerated or holy thing at all.

Also, Ratatosk: I did not mean to imply you supported dictators. I was really trying to demonstrate that its a persons actions that matter, not the object of their sophistry in justifying their actions.

"You've made no coherent case for your oft-repeated opinion that "Christianity is a death cult""

Sorry, I thought that since people raised no concrete objections the main points were so patently obvious they required no further explanation. (I mean, Christians worship a dying, lacerated Jewish man, nailed to a cross.) But besides Christianity's symbology and iconology (Catholicism is arguably more death obsessed in this respect, with the "body" and the "blood" of the martyr etc.) much of Christianity is organized around death and the afterlife. If one moves further away from Catholic extremes towards Protestant ones, "life" is nothing but a sinful mess, a pale shadow of what true joy must feel like, and as such, only death promises something like genuine happiness. And this happiness in death is one's reward for buying into the myth of the cult (i.e. accepting Jesus' legitimacy.) Generally though, all Christian sects focus a bit too much on what follows life (i.e. death) and I'm very suspicious of any cult that emphasizes the afterlife over the material one. Not to mention that last but of your book, where every nonbeliever is slaughtered when the Messiah "returns". Crazy stuff. That explains the death.

The "cult" part comes from the prosletyzing.

Judaism is quite different from Christianity in these respects. I really see Christianity and Islam having much in common in their focus on death and the importance of prosletyzing in both.

Sam, OK, I'll address your previous (half-sarcastic) comment seriously.

"Oh come ON shmuel, you're plenty smart enough to make a point without that kind of bigotry."

As Christianity represents a set of dogmatic beliefs I don't see how criticizing the basis and negative results of holding such beliefs can be thought of as "bigotry". It's like being "bigotted" against Communists. Are anti-Communists bigots? Maybe, but I don't think it's the best word.

"ONLY a Christian would say something that silly, eh?"

Yes, I do think that only a Christian could think that Christians support the state of Israel more than Jews. Why is this controversial? It seems almost tautological to me.

"Well, that's excellent news for the rest of the world, isn't it? No-one else would be such a self-righteous, pompous, presumptuous, arrogant ass as to so totaly ignore the genuine concerns of an entire people-group in favour of their own overblown self-importance?""

Are you suggesting that Jewish interest in and concern over the Jewish state reflects a sense of "overblown self-importance"? This is the part that seems nuts to me.

Cheers

As Christianity represents a set of dogmatic beliefs I don't see how criticizing the basis and negative results of holding such beliefs can be thought of as "bigotry".

bigotry

noun

Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: intolerance, prejudice. See like/dislike.

>>>>>

If you can demonstrate that your dislike and/or suspicion of christians is, in fact, rational, I will of course apologise.

"If you can demonstrate that your dislike and/or suspicion of christians is, in fact, rational, I will of course apologise."

I'm suspicious of any proselytizing group. I made it clear that my suspicions (on these grounds) do not discriminate between groups. If you are suspicious of Communism for similar reasons does that make you a bigot?

I am suspicious of communism and those who advocate it for reasons apparent to anyone who has studied it's history. When a movement who's stated goal is to create a worker's utopia has to post armed guards to prevent people from leaving, something is very, very wrong.

Proselytizing is not enough to warrant suspicion in and of itself- many people genuinely believe that what their group does will make the world a better place- some of them might even be right. I place considerably more weight on what the group advocates, and even more on what the group does.

If a secularist makes a claim like, "I hate religion" do you think as many people would be so quick to call that person a bigot?

"Proselytizing is not enough to warrant suspicion in and of itself"

+the fact that Christianity is a death cult + it's dogmatism + Christinaity's inherent supremacism (which is necessarily related to it's proselytizing) + Christianity's many basic misreadings of human nature and morality + Christianity's very bloody history = enough for me

But I do think prosletyzing is enough. I personally find it disgusting. And you might consider examining the history of Christian missionary work around the world. If you think it's weird that Communists had to guard the borders of a utopia so people wouldn't leave, you also might be surprised at what Christian missionaries did to convince others to accept Jesus as their savior.

Schmuel,

so it's a "death cult" because Jesus was crucified on a cross, and because of proselytizing? That's it? That's your "death cult"?

hahahaha! Excuse me for that, I know you weren't trying to be funny.

But it seems our "death cult" is just a little man behind the curtain called Schmuel.

+the fact that Christianity is a death cult + it's dogmatism + Christinaity's inherent supremacism (which is necessarily related to it's proselytizing) + Christianity's many basic misreadings of human nature and morality + Christianity's very bloody history = enough for me

So what? You could assert the same of Judaism, if you didn't bother to read anything but the Old Testament. Lots of dogmatic, supremacist, misreadings of human nature and morality, and a hell of a lot of blood in there.

But I do think prosletyzing is enough. I personally find it disgusting.

So what?

And you might consider examining the history of Christian missionary work around the world. If you think it's weird that Communists had to guard the borders of a utopia so people wouldn't leave, you also might be surprised at what Christian missionaries did to convince others to accept Jesus as their savior.

Compared to what, the things the ancient jews did to the Canaanites? IIRC, those guys generally didn't get the option of converting.

If you want to throw around accusations of this or that group being a bloodthirsty death cult, you should keep in mind where that group's roots are.

"You could assert the same of Judaism, if you didn't bother to read anything but the Old Testament. Lots of dogmatic, supremacist, misreadings of human nature and morality, and a hell of a lot of blood in there."

Not quite. I doubt the ancient Jews were more ruthless or bloody than other tribal cultures of the era. And Judaism is not dogmatic. There is no single belief or set of beliefs a Jew must hold to be considered a Jew. This cannot be said of Christianity or Islam. And Judaism is by nature not "Supremacist" or "Supercessionist" in the sense that dogmatic prosletyzing religions like Christianity and Islam are. Jewish religous laws promote separation, not supremacy. We don't care about you. This lack of interest is also a source for the kind of moral and spirtual insecurity that makes people like you angry at people like me.

The history of Christian violence has much more to do with Christianity's insecurity in relation to Judaism and its supremacist perspective than it does with an old book describing the historic events of an ancient middle eastern tribe. Christianity is a prosletyzing cult that empahsizes the afterlife. The afterlife is a euphemism for death. The morality of the bible ("Old Testament" is an offensive term for me) is well suited for a relatively small, non-expansionist group. The morality of the Christian Scriptures is well suited for something quite different.

Shmuel,
it is probably completely futile to say this, as others have pointed out, but Christianity is NOT a death cult. It is a cult of LIFE. It is the cult of the overcoming of death. It is a hope in the bodily RESURRECTION (a Jewish concept by the way) AND ETERNAL LIFE.

I'm a Catholic by the way and we don't believe in rapture or any of that stuff. But I still support Israel because Jews are our older brothers, believe in the same God as we do and are His people.

Shmuel, by the way, other Christianity haters (esp. atheists) simply LOVE to point to the gruesome details in the Old Testament in order to prove what blood-sucking, hateful bigots we Bible types (Christians and Jews - makes no difference to them) are and how revengeful and bloodthirsty our God is. Neve met any of them on the net? They just say the same stuff as you do, only they also hate the Torah.

"Judaism is not supercessionist": Of course not, since it's a completely different type of religion. It's about being a separate people of God, not about converting the world to HIm. (That only came with Christianity - phase 2 of HIs project, so to speak... :-))

I'm sorry, but with your declaration that Christianity and Islam are proselytizing religons (baad) while Judaism is not (goood) you sound a bit like those theological illiterates who like to point to Buddhism as an example of tolerance vs. Christianity. As Buddhism is not a revealed religion, but mainly a philosophy of life, it of course is not proselytizing and proclaiming that its tenets are true! That's really basic, but unfortunately the secularists have problems understanding it...

"Christianity is NOT a death cult....It is the cult of the overcoming of death."

Only the member of a death cult would say something like that. Case closed.

I think Shmuel may be using the wrong words, but he does have a bit of a point.

Christianity, Followers of Mithras, Osirus and a number of older religions do seem to share a fixation on death in two key ways.

First and formost, these religions share a belief that their god was killed and then somehow came back to life. Hence, these religions (from a religious studies model) are termed as "Dying God" religions or a "Cult of the Dying God".

Secondly, these religions share some very similar views on death. Particularly, that through their savior, they too can beat death and live on in a transcendent state. Either through a ressurection to life on a Paradise Earth, or a ressurection to an Afterlife/Heaven etc. They also tend to share the belief that those who do not insert rules of religion here will go to some bad place after death where they will be punished forever.

Jews, however, do not share these beliefs. The Jewish system doesn't focus on any 'dying god', it says very little about the afterlife (depending on the sect) and it doesn't particularly have any belief in something like Hell. For the Jewish person, the faith and belief seem more nationalistic. Their bond is, as a nation, with G-D through the Moasic covenent.

Many modern Christians seem to think that the Jewish belief system and the Christian belief system are similar, if not the same. However, this really doesn't seem to be the case. A person holding the Jewish faith, but try to follow the Moasic Law, its part of their covenent. A Christian, has very few laws, other than "Love the Lord thy God with your whole heart, mind, soul and body; Love your neighbor as yourself." and a few later ones that Paul threw in having to do with keeping away from things sacrificed to idols, blood, and a few other things. The Christian system of belief is decidedly without national borders as Peter found when he used one of the Keys of the Kingdom to welcome Corneilus as a Gentile convert.

So in the end, Christianity could be called a death cult (because of the importance placed on the death of their god and the post-death transendence). Judiasm, however, would not be considered such.

Islam could be considered a death cult in a much different sense, since they actually think that killing themselves is something that their God wants and they don't mind killing all the infidels.

Interesting comments ratatosk. I'd like to address this last bit:

"Islam could be considered a death cult in a much different sense, since they actually think that killing themselves is something that their God wants and they don't mind killing all the infidels."

I would argue that Islam is merely a younger death cult. "Infidel" is a word that meant "non-Christian" as early as the 15th century. "Martyr" is also a word with a lot of charged meaning in Christianity. And we know that numerous Christians throughout history had no reservations about killing infidels, whether during the Crusades, the Inquisition or the Conquest of the New World. It is a matter of fact that Christians have killed more people than people associated with any other religous movement in history.

I think it's the fundamental structural similarities between the 2 death cults (dogmatism, prosletyzing, emphasis on "Paradise" in the afterlife) that explain their violent careers, not particular portions of text or supernatural beliefs.

Christians believe Jesus was crucified in our place so that we could have LIFE. So I think it's a Life Cult. Now prove me wrong.

Carlos,

"Now prove me wrong."

You're an idiot?

Also Ratatosk:

I don't think I was at clear about why I think prosletyzing religions are so often death cults. The basic idea, I think, is that "fear of death" or rather, the anxiety which results from the knowledge of our own mortality, is the best of all possible recruitment tools for such groups. The idea that they provide some sort of "guarantee" for the afterlife is what makes these cults so popular. It follows that challenging any such fundamental belief in such religions is particularly threatening to adherents. This leads to the more violent stands of extremism common to Christianity and Islam.

Carlos,

In this instance I am not speaking about happy words, but rather words of a technical nature. Christinas, in general, focus on the afterlife, not life. Life is what you do as a human here on this planet. The afterlife is a theory that you have about what you will transcend to, when you die.

Jesus saved you because he died. Just as Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras and similar "Dying Gods" did for their followers.

Life religions tend to be ones focused on existence here and now. They percieve death as an end, or as a cycle that returns them to life again, here on earth. Most animistic and shamanic religions tend to hold this view.

In general, we can develop three basic models for worldviews:

Materialist, the basic atheistic approach of there being nothing except the here and now.

Transcendentalist: Focus on transcending this state of being to something better through death.

Animist: Focused on connecting with the divine/magic/spirit/kia/etc. that flows through all living things and on living life to its full extent now. Most of these belief systems do not place much (if any) importence on death or the afterlife.

Islam and Christianity are both examples of transcendental belief systems. Judaism is more closely related to an amimist system, with a defined supernatural. Transcendental belief systems are often considered death focused, I think the term being used here "death cult" is really a poor term and, I think, designed to offend.

Shmuel,

While I don't debate that Christianity has had some bloody hands in the past, even the recent past... I do see fundamental differences in the basic doctrine (when compared to Islam). Christians don't often follow the teachings in the Bible, instead they get involved in wars and kill people. Or they electrocute them, or they stick burnt crosses in their front yards. None of these things are commanded or condoned in the Bible.

On the other hand, Islam, very clearly, accepts and encourages murder of those who believe differently than you.

On the subject, if we're only speaking of religious groups that killed, based on dogmatic belief... would you care to review Exodus through Judges and tell me why the Jews wouldn't fall into the same category. The held a dogmatic belief that the land was their by gift from God. They comitted genocide of how many different nationalities? Midian, Cannan, even other Jews if they practiced a religion different than the official Jewish one.

No religion has hands free of blood. One can make excuses, but excuses tend to be a poor soap.

"I don't think I was at clear about why I think prosletyzing religions are so often death cults. The basic idea, I think, is that "fear of death" or rather, the anxiety which results from the knowledge of our own mortality, is the best of all possible recruitment tools for such groups. The idea that they provide some sort of "guarantee" for the afterlife is what makes these cults so popular. It follows that challenging any such fundamental belief in such religions is particularly threatening to adherents. This leads to the more violent stands of extremism common to Christianity and Islam"

I agree. Any religion with a strong dogmatic set of beliefs can and often does lead to dangerous extremism. I also agree that many religions use the fear of death as a hook to get more followers. Sad, but true.

"On the other hand, Islam, very clearly, accepts and encourages murder of those who believe differently than you."

Yeah, Islam is worse. Afterall, Carlos hasn't threatened to behead me (yet).

"[Ancient Jews] comitted genocide of how many different nationalities? "

Sure. Though I don't see this as intrinsic to Judaism, but rather, a feature common to many nationalist movements. (Incuding the USA more recently.) As political and moral philosophy has evolved, so has the concept of a Jewish nation. And anyway, as I've indicated above, tribal, genocidal warfare was simply common to the region 5000 years ago. (Although current events suggest it's still a tough neighborhood. That said, religous attachment to the land of Israel is still what drives our fanatics, and I have very little sympathy for them.)

So, Shmuel, you argue like someone who is strongly religious. Is that so? You seem willing to look at the historical, regional, and political realities regarding pretty much anything but Christianity.

You read like you hate two abstract features of Christianity with particular vehemence and everything else you're a lot less interested in, apart from the aportioning of blame to a religion you hate. That's fine by me; my rather literal translation of the "prosletysing" component of my faith doesn't actually extend to arguing exhaustively with people who decide they hate Christianity. It's your perogative and I will respect that.

You have used the technical sense of "death cult" to defend your use of the phrase, but with a strong emotional and moral investment rather than as an observation, you have misread my criticism of your rhetoric to be a vaguely anti-semitic rant, and your disgust that someone would tell another person about their own hope (religious in this case) seems to be disproportionate- unless you use the term "proletysing" but intend it to be read "conversion by the sword".

I'd continue the argument if I thought you were actually interested, and I do NOT mean "interested in converting". I personally am interested in most religions and philosophies and will argue in order to discover more of the underlying logic etc., but you evidently don't share that curiosity.

Bowing out, me.

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

压力开关
压力变送器
压力传感器
流量开关
流量计
液位计
液位开关
温湿度记录仪
风速仪
差压开关
可燃气体检测仪

过滤器
强磁水处理器
自清洗过滤器
自动反冲洗过滤器

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

网站优化
Printer parts

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
runescape power leveling
runescape powerleveling
runescape power level
runescape money
runescape gold
buy runescape gold
buy runescape money
runescape items
runescape accounts
buy runescape accounts
buy runescape items
cheap runescape money
cheap runescape gold
runescape gp
dofus kamas
dofus kamas
Achat DOFUS Kamas
Guild Wars Gold
buy Guild Wars Gold
GW Gold
陈楚生

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪 风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树
eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk

上海网站优化
上海网站建设
复印机租赁
硼氢化钠
消防泵
真空泵
同步轮
化工试剂
化学试剂
大众搬场
铁艺
制服
攻丝机
流量计
保洁
上海公兴搬场
上海保洁

http://www.ce-r.cn
http://www.jx-net.net
http://www.shjxwl.cn
http://www.oameibang.com
http://www.kuanhao.cn
http://www.chinasongjin.com
http://www.shlutong.com.cn
http://www.pujiangvacuum.com
http://www.longzhaobelt.com
http://www.ce-r.cn
http://www.cesupp.com
http://www.dzbc114.com
http://www.china-glare.com
http://www.shgeya.cn
http://www.kangking.com
http://www.changen.net
http://www.shanghaizhenan.com
http://www.56771242.com.cn
http://www.shgx88.cn
http://www.66513369.com.cn