The problems of God

[magister343]

Your posts keep reminding me with how irritated I am over the response to a comment I made on a YouTube video last week.

Most of the guy's videos were about why we should all support Ron Paul, but he also claimed to be a preacher and had some videos about churches and the bible. (There are also quite a few about how his fellow blacks shouldn't use PC terms like African American, how they need to be responsible and stop depending on the government, how boys need father to teach them to act more masculine, etc. He often curses but insists that anyone who does so in a comment will be banned, because "this is MY HOUSE.")

This particular video was about how what so many preachers teach about the requirement to give a tithe is wrong (and motivated by their own greed), especially when trying to defend this position to get money from Gentile Christians. I agree with him on this and on a majority of what he says, but he does make some significant mistakes from time to time and often has the wrong attitude even when his positions are right. (He seems to be a Te dominant, and has the associated bluntness.) Anyway, the point in question was when he said that Jesus did away with the Law of Moses and replaced them with two new commandments; to love God and love thy neighbor.

Jesus did not say that there were only two commandments, but that all commandments depend on those two.

Both Commandments Jesus gave were direct quotes from the Law of Moses. They were not listed in the Ten Commandments, but most Rabbis of Christ's time agreed that they were the most important parts.

The 10 Commandments are explicitly addressed to those taken out of Egypt. Jews teach that gentiles are bound only to the 7 Laws of Noah, and even these have no value unless followed out of love rather than merely prudence.

I'll say this then block you. I don't allow people who come thinking to correct me when they have no DAMNED idea of they speak of. First, the OT 10 Commandments REQUIRED NO LOVE, merely OBEDIENCE. The two commandments Jesus gave were NOT quotes from the OT as you so boldly proclaim. Loving thy God and thy neighbor are HIS DIRECT QUOTES from NT concerning THE NEW DISPENSATION OF GRACE. NOW, BE GONE!

He did block me so I could not give the exact quotes from Deuteronomy and Leviticus in a public reply. Instead I sent them in a private message along with an explanation of the central importance of the Shema, how keeping commandments is considered a way to show love, what the Seven Noahide Laws are, where some were explicitly mentioned in scripture, how the others come from oral tradition but seem to agree well with scripture, how these are related to the decision of the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem, how Orthodox Jews teach it is wrong to compel a gentile to keep more than just the laws of Noah, how some go so far as to teach that it is wrong for a gentile to chose to adhere to the Law of Moses without formally converting, how a righteous gentile is considered the moral equivalent of the high priest of Israel, how Jesus tended to agree with Hillel, how where Jesus differed from the mainstream was in applying "neighbor" much more broadly, how 1 John explains that the new commandment is not in fact new but has been with us from the beginning, etc. He ignored this, presumably deleted it since I can find no record of it anymore, and kept me blocked so I could never point out his mistakes again.




(I prefer to give Paul more benefit of the doubt than you do though. He himself is believed to have personally continued to adhere to the Law of Moses. The writings that seem to be against the law were addressed to those who insisted on teaching gentiles to keep the law, especially while themselves not adhering to all of it. Many experts believe that he favored hyperbole and that some of what we assume were his views may have been a satire or reductio ad absurdum of his opponents. Peter stated that his writings are very hard to understand and have led many astray, but that when they met in person and he was able to explain what he had meant then they agreed. )

 

[GracieRuth]

magister343 : the guy was a total bozo. You were SPOT ON with everything you said.

BTW, I have no problems with others disagreeing with me about Paul. So long as you are honest enough to see enough of the problem to understand it needs to be addressed. But I certainly can sympathize with you giving him the benefit of the doubt. I suppose my only "thing" is that people seldom get to see Paul through Jewish eyes. I am such a dang INFJ -- disagreement is fine. I JUST WANT TO BE HEARD.

 

[muir]

Oh its tough when we are both online at the same time. It's a never ending conversation. Regarding Wiki-Leaks...

One wiki-leak was that before the 2009 Gaza offensive (Operation Cast Lead) that Israel went to both the PA (Fatah) and Egypt asking if they would assume the governing of the Gaza strip once the military actions against Hamas were complete. Both the PA and Egypt declined. There are two implications. The most obvious is that both the Palestinians and the Egyptians knew of the impending military attack and allowed it to proceed. It also implies that Israel really does NOT want to be saddled with the responsibility to govern Gaza, despite typical renditions of Israel as some sort of imperialistic state. Israel's idea was to protect Egypt and the PA by keeping this information under wraps.

So tell me, are things better now that this information is known?

You don't have to respond if you don't want to!

We seem to care about some similar stuff even if we are coming at it from different angles!

Re wikileaks: I think its good that the information is out there yes

I think Israel shouldn't have attacked Gaza in the first place, killing approx. 1200 civilians in the process. I think that Israel should have recognised Hamas as a legitimate government after they were democratically elected by the Palestinean people

I also think that Israel has moved on from Gaza and an occupation would be damaging to Israel's image so i don't think they were trying to hand over power because they were drunk on the milk of human kindness, they did it because they wanted a more submissive government to manage Gaza

Israel wasn't protecting Egypt or Fateh it was hiding the fact that it was trying to oust a democratically elected government!

The subject of information is very important at the moment with the SOPA bill; the Keiser report interviews someone about the issue of access to information on the internet at about 14:20

http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-234-max-keiser/

 

[Uwace]

Religion is propaganda; it tells you what to think instead of how to think. Often the failure to do so result in dire consequences -- be it eternal damnation drilled into your head as a kid, alienation by religious-minded peers/family members, physical punishment perhaps? (idk those religious boot camps to wash your brain)

 

[GracieRuth]

I think that Israel should have recognised Hamas as a legitimate government after they were democratically elected by the Palestinean people

I think it takes more than voting to make a government legitimate. I also think there is a time and a place to attack a legitimate government. However, I think we've roamed way too far off topic. If you ever want to bring this up in the politics forum, I'd participate.

 

[muir]

I think it takes more than voting to make a government legitimate. I also think there is a time and a place to attack a legitimate government. However, I think we've roamed way too far off topic. If you ever want to bring this up in the politics forum, I'd participate.

You have to be recognised by the international community and many countries do recognise Hamas. Bare in mind that Israel's ally the US is able to exert a huge amount of diplomatic pressure on other countries to get them to tow the line on different issues. In terms of the validity of a government within its own country then it is by voting that a democratically elected government becomes democratically elected.

One of the foundational laws of the UN is that a member state shouldn't attack another country unless it has been attacked first. Israel has also been found to have violated the Geneva convention and further to that the Goldstone report after Operation Cast lead declared that Israel had deliberately targeted civilians and was guilty of war crimes.

The word 'terrorist' is usually applied by the stronger party. For example when the British were occupying Palestine and jewish zionists were bombing British soldiers the jews were called the 'terrorists' in the western media

Really when you take an objective look at things you could say that it is absurd for an imperialist country like Britain to call anyone terrorists as no country has fought more other countries and invaded and occupied as many other countries as Britain....they have spread incalculable terror therefore are on of the biggest exponents of terror

Israel has killed and oppressed far more people than hamas so likewise it is absurd for Israel to call hamas terrorists; however they can do that because of the alliance it has with the US which allows it to gain a large segment of the media airtime in the west with a sympathetic media (owned and controlled by monied interests). I see another Iranian scientist was murdered today....who do you think is carrying out those assassinations?

Lets tie it all back to the the thread; the problems with god:

religious beliefs are used by some to form part of a cultural divide which acts as a wedge between different communities causing ongoing suffering

 

[GracieRuth]

religious beliefs are used by some to form part of a cultural divide which acts as a wedge between different communities causing ongoing suffering

I guess I just don't see that as a "G-d Problem" but rather a PEOPLE problem. An exploitative person will exploit ANYthing they can, including religion.

 

[muir]

I guess I just don't see that as a "G-d Problem" but rather a PEOPLE problem. An exploitative person will exploit ANYthing they can, including religion.

Yeah its what people do with it that matters

A peaceful jew/christian/muslim is a peaceful person

The problem comes with how ideas are used to shape peoples perceptions of reality

For example i read a piece today about how myths are created in society and how these then form history and are used to polarise people. The particular example in this case was in Northern Ireland and specifically the myths that developed around the seige of Londonderry in 1688 or rather what each side claimed happened at Londonderry between Catholic and Protestant forces.

The same happens now in the middle east. Myths develop very quickly and even figures such as Elvis Preistley and John F Kennedy have taken on some mythic qualities. It seems Jesus has similarly been subject to this same process.

In reality i think it is the pursuit of money and power and the coercive hierarchical systems this creates that keeps people seperate; religion is just used as a tool for manipulating the masses behind the interests of different concentrations of power and wealth

 

[GracieRuth]

In reality i think it is the pursuit of money and power and the coercive hierarchical systems this creates that keeps people seperate; religion is just used as a tool for manipulating the masses behind the interests of different concentrations of power and wealth

Keep us seperate? It is part of our biology to divide humanity into "us" and "them." Before you design nefarious conspiracies, look to your own human nature. The biggest threat to me is ME.

While money, sex, and power are usually at the base of selfish acts (odd how nicely that lines up with poverty, chastity, and obedience in religious orders, eh?) I would go even farther back; I would dig underneath to find out WHY money, sex, and power are so attractive to human beings. And it really comes down to instinct. Our instinctual nature (animal nature, evil inclination, original sin, whatever you want to call it) is sometimes at odds with our empathy (consience, moral nature, buddha nature, whatever).

When I think of our dual nature, I'm reminded of the Cherokee lengend:
A grandfather tells his grandson, "Inside of every person are two wolves, a good wolf, and an evil wolf. These wolves are constantly fighting."
The grandson, horrified, asks, "Which wolf will win?"
The grandfather replies, "The one I feed."

Of money, sex, and power, I'd say the "love of money" is by far the biggest temptation. Historically, this plays out most often in struggles over land. Your group has been so successful that your population had grown -- now you need more land to support yourselves. Hmmm, can't get more land without taking it away from some other group. Interestingly, this is also the most common reason for war among Chimps. That tells us this tendency existed as far back as when the common ancestor of chimps and humans was around. Pretty deeply engrained, I'd say.

How much do we really want world peace? We would need to reduce our population from 7 billion to about 200,000. Anyone willing? Yeah, I didn't think so.

So really, the only G-d question in all this, is this one:
IF G-D EXISTS, AND CARES ABOUT PEACE FOR HUMANITY, WHY DOESN'T HE LET LOOSE A PLAGUE THAT WOULD LEAVE ONLY ABOUT 200,000 HUMANS LEFT ALIVE?

Maybe it's coming.

 

[muir]

Keep us seperate? It is part of our biology to divide humanity into "us" and "them." Before you design nefarious conspiracies, look to your own human nature. The biggest threat to me is ME.

While money, sex, and power are usually at the base of selfish acts (odd how nicely that lines up with poverty, chastity, and obedience in religious orders, eh?) I would go even farther back; I would dig underneath to find out WHY money, sex, and power are so attractive to human beings. And it really comes down to instinct. Our instinctual nature (animal nature, evil inclination, original sin, whatever you want to call it) is sometimes at odds with our empathy (consience, moral nature, buddha nature, whatever).

When I think of our dual nature, I'm reminded of the Cherokee lengend:
A grandfather tells his grandson, "Inside of every person are two wolves, a good wolf, and an evil wolf. These wolves are constantly fighting."
The grandson, horrified, asks, "Which wolf will win?"
The grandfather replies, "The one I feed."

Of money, sex, and power, I'd say the "love of money" is by far the biggest temptation. Historically, this plays out most often in struggles over land. Your group has been so successful that your population had grown -- now you need more land to support yourselves. Hmmm, can't get more land without taking it away from some other group. Interestingly, this is also the most common reason for war among Chimps. That tells us this tendency existed as far back as when the common ancestor of chimps and humans was around. Pretty deeply engrained, I'd say.

How much do we really want world peace? We would need to reduce our population from 7 billion to about 200,000. Anyone willing? Yeah, I didn't think so.

So really, the only G-d question in all this, is this one:
IF G-D EXISTS, AND CARES ABOUT PEACE FOR HUMANITY, WHY DOESN'T HE LET LOOSE A PLAGUE THAT WOULD LEAVE ONLY ABOUT 200,000 HUMANS LEFT ALIVE?

Maybe it's coming.

I don't think we need to reduce the worlds population to 200,000 for it to be sustainable; i would argue however that capitalism doesn't seem to be able to manage populations and is incredibly wasteful of resources; it doesn';t allocate them in a fair and sustainable way. Corporations aren't good managers they are disasterous managers, because their real motive is not good management of resources but rather profit motive. In such a system profit is put before people, the environment and the truth.

I don't agree that it is our nature to be divided and to pursue money, power and sex relentlessly at the expense of others

I think that the environment we grow up in plays a large part in shaping us. Our current environment is a capitalist one which revolves around money and power which it holds out as a carrot to keep people playing the game and it has commodified sex as it does with everything

I have looked to my own nature and i find that i am at odds with the capitalist society. i have made drastic changes to my life including what i do for a living and how i go about it in response to that; i'm not going to go into too many personal details online but i do practise what i preach and am making real progress in that process despite the fact that the process I have undertaken is far from the path of least resistance

I have also worked in mental health and seen the effects that a capitalist society has on many people. During that time I also spoke to many health proffesionals to get their views on things. Most people believe that poor mental health is usually caused by the environment and when a person is removed from that environment their mental health improves

The reason so many people feel unsatisfied, unhappy or unwell is because they are living in a system that is not in alignment with their true nature.

The reason the system continues is because the corporations are shaping it in the image they want by controlling the levers of power, the Public Relations industry, the media, film making, popular music etc

They are creating their world, a world not built around community (which is what we have evolved over 200,000 years to be used to) but one revolving around profit

If you look back over history things have changed and evolved over time; why imagine that process should stop now? We need to keep evolving, and keep improving things for people and it is abundantly clear to me and to many other people that the current corporate driven system is not the best way of doing things. If INFJ's are good at anything it is looking at something and deciding whether or not it can be done in a better way

By just taking a glance around the world right now i think its pretty clear that there are many areas that could be improved! There are however very real barriers to change. These barriers are usually people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because they are benifitting under it even though it is harmful to many others.

Those others have the option of uniting to enforce a change that suits the many not the few, but it will be resisted by the few as it has been throughout history.

I don't think we need to look to god to achieve this, we simply have to ask ourselves what kind of world we want to live in and then try to achieve it. We each have a part to play in that no matter how big or small

 

[just me]

Over time, it has been quite obvious there is always room for improvement. People cannot agree on how to achieve this. Take God out of the equation and things get more difficult. Wait; others may feel or think God to be the problem. God is the answer, but some feel God does not even exist.

I see division. Each of our brains and personalities seem to think differently, though there may be some common ground amongst ourselves here and there. You want to blame corporations and capitalism? Fine. I want to blame taking prayer out of school and liberal teachings? Fine. I am beside myself watching us argue over who is right and who is wrong. One of my mentors, God bless him, said, "Feelings are neither right nor wrong: they are feelings."
Why can it be so difficult for someone to accept my feelings? I may know yours are wrong, but you have a right to feel the way you wish or actually do feel. Guess what? That makes it alright for me to feel the way I want to.

Why does everything that goes wrong have to be someone's fault? Things go wrong. Fix them!!!!!
Why does religion have to be labeled as a crowd control mechanism? Let the religious be religious. Are you not religious? Don't tell me I am wrong. Who are you to judge me?

Is there really a God problem, or do some people have a problem with God? Some people will do anything they can to have an excuse for the way they live or see things. Maybe they need to clarify why the way they believe or live is right and everyone else is wrong. The God people don't seem to have the same problem with God as the unGodly, now do they? As for the world? Many of our problems started when some vain person fought to have prayer removed from school. Yes, things have continued to go south since then at a fast pace.

We've talked about anti-semitism; it started when the Jewish followers of Muhammed would not proclaim Muhammed a prophet of God. Muhammed was bowing for prayer toward Israel at the time. He turned to the other direction when the Jews failed to meet his wishes. What a big change. Read about it before anyone slams me.

Hamas? Read their wishes in their creed. Genocide is on their minds. Israel wants peace. Hamas wants death. Study it! Read it! They will lie.

If you do not want to believe in God it is your choice. If I want to it is my choice, so why argue? If we are infjs, can we not accept others for what they are? Why try and put their beliefs down? Let every man prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. If I have done so, who are you as a non-believer to chastise me? Get over it.

 

[muir]

Over time, it has been quite obvious there is always room for improvement. People cannot agree on how to achieve this. Take God out of the equation and things get more difficult. Wait; others may feel or think God to be the problem. God is the answer, but some feel God does not even exist.

I see division. Each of our brains and personalities seem to think differently, though there may be some common ground amongst ourselves here and there. You want to blame corporations and capitalism? Fine. I want to blame taking prayer out of school and liberal teachings? Fine. I am beside myself watching us argue over who is right and who is wrong. One of my mentors, God bless him, said, "Feelings are neither right nor wrong: they are feelings."
Why can it be so difficult for someone to accept my feelings? I may know yours are wrong, but you have a right to feel the way you wish or actually do feel. Guess what? That makes it alright for me to feel the way I want to.

Why does everything that goes wrong have to be someone's fault? Things go wrong. Fix them!!!!!
Why does religion have to be labeled as a crowd control mechanism? Let the religious be religious. Are you not religious? Don't tell me I am wrong. Who are you to judge me?

Is there really a God problem, or do some people have a problem with God? Some people will do anything they can to have an excuse for the way they live or see things. Maybe they need to clarify why the way they believe or live is right and everyone else is wrong. The God people don't seem to have the same problem with God as the unGodly, now do they? As for the world? Many of our problems started when some vain person fought to have prayer removed from school. Yes, things have continued to go south since then at a fast pace.

We've talked about anti-semitism; it started when the Jewish followers of Muhammed would not proclaim Muhammed a prophet of God. Muhammed was bowing for prayer toward Israel at the time. He turned to the other direction when the Jews failed to meet his wishes. What a big change. Read about it before anyone slams me.

Hamas? Read their wishes in their creed. Genocide is on their minds. Israel wants peace. Hamas wants death. Study it! Read it! They will lie.

If you do not want to believe in God it is your choice. If I want to it is my choice, so why argue? If we are infjs, can we not accept others for what they are? Why try and put their beliefs down? Let every man prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. If I have done so, who are you as a non-believer to chastise me? Get over it.

Hi justme

I'm not saying religions are entirely invalid; I think there are some interesting ideas at their core

I spoke in a previous post about how Paul had taken the teachings of a jewish sect and changed them for a gentile market. The point i was making is that is the pauline lineage authentic? Perhaps the original teachings are more authentic?

The other point i was making is that i believe that power elites have appropriated the religious experience. By this i mean that someones relationship with god (however they chose to define that) is a personal thing; some groups throughout history have sought to take a sort of ownership of that which has empowered them at the expense of the individual.

I am cautioning against people allowing themselves to be lead by people who might not have their best interests at heart

I believe that people shouldn't have leaders but should all be involved in shaping their own work patterns, communities and lives. Included in that is a freedom to engage in the spiritual process however they choose.

Concerning questioning other peoples beliefs. That is a difficult area. On one hand i in principle belive in the individuals right to do as they please (as long as they are not hurting anyone else). This however becomes less black and white when you consider that sometimes what people believe is what has been told to them by manipulative people. Further to that the holding of certain beliefs by some people can have harmful effects.

For example if the power elites decided tomorrow that they were going to ban christianity on a belief that it is a false doctrine, i think people would have a right to oppose that because the belief that they hold is having a harmful effect on people.

Now i do question pauline christian doctrine but i would never support an actual enforcement against it. I belive in my right to question it but not to actually physically stop people doing it.

Concerning Israel. My position is this. I belive that if Israel is to build a future where its citizens can feel safe then it MUST work with its neighbours and also allow the palestineans a home land of their own; i belive that if this doesn't happen then the violence will continue and might even escalate. In fact there is an escalation occuring right now in the region with Iran.

I feel this situation is exacerbated by the involvment of an outside party the US whose interests in the region are partly zionist but also largely relating to controlling the access to the worlds oil reserves in the middle east.

I criticise the actions of Israel because they are the stronger party. They could allow Palestineans a homeland but they and the US are blocking this move. They however present themselves in the media as reasonable and seeking peace and as the oppressed party. That's simply not true; they are hugely powerful. they have nuclear weapons, which must scare the hell out of Iran which knows that the US eyes the oil that lies under its soil with jealous eyes and they have the latest jet fighter planes and apache helicopters all provided for them by the US.

What do the Palestineans have? They have stones, home made rockets, AK's and desperation.

Yes muslims in the region have supported groups such as hamas and hezbollah and provided them with more sophisticated weaponry but if the US and Israel had sought a two state solution instead of an expansionist policy and instead of invading and occupying countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan and assassinating Iranian scientists, and generally trying in anyway possible to destabilise the region then these groups would not have needed to grow in power and to arm themselves. They are reacting to the neo-imperialist aggression of the US and its ally Israel

imagine for a moment if a more powerful country invaded your country, occupied it and stole all of its resources, whilst locking up and torturing your fellow citizens and pissing on their dead bodies? All the while you knew that they were telling their own citizens in their media that they were doing it to bring you 'democracy'. How would you feel?

I'm arguing that if the US and Israel don't change their policies the situation is going to continue and quite possibly get worse. Denying the role the US is playing in the middle east is not being honest

When US voters allow their government to invade, murder, torture and steal around the world because they have some crazy christian zionist notion in their head then i believe I have a right to question and challenge those ideas

 

[just me]

Hello muir,
Your views are pretty much etched in stone, I think. There seems to be a common denominator in your world views that differs greatly from mine. Some of the writings attributed to Paul I studied the Greek interlinear translations of with Greek lexicons and concordances many moons ago. We disagree on Paul, too: but that is alright.

I will not have a pissing contest with you, but a lot of those folk desecrate themselves and their own in much worse ways. I know people that have watched a lot of what is going on firsthand and have spoken with them. I would much rather be pissed on than have a man with a bomb in his turbin hug my neck like he was my friend and blow our heads off. I really don't know how I would act if I watched a man kill several of my friends before I killed him. My first thought is a double tap with a head shot to close the deal.

There are those with little desire to do what is right everywhere, and the US is not exempt from them. There are filthy people everywhere, also. Some countries have more filthy people than others. Some people lie more than others and feel it alright to do so. People have a tendency to be as the pirhanna: it only takes one person to take a bite for others to follow suit. However, it only takes one man with integrity to say no and stand against such nonsense to have it stop. Religion teaches those kind of thoughts and principles.

I remember in the Bible how the Jewish people wanted a leader after seeing the other different countries and cultures with leaders. Up until that point, God was their leader. That is an interesting study with some interesting thoughts in it.

I cannot sit by idly and continue to see words from people running down and questioning God. If these were from someone that had devoted their life to knowing God I might would listen, but the tone would be entirely different. Maybe I was blessed with the mentors in my life. Maybe I have a gift in seeing and understanding certain things more readily than most people concerning specific things. Maybe I am a man of God; but like a work of art not quite a masterpiece as of yet. I still have some rough edges and my mere human frailties.

Speaking of human frailties, the thing I liked a lot about Paul was how he dealt with the law. He could control himself with all the law except one part of it: thou shalt not covet. He stated that if a man transgressed any one part of the law, he was then a transgressor of the law. He talked about how people like myself can live in peace with God regarding that one burden of the law. It gave me the mindset of how important even my thoughts are, not just my actions. I, therefore, try to control my thoughts if they tend to start drifting away from what I feel they should be. Paul was a great teacher.

The tension in the arena with Iran comes from many years of lying, threats to destroy the Jewish people, and nuclear ambitions. The threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is nothing more than a decoy and a diversion to take eyes off their nuclear program. They want the world to fight them where they want to fight, and stop thinking about their underground facilities and desires to tell the world they have tested a nuclear device. I do not fall for it, so doubt seriously our government falls for it.

We do background checks before people can have access to some of our more delicate resources. If a man has constantly threatened killing someone, he will not even be allowed to buy a gun. There is a reason for that. Nuclear weapons should not go to people that wish to destroy Israel, or anywhere else for that matter. The fact they stated they would destroy Israel makes the situation very volatile and Israel is taking it seriously. America is doing everything they can to help Iran out of this mess they are in, but Iran refuses to turn back. This is not about Gaza. Estimates are a nuclear-armed Iran in 2012, however childish or unadvanced. Elections are coming up in America, too. All this sabre rattling is not just between Israel and Iran. The entire arena stands to lose out if this goes to the table, as Iran has over a thousand missiles capable of doing a lot of damage in the region. I hate to see so many civilians and military personnel as well face this situation.

Muhammed al Baradei, former head of the IAEA, stated just today he would not seek the Presidency of Egypt. His reason was simple: there is not a democracy in Egypt. I hope he is wrong, but where are things heading, I wonder? He is surely one person that most likely would know much better than I.

In closing, I would like to state I said some things to get them off my chest a day or two ago. There is a lot to read in between the lines. I do not have the luxury of speaking my thoughts fully.
I do hope I have offended nobody. Regards.

 

[Tony Davies]

I believe in the God of Abraham and the God of Moses and the God of Jesus.

Sent from my Sony Tablet S using Tapatalk

 

[muir]

Hi Justme

I hear what you are saying

I just feel that the west has been interferring in the middle east for a long time now because of the oil there. If we are going to block democracy in countries so that we can place puppet leaders in its place or if we invade and occupy countries then we must expect that the people in those countries are going to respond angrily to that

Many people feel loyalties to things that cross national borders. For example you might feel a common bond with other christians from around the world as might jews and muslims.

Muslims around the world feel like what has been done to the palestineans is an attack on the muslim community

What i'm saying is that we have developed in the west an addiction to oil. Oil is like crack cocaine to us. In order to get that oil we are robbing other countries much like a crack addict might stick up a cornerstore......we just shouldn't be suprised if someone shoots back that's all

 

[just me]

Muir,
I can see why you would feel the way you feel towards oil, but it is not all tied into just that one thing at all. Neither are we trying to keep countries from having democracy. I really think Muslims and Arabs alike do not feel the bond toward the Palestinians you think they feel, either. Maybe the world would be much better off without all the oil dependency?

Think of the oil used to grease the war machines: aircraft carriers, subs, jets, bombers, and the list goes on and on. The monies from the oil are placing certain countries with so much they are playing with nukes. Much better to want a new Porsche, ya know?

How would the world respond to the exporting of oil being stopped from Iran? It might just put people back in their places where they belong for awhile. I remember taking toys away from children when they were fighting over them. That changed the attitudes of those involved quickly. Could the world survive without oil?

The current administration in America has been sending mixed signals to Israel and Iran since placed in office. It almost appears like they are buying more time for Iran to complete their task. Israel cannot place their trust in a government that is speaking out of both sides of their mouth and changing like the tides. I would not. America is pulling harder strings against Israel than anyone else in this situation, especially after this morning's cancellation of the big war games planned. What is the Obama administration telling Israel? "Do like we say or we will not support you any longer."?????? Yeah, I would trust that as far as I could spit. It is almost like giving Israel a green light so the Americans will not be blamed. Coffee time.

 

[muir]

Muir,
I can see why you would feel the way you feel towards oil, but it is not all tied into just that one thing at all. Neither are we trying to keep countries from having democracy. I really think Muslims and Arabs alike do not feel the bond toward the Palestinians you think they feel, either. Maybe the world would be much better off without all the oil dependency?.

The 'west' has also combated the spread of 'communism' often in covert wars such as in Oman by supporting autocratic leaders against popular uprisings by the people. The US is also carrying on its cold war encirclement of Russia and supporting zionism. But controlling access to the worlds oil reserves under the middle east is a large part of US interferance in the middle east.

The US absolutely is blocking democracy by supporting tyrannical leaders and overthrowing legitimate ones such as the democratically elected leader of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état).

Saddam Hussein was a client of the US before he went off message, with the US carrying on diplomatic relations with Saddam whilst he was gassing kurds with chemicals bought from the US!:


The US funded mujahadeen like Osama Bin laden: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

I think muslims and arabs do feel a bond with the Palestineans. I'm neither a muslim nor an arab and i sympathise with the Palestineans as do many people. The situation in Palestine is a constant source of anger and frustration around the world.

Think of the oil used to grease the war machines: aircraft carriers, subs, jets, bombers, and the list goes on and on. The monies from the oil are placing certain countries with so much they are playing with nukes. Much better to want a new Porsche, ya know?

The following wikipedia page has tables of the which countries spend the most on arms and on which country sells the most arms around the world. The US tops both tables! So the US is spending more money on weapons than anyon else and is also proliferating weapons around the world more than anyone else! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

I don't think countries leaders should be spending money from oil on either weapons or fancy cars, they should be spending it on their people. Libya had 200 billion dollars; perhaps if Gaddafi had spent some of that on his people he might have had more popular support; he was of course a business partner of the US:



However Gaddafi was about to start providing parts of africa with finance for development which the US does not want so they shut him down before he could go ahead with his scheme. The US is interfering increasingly in Africa to secure oil and other resources. None of these countries ever benefit from the US interference; only the corrupt few at the top benefit with no money trickling down to the people. Saudi Arabia also has massive wealth disparity

Ehud Mubarak was an ally of the US government and was found to have stashed away 40 billion dollars as a personal fortune whilst many Egyptians starved. The house of saud, royal family of Saudi Arabia is famously an ally of the US and the Bush family was known as oil men to be personal friends of the House of saud



Saudi Arabia is a hotbed of extreme wahabism and many of the people implicated in the 9/11 attacks were from saudi arabia but did the US invade saudi arabia? No they invaded Iraq because Iraq was going to trade oil in euros not dollars.

This is all part of the US policies of the 'Washington Consensus' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_consensus) and Neoliberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)

How would the world respond to the exporting of oil being stopped from Iran? It might just put people back in their places where they belong for awhile. I remember taking toys away from children when they were fighting over them. That changed the attitudes of those involved quickly. Could the world survive without oil??.

Iran are not children and are not inferior to the US. The country who is stepping out of their place and visiting violence on other countries around the world is the US.

The current administration in America has been sending mixed signals to Israel and Iran since placed in office. It almost appears like they are buying more time for Iran to complete their task. Israel cannot place their trust in a government that is speaking out of both sides of their mouth and changing like the tides. I would not. America is pulling harder strings against Israel than anyone else in this situation, especially after this morning's cancellation of the big war games planned. What is the Obama administration telling Israel? "Do like we say or we will not support you any longer."?????? Yeah, I would trust that as far as I could spit. It is almost like giving Israel a green light so the Americans will not be blamed. Coffee time.

The current administration answers to the same money men that the last one did

The US is building up troop numbers in Kuweit and sending warships to the Persian Gulf in order to intimdate Iran. The US has applied diplomatic pressure on countries such as Japan who are customers of Irans oil to place an embargo on Iran.

Iran could easily block the straight of hormuz and could inflict heavy casualties on the US so the question is are the money men who run the US willing to sacrifice all the personel who are stationed in military bases in the middle east and therefore within range of Irans ballistic missiles in order to achieve their goals?

If you are not in the nuclear club then you will always be vulnerable to invasion especially from a bullish US that likes to piss on International laws as much as it likes to piss on war dead.

 

[just me]

"There are those with little desire to do what is right everywhere, and the US is not exempt from them. There are filthy people everywhere, also. Some countries have more filthy people than others. Some people lie more than others and feel it alright to do so. People have a tendency to be as the pirhanna: it only takes one person to take a bite for others to follow suit. However, it only takes one man with integrity to say no and stand against such nonsense to have it stop. Religion teaches those kind of thoughts and principles." from an earlier post

America does not like to piss on the dead. There are people like that everywhere. The Hadiths speak of drinking camel piss. Good night.

 

[muir]

"There are those with little desire to do what is right everywhere, and the US is not exempt from them. There are filthy people everywhere, also. Some countries have more filthy people than others. Some people lie more than others and feel it alright to do so. People have a tendency to be as the pirhanna: it only takes one person to take a bite for others to follow suit. However, it only takes one man with integrity to say no and stand against such nonsense to have it stop. Religion teaches those kind of thoughts and principles." from an earlier post

America does not like to piss on the dead. There are people like that everywhere. The Hadiths speak of drinking camel piss. Good night.

I don't really have an issue with people drinking camels piss.

The hadith talks about drinking camels milk and piss as a medicine. It does have anticeptic properties and life in the desert is pretty tough so i guess you've got to use what you have to get the job done. In that kind of environment squeemishness is for tenderfeet

The marines who urinated on Afghani war dead and then posted the video on youtube are clearly pretty desensitised. There have also been convictions of US military personel for acting in 'killing teams', which killed unarmed civilians and then took body parts as trophies: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/11/kill-team-calvin-gibbs-convicted

A UK soldier was convicted recently for stabbing an Afghani boy with his bayonet

Clearly something happens to the psychology of people in war scenarios.I think what each voting member of the public needs to decide is whether they condone or condemn such acts and vote with their feet and with the ballot accordingly.

 

[InvisibleJim]

[video=youtube;z3YMxM1_S48]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3YMxM1_S48[/video]