| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michael Altarriba" |
| Date: |
23 Jan 2005 04:31:45 PM |
| Object: |
An... interesting perspective on morality |
I saw this recently, and thought you'd all be... interested.
I repeat: THIS IS NOT MINE! I'm just posting someone else's thoughts:
==============================================================================
David Hume (correctly) pointed out that you cannot derive ought from
is. The problem is, for an atheist, there simply is no ought possible.
Obligation can only come from authority, and, without God, there is no
standard of authority. You can try to do the opposite of what
Wittgenstein said he did -- rather than throwing away the ladder once
you've climbed up it, you start up in thin air with no ladder in the
first place -- and try to construct some emergent social theory of
authority, but it's impossible to justify why that would supersede any
of our natural inclinations that contradict the social authority, or
why the social authority has any authority at all -- hence the starting
in thin air.
The Christian worldview has a basis for authority, and morality. Only
upon the Christian worldview can we correctly separate ought from is.
In fact, only upon the Christian worldview can we have any conception
of "ought" at all. So, the naturalistic fallacy, which claims that what
is natural is not necessarily good, and what's good is not necessarily
natural, has no way to justify that apart from the Christian worldview.
So, only on the Christian worldview, a worldview that views nature as
corrupt and not existent as God originally intended, is the
naturalistic fallacy justified.
==============================================================================
Your thoughts? My first reaction was a tossup between screaming,
laughing, and crying at the sheer waste of millennia of evolution that
produced human brains, only to have one produce something like this.
.
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
23 Jan 2005 05:14:20 PM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1106497905.028282.163730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
I saw this recently, and thought you'd all be... interested.
I repeat: THIS IS NOT MINE! I'm just posting someone else's thoughts:
======================================================================
=
======= David Hume (correctly) pointed out that you cannot derive
ought from is. The problem is, for an atheist, there simply is no
ought possible. Obligation can only come from authority, and, without
God, there is no standard of authority. You can try to do the opposite
of what Wittgenstein said he did -- rather than throwing away the
ladder once you've climbed up it, you start up in thin air with no
ladder in the first place -- and try to construct some emergent social
theory of authority, but it's impossible to justify why that would
supersede any of our natural inclinations that contradict the social
authority, or why the social authority has any authority at all --
hence the starting in thin air.
The Christian worldview has a basis for authority, and morality. Only
upon the Christian worldview can we correctly separate ought from is.
In fact, only upon the Christian worldview can we have any conception
of "ought" at all. So, the naturalistic fallacy, which claims that
what is natural is not necessarily good, and what's good is not
necessarily natural, has no way to justify that apart from the
Christian worldview. So, only on the Christian worldview, a worldview
that views nature as corrupt and not existent as God originally
intended, is the naturalistic fallacy justified.
======================================================================
=
=======
Your thoughts? My first reaction was a tossup between screaming,
laughing, and crying at the sheer waste of millennia of evolution that
produced human brains, only to have one produce something like this.
Of course the simple answer is that "God" is a made-up "authority". We
can make up whatever "authority" we need to justify our basis for
morality; or, better yet, dispose of the authority altogether and admit
that morality is what we say it is *because* we say so.
To answer Hume, obligation comes not from authority but from our own
acceptance of that obligation. It is not difficult to justify the
acceptance of social obligations by the individual; it merely requires
the individual to acknowledge the benefits of living in an organized
society.
That social organization derives its power to determine right and wrong
by the delegation of the individual authority of its members. This is
not an option; any society will exclude from participation those who do
not accept its rules or laws, both implicit and explicit.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
24 Jan 2005 01:53:23 AM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106497905.028282.163730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I saw this recently, and thought you'd all be... interested.
I repeat: THIS IS NOT MINE! I'm just posting someone else's thoughts:
============================================================================
==
David Hume (correctly) pointed out that you cannot derive ought from
is. The problem is, for an atheist, there simply is no ought possible.
Obligation can only come from authority, and, without God, there is no
standard of authority. You can try to do the opposite of what
Wittgenstein said he did -- rather than throwing away the ladder once
you've climbed up it, you start up in thin air with no ladder in the
first place -- and try to construct some emergent social theory of
authority, but it's impossible to justify why that would supersede any
of our natural inclinations that contradict the social authority, or
why the social authority has any authority at all -- hence the starting
in thin air.
The Christian worldview has a basis for authority, and morality. Only
upon the Christian worldview can we correctly separate ought from is.
In fact, only upon the Christian worldview can we have any conception
of "ought" at all. So, the naturalistic fallacy, which claims that what
is natural is not necessarily good, and what's good is not necessarily
natural, has no way to justify that apart from the Christian worldview.
So, only on the Christian worldview, a worldview that views nature as
corrupt and not existent as God originally intended, is the
naturalistic fallacy justified.
============================================================================
==
Your thoughts? My first reaction was a tossup between screaming,
laughing, and crying at the sheer waste of millennia of evolution that
produced human brains, only to have one produce something like this.
I have no idea what it says.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "pensul" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
25 Jan 2005 10:15:55 PM |
|
|
.... So, the naturalistic fallacy, which claims that what
is natural is not necessarily good, and what's good is not necessarily
natural, has no way to justify that apart from the Christian worldview.
What he means here is not that the Christian worldview justifies the
naturalistic fallacy, but that those who believe the naturalistic fallacy
have no way to reason their way out of it but by Christianity ( Christianity
offers justification for what their present beliefs are, regardless of
whether they are right or wrong, so that they might repent. ).
So, only on the Christian worldview, a worldview that views nature as
corrupt and not existent as God originally intended, is the
naturalistic fallacy justified.
Again, he means "affords justification to those who believe the naturalistic
fallacy", so that repentance becomes possible. Otherwise, they are left
blindly believing that there is good in that which in reality destroys the good.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
25 Jan 2005 01:27:49 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Michael Altarriba poured fuel on the
fire with the following:
I saw this recently, and thought you'd all be... interested.
Ummmmm, ..... why would that be? The argument is pretty much the
standard Christian line.
I repeat: THIS IS NOT MINE!
So, .... where's the repetition?
[ snip some apologetics ]
Your thoughts?
It's all assertion, with no real argumentation. Take out the references
to Christianity and the Christian deity and substitute Islamic
references, and the argument is equally "valid". This is enough to show
that there is a problem with it.
My first reaction was a tossup between screaming,
laughing, and crying at the sheer waste of millennia of evolution that
produced human brains, only to have one produce something like this.
Why sweat it? Evolution does not proceed in a straight line. Nor does
it find the optimum solutions. Evolution is all about "winning ugly".
And evolution sometimes takes blind alleys.
Regards,
Josef
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or
Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
-- Thomas Paine
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
23 Jan 2005 07:04:58 PM |
|
|
Le Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:31:45 -0800, Michael Altarriba a écrit :
Obligation can only come from authority, and, without God, there is no
standard of authority.
That is a very primitive view of the concept of morality; philosophers for
the past 2500 years have come up with much better alternatives. Look no
further than the Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma for a rock-solid and
astonishingly simple basis to a rational form of morality/ethics.
And from a practical point of view, the "god" hypothesis doesn't even
WORK. Proof: we can certainly agree that the worst violation of morality
is murder. But murder has been commited in the name of gods, and even
christian gods, among christian sects (catholics vs. protestants,
catholics vs. cathares, etc...) countless times. It results that there is
not even ONE god authority to speak of, since believers all have their own
idea of what their gods want, even when they claim to read from the same
book.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
23 Jan 2005 06:39:47 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
I saw this recently, and thought you'd all be... interested.
I repeat: THIS IS NOT MINE! I'm just posting someone else's thoughts:
==============================================================================
David Hume (correctly) pointed out that you cannot derive ought from
is. The problem is, for an atheist, there simply is no ought possible.
Obligation can only come from authority, and, without God, there is no
standard of authority. You can try to do the opposite of what
Wittgenstein said he did -- rather than throwing away the ladder once
you've climbed up it, you start up in thin air with no ladder in the
first place -- and try to construct some emergent social theory of
authority, but it's impossible to justify why that would supersede any
of our natural inclinations that contradict the social authority, or
why the social authority has any authority at all -- hence the starting
in thin air.
The Christian worldview has a basis for authority, and morality. Only
upon the Christian worldview can we correctly separate ought from is.
In fact, only upon the Christian worldview can we have any conception
of "ought" at all. So, the naturalistic fallacy, which claims that what
is natural is not necessarily good, and what's good is not necessarily
natural, has no way to justify that apart from the Christian worldview.
So, only on the Christian worldview, a worldview that views nature as
corrupt and not existent as God originally intended, is the
naturalistic fallacy justified.
==============================================================================
Your thoughts? My first reaction was a tossup between screaming,
laughing, and crying at the sheer waste of millennia of evolution that
produced human brains, only to have one produce something like this.
Yeah, whoever wrote this noise is, a)and xtian trying to justify their
position, and b) a moron that won't apply the same rules to other
faiths, and realize how silly this argument is.
If having a deity is the cause of moral structure in society, then the
Hindus have the xtians and muslims whipped. They have more deities then
they can count, and have had them for thousands of years longer.
And yet, they still can't seem to get along with each other, stop
killing each other, and actually take the moral high road and be an
example to the world.
The muslims also claim a god. And we have had some very good examples
of their moral structure over the last several decades. Then there are
the jews, they to claim a god, and yet refuse to do the morally upright
thing, and allow their neighbors to actually have a country, and exist.
Yeah, I can really see where having god(s), is a big help in the moral
standing of any society.
Yup, nothing fails better then religion.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
23 Jan 2005 07:19:15 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:po7dc2-1ro.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
<snip all the way to>
Y'know, Rev. Taylor, you are very dogmatic for a free thinker. Actually, I
think Fred Stone handled the ideas extremely well, from an atheistic
viewpoint. I don't have anything to add to his thoughts, he pretty much
nailed it. Now since I come from a theistic POV, the filter would be
slightly different, but the results are the same as to authority, cause and
acceptance of obligation. The reason I'm responding to you has to do with
the following only:
The muslims also claim a god. And we have had some very good examples of
their moral structure over the last several decades. Then there are the
jews, they to claim a god, and yet refuse to do the morally upright thing,
and allow their neighbors to actually have a country, and exist.
You are an idiot. IT's not the Jews who are refusing the Palistinians...it's
their Muslim neighbors, who are using these people as a weapon against the
Jews. You have it exactly backwards. There was never supposed to be, nor was
there planned, a 'nation of Palestine', and if the countries adjacent to
Israel had done what they AGREED to do from the beginning, there wouldn't be
a problem now; no generations dwelling in camps, unwelcome by their own
people...and if they hadn't invaded Israel in 1967, almost every one of
those "Palistinians" would be quite happily living and working and
worshiping as they pleased...in Israel or in Jordan or Lebanon or Syria or
Egypt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
23 Jan 2005 08:06:39 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in message
news:po7dc2-1ro.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
<snip all the way to>
Y'know, Rev. Taylor, you are very dogmatic for a free thinker. Actually, I
think Fred Stone handled the ideas extremely well, from an atheistic
viewpoint. I don't have anything to add to his thoughts, he pretty much
nailed it. Now since I come from a theistic POV, the filter would be
slightly different, but the results are the same as to authority, cause and
acceptance of obligation. The reason I'm responding to you has to do with
the following only:
I don't get Fred's posts. So I did not see what he wrote.
And since I see no evidence of any gods at all, it's more of an exercise
in mental gymnastics.
Oh, and my opinion too.
The muslims also claim a god. And we have had some very good examples of
their moral structure over the last several decades. Then there are the
jews, they to claim a god, and yet refuse to do the morally upright thing,
and allow their neighbors to actually have a country, and exist.
You are an idiot. IT's not the Jews who are refusing the Palistinians...it's
their Muslim neighbors, who are using these people as a weapon against the
Jews. You have it exactly backwards. There was never supposed to be, nor was
there planned, a 'nation of Palestine', and if the countries adjacent to
Israel had done what they AGREED to do from the beginning, there wouldn't be
a problem now; no generations dwelling in camps, unwelcome by their own
people...and if they hadn't invaded Israel in 1967, almost every one of
those "Palistinians" would be quite happily living and working and
worshiping as they pleased...in Israel or in Jordan or Lebanon or Syria or
Egypt.
Hummm, more then 5000 years of history, tell a different story. And
when tanks fire rounds into civilian areas, that is not moral.
I also laid blame with the muslims. I see both sides as immoral.
Neither one of them seems to want to take the moral alternative, so they
are both at fault.
However, this MIGHT be changing. With the new PM replacing Arafat, it
might, slowly, change.
But I'm not holding my breath over it.
Until both sides throw away the silly notion that some deity, "gave them
the land", there will be no peace in the region. And in that region, it
is ample evidence, that holding a faith in a god, does not make you moral.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
23 Jan 2005 10:23:48 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:krcdc2-jop.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:po7dc2-1ro.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
<snip all the way to>
Y'know, Rev. Taylor, you are very dogmatic for a free thinker. Actually,
I think Fred Stone handled the ideas extremely well, from an atheistic
viewpoint. I don't have anything to add to his thoughts, he pretty much
nailed it. Now since I come from a theistic POV, the filter would be
slightly different, but the results are the same as to authority, cause
and acceptance of obligation. The reason I'm responding to you has to do
with the following only:
I don't get Fred's posts. So I did not see what he wrote.
That's too bad, I thing you would agree with him.
Well, on atheism, anyway...
And since I see no evidence of any gods at all, it's more of an exercise
in mental gymnastics.
Oh, and my opinion too.
The muslims also claim a god. And we have had some very good examples of
their moral structure over the last several decades. Then there are the
jews, they to claim a god, and yet refuse to do the morally upright
thing, and allow their neighbors to actually have a country, and exist.
You are an idiot. IT's not the Jews who are refusing the
Palistinians...it's their Muslim neighbors, who are using these people as
a weapon against the Jews. You have it exactly backwards. There was never
supposed to be, nor was there planned, a 'nation of Palestine', and if
the countries adjacent to Israel had done what they AGREED to do from the
beginning, there wouldn't be a problem now; no generations dwelling in
camps, unwelcome by their own people...and if they hadn't invaded Israel
in 1967, almost every one of those "Palistinians" would be quite happily
living and working and worshiping as they pleased...in Israel or in
Jordan or Lebanon or Syria or Egypt.
Hummm, more then 5000 years of history, tell a different story. And when
tanks fire rounds into civilian areas, that is not moral.
And who fired first? Who broke agreements first, who invaded whom first, who
refused to honor their own promises first, and who is sending the
terrorist/suicide bombers out of those very civilian areas?
I also laid blame with the muslims. I see both sides as immoral. Neither
one of them seems to want to take the moral alternative, so they are both
at fault.
However, this MIGHT be changing. With the new PM replacing Arafat, it
might, slowly, change.
It is indeed the only hope I see so far.
But I'm not holding my breath over it.
Until both sides throw away the silly notion that some deity, "gave them
the land", there will be no peace in the region. And in that region, it
is ample evidence, that holding a faith in a god, does not make you moral.
Never mind what deity may have given them the land. For the moment, it's the
United Nations and the united will of the planet that gave the JEWS the
land, partially in recompense for the horrors they had endured during WWII,
partially for other reasons, but the thing is, every nation agreed to it,
and Israel was NOT the invading villian in the expansions of 1967; they WERE
invaded.
If there is any hope to be had in the new Palistinian leader it is only in
this: that he see the FACT that Israel was given the land in agreement, and
that the principle villains in the Palistinian troubles aren't the Jews,
it's their own people who abrogated agreements.
.......and that killing all the Jews and driving them into the sea isn't
going to be recieved with complacency by those Jews, understandably.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
23 Jan 2005 10:55:17 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in message
news:krcdc2-jop.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in message
news:po7dc2-1ro.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
<snip all the way to>
Y'know, Rev. Taylor, you are very dogmatic for a free thinker. Actually,
I think Fred Stone handled the ideas extremely well, from an atheistic
viewpoint. I don't have anything to add to his thoughts, he pretty much
nailed it. Now since I come from a theistic POV, the filter would be
slightly different, but the results are the same as to authority, cause
and acceptance of obligation. The reason I'm responding to you has to do
with the following only:
I don't get Fred's posts. So I did not see what he wrote.
That's too bad, I thing you would agree with him.
Well, on atheism, anyway...
On atheism, maybe, on politics, that's a big never.
And since I see no evidence of any gods at all, it's more of an exercise
in mental gymnastics.
Oh, and my opinion too.
The muslims also claim a god. And we have had some very good examples of
their moral structure over the last several decades. Then there are the
jews, they to claim a god, and yet refuse to do the morally upright
thing, and allow their neighbors to actually have a country, and exist.
You are an idiot. IT's not the Jews who are refusing the
Palistinians...it's their Muslim neighbors, who are using these people as
a weapon against the Jews. You have it exactly backwards. There was never
supposed to be, nor was there planned, a 'nation of Palestine', and if
the countries adjacent to Israel had done what they AGREED to do from the
beginning, there wouldn't be a problem now; no generations dwelling in
camps, unwelcome by their own people...and if they hadn't invaded Israel
in 1967, almost every one of those "Palistinians" would be quite happily
living and working and worshiping as they pleased...in Israel or in
Jordan or Lebanon or Syria or Egypt.
Hummm, more then 5000 years of history, tell a different story. And when
tanks fire rounds into civilian areas, that is not moral.
And who fired first? Who broke agreements first, who invaded whom first, who
refused to honor their own promises first, and who is sending the
terrorist/suicide bombers out of those very civilian areas?
It does not matter who fired first. The post I was responding to, was a
break down of moral structure based on hold a faith in a deity.
In that region, both sides are guilty of dropping the moral ball, and
still screaming that their god gives them the right.
That, is what I was saying. Nothing else.
I also laid blame with the muslims. I see both sides as immoral. Neither
one of them seems to want to take the moral alternative, so they are both
at fault.
However, this MIGHT be changing. With the new PM replacing Arafat, it
might, slowly, change.
It is indeed the only hope I see so far.
And I hope they can pull it off. The senseless killing that has been
going on there is just to much. They both, need to come to an
agreement, and stop the circle of violence in the area.
But I'm not holding my breath over it.
Until both sides throw away the silly notion that some deity, "gave them
the land", there will be no peace in the region. And in that region, it
is ample evidence, that holding a faith in a god, does not make you moral.
Never mind what deity may have given them the land. For the moment, it's the
United Nations and the united will of the planet that gave the JEWS the
land, partially in recompense for the horrors they had endured during WWII,
partially for other reasons, but the thing is, every nation agreed to it,
and Israel was NOT the invading villian in the expansions of 1967; they WERE
invaded.
And what was the reason for giving the land to them?
A blind devotion by a large number of countrys, to a 5000 year old myth,
from tales told around camp fires by bronze age tribes.
Sorry, there is no other reason for why, in 1948, the UN decided to
"give" the jews, an occupied land. And yes, it was occupied by the
arabs in 1948.
Their wishes, and voices were ignored.
If there is any hope to be had in the new Palistinian leader it is only in
this: that he see the FACT that Israel was given the land in agreement, and
that the principle villains in the Palistinian troubles aren't the Jews,
it's their own people who abrogated agreements.
......and that killing all the Jews and driving them into the sea isn't
going to be recieved with complacency by those Jews, understandably.
Actually, if they would both understand that they are the same people,
divided only by theological differences, maybe, just maybe, it would end
the entire mess.
And yes, I do admit, I'm dreaming there.
And I also admit that my views are not popular. But if we are going to
blame one of them for the violence, we have to blame them both.
Treaties have been broken on BOTH sides, and BOTH sides are guilty of
immoral behavior.
And both sides claim there are acting, in the service of their god.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
24 Jan 2005 12:23:21 AM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:snmdc2-ejr.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:krcdc2-jop.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:po7dc2-1ro.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
<snip all the way to>
Y'know, Rev. Taylor, you are very dogmatic for a free thinker. Actually,
I think Fred Stone handled the ideas extremely well, from an atheistic
viewpoint. I don't have anything to add to his thoughts, he pretty much
nailed it. Now since I come from a theistic POV, the filter would be
slightly different, but the results are the same as to authority, cause
and acceptance of obligation. The reason I'm responding to you has to do
with the following only:
I don't get Fred's posts. So I did not see what he wrote.
That's too bad, I thing you would agree with him.
Well, on atheism, anyway...
On atheism, maybe, on politics, that's a big never.
Well, on the existance of deity he and I disagree, but on politics? He's my
hero. ;-)
<snip to>
And who fired first? Who broke agreements first, who invaded whom first,
who refused to honor their own promises first, and who is sending the
terrorist/suicide bombers out of those very civilian areas?
It does not matter who fired first. The post I was responding to, was a
break down of moral structure based on hold a faith in a deity.
In that region, both sides are guilty of dropping the moral ball, and
still screaming that their god gives them the right.
That, is what I was saying. Nothing else.
Well, you didn't write that Palistinians or the Muslim nations around had
any responsibility for this, mentioning only that Israel wouldn't allow a
Palistinian state, but...ok.
<snip to>
Never mind what deity may have given them the land. For the moment, it's
the United Nations and the united will of the planet that gave the JEWS
the land, partially in recompense for the horrors they had endured during
WWII, partially for other reasons, but the thing is, every nation agreed
to it, and Israel was NOT the invading villian in the expansions of 1967;
they WERE invaded.
And what was the reason for giving the land to them?
Didn't I say that in the above paragraph?
A blind devotion by a large number of countrys, to a 5000 year old myth,
from tales told around camp fires by bronze age tribes.
It doesn't matter, does it? The fact is, it was done, it was agreed to by
all parties, and the neighboring nations abrogated the agreements.
Sorry, there is no other reason for why, in 1948, the UN decided to "give"
the jews, an occupied land. And yes, it was occupied by the arabs in
1948.
And it was also populated mostly by Jews at the time, were you aware of
that?
Their wishes, and voices were ignored.
No, actually, they were not. At the time, Jerusalem, and indeed most of what
is now Israel, was a very neglected backwater, populated by very sparsely
scattered Arabic Muslims...and mostly Jews, who had been living there
constantly throughout the millenia. You seem to be under the wierd
impression that there were NO Jews in Israel before 1948, and then,
suddenly, they were handed the country. That's not quite the way it worked.
What happened was that the Jews were given an unimportant piece of very
neglected land that wasn't considered important AT all to any Muslim nation,
until the Jews got it. Then everybody got a massive dose of the
indignations. It wasn't about the sacredness of Jerusalem. It was about not
allowing the Jews to stay there; because, m'friend, they WERE there, and
they and the Muslims who lived there were doing just fine together,
everybody had access to their respective holy sites, and friction was kept
to a relative low boil. It wasn't until the neighboring nations saw a way to
manipulate their own people into weapons that this whole thing got nasty.
No, I do not blame the Jews in any way for this mess.
..>> If there is any hope to be had in the new Palistinian leader it is only
in
this: that he see the FACT that Israel was given the land in agreement,
and that the principle villains in the Palistinian troubles aren't the
Jews, it's their own people who abrogated agreements.
......and that killing all the Jews and driving them into the sea isn't
going to be recieved with complacency by those Jews, understandably.
Actually, if they would both understand that they are the same people,
divided only by theological differences, maybe, just maybe, it would end
the entire mess.
And yes, I do admit, I'm dreaming there.
They used to, y'know.
And I also admit that my views are not popular. But if we are going to
blame one of them for the violence, we have to blame them both.
Ok, but not equally...and you didn't blame both in your original assertion ,
y'know, mentioning only Israel.
Treaties have been broken on BOTH sides, and BOTH sides are guilty of
immoral behavior.
What treaties did the Jews break? As far as I can tell, almost all the
breaking has been from the other side.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
24 Jan 2005 11:46:07 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in message
news:snmdc2-ejr.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in message
news:krcdc2-jop.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in message
news:po7dc2-1ro.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
<snip all the way to>
Y'know, Rev. Taylor, you are very dogmatic for a free thinker. Actually,
I think Fred Stone handled the ideas extremely well, from an atheistic
viewpoint. I don't have anything to add to his thoughts, he pretty much
nailed it. Now since I come from a theistic POV, the filter would be
slightly different, but the results are the same as to authority, cause
and acceptance of obligation. The reason I'm responding to you has to do
with the following only:
I don't get Fred's posts. So I did not see what he wrote.
That's too bad, I thing you would agree with him.
Well, on atheism, anyway...
On atheism, maybe, on politics, that's a big never.
Well, on the existance of deity he and I disagree, but on politics? He's my
hero. ;-)
<snip to>
And who fired first? Who broke agreements first, who invaded whom first,
who refused to honor their own promises first, and who is sending the
terrorist/suicide bombers out of those very civilian areas?
It does not matter who fired first. The post I was responding to, was a
break down of moral structure based on hold a faith in a deity.
In that region, both sides are guilty of dropping the moral ball, and
still screaming that their god gives them the right.
That, is what I was saying. Nothing else.
Well, you didn't write that Palistinians or the Muslim nations around had
any responsibility for this, mentioning only that Israel wouldn't allow a
Palistinian state, but...ok.
I did not mention country's, I mentioned names of religions in my first
response.
That is where I am laying the blame. Since religion crosses borders,
the analogy does work.
<snip to>
Never mind what deity may have given them the land. For the moment, it's
the United Nations and the united will of the planet that gave the JEWS
the land, partially in recompense for the horrors they had endured during
WWII, partially for other reasons, but the thing is, every nation agreed
to it, and Israel was NOT the invading villian in the expansions of 1967;
they WERE invaded.
And what was the reason for giving the land to them?
Didn't I say that in the above paragraph?
A blind devotion by a large number of countrys, to a 5000 year old myth,
from tales told around camp fires by bronze age tribes.
It doesn't matter, does it? The fact is, it was done, it was agreed to by
all parties, and the neighboring nations abrogated the agreements.
Except for the parties that lived there at the time. They were not
agreeable to it.
Sorry, there is no other reason for why, in 1948, the UN decided to "give"
the jews, an occupied land. And yes, it was occupied by the arabs in
1948.
And it was also populated mostly by Jews at the time, were you aware of
that?
Their wishes, and voices were ignored.
No, actually, they were not. At the time, Jerusalem, and indeed most of what
is now Israel, was a very neglected backwater, populated by very sparsely
scattered Arabic Muslims...and mostly Jews, who had been living there
constantly throughout the millenia. You seem to be under the wierd
impression that there were NO Jews in Israel before 1948, and then,
suddenly, they were handed the country. That's not quite the way it worked.
What happened was that the Jews were given an unimportant piece of very
neglected land that wasn't considered important AT all to any Muslim nation,
until the Jews got it. Then everybody got a massive dose of the
indignations. It wasn't about the sacredness of Jerusalem. It was about not
allowing the Jews to stay there; because, m'friend, they WERE there, and
they and the Muslims who lived there were doing just fine together,
everybody had access to their respective holy sites, and friction was kept
to a relative low boil. It wasn't until the neighboring nations saw a way to
manipulate their own people into weapons that this whole thing got nasty.
No, I do not blame the Jews in any way for this mess.
No, if you check the year books, prior to 1945, you will find that
Palestine had a respectable population. It was no France, Germany, or
US, but in it's own right, and for such a tiny piece of dirt, it was
holding it's own.
.>> If there is any hope to be had in the new Palistinian leader it is only
in
this: that he see the FACT that Israel was given the land in agreement,
and that the principle villains in the Palistinian troubles aren't the
Jews, it's their own people who abrogated agreements.
......and that killing all the Jews and driving them into the sea isn't
going to be recieved with complacency by those Jews, understandably.
Actually, if they would both understand that they are the same people,
divided only by theological differences, maybe, just maybe, it would end
the entire mess.
And yes, I do admit, I'm dreaming there.
They used to, y'know.
Yeah, I know. That's why it's such a sad case. They are the same
people, but they want to kill each other over the stupid idea that they
are not.
And I also admit that my views are not popular. But if we are going to
blame one of them for the violence, we have to blame them both.
Ok, but not equally...and you didn't blame both in your original assertion ,
y'know, mentioning only Israel.
Sorry, I don't deal in equality issues when it comes to immoral acts.
Probably a bad hold over from my fundy days. But to me, both are just
as guilty.
Treaties have been broken on BOTH sides, and BOTH sides are guilty of
immoral behavior.
What treaties did the Jews break? As far as I can tell, almost all the
breaking has been from the other side.
After the 6 day war, clearly defined borders were laid out, the jews and
one side, the Palestinians, there other.
Part of the mess now, is because the jews did not stay on their side.
They are being called "settlers" at this point in time. But they
crossed the borders, and that caused problems. Which is why you now
hear all this noise about the jews, "pulling back" to the defined
borders on the West Bank and Gaza strip.
In a way, the interplay, fighting, politics, and what have you, in the
middle east, look an awful lot like what happened in the US between the
government, and the Indians.
The Palestinians need to take a chapter from our own Native American
play book. Build lots of casinos, and open them to everyone. Get all
the money, and you win. :-)
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
24 Jan 2005 05:24:47 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:bt3fc2-vc41.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
Well, you didn't write that Palistinians or the Muslim nations around had
any responsibility for this, mentioning only that Israel wouldn't allow a
Palistinian state, but...ok.
I did not mention country's, I mentioned names of religions in my first
response.
What I reacted to was the following:
"Then there are
the jews, they to claim a god, and yet refuse to do the morally upright
thing, and allow their neighbors to actually have a country, and exist."
You were blaming the JEWS for not allowing this, when the Jews had nothing
at all to do with the situation the Palistinians find themselves in. Even
though the Palistinians have been brainwashed in to thinking so.
That is where I am laying the blame. Since religion crosses borders, the
analogy does work.
<snip to>
Never mind what deity may have given them the land. For the moment, it's
the United Nations and the united will of the planet that gave the JEWS
the land, partially in recompense for the horrors they had endured
during WWII, partially for other reasons, but the thing is, every nation
agreed to it, and Israel was NOT the invading villian in the expansions
of 1967; they WERE invaded.
And what was the reason for giving the land to them?
Didn't I say that in the above paragraph?
A blind devotion by a large number of countrys, to a 5000 year old myth,
from tales told around camp fires by bronze age tribes.
It doesn't matter, does it? The fact is, it was done, it was agreed to by
all parties, and the neighboring nations abrogated the agreements.
Except for the parties that lived there at the time. They were not
agreeable to it.
Their countries were.
Sorry, there is no other reason for why, in 1948, the UN decided to
"give" the jews, an occupied land. And yes, it was occupied by the arabs
in 1948.
And it was also populated mostly by Jews at the time, were you aware of
that?
Their wishes, and voices were ignored.
No, actually, they were not. At the time, Jerusalem, and indeed most of
what is now Israel, was a very neglected backwater, populated by very
sparsely scattered Arabic Muslims...and mostly Jews, who had been living
there constantly throughout the millenia. You seem to be under the wierd
impression that there were NO Jews in Israel before 1948, and then,
suddenly, they were handed the country. That's not quite the way it
worked. What happened was that the Jews were given an unimportant piece
of very neglected land that wasn't considered important AT all to any
Muslim nation, until the Jews got it. Then everybody got a massive dose
of the indignations. It wasn't about the sacredness of Jerusalem. It was
about not allowing the Jews to stay there; because, m'friend, they WERE
there, and they and the Muslims who lived there were doing just fine
together, everybody had access to their respective holy sites, and
friction was kept to a relative low boil. It wasn't until the neighboring
nations saw a way to manipulate their own people into weapons that this
whole thing got nasty. No, I do not blame the Jews in any way for this
mess.
No, if you check the year books, prior to 1945, you will find that
Palestine had a respectable population. It was no France, Germany, or US,
but in it's own right, and for such a tiny piece of dirt, it was holding
it's own.
Death Valley 'holds its own". So does Daggett, California. Doesn't make
either one, as you say, France or Germany. My point was that the population
was sparser than the surrounding areas, neglected AND mostly Jewish.
.>> If there is any hope to be had in the new Palistinian leader it is
only in
this: that he see the FACT that Israel was given the land in agreement,
and that the principle villains in the Palistinian troubles aren't the
Jews, it's their own people who abrogated agreements.
......and that killing all the Jews and driving them into the sea isn't
going to be recieved with complacency by those Jews, understandably.
Actually, if they would both understand that they are the same people,
divided only by theological differences, maybe, just maybe, it would end
the entire mess.
And yes, I do admit, I'm dreaming there.
They used to, y'know.
Yeah, I know. That's why it's such a sad case. They are the same
people, but they want to kill each other over the stupid idea that they
are not.
Actually, if you look at history, it's not the Jews that want to drive the
MUSLIMS into the sea. In some cases, Rev., there really IS a villain and a
victim and the difficulties are not caused equally.
And I also admit that my views are not popular. But if we are going to
blame one of them for the violence, we have to blame them both.
Ok, but not equally...and you didn't blame both in your original
assertion , y'know, mentioning only Israel.
Sorry, I don't deal in equality issues when it comes to immoral acts.
Probably a bad hold over from my fundy days. But to me, both are just as
guilty.
But that's just it. They are not. Israel is guilty of only one thing:
defending itself and a country the inhabitants were promised would be
theirs. Not by GOD, but by the world. The UN...and the nations surrounding
it. A promise that has been repeatedly broken from the first making of it.
Remember, the Jews have never invaded outside their borders, not once. The
expansion of Israel, the disputed territories, were taken when they WERE
invaded.
Treaties have been broken on BOTH sides, and BOTH sides are guilty of
immoral behavior.
What treaties did the Jews break? As far as I can tell, almost all the
breaking has been from the other side.
After the 6 day war, clearly defined borders were laid out, the jews and
one side, the Palestinians, there other.
Part of the mess now, is because the jews did not stay on their side. They
are being called "settlers" at this point in time. But they crossed the
borders, and that caused problems. Which is why you now hear all this
noise about the jews, "pulling back" to the defined borders on the West
Bank and Gaza strip.
Who was responsible for the six day war?
In a way, the interplay, fighting, politics, and what have you, in the
middle east, look an awful lot like what happened in the US between the
government, and the Indians.
(snort) only if you give the role of 'Indian" to Israel.
The Palestinians need to take a chapter from our own Native American play
book. Build lots of casinos, and open them to everyone. Get all the
money, and you win. :-)
Well, that works too. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
25 Jan 2005 02:03:50 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in message
news:bt3fc2-vc41.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
Well, you didn't write that Palistinians or the Muslim nations around had
any responsibility for this, mentioning only that Israel wouldn't allow a
Palistinian state, but...ok.
I did not mention country's, I mentioned names of religions in my first
response.
What I reacted to was the following:
"Then there are
the jews, they to claim a god, and yet refuse to do the morally upright
thing, and allow their neighbors to actually have a country, and exist."
You were blaming the JEWS for not allowing this, when the Jews had nothing
at all to do with the situation the Palistinians find themselves in. Even
though the Palistinians have been brainwashed in to thinking so.
That is where I am laying the blame. Since religion crosses borders, the
analogy does work.
<snip to>
Never mind what deity may have given them the land. For the moment, it's
the United Nations and the united will of the planet that gave the JEWS
the land, partially in recompense for the horrors they had endured
during WWII, partially for other reasons, but the thing is, every nation
agreed to it, and Israel was NOT the invading villian in the expansions
of 1967; they WERE invaded.
And what was the reason for giving the land to them?
Didn't I say that in the above paragraph?
A blind devotion by a large number of countrys, to a 5000 year old myth,
from tales told around camp fires by bronze age tribes.
It doesn't matter, does it? The fact is, it was done, it was agreed to by
all parties, and the neighboring nations abrogated the agreements.
Except for the parties that lived there at the time. They were not
agreeable to it.
Their countries were.
Sorry, there is no other reason for why, in 1948, the UN decided to
"give" the jews, an occupied land. And yes, it was occupied by the arabs
in 1948.
And it was also populated mostly by Jews at the time, were you aware of
that?
Their wishes, and voices were ignored.
No, actually, they were not. At the time, Jerusalem, and indeed most of
what is now Israel, was a very neglected backwater, populated by very
sparsely scattered Arabic Muslims...and mostly Jews, who had been living
there constantly throughout the millenia. You seem to be under the wierd
impression that there were NO Jews in Israel before 1948, and then,
suddenly, they were handed the country. That's not quite the way it
worked. What happened was that the Jews were given an unimportant piece
of very neglected land that wasn't considered important AT all to any
Muslim nation, until the Jews got it. Then everybody got a massive dose
of the indignations. It wasn't about the sacredness of Jerusalem. It was
about not allowing the Jews to stay there; because, m'friend, they WERE
there, and they and the Muslims who lived there were doing just fine
together, everybody had access to their respective holy sites, and
friction was kept to a relative low boil. It wasn't until the neighboring
nations saw a way to manipulate their own people into weapons that this
whole thing got nasty. No, I do not blame the Jews in any way for this
mess.
No, if you check the year books, prior to 1945, you will find that
Palestine had a respectable population. It was no France, Germany, or US,
but in it's own right, and for such a tiny piece of dirt, it was holding
it's own.
Death Valley 'holds its own". So does Daggett, California. Doesn't make
either one, as you say, France or Germany. My point was that the population
was sparser than the surrounding areas, neglected AND mostly Jewish.
.>> If there is any hope to be had in the new Palistinian leader it is
only in
this: that he see the FACT that Israel was given the land in agreement,
and that the principle villains in the Palistinian troubles aren't the
Jews, it's their own people who abrogated agreements.
......and that killing all the Jews and driving them into the sea isn't
going to be recieved with complacency by those Jews, understandably.
Actually, if they would both understand that they are the same people,
divided only by theological differences, maybe, just maybe, it would end
the entire mess.
And yes, I do admit, I'm dreaming there.
They used to, y'know.
Yeah, I know. That's why it's such a sad case. They are the same
people, but they want to kill each other over the stupid idea that they
are not.
Actually, if you look at history, it's not the Jews that want to drive the
MUSLIMS into the sea. In some cases, Rev., there really IS a villain and a
victim and the difficulties are not caused equally.
And I also admit that my views are not popular. But if we are going to
blame one of them for the violence, we have to blame them both.
Ok, but not equally...and you didn't blame both in your original
assertion , y'know, mentioning only Israel.
Sorry, I don't deal in equality issues when it comes to immoral acts.
Probably a bad hold over from my fundy days. But to me, both are just as
guilty.
But that's just it. They are not. Israel is guilty of only one thing:
defending itself and a country the inhabitants were promised would be
theirs. Not by GOD, but by the world. The UN...and the nations surrounding
it. A promise that has been repeatedly broken from the first making of it.
Remember, the Jews have never invaded outside their borders, not once. The
expansion of Israel, the disputed territories, were taken when they WERE
invaded.
Treaties have been broken on BOTH sides, and BOTH sides are guilty of
immoral behavior.
What treaties did the Jews break? As far as I can tell, almost all the
breaking has been from the other side.
After the 6 day war, clearly defined borders were laid out, the jews and
one side, the Palestinians, there other.
Part of the mess now, is because the jews did not stay on their side. They
are being called "settlers" at this point in time. But they crossed the
borders, and that caused problems. Which is why you now hear all this
noise about the jews, "pulling back" to the defined borders on the West
Bank and Gaza strip.
Who was responsible for the six day war?
In a way, the interplay, fighting, politics, and what have you, in the
middle east, look an awful lot like what happened in the US between the
government, and the Indians.
(snort) only if you give the role of 'Indian" to Israel.
The Palestinians need to take a chapter from our own Native American play
book. Build lots of casinos, and open them to everyone. Get all the
money, and you win. :-)
Well, that works too. ;-)
We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Except maybe for that last point.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
24 Jan 2005 02:07:27 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:23:21 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:snmdc2-ejr.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
Sorry, there is no other reason for why, in 1948, the UN decided to "give"
the jews, an occupied land. And yes, it was occupied by the arabs in
1948.
And it was also populated mostly by Jews at the time, were you aware of
that?
The PC view, Diana, is that there were only Arabs in Israel until
1948, when the Jews invaded it.
It wasn't about the sacredness of Jerusalem. It was about not
allowing the Jews to stay there; because, m'friend, they WERE there, and
they and the Muslims who lived there were doing just fine together,
everybody had access to their respective holy sites, and friction was kept
to a relative low boil.
How very unPC of you, Diana. :) Jews and Arabs living peacefully,
side by side?
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
24 Jan 2005 03:02:54 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:rsl8v05usdpvkvknbmu7khuq04i1np6obj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:23:21 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:snmdc2-ejr.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
Sorry, there is no other reason for why, in 1948, the UN decided to
"give"
the jews, an occupied land. And yes, it was occupied by the arabs in
1948.
And it was also populated mostly by Jews at the time, were you aware of
that?
The PC view, Diana, is that there were only Arabs in Israel until
1948, when the Jews invaded it.
Someday somebody is going to have to ask me what I think about being PC. ;-)
It wasn't about the sacredness of Jerusalem. It was about not
allowing the Jews to stay there; because, m'friend, they WERE there, and
they and the Muslims who lived there were doing just fine together,
everybody had access to their respective holy sites, and friction was kept
to a relative low boil.
How very unPC of you, Diana. :) Jews and Arabs living peacefully,
side by side?
If I am ever seen to be PC, I will have to be put on suicide watch!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
24 Jan 2005 06:48:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:02:54 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:rsl8v05usdpvkvknbmu7khuq04i1np6obj@4ax.com...
The PC view, Diana, is that there were only Arabs in Israel until
1948, when the Jews invaded it.
Someday somebody is going to have to ask me what I think about being PC. ;-)
Wait ... let me put on my asbestos underwear. :)
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
24 Jan 2005 05:13:21 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:og69v05bpmogr9rl2kqv04atc0a3612dkm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:02:54 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:rsl8v05usdpvkvknbmu7khuq04i1np6obj@4ax.com...
The PC view, Diana, is that there were only Arabs in Israel until
1948, when the Jews invaded it.
Someday somebody is going to have to ask me what I think about being PC.
;-)
Wait ... let me put on my asbestos underwear. :)
Not enough. I'll wait for you to don the kevlar clothes and the space suit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
24 Jan 2005 02:03:47 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:55:17 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> said in alt.atheism:
Sorry, there is no other reason for why, in 1948, the UN decided to
"give" the jews, an occupied land. And yes, it was occupied by the
arabs in 1948.
It was occupied by thousands of Jews in 1948 too.
Their wishes, and voices were ignored.
No, they weren't told to leave by the UN. They weren't told to leave
by the Jews. They were told to leave by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Oh, you're right, their wishes WERE ignored - BY THEIR OWN LEADERS!
But, if they didn't want to live with Jews, they had an option. The
same Partition that gave Israel to the Jews gave Trans-Jordan - the
VAST MAJORITY of the partitioned land - to the Palestinians.
NO Arab country wanted them. They served better as pawns in the
struggle against the Jews than they would have served as citizens of
some other Arab country.
So let the Jews be rounded up and killed by some other country (Russia
was doing a pretty good job of that both before and after WWII), as
long as a few Arab peasants could keep their little plots of desert.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
24 Jan 2005 10:26:33 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:03:47 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:55:17 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> said in alt.atheism:
Sorry, there is no other reason for why, in 1948, the UN decided to
"give" the jews, an occupied land. And yes, it was occupied by the
arabs in 1948.
It was occupied by thousands of Jews in 1948 too.
Who were in the minority, and who took the land from the previous
occupants.
Their wishes, and voices were ignored.
No, they weren't told to leave by the UN. They weren't told to leave
by the Jews. They were told to leave by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Oh, you're right, their wishes WERE ignored - BY THEIR OWN LEADERS!
But, if they didn't want to live with Jews, they had an option. The
same Partition that gave Israel to the Jews gave Trans-Jordan - the
VAST MAJORITY of the partitioned land - to the Palestinians.
NO Arab country wanted them. They served better as pawns in the
struggle against the Jews than they would have served as citizens of
some other Arab country.
So let the Jews be rounded up and killed by some other country (Russia
was doing a pretty good job of that both before and after WWII), as
long as a few Arab peasants could keep their little plots of desert.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
24 Jan 2005 08:56:35 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:26:33 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:03:47 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:55:17 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> said in alt.atheism:
Sorry, there is no other reason for why, in 1948, the UN decided to
"give" the jews, an occupied land. And yes, it was occupied by the
arabs in 1948.
It was occupied by thousands of Jews in 1948 too.
Who were in the minority, and who took the land from the previous
occupants.
There's a difference between "took" and "bought"; between "took ...
from the previous occupants" and "occupied unoccupied land". This
had been going on for hundreds of years, that we know of. There were
Jews in the Holy Lands during the Crusades.
--
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 200
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
25 Jan 2005 12:21:10 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:56:35 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:26:33 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:03:47 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:55:17 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> said in alt.atheism:
Sorry, there is no other reason for why, in 1948, the UN decided to
"give" the jews, an occupied land. And yes, it was occupied by the
arabs in 1948.
It was occupied by thousands of Jews in 1948 too.
Who were in the minority, and who took the land from the previous
occupants.
There's a difference between "took" and "bought"; between "took ...
from the previous occupants" and "occupied unoccupied land". This
had been going on for hundreds of years, that we know of. There were
Jews in the Holy Lands during the Crusades.
But not very many. The land was taken from the indigenous people and
given to refugees from the holocaust to form a new country. Please
don't equivocate between them and the minority of Jews who already
lived there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
25 Jan 2005 01:00:55 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:21:10 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
It was occupied by thousands of Jews in 1948 too.
I rest my case.
--
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
25 Jan 2005 05:18:41 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:00:55 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:21:10 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
It was occupied by thousands of Jews in 1948 too.
I rest my case.
Don't equivocate between the comparatively few who already lived
there, with the refugees from the holocaust, and between individuals
owning land in a country and the entire country being taken from the
majority of residents to form a new one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
25 Jan 2005 09:19:57 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:18:41 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:00:55 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:21:10 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
It was occupied by thousands of Jews in 1948 too.
I rest my case.
Don't equivocate between the comparatively few who already lived
there, with the refugees from the holocaust, and between individuals
owning land in a country and the entire country being taken from the
majority of residents to form a new one.
Don't equivocate between land being taken from people and people
leaving the land because their own leaders ordered them to.
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
25 Jan 2005 09:30:31 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:19:57 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:18:41 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:00:55 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:21:10 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
It was occupied by thousands of Jews in 1948 too.
I rest my case.
Don't equivocate between the comparatively few who already lived
there, with the refugees from the holocaust, and between individuals
owning land in a country and the entire country being taken from the
majority of residents to form a new one.
Don't equivocate between land being taken from people and people
leaving the land because their own leaders ordered them to.
I'm not. However unlike you I do know the difference between somebody
owning the land their house is on, and an ethnic group living in an
entire region that was taken from them and given to the refugees from
the holocaut to form a new country.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
25 Jan 2005 11:08:36 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:vgedv09o3cv553ojvbdhksclmq5pl3qnld@4ax.com:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:19:57 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:18:41 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:00:55 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:21:10 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
It was occupied by thousands of Jews in 1948 too.
I rest my case.
Don't equivocate between the comparatively few who already lived
there, with the refugees from the holocaust, and between individuals
owning land in a country and the entire country being taken from the
majority of residents to form a new one.
Don't equivocate between land being taken from people and people
leaving the land because their own leaders ordered them to.
I'm not. However unlike you I do know the difference between somebody
owning the land their house is on, and an ethnic group living in an
entire region that was taken from them and given to the refugees from
the holocaut to form a new country.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
23 Jan 2005 11:09:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:06:39 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> said in alt.atheism:
Until both sides throw away the silly notion that some deity, "gave them
the land"
I don't think either side thinks that the UN is a deity.
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: An... interesting perspective on morality |
23 Jan 2005 11:08:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:19:15 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:po7dc2-1ro.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
The muslims also claim a god. And we have had some very good examples of
their moral structure over the last several decades. Then there are the
jews, they to claim a god, and yet refuse to do the morally upright thing,
and allow their neighbors to actually have a country, and exist.
You are an idiot. IT's not the Jews who are refusing the Palistinians...it's
their Muslim neighbors, who are using these people as a weapon against the
Jews. You have it exactly backwards. There was never supposed to be, nor was
there planned, a 'nation of Palestine', and if the countries adjacent to
Israel had | | | |
