The Gooner Forum

CUS

I understand that you do not believe in G-D, so that any argument involving G-D is for you not logical.

So to put an argument in other terms.

Of course the majority of Israel's founding Jewish population were not born in Israel.

A small percentage (about 5%) were, of the rest, about two thirds came from Europe, the other third were from the Middle East.

All of whom were returning to our spiritual and historical homeland.

A Jewish Kingdom of Israel existed for over a 1000 years up til 73 AD, and a large chunk of Jews continued to live there until about 200 AD.

Since then we have wanted to return.

It is not for you to say that we cannot, it is not your land, not your nation.

You talk about "failed nation states".
Nation states may well war with each other, but the existence of nation states and nationalities is a very real fact.
nation states themselves may well change over time but nations by and large have real and clear identities.

Yes, the Jews of Stamford Hill ARE living in an Anglo-Saxon homeland.
Does not mean to say that West Indians, Africans, Indian etc cannot be British nationals and participate fully in this country on all levels, but by and large it's basis is that of an Anglo-Saxon Christian country.

SPUDMASHER

Whilst you are a Buddhist and as such are not a reader of the Bible, it is wrong for you to refer to it as "Bollocks".

You exhibit a shocking ignorance of your own faith to use such terms, and then go on to talk about tolerance?

If you research the origins of many of your religious beliefs and practices you will see that they come from Judaism (as do those of Hinduism and Christianity and Islam too).

The Dalai Lama was once asked by an Israeli who had travelled to India to meet him, how to become a good Buddhist.
He replied that she should be a good Jew, as the roots of Buddhism's knowledge came from that source.

The Dalai Lama himself travelled to Israel to immerse in a ritual bath in Zefat/Safed (The Mikva of the Ari Ha Kodesh), well aware of the spirituality in that place.

SKIPPER

skipper wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote: Yes, I am saying that military action will provide temporary calmer periods followed by another flare up, ad infinitum, until a Messiah arrives.

Just remind me, who are supposed to be religious fanatics in the region???

QUARTZ responds:

Belief in a messiah is a fundamental belief of both Judaism (which says we are still waiting for him) and Christianity (which says he arrived roughly 2000 years ago as Jesus).

It is not a fanatical belief.

skipper wrote:
I don't even know why I'm arguing with you, as you're clearly deluded in belief that work of fiction is somehow valid basis for commiting 60 years worth of attrocities and fucking up millions of lives...

As for Chomsky, fair point, majority of Jews might not share his views, but you are omitting the fact that majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas at proper democratic elections...are you noticing double standards on yr behalf?

QUARTZ responds:

The Bible is not a work of fiction.

Hamas were elected by democratic elections, I agree.

That in itself is not reason for Israel to avoid military action.

If a political party/military force was democratically elected in the UK, which had a policy of killing all Arsenal fans, would you sit there and do nothing and say it was ok because the election was democratic?

Well, Israel is about to announce a one-sided cease fire. Let's hope it's one that will last for a long time.

It's a test for all parties involved:

1. Israel - If Hamas will still launch rockets after tomorrow, what will we do?

2. Hamas - Did they learn the lesson? They are not obligated by that cease fire, but I think they fully understand the result of shooting towards Israel in the next few days (and onwards).

3. Egypt and the UN - Can they stop the smuggling of weapons and all war materials to Gaza? Let's hope so.

I'm very happy about this cease fire. Hamas will have to make the next move. Let's hope it's the right one. What a good day...

DanielD wrote:Well, Israel is about to announce a one-sided cease fire. Let's hope it's one that will last for a long time
..

well it is a one sided war

QuartzGooner wrote: SPUDMASHER

Whilst you are a Buddhist and as such are not a reader of the Bible, it is wrong for you to refer to it as "Bollocks".

You exhibit a shocking ignorance of your own faith to use such terms, and then go on to talk about tolerance?

Okay, I'll put it another way.
It is a fairy story that became exaggerated over the years in order to suit the purposes of those that wanted to use it for their own gain. It has no real basis in fact.

I know my faith well enough thank you. Well enough to know that I have to tolerate having christianity rammed down my throat one way or another every day.

REBEL GOONER wrote:

DanielD wrote:Well, Israel is about to announce a one-sided cease fire. Let's hope it's one that will last for a long time
..

well it is a one sided war

Well, if you define a "side" as a nation, that is not a terrorist organization, than we are in total agreement..

Good night everybody.

SPUDMASHER wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote: SPUDMASHER

Whilst you are a Buddhist and as such are not a reader of the Bible, it is wrong for you to refer to it as "Bollocks".

You exhibit a shocking ignorance of your own faith to use such terms, and then go on to talk about tolerance?

Okay, I'll put it another way.
It is a fairy story that became exaggerated over the years in order to suit the purposes of those that wanted to use it for their own gain. It has no real basis in fact.

I know my faith well enough thank you. Well enough to know that I have to tolerate having christianity rammed down my throat one way or another every day.

I have not rammed Christianity down yours, or anyone's throat.

You say the bible is made up, I do not.

Just cannot understand how you can refer to other faiths holy texts in such abusive terms...especially when your own faith, as acknowledged by the most well known leader of your religion, derives a good chunk from mine.

I hinted at this in one of my earlier posts but didn't want to be inflammatory regarding religion. (touchy subject)...

But, now its out in the open:


Religion is brilliant for self empowerment and inspiration in tough times etc. It is a very personal thing.

That is why I have such a distrust of highly organised faiths, particularly those which ask for money and make public statements about societal concerns based on the assumption that everyone subscribes to their faith.

Church + State = Trouble.

Quartz you say that belief in Judaism/Christianity or whatever is fanatical but surely you are wrong. To categorically state that a Messiah will arrive to end a conflict based purely on the insinuations of some ink on an old page is surely at the least fanatical??? Especially when there is no proof outside of that text, which is certainly questionable at best in its reliability.

I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe, just so long as their views aren't forced on me, and their views don't have ramifications for others.

I can understand the needs of Jews to return to a "homeland" because it is such a fundamental aspect of their faith. But creating global fuss to return to that homeland, and in getting there stir trouble, is wrong. Don't label me anti-Zionist and therefore anti-Semitic either, because I will say the same about Muslim leaders who openly condemn women for wearing bikinis and the like, and Christians who look at unmarrried pregnant women as if they're dirt.

And there are plenty of adherents to all of these faiths that keep to themselves and respect everyone for who and what they are (a major belief in all three examples religions no?)

So...Israel exists, it cannot be changed. The problem now is the resolution of this conflict.



Its good to see Israel's ceasefire today. Will be, as DanielD has said, a good litmus test for both sides.

RAM

I am not sure how you have quoted me saying that belief in Judaism and Christianity are fanatical, did you mean to say "not fanatical"?

I do not believe that belief in those religions is fanatical.


Belief in a Messiah is not a fanatical belief either, it is a main belief of both Judaism and Christianity...it is just that Christianity says he arrived about 2000 years ago, and Judaism says he is yet to arrive.

The idea that Jews returning to the land of Israel created global fuss is correct! You only have to see this thread to see the fuss created.

But that does not make it wrong, far from it.
There are many geopolitical events that involve "fuss", it is just the nature of the world.

Your country Australia was not created without fuss.

Europeans settled there, but what happened to the Aborigines?

They were shot like animals from the back of jeeps by the European settlers...there is surely some karma to settle in your country before it can have a clear conscience.

QuartzGooner wrote:CUS

I understand that you do not believe in G-D, so that any argument involving G-D is for you not logical.

Whether I believe in G-D or not is irrelevant.

Here is the dictionary definition of the word logic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic

'the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.'

These are not words you can associate with religion.

I am not the sole owner of the truth when it comes to whether G-D exists or not, however there is not any evidence whatsoever that G-D does actually exist.

If Isaac Newton, Charles Darwen or Louis Pasteur came up with the same level of evidence that religion does as grounds for their theories they would have zero credibility.

Religion is not about rational thinking and science - it is all about the opposite of that, faith.

So to put an argument in other terms.

Of course the majority of Israel's founding Jewish population were not born in Israel.

A small percentage (about 5%) were, of the rest, about two thirds came from Europe, the other third were from the Middle East.

All of whom were returning to our spiritual and historical homeland.

A Jewish Kingdom of Israel existed for over a 1000 years up til 73 AD, and a large chunk of Jews continued to live there until about 200 AD.

Since then we have wanted to return.

It is not for you to say that we cannot, it is not your land, not your nation.

And Quartz, correct me if I'm wrong, you like me were born, and currently live, in England.

It is also not your land or your nation - you also have about as much right to say who lives there and whose 'homeland' it is as I do.

I mean you've said it there yourself, significant Jewish prescence in the area prior to the Balfour declaration was 200 AD, FFS!!

That's 700 years before England existed as an entity!

Shall we the people of Essex assert our right to a nation-state homeland because we were cheated out of this by King Egbert of Wessex's expansionism?

You talk about "failed nation states".
Nation states may well war with each other, but the existence of nation states and nationalities is a very real fact.
nation states themselves may well change over time but nations by and large have real and clear identities.

Yes, the Jews of Stamford Hill ARE living in an Anglo-Saxon homeland.
Does not mean to say that West Indians, Africans, Indian etc cannot be British nationals and participate fully in this country on all levels, but by and large it's basis is that of an Anglo-Saxon Christian country.

How can it be the homeland of the Angles and the Saxons?

Angles and Saxons originate from what is modern day Germany.

So an Aussie, Kiwi, Springbok, American or Canadian would have no claim over a right to England as a homeland based on ancestral roots, even if their ancestors migrated or were deported from there.

Even so, how many Aussies do you know who think England is their 'homeland', even if they're currently living in Earl's Court?

The existence of nation states and nationalities is not one based on concrete fact but social engineering and social construction.

There was no 'British' nationality prior to the Act of Union in 1707, which merged the kingdoms, of thousands of years in which these Islands have existed it's only the last 300 years in which a 'British' national identity has existed.

Some might say that despite being in the same state there is no British nationality - just English, Scots, Welsh and Irish, or if there was to a certain extent it is eroding.

There was no German or Italian nationality prior to the 1870s either, you state that nations by and large have real and clear identities, none of this came about as some sort of natural occurrence. Ethnic and regional differences (be they religious or linguistic) within many of these newly formed states, or increasingly centralised older ones, marginalised, suppressed and coerced to form a hegemony dominance of one group over another within these states.

After all why do so few people from the celtic fringe speak the Gaelic languages?

The Jews relation to the social construction and engineering that went on is clearly documented here.

http://countrystudies.us/israel/7.htm

I've heard you stateon another thread that your view of this is that god assigns each nation a state. This view is nonsense, nation-states are, as pointed out by Benedict Anderson, man-made imagined communities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_communities

QuartzGooner wrote: The idea that Jews returning to the land of Israel created global fuss is correct! You only have to see this thread to see the fuss created.

But that does not make it wrong, far from it.
There are many geopolitical events that involve "fuss", it is just the nature of the world.

Your country Australia was not created without fuss.

Europeans settled there, but what happened to the Aborigines?

They were shot like animals from the back of jeeps by the European settlers...there is surely some karma to settle in your country before it can have a clear conscience.

However there is a stark warning for Israel in relation to Australia.

If you take Australia, the reason behind it's survival as a white settler colony was that there were 300,000 aboriginals spread across a continental sized stretch of land in 1788. Disease and death (both natural and homicide) had reduced this population to 22,200 by 1860. The European migrant settlers in contrast had rose to 1.2 million by 1860.

Contrast this with Israel, which is only a tiny piece of land compared to Australia, the arabs are at least 20-25% of the population, they also in contrast have a higher birth rate. Israel also has a problem of emigration outnumbering immigration, much of this being recent Jewish migrants.

http://stlouis.ujcfedweb.org/page.aspx?id=144274

The British settlement in Australia was as fundamentally wrong as Israel with as many human rights abuses, but Israel doesn't have the demographics on its side, which Australia did.

Therefore a dogmatic belief in Zionism is as disasterous for Israeli's future as it is for any Palestinians. More secularisation and bridge building between the ethnic groupings is the only logical way forward, sadly there's too much religion for that to happen.

CUS

Whether or not you believe in G-D is pivotal to this argument and very relevant.
As you do not believe in G-D, and I do, we can never argue on the same basic constructs.
Despite this I can lay out an argument on historical, cultural, political and social terms too.

G-D's existence is proven to me. It is just that you do not believe the theory/reasons for this existence, that I believe in.

I was born in and live in London.

When I refer to this country as an Anglo-Saxon nation, I mean so primarily in cultural terms and linguistic terms, in that there are certain shared elements we have in common with the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

It is also largely an Anglo-Saxon country in ethnic terms, as these were the primary nations that gave prominence ot the early forms of our national identity here.
They were nto the only ones, and the degree of Anglo-Saxon immigration, as opposed to the assimilation of their culture but not that large an immigration of people, is currently being debated and explored by historians and ethnographers.
Neither of us can be sure to what extent that was, as it is in the middle of re assessment.
There was of course Briton, Roman and Celtic influence here too.

Subsequent immigration have also contributed on a genetic level, and cultural level.

Despite this, most people here are white and nominally C of E and speak English.

Does then an Australian or New Zealander have legal rights to this country?

Some, in that Commonwealth passport holders can work here with beneficial tax arrangements, and share a Monarch.

They also very much have a cultural homeland here, though as time progresses their own nation states evolve their own identities, based on subsequent non British immigrations (i.e. the recent Balkan immigrations to Australia).

You are right, the UK is not my nation in a long term historical one, though my family have contributed as much as anyone else's to this country's identity and wealth for the time they have been here as most others have.

As for the land of Israel, significant Jewish presence beetween 200 Ad and about 1470 was very small.
It crept up from 1470 - 1870, then increased in large amounts.
By the Balfour Declaration it was already considerable.

If you as a person of Wessex feel strongly enough to assert your Wessex identity, then go for it!

None of that denies that my religion has liturgy over 2000 years old expressly and only referring to the land of Israel as a holy land and national homeland, it is ensconced in my very identity.

It is why we fight for the land, and why the modern Zionist movement is but the final push in a 1800 year struggle to return home, to and that was a Jewish state for a 1000 years prior to 200 AD.

It is not the be all and end of the Jewish return to Israel, not a movement in itself, but the politicisation of an existing struggle to return.
To ignore that is to misunderstand the Jewish outlook on the land.

I clearly said that nation states change in the process of history.
British identity is a very real identity, even if in current form it is only 300 - 400 years old.

The emergence of German and Italian nationhood may well have been with a final push from the likes of Bismark and Cavour, but despite being separate and sometimes warring states before hand, they still represented various parts of a wider national cultural identity, and were not artificial constructs as you suggest.

I did not say that G-D assigns each nation a nation state.
I said that G-D has definitely created nations, who are broadly aligned to nation states.

The Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation being spread out amongst the English speaking Commonwealth countries I mentioned earlier, the French nation spread out over France, plus parts of Belgium, Switzerland and Canada etc.


It is incorrect to compare the settlement of Australia with the return of Jews to Israel.

There was no programme of, or evidence of, forced murder of Arab populations by Jewish populations in Israel in the past or today.

You are simply wrong to suggest that.

There has certainly been conflict with many deaths on both sides, but it was the Arabs who very definitely in action and in rhetoric, and in the constitutions of the PLO and Hamas, set out to wipe out Israel.

Bridge building between ethnic groupings might be useful to bring peace, but secularisation is not the way to do that.

We have had 60 years of a secularist majority in Israel, without peace.

Only be awareness of G-D can peace happen.

QuartzGooner wrote:RAM

I am not sure how you have quoted me saying that belief in Judaism and Christianity are fanatical, did you mean to say "not fanatical"?

I do not believe that belief in those religions is fanatical.


Belief in a Messiah is not a fanatical belief either, it is a main belief of both Judaism and Christianity...it is just that Christianity says he arrived about 2000 years ago, and Judaism says he is yet to arrive.

The idea that Jews returning to the land of Israel created global fuss is correct! You only have to see this thread to see the fuss created.

But that does not make it wrong, far from it.
There are many geopolitical events that involve "fuss", it is just the nature of the world.

Your country Australia was not created without fuss.

Europeans settled there, but what happened to the Aborigines?

They were shot like animals from the back of jeeps by the European settlers...there is surely some karma to settle in your country before it can have a clear conscience.

Sorry, did mean to say that you said it wasn't fanatical...when clearly it is at least slightly.

As for the Indigenous Australian comparison, the reason for European settlement was not purely religious. The only religious nature of that debate is the need for Aboriginal people to be connected with their 'land' - very similarly to Jews.

Incidentally, I agree that religion is a useless aspect of that debate also. And not to get into the whole Aboriginal argument vs Isreal/Palestine, I think its worth pointing out that not only has the Australian example not involved the rest of the world, the two parties are not at war!

QuartzGooner wrote:

SPUDMASHER wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote: SPUDMASHER

Whilst you are a Buddhist and as such are not a reader of the Bible, it is wrong for you to refer to it as "Bollocks".

You exhibit a shocking ignorance of your own faith to use such terms, and then go on to talk about tolerance?

Okay, I'll put it another way.
It is a fairy story that became exaggerated over the years in order to suit the purposes of those that wanted to use it for their own gain. It has no real basis in fact.

I know my faith well enough thank you. Well enough to know that I have to tolerate having christianity rammed down my throat one way or another every day.

I have not rammed Christianity down yours, or anyone's throat.

You say the bible is made up, I do not.

Just cannot understand how you can refer to other faiths holy texts in such abusive terms...especially when your own faith, as acknowledged by the most well known leader of your religion, derives a good chunk from mine.

No, you misunderstand me. I've not said that you have rammed it down my throat.I'm well aware you haven't. Society in general does. One example being that I am forced to take 11 days holiday at the end of December for a religous festival that I do not celebrate. I have no choice in this. It's not a big deal but it is an example. Maybe 'rammed down my throat' is too strong an expression but I'm sure you know what I mean.
My faith does teach some of the same lessons as yours. The difference with my faith is that we treat each of these lessons as being stories, nothing more. They are an example of how to conduct oneself in a given situation. We don't believe they really happened. They're just made up stories to teach us something.

They are an example of how to conduct oneself in a given situation. We don't believe they really happened. They're just made up stories to teach us something.

Exactly right. Promoting the opposite is the biggest flaw in religions that are completely open to fundamentalism.

QuartzGooner wrote:CUS

G-D's existence is proven to me. It is just that you do not believe the theory/reasons for this existence, that I believe in.

The basis of which isn't logic though is it, it is faith.

Give me imperical evidence for the proof of the existence of G-D, cast iron facts that are put to test and it's results can be clearly observable in the same way that science is.

There isn't any is there, it's as credible as saying 'Arsenal will win the treble this season, I can put no solid reasoning for their winning the treble, I have no proof that their squad is big enough or good enough, I have no proof they have a team spirit strong enough, I have no proof their players want to put in the extra effort for the shirt, I have no proof that they have the mental strength to deal with the run in for all 3 trophies, I just believe it cause I'm a fan. You're just wrong because you don't believe in my reasoning'

Would you consider the above a credible argument or opinion on football?

If not why do you accept this style of argument from religion as the explanation to life, the Universe and everything in it?

I was born in and live in London.....You are right, the UK is not my nation in a long term historical one, though my family have contributed as much as anyone else's to this country's identity and wealth for the time they have been here as most others have.

You seem to have missed my point completely and got it arse about face.

My assertion is that the UK is your homeland and not Israel.

When I refer to this country as an Anglo-Saxon nation, I mean so primarily in cultural terms and linguistic terms, in that there are certain shared elements we have in common with the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

Depends on what you define as 'cultural', after all we don't play Aussie Rules and 'soccer' gets much less coverage over there, akin to say what the NFL or NBA gets here.

Australia also hasn't produced a national music scene with such a diverse range of musical styles as we have had here over the last 50 years, neither has New Zealand. Neither share our modern musical culture.

Does then an Australian or New Zealander have legal rights to this country?

Some, in that Commonwealth passport holders can work here with beneficial tax arrangements, and share a Monarch.

There is no right of abode though for old commonwealth countries that are mainly Anglo-Saxon and Anglophonic like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, though there is for EU countries none of whom are 'Anglo-Saxon', have been part of the empire, or speak English as their official language.

They also very much have a cultural homeland here, though as time progresses their own nation states evolve their own identities, based on subsequent non British immigrations (i.e. the recent Balkan immigrations to Australia)......I clearly said that nation states change in the process of history.
British identity is a very real identity, even if in current form it is only 300 - 400 years old.

You are literally confirming my argument for me, the British and Australian national identity is therefore a social construct then is it not?

Its just that the imagined community is changing it's view of how it imagines itself.

It is why we fight for the land, and why the modern Zionist movement is but the final push in a 1800 year struggle to return home, to and that was a Jewish state for a 1000 years prior to 200 AD.

It is not the be all and end of the Jewish return to Israel, not a movement in itself, but the politicisation of an existing struggle to return.
To ignore that is to misunderstand the Jewish outlook on the land.....

The emergence of German and Italian nationhood may well have been with a final push from the likes of Bismark and Cavour, but despite being separate and sometimes warring states before hand, they still represented various parts of a wider national cultural identity, and were not artificial constructs as you suggest.

Interesting that you mention final pushes in creating the German nation state as there wasn't much final about the push in 1870 was there?

Hitler was still pushing in the 1940s making claims on places throughout Europe that had Germanic peoples and for living space for the German nation.

There never seemed to be a final push with German nationalism, though as you well know being Jewish there was a 'final solution' with regard to those deemed to be obstructing this nationalist dream.

It seems to me the most painful of all ironies that Jews are regurgitating this kind of piffal over half a century later.

It's an irony that is certainly not lost on Jewish MP Gerald Kaufman, a man who's own sick grandmother was murdered in her bed by the Nazis.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8

I did not say that G-D assigns each nation a nation state. I said that G-D has definitely created nations, who are broadly aligned to nation states.

The Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation being spread out amongst the English speaking Commonwealth countries I mentioned earlier, the French nation spread out over France, plus parts of Belgium, Switzerland and Canada etc.

Again this is tosh, the borders of the British Nation State are set in Ulster not because G-D drew lines on the earth, but because we placed British people in settlements in Ireland. The British government drew the border there to define where it ended, God had nothing to do with it.

Of course if G-D created these nations wouldn't the very thing the makes these nations to be 'nations' be in existence from creation, such as say language?

However in Ancient Rome the language is Latin, in modern Italy it is Italian.

It is incorrect to compare the settlement of Australia with the return of Jews to Israel.

There was no programme of, or evidence of, forced murder of Arab populations by Jewish populations in Israel in the past or today.

You are simply wrong to suggest that.

Er....I don't think I did suggest it though did I Quartz.

I stated that Australia is a settler colony, as is Israel.

The vast amount of land compared with Israel and the overwhelming size of the migrant population filling it compared with a dwindling indigineous population is the reason why Australia exists today as an Anglo-Saxon European/Western style nation.

Israel has the 'luxury' of neither, therefore has a much, much slimmer chance of being the Jewish equivalent of an Australia 200 years after it's foundation.

Bridge building between ethnic groupings might be useful to bring peace, but secularisation is not the way to do that.

We have had 60 years of a secularist majority in Israel, without peace.

Only be awareness of G-D can peace happen.

Yeah because religion and G-D has never caused a war has it?

The Reformation?

The Crusades?