Non Aviation & Not For The Faint Hearted

[DEFCON]

"Sure you can win battles that way but you won't win the war. After WW I we had the "Treaty of Versailles" which was designed to punish Germany and isolate them. What happened? We had WW II. After WW II the west, and particularly the Americans helped rebuild their former enemies and opened lines of communication. We are now best friends. Greater violence can only postpone more violence."

In the realm of geopolitical relations, the notion of 'friend' is probably best defined as a relationship that's only maintained so long as it’s economically convenient to one, or both parties, or fear based.

Did you ever wonder why no one seemed to care that Hitler was violating the Treaty of Versailles each and every day post WWI? The answer; corrupt men, the Banksters, provided goods and services to Hitler throughout the relevant period in exchange for any wealth Germany still had. When Hitler ran out of capital, the Banksters denied him credit, which left him with one choice, war. Take one ego driven man, add in the Banksters and the people got conflict in return. The Banksters have been playing their games for far too long, which has led to most every modern war and is the current underlying basis of the dispute with Russia; it's the Federal Reserve monetary system against the BRIC. Everything else we hear is nothing more than smoke, intended to both, confuse & hide the truth.

Anyway, back to the thread subject; to be fair GDR, it would not be even slightly possible to convince a jury that the Resurrection story is a factual recounting of an historical event imho; there are just are too many versions of the story.

How can modern day Christianity, ignore the approximate 50 books / Gospels that form the Gnostic collection? BTW, I meant to refer to the Gnostics in an earlier post but called them the Coptic's by mistake. When conventional Christians take up Bible study, as far as I know, they never take on the 'complete story'? Instead, they appear prepared to accept the word of a murdering Roman Dictator that the NT was fashioned during a process which relied upon the divine hand of God for guidance?

Then there is the matter of accuracy. The material that makes up the NT & the Gnostic Gospels, except for maybe the Gospel of Thomas, was recorded two, or more centuries after the fact. Recollection being what it is, especially when considered over many generations, makes reliance on the accuracy of the word highly questionable.

I do think the Bible is quite enlightening. If not for the demands that organized religion places on the individual, I think the Bible could be very useful to humanity, specifically because the NT contains thousands of positive life-lessons. If you look at it carefully, there's something one can learn about the proper way to conduct one's life and understanding why something is through this book and that is good in my view. It would appear that 'love' is the only thing that matters.

[Mitch Cronin]

It would appear that 'love' is the only thing that matters.

...shooooot, I told y'all that a long time ago!

[GDR]

Hi Again IFG

1. Thanks for your thoughtful posts. Sorry I missed the previous one. Here is a quote from it.

Hi again,GDR - To the point about all of us having religion "or its equivalent": only under an idea of religion so broad as to make the distinction between having, and not having it, a pointless one. If the notion of religion is to co-opt all wonder, awe, or decency of any kind, I guess I'd hope we all have it, for our own good. But the important distinction to me is whether one believes, and partakes in acts of petition to supposed 'higher' authority, in search of improved fortune. This is the aspect of religion most subject to misuse or outright charlatanry. Not to mention of course the lack of any verifiable validation or predictability. To such, much faith is attached.

There is no doubt that many people both within a religious group as well as those outside it understand that if they cross all the right "T''s and dot all the right "I"'s that it will improve their lot in the end. That may or may not be true but from a Christian perspective if that is one's reason for becoming a Christian then I'd suggest that they have missed the boat. Christianity is about taking the focus off of the self and focusing on others. It is about love and more specifically sacrificial or unselfish love. I agree that it makes any religion subject to misuse.

"I think perhaps you trivialize the origin story that is evolving from curiosity, rigorous examination, and careful, informed speculation. If remotely true (and I certainly don't find it implausible at all), there is surely wonder and awe to be found in the long and repeatedly timely coincidence of events that precipitated all this ... life. For sure, without so many things breaking as they did, WE, with all our beauty and filth, would not be here at all. The universe would still be unfolding (as it should, or was going to anyway, depending on ones outlook), but WE would be appreciating that outcome about as much as our long dead ancestors are enjoying the universe now, which is to say, we can feel central to our own existence, but everything else hums along with or without us. We can appreciate some virtues from that idea, humility perhaps first among them. "Religion" not required."

Either there is a prime mover or there isn't. Either conclusion requires us to overcome an issue of credulity. Science talks about two evolutionary processes, at least according to our perception of things. The first was the process that saw the universe evolve to what it is today from the unknown point of when time = zero. The other of course is the evolutionary process that saw life evolve from mindless particles to incredibly complex living cells to sentient life and one that understands morality. Then there is the issue of what was the process that initiated those processes, and the process that initiated those process and on to infinity, while of course Hitchens would make the same point about who created God. (I have far more respect for Hitchens' arguments that I do Dawkins.) We can all make up our own mind about which is more credible. I go with an intelligent prime mover. (There's a surprise. )

"We could start with my stated reservation about your posit that "we all have religion or its equivalent". I won't re-state it here, but I would be interested in your reaction to my murmurs on what "having religion" might actually entail, particularly as regards petition for divine, but of course favourable intervention."

I certainly took a liberty using the term religion, but still I think it makes a point. We all base our life on something. We all have some form of moral code or some line that we just won't cross. Certainly that can come from culture but that doesn't mean that it wasn't originally formed from some universal truth that exists outside our little world. I don't know what else to say about petitioning for divine intervention but I'd suggest that somewhere in all of that is the difference between petitioning for a new BMW as opposed to petitioning for the life of some Isis hostage to be spared.

"On the other two points, when I referred to your "reluctance to accept that life had a prosaic beginning", "prosaic" is a poor adjective, opaque as to my intent. It was certainly not to suggest you reject the science, but only that you had difficulty accepting randomness, or maybe purposelessness in the cause of events. I hear echoes of The Blind Watchmaker, which IMHO are well rebutted by Dawkins & Hitchens etc. I wasn't re-hashing that debate (interesting tho' it is), but rather made a clumsy attempt to show that even random events can be taken as awe-inspiring, and that great lessons can be learned therefrom, without the mysticism (superstition to some) associated with religion. The only element missing is that of petition for future interventions. That's pretty crucial, tho', ref. my original quibble."

I'm ok with randomness. The odds against my parents meeting and having the specific sprem/cell combination that produced me is astronomical. I think that I exist by random chance. As far as the evolutionary process that brought us into existence is confirmed I'm ok with the randomness of it and it is only a matter of curiosity to me as to whether or not God intervened in the process or whether it was all in place at the beginning.

"Apologies for misunderstandings & lack of clarity. This is a tough medium for abstract discussion. I knew by the second line of your post that I'd failed to make myself understood, and across a table at Mary's, I'd have been going "no, no, that's not ...". Again, thanks for your patience and perseverance in even undertaking these sorts of dialogues."

Ah Hah. Unmasked. I enjoy discussing these issues in the way that you approach them. Thanks.

Greg

I couldn't figure out how to make the quotes work so I just put them in italics.

[Guest longtimer]

One does not have to be a member of a organized religion to believe in treating others as equals and not causing harm to others unless oneself or ones family is directly in harms way. Organizations tend to corrupt and that is the story of political parties and religions throughout recorded history.

[GDR]

One does not have to be a member of a organized religion to believe in treating others as equals and not causing harm to others unless oneself or ones family is directly in harms way. Organizations tend to corrupt and that is the story of political parties and religions throughout recorded history.

I wouldn't argue with that. I would add though that it isn't always the case. There are many good political and religious leaders.

[DEFCON]

So then; we've established the fact that people motivated by religion can be good-hearted. But then and love aside, how do equally good but non-aligned people go about protecting themselves and family from the consequences of the former groups activities?

In that respect, consider the non-religious man living in the middle east; he’s constantly in fear and at risk that he and family will be wiped off the planet only because one religious faction or another has decided to do battle over who’s faith in God might be the better. When our government sends one of our kids over there to peace-keep, or whatever it is we do, said kid could well end up dead as a result of someone else’s religious pov and that I think is a good enough reason for me to conclude that something needs to be done to at a minimum, reign in the religious zealots in my own Country.

The very negative consequences of religiosity isn’t limited to the Middle-East either. I think honesty and common sense demands that we step back and examine the big picture results being produced by religiously driven organizations such as the western based and funded NGO's operating in Africa.

For instance, Europe is presently being overrun by uneducated and non-skilled masses from Africa. No matter how it’s cut, this form of unchecked mass migration will spell the end of modern day Europe. This reality should now be obvious even to the most cynical observer. So, who would be to blame for the current situation; the NGO’s that have been feeding and vaccinating their way through the dark continent for the last 60 years without any apparent regard for the consequences of their activities, or the voting European citizen whose Country is about to go down the crapper largely as a result of unfettered American interference in another continent?

And there’s another matter that I think is even more troubling than even the European situation. That is the plight of the true innocents, the fauna of Africa that can not defend themselves against the spreading human fungus.

Just last week I received an email advertisement from the National Geographic Society, through which they were seeking donations to save the elephants. The NGS ad included two videos of large numbers of elephants being slaughtered by humans with machineguns. To really give a yank on the old heartstrings, the ad even focused the reader /watcher’s attention on mother elephants standing strong in the hail of machine gun bullets as they try in vain to protect their offspring etc. Well, I’m sorry, not, for sending back nothing more than a reply suggesting they forget about the animals so long as NGO’s are going to continue doing their thing. Is there anyone that believes the animals, especially the big ones, have any hope beyond absolute zero of surviving against the human scourge? If not for the NGO, the population of Africa just might be able to maintain itself in balance with the environment.

So, while some may believe the NGO exists to do ‘good’, I think the rest of us ought to demand our governments conduct a sober re-evaluation of the NGO effort. While Jesus may in fact love the little children, he doesn’t seem to give a damn for anything else? It’s my opinion that it’s more important than ever for the rest of us to recognize the situation for what it is; the population of Africa is well beyond the carrying capacity of the environment and the peoples ability to be self-sustaining. Removing the tax free status of religious groups might go a long way towards slowing them down. In the alternative, they could be provided with club, or association style legal / tax status? .

[Charlie's Flying Dog]

hmph......[stretch.... yawn...] One day people will learn how to spell DOG the right way 'round.

[DEFCON]

Deicer

I agree with your position; it's takes really big men to become a morally decent occupying post war force in the aftermath of battle, which does go a long way towards building bridges between the winner and the loser. It's also just as important to remember that a whole lot of strife was required to get the loser to accept that his geo-political views were contrary to the majority opinion. Keep in mind too that the US rotated battle hardened GI's out when long term occupations began. They were replaced with fresh recruits who as we can imagine were considerably more malleable and better suited psychologically to serve in the role of occupier than war torn soldiers can be.

[J.O.]

hmph......[stretch.... yawn...] One day people will learn how to spell DOG the right way 'round.

I'm a dyslexic agnostic. I spend my spare time pondering the existence of DOG.

[GDR]

DEFCON writes:
Anyway, back to the thread subject; to be fair GDR, it would not be even slightly possible to convince a jury that the Resurrection story is a factual recounting of an historical event imho; there are just are too many versions of the story.

How can modern day Christianity, ignore the approximate 50 books / Gospels that form the Gnostic collection? BTW, I meant to refer to the Gnostics in an earlier post but called them the Coptic's by mistake. When conventional Christians take up Bible study, as far as I know, they never take on the 'complete story'? Instead, they appear prepared to accept the word of a murdering Roman Dictator that the NT was fashioned during a process which relied upon the divine hand of God for guidance?

Then there is the matter of accuracy. The material that makes up the NT & the Gnostic Gospels, except for maybe the Gospel of Thomas, was recorded two, or more centuries after the fact. Recollection being what it is, especially when considered over many generations, makes reliance on the accuracy of the word highly questionable.

I do think the Bible is quite enlightening. If not for the demands that organized religion places on the individual, I think the Bible could be very useful to humanity, specifically because the NT contains thousands of positive life-lessons. If you look at it carefully, there's something one can learn about the proper way to conduct one's life and understanding why something is through this book and that is good in my view. It would appear that 'love' is the only thing that matters.

Hello again DEFCON

End of DEFCON' Quote. If anyone can tell me how to use quotes oln here I'd be grateful. I used the quote button on the bottom but when I deleted the part of DEFCON's quote I wasn't replying to it wouldn't allow me to respond. I've tried the

format I've used other places but that didn't work either.

Some of what you are claiming is not quite right. Nearly the whole NT was complete prior to the gnostic gospels being written. The first books written in the NT were the letters of Paul with the earliest being roughly 25 years after the resurrection although some scholars have them earlier than that. The entire NT was written in the 1st century AD. The gnostic gospels came later.

The gnostic gospels are actually a different religion that was espoused in response to Christianity. Essentially they espouse Docetism which is the view that Christ never was really human and that he was in reality simply spiritual. In some ways they share a lot with the views of people like Dom Crossan today.

Here is a debate between NT Wright and Dom Crossan. It isn't short, (1 Hr. 53 mins.) but if you really are interested it is fascinating.

Once again if you listen to this Crossan's argument is largely that it couldn't have happened so any other explanation is better than dealing with the idea that it did happen. IMHO there is no explanation for the rise of the early church that is at all reasonable except for the idea that the resurrection was an actual historical event.

[Mitch Cronin]

...and here's Hitchens :

[GDR]

Actually I am something of a fan of Hitchens from the times I have listened to him in debates with certain Christians. He asks all the right questions and speaks well. Frankly IMHO this particular clip is well below his usual standard. He attacks a god that I don't believe in either. He is primarily attacking a particular form of Christian fundamentalism that exists primarily in the US, less so in Canada and virtually not at all in Europe,

Christianity IMHO is not about laws. Jesus was specifically clear that all the law and the prophets can be summed up with love and specifically sacrificial love. The prophet Micah says it well in Micah 6:8 when he says that what God wants of us is to humbly love kindness and do justice. Christianity as espoused by Christians like NT Wright, (who is generally conceded to be the foremost New Testament scholar around today), is a faith that calls its followers to reflect the kind of sacrificial love as seen in Jesus into all of creation, which includes our fellow humans, all life forms and the planet itself. Does that sound like the kind of monotheistic god that Hitchens' describes in this clip?

Hitchens, (I'm paraphrasing here), describes a god who is happily looking for ways he can catch us up and send us to hell after we die. I'm also a fan of CS Lewis. Here is a quote from his book "The Great Divorce".

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”

When it comes right down to it, the Christian message is all about the heart. Do we love selfishly or unselfishly and sacrificially, and that applies to Christians, Muslims, Hindus, atheists etc. The interesting thing is that you can't just decide to love unselfishly. It is about, (to some degree unconsciously), listening and responding to that still small voice in all of us, (call it our conscience if you like), that knows when we are being unkind or unjust. None of us can come anywhere close to being fully good or fully evil, but what we can do is make choices that establish a trajectory towards good or evil in this life. I think that we have all observed in ourselves and in others that when we make a choice that we know to be the wrong or selfish it is just a little easier the next time to go that route again. Conversely when we make the right or selfless choice then that sets a pattern for the next choice we make. In the end it is our choices that make us what we are, and ultimately the god as I believe him to be honours those choices.

[Trader]

Interesting persepctive from a former 'insider'.

[DEFCON]

GDR

I've been away and want to find the time to watch at least a part of your video before commenting.

[GDR]

GDR

I've been away and want to find the time to watch at least a part of your video before commenting.

No sweat. Just so you know, they are both Christian scholars with Wright arguing for the resurrection being historical and Crossan for it being metaphorical.

[DEFCON]

GDR

I finally found the two hours needed to watch the video you’ve attached.

You’re correct; the debate is interesting and as I recall you suggesting earlier; without the Resurrection story, Christianity wouldn’t have too much in the way of attractants to offer potential members.

From my perspective, the discussion appears to frame the debate on whether the Biblical story is a historic record of a literal event versus it being a metaphorical tale. Mr. Crossan also offered another way of looking at the matter too; it is either, ‘real, or abstract’.

Both gentlemen are clearly learned and their appreciation for the Bible is way beyond any that I might have. It is fair to note however that the ‘facts’ in question are only hearsay, or circumstantial from an evidentiary pov.

An author named Riley apparently wrote a book on the Resurrection and ‘got it all wrong’ according to Mr. Wright. Being there is no hard evidence to support any version of the event, I find it kind of funny when someone like Mr. Wright claims with absolute certainty that another’s view is completely wrong. For my money, I’d have to share the opinion of Mr. Crossan; the Resurrection is a metaphorical story, but what do I really know?

I was raised Christian and taught to ‘fear’ God from a very early age. I mean, here was this dude that was going to cast me into the pit of hell should I ever tell a fib, or blame my brother for something I had done. Apparently, compliance was not an option if I was to ever have any hope of salvation after passing through the living world. I was confused; on the one hand, God would apparently whack me for poor behaviour like he had done so violently with countless others before me, but then on the other hand, there was Jesus, the same guy as God, yet different as ‘I knew he loved me because the Bible tells me so’ and would forgive me for my transgressions?

The rise of the early Christian church may only have come about because there was a perceived need for a different religious flavour than was current in the day? From what I’ve read and I may have taken the information out of context, but it seems the Muslim faith arose simply because Christianity had come to be and the Arab nation felt it too needed a faith that suited the needs of its leaders and people. Numerous Gods have and continue to exist in the minds of the human animal. All Gods seem to have been the creation of a given societies stylized needs. Virtually all Gods and the faiths they represented have since fallen into the dustbin of history and are now recognized only as myths. Why would, or what might make Christianity any more representational of reality than those religions that came before it?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Christianity considers the Old Testament to be the ‘first story of God’ and the one through which God advised mankind that he was it, the one, the only, and that any other god was to be considered a fake, or a false god. For me, creating Christianity through the introduction of a new player, the embodiment of God and one arm of a ‘Holy Trinity’, is just a bit too convenient a solution to the dilemma the Trinity hopes to explain away and typical of supernaturally sensitive humans of the period. Using the ‘Holy Trinity’ as a modern day justification for Christianity is synonymous with physics use of the infinity symbol to develop equations which attempt to demonstrate theoretical concepts. It’s kind of odd as well, but isn’t the Holy Trinity an expression of infinity itself?

Now to the disclaimer. I do not know anything for certain in respect of God. As much as I’d like to believe, the evidence seems to make it abundantly clear that organized religion has taken humanity off track and into the weeds, but then again, I’m also of the view that modern science does not have absolute final answers in many other respects either. From my pov, the blind acceptance of science as if it were all indisputable fact is an equally disingenuous characteristic of humans that is too equally synonymous with religious indoctrination.

[GDR]

Hi Defcon

I'll get back to you on this when I have the time necessary to devote to your thoughtful post.

[DEFCON]

No problem.

[Guest longtimer]

Back to the topic of beheading.

18 September 2014 Last updated at 04:05 ET .Australia raids over 'Islamic State plot to Jon Donnison: “Authorities think an attack is not just possible but likely”

Police have carried out anti-terror raids in Sydney sparked by intelligence reports that Islamic extremists were planning random killings in Australia.

PM Tony Abbott said a senior Australian Islamic State militant had called for "demonstration killings", reportedly including a public beheading.

The raids, with at least 800 heavily-armed officers, led to 15 arrests.

One man has been charged with planning an attack. Prosecutors said he planned to "gruesomely" execute someone.

Australian media reports said a plot involved beheading a random member of the public after draping them in an Islamic State flag.

Asked about the reports in a press conference, Mr Abbott said: "That's the intelligence we received.''

"Direct exhortations were coming from an Australian who is apparently quite senior in ISIL (Islamic State) to networks of support back in Australia to conduct demonstration killings here in this country."

The news of an alleged plot to publicly behead a random Australian will shock many people here, including the vast majority of this country's long-established moderate Muslim community.

Many Muslims are unhappy with what's going on in Iraq and Syria but would never resort to violence. These raids risk antagonising the broader Islamic community.

But Australia, like many countries including Britain, is worried about the threat from Islamic State, not just abroad but at home. More than a decade on from Australia's support for the US-led war in Iraq, the country finds itself embroiled in a conflict that is far from over.

Tony Abbott this week announced he is sending 600 troops to the Middle East to assist in the fight against Islamic State. Security forces clearly face a battle at home too.

Grey line

"So this is not just suspicion, this is intent and that's why the police and security agencies decided to act in the way they have."

Mr Abbott did not name the Australian concerned. But local reports say an intercepted phone call involving Mohammad Ali Baryalei, a former Sydney bouncer described as Australia's most senior IS member, and domestic IS supporters triggered the operation.

In recent weeks, IS has released video footage showing three foreign nationals seized in Syria being beheaded.

[GDR]

Hi DEFCON

I'd like to be able to break your post down into multiple quotes but I can't figure out how to do it so I'll respond in a general way.

It isn't just that without the resurrection Christianity doesn't have much to offer, but that without the resurrection there is no reason to give Jesus any more credibility than any other other philosopher with a messianic complex. The resurrection represents God's vindication and confirmation of the life and teaching of Jesus, both in terms of the moral aspects that he espoused as well as God's long term plans for creation. Without the resurrection Jesus is simply another in a fairly long list of failed Jewish messiahs.

It is this aspect that drives me crazy when I consider the views of so-called Christian fundamentalists who essentially make an idol out of the Bible while downplaying the teachings of Jesus. You can't claim believe in what Jesus proclaims in the “Sermon on the Mount” as well as the Old Testament claims that God sanctioned public stonings and genocides without believing in a schizophrenic god. It's bizarre!

However, if you read the Bible as a series of books, written by a series of men over several centuries as the evolution of human understanding of the nature of this creator god and of his desires for our lives, then it all falls into place.

So where does Jesus fit into this. The Gospel of John at the very beginning talks about the concept that the “Word” or the wisdom of God that brought this universe as we perceive it into existence is eternal. John then makes the claim that the word became flesh. Essentially that is the trinitarian claim. It isn't that God left His heavenly dimension, (although I agree that more fundamentalist Christians would differ), but that Jesus perfectly embodied the wisdom and the nature of God. When I think of Christ's role in the Trinity in that way it doesn't really present a problem for me.

In reading the Gospels, as well as the Epistles it is very obvious that the various writers believed what it was they were writing, which of course isn't conclusive as they could be wrong. Some of the evidence for that is the following.

If they were going to make this whole thing up they wouldn't have:

1/ Shown the early Christian leaders in such a poor light.

2/ They would have had the resurrected Jesus shining like a star or in some similar fashion as would be expected in 1^st century Jewish context.

3/ They would haven't have had women, who in that early society had no credibility be the first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus.

4/ There just is no motivation for them to fabricate this story. Some of the messianic movements in that era saw the would be messiahs leading military movements that had a fair amount of success but after they were ultimately put to death by the Romans the movements simply died out. Why on earth would they not have done this with a messianic movement that had no military success, was short lived and with a band of working class followers.

The question then becomes whether they are some how mistaken. Well. We can't know in the sense that we know about things that we experience and that are repeatable. There certainly is an element of faith involved.

However, we can study the various accounts and see what we can make of them. We all know that when we have several witnesses to a car accident that not all of the accounts will be consistent. However, they will all agree that an accident happened. I think we can read the NT in the same light. There are inconsistencies in the accounts in terms of time and location but they all agree that the resurrection was an actual historical event.

The other thing that we can consider is the message that Jesus proclaimed. Does it hold up over the period of human history between then and now. Jesus lived in a barbaric world that wasn't unlike what we see in parts of the world today. However, even in that environment He brought a revolutionary message of love, peace and hope. He espoused the idea that we should be prepared to love sacrificially. He told the story of the “Good Samaritan” when the Samaritans were considered the hated outsiders. If Jesus were telling that story in a Christian society today it would be the story of “The Good Muslim”

I contend that His message is confirmed by the passage of time even though I'm sure that there would be those who disagree.

Yes it is a faith, but I contend that it is a reasonable faith. It is also a faith that for me makes sense of the world that I live in and of my existence. It is informed by what I read in the Bible, by the thoughts of scholars and philosophers over the centuries and by modern day science.

If you are interested here is a link to a paper by NT Wright written a few years ago on the rationale for believing in the resurrection as an historical event.

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

Thanks again for the thoughtful reply.

Cheers

Greg

[DEFCON]

GDR

I have a few further thoughts to add with respect to our interesting debate and will pass them on shortly if you don’t mind.

In the meantime, I’d like to add a quick comment to Malcolm’s post above.

The day prior to the Australian news coming out, CNN aired a discussion between their reporter, Ashleigh Banfield and Mr. Alan Dershowitz on the topic of the ICIS beheadings.

Banfield asked Dershowitz what he thought Vladimir Putin would do if terrorists were cutting the heads off Russian citizens.

Dershowitz claimed that terrorists had in fact acted against Russians in a similar manner a little while back. Putin apparently responded by sending his people into Lebanon to kill the family members of the suspected terrorists. Dershowitz claims there has not been another attack against the Russians ever since. However, he also quickly threw in a disclaimer stating; ‘of course America could never engage in such a practice’. The others present all voiced their agreement with Dershowitz.

I’m not too clear here as to why the American way is considered to better serve the interests of the American people than might the Russian style?

In practice, the American moral high-ground described by Dershowitz is not so moral after all and comes with a significant immoral cost I think.

On one hand, Putin seemed to realize that people were going to have to die and moved to kill off the family and probable support base for the individual that sought to kill Russians. The tactic has been successful in delivering protection to his citizenry to date.

On the other hand, the Americans appear to believe that sparring the family of the terrorist is morally preferable to declaring war, or not on another Country, invading and killing off tens of thousands of its people that never had a thing to do with the death of an American in the first place. I’m sorry, and maybe I’m missing something, but this approach to retribution seems just a little F’d up from my pov.

[DEFCON]

GDR

Was the biblical Jesus a real person, or a man of myth? As far as I know, other than the story, the evidence in support of his existence remains pretty thin and sketchy. Nevertheless, there’s enough juice surrounding the matter for me to take a leap of faith; Jesus was a man that lived during the period in my opinion.

Teachers of the Christian faith suggest Jesus died on the cross so that we all might be forgiven for our sins.

I think the Crucifixion part of the overall story and its message was more likely an attempt by Jesus to refocus the attention of his people back on God versus their continuing on in pursuit of their first love, money. Jesus came to town on Palm Sunday to make a point with his fellow Jews, I think. When he attended the temple and found the money changers practicing their craft, Jesus decided it was appropriate to disrupt their activities. This act obviously would have really enraged the court-banksters who of course complained loudly to the authorities and had Jesus arrested. The rest of the story is alleged history.

I believe that Jesus was really Po’d with the direction of his people under Roman occupation and only attended the City on that fateful day in an attempt to inform his fellow Jews of the error of their religious ways. Disrupting the activities of the apparently corrupt temple bankers was probably an event planned in advance and intended as a political stunt of sorts through which Jesus would deliver his expression of displeasure. His unruly behaviour may have been an attempt to infer a message something like; ‘God has given a gift to the Jews, the ability to create personal wealth, but the pursuit of same is not to interfere with worship, or be an insult to the faith. If & when the Jews turn away from their God in favour of money, greed, fate & destiny will all lead the Jewish people to a miserable end.’

The historical record would seem to accurately reflect the thought expressed in the last sentence above; when one Jewish society, or another has turned away from God, God has turned his back on them, which has resulted in a great deal of tribulation for the Jewish people. So, while Jesus died on the cross to forgive the men of his time of their sins, he was apparently unable to effect the desired permanent change in thinking upon his own people who not only demanded he be crucified, but they even went so far post-mortem, if I’ve got it correct, to even deny his existence until perhaps the modern time? It is also interesting to note, but even the NT and its message of love is powerfully overshadowed with threats and promises of a violent end for the non-adherent, which is an observation I find troubling.

Isn’t it a little arrogant for all of us today to assume that Christ intended for us to be included in the protections offered consequent to his selfless act? Because Christianity didn’t yet exist, I have to believe the intended message was actually only directed at his Jewish counterparts of the period and not likely pointed to those that hadn’t yet been born. Christianity itself was (imho) an attempt by later humans to advance concepts in living that are based on the teachings of the prophet Jesus. Please feel free to correct me if I’m in error, but my reference to ‘prophet’ comes about because the Quran describes Jesus in this light.

It’s all only my opinion of course and not being a scholarly type, said opinion isn’t really all that well founded. Nevertheless, our Maker did give us a brain and I’ve got to believe it came with the expectation that we would use it to the best of our ability. When it comes to religion, it’s mho that it should be down right mandatory for humans to question the word as defined by other men, men that are just as naked, afraid, mortal and completely ‘unconnected’ as the rest of humanity.

[GDR]

DEFCON WRITES:Was the biblical Jesus a real person, or a man of myth? As far as I know, other than the story, the evidence in support of his existence remains pretty thin and sketchy. Nevertheless, there’s enough juice surrounding the matter for me to take a leap of faith; Jesus was a man that lived during the period in my opinion.

I don't think it takes much of a leap of faith to believe that the Jesus of the gospel was a historical figure. There are a number of writers involved in writing the New Testament accounts. Separately Josephus the Jewish historian mentions Jesus twice, although I agree that in one case what he wrote has likely been altered, but scholars generally agree that he did write about Jesus twice. In addition the Roman historian Tacitus also mentions the crucifixion of Jesus within an historical context and Tacitus was not at all well disposed to Christianity.

DEFCON WRITES: Teachers of the Christian faith suggest Jesus died on the cross so that we all might be forgiven for our sins.
I think the Crucifixion part of the overall story and its message was more likely an attempt by Jesus to refocus the attention of his people back on God versus their continuing on in pursuit of their first love, money. Jesus came to town on Palm Sunday to make a point with his fellow Jews, I think. When he attended the temple and found the money changers practicing their craft, Jesus decided it was appropriate to disrupt their activities. This act obviously would have really enraged the court-banksters who of course complained loudly to the authorities and had Jesus arrested. The rest of the story is alleged history.

I believe that Jesus was really Po’d with the direction of his people under Roman occupation and only attended the City on that fateful day in an attempt to inform his fellow Jews of the error of their religious ways. Disrupting the activities of the apparently corrupt temple bankers was probably an event planned in advance and intended as a political stunt of sorts through which Jesus would deliver his expression of displeasure. His unruly behaviour may have been an attempt to infer a message something like; ‘God has given a gift to the Jews, the ability to create personal wealth, but the pursuit of same is not to interfere with worship, or be an insult to the faith. If & when the Jews turn away from their God in favour of money, greed, fate & destiny will all lead the Jewish people to a miserable end.’

I don't think it is a simple as that. The message that Jesus brought to Jerusalem was hugely political. It wasn't just the money changers that He would have been upset with, as bad as that was. The Temple had become a place that had become the nexus of the revolutionarily minded Jews. Christ's message was that they had it all wrong. They were to love their enemies etc. His message was that if they were to keep on in there militaristic ways the the Romans would do what they always did which is exactly what happened in 70AD when the Romans flattened Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. It wouldn't take any supernatural wisdom to understand that.

Christ's message went back to the original Abrahamic promise that God's message was for the entire world and not just for the Jews. The ancient Jews had largely seen it as something especially for them, and that they were looking for God to give them victory over their enemies. Jesus said that they had it all wrong.

Sometimes the Christian church is so keen to go on talking about Jesus as God that they forget a number of things. One of those was that He was a man. With feelings and fears like anyone else. He prayed to God, whom He called Father, that He wouldn't have to go through with the whole thing.

However he rode into Jerusalem did what He did knowing full well what the penalty would be for what He was doing. He went in as an act of faith that He correctly understood the scriptures and what it was that God wanted Him to do. If He had simply died then that would have been the end of it. After the crucifixion His followers largely scattered and went into hiding so that they wouldn't suffer the same fate. Normally the Romans would hunt down and execute the followers of other would-be messiahs to be sure and squelch any further revolutionary ideas they might have. In this case they were somewhat safer as Jesus was espousing the idea of a non-military revolution.

I'd suggest that simply saying that Jesus died for the sins of the world is too simplistic and maybe a bit misleading. The Jewish tradition was, particularly from a Pharisaical point of view, that if they perfectly kept the laws then God would in some way return and give them victory over their enemies. They also had a tradition of sacrifice in one form or another, all to receive favour with Yahweh. However, Jesus said things like “I desire mercy not sacrifice” and that all the law could be encapsulated within the law of love, whether it be for each other, for their neighbour, for their enemy or for God. He also made it clear that this message was for the world. (Look at the story of “The Good Samaritan”). The Samaritans were hated as apostates but Jesus told the story with the Samaritan being the one that followed the law of love, and the Jewish religious leaders the ones that didn't. I'm sure that in a 21^st century context it would be the story of the good Muslim.

As Israel hadn't fulfilled this role Jesus understood His vocation to be that He would, using the Jewish traditions, take it on Himself to be the sacrifice for all Israel with the faith that God would somehow vindicate what it was He was doing.

DEFCON WRITES:The historical record would seem to accurately reflect the thought expressed in the last sentence above; when one Jewish society, or another has turned away from God, God has turned his back on them, which has resulted in a great deal of tribulation for the Jewish people. So, while Jesus died on the cross to forgive the men of his time of their sins, he was apparently unable to effect the desired permanent change in thinking upon his own people who not only demanded he be crucified, but they even went so far post-mortem, if I’ve got it correct, to even deny his existence until perhaps the modern time? It is also interesting to note, but even the NT and its message of love is powerfully overshadowed with threats and promises of a violent end for the non-adherent, which is an observation I find troubling.

I'd suggest that it isn't that God turned His back on them, although at the time they weren't convinced that He hadn't, but that their troubles were largely the natural outcome of their errant way. As Jesus said, “those who live by the sword die by the sword”.

A couple of things about the violent end you mention. To start with, it partly it depends on what you mean by non-adherent. If you read the parable about separating the sheep and the goats, (apparently the goats don't make the cut), it is all about feeding the hungry, giving a drink to the thirsty, giving a home to the homeless visiting those in prison etc. There is no mention of what theology you happen to hold. Yes, the NT does say in other places that followers of Christ are made right with God, but if you follow Christ then at the very least one should have a heart that truly desires kindness, mercy, forgiveness, love and justice even though we follow those desires imperfectly.

I was one of those fortunate enough to be brought up in a loving home. Many, and sometimes I'm inclined to think most, aren't as fortunate. I believe that ultimately God's perfect justice will prevail, and that all will somehow be made right.

I suggest that you go back to my earlier post and re-read my CS Lewis quote which in part says that those who are in hell choose it.

DEFCON:Isn’t it a little arrogant for all of us today to assume that Christ intended for us to be included in the protections offered consequent to his selfless act? Because Christianity didn’t yet exist, I have to believe the intended message was actually only directed at his Jewish counterparts of the period and not likely pointed to those that hadn’t yet been born. Christianity itself was (imho) an attempt by later humans to advance concepts in living that are based on the teachings of the prophet Jesus. Please feel free to correct me if I’m in error, but my reference to ‘prophet’ comes about because the Quran describes Jesus in this light.

Of course Jesus was a prophet , but that isn't to say that He wasn't more than that. Jesus' message was primarily aimed at the Jews but He also made it clear that the message was, in a Jewish context, intended for the world. As I said, the story of “The Good Samaritan” is clear in that regard. Paul was very clear about that and in some ways was the thrust of his mission, which is interesting as he had been a strict Pharisaical Jew prior to his Road to Damascus experience.

DEFCON:It’s all only my opinion of course and not being a scholarly type, said opinion isn’t really all that well founded. Nevertheless, our Maker did give us a brain and I’ve got to believe it came with the expectation that we would use it to the best of our ability. When it comes to religion, it’s mho that it should be down right mandatory for humans to question the word as defined by other men, men that are just as naked, afraid, mortal and completely ‘unconnected’ as the rest of humanity.

I could not possibly agree more. I hope that is what I have done myself. Interestingly enough that is why I enjoyed Hitchens most of the time. He pulled apart very effectively the aspects of those Christian churches that turn Christ's teachings on their ear and have made it all about the self, particularly the idea that if you buy into this and say the right words you get to live forever. That is 180 degrees from the selfless message of Jesus and very similar to the fault that Jesus found in His fellow Jews of the first century.

I apologize to those that find this discussion out of place on this forum but theology is a hobby of mine and so I find I really enjoy discussions like this. Hopefully you can indulge me by simply ignoring me.

Cheers

Greg

[Mitch Cronin]

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, both (so I haven't any idea to whom it should be attributed?) have asked the following question: (paraphrasing as best I can - few on earth are as eloquent as those two!) :

Mankind has been around for at least a million years, ferreting out their lives, with misery, loss, pain and suffering of all kinds... earthquakes, volcanos, floods, tornados... all with no Jesus, no bible, nor any commandments, for almost as long...

So why, after at least a million years of letting all that happen, would God suddenly decide to intercede in a small, relatively sparsely inhabited part of the globe, in the Bronze Age?

Good question, I'd say... and I'd add to that: Surely if that's to be the place for such a special event (and I can't think of any reason why it should be?), wouldn't some other time in history, like now for instance, be a much better opportunity to get his message heard and save many more souls?

[GDR]

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, both (so I haven't any idea to whom it should be attributed?) have asked the following question: (paraphrasing as best I can - few on earth are as eloquent as those two!) :

Mankind has been around for at least a million years, ferreting out their lives, with misery, loss, pain and suffering of all kinds... earthquakes, volcanos, floods, tornados... all with no Jesus, no bible, nor any commandments, for almost as long...

So why, after at least a million years of letting all that happen, would God suddenly decide to intercede in a small, relatively sparsely inhabited part of the globe, in the Bronze Age?

Good question, I'd say... and I'd add to that: Surely if that's to be the place for such a special event (and I can't think of any reason why it should be?), wouldn't some other time in history, like now for instance, be a much better opportunity to get his message heard and save many more souls?

No doubt the most difficult question that a Christian has to answer is,”why suffering”. I agree that there is no easy answer.

The usual answer, which I think has merit, for why there is suffering perpetrated by humans is that if we can't make the wrong choices then we are unable to make the right ones. We would simply be pre-programmed robots.

The more difficult question is why the suffering from natural disasters. In my own wrestling with this question I can only conclude that it is a necessary aspect of an entropic world. From my understanding from what I have read is that we only experience time in one direction because of entropy. We both know how given enough flying hours something will wear out and cause problems in an aircraft. It seems likely that this is the case with our planet. Tectonic plates shift and we have earthquakes and tsunamis.

You asked about why God would be involved when and how He did. We both know that I can't properly answer this but I do have a couple of thoughts.

The Jewish people had been a people who never seemed to come out on top. They were throughout most of their history down-trodden, enslaved and essentially dominated by their more powerful neighbours. When we look at Jesus we see Him reaching out to the marginalized in that society, so the idea that God would reach out to a marginalized peoples is entirely consistent with what Jesus taught.

I didn't make it all the way through the “Book of Buddha” but I read enough of it to know that Gautama Buddha in about 500 BC espoused pretty much the same message as Jesus, including the rather foreign concept of loving your enemy. All major world religions have some form of the “Golden Rule” in their texts. The point is that God was always reaching out to all mankind.

When the OT is read as a narrative of the history of humans gradually gained a clearer understanding of the nature of God, (the writings of the later prophets read quite differently that the books like Leviticus or Numbers), we can see a flow that is pointing towards the nature of God as seen in Jesus. Incidently though, even in the early books the concept of a loving god can be found. Jesus seems to have been able to draw all the strands together so that ultimately He perfectly embodied God's nature in Himself.

You suggest that now would have been a better time. I wonder. It is far from perfect but the countries that have the greatest freedom, the least cause to fear for one's safety, the most benevolent societies etc are the countries that have a Judeo-Christian heritage. Just maybe if Jesus hadn't come when He did we might be living in a situation similar to what we see in Afghanistan and countries like that today. If that were the case you might not think that this would be such a good time and maybe we should all be very glad that Jesus existed 2000 years ago instead of today.

Back to the problem of suffering. There is no perfect answer but part of the Christian message is that the world is far from perfect. However, also there is the promise of a renewed world to come that will see the end of suffering and be marked by God's perfect justice. We can also understand that God suffers with us when we see the suffering that Jesus went through on the cross.

Frankly I agree that is all pie in the sky and wishful thinking unless God did actually resurrect Jesus in bodily form that was similar to what He was but also different. However if the resurrection was historical the we can take seriously the message that what God did for Jesus in the middle of time will be done for all creation at the end of time as we know it. In Christian lingo Jesus is the new Adam for our renewed world.

This morning I was talking to a woman in our church who is in her early eighties and has been widowed for several years. Once a year she still goes over to Uganda to work in a hospital looking after AIDS patients. I recently had a very minor procedure done by the local surgeon who is a Christian. Once a year he and his wife leave his lucrative practice and they voluntarily work in hospitals in Zambia. So yes, suffering exists and we can sit around bemoaning the fact that we don't see God doing anything about it or we can choose to love our neighbour by doing all that we can to alleviate the suffering. Our life in the end is all about the choices we make.

Sorry if I have rambled – it's late.

Take care Mitch and thanks for the post.

Greg