R.I.P. Ariel Sharon (a tribute thread)

[Tahuti]

That was God working through the Jews, and Romans, and Jesus. They were all obeying God's will. There was no sin involved, yet humans seem to view everything they feel is sin as a sin. Breaking the law is not as much of a sin to God as it is to humans themselves. Why do you think that capital punishment gets a bad rap?

Not all Christians are Calvinist, timtofly.

 

[timtofly]

I doubt Calvinist are "Christians", but that is up to God, is it not? Calvinism has nothing to do with what I said. I never said that everything was pre-determined. It has nothing to do with controlling people. There seems to be certain times in history where God carries out his plans that seem contrary to human will. There was no reason to sentence Jesus to death, but if Jesus had not have died, then God's plan of grace would never have been a reality. Of course it is God's will that Israel also be brought back to nationhood if the prophets of the OT are correct. It seems to me that when it comes to God and his contact with humans, that God does not force people to go against their will. He just makes it easy for them to change their will when it is necessary to carry out his plan.

BTW Calvinist view every act of human nature a sin. I clearly said that acting in God's plan is not sin even if it is done in human nature. Pronouncing what the Jews did as sin would be the Calvinist view. I do not hold that God forces people to sin. God can take away a person's choice in certain areas, but that is different. I don't think that very many people believe that. Most people hold that the Noahide and Law of Moses are God's will imposed upon mankind. I do not see that as concurrent with the rest of Scripture. I think that following such laws will bring blessings and are used to govern people, but they do not guarantee peace nor eternal life. Breaking them will bring a "curse" for up to four generations, but keeping them will bring blessings for a 1000 generations. Humans are still free to make their own way.

 

[choxorn]

So what happens if some people in the same family line break and keep them? Do the 4 cursed generations just get taken off the 1000 blessed ones and leave you with 996 good generations overall?

 

[Masada]

Only it isn't "obvious" at all regarding what really occurred:

The National Front didn't even have a majority, yet the Parliament still decided to cancel the elections.

Again, this was hardly the work of one man.

Yes, it is. Mossadegh lost the election even before he postponed the count which overwhelmingly affected royalist-leaning rural areas. Parliament didn't 'decide' to cancel the count because it wasn't sitting, Mossadegh did.

What does that have to do with anything? Don't you think the people in a democracy can protest?

Yes, I do. But I don't think Persia in 1952 was a democracy. The Prime Minister had just ordered votes to stop being counted and his supporters were actively calling for him to rule by decree with his tacit support.

Mossaddegh apparently resigned because the Shah refused to provide the Parliament with the real control of the country.

No, he didn't. Parliament had just tried to oust him a few days before and was not far off being dissolved by Mossaddegh. Rather, Mossaddegh went after the War Ministery because he wanted to control the military something he outright told the people in a radio broadcast during the clash.

Yet that is apparently what you are arguing here. Mossaddegh has the approval of the Parliament, and apparently the vast majority of the people, for all of his actions.

Which Parliament? And which people? In 1952 he faced a hostile Parliament which he got around by getting the National Front to withdrew which left it unable to form a quorum. The Senate which turned hostile after his confrontation with the Shah he simply dissolved. After that he simply ruled by decree until he was murdered.

"Dude" was trying to save his own country from the royalists and the foreign exploiters. As it turned out, he had more than sufficient reason to fear that they would overthrow the legitimate sovereign (and reasonably democratic) government. Now didn't he?

As I've demonstrated, what he did was not in the least bit democratic.

Mossadegh didn't seize power to do this. The Parliament voted to give him emergency powers.

Under threat of violence.

 

[timtofly]

So what happens if some people in the same family line break and keep them? Do the 4 cursed generations just get taken off the 1000 blessed ones and leave you with 996 good generations overall?

It means that people will remember the curses, but forget the blessings, even though the effects of the curses do not last as long as the effects of the blessings. People live in the now, and yes the effects of the blessings go on and on, but most will only experience the curses as long as people reject being obedient.

It has nothing to do with being secular or religious either. Being religious does not guarantee a blessing. One can still live in a secular government, and obey God. One does not have to be religious to obey God. In fact one can be religious and still be disobedient to God. "True" religion is the same fallacy as a "true" Scotsman. No one can claim their brand of religion is any truer than any other one.

 

[Senethro]

So you can't claim your brand of religion is truer, but you have permission to go doubting some denominations as even being Christian?

 

[timtofly]

So you can't claim your brand of religion is truer, but you have permission to go doubting some denominations as even being Christian?

One can always doubt. I never claimed why I felt that way. Perhaps it is the same reasoning that compelled one to question my post? I would question every claim of religion, even the one found in Genesis 20:5-6 if one wants to claim that is a religion. Wearing one's religion as an outward show, does not mean that is how one lives their life in the privacy of their own homes. That is why we have the word hypocrite in our vocabulary. Now if I am trying to proclaim hope and then cast doubt on another person's hope, that may confuse the truth for that person. I can only trust that most know the truth, and they either accept it or reject it. If one is just basing what they know on belief and not knowledge, then there is little I can do, but hold my thoughts to myself.

 

[luiz]

In fairness, Mosaddegh wasn't exactly that democratic either. He blatantly interfered with democratic processes in 1952 to stave off defeat. But having said that he was still better than the Shah.

Maybe he just didn't have the time to do enough damage. I'd say based on the experience of other populist/nationalist/authoritarian leaders that given enough time, Mossadeq would be worse than the Shah.

And at any rate the Shah was definitely much better than Khomeini.

 

[classical_hero]

Do you not imagine that the Palestinians also have an "affinity" with the region?

The only times they ever "cared" for the region was when they didn't have control over it. Every time they had control of the land, they let it become a backwater

Well the Jews crucified Jesus. What's as sinful as that?

I never knew that Crucifixion was a Jewish manner of death. Interesting.

Classical Hero, do you spend as much time or concern about how Australia should be returned to the Aborigines?

The two situations are totally different. In Israel, the Jews never left, just that the majority were forced out of the land and in other lands they have been persecuted. So for them to survive they need a homeland. The Aboriginal situation isn't the same, they were never forced to leave the country, just due to evolutionary thinking they were hunted like dogs, since they were assumed to be a less evolved than white man. The situation now for Aboriginals is much better than the situation for Jews in Muslim lands, where they are persecuted just because they are Jewish. The two situation are apples to oranges.

 

[Traitorfish]

Maybe he just didn't have the time to do enough damage. I'd say based on the experience of other populist/nationalist/authoritarian leaders that given enough time, Mossadeq would be worse than the Shah.

Of course; he would have screwed over rich people as well as poor people, and that's just unconscionable.

The only times they ever "cared" for the region was when they didn't have control over it. Every time they had control of the land, they let it become a backwater.

I'm not sure what you're basing this on.

The two situations are totally different. In Israel, the Jews never left, just that the majority were forced out of the land and in other lands they have been persecuted. So for them to survive they need a homeland. The Aboriginal situation isn't the same, they were never forced to leave the country, just due to evolutionary thinking they were hunted like dogs, since they were assumed to be a less evolved than white man. The situation now for Aboriginals is much better than the situation for Jews in Muslim lands, where they are persecuted just because they are Jewish. The two situation are apples to oranges.

"Genocide is okay as long as you don't rub it in."

 

[Zack]

I never knew that Crucifixion was a Jewish manner of death. Interesting.

What?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yes, it is. Mossadegh lost the election even before he postponed the count which overwhelmingly affected royalist-leaning rural areas. Parliament didn't 'decide' to cancel the count because it wasn't sitting, Mossadegh did.

I already clearly showed the matter is quite controversial and is highly disputed by historians. That Mossadegh was obviously not the only person who was advocating these measures. That the suspension of the elections occurred without being "vetoed" by even a single member of the Parliament at the time, and despite his own party only holding 30 of the 72 seats.

OTOH you have yet to provide any source whatsoever to support your continuing allegations to the contrary, regarding both this matter or with any of your other statements.

As I've demonstrated, what he did was not in the least bit democratic.

I didn't claim that taking emergency measures to try to save the country from being overthrown, and which were supported by at least the majority of the Parliament at the time, was "democratic". Now did I?

 

[Senethro]

The only times they ever "cared" for the region was when they didn't have control over it. Every time they had control of the land, they let it become a backwater

Wow, citation needed much? Also are you justifying ethnic cleansing based on using land incorrectly?

I never knew that Crucifixion was a Jewish manner of death. Interesting.

The manner is irrelevant, remember who the crowd were, your response is really disingenuous as I'm sure you know.

The two situations are totally different. In Israel, the Jews never left, just that the majority were forced out of the land and in other lands they have been persecuted. So for them to survive they need a homeland. The Aboriginal situation isn't the same, they were never forced to leave the country, just due to evolutionary thinking they were hunted like dogs, since they were assumed to be a less evolved than white man. The situation now for Aboriginals is much better than the situation for Jews in Muslim lands, where they are persecuted just because they are Jewish. The two situation are apples to oranges.

If it was evolutionary thinking that caused violent colonial displacement of peoples, that would explain why the conservative right wing ideologies that reject science such as the theory of evolution are always the least racist!

 

[Tahuti]

What?

Crucifixion is a typically Roman punishment and Jesus was definitely executed by Romans. Of course, that doesn't warrant us destroying the city of Rome or go after every individual Roman. It's largely irrelevant what ethnicity/nationality the crucifiers were in the end.

 

[Zack]

Crucifixion is a typically Roman punishment and Jesus was definitely executed by Romans. Of course, that doesn't warrant us destroying the city of Rome or go after every individual Roman. It's largely irrelevant what ethnicity/nationality the crucifiers were in the end.

Well yeah, but Jesus was crucified because the Jews didn't like him.

15 Now it was the governor’s custom at the festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16 At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas. 17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” 18 For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him.

19 While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”

20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.

“Barabbas,” they answered.

22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.

They all answered, “Crucify him!”

23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.

But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”

24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

 

[Winston Hughes]

We seem have completely different notions of what constitutes "weasely" posts. Or even if it is a real word for that matter.

And I see you didn't provide any source to support your statements.

Your demand for 'support' is the second most weasely thing about your post. It's set up to be unsatisfiable. There's literally nothing I could post in response for which you haven't already planned yourself a semantic escape route. You don't even make it clear what 'allegations' I'm supposed to be providing 'support' for, but insist on it being 'substantial' and 'from reliable sources', offering no explanation of what any of that actually means. It's all smoke and mirrors.

I don't think you even really understand why you're arguing with me, or what we're arguing about. You've just experienced a visceral reaction against what I've said, and have fired off some random countermeasures, intended to make it look as if you've addressed my point without doing anything of the kind.

(The most weasely thing? You've acted as if I'm approaching this from a conservative perspective, and tried to damn me by association with the American right, with whom I share less ground on this matter than you do. I'm not the one trying to define racism in such a way as to exclude myself from any suggestion of being affected by it.)

 

[AdamCrock]

So many people have served him ..... I HAIL those people , not him Generals are servants , people are heroes

 

[choxorn]

I didn't claim that taking emergency measures to try to save the country from being overthrown, and which were supported by at least the majority of the Parliament at the time, was "democratic". Now did I?

Ladies and Gentlemen of the forum, I present, Exhibits A-C:

What does that have to do with anything? Don't you think the people in a democracy can protest?

"Dude" was trying to save his own country from the royalists and the foreign exploiters. As it turned out, he had more than sufficient reason to fear that they would overthrow the legitimate sovereign (and reasonably democratic) government. Now didn't he?

Wouldn't Iran still be a secular democracy, and a shining example to the region, if the legitimate government had not been overthrown and an "extremist" far-right puppet military dictator put in its place?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Your demand for 'support' is the second most weasely thing about your post. It's set up to be unsatisfiable. There's literally nothing I could post in response for which you haven't already planned yourself a semantic escape route. You don't even make it clear what 'allegations' I'm supposed to be providing 'support' for, but insist on it being 'substantial' and 'from reliable sources', offering no explanation of what any of that actually means. It's all smoke and mirrors.

I don't think you even really understand why you're arguing with me, or what we're arguing about. You've just experienced a visceral reaction against what I've said, and have fired off some random countermeasures, intended to make it look as if you've addressed my point without doing anything of the kind.

(The most weasely thing? You've acted as if I'm approaching this from a conservative perspective, and tried to damn me by association with the American right, with whom I share less ground on this matter than you do. I'm not the one trying to define racism in such a way as to exclude myself from any suggestion of being affected by it.)

That's right. Back up your assertions with some facts from reputable sources. Otherwise, I think they are no different than others who use this very same form of rationalization to marginalize racism.

After all, you were the one who insinuated that Metatron's post contained a "patronizing form of racism". But nobody else seemed to have perceived it in any such manner, at least they didn't say so. OTOH people did respond negatively.

If the advocacy of aid to those who are considered to be underprivileged had any element of racism associated with it, don't you think you could find at least one reputable authority who has argued that it is occurring?

Ladies and Gentlemen of the forum, I present, Exhibits A-C:

Countries with Parliaments are typically thought to be democratic instead of dictatorships.

 

[Takhisis]

Does the General Assembly of the Communsit Porty of the Soviet Union count as a Parliament?

Or, well, the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland?