WIP

If you consider how long Britain and France kept colonies in Africa and Asia, the occupation of Ottoman territories after WWI was hardly a blip on the radar screen. The mandates set up by the League of Nations in former Ottoman territories were similar to the present situation in Iraq. The Arabs were still directly ruled by their local councils and they were aware that the British wouldn't be there for long, because they demanded that a permanent government be set up by majority rule. The fighting started when they realized that the British were going to partition Palestine to make a Jewish state possible. Once again, they were fine with having Jews living in Palestine as long as they were ruling over them.

I forgot to mention the effect that Soviet involvement played in the conflict. But it illustrates a fatal error made by both the Israelis and the Americans during this period: they both focused on the Communist menace and encourage Islamic forces to be an ally against the Reds. The Americans did it with their strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia and the Israelis allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to organize in Gaza and the West Bank. They believed the Islamists were the lesser of two evils. Now that Hamas has taken control of Gaza from the P.A., and the Saudi clerics have spawned Islamist movements all over the world, it looks pretty clear that they are the worst kind of enemy. Also, how much damage was done when the Likud took power under Menachem Begin? He declared that the West Bank was "Judea and Samaria" and refused to negotiate any land deals. Instead, he increased the number of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Any moderate leaders on the West Bank were caught between a rock and a hard place. With more settlements being built, especially strategic settlements designed to disrupt the ability of Palestinians to move about freely, the occupation became a fact of daily life, and any hopes of negotiating independence were gone.

Thanks! You beat me to the punch. It's not just an American thing; demagogic leaders all over the world have used appeals to patriotism for the purpose of whipping up support for a war effort. It's a flat out emotional appeal, and I guess you already discovered that using logic and reason didn't help much in response to patriotic slogans. Social scientists say that nationalism is tribalism applied on a larger scale. A sense of nationalistic patriotism is essential to provide disparate groups of people a sense of unity, but now that we're living in an overcrowded, polluted world, where our survival as a species may be at stake, maybe it's time to build some kind of universal patriotism that exists at a higher level than nationalism.

They also took a much more ruthless approach to dealing with your people Charter! Ever hear of the Indian Wars? Many tribes were steamrollered to make room for immigrants and new development. Do you think the American approach to dealing with Aboriginals was better than the Canadian way? Maybe it's the endless whining and demands for more money and more privileges, that make Canadians want to tune out this message! The problem is you want money from the federal treasury, but then demand no conditions on how the money is spent. Why should we trust tribal leaders who don't even believe in democratic principles and want their self-governments totally autonomous, so that their people would be under their thumb and unable to appeal to the federal government for help? You've been watching too much Jeremiah Wright lately! You've got everything here but "Goddamn Canada!"

You know jb, I used to feel down about the lack of nationalistic fervour in Canada. Even on "Canada Day" there isn't a whole lot of flag waving outside of special events. So, whenever I was across the border and drove past neigbourhoods where the Stars and Stripes was in front of every third house, I used to envy American patriotism. But then along came Iraq! And I witnessed how a conniving clique of politicians could use fear and patriotism to make an emotional case for a war that made no logical sense! Now, I feel a little better about our subdued sense of nationalism.

And how many Palestinians were dying in the years before the first intifada? Humiliation! What was so humiliating that they would feel the need to act out in nihilistic rage? Before the Intifada, Palestinians faced some restrictions on travel and weren't allowed to vote; but in economic terms, they were living better than their brethren in the rest of the Arab World. I would propose that the key humiliation is religious in nature, since Muslim lands are never supposed to fall under infidel rule. During the reign of the Ottoman Empire, there was a sizeable Jewish population in Jerusalem: Jerusalem entered the 19th century with about 9,000 inhabitants. In 1840, Jews became the largest single community in the city -- accounting for a majority of Jerusalem's residents by 1880. In 1860, Anglo-Jewish philanthropist Sir Moses Montefiore established the Mishkenot Sha'ananim neighborhood, the first quarter outside the Old City walls. Eventually, this project was followed by many others. In 1900, the city's population reached 55,000; 60% of whom were Jews. http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerusalem/jerusalem3.htm But they were allowed to live there because they were still under Muslim rule. The great humiliation that caused the mobilization of Arab armies, was having the infidels declare independence from the Muslim authorities..............and again, that boils back down to religion as the root cause of the conflict.

Oh really! Why did the Germans leave the corridor then during the intervening years before the outbreak of WWII? Why did Poles hate Jews? Why did French hate Jews? Jealousy perhaps! They managed to prosper in spite of economic restrictions, and many people, like my uncles, determined their success had to come from some ill-gotten gain. I have an older brother who has done a little research on family history (mainly on my father's side); I haven't been as interested in the subject. Ultimately, I don't care a great deal about how much of my uncles' stories I can verify. I just assumed they had to have some basis in fact. I can't see a reason why they would lie about it, but I still don't get why you're so sure that they, and the other Germans who left during that time, weren't forced out.

Well, like I said, I have no problem with a personal approach to religious faith; I think the problems start where faith leaders try to enforce uniformity of doctrine and where religion is pushed into the public square and used as the set of rules for others to follow, even if they have different beliefs.

I'm still stuck on the starting line since I don't believe a Holy Spirit or other supernatural forces exist. Since it is claimed that the supernatural influences the natural world, such as prayer, faith-healing, exorcism, or in the case of intelligent design - some kind of supernatural force that guides evolution. Where the supernatural interacts with our world, there should be something tangible that can be proven that an outside force is present. I'm still awaiting the evidence! What you are saying is that everything God does is moral, even if it appears to violate the moral rules that we've been taught. If there is no morality outside of God, then there is no means to question things like drowning worlds or telling followers to massacre villages; but if there are moral principles that exist independent of God, then an impartial observer can question whether or not the Bible describes a moral God!

I'm not absolving Israel of all guilt since they allowed complacency to set in and carried on with an occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, without offering any avenue towards "self-determination." Instead, they encouraged the most radical groups, giving Hamas an assist in their goal of overtaking the PLO. Now that we can see how Hamas behaves when they have a little bit of power, they likely wished they had encouraged the more pragmatic forces in the Palestinian movement! But, what really bothers me about the Palestinians as a group is that they violate one of the cardinal rules of behaviour: most populations who feel under occupation are sensible enough not to rock the boat if it threatens their economic well-being (think of Quebec, for example). But what have the Palis done? The Gazan economy didn't exist before the Israeli occupation, and 30 years ago, Palestinians living on the West Bank were the wealthiest Arabs in the world; their per capita income was almost on par with many Western nations. I think the Israeli leaders assumed that the majority would be pragmatic enough to accept occupation along with prosperity. But they were wrong, weren't they? Instead, the Palestinians went from being pragmatists to being among the most crazy religious people in the Arab World. And what have they gained? Their lives are shattered; most want to leave the territories if they get the opportunity, and their standard of living(especially in Gaza) is below third world standards today. I don't think there is any other force besides religion that can make people act against their own best interests, and these people are exhibit A!

Sure, the majority of people living in the Corridor may have been Polish and they probably harboured their own resentments after decades of being under Prussian rule, but there were sizeable German populations in towns like Zempelburg, near their home. I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here since I only offered it up to illustrate how complicated dividing up territories for self-determination are on the ground, and we're talking about events that happened almost a century ago! My mother has no memory of those days, so the stories I heard were from my uncles who were young at the time, but old enough to recall some of the events. Their animosity towards Poles (and Jews) likely was a key part of forming their sympathetic attitudes they had towards Hitler and the Nazis.

I guess you're not paying very close attention, because I've already mentioned my German heritage on my mother's side of the family; and I also had uncles who talk just like you - resenting Jews for finding ways to succeed in spite of discriminatory laws like not being allowed to own land and being forced to live in designated areas of towns and cities. Where do you think the term "ghetto" comes from in the first place? So, your're blaming Jews in dark ages Europe for seizing upon an opportunity left open because of the stupidity of religious authorities! And in the Muslim World, they are still too dense to accept the principle of loaning money for interest, instead of creating complicated and convoluted "Islamic Banking" practises. And what exactly is preventing non-Jews from becoming lawyers? When I was young, there were many Jewish doctors; but today there are few because like other native Canadians and Americans, the young people who have the capability of excelling in demanding professions are choosing law, finance and engineering rather than medicine, because the rewards for being a doctor have diminished so greatly over the years. That's why all of our new doctors are coming from India or the Far East!

One recent study posited that the Ashkenazi advantage developed because of the persecution and restrictions in Europe. Primarily because Jews weren't allowed to own land in most European nations and therefore could not take up farming like the majority of people did a thousand years ago. So, they had to develop their intellectual resources and learn trades that were valued by the general population. I think the academic achievements by Jews were downplayed because of the influence of many socialist intellectuals who had a default belief that everyone has equal abilities. Unfortunately, this reluctance left the anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists to claim that the reason for the disproportionate success of Jews in business was some secret conspiracy like the "Elders of Zion." It may have been rude, but it probably would have been better to say: "yeah, we have lots of doctors, lawyers and bankers because we're a little smarter than everyone else!'

It does beg the question: instead of being filled with homicidal jealousy, why isn't the Muslim World achieving academic greatness instead of achieving their aims through belligerence and aggression?

My mother never talked about it much since she had no direct memory of this experience. But from what I gather, it had something to do with men with guns knocking on the door and saying you've got 48 hours to get out! It probably had nothing to do with any legal notice, but during the chaos of the time, most of the Germans living in that area left. Supposedly, they were guaranteed the right to stay if they adopted Polish citizenship and accepted Polish as their language, but few, if any Germans stayed behind.

You do realize that you are lumping over a billion and a half people into the same bunch! There are a lot of dangerous, harmful forms of Christian beliefs and practises. But you shouldn't include Christians who don't want to completely abandon their religion and want to practise their religion in a way that makes sense in today's world.

The problem with the Gospel of Mark is that everything after verse eight isn't in the original manuscripts. Verses 9-20 that describe the disciples' encounters with the risen Jesus and the snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues, casting out demons etc., are not in the 4th Century manuscripts. Modern biblical scholars believe verses 9-20 were added by a different writer because language and stylistic differences. Some later manuscripts had a shorter ending after verse 8. There are many different interpretations of these prophecies, and you have highlighted one way of interpreting prophecies that seem clearly referring to 1st Century Christians. Believe it or not, when my family had spent a little time in the Jehovah's Witnesses many years ago, they interpreted those verses referring to the final generation that would see the 2nd Coming as being the generation that saw WWI. Now I hear that, since they are almost all gone and Armageddon hasn't happened yet, the JW's have changed the chronology again. Anyway, Matthew: 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom., does not sound to me like it's referring to Pentecost! But then again, "kingdom" is given many different interpretations in itself. It seems likely that 1st Century Christians were awaiting the return of the Messiah, since some later writings like 2Peter:3:4 says: Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. Even after I gave up on traditional religion and started exploring Buddhism, I still believed that knowledge could be gained through subjective, mystical experience through meditation. In my later years, I've thought about how easily we fool ourselves and misinterpret experiences like sleep paralysis, turning them into out-of-body and alien abduction experiences. The brain can create illusions from subjective experience every bit as easily as it can from trying to interpret the external world. So, I am left with the conclusion that the only path to accurate knowledge is by examining empirical evidence and using logic to decide which conclusions are the most likely to be true. If what you're saying is true, that the "Kingdom of Heaven" or the supernatural in general, cannot and should not be proven logically, then that leaves each individual the opportunity to decide these questions for themselves. I have no real objection to that approach, but it does rule out establishing orthodoxy or any kind of uniformity of doctrines.

But it doesn't just say a 200 million-man army, they are supposed to be a cavalry: Revelation:9:16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. So, if this is to be taken literally, where are we going to come up with a 200 million man cavalry? Especially in an age of mechanized warfare. But then the next verse adds: Revelation: 9:17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. "breastplates of fire," horses with lions' heads breathing smoke and fire! All of this symbolic imagery is a playground for guys like Hal Lindsey. But what can't you read into books like Revelation or Daniel? They're almost like a Rorschach inkblot test. Many of the early Church fathers believed that Revelation was an apocryphal book. Justin Martyr gets credited as a key influence for having it in the canon. During the Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin, both expressed doubts about its authenticity.

I used to believe that, but over time I started thinking that it is more likely that men create gods in their own image. In ancient times, tribes that wanted their neighbour's lands created warrior gods to justify waging war against others to get their land and valuables. Gods express all of the human emotions of their followers; and the God of the Bible probably expresses the negative emotions of jealousy, anger, and hatred more than positive emotions of love and mercy! The great science fiction writer Robert Heinlein put it best in one of the Lazarus Long novels: "Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child." The excuse given to justify the genocide called for by God in exterminating the Amalekites, is that they were a violent, depraved, and warring people. But if you read the accounts of divinely sanctioned battles from Exodus through Deuteronomy, Kings, Chronicles etc., how exactly were the Israelites any better? In the modern age, we worry about soldiers coming back from battlefields with post-traumatic stress disorder and possibly committing violence if they're having trouble re-adjusting to civilian life; if the Amalekites were really in need of extermination, why didn't the all-mighty sovereign of the universe kill them himself instead of making his worshippers do the dirty work of having to kill men, women and children of all ages? If this genocide really happened, is it plausible that it had no negative effects on the Israelite soldiers who were ordered to murder indiscriminately? When I was a devout Christian I didn't ask questions like: how could there honestly be no one worth saving in the Antediluvian world or in Sodom? But now when I look at the morality of Bible stories as an impartial observer, I question why I would want to worship such a God! It would be one thing to say that every man and woman rejected God and deserved death, but to kill entire populations means that children who had not reached an age of awareness of the situation were also massacred!

Interesting! But in my mother's case, this happened around 1920, when she was just an infant. I don't think anyone from her family sought or was even aware that compensation might be available. As things turned out, they were better off losing the farm, since they ended up in America. If they stayed, they would have gone through the Nazi Era, WWII, and trapped behind the Iron Curtain afterwards. All for the best I suppose!

I know! Michele is trying to relate that her key evidence for her beliefs is based on experience, not external empirical evidence. My point is that it is subjective evidence and it may be valid for the person who has been "born again," but it doesn't tell me as an outsider, whether it is valid or imagined. The prophecies are continually recycled with each generation. Every age has had people proclaiming the end was near. But many New Testament writers believed that Jesus would return soon, before the last of them had died: Matthew: 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matthew: 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Mark: 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. Romans: 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. And the Revelation was also written for the people living in the !st Century, not today! They could not openly condemn the Roman Empire or the Emperor, so the Revelation uses symbolic allegories such as Babylon = Rome, and the Beast = Caesar Nero. This is the traditional interpretation generally accepted by the Catholic Church: The seven heads of the beast are seven emperors. Five of them the Seer says are fallen. They are Augustus Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. The year of Nero's death is A.D. 68. The Seer goes on to say "One is", namely Vespasian, A.D. 70-79. He is the sixth emperor. The seventh, we are told by the Seer, "is not yet come. But when he comes his reign will be short". Titus is meant, who reigned but two years (79-81). The eighth emperor is Domitian (81-96). Of him the Seer has something very peculiar to say. He is identified with the beast. He is described as the one that "was and is not and shall come up out of the bottomless pit" (17:8). Thus the contemporaries of the Seer believed Nero to be alive and expected his return. The Seer either shared their belief or utilized it for his own purpose. The ten horns are commonly explained as the vassal rulers under the supremacy of Rome. They are described as kings (basileis), here to be taken in a wider sense, that they are not real kings, but received power to rule with the beast. Their power, moreover, is but for one hour, signifying its short duration and instability (17:17). The Seer has marked the beast with the number 666. His purpose was that by this number people may know it. He that has understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and his number is six hundred and sixty-six. A human number, i.e. intelligible by the common rules of investigation. We have here an instance of Jewish gematria. Its object is to conceal a name by substituting for it a cipher of equal numerical value to the letters composing it. For a long time interpreters tried to decipher the number 666 by means of the Greek alphabet, e.g. Irenæus, "Adv. Haer.", V, 33. Their efforts have yielded no satisfactory result. Better success has been obtained by using the Hebrew alphabet. Many scholars have come to the conclusion that Nero is meant. For when the name "Nero Caesar" is spelled with Hebrew letters, it yields the cipher 666. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm

Welcome aboard michele! There are always a few people who like to talk about religion and can't wait to open it up every now and then. The reason these discussions are generally frowned upon is because most people are very protective about beliefs that form their basis for understanding the world. But then again, some people can't even talk about politics or sports without getting emotional and hurling abuse at people who disagree with them. I have heard this answer before. The problem I have with it is that it is based on circular logic. If I pray, I have to believe already that there is someone I can't see who is listening to the prayer. I can't pray for God to reveal himself to me unless I already believe in him. Also, this method could be used to prove any other god. I'll bet Muslims who are losing faith are also told to pray to Allah and their prayers will be answered. Actually, I don't feel what's often called the God-shaped hole in my life. I want my beliefs to be based on things that I am sure are accurate. I've changed my mind on a number of subjects and issues, and I don't mind having gaps in my knowledge. I was thinking about this with the previous reference to "Privileged Planet;" The astrophysicist who produced the movie confirms most of his religious beliefs because of his research into the finely tuned properties of the Universe. He has made the leap to the conclusion that this fine tuning had to have an external designer, and could not have happened through yet undiscovered processes. I'm fine with leaving the question of how these conditions were arrived at and how everything unfolded as a mystery until cosmologists are able to provide conclusive answers. There have been many gaps in our understanding that have been filled in by the scientific process, I don't see any reason why "how the universe began" can't be one of them also. Unfortunately, I found many contradictions. You really lost me on this one! I don't see anything tangible about astrology. It's a study of the stars and planets that was formed during a time before real knowledge about gravity, nucleosynthesis, relativity etc., was able to provide a better understanding of the heavens. For all serious investigators, astronomy and cosmology replaced astrology in the same way that chemistry and physics replaced alchemy. Essentially, this is what is really important! If your understanding of Christianity provides meaning and makes your life better than it was before, then nobody can take it away from you. I'm married to a Catholic, and we've been married for 20 years. I tried taking catechism classes years ago and joining the church, but I just couldn't go through it. We tried compromise churches, but it worked out that she went back to her Catholic Church and I went back to sleeping in on Sunday morning. The only friction we experienced was when our son decided he didn't want to go through confirmation when he was turning 13. But she eventually agreed that if he had thought about it enough to want to opt out and choose his own beliefs, then it would not be productive to try to force him to become a Catholic. It's where religion moves to the public arena when the problems begin. People are basing their judgements on issues like stem-cell research, abortion, gay marriage etc. on their personal religious beliefs, but they refuse to allow the reasons for their opinions to be scrutinized. Boy, do I ever see the signs! But I don't see the dire straits the world is in today as being a good thing and a fulfillment of prophecy. The prophecies in Matthew, Thessalonians, Revelation etc., were not written for our time! Those first century disciples were told that Christ would return while some were still living. The big danger of apocalyptic belief today is that it can encourage a wreckless disregard for real dangers. I don't like the thought of men with access to nuclear weapons anxiously awaiting the Apocalypse. Wow! I'm surprised you mentioned the Amalekites. This is a good example of the barbarism advocated and practised in the Old Testament. Samuel tells Saul to kill all the men, women, children and livestock. That would qualify as genocide in my book.

Nice work! Obviously we still need nation states, but with a few exceptions such as Israel, they shouldn't be built on religion or ethnic identity.

The Uygurs are to the north of Tibet, and were similarly invaded by China, and to consolidate the territory, they moved in many ethnic Chinese to make it harder for separatist movements. Chechnya was previously an autonomous region of Russia, but lost its status after the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. Personally, I don't care whether these independence movements are pro-Western or pro-whatever-the-other-side-is-now, nationalism is an emotional force that imprints tribalism on a larger scale, and it requires a revolution, the path to independence is a messy, bloody affair where the patriots are often guilty of worse barbarism than the oppressive dictators they are trying to overthrow. The purpose for creating the corridor was so that Poland wouldn't be dependent on German sea ports. My mother's family was evicted from their farm which had the misfortune of being in the way, and they ended up finding their way to America with the clothes on their back. It's just a small example of how someone has to lose so that someone wins their self-determination. It doesn't change the picture though! If the Kurds get a nation based on ethnic identity, there will almost certainly be mass ethnic cleansing. Quebec will never be independent! They depend on the federal treasury and there are areas like Hull, the Eastern Townships and the Cree in the North, that will immediate start their own breakaway movements. But, even if many of those Arabs moved in during the last century, once people are settled in an area for a few generations, they should be able to call it home! The ones who were evicted 60 years ago should settle for financial compensation; they've been away too long for all but a few original inhabitants to actually be reclaiming their homes.

For myself, no, it doesn't count! What does it mean to know Jesus? If your talking about the "personal relationship with Jesus" that many evangelicals refer to, this is a subjective experience that cannot be proven to others. If it is more than a personal experience, then someone needs to explain why Christianity is fragmented into hundreds, if not thousands of different sects, all having differing doctrines about salvation, prophecy, ethical rules etc. I did! Privileged Planet tries to make a case that the Universe is fine-tuned or designed for intelligent life because of the physical constants of our universe are just right to enable the formation of the building blocks of life - especially organic molecules. But, they borrow the "Rare Earth" argument that the Universe is so hostile, that intelligent lifeforms like us would be very rare. So, the more unsuitable our universe is for producing intelligent life, the more likely it is that our universe was "designed" to produce intelligent life by a "designer". It begs the question: if intelligent life can not evolve from lower forms of life, but has to be designed, then why does the designer require a fine-tuned universe in the first place? If the designer is all-powerful, he could just make the kind of creatures he wanted to regardless of the type of universe. And, the designer in Privileged Planet is an incredibly wasteful engineer if he made a universe with billions of galaxies, each containing more than a billion star systems, only to populate a select few with intelligent creatures! A human designer would not design a factory so that it would only occasionally, if ever, produce a car, or a computer, or whatever the purpose is. It would be optimized to produce the largest possible amount of products possible. So, I'm not convinced! We do not know if other sets of physical constants could have led to a universe with intelligent life. And that makes it impossible to set the probabilities that the fine tuning argument is based on. We do not know how many other possible universes there are, and how many would have life and how many would be failures. Physicists who are working from two different directions to develop a quantum theory of gravity to understand the conditions at the very beginning of our universe find that our universe would be one in an infinite stream of universes: http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/07/a_cyclic_universe.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_inflation In other words, burn in hell for not agreeing with the right belief! Is it really an ethical system that allows a murderer or rapist etc. into heaven if they make a death-bed conversion, while someone could lead an exemplary life and be sent to hell for not believing the story! If the flood story was true, it would be the greatest mass genocide in history! If, for the sake of argument, it was true that everybody was a sinner besides Noah, that still doesn't excuse murdering all of the children who hadn't come of age and had the opportunity to make a choice. The idea that the God of the Universe would be a vengeful god and command his chosen people to wage wars to ethnically cleanse the land he gave to them is one thing, but why does the creator of the universe have to be jealous of other gods?