Rue Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Now on last response. In post 39 Big Guy stated: "For me to tell a Jew what he is would be arrogant and insensitive." In post 44 he then states; "If as a Jew you do not believe that religion (Judaism) to be true then you find one that suggests it is and switch to that one.' To start with bug Guy shows of course using his own standard he is arrogant and insensitive. Secondly he manifests once again an incapacity to understand what I said and go off on a tangent presuming to dictate to me that when he thinks I am wrong he will tell me what I should believe. He demonstrates the very exercise he denies having done and that is to presume to dictate to me as a Jew what I must believe. He also continues to make false assumptions as to Judaism and never bothered to read my response as is clear in his personal attack against me. Instead of reading what I said and responding to it, he chose instead to get angry and attack me personally making references to me being an irritating Jew, sticking a pipe, etc. He repeats the exercise of not just him but other posters who believe debate can be carried out by simply calling someone a derogatory name. What I stated to him is that Judaism does not define itself as the true religion. It does not use the word true. Judaism teaches only the words of God would be considered true, not the words of any human. So necessarily it might see its religion as a version of what truth might consist of as told by humans, but the whole point is to never accept that as anything but a human attempt to define truth and to understand the "truth" is an abstract definition that no human can know only get glimpses of through acting in a civil and caring manner. That of course is something Big Guy showed he can not grasp and so instead must ridicule by stating in his post in 44 that I should become Catholic. In his belief system a religion must believe it is the truth or its inferior and defective. What is very interesting is that there are so many Christian scholars who have questioned Christians who claim to know truth saying if you believe Christ is the only source of truth, then necessarily you do not know truth, you only can restate what you think Christ said. I doubt Big Guy could grasp that either and its implications. The point is in his attack against me Big Guy demonstrated he not only does not understand Judaism and will take the time to try find out what I said, but he will repeat his ignorant false stereotype of Judaism's defect and presume to correct it. He also showed this ignorance when he stated: "'Being a Jew is to be a follower of Judaism as being a follower of Islam." In that one statement Big Guy reveals the depth of his ignorance about both religions. Islam is the path of obtaining truth and the true way to live through the words of Muhammed. Only Muhammed can reveal the code of behaviour to be truthful.No other path, no other words from anyone else will enable that. If anything its more similar to Christianity, where the Christ is seen as the path to truth through his words and no others. If anything the analogy between Islam and Christianity where they both teach the truth can only be obtained through that one source (Muhammed or Christ) might be true. This is why both religions believe if you do not follow their source of truth which they believe is the only truth, you are going to hell in Christianity, and you are an infidel and dhimmi in Islam. Judaism has no such concept. It has no one source. Moses is a key source for the creation of the 10 commandments yes, but he was not depicted as divine or perfect and not to be questioned as Christ or Muhammed were. He is presented as a defective man, someone who murdered in the heat of th moment, and then would go on to be punished by God and never allowed to see the Promised land because he questioned God. In fact in Judaism no human is depicted as divine or perfect or the only spokesperson for God. All central figures used in the Old Testament used to express allegories to communicate to and understand God are defective and criticized by God. This is precisely why the Talmud came about. It is a book that helps assist Jews to continually argue what truth MIGHT BE not what it is. To Islam truth is what Muhammed said. To a Christian truth is what Christ was said to have said. In Judaism there is no absolute truth figure-there are simply humans who continually must work on what truth might mean and constantly adjust it to strive to make that definition work. So Big Guy shows a complete and utter ignorance of Judaism, but not only that, the need to ridicule the religion, not just me through his comment I need to be Catholic or the religion needs to define what truth is. He continues totally to miss the point. What is also equally as absurd, is that over the many years of evolution of their religion, Christians of all sects including Catholics now incorporate new approaches to asking what truth is and do not simply assume the interpretations of Christ as told in the Gospels in the Bible may be accurate or mean what certain Christians say they mean. Christian scholars debate the true meaning of truth all the time. I have sat in seminars where they debate each other on what a Gospel might have meant. While I expected Big Guy not only to get angry and go on a personal attack against me for the kind of Jew I am I did not think he would go further and start making references to the holocaust, Judaism as he did. I did expect his pat response to Bonam where he again poses as quite content to continue on making comments showing he has no idea what Judaism stands for. One last thing. Big Guy has continued to state Bonam and I posed Jews as being special. In not one word from either of us did we state Jews are special and in fact I made a strong effort to explain to Big Guy that Judaism does not define Jews as special. The only basis he has in fact presented for his belief he thinks Jews are special is his reference to the holocaust not being special and therefore the inference from that we want favourable treatment because of the holocaust, i.e., a Jewish state and that is wrong. If he wants to start a thread saying the holocaust did not justify creating the state of Israel, he should start one or at least have the integrity to state it on this thread, and back it up with something better than the false statement the Armenian genocide killed more people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Bonam - I shall take your advice to heart. And to the other guy or gal - there are two sides to any disagreement - the side doing all the talking and the correct side. Edited January 30, 2015 by Big Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Bonam - I shall take your advice to heart. You might as well just man up and face it, you're just another anti-Semitic Rue-hater. If you've seen one you've seen them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 eyeball - correction; Big Guy is anti Jew Big Guy is anti Israeli Big Guy is ignorant Big Guy is a terrorist lover Big Guy is pro Hamas Big Guy is pro Palestinian Big Guy is a Putin lover Big Guy is a terrorist apologist Big Guy is a Holocaust denier Big Guy is arrogant and insensitive Big Guy cannot tell the difference between a good Jew and a bad Jew Big Guy understands nothing about Judaism or Islam Big Guy's posts are rambling and flipping and flopping And lastly, Big Guy only reads the first and last paragraphs of very lengthy posts. If he read the complete posts, the previous list would probably be a lot longer. One thing Big Guy is NOT is a Rue-hater. I hate no one much less someone I have never met. I support everyone's right to comment on issues and stay away from poster bashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 I get it, you're a lefty. Why didn't you just say so in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Bonam - I shall take your advice to heart. And to the other guy or gal - there are two sides to any disagreement - the side doing all the talking and the correct side. Ironically the very point of your comment in the second sentence was to demonstrate you will continue to do the exact opposite in the of what you claimed you would do in the first sentence. Lol. Edited January 30, 2015 by Rue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Hello Rue - I give up. You win. You are absolutely correct in everything you are posting. You have convinced me. As soon as I can figure out what it is that you have convinced me of, then I will thank you for it. Now please go bother somebody else. PLEASE!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Why would you say that? It's patently obvious combatants on virtually every front in the ME and surrounding region are succumbing to bloodthirstyness. You are just flat out wrong about that.Israel has to fight with one hand tied behind it's back and stands alone among mostly hostile Muslim dictatorships in the region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) You are just flat out wrong about that.Israel has to fight with one hand tied behind it's back and stands alone among mostly hostile Muslim dictatorships in the region.Obviously the hand that is tied is not the one pushing the buttons to drop the bombs on innocent women and children ... then waiting ... waiting ... until family and rescue and medical personnel arrive ... then bombing again to kill them too.http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.ca/2015/01/israel-breaks-all-its-own-rules-in.html?m=1 These are war crimes. These are despicable acts. . Edited January 31, 2015 by jacee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 You are just flat out wrong about that.Israel has to fight with one hand tied behind it's back and stands alone among mostly hostile Muslim dictatorships in the region.You can't see how people after decades of living in this state would become as hateful as they people who hate them? It's just human nature.I'm not passing judgment here just stating a simple fact. It's an awful situation that's probably passed a point of no return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Big Guy you stated: "Every believer of any religion trusts that their faith is the "true" one." That is a ridiculous generalization. Not every believer of any religion trusts their faith is the true one. That is you making a sweeping generalization. Ist what you do, assume and make sweeping generalizations about what people think. So if you had to chose, would you pick Judiasm over Islam? Why? All of you believe in the same god, no matter how different each religion tries to interperet it. Yeah, you completely missed the point of the post. Try reading it again. It is not a form of racism. Jews can be of any colour or ethnic background. As well as members of any other religion. I can't tell on the outside what religion you are, and really I don't care. I can tell if you are white or black or whatever. It's the picking on physical traits that make a people look the same that allow people to be racists against others. Maybe a better term would be 'religism'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Now in Big Guy's latest response to me, he spent half the response making personal attacks against me and in fact disparaging me for being a Jew and stating he knows the difference between other Jews and me and poses his insult to suggest I am an unreasonable Jew. He attacks me for being a Jew and sets me up as a negative Jew as opposed to a positive Jew. The positive Jew, the good Jew is presumably the ones he calls his friends. Now that is interesting because in his personal attack he puts me down for the kind of Jew I am, this coming from someone who posted in thread no.39 and I quote; "For me to tell a Jew what he is would be arrogant and insensitive". His response to me clearly shows he will not only tell me what kind of Jew I am but compare me to other Jews. He attacks my being a Jew, compares it to other Jews and demonstrates he is not debating the topic or even the responses I challenged, but feels he can make personal attacks against me for the kind of Jew I am, a blatant example of the kind of exercise I have been challenging-the need to attack Jews under the pretense of discussing issues. His personal attack was uncalled for and demonstrates a need to belittle what he thinks of me simply because I am a Jew and I am glad it is there for all to see and read. Holy Crap!!! Those are paragraphs!!!! Great job Rue! Edited January 31, 2015 by dre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 To reply to Ghost no of course anti Semitism is not racism. The definition of a Jew is not about being a race. In fact the antiquated term race once used to describe the secondary characteristics of humans, i.e. skin colour, nose structure, hair texture, has proven meaningless in terms of genetics. The terms negroid, Caucasian and mongoloid are no longer used. You can have a supposed negroid have more genetically in common with a Caucasian then a fellow negroid. The skin colour, hair texture, nose structure is not relevant to that proximity in genetic make up. For that matter Jews come in all sizes, colours, etc, including the old negroid, Caucasian, mongoloid. We were never just white. The only persons who attempted to define us as a race were Nazis and their Aryan race suppositions have been proven baseless. Anti-Semitism results from hurtful statements or discriminatory or negative assumptions about Jews. The definition of a Jew is a mix of ethnicity, culture, religion, ancestry and self identified nationality as well as shared experiences of being persecuted or discriminated against because of being Jewish. Its a mix of all of these and it continues to change and mutate, The majority of anti-semites I have met have no clue what Zionism is or Jews are and are quite content not to find out and instead make false assumptions such as the common myth "chosen" means we think we are better than others when it means no such thing, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 You asked me Ghost if I would pick Judaism over Islam. The way I identify being a Jew is the way Irish all over the world even when they are not citizens of Eire,call themselves Irish, or the same with Italians, Portugese. I didn't choose it. I was born with it, Its an ethnic/collective identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 How can you honestly say that everyone who is anti-jewish is not against the religion rather than the ethnic group. We do have a word for being being the ethnic group of Jews, it's called anti-semetism. There is a word however for just the religion, it is Judaism. I suppose we can start saying anti-judaism. If that clears things up for you.Pro-Arab people say that it is not logical to call Arabs "anti-Semites" because they are Semitic. Thus the preferred term "anti-Jewish." How about we just use the term "bigots"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Pro-Arab people say that it is not logical to call Arabs "anti-Semites" because they are Semitic. Thus the preferred term "anti-Jewish." How about we just use the term "bigots"? Well pretty much everyone is a bigot in one way or another so I suppose it could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) William Schabas, the head of the UN inquiry of the last Israeli attack in Gaza has resigned. apparently the Israeli government has been questioning his impartiality and he is resigning to add credibility to their report that will soon be presented. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/02/gaza-inquiry-head-quit-israeli-claim-bias-150202221742754.html The report is due in March and it will be interesting to see what the reaction of Hamas and Israel will be to that impartial document. Edited February 3, 2015 by Big Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) The report is due in March and it will be interesting to see what the reaction of Hamas and Israel will be to that impartial document. Cite for the impartiality of the UN when it comes to this conflict? My impression is that the UN is about as far from impartial here as possible. Consider that the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council issue more condemnations of and resolutions against Israel than all other countries in the world combined. Yes, Israeli action in Gaza has killed some civilians, and that is unfortunate and should be investigated. But only a short distance away, far far more people have died in Syria, where the government of Assad has committed atrocities against its own people and the IS forces have engaged in genocide against the Yazidi and other groups. In Africa, genocides such as the Boko Haram in Nigeria rage on, with entire villages being eradicated, every living thing killed. In Ukraine, civil war, death, and annexation of territory. In North Korea, a regime that brutalizes its own people on a scale unprecedented since the Stalinist and Maoist purges. One might think each one of these situations might get at least as many UN condemnations as Israel's actions, and yet, that doesn't happen. Ask yourself, impartially... is Israel really worse than all these countries/situations combined? If not, why does it deserve more UN condemnations than all these countries combined? If it doesn't, then is the UN really "impartial" when it comes to Israel? Edited February 3, 2015 by Bonam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Cite for the impartiality of the UN when it comes to this conflict? My impression is that the UN is about as far from impartial here as possible. Consider that the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council issue more condemnations of and resolutions against Israel than all other countries in the world combined. Yes, Israeli action in Gaza has killed some civilians, and that is unfortunate and should be investigated. But only a short distance away, far far more people have died in Syria, where the government of Assad has committed atrocities against its own people and the IS forces have engaged in genocide against the Yazidi and other groups. In Africa, genocides such as the Boko Haram in Nigeria rage on, with entire villages being eradicated, every living thing killed. In Ukraine, civil war, death, and annexation of territory. In North Korea, a regime that brutalizes its own people on a scale unprecedented since the Stalinist and Maoist purges. One might think each one of these situations might get at least as many UN condemnations as Israel's actions, and yet, that doesn't happen. Ask yourself, impartially... is Israel really worse than all these countries/situations combined? If not, why does it deserve more UN condemnations than all these countries combined? If it doesn't, then is the UN really "impartial" when it comes to Israel? "has killed some civilians" ? Ya, thousands. Way to minimize. Will Israel ever stand take responsibility for its heinous actions? Will Israel always whine "but but but ... they did it too!" ? Does Israel only aspire to be as bad as the baddest? That's the sickening realization I've had: All my life until the bombing in 2008 I thought Israel aspired to be a civilized country. Now Israel aspires to the lowest of the low. They aspire to genocide against Palestinians, to visit a holocaust on 4.4 million Palestinians. The UN & ICC must intervene. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Jacee once again you come on this forum calling names. This alleged hero worshipping of Israel you did prior to 2008, is that a fact or is it part of the subjective fantasy that suspends any acknowledgement of anything other than demon Israel to blame for the Middle East conflicts? Why would you even refer to a subjective bias you had prior to 2008 to justify another bias after 2008? All you did as once again explain how you structure your opinions into subjective biases and now as you have said, swing from one subjective generalization to another. Its what you do. Come on the board and admit blatantly you think in subjective generalizations. You don't take the time to rephrase political issues into complex cause and effect events, no just bad and good guys and as long as you have a bad guy, presto its all easy, just trot out the name calling-badbad bad Israel. Bad bad poo pooo kaka Israel. Yes that's the way to debate. Name calling. That shares solutions that will bring about peace. Thanks. By the way you need to go look at the latest decision the ICC rendered on the civil war in Yugoslavia and the parties that engaged in war crimes there. Go on. Go find out what the ICC did. You live in a dream land oblivious to how that court works and why it just rendered the decision it did. In your world, the ICC will come like a knight on a white horse and slew the world of the poo poo kaka kaka Israel. Dream on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 How about we just use the term "bigots"? Pot, kettle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 ....By the way you need to go look at the latest decision the ICC rendered on the civil war in Yugoslavia and the parties that engaged in war crimes there. Go on. Go find out what the ICC did. You live in a dream land oblivious to how that court works and why it just rendered the decision it did. Indeed...as stated earlier....the ICC is a joke best laughed at by Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Cite for the impartiality of the UN when it comes to this conflict? My impression is that the UN is about as far from impartial here as possible. Consider that the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council issue more condemnations of and resolutions against Israel than all other countries in the world combined. Yes, Israeli action in Gaza has killed some civilians, and that is unfortunate and should be investigated. But only a short distance away, far far more people have died in Syria, where the government of Assad has committed atrocities against its own people and the IS forces have engaged in genocide against the Yazidi and other groups. In Africa, genocides such as the Boko Haram in Nigeria rage on, with entire villages being eradicated, every living thing killed. In Ukraine, civil war, death, and annexation of territory. In North Korea, a regime that brutalizes its own people on a scale unprecedented since the Stalinist and Maoist purges. One might think each one of these situations might get at least as many UN condemnations as Israel's actions, and yet, that doesn't happen. Ask yourself, impartially... is Israel really worse than all these countries/situations combined? If not, why does it deserve more UN condemnations than all these countries combined? If it doesn't, then is the UN really "impartial" when it comes to Israel? A cursory glance at history should make it clear to you why the UN has focused so much on Israel. Its not necessarily a lack of impartiality. That pile of fetid dirt was the UN's problem to deal with in the first place and pretty much the first thing the UN had to deal with after the LON ended. Since then there has been nearly 70 years of constant conflict, and now we have millions of people being kept perpetually stateless in what basically ammounts to an open air prison. It was the UN that partitioned up the dump in the first place, and they made a mess of it. These other conflicts are either civil wars, where the UN has a fairly limited mandate, and little chance of doing anything about them, or they are flash in the pan conflicts that last a couple of years. Conflict: DirtFarm, is the gift that just never stops giving! A never ending treasure trove of scumbags killing each other. I think the UN has done a horrible job, dont get me wrong. But its a little silly to wonder why theres been a lot of resolutions invovling Conflict: DirtFarm. Edited February 3, 2015 by dre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 A cursory glance at history should make it clear to you why the UN has focused so much on Israel. Its not necessarily a lack of impartiality. That pile of fetid dirt was the UN's problem to deal with in the first place and pretty much the first thing the UN had to deal with after the LON ended. So what you are saying is because of the UN's history with Israel, it feels "more responsible" in some way. That is, it does not treat Israel in the same way as other areas, and therefore is not impartial. I reject this reason for why the UN issues more condemnations of Israel than any other nation, but even were it true, it is still a form of bias / lack of impartiality. Since then there has been nearly 70 years of constant conflict, and now we have millions of people being kept perpetually stateless in what basically ammounts to an open air prison. It was the UN that partitioned up the dump in the first place, and they made a mess of it. Incorrect. The UN tried to partition it. The partition plan was rejected by the Arabs, who invaded the fledgling state of Israel. In Israel's war of independence they stopped the aggressors and officially formed the state, with borders very different from those proposed in the partition plan. People keep saying the UN "created Israel", but it's just objectively wrong if you look at the historical facts. Israel was formed in the same way as almost every other state on this planet: through warfare. These other conflicts are either civil wars, where the UN has a fairly limited mandate, and little chance of doing anything about them, or they are flash in the pan conflicts that last a couple of years. So your impression is that, in contrast to these other areas, the UN has a high chance of accomplishing something in the Arab-Israeli conflict? Hah. Conflict: DirtFarm, is the gift that just never stops giving! A never ending treasure trove of scumbags killing each other. Indeed. Perhaps the rest of the world would be best advised to let them fight it out, as opposed to trying to repress the conflict so that it can keep flaring up over and over again over generations. I think the UN has done a horrible job, dont get me wrong. But its a little silly to wonder why theres been a lot of resolutions invovling Conflict: DirtFarm. I agree, it is a little silly to wonder why, because why is obvious. The UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council are both bodies dominated by large numbers of Muslim and third world nations, who all implicitly hate Israel, and the one thing their majority can agree on most of the time is that Israel is evil and to issue yet another condemnation. The security council, the one UN organ not dominated by Muslim and third world nations, does not excessively focus on Israel, and that should also tell you something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 My understanding is that the mandate of the UN is to represent every country in the world. If it appears that Muslims have more say or influence I would suggest that Muslims represent about 23% of the population of the world while Judaism represents one fifth of one percent. In fact in Canada, about 1% of Canadians are Jewish. Muslims represent almost four times more Canadians. If Israel challenges Muslims on the world scale it will be outvoted - just as it would in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts