Reasonable faith

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, niranjan!

Thank you for your response.

You are wise enough not to state such in so many words...it is in the attitude.

Well, I am just presenting our views, in my own words. If you think that is attitude , so be it.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I see....just countless millions, on the brink of extinction. Do you yet see the contradiction? .

And do you think the war is very peaceful.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Oh, but your way is so much better. Oh well..

Thank you.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Now this makes sense to me. My hat is off to those brave warriors.

Thank you again.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

It *is* a secular state. From my understanding, Arabs that aren't trying to blow other people up or overthrow the government, *are* allowed equal rights..

Oh really . And does it have any arab muslim president like India has , or any muslim ministers or MPs. Hell, if you check my thread " The real cause of islamic terrorism" in the comparative forum, you can see my links depicting racism in Israel, and discrimination against arabs. A good arab employee in Israel, who accidentally spoke in arabic to a fellow arab, was sacked.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Now you are really confusing me...it is a good thing to assist what you see as a bad thing???

I am only saying that your choice of words doesn't depict the reality.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Sorry, didn't get you. *Who* is indiscriminately killing innocent civilians?

The israeli soldiers , who else. Don't pretend that you don't know anything about it.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I see. So, when India declared independence from Britain, they had to immediately fend off an onslaught by all of their neighbors??

We had the partition riots, and we had a problem with pakistan as well, which we dealt with well.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I don't recall India even having to fight Britain for its independence, unlike a little country I know a bit about.

Your history is indeed bad. What do you think about the anglo-maratha wars, the anglo-sikh wars, the campaigns of marthanda varma, kerala varma, velu thampy dalava, tatya tope, nana sahib, jhansi of rani, tipu sultan, the 1857 first war of independence and all other campaigns were. And what do you think about the battle between the INDIAN NATIONAL ARMY founded by Subhash Chandra Bose , and the British army were. In fact , this was instrumental in winning Indias independence, as they managed to boost the morale of the Indian soldiers in the British Indian army, and who revolted against the British in 1946. And the British Indian army was the foundation of the British rule in India. With that gone, they easily crumbled.

Gandhi led the civilian side too with vigour, and forced the boycotting of the British goods, which hurt the British very badly and paralysed their administration as well, with many rallies and civil disobedience movement.

Both Gandhi and Bose, both disciples of Vivekananda, wrested Indias independence, and set the trend for the other nations under western colonialsim and encouraged them to rebel successfully.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I see. This is why the struggle continues to this day? And has, for over 50 years?

Terrorism in Kashmir started in the 80s with the sponsoring of the PAKISTANI ISI, which incidentally is also the ones who aided and evolved the taliban.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

This is good to know. India *is* making progress.

Making progress! What does that mean. We had two other muslim presidents before him , dude.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Now, if she could just allow people to choose their own religion without making laws against it...

And where indeed is a problem for people to choose their own religion. Many people have converted to other religions and vice versa.Its not a problem at all.

There are laws indeed against conversion by fraudulent means,coercion and negative propaganda against other religions. That indeed is asking for trouble.

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I fail to see why you are insisting on one-upping this conversation with your regales of the plight of the nation of India.

Well, incidentally, you were the one who was boasting that Israel is the only ancient people who have formed a nation. I am only rectifying your error.

Originally Posted by Dondi

All that was stated is that the Jews have a remarkable history of survival as an ancient people who have face extinctions a number of times, but not only their people have survived, but there culture as well. And I took that as a basis that God is somehow still dealing with the nation of Israel, particularly in the area of prophesy and therefore a basis of reasonable faith that God is true to His Word in His dealings with this particular nation. What nation God has determined to work with in bringing to light His Presence is not important as much as His trustiness to bring about what He promised through them.
.

Wish God could have saved the millions of jews who were enslaved and slaughtered all over history to the present era.

Originally Posted by Dondi

He could have just as well have chosen India for His specific purposes had He had a mind to..

Oh really, I didn't know you were God's spokesman.

Originally Posted by Dondi

So why are you turning this into an us vs them debate?

And where did I do that. I am only rectifying your errors.

Originally Posted by Dondi

If you have evidence that God is in the nation of India, please enlighten us, but please don't turn this into a battle of nits.

Well, we believe that God is everywhere, for the sake of information.

But just for the sake of information again, Kerala, the land of Shankara , in India, is known as "Gods own country" .

However we are not boasting about it.

[Dondi]

Can we please get back to the OP? Please? I've seen this episode already.

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

India is not even a threshold country. .

And what do you mean by this!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I would think places like Eastern Europe to have had far more military powers cross their borders, some have changed hands so many times they have lost track of who they are anymore.

Yugoslavia comes to mind.

And they have indeed lost their national identity and culture and are a mess at the moment.Also they are not as ancient as us.

[Dondi]

Oh really, I didn't know you were God's spokesman.

All I meant by that was that anything is possible with God. He could use anyone from anywhere to serve His purpose.

Really this thread is about what constitutes reasonable faith to convince a person to believe. I've stated what I believe in the OP. It wasn't intended to convince you to believe the same. I'm just expressing why I believe what I believe and that body of belief is not just on any one aspect. I'm not trying to compete.

But I interested in listening what you have to say convinces you in your own faith.

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Dondi

All I meant by that was that anything is possible with God. He could use anyone from anywhere to serve His purpose.

True, purity and goodness are there everywhere , in every culture and religion.

Originally Posted by Dondi

Really this thread is about what constitutes reasonable faith to convince a person to believe. I've stated what I believe in the OP. It wasn't intended to convince you to believe the same. I'm just expressing why I believe what I believe and that body of belief is not just on any one aspect. I'm not trying to compete.

You have the right to state your belief, and I was just refuting it. Its not a big deal. Relax.

Originally Posted by Dondi

But I interested in listening what you have to say convinces you in your own faith.

Well, thats personal and I am not interested in baring myself. But if you insist
go and check my posts .

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

At times the remnant of Judah was composed of less than one million, scattered abroad over something like 6 or 8 major encampments within foreign cultures and nations, and a hodge-podge collection of minor encampments (some of which when rescued were composed of less than 100 individuals). Now, I could stand correction, I know I am being vague. I am not intimately familiar with this...but I would be willing to bet there are people who do know, and I really think their story will be a lot closer to mine than to yours.

Sorry to quote myself, but I felt this needed clarification:

Zionism - an Introduction

Yearning for Zion and Jewish immigration continued throughout the long period of exile, following the Roman conquest and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. This yearning took on a new form in the nineteenth century, when modern nationalism, liberalism and emancipation forced the Jews to contend with new questions, which the Zionist movement tried to answer. The Hibbat Zion movement began to coalesce in the second half of the nineteenth century, but the change of substance occurred later, when Theodor Herzl energized and consolidated Zionism into a political movement, by convening the First Zionist Congress in 1897. Herzl was the first to bring the idea to world attention, and make the Jewish people a player in the world political arena. The Zionist movement which developed from his initiative also created organizational, political and economic tools to implement its vision and ideology.

The Zionist movement enunciated its goals - a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel - in the Basle Program. Apart from the movements that rejected the idea of national revival, Zionism included diverse groups, from Religious Zionism to Socialist Zionism. All of them cooperated towards the aim of the Jewish National Home, an enterprise that culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

Over centuries in the Diaspora, the Jews maintained a strong and unique relationship with their historical homeland, and manifested their yearning for Zion through rituals and literature.

While Zionism expresses the historical link binding the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, modern Zionism might not have arisen as an active national movement in the 19th century without contemporary antisemitism preceded by of centuries of persecution.


Over the centuries, Jews were expelled from almost every European country - Germany and France, Portugal and Spain, England and Wales - a cumulative experience which had a profound impact, especially in the 19th century when Jews had abandoned hope of fundamental change in their lives. Out of this milieu came Jewish leaders who turned to Zionism as a result of the virulent antisemitism in the societies surrounding them. Thus Moses Hess, shaken by the blood libel of Damascus (1844), became the father of Zionist socialism; Leon Pinsker, shocked by the pogroms (1881-1882) which followed the assassination of Czar Alexander II, assumed leadership in the Hibbat Zion movement; and Theodor Herzl, who as a journalist in Paris experienced the venomous antisemitic campaign of the Dreyfus case (1896), organized Zionism into a political movement.

The Zionist movement aimed to solve the "Jewish problem," the problem of a perennial minority, a people subjected to repeated pogroms and persecution, a homeless community whose alienness was underscored by discrimination wherever Jews settled. Zionism aspired to deal with this situation by effecting a return to the historical homeland of the Jews - the Land of Israel.

-emphasis mine, -jt3

Most of the founders of Zionism knew that Palestine (the Land of Israel) had an Arab population (though some spoke naively of "a land without a people for a people without a land"). Still, only few regarded the Arab presence as a real obstacle to the fulfillment of Zionism. At that time in the late 19th century, Arab nationalism did not yet exist in any form, and the Arab population of Palestine was sparse and apolitical. Many Zionist leaders believed that since the local community was relatively small, friction between it and the returning Jews could be avoided; they were also convinced that the subsequent development of the country would benefit both peoples, thus earning Arab endorsement and cooperation. However, these hopes were not fulfilled.

Contrary to the declared positions and expectations of the Zionist ideologists who had aspired to achieve their aims by peaceful means and cooperation, the renewed Jewish presence in the Land met with militant Arab opposition. For some time many Zionists found it hard to understand and accept the depth and intensity of the dispute, which became in fact a clash between two peoples both regarding the country as their own - the Jews by virtue of their historical and spiritual connection, and the Arabs because of their centuries-long presence in the country.

Since 1948, Zionism has seen its task as continuing to encourage the "ingathering of the exiles," which at times has called for extraordinary efforts to rescue endangered (physically and spiritually) Jewish communities. It also strives to preserve the unity and continuity of the Jewish people as well as to focus on the centrality of Israel in Jewish life everywhere.

http://www.alanalentin.net/index.php...d=21&Itemid=25

The period 1948-1951 was also characterized by a shift in the demography of the Jewish population. Until 1948, 90 percent of Jewish immigrants originated in Europe. While many of those to immigrate after May 15, 1948 were European Holocaust survivors, by 1951, the percentage of Mizrahim (Oriental Jews) from Asia and Africa had increased from 12% to 33%, some 300,000 individuals (Cohen 2002; Dominitz 1999). The very mission of the new state was based on the principle of Jewish immigration, or what was referred to as the “ingathering of exiles.” The fact that many new arrivals at this time came without capital or property adds to the ideological nature of immigration as conceived by the State’s founders. The processes of aliya and klita (absorption) were largely funded by international Jewish organizations and the American and German governments as well as the Israeli state. ”Absorption”is a key Zionist concept to the extent of the existence of a Ministry for Absorption, aimed to provide Jewish immigrants with housing, Hebrew language training and a basket of financial measures easing their integration.

I was looking for a tally or census to show where the Jews came from in what numbers, but this will have to suffice for now.

[juantoo3]

Dondi is correct, this is derailing the intended discussion. Perhaps better moved to another thread?

[Dondi]

You have the right to state your belief, and I was just refuting it. Its not a big deal. Relax.

Why do you feel a need to refute it?

Well, thats personal and I am not interested in baring myself. But if you insist go and check my posts.

What's so personal about your beliefs? You seem so quick to refute other's beliefs, yet you aren't willing to expose your own? If you don't wish to post them that's fine, but I'm not going to fish for them. All I ask is some respect for others who differ from you, and not be so hypercritical.

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Why do you feel a need to refute it?

Because it is not true.

Originally Posted by Dondi

What's so personal about your beliefs?

What happens between me and the Divine is my personal stuff.

Originally Posted by Dondi

You seem so quick to refute other's beliefs, yet you aren't willing to expose your own? .

Well, I have indeed exposed my beliefs if you go through my posts.And I am only refuting your errors. If you still wish to live in wonderland, it is your choice.

Originally Posted by Dondi

All I ask is some respect for others who differ from you, and not be so hypercritical.

And where did I attack your religious beliefs. I was only attacking your personal beliefs, which I felt was not true. And my posts were about the historical elements of the jewish people , not their religious beliefs.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Prober

(Some dispose of Him with philosophy)

Hi Mark.

I'm not trying to dismantle anyone's faith, although perhaps dislodge some preconceptions ... or at least highlight a preconception where people think "Hey, I'm totally open-minded."

(... as someone studying Catholic theology, my preconceptions are being challenged all the time ... )

The point you make in parentheses is a very important point. There is still an ongoing debate about the Hellenisation of Christianity ... some, within the Church, say it went too far, some, outside of it, say not enough.

The 'problem' (from 2nd - 6th century especially) was the development of Christology and Trinitarian doctrine.

How can the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all be God, and yet there not be three Gods?

Some will argue that Son and Spirit are modes of God, ie there is only one God, whom we perceive in different ways (Monarchianism), so the Son and the Spirit are not 'real' as such ... others argue that there was only one God, and the Son and Spirit emanate from Him at the start of creation, so Arius cried, "there was a time when he (Christ) was not" (Subordinationism, in a variety of guises) ...

... another, an idea much loved of Theosophy and the New Age, holds that Jesus was purely a man who was Christed at His baptism in the Jordan (the descent of the Dove), and later abandoned by the Christus when He suffered on the Cross ... this heresy was the reason St John decided to write a gospel, to refute the teachings of the proto-gnostic Cerinthus...

... others that He was never a man at all, but only seemed to appear in the Flesh (Docetism) ... that He was a man, but His human soul was displaced by the Divine Spirit (Appolinarianism) ... that He was neither God nor man, but somewhere in between (as the JW's hold) ...

... there's loads of isms, believe me.

The Christian Fathers put philosophy to work to argue against error, and in some cases fell into error themselves. Not even the popes were exempt from mistake, and again, as everyone assumes anything the pope says, thinks or doies is assumed 'infallible' by the Roman Catholic Church, they might do well to read about the 3rd century.

... Anyway ...

Outside of Catholicism, few bother with thinking about such things these days, or do so in 'New Age' terms with a very, very flakey philosophy – as I did, and I taught, for many years. Greek Orthodox do of course, and the Russian Orthodox Church, emerging from Communism, has some very exciting ideas about Pneumatology and the Holy Spirit – Sophiology ...

... Many theologians have meanwhile noticed the modernist drift of Churches into technical error by the simple fact of not trying to explain or comprehend what they believe.

If I was to posit extremes, I'd say the US was drifting towards fundamentalism (a belief without any philosophical thinking to underpin it) – or at least the US is the noisiest region of Christian fundamentalism on the planet at the moment, whilst Europe is drifting into little more than ethical humanism in which Christ is little more than 'a thoroughly good bloke.'

Me? If I'm going to believe in a religion, I want one with all the 'bells and smells' – I want to 'feel' I'm in the Presence of the Divine, that I'm engaged in a Mystery that stretches beyond the limits of my comprehension ... I want my religion tangible, not theoretical ... and I delight in a religion that looks at Angels and Qunatum Physics, into eschatology and linguistics, into the history of the development of religion, myth, language, culture, philosophy, and does not allow itself to be limited by a cultural view that objective reality is itself a myth ...

... and I certainly don't want one that decides for itself what God can and cannot do ...

Thomas

[Dondi]

Because it is not true.

What's not true?

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Dondi

What's not true?

WHAT YOU SAID IN THE OP.

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Thomas

... Many theologians have meanwhile noticed the modernist drift of Churches into technical error by the simple fact of not trying to explain or comprehend what they believe.

This is one area where I'm attempting to walk a tightrope.

I am daily studying to more fully understand what I believe without discounting it until proven false. While at the same time staying open to studying things I don't believe (because I may have missed something) without accepting them as true until proven true. (Does that make sense?)

Me? If I'm going to believe in a religion, I want one with all the 'bells and smells' – I want to 'feel' I'm in the Presence of the Divine, that I'm engaged in a Mystery that stretches beyond the limits of my comprehension ... I want my religion tangible, not theoretical ... and I delight in a religion that looks at Angels and Qunatum Physics, into eschatology and linguistics, into the history of the development of religion, myth, language, culture, philosophy, and does not allow itself to be limited by a cultural view that objective reality is itself a myth ...

I also, providing that it's one that does what G-d says no matter what.

... and I certainly don't want one that decides for itself what God can and cannot do ...

Thomas

Amen to that!

Mark

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by niranjan

WHAT YOU SAID IN THE OP.

Everything?