40 Killed In Hamas Attacks In Israel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

If you call being hunted down and martyred for their faith 'gaining from it' then you have a point, not.

And you havn't addressed why those that choose for their lives to be Christ-less then constantly use his Name all the time in their normal dialogue to the exclusion of all other religious individuals?

---

Priests have made a pretty good living on the back of something that has no evidence of existence

Free lodging , food and few quid all funded by desperate people hoping for the afterlife

And in the middle east its the same

The aim of Israel is to get as many Jewish people from wherever into what they think is a holy place given to them by God

The problem is they have taken land from Palestinians that think that God gave them the land

It's a simple problem which could be solved by compromise

These are religious people ......your kind of people ...but they are unable to compromise because they believe in stupid fairy tales and they KNOW they are right

God and the interpretation of his myth in religious books is the problem

Liberal Jewish , Arabic and Christian people have lived as neighbours all over the Middle East for hundreds of years

But the our way is the only way nonsense is now firmly entrenched

There is no way to solve this as religion when it comes down to the basics is about as flexible as a crowbar

Hitchings , Carl Sagan , Dawkins and other intelligent men have failed to persuade these zealots of the ridiculous beliefs that back all these wars up , it would be great to visit planet earth 1000 years after we on here are all dead and there is no religion but they will still be scrapping over what God said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

If you call being hunted down and martyred for their faith 'gaining from it' then you have a point, not.

And you havn't addressed why those that choose for their lives to be Christ-less then constantly use his Name all the time in their normal dialogue to the exclusion of all other religious individuals?

---

Well I did. Growing up in Cardiff I wasn't exposed to epithets about Shiva, Buddha or Zeus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Well I did. Growing up in Cardiff I wasn't exposed to epithets about Shiva, Buddha or Zeus.

---

I was exposed to Zeus on a regular basis in the late 90s

His way ?
The truth , the light ?

All this utter nonsense is why we have these conflicts in the first place , especially in the middle east

It's 2023 and people are still regurgitating this absolute rubbish about god , Jesus ,the disciples , the phrophets , who said what , what some book said

There's not going to be any peace whilst Netanyahu quotes the bloody bible to back up his holy war

A plague on all their houses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

The vast majority of my sentences do not mention the largely fictitious character of Jesus, old fruit. I shall use the epithet Zeus next time.

---

Neat deflection there, old fruit. Just one mention in that vein is enough. Never mind Zeus, would you dare use the name Mohammad in a similar vein?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

Neat deflection there, old fruit. Just one mention in that vein is enough. Never mind Zeus, would you dare use the name Mohammad in a similar vein?

---

Just because Christian people can argue to be generally , mostly , more liberal and tolerant than those who follow Mohammed doesn't make it any less of a fairy story still causing deaths all these hundreds of years later

It's all nonsense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

His way ?
The truth , the light ?

All this utter nonsense is why we have these conflicts in the first place , especially in the middle east

It's 2023 and people are still regurgitating this absolute rubbish about god , Jesus ,the disciples , the phrophets , who said what , what some book said

There's not going to be any peace whilst Netanyahu quotes the bloody bible to back up his holy war

A plague on all their houses

---

I hope you will enjoy your religion-free, conflict-free future. At my age I probably won't be around to witness it but I wish you luck with it. As most of the conflicts around the world have no religious connection I find it difficult to believe that the banning of faith systems will make any significant difference in that regard. Remember Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler - don't recall that they were men of faith? (And please don't repeat the old chestnut that Hitler was a Christian!). Are Russia's invasion of Ukraine and China's soon-to-be invasion of Taiwan religious crusades I wonder? Uhm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Just because Christian people can argue to be generally , mostly , more liberal and tolerant than those who follow Mohammed doesn't make it any less of a fairy story still causing deaths all these hundreds of years later

It's all nonsense

---

It's because folk have largely ignored the teachings of Jesus that we have the world we have. End of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

pretty much all historians agree that there was a real historical person called Jesus (or whatever the actual name was at the time- Yeshua?) but that all of the magic aspects of his life are in fact fictional and only added a century later by people with plenty to gain from it.

---

Who are these mythical people who had plenty to "gain from it" 100 years later? This is often used as a throw-away line. The only thing the early Christians gained was to be murdered for their faith!

I grant you maybe 1500 years or so later there were people who would try to gain from it, such as the Catholic church but clearly by their actions they were not Christians!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

It's because folk have largely ignored the teachings of Jesus that we have the world we have. End of.

---

Oh cripes you don't give up you lot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

I hope you will enjoy your religion-free, conflict-free future. At my age I probably won't be around to witness it but I wish you luck with it. As most of the conflicts around the world have no religious connection I find it difficult to believe that the banning of faith systems will make any significant difference in that regard. Remember Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler - don't recall that they were men of faith? (And please don't repeat the old chestnut that Hitler was a Christian!). Are Russia's invasion of Ukraine and China's soon-to-be invasion of Taiwan religious crusades I wonder? Uhm...

---

Territory . Faith. Money.

The holy trinity , how ironic , of conflict

If we could let faith strangle itself we would be on the way

The surge in dogmatic atheism along with the growth of social media coincides with the most polarized society that I can remember.

A new religion of puritanical zealots has filled the vacuum and is succeeding in sucking out the reasoning and joys of society.

Back on topic though.

It is imperative that both Hamas and Israel are held accountable.
Hamas for the terrible atrocities that occurred recently and Israel for its abhorrent treatment of Palestinians over decades, creating such fertile ground for an organization like Hamas to grow.

This conflict is a Wet Dream for Netanyahu and his cabinet.
They must have had intelligence about what was going happen and I think they let it slide to allow them to pursue the actions that they are now taking.

Conversely, Hamas would have expected such a reaction including the deaths of thousands of civilians.
For what purpose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wash DC Blue

The surge in dogmatic atheism along with the growth of social media coincides with the most polarized society that I can remember.

A new religion of puritanical zealots has filled the vacuum and is succeeding in sucking out the reasoning and joys of society.

Back on topic though.

It is imperative that both Hamas and Israel are held accountable.
Hamas for the terrible atrocities that occurred recently and Israel for its abhorrent treatment of Palestinians over decades, creating such fertile ground for an organization like Hamas to grow.

This conflict is a Wet Dream for Netanyahu and his cabinet.
They must have had intelligence about what was going happen and I think they let it slide to allow them to pursue the actions that they are now taking.

Conversely, Hamas would have expected such a reaction including the deaths of thousands of civilians.
For what purpose?

---

I find the debates involving religious people and those who follow science and evidence on tv and radio tiresome and I don't know why people bother tuning in , apart from for comedy value

Both sides get stressed out , talk over each other and it sometimes ends in tears

That being said I was raised as a Catholic until I was 13 , hated going to church and missed out on loads of Sunday morning fishing trips with my old man so I really can't be doing with any of it in any of its forms

Ultimately the appalling killings by hamas and Israel in the middle east can be firmly pinned on land , the right to exist and the role of holy books and the interpretation of who said what in them and who said what to who etc etc etc

God , Allah, The Bible ......all guilty as charged

Netanyahu rallying his country , already savaged by the god delusion , by quoting the bible the other day was like something out of a Hollywood blockbuster and I can't see how anyone can think there is ever going to be an end to this insanity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

Neat deflection there, old fruit. Just one mention in that vein is enough. Never mind Zeus, would you dare use the name Mohammad in a similar vein?

---

I understand what you are getting at but my response wasn't deflection. It is indeed the case that curse I have used has been embedded in our British culture for many centuries (and precedes Chaucer and Shakespeare) and one that I was exposed to myself.

Your point, if I understand it correctly and if I may say, would be better expressed as a separate issue or side issue; it's true that it's riskier criticising Islam on any forum on in public brings a greater risk than criticising Christianity. Similarly, one would have to be mindful of criticising Judaism and for another reason.

As we know, Christianity has not always been less forgiving but the societies it originally thrived in have changed and made it, in the main, less fundamental.
That dilution of fundamentalism has also resulted in individuals and schism considering some things as factual and other things metaphorical. How many Christians really believe in the talking snake, the talking donkey and Noah living 950 years and the creation story? My lay-preacher friend actually does and leaves churches when those churches are prepared to be less literal in their interpretation.

Islam asserts more control, in my opinion, over its adherents but I could be accused of being anti-Islamic for stating as much.
All religions I know are folklore and many of their stories were lifted from elsewhere (much to the surprise of their adherents). Some are more invasive and controlling than others.

Religions and language have traditionally travelled along the same conduit; that's why English speakers tended in recent centuries to be Christian, Arab speakers are more associated with Islam and Shintoists spoke Japanese in the main. People throughout history have largely believed the local religion foisted upon them and the same with language. Religion is parochial even when global.

Best have an overview of the souls on this planet, many of whom are believers in a deity or deities whilst believing that the non-believers of their schism are deluded. Religious adherents are merely influenced by time and place. You would not have been Christian if you were born into the Masai before colonialism, raised in the Amazon before colonialism, born in Ancient Greece or with Sikh parents in Amritsar.

Religions are patronising, infantilising, divisive and divide people. And very often overseen by a god that punishes non-adherents to an afterlife outside their supposed paradise. It's all incredibly fascinating if you are interested in humanity and history but we now have the intelligence and knowledge to understand the world in so many ways that bronze-age people couldn't.

Talking snakes and donkeys are so passé when we have an understanding of atoms, DNA and space travel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

I understand what you are getting at but my response wasn't deflection. It is indeed the case that curse I have used has been embedded in our British culture for many centuries (and precedes Chaucer and Shakespeare) and one that I was exposed to myself.

Your point, if I understand it correctly and if I may say, would be better expressed as a separate issue or side issue; it's true that it's riskier criticising Islam on any forum on in public brings a greater risk than criticising Christianity. Similarly, one would have to be mindful of criticising Judaism and for another reason.

As we know, Christianity has not always been less forgiving but the societies it originally thrived in have changed and made it, in the main, less fundamental.
That dilution of fundamentalism has also resulted in individuals and schism considering some things as factual and other things metaphorical. How many Christians really believe in the talking snake, the talking donkey and Noah living 950 years and the creation story? My lay-preacher friend actually does and leaves churches when those churches are prepared to be less literal in their interpretation.

Islam asserts more control, in my opinion, over its adherents but I could be accused of being anti-Islamic for stating as much.
All religions I know are folklore and many of their stories were lifted from elsewhere (much to the surprise of their adherents). Some are more invasive and controlling than others.

Religions and language have traditionally travelled along the same conduit; that's why English speakers tended in recent centuries to be Christian, Arab speakers are more associated with Islam and Shintoists spoke Japanese in the main. People throughout history have largely believed the local religion foisted upon them and the same with language. Religion is parochial even when global.

Best have an overview of the souls on this planet, many of whom are believers in a deity or deities whilst believing that the non-believers of their schism are deluded. Religious adherents are merely influenced by time and place. You would not have been Christian if you were born into the Masai before colonialism, raised in the Amazon before colonialism, born in Ancient Greece or with Sikh parents in Amritsar.

Religions are patronising, infantilising, divisive and divide people. And very often overseen by a god that punishes non-adherents to an afterlife outside their supposed paradise. It's all incredibly fascinating if you are interested in humanity and history but we now have the intelligence and knowledge to understand the world in so many ways that bronze-age people couldn't.

Talking snakes and donkeys are so passé when we have an understanding of atoms, DNA and space travel.

---

That's impressive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

That's impressive

---

If there was no religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc) and that whole area was just various people living there ?

Would they have found something else to fight about ? - I think they probably would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

If there was no religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc) and that whole area was just various people living there ?

Would they have found something else to fight about ? - I think they probably would.

---

Religion is a facet of tribalism and there are other facets involved, of course.

Religions, by their very nature (i.e. folklore and the interpretation, modification and supplementary add-ons thereof) endlessly divide into schism upon schism ad infinitum. You only need to look at Abrahamism as a good example of that. And very often, the greatest hatred is between sects and religions that are philosophically close to each other. Just a facet of division and not the whole story.

People laying claim to the same territory but with different cultural backgrounds are a problem everywhere - but when religion is involved and its adherents thinking that they have a divine right to a tract of land courtesy of their Almighty (and that their enemies are lesser people) doesn't make a solution any easier.

oops

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

If there was no religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc) and that whole area was just various people living there ?

Would they have found something else to fight about ? - I think they probably would.

---

Possibly

But I was watching interviews with Jews and Muslims yesterday on youtube both present day and stretching back many years and this chosen people cobblers and its our land no its not its ours , God gave it to us , no he didn't etc etc absolute tosh was coming through again and again

I am afraid religion in the poison there and the interpretation of daft old books

What chance has world peace got with that stupidity and ignorance still around in 2023 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

If there was no religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc) and that whole area was just various people living there ?

Would they have found something else to fight about ? - I think they probably would.

---

Absolutely they would. Greed for money or land or natural resources comes to mind immediately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

I understand what you are getting at but my response wasn't deflection. It is indeed the case that curse I have used has been embedded in our British culture for many centuries (and precedes Chaucer and Shakespeare) and one that I was exposed to myself.

Your point, if I understand it correctly and if I may say, would be better expressed as a separate issue or side issue; it's true that it's riskier criticising Islam on any forum on in public brings a greater risk than criticising Christianity. Similarly, one would have to be mindful of criticising Judaism and for another reason.

As we know, Christianity has not always been less forgiving but the societies it originally thrived in have changed and made it, in the main, less fundamental.
That dilution of fundamentalism has also resulted in individuals and schism considering some things as factual and other things metaphorical. How many Christians really believe in the talking snake, the talking donkey and Noah living 950 years and the creation story? My lay-preacher friend actually does and leaves churches when those churches are prepared to be less literal in their interpretation.

Islam asserts more control, in my opinion, over its adherents but I could be accused of being anti-Islamic for stating as much.
All religions I know are folklore and many of their stories were lifted from elsewhere (much to the surprise of their adherents). Some are more invasive and controlling than others.

Religions and language have traditionally travelled along the same conduit; that's why English speakers tended in recent centuries to be Christian, Arab speakers are more associated with Islam and Shintoists spoke Japanese in the main. People throughout history have largely believed the local religion foisted upon them and the same with language. Religion is parochial even when global.

Best have an overview of the souls on this planet, many of whom are believers in a deity or deities whilst believing that the non-believers of their schism are deluded. Religious adherents are merely influenced by time and place. You would not have been Christian if you were born into the Masai before colonialism, raised in the Amazon before colonialism, born in Ancient Greece or with Sikh parents in Amritsar.

Religions are patronising, infantilising, divisive and divide people. And very often overseen by a god that punishes non-adherents to an afterlife outside their supposed paradise. It's all incredibly fascinating if you are interested in humanity and history but we now have the intelligence and knowledge to understand the world in so many ways that bronze-age people couldn't.

Talking snakes and donkeys are so passé when we have an understanding of atoms, DNA and space travel.

---

Thank you for an interesting reply. I can see that you have obviously looked at world religions and are capable of making a reasoned argument for your case unlike others on the forum who simply have closed minds.

Obviously I disagree with you on some of the points you make. Re: talking snakes etc. - for myself I cannot be sure if some of these events are factual or metaphorical. I'm sure such events would have sounded pretty implausible even to bronze-age people - I think you do them an injustice in implying that they were gullible/thick! However if God is indeed an omnipotent being, then logically nothing is impossible?

I take the stance that either way what bearing do these “events” have on the behaviour of modern man? Yes, we have an understanding of atoms, DNA and space travel but has that knowledge in any way improved our morality? We have used that knowledge to design even more destructive weapons and quite likely biological weapons in the future. For every good use of technology there follows an evil one e.g. atomic research/nuclear weapons, Internet/child pornography; and more recently AI has been claimed to be the saviour of the world's problems - uhm...

SF ridicules my proposal that because people have largely ignored the teachings of Jesus we have the world we deserve. I am pretty sure your lay preacher friend and myself would agree on my proposal. Those who believe in the inevitable progress of man, either forget or ignore the fact that the twentieth century was the bloodiest, most destructive century in human history. The century's two world wars alone resulted in the deaths of at least 60 million people. Overall an estimated 108 million died in wars/conflicts in that century. (Ref: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/b...about-war.html).

You profess to believe there was an historical Jesus but the recording of his works and life are fictitious. I totally disagree. There is a common throw-away line that the gospels in the New Testament were written hundreds of years after the events but this is simply not true. The apostle Mark wrote his account in about 70AD and John about 90AD. John was the only one who died of old age, all the others were martyred for their faith.

As to your statement “And very often overseen by a god that punishes non-adherents to an afterlife outside their supposed paradise” I would argue that God does not punish non-adherents, they simply exclude themselves. Indeed God would prefer that everyone acknowledges Jesus for who he is, so no-one is excluded. I believe I will go to heaven when I die, not because I am better than anybody else or the amount of my good works but because I have accepted Jesus for who he is, become a follower, and purely by grace alone will meet him face to face one day. It is difficult to think of an exact analogy but why would anyone expect to be able to join any organisation that they had already declared that they fundamentally disagreed with? Indeed, why bother trying? The choice is theirs to make.

It's not my job to Bible-bash or judge others who do not share my Christian faith. This does not mean that I can't have opinions though! All I can do is to show how I live my life and try to put my faith into action so that others might question why I am the way I am. Actions speak louder than words as they say.

Hi Gofer. I don't want to get into a debate on faith or religion, but your comment 'I would argue that God does not punish non-adherents, they simply exclude themselves.' is something I have heard before and it intrigues me. The vast majority of humanity have been born and lived in the wrong place and/or the wrong time to even know about your religion of choice. How have they excluded themselves?

As a convinced atheist I don't believe any of it. When I die (when any of us die) consciousness ends and thats it - with decomposition or ashes for the physical bits that remain. But in the real world there are believers with enormous political or financial power who use their metaphysical views to affect the lives of millions. I was reading some things about Mike Johnson - the new US Speaker - this morning, and his view of 'the Christian elect and the rest' is truly scary. Your posts usually come across as a matter of personal faith (and a code for living) not about imposing a belief system on others, but the comment I picked out above confuses and worries me.

So a nomadic tribesman in Africa who has rarely had contact with Christian missionaries ......and the same in the amazon or in sub desert Australia.......

These simple people have not met God through the Abrahamic religious scriptures

But you have ......so you are going to heaven and you are going to meet God

But they havnt ......so they can't

This is absolute nonsense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

Thank you for an interesting reply. I can see that you have obviously looked at world religions and are capable of making a reasoned argument for your case unlike others on the forum who simply have closed minds.

Obviously I disagree with you on some of the points you make. Re: talking snakes etc. - for myself I cannot be sure if some of these events are factual or metaphorical. I'm sure such events would have sounded pretty implausible even to bronze-age people - I think you do them an injustice in implying that they were gullible/thick! However if God is indeed an omnipotent being, then logically nothing is impossible?

I take the stance that either way what bearing do these “events” have on the behaviour of modern man? Yes, we have an understanding of atoms, DNA and space travel but has that knowledge in any way improved our morality? We have used that knowledge to design even more destructive weapons and quite likely biological weapons in the future. For every good use of technology there follows an evil one e.g. atomic research/nuclear weapons, Internet/child pornography; and more recently AI has been claimed to be the saviour of the world's problems - uhm...

SF ridicules my proposal that because people have largely ignored the teachings of Jesus we have the world we deserve. I am pretty sure your lay preacher friend and myself would agree on my proposal. Those who believe in the inevitable progress of man, either forget or ignore the fact that the twentieth century was the bloodiest, most destructive century in human history. The century's two world wars alone resulted in the deaths of at least 60 million people. Overall an estimated 108 million died in wars/conflicts in that century. (Ref: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/b...about-war.html).

You profess to believe there was an historical Jesus but the recording of his works and life are fictitious. I totally disagree. There is a common throw-away line that the gospels in the New Testament were written hundreds of years after the events but this is simply not true. The apostle Mark wrote his account in about 70AD and John about 90AD. John was the only one who died of old age, all the others were martyred for their faith.

As to your statement “And very often overseen by a god that punishes non-adherents to an afterlife outside their supposed paradise” I would argue that God does not punish non-adherents, they simply exclude themselves. Indeed God would prefer that everyone acknowledges Jesus for who he is, so no-one is excluded. I believe I will go to heaven when I die, not because I am better than anybody else or the amount of my good works but because I have accepted Jesus for who he is, become a follower, and purely by grace alone will meet him face to face one day. It is difficult to think of an exact analogy but why would anyone expect to be able to join any organisation that they had already declared that they fundamentally disagreed with? Indeed, why bother trying? The choice is theirs to make.

It's not my job to Bible-bash or judge others who do not share my Christian faith. This does not mean that I can't have opinions though! All I can do is to show how I live my life and try to put my faith into action so that others might question why I am the way I am. Actions speak louder than words as they say.

---

We have the world we have because of organised religion .....point 1..........not because we have ignored the teachings of Jesus etc etc

Point 2 .....the teachings of Jesus are just reasonable ways to live , people's of lots of backgrounds all over the centuries have either lived badly or somewhere in the middle or like complete tossers .....plenty of people who live as Christians die young through the actions of others or in accidents that if God existed he would have seen coming and thought blimey Trevor is going to be hit by flying masonry next week in the storm , I will make sure he stays in the house .....but he doesn't

He doesn't exist

God brings comfort then that's fine but quoting stories saying oh he said this and he said that on the way to the temple and the way that possible conversation was interpretation a few hundred years later means that people's lives are actually shaped by all this hearsay ?


And the Jews are the chosen ones ?

And this land is theirs oh no its not its ours !

The sooner humanity kicks all this into touch the better

If someone wants to argue religion is not at the core of the Israeli Arab conflict I know a good psychiatrist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Hi Gofer. I don't want to get into a debate on faith or religion, but your comment 'I would argue that God does not punish non-adherents, they simply exclude themselves.' is something I have heard before and it intrigues me. The vast majority of humanity have been born and lived in the wrong place and/or the wrong time to even know about your religion of choice. How have they excluded themselves?

As a convinced atheist I don't believe any of it. When I die (when any of us die) consciousness ends and thats it - with decomposition or ashes for the physical bits that remain. But in the real world there are believers with enormous political or financial power who use their metaphysical views to affect the lives of millions. I was reading some things about Mike Johnson - the new US Speaker - this morning, and his view of 'the Christian elect and the rest' is truly scary. Your posts usually come across as a matter of personal faith (and a code for living) not about imposing a belief system on others, but the comment I picked out above confuses and worries me.

---

In answer to your question, please see my reply to SF below.

Of course I would love it if all people came to accept Jesus as their personal saviour. However I cannot evangelise the entire world by myself but I can be a good witness in my little corner. Ultimately the choice is down to each individual. Every decision we make in life has consequences.