GENIUS FORUMS

millipodium wrote:Satan's worship is worship of the self, and the self's inherent right to dominate others. Satan IS totalitrianism.

millipodium wrote:The Star of David (Seal of solomon) is a well known satanic symbol.

First of all, Milli, your definition of Satan's worship is quite uncommon and cannot be used as argument in itself. You could just as well say that Satan is individualism or rebellion - opposition. So what?

Then you seem to be equalling satanism with occultism, which is regarded as two really different things, unless you are some medieval Christian monk, or a fundamentalist Christian, who would have branded most philosophy as 'satanic' as well.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

millipodium wrote:Satan's worship is worship of the self, and the self's inherent right to dominate others. Satan IS totalitrianism.

millipodium wrote:The Star of David (Seal of solomon) is a well known satanic symbol.

First of all, Milli, your definition of Satan's worship is quite uncommon and cannot be used as argument in itself. You could just as well say that Satan is individualism or rebellion - opposition. So what?

Then you seem to be equalling satanism with occultism, which is regarded as two really different things, unless you are some medieval Christian monk, or a fundamentalist Christian, who would have branded most philosophy as 'satanic' as well.

Let's just call it occultism. Will that satify you, mr. picky?

It's is MY belief that conjuring, spells, HEXes and the like all spring from satanic or demonic forces, but I understand that is not the common view of deluded new agers.

millipodium wrote:Let's just call it occultism. Will that satify you, mr. picky?

It's about being rational and being careful with how you define things, checking out consistency and so on.

millpodium wrote:It's is MY belief that conjuring, spells, HEXes and the like all spring from satanic or demonic forces, but I understand that is not the common view of deluded new agers.

Anyone waving terms like "satanic and demonic forces" shouldn't be talking so readily about "deluded new agers". What do you mean with 'forces'? Principles, ego? Why not stick with your terms? I thought it were the 'new agers' who are blamed for talking about greater entities and higher forces without much rational explanation.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

millipodium wrote:Let's just call it occultism. Will that satify you, mr. picky?

It's about being rational and being careful with how you define things, checking out consistency and so on.

millpodium wrote:It's is MY belief that conjuring, spells, HEXes and the like all spring from satanic or demonic forces, but I understand that is not the common view of deluded new agers.

Anyone waving terms like "satanic and demonic forces" shouldn't be talking so readily about "deluded new agers". What do you mean with 'forces'? Principles, ego? Why not stick with your terms? I thought it were the 'new agers' who are blamed for talking about greater entities and higher forces without much rational explanation.

What's about being rational and careful, you're pickiness? I don't think so. You're just picky.

Why should someone talking about demonic forces not discuss deluded new agers?

You're mostly just hot air.

Millipodium wrote:Why should someone talking about demonic forces not discuss deluded new agers?

You were not talking, you were just waving words around without caring for a proper connection. Perhaps that's more than anything else a Satanic thing to do.

Get behind me Satan!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Millipodium wrote:Why should someone talking about demonic forces not discuss deluded new agers?

You were not talking, you were just waving words around without caring for a proper connection. Perhaps that's more than anything else a Satanic thing to do.

Get behind me Satan!

The hexagram has long been an occultic symbol, including satanism. Occultists conjure beings from other dimensions. I consider those beings demons. How brain damaged are you exactly?

millipodium wrote: The hexagram has long been an occultic symbol, including satanism. Occultists conjure beings from other dimensions. I consider those beings demons.

Well, so you change your first statement now to fit the new information you got.

But christians and muslims pray to and ask assistance from a being living in another realm of some kind, but they are not considered occult.

Anyway, occultism is considered by the occultist "the study of Truth, or rather the deeper truth that exists beyond the surface". A philosopher, going beyond things and appearances is certainly a true occultist by all means. Go figure!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

millipodium wrote: The hexagram has long been an occultic symbol, including satanism. Occultists conjure beings from other dimensions. I consider those beings demons.

Well, so you change your first statement now to fit the new information you got.

No. Satanism is part of the occult. You just seem disturbed I also didn't mention the broader category. You're pretty picky.

But christians and muslims pray to and ask assistance from a being living in another realm of some kind, but they are not considered occult.

THis is factually correct.

Anyway, occulism is considered by the occultist "the study of Truth, or rather the deeper truth that exists beyond the surface". A philosopher, going beyond things and appearances is certainly a true occultist by all means. Go figure!

You're sad.

Again, Kevin, you wave your Christian mentality about, but this time like the Judaeo-Christian star-spangled banner. “The West” part of Western individualism, in case you haven’t noticed, comprises and is represented by more than the US and Israel. So, when you say you embrace Western individualism, consider the UN position on the matter supported by a greater number of Western governments and countries than the US and Israel. I understand you to also be a supporter of democracy, no?

As far as your off-handish “its only a small piece of land, why not?” rubbish, in what Western country -- ever -- has a whole country been created to accommodate a single cultural people supposedly within it on fundamentally religious grounds? If your argument for the existence of Israel in its current geographical location is ultimately on religious grounds -- which it is -- then you must necessarily grant a right of return of all “Palestinian” (so-called since the British division of the Ottoman Empire in order to facilitate religious division and, thus, “legally” facilitate the further importation of Jews) people and their entire families to their homes on that same basis. Reason demands it.

Alternatively, if you are going to make an argument on some other grounds -- like “Muslims are more deluded than any other religious people” -- then where exactly is the wisdom and reason in wanting and placing an already religiously persecuted people into a land that further guarantees such persecution?

At best, yours are nothing but Judaeo-Christian justifications for the existence of Israel in the Middle East. I see no reason or wisdom in them, therefore. At worst, if I were a Jew, I'd be deeply offended. Or should that be the other way around?

It’s bit-and-piece “thinking” like this that makes the whole thing -- as David, in such a timely manner, details in a thread up in Genius -- go round and round in circles.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:As far as your off-handish “its only a small piece of land, why not?” rubbish, in what Western country -- ever -- has a whole country been created to accommodate a single cultural people supposedly within it on fundamentally religious grounds?

I don't know if it was created fundamentally on religious grounds. I have always thought that the Jewish people (which includes a lot of atheists) have some kind of historical claim to at least some of that land, since their ancestors used to live there.

you must necessarily grant a right of return of all “Palestinian” (so-called since the British division of the Ottoman Empire in order to facilitate religious division and, thus, “legally” facilitate the further importation of Jews) people and their entire families to their homes on that same basis. Reason demands it.

Palestinians should have somewhere to live, if they don't want to live in Israel.

Just because people have a claim to a piece of land doesn't mean they are going to get it. Some Australian aborigines claim the whole of Australia, but they are not going to be granted it.

The Israelis are definitely not going to give-up their land, so the Arab nations are simply wasting their time, and the lives of many.

where exactly is the wisdom and reason in wanting and placing an already religiously persecuted people into a land that further guarantees such persecution?

I presume that's where they wanted to go, probably partly because they're used to being persecuted.

At best, yours are nothing but Judaeo-Christian justifications for the existence of Israel in the Middle East.

I don't know what the exact reasons why the Israelis are where they are. The fact is, they are there, they've been there for a relatively long time, and they're definitely not going to leave. That's just realism.

I'm not sure that anyone is truly justified in being where they are.

Kevin,

I read your post. I will bite off your head tomorrow evening -- literarily, of course.

Even in your enlightened state, you should read some history.

Faizi

Whether the motivation for the state of Israel was of a religious nature or more secular is an interesting question. I do know that not all Jews agree that Israel should exist and that Zionism represents Judaism in any real way. e.g.

Judaism v Zionism

I'm not sure how much light that page really sheds on the issue, but it's interesting nonetheless. Also, you don't need a fast connection to listen to the sound files.


Dan Rowden

Like a bitch, Kevin wrote:

Jewish people (which includes a lot of atheists) have some kind of historical claim to at least some of that land, since their ancestors used to live there.

How you love to bring up the erroneous idea that Israelis are atheists. For one thing, that is wrong. For another, atheisim does not necessarily prove to be wisdom. Many atheists are assholes.

Kind of revealing how your prejudice in favor of Jews attempts to promote that Zionism is the NEW ATHEISM. Hey -- Jews are cool -- they are mostly atheists. Jews are way more cool than Arabs because many Jews are atheists. It is all right for atheists to blow the shit out of the Lebanese.

Not only do you seem to be trying to convince yourself of Israeli superiority, you mention elsewhere the Hizbullah attacks on Isreal. Far fewer Israelis have been killed in the past month than Lebanese civilians. Last count, more than six hunderd Lebanese have died -- non-combatants --in the past month from US backed Israeli shelling.

For that matter, define atheist. Much of the reason Jews and Arabs are considered to be atheist is because they are not Christian -- they do not accept J.C. as their personal savior.

You are very naive, Kevin, and very trusting. You believe the Israeli bullshit. The bullshit of bombing Hizbullah hiding in the midst of civilians. I don't believe that. I could go with it for a time but not to the present length.

But many Israelis are atheists -- like that is some kind of justification. Atheists should be allowed to blow people up. That is not terrorism. Only Arabs are terrorists. Israelis who mostly come from the US and Europe are more like "us."

That is crap.

You are wrong to say that I am speaking from emotion. That is a tactical move on your part - she is speaking from emotion -- therefore, she does not know anything. Look here, people, she is speaking emotionally. Don't believe anything she writes because she is speaking from emotion.

Indeed, I could write the most clearly erudite passage imaginable and you would say that it is emotional -- because that is your out.

I have been around these pages long enough that I understand and know the tactics. Proclaiming that one is emotional is condemnation and I will not accept that. It is a dismissal and I will not be dismissed.

Very smallminded and narrow on your part. You are emotional. You have cowardly emotional attachment to what you assume to be most like yourself -- Jews are atheists and more educated. Because this is true, you can justify Israeli killing of civilians.

The Bush administration has taken a completely hands off policy with Israel. Given its US sponsored military superiority, it has been free to act as it chooses.

I used to think George W was a drama queen in his claim of his war presidency.

Not so. He is a war president in war of his own making.

I am concerned that the US may not survive two more years. Political conservatives now make fun of him on their radio shows. Pretty bad.

Faizi

Probably the best solution would be to transport the state of Israel to the other side of the world, well away from the Middle East. I'm sure Alaska or some such place can spare a few hundred square miles. The Jews could then live in their own country in peace, and the Arabs could turn their attention to more lofty matters. The whole powder keg situation would be diffused.

It's only people's strong attachments to superficialities, such as land, which prevents such an obvious solution from occuring.

-

David wrote:

It's only people's strong attachments to superficialities, such as land,

cultures,

religions,

ancestors,

family,

money,

and happiness,

which prevents such an obvious solution from occuring.

-
Sue

MKFaizi wrote:How you love to bring up the erroneous idea that Israelis are atheists. For one thing, that is wrong.

I said that a good many Israelis, possibly more than 50%, don't believe in the existence of God. What proof do you have otherwise?

It is all right for atheists to blow the shit out of the Lebanese.

How do you think the Israelis should respond to the thousands of missiles being fired at them?

Far fewer Israelis have been killed in the past month than Lebanese civilians.

One reason for that is that Israelis are having to spend their time in underground bunkers.

Do you think Israel should stop retaliating until such time as the number of dead Israelis catches up with the number of dead Lebanese, and then continue the fight?

The bullshit of bombing Hizbullah hiding in the midst of civilians. I don't believe that.

I've seen video of rockets being fired from civilian villages. I doubt the videos were fabricated. Even Hezbollah don't deny that they are operating from the midst of the civilian population.

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Probably the best solution would be to transport the state of Israel to the other side of the world, well away from the Middle East. I'm sure Alaska or some such place can spare a few hundred square miles.

It's an idea, but not a very realistic one.

For one thing, I'm not sure how well a few hundred square miles of Alaska will be able to support and provide for the entire Israeli population.

And who is going to pay to transport the whole country to Alaska? :-)

DQ: Probably the best solution would be to transport the state of Israel to the other side of the world, well away from the Middle East. I'm sure Alaska or some such place can spare a few hundred square miles.

KS: It's an idea, but not a very realistic one.

For one thing, I'm not sure how well a few hundred square miles of Alaska will be able to support and provide for the entire Israeli population.

I agree. I think they should all go to the US where they are loved. If the US stopped taking in so many Mexicans, there shouldn’t be a problem. Hey, here’s an idea, they could even keep their persecution complex by being strategically perched on the Mexican border with what will end up as stockpiled weapons. Yes, Israel should be created right on the Mexican border. Perfect.

KS: And who is going to pay to transport the whole country to Alaska? :-)

Well, duh. The US of course. They’d save enough to build a double-storey country once they’ve ceased to fund the war on the Middle East.

I’ll get to your other post later.

.

Ha!

I wrote:

They’d save enough to build a double-storey country once they’ve ceased to fund the war on the Middle East.

What's the bet they'd launch their missiles anyway from the top storey. Hell, they could even use the more advanced US stockpile, then -- smart nuclear gear without being at risk themselves; just stick it on the elevator...

.

ksolway wrote: How do you think the Israelis should respond to the thousands of missiles being fired at them?

A seemingly good question and I'll attempt a shot at it before Leyla or others will for sure.

Today I was reading in the news that "Israeli officials conceded that their three-week bombing campaign has had no significant impact on Hezbollah's ability to fire short-range rockets into northern Israel". If so then at least the response of Israel has been, apart from falling in the international law category of 'war crimes', very ineffective and stemming from a flawed strategy.

Back to the question: Israel claims to have responded to the capturing of two soldiers from their territory. Israel branded this an 'act of war', and thus engaged in one. Hezbollah performed the operation to "swap them for Samir Kuntar and other Lebanese prisoners held by Israel" (Nasrallah)

But for example in 2000 this kind of thing was still acceptable:

Hezbollah captured three Israeli soldiers in 2000. They died during the operation, but four years later, the group was able to exchange their bodies for 430 Palestinians and Lebanese held in Israeli jails.

I believe we can safely assume both parties have an history of performing operations on each others territory, arresting and killing people. But the Hezbollah rocket attacks since this summer appear to have been all after the start of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon (I'd need an overview of Hezbollah attacks in 2006 here to back it up). So this alone would make the initial question flawed: there was no Israeli response needed to any rocket attacks, since there were none yet. It was a response to a Hezbollah operation against Israeli military (who still occupies territory in Hezbollah view) which no doubt was a response to a past Israeli military operation against Hezbollah and so on.

Of course when all is said and done, the only way to fight an opponent so powerful and well equipped is to use tactics like kidnapping, sniping and rocket launches to put pressure on the opponent to come and "get him". This also ensures the financial support from backers (demonstrate you're at least trying). Now finally Israel came and the ranks of the resistance will swell quickly. War and invasion does that to civilians. Soon there will be no non-terrorist left in Lebanon.

The Talmudic religion insists on possession of Israel as a precondition of moshiach's arrival. A global theocracy is also a prerequisite.

islamofascism exists.

So does judaeofascism. Sorry it does. I'm not saying jews should be rounded up, but we should ignore them more often.

Most people have what I call CJDD (Chronic Judeo Deferential Disorder). This is the inablility to ever disagree with a jew.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:the response of Israel has been, apart from falling in the international law category of 'war crimes', very ineffective and stemming from a flawed strategy

I agree that it has been ineffective. But the reason they are conducting the air-strikes is to prevent the casualties on their own side that would come from a ground invasion. That much is understandable. Lately they have been conducting more ground incursions, sacrificing more lives on their own side, to reduce the loss of civilians on the other side - probably because of the pressure of recent bad publicity.

Back to the question: Israel claims to have responded to the capturing of two soldiers from their territory. Israel branded this an 'act of war', and thus engaged in one. Hezbollah performed the operation to "swap them for Samir Kuntar and other Lebanese prisoners held by Israel" (Nasrallah)

That's a bit like breaking into a jail, kidnapping some prison officers, and demanding the release of all the prisoners, isn't it?

Soon there will be no non-terrorist left in Lebanon.

It's a bloody mess. . . . Don't know what else to say about it.

Kevin wrote:

DQ: Probably the best solution would be to transport the state of Israel to the other side of the world, well away from the Middle East. I'm sure Alaska or some such place can spare a few hundred square miles.

KS: It's an idea, but not a very realistic one.

For one thing, I'm not sure how well a few hundred square miles of Alaska will be able to support and provide for the entire Israeli population.

The land that Israel occupies now is largely desert and a lot smaller to boot. Alaska would be a step up for them.

Let's face it, they would either prosper in their new peaceful environment or perish. Either way, the world would be better off.

And who is going to pay to transport the whole country to Alaska? :-)

They could probably pay for it themselves out of next year's military budget.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:The land that Israel occupies now is largely desert and a lot smaller to boot.

Still, with irrigation, they are able to farm the land. I don't think it would be so easy in Alaska. . . . but there's always hydroponics, etc.

If Israel was gone, then I think the attention of the Muslim world would be directed at India.

Let's just give them Tasmania; doesn't seem to be much down there that we should worry about losing. We could charge them rent.

We couldn't give them Alaska, because then they'd have oil. That would make then utterly intolerable.