Jewish terrorist document found

Bentnotbroken wrote:

<quoted text>
According to at least one religion, the bible says for man to give to Ceaser what is Ceasers and to God what is Gods.
I feel pretty sure all thinking men can understand its meaning.

That leaves you out.

Mosach wrote:

Iran should nuke the shit outta israel.

The Saudis want the US to nuke Iran. You have it wrong.

pjam2825 wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right there is no “my way” or “your way” there is only the yin and yang, the unity of opposites into a harmonious one...

Sorry I have so little time for this. Thanks for the reply, if you are still there.

Was I starting to form an ideology of my own? I didn't get far down that road.
Ethical social ideology no different to a religion? I am not an expert, but whatever ‘ethical social ideology‘ might be it is not religion.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion
http://www.answers.com/topic/ideology
I suppose socialism is an ideology of sorts, but hardly a religion. One can be a socialist without, for instance, the mumbo jumbo about god’s will being written in the bible, koran or torah. They are clearly nothing more than old books.
You appear to confuse morality with religion. There is no connection between the two. In my experience, the morals of religionists are no different from non-religionists. Secularists are not bad because the Marquis de Sades was any more than Catholics are bad because Hitler was a Catholic. One morals are based on DNA and environment. Personality, not religious opinion. This highlights one of the problems some religionists have when they choose to allocate all that is good to their religion instead of being objective. It is important to distinguish clearly between morality and religious belief.

Jim wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry I have so little time for this. Thanks for the reply, if you are still there.
Was I starting to form an ideology of my own? I didn't get far down that road.
Ethical social ideology no different to a religion? I am not an expert, but whatever ‘ethical social ideology‘ might be it is not religion.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion
http://www.answers.com/topic/ideology
I suppose socialism is an ideology of sorts, but hardly a religion. One can be a socialist without, for instance, the mumbo jumbo about god’s will being written in the bible, koran or torah. They are clearly nothing more than old books.
You appear to confuse morality with religion. There is no connection between the two. In my experience, the morals of religionists are no different from non-religionists. Secularists are not bad because the Marquis de Sades was any more than Catholics are bad because Hitler was a Catholic. One morals are based on DNA and environment. Personality, not religious opinion. This highlights one of the problems some religionists have when they choose to allocate all that is good to their religion instead of being objective. It is important to distinguish clearly between morality and religious belief.

Thanks would like to continue this conversation so just answer when you can, I will be around and have added this page to my favourites so I don’t lose it.

If we look at capitalism then we can instantly see that it is a religion based on the higher powers of the invisible hand of the market place and the teachings of the false prophet Adam Smith. Like most ideologies it is forced on others, capitalists are always insisting that capitalism is superior and all must worship the invisible hand, they build temples to this god and toil there daily chanting and the numbers hoping the invisible hand has dealt them a wining card.

As for those old books when read properly they are economic and social theories and are more atheist then mystic as they all advocate controlled economies governed by natural laws.

How do you counter terror...Like the Sikhs did in the past history and won....you give them their just desserts-terror.

pjam2825 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks would like to continue this conversation ..
If we look at capitalism then we can instantly see that it is a religion based on the higher powers of the invisible hand of the market place and the teachings of the false prophet Adam Smith. Like most ideologies it is forced on others, capitalists are always insisting that capitalism is superior and all must worship the invisible hand, they build temples to this god and toil there daily chanting and the numbers hoping the invisible hand has dealt them a wining card.
As for those old books when read properly they are economic and social theories and are more atheist then mystic as they all advocate controlled economies governed by natural laws.

Maybe we will never agree because you need religion? Its seems to fulfil a need in some. I will certainly never accept that morality is connected to religion, though it is apparently necessary for religionists to connect the two?

I find your analogy of Capitalism with religion and A Smith to a prophet as misleading at best. Like most analogies I read, it clouds not helps the debate. Adam Smith famously wrote of economic theory. His theological or ideological efforts are unfamiliar to me. Capitalism is an ideology that largely omits morality. Maybe Hobbes will be seen by most to naturally compliment capitalism in this respect? George Soros‘s more modern views on current capitalism are very interesting. He argues for a modern need for capitalism regulated by governments. Regulated by communities might be better? How will that go down in the good old USA??!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2008/0...

Religionists seem to interpret religion as a code to live by? It allowed Mohammad Atta to fly a plane into one of the twin towers, so your interpretation of the Bible would vary from his of the Quran? Clerics & other religionists usually argue according to their personality. Good one’s use the religion for good. Atta’s absolute belief that he was right was a problem and his superstitious beliefs facilitated his action. Personally, I find all isms to be two edged swords and I think religionism has finally outlived its usefulness for most of us. It is divisive and (like nationalism) may facilitate terrorism more than help prevent it. One must have a very strong need for religion to bother with it. Its attraction to many people may be a sense of belonging?

You make the statement "As for those old books..." above. By “read properly”, you seem to me to mean they must be given some sympathetic interpretation religionists would find acceptable? I am all for sympathetic listening, but religionists see what they want to in these books and then insist that others who see just old books written hundreds of years ago must be misinterpreting them? I just see them for what they are - old books written when most thought the world was flat. One could put an evil interpretation on them almost as reasonably as a good one, IMO. They are full of violent references. One Muslim swore the Quran demonstrated how Mohammed foresaw the internet. They deserve appraisal that is both sympathetic and objective. Anyone who believes that the Bible, Quran, or Torah came from god not man seems distinctly lacking in objectivity.

We all search for the truth but if one needs a religion to find it, it follows that most of us never can - especially if it has to be one religion in particular. I apply objectivity and sympathetic listening to all aspects of life - including spiritual and religious ones. It is widely accepted that religion doesn’t stand up to that and just ‘having faith’ is wrong.

MUST get back to what I should be doing! Nice speaking to you.

Jim wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe we will never agree because you need religion? Its seems to fulfil a need in some. I will certainly never accept that morality is connected to religion, though it is apparently necessary for religionists to connect the two?
I find your analogy of Capitalism with religion and A Smith to a prophet as misleading at best. Like most analogies I read, it clouds not helps the debate. Adam Smith famously wrote of economic theory. His theological or ideological efforts are unfamiliar to me. Capitalism is an ideology that largely omits morality.

From your dictionary link

A religion
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion
A religion need not be something that believes things are controlled by a almighty space alien.

Capitalism set of beliefs include things like the free market, free enterprise and corporate globalisation. Values include greed, exploitation and corruption the practices are based on the teachings of he philosopher Adam Smith.

Morals what are they based on?
One might suggest it’s Moral to kill any baby that is born with a defect, one could put forward many moral arguments to support this, just as others could put forward morals against.
You must have faith that it is wrong to kill babies as the moral debate is endless.

How do we know what is the right Morals to live by?

Once we have created a strong Moral code what difference is this belief system to a religion?

pjam2825 wrote:

<quoted text>
..How do we know what is the right Morals to live by?
Once we have created a strong Moral code what difference is this belief system to a religion?

Pjam said:“If we look at capitalism then we can instantly see that it is a religion based on the higher powers of the invisible hand of the market place and the teachings of the false prophet Adam Smith.” I see what you mean, but that is merely a bad analogy. I see Capitalism for what it is and market forces for what they are. I would not describe Adam Smith’s wealth of nations as “teachings”. Religionists often use analogy in this way to try to imply that non-religionists are in fact types of religionists. Such analogies merely demonstrate the religionist’s own confusion of thought. From your link to dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion
“3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” Capitalism and Mr Smith a religion and a prophet?

It is usually better to keep concepts separate than conflate them: morality from religion; capitalism from religion; writers of economic theory from prophets of good books, etc.
You seem to have trouble distinguishing between religion and morality;
Or Adam Smith and a religious prophet;
You say “In a pure secular state the government is not bound by any moral belief.”??
You appear to conflate religion and morality.
“One might suggest it’s Moral to kill any baby that is born with a defect”. Well, one might I suppose. Who did? You seem to hint at the abortion issue?

You appear to me to have difficulty with dictionary definitions, if you don’t mind me saying so. I suspect therefore, I you perceive me to be the one with the difficulty? To me you appear to confuse definition with analogy. I am not convinced that all religionists have such difficulty keeping different concepts discrete. In my experience, most religionists will understand the differences I point out and recognise the poor analogies. Many religionists acknowledge that religion is based on faith, not reason.“Either you do believe, or you don’t” is how these discussions normally end, in my experience.

The above highlights our differences well, IMO. Heaven forbid we should use reason and our morality to determine what to do?:-) Religion or religious teaching is necessary? Who delivers the teaching? Best to follow the Pope, or Ayatollah? Or work it out from reading one of the good books?

Religionists tend to see everything as having a reason, or even pre-ordained. What I see as freer minds appreciate how random and chaotic life is. Conflate concepts and make analogies if you like. I don’t need to. We are all on a journey of discovery and we should concentrate on reality and our real problems, from which we might learn. We will learn little from the Bible. I should know - I had to read virtually the whole blinking thing! I’m tired of the Quran and haddiths too. One can see whatever one wants in old books.

I hope you see the funny side of life. I am enjoying the Anglican struggles with Gays and Dolls. I shouldn’t laugh really, but it is hard to take folk in gaiters and pointy hats entirely seriously. By the way, if gays come out of the closet, what do atheists come out of? I trust you see the funny side of life.

Sorry if you find me blunt no offence meant.

Secularists follow a God.

I think you have a per-conceived idea of what God has to be, this is confusing your judgment of me and what I m trying to explain, do you think I believe in a all controlling space alien?

What I am asking is a philosophical question, you need to look deeper then the average limited mindset and I don’t mean in a mystic sense but through understanding Memeplexes and Meme theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Memeplexes

Anyway lets move forward.

Wikipedia describes a Moral as:
“A moral is a message conveyed or a lesson to be learned from a story or event. The moral may be left to the hearer, reader or viewer to determine for themselves.”
------
So morals can’t be proven to be true a moral is an opinion based on a story, there will always be arguments for and against who’s story or what event is best to base the morals on.
Where is the silver bullet to end the debate on euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research and the hundreds of others?

There can never be such a bullet just as there is no such bullet to kill God memes.

Morals are just beliefs they are abstract and can’t be fixed on any real data.

If we are to construct a secular government and civilization we need to form a social contract.

Without society, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms. The downside of this general autonomy is that it includes the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten one's own self-preservation; there are no positive rights, only laws of nature and an endless "war of all against all"

In other words, anyone in the state of nature can do anything he likes; but this also means that anyone can do anything he likes to anyone else. To avoid this, we jointly agree to a social contract by which we each gain civil rights in return for subjecting ourselves to civil law or to political authority.

Now that we have unified the group-nation under the social contract. We have a state based on laws formed from stories-parables given to us by wise men and agreed in faith by the masses.

These Morals are then defended religiously.

Give me any one of your morals, tell me where it comes from, how do you know it to be true and how do you convince other of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Ahmadinejad: Israel Will Disappear From Map

Emily FreedomFighter wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =5hLDjGdJC0Q
Ahmadinejad: Israel Will Disappear From Map

That economics for you.

pjam2825 wrote:

Sorry if you find me blunt no offence meant.
Secularists follow a God.
I think you have a per-conceived idea of what God has to be, this is confusing your judgment of me and what I m trying to explain, do you think I believe in a all controlling space alien?
What I am asking is a philosophical question, you need to look deeper then the average limited mindset and I don’t mean in a mystic sense but through understanding Memeplexes and Meme theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Memeplexes
Anyway lets move forward.
Wikipedia describes a Moral as:
“A moral is a message conveyed or a lesson to be learned from a story or event. The moral may be left to the hearer, reader or viewer to determine for themselves.”
------
So morals can’t be proven to be true a moral is an opinion based on a story, there will always be arguments for and against who’s story or what event is best to base the morals on.
Where is the silver bullet to end the debate on euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research and the hundreds of others?
There can never be such a bullet just as there is no such bullet to kill God memes.
Morals are just beliefs they are abstract and can’t be fixed on any real data.
If we are to construct a secular government and civilization we need to form a social contract.
Without society, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms. The downside of this general autonomy is that it includes the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten one's own self-preservation; there are no positive rights, only laws of nature and an endless "war of all against all"
In other words, anyone in the state of nature can do anything he likes; but this also means that anyone can do anything he likes to anyone else. To avoid this, we jointly agree to a social contract by which we each gain civil rights in return for subjecting ourselves to civil law or to political authority.
Now that we have unified the group-nation under the social contract. We have a state based on laws formed from stories-parables given to us by wise men and agreed in faith by the masses.
These Morals are then defended religiously.
Give me any one of your morals, tell me where it comes from, how do you know it to be true and how do you convince other of it.

I do not find you to be blunt, I find you to be narrow. You address "morals" as a social contract that helps define a state, yet, you dismiss censorship, which imposes authority on the social contract. This violates a basic moral of democracy which calls for a "government by the people and for the people". Another important concept is "religious freedom" which requires a "separation of church and state".

Jonathan wrote:

<quoted text>
I do not find you to be blunt, I find you to be narrow. You address "morals" as a social contract that helps define a state, yet, you dismiss censorship, which imposes authority on the social contract. This violates a basic moral of democracy which calls for a "government by the people and for the people". Another important concept is "religious freedom" which requires a "separation of church and state".

I fail to comprehend your logic
We have not been talking of censorship here, if we were I would explain that censorship is again an abstract concept, levels of censorship are determined by a moral position and again personal belief.

In a democratic system the level of censorship is determined by the people and is incorporated into the social contract (Laws).

One of your religious belief is free speech yet you can’t prove to me it is the best way.

Your only option is to insist that free speech is a higher truth and force it on me.

Can’t you see this makes you an extremist.

Fatah supporters arrested after beachside blast

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Hamas security arrested dozens of supporters of the rival Fatah group early Saturday, Fatah said, a day after a mysterious beachside blast killed five Hamas members and a 6-year-old girl.

The explosion went off in a car parked near a crowded Gaza City beach. Hamas said a group of Hamas activists was picnicking on the beach. Three Hamas members, including a field commander, and the girl were killed immediately.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25854713/

Whenever there is a cease fire...they kill each other. Muslims have brain damage. Homicidal lunatics.

pjam2825 wrote:

<quoted text>
I fail to comprehend your logic
We have not been talking of censorship here, if we were I would explain that censorship is again an abstract concept, levels of censorship are determined by a moral position and again personal belief.
In a democratic system the level of censorship is determined by the people and is incorporated into the social contract (Laws).
One of your religious belief is free speech yet you can’t prove to me it is the best way.
Your only option is to insist that free speech is a higher truth and force it on me.
Can’t you see this makes you an extremist.

No, I am not an extremist. You are a propagandist who sees all views outside of your own as extreme.
Free speech is not a higher truth it is a moral belief and a human right.

Just desserts today is yellow cake...with chocolate Icing....

Jonathan wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I am not an extremist. You are a propagandist who sees all views outside of your own as extreme.
Free speech is not a higher truth it is a moral belief and a human right.

The question is how do we determine these moral beliefs and human rights?

You believe in moral and human rights but can’t fix these things into something tangible like a mathematical equation so the morals can be clearly seen and proved in fact.

You are against censorship, so child porn is ok?
If you think child porn is not ok where does one drawn the censorship line?

pjam2825 wrote:

Sorry if you find me blunt no offence meant.
Secularists follow a God....

You say Secularists follow a god and you cannot follow Jonathon’s logic. I think that sums it up.

I notice from your profile (pjam) that you think America (ie the USA) an evil empire? Have you been reading lately about Russia’s disputes with many EU members and how Russia? Russians vote for ’strong men’, but Russia is governed by moneyed factions. Have you read how effective the Chinese Govt are at controlling access by Chinese people to the Internet and the results of Chinese govt actions affecting Darfur?

I have criticisms of the USA too, but I keep them in perspective. We may well reach a situation before many decades pass when the USA’s power is relatively low compared to Russia, China and the world in general. If you think that Russian or Chinese governments are likely to act more morally or altruistically than US politicians, you are in for a very nasty surprise.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/147692
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censors... 's_Republic_of_China
I believe China sanctions companies like Yahoo who if they do not co-operate on censorship and they target citizens who attend non-favoured sites to make the general public wary of using the Internet freely.

Thanks for this exchange of views. Have a nice day. Hope you don't feel ganged up on on Topix.