The same scenario is repeating itself with Iran…not mass destruc…but nuclear threat..and so on. The Iranians don’t scare me. I’m scared of my “leaders” and Pres. Bush backing them.
I may not agree word for word with this post but there is some sense to it.

In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment. In the United States, the hostage-taking was widely seen as an outrage violating a centuries-old principle of international law granting diplomats immunity from arrest and diplomatic compounds sovereignty in the territory of the host country they occupy.[3]

You see, like I said earlier, if we keep meddling in their affair then we get burnt like having unprotected intercourse with a postitute. If we leave hem alone, they leave us alone. i’m just sick of it all. And you are right, it’s not just the U.S, but Brittain, Russia and probably some other “anglo-saxon” country. Even though I was wrong, i was still right. We get involve in their affair we get burnt.

Well then its a good thing you’re not President…God gave you a mind, do us a favor and try to use it when you comment here.

Palestine is the Latin name of Israel land and it has nothing to do with Arabs. There is no even “P” in Arabic, so calm down and get down of your hook. “Palestine” is the geographic term of the land and has nothing to do with nationality. The British occupation of the land in 1917 brought that name back to the land, not the Arabs invented that name nor were they link into. As a matter of fact the name was link to Jews and when Anti Semites in Europe chased Jews the shout at them: “Jews go to Palestine”.
Under the British occupation all people had British mandate of Palestine certificates. Jews were Palestinian Jews and Arabs were Palestinian Arabs. The “Palestine” term was ‘freed’ by the Jews after they called their new state ‘Israel’. The same process was executed in Jordan, that dwells in the eastern part of mandate Palestine and then the citizens seized to be called “Palestinians” when it turn to be independent state.

The “Arab Palestinian people” is a mix of Arabs and non Arab Muslims that most of them immigrated to Palestine after starting the Zionist project in the end of the 19th century. There have never been any Arab Palestinian people in Palestine in history. Only in the 70th the remaining Arabs in the occupied territories started to call themselves “Palestinians” rather than “Arab Palestinians”.

Arab Muslims leaders are quite extreme nuts and they should dealt by this standard. The US sold ammunition to SadDamn not because his nice eyes but because he was in war with another fanatic Muslims – Iran, that was treated the US as a crouch. So the US did a well pass when they gave SadDamn the minimum weapons to keep and stand in front the Iranian aggression.

Arabs hate to the US and the west is not political but religious. No any US hugging step will turn the Muslims to love the Judeo-Christian western culture. The Jihad psycho is in the head of every new born Muslim. The clashes among the fractions are only in the beginning. Just wait and see how Muslims blow themselves all around the world with out any connection to the Palestinian crisis. I would even say that Most Arabs don’t like the “Palestinians”, and each time they use them it is only a pretax and beneficial for their case.

The land was already split in 1922 and the eastern part was given to the Hashemite kingdom to rule the Arabs in Palestine. The Brits failed to accomplish mission than and to give the other part – the western part – to the Jews as planned before. That is the beginning of the continuous conflict between Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians.

And to Elinor, you sound like suck a sweetheart. This was part of your response:
“I have personally given up on thinking there is a possible way to control all this mess, personally I believe in Random act of Kindness and Charity, and having hope in the creator, knowing that he knows all and he would see it if I have some good intentions”

I totally feel the same way. All I can do is give my opinion and try to set an individual example and just be a peaceful man. This world is like a twilight zone, people talk all this war, but they are not the ones with the gun in their hand.

C-Red, I respect some of your points, and can see some of your frustrations. But whatever solution you propose has to address the realities on the ground. So here is the reality.

We’ve created a bit of a mess for ourselves, to say the least. Some 200 years ago we decided to run our economies by burning fossil fuels. Now we realize that we may be turning the thermostat up on this planet, and that by the year 2050 the sea level may rise 20 feet and about 60% of humanity will be flooded.

The second problem is that of the 6 billion people on earth, 1 billion is well off economically, 1 billion is beginning to hook up economically with them, 4 billion are poor, and of these, 1 billion are starving to death.

And the third problem is that there are millions of ideological extremists out there who are keeping their own people down, and who are plotting, as we speak, to bring the U.S. and the Western world down as well.

Now, it’s OK to say that the U.S. should stay out of the Middle East. But do you really think that would solve these problems. Or would it make the problems worse by allowing the extremists to take over the oil, and to use these profits to fulfill their destructive agendas?

My solution is not to detach ourselves from the Middle East. I think we should fully engage and Sell a Vision of Hope there. We should speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. We should invest in jobs which protect the environment. We should inspire each other with a sense of hope. We should sustain the hope with public diplomacy. And we should continue fighting against the forces of ideological extremism, wherever they may be found, but position the fight within a Vision of Hope. We should elevate the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. We are not fighting a “war on terror.” We are fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There’s a big difference.

Would you agree with this kind of approach, or do you think that something else would work better?

I also respect all religions when they do what they’re supposed to do: to take our life here to a higher spiritual plain, by teaching: ethical behavior, ritual, and belief. What I don’t respect is when religion gets side-tracked into politics and when it espouses views which are antithetical to the tenets of the religion. Any relgion which teaches hate or advocates violence, is off base, and must find its way back to true belief by using the universal moral compass of common sense.

The Golden Mean is just another way of saying that truth is not an extremist position. The concept was developed by Aristotle, and later the Prophet Muhammad, and even the Jewish philosopher Maimonides. Funny they should all come to the same idea. The idea is that the truth of a matter is usually somewhere between extremes, because you have to take into account the circumstances at hand, before making a final judgment, and there are always valid points on both sides of any given issue. Therefore, be careful when you advocate for someone’s death, because the truth of your position is never as absolute as the absolute certainty of death.

The Golden Rule is probably the greatest expression of ethical behavior, and is found in all religions on earth, in one form or another. Why is that? Coincidence? No. The Golden Rule is universal because of its inherent logic. It is self-evident to say that if you treat me well, and I treat you well, then we are both ahead of the game.

I understand your reluctance with the “sado-masochists.” In other words, if I like to be abused, then I will abuse others. But this is a red herring. If two sado-masochists wish to abuse each other, then for them, they are still “happy” living that way, and the Golden Rule still holds. However, if a sado-masochist keeps company with a normal person, then the Golden Rule would say that they should treat each other well in ways they can both relate to.

“Some truths are very inconvenient, both concerning the environment and religion.”

I think, Magnus, that this is an important point. You mention that a Vision of Hope must be grounded in reality, including the reality of science, and I would assume economics, as well. You talk about “inconvenient truths” harking back to Al Gore’s reference to Global Warming. You’re right to say that we may have to find the courage of “not being scared of what we might discover.”

To my mind, history is coming to a head, and very quickly at that. Look at the pattern. We lived as hunter/gathers for some 2 million years. In the last 10,000 years we decided to get “civilized.” For the last 2000 years the world population was pretty small, and almost everyone on earth was poor. In the last 200 years, with the Industrial Revolution, the population shot way up to over 6 billion today, and a great deal of wealth was concentrated in the West. And in the last 20 years, technological advancements have made it possible for countries to partner up as part of a Global Economy. At the same time, Global Warming may cause the sea level to rise up as much as 20 feet in the next 50 years.

So, Magnus, where are we heading as a species? Will we find the courage, as you suggest, to come together as part of a Global Economy, to let go of the ideological nonsense, and to work intelligently to solve the crises we face by giving everyone on earth a place at the table, a stake in his or her future, by creating jobs which protect the environment?

Or will we, instead, render the possibility of Hope null and void, by stubbornly clinging to what we happen to think and what we happen to believe, and thereby bring to ourselves the nightmarish reality of death, destruction, and despair?

That is the choice we now face. It’s decision time, and everything we know and love hangs in the balance. It’s time to get over ourselves, and beyond our differences. It’s time, before time runs out, to dream the impossible, and to make the impossible come true.

OK. I thought you to be a religious person, but now I have to correct that notion.

ND: “The Golden Mean, “The truth is somewhere between two extremes,” would have us think straight by using Common Sense as our Ideology.”

I think The Golden Mean is very dependent on what the extremes are. As a principle I am not much in favour of it.

ND: “The Golden Rule, “Treat others as you would have them threat you,” would have us treat each other well by Investing in one another, to create jobs which protect the environment.”

This one is applicable in most cases, but when used by e.g. sado-masochists it can get messy.

ND: “The Greatest Good, “Do what brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number,” would have us maximize justice by organizing ourselves around a Vision of Hope.”

I am on.

You stress the importance of hope, and I agree, it is indeed very important. But I think hope needs some scientific backing so we may have a greater reason for being hopeful. We have to know what we shall do to attain The Greatest Good, and this means observing and analyzing the situation and not being scared of what we might discover. Some truths are very inconvenient, both concerning the environment and religion.

“And so, when you quote scripture, I don’t see the hand of God. I see the hand of man writing down what he thinks, and signing God’s name to it. God did not write scripture. God wrote the universe, and gave us the Common Sense to decipher its meaning.”

No, Magnus, not a new religion, a new ideological framework based on common sense principles, principles which have been around since the beginning of time.

The Golden Mean, “The truth is somewhere between two extremes,” would have us think straight by using Common Sense as our Ideology.

The Golden Rule, “Treat others as you would have them threat you,” would have us treat each other well by Investing in one another, to create jobs which protect the environment.

The Greatest Good, “Do what brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number,” would have us maximize justice by organizing ourselves around a Vision of Hope.

Putting it all together, as Thomas Jefferson may have said, “We find this truth to be self-evident: Ideology plus Investment equals Hope.

And with Hope, Magnus, all things are possible, even the impossible dream of peace. There is not much time to make something happen. In 50 years or so, the sea level may rise up as much as 20 feet, which will flood 60% of humanity. We must find a way to come together, for the sake of our children, and to do what is right for ourselves, and for them. We have no time to waste on ideological nonsense. Things are coming to a head, and it’s to use our head to do what we need to do for the sake of future generations.

ND: “I don’t think you have to look so far back to find evidence of the violent nature of man. Look at how much killing has been perpetrated in the last 200 years.”

We are indeed capable of being very violent, but don’t you think this inclination gets worse when being adherent to a violent God?

ND: “From what I know, pre-historic man was not particularly violent.”

I’m afraid we are still rather much the same.

ND: “God is creative energy.”

This is an attractive concept of God, but it is hard to see how this description could fit Jahve/Allah who has so many more sides to him which are destructive and awfully repulsive.

ND: “And so, when you quote scripture, I don’t see the hand of God. I see the hand of man writing down what he thinks, and signing God’s name to it. God did not write scripture. God wrote the universe, and gave us the Common Sense to decipher its meaning.”

Very beautifully put. A new religion?

I don’t think you have to look so far back to find evidence of the violent nature of man. Look at how much killing has been perpetrated in the last 200 years. I don’t have statistical evidence to back me up, but I would guess that more people were killed by the hand of man, in the last 200 years, than in the previous two million years of human existence. From what I know, pre-historic man was not particularly violent. He was a hunter/gatherer, and had no real reason for killing his fellow man. On the contrary, he found it to be more sensible to help one another out, so that we could all survive yet another day.

When we speak about God, it is important to know, or at least to guess, what we’re really speaking about. If we think of God as one of us, and if we pin all this violence on Him, then no wonder some of us walk away with an image of God as heartless and mean-spirited. The passages you quote could be used as evidence for such a conclusion.

But I, for one, don’t see God as one of us. I think of God, based on what I know of the universe, as the sum total of all the creative energy in the universe. God is creative energy. He creates a universe in which all things are possible, because He wanted to give expression to all things, so that a sense of meaning could emerge from His creation. To do this, He had no choice but to balance the good with the bad.

Therefore, while He does not create a Holocaust; He does create a world that is capable of bringing a Holocaust about. While He does not create Global Warming; He does create a world in which Global Warming is possible. While He does not mandage poverty, His world allows for the possibility of poverty. He creates the possibility of all things, because only from this mix could meaning emerge. And above all, He wished for the possibility of meaning, because only that could validate the efficacy of His creation. It’s not like He has his mother telling Him how good He is. He had no choice but to allow His creation to speak for itself and to thereby point to the possibility of meaning.

And so, when you quote scripture, I don’t see the hand of God. I see the hand of man writing down what he thinks, and signing God’s name to it. God did not write scripture. God wrote the universe, and gave us the Common Sense to decipher its meaning.

God created the universe. As part of His creation, He created us, in His image no less. So like him, we are creators as well. What do we create? Among other things, we create God in our image, by ascribing to Him all our faults and desires. Instead of trying to create God, how about creating a better world for ourselves and our children?

If there is a God I too do not think that he wants to create enmity between people, and if he has created us in his image I believe common sense says that he does not want us destroyed. Creating Muhammad was however a terrible mistake he hopefully still regrets; few people can compete with the so-called prophet when it comes to inciting enmity, death and destruction. So saying that God created division between people through Muhammad is to put it very mildly.

However, Muhammad found inspiration in the warlord type of God from e.g. Exodus:

12:28 And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.
12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

It is quite bizarre that the Lord wasn’t satisfied by killing all the firstborn Egyptians, he just had to continue with the firstborn cattle also.

Muhammad and his Allah did not want to be any less frightening:

Koran 7:4 How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.

What does common sense have to say about this Lord/Allah?