Originally posted by whodeyKonrad Lorenz would agree with you, except he'd call them pleasure and pain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Lorenz
I suppose what drives us is fear and love. Both have their place if used appropriatly.
(Hey, Konrad was a Nazi...and turned into a Green. What do you know...)
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI would have preferred bringing up Macheville but I guess bringing up a Nazi was far too tempting, no? 😉
Konrad Lorenz would agree with you, except he'd call them pleasure and pain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Lorenz
(Hey, Konrad was a Nazi...and turned into a Green. What do you know...)
So what is the answer to his age old question? Is it better to be loved or feared?
BTW: Nazism was effective in many respects. Therefore its tactics should be studied as such. Of course I am not endorsing such tactics, rather, I am merely saying they were effective on many levels. In fact, Islamo-facists would agree and, as a result, study Hitler and his tactics with admoration and awe.
Originally posted by whodeyI didn't know he was a Nazi in WW2. Anyway,
I would have preferred bringing up Macheville but I guess bringing up a Nazi was far too tempting, no? 😉
So what is the answer to his age old question? Is it better to be loved or feared?
"When accepting the Nobel Prize, he apologized for a 1940 publication that included Nazi views of science, saying that "many highly decent scientists hoped, like I did, for a short time for good from National Socialism, and many quickly turned away from it with the same horror as I." It seems highly likely that Lorenz's ideas about an inherited basis for behavior patterns were congenial to the Nazi authorities, but there is no evidence to suggest that his experimental work was either inspired or distorted by Nazi ideas."
I don't know that he set out to answer that dubious question.
Originally posted by whodeyI would just like to follow up on this line of reasoning. I believe this is the solution to the problem. Take, for example, the Nazis. Had they gone into the USSR as liberators they would have probably won the war. However, they went in as conquerers instead and the Russian people rose up against them. The same can be said for the people of Palestine. I once heard a college student in Palestine who said he participated in some uprisings just so they would arrest him. While in jail he not only was able to study in the security of prison with three free meals a day but he also was provided a stipen by the Palestinians for being a part of the uprising. He had the best of both world and then was let go a while after. In this example we see that neither the Israelies nor the Palestians care much about the college student in question, rather, they are only interested in him if they can use him and/or presents a problem for them. If the Israeli's stop the attitude of us against them and invest in the Palestinian people as well as inforce order and law within the region they will be on the road to victory. Provide jobs and security and the people will fall in line eventually. Then the extremists will loose their appeal quickly. We see similair examples in Iraq now. The US has attempted to build back up Iraq and try to provide them with a stable government and a future. However, extremists stand in the way. However, the Iraqi people have slowly realized that their true enemy are those extremists who go around blowing up anything that stands in their way and their goals for power whether they be Muslim or otherwise.
Maybe not, but if you want an answer it is better to be loved and feared ie God. The nazi's had it half right. Of course you can't love something that hates now can you?
BTW; Giving the Palestinian authority more land and money is not the answer. Don't invest in their corrupt power hungry leadership, invest in the PEOPLE!!! Concessions and appeasment will only strengthen the resolve of the Palestinian authority to destroy Israel. Then we will reverse the Israeli/Palestinian situration. It simply will not go away.
Again the reason is obvious if you understood the other thread about why the Bush supports Israel.
When Armageddon comes, Jesus will return and take all the true believers to heaven...but only if Israel exists.
The only way to ensure Israel exists/survives is to bring peace to the middle east and the best way to do that is to create the state of Palestine. This isn't hard to figure out folks.
"Why conservative Christians' love of Israel is intertwined with the Battle of Armageddon"
Evangelical Christians have overwhelmed the White House switchboard in recent weeks with phone calls urging President Bush to continue supporting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In early May, more than 250 Christian leaders attended a prayer breakfast at the Israeli embassy. Last week, former Christian Coalition chairman Ralph Reed announced the formation of a Christian "Stand for Israel" campaign.
There have been many recent media reports of this "strange bedfellows" relationship between Jews--here and in Israel--and the conservative Christians who love them, especially since the relationship seems to be influencing government policy. Some have explained it as a result of the declining dependence on Arab oil, which meant leaders here needn't be as allied with Arab countries. Others suggest that after Sept. 11, Americans felt an immediate, gut-wrenching identification with Israelis, who have lived with the Muslim militant threat for decades.
But the least understood, and probably most important, reason has been missed by most secular analysts. Evangelicals support Israel because of biblical prophecy, including passages that tie the survival of Israel to the Second Coming of Jesus.
According to their reading of the Bible, God established a covenant with Abraham in the Book of Genesis. Essentially, says Beliefnet columnist Richard Land, a Southern Baptist leader with close ties to the Bush Administration, evangelicals support Israel because they believe "God blesses those that bless the Jews and curses those who curse the Jews. Consequently, we believe America needs to bless the Jews and Israel, because if we bless the Jews and support Israel, God blesses us. And if we don't, God curses us."
But it goes beyond that. The establishment--and continuation--of the State of Israel is essential to set the stage for the imminent return of Jesus. At the time of the Second Coming, these Christians believe, Jesus will descend from heaven, subdue all of Israel's enemies and take believers to heaven in what is known as the Rapture--literally, they will ascend to the clouds to be in heaven. This series of events ushers in the end-times. According to conservative Christians' reading of the Book of Revelation, this won't happen unless Israel exists in the Holy Land.
This belief is shared by most of the major evangelical leaders--among them Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Beverly LaHaye, Jack Hayford, and Oral Roberts--all of whom are avidly pro-Israel. Even Billy Graham shares this sentiment, despite the recent dust-up over his anti-Semitic remarks in the Nixon White House.
The evangelical view of the Book of Revelation, meanwhile, has gained widespread support among the American public because of the wildly popular Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye (husband of Christian activist Beverly LaHaye) and Jerry Jenkins, which has sold more than 30 million copies in the seven years since it was launched.
This view--though not new--is having an effect. It very likely explains why President Bush hasn't pressured Israel to curb its crackdown on Palestinians in recent weeks.
According to Land, evangelicals' relationship with Jews and Israel intensified after World War II, partly because of the Holocaust but mostly because the establishment of Israel seemed to evangelicals to prove the Bible's prophecies. By the 1950s and 1960s, Land said, affinity with Israel was an "essential part" of the Southern Baptist churches he grew up in around Texas. In fact, the late W.A. Criswell, the great pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, traveled to Israel in the early 1950s and met with David Ben Gurion. Later, he often preached that Jews' return to their land was the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.
By the 1970s, Hal Lindsey wrote the best-selling book of the decade, The Late Great Planet Earth, which introduced this view of biblical prophecy to a wide audience. It was a kind of non-fiction forerunner of today's Left Behind series. Lindsey translated the "fire and brimstone" of the Book of Revelation into nuclear war and wrote that the 1960s upheaval showed the end was near.
So if evangelicals believe human history is following a predetermined divine script, and they and Israel are simply playing their assigned roles, why even bother to influence the outcome of Israel's fate?
As it turns out, evangelicals are somewhat opaque on this question.
According to Land--and most evangelical scholars--Israel's existence is critical. "We're one step closer to the end-times than we were before the Jews came back into their land because my understanding of biblical prophecy is that Israel is established in the land at the time that the events of the Second Coming take place," he says.
But he--and other evangelicals--nearly always add: "The Bible tells us no man knows the hour or the day of his coming."
So what happens if Israel is destroyed, perhaps in this latest round of conflict? First of all, Land says, that isn't likely. But if it happens? "My assumption would be that it means ... the Second Coming is coming later than some expected."
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/106/story_10687_1.html
Originally posted by uzlessThe evangelicals should perhaps read this verse.
Again the reason is obvious if you understood the other thread about why the Bush supports Israel.
When Armageddon comes, Jesus will return and take all the true believers to heaven...but only if Israel exists.
The only way to ensure Israel exists/survives is to bring peace to the middle east and the best way to do that is to create the state of Palesti ed."
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/106/story_10687_1.html
Leviticus 20:22 "You must keep my laws or be vomitted out of the holy land".
Notice it is all inclusive with no respector of persons. How about loving your neighbor as yourself. That should be a good start!!
Originally posted by whodeyI've answered this thread's question...not sure what more you want.
The evangelicals should perhaps read this verse.
Leviticus 20:22 "You must keep my laws or be vomitted out of the holy land".
Notice it is all inclusive with no respector of persons. How about loving your neighbor as yourself. That should be a good start!!
The question has been answered. If you don't like the answer then blame your government. It's the truth.
Originally posted by whodeyIt's important to keep in perspective the historical context of these issuses for example:[edit] 1945-1948: Jewish uprising against British rule
I think that if its good for the goose it is good for the gander. Bush better get crack'in and start giving out land and money to the American Indains. Then he should do the same for the African Americans in the US.
There, that ought to make all the wrongs right again.
Edit: God forbid the Israelis should tell him to go back to his own country and ...[text shortened]... would be a thing of the past. Who says you can't buy good foriegn policy in other countries!!
After the end of World War II, The British Labour Party won the elections in Britain with a manifesto which included a promise to create a Jewish state in Palestine and rescind the 1939 White Paper. However the Labour Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, decided to persist with existing policy.
Following the near-extermination of European Jews by the Nazis, the American Jewish community mobilized in massive numbers to support their European brethren, most of whom were desperate to leave the continent and many of whom wished to go to Palestine.
The hundreds of thousands of Jews still alive in Europe were in desperate need of assistance, having lost their possessions and had families and friends murdered. Most were desperate to leave Europe. The British government faced American pressure to allow Jews to enter Palestine, the Palestine mandate had also been endorsed by a special treaty with the USA which gave the USA some say over British actions in Palestine.
In response, the British decided to allow an Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry to investigate possible solutions to the problem of re-locating Jewish refugees. The committee recommended that 100,000 Jews be immediately allowed entry to Palestine and the British government reneged on its promise to Truman, rejecting further Jewish immigration.
In 1946 widespread publicity surrounding the Kielce Pogrom in Poland resulted in a massive wave of Jews seeking to escape Europe (such pogroms were still taking place in Eastern Europe [10]). In Palestine, Jewish militias (the Haganah, Etzel and Lehi) decided to form a unified Jewish resistance movement against the British. Meanwhile illegal immigration activity grew leading to British counter measures against the Jewish community.
Following a British raid on the headquarters of the Jewish Agency, the Jewish Resistance responded by blowing up the British Military Headquarters in Palestine in the King David Hotel bombing, killing 91 (many of them civilians).
In the days following the attack, Tel-Aviv was placed under curfew and over 120,000 were interrogated by CID.[11] The British government took the decision to imprison illegal Jewish immigrants to Palestine on Cyprus, including children. The camps were to be funded by taxation of the Jewish community in Palestine.
A situation thus developed of a growing British-Jewish conflict in Palestine, fought against a background of Jews trying to leave Europe, large numbers of them seeking to head for Palestine, with growing support from the American Jewish community.
You see that a simple look at history shows us that Isreal did not exist prior to WWII . It was formed by decree of Great Britian, and Palestinians whose families had lived there for centuries were displaced. Any solution that excludes the existance of an independant Palestine will fail, as rightly it should.
Originally posted by duecerThis thread isn't about solutions to the problem.
It's important to keep in perspective the historical context of these issuses for example:[edit] 1945-1948: Jewish uprising against British rule
After the end of World War II, The British Labour Party won the elections in Britain with a manifesto which included a promise to create a Jewish state in Palestine and rescind the 1939 White Paper. However the Labo ...[text shortened]... lution that excludes the existance of an independant Palestine will fail, as rightly it should.
It's about why the US supports Palestine. I've answered that 3 posts above.
Originally posted by uzlessI believe that the 2 are one and the same, you cannot seperate those 2 issues. US support of Palestine is essential to lasting peace in the mideast.
This thread isn't about solutions to the problem.
It's about why the US supports Palestine. I've answered that 3 posts above.
Originally posted by duecerI know, I know, no one wants to hear this message. Neither the Israeli leadership nor the Palestinian leadership. In a way, you might say they both have gotten exactly what they deserve. In a way, they deserve each other.
You see that a simple look at history shows us that Isreal did not exist prior to WWII . It was formed by decree of Great Britian, and Palestinians whose families had lived there for centuries were displaced. Any solution that excludes the existance of an independant Palestine will fail, as rightly it should.[/b]