Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 feeder wrote:


Oh, I'm not really familiar with the Troubles. I thought it was an independence from the crown thing? Right to self-rule?

A lot of it was about a Protestant majority impacting/oppressing/slighting a Catholic Minority, which is what a lot of the issues related back to... groups of people who had beef due to opposing religious views/culture.

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
The fact that Israel has been reformed is one of the things spoken of coupled with the fact it has been repeatadly attacked and kicked major ass each time when people thought it would be overrun.

Israel purely as the attacked is a fairly adventurous interpretation of history. Sues Crisis? Six Day War? The First Lebanon war?

.

There was also the Yom Kippur war in 1973.
It's not adventurous at all when you consider it's been under attack since the time of it's reincarnation in 1948, and there are countries vowing it's elimination. The fact that it came back into existence with it not being there one day, then suddenly, the next, it is a new country, is spoken of in Isaiah 66.

 feeder wrote:

Unfortunately, the UK hasn't started a religiously motivated war in centuries.

The English and Scots were really, really good at it though. Even Isis would have been impressed.

 feeder wrote:

Oh, I'm not really familiar with the Troubles. I thought it was an independence from the crown thing? Right to self-rule?

Their roots lie in the reformation. Ireland was predominately Catholic (aside from the protestant plantations in Ulster) while the rest of the isles were mostly various shades of fundamentalist protestant which heavily repressed the remaining catholic population. This lead to the invasion of Ireland by Oliver Cromwell and then a rebellion in support of the deposed Stuart kings. These events combined killed 40-60% of the population of Ireland and has coloured relations ever since, ultimately they led to various rebellions, the creation of Northern Ireland, the Easter Rising, the Irish civil war and decades of civil unrest and terrorism. The 'troubles' are outwardly the desire to unify Ireland/remain as part of the UK but they are driven by centuries of religious strife.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
These events combined killed 40-60% of the population of Ireland and has coloured relations ever since

Fething hell. That's brutal.

In that case, I recant my statement. Less religiosity everywhere is a good thing.

The 30 years war, also a sectarian conflict, killed around 30-40% of the population of Germany...

Christianity has an extremely bloody history.

The Taiping rebellion killed 20 million people in the 1850's through 60's in china and that was a christian war (though a very weird perverted form of christianity)

 feeder wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
I see it as a good thing that religion is on the decline here. Given the amount of unrest and bigotry it's caused over the centuries I think we are well shot of it.

If people want to believe in God, that's fine by me. But when they start forcing their beliefs on other people, through means of law, or simply by preaching at them, then I start to have a problem with it. Faith should be a personal thing, not a public institution.

You're kidding, right? Don't get me wrong, religion has definitely done some bad, but people will kill each other over ANYTHING.

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/2y8xoh/atheist-war

Unfortunately, the UK hasn't started a religiously motivated war in centuries. Christianity in the West isn't where we need to number of true believers to be reduced.

You'd have to be blind not to see the religious motivations behind the troubles in Northern Ireland. Christian sectarianism has caused a lot of pain to a lot of people in the uk in the last 100 years.

Oh, I'm not really familiar with the Troubles. I thought it was an independence from the crown thing? Right to self-rule?

It's far more layered and complex than that. On one level they were/are about some people in NI wanting to be part of Eire, and some wanting to stay in the uk. But underneath that, driving the bitterness and the bigotry is a current of sectarianism. Basically Catholic Vs Protestant. If it were as simple as right to self rule, the issue would have been solved with a referendum years ago.

Indeed many historians cite the 30 years war as seminal in beginning the pivot away from religious conflict in Europe. Frankly a few more of those wars and there wouldn't have been a Europe left.

I like what I heard once about Elvis wearing both a crucifix and a star of David.

Said he didn't want to be kept out of Heaven on a technicality.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I like what I heard once about Elvis wearing both a crucifix and a star of David.

Said he didn't want to be kept out of Heaven on a technicality.

Lol that basically sums up my feelings on all the different denominations etc and why I think faith should be a personal thing, sure have organised religion and go to a church or whatever, but it doesn't matter WHICH church various people want to go to, or if they even want to go at all.

I'm not at all religious, and I don't have faith, but I'm not going to try and convince anyone that their God doesn't exist or that they are worshipping that God in the wrong way. As long as that worship doesn't harm people, do whatever the hell you like. If God is as he's described in most of these religions, he'll love you all the same surely?

 General Kroll wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I like what I heard once about Elvis wearing both a crucifix and a star of David.

Said he didn't want to be kept out of Heaven on a technicality.

Lol that basically sums up my feelings on all the different denominations etc and why I think faith should be a personal thing, sure have organised religion and go to a church or whatever, but it doesn't matter WHICH church various people want to go to, or if they even want to go at all.

I'm not at all religious, and I don't have faith, but I'm not going to try and convince anyone that their God doesn't exist or that they are worshipping that God in the wrong way. As long as that worship doesn't harm people, do whatever the hell you like. If God is as he's described in most of these religions, he'll love you all the same surely?

Dead on. A loving God is not going to condemn good people. Even those who screw up are not going to be cast into an eternal hell. Jesus asked on the cross for God to forgive people, for they know not what they do. In order to be condemned, someone would have to have a full and sure knowledge of God and his plan, then sin against that, becoming a son of perdition. There really havn't been many of those through history. Even the Apostles, who lived and walked with Jesus, didn't have a full knowledge until after his crucifiction and return to them.

Relapse wrote:

Dead on. A loving God is not going to condemn good people..

Maybe. I'm less sure about a God who would punish unborn future generations due to the actions of two people who were deliberately created with no concept of right or wrong, however...

 insaniak wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Dead on. A loving God is not going to condemn good people..

Maybe. I'm less sure about a God who would punish unborn future generations due to the actions of two people who were deliberately created with no concept of right or wrong, however...

He doesn't hold people accountable for what others have done, though.

You might want to reread Genesis... He most assuredly did. The punishment for Adam and Eve's huge sin of doing exactly what they were created to do was very specifically targeted at future generations.

That's not the behaviour of a 'loving God'. That's the good ol'fashioned Old Testament Vengeful God. The one who gets angry enough to wipe out entire civilisations for not doing what they're told.

That's not a God who is going to open his door to someone who screwed up just because they meant well...

 insaniak wrote:
You might want to reread Genesis... He most assuredly did. The punishment for Adam and Eve's huge sin of doing exactly what they were created to do was very specifically targeted at future generations.

That's not the behaviour of a 'loving God'. That's the good ol'fashioned Old Testament Vengeful God. The one who gets angry enough to wipe out entire civilisations for not doing what they're told.

That's not a God who is going to open his door to someone who screwed up just because they meant well...

Adam and Eve, by their actions, brought mortality into the world. Christ, by dying and being ressurected ensured all would be ressurected whether they are good, bad, or indifferent. Aside from that, we are not held accountable except for our own actions.

I'm LDS, and here is a teaching that outlines what we believe concerning this:

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-fielding-smith/chapter-3-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng&_r=1

Relapse wrote:
[There was also the Yom Kippur war in 1973.

Which wasn't included because that was an attack by Arab countries on Israel. The wars I listed were initiated by Israel, to counter your statement "the fact it has been repeatadly attacked". Israel has done its fair share of attacking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Fething hell. That's brutal.

In that case, I recant my statement. Less religiosity everywhere is a good thing.

To be fair, the religiously motivated brutality of guys like Cromwell is nothing like the situation today. The troubles are incredibly complex, but throughout the 20th century there's been a very large number of working very hard to simply stop the conflict, with a purely humanitarian motivations.

It isn't really fair to judge modern Christians by the actions of Christians in much more brutal times.

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
[There was also the Yom Kippur war in 1973.

Which wasn't included because that was an attack by Arab countries on Israel. The wars I listed were initiated by Israel, to counter your statement "the fact it has been repeatadly attacked". Israel has done its fair share of attacking.

.

To be fair, it was attacked within hours of it's founding:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war


In 67, Israel was involved with a set of escalating attacks against it and faced with the mobilization of hostile armies preparing to attack:

http://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

Two sides of the Suez Crisis

http://www.aljazeera.com/focus/arabunity/2008/02/200852517304630655.html

http://archive.adl.org/israel/record/sinai.html

Relapse wrote:
To be fair, it was attacked within hours of it's founding:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

Sure, and as you said there are surrounding states that have been, more often than not, hostile to Israel's very existence. But that doesn't mean we should pretend that Israel have only been on the receiving end of hostility, they've been more than willing to use military action to meet their national objectives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

In 67, Israel was involved with a set of escalating attacks against it and faced with the mobilization of hostile armies preparing to attack:

http://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

Sort of. There was reason to believe that outright conflict was inevitable, but also reason to believe it wasn't - the woeful state of preparedness of Egypt's air wing and their own problems with internal revolt, means they were very unlikely engage in large scale war with Israel But whatever we think about that, ultimately Israel made the choice to attack, and did it under the cover of a false Egyptian attack.

I've really got no interest in yet another dakka Israel debate. And this isn't about who's right and who's wrong in the region. But the reality is that your statement, "the fact it has been repeatedly attacked" is not an accurate description. Israel has done the attacking about as often as its been the attacked.

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
To be fair, it was attacked within hours of it's founding:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

Sure, and as you said there are surrounding states that have been, more often than not, hostile to Israel's very existence. But that doesn't mean we should pretend that Israel have only been on the receiving end of hostility, they've been more than willing to use military action to meet their national objectives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

In 67, Israel was involved with a set of escalating attacks against it and faced with the mobilization of hostile armies preparing to attack:

http://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

Sort of. There was reason to believe that outright conflict was inevitable, but also reason to believe it wasn't - the woeful state of preparedness of Egypt's air wing and their own problems with internal revolt, means they were very unlikely engage in large scale war with Israel But whatever we think about that, ultimately Israel made the choice to attack, and did it under the cover of a false Egyptian attack.

I've really got no interest in yet another dakka Israel debate. And this isn't about who's right and who's wrong in the region. But the reality is that your statement, "the fact it has been repeatedly attacked" is not an accurate description. Israel has done the attacking about as often as its been the attacked.

We'll just have to disagree on this with no hard feelings. The matter originally presented, though, is that Israel has been reformed and Jews are gathering there from the corners of the Earth as prophesied in scripture. It is amazing to see a country that has not been in existence for a couple thousand years come back into being between one day and the next.

Relapse wrote:
We'll just have to disagree on this with no hard feelings. The matter originally presented, though, is that Israel has been reformed and Jews are gathering there from the corners of the Earth as prophesied in scripture. It is amazing to see a country that has not been in existence for a couple thousand years come back into being between one day and the next.

No argument there. The creation of Israel has been absolutely extraordinary.

Relapse wrote:


It is amazing to see a country that has not been in existence for a couple thousand years come back into being between one day and the next.

Less historical revisionism, please.

The state of Israel most certainly didn't just come into being in one day. It took serious diplomatic work by many people over a substantial period of time.
That's like saying that the United States of America "came into being" in one day on the 4th. of July 1776.

If anything or anybody predicted that Israel would be (re)created in a single day.....that prediction would (at best) still be unfulfilled, or (at worst) wrong.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Relapse wrote:


It is amazing to see a country that has not been in existence for a couple thousand years come back into being between one day and the next.

Less historical revisionism, please.

The state of Israel most certainly didn't just come into being in one day. It took serious diplomatic work by many people over a substantial period of time.
That's like saying that the United States of America "came into being" in one day on the 4th. of July 1776.

If anything or anybody predicted that Israel would be (re)created in a single day.....that prediction would (at best) still be unfulfilled, or (at worst) wrong.

What I refer to, though, is the fact that one day that area was a British mandate, the next it was Israel. Of course there was diplomatic work, but that doesn't take away from the fact of how quickly it became a country.

There was already a country there too and that makes it easier to get the ball rolling.

Relapse wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Relapse wrote:


It is amazing to see a country that has not been in existence for a couple thousand years come back into being between one day and the next.

Less historical revisionism, please.

The state of Israel most certainly didn't just come into being in one day. It took serious diplomatic work by many people over a substantial period of time.
That's like saying that the United States of America "came into being" in one day on the 4th. of July 1776.

If anything or anybody predicted that Israel would be (re)created in a single day.....that prediction would (at best) still be unfulfilled, or (at worst) wrong.

What I refer to, though, is the fact that one day that area was a British mandate, the next it was Israel. Of course there was diplomatic work, but that doesn't take away from the fact of how quickly it became a country.

Did the supposed predictions you put so much stock in include that in the actual prophesy?
Did the supposed prediction talk about how it would be done pretty quickly and involve the work of a bunch of people over a substantial amount of time?

Or

is this the supposed prophesy you are talking about;

Isaiah 66:7-8: Before going into labor, she gave birth; before her pains came, she delivered a male child. Who ever heard of such at thing? Who has ever seen such things? Is a country born in one day? Is a nation brought forth all at once? For as soon as Tziyon went into labor, she brought forth her children



Also when we are talking about how quickly it happened one should keep in mind that the movement of Zionism (re-establishment of a Jewish homeland) began in the 1890's - with the nation of Israel being recognised by the UN in 1948.
Comparing to the US again, we see the movement of independence beginning in 1765, and concluding with the formation of the nation is 1776.
Simple maths shows that particular country "coming into being" way faster.

I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Maybe Modern Isreal is just, you know Israel. While many Jews were forced out by the Romans, there were always some remaining, and those numbers started growing at the turn of the 20th century.

Not sure how that in any way related to this thread.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it was done to fulfill it or not. It happened.

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it was done to fulfill it or not. It happened.

No. No it didn't. You're now in "denying historical facts"-territory.

The Russian propaganda machine is going to love this. More ammunition to use against those godless liberast bastards.
Kinda ironic considering it is only a few decades ago that the West was calling Russia "godless commie bastards". I wonder how did things shift around so radically and so quickly?

 feeder wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
These events combined killed 40-60% of the population of Ireland and has coloured relations ever since

Fething hell. That's brutal.

In that case, I recant my statement. Less religiosity everywhere is a good thing.

Russia tried that. China too. It led to millions of deaths. The simple truth is people will kill in the name of non-religion just as easily as they do in the name of religion. Religion is merely an justification that is used for killing each other (the real reasons for war are often in economical, political or cultural differences). If religion was somehow taken away people would not be killing each other any less, they'd just come up with a different justification.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many British people believe modern Israel was created in a day in order to fulfil a supposed ancient prophecy in the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it was done to fulfill it or not. It happened.

No. No it didn't. You're now in "denying historical facts"-territory.

Or rather it certainly didn't happen in the way supposedly predicted in the Bible. It only works in hindsight (making it a postdiction instead of a prediction) when words are changed to mean something else entirely and a good dose of artistic freedom is applied.

As prophesies go it is pretty paltry.

This is kinda how I can write an entire fictional newspaper that will be mostly correct every single day for the rest of Humanity.