All Eyes on Rafah?
Hillary Clinton speaks out re: why the Two State Solution failed
Photo credit: Bill Clinton with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat at the White House in 1993. (Larry Downing / Getty)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Red Box Rules
Off topic comments may be deleted without warning. If you make really stupid comments, they may be deleted-- or perhaps left up for all to see!
Tags
Who is online
56 visitors
Hillary Clinton has taken positions on political issues while serving as First Lady of the United States, as U.S. Senator from New York and serving as the United States Secretary of State .
Watch Hillary Clinton talking about all the attempts she and her husband Bill Clinton made trying to create a two state solution.
. . . trying to create a two state solution (which was obviously doomed from the start) but let's hear her words because she makes it absolutely unequivocal.
As you know, I'm unable to open the video you posted, so I personally rely on this:
LINK ->
Even though these days it APPEARS that the Palestinians want a 2-state solution, they will NEVER agree to Israel being a Jewish state, and they will NEVER give up the desire that down the road Palestine will be "From the river to the sea".
As far as half truths go that was pretty good.
So Israel would get what they wanted and the Palestinians wouldn't even have a contiguous state. Nothing connect the West Bank and Gaza; and nothing connecting the Palestinian controlled parts of East Jerusalem to the West Bank. Israel would retain control of all holy sites. Great plan, brilliantly thought out and completely one sided.
Especially loved this part:
Water and mineral rights are a very big deal in the Middle East- Israel would retain control over both. No international borders for the new Palestinian state? Good one. Clinton was asking Arafat to take the fall for a plan only an idiot would accept. The Palestinians would still have a fractured state that was controlled by the IDF; and when the Palestinians revolted it would be Arafat (a coward in his own right) taking the fall. Then Israel could move back in (international peace keepers in the West Bank- what a complete joke. Like they would deter the IDF from anything. Ask Lebanon if you don't believe me.) to both the West Bank and Gaza and we would be where we are at today. Israel claiming the vast majority of the West Bank and East Jerusalem; and Gaza being the largest open air prison on the planet.
Well, as Rhett Butler said near the end of the movie to Scarlett O'Hara......
Didn't he say:
I am shocked...shocked that gambling's going on in here!
(Oh wait-- maybe that was Tom Cruise?)
Or possibly Winston Churchill...?
(I'm pretty sure it wasn't Taylor Swift (PBUH).
Regardless of anyone's feelings about President Clinton's other actions as president, the fact is that he did more to get a peace deal (& a "two state solution") between the Israelis and the Palestinians than any other president (and more, possibly, than any other world leader).
And of course he failed-- due to the Palestinians refusal to have a two state solution. Why? They wanted it all ("From the River to the Sea")-- the Palestinians wanted that ["one state"] ...non-solution.
Arafat might also have some concern about being assassinated if he accepted a 2 state solution when according to the Palestinians they would be satisfied with no less than "From the river to the sea". I'll bet it was the UNRWA teachers that taught the Palestinian schoolkids the complete rhyme.
Sometimes my bizarre sense of humor (or attempts thereto) surprise even me!
thereto?
Is that even a real word?
(Asking for a friend
)
Rosebud?
Sleds are off topic.
Bill Clinton on Palestinians:
“I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state. I had a deal they turned down that would have given them all of Gaza… between 96 and 97% of the West Bank, compensating land in Israel, you name it.” pic.twitter.com/YSAOI4wsXG
All of Gaza..plus...almost all of the West Bank?
Sounds to me like a great deal (well, perhsaps a little unfair to the Israelis-- they get so little from that).
Well then someone should put them back on!
When I was a kid I had an "American Flyer" sled.
Hours of fun for the entire family! (To coin a phrase).
Did you have that brand in Canada?
Actually the one pictured here is the "Flexible Flyer" model-- that piece of wood crossing the sled (near the front) allowed the user to actually "steer" it-- make it ceer left or right.
This clearly shows how uninformed most students and many faculty members of US campuses are.
Although its happening gradually, it seems more and more people are beginning to doubt the "value" of a "college education".
Although its happening gradually, it seems more and more people are beginning to doubt the "value" of a "college education".
(I posted this before but IMO its worth posting again):
I love that meme. However, you must admit that there are certain university courses that are not only meaningful but extremely important, such as medicine, pharmacy, all the branches of science that lead to benefitting the human race,
I don't have to admit anything!
(Its my column and I can be ridiculous if I want to! )
That being said, I am aware of the fact that there are some courses that are valuable.
And generally speaking, college graduates generally have advantages over non-college grads in terms of future employment opportunities..
Okay, sorry to have drawn the wrong conclusion.
No you are correct.
Actually there are often two correct conclusions that might be drawn from the same data...even, in some cases, two opposite conclusions.
Incidentally I discovered that on Twitter. (I am well aware of the negative aspects of the site-- but at times I've found it to be extremely useful).
You are forgiven!
Go my child, and sin no more!
(Actually it probably couldn't hurt to say three Hail Mary's every morning and evening).
Oh wait-- I believe you mentioned that you are Jewish.
In that case try saying 3 Hail Moses!
(I don't know if anyone's tried that before-- but it just might work!
)
Only if you're trying to part your hair...
Thank you father. Wait a sec, my father died decades ago.
Believe it or not. These days I'm more Buddhist than anything.
LOL. Most of my hair DEparted long ago. These days even the Egyptian army would have no trouble passing through it.
And say a few Rosaries. (I think that's how it said.).
BTW this is used by Hindus (and also by Bhuddists) in meditation. The best ones are composed of Rudrhaksha beads.
IIRC, the Bhuddist Malas are supposed to have 108 beads.
.
I will never follow only one spiritual path (incidentally that's strongly indicated in my Astrology chart)..Once I left "civilization" lived on a yoga Ashram (deep in the woods of rural Virginia) for 3 months. Bhuddism appeals to me very much, but the one that I "resonate with" the most is Taoism. I believe Taoism originated in ancient China? (Although I"m actually not Chinese-- nor do I play one on TV!
)
I once visited a Taoist compound. Much was made of the yin-yang symbol, and in the temple the idol brandished a sword.
And yet we still have some right here on NT that believes that a two-state solution is possible and desired by the Palestinians.
And yet we still have some right here on NT that believes that a two-state solution is possible and desired by the Palestinians.
Many who chant "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free" have no idea what that means. (In fact there are many videos on YouTube where they are asked 'what river"-- and people chanting that have no idea!
So, in listening to the speakers it seems that the solution is for Israel to kill off the Palestinians, they are a made-up people after all.
Did I get that right, Krish?
I agree that the vast majority that are chanting in favor of the Palestinians have no idea of the history of the conflict and don't seem to want to learn it.
Well I dunno. Some are not all that well informed.
Or perhaps its a case of-- as a famous American once said:
its not that so much that they are ignorant, its just that they know many things that aren't so.
First of all, while I wouldn't be surprised if some people suggested killing off all the Palestinianians-- but I haven't heard that much. Perhaps you are confusing that with Hamas-- who actually had something similar in their Charter. (Their goal was to kill off all the Jews-- they were under great pressure to change the wording, don't know if they did.).
Secondly, even if they were to do something so absurd, it wouldn't change much. Why? because this is not a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. rather, its an Arab-israeli conflict.
Of the four Arab nations bordering Israel, two (Lebanon and Syria) have refused to recognize the existence of Israel-- they have been officially in a state of war with Israel since they attacked it* in an attempt to destroy it since the war in 1948 -- and refuse to even negotiate with Israel. So the "Palestinians" are not the entire problem...
*Iraq also did, and IIRC even Pakistan took part-- but I didn't mention those two as they weren't on the borders of Israel
______________________________________
That is correct.
Descendents of the ancient Kingdom of Judea are indigenous to the area-- they are referred to as "Jews".
The word "Arab" refers to indigenous peoples of Arabia-- not native to the area of Israel.
"Palestine" up until recently referred to a general area-- it wasn't an ethnic or religious identity. (Somewhat similar to our use of the word "Southerner" or "New Englander"-- it wasn't an ethnic, racial, religious-- or national identity. Rather, it referred to anyone living in a general area.
That being said, IMO the best solution to the problem would be to admit that there is already at least one Palestinian state (Gaza, AKA "Hamastan") that has self rukle.
In addition, while they don't rule the country, one could make a good argument that Jordan is an independent "Palestinian" state -- IIRC , while the Hashemites rule, the majority of Jordanians are "Palestinians".
Thanks for the various explanations, but my question remains, it seemed to me that the speaker was saying that the only solution was for the Jews to kill off the Palestinians. If I remember correctly the Palestinians were once Trans-Jordan.
But the question remains, Krish is the solution to kill off the Palestinians or not? If not, what solution is there left to end a war that is never ending?
I wouldn't take every opinion as to the solution seriously, because there are bound to be extremes in every direction, and I'm sure that most of us who are capable of using our common sense would never suggest "killing off all the Palestinians".
Well, you have to keep in mind that "The Consummate Palestinian", Arafat, was in fact an Egyptian, and so many of the "Palestinians" came from elsewhere for jobs in Israel.
If there was a viable solution it would be very visible after over 75 years.
Since WWII, there have been a millions of people forced to migrate. From India to Pakistan and Bangladesh to the more recent Venezuelans and Ukrainians. Today, there are 110 million forcibly displaced.
Nearly 1 million Jews left their assets and property behind as they fled Muslim majority countries in the Mideast. They fortunately had a welcoming, functioning, democratic country to run to.
Palestinians have few good choices regionally. Those that made it to the USA and to a lesser extent, Europe have fared well.
As I look back, I wonder what Hamas thought would happen after 7 Oct. Was it their intent to be the masters of ruble and homeless people. Did the want to kill any remaining chance for a two nation solution? What did the Gazans think would happen after their street celebrations in Oct?
I don’t know what the lasting solution will be, but I’m sure that a two nation or a single nation solution will be found anytime soon. The hate and mistrust is far too great now on both sides. The Palestinians have no viable leadership.
In the meantime, thousands continue to die in multiple African wars and Myanmar and over 100,000 Ukrainians killed. None of these deaths are worthy of US college student outrage.
And yet its apparently having an effect.
Europeans politics are generally more "liberal" than those in America. And I assume most people here have seen the absolutely YUGE "Free free Palestine" demonstrations in Europe.
Some people have said those YUGE demonstrations will have no effect-- but apparently they did have a effect after all :
T he European Union's parliamentary elections resulted in major victories for right-wing parties in what could be a growing trend across the continent.
The National Rally party in France stood with over 30% of the vote as of 7:45 p.m. on Sunday, more than double French President Emmanuel Macron's Renaissance party.
National Rally is led by Marine Le Pen, who ran against Macron to be president in 2017 and 2022, as well as lead candidate Jordan Bardella. The right-wing party's principles include "putting an end to settlement immigration" and allowing companies to increase wages by 10%.
Spain's conservative People's Party also made gains, nabbing over a third of the votes in its election. Italy's Brothers of Italy party, led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, also appears to be the country's biggest winner in Sunday's election, in another win for the right wing of the country.
Sorry to interfere, but surely you meant to say "...will NOT be found anytime soon."
Well, I'm not at all surprised. You know how those Internet users are.....
Why does anyone waste their time listening to Hillary Clinton. The selective facts Clinton presents are true; there have been repeated offers for supporting a Palestinian state. But Hillary Clinton deliberately and maliciously omits the biggest obstacle to peace that both Bill and Hillary Clinton imposed upon the peace process that doomed it to failure.
The two state solution is predicated upon establishing two independent secular governments. The peace process established by Bill Clinton was intended to secularize the Israeli government and prevent the formation of a theocracy by the Palestinians. Clinton thought he could game the cultures of the middle east with shyster politics and destroy Abrahamic religion altogether. The Clintons convinced themselves and their neoliberal cohorts that they could overturn 10,000 years of religious culture and traditions in the middle east. And the damned neoliberals are still trying to secularize the middle east.
The theocratic bickering in the middle east extends well beyond Israel. And the wakey, wakey wet dream of eliminating religion from the face of the earth has only deepened divisions in the middle east. Allowing secular neoliberals to dictate terms of peace in the middle east is the height of stupidity. Secular neoliberals don't have a clue about how to approach a problem that cannot be resolved with money.
The middle east is shaped by the earliest ideology known to man -- religion. And neoliberals attempting to kill God will only result in an extremely violent reaction. Money will never be a common denominator in the middle east; there's simply not enough money in this galaxy to buy peace in the middle east. A neoliberal like Hillary Clinton does not understand the middle east. So, Clinton tries to reshape the middle east to fit into her worldview. Clinton's a damned idiot.
Yes, secularization may have been a problem. That makes me truly believe that besides being concerned about being assassinated, I've also read that Arafat walked away from the gift of a lifetime because it would mean that he would have to recognize Israel as being a Jewish State that eventually might not easily turn into "From the river to the sea."
How can a secular Israel establish and defend a Jewish homeland? Doesn't a secular Israel make Judaism rather pointless? Why wouldn't attempting to turn the Abrahamic God into the servant of secular priorities allow excusing genocide?
How do the gifts of man compare to the gifts of God?
I think that if Israel is considered secular it is only to indicate that all religions are welcome to be citizens, but notwithstanding that I believe it is written in stone that Israel was, is and will always be a Jewish State. What else was and is its purpose?
As for your final question, I have no idea or even an inkling to think about it.
Maybe for the same reason we read your conspiracy nonsense?
Really? /s
Of course it does, I think everyone here understands that.
There's a lot to unpack in that paragraph. Lots of neoliberal nonsense, more Clinton bashing etc.
Religions and governments have come and gone in the ME long before the Abrahamic religions
and "God willing" these three Abrahamic religions will fade away like the Egyptians, Numerians, Sumerians et al.
One can only hope.
Pun intended?
(Actually that probably wasn't a pun but rather another figure of speech. An irony? Ironicle? Certainly not an Onomatopoeia. Metaphor? Simile? Haram? Trafe? Inconjunct? Split infinitive? Sesquiquadrate? Dangling participle? Gerund?)
Probably none of these, Insha Allah!
A while back I met a woman in a course I was taking who had an interesting name on he name tag. I thought her name sounded Persian so I asked her. Well it turns out I was partly right-- her ancestors were from Iran, then India.
But then she mentioned that her parents were Zoroastrians! At first i thought she was putting me on-- I thought that that was a very ancient religion that had died out centuries ago-- or longer! But both her parents were, in fact, Zoroastrians-- in fact Zoroastrian priests!
There are still people following that ancient religion!!!-
You forgot oxymoron.
Freddie Mercury and his family were Zoroastrians. I don't know if he was still a Zoroastrian as an adult but he grew up in that religion. He had a Zoroastrian Funeral but that might have just been his family's decision.
That's what I said.
The Abrahamic religions are not 10,000 years old. And the Abrahamic religions incorporate some of the preceding theology, philosophy, and ideology of those earlier religions that extended from the Mediterranean to the Bay of Bengal.
Hard to get that from your word salad of hatred but ...if you say so.
No one claimed they were but in contrast to most of the other ME religions they are all monotheistic.
Every regional religion was influenced by religions both prior to and present in their era.
Religion or superstition seemed to go hand in hand with humanities need for explanations.
Most of the "dead" religions left behind hieroglyphics or cuneiforms but the first writings of Hinduism are from 3,500 BCE and have arts at least 7,000 years old. It's history of violence between sects and later religions like Islam have a rich unfinished history.
I had a family of clients a few years ago from Iran who were Mandaeans, which is a small ethnoreligious group dating back centuries. They came from the southern Iranian city of Khorramshahr. They believe that their religion, Mandaeism, is the world's oldest religion, older than Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which provably it is not. They believe that John the Baptist was the final and most important prophet. They are the last surviving Gnostic religion. They are subject to persecution in Iran.
Hinduism goes back 3,500 in "scriptures" but the art work goes back 7,000 years.
I believe that is the oldest.
Thus Spake Zarathustra
This is interesting from Wikipedia:
If Wikipedia is, in fact, correct, and I'm not contending that it is, the question would remain as something of a mystery. I've also read that the Bhagavad Gita date back to the 8th or 9th centuries B.C, which seems to contradict the Wikipedia entry.
I would be interested to read the source of your information.
I just googled...
8 Oldest Religions in the World - Oldest.org
Hinduism - Humanities LibreTexts
10 Of The Oldest Religions In The World (travel.earth)
He (She, They?) is hard to ignore-- I wish I could forget he, she, they.
He,she, they, them keep posting these (inaccurate) things here.
So the fact of the matter is: I'd likem to totally forget oxymoron, but that seems like an impossible task!
I really don't give a damn if anyone wants to call me woke or wook or owke or kowe, I'm going to keep saying he, she, his, her, hers, and they can shove their them and their up their ass.
Thanks.
And for that matter-- why does anyone waste their time on social media sites arguing endlessly with so many people who are set in their views and not likely to change?
(Asking for a friend)
,
Whose arguing? I only posted facts. Or, as some say, inconvenient truths. Hillary Clinton expressly stated that the Clinton peace process for the middle east was flawed. Clinton admitted that peace did not blossom in the middle east as a result of their efforts. In fact, Clinton's efforts fostered more division and conflict in the middle east than peace. The results inconveniently speak for themselves.
Clinton only selectively uses the facts to provide an excuse. And, apparently, the desire to argue arises from an attempt to defend another Clinton excuse for failure. Pay close attention, Hillary Clinton is not telling us about the peace process in the middle east; Clinton is telling us why the inconvenient truth of that failed peace process is not her fault.
Nope.
it's Who's arguing!
Actually, Whose on First!
[Note to Buzz: video is Abbott & Costello, Who's On First?]
Why?
You just answered your own question!
Answer #2 -- is actually answered in comment #1 , above:
Hillary Clinton has taken positions on political issues while serving as First Lady of the United States, as U.S. Senator from New York and serving as the United States Secretary of State.
Granted this is an assumption-- but IMO its a fairly reasonable one. And that is that the odds are, given her experience being a U.S. Senator, a U.S. Secretary of State, and married to a president who spent considerable time and effort trying to get the Israelis and the Palestinians to agree to a two state solution-- the odds are that she might know a thing or two about that topic that many of us here don't know.
(But that's just a guess on my part
)
.
A pretty GOOD guess, I would say.
Well I've spent decades on social media sites, and try to "fit in"-- so I've learned it doesn't pay to try to appear to be too intelligent!
Heh
LOL
Why do we need to hear more Clinton excuses for her own failures? Clinton isn't telling us about policy, diplomacy, or priorities. Clinton is only telling us that her own failed promises are not her fault.
And while we're on the subject, I have to say, (in answer to many questions that were never asked): At this point in time I will neither confirm nor deny the many rumours that I am, in fact, the infamous, honorable, and many veneered "Roaring Kitty".
Israel had a secular government at the time. And in fact IIRC, the Labour Party (leftist) party was in power. (Currently Israel has an extreme right wing government-- but during the negotiations we are discussing here, the Israeli left (Labor) was in power.
The Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was a leftist. In fact, he was born on a Kibbutz-- which is a communal (Socialist) farm.
Decades ago, in my "younger years" I was very leftist, and at different times worked of two different kibbutzim. IMO they were more Communist than regular Sociaiist-- hardly right wing religious fanatics!
(A rare form of Communism-- truly democratic Communism. I believe that other than Israeli kibutzim, the only other places I know of where democratic Communism existed was on some hippie communes in Oregon in the 60's)
Very often we think of "religious" types being very different than "scientific" types. Well Barak, the Israel PM, had a background in science:
Barak earned his bachelor's degree in physics and mathematics from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1968, and his master's degree in engineering-economic systems in 1978 from Stanford University , California .
So, a kibbutz functions upon the model of secular greed? Those who die with the most toys win. Why not recognize that a kibbutz is based upon a model of tribal social organization that comes down from pre-history?
All this talk of leftist ideology actually began as religion. The very idea of civilization has religious roots. God, by any name or religious belief, really does have historical support as a civilizing influence. Secular greed has a short history and that history is one of division, exploitation, and conflict. Secular greed gave humanity global war and the threat of annihilation. And that is somehow human progress?
WTF are you talking about? Kibbutzim are modeled on socialism, plain and simple.!
FYI Socialism is not based on greed-- quite the opposite. You are confusing Socialism with its opposite-- laissez-faire capitalism!
(Socialism is based on mutual sharing. I'm surprised you didn't know that....)
Well, I don't know which came first-- although there are many scholars claim that a lot of what Jesus actually preached was indeed Socialism. (Although I'm not interested in discussing His teachings as that's getting a bit off topic).
Again, your are uninformed on the topic. here's your opportunitity to "get Smarter here" (at least in regards to your knowledge of the Kibbutz movement).
While the economic system of the Kibbutzim is Socialistic,, the facts is that their religious systems are varied.
Some are very religious-- others somewhat religious but moderate. Others are not religious at all-- some have members who have very "anti-religious views).
The first one I lived on was not religious in the least-- in fact most of its members that I discussed religion with said religion was unimportant to them-- many criticized religion considerably!
The second one I was on -- members had varied views. Some were religious in varying degrees, others not at all.
There are some where their entire community is very religious-- I had no interest in even visiting those.
Many of the "Red Letter" quotes of Christ in the Bible are almost word for word quotes of Buddha...
Isn't that a good thing?
Socialism produces tangle value (profit) and wealth using the same means as capitalism. Socialism exploits labor and resource the same way capitalism does. The economic principles of supply are identical. The only way socialism differs from capitalism is how profit and wealth are distributed. That's it. Socialism is intended to equitably allow everyone to satisfy their greed.
And socialism does not favor those who demand a share without contributing. Socialism is not philanthropic or charitable. Socialism is not about self sacrifice. Socialism is not aspirational. Socialism really is all about secular greed and differs only in how that greed is satisfied. And socialism has not found a magic money tree; socialism won't provide manna from heaven.
So, kibbitzing about socialism still doesn't demonstrate understanding of the issues in the middle east. That was the problem with the Clinton peace process. Secular greed won't displace theology and really cannot replace thousands of years of cultural history and tradition based upon religion. Money cannot kill God (by any name). And claiming that a kibbutz is representative of a philosophy of secular greed, like socialism, raises doubts about the merit of such claims.
Good? Coincidence? I personally see Christ as an itinerant philosophe who never personally pretended divinity...
who never personally pretended divinity...
How would we know?
As I see it, you misspelled the last word in that sentence, it should be "need". An example would be the fact that although it took a decade to do so, China has done a job that should wake up the rest of the world to eradicate abject poverty. Even if there are people who are poor in China now, they have a decent roof over their heads, good food on the table, free education to high school graduation for their kids and adequate health care. Even in the remotest districts, agents have been placed to train the residents in trades, often advanced agriculture, to provide a liveable income, besides the government having provided good access roads everywhere, and modern housing. That is socialism doing what it is supposed to do.
Prisons, military organizations, and monasteries provide people food, clothes, shelter, health care, education, and jobs. If those attributes are the criteria for socialism then socialism built the pyramids of Giza 4700 years ago.
By those socialist criteria, the Jews in Egyptian slavery were enjoying the benefits of socialism. It really is necessary to ask again, how do the gifts of man compare to the gifts of God?
Do you consider the Pyramids to be "gifts of men"-- or "gifts of God"?
Mediumship?
No, scholarship...
Christ never claimed to physically be the Son of the Jewish God although every celebrity of any importance at that time was proclaimed to be the son of daughter on one divinity or another.
Cleopatra - Isis
Julius Caesar - Zeus
Marc Anthony - Apollo / Osiris
Octavian / Augustus - Poseidon
Buddhism was known of in the middle east by the time of Christ. Perhaps not widely, but scholars and teachers knew of Buddha...
Which gods built the pyramids? And which gods do the pyramids worship?
Somehow the enlightenment was derailed into excusing human hubris by blaming gods. The self proclaimed modern enlightened thinkers declare that all of religion is nothing more than a human creation. But these pharaohs of the enlightened age are jealous, fickle, feckless, self serving gods. Perhaps we've entered a dark age of enlightenment.
Or he self-identified as a representative of all of humanity. Or maybe to stay out of trouble until he was ready for betrayal.
Yet there's a world of difference between them - for example, Buddhists do not proselytize.
The established religions of Christianity and Buddhism are very different yet the philosophy of Buddhism, words of the Buddha, are very compatible with and comparable to those of Jesus Christ...
In my opinion most who identify as Christian are really Paulists.
Or, those who belong to churches and denominations evolved from Paul "Saul" of Tarsus who basically co-opted nascent Christianity for Rome as the first evangelist. West vs East. The rest is history.
Christianity was much better at "Monetizing" a basic philosophy.
By... Proselytizing!
No, those who cashed in on Christ identified him as such.
And still do...
The story of Christ suffering is basically Buddhist parable.
We all suffer.
How much did his apostles make? Who paid them? How did you get the insider info?
How many stupid questions can you ask I'm not answering?
Is The Roman Catholic Church way richer than Dalai Lama?
I’m sorry that you are having anger issues.
There is a lot of history over the last 2000 years.
I’m sorry for your suffering.
Yet you enjoy being the cause of others suffering? Right?
It is what they call a paradox. Or, are you really not sorry?
When one is never sincere, it is difficult for others to tell...
A Socialist institution ...operating upon the model of secular greed?
Very clever, very clever indeed.
(Not!!!)
How have I caused you or anyone here to suffer?
I sincerely don’t want you to suffer needlessly.
Nope.
Two independent governments? Yes.
But there was never an attempt to impose any type of religious (or non-religious) belief system on the two proposed states, Just as there was no attempt to impose any mandated economic system (socialist, capitalist, etc) on the two states.
In fact a key point was that each should be self-governing.
Link?
What, exactly, do you mean by the phrase "shyster politics"?
Above all else, remember that it is not Clinton's fault. Ignore that Clinton was in a position to make the promises, create the rules, and set the priorities. The only facts that matter exonerate Clinton of all responsibility and accountability.
I had never realized that you were such a big fan of Clinton-- and felt that it was so necessary to defend the Clintons!
Color me surprised!!
No one is saying it was Clinton's fault!
Then why the need for excuses and scapegoats?
No one is saying there's a need for reparations or scapegoats.
(Or, for that matter...any sorts of goats!)
Clinton thought he could destroy Abrahamic religion? What is your source-- do you have links (from reliable sources) to back that up?
I'd like to see something to prove his opinion as well.
Don't hold yer breath!
He will not produce anything to prove it...because its not true.
Quoting you:
" . . . and destroy Abrahamic religion altogether."
WTF???
Actually I am familiar with many major aspects of Clinton's presidency.
However after reading your comment about " how Clinton thought he could destroy Abrahamic religion altogether" it suddenly occurred to me that I had never really thought much about Clinton's actual religious views.
So rather than just guessing (and misleading readers by posting some random thoughts (re: something I knew nothing about!) I googled it and found this:
Religion and the American Presidency
The Religion of Bill Clinton
As president, Bill Clinton frequently attended church services, liberally sprinkled his speeches with biblical references, promoted a “New Covenant” with the American people, and regularly sought spiritual counsel from clergy.
As he left office, Clinton enjoyed an exceedingly high (65 percent) public approval rating, higher that that enjoyed by Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy (Jackson 2001).
And he received support, even from conservative clergy such as former Jerry Falwell associate, the Rev. Ed Dobson, who argued that Clinton “is more deeply spiritual than any president we’ve had in recent years” (Cloud 2000).
Perhaps it would be good for you to review and . Both are protestant interpretations that attempt to diminish, if not supplant, the value of orthodox Old Testament theology. (Think of it as a Greed is Good interpretation of Biblical scripture.)
Yes, indeed, Bill Clinton was attempting to do away with the Abrahamic God. Clinton's 'spirituality', for lack of more verbose description, really did intend to replace the cultural religious history and traditions of the middle east with a modern, humanistic, neoliberal interpretation of Biblical theology.
Both prosperity theology and new covenant theology arose in the 19th century (perhaps earlier). But both those theologies underwent a revival and reinterpretation as New Age theology emerged in the 1970s.
WTF?
That's not "doing away with it"-- rather its his way of interpreting it!
So Clinton was a follower of an Abrahamic religion (Christianity).
Which arguably has more followers than any other religion in the world!
So of course there are many, many interpretations of various aspects of it.
But that's not "doing away with it" (Christianity)-- that's just interpreting it differently (or in some cases changing a few of the teaching in a nuanced manner.
Christianity arguably has more adherents than any other religion in the world. So obviously there are many different denominations, with different nuanced interpretations of various teachings.
So which one do you think is the correct one-- you know, the one(s) that aren't destroying the "true" Abrahamic meanings?
Your condescending tone is duly noted!
As is your judgementalness.
(Your interpretation of Scripture may, in fact, be the "correct one"-- I'm not judging that. Whatever your interpretation is-- is fine with me!)
And no-- I'm not going to judge you. (I used to be a very judgemental person-- but have found in many cases its contrary to my moving toward my own personal goals-- among other things, for me it clears up a lot of "fuzzy thinking").
I personally have found this to be helpful:
Do not , or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
-Matthew 7 :: NIV
And by the same token, perhaps it would be good for you to review The Yoga Sutras of Pantanjali .... as well as The Tao of Pooh. Both are Eastern interpretations that , rather than trying to diminish or supplant the values of other religions (as is the goal of the readings that you recommend).
Although at this point I'm starting to think its probably hopeless . . .
(Although this one might be a bit difficult to understand ...at this point)
I'm wondering-- have you ever thought of taking a course in . . writing?
(I was thinking of prose--- definitely not poetry!)
You might find it helpful . . .
What's wrong with the whole of the ? The new age tendency to pick and choose theology that excuses vice and iniquity definitely has not created a more peaceful world.
Ancient humans really did have to live with each other; more so than today. Perhaps that's why the ancient religions display a deeper understanding of human nature. And the need for a harsher morality.
Whereas modern human beings don't.
And for that we should be grateful!
You mean its not shaped by Sun worship?