Reasonable faith

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, niranjan, welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by niranjan

Well, I actually read in the newspapers that israeli archaeologists were unable to find no proof at all with respect to solomon and other dudes.

Yet, they know where the ashes of the red heifer are. Can't have ashes of the red heifer without a Temple, can't have a Temple without Solomon. Besides, there are other archeological sites that do support the Bible story, and that I believe is what Dondi was pointing to. Kinda hard to dismiss the ruins of a place like Jericho, which less than 150 years ago was dismissed as a flight of fancy. Imagine that.

Originally Posted by niranjan

So you believe in the "chosen people " stuff as well. Cute.

Gaging by the tone of some of your other posts, I am inclined to think you believe something quite similar...not Jewish of course. Cute.

Originally Posted by niranjan

And what do you think about the Indian and the chinese nations ! Aren't they ancient people as well, ( in fact more ancient than the jews) and haven't they been living in their nations without any exile.

I don't think anybody here is out to dismiss the antiquity of the Chinese and Indian nations and cultures. But it completely misses the point. How many Chinese and Indian cultures resurrected after being left for dead and cast to the wind for 1800 years? Hmmm, let me check my history....oh, that's right! None. Chinese and Indian cultures have been continuous throughout that time, they did not have to overcome the hurdles that Judaism has. For whatever disdain one may look at Judaism with, I find it nothing short of miraculous that such a tiny fragmented scattered people should be brought together after such a long time being mostly forgotten and persecuted. Sorry, but you are comparing apples and oranges. There is no comparison possible between the restoration of Israel and the long standing cultures of China and India.

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by niranjan

Well, I actually read in the newspapers that israeli archaeologists were unable to find no proof at all with respect to solomon and other dudes.

People tend to accept opinions which jibe with their preconceptions. The fact is that we don't have enough archaeological evidence to postively confirm or deny the historicity of the Old Testament. Those with a predisposition toward belief will accept opinions which shore up that belief. Those with a predisposition toward an antithetical belief will do likewise. IOW, for the majority of people it's not strictly a persuit of objective facts, but rather a process of choosing an opinion which fixes the facts around a postion they already hold. And of course the God in their head whispers that they are right.

My own point of view is that it is exceedingly difficult to isolate what is objectively true. The best we can do is absorb as much information as possible and look for the points where the many angles converge. That is not to say that truth is relative, but rather that our own motivations, including the need for easy answers, predispose us toward accepting things that we don't actually know for certain.

To each their own, but for myself I consider relegating the search for truth to voices in one's head a poor substitute for real intellectual engagement of the kind which usually leaves one with many questions and few answers. God helps those who help themselves. God help those whose faith relies on intellectual laziness.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Prober

No. It's just a personal comfort that works for me. You do hear Him, though, don't you?

Oh yes ...

Originally Posted by Prober

I guess that's the point I was trying to make - To do whatever G-d says is reasonable. It may not appear reasonable, however.

Bang on. Philosophy throws up a lot of these questions. There was a guy who sawed his hand off with a penknife ... because it was caught in the baling mechanism of a harvester which would have killed him otherwise. That's 'reasonable' although, to me, somewhat heroic!

WAIT A MINUTE:

Origen was a most prolific theologian and loyal Churchman of the 2nd century, who is supposed to have had himself castrated to become a 'eunuch for God' (Matthew 19:12 "For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.")

Interesting because Origen's theology was so rich in the reading the spiritual sense of Scripture, and drew an analogy from almost every word, that he was accused of going just too far; also his theology was expressed in Platonic terms, and he was somewhat under the sway of Platonism ... worse for those who were not as intelligent nor educated as he, who became even more Platonic (their doctrine, "Origenism", was anathmatised, Origen was not). Yet it would appear he took this text literally.

He had himself castrated ... is that reasonable?

Originally Posted by Prober

Here's where you're making me think ... I suppose I have benefitted from "tradition" in that respect. Then from that base, I've studied with the Holy Spirit to make sure the things that "men" told me were true.

The base will determine how you interpret the teaching - that base is your foundation.

But on the point of Tradition ... alleluia! My whole point echoes G.K. Chesterton – there are two kinds of people, those who know they follow a tradition, and those who do not.

... and it's the tradition that you follow which determines what's reasonable, because it's that which shapes and informs your thinking ...

... that's why some of the Fathers were so wary of philosophy, because people sought to make Revelation fit with what they already knew ... whereas the 'reality' was to revise what they knew according to the new data of Revelation.

Thomas

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Yet, they know where the ashes of the red heifer are. Can't have ashes of the red heifer without a Temple, can't have a Temple without Solomon. Besides, there are other archeological sites that do support the Bible story, and that I believe is what Dondi was pointing to. Kinda hard to dismiss the ruins of a place like Jericho, which less than 150 years ago was dismissed as a flight of fancy. Imagine that.

Well , I got my info from Israeli sources itself, so you can't blame me.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Gaging by the tone of some of your other posts, I am inclined to think you believe something quite similar...not Jewish of course. Cute.

And perhaps you might have noticed if you had indeed gone through my posts, that we believe all paths to be divine.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I don't think anybody here is out to dismiss the antiquity of the Chinese and Indian nations and cultures. But it completely misses the point. How many Chinese and Indian cultures resurrected after being left for dead and cast to the wind for 1800 years? Hmmm, let me check my history....oh, that's right! None. Chinese and Indian cultures have been continuous throughout that time, they did not have to overcome the hurdles that Judaism has.

Sorry you got your history wrong. Indians indeed were attacked from ancient times by the Greeks under Alexander, the huns, the arabs, the uzbeks, the pathans,the iranians, the turks,the french, the portuguese, the dutch, the british, the chinese, the pakistanis to the present era. And we thrashed all of them manfully without going into exile or something.

India is indeed battle scarred from the fights with many nations of the world, probably more than any other nation on earth.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

For whatever disdain one may look at Judaism with, I find it nothing short of miraculous that such a tiny fragmented scattered people should be brought together after such a long time being mostly forgotten and persecuted. Sorry, but you are comparing apples and oranges. There is no comparison possible between the restoration of Israel and the long standing cultures of China and India.

And what is so miraculous when 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust by Hitler. And if the Allies and the Indian troops did not defeat the nazis , the jewish nation and people would have ceased to exist permanently. And it is mainly because of sympathy of the western nations that the jews were allowed a homeland in Israel, supplanting the arabs.

And if it werent for extensive western and american financial and military aid, we can very well imagine what would have happened to Israel .

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Interesting article but to be fair not everyone in scientology is exposed to that teaching. You have to be a certain level. Also that belief may seem just as reasonable as that of Christians reported to believe in ..... just to mention a very few of the hundreds...

God talked through a donkey.
The sun stood still for about a whole day. Joshua 10:13.
The rapture of the church.
A whale swallowed Jonah and spit him up after 3 days alive.
Jesus raised the dead and turned water into wine.
The dead came out of their graves and showed themselves to many people. Matthew 27:52-53

Look objectively.... Do these sound any more reasonable than the scientology claim... I think not.

Peace,
JM

Points taken. Then there is the matter of this Resurrection thing.

Might I say that until the turn of the last century (20th), the idea that the universe had a beginning as Genesis suggested was scoffed at by many scientists. Yet Einstein's theory and subsequent studies by Hubble, Lemaitre, and others revealed just that. That in itself is a miracle, remarkable considering the "fine tuned" conditions that have resulted from the big bang.

I'm more willing to believe in a Creator God who is able to perform the aforementioned "miracles" (which may or may not be attributed by natural causes) then I am of some crackpot, but shrewd, science fiction writer that has gone on record saying, "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." This, along with the blatant lies that Hubbard was a decorated war hero and the deception and manipulation of his "church" toward its members, ought to give one pause before considering even entertaining the thought that Scientology is anyway close to being a religion.

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

To each their own, but for myself I consider relegating the search for truth to voices in one's head a poor substitute for real intellectual engagement of the kind which usually leaves one with many questions and few answers. God helps those who help themselves. God help those whose faith relies on intellectual laziness.

Indeed as Vivekananda , Buddha and Vashista said, we should make use of both logic and intuitions, as both complement each other. Both are needed.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

People tend to accept opinions which jibe with their preconceptions. The fact is that we don't have enough archaeological evidence to postively confirm or deny the historicity of the Old Testament. Those with a predisposition toward belief will accept opinions which shore up that belief. Those with a predisposition toward an antithetical belief will do likewise. IOW, for the majority of people it's not strictly a persuit of objective facts, but rather a process of choosing an opinion which fixes the facts around a postion they already hold. And of course the God in their head whispers that they are right.

This is why it is healthy to step out of your paradigm. I used to be dogmatic when it came to the literal rendering of the Genesis account of creation. I think the fear many "young earthers" have is that it would destroy their faith if the bible doesn't render the six days of creation as literal 24 hour periods. But I found the opposite to be true, because when I considered the evidences for the big bang and the resulting processes that followed in the formation of the universe, I found new reasons to believe in a Creator. True, I now have to go back and re-evaluate the Genesis account, but this has enabled me to be more open to the scientific evidences that face us. Rather than destroy my faith, it has increased my faith. I can rest more comfortably in what I believe.

Originally Posted by Sunny C

My own point of view is that it is exceedingly difficult to isolate what is objectively true. The best we can do is absorb as much information as possible and look for the points where the many angles converge. That is not to say that truth is relative, but rather that our own motivations, including the need for easy answers, predispose us toward accepting things that we don't actually know for certain.

Very true. I don't think anyone can say that what they believe is with absolute certainty. Who knows? Scientology might be right after all.

Originally Posted by Sunny C

To each their own, but for myself I consider relegating the search for truth to voices in one's head a poor substitute for real intellectual engagement of the kind which usually leaves one with many questions and few answers. God helps those who help themselves. God help those whose faith relies on intellectual laziness.

I do think God works in the voice of conscience, particularly when you have meditated on God's Word and open to the leading of the Spirit. There have been times I have had my initial impulse or reaction to certain circumstances thwarted with that still small voice of reason. For example, I learned this first hand when as a second class petty officer I was put in charge to prepare my workspace for what the Navy referred to as a "zone' inspection. The chief wanted to ensure that we received an "outstanding" grade. So I gathered the troops and assigned tasks for cleaning and straightening up the space. but while I was doing so, the chief kept coming back and micromanaging the situation. I kept telling him that I could handle it, but he persisted to the point that I blew up at him and we got into a big arguement. He finally warned me that I better had get an outstanding grade and stormed out.

Well, after we finished preparing the space, we stood by for inspection and ended up getting an "outstanding". But I was still fuming and was going to go tell off the chief in a "na-na boo-boo" kind of attitude. But then something calmed my spirit down and told me I ought to apologize instead. What??!! This was completely opposite of my intentions, let me assure you. Yet it wasn't until I considered that possibility that I felt peace about the situation. So I went to the chief and apologized for my rude and insubordinate behavior. And I tell you what, from that day forward we had one of the best working relationships in my Naval career. Yes, I believe in that voice of conscience is wise when one has been open to the Spirit of reason. Not that I soley rely on it, for I consider whether it counters in any way the Word of God, but I have had many instances when it has run counter to my own thinking and proved to be the right course of action.

BTW, You do know that the phrase "God helps those who helps themselves" is nowhere to be found in the Bible, but rather is a quote of Benjamin Franklin.

[Thomas]

Hi Sunny –

I do enjoy the way you present your arguments.

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

People tend to accept opinions which jibe with their preconceptions ... Those with a predisposition toward belief will accept opinions which shore up that belief ... for the majority of people it's not strictly a persuit of objective facts, but rather a process of choosing an opinion which fixes the facts around a postion they already hold.

Good points, and a potted history of Christian theology! The assumption that the faith was handed on from the Apostles without question is a huge error. The foundation of Christianity, for over 1500 years, is not 'precisely' on what Christ said, but rather on what the Fathers understood of what the Apostles understood of what Christ said ... which introduced all manner of currents into the discussion, Stoicism, Platonism, the mystery cults ... and which they were always watchful that such did not distort the message.

Above that however, I hold – as a matter of faith – that Scripture says precisely what the Holy Spirit wants it to say, and conveys those truths 'with no admixture of error' that God wants to be known. (Dei Verbum, Vatican II).

How reasonable does that sound, I wonder ...

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

And of course the God in their head whispers that they are right.

The Apostles and Fathers never favoured this as an approach. Tertullian, a real heavyweight, left to join the Montanists, a breakaway sect who said the oracles of the prophecies delivered by Montanus and his two daughters took priority over matters of doctrine.

He believed, like so many now as then, that the Church could not be what it is professed to be, if all and sundry were allowed to join ... so in short he favoured a two-tier elitism – those with the 'ear of the gods', and those without.

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

My own point of view is that it is exceedingly difficult to isolate what is objectively true.

You want to look at 4th century Christology ... phew! ... 'nuance' wasn't the word for it ... especially when the core of the thing is a revelation of a mystery which transcends the faculties to explain it ... and especially when the lexicon to hand was insufficient to the task.

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

The best we can do is absorb as much information as possible and look for the points where the many angles converge. That is not to say that truth is relative, but rather that our own motivations, including the need for easy answers, predispose us toward accepting things that we don't actually know for certain.

The modern philosopher Bernard Lonergan has pioneered cognitional theory which to some degree shows there's other means besides empirical methodology to arrive at the 'truth' ... for him 'common sense' is something quite profound.

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

To each their own, but for myself I consider relegating the search for truth to voices in one's head a poor substitute for real intellectual engagement of the kind which usually leaves one with many questions and few answers. God helps those who help themselves. God help those whose faith relies on intellectual laziness.

Agreed, but the human is such a complex creature. Tertullian, for example, was a profound thinker, with a very sharp mind and an acerbic wit who not only demolished his opponent's philosophical position, but often cruelly demolished them also ... yet his conversion was founded on witnessing the suffering of the martyrs, rather than any intellectually-arrived argument.

Justin Martyr, on the other hand, tried every philosophy going before he arrived at Christianity ... Augustine was another one ... what is often unknown is many of the Big Names were at odds with the bishops who saw theology as a distraction in pastoral affairs ... often orthodox theological thinking just confused the 'simple' by introducing question and doubt where there was none before.

This tendency to 'just accept its a mystery' is now quite prevalent in the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates, a natural reaction to the post-Origen arguments and politicing that did so much harm and lasting damage.

The Latin Church was always more inquisitive along doctrinal lines ... we are condemned today for being heavyweight hierarchists, which against the background of Christianity as a whole, is unfair and inaccurate, an example of lazy thinking.

And again, most people never question how much they know of the history of Christianity is in fact post-Reformation propaganda – the Office of the Inquisition, for example – people talk of 'The Spanish Inquisition' and their knowledge owes more to Monty Python than to informed study.

Thus we end up with 'Bloody Mary' (Catholic) and the heroic Elizabeth (Protestant) ... the actual difference being that Elizabeth found a secular excuse (treason) to execute as many Catholics as her Gestapo could lay their hands on ... and if people understood the story behind that they might be in a better position to understand the nature of the relationship between the Magisterium and the Reich during WWII.

Sorry, I'm in essay mode and enjoying the ease of unrestricted writing ... if anyone wants to take up a point, let's not forget the title of this thread.

Thomas

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, niranjan!

Originally Posted by niranjan

Well , I got my info from Israeli sources itself, so you can't blame me.

I wasn't blaming anybody. People make errors in judgment quite frequently...myself included.

Originally Posted by niranjan

And perhaps you might have noticed if you had indeed gone through my posts, that we believe all paths to be divine.

And that Indian paths are most Divine of all. Like I said...

Originally Posted by niranjan

Sorry you got your history wrong. Indians indeed were attacked from ancient times by the Greeks under Alexander, the huns, the arabs, the uzbeks, the pathans,the iranians, the turks,the french, the portuguese, the dutch, the british, the chinese, the pakistanis to the present era. And we thrashed all of them manfully without going into exile or something.

India is indeed battle scarred from the fights with many nations of the world, probably more than any other nation on earth.

I at no time suggested India had not had its share of bloodshed in defense and defiance. That is typical of a proud an ancient people. I would question about "more than any other nation on earth," but this is not the place.

Even so, you still miss the point: it is the difference between *"restoration"* and *"long standing"* continuity of cultures. It is the difference between an insignificant minority anywhere they were dispersed, compared with countless billions who simply overwhelm by sheer force of numbers.

Originally Posted by niranjan

And what is so miraculous when 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust by Hitler.

That they survived is the miracle. That they survived the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisitions, that they survived the Islamic purges, that they survived the Roman slaughter. That they survived...is the miracle.

Originally Posted by niranjan

And if the Allies and the Indian troops did not defeat the nazis , the jewish nation and people would have ceased to exist permanently.

I am certain India contributed greatly in the second world war, just not quite as much as you seem to suggest. I struggle with an image of Gandhi, (as much as I love and respect the man and his teaching), standing against a Nazi invasion. If that is how India defeated the Nazi's, well, I'll simply hold my tongue.

Originally Posted by niranjan

And it is mainly because of sympathy of the western nations that the jews were allowed a homeland in Israel, supplanting the arabs.

Supplanting Arabs who supplanted them in the wake of the Roman slaughter? This is unjust?

Originally Posted by niranjan

And if it werent for extensive western and american financial and military aid, we can very well imagine what would have happened to Israel .

So, to be a part of the instrument of a miracle is somehow a bad thing? I would think even Gandhi would cringe at that thought!

Even though western and American aid have been instrumental in the reformation of Israel, let us not forget or discount the value and valor of the Israeli military forces in keeping what was given them by the Balfour declaration. Is memory so short, as to forget the Israelis had to fight with everything they had to gain a minor fraction of what was historically theirs within less than 24 hours after the Declaration of Independence.

Hmmm...if I recall correctly, when India declared itself independent from Britain, it was a comparatively smooth affair. Before one decides to deride Israelis for their defensive acts regarding Palestinians, let us remember the little ongoing fiasco in Kashmir...

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

And that Indian paths are most Divine of all. Like I said...

And where have I said that Indian paths are the most Divine of all.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Even so, you still miss the point: it is the difference between *"restoration"* and *"long standing"* continuity of cultures. It is the difference between an insignificant minority anywhere they were dispersed, compared with countless billions who simply overwhelm by sheer force of numbers.

There were no countless billions at that time, just millions.

And we too had suffered reverses at times, and in spite of it came back and won.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

That they survived is the miracle. That they survived the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisitions, that they survived the Islamic purges, that they survived the Roman slaughter. That they survived...is the miracle.

Oh well, have it your way. Also India too aided in their survival, if you care to see previous posts of mine.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I am certain India contributed greatly in the second world war, just not quite as much as you seem to suggest. I struggle with an image of Gandhi, (as much as I love and respect the man and his teaching), standing against a Nazi invasion. If that is how India defeated the Nazi's, well, I'll simply hold my tongue.

Not really, Indian mercenaries in the British Indian army, fought valiantly against the Nazis. The hindu gurkhas smashed many nazi regiments and defeated them as well in one on one combat with their kukris.

Same with the fierce Indians who are renowned for their valour in Europe while fighting the Nazis and fascists.

Montgomery and other scholars and generals have lavished praised the Indian mercenaries. I remember reading in an article one of them saying emphatically that if it weren't for the Indians , world war 2 would have been lost. I am not making this up.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Supplanting Arabs who supplanted them in the wake of the Roman slaughter? This is unjust?

Then I think Israel should be a secular state , and give equal rights to the arabs as well.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

So, to be a part of the instrument of a miracle is somehow a bad thing? I would think even Gandhi would cringe at that thought!

Sorry, didn't get you.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Even though western and American aid have been instrumental in the reformation of Israel

Instrumental!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Without them , a greater holocaust would have taken place.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

, let us not forget or discount the value and valor of the Israeli military forces in keeping what was given them by the Balfour declaration. Is memory so short, as to forget the Israelis had to fight with everything they had to gain a minor fraction of what was historically theirs within less than 24 hours after the Declaration of Independence.

True their valour is commendable, but their indiscriminate killing of arab civilians is not a part of the warrior code of conduct.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Hmmm...if I recall correctly, when India declared itself independent from Britain, it was a comparatively smooth affair. .

It was not.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Before one decides to deride Israelis for their defensive acts regarding Palestinians, let us remember the little ongoing fiasco in Kashmir...

And how is it a fiasco !!! If you care to check , India won all the wars with Pakistan after Independence, and defeated them comprehensively, and especially in the last war in 1999. Even their prime minister Nawaz Sharif praised our soldiers for thrashing the pakistanis and islamic terrorists out of kashmir.

And as for the militants in Kashmir, it has been very tragic for them, with many of them shot dead by the Indian security forces. They are clearly demoralized, and many of them have surrendered to the Indian army on their own free will.

There are also Kashmiris in the Indian army as well.

The supreme commander of the Indian armed forces, our president, A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, is a muslim.

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

. I would question about "more than any other nation on earth,"

And which nation indeed had fought more other nations than us, as per the list of adversaries who tested our blade, which includes Alexander, and which I had put in my previous post.

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The base will determine how you interpret the teaching - that base is your foundation.

But on the point of Tradition ... alleluia! My whole point echoes G.K. Chesterton – there are two kinds of people, those who know they follow a tradition, and those who do not.

... and it's the tradition that you follow which determines what's reasonable, because it's that which shapes and informs your thinking ...

... that's why some of the Fathers were so wary of philosophy, because people sought to make Revelation fit with what they already knew ... whereas the 'reality' was to revise what they knew according to the new data of Revelation.

Thomas

Okay, okay...see, I'm learning. Hard to open up to thinking about "tradition" when you grew up with "Fundi good, Catholic bad".

Looking for a more mature thinking in that respect - In all thoughts keeping G-d first. (Some dispose of Him with philosophy)

Much thanks,
Mark

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, niranjan!

Thank you for your response.

Originally Posted by niranjan

And where have I said that Indian paths are the most Divine of all.

You are wise enough not to state such in so many words...it is in the attitude.

Originally Posted by niranjan

There were no countless billions at that time, just millions.

And we too had suffered reverses at times, and in spite of it came back and won.

I see....just countless millions, on the brink of extinction. Do you yet see the contradiction?

At times the remnant of Judah was composed of less than one million, scattered abroad over something like 6 or 8 major encampments within foreign cultures and nations, and a hodge-podge collection of minor encampments (some of which when rescued were composed of less than 100 individuals). Now, I could stand correction, I know I am being vague. I am not intimately familiar with this...but I would be willing to bet there are people who do know, and I really think their story will be a lot closer to mine than to yours.

Originally Posted by niranjan

Oh well, have it your way. Also India too aided in their survival, if you care to see previous posts of mine.

Oh, but your way is so much better. Oh well.

Originally Posted by niranjan

Not really, Indian mercenaries in the British Indian army, fought valiantly against the Nazis. The hindu gurkhas smashed many nazi regiments and defeated them as well in one on one combat with their kukris.

Same with the fierce Indians who are renowned for their valour in Europe while fighting the Nazis and fascists.

Montgomery and other scholars and generals have lavished praised the Indian mercenaries. I remember reading in an article one of them saying emphatically that if it weren't for the Indians , world war 2 would have been lost. I am not making this up.

Now this makes sense to me. My hat is off to those brave warriors.

Originally Posted by niranjan

Then I think Israel should be a secular state , and give equal rights to the arabs as well.

It *is* a secular state. From my understanding, Arabs that aren't trying to blow other people up or overthrow the government, *are* allowed equal rights.

Originally Posted by niranjan

Instrumental!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Without them , a greater holocaust would have taken place.

Now you are really confusing me...it is a good thing to assist what you see as a bad thing???

Originally Posted by niranjan

True their valour is commendable, but their indiscriminate killing of arab civilians is not a part of the warrior code of conduct.

Sorry, didn't get you. *Who* is indiscriminately killing innocent civilians?

Originally Posted by niranjan

It was not.

I see. So, when India declared independence from Britain, they had to immediately fend off an onslaught by all of their neighbors?

I don't recall India even having to fight Britain for its independence, unlike a little country I know a bit about.

Originally Posted by niranjan

And how is it a fiasco !!! If you care to check , India won all the wars with Pakistan after Independence, and defeated them comprehensively, and especially in the last war in 1999. Even their prime minister Nawaz Sharif praised our soldiers for thrashing the pakistanis and islamic terrorists out of kashmir.

And as for the militants in Kashmir, it has been very tragic for them, with many of them shot dead by the Indian security forces. They are clearly demoralized, and many of them have surrendered to the Indian army on their own free will.

There are also Kashmiris in the Indian army as well.

I see. This is why the struggle continues to this day? And has, for over 50 years?

Originally Posted by niranjan

The supreme commander of the Indian armed forces, our president, A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, is a muslim.

This is good to know. India *is* making progress.

Now, if she could just allow people to choose their own religion without making laws against it...

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by niranjan

And which nation indeed had fought more other nations than us, as per the list of adversaries who tested our blade, which includes Alexander, and which I had put in my previous post.

I fail to see why you are insisting on one-upping this conversation with your regales of the plight of the nation of India. All that was stated is that the Jews have a remarkable history of survival as an ancient people who have face extinctions a number of times, but not only their people have survived, but there culture as well. And I took that as a basis that God is somehow still dealing with the nation of Israel, particularly in the area of prophesy and therefore a basis of reasonable faith that God is true to His Word in His dealings with this particular nation. What nation God has determined to work with in bringing to light His Presence is not important as much as His trustiness to bring about what He promised through them. He could have just as well have chosen India for His specific purposes had He had a mind to.

So why are you turning this into an us vs them debate?

If you have evidence that God is in the nation of India, please enlighten us, but please don't turn this into a battle of nits.