1)  All applicable to a given situation apply to the given situation.  Thats why they are the rules for that situation.

2) Apologies....  it therefore should have read...

"You predict that sinners will be damned forever, if they do not repent before their last breath in this life".

3)  BTW If I may be allowed to fall into your style... an onion is not the same size as a fire engine.  Igneous rocks have no aqueous humor.  And cows only use integral, not differential, calculus.  Gnomic 'preacher talk' don't make or win arguments.

I am amazed at this.   You throw out a personal accusation.   You attempt to discredit and when called not only do you not offer a shred of proof, you actually attack on atotally different subject, and then accuse me of avoiding issues!!   
 
And then you introduce a new personal accusation, that I am someone else!  Presumably someone you also wish to lie about.   Well, firstly, you cannot show a single instance to back up your claim that I justify terrorism.  Secondly, the mods here will prove that I am not who you claim - I believe they have the IPAs of all posters. 

There is only one word for you....
LIAR

You use science.  You use the 'rules' for anaesthesia that have been established by science to carry out your job.   (I say rules rather than laws because as yet (so far as I know) the precise causal sequences for anaesthesia are not known.... maybe the Bible can explain it to us - over to you)

You use religion to predict the future.  You judge that someone is a 'sinner' and use that judgement to 'predict' they will be 'outcast in this life' and damned forever in 'the next'.   

One works....

Ermmmm Patton I think you are not getting the point.  If 'your' house,car etc don't 'belong' to you they don't 'belong' to anybody else either.  Think Amish....

Removing the idea of property rights doesn't remove the idea of civilised individual rightful usage of things.  However, take the case of the town I live in now.... there is a chronic housing shortage, yet 20% of homes here are unoccupied for most of the year - they are 'holiday homes'.  But young families who work around here - and service those homes in summer - have nowhere they can afford to buy, and rental is even more than loan costs (and we even have a well regulated loans market - unlike the cancerous US subprime).....   Others living in the 'sticks'  - agricultural or forest workers have no transport and are cindemned to isolation.   But there are numerous unused vehicles around - left for when absentee owners decide to come...

Seems to be a rather wasteful use of finite resources...

When I was looking back in IAP1 I saw my dad wished christians, and the late RF in particlualr, the best for Xmas.    I agree with the sentiment.  Whatever our differences, we should respect our 'opponents' deep beliefs at sensitive times.   Easter means a lot to christians.... lets all hope they enjoy and feel supported by this time.   Best wishes, guys.

 Thanks for that clear example of your methods.  I accuse you of lying and distortion - do you attempt to deny it? Do you show where I have ever justified terrorism?   No, you simply squawk your idiot arguments and prejudices.  You are a disgrace - you, personally.  You have not the slightest neurone of sense yet seem to think that shouting loudly the same mantra again and agian is 'argument'

Bring it on 'realityman'  I'm waiting for the 'reality.  Back up your filthy lies with some real facts, rather than your fevered delusions - where once did I justify terrorism? 

Answer directly, without 'interpretation' or your usual diversions.  or be shown to be the liar you are.

LMAO
Go look up ad hominem arguments.  So far not a single attempt to come to terms with what was asked.  And this from someone who accuses another of 'intellectual masturbation'!!!!   Ho Ho Ho.

See previous posts concerning 'the Israeli gambit'.

No Patton.  Your 'faith' one thing.  My 'faith' is not the same animal..... in the end, your faith is about closed books, mysticism and stagnation; mine is about investigation, discovery and knowledge.   Its strange that you seem to realsie there is a difference, yet insist on obscuring it.... you claim "I do the best I can to describe Faith to one who has never had it....."  then claim that my 'faith' is similar to yours.   They aren't the same thing, so don't try to foist your malformed concept onto me.

"How would you describe the Mona Lisa to someone who has never seen it?"   Well by comparisons with what they HAVE seen ... which is what I think you are attempting, by assuming that I have some sort of analogous experience.   But to someone who has NEVER seen?   There are ways.  No-one has ever seen an electron, an up-quark, a boson.  Or experineced one in any direct way.   Yet most (yourself and like excepted) base their understanding of the world on their existence, and some have a very good appreciation of what they 'are like'.  But you need to step away from the direct to the indirect means of examination...  which is when your faith starts to become unintelligible and irrational, and my 'faith' still has some warrant.

Lala,  I would be quite content to leave the issue.  If you would too.  However, there is one point where I must frankly call you a liar and a disgusting distorter of truth:  I have NEVER justified violence and terror by either side.     There is an old french saying 'comprendre tout, c'est pardonner tout'  And I deny categorically that it is right. 

Your posts are nothing but attempted justification of the unjustifiable.  Mine are about recognising that evil is done by BOTH sides - and that Israel is far from innocent.   Perhaps if instead of citing Hamas documents and ignoring Israeli bravado you actually looked at what has happened in 40 years.... 



BTW  If you chose to go by a name that is some (ironic?) attempt to give you unwarranted authority, surely I can address you by one that denies that?   My name actually is Callum.  I don't need to call myself 'He who speaks truth' or 'Only I know whats happening'.   As you say, the non-commited members of the board can judge for themselves.

Lala, much as I appreciate your deep need to fill acres of screen with your received opinions, I will try to talk to you as a rational being.   An analogy is indeed a way of understanding one thing (situation, argument, physical process, whatever) by examining something similar... but leaving out issues, events, causes etc that cloud the original problem. (Thanks for the dictionary definition, but I do understand the words I use)  So here, now, I am simply asking what you (or anyone else) would do if their home, land, family were under threat from an implacable enemy.   


The disanalogies you point out (and which I do dispute) are irrelevant to the question being asked.   It doesn't matter whether the enemy is the Cubans, Israelis or men from Mars.   It doesn't matter if the invasion was sanctioned by the UN, god or the President of China.  It doesn't matter if the people affected are a nation state, a political entity, or a cultural grouping.  It does matter that they are a simple family trying to live a normal life - not fighters, politicians or diplomats,  just ordinary people as 95% of ANY nation is.

I tried to expand on the  scenario to help people make the imaginitive connection.   I don't deny it.   But, as I said, there are some who cannot exercise their imagination, and who rather than try to understand will instead try to undermine any attempt at understanding.

You may be trying to prevent that understanding because you have some notion that understanding equates to approval:  nothing could be further from the truth.  But understanding can help resolve a situation where understanding is the one huge casualty of entrenchment and polarisation.  Both the relaxation of hostilities in Northern Ireland, and the prevention of them in RSA came from this principle.  Why don't you want to give it a chance?

(PS Sorry to use big words. The situation in Palestine is NOT simple despite your certainties: the words reflect the complexity)

Lala,  I spoke of oppression - you did not deny it occured.  You offered no information about what was being done by Osrael against the palestinians, for the last 40 years.  Instead you offered simpe propaganda attempting to justify ANY action against 6 million people.

   
Indeed it would - it is Hamas propaganda.  Your NOT referencing equivalent dicuments from the old Likud party for example is an example of your bias, and willingness to present only a one-sided 'case'.


Again you simply refuse to report on what the Israeli actions of 40 years has effected in the lives of one and a half million people, over 40 years.  Your only 'argument' is to attempt justification of any action however illegal.


Sadly no point made .... except to repeat an attempted justification that is incorrect.  The actions of Israel in its impoverishment of the palestinians is not justified by the 'defence of Israel' excuse - it continued throughout the all too short periods of detente, it is disproportionate to the crime, it is illegal by treaties to which Israel and your government are signatories.  Israel's (and your) denial of self-determination for the palestinians is contrary to the universal declaration of human rights to which your government is signatory.  The annexation of land, denial of trade and free movement, the blockade of Gaza and to a lesser extent the WB, the denial of medical aid, the 'rationing' of water and electricity, the destruction of purely civilian infrastructure, the carefully managed use of 'collateral deaths'  -  none of these are denied, all are matters of fact, yet all are illegal and morally reprehensible.    I have read enough of your 'intellectual debating' style (to quote Akh) to know that all this post will get is another incoherent ranting diatribe along previous lines of attempted justification of the unjustifiable.   At best you will attempt to divert by endless demands for 'proof' - which will be argued over and denied.   Whereas you are actually powerless to DISPROVE the facts of what has happened:  screeching imprecations at sabre-rattling by the side you hate is so much easier than examining events....  which might point out that the side you love is not just AS criminal as the palestinians, but more so.

Nice try.  Really.  And you've helped zero in on one of the vague areas of defining things like 'faith'.   So, its like 'hope' when you have wishes and desires for the future.  Well thats just what such desires are - 'hope' that you can and will effect something that you want.  But is that really what faith is all about?  Wishing for the best, wishing that things you don't want to happen won't?  Where does the agent in the sky come in?    The world is complicated and diffuse.  We have huge areas where we cannot know enough to be sure of what may happen.... wonderful people like Minghella can die after a normal routine op, and Zack Dunlap can live.   I don't attribute either of these things to divine intervention, just to lack of adequate knowledge of physical things.  And we can find out more about those things and improve the treatment of both sorts of cases.   The 'faith' that I am sure you will now accuse me of is in fact an arguable induction from past progress - medical science has progressed since the Dark Ages (even more so since the Book was written), there is no good reason to assume now that it will not continue to.  We are talking knowledge here - epistemological issues, in technical parlance.

However, if you believe that a god can change the constantly observed physical relationships within the world, then you have to have 'faith' that it won't change them at some time that is inconvenient to you.  This isn't a knowledge issue, its about your understanding of the contents of reality and supra-reality.  It is a metaphysical issue.  Your faith is very different to that which you are trying to foist on non-theists.

Now, lets just take a breath.  I know that any attempt to show that people, wherever they are, are not all evil flies in the face of your black and white simplicities.  However, I simply point to the fact (and this is a verifiable, uncontestable fact) that I started this thread in the Middle East section.  I was obviously, even to the minimal intelligece that passses for 'intellect' in your narrow mind, that the analogy was with the Israel/palestine business.  And you decide that I wasn't being 'sincere'.    

Its very simple Akh - you and your sick crew WILL (i.e. have prejudged) you ill not consider what suffering the palestinians undergo, and WILL not countenance that your 'side' have done anything wrong.   Not because of 'facts' - the facts are there and blatant - but because you have decided that ANY action by the invadng oppressors is 'justifable.  That is the basis and content of everything that Lala-man spews out: it is not that these things don't happen, but that they are in some way justified.  And both you and he realise that if people were actually to think about what has been done to the palestinians over the  last 40 years then they would doubt the whole 'justification'.


It is interesting that when I precis the arguments of you and Lala, they become foaming at the mouth etc...  


This was termed by someone I knew well 'the Israeli gambit'.   In essence you ask yourself where your actions/words are the most vulnerable to censure - and then accuse your opponent of them.  Whats my whole point?  Where was my analogy leading?  To show that there is a whole point of view that you are ignoring - intentionally.  So, since I am effectively asking you to take a more open informed approach... accuse me of having a closed mind.  Good diversionary tactic.


The 'Israeli gambit'  again - I am accused of not replying like an 'intellectual debater' should (to irrelevant points).  You claim as authority for this judgement that you could answer them - and then do not.  You could be a wonderful debater - but chose not to.  You wouldn't 'ignore points and pretend they're not there - but you have ignored them, you have chosen not to give your 'trumping' arguments. You claim that like me you believe that Lala's points are incorrect - yet instead of refuting them, you attack me.   You are as disingenuous and insincere as Lala (Oh, there's the gambit again - you accuse me of insincerity, don't you?).



I'll sum up for you Akh, since I'm sure you'll miss the point.  Lala did not answer the question - nor did you. He attacked the scenario with spurious and incorrect interpretations of history.  You attacked me for refusing to be drawn into his spittle-flecked irrelevancies.     Its always the same: never respond, always repeat your mantra.  Don't think, attack attack attack.   Alternatively you might consider answering the question.... if your land, home, family were being threatened by an implacable enemy, what would you do? 

My point was to ask he (or anyone) would do in a particular situation.  He did not address the point.


Actually I am fully aware of the Israeli proaganda sheets that pass for his brain.


(a) silly people also interpret differences of style and approach as smugness.
(b) EVERY  (OK, I embolden too?) citation of 'fact' was controversial and as I said I have left it to others to argue those points.  I was not interested in the twisted pseudo-legalities, I was interested in what people - just plain ordinary people - are feeling, how they are reacting and what that would mean for achieving a peace.  Lala's implied view that every palestinian is guilty of thought crime against Israel and therefore 'deserves' the oppression of the last 40 years is as ludicrous as his nicknmae....


Reality is what is happening in palestine. Its not what propagandists 5,000 miles away spout from their daily handout.  Theft of land and water resources, communal punishment and economic oppression are devices of ethnic cleansing.  Throwing stones at tanks is not.



I apologise for 'sounding smart'.  Here's an alternative... 'Israel is right, the pals are all murdering bastards, they got be thrown into the desrt and starved.  Israel can do anything to protect itself.  Shit like morals and codes is for dummies and smartasses like Callum.  Who the F wants facts - give me my daily dose of the JP - facts is what Israel says an if they don't say it it aint so'

Can I join your club now???

No Lala, this is the one and only me.   Pop your conspiracy theories away for now.   

You seem (rather like some other close-minded posters) to be incapable of understanding just what was being proposed in this thread.  Your 'political' interpretations, your 'justifications' are not at issue (though they are wrong anyway... but others can beat their heads against the brick wall that is your brain).

Israel has mistreated the ordinary people - some 6 million of them - who lived entirely legally in the land they occupied in 1967.  This has led to mistrust and hatred, which needs to be alleviated before any move toward peace can ever succeed (I mean of course proper peace, not just the total victory of the Yesha doctrine).

I merely ask you to understand some of the conflict - but that is precisely what you do not want, nor want others to do.  In Northern Ireland, and RSA, to name just two recent examples, communities have learned to live together NOT by screaming in bold letters everywhere just how 'right' they are, but by learning to understand and (warily maybe) trust their neighbours.

I think your slavering irrationality is wonderfully summed up in "Of course the Palestinians are not "well treated"...nor was Hitler and the Nazis when they elected to act on their intentions/agenda..."  I know that amongst american disintellectuals the Geneva Conventions are considered old hat, but just go read them a bit.