Here we should reflect at the hypocrisy of making grand religious excuses for invasion of other people's land:

Moses was 120 years old, "his eye was not dim or his natural force abated" (Deuteronomy 34:7), and he was profoundly loved by all the people. He had been their deliverer, their general, their lawgiver, their advocate before God, their prophet, their guide, their inspiration, their judge, and their pastor for over 40 years. He was also a song writer. (The closer you get to God, the more impelled you feel to write songs!) 

More crap to come...

 

According to some god-apologists, those devoted student of the bible, those eager to whitewash religious history and glorify the almighty despite His major goofs, not a drop of blood was shed when the Israelis took over the land of the Canaanites. Well this is computed by those bible-dick-heads because no total of deaths, injured and survivors were recorded in the big book. One could actually compare this favourably to the Yamerikans who "did not record" the casualties of "innocent people" during and after their invasion of Mesopotamia in 2003. 

Yes this "miraculous" feat was inspired by god who told the god-chosen people to invade because the Canaanites were ruthless bastards who did not believe in Him. The bullshit goes on like this: despite the Canaanites being ruthless evil-doers, warriors and nasty killers of babies, "they were afraid of the Israelis". Bullshit. So they fled their land and large cities when a few Israeli scouts came along. Bullshit. And this is not the the biggest bunkum stupid story, but it makes glory for the general: god himself disguise as a warrior... Bullshit.

Other apologists for genocides and wars by god's Chosen People, the Wandering Jews, perpetrated under His name, tell the Canaanites story as such:

Question: "Why did God command the extermination / genocide of the Canaanites, women and children included?"

Answer: In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God commanded Saul and the Israelites, “This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" God ordered similar things when the Israelites were invading the promised land (Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:6; 20:16-18). Why would God have the Israelites exterminate an entire group of people, women and children included?

This is a difficult issue [Gus: let's find some elegant smart-arse excuses]. We do not fully understand why God would command such a thing, but we trust God that He is just – and we recognize that we are incapable of fully understanding a sovereign, infinite, and eternal God. As we look at difficult issues such as this one, we must remember that God’s ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isaiah 55:9; Romans 11:33-36). We have to be willing to trust God and have faith in Him even when we do not understand His ways.

Unlike us, God knows the future. God knew what the results would be if Israel did not completely eradicate the Amalekites. If Israel did not carry out God’s orders, the Amalekites would come back to trouble the Israelites in the future. Saul claimed to have killed everyone but the Amalekite king Agag (1 Samuel 15:20). Obviously, Saul was lying—just a couple of decades later, there were enough Amalekites to take David and his men’s families captive (1 Samuel 30:1-2). After David and his men attacked the Amalekites and rescued their families, 400 Amalekites escaped. If Saul had fulfilled what God had commanded him, this never would have occurred. Several hundred years later, a descendant of Agag, Haman, tried to have the entire Jewish people exterminated (see the book of Esther). So, Saul’s incomplete obedience almost resulted in Israel’s destruction. God knew this would occur, so He ordered the extermination of the Amalekites ahead of time.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanites-extermination.html

-------------

If you believe this shit, then you're a religious shit-head and you have created god as a raving fucking lunatic. No wonder we're still up to our neck with this crap. Time to give god, allah and yaweh the finger.

Meanwhile:

Perhaps the most obvious marker of how ingrained in the psyche these narratives have become – and why we need to reframe the whole debate – is Facebook’s reaction to the Paris Tragedy. Their creation of solidarity paraphernalia for Paris has spread like wildfire with flag overlays and check in buttons for those who want to communicate that they are safe to loved ones. Whilst this is a fantastic idea, more than a few have been prompted to ask, where is my check in button and flag overlay? Why does Paris get these things and none of the other places listed in this article? Why do people feel moved by Paris in such a way that they overlay the Tricolour but not none of the other three? Australia has over 13,000 Kenyans, upwards of 48,000 Iraqis and more than 76,000 Lebanese people making up its population. Why do these people not deserve the same chance to communicate with their loved ones?

When a double suicide bombing rocked Beirut, there was no global outpouring of sympathy https://t.co/xY0kPY0lMCpic.twitter.com/KxPRyjDCac

— The New York Times (@nytimes) November 15, 2015

So, mourn those poor innocents lost in France they deserved better, but also mourn those innocents lost in other parts of the world and ask yourself: how can I help close social gaps in my community?

You can follow Arrin Chapman on Twitter @ArrinChapman.

 

Read more: https://independentaustralia.net/article-display/paris-and-the-world,8383

 

 

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/james-naughtie-said-st-on-the-today-programme--ZJjacMSUFl

 

 

The pen is mightier than the sword, a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist has reminded the world in the aftermath of the second terror attack to hit Paris in less than a year.

On Friday night Joann Sfar published a series of cartoons on Instagram that conveyed his sadness and anger as reports emerged that at least 127 people had been killed in a string of attacks across the city.

One cartoon, in English, reads:

Friends from the whole world, thank you for #prayforParis, but we don't need more religion! Our faith goes to music! Kissing! Life! Champagne and joy! #Parisisaboutlife 

He also drew Paris' city motto, "fluctuat nec mergitur", which means: "It is beaten by the waves but does not sink":

 

 

Christopher Craig Brittain strongly denounces platitudes in response to the Paris massacres. For him, possibly a committed theologian, the first temptation to avoid is cynical silence...

You F$%#@it idiot, that's why people are showing solidarity by taking selfies with a French flag as a background — avoiding cynical silence! That's at least something. But you piss on them as if these people cheapened the concept of solidarity ! Go away... And you never know, those same people might do something else, like pray for the victims, So happy now?... 

Christopher Craig Brittain is super-literate in the study of Theodor W. Adorno... Good for you, Christopher... I have met a few survivors of Auschwitz myself and most were forgiving though very tearful at times reminiscing the ordeal.  

Christopher Craig Brittain also reacts angrily to the reactions to the hashtag #PrayforParis, which have denounced "religion" as being the cause of the violence. In fact one of the main culprits on this front is one of the Charlie Hebdo team, Joann Sfar, who also appreciate "diversity", suggest that rather than #PrayforParis, we should invite people to enjoy life, eat drink and be joyful with a hashtag saying: #Parisisaboutlife. Nothing wrong with this. 

Christopher thus resents the "venomous" critics who, rather than turn to God, embrace "love" or "life" - "as if such platitudes are any more concrete than a sentimental evocation of prayer"... Ease up Christopher.... In my limited own view, I see a prayer as a sentimental platitude that will solve nothing, compared to carrying on as usual with the joy of life, while honouring the dead and staying alert. 

Basically, there is nothing wrong in inviting all, including religious people to live and enjoy themselves, despite the trauma. This is not a venomous sin. Contrary to Christopher Craig Brittain asserts, it does not mean that those who denounce religion, especially that of ISIL which is clearly vicious Wahhabism, hate religious people. No, they hate religious people with guns.

Brittain concludes: 

Before there can be solidarity, therefore, we have to become more self-aware. For it to be possible to expect something more than platitudes, we have to examine ourselves. Until our reactions are driven by more than fear and anger, we cannot hope that our police and military responses will be more than symbols of vengeance. As Zoe Williams puts it, "it is only when you make a frank account of your own feelings that you can begin to empathise."

So - nothing has changed; this really isn't a surprise; we haven't yet woken up. However, our coldness has been exposed, along with the suffering of our neighbours, and the destructive fury of some who live in our midst.

The solutions to all of these challenges remain to be discovered, but one initial task has become clear. Our first job - both individually and collectively - is to resist one of the most dangerous temptations confronting the privileged of the world: cynical silence.

Christopher Craig Brittain is Professor of Social and Political Theology at the University of Aberdeen. He is the author of Adorno and Theology and Religion at Ground Zero: Theological Responses to Times of Crisis.

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/11/17/4353795.htm

Boy ! I find these last Brittain comments very cynical indeed: what does it means to examine ourselves? Does it mean to study history and look how the religious wars — one of 30 years and one of 100 years stuffed up the lives of many people in Europe? So what should be our "feelings"?: Sadness? Sickness? Forgiveness? Ridiculousness? Revenge?

Are we cold, as Brittain asserts? No we are not. Most people find the massacres in Paris revolting  and we also feel for those in Lebanon and other places where bombs, ours and theirs, are raining like hell.

Most of the words from Brittain seem to come pissing down from a high pulpit of cringe-worthy haughtiness and religious rectitude that has not solved any of our problems so far, except given us the illusion that pain will go away once we're up there. Yes, you can look up all you like, beyond the blue sky. Nothing wrong with that but it's empty. 

 

 

Abbott’s cry for an immediate Armageddon of the Christian states against the infidel Islamist beheaders of children would not be out of place in twelfth century Europe and leaves one to give thanks that he is no longer in charge of anything.

‘As long as some people fiercely believe,’ he wrote in The Australian yesterday, ‘that it’s morally right to to kill any and all who don’t share their warped view of Islam, the scale and spread of the carnage will be limited only by their access to weapons and their ability to deploy them.’

He then goes on to urge the killing of any or all who don’t share his warped view of Islam and his clamorous desire for boots on the ground in Turkey – where Anzacs haven’t been for a while – killing whom in their thousands will stop them killing us, Paris-fashion, here.

What ullage and piffle he is talking. It’s like saying we must kill more Palestinians to stop them killing Israelis in busstops with knives. What killing does is make them vengeful, as you would be if your brother was killed by an RAAF bombing of Prince Alfred Hospital. Killing begins blood feuds that can last a millennium.

We must ‘accept military casualties abroad’, he says of his proposed new Anzac invasion, lest there be ‘more civilian casualties at home’. But history shows that killing civilians, as France just did, in Raqqa, bestirs our enemies to bomb our civilians in return. France has just made sure the next explosive attack will be on the Louvre.

‘Islamic State cannot be contained, it must be destroyed,’ Abbott says, invoking the Hiroshima Option as few have in 70 years. How can you destroy a movement of mi!lions of Sunnis who each beget seven children willing, at 12, to strap on bombs for the Cause? How do you do that? Nuking? Genocide? What?

It seems to me Abbott is in breach of our law against inciting terrorism and should be locked up for seven or fifteen years. He calls them ‘vigorous measures’ but what what he is currently, wild-heartedly advocating is obliterative bombings of cities and the turning back to their torturers of people in boats fleeing, rightly, the same child soldiers of Islamic State and its African affiliates who crave child brides, holy martyrdom and an End Time battle with the Great Satan, Christianity.

Someone make him stop talking ffs.. Former PM Tony Abbott warns IS terrorists are hiding in flood of refugees https://t.co/vaookFLE06

— Toni Nicho (@toninicho) November 14, 2015

What a medieval figure Abbott is. What a bloodthirsty, raving fool.

He once told me:

‘I have to jog an hour every morning or I get really, really angry.’

He should make it two hours, I think. He is now, every day, at this rate, becoming more and more insane.

 

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/abbotts-insane-jihad,8392