Posts Tagged With: Israel

Hearts and Minds Don’t Change With Bombs

It is disturbing the war champions are in tears now the war with Iran may be over. They are so obsessed with war, they ignore the history of how these conflicts play out, or why wars should be avoided to begin with.

Regime change was always a complete fantasy. Brute force never brings about the uprising of the people. It only hardens the people as their country is destroyed. How did “bombing Vietnam back to stone age” work out? Did Iraqis welcome Americans like the French did in the 1940s? Did twenty years of war empower the Afghans to resist the Taliban? Have decades of sanctions helped the Cuban people, or made them suffer?

The other typical outcome is complete chaos; a death spiral into dystopian destruction. See Libya, Somalia, and Syria.

The thinking person is forced to ask this: Do the Iranian people want to be “liberated?” That question is hard for some to fathom, but must be asked. In spite of their repressive government, and propaganda they are told, do Iranians see us as liberators?

Here’s some history the commentators leave out:

The U.S. toppled the Iranian government in the 1950s, installing a leader not known for his stellar human rights record — like torture and executions — which led to the Islamic Revolution. We supported Iraq (yeah, we helped create Saddam) in their war with Iran that caused hundreds of thousands of casualties. Add to that decades of economic sanctions.

Think Iranians might have tough time seeing the U.S. as a friend, regardless of how bad their rulers may be?

This reminds us of how Germany was oppressed, starved, and economically gutted by the Allies after World War I. Did Germany become a submissive, third world state? No, the perfect environment was created for the Third Reich to rise. People wonder how the Germans let the Nazis take control, but if you understand what happened after World War I, it is no surprise at all. Oppression and violence from the outside unites people, even if their leaders are disreputable.

Maybe, someday, change will come to Iran. No doubt there are people in Iran who dream of revolution. Most organic, true revolutions happen from within. One might say the Iranian government prevents this from happening. Or the Iranians are unarmed and scared. These arguments only take us so far. The American colonials were exponentially outmatched by the British Empire. Yet they won.

Also consider we left many other Middle East countries alone, not telling them how to live or govern, and they shifted westward in their society. Our closest allies — economically and strategically — in the region are not democracies. Even though we may want to, it’s not up to us to tell others how to live.

Forcing change from the outside is doomed to fail. From within, hearts and minds will change. Maybe slowly, but they will change.

Categories: government, Modern History | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Law of Unintended Consequences

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” – Ronald Reagan

Every war is bound by the Law of Unintended Consequences. If you study history, you know this. Most of our “leaders” don’t study history, or if they do, they don’t have the IQ to understand it. Let’s take a look how this applies to the war with Iran:

Law of Unintended Consequences Example 1:

Countries see what is happening in Iran and Venezuela, and other recent debacles like Libya and Iraq, and are asking, “How can we avoid being attacked or invaded?”

Simple: Get some nuclear weapons.

This has been the position of North Korea, now more solidified in recent weeks as the war with Iran unfolded.

We’ve been technically at war with North Korea since 1950. Their leaders have been evil, dangerous, oppressive, and killed millions. On the scale of evil and threat, they rank much higher than Iran.

One thing the leaders of North Korea are not: stupid.

So because of a new war allegedly over nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles (the threat of missiles and nukes was quickly refuted), we will likely have more proliferation of a horrific weapon that should never had been invented — a weapon that was an unintended consequence of World War II.

Law of Unintended Consequences Example #2:

It is clear some things in this war aren’t going as planned or hoped (and hope is bad way to conduct a war).

Fuel and other shortages are already occuring around the world. Military planners have long warned this would happen in a war with Iran. To alleviate the fuel shortages, sanctions were lifted on Russia.

The country we are at war with via Ukraine.

Since we effectively handed over funding to Russia, Ukraine attacked their refineries, putting the world at risk.

Russia is providing weapons and intelligence to Iran. North Korean troops are in Ukraine. Weapons and troops that deter China are being pulled from the Far East allies Japan and South Korea.

We are one mistep from global meltdown.

Or maybe the World War has already begun.

If cooler heads don’t end the war now, the chances of this spiraling out of control increase exponentially by the day.

And many consequences, known and unknown, will impact many, many generations.

Categories: government | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reclaiming Science: Stop the Abuse

We often equate science with facts and laws of nature, therefore we tend to hold writings couched in scientific lingo in high regard. To a fault we have become too trusting and forget that people write or say these things and people have agendas (purposefully or not). Yes, this is going to be one of those critical thinking posts (I know, it doesn’t quite fit with the theme of the site anymore, but I still occasionally touch on these topics).

Not that the abuse of science is anything new, but it seems to me like it’s becoming more prevalent. With technology so pervasive, we think we know science and trust anything that sounds vaguely like it. That can be a mistake. Take this article on “Finding Israel’s First Camels.” Innocent sounding enough, isn’t it? But very quickly we see an agenda materialize when we read, “Their findings further emphasize the disagreements between Biblical texts and verifiable history.” So is this on an archaeological find or a theological debate?

Reading further we don’t really learn about claimed “disagreements” other than, “archaeologists have shown that camels were not domesticated in the Land of Israel until centuries after the Age of the Patriarchs (2000-1500 BCE). In addition to challenging the Bible’s historicity, this anachronism is direct proof that the text was compiled well after the events it describes.” This is quite the statement and one would expect serious proof, yet the authors of this report don’t do this. The careful reader will note that they base their claim on the assumption that they have found the oldest camel remains.

The rational reader then will ask, “How could they possibly know they have found the oldest remains?” Well, they cannot, but these finds support their particular view of the Bible, so why bother with logic? Amazingly, this article actually waves a couple of red flags on its own:

“In all the digs, they found that camel bones were unearthed almost exclusively in archaeological layers dating from the last third of the 10th century BCE or later…The few camel bones found in earlier archaeological layers probably belonged to wild camels…the origin of the domesticated camel is probably the Arabian Peninsula…In fact, Dr. Ben-Yosef and Dr. Sapir-Hen say the first domesticated camels ever to leave the Arabian Peninsula may now be buried in the Aravah Valley. [emphasis added]”

Almost? Probably? May? And so they did find “earlier” remains that are “probably” wild?

Wow. This is the “science” that leads to the proclamation that “the Bible’s historicity” is challenged?

I don’t think the Bible has much to worry about here (and others have pointed out that the researchers above have ignored other research outside of Israel). My goal here isn’t to start a fight between “believers” and “non-believers,” but to show that conclusions couched in science or coming from scientists doesn’t mean we should not test their claims. Often, as with this example, it is not that hard. Another recent example was the recent Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham spectacle, portrayed as some great intellectual moment between science and religion.

It was more between two people who promote the “science and religion” aren’t compatible myth, albeit from different ends of the spectrum. One thinks science can’t see into the past (Ham), the other thinks science too dumb to detect design (Nye). Funny, I look at the Sun and see it as it was eight minutes ago and archaeology and forensics detect design every day.

These are the best we have to debate serious issues? They are not, but serious doesn’t sell.

We should be concerned that science and theology are so easily hijacked. Those who are well-schooled in the issues often don’t want to jump into the fray, they have better things to do. We cannot, however, give up on science, critical thinking and flushing out those who abuse these things and other higher fields of learning such as theology. We’ve let the few, the entertaining, and the media take over our learning for far too long.

Pope John Paul II said it best with, “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

Categories: Critical Thinking | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Brother of Jesus” Box: Real or Not?

Well, we still don’t know.

The court in Israel dismissed charges against an accused forger. Why? Because legions of “experts” laid out their evidence for and against the inscription being forged.

The ossuary has an inscription that reads, “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” For nearly ten years the debate has raged over these words and when they were chiseled on the side of this 2000 year old stone box. Some Christians don’t like the idea of Mary having other children other than Jesus. Scriptures do refer to Jesus having siblings, though some argue the “brothers and sisters” was more figurative. Others argue that there is no reason to discard the plain sense of the verses.

I will be reviewing this in more detail, along with other similar finds, over the next few weeks. Forgeries in archaeology cause much scrutiny to be leveled at any new find, but are “biblical” relics given more? Should they? What bias is at play, if any, from each side? And what role does the media play? It’s amazing how many articles on this court case one can read and get different information.

I thought the information age was supposed to make truth easier to find?

Categories: Bible | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.