Any opinion is biased — Why? — because I said so!
I have had many people read my posts regarding Israel and to whom I actually believe the land belongs to. The thing is this. I believe that it actually belongs to God first - and I say that only from my understanding and from what I have gleaned from the bible when I read it and when I study it. I have, by choice, put my trust in it and my faith it is fed by it. Ok, that is my first statement… Biased? yes you bet.
People have said they respect that. Well, I appreciate that and am very glad that you do, and you are entitled to have your opinion on the matter just as I am. My thanks are sincere to those of you who respond with maturity although responding in disagreement.
This got me thinking and pondering however.
A question - or should I say statement - has arisen about my particular interpretation of things; that this perception will only hold water with other people who believe the same.
Well, I say ‘Ditto …. Yes, that is right’.
However, it can be like-wise stated of those who have different belief structures and understandings to me. Their understanding is not an un-biased one by any means, neither is it superior just because they disagree with me. They too, have chosen to look through a certain lens of culture, history, social construct and various written material no matter who has written it or when it was written. They have perhaps been personally marginlised on either side and can speak from their own experience only. 
But to say that an argument is not going to be warranted because not everyone will agree does not make that argument null and void or even a baseless one unworthy of contemplation. On the other hand to say that a consensus of opinion makes a view point definitive and authoritative is actually a fallacious assumption. Oh … how complicated!
Hitler by consensus and with the help of democracy was brought into power in Germany — was that right? In fact, democracy, of which I am a firm supporter, has its flaws and just because it’s the majority who rule; does that now effectively mean it is fair for the minority in every which way. There is no man-made government that I am aware of that is absolutely good to absolutely every person in absolutely every way. It doesn’t matter who has brought in a particular government - whether it be Christian, Islamic, Communism, Socialism, Democratic or tyrannical for that matter. True, there are better systems that are fairer to the majority, but fair for all is an ideal that is just not going to be sustainable across any country, let alone the globe. It can’t possibly happen because man’s ways are flawed.
To say that I am the one and the only one that is biased is a bias statement in and of itself. Just the fact that I happen to think otherwise does make me bias to my own point of view - true - but so too does the other view. To even consider one argument as biased and the other not is quite a bias statement, which in my opinion does not lead to discussion or even debate but rather hinders it and tries to gag it.
Apparently my post called ‘Whose land is it anyway?’ and another persons post called ‘Whose Land is it?’ were going to be the subject of discussion at this place in Atlanta. These people who get together have decided to call their latest discussion ‘When does history begin?’ Debating and discussing in perhaps a think tank of sorts, they want to address land rights and peoples claim to land.
From what I have read, their consensus of opinion states that they will start discussing history from August 2nd 1945 which was the last day for the potsdam conference the final in a series that gave birth to the United Nations.
