Two states means Hamas is much more easily able to import heavy weaponry. It's a massive security risk.

And Israel has tried the goodwill approach. Pulled out entirely from Gaza in 2005. The communities that Hamas exterminated were the peaceful ones who worked towards integration with the Palestinians.

You cannot negotiate with an enemy is fully committed to eating you. There can be temporary ceasefires and diffusion of hostilities, but never truly peace.

Of the ~6k Palestinians that breached the border on 10/7 over 2000 of them were regular palestinian civilians who were given the opportunity to murder their neighbors and they gleefully partook. They took up guns and blunt force instruments to murder and torture their neighbors once they saw they had the opportunity. That's insane for me to think about.

backed for decades by the oppressor regime in order to preserve the "threat" by preventing – eliminating the possibility of – a "Two State" peace. — 180 Proof

Two states does not bring peace. It only strengthens the Palestinians (both PLO and Hamas) in their quest to conquer the entirety of Israel and subjugate/murder the entirety of the Jewish population living there as is stated explicitly in both groups foundational documents and repeatedly reiterated.

Don't you remember that even Hamas itself acknowledged that there were "some faults" on attacking civilians? Yep, even they admitted it: — ssu

Are they also sorry for the many hostages they've abducted and subsequently tortured and executed in captivity? Another 6 more today. Of the ~250 they stole only ~20 remain alive today and they're being used as human shields for Sinwar. Is Hamas sorry for this too?

Hamas's apology for 10/7 is absurd. What are they sorry for exactly? Was it the rape? Or was it the torture? Ideally, should they only have murdered? It's nonsense.

A large portion of the world sympathizing with it and even considering it justified? Really???? — ssu

Hamas support is surprisingly present on college campuses, particularly elite universities. That is cause for worry. Hamas support/sympathy is more popular with the youth. Our future leaders.

"The poll also indicated that 81 percent of voters believe that Hamas is a terrorist group, though among Gen Z, the number falls to 61 percent."

https://www.newsweek.com/poll-seeks-unravel-why-gen-z-appears-more-anti-israel-others-1893005

Indeed. Yet annexing territory is one of the most difficult things for any state to get acceptance from other states. Just look at the response of Russia annexing parts of Ukraine. Or Morocco with Spanish Sahara. — ssu

The situation in the WB is very complicated. In some cases its Jewish settlements being "annexed" by Israel -- in other words, places which were already Jewish and possibly have been for centuries. I believe there's been continuous Jewish presence in the West Bank since antiquity.

They believe they'll one day become Gods, no?

We could also throw out the pantheists and panentheists.

We are not discussing the question of who you "will take." We are discussing the question of whether Mormons are Christian. — Leontiskos

Ultimately, for the Christian, what matters is who is in Christ.

I should have anticipated that introducing the term "blasphemy" would elicit moralistic non sequitur from a secular audience (which is also ultimately self-contradictory, but I digress). The argument remains:

It is blasphemous for a Christian to consider themselves God's ontological equal, either now or in the future.
Mormons consider themselves God's ontological equal, either now or in the future.
Therefore, Mormons are not Christians.

"Blasphemy is mean" is not a logical response. — Leontiskos

I would certainly agree that is blasphemous to call oneself God's ontological equal or to believe that one can "become" God.

Yet I'll take the blasphemous mormon who follows the word and teachings of Christ to a T over the foul mouthed and hateful christian who immediately claims adherence to all christian dogmas. Neither are perfect, but I would say the former is more "in christ."

Aside from all this, I find Jesus a strange and radical figure. Many of his parables are morally dubious. They really do make me question. E.g. the parable of the workers in the vineyard - could a society survive long term with something like that? Absolutely not.

That parable and many others cut against the grain of traditional wisdom or what we would expect. A lot of his teachings have this aspect - unconventional, often short term in scope -- that imo sets him apart from other itinerant jewish preachers at this time.

Do you see the trap - that most of us are caught in most of the time? That of judging what we ought not judge. Of deciding what is right/wrong, good/bad, better/worse in a text, especially an ancient text; and in this case claiming it sacred and divine, while at the same time saying that parts of it aren't. — tim wood

It's called textual analysis and I don't have an issue with it. We can go through texts and glean different "layers" - what is earlier and what was a later addition. I'm reading Alter's 5 Books of Moses now and he does this with the Torah. From memory, I was reading Deut 30 yesterday and Alter mentioned 4 different authors in this passage -- a very ancient source, an ancient one, a redactor, and a later editor. Books/texts in those days were more open. There are different layers to them and a skilled textual critic/translator can discern them.

If I'm going to construct Jesus -- I'm going to start with what is core - what scholarship has determined is definitely him and I can circle outwards from there into the "probably Jesus" and "maybe Jesus" layers. We need a way of correctly & reasonably prioritizing information otherwise we can get bogged down/hyperfocus on scarcely mentioned details that were likely if not certainly later additions. The Jesus seminar seeks to start with the certainties and broaden from there. We're also able to resolve certain contradictions with this approach.

And something can be useful but also be a later addition. Later addition doesn't mean necessarily mean wrong. Later additions can be good interpretations or give us insight into the writer's personal understanding. But if something isn't in the earliest manuscripts that is notable for me. So no, I don't just treat every single word the same weight.

is part way on the right track but would modify it to focusing on what he did say or is credited with saying and trying to understand what he meant. — tim wood

sure -- focus on what he definitely said and start with that. and yes it needs to be interpreted.

Thanks for those references.

No reason to think Jesus was familiar with these in particular, but it's a lesson life teaches often enough in one or another form that a person sensitive to such things would pick up on. — tim wood

I know "love your enemies" circulates now but consider it in 30 AD under Roman occupation in Judea. Were Jews supposed to love their Roman occupiers? It's a strange notion, especially in an ancient world with strict hierarchy and honor. It is not one that I'm aware of any rabbis - ancient or current - ever teaching.

Sure one is taught not to hold a grudge, but to love one enemy is a very different matter. I find Jewish ethics to be quite practical and realistic. There's an emphasis on making things doable. One is not expected to love one someone who severely wronged you.

And Aramaic ->Greek->English, what I take note of is Jesus's simple transactional nature of the "love" called for - do these things and you will be rewarded. — tim wood

Yeah, I can see how the transactional nature devalues the statement. In the Jesus seminars they consider "your reward will be great" (Luke 6:35) to be a later addition. "Love your enemies" and "forgive and you'll be forgiven" remains core, genuine Jesus. IMHO by limiting the scope of what Jesus says you'll find a stronger Jesus.

Oh for crying out loud, Christianity has withered for a long time starting from the 19th Century, so that cannot be the problem. — ssu

It is the problem. It's an ongoing problem.

What happened on 10/7 was - and I don't use this word lightly - straight-up demonic. Yet you have a large portion of the world sympathizing with it and even considering it justified. Hostage posters get torn down all the time. Why? Because Israel supposedly commits the cardinal sin of our day - they are "racist." They are the oppressors. And the "oppressed" have every right to resist (and the oppressor has no say in how resistance is carried out), so the reasoning goes. No distinction is to be made between e.g. a 6 year old Israeli girl and the state of Israel. They are all the "occupiers." The "colonists." It is the 6 year old Israeli girls fault for being born in Israel and then choosing to live there. Apparently by doing so she becomes the oppressor and the oppressed will resist as they are entitled to. 10/7 was an unspeakable tragedy that deliberately targeted the Israeli peacemakers and revealed the rot within the palestinian societies as many palestinian civilians gleefully breached their neighbor's fences that day to commit unspeakable crimes against their neighbors. not the israeli government -- their own neighbors. ones working towards peace & integration.

This type of moral reasoning is straight up demonic yet it's become a feature in a culture today. I see it all the time here in the TPF. I see it on college campuses. As religious morality moves out, something needs to replace it. And what has replaced it is often very ugly & perverse.

Of course religious people can still be morally perverse and the non-religious can have a decent head on their shoulders. I speak in generalities.

It can win the conventional armies and air forces of it's neighbors. What Israel cannot do is to venture out into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt and occupy those countries.

:100:

It's from the River to the Sea. Not further.

Which in all fairness has already been achieved at some points.

Proverbs 25:21–22, and go from there. I refer you to your own devices not because I'm lazy, but because there are more than I care to list, and because you will see them "when they're at home," when you can judge them for yourself best. — tim wood

I see the two are in the same ballpark, but J goes further with it. "Love your enemy" is not a part of Jewish tradition or the Hebrew Bible. If it was you'd hear Jews talking about it. It is a thoroughly Christian teaching. Maybe the seeds of it can be found in prov. 25? Jesus makes strong, memorable formulations.

Love your enemy." Which leaves open the question of what was attributed to him, which centers on the ancient Greek word we all love and think we understand, agape — tim wood

I believe J spoke aramaic which was then translated into greek for the gospels.

But Jesus makes clear in Luke 6: 27-36 (& Matt. 5: 43-48) what he does mean — tim wood

we should keep in mind that much of the gospels is likely elaboration by evangelists, at least this is the conclusion of the jesus seminar - a group of some ~200 biblical scholars.

the novelty of Christianity being the uses, "spin," applied to those stories in their retelling - and nothing wrong with that, as the judgment of the world for almost 2,000 years attests. — tim wood

I'd count new spins (interpretation) on old words as innovation.

I asked for a source on "love your enemies" that predates Jesus. You did not provide one. ChatGPT attributes the idea/quote to Jesus.

I understand that implementation & interpretation is a whole other matter.

Where and when was it said? And by who? Don't leave me hanging.

Love your enemy.

But of course, that doesn't mean a Goddam fuck to you that your allies did participate in your invasion of Afghanistan, whereas Israel fighting it's own war of existence makes you state: " Here we know the necessity of fighting and beating a wicked enemy - something that seems to have been lost on much of Europe." — ssu

I generalize of course, but for whatever reason the Europeans here tend to understand e.g. Islamic violence in terms of blowback so, basically, whatever Islamic violence befalls a people it is in some sense deserved. Chickens coming home to roost. If only the West would de-escalate then the muslim terror groups would smile at the West's change of heart and there would be peace again. Maybe we need to give them Israel. Then they'll be happy. Give the radicals what they want and stop funding Israel and hopefully they'll stop too.

I feel bad for the Europeans because with the decline in Christianity they're left without much guidance and they're facing a people who have a strong sense of purpose.

Netanyahu receiving 50+ standing ovations in US Congress was a bit of an eye-opener to me. — Tzeentch

It wasn't too long ago that 2000+ Americans were killed in American soil and it sparked a war that at least initially had widespread support. Here we know the necessity of fighting and beating a wicked enemy - something that seems to have been lost on much of Europe.

IIRC Mormons hold that JC is the literal son of god and not god himself placing him outside of the nicean-creed understanding of christianity.

If you believe in Spinoza's God isn't everything God to you? So then Jesus is God. As are we.

You don't really need to go searching. God is already there is Scripture. The Old Testament is written before Jesus walks the Earth.

Says... a communist whose ideology has killed more people than all religions combined. Not surprised at all that you sympathize with brutal Islamist regimes.

In b4 BuT tHaT wAsN't ReAl CoMmUnIsM

I'm somewhat of a Christian but I'll still answer.

I'd stick to classical theism in the Abrahamic tradition. That would leave me with either Judaism or Islam. I suspect many Christians become Muslims under this thought experiment. At least in Islam he is a prophet.

Being offended is not a substitute for an argument. Only Islam is ever afforded this level of immunity from criticism. But this isn't Starmer's Britain; it's a philosophy forum.

Earth to frank, Islam isn't a race. It's an ideology that seeks to spread itself to every corner of the globe. And it just so happens to subjugate women, minorities, and animals virtually everywhere it goes.

hard-line anti-non-western types to hold hte fort, I think. — AmadeusD

And are they all our allies? The right and the Islamists feed off each other. Any decisive action taken to defend "western civilization" will bring back echoes of Europe's past. Not an easy situation.

Israel is ground zero in the conflict between West and Islam. If Israel falls, Europe is next. Europe is already feeling the pressure. How democratic and tolerant can a society be towards those who are fundamentally undemocratic and intolerant? Such questions test the limits of western democracy. We should all be uncomfortable.

"from the river to the sea" is the original zionist motto - but I would rather be a muslim under jewish rule than a jew under muslim rule. Israel is currently fighting the palestinians over the west bank. The simple fact is is that Israel has no viable negotiating partner today.

There is simply no secular force with the Palestinians today. Even the "secular" PLO has references to Sharia in its Constitution/founding documents. It's a religious & political struggle mixed with a deep history of violence. This war is the very confrontation point where West meets Islam.

As per our last discussion, pro palestinian protesters met with Harris this weekend and claimed that she would be open to stopping arms sales to Israel if elected (she is currently the slight favorite.) In the past she has come close to accusing Israel of war crimes. The Democratic Party today is a very unreliable "ally" to Israel. As an American, I don't get the sense that Harris has firm positions on the matter and that she will cave quickly to forceful pro-palestinian voices which have been a rising and violent tide in American political discourse.

I'd suspect it's revenge for something - likely another murder. But yes it's the wild west out there. If a Palestinian murders an Israeli their government will reward them for it so Israelis seek justice themselves.

You do understand that people mean with the far right (just as with the far left) totally different people that others think they are. — ssu

Sure. I mean the neo-nazi/nick fuentes "groyer" movement here in the US.

Bibi knows just what to tell the Americans and when. For him Americans aren't a problem, he's lived enough time in the US and has followed the politics to understand how American politics works. — ssu

Sure he can deal with Americans. But to say that Israel has the US wrapped around its finger is simply a misassessment of reality. Tensions have heightened in recent talks and the Biden administration has been quietly targeting Israel with unprecedented sanctions.

And unfortunately, which I truly hate, for some it has become part of the left/right culture war. — ssu

Sorta? It's now more like the far left, muslims, and far right have formed a bloc that opposes Israel. So it's more like horseshoe theory. Moderate Dems are generally supportive of it as are most Republicans except the ones are fringes like the groypers/white supremacists.

And they are confident they will get there, it will just take time. — ssu

Bibi said he did not intend to take Gaza in his speech to the US Congress. Maybe you know Bibi was lying?

In contemporary (US) society there are at least three institutions in particular which, again imo (never having belonged to any of them myself), mostly tend to (but do not always) feminize males: religion, marriage & prison. — 180 Proof

IMO Christianity does have a more feminine ethic, but this is not the case for Judaism or Islam. Certain branches like Eastern Orthodoxy are more patriarchal. Still, I would say that the Christian ethic as expressed in the gospels could reasonably be considered a more feminine one -- not a weaker one, but a more feminine one.

, who subsequently assassinated the chief Palestinian negotiator — Tzeentch

poor innocent haniyeh :cry:

murdered by those evil zionists :rofl:

Given this, it would make sense to pick popular religions and try them out, learning as much as you can, and giving each a chance to display their truth to you. When you find a religion you think contains truth, you practice it but remain skeptical, still searching other religions for more/more relevant truths. — Igitur

I think it would be interesting to throw yourself into these religions -- suspend your doubt (if required) for just a minute and see what type of person you become if you attempt to internalize that religion's teachings. I suspect you'll come to find, e.g., that the ideal Christian is quite different from the ideal Jew and that different religions contain different visions for humanity.

The problem of the Fall and prelapsarian sin is: how can anyone truly "freely" choose evil? Wouldn't choosing evil imply either ignorance of the fact that it is evil or else "weakness of will/incontinence?" There is no rational reason to choose the worse over the better. Therefore, if someone chooses it they are either unable to choose the Good, mistake the worse for the better, or else their actions are arbitrary and determined by no rationality at all. And this would seem to imply that the Fall must be explained in terms of some sort of fundemental weakness of will or ignorance, in which case the question is "why was this imperfection included?"

This reminds me of the biblical idea of God hardening hearts. But yes, man can willingly and deliberately choose the worse over the better. And a choice may not be rational but that doesn't necessarily make it arbitrary. I'm reminded of the Doesyoevsky quote that men are not piano keys, but I don't want to romanticize man's capacity for these types of destructive choices. Man can lose sight of himself/his place in this world/his role in this world. Sever man's divine understanding and see what fills its place.

If one is wholly weak then one is neither good nor evil. Then one is not a moral agent -- but rather more like a vegetable.

Weak resentful men are often the most dangerous and are quite capable of evil.

Why are you typing this on your phone/laptop? Go sell it and donate the proceeds to starving children.

And yes locality matters.

I get his position. He opposes oppression. But the powerful will virtually always oppress more than the powerless, so the position just basically ends up opposing power everywhere.

Show me examples of when the weak are more oppressive than the strong.

The stronger side will have the higher kill count in conflict thus, in a way, it is the oppressor/villain/bigger murderer.

pretty sure your morality can be summed up as a reflexive hatred of the strong. the weak can do whatever and remain in your favor insofar as they oppose the strong. in comparison they can never be bad - because they are weak.

You have serious difficulty grasping the idea that evil can also be weak. I think we've been over that this is a blind spot for you.

You vilify the strong and adore the weak.