, 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.

And more German non-combatants were killed by the British than British non-combatants killed by the Nazis. Guess the British are worse than the Nazis. And obviously the US is much, much worse than Imperial Japan.

And Palestinian identity doesn't exist in 1948. It's just Jews and Arabs. And some Arabs are Jews. So Jews and Muslims, really. Jesus is described as a (Jewish) Palestinian. So apparently Jews can be Palestinians too.

Interesting. ChatGPT describes it as theistic yet agrees that Jainism does not believe in a creator god. Mesopotamian religion and other ancient polytheistic systems also didn't have creator gods -- there was the primordial realm out from all things came including the other minor gods (higher beings) who were still subject to karma/fate/cycle of rebirth/etc. Israelite religion was unique in that it broke from this conception but this conception is very ancient. It's the idea of a single creator god that is new, relatively speaking.

My point about ancient human societies being theistic is a general truth -- there were certainly individuals and perhaps ancient movements who sort of bucked this trend like Epicurus, but Roman society -- as ancient societies were generally -- were polytheistic except strange cults like Judaism who practiced monotheism. Jainism, btw, is not atheistic. Of course a diversity of thought exists though. Maybe we could find a few ancient societies constructed on atheism/a rejection of theism but those would be the exception.

The Charvaka were an Indian philosophical school which was strictly materialistic, atheistic, and antidogmatic.

So they insist on a strict materialism and reject of the divinity yet remain non-dogmatic :brow:

Zoroastrianism is dualistic envisioning a cosmic struggle between a good divine being and an evil one. In Judaism there is no such struggle. God is unquestionably sovereign. I am not too familiar with zoroastrianism/pre-islamic Iran but I'd be interested to learn more.

In Islam God is also unquestionably sovereign. Christianity has elements of dualism (God v. Satan) but it's unclear whether Jesus really preached this or whether it was later addition/extrapolation. Early Christians wrestled with this issue.

The oldest religion is mesopotamian religion which goes back some ~10,000 years. Their god Marduk emerged victorious over the divine pantheon of lesser gods through brute force. Unsurprisingly mesopotamian civilizations were often imperialistic and brutal, particularly the Assyrians.

AFAIK virtually all ancient societies were theistic -- mostly polytheistic, but in the Hebrew Bible we see this shift from an anthropomorphized conception of Yahweh as a warrior-storm God to aniconic monotheism. I think "is there a God" is an obvious question to modern audiences, but it wasn't to the ancients.

Because it's stupid and pointless if there is no God. — bert1

Is self-actualization also myth? Or proper socialization? Or ancient history which the bible is a source of.

Exactly. So I'm puzzled by those who want to give a proof of God, because they usually are religious people. Why not simply follow the given manuals and act righteously? — ssu

It can be interesting to consider how far philosophy/rationality can lead us towards an understanding of God. Perhaps some type of prime mover necessarily exists.

:yawn:

And what is his follower assumed to do? To reason God's existence? Or perhaps to do something else? — ssu

Act righteously and divine favor will follow. "Reasoning God's existence" is not a biblical concern at all.

I urge people first to go and read their actual field manuals here: if you are Christian, read the Bible, if you are a Muslim, read the Quran or if you are a Jew, read the Torah. Now, do any of these Holy Scriptures insist and demand that in order for to find God you just have "really think it through" or "reason it out"?

He's assumed to exist. To be the ultimate cause behind natural events -- often misfortunates such as snakes and plagues entering the Israelite camp or the STD outbreak that resulted when the Israelite men went after the women of another tribe (Midianite, IIRC?) There seems to be a formula behind it: Irresponsible/bad behavior -> Misfortunate, which is a manifestation of divine displeasure/disfavor. This link is established early in the OT and leads to a certain self-reflective attitude and caution of the divine. On the flip side, good/moral behavior is generally linked with progeny and abundance -- divine favor. This a general trend in the OT but there are works that buck this trend - see book of Job.

From reading the Bible one gets the sense that there is a divine plan unfolding through history - reminds me of Heidegger in a way.

Israel fights a greater evil. Perfection exists nowhere in this world especially during war. In politics the question is often which power is less bad.

I can't tell what your specific complaint is.

"Jews should have a homeland" (Zionism) is no different than the idea that e.g. Armenians or Kurds should have a homeland.

Implicit in Zionism is an ethnic-religious hierarchy.

Caveat: History shows that sooner or later every ethno-state that systemically oppresses – murderously dispossess – out-groups, especially via deliberate and explicit policies of sabotaging "peace", forfeits its 'right to exist'. — 180 Proof

Is any state/community allowed to preserve/codify its ancestral traditions? Or is it all just supremacy?

So you can keep getting back to all the horrible attacks on Jews but I'm not committing them so don't have anything to do with it and don't need to apologise or make any statement about it because it's irrelevant with respect to Israel. — Benkei

Israel as an idea predates Israel as a modern nation state. In a sense, attacks on Jewish spaces are attacks on Israel. Israel is supranational as is the conflict.

And to be fair the bloodied victims were almost certainly zionists. So you should support it, perhaps. There's confusion about what makes one a valid target? Only Israeli Jews living on occupied land? Or all Israelis living on occupied land? Or perhaps all zionists everywhere.

Implicit in Nazism is racial hierarchy. "Germany for the Germans" is a fine idea as long as the foreigner is treated hospitably. It's when the foreigner seeks to eat their host that things get thorny.

I don't condone violence against Jews, except as part of the Israeli occupation, as you know. — Benkei

Does this mean all Jews in Israel are valid targets? Or that all Israelis are valid targets? Or only Jews/Israelis in the "occupied territories" are valid targets? See, the boundaries are porous. Many Palestinians consider all of Israel to be occupied territory, as you know. So is it ok to kill Jews in the West Bank but not in Jerusalem? There's no difference, really -- all of it is "stolen" in the Palestinian view.

In any case, what is the principle at work here to arrive at this conclusion? If land is "occupied" then you have the right to go around willy-nilly murdering the civilians of the occupying power? Really? Babies born on "occupied territory" have no right to live?

You simply love to equate and smudge the differences between Jews, Israeli Jews, Zionists and Israel as a country.

In reality these concepts are porous; they spill over into one another. ~90% of the Jews are zionists including all major denominations. There's no Judaism without the commitment/tie to Israel. It would be like trying to separate a child from its family -- from it's roots.

Same idea between Israel and Jews. Israel is mostly Jews. The conflict is fundamentally ethnic, but nation-states are a relatively recent notion that's been grafted onto the ancient (ethno-religious) conflict. When you understand the conflict in this way you understand it how the Jews and Muslims in the region understand it. Then there's none of this "well it's ok to murder Jews in the West Bank but not in e.g. Tel Aviv or Jerusalem" type of nonsense.

However, antisemites (re: Jews), like rightwing evangelical Christians and Iranian/rightwing Israeli-backed 'Hamas terrorists', are, in fact, pro-zionists (i.e. anti-"Two-State Solution"). — 180 Proof

Or, maybe, the anti-semites are the ones showing up to synagogues and assaulting Jews.

Are these evangelicals? :nerd:

You can stuff your anti-semitism where the sun don't shine. — Benkei

Your privilege is showing. When was the last time the Dutch really suffered? Or 1/3 of your countrymen systematically exterminated in a way which was entirely legal? We are not the same; don't ever forget it. Jews were violently assaulted in front of an LA synagogue today as well as the terrorist attack in Russia which targeted a synagogue. A little sensitivity wouldn't kill you. Jewish homes and businesses vandalized are becoming a regular occurrence in the states & elsewhere in the West. Not Israeli soldiers targeted, just random visibly Jewish Jews.

And it goes without saying that Jews have been ethnically cleansed from across the middle east and -- god forbid -- went to Israel for refuge. Those dirty zionists.

One of the reasons that Israel exists is because of attitudes like yours that dismiss anti-semitism and in turn foster a demand for independent Jewish leadership.

If Israel drops Zionism — Benkei

A Jewish homeland. That's all it is. If Israel is to be a democracy and a Jewish one it must maintain a certain demographic composition. Israel cannot "drop" Zionism because zionism is what affirms its existence -- Jewish self-determination.

Zionism is Jewish self-determination. Israel is the manifestation of that idea.

And the left sides with him re: the current rising tide of anti semitism sweeping the West. Regarding a Jewish state the Jews are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

“If we have to have a choice between being dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image, we’d rather be alive and have the bad image.”
— Golda Meir

Society is seeing levels of anti-semitism not seen since the 1930s and you rant about the "ashkenazis."

BTW David Duke sides with the anti-Israel protesters.

What is your point? Everyone is racist against everyone. Racism exists in some capacity everywhere unless a society were completely homogenous. Is that what you're after?

"There's racism in Israel" is banal to me. There's been 8 wars since Israel's inception where Israel faced annihilation of it lost. Not to mention centuries of Jewish persecution at the hands of Arabs. As long as Arab citizens are equal before the law and receive fair treatment in courts and have the same rights as the rest of the citizenry then I wouldn't call it apartheid. If there is apartheid (separate treatment), it is based on religion, not race.

Under what methodology are the ashkis the "in group" while the sephardis and mizrahi are the out group? Did the Jews decide this? Or an outside group that made this designation to condone bigotry towards them as they are labeled the "oppressors class."

Then you don't understand what discrimination is and you have much bigger problems. These laws would be struck down in the EU. — Benkei

Of course, no one is expecting the EU to define itself as a Jewish nation state. But the entire EU and the Jews are two very different groups with two very different histories. As long as I see Israeli arabs with equal political rights & access to high positions & non-discrimination protections regarding employment I will not think "apartheid." Of course racism exists everywhere.

The laws clearly did demonstrate the Palestinians are discriminated against when it comes to applying for Israeli citizenship.

You cannot have democracy without people being informed and you cannot inform people if you're not allowed to speak. Especially if what we're talking about are unprovable theories about what the world ought to be like.

Edit: it's also extremely worrisome this is your go-to example. Makes you appear as if you grew up in the dark ages. — Benkei

My example isn't drawn from Judaism but from Islam in which blaspheming the prophet Muhammad is a very serious offense. Free speech is quite varied across the western world; in the US supporting Nazism is protected but in Germany it isn't. What qualifies as "hate speech" is a controversial topic.

Is it "democratic" to allow for the promotion and spread of deeply anti-democratic ideologies?

my "non-point" is that we can all sow divisiveness within oppressed communities endlessly if we like. at some point in history has an ashki racially discriminated against a non-ashki? sure? but it can go the other way too with the ashki discriminated against. and no, i don't have to abide by your theory that only certain groups (ashkis, white) can be racist. in any case, jews today are far more worried about the anti-zionism/anti-semitic violence and rhetoric which is a billion times scarier than any jew on jew discrimination.

Did you know that the lighter skinned blacks discriminate against the darker skinned ones? They oppress them and treat them as lower.

None of the laws you've cited indicate that Israel discriminates de jure between Jews and non-Jews.

Freedom of speech trumps dumb fairy tales. — Benkei

I'm already familiar with your attitude towards religion. But if e.g. 90% of the people are in favor of anti-blasphemy laws would you say that it's "democratic" to nullify their will? Or do you just know their true will?

It's not just majority rule; it's also respect of fundamental civil rights and the rule of law. — Benkei

You don't seem to take notice of the inherent contradictions within this idea. What if the majority wants e.g. blaspheming Muhammad to carry a penalty?

If e.g. 90% of a population wants a state to promote and embody a certain religious tradition how "democratic" is to tell them no -- you must be secular.

Are states not within their rights to strive to maintain a certain demographic balance or would that be apartheid?

BTW Greece does favor those with Greek ancestry for citizenship.

I believe that a state favouring one religion above others is inherently discriminatory and should progress into an actual democracy instead of the Apartheid state it is now. — Benkei

Is a state to promote a certain way of life at all? Or no -- should it stay completely neutral? If a state has a religious character that may be due to democracy; the people may have wanted it. I don't see democracy and a state promoting a certain way of life/ancestral traditions as inherently anti-democratic.

If Israel were to fall it would just become a Muslim state. To impose secularism on a religious population seems undemocratic.

I don't hate Israel. I'm anti- zionist. — Benkei

Do you believe in the preservation or destruction of the Jewish state? If you're an anti-zionist then you ultimately aim at it's destruction. I thought I remembered you saying that you were in support of 1967 borders, but perhaps that was just step one of dismantling Israel.

but at least pursues the ideal of non-discrimination. — Benkei

I would say Israel does pursue the ideal of non-discrimination. Israel has numerous laws that combat discrimination like any western nation. Israel's basic laws include a provision on equalityfor all citizens not just Jews.

Here's some of the anti-discrimination legislation:

Equal Employment Opportunities Law (1988): Prohibits discrimination in employment on various grounds, including gender, age, race, religion, nationality, country of origin, sexual orientation, and more.
Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services, and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law (2000): Ensures that individuals are not discriminated against in access to goods, services, and public places.
Education Law (1953): Mandates equal educational opportunities for all children in Israel.

Never said that. I said that Palestinians have a right to violently resist their occupation but not all violence is permitted.

So according to you then violence against legitimate targets, e.g. government forces, is sanctioned until 1967 borders are returned to? Or until Israel is dismantled? A commitment to 1967 borders would still make you a zionist as it would leave the Jewish state intact.