I remember reading Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception & Perennial Philosophy years ago and he comes to a similar conclusions regarding our inherent connectedness. I've heard such ideas before and they're intriguing but I'm not quite sure what the upshot is. Where does one go from there?

The statement is interesting. I guess you consider it as something to obey. Did you impose this belief yourself? I agree with you. Philosophy is a very reliable tool which helps us to understand ourselves and what is around... But it is not the epitome. I often felt lost when I searched for answers regarding ethics and values. — javi2541997

I found that the rational inquiry for ethics and values didn't help me understand my own place in the world at all. Even if I did get attached to a new ethical theory, so what? Why do I have to always obey it? What did e.g. utilitarianism tell me about me as a person? Not very much except that I'm basically one ethical unit among many. That's why you get these philosophers who may be very book smart but fail as people and live unhappy lives because they can't function in society or form meaningful relationships.

I believe in God because I find revealed wisdom that is so rare and brilliant within the Bible that I have no term for other than divine revelation. I don't know how ancient people would have reached these conclusions just by themselves especially given we as moderns didn't. It's like recovering lost knowledge. Divine dialogues reveal truths that reason just cannot penetrate yet are necessary for life/a healthy society.

Well it was authored by men. Did you at least find wisdom in any of the dialogues?

Sure. So the obvious conclusion is that there is no consistent account of the nature of god as posited.

Now from this we might conclude either that he doesn't exist or that he does and we just have to accept that he is inscrutable.

You get to choose. — Banno

The Bible is not an ideological monolith. Different works present different takes on the subject. Why would we expect ideological uniformity from over 1000 years of texts? Read it and make your own judgments.

God is inscrutable in his entirety. Yet he does reveal certain things within the pages of the Bible. And certain things are consistent throughout.

Good post. I have a few, minor comments.

Scholars generally attribute the oldest texts some time around the 7th century BCE — schopenhauer1

There are poems and fragments of older texts dating back centuries earlier perhaps as early as the 11th century BC for some of the poems which conceptualize God in highly anthropomorphic, warrior-like ways like song of the sea. Perhaps the texts were completed around the 7th century BC?

I also agreed that Abraham is rewarded for his faith and I think this is made pretty clear in the story. From memory, Abraham's faith "was credited to his merit" and this idea was picked up by St. Paul. I don't really see the issue. God can also be bargained with in other stories.

According to Shaye Cohen scribes appear in the second temple period. By scribes he means laymen knowledgeable of the Tanakh.

Yes the general theme of the Tanakh is obey God, follow his directive, and good will come. And of course the inverse is true too. But this isn't universal as seen in Job and Ecclesiastes.

I love the Bible but I don't often engage organized religion in person.

When I was younger I was deeply concerned with morality and ethics and trying to find an objective grounding. As I aged, I found that these religious texts (the Bible, namely) are actually excellent self-help books. "Israel" can be seen as a metaphor for the self, a metaphor for a society, and also of course a history of sorts for the actual Israel. But it's application and relevance is universal.

As I aged my focus shifted away from impersonal ethics to self-improvement/self-actualization. I didn't read the New Testament until I was around 30 (I was raised Jewish) and I realized that the character of Jesus actually makes us more attractive and helps socialize us regardless of religious connotations. I mostly pay attention to what Jesus says (this is how people like Thomas Jefferson read the Bible AFAIK.) I don't mean to preach heresy but until someone can explain the miracles this will be my approach. In any case, if one is truly able to internalize the beliefs and teachings of Jesus I believe one will be fundamentally transformed and I reached that conclusion with zero Christian education.

I love the Old Testament as well. The God character gives divine revelation -- knowledge that humans wouldn't be able to glean either through their own reason or experience. Yet one must believe it if one seeks life. Our own thoughts and beliefs can slowly kill us if left to our own devices. The Old Testament is very much a book concerned with life. It is not about the afterlife. I've found some of the dialogues with God to be extremely helpful.

I believe in God because I have to. It's not a matter of a philosophical proof. I don't hate philosophy (I did major in it after all) but our reason is very limited and impersonal reason often will not help us live well.

If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban, we need only read the Old Testament. — alan1000

In which man stealing is unequivocally prohibited which should have been enough to shut down the institution of American slavery, yet somehow I notice the pro-slavery crowd seems to have an affinity for the writings of Paul, in the New Testament. :chin:

What I consider correct is somewhat less imposing and absolute. And even subject to change. — Ciceronianus

Personally, I want some things to be absolute, for example the dignity/essential goodness of human life and the way that disability is understood.

Yep. It sits in the foundational story of Abraham, who would sacrifice his son because god wills it, glorifying doing what one is told to do over taking personal responsibility. — Banno

I think you're retrojecting back a 21st century understanding to an individual who supposedly lived in the early 2nd millennium BC when human sacrifice was a normal cultural practice meant to please the gods and bring about good harvests (I don't believe monotheism was a thing at this time). What's there to say that it's wrong? Animals are sacrificed, why not humans?

even then it would still seem that most of the earliest sources have clear references to the divinity of Christ. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, the earliest sources generally dating to the 50s. If we're being generous the late 40s in the case of James. So roughly 15 years between the death of Jesus and the first epistles claiming divinity. 9-10 years in the absolute best case taking 36 AD as his death year.

All of these earliest Christian sources occur after the resurrection which is taken as absolute, undeniable truth. Death itself has been defeated. There were other miracle workers at this time but who else has conquered death?

What the Apostles thought before they wrote anything is of course pure supposition. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yet we know they were Jews. The messiah coming is one thing; for a Jew to believe God is walking here on Earth is another. From memory, the gospels do mention that Jesus's vision was not unlimited; there were things he did not see like who tugged on his robe. Maybe that was just him knowingly adopting a limited human form. If he truly did conquer death and rose after the third day then all bets are off.

Yet God does seemingly walk among Adam and Eve in Eden. He also visits Abraham in human form in Gen. 18. One thing I notice about Jesus is his affinity for Genesis or at least the ideas and themes present in Genesis (e.g. naturalism, hierarchy reversal, conceptions of cleanliness/uncleanliness). He beckons to a time before Moses.

As for the point on Logos you've lost me. Once God gets divided into 3 you've lost me.

EDIT: Regarding Logos, when I was a philosophy undergrad I was taught Logos meant "reason" or "the word." I understand that by gLuke, Jesus is identified with Logos -- I always just interpreted this as saying that Jesus's words were pure, absolute truth. Perfect sense. This is my understanding but it is likely superficial ("prima facie" :lol: ) because I wasn't born, raised, or educated as a Christian or a Greek apart from a few college philosophy courses.

I was reading Nahum Sarna today on Genesis 1 and he rejects the notion of treating God's fiat -- his creation speech -- as a "magic word" but rather as an expression of his divine will. If Logos is to be found in the bible perhaps book of Job would be a better example? That is, a dialogue between a limited human observer and all knowing God who powerfully responds to the human's questions. But it is through poetry.

From the late 1800s to the latter half of the 20th century biblical scholars "knew" there had been a Council of Jamnia in the late first century where the Hebrew canon was fixed in response to Christianity. Now this is a theory embraced by virtually no one. But the rise and fall of such theories has little to do with new evidence, and more with arguments over the same old evidence, which gain currency. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Such a meeting did happen and canon was debated, but we now understand that Jewish canon formation was a process rather than a single fixed event. Certain later texts such as Daniel or Esther were likely discussed at these meetings, but the Torah had been fixed/canonized since the Persian period. By 100 AD canon is largely fixed with only a few later texts being debated. Jamnia/Yavneh is documented in Jewish sources.

Paul's letters are widely taken to be the earliest Christian sources though, which makes the temporal argument seem a bit off. Luke is coming significantly later, perhaps after John, and in any event Luke taken with Acts shows Jesus as quite divine. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get that, and I'm no NT scholar... Paul's letters are from the 50s? I understand Paul has his revelation in 33-36 yet never meets Jesus in the flesh. I don't know when along this time period Jesus becomes God in Paul's mind.

In any case, it seems prima facie unlikely to me that in this late second temple period that an educated Jewish preacher would preach and convince his largely Jewish audience that he was indeed God/Adonai -- the one who had talked to Moses and Abraham and Adam. I could be wrong about this. Other messiahs do exist -- Cyrus the great was a messiah. I believe King David was as well who the gospel writers link to Jesus in a likely reference to the prophecy at the end of 2 Samuel. God tells David that he will raise up one of his kin and that "I will be a father to him, and he will be to me a son." I could be wrong about this, but if I had to guess I would throw in with Ehrman that Jesus's divinity came after the death of Jesus.

My point was that if we always just keep looking back there'll always be a reason for violence. Some grievance at play whether current or historical.

No, I was a philosophy major. We thought about big ideas. Like how dumb it is to try to draw a definitive line in this conflict where "everything begins."

But we also understand that certain mindsets are conducive to peace while others are not.

Weren’t you the one saying you consider October 7th to be the beginning of this and that nothing prior matters? — Mikie

Tell me, O wise one, when does it all begin? Who threw the first stone to injure the other? Who destroyed the kingdoms of the other without just cause? What year is the line in the sand where it all begins?

Really? I am familiar with him largely through his name being synonymous with a sort of liberal "debunking" of the Scriptures. — Count Timothy von Icarus

He does have more popular works, but he is a serious scholar. I browse /academicbiblical from time to time and here's what one PhD in the New Testament had to say about Ehrman:

"Ehrman tends to stick to very mainstream positions, but that doesn't mean there aren't substantial groups of scholars who disagree with him. The first example that comes to mind is that he believes in Q, whereas a growing minority of scholars (often influenced by Ehrman's colleague on the other side of the Tobacco Road rivalry, Mark Goodacre) are dispensing with that hypothesis."

I Peter is dated to the early 60s AD if Petrine authorship is accepted, and this puts Jesus being called Lord and prayers to Jesus in with the very earliest Christian texts in existence. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't doubt this, I think Ehrman's concern is whether during Jesus's ministry he and his disciples considered him as God in the flesh.

as Jesus does things in Mark like affirm he is the Christ and talk about coming down on a cloud with the Might One, etc.

Yes, Christ from the Greek christos or "messiah." Ehrman agrees that Jesus considered himself the Jewish messiah. The messiah is a person chosen for a specific purpose or special role by God.

Ehrman is one of the top biblical scholars (biblical historians?) and he tows pretty mainline, well-researched positions so I don't think his views are particularly controversial or should be treated as prima facie wrong. I think it's possible that his views are being misrepresented here.

In any case, by gJohn Jesus is clearly divine while in the earlier gospels it's a little more ambiguous with some of Jesus's statements conveying a clear separation between him and God. So, as the gospels progress Jesus gets increasingly divine and the gospels also become increasingly pro-Roman and paint the Jews in an increasingly bad light. Sort of similar to what happened as the gentiles took over the movement from the early Jewish followers. Paul however clearly views Jesus as divine, and Ehrman would surely agree that Paul viewed him as such.

Regardless, as a thinker I'm quite sympathetic to Jesus and find his views to be profound and radical but also quite controversial. He's a quite dangerous thinker and dare I say his death was even somewhat fitting for a thinker who preached such a hardline dualism/anti-materialism.

EDIT: Jesus does have quite a few parallels with the prophet elijah who existed ~900 years prior. A few examples off the top of my head:

- both conduct food multiplication miracles
- both raise the dead
- both are highly mobile, wandering from place to place, rarely settling down
- both come from humble roots and preach against materialism
- both ascend to heaven

Robert Alter is of the position that the Elijah was used as a template for the Jesus of the gospels. Personally however I find Jesus to be the richer character.

Foul language from a supporter of a foul group. The movement is foulness. Can't say I'm surprised.

deleted.

Like you mentioned earlier, there's a difference between how you treat the individual in the moment versus our philosophical ruminations about a certain topic. I will respect someone's gender pronouns ~99% of the time if dealing with an actual individual. Philosophically, whether a trans man could fit the bill of being a gever is an interesting question.

And if you're a man that wants to be intimate with another man? You're still just as much of a man as someone who wants to be intimate with a woman. — Philosophim

In the Hebrew Bible, they use a few different terms for "man" or "male." The word zachar means male. The word gever means man - it's root g-v-r, ties back to "strength" or "to prevail."

So a adult man is a zachar but not necessarily a gever. And I think this distinction reverberates in society today. Masculinity is achieved, not automatically granted to all males regardless of condition or behavior. So for this reason I think it's wrong to call transwomen "men." They are not. They occupy a unique third space.

Yeah, I would also rather call it a condition rather than a "mental disorder." Do not stigmatize it as a "mental illness." And this applies across a number of conditions.

Transsexualism is in the DSM-5. It is an actual medical condition that one can get diagnosed with. Upon receiving the diagnosis the patient receives a prescription for HRT.

Yet one can be diagnosed as a transsexual and still perform/behave as their assigned gender.

A surprisingly forward look. I was wrong about you. Unless of course you're being disingenuous, you are quite objective with biblical values. In your mind does God allow for such? Or are they like sinners going to hell and this is just a mask? — Vaskane

I don't see where Jesus ever tell his followers to "masc it up" -- what's ultimately important is whether one is "in christ" or not. Maybe someone is more "in christ" in the opposition gender. Gender roles don't play a major focus in the OT either. Jesus says we are not saved by our deeds so who are we to condemn all trans people to hell?

Deut. 22:5 does have a prohibit against crossdressing, but if you look into the hebrew it's actually very interesting and not at all as clearly cut and dry as english bibles make it out to be.

As such, I believe that labeling a transexual person as 'transgendered' creates confusion and harm. — Philosophim

Transsexualism is a condition. A transsexual may present as their assigned gender (especially before they begin HRT), so they may not be transgender at that point. The medical condition transsexualism is for some people the basis of trangenderism - we call that position trans-medicalism.

Could you clarify your claim here? Are you saying that he rejects the idea of sin? Or that there is no sin in Heaven? Or that all Jewish claims of sin he rejects?

Yeah, too bad Hamas hasn’t learned to kill tens of thousands of people the right way. — Mikie

I'm convinced if it were ~80 years ago you'd have been a Hitler fanboy given your incredibly non-judgmental attitude towards the manner in which people die. It's apparently all just sorta the same to you.

You side with the team that intentionally murders the innocent. That's all I'm going to say to you.

And furthermore, I think the Israeli administration sees this as a "window of opportunity" to deal a blow to all enemies and thus they have to milk the traumatic experience of the attack and promote hard views and idea of punishment. Like after Rafah, then starts the war against Hezbollah. There at least the IDF can say that Hezbollah hasn't retreated to the Litani river. If Israel want's to refer to international agreements in the first place. — ssu

I don't know so much about "milking" the trauma when the trauma is still fresh and festering. The brutality of 10/7 was unlike anything many countries have ever experienced. Women raped in front of their families and then the families executed. Whole families and communities tortured before being murdered. The degree of personal brutality exceeds anything the IDF has ever considered. Hamas is much, much more brutal then the IDF and they have no qualms with deliberately targeting civilians whether through deliberate rape, torture, kidnapping, or murder. It's not even close. But they are given a blank cheque by the left to do whatever they want because they are the "oppressed" and even their "noble" savagery cannot compare to the evils of amorphous, 80-year old "Israel."

If the IDF were wicked then the IDF should be targeted; not random, peaceful civilians. Hamas hurts the Palestinian cause of self-determination. Ridding "Palestine" of Hamas may help the Palestinians attain statehood in the long run.

And Israel has let in plenty of aid. Netanyahu claims a 1:1 civilian to terrorist death ratio. Israel provides medical care for Palestinian civilians.

10/7 may very well destabilize the region and lead to something larger, but it's not an inevitability. But undoubtedly 10/7 has led to a huge upsurge in anti-semitism across the globe while other conflicts such as the one in Nigeria where Muslims have been murdering thousands of Christians and engage in ethnic cleansing gets completely ignored. No Jews, no news.

As far as the cultural distinction, Christian faith tends more towards fideism (justification by faith) and the Eastern traditions more towards forms of gnosticism (saving insight). But so far as secular culture is concerned, while they're worthy of respect as elements of human culture, they're not truth-bearing in the way that scientific observation can be. — Wayfarer

Interesting you mention this issue of justification, i.e. one being 'made righteous' in the eyes of God or otherwise as in the case of secular moral philosophy. I never saw this topic dealt with when I studied philosophy. In any case, the idea of justification by faith alone was revitalized by Luther in the 16th century (imho his thinking on this topic is an accurate representation of Christ's own teachings) in opposition to Catholic doctrine that righteousness is imputed through both faith and works (deeds). If we broaden our scope to monotheism in general there is Judaism that is more works-based as is Islam, I think.

Moral ethicists, last time I checked, tended to be either utilitarians, kantians, or perhaps virtue ethicists. the utilitarians or the kantians may be able to describe what makes an action good, but what about what makes a person good? maybe I missed something. In any case, I realized that these philosophies have a ~200-300 year history while monotheistic commentary exploring such questions goes back millennia.

While I found that modern secular analytic philosophy can help one think and write well, it didn't particularly help me address the 'big questions' or understand myself at all.

I agree much of the Bible is great literature and great literature may do as you suggest. It may help people to understand the human condition and live better lives. It is all about how best to live this life, and worrying about an imagined life to come after this one is not the best way. — Janus

Sure. I just go one step further: While reading it, I found some of the dialogues on certain topics e.g. disability, to be absolutely amazing to the point where I would consider it effectively "divine revelation" due to the brilliant handling of it. I was taught knowledge comes through two channels: a priori and a posteriori, but the bible reaches conclusions that don't really fall into either category yet I find myself irrevocably drawn towards. Can I definitively prove that God spoke to Moses in such a way? Of course not: I don't even know what it would mean to prove such a thing! For instance, if a booming voice from the sky spoke down to Moses does that mean it's God? Beats me. In any case, focus on the afterlife comes much later along the biblical timeline.

I disagree with this. The 'higher' animals also reason in their own ways in my opinion. You should have (provisional) faith in yourself and your convictions, while remaining open to other ideas and constantly testing them and your own ideas against your own experience. — Janus

Agree.

Reason alone tells us nothing, it must be applied to experience. For the free spirit accepting dogma is the way down, the way back, not the way up or the way forward. — Janus

Yes I spent most of my life gaining knowledge/adopting my beliefs through reason and experience.

But for the believer what is at stake is much more than a belief, but the fate of their immortal soul, which is something of absolutely momentous importance. That's what I meant by 'asymmetry', although I'm not going to go into bat for belief in God.

Theist here: It should be about more than just "getting to heaven." The bible contains unbelievably sophisticated dialogues and discourses between "God" and "man" which helps man frame and understand his world/his self. The "divine revelation" contained in the bible helps me understand myself, which extends to the world and its various phenomena. It's also just an astoundingly wise and radical work of literature to have been written in antiquity (or for any time, for that matter.)

IMHO remove those guideposts and we're in a very different type of world... human reason is very, very late to the scene, evolutionarily speaking, and as well as biased and if you rely on it for everything as the philosopher tends to do you just end up with an enormous faith in yourself and your own convictions as I've seen time and time again. Reason has its place but to say that one's entire worldview can be constructed from reason is just folly.

I don't agree with Nietzsche that Christians hate this world. — Ross Campbell

Jesus preaches against Pharisaic materialism. The emphasis of the Pharisees was on the world, or as they would have put it, balancing divine obligations with material ones. But Jesus will have none of this -- "If your right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away. It is better to lose one part of your body than to have your whole body thrown into hell."

Jesus is a dualist and what is of ultimate importance is the final destination of the soul; not the health or longevity of the body. Jesus never tell his followers how to lengthen their natural lifespan or attain a stronger body, rather it is about attaining eternal life in the hereafter. Jesus dies at 33 and in a very fitting way given the message he preached.

I know that in Hebrew (and possibly Aramaic) the word for slave and servant is the same, but Christianity is 1000% servant morality: Jesus tells his followers "the greatest among you will be your servant" and he washes the feet of his disciples. The Pope does the same.

Jesus is the very encapsulation, the very essence, of servant/slave morality. IMHO the gospels usher in a moral revolution.

The Nazis used Christianity opportunistically but their inner circle were not Christian.

As stated earlier, the Japanese attack wasn't comparable to a terrorist attack. It really was a traditional military invasion. Remember that the US owned the Philippines and the Japanese invaded your colony. The US was also invaded in the Alaska. That's far off from a terrorist strike.

But sure.

The best comparable situation that comes to mind was when the Austro-Hungarian crown prince was murdered in cold blood in Sarajevo by terrorists that had relations to Serbia. Austro-Hungaria had to declare war!

Pearl harbor was a surprise attack that killed ~2600. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a political assassination that killed one. 10/7 was a massacre and attempted invasion that destroyed entire communities and killed ~1200 but Israel has a smaller population so when brought to scale the number is closer to Pearl Harbor numbers.

I can't liken the murder of ~1200, mostly civilians, to the death of one political leader. If Hamas wanted to go that route they could have attempted it. They could target political leaders. But they don't.

Morally speaking, 10/7 is worse than Pearl Harbor because at least Pearl Harbor was a military target. 10/7 was a much greater tragedy than the killing of a political leader, a single person representative of a political party. 10/7 was an assault on civilization and the Jews and revealed the true face of the enemy. There is absolutely zero justification -- even Jews during the Holocaust never did something comparable to German civilians (but German military was targeted) -- yet the world refuses to let Israel mourn its dead and condemns any type of retaliatory strike against such evil. The behavior of the IDF has been remarkable humane, comparably speaking.

I can see that, where will they go?

Maybe Finland could take them in. With ~5.5 million Finns and ~2.2 million Palestinians the Finns will still be in the majority so the country should be fine. Plus, once the Palestinians arrive and attain citizenship they'll be just as Finnish as the natives and it will be a beautiful melting pot of traditions and cultures.

Of course, but this is an issue everywhere. Finland is a nation of ~5.5 million, what if 6 million Muslims were to appear? The UK is currently 6.5% muslim and it's already causing massive social upheaval. In any case, countries have the inherent right to limit their immigration.

And if Hamas were to be eliminated I can assure you Israel has no intention of annexing Gaza and absorbing all of those Gazans into Israel. A one state solution is not feasible. It's just demographics. This isn't a strictly Jewish issue.

Now, does Israel try this? No. It's a homeland for the Jews and others just can fuck off. And that's why in the end it is an Apartheid system, because it has at it's core that similary hostility towards the others, similar to what the white Afrikaaners had in their system for blacks.
↪ssu
I couldn’t have put it more simply myself.
9 hours ago — Punshhh

And Greece is the homeland of the Greeks; they give special immigration privileges to those with Greek descent. Japan is the homeland of the Japanese and Spain is the homeland of the Spanish. If you are a Muslim you can go to ~50 muslim countries and they will rule the way you like. The Jews will have their little sliver of land that Jews can seek refuge in. The Jews will treat the foreigner kindly and with hospitality as their bible demands. There are thriving muslim and other communities in Israel so no, others do not need to "fuck off." Minorities occupy high positions in Israeli society and command great respect. Israel is a little enclave of Jewish culture surrounded by nations which Islam has devoured. Israel won't demand you burqa up or eat kosher either.

Some go with October 7th as the justification for "taking the gloves off" and everything else would be "appeasement" for them. — ssu

I don't think Israel is special in this regard. As an American, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 come to mind as comparable instances casualty-wise -- both of which led to "the gloves coming off." Can you cite me an instance where comparable casualties did not lead to further escalation?

Regarding the "Jewish psyche" mentioned earlier, here's Golda Meir:

“Those that perished in Hitler’s gas chambers were the last Jews to die without standing up to defend themselves.”

As I was saying the glorification of the victims of October 7th to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide. — Punshhh

Oh, I get it- the Jews should just forget about it. No memorials, put it behind them. And definitely don't retaliate against the government that did it. 10/7 was the time to calmly ask Hamas why they did it and solemnly and calmly consider their grievances so that it doesn't happen again. Ok, u/Punshhh, thank you for providing your perspective.

The only genocide here is the genocide against truth and the english language by the pro-palestinian/pro-hamas side.

You ever listen to the phone calls from the murderers on 10/7? "Hey mom, guess what? Killed 10 Jews today!" Some people deserve exactly what's coming to them.

I don't think it's tricky. Where you live and have been born and where your family has lived ought to give the right call that your home. — ssu

Ok but Jews and Palestinians both call Israel home.

The whole idea of seeking justification for this from some ancient history is wrong in my mind. It's the problem itself! — ssu

I am fine with the status quo. The Palestinian governments are not. Right wing Israeli settlers also seek to expand and these acts should be discouraged/condemned but 10/7 is in no way a justified response to settler aggression. They didn't even target settlers. Hamas was just trying to open the gates to hell and they did it.

Gaza was a prison even before Hamas. People couldn't get in an out without the permission of Israelis. And Netanyahu supported Hamas, as it was perfect for him to show that you cannot negotiate with the Palestinians. — ssu

Yes because of the intifadas Israel established these checkpoints. Before then it was easy to travel. To my understanding Netanyahu supported Hamas as a check against the PLO. I believe he tried to play them off against each other.

At some point, it all just becomes this urge for reprisal, for retribution. Hell with anything else!!! — ssu

I think what we're seeing here is the 3rd intifada and the gloves have come off. It feels like you're advocating for appeasement/negotiations but you haven't spelled it out yet. Hamas has rejected a number of a ceasefires in exchange for releasing the hostages.

(And btw, how many of decapitated babies were there actually?) — ssu

This feels like a gotcha but it really isn't. Many women were brutally raped and had their heads stamped in and pelvis bones destroyed, and the UN refused to acknowledge it. Families were burned alive hiding away in bomb shelters. I could go on. Israel could play nice, but the pro-Palestinian crowd would still hate it and say it deserved 10/7, so I say Israel should go hard. Israel has given ceasefire offers to Hamas but Hamas rejects it. You know Israel offers to release many Palestinian prisoners for every 1 Israeli hostage released and Hamas still refuses. Culture of life versus culture of death.

I once watch a video of a little Palestinian girl commenting on the IDF soldiers. She commented how they were cowardly hiding behind their tanks and taking precautions with their lives. I wish I could find the video, but she was probably like 6. Statements like this are not unusual. They are not just a one-off, but rather representative of a culture.

Well, for them every dead Hamas fighter is a martyr. In fact every killed Palestinian is a martyr. For them, Israel has just shown it's real face. — ssu

Yes, they are martyrs who go directly to Jannah (Islamic heaven as per Hamas's theology). So Israel is, in a way, is doing them a favor. If they want to be martyrs we should let them. Works out for everyone. Hamas doesn't let its own civilians use bomb shelters because it encourages this type of martyrdom and doesn't see why it needs to be interfered with.

A traumatized event leaves politicians to do something dramatic. It cannot be something of the ordinary or otherwise the leaders are seen as timid, indecisive or simply cold to the suffering of the people when the trauma hits the population. — ssu

What is the protocol when 1200 are killed, 300 kidnapped, and many other raped? As an American, it is war. Anything else is out of the question.