1) is faith an emotion or a thought? What if it is neither — Gregory

It's a word with various shades of meaning depending on the language and the context.

It's the Greek πίστις (pistis) - to have trust or confidence in something, could be towards God or towards another person among other things. I may have faith e.g. that a mechanic will drive out to repair my car which has broken down in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps he has done so 5x prior so my faith can be said to have some grounds or evidence. Christianity, at least Pauline Christianity, seems to be heavily, if not entirely, based on pistis in the resurrection.

Faith is also the Hebrew אֱמוּנָה (emunah) which is a dynamic and fluid concept that's also multi-directional. A popular Jewish prayer said in the morning is Modeh Ani which ends with "raba emunatech" - "great is your faithfuless" - that is, great is God's faithfulness towards us. Through restoring our souls to our bodies each morning and giving us another day God shows his faithfulness towards us.

Israel could annihilate them at any point. Yet it does not. Israel has nukes, chemical weapons, yet it restrains itself.

Surely if it sought to exterminate the Palestinians it would start with the Palestinians within its own borders, no?

Yes. And it is important for a group to protect itself against others who seek its own annihilation.

Genocide is always wrong. Gaza was purged of Jews as was much of the West Bank - Judea & Samaria.

What happened to the Jews of Bethlehem? Or Hebron?

Well, if Protestants murdered 1/3 of Europe's Catholics 80 years ago including members of your family that might alter your perspective both towards your heritage and the non-Catholic world.

If we had been there and saw a man, we knew to be Caesar crossing the Rubicon then we could be certain in the sense iof having no cogent reason to doubt that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. How certain of that can we be now? I don't know how well-documented it is...I am not an historian. — Janus

We would need to trust our sources regarding which man is Caesar and that he was indeed crossing the rubicon and not some other body of water.

I'm not a historian either, but without the roman civil war between caesar and pompey (apparently sparked by the crossing of the rubicon) we just cannot make sense of history and the events that transpire afterwards in egypt and elsewhere. it's so central to the narrative that if we doubt it all else falls into doubt.

The more we can cross-reference documents that record the same events when or close to when they happened, the more reliable we would think the records are—the more likely we would be to believe the events happened. There is no way to go back and observe though.

When the recording documents are understood to be more distant in time from the described events then their reliability would reasonably be thought to be inversely proportional to the temporal distance. When the described events are extraordinary, things of which we have no well-documented examples, like walking on water, raising people from the dead or turning water into wine. then we would be justified in skepticism.

In general, we cannot be sure of any historical events because as I said above, we cannot go back in time to observe for ourselves. — Janus

Even if we went back in time our eyes or senses could be deceiving us. Or we could just be misunderstanding the historical event.

IMO certain historical facts serve as linchpins and essentially place them practically beyond doubt without our historical knowledge of that period (and possibly later) falling apart. One example could be Caesar's existence. Even if a paper were to come out placing reasonable doubt on most or all the sources behind Caesar we couldn't seriously entertain the idea of Caesar's non-existence without unraveling so much of our historical knowledge of that period and beyond. So it could be said that we start with Caesar's existence (through our body of historical knowledge) and his existence is not so much a conclusion that e.g. we work up to inductively through gathering our sources and making an educated inference that he indeed existed.

Anscombe puts it better than me in her "Hume and Julius Caesar."

Which year do things start to be relevant to you?

Yes, history is irrelevant. Islam clearly no longer seeks to spread. Carry on.

Is there any point at which history becomes relevant to you?

The original Islamic expansion was not caused by some "cycle of violence" type logic. From its inception, Islam has simply been a religion that seeks to continuously expand. Has its nature fumdanentally changed since then?

It’s unspeakably awful and deserves condemnation. — Mikie

I agree that 9/11 was unspeakably awful and deserves condemnation. We should say the same of 10/7.

then acts like that largely wouldn’t be committed. — Mikie

I'm sure you know that Arab massacres of Jews in Palestine occurred in the 1920s and 1930s before Israel existed. Before there was an Israel to blame things on.

The victims of 10/7 didn't commit atrocities. The attempted bus bomber a few days ago did not target people who committed atrocities.

What would you say if a terrorist bomber from Afghanistan or Iraq blew up your neighborhood? Justified blowback, perhaps? America is no angel.

I’m American, therefore I defend Vietnam and Iraq? I’m Catholic, therefore I defend priests molesting children? — Mikie

What if it were your immediate family? Or what if your tribe/group had a history of persecution by another group and it's once again at your doorstep?

Every country has its sins of course; no country is perfect. So I'll certainly agree with you that America is flawed.

No I meant I'm Jewish.

And you're a state apologist as well given you supported the American Revolution and the creation of a new state from England and you seem to think it's been a force for good overall.

Oh wait— right, you’re just rooting for your team and everyone else is antisemitic. — Mikie

I've discussed this issue with many TPF users and I've only accused one of anti-semitism and it's not you. But yes, I'm situated. I was born to a certain culture, and I'm pretty open about that.

I’m also mostly in favor of slave revolts— like the one seen on October 7th. — Mikie

The Palestinians were slaves... that's a new one. So what did their Zionist taskmasters assign them?

What are your thoughts on the decision to fight the revolutionary war and declare independence from Great Britain? Justified or no?

I have not claimed that all wars that a nation engages in are good or necessary.

Civilizations must win wars/be able to defend themselves to be civilizations. They must sometimes use lethal force against criminal or terrorist elements, but I suppose all that is just "murder" to you.

You may not care whether a death was intended or not, but civilized nations do.

Because one is committing globally acknowledged crimes against humanity, and has been for some 70 years, and the other is not. — Tzeentch

Until I hear an explanation for the Bucha massacre this sounds like Putin apologetics.

Israel has never went into Gaza or the West Bank and hog-tied hundreds of civilians before executing them.

In the case of Israel-Palestine, it is not morally grey at all. It is perfectly clear to me what has gone on over the past 70 years — Tzeentch

Like when several Arab nations immediately attacked Israel from all sides and Israel didn't just roll over and die. What a travesty! :lol:

But yes, clearly black and white. We can all see the group that abducts civilian hostages and murders a mother and her little children in captivity are clearly the good guys. The issue couldn't be any clearer. All the human rights organization agree. No need to look at the footage or draw our own conclusions; just trust the organizations. The internationalist organizations always hold the truth and cannot be compromised.

Jews in Gaza are dead or hostages. Palestinians in Israel serve in Parliament. By all means, continue listening to your internationalist sources flush with Qatari money.

1) Is intention morally relevant to you?

2) You do realize intention isn't purely internal, correct?

ISIS doesn't have an air force either.

You can condemn airpower as inhumane, but without it you jeopardize allied victory and ensure a much more deadly ground war. Now I wonder whether naval bombardment is ok with you or if that's off limits.

EDIT: WIthout air and naval bombardments we surely lose, so our best course of action would just be to surrender.

True, there is no moral equivalence. Bombing from the air is morally worse. But I’m glad you can see into people’s souls now. When they kill, it’s because of race and evil intentions — when we do it, it’s accidental and unintended. — Mikie

Ok, so an allied bomber who strikes a weapons factory where the debris ends up hitting a nursery in the area and killing 10 babies is equivalent (if not worse, since you say bombers are worse) to a Nazi who intentionally executes 10 gypsy babies.

Both are the same morally. Ten dead babies. Accidental, intentional... doesn't matter. Maybe the pilot did intend to kill those babies. Maybe the Nazi's motives/intentions aren't so clear. Maybe he really wasn't trying to shoot those 10 romani babies he lined up and shot.

You presented an idea - a universal rule of thumb - and then rejected my historical application of that principle. :up:

What other wars/time periods are we not allowed to use as historical examples? Just for future reference.

EDIT: And yes, when pilots bomb military bases (where do babies live) that is not the same as shooting a baby at point blank range because it belongs to a certain race and to draw a moral equivalency between the two is deranged.

The US did kill many more Japanese babies than Japan killed US babies.

Additionally, we should note the difference between the intentional murder of babies (as occurred on 10/7 and to 10/7 hostages in captivity) and babies dying as a byproduct of a strike on a legitimate target.

So whichever side kills more babies is the bad side? Is that how we see history?

So the two Bibas brothers (4 and 10 months) were brutally murdered by Palestinian civilians a month after being captured with their bare hands via strangulation. But who cares? Thousands of Palestinian children have died. Why should two even matter?

Remember guys, as long as a non-state actor is fighting a state, the non-state is virtually always in the right because there's no way that small terrorist organization/non-state actor/battered population has caused more deaths (rightfully or wrongfully) than the state has over its long history.

So kill as many Israeli or American babies as you like; you are always the good one as long as your opponent is that state. :up:

Had this situation happened the other way around, we would say that Israel killed them, but on this occasion, it is simply a few Palestinian civilians -- certainly not representative of Palestinians in general -- who did the deed. Palestinians commit crimes individually, Israel as a collective. That's how the game works.

If the LBGT community called upon its members to burn copies of Paul's letter to the Roman's, I don't see how that could be seen as not offensive to the millions of Christians who might cherish that scripture, and have no ill regard for LGBT community; and I don't see how burning Romans would advance their cause. — ENOAH

Let me ask you something:

If a group of LGBT people did burn Paul's letters, and then a group of Christians arrived and began attempting to murder them by stabbing them which would be closer to your response?

a) How dare they burn that Scripture! They deserve what's coming to them for their transgression!

Or

b) These Christians is batshit insane and we must arrest these people and investigate what is being taught in their churches.

I'm thankful to live in a society where violence is not considered an acceptable response to provocative, non-violent behavior.

Let's think about this from another angle. So you've been with someone for many decades and find that actually, you want some space, need to go alone for a while and be on your own. Now what do you call it? I guess the term usually used would be 'brake up'. Fine, these things happen. Yet, do you really think that it won't have an effect on your relationship with this someone? Everything will be just fine and dandy like this. Or if you would need this someone, she or he will be there to continue as if nothing happened. — ssu

Sorry about the break up. I hope the US and Europe can still be friends.

Anyway, in the event that a broader scale war in the Middle East does break out I would prefer not to have Russia as a vehement enemy. I would prefer that the US has a dialogue with them; a rapport as opposed to just trading insults and giving sanctions which Biden did.

The EU has a combined GDP of $22bn and Russia has around $4bn so I don't see why the countries of Europe can't band together to deter Russia.

Fair point. I'm thinking though that the EU should be able to contain Russia. It can fund Ukraine as appropriate. It might actually be beneficial if the US can ease off pressure and be seen as a more neutral partner who can eventually broker a deal between the two. I couldn't have seen Russia brokering a deal with Biden given some of the things that he said.

Also as another poster mentioned we don't want to draw Russia any closer to China.

Yes. It is the reason why there is a conflict. More states were suppose to become Muslim, not less.

Yes, consequences for sure. I suggested it would go away if the Arab countries choose to accept them and integrate them into their populations. And all this after many decades. They would start a new life and other affairs would occupy their minds.

Or if they were dispersed to other countries.

Zero apologies offered. The Muslims come in and take by the sword, but then cry foul when they are defeated by the sword by that land's previous owners and indigenous inhabitants. Cry me a river. And this was after many centuries of Jews being treated as second class citizens.

Israel's very existence is considered "ethnic cleansing" so excuse me if that charge doesn't exactly arouse my sympathies.

History story is continuous, and you're omitting the reality that over time, the area became predominantly Arab. Jews were a tiny minority until the Zionist movement took off in the 19th century. It was falsely advertised as "a land without people for a people without a land. Still, Arabs welcomed them at the time. — Relativist

Yes, it became Arab because Arabs conquered it in the 7th century under one of their caliphates. Just as they conquered many cities and regions at that time. It's funny how people compare them to native americans given they came to control the land as a way to expand their empire. Imperialism would be the better term.

Anyway, yes initially they were welcoming but mostly jews under muslim rule were treated as second class citizens and forced to pay jizya (extra taxation for non-muslims.) It was hard to move there because of the political climate and very high taxation and oppression for non-muslims.

I'll tell you what you don't do: You don't go on a multi-decade terror spree and deepen enmity with an enemy who is stronger than you.

It would be like native americans choosing to go around murdering and kidnapping random white people.

Ancient history does not trump current reality. There were few Jews in Palestine before the 19th century Zionist movement. — Relativist

Ancient history determines current reality. Jews have lived continuously in the land since antiquity. Jewish identity was formed in the land. I understand that Arabs have lived in in the land for many years, but Arabs are indigenous to the Arabian peninsula. They come from places like Lebanon and Syria and settle in Israel and adopt the name "Palestinian" as did anyone who lived in Israel/Palestine/Canaan etc. So Jews were "Palestinian" too in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s.

This all changed in the 1960s when it suddenly became an explicitly non-Jewish name for an ethnicity rather just a geographical descriptor as it had always been. But it is lies. Many of these "Palestinians" settled in the land in the 19th century when the Ottomans imported Arab workers.

Yet there was no "free Palestine" movement during the Ottoman empire. There was no need for it. The land was already Muslim -- which is what it's always been about. It is humiliating for them that land that was once Muslim has reverted back to being Jewish.

Some of them fled because Arab leaders told them to. Some of them fled for fear of the Israeli army coming to their towns. Some of them fled because attacks were being launched from their towns. Some of them fled expecting a quick victory. It's common for civilians to flee in wartime for a variety of reasons.

It's more similar to tribes fighting among each other and boundaries shifting. This problem would have been resolved had the Arab states integrated their own or had the Palestinians not chosen violence towards civilians as a way to avenge their loss.

Yes it sucks for the Palestinians. They lost a war.

EDIT: Jews are indigenous to the land. You can tell this because of various ancient festivals that speak to their connection to the land. The "Palestinians" - a 60 year old identity - have no festivals.

The original UN plan had the territory divided between Jewish and Muslim land. The Arab Muslims rejected any independent Jewish state, so the moment one was declared the Arabs attacked from all sides. Had the Arabs won, it would have been a second holocaust. Yet since they were fought off and the Jews counterattacked and saved themselves from annihilation some of the Arabs living in Palestine fled and cry foul. Their own failure to annihilate the Jews in the region and secure the land as another Islamic territory is their "Nakba."

The other Arab nations should have taken them in and integrate them but they would rather just leave this as a perpetual problem for Israel and treat the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank as front line soldiers for Islamic expansion which has always been the aim of their religion from the very beginnings.