between genocide victims and genocide perpetrators, you are "not biased". so much for morality.
The Jews killed thousands, perhaps millions to take over the land of Israel - it is all there, recorded in your very Holy texts, and it merely set the stage for what was to come.
ok then - so you're saying that you accept that the entire Tanakh is literally true? because if you don't, you have no case and if you do, then you'll have to accept that whatever happened (and it is clear to us at least that it's a rather more nuanced and complex picture than you suppose) was the Will and Command of G!D. you can't have your cake and eat it.
no group has inflicted or been the cause of as much throughout history either!
so if one person says that you deserve a punch on the nose and someone else punches you on the nose, you are morally equivalent to both of them? because that's the argument you're actually making.
Most intuit this cause, who can figure out how to heal it? There must be a way to find common ground, some arrangement that both brothers can agree upon - such an offer has already been presented, how many are even aware of this?
how about people stop thinking they can just kill us, or that we'll just disappear, for a start?
for me the entire Abrahamic tree has birthed nothing but poison
in which case, why bother coming to this site and talking rubbish about it? you're convincing nobody and adding nothing. the more you talk, the less you say and the more it sounds like moral idiocy.
Okay, calm down, you all. Always seems to happen when the Jewish Question comes up.
perhaps that's because certain people like to rationalise the jewish question into "people want to kill / have killed jews, so we must somehow have deserved it for political / religious / karmic reasons". until people give up on making theodicy effable, we will have to put up with this bollocks apparently. my only response can be "well, what happened happened, but that doesn't mean i now have a choice between a) acting like a knobhead and b) inviting people to murder me at their convenience". there are other options, but if anyone thinks this counts as dialogue they need their head examined.
I was continuing my attempt to be funny
i'm afraid i've had a bit of a sense of humour failure on this thread. call me mr grumpy, but there's something about being blamed for genocide against ourselves that just niggles a bit.
I would still argue that, as Jesus was, or became, the first Christian
fair enough, although i would have to disagree.
could he have eaten the “leaven of the Pharisees” (against which he reportedly warned), the “traditions of men” which were already then in operation, and, had he lived, grown up to become one of the first Talmudists. I know that Rabbinic Judaism was primarily a post-exilic phenomenon.
as i've said, encountering this stuff from the pov of rabbinic judaism, there is much to show that in many (but not all ways) he could be shown to be within the traditional mainstream.
you don’t always have to take me to task.
no, i am abundantly aware of the failings of the israeli state and particularly its political system and political class, although that does not translate into "fascist apartheid wiffle-piffle" any more than lunitik's comments on this thread translate into "a logical argument".
Could you please elaborate upon this point a bit? I don’t understand how Judaism is thought to solve, by particularism, the problem of universalism
the problem of universalism is essentially that "this is right for everyone". if it is, then we *must* "share the good news" and convert you, because if not, you're "going to hell" and even if we're terribly nice about it, it basically comes down to the fact that "we are better than you"; this problem is at the heart of all problems with proselytising religion. all universalist belief systems share this flaw, whether supercessionist abrahamic religions, baha'i, mormonism, scientism etc. only a particularist religion, one which maintains that its message is only for those who opt in and that, moreover, there is no particular benefit to non-members in doing so, can maintain any kind of moral high ground in this respect. one can do this only by virtue of ending proselytisation (which is not to say that people should be *prevented* from changing their beliefs if they really want to) and by the provision of a system within the particularist religion which allows for equal virtue and value to be attained by those who are not within it. judaism does this via the 7 noahide laws and, when coupled (which i am sad to say is not always the case) to a lack of chauvinism, this is an effective strategy in my view. in other words: "this is right for us, but there is no reason why that is not just as right for you".
its fortunately not the only place you can find particularism. Really good ideas hopefully will appear in multiple faiths.
no, it's not the only place you can find particularism - i'm pretty sure the sikhs and hindus have versions of it as well and i know both christianity and islam contain the potential building blocks of the same thing; all that is needed is for people to understand what happens to the system if this stuff is designed out and what happens if it isn't.
Actually, we do not all know what Judaism thinks of that sort of person.
ritual prostitution is one of the worst kinds of idolatrous behaviour.
Some of you Zionists (if Zionism be in this case equated with Judaism), especially on this side of the pond, are quite capable of using these Temple prostitutes for especially political purposes.
and they are as stupid to do so as king ahab was in trying to gain political advantage by marrying jezebel of tyre. those who forget history, etc...
objective anti-Semites can be used, provided, that is, one doesn’t altogether mind festering pieces of pork lard in one’s loaf of otherwise kosher bread.
as you surmise, i think this is the grossest moral (and, moreover political) idiocy.
Ben Masada, often uses the term. So, too, does Norman Podhoretz, to saying nothing of Abe Foxman.
abe foxman ought to know better. podhoretz is clearly an idiot anyway, but perhaps ben masada is not aware of the sociolinguistic issue.
You are arguing with Uri Avnery at Gush Shalom
i am not too impressed with gush shalom arguments at the moment; they will have to do better in the post-oslo, post-qassam era.
and I brought him into the discussion as an antidote, a counterpoise, to the sympathizing acolytes of Kach-Kahane, which terrorist organization, by the way, and speaking of hypocrisy, as you were, operates with practical impunity in these United States. It is, after all, the United States, not Israel, which in many of these discussions concerns me most.
as i continually point out, quoting two extreme and opposing points of view may make entertaining television, but it is not the basis of a common solution. i despise kahanism, but one can hardly claim with any credibility that it is anything like as mainstream as, say, j-street, even in the states.
King David lived at least a thousand years before Jesus.
and the first Temple was destroyed for reasons which are made clear in the prophets.
The reason that Jewish people were specifically targeted is that they were in favor of having multiple viewpoints as part of a large national or international conversation.
no. this was simply a convenient component of jew-hatred in nazi germany (we were at the same time apparently bloodsucking capitalists and bloodthirsty communists, you see) but the real reason was that we were an easy target; read amos elon's "the pity of it all" for why jew-hatred worked quite so well there and then.
You believe in prophecies and miracles, and I believe that the Christian Zionists were involved in putting Jews in Israel. If I'm right, does that mean Christian Zionists are approved by God?
not necessarily. i believe in the prophecies that we will return to our land and i hope that this is what is currently going on - but it's by no means certain. i do *not* believe in the prophecies that the "christian zionists" believe in, that we all have to go back in order to be killed and convert in order for the second coming. it's a different set of prophecies.
You have no idea. You just don't seem aware of how connected CZ is to the problems Jews in Israel are facing.
i really do. CZ is a manifestation of a particular package of mental software that is shared with the iranian government and indeed any type of fundamentalism, including the political fundamentalism of the hard left. it is a type of value system which says "X is what G!D Wants and not-X is a 'sin' and if you oppose this you are a fundamentally evil person; you are eith us or against us"; it is not a reflective type of value system except within the self-imposed rules of the particular value system chosen. the move out of that comes only when people start saying to themselves "well, hang on a minute, this really, really disadvantages me and appears to contradict observable reality and common sense on a number of levels - perhaps there's a bit more to it than this" - that is the emergence of awareness at which point the next package of mental software will start to download. it is not a "wrong" package of software; it is quite useful in many situations and i use it myself. however, that's not the only sort of software you need. this particular package of software (let's call it "blueware") is however a very dangerous and inappropriate package when used with high technology; this is why both CZ and the iranian government cannot be trusted with nuclear capability. the current israeli government is not run on "blueware" principles, although the religious parties which will support it in return for funding and favours are. the israeli government is run mostly by the next set of software (let's call it "orangeware") which says "everything can be explained and understood rationally and logically and if we do X, Y will be the result"; orangeware attempts to co-opt aspects of blueware that suit it at the time, discounting the motivations that blueware brings with it as unimportant in favour of the tactical advantage it might bring in a situation. thus, the israeli government thinks it can take the support of the CZ and use it for its benefit without taking on their values. as you can see, it's clearly not as simple as that.
bravery is a sign of morality.
i disagree. people are brave for different reasons at different times. blueware says "people are brave because being brave is good" and orangeware says "people are brave because it suits them for whatever reason, rational or not, to be brave". these are not the only software packages, however!
anyone who dismisses or altogether disregards the role of secret societies in especially European history hasn't read history.
yes, but anyone who thinks that all secret societies a) exist b) do something clear and specific with a global focus and c) are working together hasn't read "foucault's pendulum". go on, mention the templars, i dare ya!