quote: If you dismiss it [religion], you have no basis for claiming that Jews ever killed anyone.
starLisa what about recent Jewish history?
What about Deir Yassin?
Attacking a military stronghold during wartime counts to you?
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: How do you feel about the Irgun?
In what way? We were getting massacred by the Arabs, and the British refused to allow us weapons, on pain of death.
One time, they arrested two Jewish boys for possession of firearms and sentenced them to death. The Irgun reacted by capturing two British soldiers and telling the Brits that whatever happened to the two Jews would happen to the two Brits.
The Brits were too full of themselves to accept that kind of ultimatum, and hanged the Jews. The Irgun killed the two British soldiers.
Do you have a problem with that?
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Not to mention the conflict between the Irgun, Stern Gang and the Haganah. Weren't there observant Jews in all three of those organizations?
I don't know if there any observant Jews involved with the Haganah. I'd be surprised if there were, given how anti-religious they were.
And what could any conflict between them have to do with the issue of carrying out massacres and atrocities. You don't think I'm claiming that no Jew ever killed anyone, do you? If so, you're reading me completely out of context. I was referring solely to the conquest of Canaan, when we did indeed kill many Canaanites.
I'll assume that you misread me by mistake.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So we can assume that she thinks God commanded the Inquistion to murder millions of people?
Just asking.
That is a lie. You are not "just asking".
A "lie"? I think not. She was comparing the killings in the Inquisition to those in the invasion of Canaan. For that to work as a comparison, they had to either both be commanded by God, or both not be commanded by God. If one was and one wasn't, than the analogy fails.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IanO: (Side note based on Kojabu's comment) I will say that starLisa has a very interesting Essay on her site about the Exodus and it's dating/support in secular history/archeology here.
Very interesting.
Wow. I was going to post that.
It's kind of strange being quoted, you know? Sort of cool.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there you have it from starLisa: wartime excuses the raping and murdering of innocents like the ones in Deir Yassin. And there's photographic evidence of what happened there as proof.
AJ (The Haganah which she writes off as non-observant, wasn't involved in that incident.)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So we can assume that she thinks God commanded the Inquistion to murder millions of people?
Just asking.
That is a lie. You are not "just asking".
A "lie"? I think not. She was comparing the killings in the Inquisition to those in the invasion of Canaan. For that to work as a comparison, they had to either both be commanded by God, or both not be commanded by God. If one was and one wasn't, than the analogy fails.
Exactly. You weren't asking a question -- you were making a statment. That's why I called it a lie that you were "just asking".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Well there you have it from starLisa: wartime excuses the raping and murdering of innocents like the ones in Deir Yassin. And there's photographic evidence of what happened there as proof.
There's no such thing, because that's not what happened.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: the pictures that I recall seeing of Deir Yassin bodies were not the "secret" footage thats locked. I believe they were from later Red Cross footage. They were in a non-fiction book called "O Jerusalem" by Larry Collins.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Thank you, lanO. I think you described well what I was trying to do.
Rivka, I am sorry to cause offense. I was not speaking from my actual POV, as lanO says. It seemed to me that Lisa was making ridiculous claims and I was trying to point that out. I'm not sure I succeeded, and I ended up offending people I didn't intend to offend in the process. For that, I am sorry.
quote: One time, they arrested two Jewish boys for possession of firearms and sentenced them to death. The Irgun reacted by capturing two British soldiers and telling the Brits that whatever happened to the two Jews would happen to the two Brits.
The Brits were too full of themselves to accept that kind of ultimatum, and hanged the Jews. The Irgun killed the two British soldiers.
So, to clarify, you're A-OK with terrorism. Unless it would be wrong for Palestinians to kill Israeli soldiers in retaliation for the imprisonment and death of a Palestinian youth.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: One time, they arrested two Jewish boys for possession of firearms and sentenced them to death. The Irgun reacted by capturing two British soldiers and telling the Brits that whatever happened to the two Jews would happen to the two Brits.
The Brits were too full of themselves to accept that kind of ultimatum, and hanged the Jews. The Irgun killed the two British soldiers.
So, to clarify, you're A-OK with terrorism. Unless it would be wrong for Palestinians to kill Israeli soldiers in retaliation for the imprisonment and death of a Palestinian youth.
This is getting sick. Israel doesn't have the death penalty. If it did, it wouldn't be used for possession of firearms. What the Irgun did was not terrorism. They didn't go and kill people. They took military personnel, and they gave the Brits every chance not to be barbarians. They could have even kept the two Jews locked up, but they decided to hang them. That was their choice, which they made knowing the consequences.
It's like the bombing of the King David Hotel. This was the military headquarters of the British in Jerusalem. They were warned to evacuate the building ahead of time. Can you even imagine the Arabs warning people ahead of time to give them a chance to evacuate a building? No, because they aren't targeting buildings. They're targeting kids eating pizza with their families. They're targeting people shopping in an open market for their families.
One of these days, you're going to wake up and understand the fundamental difference between deliberately targeting innocents and every other kind of warfare, and you're going to be bitterly ashamed of what you've written.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Israel doesn't have the death penalty. If it did, it wouldn't be used for possession of firearms.
Israel may not have the death penalty, but surely you do not deny that its police and military have not only killed Palestinians -- through assassination and other methods -- but occasionally blameless Palestinians. I submit, in fact, that this particular form of killing is in many ways worse than simply sentencing someone to death.
quote: What the Irgun did was not terrorism. They didn't go and kill people. They took military personnel, and they gave the Brits every chance not to be barbarians.
Israeli soldiers and police have been captured by Arab terrorists and executed due to perceived slights, often because Israel refused to capitulate to their demands. More recently, American soldiers have been beheaded in retaliation for our occupation of Iraq.
Do you not consider these terrorist acts? Or are they ethical ways of repelling a superior military foe?
quote: One of these days, you're going to wake up and understand the fundamental difference between deliberately targeting innocents and every other kind of warfare, and you're going to be bitterly ashamed of what you've written.
God, I hope not. Because I never -- ever -- want to be ashamed of failing to excuse cold-blooded murder.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Israel doesn't have the death penalty. If it did, it wouldn't be used for possession of firearms.
Israel may not have the death penalty, but surely you do not deny that its police and military have not only killed Palestinians -- through assassination and other methods -- but occasionally blameless Palestinians. I submit, in fact, that this particular form of killing is in many ways worse than simply sentencing someone to death.
Submit what you want, but the Arabs deliberately place their military (or paramilitary, or whatever you want to call it) emplacements smack in the middle of civilian concentrations, knowing full well that it discourages us from attacking.
And they're right. Up to a point.
To compare that to setting a roadside charge, waiting until a schoolbus full of children comes by, and then deliberately triggering the explosive, is the act of a moral bankrupt.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: To compare that to setting a roadside charge, waiting until a schoolbus full of children comes by, and then deliberately triggering the explosive, is the act of a moral bankrupt.
But that's not what I'm comparing it to.
I'm specifically comparing capturing your enemy's military or police and killing them in retaliation for having killed some of your civilians to, well, capturing your enemy's military or police and killing them in retaliation for having killed some of your civilians.
Is it your contention that this behavior is A-OK, but other forms of terrorism are still bad?
For that matter, do you agree that your "Israel has no death penalty" statement is fairly disingenuous, given that Israel is one of the few Western countries with a policy of civilian assassination?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel entered Jenin, where there was no masacre, in order to shut down weapons making factories and capture and kill armed terrorists. Israel went into Jenin with ground troops, rather than using targeted missiles as they have done so many times before, because too many Palestinian civilians were in the area. It was discovered that a number of these innocent Palestinian women and children were brought there by Palestinian terrorists to act as human shields against the Israeli army. Israel lost 27 soldiers in that Jenin incursion compared to 47 Palestinians (45 of whom were armed Islamic Jihad terrorists).
Israel could have easily saved the lives of 27 of its own soldiers by attacking the Islamic Jihad stronghold from the air. Compare this to Abu Jandal, an Islamic Jihad commander, who said "Believe me, there are children stationed in the houses with explosive belts at their sides."
There is a war going on in Israel. I would prefer that no war was going on, and that nobody was getting killed. It is a horrible, horrible situation that we are in. But you are being dishonest by not viewing the actions of both sides as being part of a war. One side systematically kills civilians. The other side puts the lives of its own people at risk in order to prevent casualties to civilians on the other side while it kills or captures those who are personally responsible for killing civilians and endangering them. Targeted killing of terrorist commanders saves lives. It saves the lives of Israeli soldiers, it saves the lives of Israeli civilians, and it saves the lives of Palestinian civilians. If Palestinian militants were attacking military installations, I would have a lot more sympathy for their fight. But terrorists targetting civilians? They deserve worse than death.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean I was supposed to respond to the rhetoric?
The case was not the same. In the case I mentioned, they did not capture and kill them as a matter of revenge. They captured them in order to prevent the killing of the two Jews. It was possible at that point for there to be no killing, which is not the case in your example.
I didn't reply because from what I can see, you're an intelligent guy. If you posted such an obviously poor analogy, I figured that it was intentional, and didn't require a reply.
Nor do I consider it honest to compare the assassination of terrorist leaders to the death penalty. Israel is between a rock and a hard place. People scream bloody murder every time Israel attacks the Palestinian Arabs. They claim that it's just certain radicals who are responsible for the atrocities.
Then when Israel goes after those monsters specifically, all of a sudden it's terrible to go after them.
Understand; this is not a crime situation. You seem to be unable to comprehend that, but it's true. If Israel could go and arrest the scum who plan these attacks, they surely would. And in the vast majority of cases, when that's been possible, that's exactly what they've done.
And every time, what ends up happening is that the terrorists demand a release of prisoners as a gesture of good will (I'm still waiting for the first gesture of good will on their part; and no, refraining from murdering Jews for a day or two does not count), and the terrorists go free to maim and murder again.
If it were up to me, I'd kill every one of those prisoners who could be demonstrated to have taken any active role in the death of any Jew. But Israel doesn't do that. And every Jew that dies at the hands of one of the released terrorists was murdered, in part, by the Israeli government.
And that's about it. If Israel can capture them, it captures them. If it can't, and the only way to stop them from committing more atrocities against us, then we kill them. I see no moral fault in that whatsoever.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The case was not the same. In the case I mentioned, they did not capture and kill them as a matter of revenge. They captured them in order to prevent the killing of the two Jews. It was possible at that point for there to be no killing, which is not the case in your example.
Ah. And when they went ahead and killed them, what rationale were they applying at that point? That since there had already been a little killing, they wanted some of the action?
What you're suggesting here is that it's perfectly acceptable to kidnap and threaten to kill policemen to extort someone's freedom. Is that your position?
------
I was going to respond to the other points in your post -- like your extremely flattering and unrealistic depiction of the "rock and a hard place" faced by Israel -- but it's occurred to me that it's actually better to let your words stand on their own, since they do an excellent job of making my point for me.
But I really DO want a clarification of my first question: is it okay to kidnap and kill policemen in order to convince the government to release someone they've arrested?
I'm sincerely trying to understand where you're coming from, here. What distinction are you seeing? Is it because one such kidnapping and murder was done by the good guys?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But I really DO want a clarification of my first question: is it okay to kidnap and kill policemen in order to convince the government to release someone they've arrested?
I think a reasonable person can answer that yes or no. I think no. It isn't ok. It was wrong of the Irgun to kill them at that point. People, of all races and cultures, can be hotheaded and cruel. Jews are no exception. But you are insisting on this as if it in some way either knocks Israel's handling of the current situation or applies to some greater swath of people than those who committed the murder.
This case is a bit similar, though mostly different, to a situation Palestinian terrorists find themselves in. The question now becomes, is it ok to stop killing innocent civilians for a few days in order to convince the government to release some murderers they've arrested?
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But you are insisting on this as if it in some way either knocks Israel's handling of the current situation....
Nope. I'm merely pointing out that the Irgun quite self-evidently engaged in terrorism themselves, although to a lesser degree than the more desperate Palestinian terrorists.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: But you are insisting on this as if it in some way either knocks Israel's handling of the current situation....
Nope. I'm merely pointing out that the Irgun quite self-evidently engaged in terrorism themselves, although to a lesser degree than the more desperate Palestinian terrorists.
Even if we can agree that the Irgun was wrong, that's putting it mildly.
If that is your point, though, I fail to see the significance.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's significant precisely because starLisa does not agree, whereas you think it's insignificant precisely because it's self-evident.
The fact that the sky is normally blue only becomes important when you're talking to someone who insists that it's generally yellow.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The case was not the same. In the case I mentioned, they did not capture and kill them as a matter of revenge. They captured them in order to prevent the killing of the two Jews. It was possible at that point for there to be no killing, which is not the case in your example.
Ah. And when they went ahead and killed them, what rationale were they applying at that point? That since there had already been a little killing, they wanted some of the action?
If you are asking a question, it behooves you to wait for an answer, rather than supplying your own and then continuing as though your answer was mine.
You don't make a threat and fail to carry it out. Not if you ever want to be taken seriously again. How many Jews do you think were hanged by the British after this event took place?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What you're suggesting here is that it's perfectly acceptable to kidnap and threaten to kill policemen to extort someone's freedom. Is that your position?
Nope. And again, why not wait for an answer?
They didn't threaten to kill anyone to procure anyone else's freedom. They wouldn't have even taken those British soldiers captive had the Brits not said they were going to kill the Jewish prisoners. It was the brutality of the British that was at issue. The fact that they intended to murder two human beings who had committed no crime.
And before you object to that, I repeat what I've said before on this forum: "Victimless crime is an oxymoron".
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I was going to respond to the other points in your post -- like your extremely flattering and unrealistic depiction of the "rock and a hard place" faced by Israel -- but it's occurred to me that it's actually better to let your words stand on their own, since they do an excellent job of making my point for me.
Nicely dishonest. Label my points, but refrain from responding to them.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But I really DO want a clarification of my first question: is it okay to kidnap and kill policemen in order to convince the government to release someone they've arrested?
No. Never. Maybe I was mistaken in my judgement of your intelligence if you actually read that into my words.
Brits take Jews captive and announce that they are going to murder them for possessing weapons at a time when Arabs are killing Jews and the Brits have declared themselves unable to protect the Jews.
Jews, wanting to prevent this murderous act, take British soldiers captive and announce that the lives of the Brits are in British hands.
The Brits go ahead and kill the Jews. The Jews kill the Brits to demonstrate that they are deadly serious and that they do not make empty threats.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But I really DO want a clarification of my first question: is it okay to kidnap and kill policemen in order to convince the government to release someone they've arrested?
I think a reasonable person can answer that yes or no. I think no. It isn't ok. It was wrong of the Irgun to kill them at that point.
I disagree. I strongly disagree. By carrying out the threat, they saved Jewish lives. What they did was nothing like killing someone to get someone released from jail. The goal was to get the Brits to stop murdering Jews.
Don't let him play you like that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: By carrying out the threat, they saved Jewish lives.
Ah. So cold-blooded murder becomes justifiable when it persuades people to abandon their laws? Or just when those laws include the death penalty? Or just when they're laws that cost Jewish lives?
I'm still looking for the distinction here that you wouldn't apply to other forms of cold-blooded murder that apparently works as a moral justification for you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reread Lisa's comment. Her example may be poorly chosen. Her point, I think, is that not all situations are created equal. While murdering the British policemen was wrong, in my opinion, the context does need to be taken into account.
There is not really any significant analogy between the Irgun and the Palestinian terrorists. There is no analogy because the situations are so different. Superficially one can claim that each group murdered people, but that only tells 1 percent of the story. The Jews were being massacred, were prevented from defending themselves, and were inadequately defended by the British. The Palestinian civilians are in the most danger, not from Israel, but from Palestinian terrorists. Arming them to fight the terrorists was attempted, but the weapons ended up in the hands of the terrorists. The best protection they have and the best protection Israeli civilians have, in my opinion, is from the Israeli governement's decapitation of the terrorist organizations.
The two cases are so dissimilar, I was surprised you kept insisting on this. Lisa's example showed a murder on a simple level, but ignoring its context means that we can never have a reasonable discussion of what tactics are considered ethical in war.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I disagree. I strongly disagree. By carrying out the threat, they saved Jewish lives. What they did was nothing like killing someone to get someone released from jail. The goal was to get the Brits to stop murdering Jews.
Don't let him play you like that.
I do think that killing them at that point was wrong. Of course, I think what the British did was worse. I don't think kidnapping them was wrong in any way. If the Jews being held hostage by the British had killed their captors I would not think it was wrong. If the Irgun had captured and killed those particular soldiers who were about to hang the Jews or those who planned their hanging, I would not think it wrong. But taking two soldiers not directly involved in the murders and killing them, that's wrong.
I hate arguing with you about this, because it seems such a minor point. Even if we disagree on this issue, there is a world of difference between the Irgun and the Palestinian terrorists.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol, a convincing historical argument could be made, that the Palestinian tactics against the current state of Israel, were directly learned from the methods that Jewish groups used to get rid of the Brits in the first place.
If I had plot creativity, I think a very interesting and semi-plausible alternative history could be written. One where after the end of the Ottoman Empire the arab and jewish settlers worked together to kick the Brits out.
If you go back to the early 1900s there really wasn't nearly the messy animosity that exists between the two groups today.
quote: Lisa's example showed a murder on a simple level, but ignoring its context means that we can never have a reasonable discussion of what tactics are considered ethical in war.
You're right, of course, about a reasonable discussion of ethical warfare being impossible.
For my part, I submit that war is unethical. And cold-blooded murder even more unethical. And attempting to justify cold-blooded murder is as sleazeball as it can possibly get, because it makes it easier to head down that path every time you're convinced it's "worth it."
Practically no one starts out a killer. People have to rationalize murder to themselves for a whole bunch of reasons before they'll do it.
quote: But taking two soldiers not directly involved in the murders and killing them, that's wrong.
While we're at it, is this an appropriate description of events? As I understand it, British law carried with it a death penalty. I would argue, if that's the case, that the kids involved were sentenced, not murdered.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: By carrying out the threat, they saved Jewish lives.
Ah. So cold-blooded murder becomes justifiable when it persuades people to abandon their laws? Or just when those laws include the death penalty? Or just when they're laws that cost Jewish lives?
I'm still looking for the distinction here that you wouldn't apply to other forms of cold-blooded murder that apparently works as a moral justification for you.
I believe that I've made myself perfectly clear to anyone who has read what I've written honestly and without an axe to grind.
It was funny. Last night I watched the season premiere of The West Wing. One line that comes up in the episode was, "If you don't like the question, don't accept the premise of the question."
That bugged me. It came across as less than honest. A tricky debating trick. But it's awfully close to a sentiment that I fully embrace, which is, "If you don't agree with the premise of the argument, don't let someone try to push in you into answering within that premise."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, where have I misunderstood you? Are you saying that you agree the Irgun was a terrorist organization, and that the murder of two British soldiers was an evil act? If not, then I don't think I'm misrepresenting you at all.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I disagree. I strongly disagree. By carrying out the threat, they saved Jewish lives. What they did was nothing like killing someone to get someone released from jail. The goal was to get the Brits to stop murdering Jews.
Don't let him play you like that.
I do think that killing them at that point was wrong. Of course, I think what the British did was worse. I don't think kidnapping them was wrong in any way. If the Jews being held hostage by the British had killed their captors I would not think it was wrong. If the Irgun had captured and killed those particular soldiers who were about to hang the Jews or those who planned their hanging, I would not think it wrong. But taking two soldiers not directly involved in the murders and killing them, that's wrong.
I hate arguing with you about this, because it seems such a minor point. Even if we disagree on this issue, there is a world of difference between the Irgun and the Palestinian terrorists.
Had we taken two British civilians and threatened to kill them if our boys were hanged, even the mere threat would have been wrong, and had we carried it out, it would have been unconscienable. But I can't view British troops in the same way.
But we can agree to disagree. The bigger thing is Tom's onslaught (which has totally hijacked this thread, aside from its dishonesty).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: lol, a convincing historical argument could be made, that the Palestinian tactics against the current state of Israel, were directly learned from the methods that Jewish groups used to get rid of the Brits in the first place.
If I had plot creativity, I think a very interesting and semi-plausible alternative history could be written. One where after the end of the Ottoman Empire the arab and jewish settlers worked together to kick the Brits out.
If you go back to the early 1900s there really wasn't nearly the messy animosity that exists between the two groups today.
Right. The Jews who died in the Hebron Massacre in the 20s must have killed themselves. Or tripped over a bunch of sharp objects.
What caused the animosity was having more than dribs and drabs of Jews returning. The Arabs don't play well with others. Not unless they're on top.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Okay, where have I misunderstood you? Are you saying that you agree the Irgun was a terrorist organization, and that the murder of two British soldiers was an evil act? If not, then I don't think I'm misrepresenting you at all.
They were not a terrorist organization. They were right to kill the British soldiers. You have misrepresented what that consisted of by comparing an attempt to prevent a double murder from being carried out to trying to get people released from imprisonment.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm amused starLisa. If anyone has been inflammatory, it's me, not JonBoy and not Tom Davidson.
Did I deliberately throw that out there? Yes. Because, (and your further responses have proved this) it appears to an observer, you are "ultra-orthodox" rather than merely "orthodox".
I'm sure you won't like it that I say that. But your responses put you firmly on that side of the ultra-orthodox political line. (Though I realize in Judaism especially where religion and politics intersect it's always more of a web than a line.)
So then, the question really comes down to the Hatracker community. How *do* we treat someone who is ultra-orthdox? How would we treat a Muslim in the same situation? How do we find any sort of place for them in our little crystal City? Because in a microcosm, if we can't make it work here, no wonder the rest of the world is screwed.
quote:Lisa's example showed a murder on a simple level, but ignoring its context means that we can never have a reasonable discussion of what tactics are considered ethical in war.
You're right, of course, about a reasonable discussion of ethical warfare being impossible.
For my part, I submit that war is unethical.
And for my part, I'd love to hear your opinion of that again when someone who has launched war against you is on your doorstep. Methinks you might reconsider your view on defensive war.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: But taking two soldiers not directly involved in the murders and killing them, that's wrong.
While we're at it, is this an appropriate description of events? As I understand it, British law carried with it a death penalty. I would argue, if that's the case, that the kids involved were sentenced, not murdered.
There is no such thing as a victimless crime. A government has an obligation to protect those it governs. When they don't carry out that responsibility, they forfeit any moral authority they ever had.
Arabs were murdering Jews. The Brits wouldn't stop them, and refused to allow the Jews to protect themselves. So they passed a law forbidden possession of weapons on pain of death.
Around the same historical period, the German government also passed a number of laws. They also sentenced people to death or to imprisonment in death camps. "Sentenced" is the correct term in that case as well.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I'm amused starLisa. If anyone has been inflammatory, it's me, not JonBoy and not Tom Davidson.
Did I deliberately throw that out there? Yes. Because, (and your further responses have proved this) it appears to an observer, you are "ultra-orthodox" rather than merely "orthodox".
How about that. You sound like Robert Kaiser. Actually my mind boggles a bit at the concept of a somewhat Objectivist lesbian being called "ultra-Orthodox". A term which was coined as a pejorative in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I'm sure you won't like it that I say that.
M'lady, you overestimate your importance. Your opinion on the matter isn't significant enough for me to dislike.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: But your responses put you firmly on that side of the ultra-orthodox political line.
In your opinion. I wonder what basis you have for presuming to offer one on this subject?
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: So then, the question really comes down to the Hatracker community. How *do* we treat someone who is ultra-orthdox? How would we treat a Muslim in the same situation? How do we find any sort of place for them in our little crystal City? Because in a microcosm, if we can't make it work here, no wonder the rest of the world is screwed.
That's adorable.
"I declare Lisa to be a meanie. We don't really want meanies around here, now do we? What shall we do? Muahahahaha."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For KarlEd, if you're still reading this thread:
I want to respond directly to your initial post and query without delving into all the specific issues this thread seems to be in discussion of.
When I say that God is "unchanging," I don't mean that he doesn't act differently under different circumstances, and so he might require some behavior from one person and some behavior from another. Rather I mean that he first of all exists outside of time and second, that he has a consistent character. Since we are beings who exist within time it is rather hard to grasp what it means to live outside of time, of course.
You may claim that he required one thing in Old Testament times and another thing today, but that does not necessarily mean he is unchanging; to me it means that we are changing and so God's method of dealing with us has changed to reflect that. Does that answer your initial query?
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: You are not willing to say that the Irgun was a terrorist organization. That is what puts you there.
That's really funny. So Menachem Begin, despite not being Orthodox, was Ultra Orthodox? Do you even know what the pejorative term "ultra-Orthodox" is used for? It's used primarily for non- or anti-Zionist groups in Israel who so opposed the creation of a state prior to the coming of the Messiah that they declared it illegal to vote in Israeli elections. It spread from there to what some people call "black hat" communities in general.
The idea of the insult was to differentiate those icky black hatters from "normal" Orthodox Jews, who may be nutty enough to keep kosher and all, but will at least wear t-shirts. The ones who don't make their more assimilated counterparts feel uncomfortable.
For you to apply the term to someone who is openly gay and someone who finds the whole "We have to wait for the Messiah" thing to be really, really sad... well, remember what I said about your presuming to offer an opinion? That's because an opinion that doesn't have at least some information behind it just isn't all that worth addressing.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: As an American, I would be willing to admit that the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act (though a mild form because no one was killed.)
Most nations are founded on some kinds of terrorism, nation founding almost requires it. Hopefully they move beyond it. Some do, some don't.
It's people like you, Anna, who have devalued the concept of "terrorism" so much that people have begun to accept it as a legitimate tool.
I hope you're proud of yourself.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Alvin. Yes, I'm reading this thread (with trepidation at times, but . . . well, yeah.)
I believe I understand what you and others are asserting when you write of how God can be "unchanging" but still act differently under different circumstances. However, when you say God exists "outside of time" what do you mean? Do you mean outside of our time, or outside of all time. What do you believe this means? I agree that it can be hard to grasp what it means to "live" (I'd say "exist") outside of time, but surely we must have something in mind, especially if that is a quality we believe God to possess. I mean, to assign a quality to something if we have no idea what that quality means is beyond "unhelpful" in determining the nature of the thing defined.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, of course I realize that. I've never intimated otherwise. That's why I'm asking people to express their specific beliefs. I hope everyone will take the opportunity to reject my premise whenever it incorrectly states their viewpoint.
Not only is every Christian not a biblical literalist, but I'm finding that there is almost as much variety of belief among the individuals of even the most defined sects (or denominations or "orthodoxies" if you prefer) as there are between the sects themselves.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, when you say God exists "outside of time" what do you mean? Do you mean outside of our time, or outside of all time. What do you believe this means?
KarlEd, I consider myself to be an agnostic, but I wanted to respond to this question.
I believe that there is a higher power out there, but how I define it I'm not entirely sure. With regards to the question of God existing outside of time, I think that, for me, it means outside of all time. Something had to have created everything and that thing which created it cannot be part of it. It's just a higher power beyond all comprehension, therefore, in my opinion, there is no need to figure out the nature of it, which is part of the reason I don't follow any particular religion. There are other reasons as well, but they don't fit into this topic.
But that brings up the question of where did the creator come from and was it always there and will always be there.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Second, we do actually have records of the books that were left out of the current Biblical Cannon. If you're interested in reading some of them you can pick up a copy of After the New Testament: A Reader in Early Christianity by Bart D. Ehrman. It includes such "Apostalic" writings as: The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Proto-Gospel of James etc. It's a college text book, so you may have to head to your local college bookstore to locate a copy. Most classes in New Testament use Ehrman so it's fairly likely they'd have a copy. It becomes painfully obvious very quickly to anyone familiar with the current Biblical Cannon just why these books, and others, were left out.
And the Magdelene gospel and Gnostic gospels. I didn't want to further muddy the waters when I posted (silly me!). And who knows what simply didn't survive?
Scholarship on the dates of the gospels differs widely and keeps changing. With the advance of "higher criticism" some scholarship puts the dates somewhat later than originally thought. Also, there is some scholarship that believes that they were "compiled" over a periods of decades rather that written as a whole.
At any rate, my point was that not all Christians believe that the bible is inerrant.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that brings up the question of where did the creator come from and was it always there and will always be there.
Well, actually, it doesn't bring up that question if that is what you truly believe. If it exists outside of all time there should in fact be no state of before or after in relation to that thing. And while I can conceive of a thing that exists outside of all time, I don't believe there must necessarily be such a thing.
I consider myself an agnostic, but I'm always open to new concepts or ideas. I believe (or more precisely I entertain the possibility of) a power outside of our universe, but I have no reason (as of yet) to believe that it is a "higher" power, per se.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, actually, it doesn't bring up that question if that is what you truly believe. If it exists outside of all time there should in fact be no state of before or after in relation to that thing. And while I can conceive of a thing that exists outside of all time, I don't believe there must necessarily be such a thing.
Yea, well then I guess for me, I still haven't been able to get my head about something that has existed for all of time and will continue to exist no matter the state of the universe.
quote:I have no reason (as of yet) to believe that it is a "higher" power, per se.
Same here, though I was raised Presbyterian.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, let me see if I'm correctly stating your position:
1) The British empire failed to properly protect its Jewish subjects from its Arab subjects, abrogating its right to rule them.
2) It arrested two Jews under an unjust law, and threatened to apply the law to them.
3) Irgun kidnapped two British soldiers -- who, by virtue of being troops belonging to a power that had abrogated its right to rule, can be more properly assumed to be hostile troops of an occupying power -- and attempted to extort negotiations from the occupying nation.
4) When the British refused to negotiate with the kidnappers, Irgun was right to kill its two military hostages. This does not constitute terrorism or murder, as it was done in an attempt to defend individuals from a hostile state.
Is this a fair statement of what you believe?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way "ultra-orthodox" is currently used in the U.S. media, is to describe those who resist any sort of comprimise with the Palistinians and think that all is justified because God has given Israel a right to exist. As I said, it's the strident "political" orthodoxy, not the "religious" orthodoxy that I'm objecting to. Perhaps you aren't that far out there. I sincerely hope you aren't to that extreme. But you sound that fanatical to me. You sound equally as fantatical about your lesbianism. I have a problem with fanatics of all stripes because I'm related to way too many of them. It's your life. But people like you scare me.
(It was pointed out to me that religious ultraorthodox Jews are often much more like Quakers or Amish. I apologize for convoluting the current media shorthand of ultraorthodox = right-wing fanatics with those nonviolent religious ultraorthodox)
And please, your defense of the Irgun, means that *you* think terrorism is a legitimate activity. Not me. It happens. That doesn't mean it should be defended or justified. It is the people who try to defend and justify it that lend it legitimacy.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: 2) It arrested two Jews under an unjust law, and threatened to apply the law to them.
Context is important here. The law prevented them from defending themselves. The law was not only unjust, but the Jews' acquisition of weapons could easily be argued was in self-defense. The law does make certain concessions for cases of self-defense.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
