Christianity and our Nation.

Shall I take that question as a red herring or are you propping up a straw man?

Setting aside the irrelevance of your question to my comments, you have raised an interesting point because Hamas threw the Geneva Conventions out the window when it started this conflict by deliberately targeting, killing, raping, abducting, etc., civilian non-combatants on October 7, 2023. At the time, I mentioned that this could have grave repercussions for Palestinian civilians because, from what I've read, the GC only applies to parties that accept and apply the provisions of the conventions themselves:

Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions_and_their_additional_protocols

I presume your question is directed at Israel, so the question becomes, in light of Hamas' refusal to accept and apply the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, are the Israelis obligated to apply the provisions themselves? As a matter of law, it appears that they are not, and thanks to Hamas, it appears that the so-called laws and/or rules of warfare do not apply in this conflict. It's basically anything goes.

Of course, the question of justification extends beyond the law and it is further complicated by the questions of whether or not the civilian non-combatants were deliberately targeted and killed, killed accidentally or killed while attempting to shield combatants. This opens up the questions of whether or not their killings are/were justified on a military and/or moral level. In my estimation, the moral question is further complicated by the results of a poll that AKS posted yesterday where an overwhelming majority of Palestinians stated that they supported Hamas' actions on October 7th (however, most people, including myself, are not going to be inclined to hold that against their children).

I think there's another dimension to consider here and that is the fact that this, like many if not most other wars involving terrorists, is a war being fought not only on the ground but in the media, too. In this case, the victims of terrorism must consider to what if any extent the deaths of civilian non-combatants serves their interests, not only on the battlefield, but on a PR level. This would generally call for restraint, but when you're at war with an alliance and people dedicated to your destruction, one is king to be less inclined to exercise restraint.

 

Muhammad is seen as a prophet by Muslims. His hostility towards Christians and Jews, which was conveyed into the Qur'an and most specifically its war verses (ex., IX:29) was on account of their rejection of him as a prophet. He was seen as a fraud by non-Muslims.

And if you pick up a History book, you'll find that during the Muslim invasions of Eastern and Western Christendom, many Christians considered Muhammad the Anti-Christ.

Hogwash. Islam does not accept the whole Christian Bible - in fact it denies the central aspect of Jesus' mission, his sacrifice on the cross, and in doing so it further denies that Jesus rose from the dead.

This was deliberately done by the authors of the Qur'an and Hadith to delegitimize and supersede Christianity. It is a rejection of the Christian Bible, not its acceptance.

 

Can you be so brainwashed as to believe the KKK administered government to the American People and had the support of the Nation? Well that is what you imply with your rationale. Sure if the KKK was our official government and had the support of American citizens and we puled an Oct. 7th on Canada, they would,of course, have every right to destroy our government and free their hostages by any means necessary. American Patriots could never imagine such a scenario....but you did.

 

Another thing worth noting here is that the United States government crushed the Ku Klux Klan after it began its terror campaign in the post-Civil War South.

Too bad the same thing can't be said for the Palestinians and Hamas.

 

Muhammed is a prophet. Your requirement that all prophets must have a human blood line to Abraham doesn't make sense.

Who are you accusing of being jealous?

 

That wouldn't change anything at all.

Look at West Bank. President Abbas has cooperated with the IDF against violence and has been fully committed to negotiations only.

Yet, the USA has been fully opposed to that direction, and supports Israel as they use the IDF to steal more and more Palestinian land.

Israel's war on Gaza started 2 decades before Oct 6. And, throughout that period Israel was making war on Gaza.

 

Yes, a lot of people went to war against him. And, he did write about that. And, it's common for people to reject others religious views as apostasy.

Christians have done the same in terms of conquest many times - even including wars within Christendom over differences of belief.

Western colonization is no small thing.

There are a number of branches of Christianity that don't accept the trinity.

And, of course there is Judaism.

Do you see this as actionable today in terms of foreign policy.

 

And he against them.

I think the general view of Muhammad's ideology was that of heresy, not apostasy. Some people have written that Islam was initially a form of Arianism which was developed into an ideology/religion all its own well after Muhammad died. This development is remarkably similar to what Christianity went through during the reign and councils of Constantine long after Jesus' death.

Of course, and it's interesting to note that at one time Western rights doctrines flowed through the School of Salamanca, which opposed the forced conversion of Native Americans.

True, but I'm not aware of any that deny Jesus was crucified as Islam does. It's a fundamental difference between the two faiths.

I'm a firm believer in religious freedom. Unfortunately, a lot of people (ex., the Islamists in Hamas) do not, and they consider it grounds for war.

 

I see NO evidence that Hamas is fighting a religious war.

Israel laid siege to them 20 years ago. That is well recognized as war. It has crippled Gaza to an extent that has been noted over and over again.

Israel's war on Gaza is something that ANY people in the world would fight against, regardless of religion.

And, that certainly includes the USA. Our forefathers fought a revolution over far less than what Gaza has faced for 20 years.

 

Just as Christianity was done to "delegitimize" Judaism or the Reformation was done to "delegitimize" The Catholic Church.

It's one of the reasons that I don't believe in ANY religion. A man claims to speak for God, some believe him, some do not. But in the end there is no direction from the god itself. If the message of how we are supposed to believe is so important you would think that the creator of the entire universe would have a more unambiguous way of showing us.

 

Exactly. The pro Israel people just want to point at Oct 7th as the ignition point for this current round of violence and ignore how Israel has been treating the Palestinians for the last generation

 

LOL! Good grief, man - The ISLAMIC Resistance Movement, aka, Hamas, is an Islamist group, and it was founded by the largest and most influential Sunni Islamist group in the Arab world - the Muslim Brotherhood. Its Covenant/Charter explicitly states the religious nature of Hamas and its jihad against Israel, which it considers an Islamic waqf.

Oh, and what about the Egyptian siege of Gaza, hmm? I've noticed that you make a habit of conveniently omitting that inconvenient fact.

And why would Egypt lay siege to Gaza, hmm?

Could it have to do with its decades-long war with Hamas' parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood?

Perhaps you need a little History lesson about that, too. You can start by Googling Muslim Brotherhood assassination Nasser, or perhaps you would care to look into why one of its most famous and influential ideologues, Sayyid Qutb, was executed.

WRONG.

You have to be the scum of the earth to support the genocidal psychopaths in Gaza who seek the extermination of the Jewish state and its inhabitants.

It most certainly does not include the USA. My family members fought the likes of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in World War II.

Speaking of which:



Look who it is - Hitler and his Palestinian ally, the grand mufti Amin al-Husseini.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...

 

I don't recall Jesus' attempts to delegitimize Judaism. Perhaps you could help me out here. Granted I'm no Bible thumper or exegete, but is there something in the Gospels I missed?

As for the Catholic Church, and mind you I used to be a Catholic, the RCC and the papacy had legitimacy issues long before the Reformation took place. What do you think the Franciscan Poverty Controversy was about?

I get your point and I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I don't subscribe to your anthropomorphic conception of God and his/her/its opposition to free will. Heck, arguably the most revolutionary point Jesus made during his career was that we are defined by our own individual moral agency, not our sex, position in our family, social status, etc.. It's precisely those kinds of subversive ideas that would get a man (or woman) crucified by the secular and religious authorities in the Ancient World.

 

And, it is Israel that is attacking Gaza and has done so for 20 years, as they follow their Zionist objectives that they state so clearly.

It was Israel that attacked Gaza and has continued that war to today.

Now, claim that if Gaza fights back it is because they hate Jews? Come on. Let's be serious.

Your comments about Egypt don't make sense, as that gate has been monitored by Israel, by Egypt, and by the EU. And for some rather long periods, that gate has been completely closed.

Trying to get into Egypt's relations with Israel is not enlightening.

Again, this is just ridiculous. Neither Gaza nor West Bank is a threat to Israel. In BOTH cases, Palestinians see Israel as permanent.

This is NOT WWII.

And, al-Husseini fought against ZIONISM. Just being a Jew doesn't give permission to follow the Zionist objectives of conquering lands lived on by Arabs.

His encounters with Hitler were oriented to getting help in protecting his land against Jewish encroachment.

And, I do not understand your bitterness and accusations that clearly stem from Arabs attempting to protect their homeland.

The amazing thing going on in that region is that President Abbas STILL demands an approach of nonviolence and negotiation.

Yet, the US and Israel SPIT on that direction. Instead of recognizing this direction, YOU HATE Palestinians when they do NO MORE than protect their homeland, their residences, their water rights, their orchards.

 

Actually it was a campaign to re-legitimize Judaism; Jesus was a reformer who was advocating a return to the written Torah and the drive to implement the universalism of Moses and a rejection of the fraudulent 2nd Temple scam and 'oral Torah' that began with Ezra and the eventual dominance of the Pharisees and inane legalisms that made it impossible for all but the wealthy to practice the Jewish theology and follow all the fantasy rules. Modern rabbinical 'Judaism' is a cult invented in the 2nd Century A.D. after the failure of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

 

Yes, get serious. Israeli forces weren't in Gaza prior to Hamas' attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, and the current attacks are in retaliation to Hamas' attacks.

There's no need for you to get upset about this. Hamas wanted a war with Israel and it got it, and since over 70% of Palestinians think Hamas' actions were correct, I guess they got what they wanted, too.

And it's not like this is anything new....

Straw man. I was talking about Egypt's relations with Hamas, not Israel, and the Egyptians have been blockading Gaza since the Ikhwan's progeny took control of the strip in 2007.

LOL - As if October 7th never happened. Your terrorist apologetics are a bad joke.

Of course, it's not, but the United States no more supports the genocidal psychopaths in Hamas than it supported the genocidal psychopaths in Nazi Germany.

Heh. Now you're defending al-Husseini.

Al-Husseini was a Jew-hating pig. He considered them "the enemy of Islam". He collaborated with Hitler and the Nazis and was a full-throated supporter of their liquidation. He repeatedly incited riots and violence against them and sought their expulsion from ALL Arab lands, not just Israel and Palestine. Judging from his speeches and statements about nefarious Jewish conspiracies, one might think he was an avid reader of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, too.

No, Will, I don't get all emotional over this like you do, and what happened on Oct. 7 was not "attempting to protect their homeland". It was part and parcel of Hamas' genocidal agenda.

I may be wrong, but I think Abbas can be reasoned with. The problem is, he's extremely unpopular and he's got no pull with Hamas.

Hamas, on the other hand, cannot be reasoned with. They've made it clear in their Covenant/Charter that jihad, not negotiations, is the only solution to their conflict with Israel.

It's Hamas that spits on negotiations.

In case you haven't noticed, your president has drafted a so-called peace plan and his secretary of state is in the region trying to get the two sides to the table. Unfortunately, Biden's plan was DOA from the get-go, but at least his administration is making a bumbling attempt to halt the fighting.

And YOU are getting all emotional again.

I've stated this before and I'll state it to you again - I'm a supporter of the two-state solution. I would be delighted to see the Palis and Israelis living side-by-side in peace, but Hamas isn't having that, and there are zealots in Israel who won't have it, either. That's the reality, and there's nothing I can do to change those people's minds. That's why I don't get emotional about that conflict. I've got much more important and immediate problems in my own country that demand my intellectual and emotional involvement.

 

In many respects the same could be said for the Protestant Reformation. It wasn't just about 'delegitimizing the Roman Catholic Church', it was largely about getting Christianity back to its roots and Scripture, and there were reformers within the Church who sought much the same thing long before and during the time of the Reformation. Francis of Assisi, William of Ockham and Erasmus of Rotterdam are but a few figures who immediately come to my mind.

 

Yes, the 'Protestant' churches kept a lot of the same rituals and organizational structure; they basically just stopped sending money to the Vatican.

Baptists and other evangelical sects are erroneously called 'Protestant', but in fact they are more like anti-Protestants, rejecting the Anglican and Episcopalian sects, mainly.

 

And started seizing its property *ka-ching!*. Many a German prince and elector got real rich real quick that way (not to mention King Henry VIII of England).

Interesting - I never look at them that way but you're right. "Anti-Protestant" would be more accurate, and I guess the same could be said for the "Reformed" sects that broke from Lutheranism.

 

The point is that every new religion or sect that branches off the original (or branches off a branch of the original) does so because they think the people they are splitting from "got it wrong" and they (the new religion/sect) found the right way.
All of this is done because someone (or even a group of someones) think they have discovered the "Truth" with zero input from any kind of divine revelation. Each time one of these new religions/sects springs into existence is because someone thought the people they were splitting from had some incorrect belief.

We now have hundreds (if not thousands) of religions and/or sects that have branched off the original religion that worshipped Yahweh. If this belief, if how we are supposed to interact/worship this alleged deity is so important than you would think that the creator of the entire damn universe would have a less ambiguous way of letting us know who is right and who is wrong. But instead of correcting whatever mistakes have been made we continue to see more and more division. Something you would expect if the whole thing were just the result of a delusion 6,000 years ago.

 

Doesn't matter, there isn't that big a difference between most of them; there are lots of different needs, and different sects focus on tending to the difference.Some are scholars, some are Pentecostals, some like Osteen and his predecessors focus on positive thinking messages, others on apocalypse, etc.

The old and new Testaments are written on many levels, from the basic to the obscure and complex; they weren't written by idiots and con men, and together it is literature, philosophy, history, and psychology on a grand scale, and has benefited the West tremendously, believers and non-believers alike, despite all the sniveling and whining from assorted sociopaths, deviants, and pagans and their neurotic complaints.

 

There are other possibilities.

As for the kaleidoscope of different religions, sects, beliefs, practices, rituals, etc., some have found what they consider a common or universal thread that runs through all our religions, as Aldous Huxley did in The Perennial Philosophy.

This is the opening of the Introduction, via Wikipedia:

Of course, one is free to believe that this all bullshit, which brings us back to the discussions and questions surrounding the subjects of the free will of Man and God.

 

LOL

I once heard someone describe the Book of Genesis as poetry, and I think that's a very fitting term. I don't take Genesis literally, but I think whoever wrote it produced a wonderful allegory of Man's passage from the states of Nature and innocence, and a lot can be learned from that allegory. As you stated, the men who wrote that weren't idiots.

 

Surely nonconformists hurches were called protestant's for protestibg against the teaching of the CofE and R,C. churches.

 

I suppose so; I personally have stricter definition of the term, and apply it to the original sects it referred to, which I think is more historically accurate as a distinction. it's semantic thing and not important .