BibleForums Christian Message Board

Quote from: Oscar_Kipling on August 11, 2025, 12:34:15 PM

where did this number come from? Just link me a source please, because frankly I do not believe you.

Stop polluting my discussions with your nonsense. Go away.

Do you have a source for that 46% claim or not? I haven't found anything that supports your claim. If it makes you feel better, then don't post the source for me, but for people who actually might want to know more about the details behind 46% of all the humanitarian aid in the world right being sent to Gaza. Is refusing to just point out your source really taking a stand against my 'nonsense' in any meaningful way, or is it just making it more difficult for anyone else to simply verify your statement at their own discretion? It's true if I find fault with your source I will criticize it as I'm want to do, but what do you care? It would just serve to further exemplify how wrong I am and how right you are, no?

Oscar, if you worked for a company and disagreed with the way the boss did certain things, that would be fine. But if you were to dispute and challenge the propriety of his actions, that's a different matter. The boss does as he pleases with what belongs to him, whether you like it or not, and your insubordination would more than likely result in the termination of your employment. In a similar way, as the sovereign Creator and Supreme Being, God owns the universe and everything in it--including mankind, who was created to serve Him without question. He does not need to justify Himself to you or anyone else. He has a valid reason for everything He does, whether we understand the reasoning or not, and people are free to serve and obey Him or not. But know that either way, you will one day stand before him in judgment, at which time your eternal destination will be determined. Like it or not.

I already understand the rationale and the context, and i'm not even trying to debate whether or not the genocide that God ordered and the Israelites supported and heeded was good or bad. That is all beside the point.

Lets try it this way. Do you have a problem with any of the following points:

-God ordered genocide in the bible and the Israelites more or less supported and heeded those orders. This is recorded in the bible.

-There is a context under which God ordered genocide (that is God's sovereignty, the behaviors of the genocidees and so on)

-If a person ignores that context then they cannot understand the genocide that God ordered in the bible. IOW ignoring the context is to fail to apprehend the totality of the genocide that God ordered in the bible.

-Understanding the context of the genocide that God ordered does not mean that you support or repudiate the genocide that God ordered in the bible or genocide in general. It is not about agreement on ethics or morality, it is about agreeing that we are pointing to the same collection of events.

Quote from: Oscar_Kipling on August 07, 2025, 01:51:34 PM

Still didn't see it? I said:

I'm sorry, I don't read messages from people who support genocidal groups.

Have a nice life.

Man, you must have a tough time reading the bible then. I wonder how you rationalize all that genocide. I'd say you have a nuanced view of biblical genocide, but like, I know you reject nuance as the domain of useful idiots.

Terrorist supporter says what?

Oh i'll repeat it. Perhaps try reading more slowly and out loud, that usually helps children:

yeah, worked like a charm last time.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, even if a full reoccupation results in an outcome that could meaningfully be described as 'the complete destruction of Hamas' the civilian casualties, displacement and destruction of infrastructure (that wasn't even great to start, and is hanging on by a thread now) will undoubtedly just create Hamas 2 : Electric boogaloo unless Israel pulls off the all time greatest reconstruction, repopulation and long term peace plan ever concaved and they'll likely have to do it without a great deal if any international support, with a great deal of earnest and dishonest criticism.

To me, This isn't even kicking the can down the road (which I guess lots of folks are fine with), its kicking a flaming bag of wet dog....poop with a steel toed boot. I know I know, 'but we didn't poop in the bag or set it on fire, the dog did!" who can blame you for kicking it off your porch?

Quote from: Oscar_Kipling on July 29, 2025, 03:41:47 PM

You're bigoted because your views are bigoted

Says the guy who can find "nuance" even in Nazi Germany.

Buh bye.

Again, I don't think you know what the word nuance means , else you wouldn't have posed the question of "absolute bad or nuance" in the first place. You posed a meaningless question and I tried to give a nuanced answer , fully suspecting that this is how you would react. I suppose it was a fine rhetorical maneuver.

Regardless, if you want to end it here then I still maintain that you have failed to meaningfully support your claims such as "intifada is a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east" and "“The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected it every time. “. or that the Palestinian people are "a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians" or that "Israel is the good guy who has tried everything to be fair and just". You would need to support those ideas outside of my stances on nuance or the reality of good and evil in the world/

Funally, whether or not my take on Nazi's or Slavery or Osama Bin Laden or Hamas are misguided or more nuanced than any of them deserve, at least some of the views you've expressed here are still bigoted sweeping generalizations and demonization and any misguided.  My views do not suddenly grant your views legitimacy, credence or make them any less bigoted...that isn't how that works. 

Quote from: Oscar_Kipling on July 24, 2025, 09:28:03 PM

This is an entirely different assertion.

Every other minority group in the world is allowed to assert when they feel that they are being discriminated against. You make an exception for Jews. "It's only antisemitism if I, a non Jew, determines that it is."

You're not a serious person.

If you haven't been asserting just that this entire time, then what have you been doing? No one has stopped you from claiming that you believe Mamdani's statement was antisemitic, and the only other person consistently commenting in this thread [Rabbiknife] has basically been hype-maning you this whole time. Additionally the only time in this thread anyone was told to shut up and leave, it came from you to me.

What it seems you are implying is that no other minority groups get challenged, pushback, accusations of exaggerating & overreacting, flat out denials or disagree with at all except the Jewish people. Hell Fenris, half the American Christians on this board will assert that they are being persecuted, and that that persecution is being denied and swept under the rug or even applauded—and they aren't even remotely a minority.

I'm not about to get into a persecution Olympics competition with you, but the mere fact that you curled your fingers to type such a ridiculous thing is evidence that you haven't been paying attention to the world...like ever. If you can find someone who is pointing to a real or perceived  injustice regarding their minority group you can find 4 more people with hot takes on why they are race baiting, or virtue signaling, or sjw-ing, living that victim mentality, or playing the _____ card, or being woke, or are actually the oppressors, or are doing reverse racism…and so on and so on. Like literally throw a dart board at any minority group and I'll find you more ugly criticism, ridicule and minimization of their concerns, fears and troubles than you’ll ever want to see.
If you want to argue that Jews get more than their fair share then, fine I have no desire to bother with refuting that assertion (antisemitism has always been far more widespread than the population of actual Jews) , but suggesting they are the only people in the whole wide world who have to deal with this is incorrect, and frankly bizarre,

Quote

Well, I think it does.

I don't care what you think. Jewish voters don't need your permission to feel threatened.

Again, in what universe is me thinking a thing tantamount to denying you permission to think something else? Bro, you are falling apart at the seams.

 

Quote

That being said, this isn't our first conversation about Israel or Jewish people, and I'm talking more about our body of work as a whole. The way you consistently read me on these topic indicates to me that you are very black and white on this issues.

Yes, I take it seriously when the public safety of Jews is being threatened. If only you took is as seriously. But hey, it isn't your ox being gored, eh?

Look, I’m willing to be convinced, but your grasp of basic facts about what things are, when stuff happened, what exactly happened and to whom, has been woefully inadequate—and none of that would matter if it wasn't the justification for why you are factually correct and i’m factually incorrect. If you were simply telling me how you feel without insisting that how I feel is an attack on your right or ability to feel how you feel then I would feel differently. But you are telling me that my opinion is doing you and all Jewish people harm on some level, and you are justifying this with a slew of inaccurate and misleaded information.

Quote

You say I'm being oblivious, but I've consistently agreed that there was terrorism in the intifadas, as well as antisemitism, but not just that.

Why would there need to be anything else? Murder of civilians isn't enough for you? You're behaving like the pseudo historians who say "Sure Hitler murdered millions of Jews. But he also made the trains run on time! There was more to the situation than meets the eye. It was nuanced! Nuanced, I tell ya!!"

Need has nothing to do with it, there is what actually occurred. You are narrowing what intifadas were just so you can support your point that intifada is "a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east". If intifada means anything above beyond or outside of that artificially truncated description then the factual basis of your argument is rendered inert. And I don't even know why you keep trying to back this up with twisted facts and misleading historical points when all you've really been saying this whole time is that you're angry and afraid. I mean hell Fenris, me too.

Quote

Most is not all

There were anti Nazi Germans, too. But we treated the state as though it was an enemy, which it was.  Or are we going back to "Nuanced! Nuanced, I tell ya!!"

And saying every German was a Nazi would have still been an overgeneralization whether or not it was strategically useful to firebomb cities full of civilians. We’ve had this debate before, I don’t have to pretend that every German that was killed was a bad guy or even a Nazi sympathizer in order to understand and appreciate the wartime utility in killing them. However to me this context is the crux of the argument against genocide, otherwise why not murder every last german or japanese citizen. If it is meaningless to consider who is or isn’t an irredeemable monster, then turn the whole region into glass or, idk, pillars of salt or whatever.

Quote

This statement is indicative of your consistent positioning of Israel as the good guy who has tried everything to be fair and just

Because they have.

I don’t believe this about any group of humans, I don’t even believe this about my own dear sweet grandma.

Quote

That you are unable to understand the concept of more than one party being accountable and culpable.

I understand the concept. When one side wants to commit genocide, it's hard to see the "nuance" though. Eh?

Clearly.

Quote

1936, Taking it all the way back to British colonialism, I'm a little surprised honestly. I think it is safe to presume that you are referring to the Peel plan. Characterizing this as simply a time that the Palestinians rejected an offer of statehood is disingenuously shallow, especially considering that the Zionists rejected it too.

The Peel plan is the best one to illustrate that it's not about Israel's borders, it's Israel's existence that the Palestinians are opposed to.

The Arabs refused this map:
—-MAP REDACTED—-
Because they wouldn't tolerate a Jewish state, no matter how small. Nothing else needs be said.

So I guess you are just dropping the other 6 dates with no acknowledgement whatsoever—like I didn’t point by point disassemble your claim that “The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected it every time. I don't see why this is Israel's fault or Israel's problem to solve. “.

So outside of the fact that the Zionists rejected it too, or I should say did not agree to the plan, Lets disassemble this slightly new point. One of the main Palestinian gripes wasn't about how large a portion that Israel got, but yes in fact that Israel got anything at all. Not for nothing they believed whether erroneously or not that the British empire which was the colonizing power at the time (1915-ish) had promised them a Palestinian state whereby Israel was not a part of this original calculus at all. From the Palestinian perspective the idea of a Jewish state was reneging on the original British promise of Palestine–Moreover they didn't like being beholden to British arbitration of what would happen with the region in the first place.

But regarding the split, you showed a map, which I suppose is meant to appeal to my intuition of fairness because it looks like the Arabs get most of the land and Israel gets a small but fair portion. I mean ~70% was to go to the Arabs. An interesting point about that map is that the Israeli portion is green, and coincidentally the Israeli portion contains something like 80% of the fertile land in the region at the time. The Palestinians thought that this was an inequitable split. So not only did they feel that the British broke their promise of the land of Palestine in order to give these late coming Zionists their own country, the British planned to give them 80% of the arable land in the deal.

Now you can argue that the Palestinians should have been cool with this despite their misgivings and perceived betrayal and lack of self determination  anyway in order to help the Jews, but as you said of Israel: I don't see why this is Palestine's fault or Palestine's problem to solve.

I believe that you are heavily insinuating that the Palestinians rejected this plan for antisemitic reasons, that they simply could not tolerate a Jewish state merely because it would be populated by Jews whom they hate. But even if they did (and you would have to show me some evidence of that beyond just asserting it), then its was like the 4th or 5th thing on the list. You’ve failed to even make a reasonable attempt at supporting your original point that “The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected it every time. “--and you've utterly failed to support your new point with anything other than feelings about how a map looks without even acknowledging the main historically recorded issues that Palestinians actually had with the plan...and then you sort of vaguely assert antisemitism without any additional supporting evidence.
 

Quote

It makes sense to you to characterize Palestinians as "a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians"?

That's what they're behaving like, yes. Or are we back to "Nuanced!!"?

I never left the nuance anywhere to have to come back to it. It is safe to assume that nuance is an important aspect of pretty much anything I think.

Quote

You've shown clearly who you are too with this sweeping bigoted garbage.

It's kind of amazing. Even in Nazi Germany, there were gentiles who risked their lives to hide Jews. Not one Gaza resident has helped hide a Jew or helped a Jew escape. Not even when offered a substantial bounty on every Jewish hostage. But I'm bigoted for pointing this out. I guess I should work on my "Nuanced!!"

I mean, yeah, I think it would help you to approach this topic with more nuance. You say it like it's a dirty word, or like it will make you weaker or less capable of seeing the danger clearly, and I don't think it will. If anything I think it will help you to see more and varied dangers and help you avoid some.

Edit:

Even in Nazi Germany, there were gentiles who risked their lives to hide Jews. Not one Gaza resident has helped hide a Jew or helped a Jew escape. Not even when offered a substantial bounty on every Jewish hostage. But I'm bigoted for pointing this out.

I have to wonder how you know this? Or more precisely how you know that no Gazan has attempted such a thing unsuccessfully? Moreover Nazi Germany and Palestine are dissimilar in some fundamental ways, mainly that Nazi Germany while authoritarian was a functioning state with a functioning economy that had not been under blockade for the last 15 years or so. In Nazi Germany many people were in the socioeconomic position to Help Jews, even then, records indicate they rarely did.... and it was even rarer still for impoverished people (like the Palestinians often are) to help hide Jews.

Which brings me to the biggest difference, In the Nazi situation they were hiding Jews...hiding. And especially in the cases of poor or working class helpers these were overwhelmingly Jews that they knew, their neighbors, friends, lovers and other people they had some relationships with. I'm not pointing that out to say there is anything wrong with that, but to say that hiding your literal next door neighbor's children in your barn is a wholly different proposition from rescuing a hostage from a violent terrorist paramilitary group. Hostage rescue even for Mossad is a tough ask even though they frequent have have excellent intelligence, excellent planning, excellent training, excellent armament and excellent logistical support. It would be like if instead of August Landmesser attempting to flee Hamburg with his Jewish fiancée, he had successfully orchestrated a plan to break some unrelated Jewish woman out of Neuengamme.... A personal act of resistance born of love and proximity. Still dangerous, but emotionally and logistically grounded VS A full-blown armed extraction mission against a heavily guarded facility run by an authoritarian regime with brutal, surveillance and instant execution.

You're bigoted because your views are bigoted, but this isn't just a case of you being a bigot--You're claiming to know that no one has done a thing, even unsuccessfully, when you have no real way of actually knowing this. And you are equating hiding Jews in Germany to rescuing hostages from a brutal armed militia.

You're employing all this pretzel logic for what? To maintain that not only is military action justified, but that the enemy consists of hateful cowards that aren't even as noble as ignominious Nazis? Personally I think we broad brush or straight up lie about our enemies like this because even in this day and age of precision weapons and Geneva conventions, war is still brutal and often cruel. If they aren't monsters, we'd feel bad about killing them, and intentionally or unintentionally, directly or indirectly harming or killing civilians. I think we should be honest and we should live with the fact that we are probably going to do things in war that we should definitely feel bad about. This acknowledgment imo is one of the many useful self-checks and balances against cruelty, war crimes and genocide. Let it feel bad.

Quote from: Oscar_Kipling on July 29, 2025, 05:22:59 AM

Quote from: RabbiKnife on July 28, 2025, 09:52:03 AM

Fortunately, I have a lot of experience with evil fools.

As they say, wherever you go, there you are.

How clever and erudite.

I’m rubber
You’re glue
Bounce off me and stick to you.

Hey, you started it.