Jesus was a standard pacifist Jew during 2,500 years of Jewish pacifism that ended with Zionism.

I might have asked this before, but what happened to make Jewish pacifism end?

Sounds like a new question. Zionists wanted Palestine because it was Palestine when they conquered it before 1000 BCE. Then the remaining Jews who wouldn't be settled in Europe-UK-Canada-US-Oz-you name it, had to conquer Palestine because Hitler or the Devil made them do it.

OK. I thought it was maybe the mass killing of 6,000,000 Jews by the Nazis that finally made them ditch pacifism.

That was it.

Every war was unjust.

This is it, but we continue to "solve" our problems this way. Are we ever going to evolve to evolve to where we don't need them?

We're sufficiently developed. We simply wage unjust wars because the Nation-State tells us God is a genocidist. No, He is not. God is a pacifist, the only God worthy of trusting.

I do. If I had the moral right to condemn Muslims (I don't), I condemn them. Do you condemn Jewish/Israeli war crimes? If so, good for you. But you don't believe war is always unjust, do you?

Every war was unjust.

This is it, but we continue to "solve" our problems this way. Are we ever going to evolve to evolve to where we don't need them?

We're sufficiently developed. We simply wage unjust wars because the Nation-State tells us God is a genocidist. No, He is not. God is a pacifist, the only God worthy of trusting.

I do. If I had the moral right to condemn Muslims (I don't), I condemn them. Do you condemn Jewish/Israeli war crimes? If so, good for you. But you don't believe war is always unjust, do you?

UG, BAD FINGER, yOU ASKED "I understand that you are a pacifist and don't like it that the Israelis are not anymore, but I do not understand why you never have a negative word for the Palestinians who are certainly not either.

They have killed people all over the world who have nothing at all to do with their conflict. How is that OK? blink.gif "

"

Actually, I condemn any violent crimes commited by anybody, but at the same time, I do believe in self-defence and defending the helpless. The problem is that in this world these concepts are not always as clear cut as we would like them to be.

Actually, I condemn any violent crimes commited by anybody, but at the same time, I do believe in self-defence and defending the helpless. The problem is that in this world these concepts are not always as clear cut as we would like them to be.

Good. Now, for what might appear to be exceptional exceptions: Do you believe the pacifist Jew was right when He told Jews, "love your enemies, so that you be God's children"? That text and its context have no exceptions. I doubt post-ww2 Jewish theologians have bothered to twist 2,500 years of their own theological tradition. I suspect they ignore it, as did Christians after Constantine - aka "The Fall of the Church."

To be honest, I don't believe in capitulation to those who mean us harm and I don't think that God does either. Love your enemy if they love you back would be my philosophy.

"I believe it's a crime for anyone being brutalized to continue to accept that brutality without doing something to defend himself."^[29]

Malcolm X

To be honest, I don't believe in capitulation to those who mean us harm and I don't think that God does either. Love your enemy if they love you back would be my philosophy.

"I believe it's a crime for anyone being brutalized to continue to accept that brutality without doing something to defend himself."^[29]

Malcolm X

I agree.

Where I take exception is heavy handed or falsely justified retaliation.

To be honest, I don't believe in capitulation to those who mean us harm and I don't think that God does either. Love your enemy if they love you back would be my philosophy.

"I believe it's a crime for anyone being brutalized to continue to accept that brutality without doing something to defend himself."^[29]

Malcolm X

I agree.

Where I take exception is heavy handed or falsely justified retaliation.

I'm all for heavy-handed retaliation. It's a great deterrent unless you're dealing with fanatics. That's doesn't mean to go light on the fanatics. That just means more of them get killed.

I would argue one reason we have long drawn out wars today is that we don't play to win. It used to be that people sued for peace because they couldn't take the punishment anymore. Now it's little pin pricks here and there that get nowhere. It might sound brutal, but if I hit you on the arm and you hit me back on the arm, it could go on back and forth for a long time. But if I hit you on the arm and you smack the holy living sh*t out of me I won't do it again.

It might sound brutal, but if I hit you on the arm and you hit me back on the arm, it could go on back and forth for a long time. But if I hit you on the arm and you smack the holy living sh*t out of me I won't do it again.

Exactly right.

If I smack someone who is much bigger than me, I know that they will hit me back as hard as they can. They are not going to pull their punch to let me hit them again and again.

It might sound brutal, but if I hit you on the arm and you hit me back on the arm, it could go on back and forth for a long time. But if I hit you on the arm and you smack the holy living sh*t out of me I won't do it again.

Exactly right.

If I smack someone who is much bigger than me, I know that they will hit me back as hard as they can. They are not going to pull their punch to let me hit them again and again.

Someone bigger than you might hit you back as hard as he can....that's what a bully does. Where I come from we despise bullies...same as wife beaters; essentially they're cowards.

That's where we differ. I have compassion for humanity, no man is an island and all that, so if you smack me, I smack you back a bit harder to teach you not to do it again. If you persist, I will hit you back harder than you hit me each time......you'd be a fool to persist. I don't have to blast the living shit out of you.

Kee chang, chup takatan. Thai saying: Ride an elephant to catch grasshoppers.

Bullies do not wait to be hit, they strike first.

Only a moron starts a fight with someone bigger and stronger than them or they better plan on getting their butt beat.

To be honest, I don't believe in capitulation to those who mean us harm and I don't think that God does either. Love your enemy if they love you back would be my philosophy.

The pacifist Jew said, "38 You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.43 You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? "

I do not believe the Bible to be the literal word of God and if I did, how do you explain the Bible saying one thing - an eye for an eye - and Jesus instructing people to let their enemies kill them?

The truth is that non-violence usually only works if it is used against someone who is basically decent to begin with - the British in India - or when the protesters have someone with a big stick backing them.

If Gandhi had been up against the Japanese or the Germans he would have ended up smeared on the street.

To be honest, I don't believe in capitulation to those who mean us harm and I don't think that God does either. Love your enemy if they love you back would be my philosophy.

The pacifist Jew said, "38 You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.43 You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? "

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also". I'd like to see that updated to "If someone murders over 6 million of your people in gas showers and hard labor, then burns them to ashes in giant ovens, march forward another 6 million of your people for the same treatment". I think even the "pacifist Jew" might write a different ending to that one.

Right on!

Let's see...

Israelis blowing up UK Military HQ in Israel = terrorism

Muslims attacking US Military HQ (The Pentagon) in the USA = legitimate military target

Is that about right?

it's of course not right. the King David Hotel which was blown up jul22,1946 by the Irgun was not located in Israel but in Palestine and of course it was an act of terrorism.

it is cheap generalising and deliberately misleading polemic to claim "muslims... attacking the Pentagon" notwithstanding the fact that it too was an act of terrorism.

hail Rush Limbaugh, hail O'Reilly, hail Odysseus G.!

Bullies do not wait to be hit, they strike first.

Only a moron starts a fight with someone bigger and stronger than them or they better plan on getting their butt beat.

True enough. But if the bully stole from the victim initially, and the victim lost his temper and lashed out....is the bully justified in beating the shit out of the victim?

Let's see...

Israelis blowing up UK Military HQ in Israel = terrorism

Muslims attacking US Military HQ (The Pentagon) in the USA = legitimate military target

Is that about right?

it's of course not right. the King David Hotel which was blown up jul22,1946 by the Irgun was not located in Israel but in Palestine and of course it was an act of terrorism.

it is cheap generalising and deliberately misleading polemic to claim "muslims... attacking the Pentagon" notwithstanding the fact that it too was an act of terrorism.

hail Rush Limbaugh, hail O'Reilly, hail Odysseus G.!

To be honest, I think the Pentagon is a legitimate military target. Using a civilian passenger plane as the missile was the terror aspect.

Bullies do not wait to be hit, they strike first.

Only a moron starts a fight with someone bigger and stronger than them or they better plan on getting their butt beat.

True enough. But if the bully stole from the victim initially, and the victim lost his temper and lashed out....is the bully justified in beating the shit out of the victim?

Whether you start something or not, you have to take into consideration what the result might be of your action or reaction. Under exceptions I would include a man being hit by a child or a woman (unless maybe he's tiny and she's Godzilla). Are Palestinians children? Perhaps. But blowing up a passenger bus or launching rockets aren't childish pranks.

I do not believe the Bible to be the literal word of God and if I did, how do you explain the Bible saying one thing - an eye for an eye - and Jesus instructing people to let their enemies kill them?

The truth is that non-violence usually only works if it is used against someone who is basically decent to begin with - the British in India - or when the protesters have someone with a big stick backing them.

If Gandhi had been up against the Japanese or the Germans he would have ended up smeared on the street.

The Bible changed its ethic. So did Judaism and Christianity, more than once. Non-violence doesn't always work. Violence usually fails. If you study its successes, non-violence has been stunningly successful. All Lennon asked, until killed by a warm gun, was to give peace a chance.

To be honest, I don't believe in capitulation to those who mean us harm and I don't think that God does either. Love your enemy if they love you back would be my philosophy.

The pacifist Jew said, "38 You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.43 You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? "

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also". I'd like to see that updated to "If someone murders over 6 million of your people in gas showers and hard labor, then burns them to ashes in giant ovens, march forward another 6 million of your people for the same treatment". I think even the "pacifist Jew" might write a different ending to that one.

Yes - after 2,500 years of living at peace, let's go kill Gentiles for YHWH. And Christians and atheists, too?

It probably depends on if the big guy bought a lot of land from the little guy who then tried to take it back and attacked him. The Israelis did not start the war.

Yes - after 2,500 years of living at peace,

2,500 years of being chased around the planet and then almost wiped out completely. Turning the other cheek does not work.

Yes - after 2,500 years of living at peace,

2,500 years of being chased around the planet and then almost wiped out completely. Turning the other cheek does not work.

So you assume. Gentile guilt over the Holocaust should have opened the doors to refuge outside Palestine. dam_n Gentiles....

It probably depends on if the big guy bought a lot of land from the little guy who then tried to take it back and attacked him. The Israelis did not start the war.

Bought????

It depends on your perspective. The British dumped a bunch of European refugee Jews in Palestine and those Jews then dug in and began dispossesing the Palestinians of their homes...with British backing, and now with American backing.

What is often overlooked is that at around the same time, the British partitioned India, effectively segregating the Muslims there too. At the time, globally, the Muslims were being tossed out of their homes all over the place.

The Jews bought lots and lots of land from the Arab owners who eventually tried to take it back. Just who is stealing?

The Jews bought lots and lots of land from the Arab owners who eventually tried to take it back. Just who is stealing?

Evidence?

Do you mean in the West Bank? Or East Jerusalem?

I'd like your take on East Jerusalem and the West Bank Jewish settlements.

You ignore that these were European Jews that had no connection whatsoever with the land, except in their religious texts.

You also ignore the global political climate of the time. The partition of India, that occurred in 1948, forced hundreds of thousands of Muslims to uproot and move to what is now Pakistan.

The Western powers contrived both of these immensely disrupting circumstances on the Muslim population.

Yes - after 2,500 years of living at peace,

2,500 years of being chased around the planet and then almost wiped out completely. Turning the other cheek does not work.

So you assume. Gentile guilt over the Holocaust should have opened the doors to refuge outside Palestine. dam_n Gentiles....

You might be right, but most people think that they are there now and not going anywhere - that is what signing all the treaties is about.

If the Palestinians had any interest in peace, most Israelis are in favor.

The Jews bought lots and lots of land from the Arab owners who eventually tried to take it back. Just who is stealing?

Evidence?

Read a history book. It is all right there.

The Jews bought lots and lots of land from the Arab owners who eventually tried to take it back. Just who is stealing?

Evidence?

Read a history book. It is all right there.

So you say.....great evidence. Never mind.

And your take on what is happening in East Jerusalem and the West Bank settlements?