SD on 26/1/2025 at 23:10
Quote Posted by Nicker
That's just the latest, modern chapter. The tribes of the middle east were engaged in wars of genocide even before the god of Abraham gave them special permission to act with his blessing. The justifications for the continuation of atrocities ON BOTH SIDES still stems from the overt justifications and orders provided by Yahweh and Allah (the same deity, BTW).
This is a centuries old conflict.
Well, Yahweh and Allah aren't really the same deity, are they. Not originally. Yahweh is a deity of the Levant, and Allah is Arabian, pre-dating Islam by some time. Muslims didn't arrive in Judea until the 7th century when they conquered the Levant. The latest in a long line of foreign empires to occupy the region. Let us be clear here, when we talk about a war that has been going on for centuries, we are talking about a war between the imperialists and the natives. Now the natives can fight back, and the boot is on the other foot, hence the endless stream of nonsensical bleating. The natives, desperate for peace, have tried on multiple occasions to share their homeland with the interlopers, but the "Palestinians" want it all. They're never getting it all, and the sooner they accept it, the quicker an end to the hostilities.
Nicker on 27/1/2025 at 00:17
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Where have I done this?
Every time you assert that the violence is only coming from Hamas, you are denying that Likud is in any way culpable, making any criticism of Likud a false accusation against them, implying that critics are unfairly blaming Likud while making excuses for Hamas, thus condoning the violent acts of Hamas.
Nicker on 27/1/2025 at 00:29
Quote:
Well, Yahweh and Allah aren't really the same deity, are they.
They are two names for the Abrahamic god. They both claim mythical lineage.
Regardless of their genealogy, their shared justifications of violence, their exhortations for genocide and their perverse promise of a free ride to the afterlife, for violent thugs acting on their behalf, makes their worship equally culpable for the centuries of mass murder and war committed on all sides.
The fact that imperialists have periodically taken advantage of this inter-tribal carnage is irrelevant to its origins and justifications.
Quote:
but the "Palestinians" want it all. They're never getting it all, and the sooner they accept it, the quicker an end to the hostilities.
Likud wants is all as well. Why do they get a pass on being stupidly greedy? I have said it since post #1 - BOTH SIDE that need to accept the a TWO STATE solution. The Arabs are never going to kill all the Jews and the Jews are never going to kill all the Arabs. That is what a One State solution demands and neither can have that.
Quote:
When your alternate plan is to ethnically cleanse all the Jews from the West Bank...
And there you go, fucking straw-manning again. I have trouble telling you and S.E. apart, what with only a single letter separating you in the alphabet and a paper thin gap separating pretty much everything else.
heywood on 27/1/2025 at 00:32
Quote Posted by SD
Well, Yahweh and Allah aren't really the same deity, are they. Not originally.
That might be the stupidist thing anyone has said on TTLG, and that's saying a lot.
Nicker on 27/1/2025 at 00:41
Quote Posted by heywood
That might be the stupidist thing anyone has said on TTLG, and that's saying a lot.
Let's not be hasty, heywood...
Quote:
Subjective Effect: Trump has some fresh ideas. I think we should indulge him.
And as if on cue, Trump proposes is fresh ideas for Gaza, - (
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c07kpjyzgllo) ethnic cleansing. \0/
Sorry, "temporary" ethnic cleansing. My bad.
Quote:
Describing Gaza as a "demolition site", Trump said: "You're talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing". He added that the move "could be temporary" or "could be long-term".
Or maybe permanent? Eh? We could make that happen. What do you say, Mr. and Mrs. Jewish American? Are torchlght MAGA parades of Good People hitting a little close to home? It might be time to go back where you came from. You and the (
https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/american-indian-protesters-told-to-go-home-by-trump-supporters-at-mount-rushmore) American Indians.
Quote:
In a twist of irony, American Indian protesters were met by Trump supporters yelling “go home” near the entry to Mount Rushmore on Friday. The protesters were actually on their homeland as protected by the Treaty of Fort Laramie and upheld by a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
heywood on 27/1/2025 at 15:45
Sorry SD, in my frustration I may have overstated that. But all monotheist religions believe in the same god, whatever the name. Logic doesn't allow anything else. And certainly Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all branches that grew from the same trunk.
Nicker on 27/1/2025 at 21:20
All monotheist religions believe that there is a single god but they don't all identify that deity to be the same entity.
The Big Cheese of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) must be the same deity, regardless of what name gets slapped on it or that he requires each faction to be the mortal enemy of every other faction. Not so much Monotheism as Monothugism.
And that's why this thread has its title.
demagogue on 27/1/2025 at 21:40
Don't forget as part of Trump's unilateral modification of the 14th Amendment on "birthright citizenship", they built it on the interpretation to expunge Native American's citizenship. (A sealion talking point would put into question that the interpretation has anything to do with Native Americans; but it overlaps exactly with the historical legal argument for denying Native Americans citizenship. It's not like a coincidence. But then you have to ask, what's the idea behind removing Native American citizenship?)
It's what a country does to set up their forced deportation, or in this case the ghettonization of the reservations, walling them up to turn them into concentration camps (then "forced deportation" means herding people outside the reservation ghettos into them). It's saying they're "illegals" on US soil, requiring that reservations are "not US soil", meaning there are "borders" that have to be securitized, and forced deportation into them then follows from that.
It's only going to that "limited" extent because visible genocide and ethnic cleansing won't be politically feasible (you ghettoize a population when you want it to disappear in darkness; the inhuman conditions is what does them in), anyway removing citizenship is often the first step in that chain.
Edit: Putting on my lawyer's hat, there may be other options. The other alternative or additional option that seems likely, particularly at the start, is that Native Americans can travel within the country just with a special second-class residence status, and some of the rights of citizenship could be denied. One would imagine they'd hope it'd progress to ghettoization from there, if they could get away with it (what happens when they "lose" their 2ndary US residence status? It has to come with ghettoization I think), but even a 2ndary residence status is a victory for them.
There's no way he can legally do that and any sane and non-captured court would dismiss it out of hand. Actually a court has already stayed the order for now. But he did the thing to try to make it legally happen.
There's not much doubt he thinks of Native Americans and Palestinians in those same terms, lesser peoples that are threatening, if not poisoning the blood of, the white population majority and need to be gotten rid of--quietly and in darkness; we don't say that part out loud until we do--to preserve the supremacy of white civilization. Jews of course are in that weird paradoxical zone of most contemporary antisemetism of under the banner of white power, w.r.t. Palestinians, and a threat to white power, w.r.t. "us", at the same time; they don't have the facility of abstraction to let that cognitive dissonance trouble them much though, or it lets the triangulate criticism/motivations from both respective sides.
heywood on 27/1/2025 at 22:13
Quote Posted by Nicker
All monotheist religions believe that there is a single god but they don't all identify that deity to be the same entity.
The Big Cheese of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) must be the same deity, regardless of what name gets slapped on it or that he requires each faction to be the mortal enemy of every other faction. Not so much Monotheism as Monothugism.
And that's why this thread has its title.
Religions can't have it both ways. Either there is one god (monotheism) or not. If there is one god, it is everyone's god whether they accept it or not. Different monotheist religions can debate over the name of god, the nature of God, how to worship god, how god has interacted with the world, whether god favors a chosen people or not, and so on. But they are all talking about the same god since there can be only one.
But yeah, it sounds especially ridiculous to me when I hear a Christian, Jews, or Muslim say we have different gods. I'm giving SD the benefit of the doubt and assuming what he really means is that we define our one god differently. I may have taken that too literally.
One thing I appreciated when I was in the USAF was that the chapels were interfaith and the chaplains were trained to minister to all three Abrahamic faiths. Most of the chaplains were Christian of course, but there were some Jewish and Muslim chaplains too. They accommodated different customs and ways to worship, but when people needed support from a spiritual leader it tended to be for the same reasons regardless of their faith. Naturally, that kind of arrangement only works with people who have agreed that the mission is #1 and protecting each other is #2. When religious differentiation is more important to people than a common cause, that doesn't work.
Qooper on 27/1/2025 at 22:36
Quote Posted by heywood
Sorry SD, in my frustration I may have overstated that. But all monotheist religions believe in the same god, whatever the name. Logic doesn't allow anything else.
Is the following what you mean? If by 'God' we mean a being who is outside time and space, has no beginning or end, and is the all-powerful creator of everything, then if two people refer to 'God' they must mean the same being, even if they don't share the same religion.
If yes: Well, 'God' of course has that nature if that's the kind of 'God' we're talking about. It seems to me to be a bit of a tautology.
But I think it's more meaningful to talk specifically about what each religion believes and how they view God, because those are the aspects that separate monotheistic religions into distinct beliefs. Judaism and Islam both consider God to be One, but Judaism rejects Jesus whereas Islam regards Jesus as one of the prophets of Allah. What sets Christianity apart from the group is the belief that Jesus is one of the three persons of God who is triune. Both Judaism and Christianity recognise that Jesus was crucified, whereas Islam stands separate claiming that Jesus didn't die a humiliating death on the cross.
EDIT: You had written more as I was writing this, so I'll include your new post here:
Quote Posted by heywood
Religions can't have it both ways. Either there is one god (monotheism) or not. If there is one god, it is everyone's god whether they accept it or not. Different monotheist religions can debate over the name of god, the nature of god, how to worship god, how god has interacted with the world, whether god favors a chosen people or not, and so on. But they are all talking about the same god since there can be only one.
Yes, you're technically correct, but it's less meaningful to say Muslims and Christians must be talking about the same kind of God, because there can only be one all-powerful God. If you look at the Qur'an and the Bible, Jesus is nothing like Allah. In John 14 Jesus says: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"
Quote Posted by Nicker
All monotheist religions believe that there is a single god but they don't all identify that deity to be the same entity.
That's not entirely accurate either, because Christians do believe that the God of the Old Testament and New Testament is the same one, and Orthodox Jews believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And as to what Muslims believe, I could have a conversation with a Muslim and talk about God in the Old Testament, and we'd probably agree in many places (unless he starts claiming that the scriptures have been corrupted), but I could point out many passages in the Qur'an that contradict the Bible, and I could also argue that based on the Bible, God is not like Allah is in the Qur'an. In other words, Muslims believe in a very different kind of God than I and other Christians do.
Quote:
The Big Cheese of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) must be the same deity, regardless of what name gets slapped on it or that he requires each faction to be the mortal enemy of every other faction. Not so much Monotheism as Monothugism.
You're over-generalizing a bit. It would be more meaningful if you wrote something more specific about each religion. Christianity is based on Christ's atoning sacrifice on the Cross, and his resurrection three days later. Jesus spoke against violence on many occasions and said to turn the other cheek. God does not command followers of Christ to be mortal enemies of Jews and Muslims.
