"Source? It was revealed to me on my walk." :cool:

Right, from our perspective. If what we call loving and merciful is eternally true, God's either not that, or not there.

But, who's to say from the perspective of God or what we think of as the eternal (both of which, by the way, are just as susceptible to human error as love and mercy; if any of these even exist eternally--outside of our constructions)

But doesn't god show his perspective in holy books. For eg if you are a muslim then gods perspective can be seen in quran or if you are a Christian then in Bible

doesn't god show his perspective in holy books. — QuirkyZen

I don't believe so. No disrespect to anyone who does.

You might ask, "then how do you even talk about 'God' [in this way]?"

I don't think Scriptures or any other form of Narrative manifesting outward of History is the source of [our knowledge of God]. I think so called revelation is History's response to the real source, our nature/Nature. Revelation is just as constructed, and therefore susceptible to human error as the concepts, love, mercy, God and eternity.

For me, God is (for lack of better) felt order sensed by/as the Body. And from that History constructs our [fallable] narratives.

Early Zionism was to renounce any sort of biologism and nationalism, to build bridges between every nation of man and bring them together. — DifferentiatingEgg

I confess to being totally baffled how anyone as well informed as you seem to be could consider early Zionism to be some sort of kumbaya "let's all get together and build a better world" movement. Yes there were some who espoused that, but these were fringe elements and had no real impact on events. We know from both internal correspondence and public statements that statehood was always the goal - and using "homeland" was a cover.

In any case, the indigenous Arab population (i.e. the Palestinians) were under no such illusions. The local population always opposed Jewish immigration even before Zionism was a thing. By WWI the anti-Zionism movement was highly organized (and sometimes violent) . The post WWI riots of 1920, 29, & 33 - the 36-39 revolt, etc, etc? Clearly these were not directed against an organization that was trying to build bridges between every nation of man and bring them together.

As far as Chomsky goes I am in large agreement with his positions on world events, but he got this one wrong.

Perhaps you are familiar with this already, but here is some excellent material about pre-WWI events.

All that said, I have no doubt that this will not change your mind. I give you the last word.

Canaan is not part of Arabia. Therefore, by definition, there cannot be an "indigenous Arab population" in Canaan.

There have always been non-Israelites/non-Jews in Canaan. So are the Jebusites or the Perizzites of the Bible the "Palestinians?" Do you think that they knew that? Who exactly are these "Palestinians?" and why can't Jews be Palestinians? Kinda funny how that turns out.

And if they're Arabs, then why not just call them Arabs?

The irony here is that atheist, secular historians highly doubt the Jews were ever slaves. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exodus generally has a folkloric quality about it. You'd be hard-pressed to find a biblical scholar who defends the idea of a 1.5-2 million person exodus from Egypt in the 13th century BC. Some scholars, such as Richard Friedman, make the case for a smaller exodus

IIRC, an Alexandrian Egyptian priest named Manetho in the 3rd century argued that Moses and a group of his followers were actually expelled from Egypt due to leprosy, among other reasons. I doubt we'll ever know the truth.

The word "Arab" is a generic term that refers to an ethnic identity and has nothing to do with a particular geographic location.

https://teachmideast.org/arab-middle-eastern-and-muslim-whats-the-difference/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_identity
https://www.britannica.com/summary/Arab

Arabs were undoubtedly in the land in the 19th and 20th centuries. I would just question the "indigenous" labeling.

Arabs were undoubtedly in the land in the 19th and 20th centuries. I would just question the "indigenous" labeling. — BitconnectCarlos

Ah - now I get it. I wasn't sure how to phrase this. The history of this region is immensely complicated with many different threads (as with most history) - but there was a large number of people who had deep family and cultural roots in the geographic area that was called Palestine - these roots went back many hundreds of years. These people eventually called themselves Palestinians. So what phrase do you use to call these folks? I'm up for suggestions.

I confess to being totally baffled how anyone as well informed as you seem to be could consider early Zionism to be some sort of kumbaya "let's all get together and build a better world" movement. — EricH

My man, I know Zionism was always to steal land from those who occupied it. I know a lot of the nasty little secrets about Zionism, but I also don't blame Nietzsche for all the dumbasses who ruin his philosophy and psychology. Just as I don't blame Zionism for the idiots who ruined what Zionism was supposed to be, that image of what it could be under its greatest advocates and constituents.

Ah - now I get it. I wasn't sure how to phrase this. The history of this region is immensely complicated with many different threads (as with most history) - but there was a large number of people who had deep family and cultural roots in the geographic area that was called Palestine - these roots went back many hundreds of years. These people eventually called themselves Palestinians. So what phrase do you use to call these folks? I'm up for suggestions. — EricH

It really is; I totally get it. I think the problem comes when Jews are no longer understood to be Palestinians but rather something foreign. I think if we wish to make things clearer, we would just refer to Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

I think the problem comes when Jews are no longer understood to be Palestinians — BitconnectCarlos

No, you simply don't think hard enough beyond your own prejudice. To the point you think it's okay for foreign Jews to take land that they had no rights to. Thus you support unjustified eviction by threat and force of murder. You're just too X to say it so plainly.

I bet you'd attempt to protect your home from a foreign invader too.

Please do tell me more about rights. Is there a right to build terror tunnels packed with munitions all across Gaza? A right to murder one's neighbor for the crime of being Jewish or Israeli? What would Nietzsche say about that?

Violence is a necessity of life. And yeah, they got a right to defend their land as they see fit, especially with dumbasses like you asserting foreign Jews can take their land as they see fit.

Let's make a deal... drop your address, we can make an agreement, if I can push you out of your home through force of violence then I keep all your shit... No? Then stfu.

I was thinking of Job's interlocutors, the Disciples' questions at the opening of John 9 as to whether a man was born blind because he sinned or his parents, etc. The idea that good fortune is a reward and bad fortune a punishment shows up in the wisdom literature and the Psalms quite a bit too.

I would agree with you that it isn't a major theme promoted by Scripture. Indeed, Scripture often seems to argue directly against this view. I am just saying that, because Scripture feels the need to address this view, it must have been at least somewhat common.

And that only makes sense, it's hardly like American Protestants invented something totally new with the prosperity gospel. The idea that people's standing depends on their goodness has been common across a lot of cultures throughout history. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. I remember in Samuel when David's infant son dies, and this is attributed to his sin with Bathsheba. I watched a lecture some time ago that claimed that these 6th-century BC works - like much of the Deuteronomistic history, which was redacted during this period - are written from the perspective that everything that happens is God's will.

Josephus in Antiquities notes the same pattern when Herod Antipas loses a battle against the Arabians. According to the Jews at the time, this is attributed to Herod Antipas's execution of John the Baptist.

I've read quite a bit of ancient Jewish lit, but I don't recall this logic ever being used to justify poverty.

I'm not too familiar with Christian theology, but it seems that while the prosperity gospel has biblical support, it is not particularly "Christian" in the sense of according to the message of the gospels.

Violence is a necessity of life. And yeah, they got a right to defend their land as they see fit, especially with dumbasses like you asserting foreign Jews can take their land as they see fit. — DifferentiatingEgg

If violence is a necessity of life, then so it is for the Zionists as well.

If the Palestinians have a right to defend their land, then so does Israel when rockets are launched, and Israelis are murdered or attacked. Yet such a thing happens when Palestinians are taught from the cradle to hate their neighbor and that all that is theirs belongs to them.

You're pretty stupid, but that's okay, every society needs your kind. Israel is Palestine.

What Hamas did on 10/7 was evil in its purest form. Yet, there is a movement that sympathizes with and supports that evil. So call me stupid; at least I don't stoop to the level of sympathizing with genocidal Islamist murderers. Better stupid than wicked.

You support the Nakba, by your own standards you're "wicked." You don't "stoop to the level of Islamists" period... because you're prejudice af and see them as dirt. I know I know, your best friend is Islamic, I'm sure.

Accuse me of islamophobia all you want; I am not an apologist for murder. I don't care if that murder was in 1948 or 2023. You will never find me supporting the deliberate murder of innocents.

Well, you support and advocate for Israel, thus by proxy, you do. You're hopelessly one sided. Where as I have actually looked into Zionist philosophers and read several works and even support a version there of. But not one that is full of the resentment of weak minded nationalist who believe that nationalism equates to self determinism.

But not one that is full of the resentment of weak minded nationalist who believe that nationalism equates to self determinism. — DifferentiatingEgg

What is your idea of Zionism, then? Any ethnic group in the Middle East must be able to defend itself, and this entails statehood. Relying on Arab nations to look after their minorities has not been a winning strategy.

The philosophers who detailed early Zionism was to renounce any sort of biologism and nationalism, to build bridges between every nation of man and bring them together. Berdichevski, Brunner, Popper-Lynkeus, Lessing, Herzl, Buber, Chomsky, Zeitlin... the list goes on. — DifferentiatingEgg

The Zionist businessmen didn't give a hoot about that though they just wanted a cash cow. I take my definition from the philosophers, not the business men.