You should learn some history before commenting on this issue.
It's because I have studied history that I disagree with you.
You should learn some history before commenting on this issue.
We are disagreeing on how TO get rid of them.
My logic would hold. And if Israel's stated goal was to eliminate all Arabs you would have an argument. As it stands, you aren't arguing from an equal moral condition. Your situation doesn't exist and doesn't necessarily equate. My answer is for what actually exists now. All situations are different and should be considered individually.If your logic states that fewer people killed is always better no matter what, would you see it as morally sound for all 8 billion non-Jews around the world to kill the 16.1 million Jews on earth IF it meant saving more than 16.1 million lives would be preserved long term (future generations)?
Just curious, when we play with numbers to make a moral case, is consideration taken for the future generations and those future generations etc... that the original 10,000 people would have had? If so, that variable really complicates things as Gaza has an incredibly high birth rate in comparison to Israel.
My logic would hold. And if Israel's stated goal was to eliminate all Arabs you would have an argument. As it stands, you aren't arguing from an equal moral condition. Your situation doesn't exist and doesn't necessarily equate. My answer is for what actually exists now. All situations are different and should be considered individually.
In the scripture, it is written that if someone invades your home at night, and you strike the man, and he dies, it is not murder. But suppose you wait until the dawn, and then go around to that man's house, and you slay not only him, but his entire family. Or worse, you let the man live, but slay his entire family. That is murder, and nothing to do with self defense. This is the situation in Israel.
.
No. My initial statement is in the affirmative. Your emotionalism has you looking for contradictions where none exist. I did qualify my answer to only include the same existing conditions. I did so to avoid a response such as the one you have given.That was the long version to say "Nevermind, it's not 'always more moral to preserve more, not less life.'" So in essence, it's a silly question to ask which is more moral saving 10,000 lives or 100,000. Got it. As much as we like things to be put in a dichotomy, we can agree it's not always possible.
No. My initial statement is in the affirmative. Your emotionalism has you looking for contradictions where none exist. I did qualify my answer to only include the same existing conditions. I did so to avoid a response such as the one you have given.
Take a break. Relax. Breathe in, breathe out. You are taking years off your life.
The qualifier is under the same conditions. Which is what I intended originally and didn't state. That's my mistake. I corrected it. But by definition, moral equivalencies must be equivalent. The addition was for your benefit. I understood equivalencies aleeady.Putting in qualifiers and then saying "it's always more moral.." means it's true even if there aren't qualifiers. In any event, it's clear who is projecting about emotionalism by the personal responses. I didn't mean to trigger you as I was simply just disagreeing with using numbers to make a moral argument.
The point is that Israel is not innocent.
Been a while since I read his work, amazing how they lay it all out.
You mean Zionism is not from God?
Thank you, I need to refresh my memory, reread his work, along with the other fellow whose name escapes me, lol.
This is actually not true. There have been many ceasefires and negotiations. The killing has never stopped. You are trading short term lower levels of death for long term never ceasing death. There is no reality where none die.
I understand there is plenty of blame to go around. That's for others to sort out. I'm only concerned to put an end to the needless and wanton death. This will never happen while Hamas or any other group bent on Israel's destruction is allowed in the area. Anything short of this guarantees more of the same.Maybe cause the U.N. aka the USA has failed in its duty to be impartial and step up and step in and negotiate peace, where each side is given its human rights and right to self determination, but then that might interfere with the fake eschatology and the continual war mongering.
Fake eschatology? Really.......the fake eschatology
I understand there is plenty of blame to go around. That's for others to sort out. I'm only concerned to put an end to the needless and wanton death. This will never happen while Hamas or any other group bent on Israel's destruction is allowed in the area. Anything short of this guarantees more of the same.
Fake eschatology? Really.......
Isaiah 14:1-3 is fake eschatology?
How about Ezekiel 16:60-63?
Isaiah 11:11-16?
Isaiah 60:1-22?
Those are but a few passages from recent posts. I could back up the truck and add 100 (actually hundreds) more very very easily.
So let me ask you:
Do you truly believe that these passages are authentically and genuinely written by the Spirit of God with His unwavering intent to fulfill them?
Yes or No.
Christians look like fools if they overlook these passages. And of course the rapture as well. If you are able to offer Biblically supported countervailing arguments.....have at it. And good luck.
Isa 14:1 - For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
Isa 14:2 - And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.
Isa 14:3 - And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve