Palestine

[wolf g]

i want to ask members here about Palestine and i don't want to have miss understanding .
what do you thing about Palestine?
i repeat i don't want you to think other ideas it's just question

[Judean Zealot]

I am fervently anti. Not because I have some intrinsic objection to the creation of two separate states, but because I don't believe that given the dynamics of the region, there is no peaceful way out of this. As such, giving the Palestinians statehood and weapons is merely giving them a sword to attack us with.

[Jinglebottom]

Palestinians are overloading Lebanon (along with Syrians). We can't handle our own people then how do you expect us to handle 1 million+ refugees? And I'm not a xenophobe. We're a tiny country with no working government whatsoever (trash buildup anyone?) and I'm completely sick of it.

[Judean Zealot]

*'refugees' since 70 years ago.

[Jinglebottom]

I couldn't think of a better name.

[Gwen]

An unhealthy way to deal with a problem, but a great way to help create more instability to help keep the military industrial complex afloat. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Judean Zealot]

I couldn't think of a better name.

Don't worry, I'm not ragging on you. :P

I'm ragging on the UN.

[Jinglebottom]

Don't worry, I'm not ragging on you. :P

I'm ragging on the UN.
My bad. :)

[Stronk Serb]

Well, Israel is more stable than what Palestine would be. Also HAMAS trains child terrorists and they recieve international funding for that, so I don't support them, but I don't wholly support Israel for what they are doing. How to put it, both sides are guilty of attrocities, but I see the status quo as only option that will not end in more bloodshed. I also think that no matter what people you are, you deserve to have your country if you as a people wish to.

[Judean Zealot]

Well, Israel is more stable than what Palestine would be. Also HAMAS trains child terrorists and they recieve international funding for that, so I don't support them, but I don't wholly support Israel for what they are doing. How to put it, both sides are guilty of attrocities, but I see the status quo as only option that will not end in more bloodshed. I also think that no matter what people you are, you deserve to have your country if you as a people wish to.

There is not a single country in the world which has not been born of atrocities. Just because most of the west has no longer any need for such atrocities to survive doesn't suddenly mean that they can delude themselves into thinking that somehow a developing nation can expect to survive without atrocities.

[Plane And Simple]

VTDC :arrow2: ROTW

[wolf g]

There is not a single country in the world which has not been born of atrocities. Just because most of the west has no longer any need for such atrocities to survive doesn't suddenly mean that they can delude themselves into thinking that somehow a developing nation can expect to survive without atrocities.

so with that i can understand that you are not with what Israel doing in Palestine?????

[tovaris]

Palestine should be given their land back!

[Judean Zealot]

so with that i can understand that you are not with what Israel doing in Palestine?????

Of course I am. It's absolutely necessary (unless we all just pack up our bags and leave, but that's not an option). It may not be pleasant, but it's necessary.

[wolf g]

Of course I am. It's absolutely necessary (unless we all just pack up our bags and leave, but that's not an option). It may not be pleasant, but it's necessary.

so i was wrong

Palestine should be given their land back!

thank you so much for the both



Posts merged. Next time, please use the "multi" quote button. -Alluring

[Judean Zealot]

so i was wrong
I guess you were.

[wolf g]

I guess you were.

yeah it my first time

[Judean Zealot]

yeah it my first time

Your first time what?

[wolf g]

Your first time what?

it's my first time i sad that i am wrong

[Judean Zealot]

it's my first time i sad that i am wrong

Ahh, lol. :P

[Bull]

Palestine never existed as a country with geographical borders. The people (Arabs) were and still are simply put "squatters". The land they claim is not theirs, never was. Israel has every right to claim and occupy all of the lands of Canaan as it was given them by God. I suggest people read Numbers and Leviticus to gain an understanding of God's intention.

[Judean Zealot]

Palestine never existed as a country with geographical borders. The people (Arabs) were and still are simply put "squatters". The land they claim is not theirs, never was. Israel has every right to claim and occupy all of the lands of Canaan as it was given them by God. I suggest people read Numbers and Leviticus to gain an understanding of God's intention.

That angle won't get you very far.

[Bull]

That angle won't get you very far.

I don't understand "that angle"

[Judean Zealot]

I don't understand "that angle"

Truth or no truth, it won't get you very far to bring up the Biblical right to Israel in a forum like this. And this is coming from someone who agrees with you.

[wolf g]

Palestine never existed as a country with geographical borders. The people (Arabs) were and still are simply put "squatters". The land they claim is not theirs, never was. Israel has every right to claim and occupy all of the lands of Canaan as it was given them by God. I suggest people read Numbers and Leviticus to gain an understanding of God's intention.

no is not true Palestine always stay a country as the other countries and the thing you said it's wrong because you don't live in Arabic country to say that .
the Arabics are sure that palestine is an country like USA UK Spain France....

[Bull]

Truth or no truth, it won't get you very far to bring up the Biblical right to Israel in a forum like this. And this is coming from someone who agrees with you.

Yeah, I get that. HOWEVER, it must be put out there. The fact that there are those who lack understanding, or those who simply deny the existence of God does not change God's truth. Any argument that fails to recognize the Biblical account is not worthy. It, the Biblical truth, is the only true and legitimate argument. Full disclosure: I am not Jewish, I am considered by the people in my state a religious liberal. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church and am grateful for the Biblical instruction I received. Thanks to that instruction in Biblical truth I no longer am involved in a Baptist church.

[dxcxdzv]

Palestine never existed as a country with geographical borders. The people (Arabs) were and still are simply put "squatters". The land they claim is not theirs, never was. Israel has every right to claim and occupy all of the lands of Canaan as it was given them by God. I suggest people read Numbers and Leviticus to gain an understanding of God's intention.
God gave me the right to invade all Europe and build a holy empire, I swear, he came to me last night.
Palestine existed and still exists as a country.

[Judean Zealot]

no is not true Palestine always stay a country as the other countries and the thing you said it's wrong because you don't live in Arabic country to say that .
the Arabics are sure that palestine is an country like USA UK Spain France....

There's no getting about the simple fact that since the destruction of the second commonwealth by the Romans the land has never been an independent state (except for the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the independence of the KoJ is debatable). It has always been a province of either Rome, Byzantium, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, or Great Britain.

Not that I see the bearing on this discussion.

[Bull]

Palestine existed and still exists as a country.

What is your reference source?

[Vlerchan]

The fact that there are those who lack understanding, or those who simply deny the existence of God does not change God's truth.
Sure. But then we introduced the separation of church and state just in case.

[Bull]

Sure. But then we introduced the separation of church and state just in case.

Just in case what? btw, I fully support the separation of church and state as it exists in USA. Again, I go to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus: "render to Caesar {government} what is Caesar's and to God that which is God's."

[Arkansasguy]

Palestine never existed as a country with geographical borders. The people (Arabs) were and still are simply put "squatters". The land they claim is not theirs, never was. Israel has every right to claim and occupy all of the lands of Canaan as it was given them by God. I suggest people read Numbers and Leviticus to gain an understanding of God's intention.

I seem to recall Moses writing something in Deuteronomy about those who would refuse to accept the prophet who would come being cut off from the people, and Paul writing about vines being grafted on.

The Jews aren't God's people anymore, they lost that status when they killed the messiah. That said, the state of Israel has the same right to exist as any other, and for them to allow the Palestinians a state would be as foolish as it was for the British to allow them one.

[Judean Zealot]

'Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.'
Corinthians 10:31

Caesar cannot be given that which God does not allow, yet under Jeffersonian Democracy that is undermined.

[dxcxdzv]

What is your reference source?
Mandatory Palestine?
As well as the actual "State of Palestine".

[wolf g]

all what the Palestinian want is be free and all what the Israel want is country that is simple we don't need argument for that

Mandatory Palestine?
As well as the actual "State of Palestine" (recognized by my country, but no yours).

what is that



Posts merged. Next time, please use the "edit" button. -Alluring

[dxcxdzv]

Recognized as "observatory state". x)

[Judean Zealot]

Mandatory Palestine?
As well as the actual "State of Palestine".

Uhh, Mandatory Palestine was for all intents and purposes part of the British Empire.

Interestingly, back then, it was the Arabs who wished to be called Southern Syria for Pan Arabic reasons and the Jews wanted to be called Palestine.

[Arkansasguy]

'Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.'
Corinthians 10:31

Caesar cannot be given that which God does not allow, yet under Jeffersonian Democracy that is undermined.

Yes exactly. If Christ had meant for there to be separation of Church and State as we have it in America, it wouldn't have taken nearly two thousand years for his followers to figure that out.

[dxcxdzv]

Uhh, Mandatory Palestine was for all intents and purposes part of the British Empire.

Interestingly, back then, it was the Arabs who wished to be called Southern Syria for Pan Arabic reasons and the Jews wanted to be called Palestine.
I wanted to say that they were the Queen's slaves like a lot of people in 1920's. x)
But it was an administrative territory. A kind of state in a global empire if you prefer.

[wolf g]

as i know that the history of muslim countries we find america uk france israel didn'twe i don't why but all what i know that they leave i big hole there and leave arabic get stronger

[Judean Zealot]

Yes exactly. If Christ had meant for there to be separation of Church and State as we have it in America, it wouldn't have taken nearly two thousand years for his followers to figure that out.

Lol @ me quoting New Testament to Christians.

I believe our friend Billy is a Sola Scriptura Protestant, so I'm not sure how your argument would work with him.

[Vlerchan]

Just in case what?
In case god's truth turns out to be not so true.

Again, I go to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus: "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God that which is God's."
Recalling that statement I'd agree that there's a doctrinal ground to support the separation of church and state.

[Arkansasguy]

Lol @ me quoting New Testament to Christians.

I believe our friend Billy is a Sola Scriptura Protestant, so I'm not sure how your argument would work with him.

Yes, in principle it's possible from a sola scriptura perspective that you (general you) could be the first one ever to interpret the Bible correctly, and so no one else's opinion matters, but I find that the average Protestant hasn't fully worked out the implications of sola scriptura, and still implicitly concedes a lot of authority to others' interpretations.

[Vlerchan]

'Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.'
Sure. But I'd read that in-line with Render onto Ceaser which would seem to indicate to me an implicit acceptance that most religious and secular authorities can co-exist on Earth.

John 18:36 (http://biblehub.com/john/18-36.htm) seems to lend credence to the idea that Jesus's teachings were not meant to be primarily political.

---

I also have a feeling that it took until the the rise of the bourgeoisie class as the dominant class to bring about a re-interpretation of that kind, because there was no reliance of that class on that interpretation.

Infrastructure-Superstructure: etc.

[Judean Zealot]

Sure. But I'd read that in-line with Render onto Ceaser which would seem to indicate to me an implicit acceptance that most religious and secular authorities can co-exist on Earth.

They can, provided that the secular authorities recognise the authority of the ecclesiastical authorities in the areas applicable.

I also have a feeling that it took until the the rise of the bourgeoisie class as the dominant class to bring about a re-interpretation of that kind, because there was no reliance of that class on that interpretation.

Infrastructure-Superstructure: etc.

The whole of Voltaire-esque humanism is quite bourgeoisie if you ask me.

[Vlerchan]

They can, provided that the secular authorities recognise the authority of the ecclesiastical authorities in the areas applicable.
I'm no expert in Biblical interpretation but I still feel that John 18:36 deflates this some amount.

Though, regardless, as far as I'm aware - this is quite a large disclaimer, as an aside - Christianity doesn't contain in itself a lot of political theory.

The whole of Voltaire-esque humanism is quite bourgeoisie if you ask me.
We're in agreement here I think.

Just in case it was misinterpreted I mean that there was "no reliance of that class on that [previous] interpretation."

[Judean Zealot]

I'm no expert in Biblical interpretation but I still feel that John 18:36 deflates this some amount.

Though, regardless, as far as I'm aware - this is quite a large disclaimer, as an aside - Christianity doesn't contain in itself a lot of political theory.

The soul though is not the realm of 'this earth'.

We're in agreement here I think.

Just in case it was misinterpreted I mean that there was "no reliance of that class on that [previous] interpretation."
I'm on the same page as you. :)

[Vlerchan]

The soul though is not the realm of 'this earth'.
You'll need to expand somewhat here. I'm not nearly comfortable enough with theology to grapple with the succinctness of our usual exchanges.

[Judean Zealot]

You'll need to expand somewhat here. I'm not nearly comfortable enough with theology to grapple with the succinctness of our usual exchanges.

In the gospel Jesus is explaining how he can be Rex Judaeorum and the embodiment of the Son yet still be executed like a common criminal. Therefore he says that "My kingdom is not of this earth, but is the kingdom of heaven", that the power of the messiah is not a power which brings wealth and armies, but rather a Kingdom of the self, in which the soul can for the first time access the Father.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(John 14:6)

Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
(John 10:7)

In any event, the soul, even while on earth, is still his realm.

[Judean Zealot]

I wanted to say that they were the Queen's slaves like a lot of people in 1920's. x)
But it was an administrative territory. A kind of state in a global empire if you prefer.

A state governed by English commissioners, not natives.

[Vlerchan]

In the gospel Jesus is explaining how he can be Rex Judaeorum and the embodiment of the Son yet still be executed like a common criminal. Therefore he says that "My kingdom is not of this earth, but is the kingdom of heaven", that the power of the messiah is not a power which brings wealth and armies, but rather a Kingdom of the self, in which the soul can for the first time access the Father.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(John 14:6)

Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
(John 10:7)

In any event, the soul, even while on earth, is still his realm.
The interpretation I take is that Jesus' reach doesn't extend outside the Kingdom of Heaven. The soul is of his realm but just insofar as he is capable of granting it access to the Kingdom of Heaven [good chance some scripture clears this up]. It might be also that on re-reading I take a more libertarian interpretation of Corinthians 10:31. It seems to indicate to us that the aforementioned should be kept in mind - render onto god what is god's - but makes do indication this is mandated in the statist sense - render onto ceasar what is ceasar's.

I guess it also seems somewhat antithetical to me to coerce those into being good Christians. On that note does the bible mention punishment that's not death in it?

---

I should also probably read the Bible at some stage. Might help. Though I do take a fair bit of amusement out of a Jewish person explaining the NT to me when I live in a state with one of the highest densities of practising Catholics in the developed world.

[Fiction]

The main issue I see in all arguments here is that they focus on religion or politics, and not people. Both religion and politics claim to be what's best for people but is this really true? I have very very close friends who are both Israeli, and Palestinian so I see a pretty two sided story here, and still stand with the Palestinians.

Honestly I don't know where to start. But how can an occupation ever be right? When the majority of a population of an area want to be free of their rule, how the fuck can that be right? Having a dual state is a compromise as it is, and Palestinians aren't even being afforded that privilege. Arabs were living on that land for hundreds of years before the Jews began too move back. Even then, there could have been some co-habitation, no? But Israel as a state took over and gradually kicked thousands of people out of their home, with the help of countries like the US. Now just imagine that was you. Kicked of your home and forced to live in an area, surrounded my walls and Israeli soldiers on the gates?

Now don't even get me started on the current situation. The Palestinians have nothing. When you have nothing you have nothing to loose. Throwing a stone at an Israeli soldier? Well they are so fucking desperate that that is all they feel they can do and the Israeli soldiers, they have guns. And they use them.

I can't make a coherent argument out of this because i'm so fucking angry at the treatment of PEOPLE. Regardless of your political or religious stance, this is people's lives, and I refuse to believe that people who are oppressed so much can be wrong for wanting to take action.

[Judean Zealot]

The interpretation I take is that Jesus' reach doesn't extend outside the Kingdom of Heaven. The soul is of his realm but just insofar as he is capable of granting it access to the Kingdom of Heaven [good chance some scripture clears this up]. It might be also that on re-reading I take a more libertarian interpretation of Corinthians 10:31. It seems to indicate to us that the aforementioned should be kept in mind - render onto god what is god's - but makes do indication this is mandated in the statist sense - render onto ceasar what is ceasar's.
Yet the connection of the soul (the soul being the intellect) to God is at the very essence of the soul's nature. As DesCartes says that the soul is in esse disembodied thought, so does Augustine say that the soul is in esse the unification of man and God. Thus I find your distinction between the soul and communion unclear.

In addition, I would like to clarify the purpose of the state. The idealised government is expressed in Isaiah:
Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.
(Isaiah 32:1)
Yet how can we call a government "just" when all it preserves are silly trifles and money, yet looks the other way when men subvert the social mores and incalculably harm the entire society? That's just!?
I guess it also seems somewhat antithetical to me to coerce those into being good Christians.One cannot be coerced into salvation. One can, however, be coerced into not harming his fellow man by perverting society.

On that note does the bible mention punishment that's not death in it?
There are fines, lashes, penance offerings, fasts, and heavenly excommunication.

I should also probably read the Bible at some stage. Might help. If you're not religious I would recommend Augustine and Aquinas over the bible.

Though I do take a fair bit of amusement out of a Jewish person explaining the NT to me when I live in a state with one of the highest densities of practising Catholics in the developed world.
I know, right?

The main issue I see in all arguments here is that they focus on religion or politics, and not people. Both religion and politics claim to be what's best for people but is this really true? I have very very close friends who are both Israeli, and Palestinian so I see a pretty two sided story here, and still stand with the Palestinians.

Honestly I don't know where to start. But how can an occupation ever be right? When the majority of a population of an area want to be free of their rule, how the fuck can that be right? Having a dual state is a compromise as it is, and Palestinians aren't even being afforded that privilege. Arabs were living on that land for hundreds of years before the Jews began too move back. Even then, there could have been some co-habitation, no? But Israel as a state took over and gradually kicked thousands of people out of their home, with the help of countries like the US. Now just imagine that was you. Kicked of your home and forced to live in an area, surrounded my walls and Israeli soldiers on the gates?

Now don't even get me started on the current situation. The Palestinians have nothing. When you have nothing you have nothing to loose. Throwing a stone at an Israeli soldier? Well they are so fucking desperate that that is all they feel they can do and the Israeli soldiers, they have guns. And they use them.

I can't make a coherent argument out of this because i'm so fucking angry at the treatment of PEOPLE. Regardless of your political or religious stance, this is people's lives, and I refuse to believe that people who are oppressed so much can be wrong for wanting to take action.

It's fairly simple. If there is no Jewish State, in 50 years it will be the Jews being persecuted once again. So we will take a state, regardless of anybody elses wishes.

Two states would be the ideal, but I guarantee you, given the current regional climate, it will only bring even more bloodshed.

Edit: It also wasn't "gradual" displacement like you say. Over 90 percent of the displacement occurred during two of the wars the Arabs began, 1948 and 1967.



Posts merged. Next time, please use the "multi" quote button. -Alluring

[Hideous]

I have deleted posts causing unnecessary debate/conflict. If this continues, I will have to lock this thread.

[sqishy]

The main issue I see in all arguments here is that they focus on religion or politics, and not people. Both religion and politics claim to be what's best for people but is this really true? I have very very close friends who are both Israeli, and Palestinian so I see a pretty two sided story here, and still stand with the Palestinians.

Honestly I don't know where to start. But how can an occupation ever be right? When the majority of a population of an area want to be free of their rule, how the fuck can that be right? Having a dual state is a compromise as it is, and Palestinians aren't even being afforded that privilege. Arabs were living on that land for hundreds of years before the Jews began too move back. Even then, there could have been some co-habitation, no? But Israel as a state took over and gradually kicked thousands of people out of their home, with the help of countries like the US. Now just imagine that was you. Kicked of your home and forced to live in an area, surrounded my walls and Israeli soldiers on the gates?

Now don't even get me started on the current situation. The Palestinians have nothing. When you have nothing you have nothing to loose. Throwing a stone at an Israeli soldier? Well they are so fucking desperate that that is all they feel they can do and the Israeli soldiers, they have guns. And they use them.

I can't make a coherent argument out of this because i'm so fucking angry at the treatment of PEOPLE. Regardless of your political or religious stance, this is people's lives, and I refuse to believe that people who are oppressed so much can be wrong for wanting to take action.

I am all with this. I am with Palestine. Israel displaced Palestine. There is so much clashing opinion and religon brought into this, that I am not very motivated to talk much about this situation, because it tires me.

[Jinglebottom]

I'm neutral about the whole thing. I have no extreme feelings of hatred/support for either nation.

But I do hope the Palestinians can find peace again someday (which they're not going to within Lebanon, we're a shitty country ourselves).

[Vlerchan]

As DesCartes says that the soul is in esse disembodied thought, so does Augustine say that the soul is in esse the unification of man and God.
I presume this is derived from from some scriptural basis: Would you mind citing it?

I'm also not sure how that discounts the claim I made. Would you mind elaborating?

Thus I find your distinction between the soul and communion unclear.
The point I was making that from what has been highlighted it would seem that Christ's domain over the soul extends insofar as it's possible for him to reject it access to the Kingdom of God. The soul is of Christ's domain but his regulation extends to the extent of acceptance or denial: otherwise it's laissez-faire. Is it possible for Christ - or god - to regulate man's soul otherwise?

---

Prepare for a lot of seeming incoherence regardless though. I'm engaged in one long thought experiment here.

I'll apologise in advance for the vagueness and irritations.

"Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment."
Read this one before. Is it elaborated on at all?

One cannot be coerced into salvation. One can, however, be coerced into not harming his fellow man by perverting society.
This is a Platonist approach though? Is there a scriptural basis to this approach?

One that doesn't involve derivation might be an important qualifier.

There are fines, lashes, penance offerings, fasts, and heavenly excommunication.
Is this contained in the OT or NT. I'm aware that Paul is quite explicit in his rejection of Mosaic law.

[wolf g]

witch is beautiful in these the Arabs don't do anything for their brothers and they say we are Arabs and we are with arabs

[Judean Zealot]

First off, just realize that I'm elaborating on a position entirely irrelevant to my belief system- namely, that Christ's kingdom includes earthly regulation of actions, and by extension statist intervention. Since I don't care much for Jesus myself, this is defending an entirely different position than my own. That said, I am employing many of my own positions, insofar as they are generally shared by the scholastics.

I presume this is derived from from some scriptural basis: Would you mind citing it?
I'm also not sure how that discounts the claim I made. Would you mind elaborating?
I ought to clarify. When I made the comparison between Augustine and DesCartes I did not mean vaguely. I meant that they're literally saying the same thing. In classical theistic tradition, the soul is disembodied consciousness, which naturally arrives, whether via cosmological or ontological reason (DesCartes favors the latter) to the derivation of the Supreme Cause.

DesCartes, in his Method will tell us that the mind can derive it's own existence as that which has the function of thought from his famous 'Cogito, ergo sum'. The mind is in essence that which derives truth, of which the primary one is the existence of Maximally Great Being. The mind derives this via an ontological argument predicated on it's own proven existence. Thus, we have the mind (soul) which is inherently that which derives knowledge of God.

Augustine says the exact same thought regarding the mind/soul in his On the Trinity (here's (http://www.amazon.com/Augustine-Trinity-Cambridge-History-Philosophy/dp/0521796652/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416535389&sr=8-1&keywords=matthews+augustine+on+the+trinity) the translation).

[E]very mind knows and is certain concerning itself. For men have doubted whether the power to live, to remember, to understand, to will, to think, to know, and to judge is due to air, to fire, or to the brain, or to the blood, or to atoms… or whether the combining or the orderly arrangement of the flesh is capable of producing these effects; one has tried to maintain this opinion, another that opinion.

On the other hand who would doubt that he lives, remembers, understands, wills, thinks, knows, and judges? For even if he doubts, he lives; if he doubts, he remembers why he doubts; if he doubts, he understands that he doubts; if he doubts, he wishes to be certain; if he doubts, he thinks; if he doubts, he knows that he does not know; if he doubts, he judges that he ought not to consent rashly. Whoever then doubts about anything else ought never to doubt about all of these; for if they were not, he would be unable to doubt about anything at all…

[T]he mind knows itself, even when it seeks itself, as we have already shown. But we can in no way rightly say that anything is known while its substance [or: essence] is unknown. Wherefore, since the mind knows itself, it knows its own substance [or: essence]. But it is certain about itself, as is clearly shown from what we have already said. But it is by no means certain whether it is air, or fire, or a body, or anything of a body. It is, therefore, none of these things…

So again, Augustine is telling us that the soul's essence is to derive truth from itself, and again, in the scholastic tradition that derivation can be made primarily by use of the cosmological argument (They reject the use of a Cartesian style ontological argument, as evidenced by Aquinas's critique of Anselm of Canterbury (http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/)). This method, as well, allows for the soul to derive God's existence from their own existence.

The Scholastic would express the logic as such:
1) The soul exists
2) The soul is not necessary existence
3) As such, the soul is merely a contingency
4) Yet a contingency must be predicated on another cause
5) Thus there must be a cause, which is in turn predicated on another cause etc.
6) Even were the universe an infinite regress of causes, we would still need to sum up the universe of contingencies to a final cause of "why does something exist instead of nothing?"
7) Thus, Necessary Existence exists as the ultimate cause.

In any event, what I hope I amply summarised (!) above shows how in Classical Theism the soul's essence is that of discovery of God. Stay tuned.

The point I was making that from what has been highlighted it would seem that Christ's domain over the soul extends insofar as it's possible for him to reject it access to the Kingdom of God. The soul is of Christ's domain but his regulation extends to the extent of acceptance or denial: otherwise it's laissez-faire. Is it possible for Christ - or god - to regulate man's soul otherwise?

Yet Christ is incapable of arbitrary denial (a classical example of the 'is God able to make a rock He can't lift' sophistry). Christ's function as the "door of the sheep" arises from his very essence. One might say that he is the entirety of the threshold, but not the lock. Christ's dominion is that of the process of communion, not merely of who can enter the threshold of communion.

In any event, considering as the entire process of seeking out God remains Christ's dominion, it would follow that the ecclesiastical authorities ought to have the authority to regulate and neutralise potential pitfalls within that threshold. Now, faith is not something that a man can impose, and as such erroneous thinking is not something that the ecclesiastical authorities can possibly mandate. However, the other pitfalls within society's collective threshold, such as hedonism or other sinful deeds, might still be regulated by the ecclesiastical authorities.

I hope you're understanding the concepts behind the imagery I'm using.

Read this one before. Is it elaborated on at all?
Elaborated in what sense?

This is a Platonist approach though? Is there a scriptural basis to this approach?

One that doesn't involve derivation might be an important qualifier. See above. That a man's heart cannot be coerced is quite sound sound philosophically- that is essentially Socrates' fundamental principle, that the truth must speak on it's own merits.

I would add scriptural basis to independent thought in regards to matters of divinity from one of my favorite chapters in the bible, Job 32.

1 So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. 2 Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God.3 Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. 4 Now Elihu had waited till Job had spoken, because they were elder than he. 5 When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled. 6 And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion. 7 I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. 8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. 9 Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment. 10 Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will shew mine opinion. 11 Behold, I waited for your words; I gave ear to your reasons, whilst ye searched out what to say. 12 Yea, I attended unto you, and, behold, there was none of you that convinced Job, or that answered his words: 13 Lest ye should say, We have found out wisdom: God thrusteth him down, not man. 14 Now he hath not directed his words against me: neither will I answer him with your speeches. 15 They were amazed, they answered no more: they left off speaking. 16 When I had waited, (for they spake not, but stood still, and answered no more;) 17 I said, I will answer also my part, I also will shew mine opinion. 18 For I am full of matter, the spirit within me constraineth me. 19 Behold, my belly is as wine which hath no vent; it is ready to burst like new bottles. 20 I will speak, that I may be refreshed: I will open my lips and answer. 21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.22 For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.


Is this contained in the OT or NT. I'm aware that Paul is quite explicit in his rejection of Mosaic law.

Quite. However, I thought you were referring to the OT because of your "besides the death penalty" bit. As far as I'm aware, the death penalty is proscribed nowhere in the NT. Christ himself is the penance offering.

[sqishy]

First off, just realize that I'm elaborating on a position entirely irrelevant to my belief system- namely, that Christ's kingdom includes earthly regulation of actions, and by extension statist intervention. Since I don't care much for Jesus myself, this is defending an entirely different position than my own. That said, I am employing many of my own positions, insofar as they are generally shared by the scholastics.


I ought to clarify. When I made the comparison between Augustine and DesCartes I did not mean vaguely. I meant that they're literally saying the same thing. In classical theistic tradition, the soul is disembodied consciousness, which naturally arrives, whether via cosmological or ontological reason (DesCartes favors the latter) to the derivation of the Supreme Cause.

DesCartes, in his Method will tell us that the mind can derive it's own existence as that which has the function of thought from his famous 'Cogito, ergo sum'. The mind is in essence that which derives truth, of which the primary one is the existence of Maximally Great Being. The mind derives this via an ontological argument predicated on it's own proven existence. Thus, we have the mind (soul) which is inherently that which derives knowledge of God.

Augustine says the exact same thought regarding the mind/soul in his On the Trinity (here's (http://www.amazon.com/Augustine-Trinity-Cambridge-History-Philosophy/dp/0521796652/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416535389&sr=8-1&keywords=matthews+augustine+on+the+trinity) the translation).

[E]very mind knows and is certain concerning itself. For men have doubted whether the power to live, to remember, to understand, to will, to think, to know, and to judge is due to air, to fire, or to the brain, or to the blood, or to atoms… or whether the combining or the orderly arrangement of the flesh is capable of producing these effects; one has tried to maintain this opinion, another that opinion.

On the other hand who would doubt that he lives, remembers, understands, wills, thinks, knows, and judges? For even if he doubts, he lives; if he doubts, he remembers why he doubts; if he doubts, he understands that he doubts; if he doubts, he wishes to be certain; if he doubts, he thinks; if he doubts, he knows that he does not know; if he doubts, he judges that he ought not to consent rashly. Whoever then doubts about anything else ought never to doubt about all of these; for if they were not, he would be unable to doubt about anything at all…

[T]he mind knows itself, even when it seeks itself, as we have already shown. But we can in no way rightly say that anything is known while its substance [or: essence] is unknown. Wherefore, since the mind knows itself, it knows its own substance [or: essence]. But it is certain about itself, as is clearly shown from what we have already said. But it is by no means certain whether it is air, or fire, or a body, or anything of a body. It is, therefore, none of these things…

So again, Augustine is telling us that the soul's essence is to derive truth from itself, and again, in the scholastic tradition that derivation can be made primarily by use of the cosmological argument (They reject the use of a Cartesian style ontological argument, as evidenced by Aquinas's critique of Anselm of Canterbury (http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/)). This method, as well, allows for the soul to derive God's existence from their own existence.

The Scholastic would express the logic as such:
1) The soul exists
2) The soul is not necessary existence
3) As such, the soul is merely a contingency
4) Yet a contingency must be predicated on another cause
5) Thus there must be a cause, which is in turn predicated on another cause etc.
6) Even were the universe an infinite regress of causes, we would still need to sum up the universe of contingencies to a final cause of "why does something exist instead of nothing?"
7) Thus, Necessary Existence exists as the ultimate cause.

In any event, what I hope I amply summarised (!) above shows how in Classical Theism the soul's essence is that of discovery of God. Stay tuned.



Yet Christ is incapable of arbitrary denial (a classical example of the 'is God able to make a rock He can't lift' sophistry). Christ's function as the "door of the sheep" arises from his very essence. One might say that he is the entirety of the threshold, but not the lock. Christ's dominion is that of the process of communion, not merely of who can enter the threshold of communion.

In any event, considering as the entire process of seeking out God remains Christ's dominion, it would follow that the ecclesiastical authorities ought to have the authority to regulate and neutralise potential pitfalls within that threshold. Now, faith is not something that a man can impose, and as such erroneous thinking is not something that the ecclesiastical authorities can possibly mandate. However, the other pitfalls within society's collective threshold, such as hedonism or other sinful deeds, might still be regulated by the ecclesiastical authorities.

I hope you're understanding the concepts behind the imagery I'm using.


Elaborated in what sense?

See above. That a man's heart cannot be coerced is quite sound sound philosophically- that is essentially Socrates' fundamental principle, that the truth must speak on it's own merits.

I would add scriptural basis to independent thought in regards to matters of divinity from one of my favorite chapters in the bible, Job 32.

1 So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. 2 Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God.3 Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. 4 Now Elihu had waited till Job had spoken, because they were elder than he. 5 When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled. 6 And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion. 7 I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. 8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. 9 Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment. 10 Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will shew mine opinion. 11 Behold, I waited for your words; I gave ear to your reasons, whilst ye searched out what to say. 12 Yea, I attended unto you, and, behold, there was none of you that convinced Job, or that answered his words: 13 Lest ye should say, We have found out wisdom: God thrusteth him down, not man. 14 Now he hath not directed his words against me: neither will I answer him with your speeches. 15 They were amazed, they answered no more: they left off speaking. 16 When I had waited, (for they spake not, but stood still, and answered no more;) 17 I said, I will answer also my part, I also will shew mine opinion. 18 For I am full of matter, the spirit within me constraineth me. 19 Behold, my belly is as wine which hath no vent; it is ready to burst like new bottles. 20 I will speak, that I may be refreshed: I will open my lips and answer. 21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.22 For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.



Quite. However, I thought you were referring to the OT because of your "besides the death penalty" bit. As far as I'm aware, the death penalty is proscribed nowhere in the NT. Christ himself is the penance offering.

Why is religion getting into this??

[Judean Zealot]

Why is religion getting into this??

Look back at the original exchange between me and Billy, and enjoy watching the progression. A more productive discussion anyways, IMHO.

[sqishy]

Look back at the original exchange between me and Billy, and enjoy watching the progression. A more productive discussion anyways, IMHO.

I have - I don't see why it has been brought up from Billy 's opinion that Israel has a biblical right to exist where it does, or along those lines.

If religion is to be brought into this at all, then it is implying that there is a lot of theocratic/ecclesiocratic ideas going around in the core of this.

[Judean Zealot]

Here's (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3254287&postcount=31) the catalyst.

[sqishy]

Here's (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3254287&postcount=31) the catalyst.

I still am not sure exactly what is going on there. Is it about the seperation of the church and state?

[Judean Zealot]

I still am not sure exactly what is going on there. Is it about the seperation of the church and state?


Yes, from a Christian theological angle. It's entirely tangential. I suppose it could be made into a separate thread, but that would ruin the fun.

[sqishy]

Yes, from a Christian theological angle. It's entirely tangential. I suppose it could be made into a separate thread, but that would ruin the fun.

Maybe it should be in a separate thread, because I'm not seeing any fun with an irrelevant topic that is confusing me with regards to the thread topic.

[Bull]

Why is religion getting into this??

Because it is a religious issue. Any discussion of Israel/Palestine must relate to the Biblical Israel. Also, when Israel was allowed to regain a portion of the homeland they did not occupy Palestine because Palestine never existed until just recently. God outlined the boundaries of Israel. Modern Israel simply is being allowed to occupy only a portion of its true territory.

[sqishy]

Because it is a religious issue. Any discussion of Israel/Palestine must relate to the Biblical Israel. Also, when Israel was allowed to regain a portion of the homeland they did not occupy Palestine because Palestine never existed until just recently. God outlined the boundaries of Israel. Modern Israel simply is being allowed to occupy only a portion of its true territory.

It is NOT a religious issue.

This should be about politics, not religion. It's no wonder the whole place is a huge mess, because some people want others dead or gone because their transcendental worldview does not agree with theirs.

This is about people, it is about today, about now, about a section of land on Earth's surface. It is NOT about what is beyond it, or about some universal holy structure/being. Why such issues are brought into the relative material pragmatic scale of life is beyond me. It is not needed at all.

Is it seen as impossible to actually do things in relation to other people without consulting god? Why does that have to happen??

If I had more motivation than frustration-bordering-anger at this, then I'd be launching six separate arguments against yours.

I am exiting this thread; I am tired and sick of this now. Full stop.

[Porpoise101]

I want Israel and Palestine to be like a post apartheid South Africa except without corruption. The two states need to be one as divisions through religion are always bad (India & Pakistan; Holy Roman Empire after reformation; England and Scotland)

[Sir Suomi]

I'm honestly neutral on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides are guilty of heinous acts. Do I support the crackdown of Palestine or support the fact that the people can't govern themselves? No. But can I blame Israel after they constantly are under attack from suicide bombers, knife attacks, shootings, mortar strikes, etc? Not really.

I say stop giving money to either side, and let them duke it out among themselves.

[Emerald Dream]

Once again, let's please keep this on-topic. Unnecessary and off-topic posts have been deleted.