Zone1 Christian Zionism

[ding]

The point is that there was never a good society, nor an evil one. All are on a continuum. Not coincidently, the societies that have less power tend to be less evil.

That's a different point. You've yet to acknowledge that there is a transition from good to evil that is a gradual process.

Societies, like people, are not all good or all bad. It's more complex. It's odd that you recognize this continuum considering that you said that if someone lies he's not an honest person.

 

[alang1216]

Given that it ended in him committing suicide, I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion. Not to mention parts of Germany being occupied by the Soviets for 49 years. The way Hitler came into power wasn't genius. It was deceitful. He used the same tactic all con men use. Tell them what they want to hear. Genius would have been telling them what they need to hear and then go about building a peaceful and prosperous nation. They certainly had all the pieces.

History includes many brilliant individuals across fields like math, physics, philosophy, and technology who died by suicide. You can't deny he had a genius for grift. Most good con men make good money, he got himself a continent.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Christianity = The belief that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh and that He died for our sins so that we could be forgiven of our sins through faith in Him. He was preached about by the Old Testament Prophets even before He was born. Believers were first called Christians in the Book of Acts circa 80 A.D. (The religion of Christianity is around 1,945 years old).

Zionism = A philosophy dreamed up by Khazarian, Ashkenazi Jews (specifically Theodor Herzl, 1897). The Khazars converted to Judaism in the late 7th Century A.D. and into the 8th Century A.D. After having been kicked out of several nations and large cities for their lack of assimilation into the host nations, they decided that they needed a place to call home. With the help of the British, they honed in on Palestine. The philosophy is neither Christian nor does it have any biblical standing. (The philosophy of Zionism has been around for about 128 years but has been a reality for around 77 years).

So it's quite impossible to blend Christianity with Zionism. But when you marry a thesis with its antithesis, you create a synthesis. Hegelian Dialectics at its finest.

 

[ding]

History includes many brilliant individuals across fields like math, physics, philosophy, and technology who died by suicide. You can't deny he had a genius for grift. Most good con men make good money, he got himself a continent.

Geniuses who died by suicide don't make others who died from suicide a genius. You have to look at what they did. Geniuses don't leave their country in ruin and occupied by foreign invaders for 49 years. Like I said before a genius wouldn't have done what Hitler did. A genius would have built a peaceful and prosperous nation. If you want to call Hitler a brilliant conman, that would be 100% accurate. Saying Hitler was a genius is not.

 

[alang1216]

Pick a lane. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you see no goal beyond survival of genes and then argue you have goals beyond survival of genes. You can't argue there is no purpose and then talk about having a purpose.

Species vs society vs individual.

Again... pick a lane. You can't say you see no God, loving or not, and then say you are agnostic about a creator. Creator and God are synonymous. You are an atheist. You see no God. You can't be agnostic too.

Creator and God (of Abraham) are NOT synonymous, they would have different abilities and desires by my definition.

 

[alang1216]

Then by your standard all men are dishonest as it only takes one lie to make them dishonest men. Using your standards are you dishonest? Are you hateful?

I'm just a man, I hate and love, I'm honest and dishonest.

But to your point Oxymoronic" describes something that uses or embodies an oxymoron, which is a figure of speech combining two contradictory words (like "deafening silence," "sweet sorrow," or "living dead") to create a new, paradoxical meaning, revealing deeper truths or complex emotions, often for rhetorical effect. It points to self-contradictory ideas, qualities, or phrases, highlighting inherent paradoxes in language or life, such as "ethical banking" or "honest politician".

So yes, saying that honest men can lie is oxymoronic in a sense but it 100% accurate. Are you familiar with the concept of distributions? Because you have to look at the full picture before judging the person. Which is why I choose to not judge the person and limit my judgement to actions and behaviors. It's easy for me to say this or that action were good or bad. It's a little harder for me to say this person or that person is good or bad because I don't have perfect information to make that call.

Agreed.

Be curious, not judgmental. You'll be happier and have more success.

Good advice but I'm already happy and have all the success I need (except in pickleball, still working on that).

 

[ding]

Species vs society vs individual.

Purpose exists at each level. Maybe look up the definitions of reason and purpose.

 

[alang1216]

Spoken like a person who has no understanding of the role logic plays in establishing standards. Which technically makes you the ignorant one.

So what is it that you think I am ignorant about by believing morals are absolute?

Yes.

 

[alang1216]

Purpose exists at each level. Maybe look up the definitions of reason and purpose.

Purpose exists at each level but is different for each level.

 

[ding]

Creator and God (of Abraham) are NOT synonymous, they would have different abilities and desires by my definition.

Creator and God are synonymous for all monotheistic and henotheistic religions. Saying "God" does not necessarily mean the God of Abraham. That would be presumptuous. But you saying you see no God, loving or otherwise make you an atheist, not agnostic. So if you are agnostic I suggest you not make that statement.

 

[alang1216]

I don't recall speaking those words. I argued that the transition from good to evil occurs in gradual steps. I used the Nazi's genocide of the Jews as an example.

I still don't understand why I must define "existing prejudices" as good. Why can't my observation that the transition from good to evil occurs in gradual steps stand on its own? I can give you more examples if you like. It seems like a pretty simple and easy to understand concept. What is it that you don't get?

Are you wanting to have a discussion on prejudices and tolerance? Is it your argument that because there are things we should not tolerate that somehow that negates the transition from good to evil occurring in gradual steps?

If you argue about the transition from good to evil, you imply that the starting point is good so that must include "existing prejudices" in the good.

 

[alang1216]

Creator and God are synonymous for all monotheistic and henotheistic religions. Saying "God" does not necessarily mean the God of Abraham. That would be presumptuous. But you saying you see no God, loving or otherwise make you an atheist, not agnostic. So if you are agnostic I suggest you not make that statement.

Creator and God are synonymous for all monotheistic and henotheistic religions, and they are all incorrect.

 

[ding]

I'm just a man, I hate and love, I'm honest and dishonest.

You really need to use more precise language in your posts because you have a habit of making contradictory statements. So honest men can lie and loving men can hate?

 

[ding]

Yes.

That didn't explain what it is that you think I am ignorant about.

 

[ding]

Purpose exists at each level but is different for each level.

But according to you there is no purpose except passing on genetic information.

 

[alang1216]

That's a different point. You've yet to acknowledge that there is a transition from good to evil that is a gradual process.

Agreed, same for the transition from evil to good.

Societies, like people, are not all good or all bad. It's more complex. It's odd that you recognize this continuum considering that you said that if someone lies he's not an honest person.

There are no honest people, we are all a mix of honesty and dishonesty.

 

[alang1216]

But according to you there is no purpose except passing on genetic information.

At the species level.

 

[ding]

If you argue about the transition from good to evil, you imply that the starting point is good so that must include "existing prejudices" in the good.

Yes, if I argue the transition from good to evil, I am implying that the starting point is good.

No, that must not necessarily include "existing prejudices" in the good. It's merely a point of reference for the two states. In the example I gave the two states would be (1) German Jews were largely integrated into society and had equal rights to (2) gassing Jews.

If you are arguing that existing prejudices played a role, sure. But German Jews were largely integrated into society and had equal rights despite those existing prejudices.

 

[ding]

Creator and God are synonymous for all monotheistic and henotheistic religions, and they are all incorrect.

Says the guy who says he sees no God, good or otherwise and then says he agnostic.

For the record, you saying all monotheistic and henotheistic religions are incorrect precludes you from being an agnostic. You are as atheist as they come and you are a borderline militant one at that.

 

[ding]

Agreed, same for the transition from evil to good.

Not necessarily. At least not overtly and in the same way. It's the nature of the beast and going from bad to good is a different beast than going from good to bad. Going from good to bad necessitates a gradual erosion of standards and usually ends in a cataclysmic fashion. But going from bad to good usually requires covert actions that are the result of sustained suffering. And then it begins with a cataclysmic action.

But I can be convinced otherwise.