I am sure that is true, but the person attempting to make a position understood would further define the meaning of their intent (if they are an honest person, that is.)
Huh? You have quoted a statement.
The question was if you could give an example of a person before Muhammad (saw) that implemented more egalitarianism than he (saw) did.
You eventually said Cyrus the Great.
The follow up questions were regarding women’s rights under Cyrus the Great, as that’s about half of the population and a decent starting point. You changed the subject, again, not to my surprise, I wonder why.
Well if you look at it again close enough you might notice that of those two possibilities, one completely encompasses the other.
The Venn diagram of one would fit completely inside the other.
Similar to how if 100 degrees is considered hot in a particular context then it would only make sense to consider 130 degrees to be even hotter. Those are not two separate meanings as they are completely consistent with each other, they are just differences of degrees.
If I have the right to all of my house then I also have the right to have a room within that house that was once called someone else’s, and I could still share some of that house with that someone else
Why? I kindly made an effort. What would be dishonest about me not making a big enough effort to satisfy your personal tastes?
Yes, and I gave you a city’s worth of people.
Not really. You said Cyrus the Great first and now you are switching it to no one in particular, who I have reason to believe did implement less egalitarianism than Cyrus the Great did.
That doesn’t assure there is no ambiguity
An absolutely ridiculous justification. With a temperature measuring device a fairly accurate temperature can be obtained and remove ALL ambiguity. What do you use to determine what degree of Zionism is when “Zionism” is used?
I’ll be the first to admit that your logic skills are incapable of relating to the real world. But I am not attacking you. I am attacking the use of “Zionism” without a qualifying description. When I see the word, I must try to figure out to what degree of “Zionism” is being in the speaker’s mind. You, for whatever reason, see no ambiguity within the word.
Are you really trying to portray Muhammad as having been a champion of women’s rights? The man who condoned the rape of female captives. The man who condoned the rape of female slaves. You must be high on something.
I’ll answer: it depends upon how badly they want to kill a Jewish infant.
I agree with that.
I don’t consider what I wrote to be a justification. I might not understand your question, can you rephrase it?
Zionism is a property similar to heat which has degrees. Zionist is a bit more black and white of a term like hot or cold.
So an answer to your question as I understand it would be that I look to the larger context of the situation.
The original statement drew a contrast between Jews and Zionism. If I am understanding you correctly, you have said it means nothing because it doesn’t specify how much Zionism is meant.
Similar to how if someone said the problem is not with moisture but with heat, and then someone else said that is a meaningless deceptive statement without giving exact numbers. No. In that instance the deception would seem to be with the accuser.
We have already agreed that a word isolated from context will tend to have ambiguity. That was kind of funny you being the first to admit my alleged flaw, but I would have preferred a greater degree of honesty from you. But I am not attacking you. It seems to be the beginning of Mathew 7 on repeat fwiw
No, but I might in the future
Love man, you should try it, jajajajajaja.
That would be a sad thing to see. Defending rape and sex slavery and those who condone it.
If you insist on using technical terms, please do so correctly.
Temperature has degrees, heat has BTU’s (or calories)
What is the context when Hamas says:
What context helps define “Zionism” in the above statement?
The only context that I can see is that no honorable man would cross a country border and kidnap innocent civilians and carry them back into their country and hold them hostage. Is the context that the statement came from dishonorable men?
How does a person find the context that clarifies the meaning of the word “Zionism”?
Just remember you posted the statement as a rebuttal to another post. I just don’t know what the statement meant, using an ambiguous word as a distinction from a faith (Jewish). I wanted to know if you knew what was meant.
I have no idea what you mean. I call out the use of “Zionism” as an ambiguous word. Where is the dishonesty from me?
I have my interpretation of these verses. You are free to disagree. This has nothing to do with the judgment of man by God.
I’m sure you’ve noticed a pattern in his posts and responses.
I take it to mean that the conflict is with the state of Israel rather than all Jews. I take it to mean that if the state of Israel were ended, they would still be in conflict with whoever wanted to instate another one. That makes a lot of sense to me and I don’t see any logical contradictions with taking it that way.
There may be other ways to take it that would also not present logical contradictions, if there are any then I am not aware of them.
Within your allegation(s) of dishonesty on this issue. Remember that it was a bonus rebuttal anyways, as the original claim was that the charter explicitly mentioned genocide of Jews, which was a claim that the source did not back up.
As a believer, I consider that everything in proximity to me has something to do with the judgement of man by God, although I do unfortunately forget at times.
The word Jews could just as well be called ambiguous if it were isolated instead. I did not take it to mean Jewish faith specifically, I think it works just as well if someone considers it to mean people with Jewish genetics.
Why not throw out nearly every statement by anyone anytime as there will very often be words within them that have multiple dictionary entries? (that’s sarcastic and rhetorical, please don’t respond)
This post of yours below specifically, since you ask, and everything you’ve said since that took it’s foundation from it. However I would like to repeat that I would have preferred more honesty from you and I will add that I believe God does as well - it was intended as beneficial feedback rather than a gigantic accusation that renders anybody hell bound - even in my petty little mind.
It seems dishonest to me to be working an angle at throwing out a statement that makes sense just because of the existence of follow up questions that also make sense.
Zionism isn’t the problem, Islamism is. But, we can’t talk about that for some reason.
Palestinian Arabs and their puppet masters want all of the land for themselves and all of the Jews gone. A two state solution will not be a solution but a step toward their ultimate goal.
This allegation has no foundation. On this thread I have commented for only two different reasons:
- Bible clarity
- I am a bit of a word Nazi
But the word “Jews” have not been used to make a case where there was any ambiguity in its use.
You mentioned “feminism” as an example of an ambiguous word. I agree 100%. I have no idea what definition there is that segments the vast spectrum that encompasses all of “feminism.” But “feminism” wasn’t used in this thread of any significance. So, why mention it?
I tell you what. Every post that someone mentions “Zionism” or “Zionist” you make it your assignment to clarify what context there is to understand the exact meaning. Which clearly you believe you know exactly what Hamas used “Zionism” in the declaration that you posted. Is Hamas stating that any state of Israel, regardless of how small an area, within the old Palestine border is Zionism?
I have made no comments on the propaganda from either side. The truth is that I just don’t know what the truth is, and which side is more correct. So, at best, it would just be my opinion. So, who is holding the truth?
Romans 3:4, “…let God be true, but every man a liar…”
You might ask whose side I favor. Well that is simple. I wholly support Israel. I completely believe the Bible, you know.
Jeremiah 3:14, “Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you…”
Israel is called the wife of God.
Very few men would dare to inflict punishment on another man’s wife. Why would you believe there is much to be to your benefit to inflict pain on God’s wife?
No thank you. It would be more fitting in my opinion for you to put that assignment upon yourself by the way. You having not done so may have already been dishonest.
I clearly stated the way that made the most sense to me while explicitly stating that I don’t know for sure - in response to your questions and statements
No I don’t think Hamas was stating that. First of all I didn’t understand the phrase to be a definition of Zionism at all, instead the document seems to consider that the term Zionism would be understood.
Secondly, Zionism is a political movement. Such a state would be a Zionist state. The way that I read it, Hamas’ conflict is with everyone that supports the political movement of Zionism
I disagree, but don’t feel like digging up where and when I would have thought otherwise.
Because it is a word like hot and cold that can mean different things at different times yet still does mean something.
Yes you have. You may well have intended to exercise a great deal of restraint, and even succeeded at that. I consider this statement of yours an exaggeration, and a really, really big one because of the bold.
If you are asking me, I do not believe God to have a wife - that sounds like blasphemy. Also I do not consider myself to be inflicting pain on the Children of Israel here in this thread.
I think that’s about enough on the term Zionism. You keep asking questions that get the same logical, consistent answers from me. If you are aware or become aware of any inconsistencies with what I’ve said, or you become aware of a more consistent answer from anywhere else, then please share - otherwise it would seem wasteful to continue like this
Nothing you give is logical, consistent or an answer.
2 Likes
You are delusional or a liar. Go through this thread and find a quote from me that validates your accusation. Also, when you find a quote from me that you feel proves your point make sure that you don’t edit my comment.
It takes no restraint for me to not comment on something that I feel is contestable and unproveable one way or the other.
Are you speaking in riddles? I intended to have restraint and even succeeded having restraint??? Doesn’t that mean that I didn’t comment on the propaganda? You might need mental help.
Speaking of psychologists, is that an assessment of a licensed psychologist?
I put in bold so your double digit IQ wouldn’t miss the point!
Evidence of your double digit IQ