@zecarlo and I have had a few debates. I don’t believe he and I agree on everything, but he and I pretty much know where we stand with one another. But you… still much a mystery to me.
Without definitions, the discussion is pretty much “word salad.”
Why must it be stated again the without agreed premises there is no foundation to proceed with a logical case.
1 Like
What does this have to do with the price of apples in China?
We’re not taking about @zecarlo. I am conversing with you. Are you suggesting that if zecarlo asks a question that it does not deserve an answer because no one else might want to know? I am interested in any question anyone asks you.
Why is it soooooo hard for some of these folks to answer a simple question
Because deceptiveness is an Islamic virtue. This isn’t some bigoted response either, it’s an objective fact.
Something to consider with regard to martyrdom; in Christianity, a martyr is one who died standing up for his beliefs. In Islam a martyr is one who died taking as many infidels with him as he can.
4 Likes
Because when someone has already taken a position, it can be shown wrong without an opponent agreeing on anything
What premises do you have in mind?
My premise is that if anyone can show alternate interpretations, of any number, for the phrase “from the river to the sea”, it means zecarlo is either dishonest or a moron, or both, or that he made at least one mistake somewhere along the way and is confused.
Do you find my premise agreeable? If not, why not?
@squating_bear - Are you okay with the idea of the state of Israel, as it exists now, continuing to exist?
Yes or no, please.
Please stop commenting on @zecarlo. I am discussing this with you. If he has hurt your feelings, I hope you can recover. BTW, that should take about a nanosecond.
A premise should not include an “if” in it because that assumes a condition has a consequence making it more than a premise.
In simple terms (trying not to think about zecarlo) please define what are the various meanings of “from the river to the sea” that you believe people hold to.
But “holding your hand,” I’ll start first. I am just guessing how people are viewing the meaning of “from the river to the sea.”:
- Palestine has the rights to all the land in Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Many believe that Israel has no rights being there.
- “An aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction or hate,” Rashida Tlaib
If there are any other held beliefs I don’t know what they are.
See how easy that was?
The Arabic word usually translated as martyr is Shahid, which means Witness. Umar ibn al Khattab was martyred while leading the prayer.
Not all Shahid in Islam are as you’ve described, but it is a common meaning.
In Christianity, can a martyr not be someone that died in battle while standing up for his beliefs?
So you’ve not exactly typed a lie but I don’t see the actual difference. To my understanding, a Venn Diagram would not have total overlap because the Islamic concept of Shahid would completely envelope your description of a Christian martyr, and cover other areas as well.
I can recall two that might imply what you’ve written, and it’s from the top of my head. I disagree with categorizing it as a virtue, but it is a possible tool in the toolbox. I think you should seriously consider if you saying virtue was not itself deceptive.
- War is deception
- “He’s my guide”, while fleeing to Medina
Yes.
But is it of any value?
I wanted to establish what the value would have been first
Perhaps, but the martyr status would not depend on the number of enemy combatants killed (or if any were killed at all).
True. Neither for Islam to my knowledge. Neither did he say it did, technically.
It’s just in zecarlos habits to put that extra little piece for anyone reading to make the implication themselves, if they are so inclined.
I second this. Enough with the semantic and theological quibbling. Cut to the chase and state your opinion.
Yes or no is fine.
2 Likes
And that is a possible situation. Just know that any logic applied by either side is meaningless when the premises cannot be agreed upon.
My position is that a person who esteems logic will not attempt to reason for their conclusions if the premises are not agreed.
I have no idea how Christians might take this, but there is not a single example in the Bible where any of the martyrs were trying to bring in the kingdom of heaven by force. They were dwelling in the kingdom of God, as we do today. I am not stating one way or the other what some Christians have done in the name of Christ.
(This is my interpretation I make from the Bible.)
2 Likes
Well, I find strange beauty
I note that this is not an answer to my question, yet I find no fault in you for it.
If I remember correctly, you stated earlier that you must be on team Israel, because of the Bible.
Is that Children of Israel or the state?
Has the state of Israel tried bringing in the Kingdom of God by force?
Please excuse my rudeness in all my questions, you do not have to answer of course. I’m just curious, but they are not rhetorical - if you give, I’m pretty sure I’ll appreciate
I guess that depends on how you define martyr and Bible. If we are including the Old Testament, we get more examples of Biblical heroes who are more war-like. Joshua and David come to mind although they don’t die in a particular heroic incident. Samson also is in this area, but his death is generally associated with his own sin and his ability to kill the Philistines as a last act is not interpreted as redemptive so much as vengeful.