Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Do You Think Israel Should Cease to Exist?" video.
-
@mikeyhinojosa3837
"over 200 civilians have died, and over 50 of them were kids. That doesn’t seem to be taking extra precautions,"
There's that unexplained word "extra" again. I asked what it was supposed to be "extra" to, yet you didn't explain.
I also asked what they could do more. You didn't answer that. So presumably you can't even think of what more they could be doing. And yet you criticise.
And your response is illogical. That X number died doesn't mean that more would not have died if they hadn't taken those "extra" precautions.
"...if they really cared about the innocent people they wouldn’t keep them trapped in Gaza and the West Bank."
Given that neither place has borders with only Israel, how does Israel prevent them from leaving?
"Hamas are definitely doing horrible things but let’s not act like Israel is innocent."
On the contrary, let's not pretend that people are claiming that Israel couldn't improve when what they are really saying is to put the blame where it really belongs, with the terrorists.
Have you heard the recording of the Israeli military calling a person in Gaza telling him that they should evacuate because the place is going to be bombed, and he declines because he'd rather the deaths as a propaganda weapon? And the military person telling him to think of the kids, and the Palestinian saying that if the kids die, it will look bad for the Israelis?
Again, what could the Israelis do "extra"? Answer that or your criticism has no credibility.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@jumpmasterpadre9335
"This is a nice and substantive reply and I appreciate it."
And I feel the same way in return.
"It is simply and logically inarguable/undisputed that most - if not all - states have violence in their history."
It's not logically inarguable, but in practice, yes, one would be extremely unlikely to find a state that doesn't have violence in its history.
"…an inept attempt to advance the failed philosophy of William of Ockham."
He was responsible for the principle known as Ockham's Razor, but what was his philosophy that you're referring to?
"My contention lies in the fact that violence by definition is the use of force to comply or submit an unwilling populace to conditions established outside of their approval, etc."
I consider that definition too broad for general use. Violence is normally considered to be doing someone physical injury (or death), and perhaps only unjustified injury. The definition you provide could include laws which are enforced by means of fines and/or imprisonment that do no physical injury.
"This is not how states exist."
The problem I have with that statement is that it's ambiguous. Why does America exist? Because (simplistically) people founded it. But that only explains why it began to exist, not why it still exists. Your explanation regarding a willing populace seems to apply more to the latter: why it continues to exist. At least that's the point your reference to Marxism is making of it.
"Western Civilization was not established by and through violence."
That's simplistic, as I'm sure that there would have been some violence involved somewhere along the line. But yes, in principle and mostly in practice, I can agree with that.
"Protestantism did NOT ADVANCE society further."
And yet numerous scholars would disagree with you. In fact you appear to disagree a bit, saying that "...many good things that have come out of Protestantism...". It was Protestants who abolished slavery (while acknowledging that popes had previously made moves in that direction). It was Protestants who spread democracy to various places (see the paper The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy by Robert Woodberry). It was Protestants who introduced universal education because they (unlike Catholics) wanted everybody to be able to read the Bible for themselves.
"…the roots of Western Civilization’s current demise are contained wholly within the tenets of Protestantism: essentially that “I” determine my own faith, belief and practice of religion."
I consider that claim to be simplistic, arbitrary, and wrong. It is simplistic in claiming that it's "wholly" because of that, when obviously there were other factors involved, including rebellion against God by atheists. It's arbitrary in selecting the Protestant stress of individual responsibility because one could equally make the case that it's due to the "Catholic" (i.e. pre-Protestant) belief in free will, which is the principle that we all have the capability of choosing things for ourselves. It's wrong in implying that Protestantism is a free-for-all where it's totally up to us, whereas Protestants give priority to what the Bible teaches, not what we want to believe for ourselves. It's also questionable in that a significant factor in Western Civilisation is capitalism, a system that is based on personal freedom to do what we want with our own capital, and yet the early development of capitalism occurred before the Reformation.
"Thus, there are literally thousands of denominations - nearly all of which claim their own authority and adhere to their own tenets."
That is a common anti-Christian or anti-Protestant claim, but is largely baseless. First, the statistic that is often cited is not denominations per se, but organisations. So the Victorian Baptists and New South Wales Baptists are counted as two, because they are different organisations. And by the same token, the Australian Catholic Church and the New Zealand Catholic Church are two different organisations, so are counted as two, not one. Second, it does not follow that they disagree on anything. They are simply different organisations, not necessarily disagreeing. Third, some of the disagreement that does exist is over church government and secondary issues, not over doctrine, especially of primary issues. So the Wesleyans and the Methodists, for example, might have the same doctrines, but the Wesleyans believe in local churches appointing their pastors whereas the Methodist pastors were appointed by the hierarchy. Fourth, many of those organisations were national ones. That is, missionaries from one or more denominational or non-denominational missions might start churches in a particular country, but when the churches in that country are strong enough, they form their own national church organisation(s) rather than be branches of the foreign ones that planted them. Again, not necessarily any doctrinal differences. Fifth, they don't claim their "own" authority, but consider the Bible to be their authority. Sixth, although they might have different (secondary) doctrinal views (e.g. baptism by full immersion or sprinkling), they don't consider adherents of other denominations to not be Christian. They recognise that not all people believe the same thing and accept that there are different views.
In summary, the supposed thousands of denominations, and the implied lack of agreement between them all, is largely misleading nonsense. (None of that is to deny that there are a relatively small number of exclusive groups that are the exceptions to the rule.)
"Martin Luther was a not by any account a holy man concerned with following God’s law."
Contrary to your subsequent claim of that being apparent from the supposed evidence, I would say that that is a baseless claim.
"The Enlightenment contained within it the very seeds of our current demise - this is historical fact and has been stated by our very Founding Fathers."
That may well be so, but the so-called Enlightenment was taken over by atheists, and that is where the blame lies.
"The Catholic Church, beginning with the writing of Saint Augustine and early Monasticism established by Saint Benedict is the very foundation and skeletal-musculature from which our history has enjoyed the greatest fruits."
No, the Bible is. Which was the Catholic church's basis. Agnostic historian Tom Holland attributes it primarily to the writings of Paul (although of course Paul based it on Jesus and the then Scriptures, along with teaching from Peter and the other elders in the church). See the YouTube video "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity"
"From this we have: [snipped]"
Yes, but all that shows is what I've already acknowledged, that "…the Catholic Church created much of the basis for Western Civilisation…"
"…hospitals,…"
As a Protestant, I would say that (public) hospitals were started by the early church (true), before it could be legitimately called the "Catholic" (capital C) church. Certainly before it could be called the "Roman" Catholic Church, i.e. before the east/west split.
"Just War - not the ridiculous abuses of the M-I complex we know today,..."
I can't think what "M-I" refers to, but one of the lines of argument you're taking is drawing a distinction between Catholicism and post-modernism or post-Christianity, not between Catholicism and Protestantism. On those sorts of issues, Protestants are on the same side as Catholics. This modern stuff is not from Protestantism, but from Marxism, a form of atheism.
"When the “I” is THE authority,…"
Which it's not (in Protestantism).
"…and the “I” determines Scriptural interpretation and thus application,…"
And that's not accurate either. Protestantism rejects the idea that Scripture can only be properly understood by the pope and his priests. One defining distinction is sola scriptura, that the Bible, not the church, is the authority (so not "I" either). The Bible is God's infallible Word; the church is composed of fallible humans. It does not say that interpretation is individual so much as not being the exclusive property of the (one) church. It's more of a checks-and-balances type thing, where if the church states one thing, others are allowed to challenge it. That is, challenge that the church's interpretation is an accurate one. But the same applies to Protestant churches—they can be challenged as well. Of course any such challenge must be based in Scripture, not on one's personal beliefs.
"However, Our Lord has promised that the Church will endure, as it has for over 2000 years since Matthew 16:13-20."
Well true, but we would differ on whether "the Church" is the Catholic Church or the entire body of Christians (again, pointing to a unity, even if that's in a diversity of organisations and of secondary views).
1
-
1