Israel is a country. Fascism is a type of government.

You can want the end of the fascist government without wanting the end of the country.

A two state solution is one possibility, but there is no strict requirement that it is the only or best way to serve the needs of those involved.

It’s true. But it’s not for us to decide.

I think you didn’t understood me. I’m criticizing Israel. It’s a criminal state.I just say that to criticize Israel and saying that Israel.shouldn’t exist are two different things.

Israel is a lot of things, but not an ethnostate. Falashas and Sefardim aren’t white, and they’re recognized as citizens as much as Ashkenazim, at least legally (there is racism between Jews in Israel too, but it’s the case everywhere).

I don’t understand why Israel is the only criminal State in the world that progressive people want totally destroyed. Russia, Iran, Syria, … are imperialist criminal states too, and progressive people “only” want their government changed. I want the fascist government of Israel overthrown, but I have no right to call for the destruction of the country itself. The only difference is Judaism.

If the Jew people of Palestine want the independence, who are we to deny it? The only moral solution in this case is the two states solution.

Thus you’re denying the right of self determination for the Jew people. QED.

It would be replaced by what?

I never saw a strong international pressure to make Israel comply.

The goal should be the two states solution. It won’t be possible if there isn’t a strong international pressure on Israel. Again, Israel is a criminal state and should be treated as such. So is Russia, and nobody publishes memes on how Russia has no right to exist.

Denying the Jews the right to self-determination that all other peoples have is antisemitic.

Israel is a criminal state that should be stopped. But we can do that, we should do that, without antisemitism.

Thanks.

I always thought that mini computer.were more power hungry than SBC. Am I wrong?

I doubt it’d work with LibO Calc, but I’ll try.

Like a big filthy goblin?

History is a science, it’s my formation (I actually worked on some people I cited), and you don’t answer to scientific arguments with YouTube rhetorics. It’s perfectly normal for a man for Antiquity not to be recorded in texts from his lifetime.

I lost enough time with you.

What it says must be interpreted in the light of what historians said about the context of the writing. Jesus didn’t wrote the Gospels. Do you think you know better than historians?

Same with Jesus? All serious historians, both religious and atheists, agree on the existence of Jesus. 19 texts from high Antiquity speak about Jesus, 9 between then weren’t written by Christians (Flavius ​​Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Galen, Mara bar Serapion, Celsus, and the Babylonian Talmud). If you think it’s not enough, please prove me the existence of Julius Caesar.

If you reject the conclusions of the scientific community, you’re no better than a conspiracy theorist.

You mix up “justification” and “interpretation”. The Bible wasn’t written by a 21st century American you know… for example that Matthew 10 is about the persecutions is well known by every serious historian, but you don’t care about history. You just care about your hatred for Christianity. It’s your right, but it’s not very interesting yo discuss in these conditions.

That’s why I seldom use man pages, TBH. But I’m no developer, my needs are simple.

Wars are caused by power, and people searching it. Religious, political, economical, symbolic, … when there’s power, there could be war.

Religion is a way to give sense to a world which seems very chaotic. Governments need legitimacy. Mix the two, and the sense given to the world by a religion can be justifying the legitimacy of a government. If it’s the case, this legitimacy can be very strongly rooted in people’s mind, making any decision of this government a part of the sense of the world (even if for an individual, this decision may look nonsensical). The more nonsensical a political movement is, the more religion will be useful to it, but ut’s a very strong temptation for any government, and that’s why the religions and the State should be separated.

Now, religion is a very complicated thing. I was reading yesterday an article in the last issue of the socialist American magazine Jacobin which says : “there is not, and has never been, a single identifiable thing that we can call ‘Christianity’ except with excruciating generality.” And I think it’s true for Christianity, but also for any religion. For our subject, we could discern to kinds of movement within every religion:

• An open one, which sees in the Divine a reality exterior to the world, thus too complex to be locked up in any religious tradition. This kind of religion don’t give a turnkey sense to the world but ask their members to think by themselves. They’re more a method than a dogma.
• A closed one, which sees the Divine as perfectly given in their own tradition. This kind of religion ask for obedience and conservation of the dogma. The sense of the world is given, no need to think by oneself.

Of the two kinds, which one will be more useful for a government? Of course, the second one. That’s why we see, all around the world, alliances between oligarchic political movements (which have less legitimacy than more popular political movements) and with reactionary forms of religion. Trump with evangelicals, Putin with super-Z orthodoxs, and so on.

Matthew 10 is not about what Jesus desired, but about the persecutions.

Matthew 8 is a parabola, not meant to be taken literally.

Matthew 5:18 is followed by Matthew 5:19-48 when Jesus change the law. The teaching is clear, especially when compared to the actions of Jesus: what should be followed is the spirit of the law, not its letter. And that’s valid for the letter of Jesus’ commandments themselves.

Matthew 15:24 is followed Matthew 15:28, where he does save the Canaanite’s daughter. Jesus changes his mind in this text. You’re fond of cherry picking, aren’t you?

There was no historical Jesus

So you’re a science denier. I don’t know if Jesus is just a man without relationship with a God or more than that, or even if a God exists. But denying the historicity of Jesus is like saying we don’t walked on the Moon.

Christianity has always been a fascist faith.

Say that to MLK, William Wilberforce, Dorothy Day, or the Lübeck martyrs.

Dentists aren’t causing teeth decay.

This is a very bad analogy.