Christianity

[Alexiev]

So here's a question regarding Christianity. How do Christians reconcile the teachings of Jesus with supporting Israel's continued strikes in Gaza? If Jesus is waiting for us in Heaven (someday to return), what would Jesus say of the war in Gaza? Is "love thy enemies" nonsense. Is to forgive those who "trespass against us nonsense? Or what are those statements doing in the Bible? Did Jesus really say them?

Jesus did not say them. He probably spoke Aramaic.

God, on the other hand, participated in the destruction of Sennacherib.

[Belinda]

It means that he also does...now.

Do you believe some people go to Hell after they die, sort of like Alexis describes, if God deems they deserve punishment?

What do you "deem" you deserve," if I may ask?

But you are not dead, so even if dead people live on after they die, you would not be able to know there is life after death as you have not yet died.

If my belief rested on personal experience, you'd be right. But God Himself has told us what is to come, on what basis, and for whom...and He surely knows.

However, Sagan now has experience instead of salvation. That's the source of his present certainty. I'm not sure he's happy with his choice, though...

What is the name of the religious sect you belong to?

Religion is man's attempt to earn heaven. I don't do that. I wouldn't be successful, if I tried. The whole Christian message is to trust in what God has done, instead of what you can do. That's why we speak of "salvation," not "wage-earning."

I don't belong to a sect. I belong to the Lord. So do all Christians.

I deserve to go to Hell according to the rather unforgiving judgment that you , perhaps unwittingly, portray to me. I am not a Muslim but the Koran makes it clear to me that God's mercy encompasses everything. So, if I prayed to God , I would pray "help thou mine unbelief in thy mercy".

Thank you for telling me that you don't belong to any sect of Christianity. I want to be clear in my mind whether what you write is doctrinal or not.You will be aware that some here think you belong to an evangelical sect of Christianity.

I don't really know what "I belong to the Lord" means. Literally it is nonsense as you cannot be enslaved to a dead person. Emotionally and metaphorically it does make sense and I understand and sympathise.

[Belinda]

So here's a question regarding Christianity. How do Christians reconcile the teachings of Jesus with supporting Israel's continued strikes in Gaza? If Jesus is waiting for us in Heaven (someday to return), what would Jesus say of the war in Gaza? Is "love thy enemies" nonsense. Is to forgive those who "trespass against us nonsense? Or what are those statements doing in the Bible? Did Jesus really say them?

Jesus did not say them. He probably spoke Aramaic.

God, on the other hand, participated in the destruction of Sennacherib.
[/quoteI reply to Gary not Alexiev:-

In Jewish thought, the covenant is a moral relationship between God and His people that calls for justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Revenge or cruelty contradicts that calling. While self-defense is allowed, the spirit of the covenant demands restraint, compassion, and care for all human life. Measured against those ideals, any act of vengeance against Palestinians—or anyone—stands outside the moral purpose that the covenant and the idea of steadfast love were meant to uphold.

Martin Buber and many Christian thinkers would agree with this view. Buber argued that true religious life is about meeting every person as fully human and reflecting God’s presence in how we treat others. For him, Israel’s covenant calls for justice and compassion, and revenge or harming others violates that calling. Similarly, Christian thinkers ***emphasize that while self-defense may be necessary, love of neighbor, even enemies, sets the moral standard. In both cases, acting with mercy and respect for human dignity is the proper way to live out faith and moral responsibility.


With research and help with wording from ChatGPT. ChatGPT declined to take a political stance.

*Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971), American theologian

*Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945), German theologian and pastor

*Pope John Paul II (1920–2005), Catholic pope

[Alexis Jacobi]

I propose that in noticing the shenanigan that Immanuel pulls, that we can in that notice one fundamental, and I believe ‘sickly’ element in the metaphysical structure of Christian belief.

It is that, time and again, Immanuel resorts to the power-play based around the threat that soon enough those who do not accept the Savior, and Immanuel’s argument, will end up in hell.

At every juncture Immanuel ‘plays the Devil card’.

It is the “ultimate close” (speaking of salesmanship) and the ultimate conversation winner. In the face of it you are given the option of submission or of rebellion, with the most terrible consequences portended for you if you choose 1) a different way of seeing metaphysical truths (if indeed you believe they exist), or 2) if you simply cannot go along with the entire proposition surrounding “salvation”.

Once you see into this sickly power-dynamic, and as long as you are compelled to remain in a civil conversation with the apologist, you are forced to present alternatives. But in the final analysis and for that Christian working these “Calvin-like” metaphysical arguments, there is no “alternative”. At that point — I say this realistically — that Christian becomes a psychological terrorist or blackmailer. It becomes an insidious game of psychological mind control.

Naturally, in any free-spirit, resistance to the power-play must arise. But two things need to be mentioned:

One is that this Christian in his manoeuvre of control, creates the rebel. This establishes an unbreachable division and polarity in which “the good” present themselves as “the Lord’s” own children, and those who cannot go along as servants of the demonic. It is that crude.

Two is that an intelligent, thoughtful person can and I think should avoid falling into this idea-trap and into the dynamic of a power-play. Why? First, our very intellectual system is based on strict polarities: the excluded middle. It either is, or it is not — it cannot be both. In math, I admit, the middle is excluded. In life it is not. The strict polarity is actually an enormous mistake.

I remember years ago discussing an Indian view (Jaina) where seven predicates are recognized:

Jaina seven-valued logic is a system of argumentation developed by Jaina philosophers and thinkers in ancient India to support and substantiate their theory of pluralism. This argumentation system has seven distinct semantic predicates which may be thought of as seven different truth values.

These seven claims are the following:

Arguably, it (that is, some object) exists (syad asty eva).

Arguably, it does not exist (syan nasty eva).

Arguably, it exists; arguably, it doesn't exist (syad asty eva syan nasty eva).

Arguably, it is non-assertible (syad avaktavyam eva).

Arguably, it exists; arguably, it is non-assertible (syad asty eva syad avaktavyam eva).

Arguably, it doesn't exist; arguably, it is non-assertible (syan nasty eva syad avaktavyam eva).

Arguably, it exists; arguably, it doesn't exist; arguably it is non-assertible (syad asty eva syan nasty eva syad avaktavyam eva).

[Alexis Jacobi]

[cont. from previous]

Though our intellectual system is based in a very strict polarity of yes/no, and this pervades our own thought-parameters and our grasp of logic, we must see beyond this dynamic. I suggest that that becomes the imperative, and other predicates are then established on a new understanding.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you believe some people go to Hell after they die, sort of like Alexis describes, if God deems they deserve punishment?

What do you "deem" you deserve," if I may ask?

But you are not dead, so even if dead people live on after they die, you would not be able to know there is life after death as you have not yet died.

If my belief rested on personal experience, you'd be right. But God Himself has told us what is to come, on what basis, and for whom...and He surely knows.

However, Sagan now has experience instead of salvation. That's the source of his present certainty. I'm not sure he's happy with his choice, though...

What is the name of the religious sect you belong to?

Religion is man's attempt to earn heaven. I don't do that. I wouldn't be successful, if I tried. The whole Christian message is to trust in what God has done, instead of what you can do. That's why we speak of "salvation," not "wage-earning."

I don't belong to a sect. I belong to the Lord. So do all Christians.

I deserve to go to Hell according to the rather unforgiving judgment that you , perhaps unwittingly, portray to me.

We all do, if we’re honest with ourselves — me as well as you. For Scripture says, “all have sinned,” (Rm. 3:32) and adds, “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom. 6:23)

I am not a Muslim but the Koran makes it clear to me that God's mercy encompasses everything.

I’m afraid you’ll find that this is not what the Koran says…at least, it’s not what the one on my shelf says.

So, if I prayed to God , I would pray "help thou mine unbelief in thy mercy".

That’s actually a great prayer. Why not turn that “if” into a “when,” and find out what happens?

Thank you for telling me that you don't belong to any sect of Christianity. I want to be clear in my mind whether what you write is doctrinal or not.You will be aware that some here think you belong to an evangelical sect of Christianity.

You would be vaguely correct, but only vaguely, since the term “evangelical” is very, very broad indeed. To know about particular doctrines, you’d have to know either that I subscribed to some more precise clerically-invented doctrinal package, or that I was committed to the Scripture itself. The latter is the case.

I don't really know what "I belong to the Lord" means. Literally it is nonsense as you cannot be enslaved to a dead person.

Right. Hence the necessity of the Resurrection. You can’t relate in any way to somebody who’s dead. Well said.

The bond there is of gratitude, not enslavement. But unless you start with something like the little prayer you suggest for yourself, you can’t personally know what it means, because it’s outside the range of experiences possible to the natural person. Salvation comes from God, not from any sort of engineering from the human realm. Human beings cannot drag God down to their level and compel Him to submit to their demands; but God can raise people to the place where they become aware of their need and their choices, and bring them understand the opportunity salvation really is.

It’s all about relationship, as it turns out. And once you’re in it, you understand.

[Gary Childress]

What do you "deem" you deserve," if I may ask?

If my belief rested on personal experience, you'd be right. But God Himself has told us what is to come, on what basis, and for whom...and He surely knows.

However, Sagan now has experience instead of salvation. That's the source of his present certainty. I'm not sure he's happy with his choice, though...


Religion is man's attempt to earn heaven. I don't do that. I wouldn't be successful, if I tried. The whole Christian message is to trust in what God has done, instead of what you can do. That's why we speak of "salvation," not "wage-earning."

I don't belong to a sect. I belong to the Lord. So do all Christians.

I deserve to go to Hell according to the rather unforgiving judgment that you , perhaps unwittingly, portray to me.

We all do, if we’re honest with ourselves — me as well as you. For Scripture says, “all have sinned,” (Rm. 3:32) and adds, “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom. 6:23)

I am not a Muslim but the Koran makes it clear to me that God's mercy encompasses everything.

I’m afraid you’ll find that this is not what the Koran says…at least, it’s not what the one on my shelf says.

So, if I prayed to God , I would pray "help thou mine unbelief in thy mercy".

That’s actually a great prayer. Why not turn that “if” into a “when,” and find out what happens?

Thank you for telling me that you don't belong to any sect of Christianity. I want to be clear in my mind whether what you write is doctrinal or not.You will be aware that some here think you belong to an evangelical sect of Christianity.

You would be vaguely correct, but only vaguely, since the term “evangelical” is very, very broad indeed. To know about particular doctrines, you’d have to know either that I subscribed to some more precise clerically-invented doctrinal package, or that I was committed to the Scripture itself. The latter is the case.

I don't really know what "I belong to the Lord" means. Literally it is nonsense as you cannot be enslaved to a dead person.

Right. Hence the necessity of the Resurrection. You can’t relate in any way to somebody who’s dead. Well said.

The bond there is of gratitude, not enslavement. But unless you start with something like the little prayer you suggest for yourself, you can’t personally know what it means, because it’s outside the range of experiences possible to the natural person. Salvation comes from God, not from any sort of engineering from the human realm. Human beings cannot drag God down to their level and compel Him to submit to their demands; but God can raise people to the place where they become aware of their need and their choices, and bring them understand the opportunity salvation really is.

It’s all about relationship, as it turns out. And once you’re in it, you understand.

Do you think Israel has a divine right to keep up the attacks on Gaza? Do you believe God is pleased with that? Does "love thy enemy" not apply? Does "forgive those who trespass against us" not apply? I'm curious what the "Christian" position is on the war in Gaza. Will both Hamas and the Israeli leaders go to hell for what they've done? Or will they be forgiven?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The bond there is of gratitude, not enslavement. But unless you start with something like the little prayer you suggest for yourself, you can’t personally know what it means, because it’s outside the range of experiences possible to the natural person. Salvation comes from God, not from any sort of engineering from the human realm. Human beings cannot drag God down to their level and compel Him to submit to their demands; but God can raise people to the place where they become aware of their need and their choices, and bring them understand the opportunity salvation really is.

This is a crucial part of the use and expression of the power-dynamic and the power-play. In the argument the arguer (apologist) pretends to step aside and simultaneously makes a series of consequential metaphysical claims.

One is that God is the only one who does the ‘work’, as if God flips a switch that the believer activates by a submissive act. Then it is not surrender or submission but rather a voluntary subservience which, as presented, is more attractive to man’s spirit. I.e. less demeaning. But always there in the background is the terroristic threat of eternal punishment which is deviously presented as “your own choice”. God didn’t decide it would be like that, you did.

Always, the game is one of reasonably presented psychological manipulation.

Immanuel vacillates, as does the Biblical figure of Yahweh, between Absolute Condemnation for disobedience and rebellion, and the sweetest and most cloying promises of Eternal Salvation if one will toe the line.

By saying that one must through a prayer “activate God” so that God flips the switch, Immanuel makes the assertion that no man (no natural man) has access to God consciousness or God awareness. This is where the power-dynamic, and a big element of the psychological ploy, presents themselves operatively. This “natural man” is presented as incomplete and inadequate and requires a special element that is absent in him. I think this is a false-assertion.

Obviously, Immanuel presents himself as one in whom the ‘switch’ has been activated.

In all religions that I have studied and in fact in all demanding and subtle disciplines, there is a hierarchy of understanding. The neophyte does not enter into a learning relationship and instruct the teacher. The neophyte must empty himself and allow the teacher a certain license. So on this level, facing a superior intelligence, and indeed a divine personality, the power-difference must be understood. In Buddhism, in Yoga-practice, in Catholicism, there are teachers and learners. So in this sense Immanuel speaks a truth (about life really).

But there still remains a “sickly” and psychologically suspect element that (I believe) must be examined closely.

Immanuel is the “teacher” who never learns. He is the “talker” who never listens.

[Immanuel Can]

I deserve to go to Hell according to the rather unforgiving judgment that you , perhaps unwittingly, portray to me.

We all do, if we’re honest with ourselves — me as well as you. For Scripture says, “all have sinned,” (Rm. 3:32) and adds, “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom. 6:23)

I am not a Muslim but the Koran makes it clear to me that God's mercy encompasses everything.

I’m afraid you’ll find that this is not what the Koran says…at least, it’s not what the one on my shelf says.

So, if I prayed to God , I would pray "help thou mine unbelief in thy mercy".

That’s actually a great prayer. Why not turn that “if” into a “when,” and find out what happens?

Thank you for telling me that you don't belong to any sect of Christianity. I want to be clear in my mind whether what you write is doctrinal or not.You will be aware that some here think you belong to an evangelical sect of Christianity.

You would be vaguely correct, but only vaguely, since the term “evangelical” is very, very broad indeed. To know about particular doctrines, you’d have to know either that I subscribed to some more precise clerically-invented doctrinal package, or that I was committed to the Scripture itself. The latter is the case.

I don't really know what "I belong to the Lord" means. Literally it is nonsense as you cannot be enslaved to a dead person.

Right. Hence the necessity of the Resurrection. You can’t relate in any way to somebody who’s dead. Well said.

The bond there is of gratitude, not enslavement. But unless you start with something like the little prayer you suggest for yourself, you can’t personally know what it means, because it’s outside the range of experiences possible to the natural person. Salvation comes from God, not from any sort of engineering from the human realm. Human beings cannot drag God down to their level and compel Him to submit to their demands; but God can raise people to the place where they become aware of their need and their choices, and bring them understand the opportunity salvation really is.

It’s all about relationship, as it turns out. And once you’re in it, you understand.

Do you think Israel has a divine right to keep up the attacks on Gaza?

"Divine right"? How would you come up with that? "Attacks on Gaza"? What about the attacks on Israel? I think the framing of your question is both gratuitous and prejudicial. I have never posited anything "divine" in that war, nor would I ignore the attacks of Hamas. So I have no idea where you're going with that question.

I don't think God is pleased with anything that's going on in Israel, on either side. I also don't assume any false moral equivalency between the sides, or take sides. I assume, rather, that there are real villains and evil-doers roving around there, and it's only God who knows which ones they really are. I'm not God, to go about making such a call. And to override what men do with history is not up to me.

But then, only God knows who you and I are, as well. And not only people in Gaza and Israel, but you and I as well, will be subject to God's judgment. Those who are, as Scripture says, "in Him" are safe -- not because they're better than others, but because they're forgiven. As for those who are not, they make their own choices. Nobody is ever forgiven in defiance of their permission.

[ThinkOfOne]

This is silly. Faith suggests having the courage of one's convictions. I believe India is the most populous nation in the world becauae I have faith in almanacs. I believe the evidence of my.own eyes becauae I have faith in the dependable accuracy of my senses. All knowledge depends on faith, which Sagan should know, but apparently doesn't.

Actually, what's silly is that you fail to make a distinction between two different denotations of the word "faith". Christians, especially the Evangelicals, deceitfully often do the same thing.

Hopefully the following will put this in perspective for you:

One of the most significant conflicts between religion and science is the issue of faith. Faith, as Sagan described it, is “belief in the absence of evidence,” and it often requires adherence to ideas without the necessity of proof.
Religious faith can provide comfort, purpose, and a sense of belonging to individuals, but it is also a system that, at times, has led to harmful consequences when applied to areas where evidence-based reasoning is essential.

Science, on the other hand, is founded on empirical evidence and the scientific method.
It is a system of inquiry that demands rigorous testing, skepticism, and openness to new evidence.

The importance of skepticism is particularly relevant in today’s world, where misinformation and pseudoscience can spread rapidly, undermining public trust in scientific advancements and critical thinking.

As Sagan noted, the essence of science lies not in “what makes us feel good,” but in “what’s true” (Sagan, 1996). This distinction is critical, particularly when considering pressing issues such as climate change, healthcare, and technology, where decisions must be grounded in facts, not belief systems.

From https://www.thesquaremagazine.com/mag/a ... -religion/

Sagan clearly had no idea what he was talking about. First of all, there's plenty of "evidence" for religious faith. There are eye witness accounts of miracles; there is the personal testimony of enlightened experience; there are written, historical accounts of people rising from the dead. To say there is no evidence is ludicrous. Two things, however, are lacking: "proof" (as opposed to evidence) and "scientific evidence" (as if science is the only path to knowledge). If these are our standards, we should not have faith in the assassination of Caesar, the battle of Gaugamela, or the signing of the Magna Carta. Scientific evidence is clearly not the only variety of evidence in which we should have "faith".

Second, science offers no "proof" of anything. If we want to believe only that which has been proven, we must stick to mathematics. The scientific method demands not only faith in our own observations, but also faith in those of the giants who have preceded us.

Personally, I have no "faith" in God or religious beliefs. But I have faith in my own observations. I have faith in accepted scientific facts (although I'm aware that many of them may some day be proven wrong), and I have faith in certain moral precepts which have been tested by time and many of which are religious in origin. Don't you?

C'mon Alexiev. You continue to fail to understand that you keep making judgements about what Sagan is quoted as saying without understanding what Sagan had in mind - or even bothering to find out. You continue to fail to make a distinction between two different denotations of the word "faith". You now also fail to understand what Sagan meant by "evidence".

It's clear that you have a simplistic understanding of the words "faith" and "evidence". It's also clear that your understanding of "moral precepts" is similarly simplistic.


From Google AI

Carl Sagan didn't explicitly define evidence but implied it means hard, rigorously examined proof, not just personal belief or witness claims, especially for extraordinary claims. His well-known statement, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," indicates that claims contrary to current knowledge or experience demand stronger, more compelling proof before being accepted as true.

Defining Evidence in Sagan's Terms
Hard, Skeptically Examined Proof: For Sagan, evidence wasn't a matter of what sounds plausible or what people wish to believe. Instead, it requires hard, rigorously and skeptically examined proof.
Empirical Validation: This implies evidence that can be tested, verified, and contributes to a collective body of knowledge.
Distinction from Faith: He contrasted this with faith, which he described as "belief in the absence of evidence," and with the mere claims of one or two witnesses.

The "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" Principle
Proportionality of Evidence: This principle, which he popularized, suggests that the more unlikely a claim is, the greater the standard of evidence needed to support it.
Context of Prior Knowledge: The "extraordinary" nature of a claim often comes from its conflict with relevant past evidence and ordinary experience.
Burden of Proof: The statement places the burden of proof on the claimant, requiring them to provide the strong evidence needed to support their extraordinary assertion.

[Immanuel Can]

Sagan clearly had no idea what he was talking about. First of all, there's plenty of "evidence" for religious faith. There are eye witness accounts of miracles; there is the personal testimony of enlightened experience; there are written, historical accounts of people rising from the dead. To say there is no evidence is ludicrous. Two things, however, are lacking: "proof" (as opposed to evidence) and "scientific evidence" (as if science is the only path to knowledge). If these are our standards, we should not have faith in the assassination of Caesar, the battle of Gaugamela, or the signing of the Magna Carta. Scientific evidence is clearly not the only variety of evidence in which we should have "faith".

Second, science offers no "proof" of anything. If we want to believe only that which has been proven, we must stick to mathematics. The scientific method demands not only faith in our own observations, but also faith in those of the giants who have preceded us.

Personally, I have no "faith" in God or religious beliefs. But I have faith in my own observations. I have faith in accepted scientific facts (although I'm aware that many of them may some day be proven wrong), and I have faith in certain moral precepts which have been tested by time and many of which are religious in origin. Don't you?

This is clearly -- and fairly -- put, Alexiev. Well said. It's unusual to see a person here so balanced in viewpoint -- not feeling the need to agree, but understanding the situation from both sides. I have to be impressed.

C'mon Alexiev. You continue to fail to understand that you keep making judgements about what Sagan is quoted as saying without understanding what Sagan had in mind - or even bothering to find out. You continue to fail to make a distinction between two different denotations of the word "faith". You now also fail to understand what Sagan meant by "evidence".

Sagan had no clear idea of either. He bought into a naive view of faith, which of course made a nice straw man he could knock the stuffing out of. Unfortunately for Sagan, he understood neither faith nor evidence.

He's a great example of how any man of science really needs to have some philosophy of science, and some epistemology, under his belt as well. Absent those, the aspiring scientist will fail to understand what evidence is, and what can be rationally deduced from it, with what level of certainty. Sagan was clearly a naif in these matters. He fell for the simplest sorts of cynical ploys, then repeated them as if they were unassailable truths.

It's clear that you have a simplistic understanding of the words "faith" and "evidence".

Well, somebody doesn't know what they are. But Alexiev does.

From Google AI

The minute somebody does this, Alexiev, you know they've outsourced their brain.

Such folks have faith that Google AI will never lie to them, even though they also know it's created by other human beings, using algorithms that filter information to the tastes of the designers, and probably know many of the multitudinous cases available in which AI exposes itself as ideologically slanted. But they'd rather have faith in its reliability than continue discussion, and are hoping to shut down all thought. It's as if they believe, "once technology has 'spoken', all voices must remain respectfully silent."

They have much more unwarranted faith than they know.

[Gary Childress]

We all do, if we’re honest with ourselves — me as well as you. For Scripture says, “all have sinned,” (Rm. 3:32) and adds, “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom. 6:23)


I’m afraid you’ll find that this is not what the Koran says…at least, it’s not what the one on my shelf says.


That’s actually a great prayer. Why not turn that “if” into a “when,” and find out what happens?

You would be vaguely correct, but only vaguely, since the term “evangelical” is very, very broad indeed. To know about particular doctrines, you’d have to know either that I subscribed to some more precise clerically-invented doctrinal package, or that I was committed to the Scripture itself. The latter is the case.


Right. Hence the necessity of the Resurrection. You can’t relate in any way to somebody who’s dead. Well said.

The bond there is of gratitude, not enslavement. But unless you start with something like the little prayer you suggest for yourself, you can’t personally know what it means, because it’s outside the range of experiences possible to the natural person. Salvation comes from God, not from any sort of engineering from the human realm. Human beings cannot drag God down to their level and compel Him to submit to their demands; but God can raise people to the place where they become aware of their need and their choices, and bring them understand the opportunity salvation really is.

It’s all about relationship, as it turns out. And once you’re in it, you understand.

Do you think Israel has a divine right to keep up the attacks on Gaza?

"Divine right"? How would you come up with that? "Attacks on Gaza"? What about the attacks on Israel? I think the framing of your question is both gratuitous and prejudicial. I have never posited anything "divine" in that war, nor would I ignore the attacks of Hamas. So I have no idea where you're going with that question.

I don't think God is pleased with anything that's going on in Israel, on either side. I also don't assume any false moral equivalency between the sides, or take sides. I assume, rather, that there are real villains and evil-doers roving around there, and it's only God who knows which ones they really are. I'm not God, to go about making such a call. And to override what men do with history is not up to me.

But then, only God knows who you and I are, as well. And not only people in Gaza and Israel, but you and I as well, will be subject to God's judgment. Those who are, as Scripture says, "in Him" are safe -- not because they're better than others, but because they're forgiven. As for those who are not, they make their own choices. Nobody is ever forgiven in defiance of their permission.

Do you think it's wrong for people to protest Israel's continued prosecution of the war?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think it's wrong for people to protest Israel's continued prosecution of the war?

I'm not sure why it matters what I think. But I think any war is lamentable. Who doesn't?

But is Hamas giving them a choice? It seems not. Hamas won't forgo attacking Israeli citizens, won't give the hostages back, won't stop shooting rockets, won't stop building tunnels, won't accept any peace terms, and won't stop until all the Israelis are dead. I'm not sure what the Israelis can be expected to do, on those terms.

If Hamas is interested in new terms, they're going to have to say so. But I'm not hearing that they are.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't think God is pleased with anything that's going on in Israel, on either side. I also don't assume any false moral equivalency between the sides, or take sides. I assume, rather, that there are real villains and evil-doers roving around there, and it's only God who knows which ones they really are. I'm not God, to go about making such a call. And to override what men do with history is not up to me.

You’ve remodeled your story. Before it was that the only option was that Hamas and the Palestinian fighters must “lay down their arms and surrender to Israel” (a paraphrase) since, you said then, they had no right to resistance.

What you are saying, going further, is that you are unqualified to make any judgment of anyone, in any situation, anywhere. Convenient!

[Belinda]

I deserve to go to Hell according to the rather unforgiving judgment that you , perhaps unwittingly, portray to me.

We all do, if we’re honest with ourselves — me as well as you. For Scripture says, “all have sinned,” (Rm. 3:32) and adds, “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom. 6:23)

I am not a Muslim but the Koran makes it clear to me that God's mercy encompasses everything.

I’m afraid you’ll find that this is not what the Koran says…at least, it’s not what the one on my shelf says.

So, if I prayed to God , I would pray "help thou mine unbelief in thy mercy".

That’s actually a great prayer. Why not turn that “if” into a “when,” and find out what happens?

Thank you for telling me that you don't belong to any sect of Christianity. I want to be clear in my mind whether what you write is doctrinal or not.You will be aware that some here think you belong to an evangelical sect of Christianity.

You would be vaguely correct, but only vaguely, since the term “evangelical” is very, very broad indeed. To know about particular doctrines, you’d have to know either that I subscribed to some more precise clerically-invented doctrinal package, or that I was committed to the Scripture itself. The latter is the case.

I don't really know what "I belong to the Lord" means. Literally it is nonsense as you cannot be enslaved to a dead person.

Right. Hence the necessity of the Resurrection. You can’t relate in any way to somebody who’s dead. Well said.

The bond there is of gratitude, not enslavement. But unless you start with something like the little prayer you suggest for yourself, you can’t personally know what it means, because it’s outside the range of experiences possible to the natural person. Salvation comes from God, not from any sort of engineering from the human realm. Human beings cannot drag God down to their level and compel Him to submit to their demands; but God can raise people to the place where they become aware of their need and their choices, and bring them understand the opportunity salvation really is.

It’s all about relationship, as it turns out. And once you’re in it, you understand.

Do you think Israel has a divine right to keep up the attacks on Gaza? Do you believe God is pleased with that? Does "love thy enemy" not apply? Does "forgive those who trespass against us" not apply? I'm curious what the "Christian" position is on the war in Gaza. Will both Hamas and the Israeli leaders go to hell for what they've done? Or will they be forgiven?

I see this post is dated today. I distinctly remember writing a post that I addressed to you in which I mentioned three Christian scholars ,including Pope John Paul II, who define the parameters of Christian mercy.