Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Barrister]

and yet, that's where they belong. There's only 2 categories with a simple yes no question at the start; Pope?

Orthodox say "hi!".

Some Orthodox have a pope in Alexandria. 

The Copts have a pope in Alexandria.

Orthodox do follow a church hierarchy, but follow various different partriarchs depending on denomination.

[HVC]

and yet, that's where they belong. There's only 2 categories with a simple yes no question at the start; Pope?

Orthodox say "hi!".

Beyond that - because "Protestantism" is still the largest faith group in North America pretty handily, it's worthwhile to break it down a little bit more.

I mean, you can subcategorize different kinds of being wrong, but you're still in the wrong group, as opposed to the right one

*Edit* In my raised catholic mind there's 4 groups

Right (catholic)
Misguided (orthodox and Coptic)
Wrong (protestants)
Christianity adjacent (mormons, JW)

[Barrister]

and yet, that's where they belong. There's only 2 categories with a simple yes no question at the start; Pope?

Orthodox say "hi!".

Beyond that - because "Protestantism" is still the largest faith group in North America pretty handily, it's worthwhile to break it down a little bit more.

I mean, you can subcategorize different kinds of being wrong, but you're still in the wrong group, as opposed to the right one

*Edit* In my raised catholic mind there's 4 groups

Right (catholic)
Misguided (orthodox and Coptic)
Wrong (protestants)
Christianity adjacent (mormons, JW)

But there's a world of difference between "mainline" protestant churches, and evangelical churches.

Mainline churches - think methodist, Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian - all have a set structure, set belief system, and a national or international organization.

"Evangelical" churches have none of that.  It's usually a preacher and a building.  There's no set structure, the preacher has no one to report to, nothing like that.  It gives evangelical churches a ton of ability to change and adapt to local congregations - but not so much protection from "incorrect beliefs", or even abuse within the church.

The anglican church and the catholic church have much more in common then they do with an evangelical mega-church.

[Tonitrus]

The Soviets did create an Autonomous Jewish Oblast, never took off much though.

Being on the same side of the country as the gulags probably wasn't a good PR move.

[Razgovory]

The Soviets did create an Autonomous Jewish Oblast, never took off much though.

Being on the same side of the country as the gulags probably wasn't a good PR move.

Remarkably the Jews were not keen on being sent

and yet, that's where they belong. There's only 2 categories with a simple yes no question at the start; Pope?

Orthodox say "hi!".

Beyond that - because "Protestantism" is still the largest faith group in North America pretty handily, it's worthwhile to break it down a little bit more.

I mean, you can subcategorize different kinds of being wrong, but you're still in the wrong group, as opposed to the right one

*Edit* In my raised catholic mind there's 4 groups

Right (catholic)
Misguided (orthodox and Coptic)
Wrong (protestants)
Christianity adjacent (mormons, JW)

But there's a world of difference between "mainline" protestant churches, and evangelical churches.

Mainline churches - think methodist, Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian - all have a set structure, set belief system, and a national or international organization.

"Evangelical" churches have none of that.  It's usually a preacher and a building.  There's no set structure, the preacher has no one to report to, nothing like that.  It gives evangelical churches a ton of ability to change and adapt to local congregations - but not so much protection from "incorrect beliefs", or even abuse within the church.

Yeah, I don't think that's accurate.  The Baptists are evangelical.  You have Charismatics who get lumped into Evangelicals but are sort of distrusted on account they are sorta crazy.

[Josquius]

So on today's campuses one of the big pushes is for "de-colonization" - to return the land to the original inhabitants.

But isn't that exactly what Zionism is trying to do?

No.
Genetics and comparing to people from centuries ago is a thoroughly invalid way to decide on who gets their freedom and who doesn't in the modern day.
But if we were to play that game I'd say odds are good the Palestinians have far more in common with the people of the region 2 millenia ago than most Jewish people do.
As the wide variety of Jewish people in the world shows, they're not very good at endogamy (joke. It's mad to expect any group to keep it up so long. Nothing special to Jews)

Even if we were to assume it was proven Palestinians all moved to an empty land with Islam and Jews never fucked outside their group.... You're still talking an insane length of time ago.
The sort of period where Japan's claims on Korea become valid, chunks of Germany should be British, and all sorts of madness.
The Palestinian claim to have a right to the land where they've lived the past few centuries would remain the most valid - as indeed does the right of Israelis to live in their land after one (with suitable compensation processes set up).

[Valmy]

"De-colonization" on mainland Europe and Asia is usually just code for "we want to commit ethnic cleansing against our ethnic enemies"

But if we were to play that game I'd say odds are good the Palestinians have far more in common with the people of the region 2 millenia ago than most Jewish people do.

I believe DNA studies of both the Israelis and Palestinians showed they are very closely related to each other. Which makes sense. Over half the Israelis are Arab Jews and many Palestinians all became Israelis once the Palestinian Jews were attacked in the 20th century.

I do not know if they have done any DNA studies on any 2,000 year old people to show who wins.

[Barrister]

So on today's campuses one of the big pushes is for "de-colonization" - to return the land to the original inhabitants.

But isn't that exactly what Zionism is trying to do?

No.
Genetics and comparing to people from centuries ago is a thoroughly invalid way to decide on who gets their freedom and who doesn't in the modern day.
But if we were to play that game I'd say odds are good the Palestinians have far more in common with the people of the region 2 millenia ago than most Jewish people do.
As the wide variety of Jewish people in the world shows, they're not very good at endogamy (joke. It's mad to expect any group to keep it up so long. Nothing special to Jews)

Even if we were to assume it was proven Palestinians all moved to an empty land with Islam and Jews never fucked outside their group.... You're still talking an insane length of time ago.
The sort of period where Japan's claims on Korea become valid, chunks of Germany should be British, and all sorts of madness.
The Palestinian claim to have a right to the land where they've lived the past few centuries would remain the most valid - as indeed does the right of Israelis to live in their land after one (with suitable compensation processes set up).

This was meant as a dig on the idea of de-colonization, not a defence ot zionism.

[Admiral Yi]

My beef with de-colonization, as I've stated before, is that it seems to only apply to white people.

[Josquius]

My beef with de-colonization, as I've stated before, is that it seems to only apply to white people.

You often hear the same sort of thing from certain people when it comes to slavery; "What about the Muslim slave trade! It enslaved far more people! And the Africans sold slaves to the Euros!".
And to this... yes.
But when we're talking about British or American history that's not really relevant. That's something Algeria, Nigeria, etc... need to come to terms with. It is the crimes of white people that are ours to own.

[Valmy]

My beef with de-colonization, as I've stated before, is that it seems to only apply to white people.

Well yeah because it is about European colonization in Africa, the Americas, and Pacific Islands.

Japanese stuff in Korea or Turkey doing stuff to Kurds or whatever is a little different.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

My beef with de-colonization, as I've stated before, is that it seems to only apply to white people.

You often hear the same sort of thing from certain people when it comes to slavery; "What about the Muslim slave trade! It enslaved far more people! And the Africans sold slaves to the Euros!".
And to this... yes.
But when we're talking about British or American history that's not really relevant. That's something Algeria, Nigeria, etc... need to come to terms with. It is the crimes of white people that are ours to own.

It's an anti western powerplay so better to ignore their whining. It's not their morality systems that ended slavery, or colonization, so we already gave.

[Razgovory]

My beef with de-colonization, as I've stated before, is that it seems to only apply to white people.

You often hear the same sort of thing from certain people when it comes to slavery; "What about the Muslim slave trade! It enslaved far more people! And the Africans sold slaves to the Euros!".
And to this... yes.
But when we're talking about British or American history that's not really relevant. That's something Algeria, Nigeria, etc... need to come to terms with. It is the crimes of white people that are ours to own.

Maybe the Palestinian problem is something that Jews will have to come to terms with while Europeans and Americans can come to terms with their own problems.

[Tamas]

While I know what you mean Josqs, "crimes of white people" can also be pretty offensive. I consider myself and other Hungarians "white people". There are lots of dark spots in our own history that Hungarians as a nation haven't honestly owned up to (most painfully our national conduct during the Holocaust). However exploiting Africans isn't one of them and if we refuse to treat rampant Ottoman and other Muslim enslavement of Europeans and Africans as an Islamic civilisational sin (a view I agree with), then we cannot hold rampant Western European enslavement of Africans as a European Christian civilisational sin either.

[Josquius]

While I know what you mean Josqs, "crimes of white people" can also be pretty offensive. I consider myself and other Hungarians "white people". There are lots of dark spots in our own history that Hungarians as a nation haven't honestly owned up to (most painfully our national conduct during the Holocaust). However exploiting Africans isn't one of them and if we refuse to treat rampant Ottoman and other Muslim enslavement of Europeans and Africans as an Islamic civilisational sin (a view I agree with), then we cannot hold rampant Western European enslavement of Africans as a European Christian civilisational sin either.

Well yeah. The proper wording would be Brits /Americans/whoever we are talking about.
Hungary has its own totally different shit to deal with.
I was just using Yis wording.