All right, you've convinced me that Achilles wasn't gay. Point taken. To my understanding, however, pedestry was an institution within ancient greece where younger men would be tutored/groomed by their older mentors. This persisted for centuries and was phased out with the rise of Christianity.

@Ciceronianus is your source on all things Roman. But again, a different sexual ethic than the Christians (and Jews). AFAIK upper class Roman men basically had free reign sexually when it came to the lower classes and especially slaves whose bodies could be used on demand. Extreme promiscuity within the slave ranks. But I would say compared to Jewish-Christian notions of sexuality the Romans (and paganism in general -- constantly associated with sexual libaciousness in the bible) definitely had greater degrees of sexual access and looser/different norms. The romans for instance distinguished between penetrator and penetrated -- in the Hebrew Bible both receive the same harsh treatment and the same carries over into Christianity.

I'm not calling all of them sexual degenerates. That's a value judgment that I'm not at liberty to make. But Roman men (and surely Greek ones too) were allowed to use their slaves and have their dalliances. The Maccabees fought a very bitter war against the Greeks due to Greek ways intruding and the sexual ethic surely played into it.

Judaism and Christianity with its emphasis on monogamy ushered in a stricter sexual ethic than the polytheistic world. I don't believe Jews used their slaves sexually like the Romans did although I'd like to find more info on this topic.

Rarely mentioned, and when it is mentioned never really expanded upon. Possibly just means "the grave." Or perhaps some shadowy underworld. Not at all a major concern or topic in the Hebrew Bible.

— tim wood

You may like this series of lectures. — tim wood

:up:

Anyway. I invite you to weigh that word "purity," — tim wood

I can avoid the word and re-state my position. I was simply discussing ancient Jewish and biblical perspectives towards fornication -- sex before marriage. Whether or not we agree with these is another matter altogether. A woman's virginity was valued at marriage; that's all I should have said and I should not have used the word "purity" as it is not mentioned in deuteronomy.

He may not be exactly right all the time — tim wood

According to Alter translation is a trade off so he must choose one word where many may fit. I will sometimes cross-reference his translations with others but his is my gold standard, although admittedly not always as readable as something like the NIV. Still, better something than nothing imho. If you're very serious you can start learning the biblical hebrew (or greek with the NT).

More likely, the person who has done at least some of the work to understand Paul will be modest in his claims — tim wood

I hope I was. Feel free to point out what you think is out of line on my part.

And yes, biblical, just not the modern word or sense of the modern word. — tim wood

Deut 22 deals with a woman maintaining purity before marriage. Men are not to deflower women before marriage or another man's wife. Is that not the topic of fornication? I.e. sex outside of marriage.

And translations that are off, or in some cases just plain wrong, part of the problem. — tim wood

Agree. I recommend Alter's translation. Word for word. With commentary.

Best advice I had about the Bible was to keep in mind that it was not written to me, for me, or about me, and that anyone who claims that it is telling me what to do is taking several leaps that are not in the Bible.

Hm. I sort of agree? It's the literature of a civilization. Was it written specifically for you, Tim Wood, a 21st century human being? No. It was certainly written for a certain civilization though and there is literature in there that is universal in scope. It's a collection of ~39 different works with different purposes. Some document history, others cultic practices, theological experiments/exercises.... it's a wide mix compiled over ~1000 years. It's not until the New Testament that Paul (and Jesus I guess) tries to graft on the rest of humanity. Regardless of whether Paul is successful in his project, universalistic elements remain.

TLDR: In the OT some is universal others is clearly geared towards a specific people - Israel. The NT takes Jesus and runs with it hard. New divine revelation. One can appreciate the old and not the new. I despise those who only appreciate the new but not the old.

A quick rule for most: if you think you understand Paul, then you don't. As to fornication, that word does not appear in the Bible. — tim wood

I certainly don't fully understand fully Paul. I wasn't raised Christian. Happy to be corrected.

In ancient Judaism fornication -- sex outside marriage -- was frowned upon. It just doesn't receive the same type of penalties as something like adultery or homosexuality. The attitude towards it is biblically-based.

edit: In deut 22 the topic is mentioned. Women should be virgins before marriage -- i.e. should not have sex outside of marriage.

I don't think the ancients were as consumed by the thought of sexual deviancy as we are, or have been, since the remarkable, sex-hating, Paul of Tarsus began to contribute to what Christianity became. — Ciceronianus

He is remarkable. I read Paul as a man deeply concerned about his own salvation. When I look at his biography, I find myself thinking that this man is going to need a lot of faith and a lot of grace. His deep concern for his own salvation is not unfounded. He is not a Jew who has played by the rules of his background/tradition.

But Jesus isn't here to call the righteous, but the sinner. And that Paul is a sinner. But he knows it. Prototypical Christ-follower imo. In life some of us will go very astray and the radicalness of Christianity lies in the fact that it is not necessarily those who behave the best who attain the best afterlife, but those who do the right internal work.

The polytheists surely had a more lax sexual ethic generally, though I do understand the Roman world has the vestal virgins and a woman's purity was highly valued. In the Jewish world prohibitions against homosexuality, incest, and bestiality were established early with the biblical penalty often being death. But I know of not a single case where this actually occurred at least regarding homosexuality. Fornication was frowned upon.

Jesus certainly seemed to model himself after the prophets of the Ketuvim — schopenhauer1

According to Robert Alter Elijah is the template for Jesus. There are shared miracles (raising from the dead) and both are largely itinerant among other similarities.

Can Jesus represent a Hillelite with a more outward stance? — schopenhauer1

I guess it depends how much we're willing to stretch the concept of "Hillelite?" How does one qualify as a Hillelite anyway?

An outward reaching Hillelite/Essene. — schopenhauer1

Maybe. I don't deny as Essenic influence. But on purity Jesus seems different: "It is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what issues from it."

Just conjecture, but if Jesus came from the poorer classes, would this not be something he would sympathize deeply with? — schopenhauer1

Possibly. IMO his saying "blessed be the poor" and "blessed be the poor in spirit" are part of a larger inversion of Jewish (and practical) wisdom. Doesn't money help us build a better world? Or give more to charity? But Jesus is decidedly unpractical. Ridiculously impractical. It is how one deals with this blatant impracticality that determines one's view of Jesus.

Again, Romans and Greeks abhorred most peoples around them and would have abhorred you too. They are not part of your culture. Your culture stands for everything opposite to their values — sexual deviancy, worship of minorities, effeminacy, worship of weakness and criminality, artistic decadence, and countless others. — Lionino

Really? Those Romans and Greeks weren't deviants? I suppose as long as you kept your forays, as an upper class member of Roman society, to the lower classes and the slave class you were alright (and maintained the dominant role, of course.) Weren't the Greeks big on relations between older male mentors and younger men? The Maccabees opposed such degeneracy intruding into their culture. And later you have stricter Christian sexual ethics which includes monogamy and the disavowal of sex before marriage.

I understand notions of purity existed in Roman culture but they seemed to be very selective and not at all universal & dependent on social class.

Nahum Sarna in "Understanding Genesis" traces the Mesopotamian origins of the Hebrew Bible, but where Mesopotamian polytheism is reworked under a monotheistic, non-political, de-mythologized framework. Abraham is from Ur in Mesopotamia ("Ur of the Chaldeans" but the Chaldeans come centuries after Abraham), after all. Mesopotamian civilization is the oldest in the world. But the way the Mesopotamians conceptualized their Gods was also terrifying in comparison to Israelite monotheism.

Many of these early Genesis stories including the flood can be traced back to Mesopotamia and have parallels in Mesopotamian texts such as Enuma Elish; the land of Palestine doesn't really flood but the region between the Tigris and Euphrates does. Babel describes the Mesopotamian ziggurat. There is similarly a "tree of life" in the Mesopotamian edenic account where the hero searches desperately for eternal life where in the Israelite account the tree receives near zero attention.

Do you know of other Jewish thinkers in that period who liken soil to a mind in their parables? Or who emphasize the role of the child as something to strive towards? Or who specifically seeks out the sinful person? I guess we could consider Jesus as maybe doing an early form of baal teshuva outreach. There's just many seemingly unique elements of his thought that interest me.

Nazism is the Aryan liberation movement. :roll: — 180 Proof

:rofl: Definitely stealing that one when some minority mentions their own liberation movement.

If something is not necessarily right then it could possibly be wrong. Evolution helps us survive, not necessarily thrive or self-actualize.

God reclaimed them.

Presumably it would only be on the landing force which has stormed an isolated beachhead? With collateral damage that's a different scenario. I'm just trying to simplify.

Evolution shapes our brains to survive which is not necessarily what is right or rational.

“If you crush a cockroach, you're a hero. If you crush a beautiful butterfly, you're a villain. Morals have aesthetic criteria.” - Nietzsche

The laws haven't been made in a vacuum without knowledge of actual warfare. If you know the laws, it should be evident that it doesn't limit the way to destroy the enemy combatants. — ssu

We're dealing with a hypothetical here posed by @RogueAI. Nor do rules created in the 1920s always maintain the same character that they did as years go on. These rules were created in the 20s, so I ask: Was it ok to use in WWI? I'll readily admit that gas is a nasty weapon and not something that I would use on the battlefield unless extraordinary circumstances. But I would say this qualifies as one.

In this scenario your country's (UK) beachfront is being stormed by Nazis. Intel says gas would be extremely effective - perhaps because they're not wearing gas protection or perhaps because a new type of gas has been synthesized.

There's also conventional means of resistance but we're not given much info as to Britain's capability here and we could envision a wide number of scenarios from futile to easily being able to ward them off. Obviously the more futile potential resistance is the greater the attraction is towards using gas. But the UK has lost air superiority here.

In broad strokes though, if a large Nazi invading force combined with air superiority landed on the British beachfront in '43 or '44 and I (the Prime minister) learned that gas would be extremely effective and I used it and it did prove extremely effective would I feel vindicated? Yes. My first responsibility is to my people and my country is in imminent danger. Not my first choice of weapon, but if my hand is forced I'll use it.

If the invading force was small I would not use it though. I am only talking a very large, very serious invading force that would surely successfully invade otherwise.

You now need to either point out why it is irrational, or give a more rational reason to try to lose the bias. — AmadeusD

It's irrational for a few reasons.

In-group bias is common among humans. As humans we have an inborn bias towards our own race/ethnic group. We all work to undo that unless we just want to embrace it and embrace racism.

Speciesism is the same deal. Peter Singer talks about this. Species of animals are just different forms of being, one is no higher than the other.

What bloody objective reality are you talking about? The one in which we actually have biases towards other humans?? — AmadeusD

The one that we both agreed upon for this dialogue -- that humans have no objective value above that of a cockroach. That it's all just our minds favoring our own kind.

Presumably in this reality there's still fallacies though, right? Like the gambler's fallacy? Probability still has a truth to it. Again, we typically try to rid our thinking of these improper elements.

I'm just running with your version of truth here.

Do you believe there's better and worse ways to interpret a text whether be e.g. Cicero or a Buddhist text?

Jews have the Talmud for guidance on this, btw. Interpretations are discussed for ~3 centuries.

Tell that to the millions who used faith and notions of goodness to justify their projects. — Tom Storm

Sure, ok. But you're deflecting here. My point is that it is utterly absurd for a devout Nazi to declare himself a "good Christian." The Nazi is outside the fold.

Peopel use scripture to justify any practice, in all religions in all countries. — Tom Storm

There may be multiple plausible interpretations but there are other interpretations that are completely implausible and therefore flatly wrong. "Open to interpretation" doesn't mean all interpretations are valid.

It is reality. I have asked you to put forward something that either discusses, or displaces this. — AmadeusD

I am discussing it.

See the descriptive/prescriptive distinction. On a descriptive level we have a pro-same species bias. That says zero about whether it should be maintained rationally.

Typically we learn about cognitive biases in order to unlearn them & improve our thinking.

It's like if I were to say "well humans naturally have confirmation bias, what's the problem?" Well, we naturally try to unlearn that to get our thinking more in line with objective reality.

And the reality in this case is that there is no objective reason for preferring a human over a cockroach.

"But what about subjective reasons?"

I don't care. I seek to act in accordance with objective reality and if that gets you mad then anger is derived from an irrational source.

And in fairness, this is also where a Christian or religious worldviews can lead you. I remember talking to a couple of elderly former Nazi's back in the early 1990's. They were good Christians, of course. Lutherans, as it happened. They calmly described Jewish folk as cockroaches (as per the Nazi propaganda) - and were sure God would be good with that. — Tom Storm

Tom, these are not good Christians. "All Jews are cockroaches" necessitates that Jesus is a cockroach. :sweat:

One can believe themselves to be a good Christian. One can call themselves, outwardly (and even maybe inwardly) a good Christian. But none of that makes one a good Christian.

Religious nihilism along with a cavalier disregard for the 'sacredness of human life seems to be part of the practices of many religions. — Tom Storm

I'm not talking practice. I'm talking Scripture.

Yes, it's just another bias. There's a million of them that we have and we generally strive to overcome these cognitive biases in our thinking.

If our natural pro-human bias is not accordance with reality and is just another cognitive bias then I will seek to unlearn it like I do with other cognitive biases. I only seek to act in accordance with true reality. I don't see the problem. Save 100 cockroaches or 100 babies? Who cares -- flip a coin, I guess.

I generally prefer to believe and act in accordance with (my perceived) reality, but whatever your floats your boat.

Without invoking God, tell me why you'd think otherwise? Or is the case that you are encased in a religious framework to such a degree that you cannot fathom other thoughts? — AmadeusD

I'm quite capable of thinking atheistically.

If so we're on the same page then -- no objective reason for valuing human life over cockroach life. We just have that bias because we're humans but it's not grounded in anything objective.

I read you loud and clear. We can go down that road. See where it takes us.

I'm curious, what do you see as the main differences between the original sect headed by Jesus and Paul's take on things? I see Paul as making certain inferences and elaborating/expanding on Jesus's ideas in his own ways. There's the Jesus layer and then the Paul layer.

extract himself from this rotten game of states, and search for greener, less homicidal pastures. — Tzeentch

He could abdicate and go to the English countryside, and a few weeks later him and the undesirables of his countrymen will be rounded up and likely murdered. Someone must lead, even if there are no states this remains true. Tribes had leaders. Kingdoms had leaders. Poor or lack of leadership historically frequently results in one's people being decimated or conquered.

But by all means be "moral" and go frolic away in the countryside while stronger organized forces seek domination.

You got me, 180. I would have been a Nazi in the 40s. :up: :rofl:

And you would have been a klansman in the 20s. :rofl:

Interesting that you mention Galatians as opposed to Romans regarding Paul's complete thinking. Yes, I also don't see Paul as anti-semitic seeing as he was Jewish and Pharisaic. But his thinking as you mentioned likely inspired some measure of antisemitism.

Could it not have been both? That he was both an evangelist who was serious about spreading Xtianity and reasonably saw circumcision and dietary laws as a hindrance to that end and that he was sincere in his views that Jesus was God and that salvation occurred through faith in him? That the law shines a light on our wrongdoings and that we all fall short of it and that grace makes up the difference? That breaking even one makes one a lawbreaker?

gThomas lends further credence to Paul's disregard for circumcision. J's own words in the gospels regarding purity cast doubt on the applicability of Jewish/Pharisaic dietary laws. In any case, Paul is going to need a lot of grace and a lot of faith (at least according to a traditional Jewish view) -- I always found it very notable that it someone such as him would receive the revelation on the road to Damascus.

you find that there were "political" "scriptural" "religious" motivators in the writing.

Yes.

The opponents to that movement were portrayed deliberately accordingly.

Yes, unfortunately for the members of that movement and those who inherited the traditions of that movement.

I think your comments about Luke and ff, if understood in the context above, reveals that the early church, far from being antisemitic, were carrying on a Jewish tradition, opposing, not Judaism nor the Jewish race, just their "political" opponents in the Sanhedrin.

I'll have to dig more into the history on this one. So Luke was written around 80-90 AD I don't know the extent to which the Sanhedrin was opposing or dealing with the Early Church in those days.

It is quite clear that this is a complete non sequitur. — AmadeusD

So you think life and death decisions re: human life should be made lightly (i.e. that it is an unserious matter)? It's not like it's sacred. Who's to say humans are worth more than cockroaches? This is where your worldview leads you.

The problem is, there's no fact of the matter what morality is and how it comes about.

We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable.

Interesting tension here. You say there's no fact of the matter about what morality is, yet you hold immutable opinions towards it. :chin:

It's like you're saying "there's no fact of the matter as to what morality is, yet its character is immutable."

Ok, it's a matter of which moral bullet you bite. Use an ugly weapon or turn over your countrymen to death when you could have prevented it.

But probably more importantly, performing immoral acts would diminish my own humanity. — Benkei

Well, in this situation you've got Nazis storming an English beach head after already establishing air superiority.

So you can either try to kill them or let them take over.

Presumably you choose "resistance by other means" which sacrifices many more English lives but avoids breaking international war laws.

What if conventional means were sure to lead to failure against the upcoming Nazi onslaught? Would you continue with the futile resistance?

It's really just a matter of which bullet you bite.

I think if we sent you (and anyone else who voted "no") back in time as Churchill in my scenario, you would do whatever you had to to stop the Nazi's from invading. — RogueAI

Unfortunately I think quite a few of them would have been Nazis or sympathizers in the 40s.

The Nazis did have their rationale and we can examine that, but when it comes down to it the Nazis (and some other groups) would murder me on the spot purely for my identity so you can be sure I'll be advocating for that gas attack as well as virtually any method necessary to destroy them. I don't have the luxury of "well, let's dispassionately analyze their reasons" given my identity.

Call it shallow thinking, but I don't really tend to devote much thought to ideologies which if followed necessitate my death and the deaths of those who share the same identity markers.

Once you are an adult, God is going to see your heart and see if you sinned mortally for sake of evil itself, or if you just made a mistake, and what's more, if you say "sorry" he will forgive you immediately even a "mortal" sin. — Fire Ologist

There's a lot to repentance both in Judaism and Catholicism. I'd like to believe it's that simple.

I believe the purpose of hell, Gehenna, is purification. There the full repentance takes place. Our sinful selves are very often not fit to be in God's presence immediately after death so we must undergo purification before reunion with God. I don't believe in eternal hell.

I don't know whether an internal apology truly covers everything. Murder a few hundred, apologize afterwards -- "we're in the clear!" The murderer won't see the true scope of what he did. That's what I like to think hell is -- the true realization/understanding of one's actions. God may be love, but he is also justice.

And absolutely repent here on Earth as well. Gehenna will be granted out of love. The truly irredeemable will be annihilated.

If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u

:100:

Poison gas only becomes a war crime in the 1920s due to international agreement, so presumably before that it was acceptable.

Shhh "do no harm" remember?

Atheists who spend considerable amounts of time or mental energy lording their atheism over theists are invariably idiots. The state of education in the US has backslide as race hustlers and DEI have made discrimination and hateful rhetoric against some ethnic groups acceptable while others have untouchable victim status.