Oh you mean "anti-semites" like ... — 180 Proof

I don't agree with all the names on that list, but there were blacks who opposed the civil rights movement & supported racial segregation. Being a member of X group doesn't preclude one from antagonism towards that group or opposing rights for that group due to other reasons.

All Zionism is is support for Jewish self-determination in the land of Israel/Palestine.

I was thinking more like three year olds playing in the street or letting dogs roam neighborhood without being confined to owners property…that’s how it was done in the old country isn’t really a logic. — schopenhauer1

If you're allowing the children to be out late that's a sign of a high-trust society and the practice reflects that.

I wasn’t necessarily thinking religious practice though there could be just no reason for it — schopenhauer1

I can't think of one.

Ok so what if there was no logic, it's literally mimetic in that everyone's ancestors did it from way back when? — schopenhauer1

I don't think I believe in this. Can you cite an example? Even very strange religious practices have a logic to them.

Right, well you made it seem by knowing the logic, the intolerance will go away. But what if knowing the logic makes no difference or even makes it worse? — schopenhauer1

The intolerance won't go away, but it will help us understand it. I do find learning the logic behind it interesting -- it helps us understand things like the depth of the wickedness and where its roots lie. And this leads us to ask: Were the roots themselves wicked or were they twisted by the culture?

I mean where is the dividing line. In some ways, religions can be seen as a philosophy, no? One can even enter a religious community rather than being born into one. — schopenhauer1

Religions contain philosophy. I wouldn't describe them as philosophy.

Sure, okay, a culture that say, perceives its land being stolen believes it has a right to get it back by any means necessary (terrorism).. There is a logic. I understand it. So? — schopenhauer1

I agree that cultures can be wicked. But there is a logic behind it that can be explored.

A culture seems to be something one generally falls into, though one can take it on too. What if one is about virtue-building but isn't following any particular program, just their own.. Is that culture? — schopenhauer1

No, that's you reading and interpreting ideas. Culture is very real and it can really impact a person whether they "agree" to it or not. Culture to a large extent is impressed upon an individual not so with philosophy.

Can one be a "culturist", meaning can one morally be "against" certain cultures, or should people be tolerant of all cultural aspects — schopenhauer1

You can be against certain cultures, but there's certainly a logic to that culture that you need to be aware of. So usually just saying "I'm against X culture" sounds kind of stupid -- it's like the accuser isn't not engaging with the logic behind the cultural practice.

You're my favorite troll. :lol:

I would think that number of arrests is generally indicative of criminality unless you want to maintain that the police just hate palestine and are arresting the protestors for no reason. One can engage in criminality without violence, such as when highways are blocked and traffic is held up for hours.

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact that pro-Israeli sides have committed violence in the US as well and the majority (97%) of all protests on both sides have been peaceful. — Benkei

How about the many times that they stopped traffic here in the US? Is that considered peaceful? In the US we saw a wave of violence across college campuses as pro-Palestine protestors took over university buildings and vandalized them. No parallels from the Israel crew. Thousands of arrests on the Palestine side, very few on the Israel side.

One is opposition against a political idea, the other is just plain hatred. — Benkei

Yes, a hatred that is bent on the destruction of the world's only Jewish state and a reversion to the old order. I don't see how this is hard to understand. If someone were to oppose the notion of an Irish state we would call them anti-Irish.

Also the fact people confuse Jews with Israel is on the heads of many of your brothers and sisters insisting for decades any criticism of Israel was "anti-semitism" or that "anti-zionism" = "anti-semitism". The guilt over WWII has been wielded as an instrument and setting up Israel as the "Jewish homeland" really makes things confusing for most people. — Benkei

Anti-zionism is effectively anti-semitism. To oppose zionism is to oppose Jewish self-determination which, if realized, would render Jews, once again, completely reliant on foreign nations for security and strip them of their autonomy.... the exact situation in which the holocaust occurred. It's not about guilting you; it's about ensuring that it doesn't happen again. Zionism has already been realized. To oppose Jewish self-determination when it has already been realized is pernicious.

Regarding criminality we can all do our own research and make up our minds. Here in the states the issue of which side is more criminal isn't close. There have been many, many arrests on the pro-palestine side and very few on the pro-israel side. They block highways, destroy shops, violate noise ordinances, occasionally commit assaults... but you're free to believe as you like.

If it's the occupation of Jerusalem they're mad about, they can stay mad. Israel has offered them half in several peace deals and it's been rejected. To want it all, as the Hamas charter demands, is pure greed.

We can support the poor, innocent Palestinian all we want and that starts with getting rid of Hamas and de-radicalizing the population. Not teaching them to hate. Once violence and hatred wane, Israel can ease up in turn.

Israel doesn't even make the laws in Gaza, but why should that inconvenient fact matter to you? It's ideology that matters to you and you side with weak. And as long as you side with the weak you're righteous and laudable.

Never let facts get between you and your support for the weak.

In a way the two can be seen as related as since 10/7 we've seen a huge uptick in anti semitism which just goes to show you the world doesn't recognize a clear boundary between Israel and the world's Jews. Pro-Palestine protests also tend to be more prone to criminality than pro-Israel ones which explains the more heavy-handed treatment.

I'm seeing an awful lot of finger pointing from you and zero condemnation of a dangerous phenomenon that undermines the impartiality of the police force and threatens the safety of the Jewish community in the Netherlands.

I do not keep tabs on everything the Dutch police do.

They are opposed to doing rotas but not to going on duty. — javi2541997

It's about the same level of validity as a police officer who refuses to be placed on a rota for protecting e.g. a black space or a native american space. The officer is immediately suspect.

If some portion of your police force is morally opposed to providing protection to Jewish spaces there is something very very rotten in that security apparatus. Put them on a list somewhere. Something like this shouldn't be up for discussion.

Read this today but absolute insanity from a supposedly first world, civilized nation.

Dutch police are allowing their officers to opt out of providing security to Jewish spaces.

Apparently it's now valid/a legitimate concern if an officer has "moral objections" to providing security for Jewish spaces. :vomit:

One can now apparently be a "conscientious objector" re: providing security for Jewish spaces.

You say a lot so I need to take it piece by piece rather than all at once.

But there's more.. Then there is the gaslighting aspect whereby it isn't god that is making you suffer. YOU are making you suffer by not following God's commands. God has a plan, and divine command. You must follow this plan or suffer the consequences. This is just a sophisticated version of the whole "God lacks, therefore he wants this game of free willed people to see how good he is". This is problematic as it goes way back to point 1 here: — schopenhauer1

Among the first ways we know God is that we fear him. God is terrifying. Reality is terrifying. So cross your Ts and dot your Is. It's not "gas lighting" and until you understand this point this discussion is futile. If you act in certain ways your suffering may very well be essentially "on you." We must first accept that this world has rules and if you violate these you hurt yourself.

This really goes back to Adam and Eve but we see it over and over again. Certain things are permitted, others are not, and quite frequently doing that which is unpermitted carries consequences.

Going back to Adam and Eve - life/nature/reality can be enjoyed, but there is always at least one rule which one must abide by.

I don't have all day to make responses but if I don't address your main concern here let me know.

Even the standard theological reasons are rehashed human terms attributed to the deity. It's BitconnectCarlos' interpretation of a religious interpretation of suffering. — schopenhauer1

It's ultimately humans discussing a text, so yes, we'll have our own interpretations of it. We'll tend to personify/humanize God in one sense or another to make sense of him.

If we are to go down this "biblical worldview", we are to go down a road whereby suffering for humans is warranted. This is deemed as good, but then this does not bypass the dilemma of two views of suffering.. The subjects of suffering (humans), and the one who wants to see the suffering. — schopenhauer1

Within the biblical worldview we all need to have a general trust in God. That doesn't mean that all suffering needs to be deemed as good. It could be punishment. But it all happens under God's purview. Job lays out the proper way to dealing with unexplainable suffering e.g. you can curse the day you were born, but you can't curse God.

Just because suffering happens under God's purview doesn't mean that he delights in it or wants to see it.

Yes, which is where the "dilemma" of two views of suffering come from. There is the viewpoint from humans (suffering is bad). There is the view from God (suffering is good). The job of apologists is to make the two views align (suffering SEEMS bad to us, but is REALLY good in the grand scheme of things that we can never understand). — schopenhauer1

I do not know whether the view from God is that "suffering is good." I think you go a little too far with that assumption. Some suffering is clearly caused by us. Other suffering is not understandable by us. God's ways are mostly inscrutable but the only way we gain any understanding of it is through his relationship with this world.

We observe suffering and try to make sense of it. In some cases it's much clearer than others. E.g. go off and fuck a bunch of midianite women and don't use protection and catch an std -- here we can clearly tie misbehavior to suffering. Same with an evil person who goes around killing and stealing from those around him -- worldly justice will likely catch up to him.

So it's not that "God likes to see suffering" it's that the world has a certain general way of operating that occurs throughout the generations that ancient writers take note of. Now if you want to go and say "God loves that suffering!" or that suffering is "good for God" now you're engaging in your theology. You are going beyond the pattern recognition and engaging in your own theology when you say that this suffering is "good" for God or that God "likes" the suffering.

The general biblical attitude is that God would rather see someone repent from evil than continue with it and suffer.

As you asked earlier, I am someone who is interested in the biblical worldview but I don't claim to have all the answers nor do I subscribe to any dogmas.

can good for humans be at odds for good for God? — schopenhauer1

In the biblical worldview they are one and the same. A free will is a will aligned with God. If we become something else, say hedonists, then our "good" can differ from God's good. Thus the hatred of idolatry.

I agreed with points 2 and 3. I would go back to Job on this one: As humans our perspective is incredibly limited. Some suffering is understandable and can be attributed to bad deeds, other suffering isn't. Ultimately, suffering is just another state of being. One among many. One can even experience bliss within suffering - see near death experiences.

Suffering is an important mechanism through which we grow. I'm not going to comment on whether God "needs" us to suffer. I also find distinguishing between "necessary" and "unnecessary" suffering to be troublesome.

Here's a word from Wittgenstein: "I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."

Why are we here? What is our goal? Possibly for self-development. Or improve the world. But I agree with Wittgenstein -- probably not to have the most blissful experience possible. So if the goal is self-development then suffering can be a tool towards that end.

Now if god wants suffering, that is an interesting notion we must explore.. — schopenhauer1

I think we can all agree that suffering can teach us things. It's the idea of "unnecessary" suffering that the philosopher objects to as if he can finely discern different sorts of suffering into "necessary" and "unnecessary." Who knows what is necessary for the soul.

How can God be omnipotent and good when men who are 5'4 exist?

Very informative, educational posts on this subject as always. I must provide a little pushback.

The Kingdom Narrative would be the first strata.. That would be various histories as represented in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. These would be more about the wars, conflicts, successions, of kings. It would have been compiled by Judah with the help of Israelite scribes around the 700s BCE.

Ok, but there is clearly material that pre-dates this. Some of the poems like Song of the Sea and Song of Moses are very ancient and I've seen these dated to the ~11th/12th century BC. Scholarship traditionally places the Y and E sources at around the 10th and 9th century BC respectively. Y and E have always been the most interesting to me. IMHO they write without a clear political agenda. They two have their theological perspectives, but one portrays God as immanent while the other portrays his as transcendent.

Thus, does it seem true that God dislikes evil; but, allowed it to exist? — Shawn

Yes, and sometimes by making evil succeed it allows it to be built up to something great and then destroyed all at once. Assyria is described in such a way. As a more modern example, if wasn't for Nazism being so utterly discredited eugenics may very well continue to have a positive reputation. God will raise up evil and that evil will often destroy other evil like what Babylon did to Assyria.

On an individual level, we all have free will and evil is the consequence of that. In the Hebrew Bible righteousness is associated with long life, progeny, and prosperity while evil is associated with death and/or exile and misfortune. Promises of heavenly reward don't make it in until the Jesus Expansion Pack.

My emotional involvement is because the Bible tells enormous lies about God. — Art48

In what ways is the Bible wrong about God's nature and how do you know this? Has God communicated revelation to you?

Yes Christianity has a dark side. All religion has a dark side. As does secularism. Every worldview has potential pitfalls. Christianity gets a lot of hate because it's popular in the West and it's an easy target, but there are more insidious ideologies out there that can taken hold of a mind.

I don't see why Israel needs the US to fight its war for it. These past few days Israel decapitated Hezbollah. Hamas has been neutered. Israeli intelligence is unmatched. MBS just made a statement that he couldn't care less about Palestinians. A good portion of the Arab world cheers today at the death of Nasrallah while in the west they protest - Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese.

The Arab world is more complex and less unitary than many in the West imagine. Toppling the wicked Iranian regime should be the end goal. Humanity should be striving for that.

I can think of a few scenarios off the top of my head. Better yet just go to biblehub and search (with quotations) "wise man" or the word "fool" and I'm sure you'll have an abundance of quotes that would suggest the opposite. — Outlander

You can cite from Proverbs all you want but that was written many centuries before Jesus was born. As I said, there is a vast wisdom literature that exists before, during and after the time of Jesus.

To be fair, I wouldn't exactly call it a word-for-word account of every single interaction. Not a nauseatingly thorough documentary or anything. — Outlander

Sure we don't have everything he said. Yet Jesus exalts the child, faithfulness, simplicity, and love; one must become like a child to enter the kingdom of heaven. It would also seem to cut against the grain of his message if he were to exalt the intellect.

You misunderstand me.

I am not concerned with the miracles. I am not concerned the resurrection. I am not concerned with the "science" of the New Testament.

Here I am concerned only with things that Jesus purportedly taught. And there are certain common themes expounded on throughout the gospels e.g. faithfulness, simplicity, forgiveness, love. The OP is right that Jesus never really praises intellect. Plenty of wisdom literature exists at this time that does praise wisdom. Just an interesting feature of Jesus's worldview.

I speak here only of the gospels - not the entire New Testament, and certainly not the Tanakh which is a different work that existed before Jesus & the Church.

But yes, my assertion comes from a perspective and that perspective has a cultural background.

What question did you ask me?

Unless you change and become like a little child you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

57. So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. — Art48

Right on. I think the closest we get to it is when J tells his followers to be as cunning as snakes and as innocent as doves. But don't forget that the Kingdom of Heaven is for little children.

The gospels are a fair bit anti-intellectual and this is one of the aspects that makes the gospels so radical. And by "radical" I mean it really straddles the line between brilliancy and absurdity.

No, even the partition plan is invalid because this was never agreed with the people who actually lived there. That was an act of theft itself. — Benkei

The Muslims didn't agree with it. Not the people; the muslims - their political leadership.

And that's what it comes down to. Apparently for some people, Jewish self-determination is dependent on getting permission from the Muslims. Jews want to rule over themselves? Better get the Muslims to sign off on that. Specifically the Mufti of Jerusalem at that time, Amin al-Husseini, who supported the dhimmi system and was a friend of Hitler's. The Jews need his permission.

So what happens if the Muslims in the region just categorically refuse any Jewish state? You know, because they see it as Muslim land in which Jews should remain second class citizens? What then?

Why do you figure Israel can't leave the innocent Palestinian lemon farmers alone to their crops? Perhaps it's because Israel grows limes and considers the lemon as competition. It is the Jews, after all.