I was still hoping that Israel would fight like the Americans did against Al Qaeda and Isis in Iraq. Destroy the terrorists, yet try to help the civilians. — ssu

There are many more Hamas in Gaza than ISIS in Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't even seem like the US needs to be in Iraq. It just seems as if they've gone ISIS hunting overseas in a completely optional engagement. There are no hostages to rescue. There are no missiles being launched in the US. The US chose this fight and they could leave it. Israel does not have such a luxury.

If this confrontation were on the US border with rockets being launched into the US & there were hostages to rescue the situation would be completely different.

Generally, I've found that secular moral systems will permit it (are there exceptions to this?), religious ones will not. If we wish to avoid the issue of producing unfit offspring, we could always just make the hypothetical about gay incest. In any case, we still allow people with inheritable conditions to reproduce even if it gives their offspring a higher chance of getting the condition. Or the brother-sister pair could just wear condoms.

I don't see how a family hewing to "Christianity as principles for success in modern life," wouldn't want to have Saint Francis committed to a psychiatric institution, or how Saint Augustine giving up his promising career and dispensing with all his family's wealth wouldn't be seen as "taking things a bit too far." The definition of human flourishing that makes Boethius or St. Maximus torture/mutilation and death (or most of the Apostles') "worthwhile" and even "choiceworthy" needs to be dramatically different. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Now that's what I'm talking about. Or how Origen supposedly castrated himself to become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven. "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away" but God forbid someone make good on that teaching. I agree though, if one is using Christianity primarily as an instrument to gain material success they're missing the point (to be fair I didn't really get this sense from Peterson).

I wasn't raised Christian, but I did get the sense from reading the gospels that the true Christian should be willing to give his life at the drop of a dime if need be. He may not have very long to live, but while he does live he will burn bright. It's a different way of living.

It isn’t crazy, but it isn’t unreasonable to believe (and with good reason) that ancient writers embellished history to make a point or a point of view starker, etc., in their stories. — schopenhauer1

Yes ancient writers embellish but that shouldn't lead us to conclude that everything is lies and exaggeration. I'm more sure about some things and less sure about others and I'd say it's plausible that martyrdom occured in this era, do you disagree? I'm not saying it necessarily went exactly as described like someone was writing as the event was transpiring but when I consider the facts it would seem to make martyrdom plausible.

His argument is more about their limited reach and impact on the general Judean population until the Hasmonean/Maccabean dynasty expanded their influence. — schopenhauer1

Adler is credible. :up:

This group, during the Babylonian Exile, compiled and redacted various writings to fit their view of idealized history. It's like watching Fox News and saying, THIS is the only objective news. Clearly, they have a spin! — schopenhauer1

The Deuteronomist is certainly a very significant part of the Bible, but at the end of the day we all choose our "spins" in life. We all have our own outlook and I maintain that some are better than others and the Bible does a better job at "spin" (nestling in its own unique worldview/s) better than any other book that I have come across.

Sure, but it's not beyond his control here, is it? And the implication of the text is that no ritual impurity has affected Jesus. — Leontiskos

Alright I will do you one better. According to both Torah law and rabbinic law, a seminal emission places one in a state of ritual impurity. Yet Jewish men are required to procreate. Thus, one can knowingly and voluntarily enter into a state of impurity yet it be a good, obligatory act.

(Note too that the Pharisees recognize that what is at stake is the "tradition of the elders." Jesus' response begins by distinguishing the commandment of God from the tradition of the elders.) — Leontiskos

Then we're in agreement here. :up:

So this is at best a preliminary set-up for a change to kosher, not a direct attack on kosher. It is explicitly about tradition and handwashing. — Leontiskos

The same idea does appear elsewhere. Most notably in Thomas:

"When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what
they will set before you, and heal the sick among them. For what goes into your mouth
will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile
you." (Thomas 14)

We can say that Thomas is non-canonical, ok, but there's also Luke 10.

"When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you."

Presumably this is ok because foreign food will not defile. So maybe we say this idea was retrojected back to Jesus or we bite the bullet and say that Jesus breaks from the Torah here.

First off, historians don't take everything in religious texts at face value — schopenhauer1

If we acknowledge that Antiochus IV engaged in a repressive Hellenization program and that the Jews violently resisted it is it crazy to think that there were martyrs? Or did it only start in Roman times? Do you believe there were martyrs then or is that also not historical?

Secondly, not eating pork and following (or even knowing about!) every tittle of the Torah that we know of today, isn't the same thing. — schopenhauer1

My concern is more whether they kept the basic elements. Whatever exact form it took, I do believe Jews were willing to die to preserve their ancestral customs at this point in the mid 2nd century BC.

was probably not the full and complete Pentateuch as we know it — schopenhauer1

I'd figure by this point the Torah was quite stabilized. It had already been translated into Greek a century earlier.

Also, if I was to give some credence to the "conservative view", one can say that it wasn't that there was NO group that did not "know about" Torah, but that it was during the Maccabees that it became THE dominant form of Judaism (no longer Henotheistic like First Temple period, no longer heterodox, and with a formal written understanding of the ancestral "Law"). — schopenhauer1

Maybe. Most of the First Temple era kings and Israelites come out looking pretty bad except Josiah and Hezekiah. It's hard to get solid info about the life of the average Israelite from this era. But yes, Judaism as we know it really forms in the 2nd temple period.

The answer is simple. Paul on his own authority, and over the objections of Jesus' disciples declared it so. Paul gives an account of this. — Fooloso4

Do you consider Peter's revelation a lie/a Pauline invention then?

Hand-washing and kosher are two different things. — Leontiskos

Yes. But when Jesus says "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person" he would seem to be saying that even if e.g. a Jew were to eat pig or shellfish he would not be defiled in clear contradiction to the Levitical laws. Then again maybe my analysis is superficial/I'm misinterpreting him.

EDIT: Apparently a Jew breaking dietary laws does not render him ritually impure, but it is breaking a law and leaves one spiritually defiled. It is different than physical ritual impurity.

The main issue for me is the food laws, not so much the hand washing. The Talmud does distinguish between Torah law and rabbinic law. Ritual handwashing is of the latter category.

Has he broken the Law? Sort of. — Leontiskos

Entering a state of ritual impurity is not the same thing as breaking the law. We will all be in states of ritual impurity at one point or another. Sometimes it's beyond our control/just nature taking its course.

That's not an accurate statement of the matter. It's extremely complex, because it's hard to say if even the Jewish beliefs of the Torah were completely "in force" until around the time of the Maccabees (160s BCE).. But AT LEAST since the Maccabees, the Torah was "in force" in Judea and presumably for Jews around the Mediterranean/Babylonia. — schopenhauer1

2 Maccabees recounts an old Jewish man choosing death rather than eating pork during the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Hard to imagine he choose death over a tradition which had just now become "in force" in the 160s BC.

And then of course there was the martyrdom of the seven sons and Hannah.

If Jesus did keep kosher, then presumably statements like Matt.15:11 are early Christian beliefs retrojected back to Jesus. After all, why would Peter need his revelation in Acts where all foods are declared clean if Jesus had originally taught it? I initially took a more historical-critical approach to the gospels but apparently this approach has to an extent fallen out of favor in modern academic Christian scholarship.

I just sometimes wonder whether Christians envision a Jesus who e.g. kept kosher and wore tzitzit.

Do you understand Jesus as a law-abiding Jew or one who "updated" the law? Did Jesus follow the commandments or did he add/delete existing ones?

I consider the parable of the good Samaritan to hold particular significance. — Tom Storm

What do you like about that parable? Margaret Thatcher's comment on it sticks in my mind.

I could not believe that anyone who has read this book would be so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible in every literal word was the divinely inspired, inerrant word of God. Have these people simply not read the text? Are they hopelessly misinformed? Is there a different Bible? Are they blinded by a combination of ego needs and naïveté?

I don't know what it would mean for a word or a text to be divinely inspired. Can you show me the difference between divinely inspired and not divinely inspired words/text?

I initially picked up a Bible with very low expectations. At times it was certainly a brutal retelling of history and certain rules surely reflected earlier times, but I also found nuggets of wisdom in there that fundamentally changed my life outlook. I guess some could call that revealed wisdom or revealed truth.

It's a shame that atheists dismiss it like this because the book really does have some amazing and corroborated (by other ancient sources) ancient history in it. See Judges through Kings. If you only focus on the New Testament I get how you can leave with the "New York City and Spiderman" analogy. Although even the NT contains some valuable historical information, although of a much more condensed date range. The New Testament, IMHO, is a completely different animal than the Old.

Despite an "allegorical" reading you do acknowledge that the Bible describes real events. Surely you don't deny the babylonian exile? Or that Israel fought the Assyrians in the 8th century BC? So how far back before it becomes "allegory?"

I guess? Christianity today is about belief in Jesus's rising. Even if it never happened, the Nicean Creed still exists and Christians (by definition) believe in it.

But there's tension with the idea that the Nicean creed defines Christianity because Jesus's earliest followers seemed more concerned with living a certain way and having a certain worldview than commitment to dogmas about supernatural events in the past. So today you get people who clearly don't seem to care about what Jesus had to say but will insist on the reality of his resurrection and this group is apparently more "Christian" than those who actually followed Jesus in his day when there was no resurrection to believe in but heard his teachings straight from his mouth.

but adults who want to transition need to go through years of investigation? — Christoffer

Now that is cruel. In the US you can get HRT after a 45 minute consultation (although it varies state by state). Making a suicidal population wait years to be "trans-vestigated" before given access to HRT is cruel.

Non-binary can rely on an underlying bias towards a certain sex, but it's not equally common they do transitions. The foundation for transitioning is still based on the same experience of either alignment or not. — Christoffer

Ok but non-binary people do transition and they have just the same right to as transwomen or transmen. They just want to feel more in accordance with their non-binary gender identity and I don't see the problem with that.

And virtually all of us have male characteristics and female characteristics.

Most children have some confusion about their gender, it's part of growing up. — Christoffer

Now that is surprising to me if true. I wonder whether this is true across time. I don't recall this being much of a thing decades ago. We've always had feminine boys and masculine girls.

Investigation is about trying to differentiate if this is such common confusion or being a more fundamental case of transgenderism. I'm not sure what makes you think children are put into transitioning just haphazardly. — Christoffer

You ever consider maybe there's no clear cut line between the two? I've seen experiments where children take a sleeve of oreos over $10,000. I simply don't trust their judgment especially when it comes to very major life issues like going through puberty and maintaining their fertility. A child simply can't look decades down the line like an adult can. A child can see the here and the now. They can regurgitate ideas that have been taught to them and appeal to them. They cannot understand themselves because the brain doesn't stop developing until the mid 20s and they are not fully formed.

EDIT: It is different if we are talking about a child of 16 or 17 rather than 6 or 7.

The investigation is primarily for children, not adults. — Christoffer

Yet there is still a screening for adults who seek to transition.

Non-binary has to do with gender identity, not biological sex. — Christoffer

Yes, and gender identity is the subject here not biological sex. We're moving past transsexualism (now often considered an outdated term) into transgenderism. Or are we going to insist that those seeking to transition possess the correct biological markers before allowing them access to HRT?

Conclusion on that is that parents and doctors aren't just letting kids do anything without proper investigation. — Christoffer

Proper investigation into what? That they're "really" transgender? That they were "really" born in the wrong body? The medical community creates the criteria. The question is really just whether they get their HRT. The surgeries come later.

Being trans places one on the margins even if everyone is nice to you and you suffer no employment hurdles. Trans folk will watch their cis peers get married and have children while they have sterilized themselves and likely engage in some form of polyamory given monogamy doesn't really make sense. And then there's the issue of what happens when the beauty fades.

I still support an adult's right to choose and acknowledge that this actually could be the best path for some people. But I would not promote it. It is wrong to tell a child that they are the sole determiners of their identity.

But the core problem that people, for some reason, never understands about gender science and philosophy, is that there's a difference between medical sex and gender. — Christoffer

Exactly. Transsexualism use to claim a medical basis, but the new wave of trans advocacy seems to be pushing to eliminate that, and I can't say that I blame them. Why should an adult even need to go through a medical screening (to determine whether s/he is "really" trans) to be prescribed HRT when gender is a social phenomenon?

Especially with the idea of "non-binary" today -- are we going to now claim a scientific/medical basis for that? What biological markers would determine that? Absurdity. Let adults live their own lives, but it is criminal in my opinion to permit children to sterilize themselves (and set them on a life path of marginalization) when any decent society acknowledges the need to place rules on children and make decisions for them.

A child can still take steps to transition without HRT and surgeries.

Nearly 30% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ+. Aside from this, the number of minors seeking gender affirming care nearly tripled between 2017 and 2021 from 15,000 to 42,000 and the trend has continued.

My main concern is with child transition though. We can't be asking children to determine their gender and then load them up with sterilizing hormones and permanent & quite painful surgeries. They simply don't have the mental capacity to make those sorts of decisions: How is it that children cannot buy alcohol or weed, yet they can apparently consent to permanently altering their bodies and destroying their fertility?

I certainly believe society should be nice and civil to transgenders. I also understand that transgender life is inherently difficult and expensive and painful.

More sinister is the idea, floating around in some radical circles, that we have no essential gender identity and it's entirely up to the individual (including the child) to self-define. Nature apparently gives us nothing; we are our own Gods. That scares me.

The point stands that many more much larger humanitarian crises exist around the world yet none generates the attention of Israel-Gaza today. It's not about sheer number of lives lost. It's clearly ideological. A narrative has been developed unlike in other (much larger) humanitarian crises that fits perfectly into the hot button issues of today.

Reading what people say in right-wing spaces, they're mostly convinced that they're fading an ideologigally motivated group across politics, the media and civil society which will destroy western society unless they're stopped by an overwhelming counter-movement. — Echarmion

Given the number of kids identifying as LGBT and choosing to sterilize themselves and undergo surgeries I wouldn't say they're too far off. Public trust in higher education has plummeted and anti-semitism has risen. We live in scary times where very basic questions like "what gender am I?" are now suddenly up for question. Not a good sign.

The reason I used those terms, is because it is true; and your terms do not accurately portray the point.

For example, india doesn’t have just a problem of a repressive government: their society, the legacy of castes, is still enforced by everyone at a societal level. The society itself still embodies the view that the untouchables are worthless scum—you can’t mask that with “it’s a repressive government”. — Bob Ross

The caste system was officially outlawed in 1950 but it still persists in certain parts of India. From what I understand, it is highly controversial in India. It is wrong to say that it persists everywhere in India.

That’s true; but wouldn’t you agree Talibanian Afghanistan is a prime example where it is warranted?

The Taliban is a wicked force and promotes wicked policies, but I wouldn't say that Afghan society is degenerate. There was pre-Taliban Afghanistan.

Instead, here’s the answer: antisemitism. — Mikie

Yes, silence. Where are the protests against Assad? Or Yemen? Or Sudan? Americans don't care. No Jews, no news. Now if it was Jews killing those Arabs the college campuses would take notice.

No one cares when Muslims kill thousands of muslims, but a Jew kills a few Muslims? We lose our heads.

5.4 million killed in Congo. - Silence
500k killed by Assad in Syria. - Silence
500k killed in Sudan. - Silence
400k killed in Yemen. - Silence
~40k killed in Gaza - extreme outrage

Why is that, Mikie?

Iran, Qatar, and others. Don't take my word it's what leaders in US intel say. Follow the money. Of course Iran has a hand in it.

If you believe these mass protests are purely organic I've got a bridge to sell you.

You don't think the marchers are anti-American? How many more American flags need to be burned for that to be the case?

Mikie, I'm agreeing with you. The Democratic Party needs to go further left and actively embrace the anti-Israel, anti-American masked marchers terrorizing synagogues. Gotta double down. Motivate people to the cause.

I live among the evangelicals in one of the most conservative, evangelical states in the US. I understand the left likes to point the finger at them for anti-semitism but that just hasn't panned out in my experience. This group is highly pro-Israel and often quite philo-semitic.

Of course, because it was the evangelical Christians who lynched Jews on the street of Amsterdam last night. We must blame modern day anti-Semitism on the Christians or Israel itself. One group must not be named. :rofl:

By all means, the Democratic Party is welcome to move further to the left next election. Openly embrace the anti-American, anti-Israeli marchers. Make Palestine and bringing down capitalism their main focus. Definitely a winning strategy -- people will be motivated and will vote in droves!

It's framed in an extremely inflammatory way. It's one thing to criticize say, the Chinese or Iranian (or Indian) government; it's a whole other thing to call their society degenerate and inferior. OP completely lost me there. The phrase to use is "repressive government" not "inferior society."

I do believe certain societies can warrant that label, but we need to be very careful.

He's talking about Calvinism, a religious movement which turns God into a total psychopath.

Scientific inquiry offers a methodical approach to understanding the world, reducing uncertainty and anxiety. — ContextThinker

How exactly does science quell existential anxiety?

Science provides an alternative framework for understanding the world, addressing existential questions through empirical evidence and rational inquiry. — ContextThinker

The biggest existential question is probably "what happens after death?" which science does not and cannot claim as its territory -- the most it can do is describe the decomposition process of the body. Science explains the physical. When it comes to matters of the soul or the afterlife or eschatology science is silent. Science does not provide an "alternative framework" it simply zeroes in on the physical domain and seeks to explain it to a T.

Man is just as in the dark concerning these existential questions as they've ever been. How has science shed any light on this? You can go back to ancient literature thousands of years old and they opine about the same essential questions: Why not just live life to maximize enjoyment given how fleeting it is? Please, let me know how science assuages this existential anxiety.

You obviously don't understand the difference between blueberets and national armed forces. — ssu

I don't expect them to take out Hezbollah. I would just like to know whether they've taken concrete steps towards completing their purpose. Hezbollah evidently felt comfortable enough with them to build their shelters within meters of UN headquarters. What are they doing there?

Like how about this one from September 18th 2024? — ssu

This appears to be one of the General Assembly, not the Security Council. These are not binding.

If the blue berets are not going to do their mission (did they even attempt it... at any point?) the least they could do is get out of the way when the real army comes forth to clean up the mess that they helped create.

It doesn't even look like they attempted to enforce resolution 1701. It's not only Israel that has hit them, apparently Hezbollah likely struck a UN headquarters and they need to get out of there. Obviously if Israel had an official policy of striking them many more would be dead.



You're mad at a twitter account with an Israeli flag in it and this is apparently shaping your entire perspective towards the situation.

Yes, I am very sure about my point. It is dreamy to think that there is a chance to come back to the context prior to October 7th. This date did critical damage to the collective thought and soul of Israel. Like to the Americans in September 11th or here in 2004 Madrid bomb attacks. Do not expect to go back to pre-10/7 life. It looks like it is acceptable to take Sinwar out because he is a terrorist. But this is the way Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, etc. think about Netanyahu. They will keep attempting to take him out. Will you feel safe in a nation whose president is in perpetual thread with their neighbours? Then, this will be another reason for Netanyahu to keep bombing, and this is why I can't see peace in the long term.


You are viewing this conflict through a European lens.
— BitconnectCarlos

And you are viewing this conflict through a religious lens because:

God grants victories.
— BitconnectCarlos

What God?
What religious text? Quran or Talmud?
What prophet? Muhammad or Abraham?
See? This conflict is endless because it always leads to religious differences and hostility. I am right and you are wrong because my holy book says so; don't try to argue why. — javi2541997

I'm saying maybe the Palestinians are getting tired of war and just want peace (which would happen if the hostages were returned but Hamas keeps refusing). And Iran may keep attempting to kill Bibi, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. Being the target of assassination attempts is not a shameful thing. It is the price of having enemies, and some forces like Iran are wicked and must be opposed regardless of whether they use some measures or not.

I am mentioning the conflict through a religious lens because that is the lens of the participants of the conflict. So it's noteworthy -- especially when there are similarities. Both groups view military victories as granted by God and defeat as likely a sign of divine disfavor. Therefore defeat brings discouragement and questioning from both sides. It would be a very different matter if Hamas was wildly successful, then the Palestinians would be bolstered.

Look, Israel simply tries to intimidate UN forces simply to leave, hence there then would be nobody observing what they do. It's the obvious fact here. Even if nobody listens to what UN says, it's still there as an annoying neutral observer. — ssu

The UN sat by for years while Hezbollah constructed terror installations when it was in the UN's deliberate mission to disarm them. They were suppose to neutralize that zone. Instead, they built their installations very close to Hezbollah military sites (or vice-versa, Hezbollah built their sites close to the UN sites knowing they were safe and that if Israel targeted them it would be right near a UN site.)

When you allow known terror groups to build their installations within meters of yours you are not a neutral party. The UN has not been neutral in this conflict: There are 57 Muslim nations in the UN and 1 Jewish one who is disproportionately scapegoated. Israel has by far the most UN resolutions against it when there are many nations that are worse. Going purely by the UN though, Israel is apparently the worst nation on Earth. UN neutrality is a myth.

Hence an Israel-Finland wrestling match ensued. — ssu

:rofl: