Or do you think that foreign students are a fifth colony of agents that steel the precious wisdom only held the genius Americans? Hence the US would be better of without foreigners participating in their universities? — ssu

It's not about wisdom. When these universities accept billions from Qatar, their Middle Eastern Studies departments naturally promote certain views. It's hard for a university to be unbiased when billions are funneled in from the Middle East. What nation can be unconcerned with what it's citizens are taught?

Hence if you assume the levels of Syrians coming to Sweden in 2016, then yes, then and ONLY then you will have dramatic changes in demographics of the country. — ssu

What are the fertility rates of the respective groups? And what rates are people converting to Islam? There can be tension when one group tries to convert while the other doesn't.

And just how is your President doing with those mass deportations? Last time he ended up deporting far less than other presidents, including his successor Joe Biden. — ssu

I agree; I would love to see him step it up - perhaps judges are blocking him. He did stem the flow of illegals crossing the border, though. Those numbers were insane under Biden.

Says the person living in a far more multicultural country than Sweden. But how do you get to 60%? — ssu

60% was just an example to convey a hypothetical question about whether such a thing would cause alarm. Yes, some immigrants integrate well while others do not.

My own country used to be a white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon country. I don't think anything in our founding documents says we must maintain such a status. The founders agreed on specific values that are important to protect. There was diversity there, though—some were strong Christians, others were highly irreligious deists. The Enlightenment influenced them.

Other states are different. China is Han, and that traces back to the Han dynasty. It's not the same thing. I'm not claiming one is better than the other, either; it's just different.

The first golden rule is that if it is commonly understood that the foreign people bring money into the society, foreigners will be accepted: nobody has a problem with tourists, with millionaires or needed talented professionals moving into your nation. If somebody is publicly against there being tourists, the person will be confronted by angry people who get their life earnings from the tourist trade. But if those tourists don't bring in money, just roam around and sleep in public parks, they will be immediately despised everywhere. Foreigners that just want to take your wealth and have no desire to appreciate anything else are usually in history called the invading enemy. What people feel about them is quite universal and these attitudes have a long history. — ssu

I think this needs to be challenged.

A rich foreigner with an agenda can be quite dangerous—probably more dangerous than a foreign mugger. The latter is an obvious threat, while the former has the potential to do quite a bit of harm with their great resources. We must look at the values and allegiances of those entering our countries. Our elite universities in the US are flooded with very wealthy foreign students who have zero allegiance to the US, and I think our country is finally waking up to the fact that we've been sold out.

But if the source is telling that there's a genocide when there isn't a genocide, it's wrong. That there are tensions and hostility against an ethnic group can be totally true. — ssu

There's a lot of complexity around this word. Appropriating land is closely associated with ethnic cleansing. Is ethnic cleansing the same as genocide? Should we call expulsion and murder the same thing - genocide? Should we call harsh repressive measures that forbid/restrict the practice of a group's traditions/culture genocide? The question is a reasonable one to ask.

Here in the US, we stripped the natives of their land and forbade the practice of their customs. It was extraordinarily effective in decimating the native american populations (along with disease and alcohol), and that group remains the poorest and least powerful group in the country.

the you have to favor some AfD in Germany to get change from Merkel's policies. Or that somehow Sweden is lost to multiculturalism when the US is far more multicultural than Sweden. And so on. — ssu

Maybe mass deportations are needed.

Sweden is responsible for managing Sweden. Currently, 80% of the population is native Swedes; would they be okay with this number going to 70%? 60%? What kinds of cultural changes would we see at those levels? Do Swedes value their culture, or is it more defined by its openness and receptivity? What cultures are they importing?

It's a difficult question that every country needs to address. I see value in preserving distinct cultures and think pride in one's group is fine as long as one is fair and hospitable to foreigners. One can hold pride in one's group while still looking outward and seeing value and brilliance in other groups. It follows, though, that if one values and has pride in one's culture, one should be prepared to defend it if necessary.

What basically Trump has done perhaps can simply just increase the brain drain and pensioners moving to the US, if they can opt for that automatic refugee status. — ssu

In a country where ~95% of murders are unresolved against a specific (minority) ethnic group, I wouldn't blame them for wanting to leave. Protection is the basic function of government, and if the government isn't upholding its end of the bargain, then those citizens don't owe them anything. It's a little odd that you give the SA authorities the benefit of the doubt as to race being a factor in the resolution rate, but whatever.

There's a difference between accepting immigrants who appreciate the country they're emigrating to & work legitimate professions versus those who come, e.g., due to a religious duty to spread their religion or to exploit resources. Every nation has the right to monitor its borders and set its immigration policies. Some immigrants easily assimilate, while others have no desire to.

Put them aside and there's still the ability to get an objective view about events, even if you need to find it out yourself with a little work.

It's the alt-right lie that "this is what you are not told about... by the lying fake media". It's their gimmick. — ssu

Just because a source is biased or has an agenda doesn't mean it's wrong. You should double-check the information, sure, but bias alone isn't a reason to dismiss it. Virtually everything is biased, including us. The media has not been even-handed either. The media is just one source of news/info among others and even the most even-handed of us are biased. We all choose our bias, ultimately.

I condemn anyone calling for the deaths of any ethnic group, whether Arabs or Boers. We all should. It's not acceptable in chants or songs.

I love how this discussion has essentially turned into the inverse of the Israel-Palestine thread. It's the funniest thing. I won't fan the flames, but it's tempting.

It's always easier to attack than defend, though; to charge with wrongdoing rather than rebut the charge.

BitconnectCarlos, they already do that! — ssu

I don't want to get sidetracked and turn this into another discussion about Israel. We've discussed Israel enough.

"Kill the Boer" is a prominent chant in SA that ties back to the country's liberation from apartheid. It is part of that nation's narrative of birth. It's not just a few extremists, but a veritable part of their cultural heritage, dating back to the liberation struggle. It was banned in 2010 but permitted in 2022 , so it's clearly something the country has struggled to reconcile.

Regardless of country, it is terrifying when you have prominent politicians (Malema's party controls 10% of Congress) in mass rallies glorifying the murder of another ethnic group, especially where there are pre-existing ethnic tensions. We should have learned this from Rwanda, where the language used played a key role in dehumanization.

There are already around 140 racist laws in South Africa that explicitly favor the black population. Then there are the land reforms/seizures, which target Boers. The Boer farmer population has declined precipitously (50%?) over the past few decades.

I'm not saying it's genocide yet, but I'm glad Trump is calling it out rather than just ignoring it entirely when their President visits. He's also confronted Starmer. If the shoe were on the other foot and whites were imposing racist laws and seizing land from blacks and screaming genocidal chants at mass rallies, the world would be all over it (and rightfully so). Yet double standards define our times. It is seen as fine when an "oppressed" or formerly oppressed group behaves oppressively, and the politically correct thing is to look the other way and not blame them. To assign blame or even express concern is racist, and two-tier judgments are the sign of a good and enlightened person.

SA doesn't sort homicide victims by race, so I don't think we're going to get objective statistics on this.

It's not just the murders. It's the fact that you have very influential and wealthy men/famous politicians leading genocidal chants like "kill the boer" in large stadiums, and land appropriations, among other things. There is an overt, large-scale glorification of racial violence coming from prominent figures.

I'm not claiming it's a full-blown genocide, but I'd agree that the situation is concerning.

Here's one source from 2018:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2018-000476_EN.html

"In South Africa, white farmers have for years been exposed to an unprecedented wave of violence. Statistically, a farm is attacked every day in South Africa. South Africa has the world’s highest murder rate, but the murder rate among white South Africans is three times higher than the national average, while that of white farmers is six times higher. Often, the victims are tortured and ill-treated for hours before being killed.

Since the end of apartheid in 1994, up to 4 000 white farmers have been murdered. The police investigate these crimes only half-heartedly. The organisation ‘Genocide Watch’ warns of the threat of genocide.

Against the backdrop of continuing violence against white South Africans, 1 500 demonstrators protested in Pretoria in November 2017 and submitted a petition to the South African government."


Also, since 2004, the Boers have been keeping track of their dead through roadside memorials. That number is around 3,000 since 2004, so around 150 per year. The murders are unsolved 95% of the time.

Since 1994, approximately 4,000, or around 130 per year.

The discussion is about SA, though, not Zimbabwe. I'm not sure why you're deflecting to Zimbabwe.

We've talked about genocide before. Remember when you mentioned Bibi's mention of Amalek? Well, what would you think if you had stadiums of Israelis yelling "kill the Palestinian," led by major politicians? We see this in South Africa, but it's ignored because, as @NOS4A2 mentions, the victim group is politically inconvenient and thus undeserving of attention/sympathy.

Showing sympathy or concern for the group is only testimony to one's racism. :roll:

have you apologized for spreading blood libels yet?

Your post is unhinged and unbecoming of a moderator.

Boers are only 5% of the population. Even if only 1 in 6 killed are white, that's still 3x disproportionate.

No minority should be persecuted based on race. If SA had stadiums of white folks chanting "kill the blacks," it would be unfathomable. I want a government that does not prefer any one race. Double standards, unfortunately, exist.

That's what get's the Trump people so aroused so much, that they don't give a fuck if the so-called evidence is fabricated or not. That's only the liberal cry babies whining. Actual specifics, like from where pictures are from, don't matter, it's about embracing ones prejudices. — ssu

Members of the SA government lead "kill the boer" chants in large stadiums, and there have been thousands of murders of white farmers. I've never been to the region, but that alone is terrifying.

"Genocide" apparently no longer holds any fixed meaning, either.

Yes, he surely was linked to specific groups.

This is "globalize the intifada" in action.

So 14,000 Palestinian babies did not die in the past 48 hrs. Two Israeli embassy aides were shot and killed. Blood libels and demonization have consequences.

Three major groups could have done it: the Far right, the far left, and the Islamists. The culprit is from the far left—horseshoe theory at its finest.

*according to the UN aid chief, Tom Fletcher. — Punshhh

The UN retracted its latest blood libel against the Jewish state.

Not that it matters, as the news has already spread like wildfire. Since when has truth mattered to the "pro-Palestine" movement? Lies serve a purpose. Spout enough of them and you're unstoppable.

What will be next? Israelis drinking the blood of Palestinian children? Harvesting their organs to use for rituals? Possibilities are endless.

I know better than to try to convert Banno.

Why what?

I agree with you that the primary interpretation lauds Abraham's faith.

We should remember that in this story, God promises Abraham progeny through Isaac. Some commentators reason that if the sacrifice was allowed to take place, Abraham expected God to resurrect Isaac. God had already performed miracles for Abraham.

I was reading William Whiston's dissertation on this topic today (written around 1737), and he notes that in his day, Abraham's actions were often viewed unfavorably, lamenting the loss of religious virtue in his era.

If Abraham would have killed Isaac and burned him as an offering to God and that account was consistly interpreted as a prohibition against child sacrifice — Hanover

What are the grounds for such an interpretation? Did God step in and condemn it? Did something happen to Abraham? Interpretation isn't endlessly open. Some interpretations are plausible, others are not.

I'm not sure why you would disregard authorial intent. Try understanding the Levitical sacrifice from a modern lens. You can't do it. You need to try to examine things from the POV of the ancients. Of course, we could come up with flawed interpretations, but those interpretations would be subject to scrutiny throughout the process of biblical analysis.

I wish that would just be said as opposed to explaining what the right way of interpreting should have been had the interpreters just have been better literalists. — Hanover

Literal is only one mode of biblical interpretation. See PARDES. We can make a literal interpretation, but another could fit better.

I checked out Cline's 1177. He does not claim that the Israelites were the Sea People. He associates the Sea People with the Philistines.

Was there ever any community of Israelites in Egypt? So no Joseph then?

If the Israelites were the Sea People, then why did they need to invent a story about Egypt? They have their own history. Why not just tell their own story of arriving by sea instead of passing down a complete fabrication?

I would agree that there is no evidence of a large-scale Exodus, as described in the Hebrew Bible, where millions of people are said to have escaped Egypt. Numbers in ancient sources are notoriously unreliable.

The end of the Bronze Age. — frank

So around 1500-1200 BC? The Merneptah Stele mentions Israel in ~1208 BC, but I place the Exodus in the 13th century BC. One could put the Exodus earlier, around the 15th century BC. Sounds like Dewrell believes in an earlier Exodus because when I hear "late bronze age" I think slavery.

the deep history of the Israelites — frank

Which period is he referring to?

This would have been around the reign of King Ahaz. — frank

Plausible. We know that by the time of the Second Temple era, the practice had ceased among the Jews.

This moral question has been resolved, but in Abraham's day (2000 BC?), it wasn't.

What do you think? Should we allow the sacrifice of willing, compliant adults? — Banno

This is a political question, but my answer would be no. Admittedly, my perspective is shaped by my theology, and I can understand how others might disagree.

You might think that a father trussing up his son and holding a knife to his throat is fine if the child gives consent, but both I and the law disagree. — Banno

Would it be ok if Isaac were an adult? What's the issue with an adult consenting to be a human sacrifice?

That is, you can't "murder" an animal, but it is forbidden to kill an animal for the purposes of causing it suffering. — Hanover

Yes, killing animals is only acceptable for food, sacrifice, and necessity, as I understand it. Initially, I held Genesis 9:5 as demanding an accounting for the unnecessary slaughter of animals, but I was wrong. Interestingly, it holds the animal accountable for the shedding of human blood.

I'm not saying the distinction isn't relevant, but I do think that human sacrifice is a form of retzach, among other things. — Hanover

Yes, one is forbidden to offer their seed to Molech. Abraham pre-dates these firm commandments. Human sacrifice may have been defensible in Abraham's day. Sacrifice is established as a valid institution; the question is its proper boundaries.

There is not a reasonable interpretation that it is supportive of human sacrifice. — Hanover

Agree, although Dan McClellan argues that the earliest layers of the Hebrew Bible are supportive of human sacrifice. I mention this because McClellan is prominent in biblical scholarship today.

Since I see the story as metaphor, what is it that is added by concentrating on Isaac's complicity? — Hanover

Make it more palatable to Banno. Isaac's complicity in the matter would be a morally relevant factor for many secular moral theorists.

I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting that ritual sacrifice by wililng participants is ok? — Hanover

No, I am merely distinguishing between murder and the institution of sacrifice. God lets us know very early on that murder (including the murder of animals) is wrong. Yet animal sacrifices were offered throughout the Second Temple era and were offered by many of the forefathers. Giving an animal as a sacrifice is not the same as murdering it, even though the animal is slaughtered in both.

there's also good argument Isaac was in his 30s at the time, meaning he wasn't even a child. — Hanover

This strengthens the idea that Isaac was a willing participant.

But generally I read the comment your responded to more innocuously, as in it was indicating that child murder is condemnable under any scenario, which I'd agree to. — Hanover

I read Banno as referencing the Akedah story as he has often done, and equating the institution of sacrifice with murder.

A non sequitur. I will happily judge that a faith sufficient to murder a child is not a good faith. — Banno

It's not murder, it's ritual sacrifice. Nothing in the text suggests Isaac resisted or didn't cooperate. Many interpretations portray him as a willing participant.

If you're ever genuinely interested in grappling with the concept of God, the Bible is how you do it. Not internet debates.

I'm not trying to convert an atheist. I'm interested in how you all think, and the differences could lead to an interesting dialogue. For example, if we were to start with, e.g., Ezra-Nehemiah and work backwards, when would the atheists start taking issue? Now that would be interesting. It could expose some interesting points of difference.

That's fair and all, but on the other hand, why the need for Jesus if "simul iustus et peccator" is all one anticipates; snow-covered dung? — Leontiskos

Apparently, "simul iustus et peccator" is originally an Augustinian concept. Anyway, I'm not the one to be asking about the need for Jesus. I enjoy Luther's insights on humanity and the Bible, but when it comes to Jesus, he loses me completely. I understand justification by God's grace; that's about as far as I get.

All we have is the information that a 13th king is listed. It's unconfirmed. — frank

I totally get that it's unconfirmed, but perhaps we could say that the sourcebook has some degree of credibility to it?

If it's you claiming the kings list is correct, yes, it's a baseless assertion. — frank

I'm not claiming this. Let's say we have 12 kings confirmed in chronological order. The question is whether King 13 exists. Do we have reason to believe so? Does the claim in the book count for anything?

Let me rephrase:

We can confirm the list dating back, e.g., 500 years, but the evidence becomes scarce after that. How ought we view claims of kingship in the book after the evidence stops? Would it be fair to view them as baseless assertions?

We can be more certain of the existence of some historical figures than others.

Wouldn't you agree that there are stronger and weaker forms of evidence? The existence of some biblical figures is established, while for others, the evidence outside the Bible is limited.

A few questions for the atheists:

- Let's say you have a book that contains information on an ancient people. It contains a list of rulers dating back 1000 years. We can confirm the list dating back 500 years, but the evidence starts to become less reliable after that. Does the record in the book count for anything, or would we consider the claims in the books to be baseless beyond 500 years?

-Let's say you were up with Moses on Mount Sinai. What would need to transpire for you to become a believer?