Is that right? If so, Aquinas would find this quite amazing. — Leontiskos

I think that's right. I see fighting terrorism as instrumentally rational in that it preserves Western civilization and our religious heritage.

Aquinas is not a part of my religious tradition.

Isn't that it is recognized as a war crime enough? — ToothyMaw

The deliberate murder of innocents can sometimes be understood as a form of resistance. A popular slogan today you'll see at protests is "You don't get to choose how we resist," i.e., the oppressed ought not be bound by such restraints when throwing off their shackles. You really don't have to look far for such thinking.

I altered my post. The discussion can continue but in a different capacity. You become like a priest to them, trying to get them to see the light. It's no longer philosophy so much as moral reformation.

Okay, but why should wicked people be tuned out and ignored? Is it supposed to be self-evident, such that no real explanation is possible? — Leontiskos

You can continue; it just turns into a different type of discussion. Now, you're trying to curb them from their view rather than engaging in objective philosophical discourse.

The most interesting and prevalent case is the overtly moral case, where KK is construed as evil in one way or another. Very often we are invoking moral blame when we assess someone’s beliefs in this way, and this is a curious phenomenon. Is it rationally justifiable? Do we have to downgrade our moral dismissals to non-moral dismissals? At what point is a moral dismissal justifiable? — Leontiskos

For me, it's when certain moral lines are crossed. When one side condones or mitigates the deliberate murder of innocents, I tune out and ignore them. Civilians have always died in war, but the question is always whether they've been intentionally targeted or were collateral damage. If someone is downplaying or supporting the intentional targeting of civilians because they belong to a certain nationality, that person is wicked. I don't know how else to put it.

I don’t think Judaism itself dictates a 12-month purgatory (e.g., there are plenty of jews that believe in eternal punishment); and Islam is also an Abrahamic religion. — Bob Ross

Twelve months is the max. Not everyone stays the full term. The word here is 'Gehenna,' the same one Jesus talks about in the gospels and we would translate to hell. Jewish tradition says that Gehenna was created before the world and is much more vast.

Penance is a duty, an action in Christianity that's like prayer, alms giving, or as we can see in the very next few lines... Fasting. — DifferentiatingEgg

Ok, let's say we go with penance.

"I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance."

If penance is a duty, then sinners are still bound by duty. We can adopt a non-judgmental attitude about it, but duty hasn't vanished. If one hasn't fulfilled a duty, then one has fallen short; one has done less than what is required or expected of them. What do we call falling short of a duty, then?

That's from Douay-Rheims, which is the most accurate to the Latin Bible. — DifferentiatingEgg

Ok. So you're going Greek -> Latin -> English. Why not just do Greek -> English like most translations? The Greek is there.

The earliest Greek transcripts (150-200 CE) show this:

ἐλήλυθα καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν

Metanoia is the word in question here, which is repentance. Virtually all the Christian Bibles (NKJV, ESV, RSV, etc.) agree on this —at least the ones that translate from Greek.

I was reading Martin Buber's "Two Types of Faith" today, and he just happened to note in the chapter that I was reading that the Hebrew teshuva (repentance) is rendered metanoia by the Greek translator.

It seems like, by my lights, a just God would have to punish people finitely and proportionately for their sins; then perhaps annihilate or reunite them. — Bob Ross

This is the common Jewish view. Some souls are beyond repair; others can be purified and brought into the divine presence. The truly wicked will face justice and then go to oblivion.

Repentance and Atonement is of Judaism, and has nothing to do with Christ. — DifferentiatingEgg

"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” - Luke 5:32

There are three broad paradigms I think one can identify here: infernalism (Hell as temporally unending punishment), annihilationism (the eventual destruction of unrepentant souls, also an "eternal punishment" in that it never ends), and universalism (the eventual reconciliation of all and total destruction of all sin) All seem to be very old and each have been advocated for by some of the universal Fathers and Doctors of the Church (the more influential saints). Notably, most ancient universalists, unlike modern ones, still think people go to Hell, just not forever. Indeed, they tend to think virtually everyone goes to Hell for purgation for some time, Mary and Christ might be the only sure exceptions (and Christ still goes for the Harrowing). And they tend to think salvation and deification come exclusively through Christ (so they would be exclusivists in modern terms). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Infernalism is absent in Jewish tradition. As I understand it, the souls of the truly wicked will be annihilated (those whose souls are beyond purification), while the run-of-the-mill sinners will undergo purification in Gehenna and then reunite with God. The truly righteous spend no time in Gehenna.

Then there's the resurrection, which is Jewish dogma according to Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith. I've heard several versions of this, depending on the text. In some, only the righteous are risen. In others, the righteous are risen to reward, while the unrighteous are risen to punishment.

The scariest accounts in the Jewish tradition enlarge the number of the unrighteous and make them non-existent. As it says in Malachi on the day of judgment:

"Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act"

I sometimes wonder what nothingness entails. All I can figure is that being is good according to the creation account.

None of this even attempted to answer the OP: what we are exploring here is whether or not it is just for an unrepentant sinner to be eternally punished for their finite sins. — Bob Ross

In eternal pain? No. In their souls being annihilated? That may very well be just. I don't see non-existence as necessarily being a punishment.

But not one that is full of the resentment of weak minded nationalist who believe that nationalism equates to self determinism. — DifferentiatingEgg

What is your idea of Zionism, then? Any ethnic group in the Middle East must be able to defend itself, and this entails statehood. Relying on Arab nations to look after their minorities has not been a winning strategy.

Accuse me of islamophobia all you want; I am not an apologist for murder. I don't care if that murder was in 1948 or 2023. You will never find me supporting the deliberate murder of innocents.

What Hamas did on 10/7 was evil in its purest form. Yet, there is a movement that sympathizes with and supports that evil. So call me stupid; at least I don't stoop to the level of sympathizing with genocidal Islamist murderers. Better stupid than wicked.

Violence is a necessity of life. And yeah, they got a right to defend their land as they see fit, especially with dumbasses like you asserting foreign Jews can take their land as they see fit. — DifferentiatingEgg

If violence is a necessity of life, then so it is for the Zionists as well.

If the Palestinians have a right to defend their land, then so does Israel when rockets are launched, and Israelis are murdered or attacked. Yet such a thing happens when Palestinians are taught from the cradle to hate their neighbor and that all that is theirs belongs to them.

I was thinking of Job's interlocutors, the Disciples' questions at the opening of John 9 as to whether a man was born blind because he sinned or his parents, etc. The idea that good fortune is a reward and bad fortune a punishment shows up in the wisdom literature and the Psalms quite a bit too.

I would agree with you that it isn't a major theme promoted by Scripture. Indeed, Scripture often seems to argue directly against this view. I am just saying that, because Scripture feels the need to address this view, it must have been at least somewhat common.

And that only makes sense, it's hardly like American Protestants invented something totally new with the prosperity gospel. The idea that people's standing depends on their goodness has been common across a lot of cultures throughout history. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. I remember in Samuel when David's infant son dies, and this is attributed to his sin with Bathsheba. I watched a lecture some time ago that claimed that these 6th-century BC works - like much of the Deuteronomistic history, which was redacted during this period - are written from the perspective that everything that happens is God's will.

Josephus in Antiquities notes the same pattern when Herod Antipas loses a battle against the Arabians. According to the Jews at the time, this is attributed to Herod Antipas's execution of John the Baptist.

I've read quite a bit of ancient Jewish lit, but I don't recall this logic ever being used to justify poverty.

I'm not too familiar with Christian theology, but it seems that while the prosperity gospel has biblical support, it is not particularly "Christian" in the sense of according to the message of the gospels.

Please do tell me more about rights. Is there a right to build terror tunnels packed with munitions all across Gaza? A right to murder one's neighbor for the crime of being Jewish or Israeli? What would Nietzsche say about that?

Ah - now I get it. I wasn't sure how to phrase this. The history of this region is immensely complicated with many different threads (as with most history) - but there was a large number of people who had deep family and cultural roots in the geographic area that was called Palestine - these roots went back many hundreds of years. These people eventually called themselves Palestinians. So what phrase do you use to call these folks? I'm up for suggestions. — EricH

It really is; I totally get it. I think the problem comes when Jews are no longer understood to be Palestinians but rather something foreign. I think if we wish to make things clearer, we would just refer to Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Arabs were undoubtedly in the land in the 19th and 20th centuries. I would just question the "indigenous" labeling.

The irony here is that atheist, secular historians highly doubt the Jews were ever slaves. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exodus generally has a folkloric quality about it. You'd be hard-pressed to find a biblical scholar who defends the idea of a 1.5-2 million person exodus from Egypt in the 13th century BC. Some scholars, such as Richard Friedman, make the case for a smaller exodus

IIRC, an Alexandrian Egyptian priest named Manetho in the 3rd century argued that Moses and a group of his followers were actually expelled from Egypt due to leprosy, among other reasons. I doubt we'll ever know the truth.

Canaan is not part of Arabia. Therefore, by definition, there cannot be an "indigenous Arab population" in Canaan.

There have always been non-Israelites/non-Jews in Canaan. So are the Jebusites or the Perizzites of the Bible the "Palestinians?" Do you think that they knew that? Who exactly are these "Palestinians?" and why can't Jews be Palestinians? Kinda funny how that turns out.

And if they're Arabs, then why not just call them Arabs?

Name one what? American or visaed deportee?

These people are given documents, but their rights are not equivalent to those of citizens. You seem hazy about what those rights exactly are as well. Trump is doing what is legal.

They are guests in this country. If you allowed me to sleep in your living space, would you be intolerant if you kicked me out if I tore up the furniture? Or if I openly supported those who kidnapped and killed citizens of your community? Whenever the example is personal, these things become more apparent. I'm an American. America is my home. I don't like inviting guests into my home who proceed to destroy it or advocate its destruction.

And yes, they've destroyed universities across the country. They've caused millions in property damage to buildings, screamed down speakers, and disrupted learning environments by barging into active classrooms and screaming their heads off about Palestine.

It is American to have tolerance and to be nice to guests, but it is also American to stand up for oneself when our hospitality is being taken advantage of.

*How do you know that no Americans have been deported? Did Trump tell you? — tim wood

How do we know there's no innocent men in prison right now? Guess we should abolish prisons.

We aren't deporting Americans; we are deporting guests in this country who are invited in and proceed to spit in the face of their hosts. I mean deporting the ones on visas. The ones who were graciously allowed into this country to study at top universities and utilize the resources of this country, and then end up destroying those very institutions through riots and crimes. The ones who protest in support of designated terrorist organizations that capture, torture, and kill Americans.

I'm having an alright day. Whenever @ssu posts colorful pictures and comics, my day is never really bad.

Between BLM, harassing Jewish students on campus, campus riots, and this wave of Tesla vandalism, it couldn't be more apparent to me that Democrats are the party of violence. America is taking notice, and Democrat approval ratings are at historic lows.

Anyway, on with the deportations of foreign agitators :ok:

Source? Philo, right? Show me the passage.

There were primative monasteries to Christianity which radical followers of Judaism would meet in on the Sabbath and worship: namely the Therapeutae. — DifferentiatingEgg

Did they worship Jesus in these "monasteries?" Or were they just doing worship which others came to associate with Christian worship?

"the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals § 7, First Essay

Not at all Jewish, but closer to the message of the gospels. Some Christians do consider Jesus as "peak Judaism" though so it could fit. But are there are too many strong, rich, and proud Jews who are loved and respected for this to be the case. Wealth is often seen as divine blessing.

but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned! — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals § 7, First Essay

Godless and hedonistic men of power do get a bad rap, but that's because they're godless and hedonistic, not because they're wealthy.

What do you think Nietzsche would make of the great nobility, wealth and grandeur of King David and Solomon? Or how it is written "How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob; how lovely are your homes, O Israel!" (Num. 24:5).

Yet beautiful Saul is replaced by ruddy David. So beauty is recognized as not a good method for choosing a king. David is also the smallest of his brothers and the least impressive. There you go. The hatred of beauty.

A lot can be found in the OT and even more can be interpreted. And the job is considerably easier if you ignore content that contradicts your thesis.

Indeed, and the idea that the wretched, slaves, etc. were in their place precisely because they were wicked was obviously a popular opinion amongst the ancient Jews, since so many texts feel the need to weigh in on it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You say obviously, but I've read a fair bit of ancient Jewish lit and this isn't really a theme that appears much if at all. The stronger theme is caring for the poor and not all poor are presumed to be wicked. Elijah was poor, but pious. Some of the Talmudists were poor, but this is treated sympathetically. It is a great mitzvah to help them, but yes, wealth is treated as a blessing. Jewish tradition is naturally self-reflective, so if misfortune strikes it is natural to look for reasons.

I will give Nietzsche the benefit of the doubt here though and assume he is not primarily thinking of the fairly warrior-centric Hebrew culture of Joshua and Judges though, and more of later periods. The problem though is that Maccabees isn't that different. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Josephus frequently describes the Hasmoneans as "noble" and often mentions their beauty. Herod's wife was a Hasmonean and she wasn't shy about it. The Herodians hated her. A noble and proud people, indeed. But there was no true counter-force in terms of values.

I suspect Nietzsche is taking certain biblical ideas, ignoring evidence to the contrary, and then overstating these ideas and then attributing them to a shadowy priestly class. Then he situates this shadowy priestly class against a noble and proud aristocracy to form his history/genealogy.

Man, I'm just trying to step into your world, that's all. Learn a bit about the Jews.

So I guess it goes something like this: The slaves in Egypt start their values revolution and begin hating all things noble and beautiful and strong. ~1400 years later at the time of Jesus this is what the Pharisees are. The Pharisees also detest beauty and strength as they are the ancestors of these slaves.

But Jesus doesn't. Jesus tells them to not build a value system based on resentment and the Pharisees hate that so they persecute him.

Is that the gist of it?

Ok so during their time in slavery the Jews began hating all that is beautiful and noble.

I'll stop here because I know better than to question your Bible.

(My Bible is a little more open to questioning btw but I digress...)

I'm not asking for a specific date. Can you put it within a century or two? Or just give me a name of a biblical figure.

It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of weakness) this contrary equation, namely, "the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation — Nietzsche, Genealogy 7

Sounds more like the Gospel to me.

In any case, I would love to ask Nietzsche when the Jews began espousing such a message. Given that I don't see this message anywhere in the Hebrew Bible when did it begin? If the Jews hate that which is noble why did they have wealthy and noble kings?

When did this hating of the beautiful begin again?

You write as if you work in an IDF command center. :roll:

How would you know the breakdown between innocent civilian and plain clothed terrorist in a group in Gaza?

But you just said yourself they have no clue where the terrorists are. — Tzeentch

I didn't say that. Israeli intel can still locate and target them even if they aren't in uniform.

No there's a target/terrorist in mind with these strikes. A hospital becomes a legitimate target if it's being used for military purposes.

No, Israel targets terrorists who embed themselves in civilian populations. These terrorists often do not wear uniforms. It is not the deliberate murder of innocents. If Israel deliberately murdered innocents we'd see a lot more dead.

This I get. But what does Trump have to do with it? As to Palestinians, what do you suppose - or maybe you know - what the average Palestinian thinks about the last few years? — tim wood

Trump is the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the Presidency and has consistently labeled Hamas and its supporters as wicked.

Those who understand the deliberate murder of innocent civilians as "resistance" or as being justified in some sense are disqualified from further opinions. Their views place them outside of civilization.

You really know nothing about the man, do you. — tim wood

You obsess over Trump. I obsess over the anti-American, anti-Israeli hate mobs destroying our universities, indoctrinating our youth, and spreading Jew-hate and violence across the Western world.

If 1200 of your people were massacred a few years ago and much of the world cheered or excused it as "resistance" your perspective would be different.