Too many threads indeed. My point is, one can always blame the God character and think how things should have gone, but in doing so one simply takes on the role of God. It's very natural to do this.

It is written that Joseph lives to 120 but apparently his ancestors lived much longer. It's crossed my mind to point the finger at God for that one. Feels like Joseph got kinda ripped off.

That does make some sense. Still, I balk at a story of a supposedly loving God destroying the life of one of their followers for a bet? But I think it's unlikely that we could possibly agree on an intepretation of this, or any other story, in the Bible. I'm reading a collection of ancient texts written over a period of 1,000 years in various circumstances and for various purposes. You are reading the Word of God. But I have to say, some of the stories in the Old Testament remind me of some of the Greek stories, in which the gods do not behave in a particularly moral way and from which the lesson seems to be that the gods frequently mess about with us, either because they don't care or because they are actively hostile. — Ludwig V

I assure you that I'm reading it as a collection of ancient texts written over a ~1000 year period. Maybe once in a while I see an interesting bit that captures my attention and gets me thinking about how the authors could have written such a thing, but overall it is absolutely a collection of texts written over that time. And if we follow that historical view, we see that "God is love" is at an the tail end of that timeline. Initially, God is quite a bit terrifying because, let's face it, reality is often be terrifying -- and man has the potential to make it even more terrifying than it needs to be through his actions.

You were blaming God.

What God does to Job is ethically wrong. — Banno

If you want to blame Abraham or Isaac they are humans so they can bear blame.

This is simply to renege on your responsibility to decide if an act is right or wrong, to hand that most central of judgements over to someone else. To look the other way. — Banno

This isn't between man and man -- that we can judge. It's between man and God.

Let's say that there is some force out there. If a man dies young, has that force wronged him? How many years is a man owed on this Earth? Is man owed a painless existence? You tell me.

Were something along these lines to have in fact occurred, the event would then make far more sense to me.

Again, I get it, it’s a very heretical interpretation of events. — javra

I don't think it's heretical. It's natural to retroject our own 21st century moral views to biblical characters.

In Abraham's day though, and continuing many centuries later, human sacrifice was a fairly common and acceptable practice in the ancient near east. It was thought to appease the Gods and bring good harvest and divine favor. So maybe this God asked for it as well. Yet he stops Abraham at the last moment. Much of the Bible looks barbaric from the eyes of a modern human, yet the world was a very different place back then. Maybe our descendents thousands of years later will judge us much the same. Abraham is only human, a man of his time - not some perfect Jesus-figure.

I can find no way out of believing that the story of Job is outrageous. God inflicts all that suffering on him because of a bet with Satan, to show off how faithful his believers are. Truly, not acceptable. — Ludwig V

Job is unique in that we can't situate it within any time or place unlike virtually all the other books. I've long considered it thought experiment/theodicy in agreement with some early rabbinic commentators.

Job is needed in canon because it bucks the general biblical trend of associating bad deeds with suffering/misfortune. It's true as a general trend but it's not all inclusive. Without Job the canon would be lacking. The righteous/blameless do suffer and sometimes terribly and without any known reason or justification.

Job also lays out the acceptable limits of suffering - Job questions God, cries out to him, laments the day of his birth, but he never curses God or tells God that he is wrong.

Book of Job also puts humanity in its place epistemically. As humans our perspectives are limited and biased and to draw such broad and universal judgments such as which suffering is ultimately "justified" and which is "unjustified" is beyond us. The book stands against man's hubrism and his tendency of all encompassing judgment. In the end Job is rewarded.

Are you saying Isaac deserved the death penalty for a crime/sin? — Gregory

No. I was only taking issue with Banno's idea that we can clearly know which suffering is justified and which is not.

The gathering of the animals onto the ark also happens in Gilgamesh iirc.



Is your issue with God or Abraham?

The Binding of Isaac and the Trials of Job speak of acts of cruelty, where unjustified suffering is inflicted in the name of faith.

How do you know that it's unjustified? Like I said earlier, you're more certain than I am. The only suffering here is Abraham's inferred psychological suffering which you seem to be extremely concerned with.

It's not the Isaac story either. I don't see how I'm anymore offtopic than you are in mentioning the Isaac story.

Noah also trusts in God.

I find it funny that you take serious issue with the Isaac story -- a story where no one dies, yet seem to ignore entirely the deluge where countless die painful deaths just a few pages earlier. Surely that should be the bigger matter.

I agree that the flood story is derived from the Gilgamesh story. There are too many parallels to ignore.



You insist that all align to your judgment. I'm the more skeptical one. I acknowledge that much is beyond me. How do you figure God should have handled the flood story? We can begin writing Banno's Bible.

So... you think you do not have very strong intuitions about how things should be?

Then why did you respond to my post? — Banno

I have intuitions. I make judgments, for sure.

Consider that only a few pages before this mess with Abraham and Isaac God floods the world and kills countless people. We can start there. What do you think would have been better? I think about this sometimes. Maybe he should have sent angels down and forced those evil men to attend moral philosophy courses. We can go down this rabbit hole. We can rewrite the Bible as we would have done things.

There are those amongst us who see faith, understood as submission, as a virtue. I am questioning that. I suspect you might agree, broadly speaking. — Banno

"Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God." - Luther

I get it. You, like many others, have very strong intuitions about how things should be. And when this intuition (moral system?) conflicts with the Bible it must be very frustrating for you.

You seem mad for some reason. As if my opinion on tariffs has any impact whatsoever. Even if I were against the tariffs, I would still be pro-Trump.

I get that certain metals like steel or aluminum can be produced cheaper elsewhere, but cost isn't the only factor. We simply can't be outsourcing all of our metals production overseas because it's just too big of a national security risk. There must be some amount of domestic production.

There's also the fact of countries like China manipulating their currency to make their exporters more competitive. And Canada does tariff some of our products very highly.

I agree with you that, by and large, free markets are good. International trade is good because it allows consumers access to lower prices. I use to be more dogmatic on this point, but now I do tariffs as being necessary in some cases. Lower costs to the consumers are nice, comparative advantage is nice... but it's not the only factor.

It's devotional use is an entirely different matter. — Hanover

Devotion is a personal matter, but if one hasn't actually read the whole book then I don't know one does it. Christianity is good with this, but with Judaism the focus is often more on the Talmud.

It's devotional use is an entirely different matter. — Hanover

I suppose, but I don't know whether it needs to be. I always like to know how old the prayers or psalms I'm reading are and it'll bug me if I don't know. The historical context gives it more meaning to me.

I highly recommend Nahum Sarna's work on Genesis if you're interested in exploring a little further. It left me convinced that many of these Genesis stories are Mesopotamian in origin brought down to Israel and repurposed.

And no, there was no flood, and God did not speak. I'm just trying to stop the responders who will insist upon pointing out the obvious literal absurdities before they begin. — Hanover

The land of Palestine doesn't really flood, but Mesopotamia does flood which is why I believe the account is originally Mesopotamian. It's also mentioned in Epic of Gilgamesh which was written many centuries before the Bible (~2100 BC) where the flood plays a major role and Gilgamesh actually goes to visit the flood's only survivor who was granted immortality by the Gods (a Mesopotamian Noah). I believe that there is strong evidence for a vast regional flood around 27 or 2800 BC.

Obviously when an ancient writer describes the entire world being flooded he can't possibly know or mean the entire globe.

Regarding God speaking, I don't know what that would mean. How could anyone ever confirm what exactly God's voice is?

EDIT: And Abraham is originally from Ur in Mesopotamia according to the Bible.

Canada was already imposing tariffs on us so I believe Trump's tariffs were retaliatory. I also love that Trump is embracing digital currencies.

I don't see Trump as a dictator currently. If we can't deport illegal immigrants and those who come here on visas and then seek to destroy America then what's the point of even having an immigration regulations? It's long overdue. Security is the primary function of any state.

You make reasonable points, but I do love what Trump is doing here in the US. My more immediate concern is American elite universities and dealing with these masked jihadists who terrorize Jewish students. The enemy of the Jews (and western civilization) couldn't be any clearer at this point. And it's nice that Trump is generous with the weapons shipments.

And once Isreal was formed, these ex-Palestinians became Israelis. So easy. — ssu

Not if they lived in an Arab section of Palestine. Or refused Israeli citizenship.

Was a Palestinian. But then, you know, some people there formed Israel and those people are called Israelis. — ssu

If "Palestine" refers to the geography, the physical land, then those born in Israel are born in Palestine. If "Palestine" is a political entity then it's not one that's ever existed as an independent nation.

Has the HRC posted anything on the abduction and murder of Israeli families? Or of the sexual abuse and torture of Israeli hostages? How dare Israel pursue the kidnappers.

He's a non-citizen who provided material support for a foreign terrorist organization. Hopefully the first of many more to come. Non-citizens can absolutely be removed if they engage in terrorist activity or provide support to one.

A visa is a privilege and to use it spit in the face of a country which gave you it deserves repercussions. Khalil led crowds which attacked police.

There are scores of movies, books and other texts/images that depict the dominant man getting a woman, from the James Bond franchise to the recent Dutch success 'Baby Girl' and from Pride and Prejudice to 50 shades of Grey. Apparently it is not that simple. Men could embrace feminine values and become nice guys, but that does not necessarily make them more attractive. Here we have a different kind of problem from the first, namely that what desired masculinity is, is itself still in doubt. Masculinity has become a problem for itself, it is unclear what it is precisely, how it should be constructed. It is clear that it is a problem, but unclear what the solution is because it is caught in a contradiction. It has to reform and not reform at the same time. — Tobias

The happiest and most enviable men who are those who can go home to a wife and kids that love them. It's not the Andrew Tates of the world. A man must be able to integrate "feminine" values to some extent. My advice - read the Bible. Jesus was a man who managed to successfully integrate masculine and feminine traits in a way that made him such a powerful human. The choice doesn't need to be Andrew Tate or be a doormat. If the dichotomy of alpha asshole/submissive beta is causing you mental strain then step outside of it.

This collapses the two concepts of faith and trust (emunah and bitachon), which are obviously related, but I see them as differing, although faith is required for trust. — Hanover

Thanks for bringing this up. True. Let's distinguish between the two according to Chabad:

Emunah: Emunah, however, is an innate conviction, a perception of truth that transcends, rather than evades, reason.

Bitachon: Generally translated as “trust,” bitachon is a powerful sense of optimism and confidence based not on reason or experience, but on emunah. You know that “G‑d is good and He’s the only one in charge,” and therefore you have no fears or frets.

A very useful distinction to draw out. I'd say that I have emunah, but not bitachon so much. Personally, I wouldn't regard either bitachon or emunah as chosen within my own psychology. Regarding emunah, the belief/conviction came to me under a certain set of circumstances. I suppose ideally true emunah would manifest in bitachon but I'm not quite there yet.

If you want to try to ground your bitachon/emunah rationally I would never try to argue against that because, as you correctly note, bitachon/emunah is conducive to psychological well-being.

Very strange statement from the EU on Syria:

The European Union strongly condemns the recent attacks, reportedly by pro-Assad elements, on interim government forces in the coastal areas of Syria and all violence against civilians.

Civilians have to be protected in all circumstances in full respect of international humanitarian law.

The EU also calls on all external actors to fully respect the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Syria. The EU condemns any attempts to undermine stability and the prospects for a lasting peaceful transition, inclusive and respectful of all Syrians in their diversity.

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/spokesperson-statement-latest-developments-syria_en

Seems pretty clear that it's HTS/government forces committing the atrocities. Civilians are fleeing for safety to the Russian base in the area. Israel has also ventured in to protect Druze minorities. Perhaps there is a real drifting apart of the EU versus the American worldview. This seems pretty black and white to me.

Palestinians — BitconnectCarlos

The term is also essentially meaningless these days. Anyone living in historical Palestine is technically a Palestinian. So Benjamin Netanyahu is a Palestinian. For very nefarious reasons the term has simply come to mean "non-Jew living in historical Palestine."

You seem like you're in a vengeful mood.

Hundreds of Alawites, Kurds and Shia killed in Syria these past couple days and the world could not seem to care less.

They could lose it 20x. Doesn't change the fact they are the indigenous inhabitants. Nor does it change the fact that Palestinianism is simply a front for Islamic expansion - a far greater and more dangerous force than Israel.

If you knew your history -- if history actually mattered to you -- you would know that the Palestinians are colonizers. So Israel retaking land in Gaza or the West Bank is quite literally decolonization, and decolonization can sometimes be a bloody process as the colonizer entrenches themselves in the land and openly attempts to continue their colonization in the form of the chant "free Palestine."

Biblical writers & ancient redactors didn't know that the Americas existed. They weren't discovered until many centuries after the Bible was written. However, since 70-90% of Argentinians are Catholics those ideas brought over by the Spanish and the missionaries did stuck in the minds of the people. Why do you think this is? Is it just the power of European brainwashing and church organization or is there something else at play?

1) is faith an emotion or a thought? What if it is neither — Gregory

It's a word with various shades of meaning depending on the language and the context.

It's the Greek πίστις (pistis) - to have trust or confidence in something, could be towards God or towards another person among other things. I may have faith e.g. that a mechanic will drive out to repair my car which has broken down in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps he has done so 5x prior so my faith can be said to have some grounds or evidence. Christianity, at least Pauline Christianity, seems to be heavily, if not entirely, based on pistis in the resurrection.

Faith is also the Hebrew אֱמוּנָה (emunah) which is a dynamic and fluid concept that's also multi-directional. A popular Jewish prayer said in the morning is Modeh Ani which ends with "raba emunatech" - "great is your faithfuless" - that is, great is God's faithfulness towards us. Through restoring our souls to our bodies each morning and giving us another day God shows his faithfulness towards us.

Israel could annihilate them at any point. Yet it does not. Israel has nukes, chemical weapons, yet it restrains itself.

Surely if it sought to exterminate the Palestinians it would start with the Palestinians within its own borders, no?

Yes. And it is important for a group to protect itself against others who seek its own annihilation.

Genocide is always wrong. Gaza was purged of Jews as was much of the West Bank - Judea & Samaria.

What happened to the Jews of Bethlehem? Or Hebron?

Well, if Protestants murdered 1/3 of Europe's Catholics 80 years ago including members of your family that might alter your perspective both towards your heritage and the non-Catholic world.

If we had been there and saw a man, we knew to be Caesar crossing the Rubicon then we could be certain in the sense iof having no cogent reason to doubt that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. How certain of that can we be now? I don't know how well-documented it is...I am not an historian. — Janus

We would need to trust our sources regarding which man is Caesar and that he was indeed crossing the rubicon and not some other body of water.

I'm not a historian either, but without the roman civil war between caesar and pompey (apparently sparked by the crossing of the rubicon) we just cannot make sense of history and the events that transpire afterwards in egypt and elsewhere. it's so central to the narrative that if we doubt it all else falls into doubt.

The more we can cross-reference documents that record the same events when or close to when they happened, the more reliable we would think the records are—the more likely we would be to believe the events happened. There is no way to go back and observe though.

When the recording documents are understood to be more distant in time from the described events then their reliability would reasonably be thought to be inversely proportional to the temporal distance. When the described events are extraordinary, things of which we have no well-documented examples, like walking on water, raising people from the dead or turning water into wine. then we would be justified in skepticism.

In general, we cannot be sure of any historical events because as I said above, we cannot go back in time to observe for ourselves. — Janus

Even if we went back in time our eyes or senses could be deceiving us. Or we could just be misunderstanding the historical event.

IMO certain historical facts serve as linchpins and essentially place them practically beyond doubt without our historical knowledge of that period (and possibly later) falling apart. One example could be Caesar's existence. Even if a paper were to come out placing reasonable doubt on most or all the sources behind Caesar we couldn't seriously entertain the idea of Caesar's non-existence without unraveling so much of our historical knowledge of that period and beyond. So it could be said that we start with Caesar's existence (through our body of historical knowledge) and his existence is not so much a conclusion that e.g. we work up to inductively through gathering our sources and making an educated inference that he indeed existed.

Anscombe puts it better than me in her "Hume and Julius Caesar."

Which year do things start to be relevant to you?

Yes, history is irrelevant. Islam clearly no longer seeks to spread. Carry on.

Is there any point at which history becomes relevant to you?

The original Islamic expansion was not caused by some "cycle of violence" type logic. From its inception, Islam has simply been a religion that seeks to continuously expand. Has its nature fumdanentally changed since then?