Jesus was an outcast from Judaism for rejecting their traditions to create his own life affirming values. — DifferentiatingEgg

I will read AC 33 and 39, and thanks for those references.

This I do not agree with.

Then Jesus said unto His disciples, “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me."

And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48where ‘their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.’

I would only agree this interpretation if by "life affirming" you mean living for the next one and the mentality that comes with that mindset.

I understood N more as favoring a more 'noble' morality over a 'slave' morality, which, in all fairness, is an apt description of christianity. But the cathedrals and abbeys built would have been in service of that 'slave' morality? It's been a while since I read N so I would have to go back to his thoughts on cathedrals and abbeys/brilliant christian architecture.

eing really that you were too short sighted to see how your insult fell flat. Nietzsche praises their architecture actually. — DifferentiatingEgg

Then N does understand that a focus on the 'other world' can lead to greatness and not nihilism.

Did the ancient Greeks not value brilliant architecture or artwork? The best of it was made for the divine.

at the expense of absolutely(?) devaluing this world (embodied life), which he diagnoses as nihilism (—> cultural 'decay & decadence'). — 180 Proof

Awfully rich of a man who lost his virginity to a hooker to talk of "cultural decay" and "decadence." The abbeys and cathedrals of the medieval world may want a word with him. :lol:

Apathy about Zionism.

Judeo-apathy would be a good descriptor.

Anti-zionism = anti-semitism.

The eating of the apple as being the impetus for God to cause Mary's immaculate impregnation so she could give birth to a messiah to rid mankind of all its inherented sin is no more or less a better interpretation than positing it means Justin Beiber is God if one thinks the text is what is to be referred to for interpretation.

But not to pick in Christianity, Jewish midrashim are stories built seemingly from scratch in efforts to interpret biblical passages. — Hanover

I am not a Christian.

Midrash is a very vast genre. A satisfactory discussion of it would be beyond our purview. I would not dismiss all midrash as fiction either. In any case, Jewish biblical interpretation takes many forms and thinkers like Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides are well-respected in academic biblical scholarship.

I'm not in the habit of dismissing any group's oral tradition that contains hundreds of texts compiled over many centuries spanning thousands of years of that group's history. Rabbinic tradition contains extensive biblical exegesis that contains various levels of analysis. My own approach is more based in academia but there is much in Jewish texts that is of academic value.

The meaning of certain passages varies significantly depending upon tradition. Christianity finds foreshadowing and references to Jesus in the Hebrew bible, where other traditions do not. — Hanover

Ok. And what of a tradition which finds Justin Bieber referenced throughout the entire Bible? My question is: Are all interpretations equally valid/equally grounded in a reasonable interpretation of Scripture? Scripture that was written in a certain time and place.

Of course not. So some interpretations/meanings are better than others. Several can hold insofar as they don't contradict each other. For instance one could give a historical analysis of text while another could provide a theological analysis. Both can work and actually supplement the other.

"this is what the Bible means"

I agree this quote is too broad. But certain passages and events are fairly straight-forward and historical.

Is this humility of understanding peculiar to the Bible or is something that you'd assert exists with any ancient writing? — Hanover

It's the message of Job; take it or leave it.

as Palestinians and Arabs will simply want to throw them into the sea and abolish the Israeli state. And any Palestinian state, how small or large, will continue this. — ssu

I get it; you don't want to believe that this is the case. It would be too ugly. Many of the 10/7 victims living on those kibbutzim on the border felt the same. We can see the world how we want to, or how it is.

The whole Israeli objective is to make living unbearable and basically impossible in Gaza. As long as Israel's trading partners don't be upset about it as long there is no media outrage. I think that's the way the final solution for the Palestinians is implemented. — ssu

I suppose the Allies "final solutioned" Nazi Germany by making life unbearable for them. It's called losing a war that you started.

Many of them would even go along with the idea that they would be now Americans and not anymore just Palestinians. — ssu

What do you know about Palestinians and their integration tendencies or are you just speculating? In any case, they're not coming to the US under Trump. Indonesia or Albania, maybe. Sometimes a people need to be scattered so the toxic elements can be removed and they can continue living in a healthier way.

Anyone suggesting that forced removal of people from where they have always lived is practical, or a great solution, should then be ready to take those people themselves. — ssu

Just make the offer first. As long as the decision to move is seen as individual and not national, people will go. Gazans are tired of the fighting. Hamas btw is now killing Gazans on the street and hunting down around ~400 more for "stealing" humanitarian aid. A ticket out of Gaza now could be a lifeline.

I think quite a few Gazans would choose to leave voluntarily if it were purely their own decision and they were promised stability elsewhere.

Hence it looks like present administration Israel wants to go for some kind of a "final solution" option in the long term. — ssu

Frivolous wording. There is no "final solution" here. Exile is not genocide, and could improve the lives of the Palestinians considerably if they were wrenched from their culture.

I disagree. The PLO doesn't have it's roots in Islamism, as Hamas has. — ssu

Take a look at the PLO's draft constitution.

Article 6

Islam shall be the official religion of the state. The monotheistic religions shall be respected.

Article 7

The principles of the Islamic Shari`a are a primary source for legislation. The legislative branch shall determine personal status law under the authority of the monotheistic religions according to their denominations, in keeping with the provisions of the constitution and the preservation of unity, stability, and advancement of the Palestinian people.

https://pcpsr.org/en/node/487

It's not that the Palestinians don't have an identity. It's just that their identity is Islamic and tribal. And Islam is a religion that, since its inception, has been intent on spreading. There is no truly secular force in Palestinian society today. The Palestinians are simply on the front lines of the Islamic war on the West. Religions + ethnic customs are much deeper rooted than ideas about statehood in the near east. There was no need for "Palestinianism" under the Ottomans. It was only ever because Jews were in charge as a form of revanchism. We should all know the fruits of revanchism by now.

And of course in the 1948 the neighboring Arab states weren't defending the Palestinians, but trying to carve up the former British Mandate.

There was no Palestinian national identity at this point. We could also call Jews "Palestinians" in 1948.

And here lies the absurdity of the situation: you are referring to PA and Palestinians under Hamas, but then again would they have then their independent statehood? No. — ssu

I agree it's an undesirable situation. Unrestricted borders would be too big of a security risk for Israel.

Suppose we were to put it to a vote. The majority of voters are white- the group least likely to be victims of prejudice. Would it really make sense to eliminate it based on a majority vote? I don't think so. — Relativist

We should eliminate it because studies show DEI training makes people more racist. DEI doesn't work to promote colorblindness, it works to promote victim hierarchies and race consciousness. It fragments, not unifies. And the grifters at the top make bank.

Yes, Palestinianism exists as a negation of Israel. It is also around 60 years old. The Jewish connection to the land goes back over 2000 years. It is even mentioned in the Quran -- Judea as home of the Jews. "Palestinianism" is nothing but a front for the expansion of Islam. An identity built purely on revanchism.

The Jews have lost Judea multiple times. Diaspora communities are formed. Jews accept the situation and focus on other things. They don't endlessly lament the loss and raise Jewish children to murder the occupier. Exile historically moderates Jewish theology and causes reflection. The more I read about the history in this region the more it is made clear to me that victory emboldens, defeat moderates. Palestinian society needs moderation and frankly deserves destruction.

The Arabs tried to destroy the Jews in 1948. The Jews managed to turn the tide and the Arabs fled. Then some of those Arabs claim perpetual victimhood. Yes, when mortars are being fired from Arab villages Jewish forces will attack those villages.

Regarding different laws, all Israeli citizens have the same laws. But yes, Palestinians under the PA or Hamas will have their own laws.

EDIT: One last, but important point, cultural assimilation is conceivably a form of genocide. The Philistines are no more not because they were slaughtered en masse, but because they were absorbed by the cultures around them and they lost their distinctive group identity.

So like the Pogroms in Eastern Europe that drove many Jews to migrate to America was ...actually a splendid thing to happen? — ssu

The pogroms aren't a great example. If this exile were to happen, it's because the Palestinians were defeated by another civilization. But yes, exiles can have value. It's about how the culture understands the exile and what they do from there. I understand that exile is no walk in the park, but it's a completely different matter from genocide.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Babylonian exile for the Jews which, after being thoroughly defeated by the Babylonians, spent the next ~70 years writing much of the Torah (and many of the other 66 books of the bible) and experiencing cultural flourish.

Yet as I've stated already, Azerbaijan did use ethnic cleansing / forced transfers, yet simply declaring publicly that nobody will be forced out, it worked perfectly. No condemnations whatsoever! Thing seems to be forgotten. Because they (the Azeris) didn't tell publicly that they want every single Armenian out.

Then that seems like that could be a good model for Israel to follow, but I agree that this is unlikely to actualize given Egypt and Jordan don't seem interested at all. I certainly agree that offering voluntary resettlement is much, much preferable.

It's not a great solution and likely won't happen. It is as delusional to especially think that it's a great solution as is the anti-semitist thinking that Israel is a Western colonial project and the European Jews that have migrated there ought to migrate back to where they came from. — ssu

Jordan has a few million Palestinians already and country seems able to handle to them. In any case, I agree that the plan is a longshot, but if Egypt, Jordan, and Indonesia were to accept the refugees (and the refugees were to go willingly, ideally) it would be a dream solution for Israel.

And in America they lynch negroes!

You've got the playbook down.

IMHO racism is best fought by emphasizing commonality and common goals rather than repeatedly emphasizing difference and/or prior victimhood within groups. The approach should be more future-oriented.

Do you consider Hamas a terrorist organization?

In the military one needs to form a new identity, one based on group unity and emphasizing the achievements of one racial group works against that goal. As a veteran, the military should be color-blind and work towards unity, not fragmentation, in group identity.

It's a ridiculous abuse of language to call the scattering of a people genocide. Otherwise Jews would be speaking about the Babylonian genocide or the Roman genocide -- even then the English are guilty of genocide against the Jews.

Exile is a world apart from genocide. Sometimes in exile things improve for the people. It allows them to rebuild in a better way. I think Jordan and Egypt (and possibly Indonesia) taking Palestinian refugees would be a great solution and I hope it works out.

Re: public weal -- disease prevention, crime prevention, cleanliness are a few that come to mind.

This passage is from before they were enslaved. I would agree with Cline. One of my favorites on this topic is Nahum Sarna who places these events around the 13th century BC so, yes, end of Bronze Age.

Even if the Exodus is completely made-up biblical writers still had this idea of disloyal demographic threat in mind.

EDIT: Earlier the Egyptians sell themselves to Joseph/the Egyptian state due to a famine. That is in Genesis.

Exodus 1:9-10 (NIV)

Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. "Look," he said to his people, "the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. Come, we must deal shrewdly with them; or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, they will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country."

It's a demographic fear. We see the same today - fears of certain populations growing.

That Nazi slogan “The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual” is the crux of fascism, found not only in Fascist iconography, but in Mussolini’s writings. I’ve heard variations of it uttered on this forum. — NOS4A2

I'd consider myself as someone who broadly supports individual rights, but in the presence of an existential threat the group must act decisively to ensure its own survival and the preservation of the individual rights of the group. The problem is this principle is so easy to abuse.

It's ancient. Supposedly the reason Pharaoh enslaved the ancient Israelites is because they were multiplying too much and threatening the Egyptian state demographically.

Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus at Columbia University, defines fascism in his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism

a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions; — BC

I'd be feeling this if I were a native brit right now. The notion of a leadership that barely punishes and largely ignores foreign pedophilic grooming gangs who target its own native population is outrageous without comparison and it tears at the very fabric of civilization.

Perhaps the "advances" of celebrating diversity and abolishing capital punishment and criminal leniency were a step backwards and it's all just gonna fall down like a stack of dominoes. I think we're seeing a major challenge to so-called progressive, civilized world order built over the past several decades. We live in a fascinating time. It is very possible that the UK is just beyond saving.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish? — Hanover

It's normal to question and wrestle with God. Misfortune does befall the righteous. Who are we to say that God is wrong though? Or that we know "the good" better than Him. That's the point Job is making. Our epistemic perspective is too limited to judge with such finality.

Job cries out to God in anguish. He curses the day he was born. Job never says that God is unjust or bad for the misfortune that befell him. He suffers acceptably.

You'll have to define "directly." The text references God speaking to Moses, but not all traditions accept that God actually speaks in a physical sense, particularly Orthodox Judaism that rejects any suggestion that God is corporeal and actually speaks. — Hanover

Judaism rejects the corporeality of God. Regarding whether God makes verbal utterances we'd need to go the text on that one. I'm fairly certain he's described in the Bible as having a voice and I've never heard of any branch officially denying that he makes verbal utterances but I could be wrong.

You'll have to define "humility" here. The Christian concept of humility that centers around meekness and the fallen state of the soul is very different from Judaic concepts of humility which do not hold meekness a virtue nor that the soul of man is inherently flawed and in need of salvation. — Hanover

I meant epistemic humility, as demonstrated through the book of Job.

My point isn't really though just to get into a back and forth about what the Bible says, but it's just to point out that it means very different things to different people and its meaning and use has changed over time. Our use of the Bible today as a definitive documentation of social norms is not the way it has always been used, but is a product of societal decisions and changes.

It's for that reason I have a problem when someone wants to declare its universal, non-contextualized meaning. It means different things to different traditions, and I understand each tradition wants to declare theirs correct, but I don't think there's a solid basis for that. — Hanover

The Bible is multi-vocal (I'm partial to the documentary hypothesis). I'm more comfortable analyzing e.g. common themes across a single book. Yet I do believe there are patterns that emerge more generally, e.g. the cycle of Israel straying, getting punished, and then repenting.

I'm fine if people want to view the bible in different ways. I love analyzing the historicity of it. I'm happy to enter into discussions on that topic. I also love the bible as a work of literature and as a self-help book. It also has love poetry. And theodicy. There are still better and worse interpretations despite the fact that it can be viewed through various lenses. Judge the commentary through the lens it seeks to approach the bible through.

I think it's a strength that people view it in different ways. Bible studies has become much more multidisciplinary over the past few decades and professionals from many different fields contribute to our knowledge of the bible.

I don't know that it follows that an understanding of something dictates that we be judges of that thing. — Hanover

My point is that one might say that they know goodness or that they know justice, which, since they know, means that they can tell when things meet or don't mean those qualities. We can judge others e.g. when they're bad. But to judge God is a different matter. So the biblical worldview requires humility. An understanding that we don't have the 30,000 foot view.

If you're going to allow that religion be beyond empirical and rational discovery, you've sort of opened the door to the concept of us each having our personal religion else how else do you intend to persuade me to your position? — Hanover

God provides divine revelation in the bible that we can all work with. E.g. he interacts directly with Moses and reveals things to him. If he were to speak to one of us directly that's another matter. Perhaps he does reveal things through dreams. There is the bible and the covenant and then there is our personal experiences with the "divine." I don't see a conflict unless one's personal visions or experiences are telling one that the covenant is null and void.

Rogue, it's just a very special sort of genocide. It's a genocide where the population is bigger afterwards than before. :lol:

I think the same problem arises in most if not all religions. — Hanover

God, like the universe and all that occurs within it, is beyond our understanding. God is understood as being both transcendent and immanent. A "God" that falls within our rational understanding would be an act of hubris effectively placing ourselves as judges and evaluators of God.

Living life based upon the dictates of scientific reason, empirically verified information, and logical truth is a personal choice, and it's not necessarily the only good choice. — Hanover

We are commanded to choose life, and if empiricism and rationalism aren't directing towards those ends we must look elsewhere.

They attempt to terrify her to the last second. I'll refrain from comment on the braided hair.

If you think that you understand Christianity better than I do, then explain why the following anecdote is not a good explanation of the story of Adam and Eve: — Arcane Sandwich

I'm not a Christian nor do I claim to understand Christianity.

A better explanation of the Adam and Eve story might be that biblical writers borrowed from Mesopotamian literature (e.g. epic of gilgamesh) and adapted it (imho improved it.) If you're asking for the impetus behind the original I don't know ask the Mesopotamians or Francesca Stavrakopoulou has some work on a supposedly historical garden of eden but I haven't looked into it.

I suppose? I don't know enough about the ideas and writings of those groups. I don't know whether they're theistic or non-theistic or what types of concepts they're working with. My post was mostly taking aim at 18th or 19th century moral systems which attempted to derive morality from a secular worldview.

Non-theistic systems that will invoke "religious" concepts e.g. karma, rebirth, etc.

Theistic moral systems are simply more sophisticated than atheistic ones. Jews and Christians both have 2000+ years of exploring and writing on moral issues, while a few professional philosophers every so often write about utilitarianism or Kant stretching back a couple centuries. There's simply no comparison in effort exerted. And then there's the pesky question of moral motivation where even if one found Mill or Kant compelling why one would be motivated to abide so strictly to such a system. :chin:

I'll make an exception of Buddhism and other religions of the sort. But between modern moral philosophy and religion there is no comparison.

46,000 dead souls — javi2541997

That number includes the rapists and child murderers who crossed the border into Israel on 10/7. You should be thanking Israel for eliminating them.

1700 Palestinian terrorists, among them mass murderers, in exchange for 33 innocent angels. I'm not seeing how this will create a lasting peace, especially now that 1700 militant palestinians are back in gaza. Additionally, kidnapping has been proven to be an extremely effective tool for the palestinians as once again, Israel's concern for the life of its own is exploited in favor of murderous savages.

It's likely we'll be seeing a baby exchanged for a dozen or so grown murderers. Such is the nature of the conflict.

Congratulations, Captain Obvious. So your point is, what, exactly? — Arcane Sandwich

That biblical literalists can understand a given part of the bible as metaphor and still be biblical literalists.