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.

From the wikipedia article:

"Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended by the writer as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author."

And I'm not your buddy, guy.

Prove that I'm strawmanning biblical/christian literalism, othewise what you're saying here is just an opinion, not a fact. — Arcane Sandwich

Biblical literalism is the approach to interpreting the Bible that takes the text at its most apparent, straightforward meaning. As stated, sometimes the most apparent, straightforward meaning of the text is that e.g. a dream sequence is metaphoric.

Jesus walked. Not just on water, mind you, he walked just like you and me walk. To walk is to change one's location. — Arcane Sandwich

As it is written: "God is not a man" (Num. 23:19). Movement implies imperfection.

You're strawmanning biblical/christian literalism. The plain meaning of the text sometimes indicates allegory or metaphor.

So do the sun and the moon really bow down to Joseph? Or does the dream, perhaps, represent something?

Read Genesis.

Daniel's dream was a metaphorical representation of what was going to happen.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-after-the-temple/

God communicates through dream i.e. metaphor in the Bible multiple times. These metaphors require interpretation. Go re-read Daniel's dream and come back and tell us that it was entirely literal.

It nearly did. I'm talking more about the Romans though. The destruction of the temple and the defeat in two major rebellions caused Jews to radically rethink and moderate their theology.

There ought to be no way to deal with Jihadis save for leaving them alone. In fact, one ought to go out of his way to defend the jihadi’s right to speak, believe, and live he wishes, so long as he doesn’t transgress another’s right to do the same. Nothing does more for Jihadism, and brings more to its cause, than its oppression. — NOS4A2

I was a classical liberal once. Maybe I still am. Not sure. It's not always easy to define what a right is. Protest is a right, of course, but what about protesting outside of religious buildings specifically while services are ongoing? Or how about blasting noise outside of religious buildings during services as a form of protest? Harassment or free speech? It's not always so clear cut. As long as the intolerant minority remains insignificant it's easy to be tolerant.

We need to beat the Islamists into submission. Then they will realize that Allah has granted this, and that they need to self-reflect on their approach and tactics. Defeat sows doubt, moderation, humility, and self-reflection. Victory emboldens and strengthens the notions that Allah is on their side, that the prophets are correct, and that end times are near. It serves as confirmation of their holy books and strengthens their case within the Islamic community. It is easy and exciting to follow a victor. Defeat discredits and moderates.

I'm thinking that we can say that "Jihadism" represents part of the religion of those Muslims who accept and practice Jihad in the "outer" and violent sense. — Leontiskos

Then this should be all muslims, at least in theory. Outer jihad is a veritable part of jihad and jihad is a veritable part of Islam.

I take it that this is not pejorative. I take it that Jihadis would not disagree with this description of themselves.

When I look up the term the articles specify that it only applies to "extremist" groups and not the average, peace-loving muslim.

I don't disagree with any of it. Jihad is a real thing; jihadism, as far as I can tell, is basically a pejorative.

I'm coming across so many different definitions that it's essentially rendering the term meaningless. Jihad is an actual concept within Islam, jihadism seems like it's just a pejorative that's associated with violence.

I think we're running into confusion over the definition of what a "jihadist" is.

But to call Jesus a crusader, when the crusaders murdered many innocent Jews, seems absurd to me.

No, I would not consider Jesus a crusader.

It is a historical question. And of course he did. So I'm asking couldn't Muhammad be considered a jihadist?

It seems clear to me that Jihadism is a religion (or a religious tenet). — Leontiskos

Jihad is a religious tenet.

Jihadism seems pejorative, so I looked it up and got this:

"Jihadism refers to militant Islamic movements that use violence to achieve their political and religious goals.

Jihadism is not representative of Islam as a whole. The vast majority of Muslims worldwide condemn violence and terrorism in all forms."

So jihad is legitimate, but jihadism is apparently what the "bad muslims" do. But did Muhammad not use violence to expand the influence of Islam? It doesn't make sense to me, but apparently a distinction is drawn between the valid "jihad" and the invalid, extremist "jihadism" which is clearly pejorative.


 

Searching through scripture to determine theological truth/ what is "real" Islam is not a normal or proper function of the US government.

radical interpretations of scripture in the Quran tend towards producing mass-murdering maniacs at a (relatively) high rate. — ToothyMaw

How do we know that these interpretations are radical in the sense of aberrant or misguided vis-a-vis the Quran? Muhammad conquered much land to establish an Islamic society. Muhammad himself was a jihadist and Muhammad is held up to be the paragon of moral excellence in Islam.

Maybe it's all perfectly by the book and in the example of their founder.

A few days ago I heard an imam say that that there's no way to lose on the battlefield versus a zionist. Either you kill the zionist, or the zionist kills you and you go to Islamic paradise (Jannah.) Who are we to tell him his interpretation is wrong??

I.e. put our fingers in our ears, bury our head in the sand and the problem should go away... right? Right?



Instead of looking to syllogism consider looking to history. 2000 years ago the Jews had an issue with religious extremism. The Romans stomped it out and the Jews were forced to re-examine their theology and frame it in a more moderate, sensible way. The Jews and Muslims think alike in many ways.

...Does Jesus not instruct his disciples to consume his flesh and blood?

The more interesting aspect is the correct understanding of the parables/teachings and their practical applicability, if any. I suppose one must read through the Church fathers to shed some light on this.

Fair enough. In the synoptics I can more easily understand Jesus as a law-abiding Jew, but by the time we get to gJohn I have difficult time maintaining that conception. The prohibition against drinking blood is a big one for me.

Yet the Prophets are full of distinctions such as "the circumcision of the heart," as opposed to mere fleshly circumcision and the elevation of justice over ritual. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Circumcision is part of fulfilling the covenant and I don't recall the prophets ever disparaging it. What they do disparage is the idea that Israel can sin egregiously and then offer some atonement sacrifices to placate God. So the message of the prophets is largely the importance of good deeds (i.e. covenental faithfulness) over sacrifice.

In Hosea 6:6 many Christian translations translate "chesed" as "mercy" and mercy can work, but the word is more strongly tied to covenantal faithfulness/acts of loving-kindness within the covenant.

So really the quote is more along the lines of "I desire [covenantal] faithfulness, not sacrifice" or "I desire acts of loving-kindness, not sacrifice." And you will see this in translations that are more familiar with the Hebrew.

The Origen story is probably a smear by opponents. In his commentary on Matthew he considers an extremely literal interpretation of this advice to be idiotic. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get that Jesus is often not to be taken extremely literally. Yet one can be a "eunuch for the kingdom of heaven." Paul possibly considers himself as something along those lines. If one's urges are driving one to destruction, perhaps sterilizing oneself can be justified according to the gospels.

For us WW2 never been about "the good guys" or the "bad guys", it has always been simply of survival as a country, as a people. — ssu

I guess had the Germans won you'd have been absorbed into the Third Reich. So maybe a few of your neighbors go bye-bye and you need to learn German, but life goes on. If I were a typical Finn I'd probably have more Nazi sympathies or at least prefer them over the Soviets. I would have feared the Soviets more.

I understand the moral greyness and having to leverage two superpowers against each other. There are some conflicts where things are black and white though.

In a similar way this response happened already with 9/11 in the US and the global war on terror. Somehow the laws that have governed covert actions and things like the attitude towards torture changed. It was like Hollywood had taken over: the hero had to be the cutting "the red tape" of legal norms and just beating the shit out of the bad guy, because somehow that made him tell where next attack was to happen. In real life it doesn't go that way, but who cares, when people want revenge. In the end you had Intelligence Services like the CIA, which were fully aware of their legal framework, then asking from the politicians "jail free cards", that the politicians would take the blame. — ssu

I remember 9/11 and very few Americans objected to striking Afghanistan. We were always going to strike them; it was just a matter of how much and through what means. With Israel, there's also the addition factor of the hostages. Had Americans been subject to such an ordeal, I suspect the response would have been even more outrage. The election of Trump shows that the pendulum has swung back in the opposite direction. I think the US is tired of handling criminals and terrorists and kiddy gloves and Trump has promised hell for Gaza if the hostages are not released.

You northerners are slow to anger and tend not to be targeted too much. If you've ever been to the Middle East you immediately that it's different. Greater machismo. Quicker tempers. We can all judge; even to me Israelis (and Middle Easterners generally) come across as rude and quick-tempered. Then I remember that I'm far from the conflict and have the luxury of safety.

What is happening in Israel is alarming, because Israel has been a Western country with Western values. — ssu

Historically, the Jews are just another Middle Eastern people whose existence has been secured through resiliency and violent struggle in an extremely hostile world.

I do also understand that someone like BitconnectCarlos, being Jewish himself, wants to defend Israel. In this world it seems that we cannot be both critical and supportive at the same time. However if a democracy ought to work, that should be how ought to be. — ssu

We can criticize all we want. Criticism comes in different shades. But Israel must succeed. I don't know whether there's ever been a foreign power that tried to wipe out your people, but perhaps if there was we'd see a little more eye to eye. But yes, criticism is part of one's patriotic duty. In war time, the drive to victory can overshadow other concerns.

I hope the operation goes as humanely as possible. Nor am I under any delusions when it comes to what Israel/Jews are capable of. The Irgun were terrifying. Jews are just as capable of terror as anyone else.

Here's the thing though- Just as the Russians could kill and rape their way to Berlin and remain the "good guys", so the IDF can engage in questionable practices (clearly far more civil than the Russians) and still remain the "good guys." It's one of those funny things about war. We could imagine e.g. a Red Army battalion where every one of its soldiers had engaged in war crimes and deserves a hanging at Nuremberg, yet as long as they are pushing towards Berlin and wearing that uniform they are "good."

Back to the N Gaza operation; obviously those who stay in Gaza should be handled carefully. Fighting-age males are especially suspect. We'll see how it goes. I have no problem putting IDF soldiers on trial in Israel if necessary.

BTW I'm sure you've come across this study which found that the Gaza death count has been exaggerated to vilify Israel.

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Yes, forcible transfers are a crime. Yet if a place is about to be bombed people will typically leave. Israel will typically inform the population. Population transfer occurs naturally in wartime as people flee to safety. If Israel were to e.g. forcibly load them onto trucks or trains and send them somewhere that would be a war crime. But yes, Israel will assist in evacuation efforts if an area is about to be subject to bombardment -- that's humanitarian. That would be making an effort to protect civilian lives.

Like it's simply human to set out to destroy the perpetrator isn't actually what we call humane, but an emotional response. Yet the real question here is just what you after you have destroyed Hamas, the famous "Then what" question. Just to repeat the same line isn't an answer, it's simply a denial to answer the question. — ssu

Then call it justice. If an armed band of foreigner insurgents breach your border and murder even a handful, is a military response an emotional reaction? I wouldn't say so. It's expected unless the victim is committed to pacifism. And then there are the people who were stolen.

Regarding afterwards: We don't not go to war because of post-war uncertainty. Defeat Hamas and go from there.

But you can continue just to repeat the line of the horrible attack October 7th 2023 and say that Hamas has to be destroyed and disregard criticism just like Yaalon gave here (as if he would be opposing the action against Hamas).

That is simply blind support of every move that the current administration makes.

I don't disregard it. We should absolutely protect IDF soldiers. If there are war crimes being committed those responsible ought to be brought to justice. Israel still must win. If there are war crimes trials then do them after the war is won. Israel will likely have a presence in Gaza after the war, but that is not unprecedented nor is it a war crime. Neither is population displacement a war crime but is rather a natural result of warfare itself.

(And btw BitconnectCarlos, this ought to be in the Israel thread, not the Ukraine thread) — ssu

Someone can move it.

So you consider the Gaza war to be more an ideological and moral fight than a practical undertaking, like taking out a threat. :chin:

Well, many of those that criticize Israel agree with you as they see ultra-nationalism and religious extremism behind the objectives of the war, which the Hamas terrorist attack has given an opportunity to carry out. — ssu

It's not ultra-nationalism. It's not religious extremism. When ~6000 armed monsters breach your border and murder, rape, and torture your civilians (including children) it's simply human to set out to destroy the perpetrator. Israel's hand is forced in this.

There's certainly religious and ideological forces at work in the making of the conflict, but the fact that Israel must respond and destroy the perpetrator -- that's just human. I suspect if Russia were the victim the response would be much harsher.

Perhaps e.g. the Jains wouldn't respond violently given their religion, but I don't think such a philosophy would survive in the near east.

Why oppose having morality in international relations? Aren't there morals that we all should adhere to? Or is everything just realpolitik, shit just happens? Well, what Israel is doing in Gaza is realpolitik too, so why do you anything to complain about that? Or is it that we pick what is realpolitik and what is morally wrong just because of our own likings? I think that's close to the argument that BitconnectCarlos hurls at others on a constant basis. — ssu

I don't consider the Gaza war to be Israel engaging in realpolitik. Any other country would respond similarly. It is deeply personal to many Israelis and likely even for Netanyahu given his vivid language unless you think that's entirely performative.

Anyway, it's fine to condemn countries for their foreign policy. But when someone describes the deliberate murder of that country's civilians as "resistance" and makes absurd demands of a country (like ceding a huge chunk of its territory to an enemy) I see the accuser as a nasty sort of bigot making outlandish demands.