Do you understand Jesus as a law-abiding Jew or one who "updated" the law? Did Jesus follow the commandments or did he add/delete existing ones?

I consider the parable of the good Samaritan to hold particular significance. — Tom Storm

What do you like about that parable? Margaret Thatcher's comment on it sticks in my mind.

I could not believe that anyone who has read this book would be so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible in every literal word was the divinely inspired, inerrant word of God. Have these people simply not read the text? Are they hopelessly misinformed? Is there a different Bible? Are they blinded by a combination of ego needs and naïveté?

I don't know what it would mean for a word or a text to be divinely inspired. Can you show me the difference between divinely inspired and not divinely inspired words/text?

I initially picked up a Bible with very low expectations. At times it was certainly a brutal retelling of history and certain rules surely reflected earlier times, but I also found nuggets of wisdom in there that fundamentally changed my life outlook. I guess some could call that revealed wisdom or revealed truth.

It's a shame that atheists dismiss it like this because the book really does have some amazing and corroborated (by other ancient sources) ancient history in it. See Judges through Kings. If you only focus on the New Testament I get how you can leave with the "New York City and Spiderman" analogy. Although even the NT contains some valuable historical information, although of a much more condensed date range. The New Testament, IMHO, is a completely different animal than the Old.

Despite an "allegorical" reading you do acknowledge that the Bible describes real events. Surely you don't deny the babylonian exile? Or that Israel fought the Assyrians in the 8th century BC? So how far back before it becomes "allegory?"

I guess? Christianity today is about belief in Jesus's rising. Even if it never happened, the Nicean Creed still exists and Christians (by definition) believe in it.

But there's tension with the idea that the Nicean creed defines Christianity because Jesus's earliest followers seemed more concerned with living a certain way and having a certain worldview than commitment to dogmas about supernatural events in the past. So today you get people who clearly don't seem to care about what Jesus had to say but will insist on the reality of his resurrection and this group is apparently more "Christian" than those who actually followed Jesus in his day when there was no resurrection to believe in but heard his teachings straight from his mouth.

but adults who want to transition need to go through years of investigation? — Christoffer

Now that is cruel. In the US you can get HRT after a 45 minute consultation (although it varies state by state). Making a suicidal population wait years to be "trans-vestigated" before given access to HRT is cruel.

Non-binary can rely on an underlying bias towards a certain sex, but it's not equally common they do transitions. The foundation for transitioning is still based on the same experience of either alignment or not. — Christoffer

Ok but non-binary people do transition and they have just the same right to as transwomen or transmen. They just want to feel more in accordance with their non-binary gender identity and I don't see the problem with that.

And virtually all of us have male characteristics and female characteristics.

Most children have some confusion about their gender, it's part of growing up. — Christoffer

Now that is surprising to me if true. I wonder whether this is true across time. I don't recall this being much of a thing decades ago. We've always had feminine boys and masculine girls.

Investigation is about trying to differentiate if this is such common confusion or being a more fundamental case of transgenderism. I'm not sure what makes you think children are put into transitioning just haphazardly. — Christoffer

You ever consider maybe there's no clear cut line between the two? I've seen experiments where children take a sleeve of oreos over $10,000. I simply don't trust their judgment especially when it comes to very major life issues like going through puberty and maintaining their fertility. A child simply can't look decades down the line like an adult can. A child can see the here and the now. They can regurgitate ideas that have been taught to them and appeal to them. They cannot understand themselves because the brain doesn't stop developing until the mid 20s and they are not fully formed.

EDIT: It is different if we are talking about a child of 16 or 17 rather than 6 or 7.

The investigation is primarily for children, not adults. — Christoffer

Yet there is still a screening for adults who seek to transition.

Non-binary has to do with gender identity, not biological sex. — Christoffer

Yes, and gender identity is the subject here not biological sex. We're moving past transsexualism (now often considered an outdated term) into transgenderism. Or are we going to insist that those seeking to transition possess the correct biological markers before allowing them access to HRT?

Conclusion on that is that parents and doctors aren't just letting kids do anything without proper investigation. — Christoffer

Proper investigation into what? That they're "really" transgender? That they were "really" born in the wrong body? The medical community creates the criteria. The question is really just whether they get their HRT. The surgeries come later.

Being trans places one on the margins even if everyone is nice to you and you suffer no employment hurdles. Trans folk will watch their cis peers get married and have children while they have sterilized themselves and likely engage in some form of polyamory given monogamy doesn't really make sense. And then there's the issue of what happens when the beauty fades.

I still support an adult's right to choose and acknowledge that this actually could be the best path for some people. But I would not promote it. It is wrong to tell a child that they are the sole determiners of their identity.

But the core problem that people, for some reason, never understands about gender science and philosophy, is that there's a difference between medical sex and gender. — Christoffer

Exactly. Transsexualism use to claim a medical basis, but the new wave of trans advocacy seems to be pushing to eliminate that, and I can't say that I blame them. Why should an adult even need to go through a medical screening (to determine whether s/he is "really" trans) to be prescribed HRT when gender is a social phenomenon?

Especially with the idea of "non-binary" today -- are we going to now claim a scientific/medical basis for that? What biological markers would determine that? Absurdity. Let adults live their own lives, but it is criminal in my opinion to permit children to sterilize themselves (and set them on a life path of marginalization) when any decent society acknowledges the need to place rules on children and make decisions for them.

A child can still take steps to transition without HRT and surgeries.

Nearly 30% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ+. Aside from this, the number of minors seeking gender affirming care nearly tripled between 2017 and 2021 from 15,000 to 42,000 and the trend has continued.

My main concern is with child transition though. We can't be asking children to determine their gender and then load them up with sterilizing hormones and permanent & quite painful surgeries. They simply don't have the mental capacity to make those sorts of decisions: How is it that children cannot buy alcohol or weed, yet they can apparently consent to permanently altering their bodies and destroying their fertility?

I certainly believe society should be nice and civil to transgenders. I also understand that transgender life is inherently difficult and expensive and painful.

More sinister is the idea, floating around in some radical circles, that we have no essential gender identity and it's entirely up to the individual (including the child) to self-define. Nature apparently gives us nothing; we are our own Gods. That scares me.

The point stands that many more much larger humanitarian crises exist around the world yet none generates the attention of Israel-Gaza today. It's not about sheer number of lives lost. It's clearly ideological. A narrative has been developed unlike in other (much larger) humanitarian crises that fits perfectly into the hot button issues of today.

Reading what people say in right-wing spaces, they're mostly convinced that they're fading an ideologigally motivated group across politics, the media and civil society which will destroy western society unless they're stopped by an overwhelming counter-movement. — Echarmion

Given the number of kids identifying as LGBT and choosing to sterilize themselves and undergo surgeries I wouldn't say they're too far off. Public trust in higher education has plummeted and anti-semitism has risen. We live in scary times where very basic questions like "what gender am I?" are now suddenly up for question. Not a good sign.

The reason I used those terms, is because it is true; and your terms do not accurately portray the point.

For example, india doesn’t have just a problem of a repressive government: their society, the legacy of castes, is still enforced by everyone at a societal level. The society itself still embodies the view that the untouchables are worthless scum—you can’t mask that with “it’s a repressive government”. — Bob Ross

The caste system was officially outlawed in 1950 but it still persists in certain parts of India. From what I understand, it is highly controversial in India. It is wrong to say that it persists everywhere in India.

That’s true; but wouldn’t you agree Talibanian Afghanistan is a prime example where it is warranted?

The Taliban is a wicked force and promotes wicked policies, but I wouldn't say that Afghan society is degenerate. There was pre-Taliban Afghanistan.

Instead, here’s the answer: antisemitism. — Mikie

Yes, silence. Where are the protests against Assad? Or Yemen? Or Sudan? Americans don't care. No Jews, no news. Now if it was Jews killing those Arabs the college campuses would take notice.

No one cares when Muslims kill thousands of muslims, but a Jew kills a few Muslims? We lose our heads.

5.4 million killed in Congo. - Silence
500k killed by Assad in Syria. - Silence
500k killed in Sudan. - Silence
400k killed in Yemen. - Silence
~40k killed in Gaza - extreme outrage

Why is that, Mikie?

Iran, Qatar, and others. Don't take my word it's what leaders in US intel say. Follow the money. Of course Iran has a hand in it.

If you believe these mass protests are purely organic I've got a bridge to sell you.

You don't think the marchers are anti-American? How many more American flags need to be burned for that to be the case?

Mikie, I'm agreeing with you. The Democratic Party needs to go further left and actively embrace the anti-Israel, anti-American masked marchers terrorizing synagogues. Gotta double down. Motivate people to the cause.

I live among the evangelicals in one of the most conservative, evangelical states in the US. I understand the left likes to point the finger at them for anti-semitism but that just hasn't panned out in my experience. This group is highly pro-Israel and often quite philo-semitic.

Of course, because it was the evangelical Christians who lynched Jews on the street of Amsterdam last night. We must blame modern day anti-Semitism on the Christians or Israel itself. One group must not be named. :rofl:

By all means, the Democratic Party is welcome to move further to the left next election. Openly embrace the anti-American, anti-Israeli marchers. Make Palestine and bringing down capitalism their main focus. Definitely a winning strategy -- people will be motivated and will vote in droves!

It's framed in an extremely inflammatory way. It's one thing to criticize say, the Chinese or Iranian (or Indian) government; it's a whole other thing to call their society degenerate and inferior. OP completely lost me there. The phrase to use is "repressive government" not "inferior society."

I do believe certain societies can warrant that label, but we need to be very careful.

He's talking about Calvinism, a religious movement which turns God into a total psychopath.

Scientific inquiry offers a methodical approach to understanding the world, reducing uncertainty and anxiety. — ContextThinker

How exactly does science quell existential anxiety?

Science provides an alternative framework for understanding the world, addressing existential questions through empirical evidence and rational inquiry. — ContextThinker

The biggest existential question is probably "what happens after death?" which science does not and cannot claim as its territory -- the most it can do is describe the decomposition process of the body. Science explains the physical. When it comes to matters of the soul or the afterlife or eschatology science is silent. Science does not provide an "alternative framework" it simply zeroes in on the physical domain and seeks to explain it to a T.

Man is just as in the dark concerning these existential questions as they've ever been. How has science shed any light on this? You can go back to ancient literature thousands of years old and they opine about the same essential questions: Why not just live life to maximize enjoyment given how fleeting it is? Please, let me know how science assuages this existential anxiety.

You obviously don't understand the difference between blueberets and national armed forces. — ssu

I don't expect them to take out Hezbollah. I would just like to know whether they've taken concrete steps towards completing their purpose. Hezbollah evidently felt comfortable enough with them to build their shelters within meters of UN headquarters. What are they doing there?

Like how about this one from September 18th 2024? — ssu

This appears to be one of the General Assembly, not the Security Council. These are not binding.

If the blue berets are not going to do their mission (did they even attempt it... at any point?) the least they could do is get out of the way when the real army comes forth to clean up the mess that they helped create.

It doesn't even look like they attempted to enforce resolution 1701. It's not only Israel that has hit them, apparently Hezbollah likely struck a UN headquarters and they need to get out of there. Obviously if Israel had an official policy of striking them many more would be dead.



You're mad at a twitter account with an Israeli flag in it and this is apparently shaping your entire perspective towards the situation.

Yes, I am very sure about my point. It is dreamy to think that there is a chance to come back to the context prior to October 7th. This date did critical damage to the collective thought and soul of Israel. Like to the Americans in September 11th or here in 2004 Madrid bomb attacks. Do not expect to go back to pre-10/7 life. It looks like it is acceptable to take Sinwar out because he is a terrorist. But this is the way Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, etc. think about Netanyahu. They will keep attempting to take him out. Will you feel safe in a nation whose president is in perpetual thread with their neighbours? Then, this will be another reason for Netanyahu to keep bombing, and this is why I can't see peace in the long term.


You are viewing this conflict through a European lens.
— BitconnectCarlos

And you are viewing this conflict through a religious lens because:

God grants victories.
— BitconnectCarlos

What God?
What religious text? Quran or Talmud?
What prophet? Muhammad or Abraham?
See? This conflict is endless because it always leads to religious differences and hostility. I am right and you are wrong because my holy book says so; don't try to argue why. — javi2541997

I'm saying maybe the Palestinians are getting tired of war and just want peace (which would happen if the hostages were returned but Hamas keeps refusing). And Iran may keep attempting to kill Bibi, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. Being the target of assassination attempts is not a shameful thing. It is the price of having enemies, and some forces like Iran are wicked and must be opposed regardless of whether they use some measures or not.

I am mentioning the conflict through a religious lens because that is the lens of the participants of the conflict. So it's noteworthy -- especially when there are similarities. Both groups view military victories as granted by God and defeat as likely a sign of divine disfavor. Therefore defeat brings discouragement and questioning from both sides. It would be a very different matter if Hamas was wildly successful, then the Palestinians would be bolstered.

Look, Israel simply tries to intimidate UN forces simply to leave, hence there then would be nobody observing what they do. It's the obvious fact here. Even if nobody listens to what UN says, it's still there as an annoying neutral observer. — ssu

The UN sat by for years while Hezbollah constructed terror installations when it was in the UN's deliberate mission to disarm them. They were suppose to neutralize that zone. Instead, they built their installations very close to Hezbollah military sites (or vice-versa, Hezbollah built their sites close to the UN sites knowing they were safe and that if Israel targeted them it would be right near a UN site.)

When you allow known terror groups to build their installations within meters of yours you are not a neutral party. The UN has not been neutral in this conflict: There are 57 Muslim nations in the UN and 1 Jewish one who is disproportionately scapegoated. Israel has by far the most UN resolutions against it when there are many nations that are worse. Going purely by the UN though, Israel is apparently the worst nation on Earth. UN neutrality is a myth.

Hence an Israel-Finland wrestling match ensued. — ssu

:rofl:

Hamas will name another leader; the Gaza people are thirsty for revenge. — javi2541997

Are you sure about this? Maybe they just want the war to be over and go back to pre-10/7 life. Hundreds of Hamas surrendered today; I think they're getting sick of it.

Now, if they were on the verge of victory things would be different and I'd imagine they'd be highly motivated rather than think "well we're basically victorious, maybe Israel has had enough. Time to take it easy on them!" It seems that victory emboldens and failure discourages (and this applies to the Jews too). Losing top terrorists is discouraging and possibly interpreted as a sign that God is not with them. In Islamic and Jewish theology it is God who grants victory.

You told me yesterday that around 80% of the population of Gaza is Hamas friendly or associated. — javi2541997

No, I said supposedly a source internal to Hamas said that 80% of the casualties of the Gaza war were Hamas & those close to them. The Palestinians were largely supportive of Hamas but many have become disenchanted after the results of 10/7.

It is pretty dreamy to think that peace comes by killing and destroying. — javi2541997

It sounds strange but this happens time after time in the Middle East. Strength is in that region. God grants victories.

Start with the basic premise: Does the current government recognise Palestine as a sovereign state? No! Right? Then, the conflict will remain. — javi2541997

You are viewing this conflict through a European lens.

I am curious about that. I think 5 were injured last time I checked. Perhaps a mistake? Fog of war? I don't know. I'd be horrified if Israel viewed the blue berets as valid targets alongside Hezbollah.

Learn to condemn murder.

Article is behind a paywall. It's 40/60 on Polymarket. I'd say bet Kamala but US citizens aren't allowed to use the site.

I don't see how Polymarket is anything but a betting market for bettors looking to earn a buck.

In calling the deliberate murder and rape of civilians "legitimate resistance" you only expose your own moral bankruptcy.

If that isn't wrong then neither is genocide.



We saw white flags over Jabaliya after Sinwar's death -- perhaps peace is on the horizon. It appears Israel has finally broke them and peace is at hand. Success emboldens them more than failure.

There is no genocide; only the resurfacing of blood libels when Israel responds to the murder of 1200 of its own and the taking of hundreds of hostages (as any nation would). How dare they react.

Population figures simply do not support the idea of a genocide.

Israeli officials literally just get up on podiums and declare their intention to starve the Palestinians, that rape is ok, that they're animals, that children are just future terrorists and must be killed etc. — boethius

"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty" - J. Goebbels.

Straight from the Goebbel's playbook.

Not a word from you on the widespread sexual abuse of 10/7 hostages and victims as well as the general rape culture that pervades the Islamic world. Not a word from you on the genocidal intentions of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. Now go run along and be a good propagandist for the likes of Putin, Assad and Iran. :vomit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9-_nvSbEo8 - New Bibi speech today on Sinwar's death.

tldw two conditions for peace
i) return of hostages.
ii) Hamas lays down its arms and stops fighting.

Imagine if we ever bombed the Basque Country because there were sympathizers who voted for the political party. — javi2541997

A better comparison would be if there was a hardline Islamist party in a province of Spain that sought to conquer Madrid and impose hardline Islamic rule on Spain. In their charter, Hamas insists on capturing Jerusalem and making the land muslim. Hamas leadership repeatedly affirms that all of modern day Israel is "occupied Palestine" -- Muslim land. It all comes down to religion and control. The muslims feel aggrieved because the land was once theirs, but before it was theirs it was the Jewish homeland and the land where Jewish identity was born. And Jerusalem is the Jews most important holy site. (I believe Jerusalem is #3 for the muslims.) Hamas demands what is non-negotiable.

edit: Some muslims have come to terms with Israel's existence and accept it, but many, especially palestinians, do not. I can understand how it's a slight for them though.

Apart from that, what about the 20% left? That's 8,400 deaths. Are they just collateral victims who had bad luck and were in the worst place? — javi2541997

Their loss is tragic but the US killed many more in Afghanistan. Such things happen in war. It is unfortunate that Hamas does not allow civilians into their bomb shelters and hordes supplies.

Whatever. I admire your innocence, Carlos. — javi2541997

I don't think Israel specifically wants to annex Gaza. I can't imagine Hamas staying in power though. It would be like al-Qaeda ruling a region on the US's border and being allowed to stay in power after 9/11.

If Hamas were to release the hostages it would signal a fundamental change in their approach though.

42K innocent people — javi2541997

This number includes Hamas fighters. We'll never know the true breakdown but I've heard some ~80% of that are Hamas/Hamas associates.

It is important to me and a lot of people — javi2541997

It's important to me to since within Gaza there are hostages and they keep killing Jews. Israel has also been conducting polio vaccinations in Gaza.

Yes if Hamas were to release the hostages I'd expect there to be a ceasefire. Gaza is not really that historically important to the Jews,