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.

It could be that, but there are alternative interpretations, namely the avoidance of being fussy when receiving hospitality, and ignoring the additional food laws imposed by the "traditions of the elders." — Leontiskos

I don't buy this. If I tell you "Leo, go out into the world, preach the gospel, and eat what your guests serve you" it's only a matter of time before your guests serve you e.g. pork or shellfish or any number of other foods prohibited by the Torah. It's not about extra ancestral traditions. It's just the text.

Indeed. But for you 41 000 - 45 000 killed is a reason that it's not a genocide? Yes, it indeed isn't 100 000 or 400 000. Or at similar level that Bashar al-Assad's tyrannical regime killed. — ssu

If I were to learn ~40k civilians were murdered I would be horrified. If I were to learn that ~40k Hamas fighters and administrative staff were killed I would cheer.

It's sus to just give blanket figures like that. It would be like saying ~20k Germans were slaughtered by the allies in Jan 1945 when in fact it was German soldiers in the battle of the bulge. Yet we can abuse language all we want. We could say 20k Germans slaughtered if we wanted our speech to be provocative and incendiary. Soldiers without uniforms are still soldiers.

We could probably even argue today that what happened to Germany after WWII was "genocide" but it doesn't change the fundamental fact that they needed to be defeated and their government dissolved.

Oh that would be the evidence? Again, look up the definition. The public speeches after the attack give ample evidence of this, which btw have already been discussed in this thread. — ssu

I recall similar statements from Bush after 9/11 re: an "evil" enemy that must be destroyed. As well as after Pearl Harbor. We can call evil evil without it being genocidal. It's just truth sometimes. The Empire of Japan was evil. Al-Qaeda is evil. Hamas is evil.

is Jesus thought to have performed the requisite ritual cleansing after raising the girl from the dead? — Leontiskos

We'll never know but even if he didn't then he didn't transgress morally.

For myself, I wouldn't want to place such a substantive conclusion on such small shoulders. I would want more evidence. — Leontiskos

If J told his followers to go out among the gentiles/the nations and eat what they serve you then I cannot view that as anything other than permission to break Torah law regarding diet.

If he told his disciples to go out among the Jews and preach then I suppose we could give him the benefit of the doubt given that Jews largely kept kosher.

But as @Count Timothy von Icarus notes by gJohn we have J instructing his followers to dine on his blood and flesh -- clearly prohibited by the Torah.

7,4 million killed Americans wouldn't be a genocide, — ssu

But wait. The population of India and China is ~4x as much as the US, so suddenly 40k Gazans dead (a good chunk of who are Hamas) becomes 30 million Indians dead :gasp:

Can we just keep the number at 40k? And not try to scale everything?

Yet unlike Bibi's administration, they publicly denied of any such intent. — ssu

Did Bibi specifically state he wished to destroy all Palestinians? I know of no such genocidal intent.

because ethnic cleansing (without killing) is still considered a genocidal act. — ssu

Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza in 2005 of all Israeli presence. Was Israel there guilty of genocide against Jews? The territory of Alsace-Lorraine changed hands multiple times in the 20th century with population shifts (including forced exiles) entailing genocide against Germans and French. If population displacement is genocide then all war is genocide.

Also, let's not get into all the war crimes Bush committed shall we? — Benkei

The US also committed them in WWII, especially in the Pacific theater where US troops rarely took prisoners as the Japanese had a nasty habit of blowing themselves up upon being taken prisoner.

But of course instead of making difficult decisions in the field regarding how to treat such an issue, one could always just surrender to the enemy. Then one would be innocent and blameless. Or abide by the rules even when it significantly impairs one's chances for victory.

The free world was secured through brutality, don't ever forget it. Then again perhaps you'd be happier with a German-speaking Europe (that does mean no Israel). And how dare Israel seize land that rightfully belongs to the caliphate.

Denial works. Yet the Israeli line has been totally different from this. Hardly anytime has somebody be ever so clear with their intent. Talking of evil cities and how every resident in Gaza is culpable because they years ago voted for Hamas is a way to keep that rage up. — ssu

The US spoke in similar terms about enemies in Vietnam and Japan. Yet neither were genocides. The population of Gaza has risen by ~2% since last year never has there been a genocide where the victim population actually rose. The idea is preposterous. And of course Israel could wipe them out immediately if they really wanted as Israel has heavy weaponry. The facts simply don't bare it out the charge of genocide.

After 9/11 Bush said he'd make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them. Sounds like a justification for genocide, no? :chin:

In the aftermath of a brutal tragedy what kind of rhetoric are we expecting??

The hostages, just as killing of civilian families, is evident, as I referred to Al Aqsa Flood having been a military-terrorist operation. The killing of as many people and the capture of hostages was obviously the objective of the operation. Just as is the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure the objective of the Russian forces. It was an intended warcrime. — ssu

I agree. My point is that the hostages are part of the justification of Israeli military response in Gaza making it about more than just "revenge" for 10/7. Hostage recovery is a goal. BTW the Gaza population has increased by ~2% since 10/7 last year.

The ICC has asked to do this, but Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute, — ssu

Good to know. There should still be some other body that could do it.