Proverbs 25:21–22, and go from there. I refer you to your own devices not because I'm lazy, but because there are more than I care to list, and because you will see them "when they're at home," when you can judge them for yourself best. — tim wood

I see the two are in the same ballpark, but J goes further with it. "Love your enemy" is not a part of Jewish tradition or the Hebrew Bible. If it was you'd hear Jews talking about it. It is a thoroughly Christian teaching. Maybe the seeds of it can be found in prov. 25? Jesus makes strong, memorable formulations.

Love your enemy." Which leaves open the question of what was attributed to him, which centers on the ancient Greek word we all love and think we understand, agape — tim wood

I believe J spoke aramaic which was then translated into greek for the gospels.

But Jesus makes clear in Luke 6: 27-36 (& Matt. 5: 43-48) what he does mean — tim wood

we should keep in mind that much of the gospels is likely elaboration by evangelists, at least this is the conclusion of the jesus seminar - a group of some ~200 biblical scholars.

the novelty of Christianity being the uses, "spin," applied to those stories in their retelling - and nothing wrong with that, as the judgment of the world for almost 2,000 years attests. — tim wood

I'd count new spins (interpretation) on old words as innovation.

I asked for a source on "love your enemies" that predates Jesus. You did not provide one. ChatGPT attributes the idea/quote to Jesus.

I understand that implementation & interpretation is a whole other matter.

Where and when was it said? And by who? Don't leave me hanging.

Love your enemy.

But of course, that doesn't mean a Goddam fuck to you that your allies did participate in your invasion of Afghanistan, whereas Israel fighting it's own war of existence makes you state: " Here we know the necessity of fighting and beating a wicked enemy - something that seems to have been lost on much of Europe." — ssu

I generalize of course, but for whatever reason the Europeans here tend to understand e.g. Islamic violence in terms of blowback so, basically, whatever Islamic violence befalls a people it is in some sense deserved. Chickens coming home to roost. If only the West would de-escalate then the muslim terror groups would smile at the West's change of heart and there would be peace again. Maybe we need to give them Israel. Then they'll be happy. Give the radicals what they want and stop funding Israel and hopefully they'll stop too.

I feel bad for the Europeans because with the decline in Christianity they're left without much guidance and they're facing a people who have a strong sense of purpose.

Netanyahu receiving 50+ standing ovations in US Congress was a bit of an eye-opener to me. — Tzeentch

It wasn't too long ago that 2000+ Americans were killed in American soil and it sparked a war that at least initially had widespread support. Here we know the necessity of fighting and beating a wicked enemy - something that seems to have been lost on much of Europe.

IIRC Mormons hold that JC is the literal son of god and not god himself placing him outside of the nicean-creed understanding of christianity.

If you believe in Spinoza's God isn't everything God to you? So then Jesus is God. As are we.

You don't really need to go searching. God is already there is Scripture. The Old Testament is written before Jesus walks the Earth.

Says... a communist whose ideology has killed more people than all religions combined. Not surprised at all that you sympathize with brutal Islamist regimes.

In b4 BuT tHaT wAsN't ReAl CoMmUnIsM

I'm somewhat of a Christian but I'll still answer.

I'd stick to classical theism in the Abrahamic tradition. That would leave me with either Judaism or Islam. I suspect many Christians become Muslims under this thought experiment. At least in Islam he is a prophet.

Being offended is not a substitute for an argument. Only Islam is ever afforded this level of immunity from criticism. But this isn't Starmer's Britain; it's a philosophy forum.

Earth to frank, Islam isn't a race. It's an ideology that seeks to spread itself to every corner of the globe. And it just so happens to subjugate women, minorities, and animals virtually everywhere it goes.

hard-line anti-non-western types to hold hte fort, I think. — AmadeusD

And are they all our allies? The right and the Islamists feed off each other. Any decisive action taken to defend "western civilization" will bring back echoes of Europe's past. Not an easy situation.

Israel is ground zero in the conflict between West and Islam. If Israel falls, Europe is next. Europe is already feeling the pressure. How democratic and tolerant can a society be towards those who are fundamentally undemocratic and intolerant? Such questions test the limits of western democracy. We should all be uncomfortable.

"from the river to the sea" is the original zionist motto - but I would rather be a muslim under jewish rule than a jew under muslim rule. Israel is currently fighting the palestinians over the west bank. The simple fact is is that Israel has no viable negotiating partner today.

There is simply no secular force with the Palestinians today. Even the "secular" PLO has references to Sharia in its Constitution/founding documents. It's a religious & political struggle mixed with a deep history of violence. This war is the very confrontation point where West meets Islam.

As per our last discussion, pro palestinian protesters met with Harris this weekend and claimed that she would be open to stopping arms sales to Israel if elected (she is currently the slight favorite.) In the past she has come close to accusing Israel of war crimes. The Democratic Party today is a very unreliable "ally" to Israel. As an American, I don't get the sense that Harris has firm positions on the matter and that she will cave quickly to forceful pro-palestinian voices which have been a rising and violent tide in American political discourse.

I'd suspect it's revenge for something - likely another murder. But yes it's the wild west out there. If a Palestinian murders an Israeli their government will reward them for it so Israelis seek justice themselves.

You do understand that people mean with the far right (just as with the far left) totally different people that others think they are. — ssu

Sure. I mean the neo-nazi/nick fuentes "groyer" movement here in the US.

Bibi knows just what to tell the Americans and when. For him Americans aren't a problem, he's lived enough time in the US and has followed the politics to understand how American politics works. — ssu

Sure he can deal with Americans. But to say that Israel has the US wrapped around its finger is simply a misassessment of reality. Tensions have heightened in recent talks and the Biden administration has been quietly targeting Israel with unprecedented sanctions.

And unfortunately, which I truly hate, for some it has become part of the left/right culture war. — ssu

Sorta? It's now more like the far left, muslims, and far right have formed a bloc that opposes Israel. So it's more like horseshoe theory. Moderate Dems are generally supportive of it as are most Republicans except the ones are fringes like the groypers/white supremacists.

And they are confident they will get there, it will just take time. — ssu

Bibi said he did not intend to take Gaza in his speech to the US Congress. Maybe you know Bibi was lying?

In contemporary (US) society there are at least three institutions in particular which, again imo (never having belonged to any of them myself), mostly tend to (but do not always) feminize males: religion, marriage & prison. — 180 Proof

IMO Christianity does have a more feminine ethic, but this is not the case for Judaism or Islam. Certain branches like Eastern Orthodoxy are more patriarchal. Still, I would say that the Christian ethic as expressed in the gospels could reasonably be considered a more feminine one -- not a weaker one, but a more feminine one.

, who subsequently assassinated the chief Palestinian negotiator — Tzeentch

poor innocent haniyeh :cry:

murdered by those evil zionists :rofl:

Given this, it would make sense to pick popular religions and try them out, learning as much as you can, and giving each a chance to display their truth to you. When you find a religion you think contains truth, you practice it but remain skeptical, still searching other religions for more/more relevant truths. — Igitur

I think it would be interesting to throw yourself into these religions -- suspend your doubt (if required) for just a minute and see what type of person you become if you attempt to internalize that religion's teachings. I suspect you'll come to find, e.g., that the ideal Christian is quite different from the ideal Jew and that different religions contain different visions for humanity.

The problem of the Fall and prelapsarian sin is: how can anyone truly "freely" choose evil? Wouldn't choosing evil imply either ignorance of the fact that it is evil or else "weakness of will/incontinence?" There is no rational reason to choose the worse over the better. Therefore, if someone chooses it they are either unable to choose the Good, mistake the worse for the better, or else their actions are arbitrary and determined by no rationality at all. And this would seem to imply that the Fall must be explained in terms of some sort of fundemental weakness of will or ignorance, in which case the question is "why was this imperfection included?"

This reminds me of the biblical idea of God hardening hearts. But yes, man can willingly and deliberately choose the worse over the better. And a choice may not be rational but that doesn't necessarily make it arbitrary. I'm reminded of the Doesyoevsky quote that men are not piano keys, but I don't want to romanticize man's capacity for these types of destructive choices. Man can lose sight of himself/his place in this world/his role in this world. Sever man's divine understanding and see what fills its place.

If one is wholly weak then one is neither good nor evil. Then one is not a moral agent -- but rather more like a vegetable.

Weak resentful men are often the most dangerous and are quite capable of evil.

Why are you typing this on your phone/laptop? Go sell it and donate the proceeds to starving children.

And yes locality matters.

I get his position. He opposes oppression. But the powerful will virtually always oppress more than the powerless, so the position just basically ends up opposing power everywhere.

Show me examples of when the weak are more oppressive than the strong.

The stronger side will have the higher kill count in conflict thus, in a way, it is the oppressor/villain/bigger murderer.

pretty sure your morality can be summed up as a reflexive hatred of the strong. the weak can do whatever and remain in your favor insofar as they oppose the strong. in comparison they can never be bad - because they are weak.

You have serious difficulty grasping the idea that evil can also be weak. I think we've been over that this is a blind spot for you.

You vilify the strong and adore the weak.

And more German non-combatants were killed by the British than British non-combatants killed by the Nazis. Guess the British are worse than the Nazis. And obviously the US is much, much worse than Imperial Japan.

And Palestinian identity doesn't exist in 1948. It's just Jews and Arabs. And some Arabs are Jews. So Jews and Muslims, really. Jesus is described as a (Jewish) Palestinian. So apparently Jews can be Palestinians too.

Interesting. ChatGPT describes it as theistic yet agrees that Jainism does not believe in a creator god. Mesopotamian religion and other ancient polytheistic systems also didn't have creator gods -- there was the primordial realm out from all things came including the other minor gods (higher beings) who were still subject to karma/fate/cycle of rebirth/etc. Israelite religion was unique in that it broke from this conception but this conception is very ancient. It's the idea of a single creator god that is new, relatively speaking.

My point about ancient human societies being theistic is a general truth -- there were certainly individuals and perhaps ancient movements who sort of bucked this trend like Epicurus, but Roman society -- as ancient societies were generally -- were polytheistic except strange cults like Judaism who practiced monotheism. Jainism, btw, is not atheistic. Of course a diversity of thought exists though. Maybe we could find a few ancient societies constructed on atheism/a rejection of theism but those would be the exception.

The Charvaka were an Indian philosophical school which was strictly materialistic, atheistic, and antidogmatic.

So they insist on a strict materialism and reject of the divinity yet remain non-dogmatic :brow:

Zoroastrianism is dualistic envisioning a cosmic struggle between a good divine being and an evil one. In Judaism there is no such struggle. God is unquestionably sovereign. I am not too familiar with zoroastrianism/pre-islamic Iran but I'd be interested to learn more.

In Islam God is also unquestionably sovereign. Christianity has elements of dualism (God v. Satan) but it's unclear whether Jesus really preached this or whether it was later addition/extrapolation. Early Christians wrestled with this issue.

The oldest religion is mesopotamian religion which goes back some ~10,000 years. Their god Marduk emerged victorious over the divine pantheon of lesser gods through brute force. Unsurprisingly mesopotamian civilizations were often imperialistic and brutal, particularly the Assyrians.

AFAIK virtually all ancient societies were theistic -- mostly polytheistic, but in the Hebrew Bible we see this shift from an anthropomorphized conception of Yahweh as a warrior-storm God to aniconic monotheism. I think "is there a God" is an obvious question to modern audiences, but it wasn't to the ancients.

Because it's stupid and pointless if there is no God. — bert1

Is self-actualization also myth? Or proper socialization? Or ancient history which the bible is a source of.

Exactly. So I'm puzzled by those who want to give a proof of God, because they usually are religious people. Why not simply follow the given manuals and act righteously? — ssu

It can be interesting to consider how far philosophy/rationality can lead us towards an understanding of God. Perhaps some type of prime mover necessarily exists.

:yawn:

And what is his follower assumed to do? To reason God's existence? Or perhaps to do something else? — ssu

Act righteously and divine favor will follow. "Reasoning God's existence" is not a biblical concern at all.

I urge people first to go and read their actual field manuals here: if you are Christian, read the Bible, if you are a Muslim, read the Quran or if you are a Jew, read the Torah. Now, do any of these Holy Scriptures insist and demand that in order for to find God you just have "really think it through" or "reason it out"?

He's assumed to exist. To be the ultimate cause behind natural events -- often misfortunates such as snakes and plagues entering the Israelite camp or the STD outbreak that resulted when the Israelite men went after the women of another tribe (Midianite, IIRC?) There seems to be a formula behind it: Irresponsible/bad behavior -> Misfortunate, which is a manifestation of divine displeasure/disfavor. This link is established early in the OT and leads to a certain self-reflective attitude and caution of the divine. On the flip side, good/moral behavior is generally linked with progeny and abundance -- divine favor. This a general trend in the OT but there are works that buck this trend - see book of Job.

From reading the Bible one gets the sense that there is a divine plan unfolding through history - reminds me of Heidegger in a way.