Consider the simple rule of treating others as you would like to be treated. — 3017amen

That's hardly a peculiarly Christian rule.

"Acosmist" is a word I didn't know. I like it. Thank you for using it.

Also Lucius Flavius Arrianus, student of Epictetus (to whom we owe the Enchiridion and the Dialogues), governor of Cappadocia who defended his province in the field against the Alani.

Well what grounds the justification for other types of states, e.g. non-religious ones? I guess I would say, ultimately, security.

In the case of Israel I've always felt the real reason for the state was security - to protect the Jewish people against various enemies. The religious claim may or may not be true, who knows. Others will have their religious claims too. — BitconnectCarlos

I think justification of the circumstances isn't possible. The situation is as it is now; Israel is there, this is what is happening, what's proper or improper at this time and how is future conflict to be avoided.

If we don't make the assumption that God gave the land to the Jews, or that the Jews are otherwise entitled to it somehow, I think we have to conclude that Israel exists because of political decisions made in the first half of the 20th century which virtually assured conflict and war would result. I think it's clear that Jews have been the victims of bigotry and oppression for thousands of years, and that Christians or those who called themselves Christians were largely responsible for their plight. Certainly the Holocaust was a peculiarly European phenomenon. It happens that Europeans or descendants of Europeans were also largely responsible for the creation of Israel and its location in an area ruled at the time by Christians or nominal Christians, but inhabited by people who were for the most part not Christian and not inclined to live in or with a Jewish nation. So it may be that certain Christians or Christian nations assuaged their guilt by arranging the installation of a Jewish state in non-Christian territory, thereby making violence and continued conflict a virtual certainty. Not a good start. And, arguably at least, a terrible decision.

So, we have, literally, a bloody mess, the resolution of which is unlikely until people tire of the conflict or are compelled to have "peace." But it's one in which Israel's conduct can't be sanctioned by religion or entitlement apart from the fact that it now exists. I think such clarity is needed in assessing what's taking place.

The atheist, who is agitated or angry and defensive by the cosmic religious feeling, is the same atheist who seemingly denies (or upholds) such intrinsic or universally virtuous human belief and value systems that initially caused their anger to begin with. Is that a kind of repression or denial of their own sentience, I wonder? Are they angry and resentful about something? Is there any hope? — 3017amen

One of the most famous statements made by Einstein on this topic is this: “I believe in Spinoza’s god, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”

Spinoza's God, and presumably Einstein's, is vastly different from the God worshipped in traditional religion, especially Western religion. It's the God of traditional religions that I think draws the ire of most atheists. I haven't seen or heard of atheists angrily denouncing Spinoza's God.

I'm not sure what you think are the "intrinsic or universally virtuous human believe and value systems" that initially caused the anger of atheists, but if by that you mean what are called "Judeo-Christian" ethics or values, I think that to the extent they're not dependent on acceptance of a personal god of the kind Einstein rejected, they're largely derivative of ethics and values which appear in the works of ancient philosophers who likewise didn't believe in a personal god or God of the kind worshipped in traditional religions, if they believed in any deity at all.

Jewish culture and religion is centered around the land of Israel, particularly Jerusalem. — BitconnectCarlos

Jerusalem? It was Aelia Capitolina for centuries after Hadrian had a Roman city built on what was left by the legions of Titus after they annihilated most of it and the Second Temple about sixty years before Hadrian's time. I've stood at Titus' arch close to the Forum and gazed on the relief showing men of the legions carrying the spoils of the Temple, including the Menorah, in the joint triumph celebrated in his name and that of Vespasian, his father. The land stopped being called Judea during Hadrian's reign as well. It was merged with the province of Syria and became part of Syria Palaestina. "Judea" wasn't used again until Israel started using it in the 20th century.

My point is simply that, as I noted in a prior post, this region has been occupied and governed by many, many people who weren't Jews over thousands of years. Some of those people lived there for many years indeed. So, while Jews may feel they have a special claim to or association with the region, others may reasonably feel that they don't or that they themselves have a similar claim. For me, as I don't think God conveyed real estate to anyone, it follows from this that the claim it is the Jewish "homeland" isn't persuasive and forms no basis or justification for the existence of Israel. Therefore, it shouldn't be a consideration in any conflict between Israel and anyone else. Do you think it should?

It strikes me that without the assumption that the disputed land is the Jewish homeland, though, much of the claim that Israel was rightly created, and therefore is entitled to the land in question, isn't as defensible. Israel's existence and location would in that case have been imposed on a population opposing it--by colonial powers, in fact. Acquisition of territory by force and conquest is hardly unusual, of course, but I think the conflict considered as a case of a nation being created and imposed in a disputed area is one thing, and considered as a case of a return to a homeland is another.

So I put the question for debate is Stoicism a better guide to living than Christianity and should it replace the latter as a set of values to live by? — Ross Campbell

It isn't clear to me that Christianity has ever been adopted as a guide to living by any significant number of people calling themselves Christians if the directives of Jesus as set forth in the New Testament constitue Christianity. Christians have hated, killed, and oppressed each other and non-Christians since it was founded, and avarice is more characteristic of Christians than charity.

The fact that what Jesus advocated is and has been largely ignored suggests to me it is not a usable guide for living. It would be nice if we all loved one another, but we never have and I suspect never will.

Stoicism presents a more useful guide regarding how to live, and has none of the theistic baggage true Christians must always carry. There's no requirement that we love one another in the Christian sense, but respect for each other and acknowledgement that we are part of a community is something achievable, as are efforts at controlling negative emotions, desires (for riches and fame and power, things indifferent) and fears. Great effort and discipline may be required, but it is no impossible task.

God's teeth. What a horrible law, or I suppose I should say set of laws, since it appears more than half of the states in our Glorious Union have adopted similar provisions.

I don't think you understand Zionism. All it is is about affirming a Jewish homeland in Israel. I — BitconnectCarlos

Which is quite something, though, isn't it? What if there was no "Jewish homeland" in Israel? That would seem to make quite a difference.

Egyptian pharaohs were considered living gods, i.e. they were gods when alive. That generally wasn't so with Roman emperors, who usually were deified (and worshiped) after death, at least in the Western or Latin Empire. In some cases, an emperor would allow himself to be worshipped as a god before death, generally at the request of the prominent citizens of a particular city or region, but in most instances the emperor himself wasn't worshipped while alive though his genius and numen might be. The cult of the emperors was different in the West than in the East, as deification during life was more a feature of the Eastern Empire, the provinces of which had more of a history of ruler-worship. So, for example, Diocletian required divine honors while alive. With the coming of the Christian Empire, emperors were no longer deified but were, of course, considered emperors by grant of God.

I thought they actually were the members of the philosophy department of the University of Wooloomooloo, Bruce.

I think it's caused by a combination of fear and self-love, if left unmastered.

o summarize, in the simplest sense, should books on philosophy carry a statutory warning like cigarette packets do: SMOKING PHILOSOPHY KILLS? :chin: — TheMadFool

That would be appropriate only if it's truly possible to die of laughter.

It's astonishing to see this really happening, and I'm wondering what's driving it? — Shawn

The growing need to lessen the intensity of our desire for violence due to rampant boorishness.

Thank you.

I confess I miss some of those who once posted with some frequency, e.g. Landru Guide Us and a young fellow who used the name schep or something like it, who used to comment on my anti-romanticism and other things. And of course Chomskybot.

Do you think you can overlook the killing of 6 million people. Obviously it is relevant to the situation in the Middle as part of history. The expulsion of Jews from Israel by the Romans, the ensuing diaspora the crusades, pogroms and so on. Where did the Jews originate from and the Hebrew Language. The Jews are mentioned in the Quran. — Andrew4Handel

I think one of the reasons why this conflict continues is the belief that Israel has a special right, or claim, to Palestine (by which I mean the geographical area that currently covers the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). I'm uncertain whether you share that belief. Statements like those you made I've quoted above suggest you do. The references you make in other posts to a "land conflict" and your criticisms of "ownership" of property suggest you do not.

Personally, I don't know where the Jews originated (though I do know how they did--by the bearing of children), or where the Hebrew language came to be spoken, written. The Old Testament indicates neither the Jews nor Hebrew originated in Palestine. Instead, it indicates they exterminated those who were there before them or drove them from that land, and were granted it by God.

Regardless, I don't think the fact that a certain people lived in a certain place a long time ago and have always wanted to live there means they have a claim to it that entitles them to live there once again or always. I think this particularly true where those said to have such a claim have been largely absent from the land since the time of Hadrian. Likewise, I don't think God grants rights or title to property.

So, I think there's no reasonable basis for the contention that Palestine is the Jewish homeland or that the Jews have rights in it superior to those of others for religious or other reasons. That belief merely encourages violence, and war.

If that belief is not accepted, we have a situation in which it was decided by certain great powers that a Jewish state would be created which would come to exist in land inhabited at the time by people who felt very strongly that state should not exist. Unsurprisingly, they resented the imposition of that state.
Unsurprisingly, the result was, and still is, a disaster. I think it was foolish for anyone to think that the creation of the State of Israel wouldn't result in continuing conflict. Frankly, I think this was anticipated, but it wasn't of the greatest concern to those involved in the creation of the state.

What matters now is what's taking place now, but what's taking place now won't be resolved unless what took place then is disregarded by all sides and a "separate peace" arrived at. I doubt that will take place until one side or the other wins out completely, or "peace" at least in the sense of a cessation of hostilities is imposed by third parties.

think the the Jews are the only race left on earth that deserves to survive after the attempt to eradicate them and the thousands of years of persecution, displacement and the 6 million holocaust deaths.

I still don't think they should have children. — Andrew4Handel

If you don't think Jews should have children, then it would seem that you think only those Jews living deserve to survive, though, while others should not. Unless, that is, you maintain that because of the special suffering they've endured, they deserve to cause more suffering by having children though you think they shouldn't do so. Or, if they don't deserve to cause more suffering, that they nevertheless may be given a sort of "pass" in this regard; their wrongful creation of children being less wrongful, let's say, than the creation of children by Gentiles.

Antinatalism is a view I don't accept, obviously. Regardless, however, you seem to value the lives of Jews over those of others when you claim only they deserve to survive.

Moral debates are mainly garbage. I am antinatalist/ No one who creates children has a moral leg to stand on in my opinion. — Andrew4Handel

My guess is that quite a few Israelis have created children, and that those Israelis participating in the violence taking place have done so as well, or do so in order to protect children to be created. It occurs to me that the desire for the continued existence of Israel (beyond the lives of those now alive), and the desires of the settlers to settle, are premised on the desirability of creation of children--no more children, no more Israel, shortly. Why complain if Israel, or any other nation of children-producers, disappears from the face of the world?

But then perhaps, being an antinatalist, you long for the time when there are no legs to stand on, moral or otherwise, and since you seem to maintain Arabs procreate more frequently than Israelis, believe that the elimination of Arabs will tend in the long run to make that time more likely and its advent sooner.

Well, it works out for me because I am Jewish and a Jewish state does serve as a form of security for the Jewish people. I can't pretend to be a totally disinterested observer to the question. I'm also generally supportive of self-determination movements elsewhere. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, but I was wondering on what basis you claimed it to be the "Jewish homeland." Perhaps this is why, but if not, let me know if you like.

So what should determine who the rightful owners are? International law? What makes international law special? If there was a UN 500 years ago would you have followed it unquestionably? But now it's word is permanently binding, it's law - ok, got it. :brow: — BitconnectCarlos

Ah, so God it is, then. But if that's the case, God's been remarkably inclined to allow others to make the Jewish homeland their homes, wouldn't you say?

The Canaanites and Philistines, and perhaps Phoenicians as well, were there before Jews were. We're told that on their arrival the Jews dealt rather harshly with their predecessors. For example: “Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword.” — Joshua 6:21. Yes, even donkeys.

It's difficult, but not impossible, to name all the others who lived in and ruled Palestine since the Jewish conquest. Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians (and Medes, I should say); then it became part of Alexander's empire, then it was ruled by his successors, Seleuces and his dynasty; then Romans, who destroyed the Second Temple in 70 C.E. and did a pretty thorough job of evicting Jews from Palestine, even renaming Jerusalem, under Hadrian; then the Byzantines (who stilled called themselves Romans); then came the Muslim conquest, interrupted briefly and partially for a couple of centuries by the Crusader kingdoms. It was Muslim/Ottoman territory until the mid-twentieth century.

I may have missed some of the many occupants of that land. Let's say that in the last 2800 years or so, Jews haven't had much in the way of ownership of Palestine.

Why then say that it isn't the country of the Palestinians, but rather the Jewish homeland? It seems to be unclear even God has been convinced of that.

It's not their country. It's the Jewish homeland. — BitconnectCarlos

Is this God raising his (no doubt enormous) head, bellowing "homeland", and ordering Israel to destroy men, women, children and livestock as he used to do?

Palestinians are Greek Orthodox — frank

A genuine though misguided Christian community.

Would you toss bombs into Jerusalem? — frank

We Christians have done far worse to the Jews than that. It's interesting to consider what would be the case if the Palestinians were all Christians, isn't it? My guess is that Israel would not exist, or at least that it would be a much more reduced nation than it is at this time. In any event, it would not be treating Christians as it is treating Palestinians now. If I were a Christian in the position of a Palestinian in these circumstances, I suspect I would be capable of doing most anything. Fortunately, I'm an aspiring Stoic.

Would you sign up for the resistance if that happened to you? — frank

Well, although I'm not a practicing Christian now, I was brought up Christian, as a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Christianity strangely lingers in me in some respects, so of course I'd resist and fight with gusto. Deus Vult!

My point was that they aren't compelled to fight. Many of them are Christian and their religion tells them not to. — frank

Indeed. And who has ever heard of Christians being compelled to fight? It's never been necessary to force them to do what they've always been so willing to do.

Oh sweet summer child. — StreetlightX

Irony, you see. I thought it clear they screwed up then and there also.

Or were you being ironic as well? Goddam irony.

We see here the results of the machinations of Perfidious Albion. You must say the Brits learned from it, though, as shown by their adroitness leading up to the partition of the Raj.

But somehow I feel it doesn't matter to those whose homes are being demolished to make way for said religious nuts. — StreetlightX

No doubt that's true. But I think we should all be concerned whenever government acts, intentionally or disingenuously, because Deus Vult!

What's happening is disturbing generally, but (maybe it's just me) I find the role the "settlers" and "settlements" appear to play in the continuing conflict particularly concerning. The settlers seem motivated, in part at least, by the notion that the land belongs to Israel or the Jewish people as that was and remains God's intent. I'm uncertain whether the government supports them and their expansion for religious reasons or does so because they think it beneficial for other (secular) reasons.

On a side note, I do think people overstate how cosmopolitan and open people were throughout history. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You may be right. But when claims are made that slavery as it existed in the U.S. (or in European colonies) was not different from slavery as it existed in the Greco-Roman world, I think they're wrong because race was the basis of the former, but not of the latter.

Slaves were obtained from all over the Empire, and slavery wasn't based on race; nor, I think, would it be correct to say it was based on culture in all cases. Slaves were taken from Greece, for example, and the influence and even superiority of Greek culture was acknowledged. Slavery in the Empire was very much a different thing from what slavery became.

A slave's life in most cases would be brutal, and slaves were treated as property, but there were aspects of slavery which made it a curious institution, then. For example, Roman jurisprudence considered slavery to be dominion over another person contrary to nature, which is something later proponents of slavery, especially slavery racially based, could not accept, the supposed natural inferiority of slaves being taken for granted. Slavery was considered to be contrary to natural law, but accepted in civil law and by custom. Slaves were given the right to make complaints against their masters in court during the reign of Nero. During the reign of Antoninus Pius, a master who killed a slave without just cause could be tried for murder. Slaves could become Roman citizens upon manumission. Higher status slaves could hold property and earn money, which could be used to buy their freedom.

I think there is a difference between slavery in the ancient West and slavery as it came to be, which could be significant in some cases.

The ubiquity of slavery in ancient history should be apparent in reading any histories of the era. It existed in all state level societies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, but slavery in the ancient world in the West was different from slavery as practiced in the U.S. and by the nations of Europe during and even after the colonial period. In the ancient world, race wasn't a determining factor. Anyone could be a slave. Slavery would often be the fate of those defeated in battle. Many slaves were white and well-educated--better educated, in fact, than their masters in some cases. Slaves were tutors, doctors, administrators, gourmet chefs as well as household workers, gladiators and laborers. The Romans regularly and quite blithely enslaved all manner of folk, not because they were considered inferior racially or intellectually; they were socially inferior-inferior in status. Many became free in the regular course of events and became quite rich, powerful and influential.

My guess is you know about the First and Second Amendments. You raise an interesting issue regarding the First Amendment. Unlike so many other instances where it's claimed "free speech" is being infringed, it's clear that government action is involved in prohibiting speech related to CRT (and Socialism and Marxism, and perhaps evolution and other things as well) and so the First and Fourteenth Amendments actually apply, for once.

My guess would be that something like the time, place and manner restrictions on speech allowed in the law would be invoked. I think the argument would be that the public interest in education, of grade school and high school students, at least, is such that certain subjects be emphasized over others--e.g. reading, writing and 'rithmatic rather than political, social and moral theories and opinions, which may only detract from teaching of essential knowledge and skills. Grade school is arguably not the place for anything but "the basics." I don't know, though, what the argument would be. This must have been played out in some court or other, but I haven't looked into it. High school in this country is, of course, little more than a zoo and a place at which certain rights of passage take place in an almost ritualistic fashion.

Thanks for the clarification. Jumping the gun is one of my flaws, too.

A fear there might be something short of zeal for our way of thinking. — James Riley

I think it's more a fear that children will be taught something inconsistent with what must be taught for them to believe that their parents, their parents' lives, their parents' beliefs and their parents' country are admirable--are, in fact, right. Anything which could be construed as questioning that righteousness is viewed with resentment if not outright alarm. It's in some respects a fear that parental authority will be undermined earlier than it should be (if it should be at all).

Most of all, though, we're defensive about racism. We know (or should know) our sad history on matters of race, and like to think that we've taken care of the problem. It's comforting also to believe that it never was as bad as all that, except perhaps during the time when slavery was accepted and tolerated. It's claimed that there was and is nothing special about racism here, and so we see recourse to references to slavery existing throughout history and from place to place. When those accused of racism are singled out, the claim is made that a kind of racism supports the accusation of racism. It shouldn't be surprising that there are such reactions when accusations made are broad, extreme and absolute, I suppose, but neither the accusations nor the reaction to them achieves any resolution of the problem, which persists though perhaps in a less obvious form.

I'm neither dreary nor timid, but am professional, in that I'm confident, skillful and assured. But I have my flaws. For example, when I think I've been slighted, I cannot forget it. It's a weakness of mine.

My daemon, Marcus Tullius Cicero, or at least a version of the original, induced me to do a bit of checking on CRT and do a little blog post about it not long ago. I won't quote from it or provide a link to it here, for fear of incurring the wrath of a monitor or moderator as they like to be known.

Know ye, then, that it appears CRT initially developed in law schools, of all places, where its focus was, unsurprisingly, on the legal system. It was claimed that racism was a feature of the system and perpetuated racial inequality. And it came to pass that the same was soon said to be the case in political and social systems and institutions. Soon sexism and other isms were joined with racism and it was claimed that what was the case with racism was also the case with them as well. The dread word "systemic" was used in describing the scope of each objectionable ism.

As I'm a lawyer of vast experience and unsurpassed ability, it comes as no surprise to me to learn there are people who believe that racism is a feature of our legal system. I think it clear that it's a feature of that system, notwithstanding the laws prohibiting it. That's because I think people may be racist even where the law is not (just as they may be sexist), and am aware that the legal system includes law enforcement and application in practice, not merely in theory, and in fact includes most of our nation/society--especially politics.

CRT has become one of the issues involved in the dreary and tedious culture wars that beset our Great Republic. Recently, the State of Idaho prohibited the teaching of CRT (and Socialism and Marxism for good measure) in its public schools, thereby continuing the American tradition of regulating what is taught and learned by our youth. It isn't clear to me that there are many Americans who know what CRT, Socialism or Marxism consist of, but all of us probably live in fear that our children will learn things we don't know or at least don't approve of; a haunting fear indeed.

I think the practical problem with CRT and other such theories purporting to define or describe immensely complicated societies and their history (the theoretical problem with them is their absolutism) are the zealots who preach them and interpret them, and the zealots who oppose them. Those who think racism an aberration are foolish; those who think (for example) that racism has been a peculiarly American trait or phenomenon because a privateer intercepted a Portuguese ship and brought about 20 enslaved Africans to Virginia in 1619 are guilty of poor thinking, if nothing else.

It's funny to me that people often find what I say to be perplexing as I make such a deliberate attempt to be explicitly clear. — thewonder

Since your own amusement seems a concern of yours, I'm happy to contribute to it.

You must find yourself most entertaining.

But aside from matters of taste, of which it's said there can be no dispute, I think that as a narrative or rhetorical device it's as Tom Storm suggests--intricate and confusing.