I'm not a biblical scholar either.

"αετοι" can be translated as either eagle or vulture. Vulture fits the meaning of the sentence better, so most contemporary translations use vulture.

Where people insist on using eagle, it's because they favor some esoteric meaning behind it.

Here.

Also, I like 'eagles' better. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's good enough.

frank

Eek. From eagles to vultures. How did that happen? — ZzzoneiroCosm

You were quoting the King James Version. It's got a lot of mistranslations in it.

guess my point is really that we're complaining about something that we think is "horrible" but we've done everything to normalise that in the past 60 odd years (and actually way before that). — Benkei

I think the situation is more complicated than that, but I'm thinking we probably can't discuss that.

Yeah, a brilliant poet.

"Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together." — ZzzoneiroCosm

"Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather."
--English Standard

He may not think he's god, but he definitely thinks he's god's gift. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, I guess so. He actually was pretty cool.

but I don't do it to celebrate the birth of some man that claimed to be the son of a god — Harry Hindu

Jesus never claims to be the son of God in the gospels. It's said of him (in Matthew, I think).

China does the same. When accused of taking the Russian side because it was sharing Russian disinformation (according to an EU agency), the Chinese responded as follows:

"In the past decades, who has been spreading disinformation to wage war in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries? Who has been expanding its geographical scope and range of operations that have disrupted regional stability? Who has provoked conflicts that have caused large humanitarian disasters?" the spokesperson asked. — Benkei

Benkei! You know too well how China deals with destabilizing forces. They re-educate. They do exactly the same things they did during the their revolution, where they take scientists and make them work as janitors.

I'm sure the middle east would be more stable after the Chinese got through with it, but it's because they only have a flimsy idea of human rights.

I'm not saying the US is some sort of Good Guy. Yes, what it did to Central America was abysmal. They destroyed any leftist aspirations there and replaced it with an elite that gave way to organized crime. Then when societies imploded and their children showed up on the US border, Americans were confused about why Central Americans can't organize their affairs better.

But the US is a minor figure in world history. A footnote. It's not the worst thing that ever happened. What some historians will note is that the US carried forward the imprint of the British. They are not a footnote. They'll get a whole chapter.

:up:

how would we demonstrate what that law is and what that higher power is? — Tom Storm

There was this one time where God zapped it into some pieces of stone, whereupon the guy carrying them threw them down on the ground and busted them. They swept up the pieces and put them in the Arc of the Covenant.

It's a pretty amazing story. It's etched on everybody's psyche. It's our epic.

Cannot any position be justified as the will (or law) of some higher power? — Tom Storm

Sure. There were these Mormons who believed God spoke directly to them. One heard God say he should kill his wife, so he did.

That story sucks. It's not etched on anybody's psyche.

Emotivism then? And if I don't share those emotions, then what's bad to you is good to me and there is no one correct answer? — Hanover

Jesus' answer was that all of the law means one thing: have love.

The Neoplatonists continued that theme with: "Love and do what you will."

The basic idea is that by loving, you come closer to your basic nature. If you don't have love, it's because you don't love yourself.

I'm partly Neoplatonic and partly profoundly nihilist. Strangely enough, the two blend pretty well.

So you accept a law from a higher power?

Alright, so for all here who have settled upon relativistic morality, explain the basis of your moral outrage against the rapist and why I should find your reasons compelling. — Hanover

It hurts to think of women I know being raped. I just extrapolate out from there. It's a feeling with a "no" at the center of it.

If the role of religion is really to bind people in a tribal group then dependency on the group is essential. Personal development of virtue leads to independence and is therefore at odds with the purpose of religion. — praxis

I've long thought the solution to climate change is a new global religion. The binding and what not.

They're huge. It's awful.

I got off of processed foods a while back and then discovered how the whole American scene is geared toward obesity.

As always, it's corporate interests vs the health of the people. In this case the sugar industry. :groan:

It has absolutely nothing to do with "defending Putin" — Isaac

I don't think you understand what I was asking, but I think I do get it now.

. I think Putin and Russia in general are much more rational than people want to give them credit for because it doesn't fit the narrative of a "butcher" or "mob boss" — Benkei

Mob bosses aren't evil or irrational. They're a form of governance. You pay the mob as part of the price of doing business. That's exactly what Putin is in Russia.

They butcher, sure, but in an environment where the police can kill minority Americans and get away with it, it's good to align yourself with someone who has established a relationship with the police. It's corrupt, sure. But it provides some stability for people who would be vulnerable.

I think the point is that it's not Russia that just invaded Ukraine. It's Putin. A number of pundits have made that point. It's not insulting.

. The more secure and respected Putin feels the less trouble he should be. — Benkei

If that's true, we should expect trouble going forward. His actions have eliminated Russia's market economy. He's transitioning to some sort of command economy, like N. Korea's.

So he is headed backward economically speaking. Ties to the west: gone. Russian middle class: severely reduced. His economy: permanently contracted.

That doesn't bode well for the overall health of Russian society.

The will to effectively dismantle democracy? — praxis

Sure.

My take is that's a naïve form of anti-americanism. They really really think Biden is worse or scarier that Putin. That kind of ideas is more likely to exist in parochial folks who never travelled much beyond their little country, because it takes only a few days in a dictatorship to understand what's happening. The difference with your average semi-healthy democratic country is hard to miss. — Olivier5

So you're different because you've traveled more?

I admit to highlighting a particular view when I believe it broadens the context. I would do the same when talking about the Netherlands but unfortunately nobody here is interested in my little country. — Benkei

I understand. I actually am interested. You guys just haven't invaded anybody recently. :smile:

Not a peep from the public school system about the American Empire, the blood on our hands. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Depends on the teacher.

The reason why you think I don't have that attitude with respect to the USA is because too many people pretend it's a force for good. — Benkei

I think I might understand what's going on.

Americans don't see the US the way you do. It's just our home. The rest of the world is like a big glob of non-American. Sort of.

I don't have access to the view you have where there's an unbalanced message wrt the US and Russia. For me, all narratives are internal, American narratives, whether critical, nationalistic, or just flat (as much as there is any unbiased point of view.)

I don't need to worry about balance. So most of the stuff you're saying is just misunderstood by me. I don't have the same concerns you do, so I don't get the intent.

Thanks! That actually helped.

So if you presented a balanced attitude about the US and Russia, you think you'd be contributing to an overall unbalanced narrative that's in the world?

You see yourself as having an obligation to create balance by being biased in both cases, in favor of understanding Russia and condemning the US.

Is that right?

I see. I think you might be affected by media that I'm not exposed to.

Do you watch televised news?

can't speak for Benkei but he may have some bizarre legal idea that both sides of a dispute deserve to be heard — boethius

But he wouldn't have that attitude if the culprit was American. He'd happily go in the other direction of being as unfair as possible (I think).

So I don't think it's a matter of valuing fairness.

I suspect one of them is doing it for the money. — Olivier5

I meant people like that in general.

All prayers are delusional by their very nature. — Michael

Sometimes prayer is effective though. It focuses the will.

Why don't you quote me where I defend him? — Benkei

I wasn't attacking you. I'm trying to understand people like you. If you have any helpful hints, I'd appreciate it.

I think Omicron ended up being the universal immunity maker.

Where I am, covid is practically gone. A few stragglers is it. Everybody's heads are spinning from it.

What's left is that people who are vulnerable still need to get vaccinated. Cancer patients, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and people of color definitely need to be taking D3 supplements.

I'm trying to understand people who are quick to defend Russia. I mean people like Benkei, who may not qualify as apologist, but seems to jump to defend Putin in a way he wouldn't for other leaders, particularly an American president.

What is behind that? Does it come down to anti-American sentiment where any enemy of the US is a friend? If not, then what? Do you have an idea?

What do we do when these works tell us different and conflicting things? — Fooloso4

And that's an important question. What is the value of conflict on this forum? I'd say ideally it allows for deeper examination and reflection.

That’s one reason to respect opposing views. Another is that it allows a diverse population to exist peacefully. Acceptance promotes recognition of humanity. That's a value from our time.

There is no necessity that what has historically been transmitted by religious tradition must be transmitted by religious tradition. — Fooloso4

I agree. I think an important point alluded to in the OP article is that the remnants of religion are all around us. We don't recognize them until we start doing a little exploration of history. So religion isn't over there somewhere in those people. It's here. Within you. In the way you speak, think, and act.

This is the main reason religion is hard to define now.

Although religion may play a role here, it is not a necessary role. — Fooloso4

Our concept of goodness is complex because it's a fusion of a number of different cultural attitudes. It can be about duty, progress, victory over adversity, etc.

Most of these concepts were transmitted by religious traditions, so we could say that's the role of religion here.

You have the arrogance of the lucky. :grin:

I think what you're missing is that dictatorship works better during a crisis. That's why ancient democracies evolved into monarchies over and over.

If you have a functioning democracy, that's because you're lucky, not because you had good soil. Your country hasn't faced any major crises or wars in a while.

then the "ritual" is non-religious. — Harry Hindu

And since there are non-religious rituals, and religions that don't have specific rituals, ritual is not the essence of religion.

It shouldn't be surprising that after 5000 years of drastic change in world views, the word "religion" is hard to define.

By the 1st Century, it was apparently used as a show of piety.
— frank
So practicing a religious ritual shows that you are religious? — Harry Hindu

Yes. Plus it lessens your chances of food poisoning.

Washing your hands before you eat isn't necessarily a Jewish ritual — Harry Hindu

It actually is. It was a whole thing.

By the 1st Century, it was apparently used as a show of piety.

As ssu says: learn history.

Isaac Asimov despised Alexander.

How about the Jewish ritual of washing your hands before you eat? Effective or not?

Don't you think the Chinese, being human beings, will judge for themselves if unleashing death and destruction on Ukraine makes President Putin a hero — FreeEmotion

A few will. There was a time when Russians and Chinese tried to face the truth about what communim did to their countries in the 20th Century.

It's incredibly hard to face that kind of thing. There's a strong impetus to turn away from it and say it didn't happen.

I'm afraid that lauding Stalin as a great man is is line with denial.

Right. I think it is the motive behind the ritual that makes it religious or not. If the motive is to achieve some goal where there is no evidence that such rituals achieve such goals, then that is a religion. — Harry Hindu

Shaking hands is a ritual. Is there any evidence that it achieves its goals? :lol: