Israel will help settle disputes involving families who were displaced in previous wars. Many Jewish families lost their homes in 1948 and Arabs took over so reclaiming that those homes would actually be decolonization. Zionism is decolonization. These cases go to court and the Arab families are compensated but they are treated individually.

Yes I will mourn when a 14 year old Jewish Israeli shepherd boy is abducted and stoned to death by knuckle draggers. And again one cannot colonise the land to which one is indigenous to. I understand that for you, as an outsider, everything just starts 75 years ago but not everyone shares your European, state-centered perspective of history.

You're guilty of genocide of the English language.

When everything is genocide to you, just response to an attack feels egregious.

I suppose the US committed genocide in Iraq. Or in Afghanistan. Innocents did die. Everything is genocide.

Yes, I do deeply hate and blame the organization that murders LGBTQ and tortures its own dissidents and indoctrinates its population with virulent anti-semitism and strives openly and boldly to destroy the Jewish people.

a) Hamas uses child fighters. Is the IDF allowed to kill a 16 year old firing a gun at it?
b) Hamas's figures are highly questionable.

No, see I’m the one against killing innocent civilians. — Mikie

Yet when this happens, as it does repeatedly to victims of islamic terror, you put yourself in a bind: Innocents will die when a country responds militarily.

To insist on zero civilian deaths = no military response permitted to murderous attacks.Especially when the attackers place themselves among the populace as they deliberately do.

Alter is indeed brilliant. One of the top in the field.

I have not read Spinoza but I'm sure I could gain something from it. I'm not partial to pantheism but I know Spinoza was brilliant. Heschel I would read but have not yet. Am currently reading Nahum Sarna's work on Genesis and Exodus. Recently read Shaye Cohen's "From Maccabees to the Mishnah" which is a good overview of later second temple Judaism, roughly around the time of Jesus.

The Gaza Health ministry only has data -- names, ages, etc. on 22k of the 33k claimed. Israel claims to have killed 13k hamas.

Palestinians are not the enemy, but I do see them as an enemy population in the same way that a highly pro-nazi town in 1945 would have been. The citizens themselves aren't inherently evil and deserving of death, but I would be very cautious of them. This is just based on statistics -- 70% of palestinians sympathize with the 10/7 attacks. Israel still allows the transport of aid and medical treatment to palestinians. Israel can provide aid but the reality leaves one skeptical of "winning hearts and minds." Yet Israel is and should treat them with basic decency. Soldiers who blasted Jewish prayers over a loudspeaker of a defeated city were reprimanded.

Did you hear about the 14 year Israeli shepherd boy abducted and murdered in the West Bank yesterday? Righteous palestinian rage, am I right? Those Jews Israelis have no right to that land! The Israelis smash us and oppress us for decades, what's the harm in one abduction and murder? Who even cares?

BuT wE aRe OpPrEsSeD

Does Israel have a right to pursue the killers or no? If yes Israeli may end up killing more than 1, if no then you proclaim Israel has no right to self defense. You have no good response to this one.

Are you an American, Mikie? Would you be a fair target for a terrorist angry at America's actions?

What larger death tolls?

War in Ukraine has larger death tolls, but it hasn't such high amounts of civilian deaths or death of children. And let's remember how few people are in Gaza and that this war has been going on for a shorter period time (aside how long the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on). Sudan has 46 million people.

Question for you, Moses: Would you be OK if the Israeli army continued it's fight against Hamas, but did allow freely food to be transported to the civilian population (which would be naturally inspected)?

The US did this in similar battles it fought in Iraq, even if it clearly understood that some of the food would end up in the bellies of the enemy combatants, yet decided that to starve civilians would be more counterproductive. And it tried to kill the insurgents by other means than hunger. As the US fought Al Qaede and Isis, it did also try to look after the civilian population when the battle was still ongoing. Or is there something wrong in the way the US did it? — ssu

Congo, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan. Gaza Health ministry has revised the death tolls downwards to ~22k with 13k of those being Hamas according to the IDF by the way. So roughly 8-9k civilians dead and keep in mind Hamas's rockets often malfunction and end up hitting their own populace.

I don't have any problem in principle with aid. The issue of obviously distribution. It is being taken by Hamas which resells it as a much higher price and will waste much of it. Last time I checked there was a several hundred truck log jam in the region regarding aid trucks. Israel can let the trucks in, which it is has, but distribution run by the UN is a different matter.

I definitely don't think Israel is trying to starve Gaza. Sources internal to Gaza have much more control over distribution patterns than Israel -- an outside government. And if ~70% of Afghani civilians supported al-Qaeda I think the US's treatment would have been very different. I would treat palestinians like an enemy population -- not abusively, but with definite caution. On 10/7 many of the perpetrators were regular palestinian civilians presented with an opportunity. I would be extremely weary of this population.

What I mean by "universalism" is, imo, revealed in Jesus's dialogues/arguments with the Pharisees. I found that Jesus's views were often (but not always) grounded in the early books of Genesis. Gen 1-11 is universal/applies to all of mankind. Gen 12-50 is particular to Israel. Just something that I noticed whether it relates to marriage, food purity, or the sabbath among others.

Jesus surely did consort with the common folk; he consorted with the lowest of the low. Tax collection in antiquity was a nasty institution yet Jesus did not shun them. Jesus shuns no one. That's what is unique about the character and places him in the "very good" or "very bad" camp. Traditional Jewish sages caution us against associating with the wicked. But I also believe the quote reveals he was a man of appetites and not like the ascetic John the Baptist.

I'm fascinated though in the ways that that Jesus helps socialize one. He is the ideal in many ways, if not all ways. So he is potentially something to emulate. I found that through internalizing at least some of his teachings the person becomes transformed and this is what I find so fascinating.

I'm Jewish (because my mom is) and raised conservative and reform. Now I'm drawn towards reconstructionism but it's a small movement and not particularly well established. I am not particularly observant and have not stepped foot in a synagogue for years. I'm drawn towards this movement because I read Robert Alter's biblical translation and Alter is likely in the reconstructionist camp. There's a greater emphasis on literature than on theology in his commentary.

I tend to get the sense that every Jew (or every believer) is a little heretical in their own way. Some just don't believe in God, some believe the Bible is all fabricated, some believe in a different form of God like Spinoza's pantheism. For me it's being weirdly drawn to Jesus.

I read Jesus without any Christian background (obviously) and I just can't get over the strangeness of the character. He is downright bizarre in a way that makes him either very good or very bad. I know of no other character who jumps off the page like Jesus and I'm drawn to many of the parables and lessons (I truly believe internalizing his lessons will make one very attractive!). But Jesus never seems to care about his followers' physical life or well-being. It's like if doing one of Jesus's teachings gets you killed quickly it's like "oh well, he died in Christ!" Jesus burns bright but dies young in proper accord with his teachings.

If you can condemn 10/7 as an atrocity it then presumably follows that Israel is justified in striking back at Hamas. So you're ok with Israel using military force against Hamas? Or do you see it as a law enforcement matter?

Now it's just a matter of how.

Fortunately for me, I don’t belong to the simplistic Nickelodeon morality crew.

Yes, the simplistic nickelodeon morality crew that condemns those who breach a neighbor's fence, enters his home, murders a family and sets fire to a baby in a crib.

Nice to know that, like, you're, like, so philosophical and smart and you're able to see the nuance and shades of grey in that. So educated.

I don't think that this is our biggest problem. Public discourse simply can be annoying some times. — ssu

I don't think it's our biggest problem it's just pervasive. It's more than discourse. Church and synagogue services get interrupted here frequently by the usual suspects. It usually gets swept under the rug. I can only imagine the hell that would break loose if people started doing this to mosques. I don't care much if it were just discourse but now it's becoming action. Jews are the canary in the coalmine.

I agree that self-criticism is good.

You know the analogy of the frog in hot water? If you throw a frog into hot water he'll quickly escape, but if you just slowly turn up the heat he'll end up boiling himself to death slowly. The modern West is predicated on double standards. We can freely criticise certain groups without shame/stigma but not others. Only certain types of pride are allowed.

The West is not well-equipped to deal with such issues. It is a case where the water temperature is slowly creeping up as opposed to a 9/11 or a Pearl Harbor. It is an issue that stems from the core western values of tolerance and religious freedom and to challenge those is to challenge our Enlightenment-era heritage. I would say that Biden has flooded the country with migrants, but that would presuppose that Biden is in charge when the country knows he is not.

I can't help but shake the sense that the US is in decline. Maybe it can be reversed. School absences have roughly doubled over the past 5 years. You walk into stores and the items are locked up. Apparently "stealing is wrong" is no longer something we collectively agree on. It didn't use to be like this.

And of course you have the religious zealots on the other side also, naturally, which people here don't support even if they are critical about Israel's actions... — ssu

Today a 10 month old Israeli boy, Shalhevet Pass, was shot in the head by a Palestinian terrorist. The secular Palestinian Authority will of course be paying (has paid?) the martyrs bounty of $300k USD for the deed. It's not just the Islamists.

But resistance, right?

There's few mosques here and very few Jews where I live. And people are quite well behaved. — ssu

Look around you to Sweden, Great Britain, Canada, and also the US to a slightly lesser extent. France would be another case.

So you assume fundamentalists make a country strong? I beg to differ. In fact, I find the whole narrative of "the West being weak", especially "weaker than it's enemies" to be a load of bullshit. — ssu

A country needs something that its citizens can sign onto. Some type of common value system. A sense of citizenship, a common purpose. What is it that unites us? A collective guilt in the sins of the West?

There's a plethora of violence, vandalism and a lot of emotions. Yet it's still politics. — ssu

When was the last time you saw a crowd of angry Jews surrounding and protesting in front of a mosque and disrupting their services? Where are the Canadian or American or European Jews going into Muslim areas and vandalizing their businesses and assaulting people? Where are the mass pro-Israel marches disturbing public order leaving behind a trail of destruction and violence?

Christianity is weak in the West. We believe in nothing. Western birth rates are low.

But don't point it out or draw attention to it. We wouldn't want to do that.

I have to say, I find absolutely nothing praise worthy in this story. It seems like weirdo childish moralising about things that don't make a huge amount of sense - and works, only in the infantalising context of a pre-school. — AmadeusD

Ok -- I'll add some more context. Moses likely stutters. He is "slow of speech" so it's a reasonable inference to make (and one made by religious tradition, although he could have some form of aphasia possibly). Can a stutterer lead a nation? Take on speaking roles at work? It's a grey zone imo. One could easily conclude that the stutterer ought to navigate himself to silent professions or professions that involve minimal speaking. That would be a fairly typical view.. pragmatic. "Know your place." But such pragmatism is ultimately stifling. And it applies to other conditions as well. I love how empowering the dialogue is. Think about you would deal with a son who stutters chronically. Should he shy away from speaking roles? Leadership positions?

It is realistic. Some people are disabled. Not differently-abled. The blind cannot be surveyors (the the typical sense - don't get hair-splitty). — AmadeusD

It's not always clear where the line is though. Is the stutterer disabled or differently abled? Yes, natural limits exist but we should test them. Strive for better. That is how we uplift. "On Earth as it is in heaven."

As noted before, I see several extremely obvious and pervasive literary problems with the Bible. It isn't a good work of literature unless it's got some Religious reality to it. IN that sense, its chaotic and self-contradictory tense is actually helping me take it more seriously. If there were not these aspects, it would be clearly the writings of a iron age buffoon. — AmadeusD

I would recommend reading it with commentary and consider that most public copies are Christian-biased and problematic translations. I don't know which version you've read. You've read the entire thing? You really didn't like any of it?

So, apparently, the scriptures aren't trash. — AmadeusD

I certainly don't think scripture is trash. Some are better written than others though. You do know that the English translations are just translations.

THe bible is written by hand of Human, sourced by the Mind of human.

Is it still the perfect piece of Lit? — AmadeusD

Still an amazing work of lit. And I do believe it was written by humans.

"better" begs the question, by ignoring it. why? Because you are religious and therefore disposed to this opinion. I personally think Enki and Ninmah is a better story. — AmadeusD

I quite enjoyed this story! The lesson is that most disabilities can be accommodated by society and that the disabled can serve a role in realistic proportion with their condition. For instance a man without legs can still be a skilled metalworker. A good lesson although the ending where not even Ninmah can help the very disabled is a little sad. I'd give it B tier. Good - especially for deep antiquity!

In Exodus 4 God deliberately assigns a man with a speech disability the task of talking with the Egyptian head of state and leading a nation. You see, in the Enki and Ninmah account the man with the speech problem would have been assigned a silent profession. But no, not here. God gets infuriated with Moses's insinuation that he should not lead on account of his disability but instead of punishing Moses while burning with anger he helps him by assigning him his brother as an aid. The story not only affirms the dignity of the disabled by affirming that they were created with divine intentionality, but also conveys that those who struggle are not intrinsically barred from certain elite professions like leadership. S tier. Divine revelation.

By the way I am not particularly religious (it's been years since I've attended services), just a reader of books. I just call it as I see it.

Sure. But the reason to think it has some providence other than a human mind? Your discomfort with the potential that a human mind invented it. Standard. But not reasonable. — AmadeusD

Even if so, God is the cause of the everything, which includes our thoughts and imagination. I'd settle for "divinely inspired."

Thank you for sharing this story with me.



Enki & Ninmah for those interested (4 minute video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxR8YYId4lE

I don't think you're adequately engaged with this exchange.
This does not say anything, whatever, about the claim quoted. That said, I appreciate what you are saying there and would further that point, to say when it runs into empirical problems, there's no good reason to remain with the Scripture. — AmadeusD

I don't understand how God communicating through dreams "flies in the face" of his nature or "runs into empirical problems." The Bible is our primary reference point for God... unless you've had some personal experience you'd like to share. Genesis informs us that it is in his nature to communicate through dreams.

This all boils down to your personal discomfort with something. — AmadeusD

I'm massively impressed by the sophistication of an account of a phenomena/how to frame it.

Given we have more complex, more morally interesting stories from older periods than the Biblical, I cannot see how its reasonable - which was all I was speaking about/around. Regarding current moral writing, I cannot understand how it's possible this story strikes you with more import than does say Reasons and Persons, or Animal Suffering. Warm fuzzie feelies? — AmadeusD

Show me a better literary account of disability than the one presented in Exodus. Also, I would like to know which stories you're referring to. I would figure the Bible is the greatest work of literature... at least western literature, that exists. I know of no better ancient account of disability. Or modern, for that matter.

I think we can appeal to the traditions/texts themselves to write off certain suggestions. — AmadeusD

On the contrary, Scripture (Genesis for sure, possibly Exodus?) does very clearly describe God as communicating through dreams. It is characteristic of the Elohist source (E).

The only reason to move on from these suggestions — AmadeusD

I don't need to. If God communicates through dreams he can also communicate through what we'd call hallucinations. I'd wager hallucination is more likely than aliens. Ezekiel surely hallucinated and saw visions.

But it is a story, like any other. — AmadeusD

Story doesn't mean false. Neither does myth. It may be embellished. I admit this is where my intuition kicks in. The story, imho, is just too sophisticated to have been written by ancient man inventing something.

There are other ancient accounts of disability -- maybe it is a curse by the gods, or maybe it's just a medical issue to be pitied as the Greeks posited -- but the story of the Hebrew Bible on this one is on a different level. I am referring to Exodus 4, by the way. 4:11 IIRC. God's dealing with Moses's concerns over his speech condition. There's many layers to the dialogue but the God character shows unbelievable compassion and (imho) wisdom towards the issue.

It just gets me wondering. It's like the dialogue is too good to be true. It is superior to any modern treatment of the issue in literature or film that I know of.

I just don't understand foregoing reason to achieve comfort. — AmadeusD

And what would "reason" tell us? To look within ourselves? :roll:

There is better evidence for these two, than the Bible story. Delusion and spontaneous mystical experience also. Kind of the point. Your motivation for rejecting these (not this specifically, but as a mode of illustrating the short-fall of reason), more reasonable, conclusions, is that they are uncomfortable to you, or you would rather another answer.
That seems to me, to be unreasonable. — AmadeusD

How do we differentiate between hallucination or spontaneous mystical experience and God? Could God not speak through those means? He's described as communicating through dreams. It's silly to ask for "evidence" here because no one knows what that means. What would qualify as evidence? Could you give me some examples? Some criterion? Rational inquiry is limited here as it is limited in life.

Yeah maybe his name was actually Noses. Or something else entirely.

This being clearly false, is motivation for my enquiry, largely. One need not chose and answer to any of these existential questions to properly participate in the world. — AmadeusD

I'm not talking about abstract impersonal questions. I'm talking about questions like, say, how do we understand/frame disability? Such content is revealed to Moses and has deep repercussions.

— AmadeusD

That's fair. I just don't understand why that would be motivation to reject, or accept, any claims. Or, reject good ones that you don't like. Just trying to see if you can pick up that thread in your mode of thinking.. — AmadeusD

Because such truths lead to life and self-actualization while others lead to death. The question is beyond rationality, but an approach must be chosen. I think that's the best I can do.

Yes, we are. — AmadeusD

How do we consider evidence for and against e.g. God communicating with Moses? I don't even know what it would mean for God to speak to Moses. If we were transported back to Moses's day and heard a booming voice thundering down would that be God? Could be aliens. Or we could be hallucinating.

This speaks the same language as what I was enquiring about. Doesn't it make you uncomfortable that a random desire to not be given multiple responses has you committed to certain cosmological 'truths' despite, perhaps, the evidence? — AmadeusD

Despite the evidence? I don't see where evidence factors into it. Did God speak to Moses? Are we to consider the evidence for and against such a claim?

What fascinates me about the book is that it reveals certain things that we wouldn't otherwise know or take for granted. It's just my intuition picking things up. I find some of the dialogues to be fascinating. I find some of the parables to be transformative.

It's a fascinating thought exercise if nothing else trying to work through these dialogues.

It is a personal issue. If I'm looking for an answer to a major life question about my being I don't want to be told e.g. "well it could be A, or maybe think about B, or possibly C, anyway we'll never really know and no one can know because a billion different gods (or philosophers) think a billion different things" -- I need conclusions. We all need to plant our flag somewhere and our own rationality will only get us so far. The world is too much for our own limited rationality to wrap its head around -- I couldn't even wrap my mind around myself nevermind the world.

There's surely a historical aspect, but it's also just my honest conclusion. I'll break from my religious roots in some ways, but not in this one. It's more personal than historical.

But I will concede that pagan gods are less jealous, and therefore there is a sense in which paganism is more tolerant.

The gods could be quite vicious to each other, but there was always a number of them and no one had a monopoly on truth. Polytheism allows the freedom for one to switch between value systems. Even the gods were subordinate to greater, more ancient primordial forces. I think polytheism is inherently more tolerant than monotheism; but personally I don't want plurality when it comes to the big questions of life.

Yes certain things are absolute in the Bible, such as man being made in the divine image and that God's creation is good. There is no 'do not kill', but there is 'do not murder.' Moses's speech condition is in no unclear terms framed as being the creation of God. I want certain things to be set -- i.e., beyond argumentation.

Before the Isaac episode, God tells Abram that his offspring will be as numerous as the stars above and that "he trusted in the Lord, and [God] reckoned it to [Abram's] merit" (Gen 15:6). Abram's trust in God - his faith - is viewed as a positive aspect of Abram. But as you have mentioned Abraham does bargain with God elsewhere so questioning is acceptable too sometimes.

I remember reading Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception & Perennial Philosophy years ago and he comes to a similar conclusions regarding our inherent connectedness. I've heard such ideas before and they're intriguing but I'm not quite sure what the upshot is. Where does one go from there?

The statement is interesting. I guess you consider it as something to obey. Did you impose this belief yourself? I agree with you. Philosophy is a very reliable tool which helps us to understand ourselves and what is around... But it is not the epitome. I often felt lost when I searched for answers regarding ethics and values. — javi2541997

I found that the rational inquiry for ethics and values didn't help me understand my own place in the world at all. Even if I did get attached to a new ethical theory, so what? Why do I have to always obey it? What did e.g. utilitarianism tell me about me as a person? Not very much except that I'm basically one ethical unit among many. That's why you get these philosophers who may be very book smart but fail as people and live unhappy lives because they can't function in society or form meaningful relationships.

I believe in God because I find revealed wisdom that is so rare and brilliant within the Bible that I have no term for other than divine revelation. I don't know how ancient people would have reached these conclusions just by themselves especially given we as moderns didn't. It's like recovering lost knowledge. Divine dialogues reveal truths that reason just cannot penetrate yet are necessary for life/a healthy society.

Well it was authored by men. Did you at least find wisdom in any of the dialogues?

Sure. So the obvious conclusion is that there is no consistent account of the nature of god as posited.

Now from this we might conclude either that he doesn't exist or that he does and we just have to accept that he is inscrutable.

You get to choose. — Banno

The Bible is not an ideological monolith. Different works present different takes on the subject. Why would we expect ideological uniformity from over 1000 years of texts? Read it and make your own judgments.

God is inscrutable in his entirety. Yet he does reveal certain things within the pages of the Bible. And certain things are consistent throughout.

Good post. I have a few, minor comments.

Scholars generally attribute the oldest texts some time around the 7th century BCE — schopenhauer1

There are poems and fragments of older texts dating back centuries earlier perhaps as early as the 11th century BC for some of the poems which conceptualize God in highly anthropomorphic, warrior-like ways like song of the sea. Perhaps the texts were completed around the 7th century BC?

I also agreed that Abraham is rewarded for his faith and I think this is made pretty clear in the story. From memory, Abraham's faith "was credited to his merit" and this idea was picked up by St. Paul. I don't really see the issue. God can also be bargained with in other stories.

According to Shaye Cohen scribes appear in the second temple period. By scribes he means laymen knowledgeable of the Tanakh.

Yes the general theme of the Tanakh is obey God, follow his directive, and good will come. And of course the inverse is true too. But this isn't universal as seen in Job and Ecclesiastes.

I love the Bible but I don't often engage organized religion in person.

When I was younger I was deeply concerned with morality and ethics and trying to find an objective grounding. As I aged, I found that these religious texts (the Bible, namely) are actually excellent self-help books. "Israel" can be seen as a metaphor for the self, a metaphor for a society, and also of course a history of sorts for the actual Israel. But it's application and relevance is universal.

As I aged my focus shifted away from impersonal ethics to self-improvement/self-actualization. I didn't read the New Testament until I was around 30 (I was raised Jewish) and I realized that the character of Jesus actually makes us more attractive and helps socialize us regardless of religious connotations. I mostly pay attention to what Jesus says (this is how people like Thomas Jefferson read the Bible AFAIK.) I don't mean to preach heresy but until someone can explain the miracles this will be my approach. In any case, if one is truly able to internalize the beliefs and teachings of Jesus I believe one will be fundamentally transformed and I reached that conclusion with zero Christian education.

I love the Old Testament as well. The God character gives divine revelation -- knowledge that humans wouldn't be able to glean either through their own reason or experience. Yet one must believe it if one seeks life. Our own thoughts and beliefs can slowly kill us if left to our own devices. The Old Testament is very much a book concerned with life. It is not about the afterlife. I've found some of the dialogues with God to be extremely helpful.

I believe in God because I have to. It's not a matter of a philosophical proof. I don't hate philosophy (I did major in it after all) but our reason is very limited and impersonal reason often will not help us live well.

If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban, we need only read the Old Testament. — alan1000

In which man stealing is unequivocally prohibited which should have been enough to shut down the institution of American slavery, yet somehow I notice the pro-slavery crowd seems to have an affinity for the writings of Paul, in the New Testament. :chin: