E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
Recent Posts
Apparently a new missile
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4n9vgwnnyo
VG,We're discussing real world effects of religion and politics. Remember Outrider's concern about people accepting things without evidence in religion? Apparently that was more worrying for him compared to people accepting things without evidence in politics, such as people believing without evidence that it is morally right to support Israel - a country which drops 75,000 tons of bombs on a civilian population to kill over 40,000 people, of which 40% were children, so that it can keep illegally occupying and annexing land on which to build more settlements.
Yes I have, several times. In Reply 51717 for example I said:
“And at the end of Trump’s term those same voters could count the number of deportations to decide whether or not he’d delivered on the promise. What would you suggest the parishioners count in response to a cleric saying, for example, that same sex people shouldn’t go to bed together? That's a significant difference I think.”
And in In Reply 51738 I said:
“As I said, the difference is measurability and its attendant accountability. Religions can have all the “ideas about morality” they like, but that’s the end of it. Politics on the other hand ties itself to actions – indeed you could often define "politics" as the enactment of ideologies – and those actions have real world effects and consequences that can be determined to have happened or not. You seem to think this difference isn't important. I think it is.”
In short, truth claims tied to real world outcomes bring accountability; truth claims tied to (supposedly) divine instructions on the other hand don’t. The former can be tested and, when found wanting, on that basis can be rejected in favour of different policies; the latter cannot.
What would “…a real world event to illustrate your point about faith claims” be? The resurrection of Jesus is claimed by those who believe in it to be a “real world event” for example, but the paucity of evidence for it makes it untestable.
You’re veering into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the crisis here. My point though was that Netanyahu, while he clearly thinks he has the moral high ground (as presumably do all politicians), sets out his stall as being actions necessary to ensure an outcome – ie, future Israeli security. Whether or not he’s right about that only time will tell, but it will tell nonetheless by the events that unfold. Compare this with, say, “we can build settlements here because this land was given to us by God”. What real world evidence would you point to to test this claim?What will voters count or measure to know if he has achieved future Israeli security? Eg. how many dead or injured soldiers and reservists and hostages is acceptable? How far into the future before the next terrorist attack comes along is acceptable to voters?
In a word, accountability.
'Ukraine says Russia launched an intercontinental ballistic missile for first time in the war' - though this seems not necessarily to have been an ICBM.Apparently a new missile
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-21/ukraine-says-russia-launched-ballistic-missile-for-first-time/104632948
No I didn't.OK.
I inferred that Papias thought Matthew wrote a sayings gospel in Hebrew, not a narrative in Greek.OK.
So what? You are still inferring facts not in evidence.So let's see if there is any evidence. The above article by Lightfoot also describes how Papias believed in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ in the future, on earth. Lightfoot cites Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch. 33. Irenaeus quotes Matthew 26:29 among other scriptures and says that "these things Papias witnesseth in writing in his fourth book". If Papias quoted Matthew 26:29, which is a saying from the last supper, with wording that is distinct to Matthew, then he must have known Matthew's gospel and the context for that saying (the last supper) within it.
Moderator note, as per previous post this is reply from jeremy p to the previous post originally on SfGJeremyP
That's a gross distortion of the Palestinian situation.
For one thing, Israel can't turn Gaza into an "open air prison" by itself. Gaza has a border with Egypt and a coastline.Egypt doesn't want Israel to succeed in its ethnic cleansing by permanently expelling thousands of Palestinians as refugees into Egypt. Nor does it want Palestinian militants walking in as that endangers its peace treaty with Israel and could cause political disruption in Egypt. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-egypt-and-other-arab-nations-are-hesitant-to-take-in-palestinian-refugees
Anyway, that's all off topic for this thread, so I'll say no more.
You keep mentioning you think it's an important difference without ever explaining why you think it's important.
You're comparing a Bible story with a real event? Bible stories, like many religious stories are brief illustrations to make a religious point rather than historically accurate descriptions to be taken literally. Why not pick a real world event to illustrate your point about faith claims.
Are you suggesting with your Netanyahu example and the support he has from Western governments that Israel and its allies don't consider morality or values to be important in their decision to bomb civilians? It is just an academic exercise in recording metrics on how much bombing will allow a country to make an area so uninhabitable that it can ensure there is no resistance to illegal military occupation? Why is that demonstrating the superiority of making decisions based on metrics rather than religion?
The Israelis (supported by their foreign allies) have been bombing, killing and abducting tens of thousands of Palestinians for decades and it hasn't worked in ending resistance to Israel's illegal military occupation. They blockaded Gaza since 2007 turning it into the largest "open air prison" and it didn't work. All that happened was that other countries supporting Israel became targets for terrorism. So why are they ignoring metrics and continuing to do what hasn't worked in the past?
The US bombed and killed thousands of civilians during its War on Terror https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-civilian-casualties-iraq-afghanistan-b1912816.html - it didn't work in ending the Taliban.
Sanctions on Iraq and mass bombing of civilian infrastructure killed tens of thousands of Iraqis - ok the US got some oil revenue out of it and US taxpayers spent trillions killing people so it worked in terms of making some private US companies very rich. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-war-bush-twentieth-anniversary-b2302031.html
The US also bombed and killed tens of thousands of Vietnamese - it didn't work in ending Vietcong resistance.
The metrics you might want to look at is how much money are weapons manufacturers earning and how long Netanyahu can delay his criminal trial by prolonging and extending the war - to avoid facing up to corruption charges and prison.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/court-rejects-netanyahus-request-to-delay-testimony-in-criminal-trial/
Netanyahu’s defense team requested the delay because it said the prime minister has been unable to prepare for giving testimony, set to begin on December 2, due to the time pressures of managing the current, multi-front conflict.
I still don't get the "important" difference you are trying to highlight. What is the important difference between religious claims and people seemingly ignoring metrics and making decisions based on wishful thinking and their human psychotic urge to kill lots of people?
