Apathetic men never exercise.

PATH

BPPLEE said:

It starts with a sandwich...

Click to expand...

I mean, c'mon. That's actually funny. Positively Pythonesque.

'Did you see what happened? A mob broke through the police ranks in DC, killed a few of them, took some hostage and now there's armed rebellion in a dozen cities. It's the start of the next Civil War. Trump has fled to the UK. Parts of the army are joining the rebels. It's madness! How could it have come to this?'

'Well, this was this guy with a ham roll and he threw it at a fully armed officer in riot gear. The rest, as they say, is history'.

They'll call it the Subway War in times to come.

pay attention to when it’s your turn, and don’t constantly be asking “Is it my turn?”

You can probably tell…

Camp Candy

Stopped_lurking said:

He doesn't present an argument for why it would apply to ethics in the Problem of the Criterion. He just present it as fact. You do realise that there exists many metaethic theories, finding one that agrees with you is not enough.

Click to expand...

I am well aware, but your protest isn't really relevant. It's not about metaethics, either, it's a metaepistemological treatise. It just happens that his point about objectivity and normativity is salient to our discussion.

Stopped_lurking said:

I act on them because acting on moral feelings is in itself satisfactory to me. But where is the need for objectivity?

Click to expand...

Do you, or do you not, treat it as if when you are correcting a wrong you are in fact addressing something that is wrong? What is it that is giving you satisfaction when you act on such feelings?

Chesterton said:

In 14 years of frequent posting, I think this is the first post sympathetic to Christians that I've ever seen you make. Has Fuentes rubbed off on you from all the recent threads about him?

They are primarily Antiochian Orthodox, not Greek. We Antiochians and Greeks are theologically the same, the only difference is geographical location. I'm a conservative MAGA Antiochian Christian, and I have sympathy for them.

Click to expand...

So do I, but if you expect any sympathy from the Evangelical Protestants who are the main drivers of MAGA you will be disappointed. Most of them don't even think you are a "real" Christian.

Best you mind your manners.

Horse race

Bradskii said:

And there was me thinking he had a Greek background.

Click to expand...

Someone needs to tell his apologists

rambot said:

No.
FUNDAMENTALLY, God tells us he is in control...whether it's a secular, Christian or Islamic government.

Calm down and don't be so scared paranoid.

He's got it. It'll be fine.

Click to expand...

I was wondering when someone was going to push back on all the fear mongering with all authority is God Ordained.

essentialsaltes said:

Christian Nationalists are actual people who have a stated goal of some sort of unconstitutional theocracy.

As far as I know, Mamdani has expressed no such desire for an Islamic theocracy.

We know not all Christians are Christian nationalists. I have no reason to believe any random Muslim is a 'Muslim nationalist'.

Click to expand...

His Jewish supporters seem to like him.

Michie said:

No I said they were real people. And Paul was discussing covenants. Admittedly, I was scattered when I read this thread given the other things I was attending to at the time. Adam, Eve, Sarah, Hagar were real people. Using their situations as allegories to teach about covenants is not the issue, my misunderstanding was quickly reading through the thread while distracted and misunderstanding. So if you want to debate it, you aren’t going to find it with me. My apologies for hopping in and misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

That's fair: You misunderstood. No worries, mate.

BPPLEE said:

The hypocrisy meter is reminding me of all the criticism of George Soros that’s labeled as anti Semitism

Click to expand...

And there was me thinking he had a Greek background.

zoidar said:

No, why? The angel was only revealing part of the plan to Joseph.

Click to expand...

The angel's words are a definitive explanation of the very name of Jesus. The γάρ explicitly grounds the naming. His entire identity and mission on earth are defined by this statement. So the angel's words cannot be only a partial disclosure of that mission.

zoidar said:

"From their sins"? That exactly what Jesus will do, save the Jewish people from their sins, not every indidual Jew though. The deliverance "from their sins" clarifies what kind of salvation the Messiah brings, spiritual redemption rather than political liberation, not who is included in the scope of that salvation.

Click to expand...

But that reading isn't grammatically defensible. The future indicative σώσει ("He will save") expresses a definite, declarative act, not an attempt, offer, or possibility. The construction σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ is a promise of fulfillment, not a general intention.

So your qualification, "not every individual Jew though," can only be introduced if defining "His people" in a way that likewise "does not include every individual Jew." Grammatically, the text doesn't allow for a subset within "His people." Whoever that phrase encompasses, their salvation is certain and complete. He will save "His people" from their sins.

In other words, either "His people" refers to all Jews (in which case the angel's statement fails, since not all Jews are saved), or it refers to the covenant people who truly belong to Him; that is, the ones who actually are saved. The grammar itself forces that conclusion.

zoidar said:

Why do you believe the purpose of Matt 1:21 is to reveal the whole plan of redemption to Joseph?

Click to expand...

Because the angel explicitly ties Jesus' name to His mission. The verse isn't a partial hint; it's the divine explanation of His very identity and purpose on earth: "You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

Matt. 1:21 isn't a statement about who Jesus ministered to first; it's a statement defining His entire identity and purpose on earth.

zoidar said:

In the Gospels where "His people, My people, His own" is mentioned it always refers to the Jewish people. Why then do you think there is this exception in Matt 1:21?

Click to expand...

It often does, but claiming it always refers to ethnic Israel is a stretch. Lexical precedent doesn't control referential scope when the author himself redefines the covenant category in his own narrative. What matters is how Matthew uses the term in context, and the theological implications (like those mentioned above) of reading it ethnically in Matthew 1:21 are disastrous.

Matthew himself broadens the covenant category to include Gentiles and excludes unbelieving Jews (8:11-12; 12:48-50). John does the same: Jesus' "own" (τὰ ἐμά) are not limited to Israel, for He calls sheep "not of this fold" (10:14-16). Even John 1:11-12, which you cited, makes the point explicit: "His own" rejected Him, but whoever received Him, Jew or Gentile, became God's true children. Yes, "His own" refers to Jews there, but the point of the text is to redefine that. The whole point is that the true people of God is not defined ethnically.

Luke 2:31-32, which you also cited, likewise frames Israel's glory in the inclusion of the Gentiles. The Savior from Israel brings salvation "for all peoples." The covenant community, therefore, is not defined by national boundaries but by redemptive union with Christ. Yes, "His people" clearly refers to Israel there, but again the point is that the true covenant community is defined beyond national bounds.

Again, the critical issue is usage in context, not default semantics. Reading "His people" in Matt. 1:21 as merely "the Jewish nation" collapses the verse into either (1) a failed national redemption or (2) universal Jewish salvation, both of which contradict Matthew's entire theological purpose.

zoidar said:

Also the Gospel of Matthew was primarily written to Jews. Scholars often call it the “most Jewish” of the four canonical Gospels. That gives us a reason why it was specifically pointed out in Matt 1:21 that Jesus is the saviour of His people, the Jews.

Click to expand...

Yes, Matthew was written for a largely Jewish audience, but that fact does not tell us what "His people" means here. Authorial audience and referential scope are not the same thing. Matthew's Jewish readers were precisely the ones who needed to see that covenant membership is no longer defined ethnically but Christologically.

Hence, the "most Jewish" Gospel is also the one that most clearly dismantles Jewish exclusivism. From the Magi (Gentiles) in chapter 2, to the centurion's faith in chapter 8, to the Great Commission in chapter 28, Matthew's message is precisely that the promised Messiah of Israel brings salvation to all nations.

Bradskii said:

Offensive behaviour at a push. The officer should have just looked at the guy and said 'Really?' Surely they're trained to not over react. His colleagues are having fun at his expense putting plastic sandwiches on his work desk. That's all it's worth - a minor press report that's worth a joke or two. ICE and The DOJ come out of it looking pathetically idiotic - which is the only newsworthy aspect of it all.

Click to expand...

It starts with a sandwich, then it’s spit, then it’s a slap, you can’t just let it go

Stopped_lurking said:

Intrinsically preferable? I just said that others have different feelings sometimes. Did Cushion talk about moral feelings when he wrote that?

Click to expand...

He was talking about any discussion involving normativity.

Stopped_lurking said:

I'm explicitly not presenting my moral feelings as being preferable to any one but me. That doesn't stop me from acting in them. Also are you using objectively as synonymous with intrinsically now?

Click to expand...

Not quite, objectivity in this sense is on their normative value. It may not stop you from acting, but it makes you inconsistent when you deny that there is any objective element to your preferences. You act on them because you believe that your feelings truly reflect how things should be, the question is why do you insist on denying as much?

BPPLEE said:

Assault was overcharging. They should have just charged him with disorderly conduct.

Click to expand...

Offensive behaviour at a push. The officer should have just looked at the guy and said 'Really?' Surely they're trained to not over react. His colleagues are having fun at his expense putting plastic sandwiches on his work desk. That's all it's worth - a minor press report that's worth a joke or two. ICE and The DOJ come out of it looking pathetically idiotic - which is the only newsworthy aspect of it all.

Bradskii said:

He's been charged with war crimes AND he's Jewish. He hasn't been charged with war crimes BECAUSE he's Jewish.

You should get someone to check your monitor.

Click to expand...

The hypocrisy meter is reminding me of all the criticism of George Soros that’s labeled as anti Semitism

Dan Perez said:

And Romans 6:14 says. For sin shall NOT // OV. , is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE and the Greek word OV

means that SIN will neverrrrr everrrrr. RULE over you for you are NOT //. OV. UNDER the LAW but under Grace. , which

that the Law. of MOSES has been set ASIDE FOR. EVER !!

dan p

Click to expand...

Everything else in Romans 6 is speaking in favor of obedience to the Law of Moses and against am the law of sin, but if you want insist that sin has dominion over you because you would prefer to go in the opposite direction, then you can insist that sin has dominion over you because you are under the Law of Moses.

Chesterton said:

I can smell the anti-Semitism through my monitor.

Click to expand...

He's been charged with war crimes AND he's Jewish. He hasn't been charged with war crimes BECAUSE he's Jewish.

You should get someone to check your monitor.

Bradskii said:

Chille sauce! Hit the floor! He's got a ham roll loaded with chille sau...

Thwack!

Man down! We have a man down!

Groan...

It's ok buddy. You're going to make it! Milk! Dear heaven, where is the milk!

Tell...cough, cough...tell Jenny I...I love her...

Click to expand...

Assault was overcharging. They should have just charged him with disorderly conduct. Surely you don’t think it’s okay to throw things at people, even if you don’t like them

Stopped_lurking said:

That is how it feels. Others sometimes feel differently (very seldom though when asked).

Click to expand...

A quote from Chisholm's Problem of the Criterion seems appropriate to explain the issue I am pointing out:

"It is one thing to say, objectively, that one state of mind is to be prefered to another. It is quite another thing to say, subjectively, that one state of mind is in fact preferred--that someone or other happens to prefer the state of mind to the other. If state of mind A is to be prefered to state of mind B, if it is, as I would say, intrinsically preferrable to B, then anyone who prefers A to B is mistaken in his preference."

The problem is, you're presenting your moral feelings as being objectively preferable such that those who disagree are implied to be mistaken. So you're trading on objectivity while trying to hide behind subjectivity to sidestep defending the objectivity. If it were merely a subjective preference, then it couldn't be wrong or right it could only be whatever it is.

essentialsaltes said:

Jury acquits D.C. 'sandwich guy' charged with chucking a sub at a federal agent​

WASHINGTON — Jurors showed no appetite for the Justice Department's case against "sandwich guy," the D.C. resident who chucked a Subway sandwich at the chest of a federal officer, finding him not guilty Thursday after several hours of deliberations.

The jury — which feasted on sandwiches for lunch Thursday, according to a person familiar with jury lunches — deliberated the charges for several hours Wednesday and Thursday before delivering the verdict.

In closing arguments, defense attorney Sabrina Shroff argued that a sandwich could not and did not cause harm.

Click to expand...

Delicious!

Stopped_lurking said:

My feelings are real to me.

Click to expand...

No one said they weren't, but being private to you they have no relationship with the world beyond your mind.

Stopped_lurking said:

This just you restating your position. Why do I must believe "it is actually wrong", why can't I act on my "subjective preference"? You often add qualifiers like "actually" as if they mean something, what is the difference between wrong and actually wrong?

Click to expand...

You tell me, what makes your preference wrong in a non-objective manner? How can something be wrong, but only be a subjective preference with no objective content?