coffee_enjoyer
☕️
No bio...
User ID: 541
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3mo ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74z4gy5g31o
Gaza aid site offered a 'women only' day. It didn't stop the killing
Palestinian men mostly take on the risk, jostling to secure a box of food for their family […]
Sheikh al-Eid died from a bullet injury to the neck. She is one of two women known to have been killed on Thursday's "women's day". The BBC also spoke to the family of the second woman who was killed, Khadija Abu Anza. One sister, Samah, who was with her said that they were travelling to a GHF aid site when an Israeli tank and troops arrived. From a distance of just metres, the troops first fired warning shots as they told them to move back, Samah said on Friday. "We started walking back and then she was hit by the bullet," Samah said. "They shot her in the neck and she died immediately."
There are also risks because Israel is arming and funding criminals gangs in Gaza, gangs affiliated with the Islamic State:
"Some people here die from stabbings and attacks — all over food. We've all turned into mafias and road blockers."
Pretty obvious why men would want to venture to get aid in these conditions. You’re right that in UN-patrolled areas this doesn’t happen, but Israel has (naturally) prevented UN-mediated aid distribution.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3mo ago
There’s no compelling evidence that they are trying to steal food or storm the sites. In some cases they are fired upon 800 meters away from a site. In other cases they are fired upon when waiting in line too early. The state of the aid distribution, if anything, make stampedes and other risks more likely, which the UN and aid groups have warned about since the start of it (even before that). The examples of stampedes which you link occurred inside buildings and in small alleys, and there’s no excuse for a stampede to occur in an open area with almost no remaining building. Additionally, the use of live rounds makes no sense when dealing with an emaciated unarmed crowd so far away, when even a paintball gun would do a better job both deterring any unwanted crowd movement and also in delineating the desired passage for the population.
The reason boys collect the aid might be because the IDF frequently shoots civilians. From the UN Human Right’s Council report on the 16th:
Importantly, the Commission has found that children have been directly targeted in various ways by the Israeli security forces since 7 October 2023, including during evacuations, at shelters, and more recently at GHF distribution sites. Medical professionals told the Commission that they have treated children with direct gunshot and sniper wounds, often to the head and abdomen, indicating that the Israeli security forces have intentionally targeted children during their military operations in Gaza. In relation to the attacks along the evacuation routes and within designated safe areas, the Commission found that the Israeli security forces had clear knowledge of the presence of Palestinian civilians, including children. Nevertheless, Israeli security forces shot at and killed civilians, including children who were holding makeshift white flags. Some children, including toddlers, were shot in the head by snipers.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3mo ago
We have a few confessions from soldiers about this.
Three days ago in the Hebrew language Haaretz (translated)
For Bani, a sniper in the Nahal Brigade, changing roles is no longer enough. The wound he describes is too deep, too profound. "It started about two months ago," he testifies. "Every day, we have the same mission: securing humanitarian aid in the northern Gaza Strip." His day, and that of his comrades, begins at 3:30 a.m. Accompanied by drones and armored forces, they set up a sniper position and wait. According to him, between 7:30 and 8:30, the trucks arrive and start unloading their contents. Meanwhile, the residents try to advance to secure a good spot in line, but there's a boundary they don't notice. "A line that, if they cross it, I'm allowed to shoot them," Bani explains. "It's like a game of cat and mouse. They try to approach from different routes, and I'm there with the sniper rifle, with officers shouting at me, 'Take them down, take them down! I fire 50-60 rounds every day, I stopped counting kills. I have no idea how many l've killed, a lot. Children."
Regarding the “boundary they don’t notice”, these may be invisible or only known to the IDF soldiers:
Establishing an invisible “security perimeter” then shooting civilians who cross it has become common practice in Gaza, Israeli soldiers have testified. When asked how his squad decided whether to shoot unarmed Palestinians, Raab said: “Its a question of distance. There is a line that we define. They don’t know where this line is, but we do.”
Raab quoted in the above is an American-Israel dual citizen who was tricked by a journalist into confessing to the killing of a family in Gaza, though not at a food distribution site. He shot an unarmed man, the man’s brother who went to retrieve his body, then the father who went to retrieve the bodies of his sons. This example is unusual in that an international team of journalists pursued all the evidence they could on this one particular instance over five months. So we have a confession, a video of the killing, interviews with witnesses and survivors and the family, death records, and geolocations.
More testimonials from soldiers at the aid sites includes
It's a killing field," one soldier said. "Where I was stationed, between one and five people were killed every day. They're treated like a hostile force – no crowd-control measures, no tear gas – just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars. Then, once the center opens, the shooting stops, and they know they can approach. Our form of communication is gunfire." The soldier added, "We open fire early in the morning if someone tries to get in line from a few hundred meters away, and sometimes we just charge at them from close range. But there's no danger to the forces." According to him, "I'm not aware of a single instance of return fire. There's no enemy, no weapons." He also said the activity in his area of service is referred to as Operation Salted Fish – the name of the Israeli version of the children's game "Red light, green light".
[a different testimony] In one incident, the soldier was instructed to fire a shell toward a crowd gathered near the coastline. "Technically, it's supposed to be warning fire – either to push people back or stop them from advancing," he said. "But lately, firing shells has just become standard practice. Every time we fire, there are casualties and deaths, and when someone asks why a shell is necessary, there's never a good answer. Sometimes, merely asking the question annoys the commanders." In that case, some people began to flee after the shell was fired, and according to the soldier, other forces subsequently opened fire on them. "If it's meant to be a warning shot, and we see them running back to Gaza, why shoot at them?" he asked. "Sometimes we're told they're still hiding, and we need to fire in their direction because they haven't left. But it's obvious they can't leave if the moment they get up and run, we open fire." The soldier said this has become routine. "You know it's not right. You feel it's not right – that the commanders here are taking the law into their own hands. But Gaza is a parallel universe. You move on quickly. The truth is, most people don't even stop to think about it."
[a different testimony] "I was at a similar event. From what we heard, more than ten people were killed there," said another senior reserve officer commanding forces in the area. "When we asked why they opened fire, we were told it was an order from above and that the civilians had posed a threat to the troops. I can say with certainty that the people were not close to the forces and did not endanger them. It was pointless – they were just killed, for nothing. This thing called killing innocent people – it's been normalized. We were constantly told there are no noncombatants in Gaza, and apparently that message sank in among the troops."
[a different testimony] They talk about using artillery on a junction full of civilians as if it's normal," said a military source who attended the meeting. "An entire conversation about whether it's right or wrong to use artillery, without even asking why that weapon was needed in the first place. What concerns everyone is whether it'll hurt our legitimacy to keep operating in Gaza. The moral aspect is practically nonexistent. No one stops to ask why dozens of civilians looking for food are being killed every day." "The fact that live fire is directed at a civilian population – whether with artillery, tanks, snipers, or drones – goes against everything the army is supposed to stand for," he said, criticizing the decisions made on the ground. "Why are people collecting food being killed just because they stepped out of line, or because some commander doesn't like that they're cutting in? Why have we reached a point where a teenager is willing to risk his life just to pull a sack of rice off a truck? And that's who we're firing artillery at?"
[a different testimony] “The claim that these are isolated cases doesn't align with incidents in which grenades were dropped from the air and mortars and artillery were fired at civilians," said one legal official. "This isn't about a few people being killed – we're talking about dozens of casualties every day."
Then of course you have the doctor testimonials. A popular Dutch newspaper just did a big investigation on this last week:
Each time a food distribution point opens, doctors in the hospitals see dozens of civilians arriving with gunshot wounds. Most are boys—teenagers and young adults. They are brought in large groups at once on donkey carts. Some still carry empty food bags. Several doctors notice a pattern in the injuries. The targeted body part differs each day, as if it’s coordinated work, they suggest.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3mo ago
This is not a primary resource, but I found it informative for the things he did “offline”:
https://scholarstage.substack.com/p/bullets-and-ballots-the-legacy-of
Charlie Kirk was not just a piece of internet bombast; his main field of action, in fact, was not on the internet. Kirk was one of the most effective institution-builders and coalition-crafters in the United States. He was less an influencer than a power broker; everyone in MAGAland acknowledged the leadership role he played in building and holding together Trump’s coalition
TPUSA was a leadership incubator for a generation of conservative activists. His success with TPUSA made him a favorite of the Republican donor class. His show gave him a ready excuse to interview politicians, think tankers, and media personalities across the right. All of this gave Kirk an impeccable Rolodex—he had access to a vast network of conservatives who mattered and an unerring eye for up-and-comers who should matter. He was constantly connecting politicians with donors, statesmen with staffers, and media outfits with the next brilliant young producer or marketer. There are a good four dozen people in the Trump administration who owe their appointments to an introduction Kirk made on their behalf—and this was true not only of the Trump administration, but also across Congress, in state governments, and in news agencies like Fox News.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
Many believed that United had such regulatory capture and lobbying capacity that they were above the law, and so the victims of their injustices couldn’t plausibly seek justice against the company. Many believed that there were hundreds or thousands of victims of United and that their victimhood was especially heinous because (to simplify) they had purchased medicine but were withheld the medicine they purchased and were promised while they actively dying. Doctors, patients, academics, and those in the industry came forward after the event to talk about this. Something outside the law is treated according to the traditional norms regarding outlaws, as that’s just what means. None of this applies to Kirk, who was firmly within the law.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
The card in question. There is something “more to life than having everything”. This satisfaction is a secret shared between Donald and Jeffrey which they enjoyed together in their last encounter. This “wonderful secret” is referenced in the phrase “enigmas never age”, which Jeffrey “noticed” last encounter, but which they won’t mention publicly. This is all written within the silhouette of a woman, with Donald Trump’s signature acting as pubic hair. In 2003 it was not considered noteworthy for a rich guy to hang out with 18 year old women, and we know Epstein trafficked in underage women, so the overwhelming probability is that they are referencing underage girls.
The reason for Epstein being Mossad I’ve made a number of comments on (I wish there was an easier way to search and paste the URL)
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
The Trump-Epstein birthday card and the bombing of Qatar may be linked. It’s not anyone in America leaking this stuff as otherwise it would have been published 2016-2024. I think it’s Israel showing its guns, reminding the President that they’re in control and that there’s much worse than can be released if he doesn’t go along with their decisions in the Middle East. The birthday card makes clear that Trump’s relationship with Epstein involved underaged girls, and of course any such relationship was recorded by Epstein, and it’s most probable he was a Mossad or Israeli Military Intelligence asset.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
Japan’s 1/1000th rate of gun crime is not invalidated by one outlying case of assassination. The assailant in question planned to kill a cult leader for 20 years, tried and failed to obtain a firearm, built his own firearm, then spent a year planning to kill Abe only because he supported said cult. This was a highly unusual event all around.
…Of course. Charlie Kirk would still be alive today if America had strict gun control. There’s only a tiny chance that this terminally online dude would be able to acquire an illegal firearm in Utah, and still only a tiny chance that he would successfully assassinate him through some other means. The gun is a causal factor in his death, in the same way open borders is a causal factor in the illegal immigrant example. In both cases, the victim reasonably believes that policy decision effects a greater good which supersedes the risks and harms.
I of course totally disagree that we should care about illegal immigrants and pretty much agree that we should have guns, but that’s opinion.
We can try to imagine a reversal of the scenario. If a pro-immigrant pundit were slain by an illegal immigrant, would conservatives make callous remarks on social media? I think so, yes. I don’t think they would “celebrate” it, but they would definitely make brusque political comments online. I recall reading comments like that after the Mollie Tibbetts story (illegal immigrant killed progressive American girl). We can’t say that it’s different because one side is objectively wrong about things, because polite politics requires that we pretend / believe that this isn’t the case.
But Charlie Kirk’s death is also unusually significant. He was a household name for anyone tuned in to youth politics. He was being groomed for leadership in the conservative movement, so it’s the equivalent of killing a political candidate (you can’t replace someone like Charlie Kirk). His death was unusually public in our uncensored social media environment, and also wildly gruesome. And his show was a symbol of open political discussion, even if only at the surface level. So there’s a sense in which Charlie Kirk’s death is more of an apolitical public tragedy. There’s the political dimension to it, but there’s also the apolitical tragedy dimension. As both parties would be happy to fire anyone who made light of the Boston Marathon Bombing after it happened, it comes down to how Kirk’s assassination ranks up against other objectively sacrosanct public tragedies. I actually don’t like him but I would say it’s something of a sacrosanct public tragedy because of the aforementioned incidental memetic properties of the event.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
But if we have evidence that secular organizations in history have been as violent, dogmatic, and successful as the Taliban, then I’m not sure how you are reasoning that the Taliban’s afterlife belief has been instrumental to some particular “benefit” of their movement. Even in regards to their suicide attacks, we have plenty of cases of suicidal acts from secular organizations, like the Japanese in WWII or among the Romans. It is not sufficient to claim that the Taliban benefits from their afterlife belief just because (1) they have such a belief & (2) their movement is highly motivated, because there’s also a dozen other things that the Taliban are doing.
Surely belief in an afterlife is at play in at least some individual cases [of charity]
In some cases, sure. But I think it’s complicated by a lot. Jews give proportionately more to charity than Catholics and usually do not possess an afterlife belief. Bekkers’ “The Pursuit of Differences in Prosociality Among Identical Twins” finds that charitable donations are mediated by frequency of church attendance, with each additional visit resulting in $20 more to charity. Something noteworthy about Jewish charity is that its mediated by perceived victimhood, such that Jews who have “experienced antisemitism” donate 10x more on average to Jewish charities. This little factoid is very insightful in explaining how prosociality functions within group dynamics generally: the perceptions of injustice as a class and a common enemy propel in-group benefitting. Not only does this make sense in light of evolutionary biology, but it also makes sense in light of early Christian history, as they emphasized their victimhood, their enemy, and their common “class”. And of course this propelled Marxism too.
Give all superfluous possessions to the poor" as such isn't really a clear Christian teaching
You will not be able to find any early Christian Father who said that one can be spiritually perfect while being wealthy. Catholicism venerates those like St Francis in part because he gave all of his wealth to the poor — and his family was quite wealthy.
first off, this does happen. There are nuns and monks and religious orders and missionaries. Those all exist.
In many cases these are career decisions decided a young age. How many rich Catholics ever decide to do this? 0.1%?
you seem to think that Scripture says "be poor and you get into heaven" which isn't the case
If giving your surplus wealth to the poor instead of buying a mansion earns you a greater reward, which every Christian thinker of the first 500 years would have told you, then we should expect reasonable self-interested afterlife-believer to do this given the cost / benefit analysis. Do you disagree that giving to the poor and abstaining from worldly pleasures provides a greater reward? Do you disagree that it makes salvation more secure?
Acts 5
This narrative line begins at the end of Act 4 (as you know, chapter divisions are not original to the text). At the end of Acts 4 we read:
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus,sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
We learn that the true believers were of one heart and soul, did not believe their surplus was their own, and distributed to the needy from all of their profits. This same narrative continues —
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
The problem of Ananias is brought up as an exception to the Godly conduct which Luke had just relayed (think I accidentally wrote Paul in my last comment). Luke highlights the problem of Ananias and why he is being mentioned at all: “for himself”, “only a part”. It follows:
But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last.
The word “keep back” is important because it has the connotation of a moral crime in itself. This is not neutral terminology: this is the sin being called out.
ἐνοσφίσατο: may merely mean from its derivation, to set apart νόσφι. But both in LXX and N.T. it is used in a bad sense of appropriating for one’s own benefit, purloining
Now Ananias lied in doing this, but the narrative is not written in such a way that the lie is the weighty crime of Ananias. The narrative is about sharing surplus, and the emphasis is on the lack of sharing by Ananias. This section of Acts had just mentioned that none of the Christians believed that their surplus was their own. The section did not previously mention lying, neither did it mention anything about a promise or oath that the Christians made with respect to charity, neither did it mention that Ananias would have obtained some social benefit from the completed charity. You will find no saying among the early Christians that lying about how much you make deserves death. But we do find such sayings against greed among the early Christians. We can look at the Didache, one of the oldest Christian texts:
The way of death is this: […] greed […] loving worthless things […] not having mercy on the poor […] turning away from the needy […] advocates of the rich
If you have gained something through your work, give it away as a ransom for your sins. Do not hesitate to give, nor complain when you give, for you know the good paymaster of your reward. Do not turn away from anyone who is in need, but share everything with your your brother, and do not say that anything is your own. For if you all share in the heavenly things, how much more in earthly things?
Now certainly, people can believe whatever they want about God and religion. But But I think that believers of new age thought, those who believe in “the righteous rich”, should have the honor to not lie about what they believe. Why corrupt the name of Christ? Because the religion of Jesus and his first followers is very beautiful and pristine, and it’s all in plain language. If someone wants to take some aspects of Christ’s teachings and conform them to fit their own base instincts, that’s in their right, but I wish they wouldn’t claim to actually follow Christ, because that’s not accepted in the actual religion. It’s some other thing. We have the primary documents! We know what was taught and what was practiced.
Notably absent from your collection of verses: the many verses in Scripture that celebrate accumulating wealth and offer concrete advice on how to do so
Jesus completed our understanding of things and we now know not to store out treasure on earth.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
What does “clearly devoted Christian” mean here? Did he advocate for everyone to give their surplus to the poor? Did he sell his guns and pledge non-violence? Did he apply pressure to safeguard civilian casualties in the wars we fund? With his 12 million net worth and four homes, including a 6 million dollar mansion, I can find no evidence that he ever made a personal donation of any kind. I just searched his 70k tweet account and he never once made any comment about the suffering of civilians or children in Gaza, though just recently he had a rabbi come on his show to claim there is definitely no one starving.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
Doing a quick 4plebs search, the “notices bulge” phrase is heavily overrepresented in the Ukrainian war threads but seldom appears elsewhere (where “bulges” appear on the frontlines map). I haven’t seen this copypasta in the wild in a very long time, so I found it extremely odd that he would put it on his gun. It’s not exactly a pro-trans message, and nothing else indicates that transgenderism had a role here, and he doesn’t appear to have dysphoria. The spooks who engage in the Ukraine/Russia threads often don’t have a tasteful grasp of how to use copypastas or which have fallen out of fashion, so I wonder if he picked this up in his online participation in pro-Ukrainian / anti-Russian spaces. This would make sense given his other interests: an antifascist song, Helldivers, an anti-fascist message. I’m not implying that he was groomed by the Feds, but I would bet my money that he was in some online ecosystem where fascism was demonized and which Feds participated in.
Does anyone here recall seeing a “notices bulge” meme in the wild lately? Do modern trans people use it?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
There are a few reasons why the conflict isn’t a black and white issue: that it began decades ago with clearly illegal acts like the theft of sovereign land in the West Bank and the killing of civilians and the detainment of Palestinians without due process; the question of proportionality, eg that 9/11 did not morally permit America to destroy every dwelling in the regions of the ME with Islamist leanings; and finally that the evidence suggests Hamas intended to take most of the civilians hostage, but Israel blew up their own civilians being transported back in cars by Hamas in accordance with their military doctrine known as the Hannibal Directive.
Regarding the aforementioned doctrine, I don’t know why it is never brought up, but wikipedia has a decent section on it. If 70 cars were destroyed returning to Gaza, then if each car was maximally filled with hostages, that’s at least 420 civilians. But it’s also mentioned that hundreds of burned out cars were buried, so this may involve 1000 civilians. Some unspecified number of Israeli civilians were killed by Israeli helicopters at the festival; some unspecified number of civilians in cars were shot by tanks, and then by an unmanned assault drone; and then some unspecified number of homes filled with civilians were fired upon by Israelis, eg in Kibbutz Be'eri by a tank crew.
Australia's ABC News covers the use of the Hannibal Directive.[390] The report quotes former Israeli officer, Air Force Colonel Nof Erez as saying: "This was a mass Hannibal. It was tons and tons of openings in the fence, and thousands of people in every type of vehicle, some with hostages and some without." The report also notes Tank officers confirming their interpretation of the Directive, firing on vehicles returning to Gaza, potentially with Israelis on board
As a thought experiment, we can paint the conflict as black and white in the other direction: a people under oppression and persecution for decades attempted to gather hostages to free themselves through negotiation, but the oppressive country slew their own civilians to prevent this from happening, and then proceeded to launch a genocidal war. But this would similarly lack the complexity with which adults should approach difficult issues.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
Yes, I require independent corroboration for the allegations of the Israeli government, because they have a history of manipulating and lying to my country, like when they planned to bomb Americans and blame it on Arabs during the Lavon Affair, or when they posed as CIA agents to pay terrorists to kill Iranian civilians in the Bush era, or when they tried to convince us that their geopolitical foe was building nuclear weapons every year since Reagan. Or when the head of Mossad threatened the family of the ICC prosecutor. “Let a respected American journalist interview the family” is the tiniest of asks when we’re talking about a story of this magnitude.
Aguilar's original claim that, of the 2,000+ Palestinian civilians shot dead by the IDF at aid centres, not a single one of them was caught on video
Aguilar provided a video of the soldiers shooting into the crowd, then cheering and saying “I think you hit one”. Did you watch it? Or do you mean why he didn’t record corpses? Do you think it could be because, when your friend or even a stranger is shot in front of you, you don’t bring the guy over to the one who shot you, but to the nearest hospital? This is why the hospitals have reported on the dead they receive from the aid distribution site. But the statements of doctors have always been ignored since the start of the conflict, even when they’re the most respected in their specialty and crying in a sworn testimony to the House of Parliament.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
The “Left” is not a centralized entity, it is a memetic ecosystem, so violence would not be effective. You can put your anger toward creating a cultural ecosystem with robust social reinforcement and allegiance rituals toward the right ideology, and then organize sophisticated propaganda operations to persuade the mainstream public. That would be more effective and more fun. But that’s less dramatic than SamHydePosting.
The left seems to believe the situation is sufficiently dire as to justify violence
The 50 million or whatever Leftists in America don’t feel that way. Like two people do. There’s this guy and then Luigi Mangione. Maybe someone I’m missing but too lazy to google. It’s 0.0001% of people. Then there are people who post online as catharsis but will never do anything ever. By the way, killing Charlie Kirk harms Leftism more than it harms conservatives. Kirk was aging out of his role as youth debate bro and now he’s an incredible martyr for the exact ideology he promoted (the virtue of free speech). The killer made hundreds of thousands of liberal chicks pity Charlie Kirk and his family.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
I think you meant to post this in the main thread.
I’m not yet convinced that Israel is being truthful here. No journalist has met this boy in person and it’s been a week since the story was published. Fox News is using weasel words when they report how they obtained the video, saying things like “answered questions provided by Fox News Digital through a GHF translator” and “according to a translation verified by Fox News Digital”. In other words, no one from Fox News got to meet the boy and his family, which begs the question of why Israel wouldn’t even let their most stalwart defender interview the boy. The only other outlet that has received a video of the boy is Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire.
I would like to see a reliable journalist interview the boy and his family, first to see if it’s real (faking a video is a fun Saturday afternoon project for Mossad) and second to ask them about their experiences at the aid distribution site. It’s bewildering that they wouldn’t let a single journalist see this kid, given that the story of Abdul has been published on every major news channel and newspaper.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
What is the clear evidence that an afterlife belief is instrumental? Afghanistan of the 90s and before was possibly the most theistic country in the world, and all Muslims believe in an afterlife. Bacha Bazi is an Afghan costume that coexisted alongside Islamic belief for a millennia until the Taliban banned it.
If Christianity specifically teaches that one's first duty is to one's family and dependents it is silly to criticize Christians with family and dependents for not impoverishing them to give to charity (see perhaps most notably 1 Timothy 5:8, which compares failing to provide for one's own house with apostasy!)
This argument falls short because the Christians who do not have dependents also don’t give all superfluous possessions to the poor, neither do the wealthy Christians with dependents usually live austerely after providing for their relatives.
One need only read the writings of first century Christians
I grant this point to a degree, but I don’t think we really know how many Christians sincerely gave all their surplus to the poor, as we lack records here. But if you believe Acts then the Apostles shared everything in common, and we see condemnation in the Church Fathers about nearly every conspicuous expression of wealth, even rings.
The fact that people today, or in the first century, act contrary to their own professed belief and knowledge has little bearing on the belief itself (alcohol IS bad for you even if you act as if it isn't!)
Alcohol is a physiological addiction. If students can live in poverty for four years with the hope that they will later receive a great reward, then it should follow that those who believe in the greatest reward imaginable for all of eternity should be able to put up with a few decades of poverty. I’m at a loss for why this wouldn’t happen unless the belief is not quite fully believed. If this life is a light and momentary affliction, a simple trial for the real important joy of heaven, why is almost no one pursuing the full reward? Or, if a greater reward for saints is no longer believed, why aren’t they at least super-securing their salvation with fear and trembling? As again, if we really had the Mr Beast contract offering 10 billion dollars for a year in poverty, I think most people would do it. The natural explanation here is that this isn’t really believed, not that in the sense that a belief is normally believed; it hasn’t actually convinced us, and we required something more to cajole us morally. I think we can feel that we hold beliefs without truly holding them, especially if the belief is as socially reinforced as the dogmas of a religion.
Not stated in the text here (even as a riddle or hyperbole): "rich people go to hell." Nor is that a teaching of Catholic doctrine as I understand it.
We also see this warning in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and Luke 12:33.
Acts 5:1 - 4 that even in the early church described in Acts 4 liquidation of wealth to give to those in need was entirely voluntary.)
Well, in Acts 4-5 we find: “the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common […] there was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need”. Then we read the story of Ananias, who didn’t give the church all of his profit, and he died after Paul’s rebuke. Then the wife died after Paul’s rebuke.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
The other groups in Afghanistan were not nominally Islamic, they were all practicing Muslims. The Taliban succeeded not because of a belief in the afterlife, which is shared by all Afghans, but because they are an extremist brotherhood oriented around a moral ideal that they are constantly reinforcing to the exclusion of everything else literally all the time. The Bolsheviks had no belief in an afterlife, yet they completely defeated the Orthodox Christians who had such a belief. Same re the French revolutionaries. Did the Greeks and Romans lack courage in battle? Or the North Vietnamese, or the North Koreans? Or the Japanese — who fought more courageously than the Japanese? There’s no clear evidence that an afterlife is instrumental here.
I think “under certain circumstances Christianity actually condemns selling everything to the poor” is an enormous cop-out. But instead of getting into the weeds with whether poverty is literally a mark of perfection, I’ll say that I know a lot of Christians and they all enjoy your typical American consumer activity and wasteful purchases. I know one particularly prominent Catholic family and they have enormous mansions and nice cars. How is it that Warren Buffet lives more frugally than a major Catholic figure who sits in the front row at Papal visits? It can only be that they don’t genuinely believe in the rewards of heaven, which if believed would necessarily result in maximal charitable activity (certainly not mansions and luxury cars). At the very least, the threat of hell for being rich should be enough to get them to abstain from these sorts of purchases.
This famously does happen, though
As a 1 in 200 million chance? It’s famously unusual.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
For at least half of these, a scientist could point to real data, but they misinterpreted or fudged the data. That’s different than believing the claims of supernatural religion, which do not require a scientific intermediary for interpretation. Why would it be gullible to believe in “growth mindset” if there are studies on it, but then later studies disproved it? The issue here is that the common person is led to believe in the findings of popular science, because schools teach that.
If I make a claim like “prayer works” or “God does miracles”, even someone with a very low IQ can tell that prayer does not work as claimed, and that miracles appear to have stopped around the same time that scientific instruments and recording came along. The issue of superstition is an enormous stumbling block that prevents tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of people, from ever considering religious activity. Because they don’t like to be tricked. And trust in science similarly suffers when people realize they are tricked by science. But trust in reasoning doesn’t normally suffer.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
That’s not quite it. He asked what he should do to receive eternal life and be perfect. When he was unable to do this, Jesus replied
Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God
and
everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life
Who would refuse this offer? A hundredfold of everything you give up, for eternal life?
Perhaps the most literal example was st Francis of Assisi, who founded a religious order.
St Francis began to live in poverty five years before his religious order was authorized. St Francis actually took Jesus at his word and believed in the promises, which was as rare then as it is now.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
Sure, but the phoenix and the pelican in question are pretty crazy creatures to believe in. If they believed these creatures existed based on testimony, and believed it for centuries, then they had a default level of gullibility that has been lost since the advent of science. You can no longer say “this prophet says so” or “this magical creature shows that resurrection is possible” or “the Greek Oracles prophecied the coming of Christ” or “500 people say they saw resurrected Jesus” and expect smart people to believe it. Especially when they now have different competing faiths making claims of the exact same quality. If these intellectuals were so gullible, we can only imagine how gullible the common folk were.
modern Americans believe in stuff like poltergeists
If I were asked on a poll if I believe in ghosts there’s a fair chance I’d say yes for the hell of it. I don’t think smart people really believe in ghosts outside of tricks of the mind. I think if a smart American were consistently haunted by a ghost, he would book a visit with a psychiatrist. He probably wouldn’t be telling his coworkers about the ghost he hangs out with every night. Although maybe it would help on dating apps for picking up goth chicks.
if you think the 20th century social movements were bad then I think it's not unreasonable to take it as evidence that doing social movements without eternal life in mind is a bad idea
No religion emphasizes eternal life more than Islam. Do you think their constant obsession with the rewards of the next life have aided their cooperation and virtue? I imagine not. I think the reason that the 20th century social movements failed is that the clung to the wrong moral focus. They missed the mark by a lot. They needed to focus on something which induces epistemic humility, local sphere of concern, and selflessness.
charity
That’s tangential to my main point. I know religious people give more to charity. This is one of the reasons religion should never go away. (Although I find collection baskets extremely evil, subtly shaming the poor). If you believe that this life is not even 0.01% of your whole existence, and you can ensure the 99.99% of your life will be even better by selling everything to the poor, then what reasonable person wouldn’t do it? This is like Mr Beast giving you a contract saying, “sell everything, spend a week begging for alms, and I’ll give you 100 million dollars”. Everyone would do this, surely. So why aren’t any Christians doing the eternal cosmic 100% assured Mr Beast challenge? I know I would if I really believed it. And there are Hindus who do this with their gods and traditions! Do the Hindus have more faith in their demons than the Christian has faith in the True God? I would like to think that there’s something else at play here, a deeper psychology.
there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life
If I believed this, I would sell everything to go preach Christianity to Muslims in the most remote corners of the Middle East. If they kill me, it only expedites my paradise. But it’s a frankly unbelievable proposition, which is why no Christian sells all he has to go preach somewhere he knows he will be killed. It’s not because they’re cowards or anything, it’s just that the more reasonable part of them prevents their “put on social identity” from really believing in the claims. IMO.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
My point was that conservatives eagerly give up all personal autonomy in the service of their nation (plus benefits), and given that they are gullible, you hardly need sophisticated argumentation to inform them the truth: America is a passing vanity that all will forget, their true citizenship is in God’s Kingdom, they are currently part of the greatest war in history, and they must suffer alongside their Commander Christ, equipping holy armor every morning and brandishing a spiritual weapon. They are compelled to believe this if they claim to follow Christ as all this is found in the Epistles.
Also, I just don’t understand the autonomy meme. In what world is autonomy a thing? We all have to spend our daylight working for someone: even being a business owner simply means you are more indebted to others. If anyone wants more autonomy, ie more free time and freedom from pressing physical and social needs, then they should earnestly pursue a utopian social ecosystem in which everyone works less and can expediently satisfy their basic needs. There is no other substantive meaning behind “autonomy”.
He can retain all titles, just understood in a different sense than the literal. The power of his love and wisdom makes him king of kings; his obedience and piety made him the son of God; his all-importance makes him Lord; and so forth. You do not have to read the gospel in a literal lense, in fact the earliest interpretations find non-literal meanings in every literal detail (eg the Samaritan woman’s five husbands refer to the five books of the Torah; the paralytic refers to spiritual paralysis).
If the gospel is a narrative of stories which indicate something deeper than the literal, then this makes it all the more the Word of God. It doesn’t make it untrue. Is it untrue that Christ cured the blind? But his wisdom has formed in mankind a vision of our ultimate altruistic priorities, billions of people have been cured of emotional or spiritual blindness from his life, and even the very Body of Christ today heals thousands of blind people yearly through charitable organizations. Is this less miraculous than a magical power? Seems pretty miraculous to me.
Judged purely by his personality characteristics and by the very limited record of his non-supernatural deeds, he does not come off as some great hero
Teaching the essence of moral wisdom while being hunted down by the leaders of your own nation is pretty heroic to me. Even just defeating the temptation to be pseudo intellectual and verbose is an act of heroism for intellectuals. So for a person who spent his life gaining wisdom to simplify his learning in digestible parables with incredible metaphorical import while living in poverty and genuinely seeking to improve the world? That’s more miraculous than rising from the dead. And doing all of this faced with the world’s worst torture, with devotion and obedience and love? I can’t think of a better hero.
nor even a stellar lifestyle role model
I don’t think Christ is supposed to be a role model for a lifestyle in that sense, but instead his inner life (spirit) is supposed to be imitated, and in regards to moral and wellbeing concerns. The ability to “carry one’s cross daily” is about inner life. Seeking the Kingdom of God is about inner life, perhaps. The inner life of Christ, namely the love and obedience and goodwill, is universally important. You can be a Christian and all the while imitate the fitness mindset of David Goggins. But the Christian part of you should drive your conscience and you should remember that you don’t want to be like Goggins in any area outside the gym.
that he was an example, among others, of a life path worth emulating
I think there’s cause to believe that, even devoid of the supernatural, a Christ-focused community is going to be greater than a community focused on any other figure. This is because civilization is driven by cooperation, and everything about Christ promotes cooperation, from the actual wisdom to the empathy of the cross to the fear of being a Judas or Pilate or Pharisee. This is a selfless hero who didn’t seek glory (or rather, he sought it only from God)* and simply desired the substantive good of Mankind. By absorbing the meaning of his story you can be a better unit of human, to put it in the driest way possible.
I haven’t seen this mentioned yet but Kimmel’s guest for that show played a song with the lyrics
Which I think she altered just for the show. You can hear it at 2:50 and she’s confirmed it on social media.
More options
Context Copy link