Passover to Exodus, let the story be told

[alang1216]

Bush didn't invade Iraq for the American people.. He invaded for Bibi Netanyahu. Read Clean Break Strategy and the PNAC letter to Clinton in 1998.

Whatever his reasons, it was a very stupid mistake and did the US and Israel way more harm than good.

 

[ding]

Denied. You sound like a socialist. We (and all nations) do what is in our own self interest. What we have to consider very seriously is what effect our actions will have on others and how that will affect our self interest. Hitler invaded Poland and Russia in the interest of the German people, a major miscalculation on his part. Bush made the same mistake in Iraq.

Maybe, assuming you mean for individuals and not nations, but this can be a very dangerous ideology to follow. It was one followed by the hijackers who flew their planes into the WTC.

If everyone did that who would fight wars?

You argue by exception to deny that virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to man. You focus on nations interacting with nations while ignoring that the main reason societies crumble is from within. All you have to do is look at the atheistic nations of the 20th century to know that nations without virtue perish. It's not that you just dismiss your own experiences, you end up with conclusions that are diametrically opposed to your own experiences.

Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. There's a very simple explanation for this... Not all behaviors have equal outcomes. Some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This should be self evident.

 

[alang1216]

You argue by exception to deny that virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to man. You focus on nations interacting with nations while ignoring that the main reason societies crumble is from within.

I asked for examples of 'virtuous' nations and you gave me some vague references to obscure (at least to me) ancient Chinese dynasties.

All you have to do is look at the atheistic nations of the 20th century to know that nations without virtue perish. It's not that you just dismiss your own experiences, you end up with conclusions that are diametrically opposed to your own experiences.

My experiences are only recent, you ignore the 10,000 year history of mankind. A nation we admire and one that was very successful and long-lived was the Roman Empire. Were they virtuous as well as being brutal conquerors?

Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. There's a very simple explanation for this... Not all behaviors have equal outcomes. Some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This should be self evident.

I think you equate virtue with success. The British were very successful in carving up Africa. Were they virtuous and would the Africans agree?

 

[ding]

I asked for examples of 'virtuous' nations and you gave me some vague references to obscure (at least to me) ancient Chinese dynasties.

My experiences are only recent, you ignore the 10,000 year history of mankind. A nation we admire and one that was very successful and long-lived was the Roman Empire. Were they virtuous as well as being brutal conquerors?

I think you equate virtue with success. The British were very successful in carving up Africa. Were they virtuous and would the Africans agree?

So examples of nations without virtue can't be used a corollary?

You have personal experiences which are diametrically opposed to what you are arguing. Apparently you believe nations are not made up of people and dismiss your own personal experiences as proof. Just as you apparently think that only interactions between nations and not their own citizens are the only way to evaluate virtue as the greatest organizing principle.

I define success broadly. I define success as the ability to achieve an objective. Which is generally defined as doing the right thing the right way for the right reasons. The topic of colonization is complex. Did colonization improve standards of living for the colonized? I think yes. You have to compare them against progress made by neighboring countries that were not colonized. Did they go about colonization in the best possible way? Probably not. Could they have achieved greater success had they done so? Probably yes.

But please do keep ignoring the fact that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success just as failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. Are these absolutes? No. They are the rule. There will always be exceptions for jackanapes to use to argue against the rule.

 

[alang1216]

So examples of nations without virtue can't be used a corollary?

Of course not. I no nation has virtue the idea is meaningless or all nations have virtue.

You have personal experiences which are diametrically opposed to what you are arguing. Apparently you believe nations are not made up of people and dismiss your own personal experiences as proof. Just as you apparently think that only interactions between nations and not their own citizens are the only way to evaluate virtue as the greatest organizing principle.

Rome was arguably the most successful and longest lasting nation. Were Romans more virtuous Greeks, Etruscans, Egyptians or any of the other nations they conquered?

I define success broadly. I define success as the ability to achieve an objective. Which is generally defined as doing the right thing the right way for the right reasons.

I've never heard that definition before. Yes, success is the ability to achieve an objective but it has no moral component. Hitler was successful in conquering most of Europe.

But please do keep ignoring the fact that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success just as failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. Are these absolutes? No. They are the rule. There will always be exceptions for jackanapes to use to argue against the rule.

Romans were successful, ergo conquering and enslaving your neighbors is a successful behavior.

 

[ding]

Of course not. I no nation has virtue the idea is meaningless or all nations have virtue.

Rome was arguably the most successful and longest lasting nation. Were Romans more virtuous Greeks, Etruscans, Egyptians or any of the other nations they conquered?

I've never heard that definition before. Yes, success is the ability to achieve an objective but it has no moral component. Hitler was successful in conquering most of Europe.

Romans were successful, ergo conquering and enslaving your neighbors is a successful behavior.

Then all behaviors should lead to equal outcomes, no?

 

[alang1216]

Then all behaviors should lead to equal outcomes, no?

No. Just as all good behaviors don't lead to equal outcomes and all bad behaviors lead to equal outcomes.

 

[ding]

No. Just as all good behaviors don't lead to equal outcomes and all bad behaviors lead to equal outcomes.

Right, it's the rule. You want to argue exceptions.

 

[alang1216]

Right, it's the rule. You want to argue exceptions.

When there are as many examples of bad nations doing well they're not exceptions.

You say it is the rule for nations but have yet to provide a good example of virtuous nations succeeding. It appears those are the exceptions.

 

[ding]

When there are as many examples of bad nations doing well they're not exceptions.

You say it is the rule for nations but have yet to provide a good example of virtuous nations succeeding. It appears those are the exceptions.

It must just be a luck thing, right?

 

[alang1216]

It must just be a luck thing, right?

That the most brutal and aggressive nations dominated their world? Nope, no luck involved, just evolution. Rams don't lock horns to see which is nicer, in the history of this world, might made right and to the winner went the spoils.

 

[ding]

That the most brutal and aggressive nations dominated their world? Nope, no luck involved, just evolution. Rams don't lock horns to see which is nicer, in the history of this world, might made right and to the winner went the spoils.

Yes, and the most brutal and aggressive husbands had the happiest marriages for the same reason. I can totally see your logic.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, and the most brutal and aggressive husbands had the happiest marriages for the same reason. I can totally see your logic.

Logic: A = B and B = C then A = C
Illogic: A <> B and B <> C then A = C

Sorry but nations are NOT people any more than corporations are people. Balloons are not buildings even though they are both filled with air. People are people.

 

[ding]

Logic: A = B and B = C then A = C
Illogic: A <> B and B <> C then A = C

Sorry but nations are NOT people any more than corporations are people. Balloons are not buildings even though they are both filled with air. People are people.

Uh huh

 

[alang1216]

Uh huh

When logic fails go to sarcasm.

 

[ding]

When logic fails go to sarcasm.

I am agreeing with you, bro. You are absolutely right. That's why there are so many North Korea like countries around the world. You are absolutely right. Force is the only unifying principle that works with man. There are never any repercussions from using force, intimidation and fear. Just look at the KKK and Trump, right. I can totally see why you choose to use that as your model.

 

[surada]

Passover to Exodus, let the story be told

Passover, Hebrew Pesaḥ or Pesach, in Judaism, holiday commemorating the Hebrews’ liberation from slavery in Egypt and the “passing over” of the forces of destruction, or the sparing of the firstborn of the Israelites, when the Lord “smote the land of Egypt” on the eve of the Exodus.

The above troubles me a bit. Since the Jews knew the angel of death was coming and the only way, they could be spared is to sprinkle lambs blood on their door why didn’t the warn others who were not Jews?

The part of scripture troubles me to, the idea the Jews were slaves in Egypt. Scripture tells another story—

(Gen 47:1 KJV) Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father [ISRAEL] and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.

(Gen 47:3 KJV) And Pharaoh said unto his brethren, What is your occupation? And they said unto Pharaoh, Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers.

(Gen 47:6 KJV) The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest any men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle.

(Gen 47:11 KJV) And Joseph placed his father [ISRAEL] and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded.

Clearly the Jews were not slaves in Egypt. Joseph ruled over Egypt and would have continued to rule until Moses destroys it all.

And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brothers, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brothers. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Why smite you your fellow?

A fellow? The Egyptians were treating the Jews as fellow Egyptians.

Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelled in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well. Moses and all the others flee Egypt and are scattered throughout the land.
Exodus 2:11 One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to his own people and observed their hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people.

The above marks the beginning of the great exodus. The Jews were not slaves, the Jews ruled over Egypt and the fled because Moses murders a man in cold blood.

The above is the true history of the Jews of old. Have they changed their ways?

You are welcome to correct me where corrections are needed.

The Jews weren't slaves in Egypt and didn't build the pyramids. When there was drought and famine everyone headed for the Nile Delta. Exodus is probably an epic exaggeration of what happened. Most scholars think the Jews separated from the north coast Canaanites in Syria and that Abraham was from Urfa near Haran.

 

[ding]

The Jews weren't slaves in Egypt

Its A Bold Strategy Cotton, Lets See If It Pays Off For Em

 

[irosie91]

The Jews weren't slaves in Egypt and didn't build the pyramids. When there was drought and famine everyone headed for the Nile Delta. Exodus is probably an epic exaggeration of what happened. Most scholars think the Jews separated from the north coast Canaanites in Syria and that Abraham was from Urfa near Haran.

'epic exaggeration' is a literary device of all
of the classical scriptural writings I have
encountered. I have never encountered
anything to suggest that jews built the
pyramids, but it is not at all unlikely that they
were something like an oppressed caste based
on religious dissent

 

[surada]

Moses wasn't a Jew. Can we start there for beginners

His mother was a Jew. She put Moses in the river in a basket.