religion and libertarianism are incompatible

[Immanuel Can]

...many Christians believe, by itself, moral behavior is worthless...

Not "worthless." Just not a kind of currency that buys favour with God. It has its value, not the least of which is that it's better that people behave morally, for all of us. However, Secularism cannot provide secularists with the reasons they need to believe that any particular behaviour or restraint of behaviour is "moral," so Secularism's just not involved in the benefits of that.

All religions are NOT "about the same thing"

Just as I have been pointing out. And you'll find that, as a consequence, their proposed "moralities" are different, as well.

The line you grabbed from Isaiah (which?) is discussing clean/unclean. That IS a focus of Judaism, "how can we live clean?" (how can we be cleansed) where this "unclean" is of many sorts, ONE of which is uncleanliness conveyed by sin (and that category is not "contagious" like some of the other categories). Note that USUALLY the prophets are shouting "just doing the rituals, the designated sacrifices, etc. not enough", also need moral behavior and righteousness. Here in that line the prophet is saying the reverse, just moral behavior and righteousness not enough, FOR CLEANLINESS (in other words, why what logic do you get to think him talking about "salvation").

Because that's the very subject with which the prophet is concerned. Let me give you more of the context:

"Behold, You were angry, for we sinned,
We continued in our sins for a long time;
Yet shall we be saved?

For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our wrongdoings, like the wind, take us away.

There is no one who calls on Your name,
Who stirs himself to take hold of You;
For You have hidden Your face from us
And have surrendered us to the power of our wrongdoings." (Is. 64: 5-7)

You can see that the question of how people can be saved from the power of their evil is essential in this context. And that the "unclean" refers to leprosy, and the "filthy garment" is literally something very vile indeed, if you're familiar with the Hebrew. In other words, the problem for us is that we've become defiled, so that even "righteous deeds" amount to no more than trash rags defiled with human waste. So the moral is insufficent to secure salvation. What is needed is the cleansing and salvation from God.

And this passage is quoted again, in Romans 3: 10-18... you can check...and applies to all the human race, not merely to Israel.

The Jewish clean/unclean is very complicated, different sorts of uncleanliness may be "contagious" in different ways. Christianity (well after its first century or two) concerned only with the kind caused by sin.

Jesus Christ Himself clarified this. The Jewish legalists, the Pharisees, He said, had badly misunderstood how righteousness could be obtained. And so he spoke to them in these terms:

"When the Pharisee saw this, he was surprised that Jesus had not first ceremonially washed before the meal. But the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish; but your inside is full of greed and wickedness. You foolish ones, did He who made the outside not make the inside also? But give that which is within as a charitable gift, and then all things are clean for you. But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithes of mint, rue, and every kind of garden herb, and yet you ignore justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the seat of honor in the synagogues and personal greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you! For you are like unseen tombs, and the people who walk over them are unaware of it.” (Luke 11:38-44)

If others here are interested in discussing issues of morality, conscience, etc. things like how knowing a moral code causes us to act/not act in accord with it, etc. can we please go off and do that. Those things do not depend on the moral code being the one true/proper/correct moral code.

Actually, they do. For we cannot say what is "moral" without already assuming some meta-system of moral valuation (MS), remember? So what MS are you using when you speak of "morality"?

But you will also find that moral codes are not very good motivators, by themselves. It's one thing to know right and wrong, but quite another to stick to that when incentives are powerful in the other direction. And "moral codes" do not come packaged with incentives. They'll tell you when you've gone wrong; but of themselves, they won't make you want to go right. The motives for that have to come from the authority behind the code.

It's like speed limits. You know the code is "Go no faster than 100 km. on this stretch of highway." But does anybody find in that code a reason not to go faster? However, if there's a policeman in his car by the sign, suddenly the incentive to behave in accordance with the code is rather strong.

Just so, moral codes are not motives. They no more make us behave than a thermometer makes it hot or cold outside. The thermometer can tell us it IS cold, but has no function in MAKING the air cold.

[Belinda]

...many Christians believe, by itself, moral behavior is worthless...

Not "worthless." Just not a kind of currency that buys favour with God. It has its value, not the least of which is that it's better that people behave morally, for all of us. However, Secularism cannot provide secularists with the reasons they need to believe that any particular behaviour or restraint of behaviour is "moral," so Secularism's just not involved in the benefits of that.

All religions are NOT "about the same thing"

Just as I have been pointing out. And you'll find that, as a consequence, their proposed "moralities" are different, as well.

The line you grabbed from Isaiah (which?) is discussing clean/unclean. That IS a focus of Judaism, "how can we live clean?" (how can we be cleansed) where this "unclean" is of many sorts, ONE of which is uncleanliness conveyed by sin (and that category is not "contagious" like some of the other categories). Note that USUALLY the prophets are shouting "just doing the rituals, the designated sacrifices, etc. not enough", also need moral behavior and righteousness. Here in that line the prophet is saying the reverse, just moral behavior and righteousness not enough, FOR CLEANLINESS (in other words, why what logic do you get to think him talking about "salvation").

Because that's the very subject with which the prophet is concerned. Let me give you more of the context:

"Behold, You were angry, for we sinned,
We continued in our sins for a long time;
Yet shall we be saved?

For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our wrongdoings, like the wind, take us away.

There is no one who calls on Your name,
Who stirs himself to take hold of You;
For You have hidden Your face from us
And have surrendered us to the power of our wrongdoings." (Is. 64: 5-7)

You can see that the question of how people can be saved from the power of their evil is essential in this context. And that the "unclean" refers to leprosy, and the "filthy garment" is literally something very vile indeed, if you're familiar with the Hebrew. In other words, the problem for us is that we've become defiled, so that even "righteous deeds" amount to no more than trash rags defiled with human waste. So the moral is insufficent to secure salvation. What is needed is the cleansing and salvation from God.

And this passage is quoted again, in Romans 3: 10-18... you can check...and applies to all the human race, not merely to Israel.

The Jewish clean/unclean is very complicated, different sorts of uncleanliness may be "contagious" in different ways. Christianity (well after its first century or two) concerned only with the kind caused by sin.

Jesus Christ Himself clarified this. The Jewish legalists, the Pharisees, He said, had badly misunderstood how righteousness could be obtained. And so he spoke to them in these terms:

"When the Pharisee saw this, he was surprised that Jesus had not first ceremonially washed before the meal. But the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish; but your inside is full of greed and wickedness. You foolish ones, did He who made the outside not make the inside also? But give that which is within as a charitable gift, and then all things are clean for you. But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithes of mint, rue, and every kind of garden herb, and yet you ignore justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the seat of honor in the synagogues and personal greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you! For you are like unseen tombs, and the people who walk over them are unaware of it.” (Luke 11:38-44)

If others here are interested in discussing issues of morality, conscience, etc. things like how knowing a moral code causes us to act/not act in accord with it, etc. can we please go off and do that. Those things do not depend on the moral code being the one true/proper/correct moral code.

Actually, they do. For we cannot say what is "moral" without already assuming some meta-system of moral valuation (MS), remember? So what MS are you using when you speak of "morality"?

But you will also find that moral codes are not very good motivators, by themselves. It's one thing to know right and wrong, but quite another to stick to that when incentives are powerful in the other direction. And "moral codes" do not come packaged with incentives. They'll tell you when you've gone wrong; but of themselves, they won't make you want to go right. The motives for that have to come from the authority behind the code.

It's like speed limits. You know the code is "Go no faster than 100 km. on this stretch of highway." But does anybody find in that code a reason not to go faster? However, if there's a policeman in his car by the sign, suddenly the incentive to behave in accordance with the code is rather strong.

Just so, moral codes are not motives. They no more make us behave than a thermometer makes it hot or cold outside. The thermometer can tell us it IS cold, but has no function in MAKING the air cold.

But cleanness/uncleanness is not the subject with which Isaiah is concerned. You mistake the metaphor for Isaiah's meaning which is less trivial than ritual cleansing.

Isaiah means that ritual cleansing , like ritual performance of legalised good deeds , is not enough. Isaiah calls for our intentions to be good intentions without which all the rituals are a lot of noise signifying little.
To continue the cleansing metaphor to the present day, we don't don't wash after going to the bathroom solely because someone told us to do so but because we don't want to spread infection.

[MikeNovack]

But cleanness/uncleanness is not the subject with which Isaiah is concerned. You mistake the metaphor for Isaiah's meaning which is less trivial than ritual cleansing.

It is metaphor to you because clean/purity vs unclean/impurity are not fundamental concepts of your culture. I am saying was/is fundamental to the culture Isaiah was part of and addressing. This raises an interesting question. Does/can a divine message change is meaning like that? (with time and audience). But that's not the current topic, and you would not find me taking part in the discussion. Oh, and "intent" does play an important role in that culture, but again different.

Actually, they do. For we cannot say what is "moral" without already assuming some meta-system of moral valuation (MS), remember? So what MS are you using when you speak of "morality"?

Precisely, IC,and I ask we defer that and tackle the next part FIRST (what applies to moral codes whether or not "validated). You do seem to understand those issues exist. I want them tackled first because otherwise we will never get to them <<because we are NOT going to agree on how moral codes are to be validated>>

But you will also find that moral codes are not very good motivators, by themselves. It's one thing to know right and wrong, but quite another to stick to that when incentives are powerful in the other direction. And "moral codes" do not come packaged with incentives. They'll tell you when you've gone wrong; but of themselves, they won't make you want to go right. The motives for that have to come from the authority behind the code.

Authority creates feeling? Sorry, but I do not see how certainty of validity would create feelings that would motivate. Care to explain? I can see that if you believed the validation, or source of validation caused the necessary feelings, you're not being totally off the wall to start with validation.
I think we will need to look elsewhere for answers but also expect answers do exist to be found because:
1) We need to discuss what a morality IS for a social animal. How does it function to the benefit of the group?
2) How is it implemented? What causes the individual animal to adhere to the "right behavior"
3) For US HUMANS, whose rule sets extend beyond the subset for which we are directly trained, how does that "extension" work. Again, I am arguing that there ARE answers to be found since we know "works" (individuals in human societies do not act randomly).

Please note IC, if we can answer these questions for a not-validated moral code (not validated in your eyes) then likely not going to need a different explanation why you would be motivated to follow your divinely validated one.

[Belinda]

But cleanness/uncleanness is not the subject with which Isaiah is concerned. You mistake the metaphor for Isaiah's meaning which is less trivial than ritual cleansing.

It is metaphor to you because clean/purity vs unclean/impurity are not fundamental concepts of your culture. I am saying was/is fundamental to the culture Isaiah was part of and addressing. This raises an interesting question. Does/can a divine message change is meaning like that? (with time and audience). But that's not the current topic, and you would not find me taking part in the discussion. Oh, and "intent" does play an important role in that culture, but again different.

Actually, they do. For we cannot say what is "moral" without already assuming some meta-system of moral valuation (MS), remember? So what MS are you using when you speak of "morality"?

Precisely, IC,and I ask we defer that and tackle the next part FIRST (what applies to moral codes whether or not "validated). You do seem to understand those issues exist. I want them tackled first because otherwise we will never get to them <<because we are NOT going to agree on how moral codes are to be validated>>

But you will also find that moral codes are not very good motivators, by themselves. It's one thing to know right and wrong, but quite another to stick to that when incentives are powerful in the other direction. And "moral codes" do not come packaged with incentives. They'll tell you when you've gone wrong; but of themselves, they won't make you want to go right. The motives for that have to come from the authority behind the code.

Authority creates feeling? Sorry, but I do not see how certainty of validity would create feelings that would motivate. Care to explain? I can see that if you believed the validation, or source of validation caused the necessary feelings, you're not being totally off the wall to start with validation.
I think we will need to look elsewhere for answers but also expect answers do exist to be found because:
1) We need to discuss what a morality IS for a social animal. How does it function to the benefit of the group?
2) How is it implemented? What causes the individual animal to adhere to the "right behavior"
3) For US HUMANS, whose rule sets extend beyond the subset for which we are directly trained, how does that "extension" work. Again, I am arguing that there ARE answers to be found since we know "works" (individuals in human societies do not act randomly).

Please note IC, if we can answer these questions for a not-validated moral code (not validated in your eyes) then likely not going to need a different explanation why you would be motivated to follow your divinely validated one.

Mick, what you are endorsing is the tribal ethnicity of Judaism i.e. ritual cleansing . Don't you see that Isaiah retains tribal ethnicity and surpasses it ? Jesus too remained a devout Jew, while propagating an interpretation of Judaism that is future-proofed as long as humans inhabit the Earth.

[MikeNovack]

Mick, what you are endorsing is the tribal ethnicity of Judaism i.e. ritual cleansing . Don't you see that Isaiah retains tribal ethnicity and surpasses it ? Jesus too remained a devout Jew, while propagating an interpretation of Judaism that is future-proofed as long as humans inhabit the Earth.

No, I don't see. I don't see because I am not a Christian.

Look, I understand that Christians read the Bible and see different things in the text than I do. Read it differently than I do. I respect that. But expect the same in return. Good grief, lots more in Isaiah we disagree about. Shall we not go there.

But in THIS reading, it's not just bad to take a line in isolation but even a whole chapter, Here it is question, followed by god's answer. Chapters 64 and 65 should be read together. Hey folks, division into chapter/verse is less than 1000 years old. Mostly gotten right but a few glaring errors.

Also -- the reason the book of Isaiah longer than other books in Prophets is that more than one prophet named Isaiah. You should easily see not the same person by time period. The Isaiah early in the book from which you get a virgin birth prophecy is speaking well before the destruction of the first Temple. This one is speaking from some time after as the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in the text as having happened.

[Belinda]

Mick, what you are endorsing is the tribal ethnicity of Judaism i.e. ritual cleansing . Don't you see that Isaiah retains tribal ethnicity and surpasses it ? Jesus too remained a devout Jew, while propagating an interpretation of Judaism that is future-proofed as long as humans inhabit the Earth.

No, I don't see. I don't see because I am not a Christian.

Look, I understand that Christians read the Bible and see different things in the text than I do. Read it differently than I do. I respect that. But expect the same in return. Good grief, lots more in Isaiah we disagree about. Shall we not go there.

But in THIS reading, it's not just bad to take a line in isolation but even a whole chapter, Here it is question, followed by god's answer. Chapters 64 and 65 should be read together. Hey folks, division into chapter/verse is less than 1000 years old. Mostly gotten right but a few glaring errors.

Also -- the reason the book of Isaiah longer than other books in Prophets is that more than one prophet named Isaiah. You should easily see not the same person by time period. The Isaiah early in the book from which you get a virgin birth prophecy is speaking well before the destruction of the first Temple. This one is speaking from some time after as the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in the text as having happened.

You obviously know more scripture than I so I will tend to be advised by you in Scriptural matters
You are right that I am a Christian insofar as my native culture is liberal Christian.
I do wish I could see from the Jewish point of view. Is there anything in The Bible that can help me to understand, or must I have been reared as a Jew?

Take ritual cleansing for instance. I understand the benefit of rehearsing good habits by actual practise and by theatre. That is what your anthropological examples did not so? However there seems , perhaps an error in comprehension on my part, in Judaism for it to be a virtue in ritual for it own sake which is what I don't understand. When a Catholic nun vows obedience to her order she is more useful as part of a disciplined force, but less use when circumstances are unforeseen as she cannot adapt.

I also recall morning assemblies at school, which taught the pupils to cooperate as a team. This has it downside however as the Roman Catholic school pupils down the road were divided from us, and insulting exchanges happened.

[MikeNovack]

Belinda, I am saying that different cultures/languages have different ways of classifying reality. One culture might perceive X, Y, and Z to be in one category while another might agree X and Y are in one category (along with W) but Z is in another category altogether. One culture might have a category T, any tree, but another F (trees whose fruits or nuts are edible) and B (trees where not) and see F as related to goats and B related to bricks. Edible thongs and building materials.

The clean/unclean category in the Jewsih Bible is a category we just don't have in our culture. So when we separate out some aspect like we see as "physical cleanliness, it is a distinction they just weren't making. It's just like asking why those who split trees into F and B can't see that F and B belong together in one category and not in categories including goats and bricks. I am saying if we want to understand what is being said in the Bible about clean/unclean we have to (temporarily) suspend our category rules and try to see things using theirs.

There's more. WHAT do we mean by "literal" reading As WE understand the utterance or as THEY did. If we want to understand what is going on we might need to bring to bear what we know from archeology and other written material from the time period. Things like if money is mentioned, well how much WAS that back then. And if there is a response to an utterance, what does THAT tell about how the words were understood. What were, still are, the customs of the market if business being done.

Let me give you an example from your part of the Bible. "No room at the inn". I know how Christians traditonally interpret this. But what information do you really need to know to answer "was this good or poor accommodation" << think for a moment before scrolling down >>










You need to know what was it like in Jerusalem and the surrounding towns during any of the three festivals when many thousands of people were pouring into the area. When they were stringing sheets between the buildings on opposite sides of alleys and narrow streets to provide sleeping spaces. That's after kicking the animals out of stables and temporarily emptying storage sheds. I am suggesting got coveted indoor space (in a stable) because a pregnant woman close to giving birth, and ANY indoor space considered good accommodation. What surprises me, is how Middle Ages Europeans stuck to the traditional interpretation when they did the same thing << a big party at the castle to celebrate a marriage, etc. -- how were all the guests accommodated? >>

[Belinda]

Belinda, I am saying that different cultures/languages have different ways of classifying reality. One culture might perceive X, Y, and Z to be in one category while another might agree X and Y are in one category (along with W) but Z is in another category altogether. One culture might have a category T, any tree, but another F (trees whose fruits or nuts are edible) and B (trees where not) and see F as related to goats and B related to bricks. Edible thongs and building materials.

The clean/unclean category in the Jewsih Bible is a category we just don't have in our culture. So when we separate out some aspect like we see as "physical cleanliness, it is a distinction they just weren't making. It's just like asking why those who split trees into F and B can't see that F and B belong together in one category and not in categories including goats and bricks. I am saying if we want to understand what is being said in the Bible about clean/unclean we have to (temporarily) suspend our category rules and try to see things using theirs.

There's more. WHAT do we mean by "literal" reading As WE understand the utterance or as THEY did. If we want to understand what is going on we might need to bring to bear what we know from archeology and other written material from the time period. Things like if money is mentioned, well how much WAS that back then. And if there is a response to an utterance, what does THAT tell about how the words were understood. What were, still are, the customs of the market if business being done.

Let me give you an example from your part of the Bible. "No room at the inn". I know how Christians traditonally interpret this. But what information do you really need to know to answer "was this good or poor accommodation" << think for a moment before scrolling down >>



You need to know what was it like in Jerusalem and the surrounding towns during any of the three festivals when many thousands of people were pouring into the area. When they were stringing sheets between the buildings on opposite sides of alleys and narrow streets to provide sleeping spaces. That's after kicking the animals out of stables and temporarily emptying storage sheds. I am suggesting got coveted indoor space (in a stable) because a pregnant woman close to giving birth, and ANY indoor space considered good accommodation. What surprises me, is how Middle Ages Europeans stuck to the traditional interpretation when they did the same thing << a big party at the castle to celebrate a marriage, etc. -- how were all the guests accommodated? >>

I understand mitzvah now having read with ChatGPT how the Jewish ritual originated with Moses on Mount Sinai getting a revelation and command from God. I am informed there are other religions that do rituals for the sake of the rituals (e.g. Greek Orthodox Christianity,) and only secondarily for any instrumental purpose.
Rituals help people feel part of a group, learn what’s right and wrong, and make habits stick. But the same rituals that bring people together (social cohesion) can also slide into tribalism, making people see outsiders as different or even as enemies.

[MikeNovack]

I understand mitzvah now having read with ChatGPT how the Jewish ritual originated with Moses on Mount Sinai getting a revelation and command from God. I am informed there are other religions that do rituals for the sake of the rituals (e.g. Greek Orthodox Christianity,) and only secondarily for any instrumental purpose.
Rituals help people feel part of a group, learn what’s right and wrong, and make habits stick. But the same rituals that bring people together (social cohesion) can also slide into tribalism, making people see outsiders as different or even as enemies.

But there is an upside to tribalism (when applicable)

A tribal people CAN take a position like the Jews do "These are the rules God gave to us, how God tells us to live." Other rules for other peoples. They are not bad people for not living by OUR rules. They can be good people living by their rules. The biblical term "god fearing" originally meant "righteous", living according to the rules given to them by God (or gods) -- not NECESSARILY God as you recognized. We know from the oath part of contracts that people were expected to swear by THEIR god (or gods) so the different parties to these contracts might be swearing by different gods. We also get to see that different god names not always meaning different gods because sometimes the oath might be "I swear by A, who is known in place B as C, and in place D as E.

Remember, great ethnic diversity over relatively short distance. Some not even of the same language group (quite a few references to some being uncircumcised and all Semites circumcised). Tribalism is at its worst when not knowing how the other tribes lived. Easy to demonize and imagine all sorts of bad behavior. When knowing about those neighboring cultures and their rules, might feel some details dish=gusting, but not that way of life as a whole.

[Belinda]

I understand mitzvah now having read with ChatGPT how the Jewish ritual originated with Moses on Mount Sinai getting a revelation and command from God. I am informed there are other religions that do rituals for the sake of the rituals (e.g. Greek Orthodox Christianity,) and only secondarily for any instrumental purpose.
Rituals help people feel part of a group, learn what’s right and wrong, and make habits stick. But the same rituals that bring people together (social cohesion) can also slide into tribalism, making people see outsiders as different or even as enemies.

But there is an upside to tribalism (when applicable)

A tribal people CAN take a position like the Jews do "These are the rules God gave to us, how God tells us to live." Other rules for other peoples. They are not bad people for not living by OUR rules. They can be good people living by their rules. The biblical term "god fearing" originally meant "righteous", living according to the rules given to them by God (or gods) -- not NECESSARILY God as you recognized. We know from the oath part of contracts that people were expected to swear by THEIR god (or gods) so the different parties to these contracts might be swearing by different gods. We also get to see that different god names not always meaning different gods because sometimes the oath might be "I swear by A, who is known in place B as C, and in place D as E.

Remember, great ethnic diversity over relatively short distance. Some not even of the same language group (quite a few references to some being uncircumcised and all Semites circumcised). Tribalism is at its worst when not knowing how the other tribes lived. Easy to demonize and imagine all sorts of bad behavior. When knowing about those neighboring cultures and their rules, might feel some details dish=gusting, but not that way of life as a whole.

Moses was a superb leader as de facto king and priest , when his people needed him.

Are those qualities still as valuable today when Christian evangelicals are a main structure behind military and economic support for Israel?

Is somebody organising God-fearing Jews to regroup for justice in the present day?

[MikeNovack]

Moses was a superb leader as de facto king and priest , when his people needed him.

Well as far as being a "king", he was a legally adopted child of the "great house" << that's how got a child to adopt, went to the Nile and took one of the floating baby baskets -- presumably that princess was childless>> and married to the daughter of a Midianite sheikh. Not a king, prophet and sheikh. NOT A PRIEST (that was his brother Aaron)

BTW -- there WERE "priest-kings" in that part of the world. Look for anybody "named" Melchizedek << that's the title of a priest-king, not his name >>

a)Are those qualities still as valuable today when Christian evangelicals are a main structure behind military and economic support for Israel?

b) Is somebody organising God-fearing Jews to regroup for justice in the present day?

a) No comment

b) Organizing "god-fearing"Jews like herding cats. While very similar in how observing the 613 mitzvot, all over the place politically and with regard to supporting Israel. Keep in mind there are "modern Orthodox" just as observant as those distinctively dressed Chassidim. Which leads me to explain something that might help folks understand Islam (dress rules).

Judaism came from the Middle East and shares so basic/fundamental legal principles with Islam. One of these principles is "you are not allowed to use a technicality to use a sneaky wy of observing a law IF that makes it appear you are not observing the law. That would deceive people "I see a good person ignoring a law, so maybe OK for me to do that. Custom of the community decides (if a known way to observe the law, if not visibly observing the law, would assume this covert method used).

SO --- let's discuss this in terms of "modest dress" and the requirement a married woman's hair not be seen (Islam will extend that to unmarried women but ignore that). In the Orthodox Jewish community, an accepted methods of observing "wear a wig". Someone seeing a married woman with hair uncovered does not think ignoring the law. TECHNICALLY a wig would cover a Muslim woman's hair BUT because not a method used n her community, not allowed. It would be deceptive.

The importance of this is that under many circumstances, custom gains almost the strength of law (in both communities). Of course applies only to things seen in public

[Belinda]

Moses was a superb leader as de facto king and priest , when his people needed him.

Well as far as being a "king", he was a legally adopted child of the "great house" << that's how got a child to adopt, went to the Nile and took one of the floating baby baskets -- presumably that princess was childless>> and married to the daughter of a Midianite sheikh. Not a king, prophet and sheikh. NOT A PRIEST (that was his brother Aaron)

BTW -- there WERE "priest-kings" in that part of the world. Look for anybody "named" Melchizedek << that's the title of a priest-king, not his name >>

a)Are those qualities still as valuable today when Christian evangelicals are a main structure behind military and economic support for Israel?

b) Is somebody organising God-fearing Jews to regroup for justice in the present day?

a) No comment

b) Organizing "god-fearing"Jews like herding cats. While very similar in how observing the 613 mitzvot, all over the place politically and with regard to supporting Israel. Keep in mind there are "modern Orthodox" just as observant as those distinctively dressed Chassidim. Which leads me to explain something that might help folks understand Islam (dress rules).

Judaism came from the Middle East and shares so basic/fundamental legal principles with Islam. One of these principles is "you are not allowed to use a technicality to use a sneaky wy of observing a law IF that makes it appear you are not observing the law. That would deceive people "I see a good person ignoring a law, so maybe OK for me to do that. Custom of the community decides (if a known way to observe the law, if not visibly observing the law, would assume this covert method used).

SO --- let's discuss this in terms of "modest dress" and the requirement a married woman's hair not be seen (Islam will extend that to unmarried women but ignore that). In the Orthodox Jewish community, an accepted methods of observing "wear a wig". Someone seeing a married woman with hair uncovered does not think ignoring the law. TECHNICALLY a wig would cover a Muslim woman's hair BUT because not a method used n her community, not allowed. It would be deceptive.

The importance of this is that under many circumstances, custom gains almost the strength of law (in both communities). Of course applies only to things seen in public

Moses acted like a priest when he received the law from God on Mount Sinai. even though he was not formally a priest .

I do understand that custom ,e.g. religious ritual , gains almost the strength of law.

[MikeNovack]

Moses acted like a priest when he received the law from God on Mount Sinai. even though he was not formally a priest .

THIS is simply a matter of different job descriptions (from a Jewish perspective)

Receive the word of god and transmit that to the people => PROPHET

Qualified to carry out rituals*, receive things devoted to God, entitled to some ritual percs**, etc.=> PRIEST Since these days, no Temple to perform the sacrifices, no "red heifer dust" to quickly purge "death uncleanliness, subject to some restrictions, etc. ritual duties ALMOST extinct, but see *
Priests are not the prayer service leaders. Priests are not the rabbi. but they are allowed to be. Because supposed to keep themselves ready to perform rituals (which they no longer do) not allowed to voluntarily contract "death uncleanliness" ("voluntary" depends on other rules) << we could discuss that in terms of the Good Samaritan story -- what Jesus, as a teaching rabbi, is actually saying the priest did wrong.

NOTES

* Rituals lay persons not allowed to do. There are rituals normally performed by lay persons and others a lay person can do. An example of one of the few survivals is the priestly benediction (in some prayer services) if done by a priest, the responses are ""amen" (the benediction actually being given. If done by a lay person "so be it" (sort of may God make it so). That's sort of like the Catholic "confession before death. Done by a priest, absolution granted then and there. If in an emergency by a lay person, no immediate absolution, left to God.

** When required to redeem (like the redemption of first born sons, does not apply to priest. If present when the Torah is read, a priest called first (if no priest so a lay person, the call is not just name but adding "in place of a priest". Things like that.

OK -- The Good Samaritan -- there are OBLIGATORY exposures to "death uncleanliness" even for a priest, for example, relatives whose funerals you attend, etc. One of the most important overrides is "to save life". If there is a badly injured person, the priest must try to help, even at the risk of becoming contaminated should the person die. Levites subject to SOME of the restrictions (and get SOME of the percs, the priests are a subtribe of the tribe of Levi). Jesus is praising the Samaritan (not considered fully a Jew) for NOT ASSUMING the person was dead and later going way beyomd the obligated help. He is criticizing the priest and Levite FOR NOT CHECKING THOROUGHLY. He's making a ruling/teaching, the requirement "save a life" means obligated to really check "not alive" even though that means "death contamination" << can you check for a pulse without touching? >> There's no implication the priest and levite KNOWINGLY passed by an injured person << in that case, they would be EVIL, not just "slack", and the point is to distinguish "good neighbor" from blah neighbor, not good neighbor from evil neighbor (that's too obvious)

[Belinda]

I understand mitzvah now having read with ChatGPT how the Jewish ritual originated with Moses on Mount Sinai getting a revelation and command from God. I am informed there are other religions that do rituals for the sake of the rituals (e.g. Greek Orthodox Christianity,) and only secondarily for any instrumental purpose.
Rituals help people feel part of a group, learn what’s right and wrong, and make habits stick. But the same rituals that bring people together (social cohesion) can also slide into tribalism, making people see outsiders as different or even as enemies.

But there is an upside to tribalism (when applicable)

A tribal people CAN take a position like the Jews do "These are the rules God gave to us, how God tells us to live." Other rules for other peoples. They are not bad people for not living by OUR rules. They can be good people living by their rules. The biblical term "god fearing" originally meant "righteous", living according to the rules given to them by God (or gods) -- not NECESSARILY God as you recognized. We know from the oath part of contracts that people were expected to swear by THEIR god (or gods) so the different parties to these contracts might be swearing by different gods. We also get to see that different god names not always meaning different gods because sometimes the oath might be "I swear by A, who is known in place B as C, and in place D as E.

Remember, great ethnic diversity over relatively short distance. Some not even of the same language group (quite a few references to some being uncircumcised and all Semites circumcised). Tribalism is at its worst when not knowing how the other tribes lived. Easy to demonize and imagine all sorts of bad behavior. When knowing about those neighboring cultures and their rules, might feel some details dish=gusting, but not that way of life as a whole.

While tribal cohesion benefits peoples during wartime, tribal cohesion (excluding football and the Eurovision Song Contest ) is less suited to peace between tribes and nations. There is nothing to stop any tribal God becoming as trivial as Hitler.

Empathy among nations can be learned. That's what arts are for. Empathy among nations can be destroyed which is what warmongers and imperialists do when they dehumanise the enemy. The historical function of religions, to bind together, must now be utterly changed so that they bind together , not by custom or by myth but by common humanity and even wider as inhabitants of Earth.

Your prescription:

Other rules for other peoples. They are not bad people for not living by OUR rules. They can be good people living by their rules. The biblical term "god fearing" originally meant "righteous", living according to the rules given to them by God (or gods) -- not NECESSARILY God as you recognized.

Is not enough. We need positive , overarching international law. Religion can bind the popular mind to international law, retaining the Abrahamic God myth as father of all.

[MikeNovack]

Sorry, we may be talking about different things.There have been "states" organized by a single tribe. But often not, even going way back (the Hittites were not a tribe but a "state" involving something like eight ethnic groups. And some few tribes not exclusive, like the Kurds (never a "state" but containing multiple tribes). An example of that here would be the Kiowa (Kiowa and Kiowa Apache -- originally a refugee tribe the Kiowa took in).

I'd think discussions about "states" belongs in the political section. Especially if discussing the modern period, when many states are multi-ethnic Think of China -- which is far from being just Han (I think China is more than 50 ethnic groups)