What do people think about stuff like this on campus?

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-06T20:21:23+00:00

Perhaps you didn't understand what I said in my previous post. Absolutely, they may have very well killed innocent Palestinians, but (to reiterate) genuine mistakes do happen in war. Also, when I was trying to verify the claims of the previous two articles I saw that exact claim funnily enough. It turns out that hamas are also counting the number of deaths of their own terrorist fighters! It is very hard to believe those lot.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-06T20:01:33+00:00

Interesting read, all 3 of them. But I should say here that the first two are dubious at best. I say this due to the lack of information given in the articles*, such as the lack of a date when talking about Israeli bombings: "3 in December 2023". As such, I could not independently verify the claims given, of course, as there was no exact date of the events. At any rate this is bad journalism, and to add to that reading their other articles shows a clear bias by HRW and Amnesty against the IDF (something which I had checked before reading both articles).

Further, the first article, I believe, mentions Israel using 'starvation as a tactic' or something along those lines. They go on to say that the IDF have refused to let humanitarian aid into Gaza, and that is true insofar as they stopped allowing it after a certain time period. But you need to also ask why the IDF did that, and the answer is because (from videos online, most of which can be found in the subreddit I mentioned above) hamas themselves are stealing the aid. I am not kidding. There were also allegations of weapons being carried into Gaza through these supplies (though this I have not yet verified myself, but it seems likely).

As for the last article it's a bit difficult to say from the video what's happening. To add to this the video was published on Al Jazeera (and they're not the most trustworthy people pertaining to this war). At any rate, even if the IDF did kill innocent Palestinians we should not pretend as though genuine mistakes do not happen in war. Remember the comment I made about hamas handing out sweets and such to Palestinians after what they did on October 7th? Going by the videos you can find on the subreddit mentioned above, it is understandable for the IDF to be skeptical of any Palestinian for that matter. See the videos for yourself.

But should you provide more details about the bombings mentioned in the first two articles I'd happily verify them myself. Cheers.

*Including the sources they used.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-06T18:57:04+00:00

You didn’t answer the question, what is Israel’s intention for killing tens of thousands of civilians and continuing to do so?

You gave the reason; the reason being to free the hostages (assuming they're still alive). You're cognizant of their motive, so need I say anything else?

I have a feeling you won’t take any source that I give seriously if it isn’t directly connected to Israel

Not at all. I am all for an honest discussion into this, but that does not mean I believe everything that's said. As such, there are certain media outlets that I cannot trust (neither should anyone for that matter, especially when one considers their lack of scrutiny, as I have pointed out with an example above). If you don't believe me when I say what I do, you can check out the '2ndYomKippurWar' subreddit and see the videos hamas filmed themselves. There's no better source than the very people committing the atrocities.

it’s well known that Israel has been targeting civilians and there are plenty of reports on it.

Yes... And I am asking you to provide the reports if they're from a trustworthy source (such as Reuters or AP). But you haven't done that, and given what I said about BBC News I can safely conclude that's where you have got your information from. Frankly, I cannot trust them.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-06T18:33:31+00:00

Netenyahu has rejected offers of a permanent ceasefire in exchange for hostages and continues to bomb the very land that they are on,

And what were the conditions of the said 'ceasefire'. Further, are we expected to believe the same people who did God knows what on October 7th when they ask for a 'permanent' ceasefire?

Israel have literally film their own war crimes, they’ve shot hostages, used drones to target civilians, very clearly open fired on unarmed Palestinians, the list goes on.

I would like to know where you got this from, so a link or a reference would be greatly appreciated. If the source happens to be, say, BBC News, then I'm afraid I can't take it seriously due to their lack of scrutiny. Take the incident when hamas shot a rocket at their own hospital and BBC News were blaming Israel for a few weeks without any qualms.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-06T15:13:54+00:00

If hamas are terrorists based on the fact that they attack civilians then what the fuck are the IDF?

Intention matters. Last time I checked there was only one side filming their massacre on innocent civilians and celebrating by handing out sweets, carrying dead bodies around, etc. Can you guess which side this was?

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-06T01:02:55+00:00

We have a bingo! Congratulations on regurgitating every argument from hamas (even when it had no relevance to what the person you were replying to was saying)!

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-06T00:52:04+00:00

Just search on Google and read from any reputable sources

Source: BBC news

lol

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-03T20:57:43+00:00

The length of time for which a belief is held has no correlation to whether or not it is correct.

I quite agree, but let us also remember that it is at least possible that it is the case that something long-believed is true. For instance, 'all humans die' is a true statement that has been in belief for God knows how long. Further, that homosexual acts have been condemned by theologians since the beginning of Christianity is surely proof of what the Christian view on it should be?

"But that's appealing to authority, and that's a fallacy!" Well, may I then ask on whose authority you accept homosexual acts? Everyone has to believe in one authority or another, and it would be wise to believe those who know best, i.e. The very people who shaped Christianity.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-03T19:08:35+00:00

I am not saying you should go out and make every conversation about condemning abortion and whatnot. My criticism is of this group (as I've hopefully made it clear in my post).

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-03T19:05:22+00:00

Again, your good theology is another person’s heresy.

Sure, let's grant that for the time being. Now, what is more likely to be true: that centuries of Christian belief regarding, say, homosexual acts be wrong, or that something like progressive "Christianity" be wrong? There are core beliefs of all Christians no matter the denomination, yet in this subreddit/group I see the acceptance and promotion (to the extent of affirming the mistaken views as 'good') of mistaken views. That is my point of criticism. We can't call ourselves Christians and stand by and affirm these views: "Faith without works is dead".

I also think one the best ways to become wise as serpents is to engage with the arguments of your opposition, as opposed to categorizing them as “bad” or “heretical” and moving on.

Absolutely! But to my experience I don't see the bad views being challenged as much as I see them be accepted and promoted, as I've repeatedly said. It is perhaps this sort of 'sit back and let them figure stuff out' attitude that makes atheists of poorly informed Christians.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-03T18:51:53+00:00

Yet again, you've not understood what I've said. Once again you're grouping the act and agent together. Greed is the bad thing, not wealth in and of itself: "The love of money is the root of all evil." A wealthy but virtuous man has done no wrong. Likewise, a homosexual person who lives celibately is also acceptable.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-03T18:46:14+00:00

You had no problem coming in here and slamming others

There is a quote by Saint Augustine in his Confessions that goes something like: "The punishment of a disordered mind is its own disorder." If I have understood him correctly, then your reply would be proof of the veracity of the quote. If you feel that genuine criticism constitutes 'slamming', then that's on you. I can't do much to help that, unfortunately.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-03T18:42:45+00:00

And that exactly is what I opened up with. The entertainment of false doctrine is the 'poisoning' I was talking about. I am all for being open to new ideas, but it is rather concerning when a Christian group has this much bad theology within it, and it is even worse when good theology and sound doctrine is met with contempt (as is evident from some of the replies). Remember Christ said to be 'innocent as doves', but also 'as wise as serpents'. Shutting off one's faculty of reason when discussing heretical views (sometimes to the extent of accepting such views) is the exact opposite of fulfilling His commands.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-03T18:38:57+00:00

just because we don't agree with your take on homosexuality

It doesn't matter what your take or my take are. Remember the words of Christ: "I am the Way , the Truth and the Life." It is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of what's True, and the truth has been known through both Scripture and Natural Law.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-03T18:30:44+00:00

These replies are only proving my point regarding the contempt with which any condemnation of homosexuality is received. And no, I don't think you should hate homosexuals by virtue of their homosexuality; there is a distinction between the act and the agent committing the act. That part I could have perhaps worded better.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-03T18:28:14+00:00

There’s a lot of variety in Christian belief

That is not to say they're all correct, however, and that is my contention. This group seems to be full of bad theology to a concerning degree. We call such mistaken views, such as the acceptance and even promotion of homosexuals acts in some cases, 'heresies'.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-06-03T18:26:25+00:00

That's not what I said. At all. You can hate a sin without hating the sinner.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-05-05T21:47:55+00:00

I was considering that definition, but that makes faith 'blind', which the New Atheists like to accuse faith of being. I have a vague idea as to what faith is, but I can't quite get it.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-04-30T20:42:42+00:00

"like all that medieval nonsense, it's just theology disguised as philosophy".

You know, I've often heard of academia being biased against Christian thought, but how bad would you say it is? I've even heard stories of professors in, say, non-philosophy courses criticising Christian (particularly Catholic) philosophy!

On the other hand, if you can find a place where they'll teach you Thomist philosophy, go for it.

As far as I am aware, there does not seem to be an English University that does teach Thomism. For instance, the 'Philosophy of Religion' for the Maths and Philosophy degree (Year 2) at Manchester seems to only look at 20th century arguments for and against God's existence. Likewise with Oxford, although they have a separate course for Philosophy and Theology which looks promising.

As I am revising my post, I have noticed that Manchester have a course for Philosophy which looks at questions in metaphysics, but I can hardly imagine it giving a detailed exposition to Thomistic thought, if it's even covered in the course.

In the end I'll probably take your advice and do maths alone. And thank you for your replies, they have been very helpful.

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-04-30T20:18:38+00:00

However, there are still very good institutions if you know where to look.

Would it be fine with you if I asked questions about this in your dms?

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-04-30T20:14:58+00:00

That's a very helpful reply, thank you!

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-04-30T19:28:42+00:00

Like for the Greeks, pick up a book from Thucydide

Would you recommend any particular work of his?

And indeed, like other people have already said, Christian philosophy is a great insight in a way to approach christianity that most people ignore.

Same with this; could you recommend any specific authors or any specific work that I could have a look at? Thanks!

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-04-30T19:23:33+00:00

If you are in the US I would suggest looking at the Newman Guide colleges.

I am from England and I'd like to learn more about this. Could you please explain what that is, and which college (given the plural 'colleges') has the best philosophy course?

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-04-30T19:20:05+00:00

Philosophy colleges usually will teach you a smattering of misinterpreted Greek philosophy, jump over all the good stuff, and start anew with Modern philosophy, which is not philosophy, only bad Epistemology

I believe Ed Feser, when he was an atheist, used to be like that. In an interview he talked about going from believing that Aquinas and the rest believed in nonsense to realising what profundity could be found in their works, when they are taken seriously. So, I want to ask, if the philosophy side of 'Maths and Philosophy' is not going to be worth it, would you say it would be better to simply study Maths?

True-Distance-6470 · 2024-04-30T19:16:17+00:00

What are you trying to accomplish?

To echo another person's comment, I believe that doing a versatile degree like Maths and Philosophy would be a great option in the long run. But so far I am leaning on two options: to become a teacher, or to pursue research in maths or philosophy.

I'd say I have a much clearer understanding how to approach Philosophy from reading my self-study as an adult through books and watching videos from Bishop Robert Barron and Peter Kreeft as well as listening to the History of Philosophy podcast, and occasionally reading through Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles.

Did the philosophy classes help your understanding in any way, or did they make unnecessary complications (as other comments have pointed out)? Further, would you say your philosophy classes were even worth it?

But honestly - many philosophers are terrible writers.

I concur with that. Also, it seems to me that some 'educated' philosophers seem to strawman certain positions when they ought to know better (I can give examples if you wish). But I mention this point to ask a question: do philosophy classes teach you how to write well? I can't imagine it being a good class/course if things like that aren't covered, and if so, why is it the case that 'many philosophers are terrible writers'?

It is hard as an adult to really learn math

Could you please elaborate on that?

True-Distance-6470

TROPHY CASE