Many argue that “couldn’t mind our own business” has been the ‘bane’ of humanity … a blight on an otherwise perfect species 
On the other hand … many argue that ‘curiosity’ … the antithesis if “mind our own business” … is the mother of all human progress.
If asked … many people would say “My world is ok” … not perfect … but ok.
These same people … if asked … would say “The World” is not OK.
I suppose for them what is NOT OK in the world is none of their business???
Does any of this relate to adopting the Torah, grafted onto its repudiation, the Jesus story as the central holy book of western imperialism?
How can I assume that what is not OK in the world does not affect me? Might as well believe in solipsism.
duplicate
Western imperialism?
Did you have a question regarding ancient Rome, France, Spain, Portugal, England, Holland, Germany, modern Italy - even little Belgium fcs! - and the United States of America?
The funny part, is kids read it, and theyre like…Yeah the Jews…Fuck the gentiles…Fuck my penis! Meanwhile they are the fucking gentiles, and look what happened to their penis.
I’m obviously guilty of “failing to mind my own business” … by jumping into your private conversation.
No conversation on an open forum is private.
The Bible is now everybody’s business.
I did not understand the apropos for your comments.
How does one’s opinion regarding the state the world relate to the adoption of ancient Jewish chronicles by the Roman empire as it was converting to Christianity?
Thank you for your kind comment.
Let me start by repeating a quote I submitted in a previous post: (I have substituted the word Bible with the word Torah)
[i][i][b]The original Torah is written in Hebrew.
"The Hebrew language is not a precise mathematical language. It is alive. It desires to be known. It dares you to chase after it, pursue it and immerse yourself within it. So do not take it lightly. Spend time with it. Get to know it. It is complex and mysterious and deserves your time.”[/b][/i][/i]
Let me provide an example of the comment “It is complex and mysterious and deserves your time” … this example also includes an instance where a prominent devout Jew “failed to mind her own business” .
It also supports the claim that the Torah is complex and mysterious … in my opinion the mysteries contained in the Torah have yet to be completely revealed.
The Tora of Guela By HaRav David Bar Hayim
“And it came to pass that Yishaq was old, and his eyes were too dim to see…” (Bereshith27:1). Thus begins the story we recently read in this weekly portion of the Tora, relating how Yishaq came to bestow his blessings upon Ya’aqov, rather that Esauw. the first-born. The Tora describes these events in no less than 51 verses (Bereshith 27:1 - 28:5). many more than the Tora utilizes when speaking of Shabath!
It is with regard to such lengthy ‘narrative’ sections of the Tora that the Zohar states: “Woe to the man who says that this Tora wishes to relate simple stories … rather (the fact is) that everything in the Tora is 1ofty and contains great secrets …
“ … and just as His Angels, [who are of spiritual, and not physical essence), when they descend to Earth take on the ‘garments’ of this world (a physical form): and were this not so they [the Angels] could not exist in this world and the world could not bear them … how much more so the Tora itself – when it descends to this world, were it not to take on the ‘garments’ of the world, the world could not bear it. Thus, the stories of the Tora are the Tora’s ‘garments’ …“ (Zohar III 152a)
The Zohar repeats this statement with specific references to the tale of Yishaq’s blessing: “All the works of the Holy One Blessed Be He are profoundly true; all things in the Tora are rooted in the mysteries of the Higher Worlds” (Zohar I, 141b). The meaning is clear: the Tora does not spend 51 verses in order to tell us ‘a good story.’ Hashem is trying to tell us something.
“And it came to pass that Yishaq was old, and his eyes were too dim to see, he called Esauw his elder son …” Several questions occur to us upon reading these words, and the story that follows:
Would it not have been sufficient to simply inform us that Yishaq blessed Ya’aqov, despite not being the first born, due to his superior moral behavior(as Hazal are so intent on pointing out)? Would any of us have challenged such a decision?
Why emphasize that Yishaq called Esauw “his elder son”? The fact that Esauw was the first-born is plainly stated at the beginning of the weekly reading.
Why did Yishaq insist on passing his mantle to Esauw? Could he truly not perceive that Ya’aqov was more worthy?
On what basis did our matriarch Rivqa decide that she could devise a plan to grant Ya’aqov the blessings? What did she know that Yishaq did not?
We must begin by defining the attributes of our forefathers. Avraham is known as a man of great kindness and giving: the story of seeing the three travellers in the desert and inviting them into his home is famous (Bereshith 18:1). Our Sages further amplify this picture of Avraham in many Midrashim. Even when the situation required making an unpleasant decision, such as distancing Yishmael from Yishaq and removing him from the family, Avraham faltered: “And this thing was very grievous in Avraham’s eyes(Bereshith 21:11). It ran against the grain of Avraham’s love of compassion.
Yishaq is a more stern and severe figure. When Ya’aqov rebukes Lavan, he refers to his forefathers in an unusual fashion: “Were it not that the G-d of my father, the g-d of Avraham, and the fear of Yishaq, had been with me, you would have surely sent me away empty handed” (Bereshith 31:42)
Ya’aqov is the confluence of these two tendencies — he is the perfectly balanced Jew: ‘The choicest of the Forefathers” (Bereshith Raba 76:1). Or in the words of the prophet Mikha: “You shall show Truth (perfection) to Ya’aqov, Loyal Love (compassion) to Avraham” (Mikha 7:20).
The Zohar sums it up thus:“Ya’aqov completes and perfects everything … as it says ‘Loyal Love (compassion) to Avraham’ — this is Avraham’s portion because he showed compassion to people … Yishaq is strict justice (I. 96aJ. “Hesed (Compassion), Pahad (Fear), Emeth (Truth) — these are the attributes of the three Forefathers” (III, 217a).
Our holy forefather Yishaq, therefore, is driven by a strict sense of justice and a rigid loyalty to tradition. It is for this reason that he felt that he must bestow his blessings, and the leadership of the nascent Jewish people, to Esauw: this was the tradition he had received from his father. This was the Law: the blessing belongs to the first-born. Therefore “He called Esauw his elder son …” He was, in fact, aware of Esauw’s shortcomings. This is why he requested that Esauw bring him his favorite dish: ‘that my soul may bless you before I die” (27:4). He needed to be in a positive frame of mind toward Esauw, in order to bless him with a happy and full heart (only in this fashion, he knew, would his blessing be truly effective). As for the future, be felt that Hashem could cause Esauw to repent and return to Him if He so chose. He felt, at any rate, that this was out of his hands (see Mei HaShiloah, Toldoth).
Rivqa, however, knew that radical and rapid action was required to avert disaster (see Rambam 27:7). “Upon me be your curse, my son; but obey my voice. “ (27:13) she said upon seeing Ya’aqov’s reluctance to go along with her plot.
How did she know that this was the right thing to do? We find two explanations in our classic sources. Onqelos, in his Aramaic translation, states: “It was said to me by way of prophecy that no curse shall befall you.” The Rashbam points out: “She relied [in so doing] on that which had been said to her by Hashem ‘and the elder shall serve the younger.”’
In truth, these two explanations are one. The Rashbam and Onqelos are simply reminding us of what we read at the beginning of the parasha when Rivqa, distressed by an unusual pregnancy, “went to inquire of the Lord” (This very fact indicates Rivqa’s holy intuition, the first step to prophecy; many women would simply have put it down to ‘bad luck’). “And the Lord said to her: Two nations are in thy womb and the elder shall serve the younger” (25:22-23).
Note the wording ‘and the; Lord said to her.’ In general, woman have greater powers of intuition and insight than men: “Hashem placed greater insight in women than men” (T.B. Nida 45b) (The expression ‘a woman’s intuition’ has a basis in reality!) That which was revealed to Rivka was unclear to Yishaq: “his eyes were too dim to see …“ She did not share this knowledge with him. “‘And the Darkness He called Night’ — this refers to Yishaq (Zohar I, 142a). He was in the dark.
Rivqa. armed with this knowledge, knew that Ya’aqov must receive the blessing. The question was ‘How?. Hashem had not revealed the answer to this question. Yet Rivqa does not falter. If Hashem, in His Wisdom, had informed her of what must be, it was surely her responsibility to make it happen. She therefore hatches a plan and speaks to Ya’aqov: “obey my voice …” She is not only sure in the knowledge of what Hashem revealed to her; she is equally certain as to what must be done. The former is prophecy; the latter holy intuition, Ruah Haqodesh.
“Woe to the man who says that this Tora wishes to relate simple stories.” We must internalize the profound truth hidden herein.
Great events in our national existence cannot be understood and decisions that will shape our people’s future cannot be made in the ‘Yishaq mode.’ In order to perceive the direction and orientation that must be assumed, to come to terms with the steps that must be taken, and to possess the self-assuredness simply to know when something is right, and to be therefore willing to lead the way -for all these, something more than rigid loyalty to tradition is required.
Our Geula, which was prophetically mapped out for us long ago, is the. ‘What.’ We must supply the ‘How.’
Rav David Bar Hayim is the head of the Makhon Ben Yishai Institute for Tora Research in Jerusalem
Yeah, my question is : What’s your point?
Rome was imperialist before Christianity and it was imperialist after. Imperialism can be linked to almost every religion and non-religion.
So, why do you even bring up western imperialism?
Because that’s the one that adopted the bible as its sacred text. The Bible, in its present form, was created under the auspices of the Roman Empire, at a time when the Roman empire was converting all of its vassal states to Christianity. It was then made the unquestionable holy scripture of the unopposable state religion. In the ensuing centuries, the native European pagan religions and their practitioners were eradicated. After the fall of that empire, Christian monarchies in Europe had their turns at empire-building - every single one aggressively foisting Christianity on the native peoples of the Americas, Asia and Africa. Christianity, with the cross and the bible as its standards, was used as justification for the invasion and conquest of those continents.
I merely wondered how all this related to the minding [and/or not minding] one’s own business commentary.
Perhaps we too easily sink into the “quicksand” of details. Reminds me of the children’s game of ‘Connect the Dots’.
Imagine an instance of this game where twenty dots are numbered sequentially and an additional 20 dots have no numbers. A child can connect the first 20 dots … but after they are connected there remains no recognizable image.
The child has 2 choices:
Perhaps with patience … an open mind … and an open heart … your query will be answered.
Isn’t that simply a variation of 1) ??
I really like this sentence:
The best trips I’ve ever taken (read any way you like) were the ones where I had the luxury of getting lost. One always finds something, ends up someplace, whether by intention, compulsion, serendipity or mistake.
… not sure about the author though
If reason were the proper way to interpret scriptures, those who find solace in its words would suffer from literalistic interpretations. 'The letter of the scripture is death".–Paul. So are the attempts to deny scripture of its benefits by stating the history of persons who use it to excuse evil.
Reason is the only reasonable way to interpret scripture. 
If the way of life proposed by Jesus does not work, then it has to be abandoned. The only way to determine if it works is by using reason.
The Word reason can be defined in many ways, but it seems hard for me to imagine using reason alone to determine if the Life Jesus proposed works. In part because so much of ‘it working’ would include things that have to do with subjective judgments, all those around ‘is this the Life I want and was promised’, do I feel closer to God or like a good person. Then there is the afterlife issue. If one arrives in Heaven after Death (or Before I suppose) then one does not need reason. One would not evaluate via arguments, with oneself or others. If one does not arrive, then one cannot reason, since one is dead and not in Heaven.
It seems to me one would have to use intuition to evaluate whether Jesus’ advice is working. Along with this certainly reason could be brought in. One could go at the Bible like a scientist and evaluate what Jesus says as if they were scientific hypotheses, and then try to test them or seek answers in relevent research. One could in general try to use deductive reasoning in a similar way regarding Jesus’ claims. But then one is left with a lot of inconclusive trails. Since many things cannot be tested or deduced, though such work might function as an adjunct. And in any case since many of the claims have to do with morals, subjective experiences, experience beyond Death or, if taken in a different way, transcendent experiences while alive, we are out of the range of both deduction and scientific empirical research OR the research would be about subjective experiences. Questionaires and interviews about what people experienced. Do you feel closer to a divine presence? Do you consider yourself a better person now? Have you had the spiritual experiences that you wanted when you decided to follow Jesus’s teachings? So reason could be applied to the non-reasoned conclusions of others.
But Always there will be a strong intuitive Component. Now some people do include intution in reason - and I personally do not Think there is any immaculate conception without intuition. So if the definition of reason includes intuition, then I agree with you. But otherwise it seems to me it is like Consulting a statistician to help you decide if you are in love or if she love you, if you try to use an intuition free reason - whatever that would be - to evaluate Jesus’ teachings.
I suppose if you find after years of prayer and other practice that you can walk on water, or some other repeatable break with current models, then you could use reason, not to prove Jesus is right, but to make some people more open to him being right.
But heck he could be right about water Walking but not about the afterlife. Perhaps God is more like Krishna and you will be reborn.
No. It’s a variation on free will and the exercise of reason.
As long as the puzzle is rewarding in some way - you enjoy the challenge, or you think the final picture might be worth looking at - keep at it.
If somebody’s just trying to manipulate you, tell him to stuff it.
These are clear, available choices, unless there is compulsion involved.
This is of an excursion, not a life. It is voluntary, not prescribed by authority.
Choice makes all the difference.
AUTHORS plural UNKOWN.
The NT was Greek, BTW.
There are no parallels, except that they are both a crock of shit.
There is no doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, that is a Pagan myth.