posted
I didn't say anti-Semitism, though I feel that certainly plays a part in some areas-particularly European areas. I don't see how similar public opinion in non-Christian/Islamic areas means that those areas that do have that background are straightforward and legitimate in their opposition, though.
When I say it's oddly biased, I mean that it appears to be willing to tolerate insurgency while not tolerating military responses to insurgency. Now, you can cry 'American-centric' all you like, and that's certainly true, but it's not actually a rebuttal:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, maybe thats the root of our miscommunication. I wouldn't call that "bias." If the world (or a specific area) has a certain opinion on the morality of insurgency (or torture or preemptive war, etc.), then as long as it applies it consistently, I wouldn't really call it bias. I would only call it bias if say, all things being equal, Asia were extra willing to tolerate insurgencies by Europeans as opposed to Africans for example. That *would* unfairly skew the rankings with European countries moving up. But that doesn't appear to be the case here.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So my question was an expression of that curiosity, not really having anything to do with Jews vs. Muslims at all (in fact, at the time i was shocked by the 24% of the pie chart representing left wing groups), but just saying that given my view on the greater harm caused by the death of human beings, those statistics alone (while certainly opening our eyes to some really important data that points out the difference between fact and perception) are somewhat meaningless in the sense that they don't relay actual damage done.
This is a really important point. The FBI terrorism data base places acts like nuns defacing missile silos with their own blood, ALF releasing lab animals, and ELF vandalizing ski resorts in the same category with bombing embassies and murdering hundreds of innocent people. Does anyone find that in the least bit reasonable.
The last time I looked into it, there had no American had every been killed in an act of "eco-terrorism" and yet "eco-terrorist" groups were at the top of the FBI terrorism list.
I'm not saying that I think vandalism is OK, but vandalism is not murder and the two should not be classified together. When painting missile silos with your own blood and mass murder are all lumped under the same category as "terrorism" the statistics become utterly meaningless.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why do you think he's somehow uncomfortable with that, Samprimary? I see that said not infrequently about religious people. "You're not comfortable with the fact that it's just your faith." There are certainly religious people like that, but religious folks are hardly strangers to doubt and uncertainty, however much you might like to think otherwise.
It's because of how armoth specifically denies that his religion is faith-based, like all of them. armoth wants to put it in terms of it being based on evidence/evidentiary processes.
IIRC armoth will say things like "My faith is a product of my having proved for myself that what I believe is real" and "My belief is evidence-based" I actually think it was actually literally said by armoth, essentially, "my religion is based on knowledge, not faith"
If I have armoth confused with someone else, sorry, but if these things were said, then yes, that's obvious discomfort with the idea that his religious perspective absolutely can be classified as a product of faith.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp is correct. Faith is stupid. Why would anyone chose to believe something just because they choose to believe it? I mean, it makes them happy - but as long as it makes other ppl sad, then why not chose to believe in something that makes everyone happy?
Leaps of faith and all that is nonsense, in my opinion.
Samp is 100 percent correct that I believe in Judaism based on knowledge and evidence. Evidence that I think is a lot more valuable than "searching my feelings" or the like.
Samp - perhaps I misunderstood your post. You said that you would show up and declare that all were equal - but in the current vision of things, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not believe that - not in the way you were offering. Judaism has different roles for Jews and non-Jews, men and women, believers and non-believers. Christianity and Islam definitely have different roles for believers and non-believers. Not sure if "roles" are the right words here, but it's not all equal - and it's at the root of the dispute.
In my hypo, you picked a path that is untenable with the current reality - changing religion.
Which brings me back to the reiteration of the previous post, exactly how do you propose to do this, and barring that, maybe a different approach is necessary.
-----
As for your response to my post - If pushed to it, I might say that a Christian, Muslim, or Atheist (or most Jews for that matter) are NOT taking an honest look at reality - but that doesn't matter. The point I'm trying to make is that an Atheist is so convinced that faulty logic is the root of the world's problems. I think that assume that everyone's logic is going to be faulty - now what do you do?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Samp is correct. Faith is stupid. Why would anyone chose to believe something just because they choose to believe it?
I think what you'll have to come to terms with is that faith is not just how you describe it, especially considering how your description is a bald tautology unrelated to the many mechanisms and reasons why people have faith in ideas. Your religion is a matter of faith.
quote:Samp - perhaps I misunderstood your post. You said that you would show up and declare that all were equal - but in the current vision of things, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not believe that - not in the way you were offering.
You bet I'm showing up and declaring that all peoples are equal with no God's Specialist People who have extra prohibitions and privileges. No matter what, I am telling the truth. Now that I get to play God, there is no longer any reason to be beholden to the notion you can't eat pork and you have to occupy a certain region of the middle east, etc etc etc. I can show everyone that it is not so. Even if it were so for some unlikely reason, I have willed it out of the universe, and you are now all free. More likely, I am merely correcting misinformation, via my new ultimate authority and complete knowledge on the matter.
And that is an excellent way to start my job of keeping the world from being such a miserable, intolerant place.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If pushed to it, I might say that a Christian, Muslim, or Atheist (or most Jews for that matter) are NOT taking an honest look at reality
What evidence do you think that they (myself included) are missing? If the evidence is as overwhelming as you are claiming, why are so many rational people not persuaded by it?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's because of how armoth specifically denies that his religion is faith-based, like all of them. armoth wants to put it in terms of it being based on evidence/evidentiary processes.
This is a conversation that's been had around here before, so I won't go into again except to say that 'faith-based' and 'based on evidence' need not be mutually exclusive outlooks.
quote: If the evidence is as overwhelming as you are claiming, why are so many rational people not persuaded by it?
This is a strange argument in favor of the virtues of rationality: "Not enough people believe it."
quote:Judaism has different roles for Jews and non-Jews, men and women, believers and non-believers. Christianity and Islam definitely have different roles for believers and non-believers. Not sure if "roles" are the right words here, but it's not all equal - and it's at the root of the dispute.
I don't know about Islam, but you are wrong about Christianity (at least the versions of Christianity with which I am most familiar). Christianity does not teach that God has different commandments for believers and non-believers. Christianity does not teach that believers have different responsibilities to other believers than non-believers.
One of the key teachings of Christianity is that God is impartial. He judges us on our choices and faithfulness not based on our race, ethnicity, or heritage. If God expects more from some people than others (or more accurately forgives some less readily than others) it is because they have a greater knowledge and understanding of his commandments or (in some cases) because they have made promises to do certain things, not because they belong to a particular family. Furthermore God expects the same of us. That is, he expects us to treat all people with the same kindness, compassion and fairness regardless of their ethnicity or beliefs. I will admit that Christians have very rarely lived up to that ideal, but that IS the ideal we are expected to strive for.
It's not just a semantic difference.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp - can you elaborate on the faith point?
Amanecer - I would approach our conversation differently depending on the perspective you are coming from. I'm sorry I don't know, are you Atheist? Christian? Muslim?
Much has been posted already - but there are many biases out there that prevent people from confronting truth. I'm comfortable that a person can use all of his abilities to pursue truth and not actually reach it, and I'm comfortable with the moral value of that pursuit, but I'd also probably say that most people don't actually engage in that pursuit to the extent of their abilities.
Rabbit - I mean, yea, but you still have the same God that we do. Let me quote from another post: Our God wrote this:
Deuteronomy 23:20-21
Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.
The Hebrew word for foreigner is "Nochri" and is used in other places as well as here to refer to a non-Jew.
I'm assuming this verse exists in the Christian OT, right? It's not an exclusively Jewish question to answer in terms of the fact that we both share the same God who has different laws for Jews and non-Jews.
And to clarify - in that statement above, I wasn't saying that Christianity has different commandments for Christians or non-Christians, I would say that Christianity believes that non-Christians are in big trouble. So not everyone is "equal".
---- Samp - the point of the thought experiment is to point out that your peace and harmony can only be achieved by wiping out religion. How do you plan to achieve that?
(And just to throw it in because I feel it should be said - Judaism doesn't believe in equality of roles, but it does believe in equality of moral value - which makes a lot of sense, considering that we are all, in actuality, unequal physically, and in abilities, etc.)
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: You've wiped out the current religions of mankind.
I've actually done no such thing in the slightest, but I'm interested in hearing why you think I have from your reading of my posts.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you mind explaining how you haven't because Christianity, Islam and Judaism do not view believers and non-believers equally.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't wiped out the current religions of mankind at all. I didn't show up and say 'no moar religion, kthx.' All I've started with doing is making sure that everyone recognizes that there's no Special People in the universe's cosmic affairs anymore, so please continue forward under that revelation.
This doesn't cause religion to wink out of existence.
As I said, I'm interested in how you came to the conclusion that it did.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You keep changing the line of thought I want to approach. I'm not alleging that you've wiped out religion, only that you've wiped out the actual current religions of mankind. The thought experiment was to show you what the constraints we are dealing with nowadays. Your ideal conception of reality may include religion, but not the current conception of the religions that exist now.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: You keep changing the line of thought I want to approach. I'm not alleging that you've wiped out religion, only that you've wiped out the actual current religions of mankind.
And I haven't done that either! There's still jews, muslims, christians, buddhists, zoroastrians, shintoists, hindus, confucianists, jainists, etc. They are still religions of mankind. They are not wiped out. They're still going. They're better informed. They don't get wiped out as the 'actual current religions of mankind' any more so than Mormonism gets wiped out as an actual current religion of mankind every time they receive a new revelation that changes a lot about the religion, or Catholicism gets wiped out as an actual current religion of mankind when the Pope brings down a new godly ruling changing how the church works.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not alleging that you've wiped out religion
preceded by
quote:Samp - the point of the thought experiment is to point out that your peace and harmony can only be achieved by wiping out religion.
so, there we go!
When I said wiped out religion i mean wiped out religion in the world we currently exist. That quote game is unnecessary.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya. I get what you're trying to say. Stop trying to win the thought experiment. It wasn't a game. It was a demonstration of the fact that in order for peace and harmony to be achieved, you have to do major surgery on the religions of mankind.
It was something I thought was worth exploring because the beginning of this thread was particularly frustrating.
I'm trying to make the point that we all live with one another and come from very different perspectives. You can't really do surgery on other people's religion. You have to understand and compromise, seek out and convince, or destroy.
If you don't see those as choices, you try a little of all 3, and continue to live your life. That's what every country does. Israel doesn't choose one of the three options, it chooses all 3. What's unfortunate is that others don't understand that Israel is put in the position where they choose the destroy option more often than others do.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I said wiped out religion i mean wiped out religion in the world we currently exist. [/QB]
This doesn't make sense. But for what it's worth, I haven't done that either. Any permutation of "wiping out" religion you can come up with, I have not done. I don't know how many more ways I have to reinforce this fact for you.
quote:Ya. I get what you're trying to say. Stop trying to win the thought experiment. It wasn't a game.
If I was trying to 'win' this as a game I would just say "I am God so I fix everything without leaving religion tampered with. I'm God so I can do that."
I answered in a way I honestly think would be the best way to start work on the situation under the terms of the test as presented.
quote:What's unfortunate is that others don't understand that Israel is put in the position where they choose the destroy option more often than others do.
No, I actually think people are well aware of Israel's proclivity to elect for destructive options. I don't think that a lack of understanding that they do that is the problem.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I don't understand why we can't communicate. Specifically you and I. I know I communicate with others and I'm pretty sure you're successful at communicating with others as well.
This is one of those times where I think a face to face would be a lot more valuable.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm telling you my starting response to your hypothetical is in no way, shape, or form 'wiping out religion' and when I point out contradicting and confusing elements I'm getting in return, it gets called playing games.
You really seriously said that the purpose of your thought experiment was to show that our peace and harmony can only be achieved by wiping out religion. Then you said that you weren't alleging I had done any such thing. But that I had done something else, which is fundamentally indistinct but presented with more confusing wording:
quote:When I said wiped out religion i mean wiped out religion in the world we currently exist.
If you are wondering why there's such a communication problem going on, start with this. It's confusing. It really doesn't make sense. But right now it's really probably that you are misusing the idea of 'wiping out' religion. Wiping out a religion doesn't mean changing it, or adding to it, or better informing its adherents of something which is true about the actual nature of existence. To wipe it out means to destroy it, to purge it from existence. Bad way to put it.
Let's say I just do one thing. Let's say that in the hypothetical, whilst possessing the powers of God, I do one thing. Just one. Let's say that there actually IS some strange thing in existence which actually DOES make it a Really Bad Thing for certain groups, in this case, let's say the jews and the muslims, from eating pork. What a really weird thing to have encoded into the whole of Reality, but whatever. I have the power, so I reach into the Cosmos and just change that so that there's no such prohibition anymore. Then I give the people of the world absolute and true knowledge of the fact that I have done so.
Everything else, absolutely everything, I leave intact. Have I 'wiped out religion' by doing this in my hypothetical? By 'wiped out,' do you really mean 'altered in a way which I don't believe we have the luxury of having done in the real world?'
How about my original proposal, complete with the divine proclamation that all peoples are equal and nobody's God's Special Group of People anymore, if ever they were at all? Do you mean 'altered in a way which I don't believe we have the luxury of having done in the real world?'
Is the real purpose of the hypothetical to say that we can't bring about peace without altering the way religions are really are now? Because that's false, too. I have God powers. I just leave the religious conceptions intact, with no regard as to who, if anyone, has the right idea. I give everyone the land that they want, with overlapping contradictory real states if necessary, and ensure that no harm comes between peoples due to conflict or competition for resources.
In the end, interpretations like this from you about my position:
quote:You do not consider these people's religions as being their perspectives on the truth of existence - but rather you think they're all wrong, and that they're going to continue to perpetuate trouble until they realize the error of their ways.
Are just completely incorrect. Flat out. I can only hope I can get you to the point where you understand why nothing I've said validates this statement.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:'m assuming this verse exists in the Christian OT, right? It's not an exclusively Jewish question to answer in terms of the fact that we both share the same God who has different laws for Jews and non-Jews.
Yes, this verse exists in the Christian OT but Christians (at least most Christians) believe this commandment has been superseded by a new law that there are no more strangers and foreigners, that all human beings are brothers and sisters and should be treated as such. I recognize that Christians rarely ever live up to that ideal, but it is the ideal we are taught we should strive for. Having grown up learning that ideal, it is quite shocking to me to learn that some people believe God commands them to treat people differently based on their heritage.
quote:And to clarify - in that statement above, I wasn't saying that Christianity has different commandments for Christians or non-Christians, I would say that Christianity believes that non-Christians are in big trouble. So not everyone is "equal".
First off, its extremely dangerous to start talking about what "Christians" believe since their are more variations of Christianity than flavors at Basking Robbins and in no case is this more true than when talking about what Christians believe will happen to non-Christians. Most of the Christians I know (which probably isn't a representative sampling), believe God will be more forgiving to non-Christians than Christians (depending of course on the reasons they have for being non-Christians). But even among those Christians who do believe that all non-Christians are in big trouble there are major differences between that belief and yours that make the comparison problematic.
The first difference is that being Christian is a matter of personal choice, not a matter birthright. It is one thing to say God expects and rewards different things for different people based on their choices, abilities and experiences and quite another say God expects and rewards people differently because of who their parents are. Let's put it in the secular realm so you can see what I mean. Consider two laws. One says people who have more money have to pay more taxes, the other says people of northern european ancestry have to pay more taxes. Would you argue that both laws are equally just?
The second difference is that even those Christians who believe all non-Christians are going to hell, are expected to treat those people the same as they treat fellow Christians. I would find it highly offensive if a Christian owned bank or business offered special deals for Christians only.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
samp - I'm happy to take credit for the communication errors.
"wipe out" may not be the best choice of words. But yes, if you fundamentally alter the religions of the world in a way that cannot be achieved in our world, then your hypo may be nice but it doesn't really help.
Same with giving everyone what they want. My dad likes to talk about how navigators work. GPS. They don't send you in a straight line through buildings and fields - the GPS calculates the best route given constraints that exist. One of the constraints in this world is that there is only one land of Israel, and two or three peoples with a claim on it. How do you now translate your solution from the hypothesis to this world?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
1) As I mentioned, you still have this verse. That means that for a thousand years of the world's history, God had different rules for a chosen people and non-chosen people. Does that trouble you? He actually HAD a CHOSEN people! AND he had a system for non-Jews as well, where they needed only keep the 7 Noahide commandments. It doesn't matter what Christianity now believes, Judaism is a part of Christianity, and at one point, according to you, it was God's religion.
2) Birthright. Again, worth pointing out that anyone who wants to convert to Judaism can convert. Many of the reasons for Jewish choseness have a lot to do with the fact that there was a niche in God's plan for a chosen people, just like there is a niche for priests, and there is a huge advantage to selecting the people for filling that niche by heritage. God originally chose firstborns to be His priests, and then chose the tribe of Levi.
3) I also want to reiterate what I said in the Q/A thread. The reason for the interest law is to promote a familial sense among Jews, a familial sense that is important in the furthering of their particular role in the world. Taking interest is not immoral. Taking interest from your son or daughter, your brother or sister, is.
4)I never said God rewards people differently based on their heritage. Men, women, Jew, non-Jew are not equal in their roles. But they ARE equal in terms of reward and punishment. The extent to which one puts in effort is the extent to which one will be rewarded. A tremendous Torah scholar with a long white beard whom everyone perceives to be a saint, may just be born with wonderful abilities - and is actually not a saint because he barely puts any effort into his life. If one is intellectually honest, defines good and evil for oneself, and puts in effort to achieve that good - as long as that person was serious abut that effort, they'll be looked at by God favorably.
5) It's false to say that we believe everyone is equal. We don't. Some people pay higher taxes than others. People under the age of 18 cannot vote. Illegal aliens don't enjoy the same rights we do. Legal aliens don't enjoy the same rights we do. The laws are not equal but they are also just. Why? Because the laws were created to account for the inequalities that exist - we don't treat everyone equally when they are, in fact, not equal. The laws do their best to facilitate equality for those who are indeed equal, but for those who are not, they try to be just, in the sense that they are logical as upholding legal rights and obligations for those who are best suited for them.
In the context of Judaism - In Judaism, the roles are unequal. Jews are given a specific role that is meant to match their specific abilities that are largely a result of the fact of their specific historical (not genetic) heritage. And again, the proof for that is that if one feels that they would like to be a Jew, they may convert. However, the moral value (as mentioned above) is NOT unequal.
6) Your second difference wasn't always true. For almost two thousand years it wasn't true. And for many, it still isn't true. I've been told multiple times by Christians that I'm going to hell if I don't accept Jesus. And although it doesn't exist as much in this country, it exists in others that Jews are treated differently than non-Jews in the workplace. Maybe not different laws for Jews and non-Jews, but discriminatory hiring practices or an unwillingness to do business.
7) As a Christian - do you have a conception of a mission for your life? What about for the world, and for Christianity?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a perfect argument over the persuasiveness of the supposed evidence, however.
I wasn't aware that one of the tenets of a strictly empirical, logical approach to the world was, "Look at what like-minded people think as a gauge." Did the scientific method get an addition at some point?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, he said "persuasiveness." If evidence is persuasive, many of the people exposed to the evidence will be persuaded by it.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Amanecer - I would approach our conversation differently depending on the perspective you are coming from. I'm sorry I don't know, are you Atheist? Christian? Muslim?
I'm not religious but I'm not looking for an argument tailored to me. I want to know what you think is so inherently dishonest about a Christian/Muslim/Atheist world perspective.
Frankly, I find the idea that people are being dishonest to be incredibly offensive and untrue. I've heard it bandied about by Atheists, Christians, and now a Jewish person, so I don't think it's unique to any one group. I do think that it is destructive to civil and productive discourse. I think most people think the way they do because that is what their world view and experiences seen through the perspective of their world view have taught them. To throw dishonesty in to the equation is to question character. Why have you reached this conclusion?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth: Not to disparage your religion, I have enormous respect for it. But Mormons do not view the Law of Moses as God's law for his chosen people in the same way you might.
For us, as far as I understand it, Adam and Eve had the essential gospel we currently espouse, but through apostasy and restoration followed by more apostasy it was gained and lost again. Mormons believe that Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Melchizedek, and even Moses all knew about Jesus' role down the road and taught of him. In Moses case for example I believe his raising of the bronze serpent was a symbol of the messiah that the Jews should look to and live.
We believe that initially Moses tried to share this gospel that had been lost to some extent by the Hebrew slaves while they toiled in Egypt, but that they weren't ready for it as evidenced by their complaining in the desert, the golden calf, and especially their refusal to come up on the mountain to converse with God and instead having Moses do it for them.
God since the Isrealites did not want this higher law of the gospel gave them the Law of Moses as a preparatory law for regaining the higher principles of the gospel that Jesus would reintroduce.
Back in 500BC where the Book of Mormon starts with its description of Lehi living in Jerusalem, there are many references to the people of the Book of Mormon discussing this dynamic where the Law of Moses must be observed strictly but that followers should not lose sight of its purpose, and believe the law should be followed in of itself.
Again, I'm not trying to push the idea that I've got it right and you're stuck in the past, but I hope you can see why for a Mormon, a requirement like not permitting usury amongst believers but allowing it amongst unbelievers does not particularly bug Mormons, as we believe the whole of the law was an attempt at preparing the Israelites for greater principles.
In the New Testamant after Jesus has departed almost immediately we read about Peter the new head of the church receiving a commandment directly from God that he needs to start teaching the gospel to the gentiles not just the Jews. So as far as Christianity is concerned I agree with Rabbit insofar as God does not have separate requirements for unbelievers, but he does have separate standards for judging them, and they are more forgiving than what Christians will get.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer - I chose my words carefully. I didn't think that the Christian/Muslim/Atheist world is inherently dishonest. All I said is that a lot of people are dishonest. I included Jews as well.
In my experience, people tend to lie to themselves to make themselves happy. We all do it. I think people do it in areas that are fundamental to their identity.
It bothers me when my coreligionists refuse to look at the world from another perspective. Honesty demands the considering of alternative possibilities and the willingness to chose that which is most truthful.
I don't mean to offend, I'm simply trying to relate my impression based on my experience with people. The desire to deceive one's-self is incredibly strong.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I mean, it's thoroughly interesting. I just don't understand a whole lot...
A lot of the issues in the desert in Judaism explain a very important principle that we are meant to correct. Religion is largely about finding the truth, but once you find it, it is also about living the truth. The human ego is so strong and the selfish desire is so powerful, even when the Israelites had a knowledge of God, they witnessed miracles, and prophecy - God was too much for them. Most of the sins of the desert is a people with too much ego to be able to bear the obligations and humility required of a nation living with God in their midst.
I don't mean to offend when I offer this - but your religion's take on Judaism is very similar to a good fantasy novel's take on history - where major events in history are explained by magic or some other plot that didn't exist - but artfully and cleverly ties together major point, fitting a framework on top of history in an entertaining way.
Judaism's truth is affirmed by the mass revelation. God did not reveal Himself to one person and then had him convince others (Like in Christianity, Islam and Mormonism). God revealed Himself to the entire nation - Judaism was never about believing in God - He showed up to the entire nation. It was about adhering to His commandments.
(This is a huge aspect of self-perfection and of growth. When one realizes that their struggles come from adhering to truth - how insane it is that humans can know truth and not actually take it to heart enough to live it. How a smoker can smoke, how people with health risks don't lose weight, and how a religious person can sin).
Christianity, Islam and Mormonism do not have mass revelations. They base themselves off the mass revelation in Judaism. However, Each one of those religions fundamentally alters the original Judaism.
"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you" (Deuteronomy 13:1–5 NIV)
That is in the original Judaism. I feel we are left with a contradiction - you have the original Judaism with its test for a false prophet - one who interferes with the keeping of the commandments is a false prophet.
Perhaps if God had changed His mind, whatever that means, isn't a new mass revelation in order, one that could actually supersede the previous word?
What do Mormons do with the entire OT? Is it considered corrupted? False? Not accurate versions of God's will? If not, I have a whole bunch of questions - some of them having to do with how they treat the entirety of the OT and how God relates to Israel - why God extended his covenant to people who were not ready, etc.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: "wipe out" may not be the best choice of words. But yes, if you fundamentally alter the religions of the world in a way that cannot be achieved in our world, then your hypo may be nice but it doesn't really help.
I don't know who didn't understand that going in, though. But one fun thing is that the religions of this world make it so that alteration of them towards new forms is not only possible, but guaranteed in some way or form over time. No religion's laws, practices, or teachings remain unchanged between generations, and religions don't stay cohesive. They break into sects that believe profoundly different things about what used to be a unified religion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: "wipe out" may not be the best choice of words. But yes, if you fundamentally alter the religions of the world in a way that cannot be achieved in our world, then your hypo may be nice but it doesn't really help.
I don't know who didn't understand that going in, though. But one fun thing is that the religions of this world make it so that alteration of them towards new forms is not only possible, but guaranteed in some way or form over time. No religion's laws, practices, or teachings remain unchanged between generations, and religions don't stay cohesive. They break into sects that believe profoundly different things about what used to be a unified religion.
Have we identified your calling? Will you be the undercover Rabbi or Imam who Pastwatchedly alters Judaism and Islam for the peace of all mankind?
quote:It's a perfect argument over the persuasiveness of the supposed evidence, however.
I wasn't aware that one of the tenets of a strictly empirical, logical approach to the world was, "Look at what like-minded people think as a gauge." Did the scientific method get an addition at some point?
What paul said. We're talking about persuasiveness, but the only correlation towards being seriously likely to be persuaded by the 'evidence' is if you grew up indoctrinated to it. And you can be indoctrinated into practically anything as a child, so ..
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a perfect argument over the persuasiveness of the supposed evidence, however.
I wasn't aware that one of the tenets of a strictly empirical, logical approach to the world was, "Look at what like-minded people think as a gauge." Did the scientific method get an addition at some point?
What paul said. We're talking about persuasiveness, but the only correlation towards being seriously likely to be persuaded by the 'evidence' is if you grew up indoctrinated to it. And you can be indoctrinated into practically anything as a child, so ..
I think you'll find that this works the other way as well. People don't often leave Christianity for Islam, not because Islam is not persuasive, but because they were indoctrinated. Same with Atheists. It's not a disproof to whether or not something is compelling evidence to one who intellectually honest.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth: I can see how our version of events sounds like a fantasy novel in that we somehow manage to weave a narrative on top of a complicated history where it doesn't seem to fit all the time.
That is part of why we find modern day revelation to be so crucial as in addition to teaching us what God's will is today, it sheds light on the mysteries of the past and demonstrates to us that God really is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. He's always had a consistent message.
There were many holy men and women before Moses, and they needed God as much as any of us do. Why should God's plans for them be fundamentally different? I confess that much of say Adam, Eve, Abraham, etc knowing about Christ is found in our uniquely revealed scripture. But to us that merely reveals how much God loves us, he recognized that we were going to lose a lot of information as his word was passed on through the ages and he prepared other records so as to help the studious disciple harmonize that message.
But beyond all that, I still believe that the Old Testament can be viewed by itself and still lead one to honestly conclude that Jesus was fulfilling scripture all the way back to Adam's promise that God would give man the power "crush" the serpents head, though the serpent would bruise man's heel.
quote:Judaism's truth is affirmed by the mass revelation. God did not reveal Himself to one person and then had him convince others (Like in Christianity, Islam and Mormonism). God revealed Himself to the entire nation - Judaism was never about believing in God - He showed up to the entire nation. It was about adhering to His commandments.
It is here we have to part ways. God was known hundreds of years before Moses drew breath. Even Moses referred to him as the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. This knowledge of God was passed down through families and through missionary work all the way until Moses day.
Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt was certainly based in God's desire to establish a nation, fulfilling his promise he'd made to their forefathers.
As to your scripture about false prophets, I think it all falls into what how you define "other God's." To me, the God who created Adam, was the God who told Noah there would never be another flood, who told Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars of the heavens, who told Moses to part the waters of the Red Sea, who told Isaiah to write these prophecies detailing the messiah's life, who preserved Daniel's life, who told Lehi to leave Jerusalem and to take his family to the American continent, who commanded Ezra to read the book of the law to all the people gathered together from exile, who came down as promised, who repaired the path that separates us from him spiritually and physically, who stopped Saul on the road to Damascus, who appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove, who will always command his people.
What else God has done in this world is something I think each individual person must discover for him/herself. But I do not believe that Jesus fulfilling the Law of Moses necessitates a departure from God.
As for mass revelation being necessary if we are to supersede something he has already commanded, Mormons already believe in a sort of mass revelation. Ignoring that Jesus himself appeared to mass of people in the Book of Mormon and revealed himself to them, he also sojourned in Jerusalem and it's environs for three years. Beyond that, each individual is promised personal revelation on the topic if they will but read God's words and speak to him on the matter. Each individual being given personal revelation is as impressive to me as a bunch of people being grouped together and being given the exact same experience as a group.
Ignoring all that, Christians do believe the Jews are in for a mass revelation down the road. We believe the entire world will be arrayed against them, and that just as it seems all hope is lost God will destroy the wicked, the messiah will appear again, and explain to the Jews just who he is.
As for the OT entire, corrupt is an ugly word but not entirely inaccurate. Men scuffed up what God wanted said to various degrees. God lets men alter the books that are supposed to contain only his words just as he lets men lie about their contents. Sometimes it was an honest mistake, others it was an intentional alteration because the person didn't like the original text. It's unfortunate but unavoidable. Even in the Book of Mormon a text we believe has the maximum level of clarity possible as only trusted prophets wrote it, and translated it, some of it's meaning is garbled and lost. We read not a few times the prophets themselves griping that were they writing in Hebrew instead of a type of reformed Egyptian they would be able to write clearer and more powerfully.
Fortunately God is still really effective, and despite man's shortcomings, even if we tossed out all the other books and stuck with the OT, we'd have a masterpiece of religion. Going back to modern day revelation, only God himself can tell us how the texts from the past originally read. So if the scriptures did have mistakes, how else could they be fixed?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't mean to offend, I'm simply trying to relate my impression based on my experience with people. The desire to deceive one's-self is incredibly strong.
I think that when there is a conflict between the way one feels they should behave\be\live\think and how they actually do\are, that there is a temptation to self deceive. I do not think that people typically deceive themselves in to their most basic beliefs though (belief in God, belief in no God, belief in Christ, etc). Those things are so fundamental to most people who hold them, that once held they don't even arise as genuine questions.
I suppose what I found most offensive was the idea that you are using your own beliefs as the barometer for whether or not people are taking an honest look at reality. Perhaps I misinterpreted.
quote:People don't often leave Christianity for Islam, not because Islam is not persuasive, but because they were indoctrinated. Same with Atheists.
I do not have numbers to back this up, but this does not hold to my experience. I have met many atheists and none were raised that way.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. BB - you're right about the fact that God was known to others before the mass revelation. I meant that the mass revelation is the source for Judaism's truth in 2010 (and the foundation for other religions to base their truth on as well).
Let me ask you a different question. I'm not Mormon. I have natural phenomena and the wealth of human experience to look at to draw my conclusions to determine whether or not to believe in God, and which religion to belong to. Every religion has its position on the past - what is compelling about Mormonism as opposed to Islam, Judaism, or Christianity?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer - I'm not so much using my belifes as the barometer, but I am using my own experiences. That's the only tool I have. If pushed to it, I can never prove someone is being dishonest, ever. At best I can prove someone is consciously choosing to relate in dishonest ways, but that someone is dishonest with themselves? I can only surmise.
As for Atheists - correct. Many atheists were not raised Atheist. But I would argue that many if not most have a specific set of circumstances that led to their becoming Atheist. Two of my friends who are atheist also happen to be gay. Another atheist friend of mine became an atheist only after an affair that he had became public - and this guy was the most religious guy I've ever seen...
There are also a lot of Atheists who don't have that kind of baggage, but some of the circumstances that influence could have to do with the elitism many atheists can claim for shedding the "silliness" of religion.
Again, I don't mean to be offensive - and I'm sure there are honest atheists - I'm just pointing out that even Atheists don't always reach their conclusions because of an honest search - there are oftentimes other motivations and self-deceptions that are a package deal. Same as with those who are religious.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I think you'll find that this works the other way as well. People don't often leave Christianity for Islam, not because Islam is not persuasive, but because they were indoctrinated. Same with Atheists. It's not a disproof to whether or not something is compelling evidence to one who intellectually honest.
You would still have more people being compelled from a non-religious upbringing into Judaism than you would have religious jews dropping out of the faith because they just don't find it credible.
You would also not see Judaism bottoming out on lists of religious growth by percentage, and there's few way to explain that in lieu of abandoning the 'persuasiveness' argument unless you want to confront the idea that other sects like the Bahá'í Faith seem to be at least four times as persuasive per active practicing member, and what that would mean for the implications of 'validity' for a given religion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not true. We're focusing on motivations. People do things because of desire. Honesty is just not all that high up on the motivation list. Pleasure, meaning, those are pretty high up.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Have we identified your calling? Will you be the undercover Rabbi or Imam who Pastwatchedly alters Judaism and Islam for the peace of all mankind?
Ha. No, I'm actually semi-confident that both religions will be forced to work out their own problems and ignoble tendencies over time. And with each there will be a small subset that desires to keep these ignoble tendencies, but who will become irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Not true. We're focusing on motivations. People do things because of desire. Honesty is just not all that high up on the motivation list. Pleasure, meaning, those are pretty high up.
that leaves it in the same position. If judaism were actually more persuasive than other religions by people who are 'intellectually honest' about faith, you would have more people joining it relative to its current exposure, and you would see the highest levels of induction from intelligent people who grew up in secular surroundings and good education.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the majority of ba'alei teshuva (Jews who grew up non-religious but became Orthodox Jews as adults) ARE "intelligent people who grew up in secular surroundings and good education".
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, I don't mean to be offensive - and I'm sure there are honest atheists - I'm just pointing out that even Atheists don't always reach their conclusions because of an honest search - there are oftentimes other motivations and self-deceptions that are a package deal. Same as with those who are religious.
Pretty much any significant change in world view (which religion is part of) comes about because some series of events has led a person to find that their current world view isn't working for them. I don't understand how that is dishonest. In the example with your gay friend, an alternate explanation to his loss of religion could be that he genuinely felt there was nothing wrong with his being gay and that countered with his faith. This prompted a search for truth in which he came to the conclusion that his faith was wrong. I could see how it's possible that he still truly believed in his faith and just deceived himself in to thinking otherwise, but that strikes me as less likely and a bit of a presumptuous conclusion.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp - I meet people all the time, like Rivka described, who grew up in secular culture with a good education who become Orthodox. I'm currently involved in discussions with a woman who identifies herself as a Noahide and is looking to convert. Also a very smart woman.
Amanecer - yes, that is an alternate explanation. BUt take what you said - "a series of events has led a person to find that their current world view isn't working for them." - I mean, there's LOADS of room for dishonesty in that perspective. Is it not working for them because they can't fulfill all the desires they want to fulfill? Is it not working for them because it is irrational? Or is it entirely logical but demands a higher amount of effort than one is willing to give?
No one makes that choice - we don't say - I didn't do well in school because it demands a higher amount of effort than what I was willing to give - we say we weren't smart enough, or that it was stupid, or that we didn't try becaue it wasn't worth it because we had other things going for us. Humans have the fundamental attribution error, and tons of other biases that make it really difficult to be honest about our life decisions and especially about the fundamental core choices that are at the center of our identities. Those are the ones you are willing to be honest about the least.
If you prove to a man of faith that their religion is wrong you've practically UNDONE him. And when you introduce God to an atheist, same deal.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Is it not working for them because they can't fulfill all the desires they want to fulfill? Is it not working for them because it is irrational? Or is it entirely logical but demands a higher amount of effort than one is willing to give?
I'd say it is not working for them because they have two or more competing views that they hold to be true but that are incompatible. People don't change their core beliefs out of laziness- such a change in itself is an incredible amount of mental effort as you yourself admit to.
It's not comparable to not trying your hardest at school because generally speaking people that don't do well at school because they're not trying do not highly value doing well in school.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
