quote:Edit: And a further point is that the Worthing psychics were not capable of changing human nature; but an omnipotent god could certainly create humans capable of growth even in the absence of pain.
It seems to me that this is potentially a 'can God create a stone not even He can lift?' type of question.
I don't think that is true. For a fictional example, consider the un-Fallen beings inhabiting Mars and Venus in Lewis's 'Out of the Silent Planet'. It seems clear that these beings are not lacking in growth, yet they are also lacking in pain, being untainted by original sin. It also seems true that many humans grow just by experience, not necessarily bad experience, but simply by trial and error; the error doesn't have to involve pain, just feedback.
In any case there does not seem to be a logical contradiction, as in the stone-too-heavy-to-lift case. There is nothing about a being capable of growth without pain that strikes at the initial assumption of omnipotence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Ron, you have also pretty directly impugned the thought processes of those who disagree with you in the past (not this thread), which I expect is part of why KoM chose to put on the brass knuckles (he took off the gloves long ago). So I'd ask you to dial back a bit, too.
quote:It also seems true that many humans grow just by experience, not necessarily bad experience, but simply by trial and error; the error doesn't have to involve pain, just feedback.
Can you point to even one human being who has a) learned all in their life through 'feedback', or even b) a single human being who has learned their most important lessons from pain?
Bear in mind, 'feedback' if achieved through observation of the pain of another and logical avoidance naturally counts as learning and growing through pain.
Or, put another way, I'm not saying every type of growth requires pain. I'm saying/asking, "What if full growth is impossible without pain?"
quote:In any case there does not seem to be a logical contradiction, as in the stone-too-heavy-to-lift case. There is nothing about a being capable of growth without pain that strikes at the initial assumption of omnipotence.
See above. If full growth requires pain, the question is definitely a contradiction, and calls into question the initial assumption.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
9) God, in His revelations to Us, told us that He is Good.
9a) God is the greatest good there is - the source of goodness and thus the essence of Good.
It seems to me that these are the statements that are being argued upon in this thread. People are having trouble believing this statement when they read about God doing things that they know are evil
That's how we get into the whole discussion of the cases when God kills babies for the sins of their fathers or leaders. We simply cannot see how this is just or good. How can children who have done nothing wrong (and according to Judaism are not even responsible for their actions until they are 13) be punished or in extreme cases killed for the sins of their fathers?
The case I happen to find the most troubling is the case of the children of Datan and Aviram. They are the two main allies of Korach as he rose up against Moshe and they were also swallowed up by the earth in the end along with their families and children who had done nothing.
However it is not simply the fact that the children were killed that always bothered me about this story. It is the fact that Korach's children live! Not only does it say specifically in the Bible that the children of Korach did not die, they also later wrote Psalms. In this case it seems especially wrong since it was the children of the leader who were spared while the children of the secondary leaders/allies who were killed.It simply seems so arbitrary who God chooses to punish for generations and who he punishes relatively lightly.
This case (and others) have made me question the presumption that God is good.
For those people like Armroth and Ron who do still believe in this fact, even through reading through all these pages I feel that I'm still not sure how you guys how you guys really see cases like the one I described above.
Armroth, you said,
quote:What if something doesn't FEEL good to us? Well that means:
We don't know God's plan, we are woefully ignorant and are beings of poor perspective, so cut God some slack.
Draw from your own life. In mine, i can think of times where I felt like God was being downright mean - and only a few years down the road did I realize that those supposed 'bad times' cleared the path for some of the most amazing things in the world.
In that case, I was wondering whether or not you thought it was possible for us to see the big picture in cases like the Datan and Aviram case while we are still alive. Also what do we do with cases where it seems that God is breaking the laws that he himself set out for us?
For Ron, It seems to me that you interpret that these babies are being killed because of the sins of their parents either to show how sinful the parents had acted, or that the children are somehow at fault. I feel there is something wrong with saying that in either case. How can you say that a child is born sinful when they have yet to complete any actions?
More importantly though, How can you say that child can be punished simply as a demonstration of how bad the parents were? Don't the children have the right to make their own mistakes and gain their own merits without their parents sins ruining them? It seems outlandish to claim that the death of these children can possibly be good, when the children in these cases don't yet know what good or bad are.
Overall it seems that you guys are claiming that we don't know good or evil when we see it. You seem to be saying that we have to trust God's version of what seems good more than what our guts and logic tell us when we see these events.
I'm sorry if I misconstrued either of your opinions. I am simply curious.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I read the Bible, it's like I'm reading a totally different book than most of the people who talk about it.
But, in answer to the original question, most of the apparent inconsistencies of the Bible are the result of a misconception: that because God is immortal, he is also unchanging. It makes a lot more sense if you drop that idea and think of God as a character capable of development. He's just on a longer timetable than us.
When he started out, he was young and full of verve, pinning his hopes on a little tribe and going into battle with them, smashing their enemies and demanding the foreskins of the fallen. That's what the old testament is all about, God's first big growth spurt, when he was full of testosterone and big ideas. But he settled down and had a kid. Of course he mellowed out.
And now he's retired. Clearly.
quote:This case (and others) have made me question the presumption that God is good... what do we do with cases where it seems that God is breaking the laws that he himself set out for us?
The idea that God is subject to any set of rules, or even morality, is flawed, I think. The all-powerful being that created the universe can do what he wants with it, and everything in it. In our day to day life, in events around the world today, he doesn't seem to take much personal stake in what any of us believe one way or the other -- and as deities go, his laissez faire system is working out pretty well for him, if not for us.
It's like a guy with an ant farm -- most people would just feed them and watch what they do, and maybe fry some of them indiscriminately with a magnifying glass. The real miracle is that this God took the time to communicate with us, lay down a set of rules, and care for a while whether they were followed. The idea that we can wrap our brains around the way God makes his decisions is akin to thinking that the ants can understand why the guy with the magnifying glass puts ant food into the farm.
Once you accept that God is by his nature neither good nor evil, the question of whether or not to worship him is really up to you.
Posts: 280 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that God is subject to any set of rules, or even morality, is flawed, I think. The all-powerful being that created the universe can do what he wants with it, and everything in it.
There are several very large assumptions that you seem to be taking as given, really only on the basis that you personally take them as given.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that God is subject to any set of rules, or even morality, is flawed, I think.
I don't think so, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" and "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Seems that once God has spoken he must do as he has spoken. That implies that at least God must be honest.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theoretically, if there was a being claiming to be God consistent with the Bible, its not as though you could just take its (or its agents) word for its own honesty.
You don't go to a GM dealer (or a better parallel, a GM brochure) to get information on a the reliability of a GM car after all.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't go to a GM dealer (or a better parallel, a GM brochure) to get information on a the reliability of a GM car after all.
I'd ask Mucus about Mucus's life, or at the very least start there...
Really though if you're going to criticize God based solely on evidence in one book then I don't see how it's fair to remove the parts of that book you don't like, it's a sword that cuts two ways. KoM has been going one way (get rid of the bad stuff God does and only look at the positive message) but it's at least as inaccurate to only see the negative things He does and ignore the fact that He says He's acted for all our good and has prepared a place for us.
posted
It's not so much about taking parts of the book out or putting them back in. The question is if you make the assumption that God exists then the book is essentially a collection of stories, facts, and themes that God wants you to know. So it's not so much "If God killed all the first-born in Egypt, then what does that tell us about God", it's more like "If God wants us to think that he's an entity that does said-killing, what does it tell us about him?"
And personally, I'd take what people say about themselves (especially on the Internet) with a very large grain of salt. We've certainly seen our fair share of sock-puppets, people lying about their backgrounds, or what not even on Hatrack.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yah but if you don't believe what He says about Himself than what's the point in the first place? Everything in the Bible is basically God's word that it happened, or at least that He caused it. If you take His word for it (via the Bible) that it was His fault that all the firstborn of Egypt died than why don't you take His word that "there is none good save one, that is, God"?
posted
You're still not getting it. I explicitly *don't* take his word for it that all the firstborn of Egypt died, let alone the latter statement. I only can take his word that he wants us to think that it was his fault that all the firstborn of Egypt died.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I definitely wasn't getting it, but I don't think I am now either. My understanding is that we were working from within the context of Christian beliefs. Obviously not everyone believes in the Bible but that's hardly relevant here. I guess I see your point in terms of thinking of the Bible as what God wishes we thought He was like but isn't necessarily true or accurate: is that what you're saying? And if so, I'm not sure where the switch came from working from within the context of "if the Bible is true, ...?" but of course a Christian God's actions don't make sense from within other beliefs. I guess I'm confused.
posted
Ok, let's work from the beginning of this line of thought.
Abyss proposed a God that is changing, maturing, and not particularly bound by any sense of morality. In this framework, it seems that Abyss is assuming that the Bible comprises a reasonably accurate depiction of specific events (specifically tribes, smashing, foreskin demanding, etc) that occurred due to this God.
Now, BlackBlade countered that the Bible seems to contradict this God since there are agents of God that claim that at least that God is unchanging in his honesty.
I'm just saying that if you grant the premise, there's no particular reason why one should necessarily trust what these agents say about the various attributes of God. God could very well change but tell his agents to claim that he is unchanging.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, well that makes more sense though I don't know if I totally understand. A God that changes, or one that only claims certain things but doesn't actually do them... while I can't comment much as that's certainly not the God of my religion but it seems like that sitll has the same problem. If His morality is changing, or can change, how do we know He wasn't lying yesterday? And if He was, how do we know anything that's been said about Him is true? If it's not that trying to determine His morality is impossible, we can't trust anything we've heard or read. At this point I'm not trying to refute your argument, only commenting on the problem of a shifting moral famework: there's no rock on which to build (scripturally speaking), and if His morality is different today what makes us so sure that even the description of the events are accurate? I see the link, that He's always been honest but other things have changed, but that strikes me as both strange (as in I can't concieve of it being possible) and an inaccurate reading of the Bible. Of course that's what the majority of the world thinks about my beliefs, but then I don't have to defend anyone else's religion.
quote:If His morality is changing, or can change, how do we know He wasn't lying yesterday?
How, indeed? But for that matter, how do you know this anyway? Assertions of honesty are not generally of any use in determining honesty; it's a rare liar that admits to it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I know it in ways other than merely reading about someone else saying it, but I don't know that that's the point here. Once again, if the Bible is true than that's one thing, if it's not then what is the point of this thread? Or maybe more accurately, what's there to talk about?
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: ... while I can't comment much as that's certainly not the God of my religion ...
As far as you know anyways. An interesting question is how you can tell that that God isn't in fact your God. But thats another rabbit-hole that we can leave for later.
quote: If His morality is changing, or can change, how do we know He wasn't lying yesterday?
We don't.
quote: And if He was, how do we know anything that's been said about Him is true?
We don't.
quote: If it's not that trying to determine His morality is impossible, we can't trust anything we've heard or read.
Yep. Well, at least in the Bible.
quote: ... what makes us so sure that even the description of the events are accurate?
Not much. But that seems to be a basic assumption that Abyss brought to the table.
One could potentially reason that the events as described seem so unpalatable, so horrifying (to the extent that a portion of even its followers have to take the events as apocryphal or in kmb's analogy as reliable as the movie LOTR is to the book LOTR), why would a deity make this stuff up about itself?
But you're right, this seems to be a problem with the original scenario.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not much. But that seems to be a basic assumption that Vyrus brought to the table. ... But you're right, this seems to be a problem with the original scenario.
Right, so I think I understand where your posts were coming from, the above quote was more my point is given that we're taking the Bible as literal in Vyrus's post, then let's take the whole thing; whether it's true or not isn't in the purview of the discussion. I thought. But I don't have a monopoly on what's right.
I have a lot to respond to and I'm not sure where to start, so I guess I'll just say a whole buncha things:
First, I agree that I made a lot of assumptions. I don't think this is the thread to go through demonstrating why I assume each of the assumptions that I laid out above, but I understand your point.
KoM - I also addressed your edit above. At a certain point, I don't have the tools to understand why God created a world where pain is necessary for personal growth (I actually don't like that term - humanity? Beauty? Something else...). I always explain these questions to myself as "definitional".
Why? Because that is the definition of the character of God. There is another Jewish belief that no one is king unless He has subjects. Angels and other expressions of the will of God are just that - expressions of the will of God. Only humans who were granted free will can make God king. Leaving us with another puzzle - humans MAKE God king? That doesn't quite fit with the all-powerful God. So I feel like it's pretty definitional - God is God so He created a world with humans with free will. Am I being clear at all? It's hard to wrap the mind around it much less convey the idea...That's why I said above that I understood the difficulty and complexity of the question.
On to baby killing.
I don't believe that if God revealed Himself to humanity and started causing tremendous amounts of pain and burning people and killing babies that he would be a good god. I mean, I'd be subject to him out of terror, or be defiant to the extent that he preserves my free-will, etc.
However, in my religion and in my perspective God has revealed Himself to the world as a good God. I prefer life to death - most people do. I think that is an admission that on the pleasure/pain balance sheet - pleasure outweighs pain.
I'll not deny that there is much pain in the world, but the pain makes us who we are. Including the cancer in 2 year old babies.
First let me answer KoM's perspective of Jason's children at the end of the Worthing Chronicle. I do not agree with your analysis. I don't think the point was that there can be a balance between the pain/growth and the intervening. I think the point that Card was trying to make was that he (Card/Jason) is not a monster. While In the broadest perspective, pain is healthy for our character and spirit - it is not healthy for a person to actively keep this on his mind. Card argues that if one has the ability to stop something and doesn't then he is inhuman. That's why all of Jason's Children killed themselves (cept Justice).
My Mom asked me that question when I presented this view to her. She said that if this were true, we should all accept the pain in this world, and the death in this world happily. She asked then why, in Jewish law, is there the laws of mourning? Indeed, Moses and Israel mourned for a month (I think) for the death of Aaron.
I answered that one who does not respond to tragedy with grief and empathy is obviously inhuman even according to God's standards. While the perspective that pain is good exists - that perspective is for mankind in their philosophic meditative state - the state that one is in when arguing theology on forums, and when understanding the nature of God - not for the mother who has just lost her son.
You will find many Jewish sources dealing with the limitless tragedies that befell the Jewish people over time. Many of them question God, wonder why He is cruel and harsh. I'd like to suggest that these perspectives are tolerated - temporarily - because they are expressions of grief, and indicative of a persons level of sensitivity.
Back to the baby killing. God is infinitely fair. Nothing He does is not deserved or out of place. The only time He is unfair is on the side of mercy.
So how do we explain baby killings? I mentioned a few possibilities above. We do not know the hearts of man - only God knows the hearts of man. When you believe in an afterlife, the deaths and pains of this world are not as hard to explain from the perspective of God. Someone innocent was killed? They could have been killed to speed their delivery to the next world, a world of total pleasure and no pain. Maybe they were truly evil? A baby killed? See above. Or maybe the baby was soul-less.
All I'm saying is that there is too much that convinces me that God is a good God. I am convinced that He is just, and merciful. As such, I am faithful that the examples above do not contradict His faith or mercy. I mean, what kind of God that wrote that He is unchanging, and that He abides by His own laws would put contradictions in His own bible? And if it was not God who wrote the bible, what kind of idiot author would make the same mistake?
(Same answer for Korach, Datan and Aviram).
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A wall of words. Stand in front of a cancer victim and tell her that her pain makes her who she is. Try to find one that's far gone so she won't hit you too hard.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A wall of words. Stand in front of a cancer victim and tell her that her pain makes her who she is. Try to find one that's far gone so she won't hit you too hard.
A) Not many people approach conversations in a way that would have them just blurt out of no where to a cancer victim "Your suffering makes you who you are"
B) I have personally heard cancer victims say exactly that ("The trials I had to go through with cancer helped make me who I am")
C) Try standing in front of a cancer victim and telling them there's no point to their pain and suffering nor to their life and soon they'll disappear from humanity entirely into a void of nothingness. Try to find one that's far gone so she won't hit you too hard.
posted
KoM - I wouldn't hand a cancer victim the Worthing Saga and expect her to smile. I'd hand it to her friends a few years down the line. They'd probably cry and then understand. That's what I did.
My life perspective is frameworks within frameworks. It's like I have a relationship with someone and it is a world in itself, i can zoom out a few levels and understand that relationship in different terms. I think many people function this way.
What I'm trying to say is that I've experienced personal tragedy and loss. And while I was experiencing them, I did not zoom out. I don't think I was supposed to. But when time blunted the deep sting of the tragedy, I did zoom out and experienced the tragedy through my relationship with God. It took on a different meaning then.
Tom - this is a difficult question to answer. I could probably write a book about this answer. But succinctly and insufficiently, i will answer:
It is related to my belief in God. My belief in Orthodox Judaism. In the Jewish Bible, and in the Oral Law.
It is further related to the fact that I'd rather be living than dead. To the fact that the majority of my life has been joy rather than pain. That even when I am in pain, I have mostly had the ability, through effort, to turn that pain into joy. It is related to the fact that most people do not experience tragedy nearly as often as they experience peace and/or happiness.
I am the grandson of four holocaust survivors. They believe God is good. They believe He makes us pay, but they believe that He is good. I'm sure they did not always believe this - but at the end of their lives, living in a country they never thought would exist (Israel), surrounded by families and great-grandchildren...they believe that God is good.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM - I wouldn't hand a cancer victim the Worthing Saga and expect her to smile. I'd hand it to her friends a few years down the line. They'd probably cry and then understand. That's what I did.
So in other words, your 'philosophy' is only good for people who are not suffering the actual physical pain.
quote:Try standing in front of a cancer victim and telling them there's no point to their pain and suffering nor to their life and soon they'll disappear from humanity entirely into a void of nothingness. Try to find one that's far gone so she won't hit you too hard.
There's no symmetry here. Armoth is trying to argue that there is some comfort to be found for the pain, some sort of reason for it; I am saying that this doesn't comfort the actual victims. A comfort tht only applies to those who can sit in an easy chair and philosophise about the necessity of pain is only a rationalisaton.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A wall of words. Stand in front of a cancer victim and tell her that her pain makes her who she is. Try to find one that's far gone so she won't hit you too hard.
Wow, so you're saying that telling someone something that makes them angry or hurts them means that what you're telling them is either wrong or should be told in a different way?
I think we need a unit of measure for irony, so we can quantify just how big this one is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It's not so much about taking parts of the book out or putting them back in. The question is if you make the assumption that God exists then the book is essentially a collection of stories, facts, and themes that God wants you to know. So it's not so much "If God killed all the first-born in Egypt, then what does that tell us about God", it's more like "If God wants us to think that he's an entity that does said-killing, what does it tell us about him?"
It is more, for me, like, "Here are the writings of a people about their relationship with God. What can we learn about what they thought about God?"
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's no symmetry here. Armoth is trying to argue that there is some comfort to be found for the pain, some sort of reason for it; I am saying that this doesn't comfort the actual victims. A comfort that only applies to those who can sit in an easy chair and philosophise about the necessity of pain is only a rationalization.
Maybe Armoth is but that's certainly not what I took out of it, I read it that Armoth is trying to show that this way of viewing the world is, if not true, at least possible. Thus the symmetry comes back into focus as we show that the truth of any one's beliefs don't always bring comfort to those who suffer from the consequences of the reality we all experience regardless of our reasons for it happening. Saying that there exists a deeper truth beyond the simple fact that suffering exists which explains it in such a way that not only allows for a benevolent God but actually adds purpose to the suffering isn't disproved by saying that some would be offended by its application. And even if we want to say that there was an attempt to use this to give someone comfort, I refer you back to 'A': not every application of even a helpful remedy yields fruit as an unwise physician will kill with the same tools that a more capable doctor will heal with. And 'B': it has worked for people.
posted
I understand why many people refuse atheism. There are aspects to experience that simply haven't yet been explained away by science. Will they be? Dunno.
However, the people who think that any particular religion is definitely, clearly better need to answer the following question:
What's the best explanation for why the Muslims were "allowed" to dominate the Holy Land for hundreds of years, but now have to request access from Jews/Christians?
You could come up with some tortured bullshit, or simply say "God works in mysterious ways", and leave it at that.
You could also note that the Muslims dominated trade/commerce between Asia and Europe while they controlled the Holy Land. Their dominance ended pretty soon after the Silk Road gave way to trade-by-boat. They lost most of their access to money/information. Western Christianity (and Judaism) gained much greater access to money/information, not only from trade-by-boat with Asia, but also as a result of European trade-by-boat with the Americas. This was the simple result of better shipbuilding, mapmaking, and navigation.
Which explanation fits the facts better:
1. God works in mysterious ways
2. control of the Holy Land is a result of having greater access to information and money than the other religions.
It just seems like God rewards good science, access to all types of information, and moderation and common sense far more than he rewards any type of extremism/orthodoxy. That's assuming that there is a God. I refuse to say for sure on that one.
I'm not saying I support atheism. That's as good a way to get roundly abused as any other type of extremism, as anyone can see from the way KoM gets treated here.
It looks about as smart to be an extremist for or against God/religion as it does to smoke 3 packs a day, unfiltered. It may kill you, it may not, but...what good has it done anyone?
I'm going to have to say that TomD's accusation that religion is an emotional addiction is...while harsh, somewhat true. But hey, so is extremist atheism, to a certain degree.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, the people who think that any particular religion is definitely, clearly better need to answer the following question...
Perhaps, but probably not in this thread. There's the challenge to religion that it's basic claims (God exists, in this case: the Bible is true, etc..) which is what you're referring to. The challenge is here is a step above (or below I suppose, depending on how you look at it), that given these basic beliefs taken as is, the superstructure of truth they create is itself contradictory and can not stand. That's a very different thing, and to my mind, far more interesting if only because we've been over the first argument so many times here on Hatrack. Not that this is completely new but it's at least a little bit fresher.
quote:I'm not saying I support atheism. That's as good a way to get roundly abused as any other type of extremism, as anyone can see from the way KoM gets treated here.
Really? You think that KoM gets treated poorly here and it's because he's an atheist? I've found a pretty consistent pattern that, for the most part, posters are responded to as they respond. Most people are quite civil to me here, and I like to flatter myself it's because I'm at least somewhat civil in return (though I can feel now that I'm quite tired and I'm afraid it's eroding some of my mental blocks on impoliteness, so I should probably go to bed after this before I do something I regret, or at least before I do something else I regret ). I make that statement in the unique position of someone whose been both an atheist (or at least a firm non-believer) and a semi-devout theist on this forum.
quote:There's no symmetry here. Armoth is trying to argue that there is some comfort to be found for the pain, some sort of reason for it; I am saying that this doesn't comfort the actual victims. A comfort that only applies to those who can sit in an easy chair and philosophise about the necessity of pain is only a rationalization.
Maybe Armoth is but that's certainly not what I took out of it, I read it that Armoth is trying to show that this way of viewing the world is, if not true, at least possible. Thus the symmetry comes back into focus as we show that the truth of any one's beliefs don't always bring comfort to those who suffer from the consequences of the reality we all experience regardless of our reasons for it happening. Saying that there exists a deeper truth beyond the simple fact that suffering exists which explains it in such a way that not only allows for a benevolent God but actually adds purpose to the suffering isn't disproved by saying that some would be offended by its application. And even if we want to say that there was an attempt to use this to give someone comfort, I refer you back to 'A': not every application of even a helpful remedy yields fruit as an unwise physician will kill with the same tools that a more capable doctor will heal with. And 'B': it has worked for people.
quote:It is related to my belief in God. My belief in Orthodox Judaism. In the Jewish Bible, and in the Oral Law.
It is further related to the fact that I'd rather be living than dead.
So because you believe what is contained in the Oral Law, and because you believe that you have God to thank for your life, you believe that God is good?
What, then, is the foundation of your belief in the Oral Law? What evidence do you have that suggests God is the architect of your existence?
(Edit: I don't mean to sound so "short," here. I'm just trying to understand the origin of this line of thinking. From my perspective, you're saying that you believe God is good because you've chosen to believe something that tells you God is good, which really only pushes the decision down one more level. Am I understanding that correctly?)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, no doubt a lot of what you are saying is true.
My Rabbis/Mentors like to remind us that religion is the opiate of the masses. That a large portion of religious people, including Jews, use religion as an emotional addiction. Or, because maybe they like the structure, they use it to gain honors, or power, moral authority, etc.
I believe there is a way to do it right.
Your question on history is a good one. Probably if not for this thread, but I like to answer all the questions that I can anyways.
Perhaps the best answer I can give you is Deuteronomy chapter 28. God tells Israel about the blessings that will befall them if they are good and listen to His commandments - and about the curses that will befall them if they do not. From verse 15 and on are the curses. Jewish History 3000 years before it happened.
Short answer: Every generation that Jews did not live in Israel believed that they were still responsible. There is a prayer that begins "It is because of OUR sins..."
Even now that the new state of Israel was created, most Jews believe that we are still in exile as half the Jews in the world do no live in Israel, there is no temple, and most importantly, we are harassed by enemy nations.
But many Jews nowadays believe that they are witnessing the beginning of redemption.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is related to my belief in God. My belief in Orthodox Judaism. In the Jewish Bible, and in the Oral Law.
It is further related to the fact that I'd rather be living than dead.
So because you believe what is contained in the Oral Law, and because you believe that you have God to thank for your life, you believe that God is good?
What, then, is the foundation of your belief in the Oral Law? What evidence do you have that suggests God is the architect of your existence?
(Edit: I don't mean to sound so "short," here. I'm just trying to understand the origin of this line of thinking. From my perspective, you're saying that you believe God is good because you've chosen to believe something that tells you God is good, which really only pushes the decision down one more level. Am I understanding that correctly?)
First, I didn't feel you were short. We're cool.
Second, you're right. that was a point I should have clarified better. I meant to say that many of the reasons why I believe in God, the Bible and in the Oral Law are many of the root reasons why I believe God is Good. The "it is related" thing was meant to convey that. I was trying to build a skeleton and have you add the meat in your head.
But seeing as you DON'T believe, I guess it was a silly idea. I didn't want to go into why I believe all that because this probably isn't the thread. Sometimes I dread writing my responses and just wanna take the person I'm talking to out for coffee.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Really? You think that KoM gets treated poorly here and it's because he's an atheist?"
I think that, if he said the same things about religion on, for instance, an atheist forum, instead of Hatrack, he'd receive far less abuse than he has here. The abuse is largely the result of the forum he has chosen to say those things in. Maybe not entirely, but it's definitely the largest part.
It reminds me of when I was a teenager. This girl in my class remarked that another girl's dad "doesn't know how to smoke." She thought his smoking style was somehow incompetent.
I feel that spending time and energy focusing on something like that is equally as worthwhile as intense focus over the question of the existence of God or WHICH religion is correct. It's a waste.
"Perhaps, but probably not in this thread. There's the challenge to religion that it's basic claims (God exists, in this case: the Bible is true, etc..) which is what you're referring to. The challenge is here is a step above (or below I suppose, depending on how you look at it), that given these basic beliefs taken as is, the superstructure of truth they create is itself contradictory and can not stand. That's a very different thing, and to my mind, far more interesting if only because we've been over the first argument so many times here on Hatrack. Not that this is completely new but it's at least a little bit fresher."
If other people find this question interesting, I'd be happy to start and/or discuss this in a new thread. It's something I've been thinking about for a couple of years now, and have considered starting a thread here about it for about that long. I use that argument regularly when Christians, IRL, get a little too pro-Christian for my patience. I have a 100% win ratio with that argument. I imagine it has a similar win ratio with Jews and Muslims. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But many Jews nowadays believe that they are witnessing the beginning of redemption."
What would that be based on, exactly? Which commandments are Jews now following more? In comparison to when Muslims ran the Holy Land, is what I mean. If anything, Jews today are probably more secular.
See, this is exactly the "tortured bullshit" I was referring to. I know you mean well, and are a nice person. However, I have clearly beaten the ever-loving heck out of any argument that Judaism/Christianity/Islam are automatically better than each other.
Now I'm waiting for you to figure that out. Patiently, oh so patiently...
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
KoM's posts are documented on the site. I have usually found him to be harsh and abrasive. Of course this is a board populated with many believers - but that means you need to talk maturely and sensitively.
Personally, my experience with KoM on this thread has been fine, but I've had an experience in the past that was unpleasant. You have 2279 posts so I feel like explaining this is silly. You should be able to tell that KoM is not being "persecuted" because of his "beliefs." Plus, i think he enjoys his notoriety.
Tom: I'd be happy to explain why I believe whatever I believe. It will take some time on my end, though I'm sure I can summon up some old conversations I've had that I could just edit a bit. Just be patient with me. I'm not sure that I'll have the time today to sit down and write the response I should. But you can hold me to it - I'll make the time.
I'd prefer you start a new post, post to "Ask the Rebbetzin" or "Q/A with Judaism"
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "But many Jews nowadays believe that they are witnessing the beginning of redemption."
What would that be based on, exactly? Which commandments are Jews now following more? In comparison to when Muslims ran the Holy Land, is what I mean. If anything, Jews today are probably more secular.
See, this is exactly the "tortured bullshit" I was referring to. I know you mean well, and are a nice person. However, I have clearly beaten the ever-loving heck out of any argument that Judaism/Christianity/Islam are automatically better than each other.
Now I'm waiting for you to figure that out. Patiently, oh so patiently...
Beating the heck? ::shrug::
First, let me say that I have never claimed that Judaism one-ups Islam or Christianity on the basis of history. I do not presume to know why things turned out the way they did. Jews have been at the mercy of both Christians and Muslims, and it has never been the other way around. That's very humbling for a nation that calls itself the chosen people. Maybe that is what Jews needed - who knows.
Are Jews more secular now than ever? Sure. I don't know that it is a numbers game. Perhaps there is a small minority that is more righteous than earlier points during the exile. Perhaps that though they are secular, they exhibit a level of decency that was greater than earlier generations?
My personal view is that we aren't supposed to compare ourselves against previous generations, but against our own potential. I think that since most Jews are secular and do not have the education necessary to follow every detail of Orthodox Judaism, that they are judged on a more proportionate scale. I also think that it's possible that we probably earned Israel as a "second chance." Not because are better or anything, but as a test.
We are in the spotlight of the world, circumstances are such where we have tough moral decisions to make in the public view. Will we attribute our successes to the sweat of our own brow? Or to the grace of God? ::shrug::
My belief that Judaism is true over Christianity or Islam would probably come out in Tom's thread. But just to throw out there - both Christianity and Islam believe in Judaism to an extent - they just believe Jews are bad and so God extended/changed his covenant. This basically puts Jews on a more easier defense of "No he didn't."
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth--I'd like to say that I enjoy talking to you. I find you reasonable, humane and likeable. I've been wanting to say that.
I agree that KoM has been abrasive here. No question. Nonetheless, I really do think his very same comments would be treated with a lot more patience by atheists on an atheist forum.
Again, I'd just like to say that I find you very likeable. Honestly, I think I find you easier to deal with as a person than people who agree with me a lot more that you do regarding religion.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Are Jews more secular now than ever? Sure. I don't know that it is a numbers game. Perhaps there is a small minority that is more righteous than earlier points during the exile. Perhaps that though they are secular, they exhibit a level of decency that was greater than earlier generations?
My personal view is that we aren't supposed to compare ourselves against previous generations, but against our own potential. I think that since most Jews are secular and do not have the education necessary to follow every detail of Orthodox Judaism, that they are judged on a more proportionate scale. I also think that it's possible that we probably earned Israel as a "second chance." Not because are better or anything, but as a test."
Let's look at that first statement that I bolded. I don't agree with the general point there, but clearly your brain is functional.
It sounds like you're saying that "well, the Jews are doing a better job (from God's POV) with the lot they've currently been handed than, say, the Muslims." If that is your point, then heck yes, I agree. The difference between us, though, is that I think that open-mindedness (assuming God exists, etc.), tolerance, etc. are pretty much always synonymous with better access to information. Better access to information (than Muslims)is exactly what Jews, generally speaking, have had for about 400 years now. I think it's EXACTLY that better access to information that allows Jews/Christians to keep beating the holy heck out of the Muslims.
You're talking about "this generation, that generation." The Jews/Christians have been dominating the Middle east for 60 years now. It doesn't appear to be stopping anytime soon, and, any way you look at it, there's multiple generations involved. Indeed, Jews and Christians have been more prosperous (and dominant, economically) than Muslims for hundreds of years. Islam is 100% dependent on Jew-and-Christian-controlled economies for their very sustenance. Bin Laden's kids wouldn't even eat if we all went to non-oil-based fuels. They depend on our economies for their very lives.
This is a multi-generational thing, any way you look at it, no? Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Steven! I really appreciate you saying that. Sometimes I find that I appreciate the logic of atheists more than that of my coreligionists, so the feeling is mutual ;-)
As to your second post - I was going to say that. That Jews now have access to information. I was throwing out possibilities - you asked a question through the lens of history about the superiority of the different religions and I was giving you different theological responses.
It's rough telling you that we are a better generation than the ones before. I really can't make that determination. The amount of self-knowledge it takes for me to claim that I am a better person than I was 5 years ago, and the guy 5 years ago is better than the 10 years ago version, is immense. And I'd like to believe that on a personal level. To judge generations? ::shrug:: But yea, that's why I said from God's POV.
And yes - this has involved more than one generation. And the test of every generation is different than the one before it. My grandparents were holocaust survivors. That did a number on the psyche of my parents - growing up, the children of a nation of holocaust survivors, defending their newborn country from repeated attack, building its economy, etc.
My generation takes things for granted. It's hard. We have comfortable lives, the ability to travel to or live in Israel, etc. Our generation needs to remember to have a sense of history, to have overwhelming gratitude to our parents, grandparents, and ultimately to God.
Yea, it's a multi-generational thing on multiple levels.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that KoM has been abrasive here. No question. Nonetheless, I really do think his very same comments would be treated with a lot more patience by atheists on an atheist forum.
I agree, but then I think if I went to an all Democrat forum I could get away with some pretty nasty comments on Republicans which wouldn't prove that when I went to a mixed use forum and those same comments weren't responded to with applause that I was being targeted for my beliefs. I'm not trying to accuse KoM or anything nor get into a big thing over this, I'm just saying that though there are always rude people available people are treated as the treat others here for the most part.
quote:If other people find this question interesting, I'd be happy to start and/or discuss this in a new thread. It's something I've been thinking about for a couple of years now, and have considered starting a thread here about it for about that long.
I didn't mean to turn into some kind of militant thread moderator, so I apologize if I did do that. I don't guarantee I'd participate in such a thread (I might, but I might not Depends on how much energy I feel like putting that direction) but I'm sure that plenty of people would. I'm sure it would be interesting, and it seems like a good idea.
posted
Speaking of the Holocaust----My guess is that there were plenty of infant Jews murdered during the Holocaust. My guess is also that there were some really fine human beings of the Jewish persuasion that also died during the Holocaust. Probably some of them were more Orthodox-ish than others. My guess is also that some majorly awful human beings survived the Holocaust. This is just common sense. What does living versus dying have to do with God's judgment? Plenty of Jews in the US survived the Holocaust. Common sense tells us that there were wonderful and awful humans among them, Orthodox and not. Are you saying that somehow the US Jews of the 30s and 40s, born and raised here, were somehow better than the European Jews of that time that were born and raised in Europe?
Here's my theory. There are trends that are far larger than any generation/religion/country/person. These trends are huge. They are also NOT self-aware. Nothing in what happened to Jews during the Holocaust indicates very much self-awareness on that large a level. I submit that, even if there is an unpredictable spiritual aspect to the Universe, it is not (yet, anyway) fully self-aware, or anywhere even close. Not yet. Someone once said (I'm paraphrasing) "If there is a God, he is the Devil." I don't agree with that. I'd say, "If there is a God, he's not self-aware to any great degree, at least not yet."
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, I can't presume to explain why the people who died in the holocaust died, or why the people who survived survived.
I know that my grandparents and my parents feel a heavy burden of responsibility - they feel like they were chosen - they have guilt that they survived and the rest of their family died. I know many people from my parents' generation who believe that they need to do something great in their lives for that very reason.
But that's a natural feeling and it may or may not be warranted.
What I DO want to stress is that there are a lot of Orthodox Jews who are not good people. A lot of non-Orthodox Jews are wonderful people. I believe God gave humanity a standard of living (7 commandments for non-Jews and the Torah for Jews). But I also believe God gave everyone more or less potential to actually fulfill His commandments, or intuit morality if you are never even exposed to His commandments. The more or less a person fulfills his potential is the yardstick for how good a person he is.
I think we all intuit this perspective. That's where the whole walking around in other people's shoes come from. That's what I think the field of psychology is largely about. We all have our baggage, and our accomplishments are largely measured in light of how far we are able to go despite our burdens.
My best friend is a gay atheist. Many of my friends are deeply religious and cannot fathom how I can possibly relate to him. But I have so much more respect for him than I do for many of my "friends." I admire his courage to step outside a society he was raised in, to do it while abandoned by family and friends, while I am surrounded by people who have never challenged themselves or their choices once in their lives.
So...yea. Even with all that intro I'm not going to say that the survivors were righteous and that the dead are not. Maybe some of the dead were evil, and maybe some of them were great, and God is rewarding them for their sacrifice in the next world. Maybe God is punishing the survivors by making them lives without families, broken and scarred. I don't know, but in the grand scheme of things, the fact that there are possible explanations coupled with the loyalty to God that I believe He has earned from me, I'm sure that whatever happened was ultimately good.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course I'm not being 'persecuted' because I'm an atheist. That's ridiculous. People dislike me because yes, I am more abrasive than would be optimal and I do skirt the edge of the forum rules. And the reason for that, in turn, is that theist rationalisation annoys me more than I can readily express without getting a warning. It's like seeing someone with an industrial-strength lathe using it as a hammer. There's such a total mismatch between what these people are plainly capable of, and what they actually do, it grates like sandpaper.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the reason for that, in turn, is that theist rationalisation annoys me more than I can readily express without getting a warning. It's like seeing someone with an industrial-strength lathe using it as a hammer. There's such a total mismatch between what these people are plainly capable of, and what they actually do, it grates like sandpaper.
But if this is what bothers you, you are responding it in a way that's only going to increase the amount of "theist rationalization" you'll hear.
Christianity really isn't about coming up with rational explanations for inconsistencies between verses of the Bible. Christians don't often go to church to discuss how to rationalize the killing of babies in Egypt or whether God can create a rock God can't lift. That sort of rationalization misses the point of Christianity. Instead it mostly happens in response to arguments from outside Christianity (such as from atheists) against Christianity. Such arguments are usually ineffective at changing the minds of Christians because, again, being able to answer such questions is not the point of Christianity. But it does usually bother Christians enough that they feel compelled to answer them. So, if you hear a lot of Christians rationalizing, I suspect the reason is because you keep trying to disprove their religion. I suspect it is similar for other theist religions.
I think if you ask people who became religious why they became religious, you'll find their reason is not so much rationalizations they've heard or any sort of logic that "proved" their religion, and more because of personal experiences they've had.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with Xaposert's perspective vehemently.
My mentors, and I believe my religion exhorts its followers to serve God with "all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (Deut 6:5)." I was taught that if you have brains and logic, those are tools God gave you and you are meant to use them to the utmost.
I was taught to grapple with questions, to be intellectually honest. The foundations of belief need to be strong. What is admirable about self-deceit? I admire an atheist who has searched more than a theist who has not.
That isn't to say that you will be able to answer every problem that comes your way. Only that your reasons for belief be so fundamental and rooted that a contradiction can be explained away by the limits of your knowledge, and not by the limits of the religion itself.
I've said this before on another thread. I think we were given both heart and mind. Mind to find the truth, and heart to actually live it. Just because you have heart, and most religions have heart, does not mean you have truth.
So...yeah..questions = good. At least in my mind.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, I didn't read Xaposert as saying that Christians can't or shouldn't use their minds, but rather that the foundation of the Christian faith lies not in reason but in revelation, a perfectly sound claim (1 Corinthians 1:20 specifically comes to mind, as well as 2:1 and 2:6). It sounds like you, Armoth, are more in the Cambridge Platonist vein, where reason and revelation are not mutually exclusive at all, but instead revelation can/should be ascertained via reason. And, if I'm not mistaken, there lies KoM's angst: That intelligent peoples reason should be applied to what he sees as so useless and pointless an endeavor as discerning "divine revelation."
Or I may be way off base.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nonetheless, I really do think his very same comments would be treated with a lot more patience by atheists on an atheist forum.
It all depends on the forum. If peopled with people of like mind and temperament as KoM, then by his own admission reactions would probably be quite a bit worse.
quote:There's such a total mismatch between what these people are plainly capable of, and what they actually do, it grates like sandpaper.
Then it should be a lot easier for you than it apparently is to understand how frustrating and downright aggravating, not to mention often anger-inducing, to see an intelligent and articulate person so often abuse their capacity by being an offensive prick simply because he really doesn't like what someone else says.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
). I make that statement in the unique position of someone whose been both an atheist (or at least a firm non-believer) and a semi-devout theist on this forum.![[Cool]](cool.gif)
