Some questions to the "atheists/non-believers"

[inflatable jesus]

Thanks for taking the time to reply frogwoman.

I went back and looked over your last post again and I think I may have been guilty of putting wods into your mouth a bit. I think you were actually saying that Jews don't believe that everyone who is not Jewish is doing something wrong and I was taking it to mean that you thought Jews are all multi-faith all-embracing liberal hippies.

TBH I still don't think that the Jewish ideas about other religions are really that central to the jewish faith. I get the impression that when Jewish texts talk about that kind of toleration, it's only because they think that jewish laws don't concern non-jews. I think it's rooted in the old problem of reconciling a belief that God created the world and everyone in it, but also believing that God only felt like sharing his laws with the Jews and not everyone else.

If you're forced to invent a reason for that kind of logical conflict, then believing that God likes everyone in a different but still warm and fuzzy way is certainly the nicer of the available options and that's cool. However, it's still just looks to me like a way of avoiding the more logical position that the Jewish God didn't create the world and the only people that think Jews occupy a special place in the order of the world are Jews.

the "literal" interpretation isnt necessarily the true one. its not about following everything it says in the torah and the talmud literally, its about finding hidden meanings in it and analysing it ... there are loads, you don't just have to say that what it says is what it says and thats the end of it

Perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong. But those look like assertions based on your personal opinions about Judaism and the opinions of certain Rabbis. Certainly if that bit is in the Torah, it's news to me.

I don't they constitute the one true and only logically possible reading of Jewish scripture. As such I don't think your assertion that the point of Judaism is to read between the lines of scripture is any more true than the opinion of some orthodox guy that the point of Judaism is to follow every rule exactly, grow a beard, shave his wife's heid and wait patiently for the messiah to come.

If that's incorrect, can you explain to me why?

Can you also explain to me why 'tikkun olam' should be considered one of the main ideas of Judaism? A quick google tells me that that the phrase was coined by a sixteenth century Kabbalist Rabbi, so it looks to me that A) it's an interpretation (or even re-interpretation) of scripture rather than something stated clearly within it and B) Not all Jews would agree that it is one of the 'main' ideas of Judaism.

I can't help but suspect that you think it's one of the 'main' ideas because it's an idea you happen to like.

With regard to the shunning of people who convert or marry out of Judaism; I know that there are reasons in history that explain why many Jews will treat family members in this disgraceful way, but like you, I don't think that excuses it. I think that the Jewish determination to continue existing as a culture despite the thousands of years of persecution is impressive. However, I think that when such a large part of one's identity is wrapped up in these old texts, it makes it more likely that any criticism of them (implied or real) will be percieved as an attack upon your culture as a whole. This leads to some really quite unfortunate results.

 

[phildwyer]

Of course religions are forms of social control, what would be the point otherwise? They dictate what should be believed and how people should behave if they want to get into heaven/win the lottery/whatever. This appears to be especially the case in Islam.

Sheer ignorance. Religion has been the most socially revolutionary force in all human history, and Islam is actualy the *least* legalistic of the major religions. What possesses you to speak of that of which you know nothing?

 

[Nickster]

Sheer ignorance. Religion has been the most socially revolutionary force in all human history, and Islam is actualy the *least* legalistic of the major religions. What possesses you to speak of that of which you know nothing?

well YOU get away with doing that all the time!

 

[Jo/Joe]

Sheer ignorance. Religion has been the most socially revolutionary force in all human history, and Islam is actualy the *least* legalistic of the major religions. What possesses you to speak of that of which you know nothing?

So religions don't dictate behaviour? Are you serious? Find me a muslim that eats pork.

 

[frogwoman]

Thanks for taking the time to reply frogwoman.

I went back and looked over your last post again and I think I may have been guilty of putting wods into your mouth a bit. I think you were actually saying that Jews don't believe that everyone who is not Jewish is doing something wrong and I was taking it to mean that you thought Jews are all multi-faith all-embracing liberal hippies.

well, quite

i mean ... theres a difference between thinking other religions are right, and thinking that G-d is going to punish people for believing in them, or doesn't care about them, if they are good people, have a personal relationship with him and make a difference to other people's lives in a good way

and even if they deny his existence, their actions can prove that they are closer to him than they know

i think a lot of religions have philosophies which don't make sense or which aren't true - but im not going to condemn anyone that believes in their ideas simply because they're in a different religion - unless they're an absolute cunt

TBH I still don't think that the Jewish ideas about other religions are really that central to the jewish faith.

but nonetheless its always been one of the main aspects of judaism. its never said that non-jews are going to hell simply for being that.

I get the impression that when Jewish texts talk about that kind of toleration, it's only because they think that jewish laws don't concern non-jews.

no, they don't

they have no obligation to keep any of the laws of judaism, since it doesn't apply to them

it doesn't make them bad people

they're not going to be punished if they don't obey them

except for the seven laws that were made in the covenant with noah - covering the ban on killing, torturing animals, adultery, idolatry (which DOESN'T mean worshipping jesus/allah/etc - coz christianity and islam both conform to this) the obligation to set up courts and a justice system, thereby preventing oppression, and the ban on kidnapping or stealing

anyone who follows all these (and all the stuff which this covers by extention) is a righteous person that has a place in the world to come, and most people, in most times in history and in most places in the world, are righteous.

its easy to be, since you'll notice that there's no ban on NOT worshipping g-d (just worshipping something that isn't g-d - like something evil or shallow).

but treating other people well has always been a key aspect of judaism and there are plenty of examples in the bible where g-d emphasises that all people were created equally - according to one bit in psalms he rescued the ethiopians, the philistines AND the israelites ... and whether you choose to understand that literally or not the principle is the same

he cares for everyone equally.

I think it's rooted in the old problem of reconciling a belief that God created the world and everyone in it, but also believing that God only felt like sharing his laws with the Jews and not everyone else.

nah - everyone has that opportunity, but they dont have to take it

he offered it to everyone, not just them, that's why people can convert.

and even if they don't - they still have a role to play in the "order of the world".

If you're forced to invent a reason for that kind of logical conflict, then believing that God likes everyone in a different but still warm and fuzzy way is certainly the nicer of the available options and that's cool.

these ideas aren't new, they've been around since before jesus was around, even if you don't accept the religion itself.

its not something thats been invented by reform jews to justify their belief in the choseness and the fact that all people are equal - because it is bound up in the theology of judaism itself, it has always been a part of the religion.

However, it's still just looks to me like a way of avoiding the more logical position that the Jewish God didn't create the world and the only people that think Jews occupy a special place in the order of the world are Jews.

fair enough, you have issues with the second point

although all it really means is:

a) that jews have an obligation to keep the torah
b) that they have a obligation to get other people to follow the noahide laws which will help end suffering in the world (see above)
c) that because they are following g-d's laws, anything that they do wrong is a reflection on g-d, and therefore its worse if they do it
d) that, occuping that special place in the world they have a duty to be good people and act to end evil, and get other people to do the same
e) that if they do all those things - the messianic age will be upon us, or the messiah will actually come as a physical person

but how is it an illogical position to say that g-d created the world?

nobodys ever disproved his existence.

its more illogical to say that the universe just came out of nothing.

Perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong. But those look like assertions based on your personal opinions about Judaism and the opinions of certain Rabbis. Certainly if that bit is in the Torah, it's news to me.

it's always been done.

the talmud is all about that, rabinnical discussions of the torah - the rabbis who wrote it finding hidden meanings and interpreting the text in different ways, finding truths that the text can communicate about life

its not straightforward - this is what it says and that's the end of it.

there's a long, long tradition of this ... trying to find out what g-d (or the writers of the bible for that matter) meant

even in hasidic/orthodox judaism ...

I don't they constitute the one true and only logically possible reading of Jewish scripture. As such I don't think your assertion that the point of Judaism is to read between the lines of scripture is any more true than the opinion of some orthodox guy that the point of Judaism is to follow every rule exactly, grow a beard, shave his wife's heid and wait patiently for the messiah to come.

erm ... i never said it was the point, did i.

its just one aspect of it, but its an aspect that's very important and people have been doing it for ever, it certainly isn't new, and studying the torah, thinking about what the words could mean, is something thats always been strongly emphasised in judaism, you're encouraged to do it, you're encouraged to think about it in different ways.

and no, it's not any more true - of course not, it's a different aspect of the faith, the intellectual and the practical aspect.

one can't really exist without or replace the other - and some of the rules in certain sects of orthodox judaism have been taken to such extremes that they are totally ridiculous ... its become a competition about who can take it furthest, and that's not right, you need the emotional and the intellectual aspect of a religion as well

for that orthodox guy, i think we'd need to think about what he believed inside himself for me to make any comments about it ... whether he was a hypocrite or not when it came to how he treated people

If that's incorrect, can you explain to me why?

Can you also explain to me why 'tikkun olam' should be considered one of the main ideas of Judaism? A quick google tells me that that the phrase was coined by a sixteenth century Kabbalist Rabbi, so it looks to me that A) it's an interpretation (or even re-interpretation) of scripture rather than something stated clearly within it and B) Not all Jews would agree that it is one of the 'main' ideas of Judaism.

i think i explained this above ... perhaps it wasn't called that in biblical times but the concept has always been there.

it was part of the jews' messianic duty, to ensure that the world was just, and when that was done, the messiah would come.

I can't help but suspect that you think it's one of the 'main' ideas because it's an idea you happen to like.

well, i do like it, but even if i didn't, it would still have the same importance.

every book i've got on judaism emphasises its centrality and its spiritual importance, the fact that we have to refuse to put up with injustice or with anything evil - g-d's given us the means to be able to put his plans forward, by not doing evil and not tolerating it within the world.

With regard to the shunning of people who convert or marry out of Judaism; I know that there are reasons in history that explain why many Jews will treat family members in this disgraceful way, but like you, I don't think that excuses it. I think that the Jewish determination to continue existing as a culture despite the thousands of years of persecution is impressive. However, I think that when such a large part of one's identity is wrapped up in these old texts, it makes it more likely that any criticism of them (implied or real) will be percieved as an attack upon your culture as a whole. This leads to some really quite unfortunate results.

Well yeah

you have to differentiate anti-semitism and arguements against the existence of g-d, or arguments against judaism being "true" if you know what i mean

i think its pretty easy to tell the difference ... but i see what you mean

basically you have to be strong enough in your beliefs to be able to accept that there are criticisms that people can make of them ... and that those criticisms arent meant as an attack on them

i know there are certain things in my religion that to a "outsider" would be a bit weird or irrational and they have every right to say so, i'm not going to think they're an anti-semite or anything coz there are lots of denominations of judaism that place more importance on different things

to me there's a very clear difference between the two

 

[frogwoman]

So religions don't dictate behaviour? Are you serious? Find me a muslim that eats pork.

hardly the same as "social control" tho is it ?

 

[Jo/Joe]

That's an easy example of control of people's behaviour.

 

[frogwoman]

That's an easy example of control of people's behaviour.

yeah, but how do you know they're not choosing to do it? social control implies that someone/something is "controlling" them "socially", and it's usually a bad thing.

but i dont think something like not eating pork can be put into that category

 

[phildwyer]

All the monotheistic religions are potentially revolutionary, and have often proved revolutionary in practice, because of their opposition to idolatry. They are best regarded as antidotes to superstition, since their most fundamental premise is that *nothing* is worthy of worship except God.

 

[Crispy]

Better strike catholicism off the 'monotheistic' list then :/

 

[phildwyer]

Better strike catholicism off the 'monotheistic' list then :/

Absolutely. Catholicism is sheer paganism.

 

[frogwoman]

All the monotheistic religions are potentially revolutionary, and have often proved revolutionary in practice, because of their opposition to idolatry. They are best regarded as antidotes to superstition, since their most fundamental premise is that *nothing* is worthy of worship except God.

EXACTLY (this seems to be happening more and more often these days phil!! )

there is nothing in this world or beyond it that is more important than g-d.

therefore, there is nothing in this world than can replace the way he wants us to behave - and we should ALWAYS act this way, or try to, no matter what

as there is nothing more important, at the end of the day we all owe our lives to him, we owe the existence of our world to him as his is all powerful and created everything.

so if we, or someone else, want to do something that's wrong, or if our society treats something or someone as more important than g-d himself then i would say that i was obliged not to go along with it

and that could be anything. it could even be something people think is a religion ...

it is indeed the best protection against tyranny there is ... because obeying a dictator or going along with a corrupt system bcoz its easier, over what g-d whats you to do, is just a form of idolatory ...

 

[inflatable jesus]

Thanks for replying to my earlier post frogwoman. That was informative.

I have a few quick points though.

1)

it is indeed the best protection against tyranny there is ... because obeying a dictator or going along with a corrupt system bcoz its easier, over what g-d whats you to do, is just a form of idolatory ...

I don't believe that is true at all. I can think of countless examples of religious organisations allying themselves with the most repugnant of tyrannies. It might be true to say that this happens because people mis-read or misunderstand their religions. However, equally, all religions leave themselves quite open to morally dubious readings.

The best defence against tyranny is opposing all hierarchies that do not serve the common good. It is questioning every person that seeks power over you, religious or otherwise. Religion is a very easy thing to turn into a tool of tyranny, regardless of how potentially revolutionary it's ideas are.

2)

but how is it an illogical position to say that g-d created the world?/nobodys ever disproved his existence. /its more illogical to say that the universe just came out of nothing.

When saying something like 'God created the world', you're implying that the world was literally created by the God figure in the Judaic creation myth. Given what we know about the earth, it's history and the history of the universe, we can point to a number of contradictions between the myth and the most informed scientific opinion.

To still hold on to the idea that the Judaic God did literally create the world in the manner suggested in Genesis, you have to perform all manner of logical leaps. For example, you have to believe that where it says he created the world in seven days, it actually means over the course of billions of years, that where it says he created all the animals all at once, he actually meant that he created them separately over millions of years. Or you have to deny the existence of evolution, in which case you're just a loonspud.

The proposition that Genesis is a made-up story like every other creation myth in every other primitive culture is much easier to defend. The main thing you have to answer for is not knowing every last detail. However, the fact that I don't know how my computer's microprocessor works doesn't mean that it's logical to believe that fairies are running it. It certainly doesn't matter that I can't prove to you that fairies are not running my computer.

In as much as it's possible to reason anything in the entire world, it's possible to reason that the God in that story did not create the world. The abrahamic religions involve tremendous leaps of faith. I would have thought that notion would be pretty uncontroversial.

3)

I feel that I should point out that this is an attempt to reply to all of your post. Specifically, it's in response to where you had talked about the tradition rabbinical discussions within Judaism.

It seems to me that most religions have certain traditions of updating and re-interpreting their core texts. I think this is a good thing, because if you were to try and follow the rules in the core texts exactly, you'd probably be a complete bastard.

I see these reinterpretations as an attempt to inject some common sense into religion. What strikes me as a grave misfortune, is that religious people lack the balls to face up to the truth of what they're dealing with and put a big red line through all the outdated, immoral nonsense that's in these books. If you can work out that stoning your son to death is always wrong, you can surely work out that eating pork chops is only bad for the piggies.

However, to do that you have to face up to the reality that it's a collection of millennia old folk-wisdom and not the literal word of God, then you have to admit that you don't know have any better idea about the nature of the universe than anyone else.

 

[Jo/Joe]

yeah, but how do you know they're not choosing to do it? social control implies that someone/something is "controlling" them "socially", and it's usually a bad thing.

but i dont think something like not eating pork can be put into that category

They are not all not eating pork because they don't like pork. It's because their religion dictates that they musn't eat it. A rule is being applied by a religion. The behaviour of muslims is being controlled. It is control, and it is social.

Again, religions exist to control behaviour. I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm just saying it's there.

 

[Georgie Porgie]

Again, religions exist to control behaviour. I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm just saying it's there.

Guide, not control.

The control comes from pressure to conform.

 

[Jo/Joe]

Guide, not control.

The control comes from pressure to conform.

Guide sometimes, but control as well. Catholic mothers who gave birth out of wedlock (in the past) will tell you all about it.

 

[snouty warthog]

there are so many issues in this thread that would like to respond to, I don't know where to start...

I think it is a shame that there is not a 'spiritual' forum on U75, where these issues could be discussed.

myself, I was formerly of a reductionist point of view, atheist, scientific. I am no longer. I know that The Magnificent Creator Of All exists, and arguing about it is not very relevant to me. I would probably lose such an argument, as I am not especially articulate, but it would not change my opinion one iota, as I know.

I think that religions have been created to bring people closer to The Magnificent Creator, but they have (in some cases) been usurped by humans who desire power.

The Buddha never denied the existence of God, he simply dodged the issue as being irrelevant to personal awakening. to me he is a prophet, as is Jesus, Mohammed (peace be upon him), Krishna...

I have a story that I like. a friend of mine is a Christian who goes out witnessing. He met a Muslim fellow one time, who he got on well with. the Muslim man says- 'America thinks it is a superpower. but when the storms hit New Orleans, could they stop the wind? could they prevent the rain...?' he pauses... 'there is only one Superpower!' *he points his finger upwards...*

Salaam / peace be with you

 

[chainsaw cat]

myself, I was formerly of a reductionist point of view, atheist, scientific. I am no longer. I know that The Magnificent Creator Of All exists, and arguing about it is not very relevant to me. I would probably lose such an argument, as I am not especially articulate, but it would not change my opinion one iota, as I know.

Salaam / peace be with you

... no you don't.

 

[snouty warthog]

actually, I do. but I respect your inferred disbelief. see you on the other side, chainsaw baby!

 

[chainsaw cat]

You don't know.

You believe. Different.

 

[frogwoman]

Good post, warthog.

I don't think that you can really change people's opinions on religion through arguing logically, coz faith isn't generally something that people come to through logic if you see what i mean. The "proof" is something that comes about through your experiences of life, and it is something that you just "know".

 

[snouty warthog]

yeah, that is it. there is like a knowing, and then there is a knowing which is beyond concepts of belief and doubt, which are dualistic and therefore imperfect...

but I used to be very cynical until I 'saw' it for myself, so I understand other people who don't either believe or know...

 

[frogwoman]

yeah, that is it. there is like a knowing, and then there is a knowing which is beyond concepts of belief and doubt, which are dualistic and therefore imperfect...

but I used to be very cynical until I 'saw' it for myself, so I understand other people who don't either believe or know...

yep, exactly.

i used to be a very sceptical person. still am actually.

 

[snouty warthog]

yeah, I am too, but getting less so all the time... I have had some really astounding experiences (not on drugs) in the last few years, that made me realise I was totally wrong about a lot of things... so I try to keep an open mind now. I won't just automatically accept any old BS new age idea, but I do try to keep an open mind about it...

 

[kyser_soze]

So come on then snouty, share some of your life changing experiences which opened your eyes to The Maker...

 

[Aldebaran]

So come on then snouty, share some of your life changing experiences which opened your eyes to The Maker...

That is a normal but in my view nevertheless unfair (and very intrusive) question. It can be something very personal one does not want to share with complete and anonymous strangers (let alone on a wordl wide accessable medium like this).

It can be also something one comes to by reasoning logically. Which I did years *before* (two) personal experiences which hence didn't change my life, but only confirmed the conclusion I came to.

salaam.

 

[snouty warthog]

can I just say, it has been a pleasure reading your posts in this thread, Aldebaran.

salaam.

 

[frogwoman]

Thanks for replying to my earlier post frogwoman. That was informative.

No problem mate ! sorry i haven't got round to replying to this, ive been a bit busy and forgot to reply!

I don't believe that is true at all. I can think of countless examples of religious organisations allying themselves with the most repugnant of tyrannies.

i am not disupting this.

However, if you look back in history at all the organisations that behaved in this manner, you will find that it wasn't just about religion.

They had a vested interest in doing the things they did, and they had power, and lots of it, and they used the spiritual hold they had on the people to justify appalling acts.

There have also been religious organisations which have done a lot of good, however - think about South America in the 70s'.

This is why i am an anarchist, i do not believe anyone should have that kind of power over anyone else.

Look at the way marx's teachings have been abused over the years, does that mean that marx's ideas were fundamentally bad? No, it doesn't.

It might be true to say that this happens because people mis-read or misunderstand their religions. However, equally, all religions leave themselves quite open to morally dubious readings.

I don't know about that mate.

Its difficult to make something morally dubious about a lot of things in the bible. That's why people were prevented from reading it in the middle ages, so that they would believe what their leaders wanted them to do was morally justified because "the bible said so".

Even today, alot of fundamentalist churches, ban their members from reading the bible on their own or any other version of it apart from "the real version". And a lot of sects of every faith add their own rules on top of the ones that already exist, so that they become more important than what's really there.

Not saying there isn't some dodgy stuff in religious texts, but you have to remember that most of these morally dubious readings are enforced on people who are ignorant of what it says, by people who are morally dubious themselves.

The best defence against tyranny is opposing all hierarchies that do not serve the common good. It is questioning every person that seeks power over you, religious or otherwise.

I wouldn't argue with that ... i think questioning authority is very important and i certainly don't agree with everything that my religious leaders tell me.

Religion is a very easy thing to turn into a tool of tyranny, regardless of how potentially revolutionary it's ideas are.

yep wouldn't argue with that either, there's nothing as evil as the evil that came out of someone thinking they were doing "good".

2)

When saying something like 'God created the world', you're implying that the world was literally created by the God figure in the Judaic creation myth. Given what we know about the earth, it's history and the history of the universe, we can point to a number of contradictions between the myth and the most informed scientific opinion.

Yeah but a lot of people just see it as an allegory written by humans to understand G-d's power, it doesn't mean that G-d doesn't exist, if the bible was to lay down the exact detail of how he created the world it would be infinitely longer than it is now.

To still hold on to the idea that the Judaic God did literally create the world in the manner suggested in Genesis, you have to perform all manner of logical leaps. For example, you have to believe that where it says he created the world in seven days, it actually means over the course of billions of years, that where it says he created all the animals all at once, he actually meant that he created them separately over millions of years.

But he didn't create them all at once.

He created them over the course of that "day", and that could easily have been a period of several million years.

But like i said, there are many different ways of interpreting that story. I dont know what really happened back then, nobody does, and the fact that it might not be real doesn't disprove the rest of the bible or mean that G-d doesn't exist, and there is proof that the other events that are described in it, did happen. I don't believe in christianity for instance, but Jesus was a real person, although there's no evidence he walked on water or any of that, so it might well be possible that some bits of genesis are true, even though not all of it is.

You can argue for ages and ages though about whether it is real or not and it's totally irrelevent, if it turned out tomorrow that that story was a load of bollocks, would that mean that people's faith was worthless? No it wouldn't, because just because one element of our understanding of G-d is wrong, it doesn't mean that G-d doesn't exist.

Or you have to deny the existence of evolution, in which case you're just a loonspud.

I don't deny the existence of evolution, we are evolving all the time, but it doesn't really matter whether it happened or not. It was thousands of years ago, and the details of what happened don't really make much difference to me.

The proposition that Genesis is a made-up story like every other creation myth in every other primitive culture is much easier to defend. The main thing you have to answer for is not knowing every last detail.

Yeah, i was gonna ask about that, actually.

What do you make of the fact that pretty much every creation myth, primitive or otherwise, describes a flood covering the earth in the same manner that Genesis does? I have a book of myths, and native american tribes, japanese, hindu and african myths all describes something like that.

I think it's very interesting, personally.

However, the fact that I don't know how my computer's microprocessor works doesn't mean that it's logical to believe that fairies are running it. It certainly doesn't matter that I can't prove to you that fairies are not running my computer.

That's a bad analogy, any fool knows that fairies don't run computers, and it's not that hard to take it apart and see it how it works.

Theres also no evidence that they're running it at all. None at all. In my own life i have had plenty of experiences which proved to me that there is a G-d and that he loves and cares about not just me but people i care about, and there is nothing in a computer chip itself that suggests that fairies are running it, and yet there are plenty of things in nature which are truely beautiful and show great attention to detail.

In as much as it's possible to reason anything in the entire world, it's possible to reason that the God in that story did not create the world.

It's possible to reason anything, i don't see how just because it's possible to think something means that it's true.

I could think that my arm was sore because evil spirits were invading it, it follows some sort of coherent logic, but that doesn't mean it would actually be true.

The abrahamic religions involve tremendous leaps of faith. I would have thought that notion would be pretty uncontroversial.

Well they do require faith, yeah, but you make your own mind up about what's true and what isn't, what's outdated and what's man-made politicised rubbish.

 

[frogwoman]

I feel that I should point out that this is an attempt to reply to all of your post. Specifically, it's in response to where you had talked about the tradition rabbinical discussions within Judaism.

It seems to me that most religions have certain traditions of updating and re-interpreting their core texts. I think this is a good thing, because if you were to try and follow the rules in the core texts exactly, you'd probably be a complete bastard.

Who says you're meant to, it's obviously meant to be interpreted slightly differently according to the needs of the society in which somebody lives. Obviously, if we tried to do everything EXACTLY how it says in the bible, then we would be complete bastards. However, at the same time that the Torah was written oral instructions were also recieved, and these gave more detail about how to follow the laws and they also placed safeguards so that immoral actions wouldn't be carried out, in the name of following the torah.

A lot of the laws which advocate stoning to death etc are simply meant to display how grave a crime that was. Because of the commandment against murder, the idea was that if you committed a crime of that sort then G-d would put you to death and not a human.

I see these reinterpretations as an attempt to inject some common sense into religion. What strikes me as a grave misfortune, is that religious people lack the balls to face up to the truth of what they're dealing with and put a big red line through all the outdated, immoral nonsense that's in these books.

I don't think that's true, mate. Most people realise that if a country was governed exactly how it says in a holy book with no interpretations or instructions as to what exactly it meant to follow them, then that country would be quite fucked up, but it's not MEANT to be followed literally, and it never has been.

If you can work out that stoning your son to death is always wrong, you can surely work out that eating pork chops is only bad for the piggies.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Its not that G-d will punish me if i eat them, it's that jews and muslims abstain from pork out of RESPECT for him and his commandments. is eating pork the worst thing you can do? no, it's just that if you belong to these religions and you want to serve g-d you do these things out of respect for him, because he created you, and because you are grateful, for all the things he has done.

Its the reverence that these act show, that's important, not whether you do them or not.

However, to do that you have to face up to the reality that it's a collection of millennia old folk-wisdom and not the literal word of God, then you have to admit that you don't know have any better idea about the nature of the universe than anyone else.

No, i don't, i wouldn't be that arrogant to say so, i dont think anyone has a good idea about the universe tbh, there are just so many things we don't know and probably never will.

 

[snouty warthog]

Yeah, i was gonna ask about that, actually.

What do you make of the fact that pretty much every creation myth, primitive or otherwise, describes a flood covering the earth in the same manner that Genesis does? I have a book of myths, and native american tribes, japanese, hindu and african myths all describes something like that.

I think it's very interesting, personally.

nice post, frogwoman. I was going to bring this point up whilst reading your post, and then you made that very point yourself. it is very interesting. from what I read, most tribal accounts place the flood at around 40 thousand years ago.

in terms of the creation myth, I was thinking about that today. It may well be an allegory, however I am willing to accept it may be literally possible. my thought was, 'God created the world in seven days- but I am sure S/He could have done it in seven seconds if S/He had wanted'. If you believe that God created the entire earth and all within, then obviously you are looking at a being with powers that a human cannot comprehend. Truly, God's Power is Magnificent, and I would feel churlish to believe I can imagine it's limits... if indeed there are any.

you cannot discuss the ocean with a frog in a well, as the Taoists say...