Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 09-08-2008, 09:45 AM

Page 411 of the same book, Bolingbroke is described by Voltaire as a "free-thinker", alongside with mylord Herbert, the knights Raleigh and Sidney, mylord Shaftesbury, the wise Locke moderate as far as timidity, the great Newton who denied so boldly the divinity of Jesus-Christ, the Collins, the Toland, the Tindal, the Trenchard, the Gordon, the Woolston, the Wollaston.

The disciples of Bolingbroke are called "jeunes gens", young people, by Voltaire.

Some people of this list were deists.

bacht · 09-08-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lógos Sokratikós

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

My own position—that Christ is but a man, that Judaism is fundamentally atheism and that there is no such thing as the supernatural—can hardly be called popular. And I am in fact testing that position right now.

I am leaning towards an interpretation of modern liberal Judaism as being closer to Baruch Spinoza than to William Lane Craig. But don't you think that this wasn't the case when the Tanakh was written?

Right, all those angels and demons, Red Sea partings, chariots of fire... I don't think there is any such thing as the supernatural either, but it sure seems like those Bible writers did :huh:

No Robots · 09-08-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lógos Sokratikós

I am leaning towards an interpretation of modern liberal Judaism as being closer to Baruch Spinoza than to William Lane Craig. But don't you think that this wasn't the case when the Tanakh was written?

You are correct that religious liberals try to define themselves in relation to Spinoza. They balk, however, at the notion that Spinoza's god is identifical to what Judaism originally intended to signify by the term 'Jahve,' namely, the pure power of Being. Some religious liberals, however, have indeed begun to accept this. Catholic writer Anthony Mansueto, for example, writes:

[W]e see a movement from the still largely anthropomorphic 'el yahwi sabaoth yisrael', to the God revealed in Exodus 3:13ff, who tells Moses that His name is eyeh asher. Eyeh is the imperfect indicative form of the verb "to be" indicating that this God is Being itself, acting still.
In the same passage we also find the revelation of the name (YHWH), which is the causative form of the verb "to be," and points even more clearly to recognition of God as the power of Being as such.--Spirituality and Dialectics, p.75.

Similarly, from the Journal of Liberal Religion, we have this:

If one were to substitute the word “Being” for “Lord” throughout the Bible, this would make for some startlingly fresh translations. Just to mention one, the central Jewish creed, the Shema, which is often translated as “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one,” (Deut. 6:1) would now read as, “Hear O Israel, Being is our God, Being is one.” In other words, rather than religion being the impetus for divisions between people and inciting hostilities among them based upon differences, this creed emphasizes the unity, not only among and between peoples, but with the entirety of creation.--"Richard Dawkins: Vox Populi" / Jason Giannetti. In Journal of Liberal Religion, v.8 no. 1.

No Robots · 09-08-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Right, all those angels and demons, Red Sea partings, chariots of fire... I don't think there is any such thing as the supernatural either, but it sure seems like those Bible writers did :huh:

Yes, they did, but that does not mean that the Bible is essentially about these supernatural events. Really, I would suggest that anyone interested in Bible interpretation start with Spinoza's TTP.

bacht · 09-08-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

You are correct that religious liberals try to define themselves in relation to Spinoza. They balk, however, at the notion that Spinoza's god is identifical to what Judaism originally intended to signify by the term 'Jahve,' namely, the pure power of Being. Some religious liberals, however, have indeed begun to accept this.

The obvious rebuttal would be anachronism: we should not place modern ideas in ancient minds. Isn't the God of the Hebrews always described in anthropomorphic terms?

No Robots · 09-08-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

The obvious rebuttal would be anachronism: we should not place modern ideas in ancient minds. Isn't the God of the Hebrews always described in anthropomorphic terms?

The very word 'Jahve' means 'Beingness,' which is hardly anthropomorphic.

bacht · 09-08-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

The very word 'Jahve' means 'Beingness,' which is hardly anthropomorphic.

But if the Name was never spoken out loud, how would anyone but scribes know this deeper meaning?

Toto · 09-08-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So Voltaire did not say that the idea that Jesus never lived showed more cleverness than erudition, but that certain disciples of Bolingbroke had more cleverness than erudition.

He's saying that these disciples of Bolingbroke show more cleverness than erudition in arguing that Jesus never existed. If you go to the link that I provided, search 'Bolingbroke' and then click on page 425, you will be able to go to the passage in question and see that Voltaire goes on to criticize the specific arguments made by these early mythicists. The arguments used by mythicists today may be somewhat different, but, imho, Voltaire's negative judgement of the central thesis is still valid.

Is this work (published under the authorship of "Dr. Obern") Voltaire's considered judgment or a spoof along the lines of Candide?

Dieu et les Hommes. Oeuvre Theologique; mais raisonnable. Par le Docteur Obern

Quote:

. 'The subtitle of Dieu et les Hommes describes this treatise as a 'theological but rational work', and the first chapter is entitled 'Our crimes and follies'. It is thus easy to guess the nature of the book. . . . When he comes to Christianity Voltaire exclaims that only a fanatic or a rascal could maintain that the history of Jesus must not be submitted to the light of reason. How else should it be examined. By the light of folly? He concludes with judicious ambiguity that Jesus existed, although everything we are told about him is untrue and although no contemporary reference to him is known. . . . The book was condemned to the fire by the Parlement de Paris on August 18, 1770. It was believed that the author was motivated by nothing other than to publish a set of sarcasms 'contre la loi de Moyse' and christian religion which the author tried to have pass as one of the most contemptible and foolish 'productions' of the human species.

Lógos Sokratikós · 09-08-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

The very word 'Jahve' means 'Beingness,' which is hardly anthropomorphic.

But if the Name was never spoken out loud, how would anyone but scribes know this deeper meaning?

They didn't.
If I'm not horribly mistaken, that is essentially NoRobots' point. Not always was the point understood. It's an overstatement those were superstitious and very violent times. So the Bible would be a hodgepodge obscuring the "beingness" idea. It's a possibility.

bacht · 09-08-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lógos Sokratikós

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

But if the Name was never spoken out loud, how would anyone but scribes know this deeper meaning?

They didn't.
If I'm not horribly mistaken, that is essentially NoRobots' point. Not always was the point understood. It's an overstatement those were superstitious and very violent times. So the Bible would be a hodgepodge obscuring the "beingness" idea. It's a possibility.

Sure, I'll accept that possibility. I always thought the Name was interesting as a confirmation of the the one and only Creator, who requires no other designation other than He Who Is. But I don't know what scholars say about when this name was used: was it late, added by priests and scribes, such as those who added the second creation story in Genesis 1?

the progression of Hebrew theology is usually presented as something like this:

tribal god of patriarchs
exodus god of Moses
national god of David
almighty god of Isaiah (?)
unique god of all peoples (post exile?)

Is NR suggesting a kind of existential meaning in the Name? I still think this is too modern an idea for the Iron Age.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-08-2008, 09:45 AM	#111
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Page 411 of the same book, Bolingbroke is described by Voltaire as a "free-thinker", alongside with mylord Herbert, the knights Raleigh and Sidney, mylord Shaftesbury, the wise Locke moderate as far as timidity, the great Newton who denied so boldly the divinity of Jesus-Christ, the Collins, the Toland, the Tindal, the Trenchard, the Gordon, the Woolston, the Wollaston. The disciples of Bolingbroke are called "jeunes gens", young people, by Voltaire. Some people of this list were deists.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.