Freethought & Rationalism Archive

kcdad · 11-19-2009, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

Well, it's nice to see some deep thinkers have come to those conclusions, I suppose. The unfortunate truth, however, is that the vast majority of Bible-Followers of various persuasions are not deep-thinkers and don't, or even won't, come anywhere near the ideals expressed by "radical monotheism", "radical unitarianism", and the like.

Wow... I am a deep thinker...

Mageth · 11-19-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Armstrong is wrong to say that Jahveh does not involve the concept of self-subsistent Beingness. As Spinoza puts it:

Moses conceived the Deity as a Being Who has always existed, does exist, and always will exist, and for this cause he calls Him by the name Jehovah, which in Hebrew signifies these three phases of existence.

Constantin Brunner develops this line of thought:

<snip>

Jahveh is synonymous with all the other words used to denote self-subsistent Beingness: the Ileatic One, Nous, the Stoic Logos, the Absolute, Brahman, the Tao, Spinoza's Substance, Christ's Father, Brunner's Cogitant. This abstract principle is only directly accessible to the small minority of thinkers, the great geniuses of art, philosophy and mysticism. These few spiritually creative individuals establish the conditions under which the rest of humanity exists. Everyone, without exception, is carried in the wake of the geniuses. This may take the form either of conscious, active appreciation and reproduction; or of unreflective imitation. The abstract, mystical insight of Moses has almost always been distorted through unreflective imitation into a crude anthropomorphic materialistic religion.

I was thinking about this a bit last night, and one problem I see with this line of thinking is the much more concrete and anthropomorphic treatment that "Moses" appears to give YHWH elsewhere. See, e.g., Exodus 33, which says in part:

18And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. 19And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. 20And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. 21And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 22And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

The "three phases of existence" specified by "Jehovah" appears to include a face, a hand, and a backside.

With all due respect, it seems to me that "The abstract, mystical insight of Moses has almost always been distorted through unreflective imitation into a crude anthropomorphic materialistic religion" may be in part due to the reading of the entire text.

No Robots · 11-19-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

With all due respect, it seems to me that "The abstract, mystical insight of Moses has almost always been distorted through unreflective imitation into a crude anthropomorphic materialistic religion" may be in part due to the reading of the entire text.

Moses' own natural inclinations condition his conception of Jahveh, as Spinoza makes clear:

Further it is related (Ex. xxxiii:18) that Moses asked of God that he might behold Him, but as Moses (as we have said) had formed no mental image of God, and God (as I have shown) only revealed Himself to the prophets in accordance with the disposition of their imagination, He did not reveal Himself in any form. This, I repeat, was because the imagination of Moses was unsuitable, for other prophets bear witness that they saw the Lord; for instance, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, &c. For this reason God answered Moses, "Thou canst not see My face;" and inasmuch as Moses believed that God can be looked upon - that is, that no contradiction of the Divine nature is therein involved (for otherwise he would never have preferred his request) - it is added, "For no one shall look on Me and live," thus giving a reason in accordance with Moses' idea, for it is not stated that a contradiction of the Divine nature would be involved, as was really the case, but that the thing would not come to pass because of human infirmity.--TTP

Mageth · 11-19-2009, 01:00 PM

Well, it's nice to see that Spinoza anticipated my objection. ;^)

OneInFundieville · 11-20-2009, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

With all due respect, it seems to me that "The abstract, mystical insight of Moses has almost always been distorted through unreflective imitation into a crude anthropomorphic materialistic religion" may be in part due to the reading of the entire text.

Or perhaps even the writing of the entire text.

I suspect many of the writers, editors, redacters, rewriters, copyists, etc. were more so uninspired clerics than they were inspired poets.

Institutionalization of mountain-top experience is patently bizarre.

Equinox · 11-20-2009, 06:55 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8TRoMSG-5I

PhilosopherJay · 11-20-2009, 03:04 PM

Thanks for the link, Equinox. The movie was sadly underrated at the time it came out.
Robert Altman died for our sins.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8TRoMSG-5I

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

11-19-2009, 01:00 PM	#24
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Well, it's nice to see that Spinoza anticipated my objection. ;^)

11-20-2009, 06:55 AM	#26
Equinox Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Michigan, USA Posts: 897	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8TRoMSG-5I

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.