Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nero's Boot · 12-08-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RareBird

You forgot to mention that Jews invented the god that invented the Christians and Muslims.

...and of course, all this assumes that the earliest proto-Israelites didn't worship an entire pantheon, with YHWH as the "King of the Gods," similar to neighboring Enlil, Marduk, and Ra.

--certain passages in Genesis seem to suggest BibleGod was talking to his fellow gods NB

QuestionMark · 12-08-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RareBird

You forgot to mention that Jews invented the god that invented the Christians and Muslims.

The Jews invented God and the Christians and the Muslims took it too seriously!

QM?

QuestionMark · 12-08-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nero's Boot

Quote:

Originally Posted by RareBird

You forgot to mention that Jews invented the god that invented the Christians and Muslims.

...and of course, all this assumes that the earliest proto-Israelites didn't worship an entire pantheon, with YHWH as the "King of the Gods," similar to neighboring Enlil, Marduk, and Ra.

--certain passages in Genesis seem to suggest BibleGod was talking to his fellow gods NB

Proto this and proto that.

Evolution makes changes does it not?

Jews used to have 4 wives.

Not anymore.

Muslims and some Mormons still do.

QM?

Nero's Boot · 12-08-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuestionMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nero's Boot

...and of course, all this assumes that the earliest proto-Israelites didn't worship an entire pantheon, with YHWH as the "King of the Gods," similar to neighboring Enlil, Marduk, and Ra.

--certain passages in Genesis seem to suggest BibleGod was talking to his fellow gods NB

Proto this and proto that.

Evolution makes changes does it not?

Jews used to have 4 wives.

Not anymore.

Muslims and some Mormons still do.

QM?

Yes, I fully agree that religious "truth" changes over time. Any idiot can look at world history to see how memes shapeshift into new variations and forms. At one point, the earliest Jews didn't believe their god was the only one up in the sky. Only much later did Jewish thought begin to deny that Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Osiris and Enlil were really sharing the sky with YHWH.

--supposed "absolute religious truths" change all the fucking time NB

Roger Pearse · 12-08-2007, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuestionMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I wonder if the original poster would clarify a couple of things for us.

1. Should this be here in BC&H? After all, the post sounds a bit like some kind of bog-standard religious invective directed at people whose belief-systems are different to the poster's, rather than a discussion of antiquity or specific texts. Aren't there other fora for this?

2. Can he document these claims? If not, do we need hearsay?

3. Can it be demonstrated that this very brief post does not omit or misrepresent any of the groups (themselves somewhat variable in belief and practise)? If not, it must be a selection which reflects only the views that the poster has chosen to adopt (which seem rather stale and stereotyped to me).

Document: Jewish Bible - Moses mumbles, sins, and is punished

Show us similarities in the NT and the Koran where Jesus and Mohamed are described as having defects.

Do Christians go out into the world to evangelize and convert in order to 'save' those who do not believe in Jesus? Was ther an Inquisition?

Did Muslims convert by the sword?

How many Jews do you kow of who were forcibly converted to Judaism?

Do Muslims call non-believers 'Infidels"?

Have you looked up Noahide?

Educate yourself in 30 seconds on Google or Wiki.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/idea...ID=12848802522

The prohibition against idolatry refers specifically to idolatrous worship, and not to BELIEFS. In later generations, Jews had to determine whether the prevailing religious cultures in which they lived were idolatrous. Since Islam is strictly monotheistic, Muslims have always been considered Noahides. Since the later Middle Ages, Jews have acknowledged that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was not the same as idolatry, and they were also recognized as Noahides.

Thus Jews accept Muslims and Christians as Noahides!

QM?

None of this post appears to address my queries.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Tammuz · 12-08-2007, 04:16 PM

No, in Judaism, non-believing Jews don't go to Heaven. According to the testimony of a former Orthodox Jew, a non-believing Jew is punished much harder than a non-believing Gentile. In turn, the Paradise the righteous Gentiles can attain is nothing compared to what the righteous Jews can attain.

And while it might be true or not (haven't really checked into it) that the Quran sometimes corrects Muhammed, Muslims are still obsessed by him. They want to wear the same clothes he wore, eat the same food as he ate, clean themselves the way he did (clean your anus an odd number of times), speak the same language that he did and so on.

Dlx2 · 12-08-2007, 04:51 PM

I think the critical difference between Judaism and the later Abrahamic religons is that there is an impression that God can be argued with in Judaism, whereas the same right to argue with the Divine is not permitted in modern Christianity and Islam. Gnosticism has a somewhat different approach to the concept of God, but sadly, Gnosticism was exterminated a long time ago.

Realize, though, that some of this is coming from the nature of the texts. The Jewish canon is a mess of works, literary and documentary, mythological and historical, religious and secular. Thus, conceptions of God differ greatly. The J source in the Torah, for example, is hardly deferential towards his God, and his God is capable of being argued with and even proven wrong. The compiler of Proverbs was just putting down what seemed like good advice into a self-help book of sorts. The author of the book of Kings was interested in the lives of the great kings of the empire and reads much like a section of Herodotus, Plutach, or Xenophon, where discussion about the gods occurs in context of historical events, but is less important than the political machinations and the sweeping success and glory of military victory. Job is essentially a piece of Babylonian debate literature. So, you're looking at a diverse approach to the ideas and, lo and behold, people will come to that collection of works with a very varied set of perspectives. The rabbinic tradition sets about trying to create a forum for the discussion of those perspecives and the obvious incongruencies of the text.

The New Testament is a set of texts that were canonized specifically because they offered a relatively cohesive argument on the nature of God, and man's need to submit to said God. This is not really a surprise, considering that canonization was undertaken by Constantine and the imperial authority. Non-canon gospels and texts are generally ones that were untenable for a centralized religion, or ones which required the teaching of oral traditions separate from the text. As there is no real argument between the texts, you see little argument over the texts as well, and Old Testament texts have ofte been summarily...changed....in translation in order to ameliorate the presence of conflict between multiple OT documents, and between the OT and NT. Note also that the NT works are primarily works of prostelytizers. For the most part, the OT was not.

The Koran is a single cohesive work, and is a prostelytizing work. It was written by a single author, and summarily exported. It preaches a religion of submission to God, and presents a very singular perspective on God, being the work of a single author.

I think this is the major issue that QuestionMark is missing. The approaches to the religious literature are in a large part a result of the nature of the religious literature, and as such, will reflect that. Reading the Torah and Job as part of the same religious literature is like reading incorporating the Eddas, Beowulf, the Venerable Bede, Mad Sweeny, The Mabinogion, The Pearl, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and Canterbury Tales into a single religious work on the basis that they're all from the same general region and from around the same general time period. This is distinctly different from reading the work of a single author, like the Koran of Mohammed.

QuestionMark · 12-08-2007, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dlx2

I think the critical difference between Judaism and the later Abrahamic religons is that there is an impression that God can be argued with in Judaism, whereas the same right to argue with the Divine is not permitted in modern Christianity and Islam. Gnosticism has a somewhat different approach to the concept of God, but sadly, Gnosticism was exterminated a long time ago.
'
Realize, though, that some of this is coming from the nature of the texts. The Jewish canon is a mess of works, literary and documentary, mythological and historical, religious and secular. Thus, conceptions of God differ greatly. The J source in the Torah, for example, is hardly deferential towards his God, and his God is capable of being argued with and even proven wrong. The compiler of Proverbs was just putting down what seemed like good advice into a self-help book of sorts. The author of the book of Kings was interested in the lives of the great kings of the empire and reads much like a section of Herodotus, Plutach, or Xenophon, where discussion about the gods occurs in context of historical events, but is less important than the political machinations and the sweeping success and glory of military victory. Job is essentially a piece of Babylonian debate literature. So, you're looking at a diverse approach to the ideas and, lo and behold, people will come to that collection of works with a very varied set of perspectives. The rabbinic tradition sets about trying to create a forum for the discussion of those perspecives and the obvious incongruencies of the text.

The New Testament is a set of texts that were canonized specifically because they offered a relatively cohesive argument on the nature of God, and man's need to submit to said God. This is not really a surprise, considering that canonization was undertaken by Constantine and the imperial authority. Non-canon gospels and texts are generally ones that were untenable for a centralized religion, or ones which required the teaching of oral traditions separate from the text. As there is no real argument between the texts, you see little argument over the texts as well, and Old Testament texts have ofte been summarily...changed....in translation in order to ameliorate the presence of conflict between multiple OT documents, and between the OT and NT. Note also that the NT works are primarily works of prostelytizers. For the most part, the OT was not.

The Koran is a single cohesive work, and is a prostelytizing work. It was written by a single author, and summarily exported. It preaches a religion of submission to God, and presents a very singular perspective on God, being the work of a single author.

I think this is the major issue that QuestionMark is missing. The approaches to the religious literature are in a large part a result of the nature of the religious literature, and as such, will reflect that. Reading the Torah and Job as part of the same religious literature is like reading incorporating the Eddas, Beowulf, the Venerable Bede, Mad Sweeny, The Mabinogion, The Pearl, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and Canterbury Tales into a single religious work on the basis that they're all from the same general region and from around the same general time period. This is distinctly different from reading the work of a single author, like the Koran of Mohammed.

Your point is well taken.

Jews are allowed to argue with God and question God.

Muslims want to kill anyone who questions God.

'Christians' do not question Jesus.

There are 45,000 Protestant sects in the Us.

What a Christian is is rather vague.

Christian Scientist, Seventh Day Baptist, Episcopalians, Mormone, Catholic, Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodists, etc., etc,......

QM?

BTW Many Christians think like the Marcionites and don't even know it.

makerowner · 12-08-2007, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dlx2

The New Testament is a set of texts that were canonized specifically because they offered a relatively cohesive argument on the nature of God, and man's need to submit to said God. This is not really a surprise, considering that canonization was undertaken by Constantine and the imperial authority. Non-canon gospels and texts are generally ones that were untenable for a centralized religion, or ones which required the teaching of oral traditions separate from the text. As there is no real argument between the texts, you see little argument over the texts as well, and Old Testament texts have ofte been summarily...changed....in translation in order to ameliorate the presence of conflict between multiple OT documents, and between the OT and NT. Note also that the NT works are primarily works of prostelytizers. For the most part, the OT was not.

Which texts were canonized also took into account which ones were popular, not just how well they agreed with the orthodox positions. There are in fact some major inconsistencies between the Pauline epistles and the epistle to the Hebrews, for example.

QuestionMark · 12-08-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dlx2

The New Testament is a set of texts that were canonized specifically because they offered a relatively cohesive argument on the nature of God, and man's need to submit to said God. This is not really a surprise, considering that canonization was undertaken by Constantine and the imperial authority. Non-canon gospels and texts are generally ones that were untenable for a centralized religion, or ones which required the teaching of oral traditions separate from the text. As there is no real argument between the texts, you see little argument over the texts as well, and Old Testament texts have ofte been summarily...changed....in translation in order to ameliorate the presence of conflict between multiple OT documents, and between the OT and NT. Note also that the NT works are primarily works of prostelytizers. For the most part, the OT was not.

Which texts were canonized also took into account which ones were popular, not just how well they agreed with the orthodox positions. There are in fact some major inconsistencies between the Pauline epistles and the epistle to the Hebrews, for example.

ALL the texts ate centuries old.

It is not what is written that is significant.

What is significant, is how the civilization 'reads' the text and 'runs' with it.

Many Christians consider the NT to be a 'perfect' text, also Muslims re the Koran.

Many Jews take their Bible with a grain of salt. Their fairy tale story.

It is possible to be a Jewish Atheist.

It is impossible to be an Atheist Christian or an Atheist Muslim.

That my friend is an important and fundamental difference.

QM?

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

12-08-2007, 04:16 PM	#16
Tammuz Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 5,525	No, in Judaism, non-believing Jews don't go to Heaven. According to the testimony of a former Orthodox Jew, a non-believing Jew is punished much harder than a non-believing Gentile. In turn, the Paradise the righteous Gentiles can attain is nothing compared to what the righteous Jews can attain. And while it might be true or not (haven't really checked into it) that the Quran sometimes corrects Muhammed, Muslims are still obsessed by him. They want to wear the same clothes he wore, eat the same food as he ate, clean themselves the way he did (clean your anus an odd number of times), speak the same language that he did and so on.

12-08-2007, 04:51 PM	#17
Dlx2 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 2,546	I think the critical difference between Judaism and the later Abrahamic religons is that there is an impression that God can be argued with in Judaism, whereas the same right to argue with the Divine is not permitted in modern Christianity and Islam. Gnosticism has a somewhat different approach to the concept of God, but sadly, Gnosticism was exterminated a long time ago. Realize, though, that some of this is coming from the nature of the texts. The Jewish canon is a mess of works, literary and documentary, mythological and historical, religious and secular. Thus, conceptions of God differ greatly. The J source in the Torah, for example, is hardly deferential towards his God, and his God is capable of being argued with and even proven wrong. The compiler of Proverbs was just putting down what seemed like good advice into a self-help book of sorts. The author of the book of Kings was interested in the lives of the great kings of the empire and reads much like a section of Herodotus, Plutach, or Xenophon, where discussion about the gods occurs in context of historical events, but is less important than the political machinations and the sweeping success and glory of military victory. Job is essentially a piece of Babylonian debate literature. So, you're looking at a diverse approach to the ideas and, lo and behold, people will come to that collection of works with a very varied set of perspectives. The rabbinic tradition sets about trying to create a forum for the discussion of those perspecives and the obvious incongruencies of the text. The New Testament is a set of texts that were canonized specifically because they offered a relatively cohesive argument on the nature of God, and man's need to submit to said God. This is not really a surprise, considering that canonization was undertaken by Constantine and the imperial authority. Non-canon gospels and texts are generally ones that were untenable for a centralized religion, or ones which required the teaching of oral traditions separate from the text. As there is no real argument between the texts, you see little argument over the texts as well, and Old Testament texts have ofte been summarily...changed....in translation in order to ameliorate the presence of conflict between multiple OT documents, and between the OT and NT. Note also that the NT works are primarily works of prostelytizers. For the most part, the OT was not. The Koran is a single cohesive work, and is a prostelytizing work. It was written by a single author, and summarily exported. It preaches a religion of submission to God, and presents a very singular perspective on God, being the work of a single author. I think this is the major issue that QuestionMark is missing. The approaches to the religious literature are in a large part a result of the nature of the religious literature, and as such, will reflect that. Reading the Torah and Job as part of the same religious literature is like reading incorporating the Eddas, Beowulf, the Venerable Bede, Mad Sweeny, The Mabinogion, The Pearl, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and Canterbury Tales into a single religious work on the basis that they're all from the same general region and from around the same general time period. This is distinctly different from reading the work of a single author, like the Koran of Mohammed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.