I recently got into a debate about Numbers 31

[Sirami]

It's very difficult for me to understand the viewpoint of the truly faithful. I recently got into a debate with my aunt, who is a strong fundamentalist. Scripture came into the debate, and I brought up numbers 31.

Here's the New International Version for reference:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

I suggest you read the whole chapter, but here's a paraphrase for those that won't read it:

God told Moses to wipe out Midian as a result of them worshiping other Gods. So Moses people did wipe them out.

After all the fighting men of Midain were killed and the women and children were brought back to camp.

Moses got angry and told his officers that all of the women must be killed, and to kill all of the children as well, except for the children that were female virgins. The female virgins were forced into marriage with the people that destroyed their homes and families.

Now, when reading the bible it's pretty clear that not only did God approve of all of this, God demanded that all of this happen. To me that sounds a lot like the LRA of today.

How could somebody respect God and Moses after reading something like this?

[Jrosemary]

I have a hard time understanding why any Jew or Christian would reject All-h. It's just the Arabic term for "G-d." (Technically for "The G-d," as in "the One and Only.") That's like saying I believe in "G-d" in English but not "Di-s" in Spanish. It doesn't compute for me.

Since a Jew doesn't regard Jesus as God then perhaps it is easier for a Jew to refer to Allah as God.

I'm saying your linguistics are problematic. How can you use the word for G-d in one language, but reject it in another? That doesn't make sense to me. Saying "I have issues with the Muslim conception of G-d" does make sense to me, and that sounds like it could be, if everyone remained respectful of each other's tradition, the beginning of an interesting discussion.

I personally find the Trinity problematic, but I still regard Christianity as a monotheistic religion. It's just soft-core monotheism as opposed to the more hard-core monotheism of Judaism and Islam. But I don't regard Christianity as better or worse than Judaism or Islam. I'm a Jew because Judaism is right for me--not because I think it's innately superior to the other world religions.

(I'm right in line with most American Jews in that respect--according to Pew Forum, American Jews are overwhelmingly pluralist in how we view other religions.)

]If you want to say "I have certain arguments with the Muslim conception of G-d," then ok. Personally, I regard the G-d of Israel, the G-d of Christianity and the G-d of Islam as one and the same G-d, but I think we could all have fruitful discussions about the different ways these three traditions understand G-d. But that's another topic.

So God is also Zeus just the conception is different?

Let me make it clear that I'm only speaking for myself here--not all Jews, much less all monotheists. Coyotero and I had an interesting discussion on this, when he explained how the Norse deities are regarded in his tradition.

As far as I know, Zeus was never conceived of in a monotheistic capacity. In Hebrew, you can use a word that essentially means "powerful ones" to refer to gods (in English we would say gods with a small "g", such as Baal--with or without judgment as to whether such gods exist), or angels or human judges. But you can use the same word to refer to G-d, as in the G-d of Israel. I'd say in the Roman tradition, Zeus was always equivalent to the idea of a "powerful one" but never to "G-d." So no, I would not say Zeus is G-d.

This can get more interesting, though, if you bring up the Roman conception of Isis. Isis began as an Egyptian "small g" goddess--but the Romans (at least according to Apuleius) came to regard Isis as an all-powerful, monotheistic deity who demands ethical behavior from Her adherents. That's pretty close to our notion of G-d.

And if you turn to a tradition like Hinduism, you also have an interesting question. Hindus worship Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, etc., as all-powerful, monotheistic or monistic deities with ethical demands. Again, very close to our idea of G-d (with some intriguing differences.) Personally, in that context, I would equate Vishnu, Shiva or Durga with G-d. (I've had some interesting talks about this with my rabbi!)

The whole reincarnation, desire is the essence of suffering, reality isn't real, attack on the self stuff. I reject the lot and Buddha with it is all I mean.

So all you meant is you don't follow the teachings of the Buddha. Ok. I disagree with you about reincarnation--that's a traditional Jewish teaching that I sometimes lean toward. (We have a lot of traditional teachings in Judaism about the afterlife, ranging from nothing, to a shadowy existence in She-ol, to the resurrection of the dead to reincarnation.)

Btw we all know what letter - refers to, 'f'. I find it most bizarre to not type it. God isn't Voldemort. I just really detest superstition.

All I understand from this is that you're making fun of a Jewish tradition of not writing out the word for G-d when it's referring to "G-d." That's not a commandment in Judaism, but it's a long-standing custom. It is not equivalent to the idea of avoiding the name Voldemort out of fear. Instead, it's a sign of respect and, for me personally, a reminder of the sanctity and holiness of G-d. I wouldn't want anyone to print a page like this that refers to G-d and then crumple it up and throw it out.

I'm sorry you feel the need to make fun of the custom of another religion, as it seems to me you're doing.

[Wootah]

Not fearing magic, spirit folks of which I've yet to see the first'n. 'Specially when it's tales of woe and suffering that're so often used to spread fear before fact.

It's too easy to make your claims post-Christianity. You know how you accuse Christians as simply being Christians as accidents of birth. I guess it cuts both ways. You would be 'afearing da magic and spirit beings' if you were in many many other places on Earth today. Again I just find my position more honest as to how to throw off those superstitions.

Or are you misunderstanding their arguments?

Nah just getting to the bottom of them.

Atheists have to consider Christianity if only for the Fred Phelpses of the world - and I 'pologize cause we got some mean'ns over here with us. (Lifehack - In some bars they'll call you on overgeneralizationin', and it ain't pretty when they do. I'll never set foot in Oklahoma again.)

Fred and I would not disagree too much. I would say, 'God doesn't hate fags, he hates sin.' I am also against taunting the families of dead soldiers but also wonder if going to kill someone is the best way of being Christian so Fred has a point there.

Don't let your mind stand still, in all seriousness.

I try my best.

I hope you ain't in a bar in Oklahoma. Your attitude is dismissive and condescending, both at the same time. You expose your simplistic understanding of people, atheist or not. Yours is a failure to recognize others may possibly be on a par with you intellectually, and your words are wet from a fresh coat of Dunning-Kruger.

Actually your attitude is the dismissive one. Notice the lack of engagement you made and the disparagement you did make. You, the individual I am typing with, did that, to disengage.

You have a belief that a god came to earth to die a most gruesome death in order to appease his own displeasure, or love of, the humans he was expecting to act anything but human. When you declare restrictions on humans, you face violators. This can not possibly be the action of an omniscient god, or the action of a god that possessed the brains some other god promised a billygoat.

I think you understand it. My summary of your summary: A means for a good God to reconcile a bad human with it so that we can dwell with God. As I said, it is 'the best reconciliation of our daily reality with the potential for a good God to exist'. Do you have a better one?

[Wootah]

I'm saying your linguistics are problematic. How can you use the word for G-d in one language, but reject it in another? That doesn't make sense to me. Saying "I have issues with the Muslim conception of G-d" does make sense to me, and that sounds like it could be, if everyone remained respectful of each other's tradition, the beginning of an interesting discussion.

I think more important than respect is not killing someone for being disrespectful. I know what you are saying Jrosemary and sympathise with it but I also read the code behind it - 'Don't say what you think you might get killed for it.'

I personally find the Trinity problematic, but I still regard Christianity as a monotheistic religion. It's just soft-core monotheism as opposed to the more hard-core monotheism of Judaism and Islam. But I don't regard Christianity as better or worse than Judaism or Islam. I'm a Jew because Judaism is right for me--not because I think it's innately superior to the other world religions.

Right for me doesn't morally cut it. If so then sadism becomes moral if it is 'right for you'. Be bold.

(I'm right in line with most American Jews in that respect--according to Pew Forum, American Jews are overwhelmingly pluralist in how we view other religions.)

Great!

Let me make it clear that I'm only speaking for myself here--not all Jews, much less all monotheists. Coyotero and I had an interesting discussion on this, when he explained how the Norse deities are regarded in his tradition.

As far as I know, Zeus was never conceived of in a monotheistic capacity. In Hebrew, you can use a word that essentially means "powerful ones" to refer to gods (in English we would say gods with a small "g", such as Baal--with or without judgment as to whether such gods exist), or angels or human judges. But you can use the same word to refer to G-d, as in the G-d of Israel. I'd say in the Roman tradition, Zeus was always equivalent to the idea of a "powerful one" but never to "G-d." So no, I would not say Zeus is G-d.

OK so why are you so bold declaring Zeus isn't God but not so bold about Allah. (We know why.)

This can get more interesting, though, if you bring up the Roman conception of Isis. Isis began as an Egyptian "small g" goddess--but the Romans (at least according to Apuleius) came to regard Isis as an all-powerful, monotheistic deity who demands ethical behavior from Her adherents. That's pretty close to our notion of G-d.

So would you boldly call Isis God?

And if you turn to a tradition like Hinduism, you also have an interesting question. Hindus worship Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, etc., as all-powerful, monotheistic or monistic deities with ethical demands. Again, very close to our idea of G-d (with some intriguing differences.) Personally, in that context, I would equate Vishnu, Shiva or Durga with G-d. (I've had some interesting talks about this with my rabbi!)

I guess you would. How did the Rabbi take it?

So all you meant is you don't follow the teachings of the Buddha. Ok. I disagree with you about reincarnation--that's a traditional Jewish teaching that I sometimes lean toward. (We have a lot of traditional teachings in Judaism about the afterlife, ranging from nothing, to a shadowy existence in She-ol, to the resurrection of the dead to reincarnation.)

CNorman, Sharmana, if you read this, is reincarnation traditional Jewish teaching?
Is there a link you can provide showing that Judaism believes in reincarnation?

All I understand from this is that you're making fun of a Jewish tradition of not writing out the word for G-d when it's referring to "G-d." That's not a commandment in Judaism, but it's a long-standing custom. It is not equivalent to the idea of avoiding the name Voldemort out of fear. Instead, it's a sign of respect and, for me personally, a reminder of the sanctity and holiness of G-d. I wouldn't want anyone to print a page like this that refers to G-d and then crumple it up and throw it out.

What would happen?

I'm sorry you feel the need to make fun of the custom of another religion, as it seems to me you're doing.

I'm sorry you feel challenged by this. So long as you don't pin your willingness to reason on whether you are being mocked or not you will OK. I do like to hear responses to my question on this topic and I am anti-superstition, which is why I couldn't help digress onto that.

[Goat]

If you want to say "I have certain arguments with the Muslim conception of G-d," then ok. Personally, I regard the G-d of Israel, the G-d of Christianity and the G-d of Islam as one and the same G-d, but I think we could all have fruitful discussions about the different ways these three traditions understand G-d. But that's another topic.

So God is also Zeus just the conception is different?
.

There is a major difference in concept between the Greek Zeus and the Muslim Allah. That is the Greek Zeus was the head of a pantheon of many Gods.

Allah is considered the one and only God. Zeus is the head of many Gods. Can you see that there is a functional difference there?

Now, in the case of Bramah/Vishnu/Shiva the objection is not as clear. In the Hindu religion, at least a number believe that the various 'gods' are actually aspects of a one single 'divinity'.. a single godhead so to speak. Although ti is a different tradition, the concept of single divinity having different aspects is harder to seperate from monotheistic tradition of Judaism.

[Jrosemary]

I'm saying your linguistics are problematic. How can you use the word for G-d in one language, but reject it in another? That doesn't make sense to me. Saying "I have issues with the Muslim conception of G-d" does make sense to me, and that sounds like it could be, if everyone remained respectful of each other's tradition, the beginning of an interesting discussion.

I think more important than respect is not killing someone for being disrespectful. I know what you are saying Jrosemary and sympathise with it but I also read the code behind it - 'Don't say what you think you might get killed for it.'

????

There is no code. I'm saying precisely what I mean.

Why on earth would I be afraid of getting killed? I don't know where you think I live, but it happens to be the United States of America. I've never once been threatened for my views on religion or religious pluralism.

I might die in a terrorist attack--I'm in and out of New York City frequently--but that wouldn't have anything to do with me airing my views on religion!

I personally find the Trinity problematic, but I still regard Christianity as a monotheistic religion. It's just soft-core monotheism as opposed to the more hard-core monotheism of Judaism and Islam. But I don't regard Christianity as better or worse than Judaism or Islam. I'm a Jew because Judaism is right for me--not because I think it's innately superior to the other world religions.

Right for me doesn't morally cut it. If so then sadism becomes moral if it is 'right for you'. Be bold.

The idea of religious pluralism depends on shared morals. I think, overall, we have that among the world religions--or, at the very least, we're working toward it. None of us practice those morals perfectly, but I think Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., share moral standards.

That's not to say we have no work to do, or that we can't be critical when we see a moral issue in our own faith or another. I think we need to be able to offer inter-religious, respectful critiques.

Let me make it clear that I'm only speaking for myself here--not all Jews, much less all monotheists. Coyotero and I had an interesting discussion on this, when he explained how the Norse deities are regarded in his tradition.

As far as I know, Zeus was never conceived of in a monotheistic capacity. In Hebrew, you can use a word that essentially means "powerful ones" to refer to gods (in English we would say gods with a small "g", such as Baal--with or without judgment as to whether such gods exist), or angels or human judges. But you can use the same word to refer to G-d, as in the G-d of Israel. I'd say in the Roman tradition, Zeus was always equivalent to the idea of a "powerful one" but never to "G-d." So no, I would not say Zeus is G-d.

OK so why are you so bold declaring Zeus isn't God but not so bold about Allah. (We know why.)

I've just explained why. Even in the Roman tradition, Zeus was never seen as an all-powerful, monotheistic deity. He was one powerful being among many who was subject to a greater power than himself, namely Fate or Fortune. So the concept of Zeus was not the same as the concept of the G-d of Israel.

But Muslims explicitly worship the same G-d as the Jews and the Christians, per their tradition. I agree. And the overarching concept is much the same: the G-d of Islam is an all-powerful, monotheistic deity, who makes ethical demands of humanity.

This can get more interesting, though, if you bring up the Roman conception of Isis. Isis began as an Egyptian "small g" goddess--but the Romans (at least according to Apuleius) came to regard Isis as an all-powerful, monotheistic deity who demands ethical behavior from Her adherents. That's pretty close to our notion of G-d.

So would you boldly call Isis God?

If we're talking about the monotheistic take on Isis--traditions that see Isis as an all-powerful, monotheistic deity demanding ethical behavior from humanity, than yes. I would then equate Isis with G-d. But not in traditions that view Isis as one goddess among many gods, all of equal powers.

]And if you turn to a tradition like Hinduism, you also have an interesting question. Hindus worship Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, etc., as all-powerful, monotheistic or monistic deities with ethical demands. Again, very close to our idea of G-d (with some intriguing differences.) Personally, in that context, I would equate Vishnu, Shiva or Durga with G-d. (I've had some interesting talks about this with my rabbi!)

I guess you would. How did the Rabbi take it?

Very well. We were talking about problematic passages in the Torah. I mentioned how I became enamored of Hinduism when I first went to college, and how Vishnu seemed like such a nice concept of G-d--but the more I studied Hinduism, the more I realized that Vishnu can be just as scary as the G-d of Israel is in certain parts of the Torah.

That helped me realize that no matter what religious tradition you're dealing with, something about G-d will always be scary. A G-d who was all fluffy niceness, and only fluffy niceness, just doesn't mesh with reality. (As one of my religion professors taught, that full-time, fluffy-nice character is Santa Claus, not G-d.)

That evolved into a longer conversation about religious pluralism, and my rabbi and I agree that we can learn things from other religious traditions.

So all you meant is you don't follow the teachings of the Buddha. Ok. I disagree with you about reincarnation--that's a traditional Jewish teaching that I sometimes lean toward. (We have a lot of traditional teachings in Judaism about the afterlife, ranging from nothing, to a shadowy existence in She-ol, to the resurrection of the dead to reincarnation.)

CNorman, Sharmana, if you read this, is reincarnation traditional Jewish teaching?
Is there a link you can provide showing that Judaism believes in reincarnation?

Wow! Talk about insulting! (And chutzpah!) If you want to challenge me on this, you really should do your own leg work. And if you are unsure of my facts, but don't want to take the trouble to do your own research, you should PM CNorman or Goat or any knowledgeable Jew before issuing a public challenge.

That said, CNorman will be more than happy to stick up for me; I know him well; we're both Conservative Jews and both well-versed in our traditions. Unfortunately, I've not had the pleasure of meeting Sharmana, but anyone who knows Judaism will back me up.

Meanwhile, here's what Judaism101--an informative and well-respected site on the basics of Judaism, has to say. I put the relevant passage in boldface:

Source: http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

Resurrection and Reincarnation

Belief in the eventual resurrection of the dead is a fundamental belief of traditional Judaism. It was a belief that distinguished the Pharisees (intellectual ancestors of Rabbinical Judaism) from the Sadducees. The Sadducees rejected the concept, because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. The Pharisees found the concept implied in certain verses.

Belief in resurrection of the dead is one of Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith. The second blessing of the Shemoneh Esrei prayer, which is recited three times daily, contains several references to resurrection. (Note: the Reform movement, which apparently rejects this belief, has rewritten the second blessing accordingly).

The resurrection of the dead will occur in the messianic age, a time referred to in Hebrew as the Olam Ha-Ba, the World to Come, but that term is also used to refer to the spiritual afterlife. When the messiah comes to initiate the perfect world of peace and prosperity, the righteous dead will be brought back to life and given the opportunity to experience the perfected world that their righteousness helped to create. The wicked dead will not be resurrected.

There are some mystical schools of thought that believe resurrection is not a one-time event, but is an ongoing process. The souls of the righteous are reborn in to continue the ongoing process of tikkun olam, mending of the world. Some sources indicate that reincarnation is a routine process, while others indicate that it only occurs in unusual circumstances, where the soul left unfinished business behind. Belief in reincarnation is also one way to explain the traditional Jewish belief that every Jewish soul in history was present at Sinai and agreed to the covenant with G-d. (Another explanation: that the soul exists before the body, and these unborn souls were present in some form at Sinai). Belief in reincarnation is commonly held by many Chasidic sects, as well as some other mystically-inclined Jews. See, for example Reincarnation Stories from Chasidic Tradition.

All I understand from this is that you're making fun of a Jewish tradition of not writing out the word for G-d when it's referring to "G-d." That's not a commandment in Judaism, but it's a long-standing custom. It is not equivalent to the idea of avoiding the name Voldemort out of fear. Instead, it's a sign of respect and, for me personally, a reminder of the sanctity and holiness of G-d. I wouldn't want anyone to print a page like this that refers to G-d and then crumple it up and throw it out.

What would happen?

Nothing, except that I would be saddened. And writing the dash, for me, reminds me that G-d is not an object; G-d is always more than we think; we finite beings can never truly define the Infinite.

I'm sorry you feel the need to make fun of the custom of another religion, as it seems to me you're doing.

I'm sorry you feel challenged by this. So long as you don't pin your willingness to reason on whether you are being mocked or not you will OK. I do like to hear responses to my question on this topic and I am anti-superstition, which is why I couldn't help digress onto that.

I'm mostly just astonished at what I perceive to be a lack of respect and a lack of manners on your part. I believe in civil debate, which means I do not accuse people of writing in "code," or of saying something out of fear rather than conviction, or of superstitious behavior when that may not be the correct descriptive. I also think part of civil debate is doing my own legwork should I wish to challenge a claim. (Or, at the very least, I would send a PM to a Christian if I doubted your knowledge of your religion, rather than challenge your knowledge publicly before I knew if I had a valid challenge to make.) I'm enjoying our discussion, but I would find it more fruitful if, in the future, you would work on these issues.

[Goat]

CNorman, Sharmana, if you read this, is reincarnation traditional Jewish teaching?
Is there a link you can provide showing that Judaism believes in reincarnation?

Wow! Talk about insulting! (And chutzpah!) If you want to challenge me on this, you really should do your own leg work. And if you are unsure of my facts, but don't want to take the trouble to do your own research, you should PM CNorman or Goat or any knowledgeable Jew before issuing a public challenge.)

Although there is no specific dogma about reincarnation, a number of the Hasidic sects believe in it.

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askr ... nation.htm

There are many Jewish sources dealing with what is popularly
called "reincarnation." In Hebrew, it is called "gilgul
ha'ne'shamot," literally the recycling or transmigration of
souls.

This concept can be compared to a flame of one candle lighting
another candle. While the essence of the second flame comes from
the first one, the second flame is an independent entity.

Still, the new flame contains imperfections inherited from the
initial flame, and it is these imperfections that are to be
corrected.

Most of the written material is very esoteric, often written in
Aramaic. Some of the prominent works dealing with this subject
are the "Zohar" (1st century) and the Arizal's "Shaar HaGilgulim"
(16th century). In the Bible itself, the idea is intimated in
Deut. 25:5-10, Deut. 33:6 and Isaiah 22:14, 65:6.

Many sources say that a soul has a maximum of three chances in
this world. One example given is that the great Talmudic sage
Hillel was a reincarnation of the Biblical figure Aaron.

The soul only comes into this world in the first place in order
to make a spiritual repair. If that is not fulfilled by the end
of one's lifetime, then the soul will be sent down once again.
The return trip may only be needed for a short time or in a
limited way. This in part explains why people are born with
handicaps or may live a brief life.

It is not necessary that there be a conscious awareness in order
for the correction to take place. Conscious awareness is only one
level of understanding.

[Wootah]

Just a quick reply.
- I should have PM'd a person if I wanted them to validate something. I guess I regard the PM feature as personal and don't use it lightly.
- Now jewfaq is something I will read!

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 52:

Not fearing magic, spirit folks of which I've yet to see the first'n. 'Specially when it's tales of woe and suffering that're so often used to spread fear before fact.

It's too easy to make your claims post-Christianity.

It's also easy to just accept the claims of Christianity without having done a proper analysis of the claims thereof.

You know how you accuse Christians as simply being Christians as accidents of birth. I guess it cuts both ways.

I challenge you to link to and quote verbatim where I have ever presented such an argument.

You would be 'afearing da magic and spirit beings' if you were in many many other places on Earth today.

You don't know me well enough to make such a claim. I object to your trying to tell myself and others what I think.

If you can present your argument without engaging in strawman tactics, I'd like to see you do so.

Again I just find my position more honest as to how to throw off those superstitions.

If one doesn't fall into the trap of superstitious thinking, there's no superstition to "throw off".

Fred and I would not disagree too much. I would say, 'God doesn't hate fags, he hates sin.' I am also against taunting the families of dead soldiers but also wonder if going to kill someone is the best way of being Christian so Fred has a point there.

My point was that as you try to overgeneralize folks, you engage in fallacious reasoning.

8<

I hope you ain't in a bar in Oklahoma. Your attitude is dismissive and condescending, both at the same time. You expose your simplistic understanding of people, atheist or not. Yours is a failure to recognize others may possibly be on a par with you intellectually, and your words are wet from a fresh coat of Dunning-Kruger.

Actually your attitude is the dismissive one. Notice the lack of engagement you made and the disparagement you did make. You, the individual I am typing with, did that, to disengage.

My comments stand. The post is there for all to consider.

I think you understand it. My summary of your summary: A means for a good God to reconcile a bad human with it so that we can dwell with God. As I said, it is 'the best reconciliation of our daily reality with the potential for a good God to exist'. Do you have a better one?

It is you who proposes belief in God is a "daily reality". I don't doubt you get your theism on daily, what I do doubt is your ability to show a god exists, much less is concerned with the doings of humans.

Whether you will actually attempt to do so for the observer's benefit is on you.

[cnorman18]

I never said that you did. What I said was the inverse on that: that I didn't lose any of the wisdom by NOT believing them to be (necessarily) history.

The wisdom exists in the story whether we take it literally or not. So let's cut the wisdom out of the Bible stick it in the big book of wisdom and leave God out of it. My reason for not doing that is that I believe that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. Yours?

I prefer to honor the tradition of my people. Is that a good enough reason for you? If not, who are you to demand a better one?

I quite understand that. But from my point of view, one opens oneself to all kinds of very rational and reasonable objections, as well as putting oneself in the position of having to do a LOT of rationalizing and explaining away and making excuses, when one attempts to insist that the Bible IS literally accurate history when so much of it plainly isn't.

I am yet to see a rational and reasonable objection hold up under scrutiny.

I disagree strongly, but that is an entirely different debate. I dont feel obligated to rehash it here for the 100th time. You wanted my reasons, and Im giving them to you.

And as you infer by taking my position there is a lot of rationalizing and thinking to do. Consider a topic. Now don't consider it. Which takes more effort. Most atheist posts are simply exercises in hoping that Christianity is something they don't have to consider.

Care to prove that claim of objective fact?

You have an unfortunate habit of claiming to know other peoples inner thoughts and values and motivations without having the faintest excuse of a reason to do so. If youre not an objectively proven mind reader, you really ought to confine yourself to making statements that you have a right to make. Your own assumptions and prejudices and stereotypes dont count.

I find myself personally considering Islam, Buddhism, atheism, political views, a lot more because I am called to challenge my beliefs.

Are you claiming to know that I dont? Are you claiming to know that ANYONE doesnt, including atheists, which you seem to regard as all pretty much the same?

As I've said more than once, it isn't wise to presume to "know" what another person would argue. I would say no such thing.

I'd say it's wise to try to work out what another will do but remain flexible. I often actually post that way to get more discussion into a post due to the nature of a forum.

Might be better to simply say what you know to be true, and not claim to know more than that. What you said was, I know you would argue that

Second, I can't conceive of how I would "lose faith" in that way. I never said that the Bible doesn't contain a substantial amount of actual history in the first place; on the contrary, I think that it probably does. I just don't think I have any warrant to make pronouncements about where it is true or to what extent.

So what are your views on the Old Testament?

Ive given them. What did you think I was talking about? I have no views on the New Testament. It isnt in my Bible and is no business of mine.

But that's the part I don't get. Why do you define "not necessarily historical" as simply "false"?

If I wrote a book on history and had not-history in it and sold the book as history then I am being false.

Thats what I mean. Do you regard the Bible as a book on history? More importantly, do you regard whatever history is in it as the most important part or aspect of it? I dont, you see.

Once again; if the Bible is more than, or other than, a simple book of history, does that make it false? Why? You seem to have a hard time answering that question.

This is just another version of the argument I have with atheists, over and over and over again: "If the Bible isn't the literal and infallible Word of God, it's nothing but a worthless pack of lies and ought to be thrown out completely." That's a false dichotomy from them, and it's a false dichotomy from you: "If you don't believe the Bible to be absolute objective fact, you must therefore believe that it's total garbage, and you cannot perforce believe in God." You're handing me the same false choice as the atheists. There are other perspectives, and my people have affirmed them for thousands of years. Some Jews are literalists; many are not. That doesn't mean that our faith is impaired or weaker or less strongly held or inferior to yours in any way.

Not really.

Not really what? My faith is weaker or inferior to yours? You dont believe that the Bible is either literally true or garbage? What?

Take a genealogy list. I am OK if there is an error in it (Christianity isn't Islam). I am OK arguing that the bible is inspired by God but if I were to find out the whole genealogy was a lie then I think there is grounds to disregard the Bible as truth about God.

What if a person -- me, for instance -- regards the Bible as a book by men thinking about God? Does that make it worthless and their thoughts worthless and all the people who look at it that way atheists or heathens?

Atheists as we just discussed, look for the simplest reason to allow them to disregard the book in toto.

Thats true, and theyre wrong to do so; but dont you see that youre doing the same thing in reverse? They want to find an error and throw it out; and you want to keep from throwing it out, so you refuse to contemplate the possibility that it might contain errors!

Fear? What fear would that be? You're presuming to read my mind again, and you have neither the right to do that nor any warrant to make that claim. I have no "fear" of the Bible being literally true any more than I "fear" going to Hell. Those are not beliefs to which I give any thought. I don't consider them worthy of consideration and I have no "fear" of them whatever.

I am talking about what concerns us. It concerns me, I fear, the Bible is false. Since you do not believe the Bible is literally true then it is deducible that you fear what if it is true.

That doesnt logically follow at all. Thats like saying, Since you dont believe that Abraham Lincoln could fly it is deducible that you fear what if he could.

Claiming, 'no fear' is just bravado.

Dismissing my statement about what I feel and believe as bravado is just an arrogant insult and, again, a claim of mind reading.

It makes me think of Jonah, we are all Jonahs, 'yes God it's all nice thanks for saving me .. what I have to act ... can't someone else.' That is the fear that is occurring when people resist the Bible being real. It's not just a book of wisdom it is a call to action and to being something else.

Sorry, Im not going to argue with your claim to know what lies in the hearts and minds of others beyond just pointing out that you keep doing it -- and Im not going to argue with your claim that your opinion of what the Bible is is the only possible and the only correct one, and that everyone who doesnt share it must be afraid that youre right.

That's precisely where, in my opinion, you make your biggest mistake. I don't think that ANYONE consciously rejects God. I think people consciously reject certain beliefs about God, which very often have to do with a literalistic and dogmatic approach to the Bible.. That isn't the same thing.

Really? I consciously reject Buddha and Allah and Zeus and et al.

Exactly. You reject those conceptions of God, because you do not accept them as accurate. I reject your conception of God for the same reason.

If I were to tell you that the being we call "God" is a space alien who takes pleasure in tormenting humans and watching us torment each other, would you reject that belief? Of course you would, and rightly so. But would that be the same as rejecting God?

The difference is that if the Bible referred to the alien I would reject the Bible as well.

Now youre contradicting yourself. If that was in the Bible, why would you reject it?

It occurs to me as if you want your bible but not your God.

That is a non sequitur if I ever saw one. Sounds clever, but upon examination it means nothing. Perhaps you can try to explain.

Rejecting YOUR IDEAS about God is not "rejecting God." That seems to be the point that you don't quite grasp here.

Well that leads to another issue.

No, it doesnt; youre just avoiding it. Watch

If God is real then we can only know about God if God reveals itself. Either God has done it or hasn't done it. Which is why I started this digression and expressed my surprise at Woland. I am certain Woland regards 1/2 faith as better than 3/4 faith. Woland should be the one posting here talking to you but he isn't. I'm doing Woland's job but for a very different reason to him. At best you must believe that a book can contain vast wisdom and vast foolishness. Let's just cut out the bits we regard as wisdom and move on.

Ill ignore that in favor of asking again; why do you think rejecting your ideas about God is the same as rejecting God?

There it is again. Do you think that my statement that "I don't know" is some sort of debating tactic? It's not. I really don't know, and I don't know any way to find out. Some can believe as an act of the will: "I DO believe, I DO believe, I do, I do, I do!" Sorry, I can't do that, and if I could, I wouldn't. I won't PRETEND to believe anything.

To me again, either God has revealed himself or not. I am satisfied that the bible holds up to scrutiny. What is the reasoned and rational discourse that you feel challenges my view?

Youre still not answering the question. YOURE satisfied that the Bible is literally true; why do I have to accept your view of it as correct? Why do you think my rejecting YOUR interpretation and understanding of the Bible is rejecting God?

I believe in God whether the Bible is absolutely true in a literal, historical sense or not. That IS where I stand.

Which God?

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the God of Moses -- as carried down in Jewish tradition. The concept is related to the Bible, but not totally dependent on it.

Understand something: Im not trying to say that your conception of God is wrong. Im trying to understand why you think mine is, and why you apparently have no respect for it and consider my beliefs tantamount to atheism.

What about you? As I asked you earlier: Is God your God, or do you worship the Bible?

I can't simply make God be my God. As you said, 'Some can believe as an act of the will: "I DO believe, I DO believe, I do, I do, I do!" Sorry, I can't do that, and if I could, I wouldn't. I won't PRETEND to believe anything.'

Even if God exists, if God is not good then I would not make him my God either.

On that we agree; and that is precisely why I think the God of the Bible is, in places at least, the creation of men. That God is not a good God.

I am of the opinion that God as Jesus is the best reconciliation of our daily reality with the potential for a good God to exist.

I have no objection or quibble with that at all. Im sure your own beliefs account for the discrepancies I see between the Biblical accounts and a good God as well, if in an entirely different way. I dont share that belief, but I dont sneer at it or call it false.

I am not aware of another belief system that succeeds in that regard.

I think you have to be inside a belief system to make that judgment. Judaism works for me; Christianity works for you. I think the major difference between us is that I have respect and even reverence for your religion, and you have no respect whatever for mine and classify me as a hypocritical dissembler and and an unbeliever and a threat to your religion and your God.

I have respect for your religion; but I have very little respect for your attitude toward others and their beliefs. I dont think you have the right to set yourself up as the Final Arbiter of who holds sincere beliefs and who is being obstinate out of fear or sinfulness or pride.

Additional note: yes, reincarnation is one among many speculations in Jewish tradition about the Next Life. There is actually an allusion to it in the daily morning service -- I forget the Hebrew word, but it is in the form of in this [incarnation] or in another [incarnation].

I would agree with Jrosemary that you are a bit casual and flippant in your questions and assumptions about our faith. Would you like it if I snidely asked what would happen if you cried out Jesus Christ! when you stubbed your toe? The concept is called RESPECT, and you really do have some work to do there. You dont have to believe that anothers faith is true to be respectful of it, and that would include not casually assuming that the traditions of others are mere superstitions.

[Murad]

Moderator Comment

Exactly. You are evidence indeed of the effect of CNorman's lack of faith in some aspects of the Bible as history.

Just a reminder for everyone to remain civil. This means, avoid making oblique remarks about other members.