The 'New' Number One Reason We Know there is No God . . . :D

[Danmark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... traditions lists a very length assemblage of religions and cultures. I submit it is woefully incomplete. It is a fair assumption that the only ones that made it on the list are one's we have historical references to. This assertion is self defining. We can assume there were/are thousands more we are not aware of.

The question for debate is, "Why is YOUR particular version of "God" correct and the tens of thousands, or millions, of others wrong?

[Divine Insight]

And there it is AGAIN. "Sure, this is LITERATURE, but it SAYS...."

God didn't say those things. You surely believe that YOURSELF. Why do you have such a huge problem with the people of the culture who PRODUCED these books acknowledging it?

But that is precisely what I object to Charles.

You speak of "modern Jews" as the culture that PRODUCED these books.

I'm saying, hold on a minute. The modern Jews are clearly not the same culture as the ancient Jews. This idea that the modern day Jews have "Heritage Superiority" to proclaim the right to interpret ancient texts is baloney.

The ancient texts speak for themselves. And the ancient Jews were clearly nothing at all like the modern day Jews.

So this argument that "modern Jews" are the culture that PRODUCED these books doesn't float IMHO.

To me this just sounds like the same feeble arguments that Christians try to pull with Christianity. They simply claim that non-Christians have no right to quote from the Bible or even have an opinion or interpretation of Christianity because they aren't Christians.

That's baloney.

It's baloney when the Christians pull it, and it's baloney when "modern day Jews" try to pull the same stunt.

These ancient texts say what they say. And it's crystal clear that not only did the ancient texts claim to speak for God, but the ancient Jews also believed that these ancient texts were the "Word of God".

Why would they be picking up stone to stone Jesus for blaspheme if they didn't believe that their religious texts were the sacred word of God?

So, I guess when it comes down to the bottom line Charles, it's not that I'm "not getting" your point. I'm simply not accepting as being a valid argument.

It's that simple. I disagree that modern day Jews are the same culture that PRODUCED the ancient texts.

They are clearly a totally different culture today. They have obviously evolved to believe in quite different things today than their ancestors believed. And so it's actually false to claim that its even the same culture anymore.

Cultures change over time. Modern day Jews are not the same Jews than lived thousands of years ago.

It's a new culture. So trying to claim ownership, or authorship of these ancient doctrines is, IMHO, absolute nonsense.

So there you go Charles. It's not that I'm "not getting" your point. I just don't accept that it has any merit, that's all.

I simply disagree with your argument that modern Jews are the "same culture" that PRODUCED the ancient texts.

[Danmark]

For me Bible God is the only true God, I wouldnt keep anything else as my God. Why? Because I think he is only god that has any influence.

Bible and its message is for me the main reason to believe to God and to keep him as my God. No other god has caused anything like that, therefore for me they are not God.

Could you tell one other god for example that has his will written and from where can it be read? (Also not the god of Islam, because his will seems to be copied from the Bible)

One of the problems with your question is that it assumes facts that are not in evidence. We have absolutely NO evidence that 'god' has "his will written." I agree with Charles, that Bible was a literary effort of men from the beginning. There is on evidence it is otherwise. I'll let others document the thousands of other religious traditions that claim to be the word of God, other than to remind you I have already cited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

[Danmark]

Those are good questions and I agree there is a clear distinction and those differences have resulted in these ridiculous claims about speaking for God.

But those claims are being made her FOR Jews, not BY them. Doesn't that distinction matter, too?

I suppose some of the difference is simply literary style, coupled with a magical belief system.

Obviously. And there is NO reason why that "magical belief system" on the part of the ancients should be insisted upon and enforced among the Jews of TODAY, especially by those who reject it themselves! That makes NO sense to me, nor ever has. For the record, DI is not the first to take this position. "I know you don't read the Bible as the Word of God, but it SAYS...."

Honestly, what kind of sense does that even make?

Did the authors really believe all of the imagery they used? Perhaps over time and embellishment dreams and visions are handed down and change into representations of actual events. One man's hallucination is another's god, then time transforms the literary into the historical.

I disagree. Fundamentalism transforms the literary into the historical. These tales were regarded as LITERATURE by the people who RECORDED them; the evidence is everywhere in the book. It was LATER generations -- of CHRISTIANS, excuse me -- who began to insist on their being literally true.

This makes sense to me. But I have to confess ignorance as to the specifics as to the evidence ALL of these tales from the Hebrew Bible were considered literature, not history, until the Christian tradition made that claim.

Am I wrong in believing that there both were and are currently Jewish traditions that insist on the historical truth of much if not all of the Tanakh, except the Ketuvim? I thought Orthodox Judaism was roughly the Jewish counterpart to Christian fundamentalism. For example the practice of keeping the 'Word of the Lord' bound on the head or body by use of Tefillin or phylacteries.

[ttruscott]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... traditions lists a very length assemblage of religions and cultures. I submit it is woefully incomplete. It is a fair assumption that the only ones that made it on the list are one's we have historical references to. This assertion is self defining. We can assume there were/are thousands more we are not aware of.

The question for debate is, "Why is YOUR particular version of "God" correct and the tens of thousands, or millions, of others wrong?

I personally don't know why proof is asked for over and over when no proof will be offered as Christians have none. We have faith, a hope that is unproven. If it is not even proven to believers, why would a non-believer think it might be for them?

Does any other religion or anti-religion system (personal or organized) offer proof of their being the one true faith? I haven't seen it yet.

OH, I know, you are using this question in the Socratic manner to get us to realize that we have no proof therefore we are foolish to believe.

My problem with that is that no one else has proof either for their god or the truth of their reality with no god or any system where the ultimate understanding of reality cannot be proven.

Therefore I looked at each offered reality for the best explanation of what I wanted and then I chose. All of the outcomes of all other realities do not offer the supreme outcome of the Christian reality...to me.

I know some other religions claim that commitment to their god has made changes in their lives and they are satisfied but materialists just live the best they can and with no after-life future, rest easy on the contentment of doing their best in their life. All of these options were weighted for happiness and I believe I chose YHWH and Christ as the best opportunity to have the longest bestest life of all of those offered.

And my personal observation is that it has changed my life soooo much no one will ever convince me to go back...because of my new life supported by the understanding I have now of spiritual life.

I hoped YHWH was GOD and that HE would reward me with eternal heavenly life if I committed to HIM, since that was the best option any of the gods or non-god system heads had to offer. <shrug>

Peace, Ted

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 41 by Divine Insight]

And here's MY problem with your pronouncements on the nature and origins and history of the Jews:

YOU KEEP GOING BACK TO THE NEW TESTAMENT AS YOUR ONLY SOURCE AND STANDARD OF INFORMATION.

You do know that the entire NT was heavily influenced by Paul of Tarsus, yes? Including the Gospels? They were ALL written long after Paul's letters, and Luke was written by a personal disciple and companion of Paul himself.

This is important: As I've mentioned before, Paul may not even have been Jewish. Even if he was, he was inarguably and beyond doubt totally out of step with the Judaism of his own day in many ways. He was more Greek than Jewish, in views on society and in his religious ideas. Literal Son of God, remember? That's a Greek idea, not a Jewish one.

There's so much silliness and ignorance -- I speak in a technical sense, not as an insult -- in your posts, I can't believe that you really think you know ANYTHING about Judaism. At random; The Pharisees did not have "their temples." There was only one, and Pharisees regarded it as corrupt and unworthy of their attention; that's why they met in synagogues. You seem to think that the Pharisees and the Priests were pretty much the same; they were mortal enemies. Modern Judaism evolved from Pharisaic Judaism, which, after the fall of the Temple, was all that was left. Now it's called "Rabbinic Judaism." Modern Jews still speak of "obeying the Commandments" -- but not all of them, and not because they are the direct commands of God; and we also claim the right and responsibility to determine their MEANING -- just as Jesus did himself, right there in the NT. The roots of modern Judaism are on display there, if you know how and where to look.

But you don't -- and still: using the NT as your only source for learning about Judaism -- EVEN ANCIENT JUDAISM -- is just WRONG. Here's how wrong the NT got it:

For starters, Jesus WAS a Pharisee himself.

Did you really not KNOW that? If not, you don't know anything whatever of substance about the Judaism of his day.

He was called "rabbi" by his followers, which was a Pharisaic term. He worshipped at synagogues, which was ONLY true of Pharisees at the time. He believed in studying Torah more than in Temple sacrifices -- that's pretty evident throughout. I would bet that you don't even know who the Pharisees were or what they taught or what the differences were between the Pharisees and the "scribes" and "priests" in the first century. The Pharisees, as presented in the NT, are very, very far from the actual Pharisees of Jesus's day; but you seem to accept the NT accounts, as wildly garbled and polemically slanted against the Jews and toward the Romans as they were, as someone more authentic and authoritative than the records and traditions, i.e. memories and teachings, of the Jewish people themselves.

If you're getting your ideas about Judaism from the NT -- as you very clearly ARE, since you have yet to mention any other historical or cultural source -- you're just looking in the wrong place.

I ask again; would you think it reasonable to insist that you know all about Judaism if your information came only from the Qu'ran? That is PRECISELY analogous to what you are doing.

That, of course, is not the only question of mine that you have resolutely refused to answer or even acknowledge. As far as I can see, you have not answered, nor attempted to answer, a single one. Not one. Why is that? Can you explain this resolute refusal to actually ENGAGE on these ideas, in favor of simply repeating your claim that you know everything you need to know from the writings of a few first-century CHRISTIANS?

Apparently not. So, let's leave it here, but let the record show this: You dismiss all of my arguments and FACTS, failing to actually respond to or rebut a single one, SOLELY on the basis of what you THINK you know about first-century (not "ancient") Judaism from the New Testament -- and, I gather, you STILL maintain that you have no need nor intention of reading a single book, article, or PAGE about the Jewish religion written by a modern Jew -- whether historian, rabbi, Bible scholar, or anyone else.

I think the strength and legitimacy of your arguments is pretty clear now. Be well, and don't expect me to let it go when you hold forth AGAIN on a subject about which you have repeatedly demonstrated that you know nothing, and wish to know nothing.

[cnorman18]

This makes sense to me. But I have to confess ignorance as to the specifics as to the evidence ALL of these tales from the Hebrew Bible were considered literature, not history, until the Christian tradition made that claim.

Consider the many "contradictions" in the Hebrew Bible that are so frequently listed here as evidence that the Bible could not be literally true. The redactor or redactors -- that is, the person or persons who put the Torah, the first five books, in the form we have it today, probably worked no later than 450 BCE or so, during or shortly after the Exile. They were many things, but they were not idiots; and those contradictions, including alternate versions of the same stories, were as obvious to them as they are to us. They were clearly included, not because they were considered literal history, but because the redactors wished to include ALL the alternate versions of the stories that were available to them. We're not just talking about the Creation here; there are also conflicting stories, not to mention conflicting attitudes, about David and Solomon and figures that are today deemed "historical." If the intent were to present a real "history" in the modern sense, those conflicts would have been reconciled and a single story settled on. They weren't. Ergo, the redactors knew they weren't writing history, but compiling literary traditions.

Really, all that is pretty basic stuff for non-fundamentalist Bible scholars, whether Christian, Jewish or secular/academic.

Am I wrong in believing that there both were and are currently Jewish traditions that insist on the historical truth of much if not all of the Tanakh, except the Ketuvim? I thought Orthodox Judaism was roughly the Jewish counterpart to Christian fundamentalism.

To a certain extent, that is accurate; the Orthodox are about 10% of modern Jews worldwide -- but you are here talking about the Ultra-Orthodox, or Haredim, which is a small percentage of even the Orthodox. There are very, very few Jewish literalists; as I've said often, the metaphorical nature of Genesis 1ff. is pretty obvious to a Hebrew reader. "Adam" is not only the name of a man; it means "Mankind."

For example the practice of keeping the 'Word of the Lord' bound on the head or body by use of Tefillin or phylacteries.

And here I have to shake my head in astonishment and drop it to my desk with a feeling of deeply depressing futility.

Tefillin, small leather boxes containing certain specific quotes from the Torah handwritten on parchment and mounted on leather straps, are worn on the left arm and head in morning services, except for Sabbath services, by both Orthodox and Conservative Jewish males of post-Bar Mitzvah age -- and even by some Reform Jews. I have a set myself; I rarely wear them, or "lay" them as we say, since I rarely go to weekday morning services. They aren't required; many men don't bother -- but those who regularly attend morning minyan are likely to be older, retired men who are devoted to the traditions of the faith, and most will wear them. There is no deep belief significance or mystical or magical aspect to them; they are just a convention, like wearing a yarmulke -- or a coat and tie to Christian services, for that matter.

I am so very often saddened by the extreme dearth of knowledge about my religion, even among people of good will who have no particular axe to grind against it nor have any wish to denigrate or demean it. We do tend to keep to ourselves and otherwise keep our mouths shut; but doesn't anyone here ever READ anything about Judaism, other than my posts?

And the New Testament, of course -- as if that were about Judaism.

[Divine Insight]

I think the strength and legitimacy of your arguments is pretty clear now. Be well, and don't expect me to let it go when you hold forth AGAIN on a subject about which you have repeatedly demonstrated that you know nothing, and wish to know nothing.

But you are misrepresenting my arguments.

You say:

But you don't -- and still: using the NT as your only source for learning about Judaism -- EVEN ANCIENT JUDAISM -- is just WRONG. Here's how wrong the NT got it:

But that's not true.

I'm not using the NT as my only source for learning about Judaism.

On the contrary my most powerful arguments against it come from the OT itself. Especially the first 4 or 5 books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These are supposed to be the Jewish "Torah"

IMHO those books make it crystal clear that they are demanding behaviors and actions be taken as the commands of a God. And that some God will take his wrath out on anyone who refuses to obey.

Your argument is that modern day Jews don't interpret it that way. But it seems to me that if they don't interpret it that way, then the Christian Old Testament scripture of these books must necessarily be a gross bastardization of the original Jewish Torah. So much so that it seem to me that the Jews would have had an irrefutable case to dismiss Christianity as having absolutely nothing at all to do with those original tales.

In fact, I have offered this to you before.

So not only would the Christian New Testament need to be a gross misrepresentation of Judaism, but so too would the Christian Old Testament need to be a gross misrepresentation of the Torah.

But I don't see where the Jews have historically argued passionately that the Christian Old Testament is a gross misrepresentation of the ancient religion.

It would seem to me that if there was that huge of a discrepancy between the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Torah this would be a major point of contention between these two religions to the point that they wouldn't even remotely be considered to have the same foundations.

I mean, if I'm wrong about this and there really is that great of a difference between the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Torah, then I'll have to give you my sincerest apologies and start recognizing that Christianity and Judaism have absolutely nothing in common at all.

I confess that in this sense I am looking at Judaism through "Christian Eyes".

It's always been my understanding that up until the New Testament the Jews were in harmony with the Old Testament, and they only parted ways from Christianity by not accepting the New Testament and the idea that Jesus was the son of God.

And just for the record, I agree with everything you said about Paul. I don't trust the writings of Paul. And I can't even see why the Christians bother with Paul at all.

[Divine Insight]

I am so very often saddened by the extreme dearth of knowledge about my religion, even among people of good will who have no particular axe to grind against it nor have any wish to denigrate or demean it. We do tend to keep to ourselves and otherwise keep our mouths shut; but doesn't anyone here ever READ anything about Judaism, other than my posts?

And the New Testament, of course -- as if that were about Judaism.

Well, I would like to offer the following comments.

I personally have no axe to grind with Jews or "Judaism" insofar as I am aware.

I've personally never been bothered by Jewish proselytizers, or Jewish evangelists, or any manner of negativity or religious bigotry from any Jewish person.

So I personally have nothing against Jews.

You also may have a point. If Christianity and Islam had never evolved from the foundations of Judaism and Judaism had been left to just grown on its own, it may very well be possible that Judaism may have grown to become a totally pleasant religion that wouldn't bother non-Jewish people.

Clearly Christianity and Islam are the two religions that are causing all the problems over religion with their demands that everyone who doesn't believe in their Gods is a horrible sinners, etc.

So if what you say is true, then all I can say is that it's a real shame for the Jews that Christianity and Islam high-jacked the foundational texts and stories of Judaism to have created religions that are so hostile toward non-believers.

So you may very well be right. The Jews and Judaism may actually just be a victim of the more hostile and hateful religions of Christianity and Islam.

But like I say, looking at the Christian Old Testament (and the Qur'an too) it sure appears that it was the original authors of these religious texts who had these hateful and religiously bigoted view to begin.

I confess I never tried to read an actual Jewish Torah.

Can you point to a copy online? I would like to see just how different it reads from the Christian New Testament.

If it's as dramatically different as you seem to be suggesting I'll just be that much more ticked at Christianity.

[Divine Insight]

Never mind about the link, I just find a nice online Torah to read.

Just skimming through Leviticus I don't see where it's any different from the Christian Old Testament.

All through it is keeps saying:

"And the Lord spoke to Moses saying,...."

And then it goes on to describe how people must behaving and the Lord is telling people how to behave through Moses.

So where do the Jews get off saying, "Well we don't take that literally".

What's that supposed to mean? The texts are clearly stating that God is telling Moses what to say to people. How can you dismiss that by saying that you don't take it literally?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 48 by Divine Insight]

I have to admit, DI, that I've grown accustomed to slide right past a lot of what you keep saying at length, but did I just hear you asking someone to post a Torah online for you to read to see whether it is different than the Christian New Testament? I'll take that to mean that you're really asking to see an authentic English translation of the Five Books of Moses that are the Torah. Surely you know that the Torah is the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy? Or are you getting confused with the Talmud that you're inquiring whether it is particularly different than the 27 books of the NT?

My apologies if my impatience with continuing to read DI has elicited an out-of-line request from me, and if so some Mod please delete this post of mine.

NEVER MIND. I SEE BY DI'S SUBSEQUENT POST THAT HE CORRECTED HIMSELF THAT HE IS COMPARING TORAH WITH Old Testement FIRST FIVE BOOKS.
Edited Further to add:
Maybe DI still has time to edit his Post #48. If so This post #50 of mine can be deleted.