The Divine Purpose of Atheism

To discuss Jewish topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Site Supporter
Posts: 24704
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: The Divine Purpose of Atheism

Post #11

Post by Goat »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Jrosemary wrote:My rabbi told this story in synagogue yesterday:

A yeshiva student was troubled by the notion that everyone and everything had a divine purpose. He went to his rabbi and said, "Rebbe, I understand how so much of creation works to its divine purpose--but how can atheists be a part of that?"

The rabbi answered, "Atheists constantly remind us that when you hear someone crying out for help, you must become as an atheist--you must behave as if there is no G-d to help him. You must go to his rescue."

My rabbi, who is a deeply devout theist, added that repairing the world is our duty, whether there's a G-d or not. He also said that, in a sense, the closer you get to true religion, the closer you get to atheism. O:)
It may seem extremely odd to refer to Christian scripture in the Judaism forum, but since the reference will be to Matthew, the most recognizably Jewish of the Gospel writers who has Jesus insist on the continuing validity of the Law, perhaps it can be forgiven.

In The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats those who performed charitable works for those in need without even awareness of religious motivation are also deemed righteous and given a place in the world to come…oops…I mean “eternal life�. ;) Those who failed to perform charitable works are condemned.

Some ideas are good no matter who says them.
Out of the whole new Testament, that is the only item that truly resonates with me..... except for the 'else go to hell' part at the end.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply