Why did God choose the Jews?

[marco]

Assuming Yahweh is a genuine God, why would we suppose he had a favourite tribe? The famous saying is: How odd of God to choose the Jews. And the reply:

But not as odd as those who choose a Jewish God and spurn the Jews.


But I think on balance it is much odder for God to choose some human group.

Why did he choose the Jews?

Does this mean Yahweh is not anyone else's God?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 27 by bluethread]

So what is God's preoccupation with genital mutilation?
Is it obviously sexual.
Why would he take that particular oddity from the Egyptians?

And of course "raham," means Egypt so there is obviously another connection.

Avraham means father (av) many(ha) exalted (ram), exalted father over many.


It was not just the Egyptians that practiced circumcision. As I said, it was a common practice of many for various reasons. It is similar to animal sacrifice. Just because animals sacrifices were made to other deities does not mean that the animal sacrifices to Adonai were the same thing. The sexuality associate with the practices of others is not part of the practices of Israel. That point is made over and over again in the Tanakh.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

Claims and rationales, can you back any of them up?
Moses people, though they never actually did so, were supposed to have come from Egypt. Can you show the practice wasn't just stolen from the mundane source?

[William]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]

Interesting observation, my friend. But I disagree that there is anything tautological in "complex divine procedure," and here is why. A simple divine procedure would be the immediate dispatch of some bad guy or some disobedient lady. The format for arrangements in heaven, involving ifs and maybes, is what I call complex since it involves several layers of guesswork. If one speculatively used the word divine to mean complicated or difficult, then simple would be an antonym; but I employed no such speculation. The simplest of meals may be divine.

I was speaking specifically to the totality of the environment Marco, rather than bytes of it...but all the same, the simplest of meals cannot be experienced without the totality of the environment anyways...and that is the complexity.

GOD is an entity, and like all entities, is drawn to relationship. What appears to be favoritism is simply response to the call for relationship.

God is a concept and like all human concepts is subject to the smudges of human fingers. When we start imputing to God reasons for actions and systems of procedure, we move towards our own imaginative picture of the Almighty. Not a bad thing, any more than Michelangelo's concept of a bearded God is, but not something that stands up to argument.

Which is to show, that we understand GOD differently. You understand GOD as a concept and I understand GOD as a creative entity.
In relation to my understanding (which I was speaking to) IF a GOD created this complex environment, THEN the GOD is complex, not easy to understand, especially as a concept.

GOD would relate differently to a species which was a million years more advanced than our own, than GOD would with our species. This does not mean the same GOD is different in and of itself, but simply relating to us at our level of understanding, which is quite limited, but still more complex than the ancient humans who relied upon mythology as a literal device. This - I feel - is the primary complaint most often made in argument against Abrahamic ideas of GOD still held to be literal.

The main thrust of my argument in saying that GOD chooses those whom chose GOD, is that this occurs on a relationship level, not a conceptual level.

From the perspective of one who reads the Bible as an outsider, it is true that those who created Yahweh have a special relationship with him. But if we consider, for a moment, that God leads an existence independent of Jerusalem then one would want to know why he showed a preference for some bipeds. They functioned as stupidly as other bipeds and needed sharp hits on the head to follow simple instructions.

You are speaking to the idea of a race here Marco. I have already tried to explain that it is not about race. Biblically it appears to be about race, but again, such is having a relationship with a concept of a GOD, not with the GOD Itself. (Even referring to GOD as 'he' is concept.)

The main reason why the entity focused upon the particular group of humans has to do with the way the people responded and how useful that may have been in the short term (which we are still traversing re our specie development) and in that, GOD is real behind the mythology and the mythology acts to conceal (occult) GOD and keep GOD as a concept.

This developmental undertaking produces its horrors and its glories, but in general the damage has been fairly minimal.

All in all, one doesn't have to be an Israelite in order to be chosen by GOD. One simply has to choose GOD, most significantly, as an actual living entity able to have relationship with the individual, rather than a concept, religious or otherwise.

You say:

"It is the fundamentals of being 'born again' as it were - one has to go through the process of letting go of everything that one has been told through medium and actually relate with the creator-entity one to one. *Roller-Coaster* comes to mind. Not for the faint of heart..."

Here you are moving into the fields claimed by every religious group or individual - that their special insight is the elixir of eternal life, the key to the kingdom, the fount of truth. I think we find threads of truth in our shuffles through life, sometimes in unexpected places. If we personify the sources of these threads as God, I suppose we do no great harm. It provides a vehicle to transport us from birth to death.

In my using the religious term 'Born Again' I was not doing so on behalf of religion but as a means of explaining how thoroughly - what I call - "The Human Drama" can distract the individual from relationship with the entity GOD.

I touched on one such drama in another thread with you when we were discussing your bad-boy Jesus and his alleged disrespect toward the parents (as you saw it) and there are many instances where Jesus is purported to give advice which is contrary to 'the normal manner in which humans do things'.

The struggle re these parcels of advice become for people exposed to them is that they go against the grain of everything they have so far been taught since the year 'dot'...we are all essentially shaped by external influences which all work toward supporting the human drama, and the idea is to break the mold. Do not become a victim of or slave to.

"You must be born again" simply means "Break the mold and learn to become what GOD intended you to be." Form a relationship with GOD, one on one, not through mediums, be they traditions or icons etc...

The vehicle which transports us from birth to death is our body and the environment it is within. The relationship with GOD is eternal, as it always has been, regardless of the excursions we choose to participate within. We are GOD who have enabled the potential to have a relationship with its self through the medium of form. We have relationships with one another, potentially we are having a relationship with GOD through that medium of experience.

So it would seem the Jews chose their God and were happily reciprocated. The same procedure works for all Christians, in their respective rooms; each believes the light they have is the light of God. And some defend that light with wonderful tenacity, almost providing a proof of God's existence. But not quite.

GOD is not limited by race, gender, religion, theist/atheist position et al. Religions do not own GOD-the-actual-entity, but only their particular versions/concepts of GOD, some of which might overlap and give the adherent a glimpse of the deep while paddling in the shallows those institutions insinuate upon them.

The observant clearly see that GOD is no respecter of such things, and is not found or discovered in those things. GOD is only realized in Wholeness, Oneness and Unity. If those things are absent through religious institution, then so too is GOD. The limitations do not belong to GOD, but belong to such institutions, and are used to limit and suppress individual relationship with the real entity, by use of imagery, writ and other forms of sock-puppetry.

In that, I am not casting any judgement - I understand it for what it is - but I see no need to keep quite about the practice either, any more than a strong atheist does.

If one goes through their birth-to-death experience on this planet having no such relationship, or believing one has such relationship through mediums, for one who has such relationship, it is kind of sad to observe.
The world is largely ignorant of this, but my understanding is that this is also a phase - challenging enough - and there are other phases to follow and everyone will eventually get there anyway - reintegrate with that which they come from all along...there is no hurry in relation to eternity.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

Claims and rationales, can you back any of them up?
Moses people, though they never actually did so, were supposed to have come from Egypt. Can you show the practice wasn't just stolen from the mundane source?

I'm not sure what you mean by "mundane source". Nearly everything, if not everything, from the antiquities can be discounted, if one wishes to. What makes them value is that they have stood the test of time. The have be told, retold, analyzed an criticized. Yet, they continue to exist, because they have been able to garner the respect of many generations.

Regarding the specific claims I just made, "Circumcision is the world's oldest planned surgical procedure, suggested by anatomist and hyperdiffusionist historian Grafton Elliot Smith to be over 15,000 years old, pre-dating recorded history." Wiki. Also, the repeated condemnation of furtility rituals in the Tanakh, should stand as support for the argument that the practice among the Isrealites was not related to sex. Though no exact practical reason is given, it is clearly stated that it is to be a sign of one being associated with the Covenant.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 34 by bluethread]

Surely you must remember that circumcision is part of the Covenant?

The magical Covenant with God?

Anyway I ask for justification for your claims and rationales, and you avoid the questions...
Is circumcision magical, or mundane?

Can you back it up, or only wax philosophical?

[Tart]

Assuming Yahweh is a genuine God, why would we suppose he had a favourite tribe? The famous saying is: How odd of God to choose the Jews. And the reply:

But not as odd as those who choose a Jewish God and spurn the Jews.


But I think on balance it is much odder for God to choose some human group.

Why did he choose the Jews?

Does this mean Yahweh is not anyone else's God?

He chose the Jews to reveal Himself, His Nature, His righteousness, to the world. Really, it was to reveal truth to humanity, the people who have the ability to understand truth..


Perhaps it could have been anyone, but it was Abraham... Like the odd's of 100% of the tickets being bought for a lottery... One ticket is getting the prize...

[marco]

He chose the Jews to reveal Himself, His Nature, His righteousness, to the world. Really, it was to reveal truth to humanity, the people who have the ability to understand truth..

We could say that about any group and its gods. In the OT there is an account of a private courtship between Yahweh and a band of nomads, but Yahweh is not a particularly amorous suitor. He kills people. We onlookers could be forgiven for believing this God has nothing to do with us.

Perhaps it could have been anyone, but it was Abraham... Like the odd's of 100% of the tickets being bought for a lottery... One ticket is getting the prize...

It depends how the prize is decided, for there may be no winners. In another lottery Muhammad was the lucky winner. One lesson we might get is if God chooses you then your history will be hell. The moaning prophets are unhappy in their present and fearful of their future.

[marco]

The simplest of meals cannot be experienced without the totality of the environment anyways...and that is the complexity.

I agree that paradoxically complexity can emerge from simplicity. One of the simplest equations is E = a constant times m. How complex is that! I don't quite see where this leads contextually though.

You understand GOD as a concept and I understand GOD as a creative entity.....
GOD would relate differently to a species which was a million years more advanced than our own, than GOD would with our species. This does not mean the same GOD is different in and of itself, but simply relating to us at our level of understanding, which is quite limited, but still more complex than the ancient humans who relied upon mythology as a literal device.

I was speaking semantically rather than from conviction. God is an idea that different people develop differently.


The elaboration of this idea may well speak to different degrees of intelligence in different ways. I have no doubt this would theoretically be so. In fact the more sophisticated we are, the more complex our god becomes. On this forum we see many footnotes about God, in which people add an arm or a leg, or a wise provision or a new command. God seems to wear new clothes with every age. If humanity died out, so too would God. His assumed immortality is hope hiding in reason.

[marco]

The main thrust of my argument in saying that GOD chooses those who chose GOD, is that this occurs on a relationship level, not a conceptual level.

I can see that. But he doesn't knock on every door. Some have no choice.

You are speaking to the idea of a race here Marco. …. The main reason why the entity focused upon the particular group of humans has to do with the way the people responded ….

Well the question is about God choosing a particular race. It is hard to read the Bible and not so conclude, however much one pleads for the personal. As for the people "responding", one can only respond if one is asked a question. The slaughtered neighbours weren't asked, it would seem. And the Hebrew response wasn't particularly positive either.

[marco]

All in all, one doesn't have to be an Israelite in order to be chosen by GOD. One simply has to choose GOD, most significantly, as an actual living entity able to have relationship with the individual, rather than a concept, religious or otherwise.

This is a perfectly good notion of how things should be. It does not reflect the situation we're discussing, of a Biblical God obsessed with a Biblical tribe. As intelligent beings we would suppose we each have access to our Maker, unless we read the OT. I agree Jesus seemed to contradict the OT.

"You must be born again" simply means "Break the mold and learn to become what GOD intended you to be."

This is good advice even in a non-God context. Know yourself! Break free of old prejudices. See in a new way. God sometimes interferes with our vision.

If one goes through their birth-to-death experience on this planet having no such relationship, or believing one has such relationship through mediums, for one who has such relationship, it is kind of sad to observe.
The world is largely ignorant of this, but my understanding is that this is also a phase - challenging enough - and there are other phases to follow and everyone will eventually get there anyway - reintegrate with that which they come from all along...there is no hurry in relation to eternity.

Well sadness was God's idea. In this life we have real sadness, real hurt and real pain. If in the next there is compensation good and well. To allow one's children to suffer without hope is not the mark of good parenting. But such expressions are aimed not at an entity but an idea. We must prepare ourselves for oblivion, closure, finality with a large full stop. If there is light beyond, then our joy will be great or perhaps teeth will gnash over our blindness so that we are punished twice.

The Jewish idea that God chose them was a clever one, like Einstein's. Clever ideas persist.