No, you have no understanding of what the text says. You think you do, but you don't. It's like trying to read Shakespeare literally. Don't read it literally with an English translation. Unless you are versed in Biblical Hebrew, your reading is clueless and uninformed. Your pithy comeback about God should make it easier, It's nice, It's cute, it's pithy. It is also immaterial. All text needs interpretation. From the Bible, to the Declaration of Independence to the U.S. Constitution. As to why God didn't make it clearer, I have no idea. If I knew God, I'd be God. But alas, I am not......
-
Features
God strikes dead liberal Christian
- Thread starter SLD
- Start date
No, you have no understanding of what the text says. You think you do, but you don't. It's like trying to read Shakespeare literally. Don't read it literally with an English translation. Unless you are versed in Biblical Hebrew, your reading is clueless and uninformed. Your pithy comeback about God should make it easier, It's nice, It's cute, it's pithy. It is also immaterial. All text needs interpretation. From the Bible, to the Declaration of Independence to the U.S. Constitution. As to why God didn't make it clearer, I have no idea. If I knew God, I'd be God. But alas, I am not......
Well we agree on something. I never argue theology. I could care less what you believe. I only care how you treat other human beings
Well I think morality is derived from God as Judaism understands it, I think If God does not exist, he would need to be invented. If there is no morality above you, there is no morality. I want to build hospitals. Someone else wants to build Gas Chambers. Whose to say Hitler was wrong? Just because we were stronger?
Well that goes for Jews too, unfortunately. There is a story and I don't know of it is true or apocryphal. Someone once asked the Satmar Rebber if he could come back to life as a Gentile who would he come back as. Without batting an eye he said: The Lubavitcher Rebbe.
I don't approve of your secular ideology, but I don't oppose your right to espouse it. I understand some Christian Groups are shall we say, less than democratic in their outlook.
I am a Zionist and as you figured by Acronym, Rav Kook was the father of Modern Religious Zionism. But the movement has strayed from it's roots. Or to use an American analogy. Just before he died, William F Buckley,, the father of the modern Conservative Movement in the USA was asked about the state of the Conservative movement and using WFB word said it was in need of respristination. I think Religious Zionism is in the same boat. The current Prime minister is total political opportunist who would say anything or do anything to hand on to power.....
Are you claiming that all people who know Biblical Hebrew are in agreement on what the document means? That a god has successfully given them a reliable message?
Here's the thing.
Lay people are supposed to live in a way that pleases god. (or did I misunderstand this part?)
But they have no way, NO WAY AT ALL to know if they have an accurate understanding of what pleases God. (or did I misunderstand this part?)
So what on earth good is it?
What good is it even to god?
Just... logically speaking, by what circuitous reasoning does this make sense to anyone in the equation? Me, you, Biblical Hebrew Scholars, Gods.
If the god has ANY interest in humans receiving ANY kind of message, and ANY capability in achieving the god's own goals, in what way has that been successful? And if it hasn't, does it refute any of the premises - that god has an interest, that god has the capability, that god has a message.
??
Why is it not logical to conclude that at least one of those premises has been refuted?
James Brown
Suspended by Member Request
Reminds me of The Courtier's Reply:
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
The fault is not in the stars...it is in us.
The world is a stage and we are but actors.
Too deep for me, never could understand Shakespeare with or without a dictionary.
If the documentary I watched is true, he was actualy talking about real aristocrats and royals in some case. He could have been in real trouble for being direct in criticism.
The OT is no different. It is depicting in story and myth aspects of the Hebrew experiences and emotions. From the Oxford bible Job was probably one of a larger set of teaching materials. Materials to be used by teachers with students. Job woukd be used much like Aesop's Fables. Depiction in a story of human trust. Same with Shakespeare.
My favorite Shakespeare is Hamlet. Born to welt he relies the crime of his step father and is faced with a moral dilemma. It ends up driving him crazy and destroying others.
The moral of Job...bad things happen even if you are a good person. There are forces out of your control.
The world is a stage and we are but actors.
Too deep for me, never could understand Shakespeare with or without a dictionary.
If the documentary I watched is true, he was actualy talking about real aristocrats and royals in some case. He could have been in real trouble for being direct in criticism.
The OT is no different. It is depicting in story and myth aspects of the Hebrew experiences and emotions. From the Oxford bible Job was probably one of a larger set of teaching materials. Materials to be used by teachers with students. Job woukd be used much like Aesop's Fables. Depiction in a story of human trust. Same with Shakespeare.
My favorite Shakespeare is Hamlet. Born to welt he relies the crime of his step father and is faced with a moral dilemma. It ends up driving him crazy and destroying others.
The moral of Job...bad things happen even if you are a good person. There are forces out of your control.
Not at all. You are a twister of words. I assume you make pretzels for a living. It doesn't matter is people disagree with something. But they have to be able to understand it to be able to disagree with it. You don't make any effort to understand it. Again the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions speak to different people if different ways. Just because God didn't spell it out on a platter for you doesn't make not from God. Not proof af anything. It's your conclusion and you are free to have it.
You refute nothing. Just because something is difficult does not make something human or not devine.
In Judaism you study it. Someone one came to a sage and asked to be converted to Judaism under the condition he could be taught the entire Torah while standing on one foot. The sage replied
- Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a
- Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 127a
It's all about study. You study it over and over. It's not meant to be imprinted on your brain at birth. You are supposed to work at it.
Learner
Veteran Member
Good points. It wouldn't be so easy to corrupt if all was known and in plain-site and so forth. Now that the scriptures are pretty much established (fixed) and available everywhere in print, "its all about the study".
Last edited:
You misunderstand me. I am asking questions. The words twist themselves and I am asking you to untwist. I am reflecting what I hear. Correct where it is wrong.
If it still doesn’t make sense, I will ask about the new thing.
On the contrary, I am asking a lot of questions here. Does that bother you? Why?
Again, *I* am not trying to refute anything. The words refute themselves. I am asking questions. I’ll repeat:
What good is the bible if the god has an interest in humans receiving a message, and a message to give them, and a capability of messaging,
IN WHAT WAY (this is a genuine question) has that been accomplished?
Why not? You all keep claiming that it is illogical (?) for me to expect a perfect being to be able to communiate perfectly.
That’s so weird. Really really weird. It doesn’t compute.
So all of the things that Jews did to others in the bible as commanded by god was not despicable if done to them?
Sure you wanna go there?
Why?
Genuine question.
Why would god not want people to know his will easily?
Underlying all of this is the more foundational question: what happens to those who don’t study? Those who die as infants, those who are mentally unfit for the study, those who are kept from studying, those who don’t know how to study?
If your god has a messsage, and it is NOT important, then it doesn’t matter if they complete the study before dying.
If your god has a message and it IS important, then what happens to those who fail to understand it?
For example, you said I’m “not trying at all to understand.” But here I am asking questions, and you’re not able to answer.. How is it NOT studying, and trying, when I’m giving my time to this?
Is your god okay with you dismissing people who are asking questions?
If your god has a messsage, and it is NOT important, then it doesn’t matter if they complete the study before dying.
If your god has a message and it IS important, then what happens to those who fail to understand it?
For example, you said I’m “not trying at all to understand.” But here I am asking questions, and you’re not able to answer.. How is it NOT studying, and trying, when I’m giving my time to this?
Is your god okay with you dismissing people who are asking questions?
Learner
Veteran Member
I meant it would be easy. Sorry about that, I wasn't concentrating, a little tired earlier
It made better sense the first way. When everything is known and transparent, it is harder to corrupt. Your new sentence doesn’t mmake sense.
I don't know why. I just know that's the way it is. It is the way Judaism has evolved over thousands of years. When the Talmud discusses a particular issue it doesn't just say the law is. It lays out all of the arguments in the same way the Supreme Court in the US publishes minority opinions.
There are many troubling passages in the Torah. Jews question God all of the time. Look at the first Jew, Abraham. When God tells him he is going ti wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham challenges him:
Last edited:
No, you have knowledge or understanding of Judaism. None. Judaism has always been a religion of disagreement.
For a more detailed discussion read this.
While Jewish Law always follows the teachings of the house of Hillel:
Talmud Eruvin 13b
Lay people are expected to learn and study. If they are unsure they are to consult a scholar. In our time we have codified Jewish Law and there are books that can be consulted.
But as to what God requires:
Micah 6:8
Judaism rejects your premise. It always has. It always will.
I know why. Because it's not a god. It's manmade.
You say Jews question god all the time, but you do not question this - to the extent that you find out whether it ***IS*** god or not?
Why so easy to say you question things, but so hard to question whether what you're told is from god or from man?
Yes I know. And I ask, why would a god want that? what purpose does it serve? Does it not leave a gate wide open for Satan to waltz through with a thousand chariots?
Was you god not capable of laying out arguments that anticipate the dissents and give godly repsonse to help his children?
If not, why not?
Does that not seem more like what Satan would do than god?
and then the god destroys it anyway. Pulls out Lot and his family, decides Mrs. Lot was not righteous after all and kills her.
Now the curious reader will ask, "wait, was there not one single pregnant person in all of these two cities? Of course there was. Were. And we define all of their fetuses as evil? This doesn't seem like a plot hole at all to you?"
The curious reader will further ask, "why does an all powerful and all benevolent god need Abraham to beseech him? Why does the god need to "go down there" to find out what's happening?
Have we not just learned that the god is both NOT all knowing and NOT all benevolent?
And, kinda, just, NOT terribly Godly?
Now that seems like a rather silly and hyperbolic thing to say.
What's the consequence for being a slow student? Anything serious?
Says a human.
It seems that if you are so certainly obviously right, then all the Jews would agree with you. But if you can be wrong before them, you can be wrong before me. No? Or are "outsiders" always wrong and "othered"?
No. is the straight answer.
Again you must have a problem with reading comprehension. Jews don't agree and it's ok with Judaism. That is a fact.
No that us a fact. It's not silly at all. Your statements and questions show little or no knowledge of Judaism.
This is your opinion of what a God should be according to the book of Rhea. You like to poke logical holes in biblical stories as if that proves something. Jews have done that for thousands of years before you were a twinkle in your parents eyes. You have an idea of what God is and since it doesn't fit your idea ipso facto there is no God. and if you wish to believe that it's OK with me.
No need to sling petty insults about “reading comprehension.” We are adults here, are we not?
My point was that if you are so absolutely certain that you are right and I am wrong, how can hat possibly translate into you suddenly not being absolutely certain that you’re right as soon as you talk to another Jew? It’s not a faith question, it’s a logic question. About a human’s interpretation of something and your claim of certainty.
But only among Jews. Others who disagree are just flat wrong, is that it? That doesn’t sound really ridiculous to you?