The free will problem [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

James81

03-20-2009, 08:42 PM

The free will problem has been a thorny theological issue for Christians for thousands of years. It is bound up with explanations of evil -- people make bad choices, leading to evil. Yet an omnipotent God by definition knows what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. Giving people free suggests that things could go off in any number of ways, depending upon what they choose. Does that diminish God's omniscience? The vexing implications of these questions became a big part of Calvinism and its doctrine of predestination, among other things. He didn't totally discount free will (perhaps because it seems to go against common sense), but the issue tied him in knots explaining it. Of all the early Christians, Augustine was most concerned with what free will meant. You can read a summary of Augustine's view here (http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Religious_Studies/Phil_of_Rel/Evil/freewill_defense_augustine.php). (I tried to find a succint, non-partisan discussion of Calvin's views on free will to link but couldn't come up with one, other than his own writings, which are pretty dense.)

The way to avoid all the problems with this, is to simply stop believing that God is omnipotent and omniscient.

See? Simple isn't it? lol

Seriously, I think using words like that actually hinder God moreso than help, and there is really no basis in the bible for us to apply words like that to God ANYWAY.

It would be so much more effective (and true) if we said that God was MOST powerful and MOST knowing (instead of ALL powerful and ALL knowing).

Look at it this way:

The number, say, 5, is a finite, definable number, right? It has it's limits and we know exactly what those limits are because our finite minds are capable of handling a number like 5.

The number 768,898,987,455,765,923,543,234,456 is also a finite, definable number. It has it's limits, but we, as humans, are fairly incapable of dealing with such a large number. To us, that number is completely and totally beyond our capability to process. Because it's so large and massive and encompasses so much. And, in mathmatics, sometimes we'll deal with a number like that by just calling it "approaching infinity."

And you can say that the number 5 compared to the number 768,898,987,455,765,923,543,234,456, is essentially zero.

Imagine that we, as humans, are the "number 5" and God is the "number 768,898,987,455,765,923,543,234,456" and you can say things like "in reference to us, god is omnipotent and omniscient" but you realize that that is just in reference. There are some things God CAN'T do (or WON'T do).

For example, God could never BE evil, but perhaps he can CREATE evil? For free will to exist, you have to create BOTH options (good and evil) in order to give people a CHOICE. Kind of like we, as writers, could never BE murderers, but we can create them in our novels. Or rather we COULD be, but we would never choose to do so. So, in a sense, God COULD be evil if he wanted to be, but he would never choose to do so.

Leaving these dusty theologians aside, the notion of free will is still a problem, and the more you think about it, the more problematic it gets. In a day-to-day sense, most of us these days subscribe to the view that whatever we do (or don't do) is a freely chosen thing. Yet even though Freud is very much out these days, we carry residual notions that there are forces within us that compel us to act this way or that, things beyond our control. Plenty of defense attorneys argue that for their clients. The current self-help culture for all personality ills really posits the same thing: understand why you are compelled to do this, get the insight, and you can act a different way, gaining a corresponding snippet of free will. In many ways we are unknowingly reenacting centuries-old debates.

I always imagined free will in this sense...

Imagine a ship, leaving the shores of America and head toward England. That ship is headed for a single destination--America to England. There's very little stopping that ship from reaching that desination (barring storms and such) in the sense that that ship was designed to go from America to England.

The people ON the ship, however, can do pretty much what they please WITHIN THE CONFINES AND CONSTRUCTS of that ship. I can choose to eat at the bar, sleep in my room, go dancing in the ballroom, stand out on the deck and look out over the sea. I have free choice to do whatever I choose, but I cannot stop the ship by myself. The ship is so much larger than me, that my attempts at stopping the ship are feeble at best (this is an analogy, so don't just say things like "well you can blow up the ship with all the dynamite you smuggled onto the ship." for the sake of analogy, let's assume that that kind of thing is outside the confines of the "rules" of the ship).

Free will is very much like that. There are some things you are free to do as you please, and there are some things that you can never change. So in a sense you have free will, within the confines and constructs of the master plan.

Ruv Draba

03-22-2009, 05:27 PM

Thanks to CG for this good topic.

I've never understood "free will" and alas, the linked article doesn't define it either. Free from what, other than the Abrahamic notion of "God's ordinance"?

Free from our histories? No. Our statistics on crimes say, show how much history affects our propensity to commit crime.

Free from our circumstance or environment? No. We know that thefts, frauds and crimes of violence are heavily dependent on environment. We know that everyone is breakable through torture; that everyone is vulnerable to coercion or seduction given the right circumstances. Epidemics of obesity in the developed world show just how much choice we exercise in our daily lives; how free we are from the influences of advertising, custom, habit and the lures of convenience, indolence and excess.

Free from our genetics or body's chemistry? No. We know that genetics and chemical balances affect our perceptions, our equanimity, our levels of aggression and our propensity toward antisocial behaviours.

So, free from what?

Free from absolute predictability perhaps. Because for all our best analyses we can't always know what a person will do in a given circumstance. People can still surprise us, for better or worse. But it's trivially true that we can't predict one another, so why all the philosophy around it? What's the secular stake in the question?

A secular belief in free will seems to hinge on this notion that, however constrained we are there is a moment of conscious choice in which we make some sort of balanced, informed decision. A moment in which custom, self-interest, compassion for others and a concern for the future weigh against our needs, habits, influences and present exigencies. But I'm not persuaded that we often make decisions in that way, and I've never seen a scientific argument that such a moment exists in every decision. Most of our major decisions aren't wholly rational (think about your home, your car, your life-partner, your job, the clothes that you wear, your hairstyle and any jewelry or body-decorations, the foods that you eat, when you eat them); very few of them are thoroughly informed. So how are we making 'free' decisions when so many of our decisions are influenced by external factors that we barely recognise?

I don't think that we are. I think that we're selecting consciously from a limited set of choices, filtered by unconscious selection from an even greater set.

So if our decisions aren't entirely free, then what are the moral implications?

I don't believe that we need absolute free will to be moral creatures. All it takes is that we reflect on the decisions we make and that this informs our future decisions -- and that I think is what happens to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how important morality is to us. Reflection allows us to make the best uses of the choices we have, and can open up new choices later.

But if moral character doesn't require something as strong as absolutely free will then why do we so strenuously assert it? It seems to me that it's connected to two things dear to us -- our competitive behaviours and our traditions of justice through punishment.

All humans compete with their parents, their peers, their children. Believing in free will makes that competition seem more meaningful and compelling -- even when we're competing in predictable and often banal ways. In the West, we've elevated this competition to be our main pillar of social identity. We've rested our Cult of the Individual on the myth that our individuality is entirely free from constraint, influence and present vicissitude. In consequence therefore, disadvantage is somehow earned, and our consumerism -- which is largely about social competition -- is given license to burgeon to grotesque levels. How many breakfast cereals do we really need? If we're to have Free Will, why all of them.

In other societies, the myth of free will isn't so compelling. In some Oceanic and African societies for example, individual will is seen as subordinate to family, tribe and societal will, and this means that justice and moral responsibility have a very different shape. So let me turn to that next.

Like most justice systems around the world, a Western justice system depends heavily on punishing transgressors. Under Abrahamic tradition, punishment is deserved -- it's not simply vengeance or setting an example. Under divine autocracy, a perpetrator's suffering is warranted simply for having created divine displeasure, even if the suffering essentially futile -- since it neither compensates for the offence nor rehabilitates the offender. What would be called vengeance in a human is considered justice if it's delivered from a divine platform. This then translates to the same moral framework under a head of state. Absolute power, absolute submission. We don't simply state our guilt or innocence to a Western court; we plead it. Our law-courts still hold the trappings, postures and language of Abrahamic divinity.

But to accept the notion of earned punishment in a secular sense, we have to believe not only that the offender has made choices that we wouldn't make, but that we wouldn't make those choices even if we had an identical history, circumstance, genetics and body chemistry of the offender.

But put that way, the proposition of earned punishment seems increasingly dubious. Any of us who has flown into a rage, or fantasised about hurting someone, or not returned change in a store, or neglected courtesy or truth can hardly claim to never do the things for which we punish greater offenders. Indeed, we seem happy to blame circumstance for our non-criminal transgressions while denying that option to criminal transgressions. Too often we're caught, I feel, in an hypocrisy of injustice based on mythic ideals of absolute free will and therefore absolute personal responsibility. The real situation I think, is that we all have the capacity to do appalling amounts of bad, and what keeps us from doing it is as much good fortune and benign influence as innate moral rectitude.

Over time, I think that the notion of 'earning' punishment is receding as we begin to understand what actually causes our actions. As it recedes, perhaps our focus will be more toward harm prevention and rehabilitation. Or perhaps we won't... perhaps we like autocratic vengeance in our justice-system, and perhaps we need punishments to set examples to others -- even futile punishments. And to support all that from a secular position, perhaps we'll want to retain the myth of absolute free will for a while longer -- though it doesn't really hold up to scientific scrutiny even now.

Where will it end up? Is there a future in which we can predict what any human's behaviour will be, given history, biochemistry, circumstance and the like? That could make for some compelling science fiction, but I don't think it will happen. Like the weather, we're too complex to observe well, much less model well. Whatever the ultimate truth of how we make decisions, I think we will always seem mysterious to one another and to ourselves.

But we can still improve morally. We can reflect upon the decisions we make, and learn from them. However our minds function, they are sensitive to their own mistakes, which means regardless of whether they can be held responsible for all they do all the time, they are capable of improving what they do. So hopefully our notions of justice will continue to improve over time, and hopefully too we'll tame our obsessive competitiveness enough that we can stop blaming one another for not having our own good fortune.

Bartholomew

03-24-2009, 10:57 AM

A given point in an individual's future could be a collection of various possibilities, where God is aware of all possible outcomes. This reasoning allows for free will and an omniscient deity.

Ruv Draba

03-24-2009, 12:38 PM

A given point in an individual's future could be a collection of various possibilities, where God is aware of all possible outcomes. This reasoning allows for free will and an omniscient deity.That depends on what you mean by 'omniscient'. In particular, what does it mean with respect to uncertainty?

Here's one classification of uncertainty.

Variation: events may vary within a predictable range (e.g. throwing a dart onto a map). Arguably, the more you know about the situation, the more precisely you can predict the variation.
Forseen uncertainty: whatever happens will happen in predictable ways (e.g. flipping a coin). Arguably, the more precisely you can understand the situation, the more accurately you can predict a forseeable event.
Unforseen uncertainty: one or more key factors can't be predicted or planned for (e.g. an undiagnosed heart condition). Does omniscience admit this kind of uncertainty? Certainly, human intelligence cannot exclude the unforseen. Our strategy is to 'scan the horizon' for the unforseen.
Chaos: Even the key factors may not be known (e.g. waking up in the middle of a war-zone). Human intelligence fails badly in genuine chaos. The best we can do is to reassess frequently what we think we know.When humans try to predict each others' actions, we usually arrive at 1) or 2) and occasionally 3). In complex human systems we sometimes see 4) (e.g. in riots or the like).

Presumably, a being with a lot more intelligence and information could 'tame' 1 and 2 to near-certainty. Only prophecy could tame 3) (if prophecies actually worked), and I have no idea what can tame 4).

AMCrenshaw

03-24-2009, 08:10 PM

Bart has a good point. A being that knows all knows the complex causes and effects of even chaos. It might be that your list is a good, humane scale, but maybe number 5 is still pretty simple for an omniscient being. What we see as being uncertain or chaotic simply isn't from an omniscient point of view.

My trouble with Bart's point, which Ruv illuminates, is that omniscience to a probability isn't really omniscience at all. Since an omniscient being knows the future in exact outcomes, rather than only the probable ones.

AMC

James81

03-24-2009, 08:54 PM

A given point in an individual's future could be a collection of various possibilities, where God is aware of all possible outcomes. This reasoning allows for free will and an omniscient deity.

I'll illustrate the flaw in that line of reasoning with an example...

I don't know how many of you have ever watched the Saw movies (not many people have because of the gore factor), but the basic premise of those movies was a man who placed people into extreme torture-like situations, allowing them to "make their own choice" to live or die based on the rules of his game. At one point in the movies, his "apprentice" asks him why he leaves so much up to "chance" in his games. His repsonse was, "If you truly know people, then nothing is left to chance." Thus, establishing him as an extreme manipulator with an insanely accute sense of human psychology. By placing them in the traps, and setting the traps or the situations up in a certain way, he could ultimately "control" the outcome without taking any responsibility for their choices, because, after all, his games WERE winnable. Everybody he ever placed in a trap could survive. But he was so well aware of how they'd react, they rarely ever did (at this point we only know of one who DID survive...and she failed her second test and died later).

The point I am trying to illustrate is this...that an omniscient God, knowing all possible outcomes, has obviously established this universe in such a way as to get the outcome HE wants. All he has to do is manipulate the "rules" of the "game" (so to speak) to get a particular outcome.

So, assuming an ominscient God doesn't solve the problem of free will at all. It just adds the layer of "manipulative" to his character, which I think is damaging to the idea of a loving God, who truly wants what is best for his people.

benbradley

03-24-2009, 10:24 PM

My two cents...

In a purely naturalistic framework, there could be no true free will, because the operation of our brains would either be deterministic (through classical physics) or chaotic (due to quantum effects).
Just a note here, certainly quantum effects can add to chaotic operation, but I don't see where quantum effects are needed.
This suggests that free will requires a "spiritual" component to our persons that operates outside of normal laws of cause and effect.
Now we're REALLY diverging. (:)) Even if chaotic operating IS caused by quantum effects, I don't see where free will (if it exists) requires any such spiritual component.

ETA: Okay, you said "suggests," not requires. This may just be a difference of opinion, but I don't see it.

Actually, if you can prove that, you pretty much proved the existence of God.
This could explain how God can be omniscient and (mostly) omnipotent, yet the world still turned out pretty darn crappy: no matter how he sets things up in the beginning, he just can't control us.
And that leads to another point...

I'll illustrate the flaw in that line of reasoning with an example...

... [interesting and gory movie example snipped]

The point I am trying to illustrate is this...that an omniscient God, knowing all possible outcomes, has obviously established this universe in such a way as to get the outcome HE wants. All he has to do is manipulate the "rules" of the "game" (so to speak) to get a particular outcome.
This (and the movie description) is a bit reminiscent of the story of Job (which admittedly I haven't actually read, but have read a lot about, including Heinlein's amusing novel "Job: A Comedy of Justice").
So, assuming an ominscient God doesn't solve the problem of free will at all. It just adds the layer of "manipulative" to his character, which I think is damaging to the idea of a loving God, who truly wants what is best for his people.
Okay, now here's my big point, that faith (this thread seems to strongly take from Christian beliefs, specifically of the Omniscient and Omnipresent God, but this applies as well to other faiths, even those that don't believe in a God of that particular description) trumps logic.

According to many or most of the Christians I've heard, God is all those things: omniscient (knows everything, presumably this means about the future too), omnipotent (all powerful, or as it might be said in modern language, infinitely powerful), AND all loving.

benbradley

03-24-2009, 10:38 PM

As a sort-of separate topic from my last post, here's a writing I've always found fascinating, it's a dialog between a praying mortal and God in regard to free will:

http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html

girlyswot

03-24-2009, 11:40 PM

I've never understood "free will" and alas, the linked article doesn't define it either. Free from what, other than the Abrahamic notion of "God's ordinance"?

Free from our histories? No. Our statistics on crimes say, show how much history affects our propensity to commit crime.

Free from our circumstance or environment? No. We know that thefts, frauds and crimes of violence are heavily dependent on environment. We know that everyone is breakable through torture; that everyone is vulnerable to coercion or seduction given the right circumstances. Epidemics of obesity in the developed world show just how much choice we exercise in our daily lives; how free we are from the influences of advertising, custom, habit and the lures of convenience, indolence and excess.

Free from our genetics or body's chemistry? No. We know that genetics and chemical balances affect our perceptions, our equanimity, our levels of aggression and our propensity toward antisocial behaviours.

So, free from what?

Free from absolute predictability perhaps. Because for all our best analyses we can't always know what a person will do in a given circumstance. People can still surprise us, for better or worse. But it's trivially true that we can't predict one another, so why all the philosophy around it? What's the secular stake in the question?

A secular belief in free will seems to hinge on this notion that, however constrained we are there is a moment of conscious choice in which we make some sort of balanced, informed decision. A moment in which custom, self-interest, compassion for others and a concern for the future weigh against our needs, habits, influences and present exigencies. But I'm not persuaded that we often make decisions in that way, and I've never seen a scientific argument that such a moment exists in every decision. Most of our major decisions aren't wholly rational (think about your home, your car, your life-partner, your job, the clothes that you wear, your hairstyle and any jewelry or body-decorations, the foods that you eat, when you eat them); very few of them are thoroughly informed. So how are we making 'free' decisions when so many of our decisions are influenced by external factors that we barely recognise?

I don't think that we are. I think that we're selecting consciously from a limited set of choices, filtered by unconscious selection from an even greater set.

Exactly. What you are describing is what Jonathan Edwards, America's greatest theologian, called 'bound will'. That is to say, we do have choice. We are always free to do what we want. Within the external constraints of any situation, the human will chooses what it wants to do. It is not free, however, to make a random, undetermined choice (and, actually, why would we want it to be?) The technical terms here are liberty of spontaneity (freedom to do what we want) and liberty of indifference (freedom to do anything at all).

So, Edwards argues, our will is bound by circumstances, by experience, by character and so on. AND, because he believes in an omnipotent God, Edwards claims that all of these factors are themselves determined by God. Which means that human beings have responsibility, since they always and only choose to do what they want. And it means that our actions are not outside God's foreknowledge and control.

Where does that leave God and evil? In one sense, it is true that God thus ordains evil actions. But, Edwards argues, God ordains them as good. How so? God sees all things, all consequences, all actions. So although I can do an evil act and intend it as evil and thus bear responsibility for it as evil; God can intend the same act for good purposes. We see this illustrated throughout the bible but most obviously in the crucifixion. All kinds of people intended that act as evil and will thus bear responsibility for it (to different degrees, according to their role) - Judas, the priests, Pilate, the Roman soldiers and so on. But God intended that act for good, since through it he accomplished the salvation of his people.

Genesis 50:20 is pretty clear on this (with respect to Joseph's brothers actions): You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good, to save many lives.

Acts 2:23 has something similar about the crucifixion: Jesus, delivered up according to God's certain plan and foreknowledge, you crucified and killed...

Mr. Chuckletrousers

03-25-2009, 12:48 AM

Higgins

03-25-2009, 01:17 AM

I used to be confused about what "free will" meant too, until I realized it was at root an epistemic matter that has been exported into metaphysics...

I don't want to sound Orwellian or anything, but IGNORANCE IS FREEDOM!

Whatever else the phenomenon called "a free choice" is, it is a movement from ignorance to knowledge: Before one makes a choice one does not know what one intends to do (because no such intention has been formed yet). Whereas after the choice one does know what one intends to do. A choice cannot occur if we already know what we will intend to do -- choice can only flourish in the rich soil of ignorance. Hence we have problems with thought experiments about time travelers from the future giving us video of our future actions, or of omniscient gods giving us inerrant prophecy. Such scenarios seem to destroy our freedom of choice by destroying our ignorance.

Indeed, so strong is the sensation that knowledge of our future intentions destroys the freedom to choose that many are just as uncomfortable with anyone knowing what they will do, regardless of whether they are told about it. The mere existence of a videotape of our future actions seems to annihilate our freedom of choice, even if the time traveler never shows it to us.

In fact, there seems to be a tendency among some to project this epistemic issue into metaphysics, and demand that the universe itself be "ignorant" of our future intentions too. "Ignorant" not in the sense of lacking knowledge, but in the more profound sense of there not being any determinant reality about our future intentions at all, or at least not until we have made a decision. If there is a determinant reality about the outcomes of our choices, then it is in principle knowable (by time travelers, omniscient gods, etc), and many cannot stomach even the logical possibility that anyone or anything could know what their future intentions will be.

I agree. The minor irritation caused by excessive puzzling over free will (which seems highly contextual -- for example, I don't have the free will to transport myself instantaneously here and there or instantly create a tasty snack out of last night's tired old jello parfait) is the problem of many imaginary collisions of rather dysfunctional mental habits.

For another example: free will seems to be in many ways a construct founded on the irritating habit of second-guessing one's own decisions and then monitoring the results. I'm not sure how this is supposed to work ideally, but I imagine the problem for many practitioners is that their own memory turns out to be curiously selective and fickle, so that some times X seems like it went well and that was good because Y was a good thing. While other times X seems like a terrible thing because Y was an unfortunate event.
So...one supposes, it might be nice if somebody was really keeping track for once (maybe an omniscient, ominipotent being because clearly only such a master of the universe could possibly ever keep track of all the trivial crap I've ever done...not me...I have better or worse things to do, I'm not sure which because it is the master of the Universe's job to clean up after my faulty self-evaluations)...and bingo presto changero! I don't even have to feel bad because I not only can't keep it straight which things I did were the righto ones, but there is a tremendous being or chaotic realm of quantum events where such nonsense belongs...and I don't have to worry about it even though I do.

Ruv Draba

03-25-2009, 01:40 AM

an omniscient being knows the future in exact outcomes, rather than only the probable ones.
Very many religions attribute some form of omniscience to their gods. Omniscient knowledge of human transgression is perhaps the most common attribute. Humans who are going to be judged in the afterlife want to know that they'll be judged fairly. Osiris, for instance, has a Feather of Truth that's used to judge the dead. The god of Abraham can't be fooled about your sins. In Zoroastrianism the dead must cross a thin, razor-sharp bridge over a chasm full of monsters while angels and demons debate the soul's worth -- so presumably they already know everything about you too. In Chinese mythology, the spirits of the dead spy on you and they tell Ch'eng Huang the god of Walls and Moats, who decides your immediate fate on death.

Lots of deities can prophesy too -- Apollo, for instance, was renowed for it. The god of Abraham has been known to give foretellings. Odin lost an eye but was thereafter called 'All-knowing'. The Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks and Mayans all had astrology, so presumably their gods knew at least as much as their astrologers.

Notwithstanding that, a lot of deities can be tricked. Hermes often hoodwinked Apollo and even Herakles managed it once. Set fooled Osiris. Loki and Frigga both tricked Odin on occasion. The gods might prophesy, but for the most part, they don't know everything all the time.

The jump from omniscient history plus prophesy to eternal infallible omniscience is a difficult one and as far as I know only the Abrahamic religions have attempted it in exactly that form. That jump has caused enormous confusion and disagreement over the years -- disagreements that have never resolved satisfactorily. I doubt that they ever will. Did the god of Abraham know that Lucifer would rebel and if so, why not stop it? Did Lucifer trick the god of Abraham in Eden, or was Lucifer's mischief permitted? Was the prophecy of Peter's triple-betrayal a one-off, or did Joshua ben Joseph know the fate of everyone? The claim of eternal, infallible omniscience puts the morality of any deity to stiff trial. As they like to ask in corruption enquiries: "What did you know, when did you know it, and why did you do nothing about it?"

Meanwhile, I think that the human determinism question is largely independent of myth. We can measure correlates between stimuli and human behaviour, and they're often very strong. Regardless of what powers our deities have, we are slowly but surely getting better at understanding and predicting our own behaviours. Perhaps the real question isn't a mythological one but a humanitarian one -- as we learn more about ourselves, how should that change how we treat each other?

MarkR

03-25-2009, 09:47 PM

Open theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism), has been a popular theological response to the free will problem. Open Theology eliminates the possibility that God knows for certain the future free-will choices of all beings.

I think the ultimate truth is a bit more complicated than either Open Theology or Calvinism.

Magdalen

05-06-2009, 10:22 AM

Sorry folks, I got carried away! Wonderful discussion going on here;it inspired me to poetry, which I have posted over in critique. Since this is a Discussion Thread, I thought my little poetic response might be construed as inappropriate so I've moved it. Perhaps I will be able to state my position in prose form later!!

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140881

Billytwice

05-08-2009, 06:04 PM

.deleted

mordant satire

05-25-2009, 11:25 AM

We are an intrepid group! Taking on the subject of free will at all is a herculean task. When you factor in the limitations that are indigenous to a forum setting... I am impressed with what I have read in the above statements.
I think one important distinction to make is what is meant by "free will"? I see three possible meanings.
1) Free will to do whatever you like, whenever you like regardless.
2) Free will only in relation to the confines of a "Master Plan" The destination of the ship - to borrow from one of the analogies above. (good one - btw)
3) free will as only an illusion, there by being no free will because EVERYTHING is foreknown and predestined by a divine being.
I have had many conversations about this with dozens of Christians and Catholics as well. In my experience, it is not a subject most like to engage in. Either because their knowledge of it is limited or because they believe it too difficult to stand behind and defend either way...
John Calvin's beliefs on the subject were really very basic. Only after he was dead and gone did the Acronym "T.U.L.I.P." and "5 Point Calvinsim" emerge. That basic belief system is that you have no say over where you will spend eternity. Your salvation is predetermined and has nothing to do with you. If you have it, you never loose it. If you are not meant to have it, you will never receive it. God creates all life and then guides that life to the final end. Pretty much everything else is up for grabs. The Bible refers to salvation as being “Born Again” The story of Jesus speaking with Nicodemus is the most poignant example. Jesus tells Nicodemus that “unless a person is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3
The Greek word used for “born again” means both, “born again” and “born from above”
In addition to the vast amount of scripture that references predestination, the analogy of “born again” is telling. What involvement did YOU have in your birth? We had no say, no choice, and no option at all. We were born and had no choice. The same principal would apply to Calvinist’s belief of salvation, you are without choice. It is decided and that is that. Likewise once you are born (in real life) you may choose to honor your parents, to a part of family. Or you can rebel. You can emancipate yourself and be your own person, change your name, etc. But you will always be the son of your parents. Again, the Calvinist’s belief mirrors that, you have free will to honor God, to be obedient, etc. or you can be rebellious – salvation is still yours but you will enter “only as one escaping through the flames” 1 Corinthians 3:15
I don’t see free will as a problem (from the Calvinist point of view) because we have free will. The only thing we have no control over is birth, which we already accept as reasonable, death – we may not like it but we all know and accept that we could go any second and the afterlife, which would come into play after you are already dead. Most would not expect, I imagine, having much control over anything once they are dead. So – no biggie right? :)

girlyswot

06-25-2009, 04:00 AM

DWSTXS

06-25-2009, 07:34 AM

Imagine that you scientifically proved that free will doesn’t exist. . .meaning that everything is pre-determined. . .what would you do next?

GeorgeK

07-29-2009, 12:01 PM

The jump from omniscient history plus prophesy to eternal infallible omniscience is a difficult one and...

You are trying to constrain God by Human standards. Assuming God created the universe, then God must exist outside it, outside our concepts of space and time (except for those times that God chooses to be bound by our physical circumstances). God sees all because was, is and will be are all the same from God's perspective. We choose to do X. God having already seen us having done the X that we intend to do does not alter the freedom of our choice. We are not Schroedinger's cat. God's observing of us does not alter us.

Did the god of Abraham know that Lucifer would rebel and if so, why not stop it?

Yes, and why should God stop it? You are thinking too anthropocentrically. For there to be Free Will. there must be the chance of Free Will for all, including Free Will for Lucifer.

Did Lucifer trick the god of Abraham in Eden, or was Lucifer's mischief permitted?

Permitted, because of Free Will
Was the prophecy of Peter's triple-betrayal a one-off, or did Joshua ben Joseph know the fate of everyone?

He knew, but Peter needed to be told in a dramatic fashion. Some of us are like that. Or maybe one or more other of the apostles needed to see it? We can't know that until we can ask God, mind to mind.

The claim of eternal, infallible omniscience puts the morality of any deity to stiff trial. As they like to ask in corruption enquiries: "What did you know, when did you know it, and why did you do nothing about it?"

Not really because we don't see the big picture. God is not bound by our morality. God does not answer to us. God does not need us. There is no ill we can suffer in life that is worse than eternal evil. There is no pleasure in life better than Heaven.

Bartholomew

07-29-2009, 12:10 PM

This is all, of course, assuming that only one of many possible outcomes can occur. If we're proposing an entity like God, there is nothing wrong with proposing that all possible outcomes to all possible events occur in simultaneity over the entire multiverse.

But then you start getting into my wild, far-fetched, and base-less ideas. :)

Assuming a single universe where only one of these possibilities could occur, and Omniscient and Omnipotent being could easily see the future in possibilities, prepare for every single one of them, and still keep those attributes.

He could also see the future in possibilities, visit the future to know which one came about, and then go back in time to manipulate it until the outcome was what he wanted.

In any of these cases, I suspect such an entity's perspective would be so different from ours that his omniscience would not preclude our free will.

I'll illustrate the flaw in that line of reasoning with an example...

I don't know how many of you have ever watched the Saw movies (not many people have because of the gore factor), but the basic premise of those movies was a man who placed people into extreme torture-like situations, allowing them to "make their own choice" to live or die based on the rules of his game. At one point in the movies, his "apprentice" asks him why he leaves so much up to "chance" in his games. His repsonse was, "If you truly know people, then nothing is left to chance." Thus, establishing him as an extreme manipulator with an insanely accute sense of human psychology. By placing them in the traps, and setting the traps or the situations up in a certain way, he could ultimately "control" the outcome without taking any responsibility for their choices, because, after all, his games WERE winnable. Everybody he ever placed in a trap could survive. But he was so well aware of how they'd react, they rarely ever did (at this point we only know of one who DID survive...and she failed her second test and died later).

The point I am trying to illustrate is this...that an omniscient God, knowing all possible outcomes, has obviously established this universe in such a way as to get the outcome HE wants. All he has to do is manipulate the "rules" of the "game" (so to speak) to get a particular outcome.

So, assuming an ominscient God doesn't solve the problem of free will at all. It just adds the layer of "manipulative" to his character, which I think is damaging to the idea of a loving God, who truly wants what is best for his people.

Bart has a good point. A being that knows all knows the complex causes and effects of even chaos. It might be that your list is a good, humane scale, but maybe number 5 is still pretty simple for an omniscient being. What we see as being uncertain or chaotic simply isn't from an omniscient point of view.

My trouble with Bart's point, which Ruv illuminates, is that omniscience to a probability isn't really omniscience at all. Since an omniscient being knows the future in exact outcomes, rather than only the probable ones.

AMC

That depends on what you mean by 'omniscient'. In particular, what does it mean with respect to uncertainty?

Here's one classification of uncertainty.
Variation: events may vary within a predictable range (e.g. throwing a dart onto a map). Arguably, the more you know about the situation, the more precisely you can predict the variation.
Forseen uncertainty: whatever happens will happen in predictable ways (e.g. flipping a coin). Arguably, the more precisely you can understand the situation, the more accurately you can predict a forseeable event.
Unforseen uncertainty: one or more key factors can't be predicted or planned for (e.g. an undiagnosed heart condition). Does omniscience admit this kind of uncertainty? Certainly, human intelligence cannot exclude the unforseen. Our strategy is to 'scan the horizon' for the unforseen.
Chaos: Even the key factors may not be known (e.g. waking up in the middle of a war-zone). Human intelligence fails badly in genuine chaos. The best we can do is to reassess frequently what we think we know.When humans try to predict each others' actions, we usually arrive at 1) or 2) and occasionally 3). In complex human systems we sometimes see 4) (e.g. in riots or the like).

Presumably, a being with a lot more intelligence and information could 'tame' 1 and 2 to near-certainty. Only prophecy could tame 3) (if prophecies actually worked), and I have no idea what can tame 4).

Ruv Draba

07-30-2009, 03:40 AM

Not really because we don't see the big picture. God is not bound by our morality. God does not answer to us.If a deity's conscience is incompatible with human compassion and ethics, then what makes it worthy of worship? Promises of rewards and threat of punishment? Or just the unprovable hope that it's good because it's powerful?

And in particular, how can we tell zealous, right-thinking worshippers aspiring to transhuman morality from dangerous, xenophobic psychopaths adhering blindly to misinterpreted rules? Especially when such rules are interpreted differently by different sects of equally-zealous adherents?

I would suggest that whatever free will means, it should at least encompass the freedom to discover good by rational, compassionate investigation, and not to have such good prescribed by received law, wheedled with blandishments of future pleasures, or coerced by threat of unthinkable torture for its breach.

Just a personal view. :)

JoNightshade

07-30-2009, 04:06 AM

Honestly I've never understood the whole "free will vs. fate" dilemma. Or "free will vs. omnipotent God." I don't see how they are at odds.

Forgive me if this is simplistic since you guys seem to be talking way above my ontological head here, but here's how I've always thought of it, particularly as a writer.

When I write a novel, I'm the all-powerful God of that universe. I am in control of every word on that page, every single last letter. And although someone reading my book would give me credit for my writing, for the skillfulness in the words, they certainly wouldn't accuse me of being "responsible" for the choices the characters in the book make. For example, let's say I'm writing Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Nobody in her right mind would say, "It wasn't Goldilocks' fault she went into the bears' house or got run out again - you created the house and put it there just to tempt her! She really had no choice in the matter because you made her do it! Goldilocks has no free will!"

It seems quite clear to me that anyone reading the story would, rather, think, "Man, that Goldilocks sure is a naughty little girl for just walking into someone's house and eating their food and sitting on their furniture. She got what she deserved!"

Let's say I wrote a different version of Goldilocks in which she was a good little girl and walked right past that house when she found out nobody was home. In that case, would that little girl actually BE Goldilocks? No, she wouldn't - she would be a different little girl entirely, because part of the person of Goldilocks includes the fact that she learns this lesson. I wanted to write a story about Goldilocks, not some other, different little girl.

In the Bible, God does in fact describe himself as the author of the universe (and Jesus, of course, is "The Word"). I am glad he wanted to "write" the story of ME, the girl who decided to go to X college and marry Y and live in Z. Even if he knew every choice I would ever make from the time I was born, how does that detract from the fact that I made those choices?

It also seems to me that the concept of free will is inextricably tied to time, and our ability to only go in one direction. We are creatures who must make decisions and then carry them out and suffer the consequences, in that order. If you take away that order, the whole issue sort of evaporates. If God is outside of time, then I imagine things look completely different. Doesn't mean our timeline is any less real to us.

Ruv Draba

07-30-2009, 08:37 AM

Honestly I've never understood the whole "free will vs. fate" dilemma. Or "free will vs. omnipotent God." I don't see how they are at odds.

[...]

In the Bible, God does in fact describe himself as the author of the universe (and Jesus, of course, is "The Word"). I am glad he wanted to "write" the story of ME, the girl who decided to go to X college and marry Y and live in Z. Even if he knew every choice I would ever make from the time I was born, how does that detract from the fact that I made those choices?

It also seems to me that the concept of free will is inextricably tied to time, and our ability to only go in one direction.
I don't think that free will says much about us as beings at all. Ultimately we each do different things and come up with different justifications for doing them. :)

It does have something about morality (i.e. what's good) and from there, ethics and accountability (what's right and what's just). Whether we had religions and myths or not, we'd still be asking the questions: what is good? What do we owe one another and what are we accountable for? After all, we're compassionate creatures and life is complex and confusing for us. Those questions are still works-in-progress.

Religious dogma doesn't actually offer more than opinion on these things, and when it does offer opinion, contradictions in its own mythology often tie its own claims in knots.

Free will, limited free will or determinism don't actually suffer much from contradictions in themselves. Potentially, you can build effective moral and ethical systems from any of these. But when we add afterlife, punishments, absolute justice, morally-determined fates and other idealistic concepts then we get the silliness, like:

Prophecies co-existing with choice;
Compassionate, omniscient deities who nevertheless don't intercede on disasters;
Threats of punishment made against reasonable and compassionate decisions that reject unsupported and inconsistent dogma;
Conspiracy theories about wars between 'good' and 'evil' when there's neither consistency nor accountability on what those things actually mean in the first place; and
Attempts to portray the worst sorts of suffering and atrocities as being somehow 'good, in the longer term' -- guaranteed to confuse anyone with a conscience.The more one tries to justify these things, the more one resorts to strained analogies (like deities authoring books of our lives) and arm-waving (Oh, this deity isn't morally accountable), and the more philosophical trouble we get into.

Sometimes 'I don't know' is the wisest answer.

C.bronco

07-30-2009, 08:55 AM

I believe in free will (it seems moot that we make our own decisions on how to act and react), karma, and fate to some extent.

Theologically, I think that God helps us when we try, and sometimes steps in to save our butts when we don't.

I think we are here to learn. I think that's the purpose of life- to learn what's important, and what's right. I believe that He steps in sometimes to put us back on track.

Maybe He knows all possible endings, and can see which we are heading toward.

GeorgeK

07-30-2009, 07:27 PM

If a deity's conscience is incompatible with human compassion and ethics, then what makes it worthy of worship? Promises of rewards and threat of punishment? Or just the unprovable hope that it's good because it's powerful?

I never said that God demands worship. If God doesn't need us, which would be a requirement for God to be omnipotent, then God would not proscribe any rituals for us other than to be good (and to not worship false gods [you don't have to worship ME, just don't worship THEM]) unless our brains were too tiny to handle anything else. That's the crux of the matter, our mental evolution. God hasn't changed. We have changed. Several thousand years ago we were infants and needed rigid structure and all that was expected is that we survive. As we have grown, our responsibilities have grown. Suddenly it wasn't enough to just survive, then it was also play nice with your siblings. Now it's, ok, clean up your room. Soon we will have mentally evolved that we can maybe play with the other kids in the neighborhood (extraterrestrials).

And in particular, how can we tell zealous, right-thinking worshippers aspiring to transhuman morality from dangerous, xenophobic psychopaths adhering blindly to misinterpreted rules? Especially when such rules are interpreted differently by different sects of equally-zealous adherents?

You can't tell them anything if they aren't willing to reason. God gave us a thinking mind for a reason. I think we are expected to use it.

I would suggest that whatever free will means, it should at least encompass the freedom to discover good by rational, compassionate investigation, and not to have such good prescribed by received law, wheedled with blandishments of future pleasures, or coerced by threat of unthinkable torture for its breach.

Just a personal view. :)

I agree whole heartedly. There is no clergy anywhere that I would entrust with my soul, not to mention my money or my life or my kids.

GeorgeK

07-30-2009, 07:47 PM

Religious dogma doesn't actually offer more than ...

(1) religion and clergy are not God

Prophecies co-existing with choice;

As has already been said, to someone outside of time we've already done what we have yet to do.

Compassionate, omniscient deities who nevertheless don't intercede on disasters;
(2) What we encounter in this life is merely a vehicle for our mental evolution. There are no disasters when it is all compared to eternity of thought.

Threats of punishment made against reasonable and compassionate decisions that reject unsupported and inconsistent dogma;
see (1)

Conspiracy theories about wars between 'good' and 'evil' when there's neither consistency nor accountability on what those things actually mean in the first place; and
Attempts to portray the worst sorts of suffering and atrocities as being somehow 'good, in the longer term' -- guaranteed to confuse anyone with a conscience.

see (2)

The more one tries to justify these things, the more one resorts to strained analogies (like deities authoring books of our lives) and arm-waving (Oh, this deity isn't morally accountable), and the more philosophical trouble we get into.

see (1)

Ruv Draba

07-31-2009, 08:11 AM

I never said that God demands worship.You missed my question, GK. I didn't ask why a god needs worship, but why a powerful being lacking human morality is worthy of worship. Why respect it? Why admire it? Why do what it tells you, other than the hope of reward and fear of punishment?

GeorgeK

08-01-2009, 06:39 AM

. Why respect it? Why admire it? Why do what it tells you, other than the hope of reward and fear of punishment?

Because God's so great to get to know. I simply find it unfathomable for anyone to not want to get to know the being who made creation; the joy in a baby's laugh, fresh baked cookies, the feeling of love from personal acceptance. God is a really great friend who is happy to have you around provided that you want to be there. I don't think God punishes anyone. We punish and torture ourselves.

benbradley

08-01-2009, 09:19 AM

And in particular, how can we tell zealous, right-thinking worshippers aspiring to transhuman morality from dangerous, xenophobic psychopaths adhering blindly to misinterpreted rules? Especially when such rules are interpreted differently by different sects of equally-zealous adherents
You can't tell them anything if they aren't willing to reason.
You missed the question. Ruv was asking how can we DISTINGUISH between:
zealous, right-thinking worshippers aspiring to transhuman morality and:
dangerous, xenophobic psychopaths adhering blindly to misinterpreted rules?
I think it's a very good question.

ETA: And one more thing:

:popcorn:

Ruv Draba

08-01-2009, 10:39 AM

Because God's so great to get to know. I simply find it unfathomable for anyone to not want to get to know the being who made creation; the joy in a baby's laugh, fresh baked cookies, the feeling of love from personal acceptance.
I think we can't have it both ways, GK. Either a deity is held to do only the sort of good we humans recognise as good -- in which case we can assess its actions by our own standards, or it also does stuff that we can't differentiate from bad. If it's the latter, then by what evidence is that deity worthy of worship, other than by zealous assertions that may lead us to pathological behaviours ourselves? Or as Monty Python put it:

All things dull and ugly, all creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty, the Lord God made the lot
Each little snake that poisons, each little wasp that stings
He made their brutish venom, He made their horrid wings

All things sick and cancerous, all evil great and small
All things foul and dangerous, the Lord God made them all
Each nasty little hornet, each beastly little squid
Who made the spiky urchin? Who made the shark? He did

All things scabbed and ulcerous, all pox both great and small
Putrid, foul and gangrenous, the Lord God made them all

semilargeintestine

08-02-2009, 09:50 AM

You missed my question, GK. I didn't ask why a god needs worship

Actually, G-d does demand worship. We are required to bring a morning and an afternoon sacrifice to Him daily, an additional mussaf sacrifice to make three sacrifices on the Holy Sabbath, and another one in addition to that on Yom Kippur to make five. Now-a-days, since we are unable to bring sacrifices, we are obligated to give prayer services daily (3 during the week, 4 on the Holy Sabbath, and 5 on Yom Kippur) in lieu of a sacrifice. We are also obligated to pray in times of trouble, even during times where sacrifices are able to be given.

In addition to this, we are required to say at least 100 blessings each day, including those for food, using the bathroom, waking up, going to sleep, and many, many other everyday things.

Non-Jews are not required to give sacrifices, but they are allowed to offer a sacrifice; as such, they are also allowed and encouraged to pray. However, non-Jews and Jews alike are required to acknowledge His existence and not worship any other gods.

As far as this:

why a powerful being lacking human morality is worthy of worship. Why respect it? Why admire it? Why do what it tells you, other than the hope of reward and fear of punishment?

There are multiple questions here.

1. Why is G-d worthy of worship? This question is flawed. It implies that we are the judges of G-d's actions. This is exactly the opposite of reality. It is He who is the Ultimate Judge (which is elucidated in His most commonly used name, Elokim), who decides whether or not we are worthy of not being exterminated by Him.

2. Why respect it? Why respect Him? He created the universe and everything in it. He is the King of the entire universe, and you respect a king.

3. Why admire it? Admire Him because He is perfect. It is illogical (and heresy) to say that the Creator of everything is not perfect. As such, we should always aspire to be like Him. The essence of G-d is chesed, which means kindness. Through acts of kindness, we can strive to be like Him.

4. Why do what it tells you, other than the hope of reward and fear of punishment? Reward and Punishment are simply a part of the covenant. If the Jewish people keep His Torah, He will keep his end of the bargain; however, we do not serve Him simply to reap a reward or avoid a punishment. We follow the commandments (which is actually not a great translation of the word mitzvot) because it allows us to get closer to Him and the Torah. We jump at the chance to fulfill one of His mitzvot, no matter how innocuous it may seem (e.g., giving 20% of our income to charity, taking in strangers for the Holy Sabbath, inviting people for meals, etc.).

Ruv Draba

08-02-2009, 03:35 PM

Actually, G-d does demand worship.Then despite a commonly-held belief that the Peoples of the Book all worship the same deity, it seems that we have more than one mythical character of the same name. I wonder how many there are? Even within one mythology, how can we be certain that there is only one -- and not perhaps several, each using the same name? After all, we don't trust people over the Internet, and mythologically, the interactions of deities with humans are even more subjective and less intimate.
In addition to this, we are required to say at least 100 blessings each day, including those for food, using the bathroom, waking up, going to sleep, and many, many other everyday things.According to my readings on Islam, it's similar for Muslims. There are taboos around many daily activities, which make many ordinary activities sacred.
Why is G-d worthy of worship? This question is flawed.I don't think that it is. Our free will should mandate conscience and judgement or else it's useless. Surely, if a deity is worthy to be our inspiration then that inspiration should be something we can recognise as good. Or if it's not our inspiration, then what justifies its moral authority?
It is He who is the Ultimate Judge (which is elucidated in His most commonly used name, Elokim), who decides whether or not we are worthy of not being exterminated by Him.This seems to be an argument of Might Makes Right, not a moral argument. If a deity is amoral, even psychopathic, might it not to be a more compassionate act to live a good life and be exterminated than to appease the narcissism of a wrathful creator and receive corrupt privilege?
He is the King of the entire universe, and you respect a king.Truly? Do we respect all dictators and emperors, or do we just fear them?
Admire Him because He is perfect.I think that this is broken logic, SLI. Either we're capable of judging or we're not. If we are then any claim to perfection should be demonstrated before we'll agree that it's so. If we're not then we can't confirm this claim and so it's not a legitimate argument. So what's the real argument, other than Might Makes Right?

semilargeintestine

08-02-2009, 10:43 PM

Then despite a commonly-held belief that the Peoples of the Book all worship the same deity, it seems that we have more than one mythical character of the same name. I wonder how many there are? Even within one mythology, how can we be certain that there is only one -- and not perhaps several, each using the same name? After all, we don't trust people over the Internet, and mythologically, the interactions of deities with humans are even more subjective and less intimate.

I'm not sure I understand. There is only one G-d. People may worship other deities, but it doesn't make them legitimate, or even real. I'm sure there are thousands of "gods" that people worship, but there is only one G-d.

According to my readings on Islam, it's similar for Muslims. There are taboos around many daily activities, which make many ordinary activities sacred.

Islam comes from Judaism. The Muslims are Ishmaelites, who was a son of Abraham. Many of Islam's practices are taken directly from Judaism.

I don't think that it is. Our free will should mandate conscience and judgement or else it's useless. Surely, if a deity is worthy to be our inspiration then that inspiration should be something we can recognise as good. Or if it's not our inspiration, then what justifies its moral authority?

G-d's moral authority lies in the fact that everything G-d does is moral. It is from Him that we get all concepts of morality. When you go to court, you do not decide whether or not the judge is fit to preside over your case; rather, he is the one who judges your fate (simplified example obviously). The fact is, the question comes from the mindset that we have an equal relationship with G-d, which is very far from the truth. We do not judge G-d to be good, He simply is. Everything He does is good, and our failure to see why is nothing more than our inability to know everything about the situation.

This seems to be an argument of Might Makes Right, not a moral argument. If a deity is amoral, even psychopathic, might it not to be a more compassionate act to live a good life and be exterminated than to appease the narcissism of a wrathful creator and receive corrupt privilege?

Perhaps the deities of mythos can be amoral or psychopathic, but it is impossible for G-d to be amoral, for He is the source of morality. The world's morality comes from the Jewish Bible, which was written by G-d. Additionally, you are trying to place human attributes on an Infinite Being that is not human.

Truly? Do we respect all dictators and emperors, or do we just fear them?

In order to truly love the King, we must first fear Him. It is through the fear that we will disappoint Him that we can come to long to please Him out of our love for Him. Our relationship with G-d cannot truly be compared to our relationship with a human dictator, for humans are flawed and subject to error, whereas G-d is not.

I think that this is broken logic, SLI. Either we're capable of judging or we're not. If we are then any claim to perfection should be demonstrated before we'll agree that it's so. If we're not then we can't confirm this claim and so it's not a legitimate argument. So what's the real argument, other than Might Makes Right?

It isn't broken logic, it's simply a fact. G-d is not a person. Your mistake is that you are trying to judge Him on the basis that he is subject to the same constraints as a human being. That is the broken logic. G-d is an Infinite Being that we can never truly know. G-d's might is not what makes Him right, it is His position as King of the universe--the Creator. If you create a virtual universe, you create it exactly the way you want to. Everything in it runs the way you decide, and therefore it is perfect--your decisions are perfect. This is even more so with G-d, since it is not a case of a person creating something in an already existing world, it is an Infinite Being creating ex nihilo the entire universe.

Ruv Draba

08-03-2009, 01:37 AM

G-d's moral authority lies in the fact that everything G-d does is moral. [...] When you go to court, you do not decide whether or not the judge is fit to preside over your case; rather, he is the one who judges your fate (simplified example obviously).SLI, I'd draw your attention back to our original topic here -- free will.

In human society, jurisdiction determines the court and the court determines the judge (the authority on what is just). Jurisdiction can vary depending on the person, the territory and the subject.

Free will, if it means anything, is freedom to select our moral jurisdiction. We're free to believe that something is moral or is not. We're free to accept a myth as being true or likely, or to dismiss it as implausible or outright false, and we're free to revisit such thoughts as often as we want.

Most of the Abrahamic religions are founded on the ethic that one should SUBMIT, and having submitted, to never again question. That ethic isn't just confined to the Abrahamic religions, but neither is it found in all religions, and in most sects of the Abrahamic religions it's a signature theme.

The question I posed here (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3863317&postcount=25) (about what makes a deity worthy of worship) relates to the wisdom of such absolute and irrevocable submission in the first place. SLI, I understand that if you've made such a pledge of submission then these questions don't arise, but I hope that you'll also understand that if you can't bring yourself to ask the question in the first place then you're probably also not capable of answering it.

So here it is again, rephrased, and I hope that you will be able to offer an answer.

Some religions require absolute and irrevocable submission of their devotees' conscience to some revealed authority. Most of the Abrahamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions) do, as do Abrahamic splinter religions like the Branch Davidians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidian), the Unification Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_church) ('Moonies'), and some non-Abrahamic religions like Aum Shinrikyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo) or the Sai Baba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba) Hindu sect.

All hold that their revealed authority is the Absolute Authority on what is good. In all cases of Absolute Submission that I've ever seen, submission entails not just Rules to Live By, but also directs where and when members may extend compassion and sympathy, and of course Absolute Submission precludes issuing moral challenge to the Absolute Authority -- as SLI quite clearly illustrated in the last response.

Historically, absolute submission has been associated with atrocities that have largely gone unquestioned and unchallenged within the groups that perpetrate them. Among them I'd include the institutionalised sexual abuse of minors; the slavery of women; the persecution, torture and execution of dissidents; the prosecution of terrorism; the systematic looting and desecration of graves and holy sites of other religions; and the prosecution of war and genocide on ideological grounds.

There's no question that humans do these things without the excuse of absolute submission. My concern is that embracing absolute submission prolongs these atrocities, and makes questioning them a taboo. As evidence, consider just how difficult it is to prosecute sexual abuse cases in the Roman Catholic church, or how long the Christians vs Jews, Christians vs Muslims fighting has been going on, and how implacably insidious the Israel vs Palestine conflict has now become.

So... my question comes down to this: can people embrace Absolute Submission and still keep a conscience independent enough to challenge bad acts within their own faith and to protect people outside their faith from the excesses of their own zeal? If so, examples please and show working.

If they can't, then is Absolute Submission a premise that humanity can continue to tolerate?

My starting position is with the freethought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought) camp. Other than the simplistic appeal of conformity I don't see any benefit from Absolute Submission whatsoever, but I do see prolonged and appalling cost.

semilargeintestine

08-03-2009, 02:03 AM

SLI, I'd draw your attention back to our original topic here -- free will.

In human society, jurisdiction determines the court and the court determines the judge (the authority on what is just). Jurisdiction can vary depending on the person, the territory and the subject.

Free will, if it means anything, is freedom to select our moral jurisdiction. We're free to believe that something is moral or is not. We're free to accept a myth as being true or likely, or to dismiss it as implausible or outright false, and we're free to revisit such thoughts as often as we want.

Most of the Abrahamic religions are founded on the ethic that one should SUBMIT, and having submitted, to never again question. That ethic isn't just confined to the Abrahamic religions, but neither is it found in all religions, and in most sects of the Abrahamic religions it's a signature theme.

The original question I posed related to the wisdom of such absolute and irrevocable submission in the first place. SLI, I understand that if you've made such a pledge of submission then these questions don't arise, but I hope that you'll also understand that if you can't bring yourself to ask the question in the first place then you're probably also not capable of answering it.

So here it is again, rephrased, and I hope that you will be able to offer an answer.

Some religions require absolute and irrevocable submission of their devotees' conscience to some revealed authority. Most of the Abrahamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions) do, as do Abrahamic splinter religions like the Branch Davidians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidian), the Unification Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_church) ('Moonies'), and some non-Abrahamic religions like Aum Shinrikyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo) or the Sai Baba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba) Hindu sect.

All hold that their revealed authority is the Absolute Authority on what is good. In all cases of Absolute Submission that I've ever seen, submission entails not just Rules to Live By, but also directs where and when members may extend compassion and sympathy, and of course Absolute Submission precludes issuing moral challenge to the Absolute Authority -- as SLI quite clearly illustrated in the last response.

Historically, absolute submission has been associated with atrocities that have largely gone unquestioned and unchallenged within the groups that perpetrate them. Among them I'd include the institutionalised sexual abuse of minors; the slavery of women; the persecution, torture and execution of dissidents; the prosecution of terrorism; the organised looting and desecration of graves and other religious sites; and the prosecution of war and genocide on ideological grounds.

There's no question that humans do these things without the excuse of absolute submission. My concern is that embracing absolute submission prolongs these atrocities, and makes questioning them a taboo. As evidence, consider just how difficult it is to prosecute sexual abuse cases in the Roman Catholic church, or how long the Christians vs Jews, Christians vs Muslims fighting has been going on, and how implacably insidious the Israel vs Palestine conflict has now become.

So... my question comes down to this: can people embrace Absolute Submission and still keep a conscience independent enough to challenge bad acts within their own faith and to protect people outside their faith from the excesses of their own zeal? If so, examples please and show working.

If they can't, then is Absolute Submission a premise that humanity can continue to tolerate?

My starting position is with the freethought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought) camp. Other than the simplistic appeal of conformity I don't see any benefit from Absolute Submission whatsoever, but I do see prolonged and appalling cost.

To put it simply, complete submission to G-d's will is what we should strive for. It is difficult to do and even more difficult to maintain, but it is only through the complete acceptance of whatever G-d wills for us that we can truly be somewhat on the same page as Him. He separated us from the animals by giving us Free Will, which allows us to choose whether or not to do and accept His will. The existence of free will is not a negation of G-d, it is quite the opposite. It is part of our special relationship to G-d that not even angels have.

You are still under the assumption that man gets to decide what is moral. That is where your logic breaks down. Man does not decide what is moral. G-d does. We can use our free will to follow that morality or to decide if others are following that morality, but we do not and cannot create morality. We most certainly cannot judge the morality of G-d.

The question I think you're asking is one that I don't even need to ask. I see no issue in complete submission to G-d's will while simultaneously challenging acts that go against G-d's word. If I am understanding you correctly, you are asking if that is possible. We (Jews) do this everyday. We sit and decide if doing a certain thing goes against halakha (Jewish law) or not based on what G-d has said and what the Sages have extracted from the Written and Oral Laws.

An example would be something like this. On the Sabbath, we are forbidden from doing any work. There are 39 categories of things that are considered work, and from these 39 categories, many things are either forbidden or allowed. One of these things is discussing plans for after the Sabbath that involve activities forbidden on the Sabbath. The Shulchan Aruch says that doing so is forbidden (307:1); however, I have yet to meet a person who actually abides to that rule--including myself. Just yesterday I was discussing staying somewhere for the High Holy Days, and I was asked to call someone after the Sabbath was over in order to figure it out. I agreed. Technically, I should not even have been engaged in such a conversation as to avoid transgressing something like that, but it is not a rule enacted by G-d--rather, it is a rule enacted by Rabbis to prevent the transgression of the Sabbath. Still, I chose to ignore it.

Now, I sit here today and tell myself that I should refrain from doing something like that in the future. I know it will be hard not to, since it is difficult to not speak of any of the things forbidden on the Sabbath; however, I have to try.

Something bigger would be the issue of reform and conservative Jews driving on the Sabbath. This is an extreme desecration of the Sabbath, and goes against the actual word of G-d, not just some extra rules. It is because of this desecration that we are still waiting for Redemption. It is why we pray three times a day for a return to the Torah and to G-d by all Jews.

However, we also know that the Torah was given to the Jews. Its commandments are for the Jews. Other than the 7 Noahide Laws that appear in its text, none of it is meant for the other nations. As such, we do not expect or even recommend that anyone else really read any of it unless they desire to make it part of their lives. Reading it and attempting to interpret it outside of Judaism is dangerous and can lead to many bad things, such as the many horrendous religious wars and persecutions in the "name of G-d." This is why the Rabbis decreed it against halakha to teach non-Jews Torah. Non-Jews aren't required to have such a strict and detailed lifestyle, and trying to get them to accept and participate in it is dangerous to everyone. It is also why we choose to separate ourselves and decry assimilation.

I'm not sure if that answered your question, but I hope it did. If not, let me know what I misunderstood about your question.

AMCrenshaw

08-03-2009, 02:17 AM

So... my question comes down to this: can people embrace Absolute Submission and still keep a conscience independent enough to challenge bad acts within their own faith and to protect people outside their faith from the excesses of their own zeal? If so, examples please and show working.

Of course, but interestingly enough I don't think it's the norm. The Absolute that Spong, Ricoeur, Borg, Ellul, Merton submitted and submit to are all different, and I don't think their sense of self-righteousness is so overwhelming that they cannot have an impartial conscience. And among these most have or had been many outspoken critics of people within their faith. Are they the exception, though, and not the rule?

AMC

CACTUSWENDY

08-03-2009, 02:44 AM

semilargeintestine

08-03-2009, 02:47 AM

IMHO.....IMHO....IMHO

My kids had free will. Sometimes it worked out well, sometimes not. They had some rules to follow and if they chose to take a different route, depending how far different, they had consequences that might take place. Now most of the time I knew what the 'different route' outcome would involve, but they made the choice. When they came crying to me that it was a bad choice....my first words many times were along the lines of 'I could have told you that or I warned you'.

This did not make me God but in their young eyes it did give the impression that I knew what I was talking about. If the 'different route' required some consequence that I had to allow....then it happened.

Sometimes the consequence was for something down the line. (The movie they so wanted to see. The party they wanted to go to. Etc.) A couple of times it was a choice that even caused some physical damage and as a result the whole family became involved in the consequence. It was not my plan, but stuff sometimes has fall out that effects others.

By the time they became adults I had hoped that their choices would reflect the guidance that was learned in their younger years. I'm sorry to say, that just being an adult does not always mean you make all the right choices.

For every action there is a reaction of some sort. Not all is a walk through a rose garden. I have no problem, and never did, knowing that God wants the best for me. He has given me a guide map and 'speaks' to me when I really seek His direction. Many times, more than I like to admit, I still take a 'different route'. I too pay for the consequences of these said actions. Sometimes it effects many others around me.

But just as I still love my kids during all these types of times, He still loves me and keeps trying to steer me in the best way I should go.

All this is said IMHO. Take what you want and throw away the rest.

Very well said. I address the problem of free will and G-d knowing everything with a simple example, but yours is also good. Assume you have a time machine. You travel forward to tomorrow and see that your friend is going to wear a red shirt that day. You then travel back in time and let it take its natural course. You do NOT tell your friend what you know. Now, you know your friend is going to choose the red shirt over the blue shirt, but does that make it any less of a choice? No.

G-d wants us to follow His will, but He has given us the choice to do so or not. He ultimately knows what our choices will be, and it definitely does not please Him to punish us. It is like when a parent punishes a child after they do something wrong, even if the parent knew it would happen. Our Father does not enjoy punishing us, but it is necessary sometimes.

Ruv Draba

08-03-2009, 04:06 AM

You are still under the assumption that man gets to decide what is moral.Actually my starting-point is that my observation and compassion, while fallible, do a fair job of looking after me and my fellow human-beings. I know this from experience: that the more I observe and the harder I try to feel for and understand my fellow humans, the better I treat them. Yes, it might be possible to do a better job by deferring my observation and compassion to a wiser source, but the good of doing that would need to be demonstrated. It can't simply be asserted or (worse) coerced with threats and promises.

I also observe that every tribe (religious or not) has customs and taboos... they're all different and I don't believe that breaking customs or taboos is bad unless it does some obvious harm. It may however, offend.

To my thinking, Absolute Submission requires us to do two things that seem very strange, even dangerous:

Adopt a single set of customs, taboos and myths that become inviolate. We can't challenge them, test or question them;
Let others -- elders, leaders, or the authors of books -- tell us what conscience we should have and when we should have it.Even if you believe that your particular religion is divinely inspired, you'd probably have to agree that not all religions which demand Absolute Submission are. We might differ on detail but I think we'd all agree that some myths are outright false, that some customs are harmful, some taboos are ignorant, and that some elders are either unfitting to deserve our deference, or outright immoral in what they do with such deference.

And that leads me to the conclusion that if some are wrong then all must be challenged. If we want to make a case that one religion shouldn't be challenged on its morality then I'd expect that it would have to be noticably different in its moral behaviour from the others -- e.g. free from sect-divisions, free from exploitation of its faithful, free from persecution of outsiders.

I haven't seen one like that among the religions which demand Absolute Submission; rather I've seen the reverse.

That is where your logic breaks down. Man does not decide what is moral. G-d does.I think you missed my earlier point, Semi. Humans pick their religious practices, unless they're coerced into them. Upon what basis should they pick them other than what they see to be true and what they see to be moral? If that's the case then isn't every religion (and its supposed deities) accountable to us for their truth, the quality of their beliefs and their behaviour?
The question I think you're asking is one that I don't even need to ask.I'm aware of that, but are you aware that implicit faith in the supreme infallibility of your own beliefs may prevent you from understanding the question in the first place? :) That's what I hinted at earlier: if you can't understand the question, you may not be able to answer it.
Non-Jews aren't required to have such a strict and detailed lifestyle, and trying to get them to accept and participate in it is dangerous to everyone. It is also why we choose to separate ourselves and decry assimilation.Thank you for the example. I agree that such an approach can help prevent persecution of other peoples, and of course it helps preserve custom too. Does it also limit compassion for gentiles? Is that a good thing? What can be done about it?

Ruv Draba

08-03-2009, 04:36 AM

My kids had free will.Had? They don't have it now?

Sometimes it worked out well, sometimes not.Of course. Experience counts. But have there also been times when you told your children not to do something, they did it anyway, and you learned from it? Did you ever discover that perhaps you'd been too prescriptive? That your own knowledge is subject to bias and ignorance? Or have your parental answers always been infallible? :)

I observe that humans are a wiser bunch now than once they were. We're better doctors, psychologists, negotiators, teachers, parents than we have ever been in recorded history. There's plenty of material evidence to support this, yet the older Absolute Submission religions have a very hard time taking this into account.

I'd agree that free will without wisdom to know what to do with it is largely useless, but I'd also contend that wisdom without the free will to apply it is also largely wasted. :)

Ruv Draba

08-03-2009, 04:40 AM

Of course, but interestingly enough I don't think it's the norm. The Absolute that Spong, Ricoeur, Borg, Ellul, Merton submitted and submit to are all different, and I don't think their sense of self-righteousness is so overwhelming that they cannot have an impartial conscience.By Absolute Submission I mean Absolutely Submitting -- not Submitting to an Absolute. :)

Spong clearly questions. One of his favourite quotes is 'Your God is Not Big Enough'. I suspect that he yields much of his self-interest, but not his individual conscience. Which is fine by me. :)

semilargeintestine

08-03-2009, 05:07 AM

Actually my starting-point is that my observation and compassion, while fallible, do a fair job of looking after me and my fellow human-beings. I know this from experience: that the more I observe and the harder I try to feel for and understand my fellow humans, the better I treat them. Yes, it might be possible to do a better job by deferring my observation and compassion to a wiser source, but the good of doing that would need to be demonstrated. It can't simply be asserted or (worse) coerced with threats and promises.

I also observe that every tribe (religious or not) has customs and taboos... they're all different and I don't believe that breaking customs or taboos is bad unless it does some obvious harm. It may however, offend.

To my thinking, Absolute Submission requires us to do two things that seem very strange, even dangerous:
Adopt a single set of customs, taboos and myths that become inviolate. We can't challenge them, test or question them;
Let others -- elders, leaders, or the authors of books -- tell us what conscience we should have and when we should have it.Even if you believe that your particular religion is divinely inspired, you'd probably have to agree that not all religions which demand Absolute Submission are. We might differ on detail but I think we'd all agree that some myths are outright false, that some customs are harmful, some taboos are ignorant, and that some elders are either unfitting to deserve our deference, or outright immoral in what they do with such deference.

I definitely believe that most religions are not divinely inspired. I believe that G-d provides other things on this earth in order to test us, and many, many people choose to attribute G-d-like status to them; however, I am fortunate enough to be Jewish and therefore be aware that there is only one religion--believe in G-d. The Jews are not just a religion, but a people like the Egyptians and the Assyrians. We were taken out of Egypt and given the Torah so that we may establish a covenant with Him; however, He is not just our G-d, He is just G-d. Whether other people choose to believe in Him or not is ultimately up to them.

And so, yes, I believe that some nations' customs and habits are very harmful and undeniably wrong (maybe misguided is more PC). However, that is not a limitation of G-d, but rather a limitation on the human ability to comprehend Him.

And that leads me to the conclusion that if some are wrong then all must be challenged. If we want to make a case that one religion shouldn't be challenged on its morality then I'd expect that it would have to be noticably different in its moral behaviour from the others -- e.g. free from sect-divisions, free from exploitation of its faithful, free from persecution of outsiders.

I haven't seen one like that among the religions which demand Absolute Submission; rather I've seen the reverse.

Then I would advise you to take a look at Judaism. Unlike other religions, our different 'sects' are simply different levels of observance. Outside of Orthodox Judaism, you have multiple groups who are not observant and who have changed the tenets of Judaism in order to justify--for lack of a more PC term--their sinning. However, Orthodox Judaism holds that these groups are outside of Judaism and essentially cut off from Israel. We hope that they will one day return, but right now I think only Moshiach is capable of making that happen (through the help of G-d).

Within Orthodox Judaism, we have different groups; however, a Modern Orthodox Jew who wears a baseball hat to shul and a Lubavitcher who wears a black hat everywhere do not disagree on the central beliefs of Judaism. There are simply just different cultural differences, which is to be expected from a nation that has not had a common homeland in 2,000 years.

In addition, the Jews may be one of the only nations in history who have not started a war. We are also commanded to not be missionaries, not try to convert anyone, and we are forbidden from mistreating anyone simply because they have different religious beliefs.

As far as exploitation of the faithful, I can think of a few religions who are guilty of that. However, that doesn't occur in Judaism. There is no "church" of Judaism. We have leaders of our generation, but that's the extent of it. There are bad apples in every religion though, and I'm sure you've seen the case with the Rabbeim who laundered money, etc. I have had friends ask me why it is okay for them to do those things, yet it is not okay for non-Jews to do so. I just want to be clear that it is NOT okay for any Jew to do something so horrendous. They will most certainly get theirs.

I think you missed my earlier point, Semi. Humans pick their religious practices, unless they're coerced into them. Upon what basis should they pick them other than what they see to be true and what they see to be moral? If that's the case then isn't every religion (and its supposed deities) accountable to us for their truth, the quality of their beliefs and their behaviour?

They should pick their religious belief based on what they know to be true. However, assuming they use morality as a benchmark, if they choose a religion that goes against the morality outlined by G-d, then they have chosen wrong. A religion created by man cannot be more moral than G-d.

I'm aware of that, but are you aware that implicit faith in the supreme infallibility of your own beliefs may prevent you from understanding the question in the first place? :) That's what I hinted at earlier: if you can't understand the question, you may not be able to answer it.

I guess. I am what you call a Ba'al Teshuvah, or a Master of Return. It is what we call Jews who grew up in non-religious homes and became religious later in life for some reason. When I was growing up, I certainly did not think submitting myself completely to G-d was necessary or even a good idea. Now, I can't even fathom not doing so, and I am unsure why I ever questioned it in the first place.

Thank you for the example. I agree that such an approach can help prevent persecution of other peoples, and of course it helps preserve custom too. Does it also limit compassion for gentiles? Is that a good thing? What can be done about it?

It does not limit compassion for gentiles. In fact, we are required to treat righteous gentiles just as well as we would treat a Jew.

Ruv Draba

08-03-2009, 05:54 AM

The Jews are not just a religion, but a people like the Egyptians and the Assyrians.Yes, which can make it a bit hard to separate the religion from the secular culture. I don't have the expertise to even try to do that, but I will pick up a few points you made below.
In addition, the Jews may be one of the only nations in history who have not started a war.My father's descended from Gypsies and I imagine that they haven't either. But I can't claim because it's cos they're a very moral folk with a superior religion; it's simply because being homeless nomads living under the strained tolerance of a host population, it's almost impossible to sustain a war.

Give them a homeland though and put advanced weapons in their hands and I think that we'd see the xenophobic tribalism of the Romani turn into aggressive foreign policy (armoured vardos with howitzers anyone)?
http://www.theblackforestfancies.com/mm/stationery/ThumbnailGrid/vardo2.jpg

I think it's hard to argue that the state of Israel does not also exhibit those characteristics at times. Israel is indistinguishable from a colonial power; it does what colonial powers do. I don't believe that it's doing it any differently.

we are forbidden from mistreating anyone simply because they have different religious beliefs.For some reason that tradition didn't extend to Islam or Christianity. Alas but it seems to have been overlooked in the Palestine conflict at times too. :( Because Jewry overlaps religion and ethnicity I have no idea how much of bad Israeli behaviour is based on religious intolerance, and how much is simply ethnic hate. I don't know that anyone could make an argument that it's 'only' ethnic hate though, since in both Israeli and Palestinian cases, religion is a key part of ethnic identity.

As far as exploitation of the faithful, I can think of a few religions who are guilty of that.I'm not close enough to Jewry to know, but I would observe that a patriarchal family structure seems to offer lots of opportunity to exploit the women and children. That has happened in patriarchal Christian and Muslim homes historically, and continues in some places today. I don't have enough Jewish lore to substantiate it there, but I'll assume that it has unless someone can show me that there's special reason it can't occur.

They should pick their religious belief based on what they know to be true. However, assuming they use morality as a benchmark, if they choose a religion that goes against the morality outlined by G-d, then they have chosen wrong....in your opinion, SLI. But would you also agree that if someone pursuing compassion and truth finds legitimate reason to reject a belief -- for its consistent cruelty, bigotry or deceit, say -- then the fault lies with the religion as it's practiced? And if religious practice does not provide exemplary display of its own ideals, doesn't that throw doubt on the virtue of submission to that religion as a social construct?

I certainly did not think submitting myself completely to G-d was necessary or even a good idea. Now, I can't even fathom not doing so, and I am unsure why I ever questioned it in the first place.Have you lost some compassion for the person you once were?

It does not limit compassion for gentiles. In fact, we are required to treat righteous gentiles just as well as we would treat a Jew.Truly? I'd find that surprising if it were true. In my experience, tribes favour their own. They may be respectful of other tribes but they're seldom as compassionate toward the people of other tribes as they are to their own. Do orthodox Jews for instance, contribute more money to non-Jewish charities than to Jewish ones? When they adopt children, do they prefer to adopt children born to a Jewish mother?

It's really hard to be equally compassionate to people outside our tribe. If our tribe is a religious one, then we'll generally keep as many of our resources as we can focused on our religious purposes. Christian churches seldom give up property to secular bodies. Jewish people have a reputation for even greater insularity -- though I don't know whether that reputation is wholly deserved.

AMCrenshaw

08-03-2009, 05:59 AM

Spong clearly questions. One of his favourite quotes is 'Your God is Not Big Enough'. I suspect that he yields much of his self-interest, but not his individual conscience. Which is fine by me.

I think they all submitted themselves absolutely.

AMC

semilargeintestine

08-03-2009, 06:51 AM

Yes, which can make it a bit hard to separate the religion from the secular culture. I don't have the expertise to even try to do that, but I will pick up a few points you made below.
My father's descended from Gypsies and I imagine that they haven't either. But I can't claim because it's cos they're a very moral folk with a superior religion; it's simply because being homeless nomads living under the strained tolerance of a host population, it's almost impossible to sustain a war.

Give them a homeland though and put advanced weapons in their hands and I think that we'd see the xenophobic tribalism of the Romani turn into aggressive foreign policy (armoured vardos with howitzers anyone)?
http://www.theblackforestfancies.com/mm/stationery/ThumbnailGrid/vardo2.jpg

I think it's hard to argue that the state of Israel does not also exhibit those characteristics at times. Israel is indistinguishable from a colonial power; it does what colonial powers do. I don't believe that it's doing it any differently.

Two things here. One, I can tell you that Jews don't start wars because of a moral issue. We are forbidden from starting any war unless it is mandated by G-d, and that doesn't happen anymore. The wars we have been engaged in were all in self-defense, which is required. Unfortunately, the world has yet to learn the lesson that if you try to wipe us out, you will probably end up being wiped out yourself (see, e.g., the Babylonians, the Romans, the Ancient Greeks, the Ancient Egyptians, the Persians, the Assyrians, Nazi Germany, etc., etc.).

Second, Israel is not a colonial power. Israel has not occupied any territory. The concept that Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza is a complete load of bullshit (pardon my French) that has been spread by the PA in an effort to discredit Israel's right to exist. Without getting into a political debate, I urge you to research the actual history of what happened. I'll just say that the story the media puts out is completely ass backwards.

For some reason that tradition didn't extend to Islam or Christianity. Alas but it seems to have been overlooked in the Palestine conflict at times too. :( Because Jewry overlaps religion and ethnicity I have no idea how much of bad Israeli behaviour is based on religious intolerance, and how much is simply ethnic hate. I don't know that anyone could make an argument that it's 'only' ethnic hate though, since in both Israeli and Palestinian cases, religion is a key part of ethnic identity.

Not sure if you mean hate against Jews or Palestinians. If you clarify, I can answer you properly.

I'm not close enough to Jewry to know, but I would observe that a patriarchal family structure seems to offer lots of opportunity to exploit the women and children. That has happened in patriarchal Christian and Muslim homes historically, and continues in some places today. I don't have enough Jewish lore to substantiate it there, but I'll assume that it has unless someone can show me that there's special reason it can't occur.

Judaism is matriarchal. The woman determines whether or not the children are even Jewish, and the woman is considered to be the crown of the home and the spiritual rock of the family. It is well documented in the Torah that without the women in their lives, our forefathers would have been lost. In fact, Jews would not even exist today if it was not for Sarah. We consider women to be spiritually superior to men.

Any abuse that happens against women and children is not a product of Judaism, but a flaw in that individual.

...in your opinion, SLI. But would you also agree that if someone pursuing compassion and truth finds legitimate reason to reject a belief -- for its consistent cruelty, bigotry or deceit, say -- then the fault lies with the religion as it's practiced? And if religious practice does not provide exemplary display of its own ideals, doesn't that throw doubt on the virtue of submission to that religion as a social construct?

You're making a different argument to try and refute mine. I'm saying that G-d determines morality. If you pick a religion that follows those morals, that is good. If you pick a religion that goes against it, you have picked an immoral religion. It really is as simple as that.

Have you lost some compassion for the person you once were?

Not at all. I feel sorry for the person I was.

Truly? I'd find that surprising if it were true. In my experience, tribes favour their own. They may be respectful of other tribes but they're seldom as compassionate toward the people of other tribes as they are to their own.

We are commanded to "Love [our] stranger" (Deut. 10:19), "Not wrong the stranger in speech" (Ex. 22:20), and "Not wrong the stranger in buying or selling" (Ex. 22:20). These are the Biblical commandments found in the Written Torah. Exploring the Oral Torah, codified in the Talmud, we see the extensive halakhot that are involved in business practices, speaking about non-Jews, and general treatment of them. As an interesting side note, the Hebrew word used in Deut. 10:19 is ger, which can mean both convert and gentile; therefore, we are obligated to treat both with the same respect given to a Jew from birth.

Do orthodox Jews for instance, contribute more money to non-Jewish charities than to Jewish ones?

We are required to give 20% of our income to charity, with half of that going to the poor. The recipient of said charity does not have to be Jewish.

When they adopt children, do they prefer to adopt children born to a Jewish mother?

No. In fact, my parents adopted a Cuban baby three years ago.

It's really hard to be equally compassionate to people outside our tribe. If our tribe is a religious one, then we'll generally keep as many of our resources as we can focused on our religious purposes. Christian churches seldom give up property to secular bodies. Jewish people have a reputation for even greater insularity -- though I don't know whether that reputation is wholly deserved.

It may be hard to believe, but while we seek to keep ourselves separated from the rest of society so that we may remain Jewish, it does not mean that we treat everyone else poorly. It is quite the opposite, in fact. It would take a long time for me to go through the extensive network of laws, so I just ask you to believe me when I say that Jewish law encompasses every aspect of a Jew's life, including how we deal with people who are not Jewish. These laws require us to not only treat them with respect, but actually have respect for them and like them unless given a reason not to.

Ruv Draba

08-03-2009, 09:43 AM

Two things here. One, I can tell you that Jews don't start wars because of a moral issue.Historically, many wars are created by a conflict of tribal self-interests, then escalated by religions. Even when religious difference doesn't cause the aggression, it often exacerbates it by creating belief that treats the enemy of the day as less moral (and hence less deserving of life, freedom and respect) than the home side. Belief in Absolute Submission then makes support of the conflict sacred and righteous, and opposition to the war not only a betrayal of tribe, but a religious profanity. All states can get nationalistic at times, but Absolute Submission can make a nation blind to its own atrocities.

In fairness, some sects of some religions are so strongly adverse to these excesses that they refrain from participating at all. But historically these tend to be a minority -- often a disliked minority -- of their own society.

I don't know how this applies to the state of Israel, but do you really believe that its military has not at times been guilty of excesses, and that its religious leaders have not sometimes celebrated or overlooked those excesses because of religious bigotry?

Unfortunately, the world has yet to learn the lesson that if you try to wipe us out, you will probably end up being wiped out yourselfI certainly don't want to see Jews lose their state or be wiped out... but this is the sort of talk I'm concerned about. It's supremacist talk -- and many cultures do it. When they do it, it often draws on religion. I don't exactly know why absolute submission so often leads to supremacism... Perhaps that's part of the psychological payoff? Submit to some all-powerful divinity and then believe that you're Chosen, Superior and Invulnerable?

I don't see that side of it as healthy or good.
Second, Israel is not a colonial power. Israel has not occupied any territory.I certainly don't want to get embroiled in a political debate in this forum, but I would point out that the 2004 advisory ruling (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&p1=3&p2=1&case=131&p3=6) of the International Court of Justice disagrees. In a 14 to 1 opinion, the ICJ said that:

Recalling that the Security Council described Israel’s policy of establishing settlements in that territory as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court finds that those settlements have been established in breach of international law. It further considers certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall will prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine; it considers that the construction of the wall and its associated régime “create a ‘fait accompli’ on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, . . . [the construction of the wall] would be tantamount to de facto annexation”.
The UN supported this advice in a vote of condemnation (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11418&Cr=middle&Cr1=east) of 150 to 6. Israel, the US, and Australia were among the handful of dissenters.

Even if you think that Israel is not acting as a colonial power, the evidence is that it sailed close to the wind on this matter, and that other views are not simply created by media bias. Whether you want to argue that Israel isn't acting like a colonial power these days, it's hard to argue that it's never thinking like one.
Judaism is matriarchal. The woman determines whether or not the children are even Jewish, and the woman is considered to be the crown of the home and the spiritual rock of the family.I believe that you mean matrilineal. Women in Islam are considered precious to the home too -- yet in traditional Islam it is the men who study and interpret the Qur'an. My understanding is that in traditional orthodox Judaism, it is men who study and interpret the Torah. If so, I'd consider that a prima facie case for patriarchy -- even if it's a matrilineal society. I also understand that this is causing strain in orthodox Jewry -- perhaps in a similar way that lack of female priests is causing strain in some Christian sects.

Any abuse that happens against women and children is not a product of Judaism, but a flaw in that individual.I would suggest that when women aren't permitted to interpret religious law then it's hard for them to represent their interests in the religion. If compassion toward women extends to equity in religious discussions (and I think it's hard to argue that it shouldn't) then I'd consider its absence to be a flaw in the religion.

You're making a different argument to try and refute mine. I'm saying that G-d determines morality. If you pick a religion that follows those morals, that is good. If you pick a religion that goes against it, you have picked an immoral religion. It really is as simple as that.Except that your beliefs are supreme only in your opinion. To a pluralistic world, your views are just a voice in the noise of secular and sectarian voices, and with a world Jewish population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population#cite_note-3) of 13M or so (of whom only a fraction are orthodox), compared to 6B or so.. it's hard to argue that dissenting voices shouldn't be heard, and millennia of other, cumulative knowledge and insights shouldn't be weighed equally. Moreover, a decline in Jewry of 50K per year (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/04/1038712942028.html) (no longer attributable to genocide) suggests to me that Judaism itself is suffering a decline in relevance and credibility, just as Christianity is.

We are required to give 20% of our income to charity, with half of that going to the poor. The recipient of said charity does not have to be Jewish.Wow. 20% is high by anyone's standards. Are stats kept on where it goes?
No. In fact, my parents adopted a Cuban baby three years ago.Mazel Tov! :)

I just ask you to believe me when I say that Jewish law encompasses every aspect of a Jew's life, including how we deal with people who are not Jewish. These laws require us to not only treat them with respect, but actually have respect for them and like them unless given a reason not to.I believe that you're knowledgable in your faith, that you're devoted in your practice and that you have a sincere if limited respect for people outside your faith. Based on external evidence, I don't necessarily agree with all your claims and conclusions though.

CACTUSWENDY

08-03-2009, 10:01 AM

Had/have did not go well with the verb choice I made. lol...Is why I left it past tense.

GeorgeK

08-04-2009, 01:34 AM

You missed the question. Ruv was asking how can we DISTINGUISH between:
and:
:popcorn:

The short answer is you might not have the ability. That's why it's important to live to an ideal (the ideal being that God knows better than we do, hence submission to God's will) and not to follow the clergy or any other human.

GeorgeK

08-04-2009, 01:46 AM

To my thinking, Absolute Submission requires us to do two things that seem very strange, even dangerous:

Adopt a single set of customs, taboos and myths that become inviolate. We can't challenge them, test or question them;
Let others -- elders, leaders, or the authors of books -- tell us what conscience we should have and when we should have it.
No, because as I've pointed out before, we are changing. We are evolving. As we evolve our capacity to do God's will increases. Our duties will change as more is expected of us. It is natural that old customs will fall by the wayside as superstition is recognized for what it is; a method for us to do things prior to our our mental capacities to understand the why, and then to change it. Your assumptions deny our mental evolution.

Salis

08-04-2009, 01:56 AM

The question of free will is difficult because we have so much trouble knowing who the Who is, making all the choices.

There are (some pretty creepy) studies that show that the brain basically tells our body to do things right before we consciously decide to do them (this is why there is very little delay). Ah, the sweet taste of determinism. :D

semilargeintestine

08-04-2009, 02:34 AM

Historically, many wars are created by a conflict of tribal self-interests, then escalated by religions. Even when religious difference doesn't cause the aggression, it often exacerbates it by creating belief that treats the enemy of the day as less moral (and hence less deserving of life, freedom and respect) than the home side. Belief in Absolute Submission then makes support of the conflict sacred and righteous, and opposition to the war not only a betrayal of tribe, but a religious profanity. All states can get nationalistic at times, but Absolute Submission can make a nation blind to its own atrocities.

In fairness, some sects of some religions are so strongly adverse to these excesses that they refrain from participating at all. But historically these tend to be a minority -- often a disliked minority -- of their own society.

I don't know how this applies to the state of Israel, but do you really believe that its military has not at times been guilty of excesses, and that its religious leaders have not sometimes celebrated or overlooked those excesses because of religious bigotry?

I certainly don't want to see Jews lose their state or be wiped out... but this is the sort of talk I'm concerned about. It's supremacist talk -- and many cultures do it. When they do it, it often draws on religion. I don't exactly know why absolute submission so often leads to supremacism... Perhaps that's part of the psychological payoff? Submit to some all-powerful divinity and then believe that you're Chosen, Superior and Invulnerable?

I don't see that side of it as healthy or good.
I certainly don't want to get embroiled in a political debate in this forum, but I would point out that the 2004 advisory ruling (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&p1=3&p2=1&case=131&p3=6) of the International Court of Justice disagrees. In a 14 to 1 opinion, the ICJ said that:

The UN supported this advice in a vote of condemnation (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11418&Cr=middle&Cr1=east) of 150 to 6. Israel, the US, and Australia were among the handful of dissenters.

Even if you think that Israel is not acting as a colonial power, the evidence is that it sailed close to the wind on this matter, and that other views are not simply created by media bias. Whether you want to argue that Israel isn't acting like a colonial power these days, it's hard to argue that it's never thinking like one.

I'll just address this all at once without getting into detail so that we don't get too far off topic. If you'd like to actually discuss it (and I don't mean argue back and forth, I mean actually have a discussion), we can do so over PM or whatever. I'm always up for intellectual political debate.

Anyway, I'll just say a couple of things.

As far as being Chosen goes, I am not ashamed to say that the Jews are G-d's Chosen People. Denying it is an apologist position that many reform "Jews" have taken in order to help themselves assimilate. The Bible (which is not refuted by Christians or Muslims) says that we are, and the prophecies regarding our people have and continue to come true. The majority of Christians I meet refer to Jews as G-d's people, as have many popes. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant.

As far as the IDF goes, I agree that some of their actions have not always been the best. However, they have not acted unjustly to just one group. They frequently destroy Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, which are NOT occupied territories, but Jewish towns. They burn and destroy Jewish religious items and buildings. Israelis are extremely secular for the most part, and I dare say many of them wish that Israel was not a "Jewish State."

As far as the ICJ ruling goes, it ignores the fact that the territories supposedly "occupied" by Israel were not originally allocated to Jordan. In 1948, Jordan annexed that territory, killed thousands of Jews, and expelled even more. They then dumped Arab settlers in that land and claimed they were refugees. Let us also not forget that from 1948 until 1967 when it was part of Jordan, there was not a single call to create a Palestinian state. In addition, the people who were displaced during the 1967 War did not number in the millions, but in the tens of thousands. Israel also did not force them to leave, but offered them citizenship and full rights. Many of them fled for fear that Israel would seek revenge on them, and many of them were told to leave by the Arab world. This fact was just admitted by the gentleman who helped found Fattah. Let's also not forget that Israel has returned 97% of the land it took in the 1967 War, and each time it gave up land, the land was taken and used as a way to further the attacks on Israel. The PM has called on the Arab countries to come to the negotiation table without pre-conditions, and they have repeatedly refused. They have been offered all the land taken in 1967 including East Jerusalem many times on the conditions that they stop committing terrorist acts against Israel, and each time they have refused. Stop listening to the anti-Semitic news in this country and listen to the Arab news. They say it plain and clear that they only seek to destroy Israel.

Finally, if you are unaware that the UN is one of the most anti-Semitic organisations in the world, you have some serious research to do. Nearly all of their "resolutions" regarding the I-A conflict have been against Israel, completely ignoring the blatant acts of terrorism and human rights violations committed almost daily by the Palestinians. They also had a "conference on racism" where they proceeded to spend hours discussing why Zionism is racist.

I believe that you mean matrilineal. Women in Islam are considered precious to the home too -- yet in traditional Islam it is the men who study and interpret the Qur'an. My understanding is that in traditional orthodox Judaism, it is men who study and interpret the Torah. If so, I'd consider that a prima facie case for patriarchy -- even if it's a matrilineal society. I also understand that this is causing strain in orthodox Jewry -- perhaps in a similar way that lack of female priests is causing strain in some Christian sects.

I did mean matrilineal. I saw it that way when I typed it, but obviously that's not what I actually typed. Thanks for the correction. And you are not completely correct. Women are not only encouraged to learn, but are required to learn Torah and all the halakhot. Women typically do not study Gemara, but that has nothing to do with interpretting anything. The people who interpret are Rabbis. Women can't become rabbis for numerous reasons that are almost certainly vastly different and more logical than the reasons why they can't become priests. I am just assuming though. If you are curious, let me know.

Regardless, Orthodox women do not WANT to become rabbeim. You ask any Orthodox Jewish woman if she wants to become a rabbi, and she will laugh at you--not because she wants to and can't, but because she would never have any desire to.

I would suggest that when women aren't permitted to interpret religious law then it's hard for them to represent their interests in the religion. If compassion toward women extends to equity in religious discussions (and I think it's hard to argue that it shouldn't) then I'd consider its absence to be a flaw in the religion.

Don't put words in my...screen. I never said there was a lack of religious discussion by women. I also never said they are not allowed to represent their interests. We don't decide things based on what we want, we decide them based on what G-d wants. He wants the woman to be the head of the house, so she is. Maybe in orther religions women get abused because they are not clergy; however, that is not a problem in Judaism.

Except that your beliefs are supreme only in your opinion. To a pluralistic world, your views are just a voice in the noise of secular and sectarian voices, and with a world Jewish population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population#cite_note-3) of 13M or so (of whom only a fraction are orthodox), compared to 6B or so.. it's hard to argue that dissenting voices shouldn't be heard, and millennia of other, cumulative knowledge and insights shouldn't be weighed equally. Moreover, a decline in Jewry of 50K per year (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/04/1038712942028.html) (no longer attributable to genocide) suggests to me that Judaism itself is suffering a decline in relevance and credibility, just as Christianity is.

Judaism is suffering a decline in relevance? Take a look at the laws of any country on this planet. Take a look at Christianity's Ten Commandments. Where do you think that all came from? Before Judaism, there were no separate courts or system of criminal and civil law, no divorce or standard written marriage contracts, no business law, no loaning on credit, etc. Judaism was born in a world where the strongest were the most powerful, men ruled over women absolutely, you took what you could and killing was not punishable by a fixed sentence, and killing children for deformities and congenital problems was the norm. Where do you think your standards of morality come from? Whether you realise it or not, they come from Judaism.

Our low population was foretold by G-d. Yet, He will ensure we will always be around--an eternal people. By all logical reasoning, we should not exist today, but we have outlasted every other great nation while not having a common homeland, race, or language for more than 2/3 of our existence.

Wow. 20% is high by anyone's standards. Are stats kept on where it goes?
Mazel Tov! :)

I'm sure there is, but I don't know where to find it. Most of us just give any chance we get. It is a mitzvah to give a friend or family member money to give as charity when they go away. I give money every day when I go to pray, and whenever I see someone asking for money on the street, I try to give them something. I have no clue if these people are Jewish or not.

I believe that you're knowledgable in your faith, that you're devoted in your practice and that you have a sincere if limited respect for people outside your faith. Based on external evidence, I don't necessarily agree with all your claims and conclusions though.

I'd like to see your "evidence." If your evidence contradicts what I'm saying, you're either misunderstanding it, or it's incorrect. It's true that there are bad apples in Judaism, but that is no different than any other religion. For some reason people tend to point at when a Jew does something wrong and use it as evidence that our entire faith is a fraud; yet, all the horrendous things happening in the Church and with Islam don't make people bat an eyelash. Such is life, and this was also foretold in Torah.

benbradley

08-04-2009, 02:48 AM

The short answer is you might not have the ability. That's why it's important to live to an ideal (the ideal being that God knows better than we do, hence submission to God's will) and not to follow the clergy or any other human.
So how do you (the general you) know know this ideal, or know what God's will is, any better than any other human?

STKlingaman

08-04-2009, 02:52 AM

L O L

God and Free Will
are you kidding?

I'm not gonna say anything else.

semilargeintestine

08-04-2009, 02:55 AM

L O L

God and Free Will
are you kidding?

I'm not gonna say anything else.

Really? Wow.

AMCrenshaw

08-04-2009, 03:07 AM

evolution does not mean "progress" -- better to say "change".

Ruv Draba

08-04-2009, 04:06 AM

I'd like to see your "evidence." If your evidence contradicts what I'm saying, you're either misunderstanding it, or it's incorrect. It's true that there are bad apples in Judaism, but that is no different than any other religion. For some reason people tend to point at when a Jew does something wrong and use it as evidence that our entire faith is a fraud; yet, all the horrendous things happening in the Church and with Islam don't make people bat an eyelash. Such is life, and this was also foretold in Torah.SLI, I don't believe that it's productive to debate some of the things you're saying, but I still don't believe them.

Personally, I'm a critic of supremacist myths in any faith, and I see enough of it in Christianity and Islam to leave a bad taste in my mouth -- indeed I'm challenging the legitimacy of supermacist myths (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3881363&postcount=71) over in the 'Freedom of Religion' thread as we write. I don't like it in Judaism any better.

I'm aware that such myths are comforts when a people are oppressed and afraid -- as Christians and Jews have been in their history. I also believe that when supremacist myths meet with superior armaments, no good can come of that. Rather than argue it in Israel's case myself, I'll simply note that Israel itself is arguing over this at the moment (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22BRONNER.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&fta=y).

The reasons I don't want to argue it are severalfold. Firstly, Israel is in a win-or-die situation, and has been for thirty-two years. It's hard to imagine that supremacist myths wouldn't appear anyway in that time, if they didn't already exist. Secondly, I agree that it would be unfair to attack Israel's excesses and ignore those of Hamas. But on the third hand, I think that it's true that the world is holding Israel to a higher standard as a developed state, and rightly so. There's no question that Israel is a developed state; it's hard to argue that Palestine is a state at all, much less a developed one. Fourthly, I'm aware that the Palestinian people are meat in a sandwich, with various Arabic states using them as proxies. I'm not interested in arguing it at all in this forum, and I wouldn't make good-guy/bad-guy arguments regardless of where I argued it.

I won't pursue your claim that 'Orthodox women don't want to be rabbeim', because it's a potentially circular argument, like 'All true Muslim women want to wear the hijab'. There are benefits in being able to interpret laws; I see it as naive to imagine that women don't sometimes want those benefits or that separation of powers leads to equity. We have too many historical examples to show that it doesn't.

I was interested that you felt giving money to family was charity (there are so many jokes I could make about that, but won't :)). But if it's so then there are probably some spouses who are donating 100% of their income to charity. :D

Lastly, you've made two conspiracy-arguments that I won't bother with at all. One is that the UN is anti-Jewish (you said anti-Semitic, but Arabs and some Ethiopians are also Semitic cultures). I'd simply remind you that the founding of the state of Israel arose from the UN, and was mandated by the League of Nations before it, and that the UK, which was pivotal in founding the state, also voted for censure. The second is a media-conspiracy argument in which I have no interest at all. I generally don't let media tell me what to think -- I go hunting for info myself from diverse sources including Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/). I have to confess though that after decades of 'Jews control the media' conspiracy theories, seeing you make the reverse claim got me chuckling. :)

You may recall that this digression was triggered by your response to my question: Can people embrace Absolute Submission and still keep a conscience independent enough to challenge bad acts within their own faith and to protect people outside their faith from the excesses of their own zeal? If so, examples please and show working. You argued that orthodox Judaism has this down right. I accept that it has some injunctions that head in the right direction, but over-all I wasn't persuaded by your case. I found it too circular an argument, too full of xenophobia and conspiracy-theory propping up its own premises. I couldn't find much air in it to breathe, to be honest.

I think that the anxiety and self-doubt the Israel Defence Force is presently going through is a sign that there are problems reconciling Judaism with the demands of secular conflict. But the fact that it's facing this problem at all while embroiled in a conflict is also a very good sign. Israel feels that it must win or die and I accept that position, but it doesn't want to lose its humanity on the way -- and it takes integrity to recognise that.

Thank you for all the interesting info on Judaism by the way -- especially orthodoxy. Very helpful.

semilargeintestine

08-04-2009, 07:22 AM

stuff about Israel...

We'll just agree to disagree. Luckily, my faith doesn't require anyone else to believe it in order for it to be true.

I won't pursue your claim that 'Orthodox women don't want to be rabbeim', because it's a potentially circular argument, like 'All true Muslim women want to wear the hijab'. There are benefits in being able to interpret laws; I see it as naive to imagine that women don't sometimes want those benefits or that separation of powers leads to equity. We have too many historical examples to show that it doesn't.

It's nothing like that at all. I have never met an Orthodox woman who wanted to be a rabbi. But I think you may misunderstand something. A rabbi is nothing more than a teacher. In fact, that's what rabbi means--my teacher. A rabbi is a person who spends a considerable amount of time in a structured learning environment so that they know more about Torah than the average person. They are then available to answer questions regarding halakha, etc. The position, however, is entrenched in politics and business.

Most Orthodox Jews would rather not become rabbis, but instead become learned and give classes on whatever it is they are most interested in. In fact, there are just as many women who do this as men. It is encouraged and praised. As much as you want to believe that Orthodox Judaism tries to make women inferior, it is simply not true.

I was interested that you felt giving money to family was charity (there are so many jokes I could make about that, but won't :)). But if it's so then there are probably some spouses who are donating 100% of their income to charity. :D

I think you misunderstood, lol. Let me give an example. I am going to Israel at the end of the month. My father will give me 20 dollars to take with me and give to charity while I am over there on his behalf.

Lastly, you've made two conspiracy-arguments that I won't bother with at all. One is that the UN is anti-Jewish (you said anti-Semitic, but Arabs and some Ethiopians are also Semitic cultures). I'd simply remind you that the founding of the state of Israel arose from the UN, and was mandated by the League of Nations before it, and that the UK, which was pivotal in founding the state, also voted for censure. The second is a media-conspiracy argument in which I have no interest at all. I generally don't let media tell me what to think -- I go hunting for info myself from diverse sources including Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/). I have to confess though that after decades of 'Jews control the media' conspiracy theories, seeing you make the reverse claim got me chuckling. :)

I'll let you do the research about the UN. It is painfully obvious to everyone except those who don't want to see it. There is no conspiracy. I don't believe the UN has it "in" for Israel. I just believe they are way too heavy-handed on Israel while simultaneously ignoring everything that the Arab world does. It doesn't matter if the PA is not a state. They are a people who (all of the sudden) are calling for statehood. They should be held to some sort of standard. Terrorism must not be condoned or ignored.

You may recall that this digression was triggered by your response to my question: You argued that orthodox Judaism has this down right. I accept that it has some injunctions that head in the right direction, but over-all I wasn't persuaded by your case. I found it too circular an argument, too full of xenophobia and conspiracy-theory propping up its own premises. I couldn't find much air in it to breathe, to be honest.

That's not surprising. Unless you live it, it is hard to understand. From the outside, Judaism seems to be a very cold, restrictive religion that places itself far above the rest of the world. It's a shame because it's completely untrue. You seem interested, and if you are, I would be happy to have a lengthier discussion with you to help you see what Judaism is really like.

I think that the anxiety and self-doubt the Israel Defence Force is presently going through is a sign that there are problems reconciling Judaism with the demands of secular conflict. But the fact that it's facing this problem at all while embroiled in a conflict is also a very good sign. Israel feels that it must win or die and I accept that position, but it doesn't want to lose its humanity on the way -- and it takes integrity to recognise that.

Hence Israel's policy of warning Arab areas before it attacks. That isn't exactly the best policy to win a battle, but Israel doesn't seek to unnecessarily kill civilians, even if they have committed terrorist acts (and not all of them have, but a lot of them have).

Religious Israel does not believe this is a legitimate war. We are VERY unhappy to be fighting with the Arabs, as war is not allowed by G-d unless it is mandated by Him. The sooner this is over, the better.

Thank you for all the interesting info on Judaism by the way -- especially orthodoxy. Very helpful.

No problem. :)

AMCrenshaw

08-04-2009, 08:19 AM

I read these two lines somewhat together:

Luckily, my faith doesn't require anyone else to believe it in order for it to be true.

You seem interested, and if you are, I would be happy to have a lengthier discussion with you to help you see what Judaism is really like.

and I'd hope that particular kind of truth-waving isn't representative of Judaism entirely.

AMC

semilargeintestine

08-04-2009, 08:34 AM

Not sure I understand. Is there a problem with me offering to help someone understand a very widely misunderstood religion?

AMCrenshaw

08-04-2009, 09:23 AM

The two lines seem to me contrary to each other (truth-waving on the one hand, and sincere desire to enlighten the ignorant man on the other).

Ruv Draba

08-04-2009, 09:53 AM

Not sure I understand. Is there a problem with me offering to help someone understand a very widely misunderstood religion?No problem in offering, but I would draw your attention to a thing called a Trust Quotient (http://trustedadvisor.com/trustmatters/350/Whats-Your-Trust-Quotient-Announcing-a-New-Self-Assessment-Online-Tool) -- which is a fairly well-accepted way to see how readily people will trust your claims. The Trust Quotient adds your Credibility to your Reliability and Intimacy, then divides the total by your Self-Interest.
Credibility: Does he know what he's talking about?
Reliability: If he says it, predicts it or explains it, is it reliable or do I need to check it?
Intimacy: Does he understand it from my point of view?
Self-Interest: Is he working mainly for my benefit, or mainly his own?
The scoring is interpretative, but it can be evidence-based. If we scored each component from 1-5, then our total score could be 0.6 through to 15. We can self-score, or ask others to score for us.

Well-referenced advice tends to increase our Credibility while inconsistencies lower it. Making significant and relevant predictions or explanations that, while surprising, check out as true increases our Reliability; while narrow scope, faulty advice, misleading or biased views tends to decrease it. Advice or information that appeals to a reader's knowledge and feelings increases our Intimacy; advice that ignores these things decreases it. Finally, advice that benefits the giver more than the receiver increases our Self-interest; advice that benefits the recipient more than the giver decreases it. Statistically, an average score should be 3, though people tend to self-rate higher -- around 5-6.

Trust Quotient doesn't say who's right, but it does offer some indication as to who'll be believed. I suspect that AMC's comment may have related to that.

ETA: Just realised that AMC Ninjaed. :)

Ruv Draba

08-04-2009, 11:49 AM

There are (some pretty creepy) studies that show that the brain basically tells our body to do things right before we consciously decide to do them (this is why there is very little delay). Ah, the sweet taste of determinism. :DJust as scarily, there's evidence that we do stuff for one reason, then invent another strong reason for why we did it. Our personal narratives may be at great odds with our actions and we may not even know it.

Ruv Draba

08-04-2009, 12:01 PM

The short answer is you might not have the ability. That's why it's important to live to an ideal (the ideal being that God knows better than we do, hence submission to God's will) and not to follow the clergy or any other human.This may be similar to John Shelby Spong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong)'s thinking.

We are evolving. As we evolve our capacity to do God's will increases. Our duties will change as more is expected of us.That's all fine and other than the God part I agree with it, though I'd use different language. The wiser and more compassionate and more knowledgable we get, the more we should expect of ourselves. I see that as a humanistic sentiment and I embrace it.

But you've added the God part, so I need to ask you: how does it factor, except symbolically? You've already said that God is unknowable, that man is fallible, that custom and tradition date and grow irrelevant. You've apparently rejected observation, compassion and reason as insufficient (and we don't need a religion to use them anyway). So what do you think we should use to determine what is good and what we ought to do?

semilargeintestine

08-05-2009, 02:21 AM

The two lines seem to me contrary to each other (truth-waving on the one hand, and sincere desire to enlighten the ignorant man on the other).

I don't see how they are contradictory. Other people not sharing my faith does not change it. That has nothing to do with the fact that many people know little to nothing about Judaism, and I'd love to help enlighten--to use your word--them if they are curious because knowledge builds bridges.

No problem in offering, but I would draw your attention to a thing called a Trust Quotient (http://trustedadvisor.com/trustmatters/350/Whats-Your-Trust-Quotient-Announcing-a-New-Self-Assessment-Online-Tool) -- which is a fairly well-accepted way to see how readily people will trust your claims. The Trust Quotient adds your Credibility to your Reliability and Intimacy, then divides the total by your Self-Interest.Credibility: Does he know what he's talking about?
Reliability: If he says it, predicts it or explains it, is it reliable or do I need to check it?
Intimacy: Does he understand it from my point of view?
Self-Interest: Is he working mainly for my benefit, or mainly his own?
The scoring is interpretative, but it can be evidence-based. If we scored each component from 1-5, then our total score could be 0.6 through to 15. We can self-score, or ask others to score for us.

Well-referenced advice tends to increase our Credibility while inconsistencies lower it. Making significant and relevant predictions or explanations that, while surprising, check out as true increases our Reliability; while narrow scope, faulty advice, misleading or biased views tends to decrease it. Advice or information that appeals to a reader's knowledge and feelings increases our Intimacy; advice that ignores these things decreases it. Finally, advice that benefits the giver more than the receiver increases our Self-interest; advice that benefits the recipient more than the giver decreases it. Statistically, an average score should be 3, though people tend to self-rate higher -- around 5-6.

Trust Quotient doesn't say who's right, but it does offer some indication as to who'll be believed. I suspect that AMC's comment may have related to that.

ETA: Just realised that AMC Ninjaed. :)

I was scored as a 7, with my strength being Credibility. :) That's pretty much what everyone tells me, so that says something for the test.

I don't make statements as facts if I am not sure they are facts, or if I know they are my opinions. I also don't just answer questions without qualifying my responses and my level of knowledge. That's probably why a lot of people like to open up to me and seek my advice, since they know I won't BS them. :shrug: I dunno, I just believe in honesty.

Anyway, I won't be offended if you don't want to learn about it. It doesn't make a difference to me either way. My only goal in educating people about Judaism is to eliminate the many, many stereotypes and misinformation that exists out there. Take it or leave it.

Ruv Draba

08-05-2009, 11:30 AM

I was scored as a 7, with my strength being Credibility. :) That's pretty much what everyone tells me, so that says something for the test.I work as a consultant and my score reflected that; building and honouring trust is part of our professional responsibility. The test said that my strength was Credibility, and my weakness was Intimacy -- which is what my colleagues say too. :)

I suspect that the bigger the claims we seek to sell, the higher our trust needs to be. A mid-range score might recommend a movie; a higher score might recommend a car purchase; higher still to recommend risky surgery; very high to change the way we see our lives over-all. In my day-job I can give advice on expensive projects and people believe me; in my private life I don't think I've ever persuaded even one person to rethink their religous faith -- though they do sometimes rethink their religious history. [To be honest I'm not sure that I really want people to rethink their religious faith -- just certain details that affect interpersonal behaviours. :)]

semilargeintestine

08-05-2009, 08:39 PM

I don't try to change peoples' faiths. The only time I ever try to do that is with non-religious Jews. Not everyone has to be--or is supposed to be--Jewish. I just want people to stop thinking we kill the first born of Xtian families on Passover.

Ruv Draba

08-06-2009, 01:54 AM

I just want people to stop thinking we kill the first born of Xtian families on Passover.Do many people really think that? I certainly don't. I haven't seen such thinking among my Christian friends either. The most I've seen is an irritation at Jewish tribalism, and a smug sense of Christian superiority. And... that's for another thread I suspect.

But here's one you might find amusing: Jews have a reputation for having a paranoid persecution complex (and in part I think that's understandable). I never gave it credence though until I read your media/UN conspiracy theory claims. :) Also for a separate thread, perhaps.

semilargeintestine

08-06-2009, 02:33 AM

Perhaps if we didn't have a 3,000 year history of being persecuted, we wouldn't have a paranoia about it. I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist. But when the world condemns Israel for evicting Arab squatters who illegally occupied Jewish homes (or the 15 houses built in land that was originally allocated to Israel, but was annexed by Jordan in 1948, so all of the sudden it's their land) while completely ignoring the fact that Hamas launched over 400 rockets this year alone into Sderot (and the many other acts of unprovoked terrorism both Hamas and Fatah have done), it's hard to not feel like you're being backed into a corner.

Just because we're paranoid doesn't mean we're wrong. ;)

Ruv Draba

08-06-2009, 03:30 AM

Perhaps if we didn't have a 3,000 year history of being persecuted, we wouldn't have a paranoia about it.What's the world Jewish population at the moment? 16M? That's still the size of a small country. Zoroastrians have been hammered down to 200K -- they're no more than a big country town. One of the oldest surviving religions in the world and they don't have a homeland. You should complain?

semilargeintestine

08-06-2009, 03:41 AM

Our persecution is G-d's will, as He told to us. Zoroastrians have been "hammered" down to 200k, but I would hardly say they have the same history of persecution as the Jews do.

They were conquered by the Arabs in the Middle Ages, and while they were allowed to practice their religion, they were under extreme pressure to convert to Islam (surprise, surprise). As such, they were frequently harassed and taunted by the Arabs. Yes, that blows.

But let's just look at the list of Jewish persecution from 250 CE. We won't even discuss the Roman persecution, the Ancient Egyptians, etc.

250 C.E. Canhage Expulsion
224 C.E. Italy Forced Conversion
325 C.E. Jerusalem Expulsion
351 C.E Persia Book Burning
357 C.E. Italy Property Confiscation
379 C.E. Milan Synagogue Burning
415 C.E. Alexandria Expulsion
418 C.E. Minorca Forced Conversion
469 C.E. Ipahan Holocaust
489 C.E. Antioch Synagogue Burning
506 C.E. Daphne Synagogue Burning
519 C.E. Ravenna Synagogue Burning
554 C.E. Diocese of Clement (France) Expulsion
561 C.E. Diocese of Uzes (France) Expulsion
582 C.E Merovingia Forced Conversion
612 C.E. Visigoth Spain Expulsion
628 C.E. Byzantium Forced Conversion
629 C.E. Merovingia Forced Conversion
633 C.E. Toledo Forced Conversion
638 C.E. Toledo Stake Burnings
642 C.E. Visigothic Empire Expulsion
653 C.E. Toledo Expulsion
681 C.E. Spain Forced Conversion
693 C.E. Toledo Jews Enslaved
722 C.E. Byzantium Judaism Outlawed
855 C.E. Italy Expulsion
876 C.E. Sens Expulsion
897 C.E. Narbonne Land Confiscation
945 C.E. Venice Ban on Sea Travel
1009 C.E. Orleans Massacre
1012 C.E. Rouen, Limoges & Rome Massacre
1012 C.E. Mayence Expulsion
1021 C.E. Rome Jews Burned Alive
1063 C.E. Spain Massacre
1095 C.E. Lorraine Massacre
1096 C.E. Northern France & Germany 1/3 of Jewish Population Massacred
1096 C.E. Hungary Massacre
1096 C.E. Ralisbon Massacre
1099 C.E. Jerusalem Jews Burned Alive
1100 C.E. Kiev Pogrom
1140 C.E. Germany Massacres
1146 C.E. Rhine Valley Massacre
1147 C.E. Wurzburg Massacre
1147 C.E. Belitz (Germany) Jews Burned Alive
1147 C.E. Carenton, Ramenu & Sully (France) Massacres
1171 C.E. Blois Stake Burnings
1181 C.E. France Expulsion
1181 C.E. England Property Confiscation
1188 C.E. London & York Mob Attacks
1190 C.E. Norfolk Jews Burned Alive
1191 C.E. Bray (France) Jews Burned Alive
1195 C.E. France Property Confiscation
1209 C.E. Beziers Massacre
1212 C.E. Spain Rioting and blood bath against the Jews of Toledo.
1215 C.E. Rome Lateran Council of Rome decrees that Jews must wear the "badge of shame" in all Christian countries. Jews are denied all public sector employment, and are burdened with extra taxes.
1215 C.E. Toulouse (France) Mass Arrests
1218 C.E. England Jews Forced to Wear Badges
1231 C.E. Rome Inquisition Established
1236 C.E. France Forced Conversion/Massacre
1239 C.E. London Massacre & Property Confiscation
1240 C.E. Austria Property confiscation. Jews either imprisoned, converted, expelled, or burned.
1240 C.E. France Talmud Confiscated
1240 C.E. England Book Burning
1240 C.E. Spain Forced Conversion
1242 C.E. Paris Talmud Burned
1244 C.E. Oxford Mob Attacks
1255 C.E. England Blood libel in Lincoln results in the burning / torture of many Jews & public hangings.
1261 C.E. Canterbury Mob Attacks
1262 C.E. London Mob Attacks
1264 C.E. London Mob Attacks
1264 C.E. Germany Council of Vienna declares that all Jews must wear a "pointed dunce cap." Thousands murdered.
1267 C.E. Vienna Jews Forced to Wear Horned Hats
1270 C.E. Weissenberg, Magdeburg, Arnstadt, Coblenz, Singzig, and Erfurt Jews Burned Alive
1270 C.E. England The libel of the "counterfeit coins" - all Jewish men, women and children in England imprisoned. Hundreds are hung.
1276 C.E. Bavaria Expulsion
1278 C.E. Genoa (Spain) Mob Attacks
1279 C.E. Hungary & Poland The Council of Offon denies Jews the right to all civic positions. The Jews of Hungary & Poland are forced to wear the "red badge of shame."
1283 C.E. Mayence & Bacharach Mob Attacks
1285 C.E. Munich Jews Burned Alive
1290 C.E. England King Edward I issues an edict banishing all Jews from England. Many drowned.
1291 C.E. France The Jewish refugees from England are promptly expelled from France.
1292 C.E. Italy Forced conversions & expulsion of the Italian Jewish community.
1298 C.E. Germany The libel of the "Desecrated Host" is perpetrated against the Jews of Germany. Approximately 150 Jewish communities undergo forced conversion.
1298 C.E. Franconia, Bavaria & Austria Reindfel's Decree is propagated against the Jews of Franconia and Bavarai. Riots against these Jewish communities, as well as those in Austria, result in the massacre of 100,000 Jews over a six-month period.
1306 C.E. France Expulsion
1308 C.E. Strasbourg Jews Burned Alive
1320 C.E. Toulouse & Perpigon 120 Communities Massacred & Talmud Burned
1321 C.E. Teruel Public Executions
1328 C.E. Estella 5,000 Jews Slaughtered
1348 C.E. France & Spain Jews Burned Alive
1348 C.E. Switzerland Expulsion
1349 C.E. Worms, Strasbourg, Oppenheim, Mayence, Erfurt, Bavaria & Swabia Jews Burned Alive
1349 C.E. Heilbronn (Germany) Expulsion
1349 C.E. Hungary Expulsion
1354 C.E. Castile (Spain) 12,000 Jews Slaughtered
1368 C.E. Toledo 8,000 Jews Slaughtered
1370 C.E. Majorca., Penignon & Barcelona Mob Attack
1377 C.E. Huesca (Spain) Jews Burned Alive
1380 C.E. Paris Mob Attack
1384 C.E. Nordlingen Mass Murder
1388 C.E. Strasbourg Expulsion
1389 C.E. Prague Mass Slaughter & Book Burning
1391 C.E. Castille, Toledo, Madrid, Seville, Cordova, Cuenca & Barcelona Forced Conversions & Mass Murder
1394 C.E. Germany Expulsion
1394 C.E. France Expulsion
1399 C.E. Posen (Poland) Jews Burned Alive
1400 C.E. Prague Stake Burnings
1407 C.E. Cracow Mob Attack
1415 C.E. Rome Talmud Confiscated
1422 C.E. Austria Jews Burned Alive
1422 C.E. Austria Expulsion
1424 C.E. Fribourg & Zurich Expulsion
1426 C.E. Cologne Expulsion
1431 C.E. Southern Germany Jews Burned Alive
1432 C.E. Savory Expulsion
1438 C.E. Mainz Expulsion
1439 C.E. Augsburg Expulsion
1449 C.E. Toledo Public Torture &. Burnings
1456 C.E. Bavaria Expulsion
1453 C.E. Franconia Expulsion
1453 C.E. Breslau Expulsion
1454 C.E. Wurzburg Expulsion
1463 C.E. Cracow Mob Attack
1473 C.E. Andalusia Mob Attack
1480 C.E. Venice Jews Burned Alive
1481 C.E. Seville Stake Burnings
1484 C.E. Cuidad Real, Guadalupe, Saragossa & Teruel Jews Burned Alive
1485 C.E. Vincenza (Italy) Expulsion
1486 C.E. Toledo Jews Burned Alive
1488 C.E. Toledo Stake Burnings
1490 C.E. Toledo Public Executions
1491 C.E. Astorga Public Torture & Execution
1492 C.E. Spain Expulsion
1495 C.E. Lithuania Expulsion
1497 C.E. Portugal Expulsion
1499 C.E. Germany Expulsion
1506 C.E. Lisbon Mob Attack
1510 C.E. Berlin Public Torture & Execution
1514 C.E. Strasbourg Expulsion
1519 C.E. Regensburg Expulsion
1539 C.E. Cracow & Portugal Stake Burnings
1540 C.E. Naples Expulsion
1542 C.E. Bohemia Expulsion
1550 C.E. Genoa Expulsion
1551 C.E. Bavaria Expulsion
1555 C.E. Pesaro Expulsion
1556 C.E. Sokhachev (Poland) Public Torture & Execution
1559 C.E. Austria Expulsion
1561 C.E. Prague Expulsion
1567 C.E. Wurzburg Expulsion
1569 C.E. Papal States Expulsion
1571 C.E. Brandenburg Expulsion
1582 C.E. Netherlands Expulsion
1593 C.E. Brunswick Expulsion
1597 C.E. Cremona, Pavia & Lodi Expulsion
1614 C.E. Frankfort Expulsion
1615 C.E. Worms Expulsion
1619 C.E. Kiev Expulsion
1635 C.E. Vilna Mob Attack
1637 C.E. Cracow Public Torture & Execution
1647 C.E. Lisbon Jews Burned Alive
1648 C.E. Poland 1/3 of Jewry Slaughtered
1649 C.E. Ukraine Expulsion
1649 C.E. Hamburg Expulsion
1652 C.E. Lisbon Stake Burnings
1654 C.E. Little Russia Expulsion
1656 C.E. Lithuania Expulsion
1660 C.E. Seville Jews Burned Alive
1663 C.E Cracow Public Torture &. Execution
1664 C.E. Lemberg Mob Attack
1669 C.E. Oran (North Africa) Expulsion
1670 C.E. Vienna Expulsion
1671 C.E. Minsk Mob Attacks
1681 C.E. Vilna Mob Attacks
1682 C.E. Cracow Mob Attacks
1687 C.E. Posen Mob Attacks
1712 C.E. Sandomir Expulsion
1727 C.E. Russia Expulsion
1738 C.E. Wurtemburg Expulsion
1740 C.E. Liule Russia Expulsion
1744 C.E Bohemia Expulsion
1744 C.E. Livonia Expulsion
1745 C.E. Moravia Expulsion
1753 C.E. Kovad (Lithuania) Expulsion
1757 C.E. Kamenetz Talmud Burning
1761 C.E. Bordeaux Expulsion
1768 C.E. Kiev 3,000 Jews Slaughtered
1772 C.E. Russia Expulsion
1775 C.E. Warsaw Expulsion
1789 C.E. Alsace Expulsion
1801 C.E. Bucharest Mob Attack
1804 C.E. Russian Villages Expulsion
1808 C.E. Russian Countryside Expulsion
1815 C.E. Lubeck & Bremen Expulsion
1820 C.E. Bremes Expulsion
1843 C.E. Austria & Prussia Expulsion
1850 C.E. New York City 500 People, Led by Police, Attacked & Wrecked Jewish Synagogue
1862 C.E. Area under General Grant's Jurisdiction in the United States Expulsion
1866 C.E Galatz (Romania) Expulsion
1871 C.E. Odena Mob Attack
1887 C.E. Slovakia Mob Attacks
1897 C.E. Kantakuzenka (Russia) Mob Attacks
1898 C.E. Rennes (France) Mob Attack
1899 C.E. Nicholayev Mob Attack
1900 C.E. Konitz (Prussia) Mob Attack
1902 C.E. Poland Widespread Pogroms
1904 C.E. Manchuria, Kiev & Volhynia Widespread Pogroms
1905 C.E. Zhitomir (Yolhynia) Mob Attacks
1919 C.E Bavaria Expulsion
1915 C.E. Georgia (U.S.A.) Leo Frank Lynched
1919 C.E. Prague Wide Spread Pogroms
1920 C.E. Munich & Breslau Mob Attacks
1922 C.E. Boston, MA Lawrence Lowell, President of Harvard, calls for Quota Restrictions on Jewish Admission
1926 C.E. Uzbekistan Pogrom
1928 C.E. Hungary Widespread Anti-Semitic Riots on University Campuses
1929 C.E. Lemberg (Poland) Mob Attacks
1930 C.E. Berlin Mob Attack
1933 C.E. Bucharest Mob Attacks
1938-45 C.E. Europe Holocaust

And we won't talk about what has been happening at the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Fatah.

If it weren't for the Romans, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust, we would number in the 100 millions. So yes, I complain.

ETA: I bolded the ones where a large percentage of our population was killed, as well as a few interesting ones that I didn't know about until recently.

Ruv Draba

08-06-2009, 03:56 AM

You forgot that guy who scratched your car last week.

ETA: Yes. Insensitive. Sorry. Can't help myself. I have the world's smallest sympathy gland, and it's easy to overtax with complaint. A more constructive suggestion: post it in another thread under 'Worst Religious Persecutions'. See what other folk can come up with to compare it to. It could be interesting. :)

semilargeintestine

08-06-2009, 03:57 AM

You forgot that guy who scratched your car last week.

That says it all.

Thank you. :)

Ruv Draba

08-06-2009, 06:10 AM

That says it all.

Thank you. :)Er.. my insensitive comment was actually code for...

Gee that's terrible, SLI. But do you realise that not every culture is disposed to cataloguing the wrongs done to it -- or even capable of doing so? To be good at cataloguing grievances it helps to be literate so you can write them down, insular so you can maintain an 'us vs them' posture, have a mind-set focused on the past more than the future, be reasonably wealthy and/or mobile so you can hook up with tribesfolk in other lands and compare notes, and keep archives. And you need to survive long enough as a separate culture to have the length of history. Historically, Jewish culture has been especially good at these things. Strong merchants, well-educated, highly literate, traditional and strongly focused on the past, diasporic and tenacious in survival. All strengths in many ways, but perhaps contributing to a biased view of how other cultures fare.

My question is whether other cultures might not have as much to complain about in comparable periods of time. And too, whether they have the capability of producing the voice that the Jewish people have managed to produce.

It's hard to test, but when we look at current events (which are well-documented), in global terms Jewish people wouldn't rate in my top 20 or even 50 cultures presently suffering oppression. If we were talking animal species, Judaism might still be on my 'vulnerable' list, but I'd hardly call it 'endangered' like (say) Zoroastrianism and most native religions. When Judaism was endangered, the world took action to make restitution, preserve Jewish culture and ethnicity -- and rightly so. That was also a world first as far as I know. Jews are in the unique position now of being better able to look after themselves than any other diasporic ethnicity or small world religion that I know of.

I said earlier that my sympathy gland is tiny. That's not quite true. It's decent-sized but tends to focus on the present and future. I can't change the past and I'm more progressive than traditional so I don't focus backwards. It's hard for me to share sympathy with people for whom the past is alive today; I'm not much into the vengeance, blame and retribution dance. I confess that my attention is now elsewhere.

I guess that a general point might be: if you're a traditional people in a progressive society then you may see certain insensitivities at times. If you're also disposed to paranoia, you may think that people are delighting in your old wounds rather than expressing disbelief that you're still keeping score. It can also look unbecoming to beat the grievance soapbox and not acknowledge the enormous sympathy and support that other cultures have shown and continue to show. I believe that this same problem is presently facing Islam to some degree, though it has other problems too.

We're miles away from topic now. These posts are interesting comparative religion posts I think, but probably oughtn't to be in the thread.

semilargeintestine

08-06-2009, 06:31 AM

Fair enough. It was just a response to what seemed like:

You think the Jews have been persecuted? The Zoroastrians have been persecuted WAY more than you guys!

I don't like to engage in pissing contests, and that wasn't an attempt to be "the worst." I just think most people underestimate just how much people hate us and have hated us. Anti-Semitism is still VERY widespread. There have been anti-Semitic marches and acts of violence in every country in Europe and in the United States up to and including this year. In a time when everyone is concerned with profiling against Arabs, hate crimes against Jews are still far higher in number according to the FBI.

You seem to be a normal person, so it may be difficult to understand why so many people could hate a group simply for being Jewish, but that's really all there is to it.

Can't we all just get along? :)

Ruv Draba

08-06-2009, 06:44 AM

I don't like to engage in pissing contests, and that wasn't an attempt to be "the worst." I just think most people underestimate just how much people hate us and have hated us.SLI, everyone underestimates how much other folk suffer bigotry. That isn't special, and while there are some folk who literally want to edit such things out of history, that isn't most folk. But people who suffer bigotry also misconstrue all the time too. We have a gazillion examples of that just on AW.
Can't we all just get along?Can backwards-facing cultures get along with forwards-facing cultures?

That's not a rhetorical question. It's being tested in various ways at the moment and I honestly don't know the answer. When I look at how appallingly conservative and progressive cultures treat each other, I wonder whether they don't need separate places to live and special rules by which to do commerce and negotiations. This somehow links to my Freedom of Religion (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3780089&postcount=1) question in another thread. I'm gonna chew on it more.

You seem to be a normal person, so it may be difficult to understand why so many people could hate a group simply for being Jewish, but that's really all there is to it.Neither I nor my culture would describe me as normal.

semilargeintestine

08-06-2009, 06:45 AM

Can backwards-facing cultures get along with forwards-facing cultures?

I don't want to post something that could be offensive because I'm not quite sure what you meant by this. Can you clarify?

Ruv Draba

08-06-2009, 07:05 AM

I don't want to post something that could be offensive because I'm not quite sure what you meant by this. Can you clarify?
There are cultures who prefer to decide what to do based on what they did. Often they see the best that can be as lying in their past. Such people will often argue that we can't much improve on what we did before; we can only adulterate and sully it; or we can return to our ideals and sustain them.

That sort of thinking appears in all cultures, but it's dominant in some cultures. While there are sometimes pejorative associations with low education, illiteracy and superstition it seems clear to me that very educated, very literate people can also think this way.

Then there are some cultures who decide to do based on what's available; what's expedient; what seems best in the moment. They may view history and tradition as simply information to be used, or they may ignore it or be entirely ignorant of it. Individuals can think that way regardless of culture, but in some cultures it tends to dominate.

Since the late 17th century, much of Western society considers itself in the latter camp much of the time -- and sometimes that's true and sometimes it's not. In practice, subcultures that want to look backwards pull a society one way, and subcultures more concerned with the present and future pull it the other way.

I'm fascinated by history, but my temperament leads me to focus on present and future. For me, history is data and not constraint. Tradition is curio, not guidance.

You asked whether we can 'just get along'? My counter-question (and a serious one) is: how, if we share geography but live in entirely different worlds?

I'm a xenophile and a strong supporter of pluralism, diversity and equity. I love living across the road from a Buddhist monastery, and having saffron-robed monks wandering to our milk bar. I'd love just as much to see hijabs or black hats and ringlets sitting at the bus-stop (we get a few hijabs where I live, but not the black hats and frock-coats). The more I've looked into this though, the more I've begun to worry that the issues besetting us aren't differences in faith so much as progressive vs conservative views of those things.

I'd laugh outright at the suggestion of separate states for Roman Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Jews, say. But I might actually listen if someone suggested separate jurisdictions for progressives of those faiths vs conservatives. Looking at the way that some Orthodox Jews feel, I wonder whether they don't sometimes think the same. :D

semilargeintestine

08-06-2009, 08:53 AM

Yeah, well it tends to work out that way in Judaism. You have a shul or two as the center of an Orthodox community. then around that community will be a Conservative community, and mixed in and even around that will be Reform. It's not that neat usually, but that's a pretty good generalization. Anyway, there are only two countries founded explicitly on religion, and that's Pakistan and Israel. I don't know enough about Pakistan to say whether or not it could survive as a secular state, but I don't see how Israel could exist without being the Jewish State. It was founded in Biblical Times based on religion. You can't separate them, nor do I think you should.

As far as getting along, I'm hoping more for a live and let live situation than for a nice all sit down for tea situation. I don't care what the hell everyone else does, so long as they stop firing rockets into my backyard. :)

GeorgeK

08-06-2009, 10:12 AM

This may be similar to John Shelby Spong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong)'s thinking.

That's all fine and other than the God part I agree with it, though I'd use different language. The wiser and more compassionate and more knowledgable we get, the more we should expect of ourselves. I see that as a humanistic sentiment and I embrace it.

But you've added the God part, so I need to ask you: how does it factor, except symbolically? You've already said that God is unknowable, that man is fallible, that custom and tradition date and grow irrelevant. You've apparently rejected observation, compassion and reason as insufficient (and we don't need a religion to use them anyway). So what do you think we should use to determine what is good and what we ought to do?

God is not unknowable, but rather unproveable to a third party in our dimension. As to determine what is good. I think it is more akin to a feeling. I'm not sure that it is a measureable finite product. I don't think it is possible to define all of goodness. I think the 7 Deadly Sins are probably the closest reverse engineered mode of determining what is Not Good. However Good is something innately there. If you don't get it, I'm not sure if it can be explained. Sorry if I'm all tongue tied.

Ruv Draba

08-06-2009, 10:32 AM

As to determine what is good. I think it is more akin to a feeling.Feelings are personal and varied. They run by culture and change over time, even within a single individual. Also, many feelings that feel good and right can result in bad actions. In our joy we can neglect suffering. In our self-satisfaction we can dishonour others. In our self-pity we can grow unjust. How can anyone trust feelings as a view of Absolute Good? Surely, the best they could possibly provide is some fallible view of self-interest?

And who says that becoming a better person will make our feelings more agreeable? Isn't it possible that growing our compassion might increase our suffering, that growing responsibility might increase our dissatisfaction, that growing discipline might lead to boredom and restlessness? Some might feel better as they grow kinder and wiser, but what guarantees that some won't feel worse?

GeorgeK

08-06-2009, 11:23 PM

Feelings are personal and varied. They run by culture and change over time, even within a single individual. Also, many feelings that feel good and right can result in bad actions.

Freewill with so many individuals tends toward chaos, because obviously not all of them are altruists.

In our joy we can neglect suffering. In our self-satisfaction we can dishonour others. In our self-pity we can grow unjust.

That's where tempering you actions by avoidance of the 7 Deadlies while striving for Good is the way to go. The problem with the theory of the 7 is people have a tendency toward sloth in their philosophy and can become technicality oriented.

How can anyone trust feelings as a view of Absolute Good? Surely, the best they could possibly provide is some fallible view of self-interest?

Are you, the secular humanist saying that there are absolutely no altruists?

And who says that becoming a better person will make our feelings more agreeable? Isn't it possible that growing our compassion might increase our suffering, that growing responsibility might increase our dissatisfaction, that growing discipline might lead to boredom and restlessness? Some might feel better as they grow kinder and wiser, but what guarantees that some won't feel worse?

There are no guarantees. It's a path. I have a feeling that the traveling might be more important than the destination anyway.

Ruv Draba

08-07-2009, 02:00 AM

Freewill with so many individuals tends toward chaos, because obviously not all of them are altruists.What do you mean by altruism and why is it important?

That's where tempering you actions by avoidance of the 7 Deadlies while striving for Good is the way to go.Let me see if I can recap:

God is Absolute Good, but unknowable;
God's good may be nothing like human good, so it's not only unknowable but unrecognisable;
It's our job to aspire to that good even though we can neither understand it nor recognise it;
We should do that by trying to Feel Good while avoiding Being Bad. There's a Definitive List of bad, which is built around Bad Feelings. If you avoid Bad Feelings and try and Feel Good then you're (probably? definitely?) Being Good;
Don't sweat it anyway. Maybe only the journey counts.Are you, the secular humanist saying that there are absolutely no altruists?How about this list, just for comparison:

There is no point whatsoever in idealising good as a deity until we understand what good means to us and to those around us in practical terms, moment by moment;
Many abiding goods are more noticable in their absence than their presence, like: a safe, dry home to live in; clean water; sewage; education; immunisation and an equitable justice system. Meeting these needs can't be achieved through emotional impulses. Oddly too, ancient deities never bothered teaching the germ theory of disease, or how economies and poor education create crime, or how to build effective sewage systems. Nobody has ever made a credible moral case to me as to why a modern generation deserves these benefits, while ancient generations did not;
Our feelings always indicate our desires, but seldom indicate our needs or anyone else's. For this reason, doing feeling-based good may make us feel good, but may also lead us into egregious self-deception;
'Bad' feelings like outrage, indignation, resentment, fear, lust, envy, and pride sometimes get schools and sewage systems built faster and better than faith, hope and charity. Laziness too has invented a lot of useful things;
Neither journey nor destination count a dang when you don't know the terrain.To answer your question directly,GK, I have very little regard for altruism. Give people enough knowledge, and their own mix of sympathy, empathy and self-interest generally sorts out what should be done.

Brotherly hugs are nice, but they don't keep the weevils out of the biscuits.

ColoradoGuy

08-07-2009, 02:52 AM

Give people enough knowledge, and their own mix of sympathy, empathy and self-interest generally sorts out what should be done.
Indeed. Or, as a Quaker would put it, the Light is within all of us if we look to find it.
Brotherly hugs are nice, but they don't keep the weevils out of the biscuits.And we founded Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love. But are famous for the guy on the oatmeal, not the cookie (American-speak for biscuit) box.

Ruv Draba

08-07-2009, 03:17 AM

Indeed. Or, as a Quaker would put it, the Light is within all of us if we look to find it.I can't argue with that, as long as we're smart enough to realise that all our light is reflected and refracted.
And we founded Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love. But are famous for the guy on the oatmeal, not the cookie (American-speak for biscuit) box.Dude, I've eaten your produce! Likin your oats. Not so fussed about your cream cheese.

Actually, I'm thinking of starting up a line of Secular Humanist breakfast foods. They're colourful little single-serve boxes with just a slip of paper inside saying:

What do you think you want for breakfast today?
Do you have any?
Well, can you find any?
Well, do you think you could make some?
Well okay, what do you have instead?
Great. Enjoy that.
Did you enjoy it? Is there any left over?
How about offering some to a friend?I also have an idea for an Atheist breakfast food. It's a sealed packet with random food inside. It's produced by blind anosmiacs, so they have no idea what they're making you either. You can only buy one per customer per lifetime. The idea is that you open it whenever you like and eat it all, and just try to enjoy it till it's gone.

Ruv Draba

08-07-2009, 04:55 AM

Anyway, there are only two countries founded explicitly on religion, and that's Pakistan and Israel.Iran doesn't count? Its present constitution is religious revolutionary. Then there are the Islamic Republics of Afghanistan and Mauritania. Or do you mean colony rather than country? I also question whether Israel was founded on religion or ethnicity -- though I know that the two are connected for Jewish people.

Ethnically, Jews are 76% in Israel, and of those I understand that around 22% see themselves as "non-religious-traditionalist", and 44% as "secular", or cutting it another way, between 15% and 35% of Israeli Jews see themselves as agnosticts or atheists. Of the remaining population I understand that nearly all are Arab, and of the Arabs, nearly 83% are Muslims.

By contrast, In Pakistan Islam is around 96%. In Iran it's 98%. Both have constitutions mandating a state religion. I understand though that Israel has no constitution -- just Basic Laws which don't mandate a state religion. Moreover, from my readings, many Israeli social services are highly secular -- unlike the way that Islamic states will often provide social services through their clergy. Israel does however sport Judaic symbols as its national emblems, just as most Islamic states do.

So other than the symbols, I'm not persuaded that Israel is or ever has been a religious state in the way that Pakistan or Iran are. I'm aware that Israel is a refuge for orthodox and conservative Jews, but I don't think that's the same.

Moreover, if Israel were to ever adopt a constitution, I can't imagine that it would adopt a religious one as Iran has, say. Its own large Muslim minority and good foreign relations, not to mention Israel's own modernity would almost certainly require a secular constitution explicitly separating religion from government.
I don't know enough about Pakistan to say whether or not it could survive as a secular state, but I don't see how Israel could exist without being the Jewish State. It was founded in Biblical Times based on religion. You can't separate them, nor do I think you should.Iran would have to throw out its constitution entirely, because there's hardly a clause in it that doesn't reference Islamic tradition.

Pakistan has a largely secular constitution that happens to include a few clauses preferring Muslims. it would just need to strike those out, e.g.:

Islamic way of life.
(1) Steps shall be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually and collectively, to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam and to provide facilities whereby they may be enabled to understand the meaning of life according to the Holy Quran and Sunnah.
(2) The state shall endeavour, as respects the Muslims of Pakistan, : (a) to make the teaching of the Holy Quran and Islamiat compulsory, to encourage and facilitate the learning of Arabic language and to secure correct and exact printing and publishing of the Holy Quran; (b) to promote unity and the observance of the Islamic moral standards; and (c) to secure the proper organisation of zakat, [17] (http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part2.ch2.notes.html)[ushr,] auqaf and mosques.
I've already said that I don't think Israel is a religious state. It looks more like a European-style secular state, and I think its own demographics and regional politics will tend to make it more secular over time.

As far as getting along, I'm hoping more for a live and let live situation than for a nice all sit down for tea situation. I don't care what the hell everyone else does, so long as they stop firing rockets into my backyard. But perhaps that isn't a religious issue so much as an ethnic one? Judaism and Islam have happily co-existed in the past, and still do in many parts of the world.

And I think that 'getting along' is different to 'sullenly ignoring one another for as long as possible'. I'd suggest that 'getting along' includes some notion of co-operation -- and that usually requires peoples to be heading in compatible directions. It's that which underpins my concern about conservative religion vs progressive religion. I don't think they're heading in anything like compatible directions and I don't think it's good or sensible for them to fight it out politically for control of the same societies. I think it'd be a lot more peaceful -- probably a lot fairer and certainly more interesting -- if progressive and conservative societies fought it out economically. :D

semilargeintestine

08-07-2009, 06:31 AM

Iran doesn't count? Its present constitution is religious revolutionary. Then there are the Islamic Republics of Afghanistan and Mauritania. Or do you mean colony rather than country? I also question whether Israel was founded on religion or ethnicity -- though I know that the two are connected for Jewish people.

I didn't count Iran because it wasn't founded based on religion. I'm also disturbed by your inference that Israel is not a legitimate country. I'm hoping that's not what you meant.

Ethnically, Jews are 76% in Israel, and of those I understand that around 22% see themselves as "non-religious-traditionalist", and 44% as "secular", or cutting it another way, between 15% and 35% of Israeli Jews see themselves as agnosticts or atheists. Of the remaining population I understand that nearly all are Arab, and of the Arabs, nearly 83% are Muslims.

And? Israel doesn't discriminate based on race or religion like other countries. Arabs are granted full citizenship rights in Israel, hence their reluctance to see Eastern Jerusalem taken away.

By contrast, In Pakistan Islam is around 96%. In Iran it's 98%. Both have constitutions mandating a state religion. I understand though that Israel has no constitution -- just Basic Laws which don't mandate a state religion. Moreover, from my readings, many Israeli social services are highly secular -- unlike the way that Islamic states will often provide social services through their clergy. Israel does however sport Judaic symbols as its national emblems, just as most Islamic states do.

Israel does not have a single written constitution; however, what amounts to a constitution can be found in case law and in the Harari proposal. However, the State of Israel is described in the Proclamation of Independence as both a Jewish State and a democracy with equal rights for all citizens, making it a state founded on Judaism without discriminating against other faiths.

Israel also has religious figures in government and military to ensure things are done in a way that is in accordance with Jewish Law to the extent that religious Jews will not be required to violate halakha to serve.

So other than the symbols, I'm not persuaded that Israel is or ever has been a religious state in the way that Pakistan or Iran are. I'm aware that Israel is a refuge for orthodox and conservative Jews, but I don't think that's the same.

Whether you are persuaded or not doesn't change the fact that the state was created as a Jewish State.

Moreover, if Israel were to ever adopt a constitution, I can't imagine that it would adopt a religious one as Iran has, say. Its own large Muslim minority and good foreign relations, not to mention Israel's own modernity would almost certainly require a secular constitution explicitly separating religion from government.
Iran would have to throw out its constitution entirely, because there's hardly a clause in it that doesn't reference Islamic tradition.

Pakistan has a largely secular constitution that happens to include a few clauses preferring Muslims. it would just need to strike those out, e.g.:

I don't think it would adopt a religious constitution either, or at least an entirely religious constitution. Israel is a democracy, unlike the other states you listed, and it is a democracy that strives to guarantee the same freedoms to everyone; however, it is first and foremost a state for Jews.

An example of this is the immigration laws. If you are Jewish, you fall under the Law of Return and can attain citizenship immediately, as well as many other benefits (free college education, healthcare, career placement, housing placement); however, if you are not Jewish, you must follow basically the same process that most EU countries have: live as a resident alien for 5 years and then apply for citizenship.

I've already said that I don't think Israel is a religious state. It looks more like a European-style secular state, and I think its own demographics and regional politics will tend to make it more secular over time.

But perhaps that isn't a religious issue so much as an ethnic one? Judaism and Islam have happily co-existed in the past, and still do in many parts of the world.

There's a difference between being a religious state and being founded on religion.

And I think that 'getting along' is different to 'sullenly ignoring one another for as long as possible'. I'd suggest that 'getting along' includes some notion of co-operation -- and that usually requires peoples to be heading in compatible directions. It's that which underpins my concern about conservative religion vs progressive religion. I don't think they're heading in anything like compatible directions and I don't think it's good or sensible for them to fight it out politically for control of the same societies. I think it'd be a lot more peaceful -- probably a lot fairer and certainly more interesting -- if progressive and conservative societies fought it out economically. :D

When the other side shows even an ounce of cooperation, I'm sure we'll get somewhere. Meanwhile, I hope Israel is done giving concession after concession only to get shot in the back.

Ruv Draba

08-07-2009, 08:08 AM

I didn't count Iran because it wasn't founded based on religion. I'm also disturbed by your inference that Israel is not a legitimate country. I'm hoping that's not what you meant.Israel is unquestionably a state and a country. :) My question was with what you mean by 'founded on religion'. If 'founded on religion' means 'religion in the constitution' then you need to include all those countries with religion written into their constitutions, and exclude Israel. If not then what does it mean?
Israel does not have a single written constitution; however, what amounts to a constitution can be found in case law and in the Harari proposal. However, the State of Israel is described in the Proclamation of Independence as both a Jewish State and a democracy with equal rights for all citizens, making it a state founded on Judaism without discriminating against other faiths.Indeed. It's a state that favours ethnicity, but not religion. So I'd call it a Jewish state but not a Judaic state, as per the Proclamation of Independence:

The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations

There's a difference between being a religious state and being founded on religion.Maybe, but you've made this assertion before too, when you suggested that every court in the Western world is somehow founded on the Ten Commandments of Judaism. If that's so, then which law requires monotheism of its citizens? Where is the law ensuring that children honour their parents? What's the penalty for coveting nowadays? And what is the penalty for boiling a kid in its mother's milk (http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/14-21.htm)? :)

Modern society has laws against unlawful killing, theft, fraud and various kinds of deception. But so too did ancient China and as far as I know they didn't crib from the Torah. We also have laws for all kinds of things not explicitly prohibited in the Ten Commandments -- like assault and religious vilification. It's beyond a long stretch to claim that modern law is based on the Ten Commandments, though ancient law may have been at times.

And if Israel welcomes Hindus (who do not love just one god), then I'd argue that Israel's precepts aren't based on the Ten Commandments either. Iran however, only permits Abrahamic monotheistic religions to practice in its jurisdiction. Hindu practice is not permitted there. In doing so, Iran demonstrates that it founded on Islamic precepts.

I think you keep blurring Jewish ethnicity with Judaism, Semi. All that does is confuse religious matters with political ones.

semilargeintestine

08-07-2009, 08:32 AM

Israel is unquestionably a state and a country. :) My question was with what you mean by 'founded on religion'. If 'founded on religion' means 'religion in the constitution' then you need to include all those countries with religion written into their constitutions, and exclude Israel. If not then what does it mean?

I was fairly certain that's what you meant.

Indeed. It's a state that favours ethnicity, but not religion. So I'd call it a Jewish state but not a Judaic state, as per the Proclamation of Independence:

I can agree to that. :)

Maybe, but you've made this assertion before too, when you suggested that every court in the Western world is somehow founded on the Ten Commandments of Judaism. If that's so, then which law requires monotheism of its citizens? Where is the law ensuring that children honour their parents? What's the penalty for coveting nowadays? And what is the penalty for boiling a kid in its mother's milk (http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/14-21.htm)? :)

Modern society has laws against unlawful killing, theft, fraud and various kinds of deception. But so too did ancient China and as far as I know they didn't crib from the Torah. We also have laws for all kinds of things not explicitly prohibited in the Ten Commandments -- like assault and religious vilification. It's beyond a long stretch to claim that modern law is based on the Ten Commandments, though ancient law may have been at times.

You're taking my assertion and extrapolating it in a way I didn't. I said "secular laws." Obviously a law requiring monotheism would not be secular. :)

But, my point still stands. Before Judaism, the world did not have a set code of laws, and morality was relative. The morality that we view as normative today comes from Judaism. I think you would be hard pressed to find many people who disagree with that.

And if Israel welcomes Hindus (who do not love just one god), then I'd argue that Israel's precepts aren't based on the Ten Commandments either. Iran however, only permits Abrahamic monotheistic religions to practice in its jurisdiction. Hindu practice is not permitted there. In doing so, Iran demonstrates that it founded on Islamic precepts.

I think you keep blurring Jewish ethnicity with Judaism, Semi. All that does is confuse religious matters with political ones.

Israel's precepts are based on Judaism, but it does not discriminate against other religions. Hence, it's laws are not necessarily Jewish Law. However, none of its laws require anyone to violate Jewish law; the laws are influenced by Judaism the same way that most every other countries' are.

You keep trying to separate Judaism from Jewish ethnicity, but you can't. Jewish identity is based in Judaism. Despite what you see outright, Israeli culture is steeped in Judaism.

The work week is Sunday - Thursday. Most public transportation doesn't run on the Sabbath. Almost every restaurant in the country adheres to the kashrus laws. The Knesset has 120 members, just like the Great Assembly in Biblical times. The days of the week are still the same as they are in the Bible. The death penalty is only allowed to be used once every 70 years. The business law pretty much replicates the laws of the Torah regarding business practices. The Jewish Holy Days are national holidays. The calendar is still the Jewish calendar outlined in the Bible. Etc, etc.

It may be a "secular" state, but Judaism still influences everything. You cannot separate Jews from Judaism.

semilargeintestine

08-07-2009, 09:08 AM

Also, I seem to recall that our money has "In G-d We Trust" on it, not "In gods We Trust." ;)

You'll also notice that Moses can be found engraved into the building that houses the Supreme Court.

Anyway, that's besides the point. The point is, whether you realise it or not, most of our laws can be traced back to Judaism. Not all of them, but the ones we define as laws of morality certainly can be.

Ruv Draba

08-07-2009, 09:45 AM

You're taking my assertion and extrapolating it in a way I didn't. I said "secular laws." Obviously a law requiring monotheism would not be secular. :)That leaves the other laws regarding honouring parents and coveting and keeping kids out of boiled milk -- all secular issues, and all unrepresented in modern jurisdictions. The law has moved on, Semi.
But, my point still stands. Before Judaism, the world did not have a set code of laws, and morality was relative.I think you just ignored the whole of Asia, and the Code of Hammurabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi) too, which is our earliest surviving civil code, and generally accepted to be pre-Mosaic. I won't touch what you mean by 'absolute morality' and why you think that it has to come from a Judaic deity and not (say) from a Pharoah, a Chinese Emperor, or a druidic grove.
The morality that we view as normative today comes from Judaism. I think you would be hard pressed to find many people who disagree with that.I'd agree that some Western morality is inherited through Judaism, but you're arguing more than that: that Judaism is the prime source. I don't agree. Christianity took some of its morality from Judaism, some from Zoroastrianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism), some from the Graeco-Roman philosophers of the time... we took our holidays from the Frankish tribes, and our language has come from all over Indo-Europe. Then post-enlightenment Europe took some of its morality from Christianity and some from secular and non-Christian sources. That morality is still evolving today.

And you're overlooking the fact that Jews didn't invent their own morality anyway. They borrowed too. Archaeologists generally accept that Jews were polytheists before they were monotheists. Zoroastrians were developing monotheism at about the time of the Jewish exile -- which is also the time at which Jews started punishing their own for worshipping false gods. I don't know for sure that Zoroastrians invented monotheism before Jews did, but I do know that your political desire to claim primacy is much bigger than your evidence. :) In any case, archaeologists accept that Jews inherited their eschatology and the idea of a massiach from the Zoroastrian saoshyant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saoshyant), so your primacy argument is dubious at best.

Moreover, much of Judaic morality isn't unique in the world. Asia had no difficulty working out that killing, fighting, stealing and lying are bad, and that it's good to honour your ancestors. :)
You keep trying to separate Judaism from Jewish ethnicity, but you can't. Jewish identity is based in Judaism. Despite what you see outright, Israeli culture is steeped in Judaism.
And Western culture is steeped in Christianity, but not just Christianity. See above. :D

It may be a "secular" state, but Judaism still influences everything. You cannot separate Jews from Judaism.I don't think I have to. The 15%-35% of Israeli Jews who are also atheists already did. :D I'm an atheist and I still take Sundays off, and occasionally go to Christmas parties but just try telling me that I'm a closet Christian. Custom is not the same as spiritual identity.

Here's my problem with arguments of primacy and supremacism, SLI -- I feel that they're incompatible with 'getting along'. The Torah envisions a post-massiach future in which every non-Jew capitulates and submits to Judaic law. If you hold to that in its literal sense then you can't really 'get along' with people who don't want that as their future. The most you can do is fake it.

That's not a specifically Judaic problem. All the Abrahamic religions have supremacist eschatology in their ancient dogma. Some sects hold to it; others ignore or deprecate it. But no matter how much other compassion may be in the religion (and all three faiths have abundant compassion), supremacist myths do not make for good or trustworthy neighbours. Moderate and progressive devotees will normally skirt the issue, but conservative and orthodox devotees will press the point -- even as you are. Then we look and find that supremacism is cheap -- you can find it in most cultures in the world; that it's lacking in evidence unless you're already very biased toward believing it; and that even when it doesn't cause conflict, it magnifies it.

From a humanistic perspective it's a simple choice: which do you want more -- peace or to win?

GeorgeK

08-07-2009, 02:30 PM

Let me see if I can recap:

God is Absolute Good, but unknowable;
God's good may be nothing like human good, so it's not only unknowable but unrecognisable;
It's our job to aspire to that good even though we can neither understand it nor recognise it;
We should do that by trying to Feel Good while avoiding Being Bad. There's a Definitive List of bad, which is built around Bad Feelings. If you avoid Bad Feelings and try and Feel Good then you're (probably? definitely?) Being Good;
Don't sweat it anyway. Maybe only the journey counts..

There are too many fallacies of logic there. You are changing definitions and terms midstream and assuming that part means whole or sometimes nothing. It's a clever bit of sophistry.

Ruv Draba

08-09-2009, 07:12 PM

There are too many fallacies of logic there. You are changing definitions and terms midstream and assuming that part means whole or sometimes nothing. It's a clever bit of sophistry.I had no intention to apply rhetorical device in that post, nor do I see any fallacies, other than those in the original claims. But since you weren't specific I can hardly answer your contention.

GeorgeK

08-10-2009, 01:50 AM

I had no intention to apply rhetorical device in that post, nor do I see any fallacies, other than those in the original claims. But since you weren't specific I can hardly answer your contention.

Sorry Ruv, I've seen your fencing and I know you see the fallacies, the non sequitors, the pars non toto's. You are far smarter than that.

semilargeintestine

08-10-2009, 03:01 AM

That leaves the other laws regarding honouring parents and coveting and keeping kids out of boiled milk -- all secular issues, and all unrepresented in modern jurisdictions. The law has moved on, Semi.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. How has the law moved on? Is it now okay to murder and steal?

I think you just ignored the whole of Asia, and the Code of Hammurabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi) too, which is our earliest surviving civil code, and generally accepted to be pre-Mosaic. I won't touch what you mean by 'absolute morality' and why you think that it has to come from a Judaic deity and not (say) from a Pharoah, a Chinese Emperor, or a druidic grove.

Yes, I did ignore the Code of Hammurabi, but not on purpose. :) However, if you read it, it isn't exactly the picture of morality. I don't think anyone would agree today with pulling out someone's eye if they poke yours.

I'd agree that some Western morality is inherited through Judaism, but you're arguing more than that: that Judaism is the prime source. I don't agree. Christianity took some of its morality from Judaism, some from Zoroastrianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism), some from the Graeco-Roman philosophers of the time... we took our holidays from the Frankish tribes, and our language has come from all over Indo-Europe. Then post-enlightenment Europe took some of its morality from Christianity and some from secular and non-Christian sources. That morality is still evolving today.

Holidays and practices aren't quite what I'm talking about. I'm speaking solely on what we consider to be prime moral issues, such as killing, treatment of other people, etc. Of course society has taken things from everywhere. Greek culture had so much influence on the entire world, as did other cultures. You won't get any argument from me about that.

And you're overlooking the fact that Jews didn't invent their own morality anyway. They borrowed too. Archaeologists generally accept that Jews were polytheists before they were monotheists. Zoroastrians were developing monotheism at about the time of the Jewish exile -- which is also the time at which Jews started punishing their own for worshipping false gods. I don't know for sure that Zoroastrians invented monotheism before Jews did, but I do know that your political desire to claim primacy is much bigger than your evidence. :) In any case, archaeologists accept that Jews inherited their eschatology and the idea of a massiach from the Zoroastrian saoshyant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saoshyant), so your primacy argument is dubious at best.

That's definitely not true. Jews were not polytheistic. There was a period of intense idol worship, but it was wiped out by King Chizkiyahu. There is evidence of idol worship in the Temple, etc. However, we don't deny that. The Jewish people were and are prone to sin. It is part of the reason G-d chose us for His Torah. As far as who started monotheism, I have no political desire. It wouldn't really bother me too much if you thought the Zoroastrians did. In fact, Noah believed in One G-d, and he wasn't a Jew. So there you go. When I speak about monotheism, I mean in a relatively modern world, i.e., since Avraham, who was the first person in a society completely engulfed in polytheism and idol worship to say that there is One G-d. I should have made that more clear. I apologize.

Moreover, much of Judaic morality isn't unique in the world. Asia had no difficulty working out that killing, fighting, stealing and lying are bad, and that it's good to honour your ancestors. :)

I'm not saying Judaism is unique in that sense. I'm saying that it brought it to the world. There's a big difference.

I don't think I have to. The 15%-35% of Israeli Jews who are also atheists already did. :D I'm an atheist and I still take Sundays off, and occasionally go to Christmas parties but just try telling me that I'm a closet Christian. Custom is not the same as spiritual identity.

They are still Jews. They could convert to Catholicism for all I care. I--and more importantly, G-d--would still consider them Jewish. Whether you want to believe it or not, Israel is the Jewish State. I'll admit that most of that is represented by culture rather than religion. However, I find it hard to believe that you will continue to argue that religious Judaism has no part in Israel. You can't argue that if you've ever been there.

Here's my problem with arguments of primacy and supremacism, SLI -- I feel that they're incompatible with 'getting along'. The Torah envisions a post-massiach future in which every non-Jew capitulates and submits to Judaic law. If you hold to that in its literal sense then you can't really 'get along' with people who don't want that as their future. The most you can do is fake it.

I think we're not on the same page here. There's a difference between being chosen and being supremists. We don't think we're any better than anyone else. In fact, the Jewish people were offered the Torah precisely because we were the lowest of all the nations. Read the Bible. There's a saying in Judaism that it was either written by G-d or someone really anti-Semitic, because it really makes us look bad.

We're chosen because we chose the Torah. Anyone who converts to Judaism automatically becomes chosen. G-d chooses us for a special mission, and we choose to accept it. That's really the extent of it.

The Torah actually speaks very vaguely about the Messianic Era (it's not post-Moshiach, because once he comes, sickness and death will be eliminated). However, what it does say goes against what you have asserted:

"And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." (Isaiah 11:6-9)

This prophecy tells us that when Moshiach comes, there will no longer be war. It is not because everyone will convert to Judaism; in fact, that is not true at all. Instead, the nations of the world will continue in their practices, but all nations will live in peace. Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians ;) will all live in this world together. What will happen though, is that all will acknowledge that there is One True G-d.

So, when we long for Moshiach every day, we are longing for world peace.

That's not a specifically Judaic problem. All the Abrahamic religions have supremacist eschatology in their ancient dogma. Some sects hold to it; others ignore or deprecate it. But no matter how much other compassion may be in the religion (and all three faiths have abundant compassion), supremacist myths do not make for good or trustworthy neighbours. Moderate and progressive devotees will normally skirt the issue, but conservative and orthodox devotees will press the point -- even as you are. Then we look and find that supremacism is cheap -- you can find it in most cultures in the world; that it's lacking in evidence unless you're already very biased toward believing it; and that even when it doesn't cause conflict, it magnifies it.

From a humanistic perspective it's a simple choice: which do you want more -- peace or to win?

As I explained above, winning means peace for everyone. The only way to win is through G-d. Moshiach now!

ColoradoGuy

08-10-2009, 07:00 AM

I don't think the common moral strictures of not killing, not stealing, and generally treating others as one would want to be treated need not come from any particular source. I suspect it's a matter of convergent evolution, meaning that different peoples in different places arrive at similar moral codes because of their shared humanity.

Ruv Draba

08-10-2009, 07:17 AM

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. How has the law moved on?It's now legal to be a polytheist, to dishonour our parents, to have affairs... all things forbidden in the Old Testament.
Yes, I did ignore the Code of Hammurabi, but not on purpose. :) However, if you read it, it isn't exactly the picture of morality. I don't think anyone would agree today with pulling out someone's eye if they poke yours...or pouring molten gold over a pagan just because they're of your tribe but not your religion. :( Most ancient law contains things that most people would now consider immoral -- including Mosaic law.
That's definitely not true. Jews were not polytheistic.According to tribal myths, you mean. But are those myths supported by archaeological and anthropological study or are they simply revisionist? Here's what Professor L Eslinger (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~eslinger/index.html) from the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary has to say (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~eslinger/genrels/issues/polytheism.html):

Examples of texts that demonstrate an implicit assumption of multiple gods: Exod 15.11; 18.11; 20.3; 23.24; Num 25.2; Deut 10.17; Josh 24.15; 1 Kgs 11.2-10; 2 Kgs 17.31
Examples of texts that claim (usually polemically) monotheism: Deut 4.28 (but cf. 5.7); 6.4; Ps 96.5; Isa 42.17

The contrast in the tonality (polytheism a quiet assumption; monotheism a strident polemical claim) of the two kinds of evidence for mono- and polytheism is itself evidence for the counter-cultural nature of monotheism in ancient Israel. (Supplementing the textual evidence, there is a good deal of extra-biblical evidence (both artifactual and textual) that shows that "polytheism" persisted throughout Israel's history in popular religion (itself more a shadow than a presence in the "official literature" of the Bible). "The existence of high places and other forms of ancestral and household god worship was not -- as the book of Kings imply -- apostasy from an earlier, purer faith. It was part of the timeless tradition of the hill country settlers of Judah, who worshiped YHWH along with a variety of gods and goddesses known or adapted from the cults of neighboring peoples. YHWH, in short, was worshiped in a wide variety of ways -- and sometimes pictured as having a heavenly entourage. From the indirect (and pointedly negative) evidence of the books of Kings, we learn that priests in the countryside also regularly burned incense on the high places to the sun, the moon, and the stars" I. Finkelstein and N.A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York, Toronto: Free Press, 2001), pp. 241-42.
The issue of mono- versus polytheism, for ancient Israel (pre-586 BCE) has been skewed by polemical ideological (aka theological) trends in the subsequent development of this cultural tradition.It's an argument that I can readily accept -- polytheism is common to ancient cultures, but over time they tend to elevate certain deities and syncretise myths. Most cultures retell their myths to suit their current identity. Archaeologists feel that Jews did this too and I've seen no special evidence that they didn't.

I find it hard to believe that you will continue to argue that religious Judaism has no part in Israel. You can't argue that if you've ever been there.I didn't argue that. I argued that it was set up on ethnicity, and that some religion followed but ethnic preservation is the principle justification for the creation of the state. While I'd be glad to visit Israel, I don't need to visit to read the demographics, the Basic Laws and to read opinion by Israelis themselves. :)
There's a difference between being chosen and being supremists. We don't think we're any better than anyone else.Well, you've already said 'submit or you're immoral'; 'peace -- but only under our ways', so I think it meets the definition, underlining mine:

Supremacism is the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, species, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not. Examples include supremacism based on ethnic or anthropological origins (white supremacy, black supremacy, ethnocentrism), sexuality (male supremacy, female supremacy), sentience (human supremacy, alien supremacy) and religion (see below).
I think that you're actually arguing 'It's not supremacism if our ways are better'. Actually, I'd argue that it is supremacism even then. I'd also challenge you to find evidence of superiority outside the self-interested myths of your tribe. And to see whether it's plausible to the tribes you want to submit to your ways, or just to your own biases.

I think you're also arguing that 'It's not supremacism if a divinity makes you supreme'. I would say that it is if it's your own tribal divinity making this shock announcement. It wouldn't be if say, Brahma -- a major divinity of the Hindus -- announced it instead. :)

Finally, your argument 'Live like me and you can be Chosen too', excuses nothing. It's the same proselytisation argument that many religions use -- and also falls within recognised supremacist behaviour.

Which is worse -- ethnic supremacism or religious supremacism? Historically and given the opportunity, one leads to slavery and genocide by blood; the other leads to slavery and genocide by thought. I can't really tell them apart, Semi.
So, when we long for Moshiach every day, we are longing for world peace.It's very peaceful when dissenting views have been eliminated, but peace at what cost?

I don't recall you mentioning Hindus or Buddhists or atheists in your post-Moshiach vision. I think we both know why -- they have no place in that myth unless they become Jews. I know of Hindus, Buddhists and atheists like myself who can conceive of sharing a future indefinitely with Orthodox Jews. Such people don't need a myth celebrating the obliteration of Judaism -- and doubtless you'd find it extremely offensive if they did.

So why then is the reverse not also true?

semilargeintestine

08-11-2009, 01:40 AM

semilargeintestine

08-11-2009, 02:11 AM

It's now legal to be a polytheist, to dishonour our parents, to have affairs... all things forbidden in the Old Testament.
..or pouring molten gold over a pagan just because they're of your tribe but not your religion. :( Most ancient law contains things that most people would now consider immoral -- including Mosaic law.

It is legal to do all those things. It is not legal for a Jew to do them no matter what country he lives in. Jewish law supersedes state law--for Jews.

We don't do that to idol worshippers, we stone them. ;) There are reasons we don't do that anymore, but the law moving on is not one of them.

According to tribal myths, you mean. But are those myths supported by archaeological and anthropological study or are they simply revisionist? Here's what Professor L Eslinger (http://www.ucalgary.ca/%7Eeslinger/index.html) from the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary has to say (http://www.ucalgary.ca/%7Eeslinger/genrels/issues/polytheism.html):
It's an argument that I can readily accept -- polytheism is common to ancient cultures, but over time they tend to elevate certain deities and syncretise myths. Most cultures retell their myths to suit their current identity. Archaeologists feel that Jews did this too and I've seen no special evidence that they didn't.

Some archaeologists feel that they did. But there has also been evidence in support for exactly what I said: that there were periods of intense polytheism and idol worship in Judaism, but that it was taken care of during the reigns of David and Chizkiyahu.

I didn't argue that. I argued that it was set up on ethnicity, and that some religion followed but ethnic preservation is the principle justification for the creation of the state. While I'd be glad to visit Israel, I don't need to visit to read the demographics, the Basic Laws and to read opinion by Israelis themselves. :)

It's not the same. Maybe it would be for you, but a Jew going to Israel feels something special. I know many atheist Jews who went there and felt a connection to the land.

Well, you've already said 'submit or you're immoral'; 'peace -- but only under our ways', so I think it meets the definition, underlining mine:

I think that you're actually arguing 'It's not supremacism if our ways are better'. Actually, I'd argue that it is supremacism even then. I'd also challenge you to find evidence of superiority outside the self-interested myths of your tribe. And to see whether it's plausible to the tribes you want to submit to your ways, or just to your own biases.

I think you're also arguing that 'It's not supremacism if a divinity makes you supreme'. I would say that it is if it's your own tribal divinity making this shock announcement. It wouldn't be if say, Brahma -- a major divinity of the Hindus -- announced it instead. :)

Finally, your argument 'Live like me and you can be Chosen too', excuses nothing. It's the same proselytisation argument that many religions use -- and also falls within recognised supremacist behaviour.

Which is worse -- ethnic supremacism or religious supremacism? Historically and given the opportunity, one leads to slavery and genocide by blood; the other leads to slavery and genocide by thought. I can't really tell them apart, Semi.

Wow, way to completely misunderstand everything I wrote. I'll try one more time. The Jews are chosen by G-d. The Jews are chosen to carry out the Torah and bring the knowledge of One G-d to the world. For this, we are guaranteed a place in the World to Come and eternity as a nation (meaning we won't become extinct like the Romans, etc.).

Your very incorrect assessment of this completely turns that on its side and makes it appear as though I'm saying we're better than everyone. We're just different with a special relationship with G-d. But that doesn't mean you have to be Jewish to be rewarded (or punished) or get into Heaven or have a place in the World to Come.

My comment that you can convert to Judaism and become chosen was intended to show the use of the term "chosen." Chosen means we were offered the Torah, and we accepted it. When someone converts to Judaism, they accept the Torah, and are therefore chosen to carry out its commandments.

In addition, you're arguing that we believe we will rule over everyone. That is not at all what I said. I said there will be a Jewish kingdom, and outside of that will be the rest of the world, who will live the way they are living now. The only difference in relations will be that no one will go to war against each other. How is that supremacist?

If a white guy told you that he was waiting for someone to come and make it so blacks, whites, asians, and mexicans all got along and didn't fight, I doubt you would call him a white supremacist. So why are the Jews supremacists for wanting the same thing?

It's very peaceful when dissenting views have been eliminated, but peace at what cost?

What dissenting views? They can still practice their own religion. The universality of G-d doesn't preclude someone from maintaining their own religion. How could it? More than one pope has called the Jews the chosen people. Obviously they were Catholic. I don't see the problem.

I don't recall you mentioning Hindus or Buddhists or atheists in your post-Moshiach vision. I think we both know why -- they have no place in that myth unless they become Jews. I know of Hindus, Buddhists and atheists like myself who can conceive of sharing a future indefinitely with Orthodox Jews. Such people don't need a myth celebrating the obliteration of Judaism -- and doubtless you'd find it extremely offensive if they did.

So why then is the reverse not also true?

I also didn't mention Muslims. You read too much into that. There was no hidden message behind not listing all the religions. I simply didn't feel like typing out every single religion, so I stopped after three.

As far as atheists go, it says all nations have a share in the World to Come. As far as the Messianic Age goes, you'll be there just as I will. As far as the afterlife goes, the believe varies depending on who you ask. Some people want to believe everyone except really bad assholes go to heaven, so they say atheists see G-d just before death and go with the realisation that He exists, thus going to heaven. Some people believe that if you do not believe in G-d at all, you're screwed.

Personally, I don't believe G-d would destroy someone's soul for not believing in Him. I feel like He would just send you back for another go. If a Jew chooses not to believe in G-d, the punishment will be far more severe than if a non-Jew does the same thing. This is something that is accepted pretty much by all of Orthodox Judaism (I'm not sure if Reform and Conservative Judaism even really believes in Heaven to be honest, so I won't say what they think), since Jews are held to a higher standard than the rest of the world. We do have a pretty detailed instruction manual after all.

ColoradoGuy

08-11-2009, 07:53 PM

I
Wow, way to completely misunderstand everything I wrote. I'll try one more time. The Jews are chosen by G-d. The Jews are chosen to carry out the Torah and bring the knowledge of One G-d to the world. For this, we are guaranteed a place in the World to Come and eternity as a nation (meaning we won't become extinct like the Romans, etc.).
I think you need to tone down the stridency a little, SLI. You believe this, but others do not.

semilargeintestine

08-11-2009, 07:55 PM

I didn't realise that I was restricted from sharing my beliefs while others can.

ColoradoGuy

08-11-2009, 07:58 PM

I agree. We just happen to be discussing it. As long as people acknowledge that it ultimately came from G-d, that's good enough for me.
Well, that's the thing. It is a perfectly acceptable position not to share your belief, that is, not to acknowledge this. Explain yes, try to understand, yes: judge -- no. At least not here.

semilargeintestine

08-11-2009, 08:01 PM

My beliefs are facts to me, and so I discuss them that way. I don't judge someone for not believing it, I judge someone for being antagonistic because I refuse to admit I might be wrong about my beliefs.

Why don't you focus on applying that rule equally? We were discussing something that we disagreed on, and I was insulted multiple times in multiple posts, and there have been several instances where my posts have been "summarized" in a way that is grossly different from what I said. I don't see anything condemning that, but I see a lot of posts telling me that I shouldn't be so hard and fast on my religious beliefs.

ColoradoGuy

08-11-2009, 08:05 PM

I didn't realise that I was restricted from sharing my beliefs while others can.
Share all you like, and your posts have been very enlightening and interesting as you explain your viewpoint. But my job is to keep the peace, which means heading off, to the extent I can, postings that make stark pronouncements without noting that this is their belief of how things are. It can be a subtle line, I know, but it's a real one.

semilargeintestine

08-11-2009, 08:07 PM

Your job is important, but like I said: apply the rules equally. I have yet to see anything said about all the insults that were posted to me, but we're still talking about my beliefs.

veinglory

08-11-2009, 08:11 PM

You were talking about what other people have to acknowledge, a.k.a. *their* beleifs.

semilargeintestine

08-11-2009, 08:14 PM

Actually, what I said is that other people will acknowledge G-d in the World to Come. That's a belief about what will happen in the future, and it mentions nothing about other people having to do anything. Similarly, no one else has to believe that.

I said multiple times that I don't mind if people have other beliefs. I'm just not going to concede that they might be right. I see nothing wrong with that. There's a difference between saying you can't have your own beliefs and I don't agree with your beliefs. I may think they're malarkey, but I don't care if you have them.

ETA: In fact, they're important. Not everyone is supposed to be the same religion (and some people don't have any religion--once again, not my place to tell you to change).

ColoradoGuy

08-11-2009, 08:15 PM

semilargeintestine

08-11-2009, 08:18 PM

Really? So when I was told that I'm a "lousy ambassador and guide" for being a "supremacist," there was nothing personal there? Good to know.

ColoradoGuy

08-11-2009, 08:20 PM

Your job is important, but like I said: apply the rules equally. I have yet to see anything said about all the insults that were posted to me, but we're still talking about my beliefs.
Parties who feel wronged inevitably claim that the moderators are not applying the rules equally; you aren't the first, and I doubt you will be the last, to tell me that. Insult is often in the eye of the beholder, and I don't think you've been insulted. Chided yes, needled at bit maybe, but not insulted. And yes, I'm the judge of these things.

ColoradoGuy

08-11-2009, 08:21 PM

Really? So when I was told that I'm a "lousy ambassador and guide" for being a "supremacist," there was nothing personal there? Good to know.
I'm impervious to sarcasm, by the way. Another thing that's good for you to know.

semilargeintestine

08-11-2009, 08:22 PM

I find it incredible that another person can try over and over again to twist my posts into saying something I didn't and then insult me when I told him he's wrong, but I'm the one that needs to be chided. Just amazing.

ETA: Really not even worth it. Obviously it's too much to ask to have my statements judged based on what I say rather than how others present my intentions, which they somehow know better than me.

ColoradoGuy

08-11-2009, 08:38 PM

I find it incredible that another person can try over and over again to twist my posts into saying something I didn't and then insult me when I told him he's wrong, but I'm the one that needs to be chided. Just amazing.
On balance, yes. But if you care to read the post (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3910261&postcount=55) with which I closed the other thread, I think you'll see my statement was neutral.

Now you have a choice. You can continue to complain to and about me, which will not be helpful. You can ratchet up the rhetoric, which will also not be helpful and will not accomplish anything except possibly making me ban you from the forum. Or you can step back, take some deep breaths, and then choose (or not) to participate in other discussions in this forum, perhaps a bit later. I recommend #3. You know a great deal and can bring valuable information to the forum, and I'd hate to see you go.

semilargeintestine

08-11-2009, 08:49 PM

ColoradoGuy

08-11-2009, 09:01 PM

Your post when you closed the other thread was balanced and well done. I had no problem with that, as the thread had deteriorated into insults, and you did your job. I was ready to drop it at that. My only problem was that you then came on this thread and addressed me specifically without mention to anyone else involved. That was my only issue.

It seems like people are upset with me for saying things that I did not say. I'm not sure how much more clearly I could have said over and over again that I don't think anyone should change their beliefs based on what I say, etc. etc., and now I'm being threatened with bannination because I won't apologise for things I never said? I'm sorry, but I just don't see how that's fair.

I won't say anything else about it after this post, but I guess you have to do what you think you have to do. I enjoy this site (and usually this forum), but I am just not willing to let someone get away with calling me a supremacist. If I should be banned for defending myself against wild and unfounded accusations, then so be it. It's unfortunate that it has to be that way.
SLI, thanks so much for this post. I don't regard you as a religious supremacist, at least no more than any of us are. But I do think your posts could be interpreted that way. Since I habitually look to find the good in people as best I can (failing sometimes, of course), I simply glossed over that aspect and assumed you were not. But your words could be taken that way, I do believe. I understand your desire to defend your worldview. But I think sometimes it is best just to state your beliefs and then step away, leaving others to do with them what they will.

Dawnstorm

08-11-2009, 09:58 PM

I'm just not going to concede that they might be right. I see nothing wrong with that. There's a difference between saying you can't have your own beliefs and I don't agree with your beliefs.

There's also a difference between "You're wrong," and "You cannot be right." Have you chosen the verb's modality with care, when said "that they might be right" vs. "that they are right"? The difference is significant.

My impression is that you do mean what you're saying up there.

Ruv Draba

08-12-2009, 02:26 AM

Really? So when I was told that I'm a "lousy ambassador and guide" for being a "supremacist," there was nothing personal there? Good to know.Actually I wasn't trying to hurt you, SLI. I was trying to get you to have sympathy outside your beliefs -- not to change your beliefs but to change the way you think about and deal with people who don't believe as you do.

What is supremacism but being sympathetic to only our own ways and beliefs?

But you're right -- in trying to make the point I dishonoured your name and hurt you into the bargain. That wasn't what I intended but it is what I accomplished. You don't deserve that. Please accept my unreserved apologies.

red_panda

08-12-2009, 09:00 PM

deleted by user

Ruv Draba

08-13-2009, 12:15 AM

To put this as a question: Why would anyone make a bad choice, if he had free will?A humanist would answer that bad choices made freely arise from ignorance, fear or deceit.

We make bad choices because we are deluded by forms. In Christian terms, we are enthralled to Satan.But suppose that it's our natural condition to be ignorant and afraid, to tell ourselves and each other lies? Suppose that it's not a fallen condition but the only one we've known? Suppose that it takes extraordinary sustained effort to lift ourselves and each other out of that condition -- and that it's an ongoing work taking all the days of humanity's existence?

Then we'd have to say that ignorance, fear and deceit are an erosion of whatever freedoms we know, and take constant effort to overcome. And that courage, truth and wisdom are transient, fragile and therefore precious.

To use your language for poetic purposes only, that would make Satan eternal and God unreachable wouldn't it? And free will wouldn't be innate but a hard-won struggle that begins before we are fully self-aware, and pushes forward in every generation -- if we're careful to sustain it.

In that view it's compassion rather than submission which constrains our choices -- the more we understand, the fewer moral choices we have but the freer we are to work for the good.

Secular humanists generally prefer this view because it seems to be most consistent with history and with the way we see infants develop into adults. We'd argue that there's no ideal condition floating around. Rather, it falls to us to find a better one than the one we have. (Sectarian humanists differ slightly and say that there may be an ideal condition floating around, but we still have to discover it. :D)

From that perspective I don't think that a struggle to recognise and choose good is specifically Judaeo-Christian, rather Judaeo-Christianity has offered one set of imagery and langage in which to discuss it.

semilargeintestine

08-13-2009, 02:10 AM

Actually I wasn't trying to hurt you, SLI. I was trying to get you to have sympathy outside your beliefs -- not to change your beliefs but to change the way you think about and deal with people who don't believe as you do.

What is supremacism but being sympathetic to only our own ways and beliefs?

But you're right -- in trying to make the point I dishonoured your name and hurt you into the bargain. That wasn't what I intended but it is what I accomplished. You don't deserve that. Please accept my unreserved apologies.

I wasn't going to post again about it, but I didn't want this to go unacknowledged. Thanks for apologising. I think we just had a massive misunderstanding with fault on both sides. So, I apologise too.

semilargeintestine

08-13-2009, 02:27 AM

I see this as a strictly Christian problem. The Old Testament God clearly states that he created both light and darkness, and the Jews believe we are left to choose. One of the unique appeals of Jewish scripture is the moral weakness of its central characters. Christians seem to want everything perfect and clean.

A little saying we have is that the Tanakh (Jewish Bible, what Christians call the "Old Testament") was either written by G-d or an anti-Semite, because it makes us look like crap. :D

It's interesting that the idea of Satan only came about several hundred years after the start of Judaism, probably as an explanation for the theodicy problem. Here the Jews are, being holy, and bad things happen to them while the wicked prosper. Why? Satan.

Actually, Satan is mentioned in the Jewish Bible twice, but the Oral Torah tells us that his role is much larger. You touch on it later on in your post.

Somewhat of a tangent, but this works back into my reasoning: Satan began life as God's chief prosecutor. It was his job to tempt humans and reveal their unfaithfulness. The idea of Satan as rebel angel who rules Hell only came about much later, with Christianity, and I'm not convinced there's good Biblical support for that belief either. The idea of Satan became more folk religion/superstition.

Exactly right. The Satan in the Jewish Bible (and it is the Satan--Satan means Accuser) has no free will and acts as the prosecuting attorney in the Heavenly Court. This scene is played out in Job, and our Oral Tradition tells us that this is what occurs regularly in the Heavenly Court--the Satan is on the right accusing, while another angel is on the left defending. Ultimately G-d makes the decision, but the Satan's job is to offer up the reasons why the person in question should not have mercy shown to them.

Coming at this from a comparative religion standpoint, I see "God" as the eternal and "Satan" as the impermanent. Align yourself with God and you live in the present moment, which is eternal. Align yourself with Satan and you're grasping at a future that will never be or obsessing over a past that never was. This, I think, is what the Bible means by "the eyes of God" and "the eyes of Satan."

It is true that G-d is the Eternal One, but I think even what you say here puts too much focus on the Satan. He really deserves no more attention than any of the other angels. It is because of the Christianized version of him that we have all this focus on his role.

Evil, which leads to sin, is the attachment to impermanent forms. This is why it's said the world belongs to Satan. (Compare: "the world of forms" from Hinduism.) Forms, which do not exist, are identical to thought forms--the artificial constructs of the mind.

I think that originated with Plato.

When human beings surrender their will to God--embrace the eternal--they abandon thought forms. Without thought, there can be no evil. (Note that this does not mean there can be no intelligence.)

The apparent contradiction lies in our identification with thought forms, the belief that the "I" of our selves is thought. The true I is the knower of thought ("I AM").

This is where I take issue. It is not that we should not think. Doing things like a robot is not the point. The point is to discern why we do things and why we should strive to want to do them. We do them anyway because G-d asked us to, but we seek to learn as much about it as possible along the way.

Surrendering fully to G-d's will means that we accept that whatever G-d does with us is the best thing for us, because He can see all--past, present, and future--while we can only see a very limited view. This sort of submission actually requires a lot of thought, because you must come to terms with the fact that the world is complicated and there is a Creator out there looking out for you.

This isn't to say that we should just sit back and let things happen. G-d doesn't want that. He wants us to live. But if we try something, and it fails, there is a reason that may not be known to us; but it is known to Him. Submission means accepting that even bad things are for the best and that all good things come from Him.

Now, the real problem of free will is that we believe thought-directed action is freedom. We think up delusional plans, based upon false perceptions, and we do things--then we wonder why the results come out wrong. "Why did this horrible thing happen to me?"

G-d does not cause everything to happen. G-d often lets bad things happen for reasons we cannot understand. He gave us free will so we would have the option to choose between right and wrong, good and evil. When we choose good, it causes great joy in the spiritual plane. When we choose evil, G-d has to punish us; however, it causes Him great pain to do so, because He wants to see all of us rewarded.

The type of thought that I'm arguing against is the kind that sees the ego as the center of the universe and believes that its judgment trumps the will of God (which I have defined as the eternal). It weighs the evidence and comes to a conclusion that flies in the face of the totality of evidence. It's the stubborn, willful, ignorant, impulsive child that insists upon having its way even when it clearly is wrong.

Greed = I want more than I deserve.

Sloth = I want results without effort.

Hate = I insist that this person/thing/reality should not exist, even though it clearly does.

Paradoxically, free will is the surrender of will.

To put this as a question: Why would anyone make a bad choice, if he had free will?

We make bad choices because we are deluded by forms. In Christian terms, we are enthralled to Satan.

In Judaism, we differ between Satan and the evil inclination. Inside of us is the Good Inclination (Yeitzer HaTov) and the Evil Inclination (Yeitzer HaRa). The Evil Inclination is that voice that tries to convince us that sinning is a good thing. It plays on our ability to rationalise and gives us a seemingly logical argument, and before we know it, the sin makes perfect sense.

Our Good Inclination is that feeling in our gut that tells us something isn't quite right when we're about to sin (or if we already have unknowingly). The two are equal, and the holier you get, the more powerful they each get. It is a common fallacy that holy people have no inclination to sin; the truth is, their inclination to sin is so great that a normal person would be unable to handle it. It is simply because their Good Inclination is also so large that they are able to abstain from sinning.

ColoradoGuy

08-13-2009, 02:41 AM

. . . It is a common fallacy that holy people have no inclination to sin; the truth is, their inclination to sin is so great that a normal person would be unable to handle it. It is simply because their Good Inclination is also so large that they are able to abstain from sinning.
I think this is a quite profound observation. It seems to me that the non-material consequences of a very good person doing a bad thing are far more serious than those of the same act by a person who generally does bad things, even though the material consequences may be the same for both.

semilargeintestine

08-13-2009, 02:44 AM

Sins in general have tremendous consequences in the spiritual world, but even more so when a truly holy person sins. We take it for granted that G-d often spares us based on their merit. If they descend into sin, it could mean disastrous things for the rest of us.

Ruv Draba

08-13-2009, 03:39 AM

I think this is a quite profound observation. It seems to me that the non-material consequences of a very good person doing a bad thing are far more serious than those of the same act by a person who generally does bad things, even though the material consequences may be the same for both.I'd agree, even from a material perspective. I think that the issue here isn't holiness (which for me is about taboo), but how trust shapes ethics.

Some people hold to ethics because it's moral to do so. Others hold to ethics because they try and emulate others. Yet others do so for fear of being caught by the ones who find it important. :) The people whom we trust most anchor us, and we anchor others. If we hold a position of trust then spiritually we are in service to those who trust us -- I see no ethical choice about that. It's not enough that we do our job well, we need to do our job good.

It's an adage that the ethical health of a group can never exceed that of its leaders. I've consulted to dozens of organisations and seen first-hand that this is true. I've done some work with a federal law enforcement agency (our equivalent of the FBI), for example and seen their Deputy Director-equivalent almost worshipped. Lots of people willingly lie to their boss, but I never met a federal agent who'd even consider lying to this guy. They believed in the standards he set because he held himself to those standards. They never doubted that he expected and demanded their best behaviour as human beings and that he set that example every day.

Sadly, I've seen the reverse occur too. When we believe that the boss is out for himself at the cost of everyone else, we play a very different game -- the 'look after number 1' game. That affects how we treat others.

When the people whom we respect betray us, we doubt ourselves, set a lower bar. Perhaps worse, when they betray themselves we start to think that self-betrayal is ordinary, inevitable. I think that we look to our leaders to remind us every day that it's not.

A very senior public servant once said that leadership can't be taught, only learned. I certainly feel that the ethics of leadership are built by practice far more than instruction.

I don't personally believe that one needs to fear a god to hold good in our hearts. One simply needs to understand the profound and prolonged consequences of not doing so.

red_panda

08-13-2009, 09:46 AM

deleted by user

giusti

08-13-2009, 10:56 AM

I haven't read most of the posts before me in this thread (there's six pages of them, give me a break), so I hope I'm not just repeating things that were said earlier.

As far as free will goes, I don't think that pre-determinism really affects it at all as long as people aren't told of what is going to happen. Calvinists say that from before each person is born, God already knows whether they will go to heaven or to hell. If people actually knew whether they would or not, this would affect things, but they don't know. All they know is that God knows. So for those who just assume that it was pre-determined that they would go to heaven and therefore don't try to be a good person, it was probably already known that they would think this way and act accordingly. Therefore, it's likely that these people were pre-determined to go to hell. From the other perspective, if someone acted well their whole life, despite the fact that they "knew" they were going to go to heaven, it was probably know that they would act this way too, and it was pre-determined to go to heaven. It only gets messy if somebody on Earth knows who is and isn't going to hell (unless this knowledge is ever-changing based on the effect of telling people about their fate).

But what makes this more interesting to me is if we assume that God isn't omnipotent. What's always made little sense to many people is why God is said to only create good, and only advocate good, and yet he doesn't get rid of all evil on the Earth. (This is interesting to me as an atheist because Christianity and Islam are the only two religions that have these notions of absolute evil. But obviously, the idea is very popular, as these two religions are the most popular ever made.)

But assuming that there is a conflict in the fact that God did not abolish evil, contemplate this: Suppose that you are God. You have existed from the beginning of the universe, know everything that's ever happened and everything that ever will happen, but cannot directly affect the world. One day, you find that you have a spontaneous connection with someone on Earth, let's call him Joshua Christ. What would you say? I mean, if God did exist, and he was going to put one person in charge of transforming the world according to what was best for humanity, the only reason of why he would do this that seems likely to me is because he didn't have the power to go down there and do it himself.

If I've offended anyone with this, just ignore me and I'm sorry. I know that religion can be a very touchy subject.

-giusti

semilargeintestine

08-14-2009, 02:34 AM

This probably makes more poetic than theological sense, but it seems from the language that "the accuser" corresponds to that part of the mind that accuses, that passes judgment on what it sees.

I've got this idea that Jesus was referencing his own personal history (as God) when he said, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out."

semilargeintestine's comment about Satan being at God's right reminded me of that.

Doesn't it make sense to think that Satan was God's right eye, and he plucked him out (cast him down to Hell)? (This could account for the change in character from the Old Testament to the New Testament God.)

That's only if you accept that A) the god in the New Testament (who never actually refers to himself as G-d by the way) is the same as the G-d in the Jewish Bible, B) that the Satan was actually cast down into some sort of "Hell", and C) that "Hell" exists.

Additionally, accepting B) means you accept that G-d is not perfect and is subject to both error and temptation, which is blasphemy and completely goes against the concept of a Perfect G-d.

As far as I know, there is no mention whatsoever in the NT of the type of Hell and Satan that Chr-stians currently believe in, but please correct me if I'm wrong. In fact, J-sus was Jewish, so his knowledge of Satan and Gehenna would match the Jewish belief at that time, which is the same as it is today. If I recall correctly, Satan even attempts to tempt J-sus at one point. This is not far off the Jewish belief, and it has no contradiction whatsoever to Satan's position as an angel of G-d exercising His will alone.

semilargeintestine

08-14-2009, 02:41 AM

I haven't read most of the posts before me in this thread (there's six pages of them, give me a break), so I hope I'm not just repeating things that were said earlier.

Break given. :D

As far as free will goes, I don't think that pre-determinism really affects it at all as long as people aren't told of what is going to happen. Calvinists say that from before each person is born, God already knows whether they will go to heaven or to hell. If people actually knew whether they would or not, this would affect things, but they don't know. All they know is that God knows. So for those who just assume that it was pre-determined that they would go to heaven and therefore don't try to be a good person, it was probably already known that they would think this way and act accordingly. Therefore, it's likely that these people were pre-determined to go to hell. From the other perspective, if someone acted well their whole life, despite the fact that they "knew" they were going to go to heaven, it was probably know that they would act this way too, and it was pre-determined to go to heaven. It only gets messy if somebody on Earth knows who is and isn't going to hell (unless this knowledge is ever-changing based on the effect of telling people about their fate).

A good example is one I have heard and used many times. You have the ability to travel into the future. You see that tomorrow your friend will try to decide between a red shirt and a blue shirt; he thinks about it, but eventually chooses the red shirt. You travel back to the present and let the day play out. The next morning, you know he is going to wear the red shirt, but it doesn't make it any less of a choice for him.

G-d knows what we are going to do, but that doesn't mean we didn't choose. It simply means He knows the storyline before it unfolds for us. Remember, G-d existed before time, and He exists outside it. The same rules don't apply to Him.

I won't address the Heaven and Hell thing, because depending on your beliefs, it either makes sense or not. I'll just say that in Judaism, everyone goes to Heaven, but everyone goes through a cleansing first in Gehenna, which is often equated to the Hell of other religions. That's not necessarily true though.

But what makes this more interesting to me is if we assume that God isn't omnipotent. What's always made little sense to many people is why God is said to only create good, and only advocate good, and yet he doesn't get rid of all evil on the Earth. (This is interesting to me as an atheist because Christianity and Islam are the only two religions that have these notions of absolute evil. But obviously, the idea is very popular, as these two religions are the most popular ever made.)

G-d told us very clearly through the prophet Isaiah that He created both good and evil. Why some other religions choose to ignore that is beyond me.

But assuming that there is a conflict in the fact that God did not abolish evil, contemplate this: Suppose that you are God. You have existed from the beginning of the universe, know everything that's ever happened and everything that ever will happen, but cannot directly affect the world. One day, you find that you have a spontaneous connection with someone on Earth, let's call him Joshua Christ. What would you say? I mean, if God did exist, and he was going to put one person in charge of transforming the world according to what was best for humanity, the only reason of why he would do this that seems likely to me is because he didn't have the power to go down there and do it himself.

You've now completely left the bounds of Judaism and the concept of G-d in general. That's a completely hypothetical situation that really has no basis in reality. I'm not really even sure of your point here.

If I've offended anyone with this, just ignore me and I'm sorry. I know that religion can be a very touchy subject.

-giusti

If you get offended easily, this room is not for you. :D