enlightenment said:
then are the Abrahamic faiths not merely cults that survived the ages?
i would prefer to think of judaism not so much as a lucky cult, but as the sole (with the possible exception of the zoroastrians and they don't seem to get nearly as much air-time as us, clever sods) surviving diaspora culture of the ancient world, one which has survived because it offers something beneficial to its adherents in spite of the considerable disadvantages we have endured over the years. i've observed that the survival of judaism appears to violate most of the rules of history, which does tend to infuriate people who think all religion is a version of the peacock's tail (the same argument could be made of music of course).
Simone "could i be any more fab" Weil pbuh said:
To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods.
it is instructive (perhaps even ironic) that G!D feels it necessary to make the same point in the first commandment: "I Am HaShem your G!D Who Brought you out of the land of egypt, out of the camp of slavery", following it up immediately with the commandment not to worship idols. idolatry should also include such things as arrogance, of which one could argue that all of us are guilty to some extent i expect.
enlightenment said:
People of these religions all claim to be worshipping the same god, yet their methods are diametrically opposed to each other, which must make one of them right, and the other two wrong, or all three are wrong.
only if they are making exclusivist claims, such that anyone who does not believe X is going to hell, for example. judaism makes no such claims, restricting itself to defining a "good person" as one who observes the 7 noahide laws; personally, i've never known anyone who really wouldn't qualify under these. now, christianity and islam are sometimes accused of being exclusivist, but as neither are monolithic this is somewhat fallacious, there are streams which are (e.g. j-witnesses, salafis) and others which aren't (e.g. episcopalians, sufis)
For the record, I think all three are based of a fallacy.
which is?
I cannot recount any war that has been done in the name of atheism.
the suppression of religion in the former soviet union? the khmer rouge genocide? atheism can behave as an oppressive ideology just like religion can, this is a bit of a daft position.
What it proves is that no matter what gods any religion people have one their side, that there is no god or higher force that cares about their marriage. If there is, I would like to see the evidence of it.
not at all. your original thesis is wrong. the evidence says that religious people are less likely to divorce, regardless of whether they are allowed to do or not by the tenets of religion. now, in judaism, divorce is certainly permitted in any reasonable circumstance and need not be difficult at all. technically, there is no commandment to actually get married, although there is of course the obligation on the man (not the woman) to "be fruitful and multiply". it is also said that G!D is the "third Force" in a marriage and, obviously, this should be for good, although evidently sometimes it is also for ill. equally obviously, one cannot produce evidence that you would accept that G!D "Cares" about anything, since one would have to first prove that G!D actually Exists - and of course, there is no such evidence that you would accept, which standard i should probably ask for. presumably it would be some kind of double-blind, peer-reviewed experiment? it would be hard to envisage a set of circumstances that would satisfy everyone concerned!
As parents our children reach an age when we give them free choice and autonomy, okay?
this is fallacious. i do not "give" my children free choice and autonomy. it is an inalienable component of human consciousness and, we would argue, has been such since we first chose to activate free-will by eating that fruit. even a person with a gun to their head still has inalienable free-will, whether or not they are being coerced. you need to read a bit more philosophy, mate.
what we most certainly do not do is demand that they follow our way, otherwise burn for all eternity in a pit of fire!
well, a) judaism doesn't believe in that and b) that's a very negative way to teach one's child. if my kids grow up and choose to follow a different way, that must necessarily be because nobody gave them a good enough reason to stick with what i did, which would probably be my fault, i expect.
If god is our 'father', then what sort of father would punish someone in such a manner? He would have to be very sick indeed, would he not?
judaism may not believe in pits of fire, but we do believe in consequences. without consequences, you haven't really got free will, the two are interdependent. judaism demands that we act like adults and take responsibility for our actions. what is your position?
Christians and Muslims are forever being offended, should they deem that anyone is 'attacking' their religion, yet their very religion threatens a terrible demise to those that refuse to believe.
again, you're treating both as monolithic, undifferentiated blocs - and then lumping judaism in with them, as if there was no difference between me and, well, osama bin laden. which is, of course, ridiculous.
What could be more offensive than a smug threat like that?
a smug
reductio ad absurdum for the purposes of a rather jejune polemic?
I suppose you also know that according to Biblical history, that god has either directly or indirectly killed many tens of thousands of people, some for the most dubious reason.
Lott's wife. For 'looking back'.
Is that the action of a merciful and loving creator?
If he existed, then it seems to me that he is vain, self obsessed, controlling, and sadistic.
Which is why I am glad that he most probably doesn't.
ok, this is "causality and providence 101". judaism believes that history is a bit like a carpet, you can't really see the back of it or why things work the way they do. you know the whole "quantum weather butterfly" thing? well, it's a bit like that. all we can do is *believe* that "the good are rewarded and the bad are punished". certainly it cannot be adequately proven by any standard of evidence accepted by either scientists, atheists or the jewish sages. you must remember that G!D Is All, not just "good", that is a christian idea and it frankly flies in the face of the prophetic statement that "I Do good and Make evil, I Am G!D, I Do all these things". which is, of course, important for understanding both theodicy and the nature of free will. lot's wife was told "don't look back", presumably because of the consequences. she didn't follow instructions and the world "carried on according to its custom" as per the expectation of the sages. in the same way, you might say to someone: "don't jump off that cliff/play in the road/swim in the lava" - they have the free will to follow your instructions or not, but it is hardly your fault if they disregard the warning, is it? in the same way, it is asinine and childish to blame G!D for not saving fluffy bunny rabbits, oh, what a total *******, eh, it's so unfair? this is an 8-year old's conception of G!D. as a parent, if my kid falls over and hurts his knee, i'll pick him up and kiss it better. if he's still expecting me to do that in 20 years, he hasn't learned anything and i am a lousy teacher. why would you expect G!D to come charging out of the sky every two seconds just so you can prove a point?
b'shalom
bananabrain
