Free thinking on Judaism...

[epinoia]

First off, and most important, let me say peace, shalom, salam to all of you and yours.

That all Abrahamic religions prescribe some form of the Golden Rule points to the good all three share. That their scriptures and/or theologians build in loopholes points to the opposite. Plus, they all contain doctorines that are unbelievable to most outside the faith and even some within it.

Concepts like Jesus' virgin birth, the immaculate conception, shar'ia law and punishment, jihad or crusade as holy war, etc. should and are brought up for vigorous debate in interfaith/skeptic/freethought places. But it seems to me equally valid to question themes that come up in Judaism, namely that "thy neighbor" might be taken to mean especially "thy neighbor like you," or "thy neighbor with the bloodline NOT of Esau or Amelek, etc., and definitely NOT "thy neighbor the idol-worshipper."

How prominent or nonprominent is the belief that if you see two people in peril, and you're a Jew, that you must prefer the Jew? Or that "bloodline" is at all important? What about helping/not helping/hurting idol worshippers who aren't bothering anyone else? I have no big agenda here. I just would like to know.

Thanks...

 

[bananabrain]

But it seems to me equally valid to question themes that come up in Judaism, namely that "thy neighbor" might be taken to mean especially "thy neighbor like you," or "thy neighbor with the bloodline NOT of Esau or Amalek, etc., and definitely NOT "thy neighbor the idol-worshipper."

er... these themes are extensively questioned in the rabbinic literature and the Oral Law. that's exactly the purpose of this body of work, to examine exactly what the Written Law means. FYI, it has been agreed for about 2000 years that there is no longer an identifiable group known as "amalekites", so if you can't identify them, you can't kill them off - although, interestingly, there is a major debate over whether an amalekite can convert to judaism and the eventual answer is that s/he can. likewise, the "idol-worshippers" referred to in the Written Law are defined exclusively as 'people who observe the idolatrous rites of the seven nations of canaan' and, by the same token as the amalekites, are no longer identifiable. do you know of a group nowadays that sacrifices its babies by burning them inside brass statues? so these types of laws are pretty darn difficult to apply in practice and have been for some time.

How prominent or nonprominent is the belief that if you see two people in peril, and you're a Jew, that you must prefer the Jew?

i've never heard anything to suggest that. where is it mentioned in the Torah? who you save would depend on the peril and the precise situation and a mass of other variables, but not whether the person was jewish, because human life is sacred whether jewish or not. because of this, you can break any jewish law (apart from three) to save a human life and therefore, even if such a law existed, you could break it in a life-threatening situation, so it would by definition be a pointless law. so i doubt that such a law exists, but if you can find me a source, i will look into it for you. the point is that you have to make a choice and then be responsible for your choice.

What about helping/not helping/hurting idol worshippers who aren't bothering anyone else?

the same thing really applies - the only way you can actually tell an idol worshipper in jewish law is by the fact that their rite involves hurting someone, so the question can't arise.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[epinoia]

Bananabrain, hi and thanks for helping me understand. Please continue…
In 1 Sam 15:3, G-d instructs:
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
Assuming that the Hebrews complied in full, there would therefore be no Amelekites left as you said. Yet here G-d commands the slaughter of a whole people/civilization, including infants and animals who really could not have had any choice in any evil that went on. This doesn’t seem OK even if child sacrifice was going on, since G-d commanded that the children be slain in any case.
Here in Moses Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Abodah zara X,1:
"Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him. It is, however, forbidden to cause one of them to sink or push him into a pit or the like, since he is not waging war against us. To whom does the above apply? To gentiles. It is a mitzvah, however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot."
Also in Babylonian Talmud, Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5…
"Therefore man was created alone, to teach you that whoever destroys a single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had destroyed a whole world. And whoever saves a single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world."
… Granted, this is mishnah and not Torah. Still is this actually what was said, and if so this a reaction to the conduct of gentiles (especially Christians) and especially at that time., or was it more about the idea of potential polytheism (the 3-in-1 deity, etc.)? In any case, it seems easily argued from this that even if “love thy neighbor as thyself” refers to thy neighbor thy human, it refers even more to thy neighbor in faith or in bloodline. (Otherwise, you wouldn’t have to qualify “soul” with “Israelite.”) I’ve heard it said widely that if you have a Jewish mother, you’re a Jew; why is this if you’re actually a Buddhist or Muslim or whatever? Also that if you believe in Jesus it’s different. Why is this?

All that said, I can see where the rabbis are coming from either way, but it just seems that humans of all faiths and creeds are pretty good about protecting their own and believing that some someone else “really deserved it because. …” all by themselves. They don’t need G-d for that, and when that’s a justification is when things get worse. Now how to get beyond that without committing suicide or at least being a chump, that’s where divine instruction or intervention might really be required. G-d knows people haven’t figured that out, but that people should try.

Finally, I know "shalom," but not the phrase "b'shalom." Does this mean "IN peace" or "FOR peace" perchance? If so, b'shalom to you and yours as well;-) Be well and good...ep

 

[bananabrain]

Assuming that the Hebrews complied in full, there would therefore be no Amalekites left as you said.

yeah, but they didn't. that's pretty much the theme of the entire Na"Kh (the rest of the "OT" apart from the Torah) - G!D telling the people via the prophets to do stuff and them not doing it for various reasons. the point was to do away with amalekite behaviour forever.

Yet here G-d commands the slaughter of a whole people/civilization, including infants and animals who really could not have had any choice in any evil that went on.

the idea is to "blot out amalek" and the only way the israelites would have had of realising the implications of this at the time was to literally exterminate them. however, i think it is probably safe to say that G!D had a fair idea that they wouldn't actually do it. the point of this episode and many like it is not to justify child (or sheep, camel and donkey) murder but to make a point about the relationship between G!D and the israelites at this point in time, which was not without its problems.

as far as maimonides is concerned, he had the luxury (so to speak) of writing at a time when non-jews routinely thought it a good idea to murder us. one can hardly blame him for these kind of opinions considering his experience of brutal crusaders and fanatical almohads and almoravids. in any case, his opinions on christians and muslims are not authoritative; for this you need to go to the meiri, who is french C13th. in any case, the case here clearly only applies to someone who is actively engaged in war against me: in other words, it is equivalent to me seeing osama bin laden or saddam hussein coming at me with a big knife and then falling into a river. i would have had the right to defend myself against his intent to murder me, therefore if his own murderous intent causes him to put himself in imminent danger of death, i am perfectly OK not diving in after him; in fact, i can push him in. it's not a general principle to be applied willy-nilly to all gentiles, in spite of what the text may imply.

Also in Babylonian Talmud, Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5…"Therefore man was created alone, to teach you that whoever destroys a single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had destroyed a whole world. And whoever saves a single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world."

actually, this does not say "israelite" - here's the complete text, including the hebrew: http://www.chiefrabbi.org/dd/sources/sourece85.html , which doesn't distinguish. this is simply a slanted translation.

In any case, it seems easily argued from this that even if “love thy neighbor as thyself” refers to thy neighbor thy human, it refers even more to thy neighbor in faith or in bloodline.

i don't think it's that unreasonable to love one's own friends or relatives most. however, we are also commanded "you shall not favour the poor" when making judgements, which is translated into a general principle of "no favouritism" - you're not permitted to rule in favour of a poor person just because they're poor, because it's unfair; and vice versa.

b'shalom ("in peace", if you prefer)

bananabrain

 

[epinoia]

actually, this does not say "israelite" - here's the complete text, including the hebrew: http://www.chiefrabbi.org/dd/sources/sourece85.html , which doesn't distinguish. this is simply a slanted translation.
<P>
<P>
My source for the above: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html#108

Footnote 111 links what appears to be six translations that verify the “Israelite” theme. Given this discrepancy, though, I tried to look it up in the original and could find NO complete translation in English online.

The nearest I found was this:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/hl/hl04.htm

Is the chief rabbi translating the original Hebrew literally? Or is he giving instruction on what it’s “supposed to mean”? If the latter, what does the original actually say?

b'shalom
Epinoia

[/QUOTE]

 

[bananabrain]

the original hebrew says "NeFeSh EHaD", which means "one soul". the jewishness of the soul is categorically not mentioned. if the translation has been subsequently slanted, this may well be as a result of prejudice - jewish or non-jewish - but it is not a reflection of the plain meaning or its applied meaning within the halacha. in fact, i could easily argue that the particular word used for "soul", which usually denotes a particular aspect of the soul, namely the differentiation between organic and non-organic matter, could be extended to animals and plants. so yes, "chiefy" is not only sticking to the literal, but also to what is meant. i've never heard this verse taught otherwise, although i dare say people have tried to do so at times where non-jews were by definition hostile.

regarding the page you got it off, i could spend a large amount of time refuting it line by line, because its arguments are not only tendentious, but largely based upon contextual misunderstanding. of course, this chap is entitled to by cynical and sceptical about religion, but he relinquishes any claim to impartiality by the statement "theologians have to make a living of the beliefs of their religions' followers" - the rest of the page being effectively an attempt to support this attitude by taking a "fluffy" feelgoodnik rabbi like telushkin and refuting him using contradictory statements by a rationalist academic like hyam maccoby (who actually i rather like) and the most extreme fanatic of modern times, meir kahane (who has more in common with osama bin laden than anyone else) in order to make him look like he's lying. judaism is rarely able to agree on things like this and to suggest that it should is to betray a deep ignorance of the subject and of Talmudic method in particular.

if you like, we can turn this thread into a discussion of that page as a jumping-off text. incidentally, as far as i know there's no complete text of the mishnah or gemara online and, in any case, it's impossible to study without some knowledge of hebrew, aramaic and its own hermeneutic methods.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[epinoia]

i could easily argue that the particular word used for "soul", which usually denotes a particular aspect of the soul, namely the differentiation between organic and non-organic matter, could be extended to animals and plants.[/QUOTE=bananabrain]

The argument above pretty much sums up why conscience-wise, I feel better about eating fruit and grain than milk and eggs, and dairy more than meat. An aside...some Buddhists believe similarly, though that is not why I personally believe this.

"chiefy" is not only sticking to the literal, but also to what is meant.

Is the chief rabbi considered authoritative by Orthodox, Conservative and Reform alike, and why or why not? How is he seen by other religious (Reconstructionists, Hasidim and Samaritans for instance) and by nonreligious Jews in general? Also, and this is aside: What kind of formal authority (if any) does the CR have in the state of Israel? Or is he more like a Billy Graham--a powerful influence, but not one formally recognized by the state? Finally, how is someone named chief rabbi? Is there a vote by the congregations? The rabbis? Deputy chief rabbis?

regarding the page you got it off, i could spend a large amount of time refuting it line by line, because its arguments are not only tendentious, but largely based upon contextual misunderstanding.

Possibly. Muslims argue that the Koran or certain hadiths (the 72 virgins, for example) have been taken out of context or perverted to suit homicidal impulses and/or to ridicule the faith. All that said, they appear to go ahead and put their hadiths right up there online, and if they don't, some secular scholar does.

...judaism is rarely able to agree on things like this and to suggest that it should is to betray a deep ignorance of the subject and of Talmudic method in particular.

This could be, and it's why I find it so frustrating that a translated Talmud is not out there along with the Koran, Torah, Tanakh, Dead Sea Scrolls, New Testament, Apocrypha, Pseudoapocrypha, Nag Hammadi. None of these were written in English. While meaning can be lost/distorted by translation, providing *only* the sacred and/or ancient Arabic/Latin/Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic etc. promotes deep ignorance among most and an unqualified view based entirely on polemics or apologetics.

From what I have seen of the Talmud at sacred texts, it seems just as worthy of consideration and scrutiny as any other sacred text. I wish I could read more of it. I especially appreciate the way they argue.

Having said that last...

if you like, we can turn this thread into a discussion of that page as a jumping-off text.

I very much would like this! The point-by-point structure of Deimel's essay makes it conducive to discussion and refutation, so from that standpoint, it's great.

b'shalom (also--how would you say "for" or "with" in Hebrew? Thx)

 

[iBrian]

Susma - I'm editing out your earlier post, because it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Not simply that, within the context of this thread it is potentially offensive in its implied relationship.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Thanks, Brian.

Susma - I'm editing out your earlier post, because it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Not simply that, within the context of this thread it is potentially offensive in its implied relationship.

Thanks, Brian, for your notice.

Forgive me, but I can't recall now what I wrote in that post. Do you know how that post can be restored for my examination, comparing it with the first post of the thread and subsequent ones entered by other posters?

I must apologize that I do say rather quickly what comes to my mind, and now I can't recall what that post I placed contains.

Well, if no copy can be restored, nothing is lost.

I shall be more careful about offending people.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Addendum

Good friend, Brian:

Allow me to make a suggestion, please send a post you decide to edit out, back to the author, by way of a private message to his inbox.

Now, without a copy of the post which you felt should be phased off, I am left wondering what the post I wrote was all about.

Best regards, and you are doing a very good job.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Let me try again.

The dialogue between Epinola and Banana appears to be one between an objector, Epinola, and an apologist, Banana.

There are accounts and accounts of what we now consider to be iniquitous savagery committed by Jews on other peoples under the prodding of their God, Jahweh. In the Bible also we can read about iniquitous savagery committed by other peoples on the Jews.

My own opinion is that, that was the way the Jewish God was and the Jewish people, inclined and attached to iniquitous savagery, judged on today's standards of human decency and divine clemency.

No amount of apologetics is necessary, and if persistently argued for would be to erroneously apply contemporary picture of civilized human behavior and humanistic divine actuations on acts of men and gods dating as much as three thousand years back.

Baha'i is a modern religion that is definitely in accordance with our present concepts of human nobility which is also thus the property ascribed to modern deities.

So, as religion marches with human civilization it also embraces civilized criteria of what is right and decent and fair.

Summing up: The God of the Jews of the Old Testament was a god of atrocities, so also His people, and similarly no less the gods and their clients among other peoples contemporaneous to the Jews then.

If anyone would found a religion today, consult the UN charters on human rights, women's rights, children's rights, environmental protection, kindness to animals, world peace, and war only as the last resort against an irrationally unjust government.

Don't consult the Bible, and certainly not the Old Testament.


Susma Rio Sep

 

[bananabrain]

what we now consider to be iniquitous savagery committed by Jews on other peoples under the prodding of their God, Jahweh. In the Bible also we can read about iniquitous savagery committed by other peoples on the Jews.

oh, come *on*. no sooner do i think we're establishing common territory than you come out with something like this. deary me.

My own opinion is that, that was the way the Jewish God was and the Jewish people, inclined and attached to iniquitous savagery, judged on today's standards of human decency and divine clemency.

today's standards of human decency. the last hundred years have seen the elevation of the art of mass murder to a new level of effiency in the name of progress and "standards". at least we've learned something in the last 3000 years. how exactly do you think we got from the behaviour you attribute to the biblical israelites to that of the talmudic period (less than 500 years later) if there wasn't a little bit more to it than what you can see?

No amount of apologetics is necessary, and if persistently argued for would be to erroneously apply contemporary picture of civilized human behavior and humanistic divine actuations on acts of men and gods dating as much as three thousand years back.

or, to be more precise, you don't understand the purpose, use or context of our sacred texts, so you're probably best off not trying to judge the stuff in them with the tools you possess at present.

So, as religion marches with human civilization it also embraces civilized criteria of what is right and decent and fair.

yeah, because what is right, decent and fair is determined by post-enlightenment europeans. civilised, indeed. the germans of the 1930s and 40s were "civilised", too, as were the romans, the persians, the assyrians and the greeks.

Don't consult the Bible, and certainly not the Old Testament.

or, better, don't try and judge texts describing a period 2500 years ago that you don't know anything about. epinoia and i seem to be developing an interesting discussion here, so why don't you let us get on with it without trying to be controversial and provocative?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Concordia discordantium opinionum

I guess I was not so correct in trying to penetrate into what Epinola and you are heading each in his direction.

Thanks for your corrections.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[epinoia]

Hey, wait a minute…

While Susma’s since deleted post was unclear, he has gone on to raise issues germane to informed critique and discussion of Deimel’s work in particular and on freethinking in general. Namely:

“There are accounts and accounts of what we now consider to be iniquitous savagery committed by Jews on other peoples under the prodding of their God, Jahweh. In the Bible also we can read about iniquitous savagery committed by other peoples on the Jews.”

While it can be, this view itself is not inherently uninformed. In “The History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam,” anthropologist Karen Armstrong sees “Yahweh Saboth” as a god that’s “passionately partisan, has little compassion for anyone but his own favorites and is simply a tribal deity.” She goes on to state that the Israelite understanding evolved into a “symbol of transcendence and compassion.” She also states that the “YS” view continued/continues “to inspire dangerous conceptions of the divine and a vengeful theology” within all three traditions.

Susma didn’t say things the way I would have, or would even have liked him to have. But not discussing the issue for fear of offending others or seeming insensitive or ignorant is no good way to talk about this, either. I hope no one shies away for this reason. How the god of Exodus and Revelation relates to G-d now (or whether it does at all) is a topic well worth grappling with. I hope we all can.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

John the Baptist

Hey, wait a minute…

While Susma’s since deleted post was unclear, he has gone on to raise issues germane to informed critique and discussion of Deimel’s work in particular and on freethinking in general. Namely:

“There are accounts and accounts of what we now consider to be iniquitous savagery committed by Jews on other peoples under the prodding of their God, Jahweh. In the Bible also we can read about iniquitous savagery committed by other peoples on the Jews.”

While it can be, this view itself is not inherently uninformed. In “The History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam,” anthropologist Karen Armstrong sees “Yahweh Saboth” as a god that’s “passionately partisan, has little compassion for anyone but his own favorites and is simply a tribal deity.” She goes on to state that the Israelite understanding evolved into a “symbol of transcendence and compassion.” She also states that the “YS” view continued/continues “to inspire dangerous conceptions of the divine and a vengeful theology” within all three traditions.

Susma didn’t say things the way I would have, or would even have liked him to have. But not discussing the issue for fear of offending others or seeming insensitive or ignorant is no good way to talk about this, either. I hope no one shies away for this reason. How the god of Exodus and Revelation relates to G-d now (or whether it does at all) is a topic well worth grappling with. I hope we all can.

Thanks a lot, Epinola.

I feel like John the Baptist all alone, then you come and you give me a sympathetic reading of my musings. Now, I am a bit troubled that one day I might witness my head served on a platter.

Just the same, I think Banana has pointed out very well that after all these millennia mankind is still engaged in atrocious savagery against one another. Yet, present times have seen a lot of improvement over the Jahweh days of the Old Testament, for example, the abolition of slavery and the establishment of the United Nations.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[bananabrain]

While it can be, this view itself is not inherently uninformed. In “The History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam,” anthropologist Karen Armstrong sees “Yahweh Saboth” as a god that’s “passionately partisan, has little compassion for anyone but his own favorites and is simply a tribal deity.”

i have a lot of time for karen armstrong – in fact she was instrumental in getting me involved in interfaith dialogue for the first time. she lives about 10 minutes from me and we occasionally have a chance to chat. however, in the last couple of years i have begun to be of the opinion that while she understands “ethical monotheism” as a “freelance monotheist” herself, which is what she calls herself, she is essentially observing things from outside, dispassionately. however, although we agree that the rabbinic and post-rabbinic period is the most impressive from a modern value-standpoint, she is intimidated (understandably, given her past) by the emotional aspects of religion to a certain extent. in this case, she is committed to the documentary hypothesis (“J”, “E” and so on) and as a result is unable to connect with the “tribal” understanding, as it were. the best way to explain it is in terms of a relationship. you don’t always call your partner the same thing. you might call her by her first name, full name, or call her “darling” or whatever, or speak differently to her when you’re angry with something she’s doing. that’s how we as a people relate to G!D – we’re kind of like a “girlfriend” (in fact, this is exactly what the “song of songs” is about) part of the problem is that she’s not actually an anthropologist. if she were, it might help – mary douglas, for example, is right on the nose, at least for my money.

She goes on to state that the Israelite understanding evolved into a “symbol of transcendence and compassion.”

in other words, this is what she sees as the importance of religion and it’s somewhat prescriptive. it’s a bit like saying that “G!D Is Good” or Love or whatever. if G!D Is All, then the All includes everything, even stuff that post-enlightenment europeans find troubling, challenging and difficult. i'm not saying she’s a fluff-bunny, but i think she sometimes shies away from the complexity of the implications of her position.

She also states that the “YS” view continued/continues “to inspire dangerous conceptions of the divine and a vengeful theology” within all three traditions.

which is true, but it is equally true that sometimes religion needs teeth or muscles. not everyone is obliged to be passive, or to turn the other cheek. don't misunderstand me, i don't support fundamentalists or excuse them - they are inappropriate and misguided responses to the traditions they claim to be inspired by and there are far more intelligent, productive and ultimately useful responses. perhaps these texts are there to tell us that in certain situations which occurred thousands of years ago in "sacred time" the "vengeful" thing was necessary. i guess what i am saying is that a PoV that doesn't understand these issues and find a way of responding positively to them rather than issuing blanket condemnations from outside is in itself not a helpful response and tends to push people into circling their wagons. let us not forget that modern fundamentalism is a *response* to modernity. perhaps if progress had resulted in the things it claimed to, we wouldn't have fundamentalism at all.

But not discussing the issue for fear of offending others or seeming insensitive or ignorant is no good way to talk about this, either.

i'm not suggesting we not discuss it. i'm just saying that there are ways of approaching it. saying "your god is a bastard and your religion is genocidal" is not the way to start a discussion. in my experience of dialogue, you DON'T *ever* go for the intractable issues first, let alone in an open forum on the internet which anyone can drop into and blast away. what you do is build up a relationship of trust through open communication. in terms of judaism, the things not to run straight for are the israeli/palestinian conflict and the relationship of the biblical israelites to G!D as described in english translations of NaKh.

How the god of Exodus and Revelation relates to G-d now (or whether it does at all) is a topic well worth grappling with. I hope we all can.

i don't think we're even slightly ready yet. this will take a long time to get to. there's plenty of other stuff we can talk about first. and, as i said, if you want to talk about deimel first, that seems OK to me.

oh - and while we're at it, slavery still exists. the UN doesn't seem to be contributing anything useful to this situation. the biblical slavery laws are pretty complicated and say, among other things, that you have to free them after seven years. i have yet to hear of modern slavers like the snakehead gangs doing the same. similarly, the UN has done nothing to prevent things like the rwandan genocide or the various recent wars. it's merely an arena for nation states to haggle over things that are only ever settled by realpolitik. until it comes up with a realistic and fair way to transcend the issue of national sovereignty where the nation-state is behaving oppressively, it is effectively useless as an institution to promote peace and tolerance. the way the various permanent members of the security council have acted over iraq was shameful - it's not surprising that unilateral action gets taken in these circumstances. but i digress.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[kkawohl]

i have a lot of time for karen armstrong – in fact she was instrumental in getting me involved in interfaith dialogue for the first time. she lives about 10 minutes from me and we occasionally have a chance to chat. however, in the last couple of years i have begun to be of the opinion that while she understands “ethical monotheism” as a “freelance monotheist” herself, which is what she calls herself, she is essentially observing things from outside, dispassionately. however, although we agree that the rabbinic and post-rabbinic period is the most impressive from a modern value-standpoint, she is intimidated (understandably, given her past) by the emotional aspects of religion to a certain extent.

Since you don’t consider giving any credence to anyone else’s belief or religion, why then do you have interfaith dialogue. Apparently your antiquated belief in a God who meddles into the affairs of mankind is reinforced by your religious conditioning to the point where you have to write G!d instead of God. Will God punish you if you write God?

Having read 2 of Karen’s books, I am mostly in agreement with her assessment that man created the present perception of a God who is a dictator and lords over mankind. To say that Karen is intimidated (understandably, given her past) by the emotional aspects of religion to a certain extent, in my opinion is an unfair assessment.

You writing skills exhibit great intelligence, I am envious, but your common sense in what constitutes a rational, logical God is wanting.

Kurt

 

[iBrian]

There really is no need to post up this sort of ad hominem agaisnt another member. Please check your Private Message box.

 

[kkawohl]

Banana,

I apologize for my insensitive comments. I posted it after having a bad day. I asked Brian to remove any part of it that is inappropriate. I will mellow out.

Namaste,
Kurt

 

[bananabrain]

Since you don’t consider giving any credence to anyone else’s belief or religion, why then do you have interfaith dialogue?

it would indeed be stupid to engage in interfaith dialogue if i felt that way - but i don't. nor can i see how you are such an expert on what my considerations may or may not be.

Apparently your antiquated belief in a God who meddles into the affairs of mankind is reinforced by your religious conditioning

er, yes. and you don't find it at all arrogant to believe that modern = better or that logic and rationalism are some kind of universal trump card? presumably logic and rationalism explain the continuing appeal of literature, art and music. sheesh. and as for "meddling in the affairs of mankind", you're clearly not familiar with how judaism actually sees history.

you have to write G!D instead of God. Will God punish you if you write God?

no. and no, i'm not wearing an anti-smiting hat, either. the word "G!D" is meant to convey a concept that the english language doesn't do justice to. it's an indicator of a gap in adequacy - of humans as well as language, including myself. it's a personal custom, which is of some use when i have to explain that the english word "god" has its own linguistic baggage, whereas i am trying, however inadequately, to indicate a concept beyond language or indeed human perception.

Having read 2 of Karen’s books, I am mostly in agreement with her assessment that man created the present perception of a God who is a dictator and lords over mankind.

well, *i* agree with that. i just don't agree that it was Torah itself that did so. perhaps some people's interpretations might very well create this perception, but to conclude that this is therefore the position of judaism is simply not the case. KA is only able to deal with the difference between the bad-tempered, plague-happy tribal Divine apparently shown by the book of joshua and the complex, paradoxical Divine of the mystics by employing the documentary hypothesis. my position is that just because this concept itself is difficult and paradoxical is no reason to reject it. this is the Divine we're talking about, not plumbing. it's not exactly a simple, straightforward subject.

To say that Karen is intimidated (understandably, given her past) by the emotional aspects of religion to a certain extent, in my opinion is an unfair assessment.

i'm sorry you think so. i would hate to be unfair to karen, because her work has really enriched my religious development. what makes me sad is it seems to me that her traumatic teenage experiences at the convent cast far too long a shadow over her religious thought. it seems to me that she is effectively circumscribing G!D by confining the Divine to the religious thought of which she approves, while blaming all the stuff that makes her uncomfortable on human intervention. it reminds me, unfortunately of the idea that G!D Must Be Good - so what of evil? ah, here we go - blame it on the devil, or, in this case humanity.

your common sense in what constitutes a rational, logical God is wanting.

i'm not in the least interested in constituting a "rational, logical god". that would be like considering left without right, or black without white, 0 without 1 or any other dualist simile you care to mention.

b'shalom

bananabrain