Stephen Hawkings believes in God?

[yankee_doodle]

Well, it’s more than just “theism”, it’s about our shared humanity, love, forgivenenss, hope and gratitude, mercy and kindness. . . . what’s with the cynicism Yankee, is life as an atheist making you bitter ?

those are all good and human things, I guess I thought you were using this as some emotive tactic (what can I say Josie, it’s sort of your modus operandi )

p.s. It wasn’t meant to be an argument I’m just letting you know of a movie that I thought showed a different approach humans can take when confronted with suffering and evil. It’s truly humbling to know how afflicted with suffering some people are and yet they are so gracious and loving, not self pitying or angry.

I think the best approach is to fight evil. If you can’t negotiate and make peace with it (which is always the preferred option) … kill it before it kills you (and make sure you always have bigger guns).

When we’re looking at human suffering like in Africa, I really don’t know what to say. Religious and secular organizations have been there for decades, and they have very little to show for it. These sort of movies make us feel good, but since we have no perceived national interest in third world countries they won’t get the sort of help they really need to substantially advance (which would probably require a large scale military intervention, which will never happen).

I guess I have mixed feelings about piety. It usually feeds our ego, and Kant would say since it’s not something derived from a sense of duty (because it’s self-serving) it’s not truly good. I think I like Kant’s approach on that.

 

[josie_L]

those are all good and human things, I guess I thought you were using this as some emotive tactic (what can I say Josie, it’s sort of your modus operandi )

Wrong, my modus operandi is the Holy Spirit, Yankee.

I think the best approach is to fight evil. If you can’t negotiate and make peace with it (which is always the preferred option) … kill it before it kills you (and make sure you always have bigger guns).

If it’s a just war, and you have no choice, then yes. Although being Catholic I would pray as well because prayer is more powerful than any gun, bomb or chemical agents out there.

When we’re looking at human suffering like in Africa, I really don’t know what to say. Religious and secular organizations have been there for decades, and they have very little to show for it. These sort of movies make us feel good, but since we have no perceived national interest in third world countries they won’t get the sort of help they really need to substantially advance (which would probably require a large scale military intervention, which will never happen).

Yes, religious and secular organizations are making a difference, in fact, ask the children who are being supported by people all over the world, in getting the proper hygiene, medical care, education . . etc., to live a fruitful life. These children could eventually become doctors and lawyers, and any other profession they so choose, to help out their respective countries. Unfortunately, organizations are not working in a vacuum, and as such have to contend with other issues like the Aids Epidemic which undermines their/our efforts at building a healthy society, but we are doing good, we are changing lives. Although, realistically I can’t say how long it will take for African nations to be on par with developed countries (if indeed it will happen), we can continue in our efforts. I do believe if we, all of us, took the time to act we rather than military intervention could bring about huge (positive) changes, I think that was one point the movie “The Human Experience” was trying to make.

I guess I have mixed feelings about piety. It usually feeds our ego, and Kant would say since it’s not something derived from a sense of duty (because it’s self-serving) it’s not truly good. I think I like Kant’s approach on that.

Piety by definition does not feed our ego as it entails humbleness, Mother Theresa is a perfect example of this.

 

[simplynoone]

I believe that Jesus is the cornerstone for the resurrection of all people as a whole. If you want to call all people the people of Israel that is your choice. Maybe when we are all united to the great I Am, through the Spirit of the great I AM, by the way of Jesus Christ who is also the great I am made flesh, we will be called the New Israel. I am not sure. My knowledge of literal biblical references are not at my finger tips. This is something I am still working on. But if you go over to the "Collapse of a Christian Pillar thread AdrianP posted a slew of references that you can pick and choose from.
I know in my heart that the great I Am that spoke and walked with Adam and Eve, who spoke to Noah, and who spoke to Moses is the same great I Am that speaks to us today in the deepest reassesses of our being if we would just listen to Him the way He taught us to listen to Him.

Too mystical. What do you think is meant in Psalm 28:5? I am curious as to your thoughts here.

As for AdrianP’s posts in the other thread, I have read them. I find his interpretations to be replacing what is actually written in the Tanakh. I have actually answered a thread on this forum once and addressed each of the prophecies that Christians claim are about Jesus. I will find it and post it for you as soon as I can.

The great thing about the prophets is that they weren’t prophesying mystically; meaning all the answers are already within the same context.

 

[simplynoone]

Mountains that are not meant to be moved show us that we have to have faith love and trust in the great I Am the He knows what is best. When we learn to Love Him with all our heart, all our soul, and all our mind is when we can truly say we have faith in Him. Did not Noah show this faith and trust in the great I am when he built the ark? Did not Abraham show us this faith when the great I Am told him to sacrifice his own son to Him? Did not Jesus Christ commend Himself to the Great I Am, His Father, in His death trusting that His Father would raise Him from death and then place it under His feet? This is the kind of faith that moves mountains. There are fiscal mountains that get moved for some if the great I Am wills it, for me they are mountains that hinder me from loving the great I am with my whole heart, my whole soul, and my whole mind. For it is in trusting the Great I Am that He completely fulfills me. I believe we all have to have this trust that Jesus Christ showed us and then maybe the New Israel will be.

The story of Noah is a conceptual metaphor for the place of mankind in Life. Abraham did not have faith, rather he had faithFULNESS. This means that he already had the knowledge and the understanding of it. How we can know he was faithful to the knowledge he already had and not blindly moving by faith is by the words that are written in Genesis 15:1 … “AFTER these things…”

 

[simplynoone]

simplynoone;5794112:

When you refere to a “Gentile who showed his ignorance” you are forgetting Luke 24:45-49.Then He opened their minds to understand the scriptures. This’, He said, is what is written: that the Messiah is to suffer death and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that in his name repentance bringing forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed to all nations. Begin from Jerusalem; it is you who are the witnesses to it all. And mark this: I am sending upon you my Father’s Promised gift; so stay here in this city until you are armed with the power from above."

Again I will reference the posts by AdrianP on the other thread.

Always praying and pondering

The Messiah is Israel.

Hey, in Psalm 2:1-3 (a passage that many equate to be of Jesus), notice that the Lord and the anointed is not the same. Now the anointed, in that passage, is equated rather to the Son of God. Who is the Son of God? You will find the answer in Exodus 4:22,23. Verse 8 of Psalm 2 is also directly taken from the Book of the Laws, Deuteronomy. That is a promise given to Israel, the People. Understand?

 

[simplynoone]

You must not be aware of Acts 11. Something wonderful was going on in Antioch before Paul got there. And prior to Antioch, Peter told those in Jerusalem that God revealed to him that God was accepting Gentiles without becoming Jews.​

The Messiah died for all people. One doesn’t have to become a Jew to be in relationship to Him.

Of course God accepts Gentiles without becoming Jews. They are a part of Life, no? You don’t need a Jew to tell you such.

And I am not sure if you knew this or not, but Barnabas ended up disassociating himself with Paul after the events that took place in Antioch. That is in YOUR NT. Paul was preaching a whole new religion that is different than what the Jews knew; that would be Christianity.

 

[simplynoone]

You are going against history and tradition by stating such, it is and as always been a man, the son of Man, that they perceived would be the Messiah, in fact, Jesus was rejected because the Jews were expecting a political figure (a king) as their Messiah that’s why he was so well-received in Jerusalem initially, as they thought Jesus would free them from Roman tyranny. Moreover, the Roman officials decided to place INRI (King of the Jews) above Jesus’s cross to spite the Pharisees, i.e., San Hedrin. And let’s not forget that Jesus was brought to Pontius Pilate because the San Hedrin accused him of blasphemy as he mentioned more than once that He was the great “I am”. So you have two options simply noone, you either repudiate Jesus completely or accept Him for who He really is, the Christ.

Actually, I am going by both the history that is in secular accounts as well as the history that is in your own NT. Do you not believe what the NT says? It is hard to tell. You seem rather confused your ownself.

 

[simplynoone]

If there was a god I’d thank him for America, and the freedoms we have (and technology like the internet, where you guys can duke these issues out without killing each other).

I’m not sure how we went from Stephen Hawking to a comparison of Judaism and Christianity … but if you want my opinion (which I’m sure you don’t, but I’ll give it anyway) both Christianity and Judaism make sense in terms of their internal theology (notwithstanding the many inconsistencies – the general themes make sense if you’re willing to believe sages and mystics; and you’re willing to believe something without critical analysis). The problems occur (for both systems) when they’re matched against reality, science, nature, and logic.

I am only trying to make clear that the god they are forcing down the throats of others is not the same God the Jewish worship. You are not required to convert to Judaism to receive reward or evade punishment. That the Christians are trying to converge their concept with our concept is what I am addressing for the sake of Judaism and nothing else. They are not “with” us.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Wrong, my modus operandi is the Holy Spirit, Yankee.

If it’s a just war, and you have no choice, then yes. Although being Catholic I would pray as well because prayer is more powerful than any gun, bomb or chemical agents out there.

Praying to the air and delusions of spiritual intervention aren’t real, diplomacy and big guns are

Yes, religious and secular organizations are making a difference, in fact, ask the children who are being supported by people all over the world, in getting the proper hygiene, medical care, education . . etc., to live a fruitful life. These children could eventually become doctors and lawyers, and any other profession they so choose, to help out their respective countries. Unfortunately, organizations are not working in a vacuum, and as such have to contend with other issues like the Aids Epidemic which undermines their/our efforts at building a healthy society, but we are doing good, we are changing lives. Although, realistically I can’t say how long it will take for African nations to be on par with developed countries (if indeed it will happen), we can continue in our efforts. I do believe if we, all of us, took the time to act we rather than military intervention could bring about huge (positive) changes, I think that was one point the movie “The Human Experience” was trying to make.

Obviously I don’t pretend these organizations don’t help the people they’re able to reach, nevertheless the problems continue to get worse. The main reason is because of rapid population grown (within societies that don’t have the capacity to make use of large increases in human capital and therefore these additional people unfortunately become a liability).

There’s probably an argument that assisting these regions is staving off famine and disease just enough to allow their populations to grow at unsustainable rates. Not an argument I want to either fight or endorse, but I suspect there’s truth in it.

Piety by definition does not feed our ego as it entails humbleness, Mother Theresa is a perfect example of this.

That’s just a platitude, not reality. I won’t pretend to know what was going through the mind of Mother Theresa, but I don’t automatically assume she was devoid of an ego (in fact I think that’s pretty unlikely). Hence, the structure of your analogy isn’t really all that sound. Mother Theresa is an example of piety, but you can’t make a decisive case for humility (because she did gain world fame while alive for her works & we can assume it did serve her ego to some degree – like it would the rest of us). Obviously to what degree her ego was served is a question we can’t answer, but I assume her works made her feel gratified and fulfilled (which is a self-benefit).

It’s not to say she wasn’t acting out of a perceived sense of duty, I think she was; and I also think she was serving a universal good (in a broad sense). In other words, while we all have an ego, and we’re all gratified and fulfilled in different ways (and we all seek gratification and fulfillment) – it doesn’t take away from the goodness of our actions.

The goodness of our actions is judged by an objective criteria, whether we’re acting out of a sense of duty or acting out of self-interest. Even if we also gain fulfillment and gratification, as long as we initially and primarily act out of a sense of duty, we are doing “good.”

Duty itself is also of course judged by an objective criteria; but there is a such thing as prioritizing and contextualization. For instance, it’s generally not good to lie, but there are some instances where lying serves the greater good. The same can be said for many of the principals most agree are universal guideposts of how we should generally behave.

This might sound relativistic, but its not. Consider the following circumstance. Say I’m in Nazi Germany, and hiding Jews in my basement, when the gestapo come by. Should I say there are Jews in my basement or should I lie? This is an extreme example, but it serves its purpose well. Obviously we can see lying sometimes serves the greater good (and its easy enough to imagine circumstances where stealing and even killing could also serve the greater good).

 

[John92]

I can’t believe how many people are raised in devout families, go to college, and leave their religion because of some loudmouthed baby-boomer.

Honestly it makes me furious.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I am only trying to make clear that the god they are forcing down the throats of others is not the same God the Jewish worship. You are not required to convert to Judaism to receive reward or evade punishment. That the Christians are trying to converge their concept with our concept is what I am addressing for the sake of Judaism and nothing else. They are not “with” us.

I think Judaism like Christianity has moderated over the centuries (and both, at least mainstream versions, have departed considerably from a literal interpretation of the biblical text). After all the old testament tells us stoning people to death is a valid form of punishment for such mundane offenses as adultery or homosexuality. It also presents a creation scenario that science has shown to be untrue.

Judaism shares characteristics with earlier Sumerian mythology (and some parallels, such as the flood narrative). Christianity is also another in a series of life-death-rebirth god-man myths (with the added caveat of the virgin birth motif – characteristic of several earlier Hellenic myths).

We know an invisible god didn’t create man in a single day out of dirt, we evolved (we have the skeletons of over 13 different species of homind, our ancestors on the evolutionary ladder). We know simple biological organisms can form purely from chemical reactions (which characterize the early earth). Today we even think the big bang wasn’t the beginning at all, and parallel universes are moving out of science fiction into mainstream astrophysics. We’ve gotten so far along in our Genome project that in probably less than a decade we’ll know our genetic “master switches.”

Religion is merely the way ancient man dealt with a universe that seemed overwhelming. Can you imagine the level of fear and superstition an event like an eclipse would cause among our ancient predecessors? The Greeks saw the shapes of their gods in the stars, crusaders fought there way across Asia Minor because of a god-man myth, and today people still cling to religion because they can’t imagine a world without it (yet, this world has always been without a god, and we’re still here ).

 

[simplynoone]

we evolved.

And thus, in Judaism, we evolve in our understanding of the writings. No different. Evolution continues. The writings are esoteric … specifically catered to a People, by People, for the People. There is a reason Judaism does not promote to actively seek for converts. So, your rejection of Judaism is not an issue to the Jewish. The issue for those who adhere to Judaism is the blatant interpolations of another peoples concepts into the concept of the People the Tanakh is to and for. Understand?

As for stoning and such, this is not longer something that is in effect other than on a subjective level of understanding. I think that most Jewish are not concerned with what another does in the privacy of their own homes. As for the blatant outcries by way of displaying erotic homosexual behaviours on a public stage, I think this would be cleared up if what is done in the privacy of the home between two consenting adults were left between those two adults. Personally, I say the Christians should quit fighting the homosexuals getting married since marriage seems to destroy the passion where most are concerned anyway. I think that is all beside the point though.

YOu must keep in mind that the Jewish are aware that the Tanakh is written from a human perspective. It doesn’t negate that it is relevant to the Jewish and it is not the Jewish who are forcing it on the world.

 

[yankee_doodle]

And thus, in Judaism, we evolve in our understanding of the writings. No different. Evolution continues. The writings are esoteric … specifically catered to a People, by People, for the People. There is a reason Judaism does not promote to actively seek for converts. So, your rejection of Judaism is not an issue to the Jewish. The issue for those who adhere to Judaism is the blatant interpolations of another peoples concepts into the concept of the People the Tanakh is to and for. Understand?

Yes, but wouldn’t that be something like the Sumerians getting angry because you borrowed from their flood myth? (that is if the Iraqi’s were still pagans)

YOu must keep in mind that the Jewish are aware that the Tanakh is written from a human perspective. It doesn’t negate that it is relevant to the Jewish and it is not the Jewish who are forcing it on the world.

Do you believe a god exists?

 

[simplynoone]

Yes, but wouldn’t that be something like the Sumerians getting angry because you borrowed from their flood myth? (that is if the Iraqi’s were still pagans)

I don’t see how that would be comparable at all. The story of the flood is one that was not only of the Sumerians but of other cultures as well. In the Tanakh it is used as a conceptual metaphor of mankind’s place on the earth. They did not take the writing and translate it to be literal to use it against the Sumerians. It was to remind them that the Gentiles are not righteous according to the Jewish commandments, but they are righteous before God for fulfilling their role as man and not acting as an animal.

Do you believe a god exists?

I acknowledge my Creator, yes.

 

[Dokimas]

Of course God accepts Gentiles without becoming Jews. They are a part of Life, no? You don’t need a Jew to tell you such.

And I am not sure if you knew this or not, but Barnabas ended up disassociating himself with Paul after the events that took place in Antioch. That is in YOUR NT. Paul was preaching a whole new religion that is different than what the Jews knew; that would be Christianity.

This is why Barnabas and Paul split up and not as you thought:

Acts 15
36 ¶ Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.”
37 Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark.
38 But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work.
39 Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus;
40 but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God.
41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

 

[josie_L]

Praying to the air and delusions of spiritual intervention aren’t real, diplomacy and big guns are

If I thought praying were ineffective I wouldn’t have suggested it, however, my whole life is proof of the power of prayer, so we’ll just have to respect our differences.

Obviously I don’t pretend these organizations don’t help the people they’re able to reach, nevertheless the problems continue to get worse. The main reason is because of rapid population grown (within societies that don’t have the capacity to make use of large increases in human capital and therefore these additional people unfortunately become a liability).

What rapid population growth when so many are dying of aids, malaria, dysentry . . etc.?

There’s probably an argument that assisting these regions is staving off famine and disease just enough to allow their populations to grow at unsustainable rates. Not an argument I want to either fight or endorse, but I suspect there’s truth in it.

You know Yankee the Catholic Church doesn’t just provide food and then leave, it builds communities, therefore allowing the population at hand to experience growth in areas of education, health care, and other social services all for free. It is doing much to help the people.

That’s just a platitude, not reality. I won’t pretend to know what was going through the mind of Mother Theresa, but I don’t automatically assume she was devoid of an ego (in fact I think that’s pretty unlikely). Hence, the structure of your analogy isn’t really all that sound. Mother Theresa is an example of piety, but you can’t make a decisive case for humility (because she did gain world fame while alive for her works & we can assume it did serve her ego to some degree – like it would the rest of us). Obviously to what degree her ego was served is a question we can’t answer, but I assume her works made her feel gratified and fulfilled (which is a self-benefit).

That’s not a platitude as Christians honestly strive to be like Jesus (and love him and all creation besides) in every way, as such people like Mother Theresa are not in it for the fame even though we are expected to be witnesses to the faith (fame is an inadvertent effect). Holiness such as that found in people like Mother Theresa does not come without sacrifice and suffering, Mother Theresa dedicated her whole life to love others, it was simply self-sacrificing love which is at the root of all her actions. Nothing more and nothing less.

It’s not to say she wasn’t acting out of a perceived sense of duty, I think she was; and I also think she was serving a universal good (in a broad sense). In other words, while we all have an ego, and we’re all gratified and fulfilled in different ways (and we all seek gratification and fulfillment) – it doesn’t take away from the goodness of our actions.

Well, most do seek some gratification and fulfillment, but there are those who we call saints who suffer dearly to love others, i.e., there is no gratification and fulfillment other than knowing they are loving their brothers and sisters with their whole hearts, minds and souls as Jesus did. To be a saint you have to empty yourself of “ego” and become a servant of love.

The goodness of our actions is judged by an objective criteria, whether we’re acting out of a sense of duty or acting out of self-interest. Even if we also gain fulfillment and gratification, as long as we initially and primarily act out of a sense of duty, we are doing “good.”

But there is a difference in doing good and being holy.

Duty itself is also of course judged by an objective criteria; but there is a such thing as prioritizing and contextualization. For instance, it’s generally not good to lie, but there are some instances where lying serves the greater good. The same can be said for many of the principals most agree are universal guideposts of how we should generally behave.

It’s not just duty, it’s love for our neighbour.

This might sound relativistic, but its not. Consider the following circumstance. Say I’m in Nazi Germany, and hiding Jews in my basement, when the gestapo come by. Should I say there are Jews in my basement or should I lie? This is an extreme example, but it serves its purpose well. Obviously we can see lying sometimes serves the greater good (and its easy enough to imagine circumstances where stealing and even killing could also serve the greater good).

I agree it is not relativistic, and furthermore, we owe nothing to such people, therefore, I wouldn’t even call it lying.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I don’t see how that would be comparable at all. The story of the flood is one that was not only of the Sumerians but of other cultures as well. In the Tanakh it is used as a conceptual metaphor of mankind’s place on the earth. They did not take the writing and translate it to be literal to use it against the Sumerians. It was to remind them that the Gentiles are not righteous according to the Jewish commandments, but they are righteous before God for fulfilling their role as man and not acting as an animal.

The point is Judaism can be traced back to earlier ancient Semitic religions, for instance Sumerian myths – and Canaanite religions (interestingly the Canaanite’s themselves were thought to be influenced by Mesopotamian and Egyptian religious practices).

Furthermore, we know the Exodus narrative it outside the range of reasonable historical possibility (not to mention the many other biblical myths we know could not have literally occurred). Therefore, we can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that Judaism, like Christianity, is a synthesis of earlier mythology.

I acknowledge my Creator, yes.

Me too, I call them mom and dad

The idea that an invisible god whispered in the ear of an ancient Mesopotamian Semite named Abraham, and commanded him to wander off in the desert, is obviously absurd. We can, however, guess that the Hebrews started off as Mesopotamian Semites (given the mythological parallels), and were influenced by the Egyptians (albeit perhaps indirectly). I suspect once they broke away from their parent civilization, what we know of today as the Torah began as a collection of hybrid myths, with various interpolations and obvious dilution and alteration (as happens when folklore is handed down orally over the course of many centuries).

This is the more logical hypothesis anyway (and since I personally don’t believe in a supernatural god or harbor any superstitions or beliefs in the paranormal, I assume everything has a reasonable explanation).

 

[yankee_doodle]

If I thought praying were ineffective I wouldn’t have suggested it, however, my whole life is proof of the power of prayer, so we’ll just have to respect our differences.

Yet, any power inherent in prayer isn’t the work of any extrinsic paranormal third party. If there is any benefit in it – it’s purely psychological.

What rapid population growth when so many are dying of aids, malaria, dysentry . . etc.?

Nevertheless there’s rapid population growth in the third world.

You know Yankee the Catholic Church doesn’t just provide food and then leave, it builds communities, therefore allowing the population at hand to experience growth in areas of education, health care, and other social services all for free. It is doing much to help the people.

Yet these same peoples remain poor, indigent, and largely illiterate.

That’s not a platitude as Christians honestly strive to be like Jesus (and love him and all creation besides) in every way, as such people like Mother Theresa are not in it for the fame even though we are expected to be witnesses to the faith (fame is an inadvertent effect). Holiness such as that found in people like Mother Theresa does not come without sacrifice and suffering, Mother Theresa dedicated her whole life to love others, it was simply self-sacrificing love which is at the root of all her actions. Nothing more and nothing less.

The idea of self-sacrifice is probably derived from Buddhism, and I find no virtue in needless sacrifice. If it accomplishes something and serves a legitimate (and real) purpose, then fine.

Well, most do seek some gratification and fulfillment, but there are those who we call saints who suffer dearly to love others, i.e., there is no gratification and fulfillment other than knowing they are loving their brothers and sisters with their whole hearts, minds and souls as Jesus did. To be a saint you have to empty yourself of “ego” and become a servant of love.

I think those you call saints were usually (though not always) very strange people, we would probably think were insane today.

But there is a difference in doing good and being holy.

In reality no, in the mind of the Christian yes.

It’s not just duty, it’s love for our neighbour.

loving your neighbor isn’t a duty?

I agree it is not relativistic, and furthermore, we owe nothing to such people, therefore, I wouldn’t even call it lying.

but it is lying, yet it serves a higher purpose. This is why, while there may be some value in ancient texts, we have to apply all the things mankind has learned since (and our own intelligence) when we make moral decisions.

If these ancient texts were truly inspired by an omniscient and omnipotent god, it’s rational to believe they would contain rules that foresaw every possible contingency (and of course they do not).

 

[simplynoone]

The point is Judaism can be traced back to earlier ancient Semitic religions, for instance Sumerian myths – and Canaanite religions (interestingly the Canaanite’s themselves were thought to be influenced by Mesopotamian and Egyptian religious practices).

Furthermore, we know the Exodus narrative it outside the range of reasonable historical possibility (not to mention the many other biblical myths we know could not have literally occurred). Therefore, we can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that Judaism, like Christianity, is a synthesis of earlier mythology.

Me too, I call them mom and dad

The idea that an invisible god whispered in the ear of an ancient Mesopotamian Semite named Abraham, and commanded him to wander off in the desert, is obviously absurd. We can, however, guess that the Hebrews started off as Mesopotamian Semites (given the mythological parallels), and were influenced by the Egyptians (albeit perhaps indirectly). I suspect once they broke away from their parent civilization, what we know of today as the Torah began as a collection of hybrid myths, with various interpolations and obvious dilution and alteration (as happens when folklore is handed down orally over the course of many centuries).

This is the more logical hypothesis anyway (and since I personally don’t believe in a supernatural god or harbor any superstitions or beliefs in the paranormal, I assume everything has a reasonable explanation).

I understand that many don’t have any knowledge of God and don’t care to. That is good and fine. I don’t bother to try to argue the existence of God. I think it is generally a fruitless task. You are not required to believe as I do.

As for Tanakh, I read it as conceptual metaphors. Many of the stories that are in the Tanakh were, yes, most likely based on stories that were not exclusive to only one culture. If you read carefully the Tanakh, you will see that Israel was not started from only ONE People, but different Peoples who came together as one under the name of Abraham. Thus, it is no wonder that they would use the stories of differing cultures to convey their oneness as a People whose foundation for understanding the writings is in the Laws given by Moses. They weren’t replacing anyone and weren’t dictating to others what gods those other peoples should worship; only that anyone to become a part of THIS People, Israel, be subjected to the Laws OF Israel. They were defining their place in the scheme of the God of Israel (which is not the same as the god of Christianity). What I am saying should be so easy to grasp that I think some just enjoy the argument. You are not being required to believe the words of the Tanakh.

The reason I spoke up in here is because I see ppl arguing for the existence of their god as though it were the same God the Jewish worship? Whether you accept ours, theirs, or neither is beside my point. I don’t know how to speak more plainly that my intent here is not to convince of God’s existence. His existence is not dependent upon your acknowledgment.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I understand that many don’t have any knowledge of God and don’t care to. That is good and fine. I don’t bother to try to argue the existence of God. I think it is generally a fruitless task. You are not required to believe as I do.

Well, actually I was a theist at one time (and studied religion fairly intensely for a period).

As for Tanakh, I read it as conceptual metaphors. Many of the stories that are in the Tanakh were, yes, most likely based on stories that were not exclusive to only one culture. If you read carefully the Tanakh, you will see that Israel was not started from only ONE People, but different Peoples who came together as one under the name of Abraham. Thus, it is no wonder that they would use the stories of differing cultures to convey their oneness as a People whose foundation for understanding the writings is in the Laws given by Moses. They weren’t replacing anyone and weren’t dictating to others what gods those other peoples should worship; only that anyone to become a part of THIS People, Israel, be subjected to the Laws OF Israel. They were defining their place in the scheme of the God of Israel (which is not the same as the god of Christianity). What I am saying should be so easy to grasp that I think some just enjoy the argument. You are not being required to believe the words of the Tanakh.

The most logical explanation is that theism, in all its forms, is false.