reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
Specifically the belief the bibles of the world represent the mind of God.
What are the 'bibles' of the world?? There is only one Bible - and only one which speaks from a first person perspective.
No other books - besides possibly the Quran - make the claim of it being Gods mind in written form. The Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas, acknowledged to
be words of wise men. From the perspective of man. Only the Pentateuch - the 5 books of Moses, or simply, the "Torah" - is claimed to be Gods mind
invested in human language, conveying to man some purpose for his creation, albeit, in seemingly banal narratives about things which one assumes has
little to do with spirituality.
The other two parts of the Hebrew Bible, the Neviyyim - prophets, and Ketuvim - writings, are supplementary texts to the Torah itself. They have
canonical significance, of course, but not to the same degree as the Torah itself.
History contradicts that argument only on the basis of faith. I would have to have faith that those historical people had those revelations. In order
to have faith in that I would have to have faith there was a Christian God to begin with.
It's more appropriate to say "Jewish" God, since the Christian God is an appropriation of the Jewish conception.
It's circular reasoning. No different than saying the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it's the Word of God. It's faith. Nothing more
A claim was made 3400 years ago. Something on a massive scale. The claim is unusual and anomalous in the history of civilization. So the claim exists,
and the claim as it exists says that God contacted man. You can call it 'circular' reasoning, but nonetheless, history speaks of a fact which occurred
- the fact being that such a claim even exists, and has persisted in the form of one very unusual people - the Jews - for 3000 + years. I agree, that
it doesn't quite meet the intellectual standards that science demands. But still, in my opinion, there is something mysterious in this fact. You can
say man can't know the mind of God - but that is just an opinion grounded in a bias; history shows an example of a people who claim God contacted man
- and since it was from above to below - what he imparted to man, the Pentatuech - necessarily contains Gods mind - his desires - for man.
There's no reason why man can't know God, since it not mans designs, but Gods. To argue that it is impossible is to say that God can't do this because
I assume that he can't do this, for no other reason than harboring prejudices against what God can and cannot do. For example, there are those who
circumscribe Gods power to nature alone. Nature is Godly; but man, his personhood, his needs, desires etc, this is all circumstantial and devoid of
meaning. WHY?? If God is God, everything falls under his imperial authority. Nothing that exists exists without divine intention.
Do you mean in a sense all these religions are true? That any of those paths is the path to God?
I've pondered that thought. However, it's not without it's difficulties, particularly in the ethical sphere.
In the end I think it's more wishful thinking than a possible reality. Intractable differences exist. If we agree on a certain 'ethic', some system is
being slighted, either the Jewish one, which insists on a divine prerogative for man, or the others, which allow 'relativism' insofar as their
emphasis is different from that of Judaism. They emphasize the Godhead - or essence of things - while Judaism emphasizes God's objective relationship
with man. The former tend to vilify the latters conception as 'illusory' - the gnostics specifically called the Jewish God the 'demiurge'.
So, I can see without difficulty why such irreconcilable differences exist between the Jewish order and the 'new world order' - to put it bluntly.
When I entertain thoughts of a divine relativism, I hope that each can do as each feels right. In other words, to exist as God has made them exist.
The easterners, who live in a part of the world - the east - traditionally associated with proximity and closeness to divinity, will not sit content
with anything but a system that confirms that perception, therefore, an ethical system without rigorous demands. Ethics is structure, and structure is
a feature of the 'west' - where the sun sets, and where shade enunciates contour and shape to physical dimensions. Conversely, unlike the East, with
it's emphasis on undifferentiated essence, the west, in the americas, the native Americans have found divinity within natures womb. I find that
extremely fascinating. The exact opposite of the Eastern approach. They see God (or the goddess) within natures bounty and live in complete
satisfaction with that conception. It's in between these two poles of conception that difficulties arise. The Jewish conception - which is Israel - an
area geographically centered when you bring the americas together with the euro-asian continental mass, you arrive at a 'center'.
If you think about it, to look completely inwards, to the essence, is to look on the periphery: it's an abstraction from things present as opposed to
finding meaning in things directly imminent in mans experience. The Jewish conception - the center piece - is the direct apprehension of mans
existential situation. His perception considers the Ego - the person - of prime importance. Not metaphysical categories - which exist outside egoic
experience - are emphasized, but mans personal relationship with God.
In descriptive terms, the poles of spiritual apprehension are the easterner and westerner, while the center, or direct experience, is the Jewish.
With Islam and Christianity, you find emphasis in too opposite directions from the Jewish, although both circumscribe the definitively personal in
their systems. Islam, despite it's rigorous legality, is quite liberal. The essence - the Al Choq - the truth of Godhead, is whats sought. Once
attained, sharia becomes void of meaning. Christianity, despite its Jewish foundations, has always been more Hellenistic than Hebraic. And today we
see full well how true that contention is. The Germans were the first to assess the situation honestly (to the misfortune of Europes Jews): Christ
must be an "aryan" i.e. supportive of an Aryan (Indo-European) ethic, if he is to be accepted by the modern world. The Jewish ethic is alien to
Greece. Greece, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, cannot countenance the prudish ethics of the Hebrews.
Anyways, I realize the difficulties. I would like, for the others to adjust their morality, but I realize my wishes are my own. I cannot hope for
anything like that without instigating a war, so therefore, I must remain practical about it. Murder, theft, abuse of animals - all these things can
be understood by all to be punishable.. Sexual morality, another major issue, is at odds. Idolatry, Blasphemy, again, are strictly religious concerns.
Aye. Life is complicated. I wish we could all just get along and be agreeable to one another. But, we are different. And these differences should not
only be respected, but protected. Unfortunately, some of the greatest opponents of conservative religiosity are the same who preach 'tolerance' of
other peoples beliefs. It reminds me of that south park episode "we shall not tolerate intolerance!"
If you could collect some information and evidence to support that I would absolutely love reading it if your were to make a thread on it! Academia
aside, the Christian force has been strong in society so I imagine it would be hard for that bias to have been so prevalant and persistent.
Christianity is in it's death throes, many would agree. The traditional 'judeo-christian' ethic, or rather, the Jewish ethic, since the Christian
ethic supports a lawless morality - based on kant's 'moral imperative' - (excuse me while I chuckle!) that one should act because one knows it's right
to act, and therefore, magically, one all of sudden becomes obligated to act. But in anycase, the flux of culture in the western world has been
towards moral relativism, and if you doubt that, look at whats all the buzz in hollywood - 50 shades of grey. 50 shades of 'areas' a book about BDSM.
This could never have been 50 years ago, but today, it's a fact of culture.
The Jewish ethic is dying, too the satisfaction of many. To me, it's a travesty of mammoth proportions. What's lost is worse than what's gained. More
pain will come of this - and perhaps more 'fun' as well - than if man thought living responsibly were more important. But 'responsibility - I suppose
means something different to people with different value systems..... In anycase, I think the Jewish ethic is the most sane ethic. I find the
normalization of sadism, masochism and bondage/domination to be repugnant and averse to human nature - in the sense of our spiritual needs.
edit on 17-8-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)