"Furthermore, I care little that the Old Testament is merely a base understanding of Jewish theology, is not meant to be taken literally"

I'm sorry...

I'm calling BULLSHIT again--

God handed down his word to us in a confused form that has to be interpreted?

"Oh no, folks, don't take me literally here...just read between the lines, you know, go with what you THINK I'm trying to tell you!"

See my above argument on why Bible Interpetationalist efforts as a whole are, perhaps, noble attempts to rework and salvage what is obviously seen as a flawed text in modern days, but ultimately fails.

FURTHERMORE...

How can I move onto the Talmud or anything else if, again, the very base crumbles?

If Genesis fails, if the existence of God fails to be proven, IT ALL FAILS.

"But who WERE they talking to, at Mr. Sanai?
It WAS God, right?
Yahweh?
That God?
The God of Genesis?"

Yes, and until that moment he couldd have been the god of olympus for all it mattered because the Jewish people had not made a covenant with him

Bottom line, if you whiped out Genesis, said it was all a myth and said Mt. Sinai still occurred, judaism would not be affected one iota. Jews become Jews at Sinai and that is where the theology begins, Judaism does not "follow from Sinai." And tere is no such thing as "Yaweh" it wouldbe like me calling the IRS "Erse." Another christian falsehood you've picked up and portrayed it as Judaism.

"OK, so I kid a bit there, but point being--yes, I DO know about the covenant, thanks, I DID get that little piece of Biblical mythology drilled in my head as a kid..."

I severely doubt you got anything Jewsih drilled into your head, and if it was it popped right out, otherwise you wouldnt have said what you did. Nor would you insist on calling a nameless god "Yahweh" like some baptist who wants to sound well versed.

"
But I have to ask you--if I debunk Genesis, what God are they to meet?"

God isn't created in Genesis, they meet the same one

"What God is there to make the covenant?"

The same

"Tell me, SC...what definition of slavery do YOU have in mind that's acceptable, AT ALL?"

You mean taking a prisoner of war into your house and treating him as a guest who does chores and under strict rules not to mistreat him

OR

A debtor or extreme poor person who must be released in at most 7 years even if they would like to stay? And of course Stricter rules to prevent mistreatment?

3000+ years ago?

Sounds good to me...

"Do you deny the Amalakites are in there, do I need to play rabbi and quote passages? "

You could never play rabbi, perhaps reverend if you liked. If you do why don't you explain the context behind the decree, namely that the Jews were given safe passage and then the amalakites attacked the women and chldren. Then remember ths happened 3000+ years ago and recall further that Jewish theology has progressed 3000 years beyond the naked text in the old testament before you pick and chose passages to damn an entire theology as "garbage"

I'm calling BULLSHIT again--


Oh you call BullShit!

Obi Calls Bull Shit!

Excuse me as I go make a Wave offering at the Great temple in Jerusalem. How about my Sin offering which is no doubt one of my choicest heads of cattle.

" I have little time for any theology that does not place myself or the racist, sexist, and xenophobic royal stooge Shakespeare as supreme arbiter of morality and ethics."

Erm...

1. When did *I* claim to be the supreme ruler of ethics? Did MY Best-Seller come out and beat God's already?

(Oh, no, that was Oolon Coloophid, sorry...)

2. Racist--yeah, probably, so where most in that day...doesn't excuse it, but as he seemed to treat blacks and Jews in his plays better--ie, like real people, not just monsters--than almost anyone else of his era, and even shows them in positive lights--Othello is a caring, trusting commander who ultimately trusts too much, Shylock is often regarded in modern criticism as almost being the Shakespeare version of an anti-hero, and his "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech doesn't get rid of all the Anti-Semetism in the play, but it DOES help show the hypocrisy of the Venetians as well as their intolerance--so...yeah: Shakespeare's flawed, he screwed up his ethics PLENTY of times...but he was a writer and an entertainer, NOT someone who set down ground rules and claimed them to be the supreme truths of all-time that must be obeyed under penalty of death.

3. See my Racism defense for Sexism as well...Viola? Portia? Kate? Lady Macbeth, Regan, and Goneril as villainesses, but powerful characters? Honestly--have you READ Shakespeare, SC...or are YOU just going off of whatever Wikipedia pulls up and gives about the plays?

4. I suggest you drop the cheap Shakespeare-Obi mention and return to our debate...it's beside the point, below you, illogical, comically inept, incorrect, misinformed, and I AM NOT going to lose on a SHAKESPEARE POST...

5. Xenophobic? ...OK, that's new, nationalistic, perhaps, but given The Tempest and...never mind, getting back on topic...

Oh.

That was it.

OK.

Oh, right:

I WASN'T using Shakespeare as a THEOLOGICAL analogue, so, again...

Cheap shot, unworthy of you, illogical--

Shall we press on?

"2. AGAIN, WHAT PERSPECTIVE JUSTIFIES GENOCIDE/RAPE/SLAVERY?

I love Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, and Plato as thinkers...

That doesn't mean that just because they had a different perspective on why slavery was acceptable, that made it OK..."

Yet you don't damn all enlightenment thought as Garbage? Why not?

I don't know anything about Shakespeare, which allows me to speak with as much authority as you speak about Jewish theology ;)

""But who WERE they talking to, at Mr. Sanai?
It WAS God, right?
Yahweh?
That God?
The God of Genesis?"

Yes, and until that moment he couldd have been the god of olympus for all it mattered because the Jewish people had not made a covenant with him

Bottom line, if you whiped out Genesis, said it was all a myth and said Mt. Sinai still occurred, judaism would not be affected one iota."

...

If I wipe out Genesis, and thus God, NO GOD meets them at Sanai.

I wasn't quibbling over WHICH God, I'm saying NO ONE meets them if there's NO GOD.

Unless you're going to plug in Zeus or whomever else after I destroy Genesis, No Genesis = No God = No Sanai.

So...

I have to say it WOULD be affected, and more than an iota--

Jewish theology without God is sort of like soccer with no ball or goalposts--

You can keep on running and twisting and turning about to pretend--but what's the point?

Perhaps we have a different understanding of theology. My understanding of Jewish theology does not mean that I must believe everything or anything from Judaism is inspred from the divine. But I also believe there are worthwhile lessons and teachings from Jewish religious thought and that the whole Jewish canon cannot be reduced to "Garbage"

"I don't know anything about Shakespeare, which allows me to speak with as much authority as you speak about Jewish theology"

...As I AM a Jew...

And I've Genesis...and others, but we can stop there--

Genesis for Obi, Zero Shakespeare Plays for SC...

AND I'm a Jew:

I'm officially MORE qualified to talk about Jewish Theology than you are about Shakespeare, by a score of at least 1-0 on the books. ;)

"If I wipe out Genesis, and thus God, NO GOD meets them at Sanai."

WRONG, God was not created at Genesis, god was stting around in blackness at the beginning of Genesis, the absence of Genesis does not preclude god at all. This is just showing how little understanding you have for the text. There might be NO WORLD if there was no Genesis but Genesis hardly establishes god. Genesis establishes the universe and mankind. But if you replace that with something else god could surely have still appeared to the jews at Sinai.

"I severely doubt you got anything Jewsih drilled into your head, and if it was it popped right out, otherwise you wouldnt have said what you did. Nor would you insist on calling a nameless god "Yahweh" like some baptist who wants to sound well versed."

It didn't pop out...

Like Douglas Adams's God...it vanished in a puff of logic was all...

I speak English I am therefore as qualified to speak of Shakespeare as much as you have. And without a doubt I am acquainted with a higher percentage of shakespeares works than you are of Jewish theological works

", God was not created at Genesis, god was stting around in blackness at the beginning of Genesis, the absence of Genesis does not preclude god at all. This is just showing how little understanding you have for the text. There might be NO WORLD if there was no Genesis but Genesis hardly establishes god. Genesis establishes the universe and mankind. But if you replace that with something else god could surely have still appeared to the jews at Sinai."

...If I wipe out Genesis, I mean I wipe out the books that back that God's existence...

No books, no God.

You can't just say "He exists" with no proof...or even books, which are bad "proof," and not really "proof," but still...



No books, no God.
Genesis is the first book.
I take that out, and the origin story, the whole reason to START believing in that God...

And he vanishes, "poof!" in a puff of logic!

@Obi: was that the longest post in webdip history?

"I speak English I am therefore as qualified to speak of Shakespeare as much as you have. And without a doubt I am acquainted with a higher percentage of shakespeares works than you are of Jewish theological works"

1. Really? We're still on Shakespeare? O.o
2. You speak English? Great! ...Unless you've read a play, the score still stands:

Obi:

At least 1 book, Genesis.

SC:

0 Shakespeare plays.

I could know every word of Hebrew--

If I haven't read the OT or Talmud, that doesn't mean I know Jewish Theology.
Likewise, you can know every word in English, if you haven't READ THE MATERIAL...

Obi: 1 Book SC: 0 Plays

@Fasces:

Nope--I've done FAR longer posts. :p

WRONG. Genesis in no way "Backs that God's Existence" godds existence is taken for a given and formalized in the first commandment in Exodus when the first commandment is delivered. Exodus NEVER sets out to prove god exists. Flawed theology from someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

The Jews don't "start" believing in god in the OT, they hear gods voice at Sanai. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his 12 sons do indeed believe in God, but if God had showed up at Sanai and the jews had made the covenant right there, there would be very little difference.

I have read several books, I said no experience relatively. I have read Romeo and Juliet, McBeth, Othello, A Merchant of Venice, (did I forget to add antisemetic to my list of accusations against your lord and savior) and quite a few of the histories. In relation to the entire collection of Shakespeare that is hardly enough to allow me to speak intelligently about it, much like your 5 books (not 1 as you should know) do not allow you to speak intelligently on that topic.

"godds existence is taken for a given and formalized in the first commandment in Exodus when the first commandment is "

You don't get to Exodus without Abraham, you don't get that far without first going through everyone else in Genesis...

No Genesis, no Exodus--

Genesis is Chapter 1 of the Bible/Torah.

Perhaps phrased better:

Genesis, logically speaking, is Premise #1 in the Bible:

Premise:

There is a God, he created the Heaven and the Earth, and this is how.

If THAT fails, we have NO REASON to believe the rest of it...

As for the Hebrews at the Mount:

1. Unless you can give me eyewitness testimony from THEM, NOT from those who wrote after the fact, it's just the Bible you have to go on, ergo, the Genesis argument, again, and

2. Even if they DID hear voices, or a voice...so?

If *I* start hearing voices in *my* head...does that mean you should ALL believe I've been visited by God...

...or, more likely, that Obi's just watched "Hamlet" one time too many? ;)

(No, really, though, I put it to you, folks, since we got on Shakespeare with SC:

If I hear Shakespeare's voice in my head, right now, and he "reveals" to me the truth of his existence as the Almighty God of Good Authorship, and in order to earn a seat at his Pantheon, *all* I have to do is--as the Voice of Shakespeare In My Head DIVINELY COMMANDS--kill 1,000,000 Frenchmen with a nuclear bomb, to finish off Henry V's great war with them.

Well, folks...shall I do it? ...Set aside some of you might be from England and all...shall I listen to the Shakespeare God inside my head and commit to that as the ONLY proof I need that Shakespeare God is real and nuke Paris...

Or admit that MAYBE more proof than that is needed to establish this guy's existence as a deity?)

;)

@Obi: knowing you I wouldn't be surprised, lol

i actualy wanted to respond on the first reply of obi, but i am quite lost in the rest of the topic. Maybe tomorrow.

Dudes... what part about "this is not a thread for trolling religion" didn't sink in? Seriously! That topic has been heavily debated already and I think the camps are pretty well immovably established. Can we actually talk about what the thread was intended for?

What about the existance of otber gods, which is pretty clearly implied by the commmandment to nOt worship them...

Oh and christianity may have had many many examples of people who suffered from revelations, Mormonism can claim all those people plus 1

Islam i think gets the exact same count. That i'm aware of only the bah'ai faith claims moses, jesus, mohamed, buddah and bahala(sp?) as prophets thus likely gets the highest rating. ( = christianity +3 )

Meanwhile only scientology lacks any revelation from god, in that it was written by a sci-fo author... Though this certainly raises the question of what people are willing to consider religion... If they intrinsically need religion then they will latch onto pretty much any belief and many different religions will spontaneously appear... Oh wait. Damn

And no, nobody actually believes in the force. Though that doesn't mean there are no moral values to be found ib the jedi teachings, perhaps more useful than the bible.

@Ora - I'v avoided jumping in, but feel I must comment on that one specific statement about other gods. The word god implies anything one puts above all else. So money can be another god. Graven images and idolatry can be another god. That is what the OT God was referring to. It in no way implies the existence of other actual dieties, but refers only to that which you put above all other things.

But in context of the time it might mean don't worship Ares the greek wargod or mithras, regardless of money or the 'market' which solves all problems being a modern equivalent social structure.

But if 'God' can mean anything and you deny the value of worshiping these things, can you see how an atheist agrees with you on all accounts but one.

Putin would put worship of this god in terms of subjugation and power dynamics. How
does a belief in One God, before which you put no others, not fit putin's description of religion exactly?

Well, I was going to go through the multiple religions, G1, and end with this new idea of "the Force" but we couldn't even get past the Judeo-Christian doctrines...

Quite simply, though, I think my answer to miracles in here--which is really Hume's answer--fits your question:

Which is more likely:

That the laws of nature and motion have been suspended or else have allowed themselves to be manipulated by yourself, some new "Force," or both...

OR that you're just hallucinating, or wish it to be true?

As with nearly all miraculous claims...I think the idea of The Force being taken as something seriously to worship is ridiculous and, given that it's just something from a 1977 sci-fi film, rather sick, actually, and demonstrative of extremely desperate people struggle for ANYTHING to believe in that will give their lives validation or meaning.

As Hitchens used to say--

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There is no such extraordinary evidence for the Judeo-Christian doctrine...for Islam...for Scientology...for The Force...

And so on.

But, my dear Obiwan, that doesn't mean there is no value to be gained from the Jedi code. Maybe 'the force' is meant not to be taken literally, but symbolically binds us all together, as any who follow a symbol are bound together :)