Journal insanecarbonbasedlif's Journal: [Religion] Thoughts about readings (pt. 3) 16
This is an odd chapter for me, as I have not supposed that the Bible is, in its entirety historically inaccurate, so this chapter was more of a curiosity for me than a burning question. (There are parts of the Bible, i.e. a singular worldwide flood, that due to our scientific understandings of the world via geology and archeology I know *cannot* be true. If you believe these texts, it must be allegorically at least partially, or you are being intellectually dishonest. On the whole though, dates of rulers reigns and conquests and all were not something I am criticizing). However, though this chapter did a reasonable job of proving a select set of historical accounts in the Bible to be true, it raised more profound questions about the legitimacy of the claim that the Old Testament was to any degree spiritually generated. Here are some specific quotes that raised those questions:
Furthermore, the religious ritual required by the Pentateuchal laws is now seen to be similar in outward form to that in the cults of Israel's neighbors in the mid-second millennium B.C. The pattern of the tabernacle and its furnishings corresponds strikingly with that of contemporary non-Israelite sanctuaries. There is, for example, the fourteenth century Canaanite temple uncovered at Hazor, with its court, main hall, and holy of holies. This sanctuary design is seen from excavations at Byblos to be at least as old as 2000 B.C. (pp.146-147)
Comparison of Ugaritic and Mosaic ritual reveals such similarities in terminology, sacrificial procedure, and sacred personnel as to render Wellhausen's viewpoint obsolete. (p.147)
Shockingly, I had not known this, and it does, significantly in my mind, erode the claim of special revelation and inspiration made by the Mosaic texts. Also, this is where the author leaves a rational viewpoint behind and starts betraying a heavy bias, with the phrases like similar in outward form to try and minimize the de-inspirational effect of these facts. The author also realizes that my realization is a very rational and logical way of understanding of this information, since the line immediately after the above quote is as follows:
Indeed, with the varieties of ceremonial symbolism found in the Mosaic legislation being traced in the pagan world to even pre-Mosaic times, the strategic situation in the modern debate is radically changing. The question of the historical genuineness of the Mosaic ceremonial system is yielding to the more basic question of the spiritual genuineness, that is, the divine origin, of the religion which the Mosaic ritual enshrined. (p.147)
The author's counter to this question of spiritual genuineness is, simply put, "You must have faith in order to see that it is from God". I'm sorry, but that doesn't convince me at all. This really looks like a smoking gun of anthropological, as opposed to supernatural, origins of the Hebrew religion.
Moo (Score:1)
Two points.
1) The claim that the Jews are merely an amalgamation of many other religions is quite an old one. While it is a given that the Jews have been in all parts of the world, been a part of their culture, and has rituals similar to many nations, the question is, did the Jews have it all and each nation took what they liked, or did the nations have it first and the Jews took what they liked from each?
I doubt the answer is not congruent with one's beliefs.
2) Jung talks about the god image in the human p
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you write God without the O? If you are discussing the nature of God, it's not "taking the Lords name in vain", you know... It makes you look overly pious and moronic.
For insanecarbonlifeform: The religion of science and the science of religion [richarddawkins.net]. Listened to it yesterday. It gives a very good theory on why religion evolved (same explanation is given in The God Delusion).
God really is just a byproduct of our consciousness (at least with a very high probability). I'd rather use my time to do more f
Re: (Score:2)
God really is just a byproduct of our consciousness (at least with a very high probability).
That's really a non-argument again -- a blind assertion. By that same line of reasoning, everything is potentially merely a "byproduct of our consciousness".
Even the hopelessly deluded have an internally consistent world-view. So once again, you either trust your senses, or you don't.
It's arguments like that that disappoint me with Dawkins: he's playing fast and loose with his arguments much like the religiou
Re: (Score:1)
Well, probability has been a damned mighty tool in science... While you're right that in the end this concludes nothing, one simply has to take a side. I chose mine, and you chose yours. I'm not going to stop you to believe whatever you want, as long as you don't try to convert me.
In the end it is just a decision, and to me Dawkins has the better arguments that the preachers.
Oh, and you really don't need to cite Descartes (or variations thereof) in each post regarding religion. His assertion is that t
Re: (Score:2)
Well, probability has been a damned mighty tool in science...
Not if you arbitrarily make up the "probabilities" to suit your case, which is exactly what Dawkins does.
Oh, and you really don't need to cite Descartes (or variations thereof) in each post regarding religion. His assertion is that the only thing we can be sure about is that we are when we think. All the rest, might be just a figment of our imagination. The problem with this viewpoint is that you cannot work from it.
Yes, you can. Descart
Re: (Score:1)
Not if you arbitrarily make up the "probabilities" to suit your case, which is exactly what Dawkins does.
Then show me probabilities (based in science) that show that the existence of God is probable. You might even write a paper and get world fame. While he doesn't give exact numbers, his logic is pretty much flawless. I'm just paraphrasing here, but the gist is: "A creator, which must be by definition immensely complex, is less probable than that complexity arose all by itself. After all, we already h
Re: (Score:2)
Then show me probabilities (based in science) that show that the existence of God is probable.
The question is itself a non-sequitur, but it's not a question science is capable of answering.
I already pointed out elsewhere how God can perfectly well exist right under our noses (the Spinozan or pantheist God, more or less) -- the bit about us being no more alive than rocks or trees. And that's only one possible way God can be viewed. There are many others. And all of them bear some merit.
While he does
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you write God without the O?
There is a Jewish tradition not to refer to G-d directly in writing. As such, any reference is either indirect or modified. Many have the tradition to put dashes in between letters that refer to G-d, such as in the name Yisroel where the last two letters would get a dash in between them.
Re: (Score:2)
In a way, it makes the Roman alphabet operate like the original Hebrew, without vowels, no?
There is a bit of a paradox at work, especially within sectarian Christianity, wherein the diety is both revered as holy and unapprochable, and simultaneously personal and familiar. The former aspect suffers in view of the latter. The result often smacks of
Re: (Score:1)
In a way, it makes the Roman alphabet operate like the original Hebrew, without vowels, no?
No. It is merely the fact that it is a direct reference, evidenced by the capital "g".
Re: (Score:2)
Not really (Score:2)
This really looks like a smoking gun of anthropological, as opposed to supernatural, origins of the Hebrew religion.
Not really.
In the document Lumen Gentium [wikipedia.org], for example, the Roman Catholic Church quite happily accepts that other religions contain bits of the truth. It merely claims that the Roman Catholic Church has the purest form of the truth.
The analogy my priest once made was that of different people drilling wells to reach the groundwater. Some will strike sand and sludge -- that is, they ge
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, it does.... It means that the religions itself started to evolve. Taking up the good parts from one religion, dismissing less favourable parts, etc... From more primitive religions to what we know now as Judaism and Christianity. Religion took a life on its own. Why are the early Mesopotamian myths less
Re: (Score:2)
If there were only one God and He really wants us to believe, every religion on earth should be exactly the same.
Why? Human beings are all different. Why should their religions all be exactly the same?
Human beings grow and mature as they get older. We learn. Why shouldn't religions as well?
You're making a series of assertions that have no factual basis.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, I start from the assertion that the God you believe in is the only True God. Why would he allow that many false religions? Some religions even existing before the "right one" came into existence!
My factless assertions started from accepting one God as "True", and the conclusions are... well, as you pointed out yourself... quite destructive for that God. By merely stating the following question: Human beings are all different. Why should their religions all be exactly the same? , you have point
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I start from the assertion that the God you believe in is the only True God. Why would he allow that many false religions? Some religions even existing before the "right one" came into existence!
I already linked to Lumen Gentium as a response to that point.
By merely stating the following question: Human beings are all different. Why should their religions all be exactly the same? , you have pointed out that your religion is just one of many.
Read Lumen Gentium. Or The Orthodox Way, one o