NationStates Jolt Archive

And as for the evangelical missions: in addition to the uncertainty in the knowledge about hell, god(s), etc, there is also the history of certain religions that comes into play. If a Christian proselytizer comes to me and asks me to believe in his God, then I'd have to ask him why I should believe in something that nobody believed in >2500 years ago. Why would a god that nobody has ever worshiped in ancient times and who thus has apparently never communicated with humans be real but another god that has been worshiped and thus may have communicated with humans not be real?
The Jewish-Christian god is an idea fabricated out of many facets of gods that have been worshiped prior to the Jews' return from the so called Babylonian Captivity. If their god were real, then why the change in interpretation, and more to the point: why the change from polytheism to monotheism? Divine revelation? Inspiration? Increase in knowledge? And why the strange re-interpretation of history prior to this point in time? Why is it pretended that people, especially Jews and their (supposed) forebears the Israelites, had believed in the same idea of god as Jews later did although they apparently did not? Why do they claim that people like Moses, Joseph, Abraham had believed in the god as the bible describes him when there is in fact no indication whatsoever that any of them would have believed in anything different than their respective contemporaries? And further back: why do they "steal" the Sumerian Noah/Utnapishtim, the flood hero, and pretend he was a follower of a Jew-ish Yah when the only Yah back then was Ea/Enki who was in fact very different from the idea of god that Jews have later made out of him? Why this attempt to create an alternative history only to fit a new religion? It's pretty much the same pattern visible in such tales that create the foundation of such groups as Mormonism and Scientology.


because all people approach god through the filter of their own culture. the jews adapted the religions of other peoples to fit their own concept of themselves and the world they live in.

so did the christians who adapted the jewish view of god to create christianity. so do modern christian filter the biblical stories of god and jesus through their own culture to make it in many ways different from the beliefs of christians throughout the ages

so would you do if you took what you could figure out about ancient sumerican beliefs and applied them to your modern life.

religion isnt about literal truth. its about spiritual truth. no religion can pass the literal truth test. they are all metaphor/myths about our relationship to the universe.

First of all, the OP was right that Judaism does not usually seek out converts. Hasidim in particular are known for trying to convince other Jews to become Hasidic, but that is within Judaism. In fact, converting to Judaism is notoriously difficult, involving a year-long period of study (and circumcision, if you're male). This is to make sure that the convert is serious.

Judaism is also based heavily on rationality - the ultimate basis for our faith is a logical proof that G-d gave the Torah to the entire Jewish people at Mt. Sinai. If anyone cares, I can try and explain it, but as my understanding isn't perfect, I'd rather not.

Regarding UB's account of ancient monotheism, the reason why we disagree is that much of what he claims is fiction, I hold to be true. The only way I can think of to resolve this debate once and for all is to get a time machine, go back to ancient Israel, and see if the Jews are worshipping G-d in the manner described by Jewish history.

You wouldn't happen to have a time machine lying around, UB? Oh, well, I'll check by the physics department later.

From my understanding of logic, I will agree with UB that
a) Hell's existence does not depend on how many people believe in it (or don't).
b) UB agreeing with certain posters (probably including myself), is an indication that if Hell exists, it has frozen over.

If a bunch of evangelists came and tried to convert me, unless I was busy with something, I would probably reciprocate by trying to convert them. At the very least, I'd try to convince them that this kind of evangelism is stupid. I'd also mention that in my book, Jack Chick deserves to die for desecrating G-d's name (by giving people a negative impression of monotheism).

You and I have had this argument before in another thread. I'm not interested in having it again. I will only repeat my position that age =/= validity, and that, as a point of information, the religions you cite as ancient enough to suit you were new themselves once upon a time. As for the rest of your argument in support of your opinion, I really don't care about it. You are as entitled to your beliefs as anyone else is.I have no beliefs. And I did not say that age==validity. You didn't understand a single word I wrote.

But this is still not really germane to the topic of this thread except to the extent that it is your preferred response to evangelicals who try to sell you religions you don't like. It really says nothing at all about evangelism itself.This is not about liking a religion or not, this is about possible accuracy of religion. If a particular religion is just a very bad copy of another religion, which one would you discard first?
And as for evangelism: it's vain and empty, because YHVH is a fabrication, Jesus is subsequently not YHVH's son or incarnation, so believing in Jesus does not bring any "salvation" no matter how much christian proselytizers will pray to their false idol or how many people they annoy on the street with their pamphlets and whatnot. Evangelism is an intentional attack on the intellectual integrity of the people targeted, and it is only self-defense to aggressively reject such attempts.

I have no beliefs. And I did not say that age==validity. You didn't understand a single word I wrote.

So you don't actually believe in Yah? Thanks for clearing that up.

And as for evangelism: it's vain and empty, because YHVH is a fabrication, Jesus is subsequently not YHVH's son or incarnation, so believing in Jesus does not bring any "salvation" no matter how much christian proselytizers will pray to their false idol or how many people they annoy on the street with their pamphlets and whatnot. Evangelism is an intentional attack on the intellectual integrity of the people targeted, and it is only self-defense to aggressively reject such attempts.

Yea!!! Beat 'em down! Violence is not only fun, it is the final solution!

Man, I wish I knew this earlier, anytime someone tries to tell me something I just don't want to hear, I won't tell them to put a sock in it, I'll put my fist in it.

WOO! Yea! We should riot!

Judaism is also based heavily on rationality - the ultimate basis for our faith is a logical proof that G-d gave the Torah to the entire Jewish people at Mt. Sinai. If anyone cares, I can try and explain it, but as my understanding isn't perfect, I'd rather not.Judaism is in no way based on rationality. And the incident at Mt Sinai may have involved Israelites, but not Jews. Jews as a distinct group came only into existence after their return from Mesopotamia under Persian (Achaemenid) rule, and that's when they started to form their religion out of the bits and pieces of non-Jewish traditions they came across.

Regarding UB's account of ancient monotheism, the reason why we disagree is that much of what he claims is fiction, I hold to be true. The only way I can think of to resolve this debate once and for all is to get a time machine, go back to ancient Israel, and see if the Jews are worshipping G-d in the manner described by Jewish history.Why don't you just pick up a shovel and start digging anywhere in the Levant? You'll find all kinds of temples, places of worship, artifacts, ostraca, texts and text fragments, but not a single piece of evidence that would support the biblical rendition of ancient times (especially of people's beliefs in ancient times) prior to the "Babylonian Captivity". Why is it that every single source before that time rather contradicts what Jews have told the world through their holy book? And why is it that Jews use names for their "god" that were well known and used throughout the Middle East (Yah, El/Elohim, Adonai) but that were not at all connected to the characteristics ascribed to the biblical/jew-ish god? When anybody worshiped Yah, El or Adonai in the Levant prior to the Persian era they did not at all have in mind what Jews or Christians have in mind when they use those designations today. So why this back-projection of a later belief system into earlier ages? The answer is simple: pride and vanity and an urge to appear more ancient, more worthy and more significant among the real high cultures of those times. I mean, what did Jews have to offer when you compare them to Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Hittites, Pelasgians, Punites/Phoenicians, Greeks/Macedonians, Persians, Romans? Artifacts, architecture, paintings, mosaics, great literature? Where are all these things that we find in abundance from other ancient cultures? The only thing they ever came up with was and still is their own "god" YHVH, exclusively favoring Jews. And the fact that this ideology gained so much power by being spread by Christianity throughout the Roman Empire and later (re-)proselytization of Europe does not make it in any way more substantial.

So you don't actually believe in Yah?No, I only keep (the original) Yah as a possibility. But I don't believe in any gods, because I consider "belief" a fundamentally flawed concept. Either you know something or you don't, but there is no use in pretending to know by following a belief. Sometimes I think people only believe because they can't stand to not know for sure.

Judaism is also based heavily on rationality - the ultimate basis for our faith is a logical proof that G-d gave the Torah to the entire Jewish people at Mt. Sinai. If anyone cares, I can try and explain it, but as my understanding isn't perfect, I'd rather not.

I'd be interested in hearing it if you've got time to type it out.

No, I only keep (the original) Yah as a possibility. But I don't believe in any gods, because I consider "belief" a fundamentally flawed concept. Either you know something or you don't, but there is no use in pretending to know by following a belief. Sometimes I think people only believe because they can't stand to not know for sure.

so youre atheist when it comes to other gods but "agnostic" (to use the world loosely) when it comes to yah?

gee it would kinda suck if "god" loved the ancient sumerians best and cant be bothered to give the rest of us the time of day since his favs lost power.

so youre atheist when it comes to other gods but "agnostic" (to use the world loosely) when it comes to yah?

gee it would kinda suck if "god" loved the ancient sumerians best and cant be bothered to give the rest of us the time of day since his favs lost power.
I'm more or less atheist; I only believe in one god.

I'm more or less atheist; I only believe in one god.

hey i only believe in one fewer than you do. we're pretty much on the same wavelength eh?

hey i only believe in one fewer than you do. we're pretty much on the same wavelength eh?
Exactly!

I'd be interested in hearing it if you've got time to type it out.

Very well. The real reason I'm reluctant to type it out is that I'm uncertain about how well I know it.

Here is the proof. The Torah itself declares that it was given at Mt. Sinai. It specifically states that G-d Himself spoke to the people of Israel to give the first two commandments, and that they all heard Him in the same fashion (same volume and such), ruling out the possibility of Moses taking advantage of Mt. Sinai's acoustic properties to address the people. Consequently, for the Torah's account to be true, if the Torah was given at Sinai, it had to have been given by G-d Himself. If the Torah's account contradicted reality, then the people would reject it.

Now, some might say that the Torah was written centuries later, and given later. We might imagine some false prophet coming along and saying "This is the Torah, the holy book! It was given to us many years ago, but it has been forgotten until I found it! We must follow its teachings!" Then some guy says "Look, pal, it says here that the Torah will never be forgotten. How could it be forgotten without being wrong?" Prophet: *runs away*.
If said prophet declared that we had been following the Torah all along, he would be laughed out of town for denying reality. Therefore, the Torah could not have been introduced at any time other than at Mt. Sinai.

One might suggest that the Jews were not permitted to read the entire Torah, just as Catholics were discouraged from reading the Bible for themselves. But the Torah demands that it be studied by all. Again, we either contradict reality, or contradict the Torah.

A mass conspiracy of all the Jews to make up a story like this is similarly unlikely - do you think that such a mass conspiracy is likely, with no leaks? I don't. If you do, then there is a flaw in the proof of Mt. Sinai.

The idea that certain bits were added later also contradicts the Torah, which prohibits editing the Torah. It certainly throws the whole idea of the Torah being a collection of stories from other religions.

And UB, I have an answer to your mention of archaeological evidence of idol worship. There was idolatry in Israel even while the Jewish theocracy stood. Our own history states this as a reason for the destruction of the First Temple! There was no Jewish Inquisition - if there had been, then perhaps the First Temple would still be around.