Questions on Jewish & Christian Beliefs

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
[blah blah blah] intrinsic value [blah blah blah] primary value.

Where do you get this supposed relationship between intrinsic vs "primary" (whatever that means)???

And what does "primary" value mean?

One can't debate if one's terms don't mean the same thing to the readers, or don't make sense at all.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I know that. You are trying to demonstrate it by saying "if it has intrinsic value, wouldn't this absurdity result" and I'm saying that no, it doesn't, unless you're confusing the meaning of intrinsic.

No, Darius and LotM postulated that being monotheist has some value in itself.

I responded:

Among those 1.4 billion [monotheists], how many belong to religions that historically persecuted other Monotheistic religions? 99%

QED

I'm really being generous, allowing that maybe 1% of monotheistic religions didn't persecute others. I don't actually know of any.

Jewish converts to Catholicism, accused of relapse, didn't say to the Inquisition, "But hey, I'm still monotheistic." The Inquisition didn't respond, "Oh, well, then I guess you pass."

Now, perhaps you are addressing the issue of whether monotheism is a primary characteristic of certain religions vs intrinsic characteristic.

If it were intrinsic, then there would be no need for defining and reinforcing monotheism. For centuries the Jews worshiped YHWH and the Baals, and the prophets had to battle this corruption.

Ancient and Medieval Christians jumped through all kinds of theological hoops to define the Trinity as monotheistic. If monotheism were somehow intrinsic to Christianity this semantic struggle would never have happened.

[Darius871]

Sorry, I missed this gem:

Originally posted by Elok
I didn't think you were starting a cult, I just wondered why such a belief would exist in the first place. It doesn't seem logical.

Since when was any religious faith - anywhere, ever - supposed to be "logical"?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Darius871
Actually no, it was made up by the famed psychiatrist & Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl four decades before being made a staple of corporatespeak by Covey, and subsequently bastardized by almost two decades of frequent misuse. Countless times I've heard it both used and interpreted with the meaning I described (sometimes by idiots and often not), so I honestly don't care what it was originally intended to mean. The fact that you can get so wound up over something that trivial truly saddens me. They say desensitization therapy is helpful for this sort of problem:

I'm not "wound up," if by that you mean "upset." I'm just pointing out that it's a terminally ass-hat word. Using proactive is like stapling a dunce cap to your head. Especially with the definition you gave it. At least the meaning lotm gave was distinct.

And my PC has no speakers, so whatever video you posted does nothing for me. Try synergizing with that paradigm.

Oh, WRT logic, there are two answers. First, there's the question of internal logical consistency, which (most) religions need to have to survive for long. Secondly, there's the question of what its appeal would be to believers, and I just don't see how many people would flock to the Church of the Divine Infomercial.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I know that. You are trying to demonstrate it by saying "if it has intrinsic value, wouldn't this absurdity result" and I'm saying that no, it doesn't, unless you're confusing the meaning of intrinsic.

No, Darius and LotM postulated that being monotheist has some value in itself.

I responded:

Among those 1.4 billion [monotheists], how many belong to religions that historically persecuted other Monotheistic religions? 99%

QED

I'm really being generous, allowing that maybe 1% of monotheistic religions didn't persecute others. I don't actually know of any.

Jewish converts to Catholicism, accused of relapse, didn't say to the Inquisition, "But hey, I'm still monotheistic." The Inquisition didn't respond, "Oh, well, then I guess you pass."

Now, perhaps you are addressing the issue of whether monotheism is a primary characteristic of certain religions vs intrinsic characteristic.

If it were intrinsic, then there would be no need for defining and reinforcing monotheism. For centuries the Jews worshiped YHWH and the Baals, and the prophets had to battle this corruption.

Ancient and Medieval Christians jumped through all kinds of theological hoops to define the Trinity as monotheistic. If monotheism were somehow intrinsic to Christianity this semantic struggle would never have happened.

1. Its true that many elements within both Christianity and Islam persecuted other monotheists. To me this merely shows that Christianity and Islam, or at least certain elements within them, were profoundly f**ked up. In fact Judaism, at least, does not expect everyone else in the world to convert to Judaism. Whether it expects them only to be ethical,or ethical theists, or ethical theist non idolators, or ethical monotheists, is a question of some debate within Judaism. Certainly the notion of a bond among ethical monotheists is an important one in modern Judaism, and is almost at the core of Reform Judaism. What the inquisition did in 1500, or what the Almoravids did in 1300, does not nullify that.

2. Yes Jews worshipped Baal. Some Jews are atheists. A Jew is simply a Bnai Israel, a member of the Jewish nation. Pace some extreme Reconstructionists, not everything a Jew does is part of Judaism (to put it in more traditional terms, not everything done by bnai Israel is part of Emunah Israel) Baal worship was contrary to Torah, and to the faith of Israel. It was so precisely because it denied monotheism (I will avoid the question of when exactly prophetic monotheism actually evolved historically - the point is that anything period prior,is not a period when normative Judaism exists)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by lord of the mark
monotheism means one moral code. It means the whole world united under one creator. It means a connection among all things. It means wrestling with evil as part of good, not assigned to a demigod. Its a fundamentally distinct way of looking at divinity.

Now it may be that trinitarian christianity is compatible with all that, in which case trinitarian C may well be a form of monotheism after all.

That exercise is particular to one specific type of monotheism. Huitzilopochtli is god of all, both good and evil. He is capricious and you never know what you're going to get. But we hope that if we sacrifice enough we'll get his favor instead of his wrath. The struggle of good and evil on a personal level is meaningless, only the results we get.

Hypothetically speaking.

Hashem is also G-d of all, both good and evil. We acknowledge that we cant understand his justice "where were you when I created heaven and earth?"

Our personal struggle is meaningful. But its not clear how being incorrect about that means worshipping a different G-d. Reform Jews dont believe the Torah is binding, except for the ethical precepts confirmed by reason. Conservative Jews believe it is binding, despite being largely of human origin. Orthodox believe every word is divine in origin. Some Orthodox believe the Torah is a shell, in which a mystical torah is hidden. Do we say that all these believe in different G-ds? Rather they believe in the holy one, praised be he, who created the heaven and the earth. Though they all interpret that last phrase differently. If you go far enough, you can probably prove no two human beings worship the same G-d. For no two human beings have precisely the same beliefs relating to Gods attributes, meaning, and activities. The distinction becomes pointless. Which is why we focus on ethical monotheism as the essential. This does not mean we dont make assertions and debate positions beyond that, we certainly do, but thats not whats essential. Its less important to bang in the Huitzi worshippers head the fine distinction between his belief in the capricisiouness of his God, and our acknowldgement that Gods justice is beyond our understanding, than it is to get him to stop slaughtering children.

This may be a civilizational divide, I think, a profound difference between the Christian and Jewish ways of viewing the world. We cant imagine spending hundreds of years fighting about whether god is One will or one being. Now fighting about whether its licit to eat swordfish or not (orthodox vs Con), whether one should or shouldnt kindle lights on shabbat (rabbinate vs Karaite) is something else.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Darius871
Sorry, I missed this gem:





Since when was any religious faith - anywhere, ever - supposed to be "logical"?

Maimonides would say so. The anti-Maimonidean faction, maybe, would say not. At least not wrt theology. But a Judaism without logic in textual interpretation and legal affairs is unthinkable.

Come. Give it a try. Start the adventure. You know you want to.

[Arrian]

Secondly, there's the question of what its appeal would be to believers

Gotta have a good hook.

Our God can kick your God's ass! (Poor Baal, he was too wimpy)
After you die, you go to paradise! So your life here is just prelude (this helps if the person's life sucks)!
All those other idiots, who chose the wrong God, are so gonna burn! (Smug rating 10.0!)
Path to Enlightenment! Universal truths revealed! (not until you die, of course, and in the meantime, make the check out to ____).



-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Gotta have a good hook.

Our God can kick your God's ass! (Poor Baal, he was too wimpy)
After you die, you go to paradise! So your life here is just prelude (this helps if the person's life sucks)!
All those other idiots, who chose the wrong God, are so gonna burn! (Smug rating 10.0!)
Path to Enlightenment! Universal truths revealed! (not until you die, of course, and in the meantime, make the check out to ____).



-Arrian

.1/10

[Barnabas]

If I recall correctly Maimonides changed his mind on his opinions about christianity and islam.

First he thought that islam was closer to judaism, because islam is unambiguously monotheistic (unlike christianity with the trinity), has no idol worship, images forbidden like in judaism, similar dietary laws and other practices, but later he changed to believing christianity is closer, because christians accept the torah as inspired, real, true etc

I do think that islam is more similar to judaism than christianity, altough nowadays Israel´s enemies are mainly muslim countries, and israel supporters often christians.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Elok
I'm not "wound up," if by that you mean "upset."

I pictured more of a nagging OCD itch than merely being "upset." To even comment on something so trivial as the term's arcane connotations (let alone continuing to argue about them for two days) borders on pathological.

Originally posted by Elok
I'm just pointing out that it's a terminally ass-hat word. Using proactive is like stapling a dunce cap to your head. Especially with the definition you gave it. At least the meaning lotm gave was distinct.

To be perfectly honest you're preaching to the choir here. I just wanted to see how long I could drag out this meticulously contrived troll. Or would that be a proactive troll?

[Elok]

If I hesitated to discuss trivial crap, what would I be doing here in the first place? And it wasn't an OCD itch at all. I initially asked about it for your sake (dear god, doesn't he know that word advertises him as a halfwit to the whole world?), then continued when you started flaming.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Elok
I initially asked about it for your sake (dear god, doesn't he know that word advertises him as a halfwit to the whole world?), then continued when you started flaming.

Originally posted by Darius871
To be perfectly honest you're preaching to the choir here. I just wanted to see how long I could drag out this meticulously contrived troll. Or would that be a proactive troll?

[Elok]

I'm not contesting that you were trolling, I'm contesting that I was being neurotic and OCDish about it. I submit to you that I started with largely charitable intentions. Or are you saying I'm "preaching to the choir" about that too, somehow? Answering with only quotes is vague...

[Straybow]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Its true that many elements within both Christianity and Islam persecuted other monotheists. To me this merely shows that Christianity and Islam, or at least certain elements within them, were profoundly f**ked up. In fact Judaism, at least, does not expect everyone else in the world to convert to Judaism. ...

You seem to be forgetting that the Jews persecuted the Christians as heretics, until Christianity came to be dominated by Gentile converts.