Questions on Jewish & Christian Beliefs

[Kuciwalker]

The Christians were heretics.

[Straybow]

In other words, being monotheists had no intrinsic value.

Next.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, missed that. Gimme a moment.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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.

Primary = more important than all/most.

Your argument was of the form:

If monotheism has intrinsic value, then it must be better to worship Huitz-whatever than some pantheon you mentioned. This is false (presumably because the Aztec guy was a bloodthirsty monster), therefore monotheism has no intrinsic value.

However, the first statemetn does not imply the second. It would only do so if monotheism were a primary value. It has some intrinsic value, but that can be outweighed by some other value.

[Kuciwalker]

FYI, I don't give a damn if your ultimate point is right. Your argument showed a clear misuse or misunderstanding of the word intrinsic.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by 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...

Sorry, I didn't know that's what you meant. The quote was just pointing out that it wasn't necessary to clue me in 'for my sake' since I used the word on purpose anyway. After reading a few English pet-peeve nitpicks of yours on other threads - and considering your college major - I figured throwing a quick 'pro' into the post would make a good hook.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Primary = more important than all/most.

The confusion arises because there are three dominant monotheistic religions that share a common heritage. Their commonality might be mistaken for intrinsic value of monotheism as a concept.

Your argument was of the form:

If monotheism has intrinsic value, then it must be better to worship Huitz-whatever than some pantheon you mentioned. This is false (presumably because the Aztec guy was a bloodthirsty monster), therefore monotheism has no intrinsic value.

However, the first statemetn does not imply the second. It would only do so if monotheism were a primary value. It has some intrinsic value, but that can be outweighed by some other value.

FYI, I don't give a damn if your ultimate point is right. Your argument showed a clear misuse or misunderstanding of the word intrinsic.

The misunderstanding of the word "intrinsic" is yours. You have yet to connect any kind of value to the inherent nature of exclusive worship of one god.

Please study logic. My argument was in the form of a syllogism:

Worshipping a god has value depending on the character of the god and mode(s) of worship.
Choosing an arbitrary god to worship monotheistically does not ameliorate the character of the god, or of the mode(s) of worship.
Therefore, monotheism as a practice has no intrinsic value.

It is by no means faultless. As with most syllogistic arguments it depends on much "fleshing out" to explore how completely each premise and the conclusion relate to each other and to reality.

Hence, I explained the mistaken perception of value being due to a common revelatory nature of the dominant forms of monotheism. Earlier I showed how the dominant monotheistic religions persecuted each other, and within their own ranks, exempifying the lack of intrinsic value.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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?"

Not so. He is God of all, but He is not God of evil. Evil is the twisting of that which God made until it no longer serves God's intended purpose.

Our personal struggle is meaningful. But its not clear how being incorrect about that means worshipping a different G-d.

The worship of God is revelational. When we make idols (whether actual physical images, or our desires and imaginations) we are, in essence, worshipping ourselves. That is the original sin of Adam and Eve: not the eating of a fruit but the desire to possess and control their own righteousness apart from that God has established.

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 assumes that somehow, by worshipping Huitzilopochtli, one is actually worshipping Hashem. God says that some who worship rightly "with their lips" are still far from Him "in their hearts." And that those who worship dead idols are completely lost. Persuading them to stop human sacrifice does not transform them into worshippers of Hashem.