The Genesis : Common sense vs. Nietzsche

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

The last 100 years of Jewish phil, in a nutshell.


Nietsche: God is dead!
Rosenzweig: The Jews LIVE! Yay, G-d!
Buber: What about the goyim - they live too! Yay, G-d!
Rubenstein: Six million Jews died - G-d IS SO dead.
Fackenheim: Murdered Jews affirmed G-d - yay for them!
Wolpe:We're Jews, but we're tired of hearing about dead Jews = we're alive, and we're Jewish, yay us!
Post-modernists - WTF is "live"??

[Kidlicious]

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
Ahh yes the good ol' interpretation" bit. The Jokester God reappears.

It is all how various people interpret the various words of god. If you find something disagreeable, no problem, you can dismiss it as faulty intrepretation ("Islam is a religion of peace"). Seems the supreme being likes screwing with the flock, or may, just maybe, there is no god.

Judaism IS interpretation, from day one. You cant even make sense of a human communication without interpretation, and how much more so a text that is attributed to a being wholly other?

Anyones free to not believe in god. Thats fine. But if so, its not clear what business they have telling the believers how to intrepret holy texts.

I cant say muslim interpretations of how to read the Koran are wrong, cause the meta issues, the questions of what makes a good interpretation, are THEMSELVES part of Islam. How can there be a "right" interpretation from my POV? I can say, as a historian, what it meant to muslims at various points of time, but that isnt the "true" meaning.

[Wezil]

The "true" meaning is what any particular society at any particular time decides it is. Gay marriage was a taboo across the board in all Christian denoms 100 years ago but is accepted by many now. Why? Was god wrong? No, of course not, we just interpreted his word incorrectly.

I'm not telling anyone how to interpret their "holy" texts. I'm saying their holy texts are NOT the word of some supreme being. To think so is foolish. If you want to find philosophical debate in the texts, go ahead and knock yourself out.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Judaism IS interpretation, from day one. You cant even make sense of a human communication without interpretation, and how much more so a text that is attributed to a being wholly other?

Interpreting something from an unbiased point of view is one thing. But if that were the case there wouldn't be much interest in it I suppose. But deciding that it's the word of God and then interpreting it... well I don't really call that interpreting.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wezil

The "true" meaning is what any particular society at any particular time decides it is. Gay marriage was a taboo across the board in all Christian denoms 100 years ago but is accepted by many now. Why? Was god wrong? No, of course not, we just interpreted his word incorrectly.

Ya know what Wezil, most secular folks thought it was a bad thing, or at least a disorder of some kind. Guess what, we've LEARNED things in the last few years, like that some folks are born that way. Given that, you have to decide how a God who wants US to respect human dignity, to show compassion, would WANT us to interpret the texts.

I'm not telling anyone how to interpret their "holy" texts. I'm saying their holy texts are NOT the word of some supreme being.

I know that you think that, and thats fine. But implying that theyre not, BECAUSE theyre not clear, because they require interpretation, because they can have multiple meanings, sounds either like silly atheism, or like a culturally narrow PROTESTANT approach to texts, or BOTH.

Look, I cant speak for the Anglicans or the Lutherans or whomever - I can say, OUR belief that these texts are COMPLEX and many layered in their meaning, and that literalism is folly, is NOT something we came up with in response to Darwin or Nietsche, but was already at LEAST 1800 years old when those estimable gentlemen were alive.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Interpreting something from an unbiased point of view is one thing. .

As a good Marxist, you should recall that there is NO unbiased viewpoint, only viewpoints that decieve by pretending to be unbiased - the openly engagee viewpoint as at LEAST as legitimate.

[Kidlicious]

For example, in the text being discussed the apple is clearly a metaphor. How would you "interpret" it though? To me it sounds like people are being seduced. Can you seduce people with knowledge or can you seduce people with sex? One is interpretation the other is something else.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious
For example, in the text being discussed the apple is clearly a metaphor.

It never says there was an "apple"

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
As a good Marxist, you should recall that there is NO unbiased viewpoint, only viewpoints that decieve by pretending to be unbiased - the openly engagee viewpoint as at LEAST as legitimate.

Maybe at certain circumstance there is no unbiased viewpoint, but what if you are just listening to two people talk and you have no other motivation than to listen to them and try to comprehend what they are saying. Then you are truly unbiased.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


It never says there was an "apple"

That's another issue isn't it?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Ya know what Wezil, most secular folks thought it was a bad thing, or at least a disorder of some kind. Guess what, we've LEARNED things in the last few years, like that some folks are born that way. Given that, you have to decide how a God who wants US to respect human dignity, to show compassion, would WANT us to interpret the texts.

So god was unclear about the whole treat other with dignity and respect thing? It took science and reason to tell us what god couldn't. I think you support my argument.

I know that you think that, and thats fine. But implying that theyre not, BECAUSE theyre not clear, because they require interpretation, because they can have multiple meanings, sounds either like silly atheism, or like a culturally narrow PROTESTANT approach to texts, or BOTH.

No, it sounds like common sense. Unless as I say, god is messing with you.

Look, I cant speak for the Anglicans or the Lutherans or whomever - I can say, OUR belief that these texts are COMPLEX and many layered in their meaning, and that literalism is folly, is NOT something we came up with in response to Darwin or Nietsche, but was already at LEAST 1800 years old when those estimable gentlemen were alive.

I'm well aware of the age of Judaism. It goes well back to the days of superstitution and ignorance (like most organised religions - not a personal attack). With that many centuries of belief in fables I'm sure lots of controversies in the faith have arisen.


edit: The Catholics did the whole "angels on the head of a pin" thing. Religious folks have no problem coming up with things to seriously debate.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Nietsche: God is dead!
Rosenzweig: The Jews LIVE! Yay, G-d!
Buber: What about the goyim - they live too! Yay, G-d!
Rubenstein: Six million Jews died - G-d IS SO dead.
Fackenheim: Murdered Jews affirmed G-d - yay for them!
Wolpe:We're Jews, but we're tired of hearing about dead Jews = we're alive, and we're Jewish, yay us!
Post-modernists - WTF is "live"??

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious
To me it sounds like people are being seduced.

Let me "interpret" that.

To "me" (that is to one individual, the very notion of an individual with opinions apart from the group being largely an Italian renaissance notion, which in turn becomes a way to view the bible via the north European Reformation, circa 1520,) sounds (in English, since I dont know Hebrew, but must read SOME translation which was influenced by some or many religious traditions of looking this text, and of the meaning of translation in general) like people (that it sounds like that, I cant possibly seperate from not only interpretations of the bible ive read or heard over the years, but from all the novels, newspaper stories, etc, which have formed my habits of what a story, itself quite brief, "sounds like") are being seduced (not to mention my own personal life history, my goals, aspirations, values, fears, and obsessions)

Nope, theres no way to seperate your view from your place in history and society. The Pomos are right on this one.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wezil

So god was unclear about the whole treat other with dignity and respect thing? It took science and reason to tell us what god couldn't. I think you support my argument.

I believe science and reason are gifts from G-d. While Im not a fundamentalist about how the bible was written, i think the notion that G-d would have revealed every fact of modern science in 1000 BCE is simply silly - He wanted it followed, he didnt want to reveal stuff that people of the time couldnt beleive. This is an old argument.

No, it sounds like common sense.

Of course it does, because its the approach your culture has been propating for 500 years (and yes, the notion of a "simple" meaning to a text is much more basic than the belief in Christianity, its a deep civilizational thing). If youd been raised differently, in a different civ and worldview, youd find different things to be "common sense"

I'm well aware of the age of Judaism. It goes well back to the days of superstitution and ignorance

This isnt a personal attack either, but from your post on this matter, Id say ignorance is still alive and with us.