• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Explain Judaism

noone1 said:
No, more so it's actually thinking Lucifers philosophy through and why he did it. If God is truly omniscient then he knew Adam and Eve would sin and thus his sacrificing Jesus for our supposed sin makes him a monster as he knew it would happen and that he would end up with immortality and infinite power. A little suffering is nothing to a God, he could have simply forgiven Adam and Eve. This makes the devil the hero as he knows he will fail but fights against the tyranny of God anyways.
Click to expand...



I don't agree with romanticising the devil. I think that's a pesonification of darkness or the evil within us and should be taken seriously. I just meant I don't think what is called the devil is necessarily the fallen angel but that doesn't mean what is called Luciferian forces can't be evil.

Also, I don't believe Jesus was supposed to be sacrificed for our sins, or that anything else can be sacrificed for your sins.
 
They are stories.

God didn't know that Eve would take to a snake, because that didn't happen.
God knew that humans would depart from nature and become human.
That is what the story is about.

The sacrifice of Jesus, similarly, functions as a symbol.
It's not a literal account.

I don't believe Jesus was supposed to be sacrificed for our sins, or that anything else can be sacrificed for your sins.
Click to expand...

Not literally, no.

A little suffering is nothing to a God, he could have simply forgiven Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...

No, He couldn't... or, at least, if He did, an important part of the story would be missing.
The story illustrates the transition from nature to human; the awakening of the human consciousness.
This has consequences, according to the story.
The consequence is humility/responsibility: "sin".

A shark does not decide whether or not it kills and, therefore, is not responsible.
We are responsible, having departed from the food chain, so we're capable of sin.

As for the devil being the good guy, the devil is God.
Since people have an absurd tendency to label God good / bad / monster, it's easier for simple folk to understand if there is a good God and a bad God.
In reality, God is neither good nor bad.

The universe doesn't revolve around us.
Cosmic justice doesn't behave according to modern, Western laws.
God cannot be judged like a man, because He is not a man.
And we are not the center of the universe.

If it gets to a point that our species is too much of a threat to other species and "God kills all of us", is he a monster?
We know that individuals die and species become extinct. This is part of the balance.
We don't call God a monster, because of this... only when it applies to us.
How dare he kill a bunch of humans?
That's inexcusable, right?

But people die and naturally that leaves us with questions about our creator.
The logical answer to these questions is not "He's a monster."
That's childish and silly.
 
ForEverAfter said:
The logical answer to these questions is not "He's a monster."
That's childish and silly.
Click to expand...

Actually, the logical answer is there's no magical sky daddy at all, and human beings can be satisfyingly explained by science. Personally I find religion in general to be "childish and silly" a lot more than logic or science. It is fascinating, though.
 
Why atheists/agnostics often feel they have to resort to petty name calling interests me.
There is a consistent mocking tone from a lot of the atheistic members of this forum.
Terms like "magical sky daddy", to me, sound a little childish.
They don't upset me. They just discredit you.

Maybe there's something to be gained via religion, like respect and intellectual humility?
Or perhaps it is a co-incidence that those defending religion on this forum have exercised more civility/patience.

...human beings can be satisfyingly explained by science?

There are a number of human anatomical functions we haven't worked out yet.
We've had electrical appliances for less than two centuries.

Those who play the science versus nature card often seemingly have more blind faith in science than religious types do in their respective religions.
Most religions teach us that we cannot know everything and that we never will... AKA "God works in mysterious ways."
Science says (what?): God doesn't work in mysterious ways. There is no God. Trust us. We will prove it one day...

...

The classic infantile response to a perceived insult is to throw it right back on impulse, even if it doesn't make sense in the other direction.
(Your response was ironic.)
 
noone1 said:
Google Judaism discouraging converts. I'm not sure if it's necessarily part of the religion but the culture has definitely evolved to that. I think it's inevitable with a religion that ties in with ethnicity. Also I don't think it's that bad of a philosophy. If you can get past it then you probably are meant to be Jewish. Religion should be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Discouraging and disliking are two different things. They don't discourage converts because they don't like them. They do it because they understand the difficultly in keeping with Jewish law and since they don't believe that non-Jewish people are automaticly barred from heaven they feel conversion usually just makes things more difficult then they need to be as it adds 606 more laws to be followed. They worry that converts won't take the laws seriously and therefore won't follow them and since The Law is the center of Judaism then converting and ignoring the law is pointless.
 
ForEverAfter said:
If it gets to a point that our species is too much of a threat to other species and "God kills all of us", is he a monster?
We know that individuals die and species become extinct. This is part of the balance.
We don't call God a monster, because of this... only when it applies to us.
How dare he kill a bunch of humans?
That's inexcusable, right?

But people die and naturally that leaves us with questions about our creator.
The logical answer to these questions is not "He's a monster."
That's childish and silly.
Click to expand...

To be clear I only believe he's a monster in the literal Christian fundamentalist version of events where we have to accept Jesus is the only way or die. The way you've described it as symbolism is fine for me if we concede there is much we don't understand about God and that the bible is not the pure word of God.
 
ForEverAfter said:
Those who play the science versus nature card often seemingly have more blind faith in science than religious types do in their respective religions.
Click to expand...

A tired, unoriginal fallacy that comes up every time. The scientific method has blind faith in nothing. If every last element of well established science is proven wrong tomorrow, anyone who genuinely understands science would have no problem moving to the new system.

If there was a legitimate scientific reason to believe in God, I'd believe in it. Theists, on the other hand, will never stop believing. So don't give me this "blind faith in science" nonsense. It's a conservative talking point that's as stale and illogical as possible.
 
No, I don't...
In the context (considering what you were objecting to) it made perfect sense.

...

The scientific method has blind faith in nothing. If every last element of well established science is proven wrong tomorrow, anyone who genuinely understands science would have no problem moving to the new system.
Click to expand...

You said "human beings can be satisfyingly explained by science", which is absurd since we don't know everything..
Unless you're saying that we will one day (through science) be able to explain everything that we can't now.
In other words: you believe that we will know everything in the future because you have faith in science...
And God doesn't exist, because - one day - science will prove it?

Maybe it was an accidental sentence, but what you wrote didn't/doesn't make much sense.
... and I don't often hear religious types proposing to know (now or in the future) everything.
There tends to be more humility on that side of the fence and maybe that's a good thing... That's all I'm saying.

I don't think there should be a fence at all.
(I'm not standing on either side of it.)
 
Science isn't about knowing everything. It's about striving to know everything. It's about knowing what can be known. You have a poor understanding of what science is. Your accusations about rational people are ad hominem and unsubstantiated. The idea that there can be a "fence" is a false equivalency.
 
I didn't define science.
You made a statement indicating that you have faith in science.
I am / was responding to that statement.

There are so many pseudo-intellectuals on this forum throwing around terms like "fallacy" and "false equivalency" as if they're magic words / phrases that can be inserted into any context. More often than not they are used incorrectly... There obviously can be (and is) a figurative fence. This thread wasn't about science. You established yourself as part of the science versus religion debate by making a blanket statement that science is superior and can explain everything, which renders religion useless.

Again, I am responding to that statement.

I don't have a poor understanding of what science is; rather, you appear to have a poor understanding of how to debate and difficulty following conversation.

The fact that you object to the very idea that blind faith exists in the scientific world is, again, ironic.
I've never heard a religious person object to the idea that blind faith exists within religion.

The fact that you refuse to accept that scientifically minded people can be blinded by arrogance / self-assurance indicates to me that you are somewhat blinded by your faith in science... I am not criticizing science, nor have I made any attempt to do so throughout this thread... I'm simply pointing out (as you agreed) that science is limited to what we know. The universe can only be satisfyingly explained by science if you're satisfied with what we currently know about the universe through science, which - relative to what is unknown - is very little.

Personally, I don't think science has answered any of the big questions yet.
And I don't think it's possible for us to know everything via scientific processes.

Science and religion / philosophy don't ask fundamentally different questions.
In the end, it's all about why we are here.

But the process is different.
Science aims to label and understand everything.
Given the vastness and inaccessibility of deep space, this is unlikely.

Religion attempts to bypass the details and answer the broader questions directly.
This process shouldn't be discarded in the name of science, which is what your original post implied.

Actually, the logical answer is there's no magical sky daddy at all, and human beings can be satisfyingly explained by science. Personally I find religion in general to be "childish and silly" a lot more than logic or science. It is fascinating, though.
Click to expand...

Your comment was defensive and indicative of the typical ignorance / arrogance of a science cultist.
And, it was also misguidedly rude / patronizing and arrogant.

You didn't appear to be responding to the thread; rather, expressing your animosity towards religion via childish means.
That is my opinion.

Can we skip the rest of this back and forth?
It isn't worth my time.
 
I'm not talking about religious faith.
Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary.

You've made at least two statements indicating that you have faith in science.
And, there is no need to be so defensive about it; there's nothing wrong with having faith in science.
 
Doldrugs said:
Actually, the logical answer is there's no magical sky daddy at all, and human beings can be satisfyingly explained by science. Personally I find religion in general to be "childish and silly" a lot more than logic or science.
Click to expand...

Well, most will have these thoughts as soon as they emerge from childhood. For most it's the first step to an independent understanding of these things, but that doesn't mean there's nowhere else to go. Though you can always rely on someone turning up to express those ideas as if they have never occured to anyone else.

There's not really much difference between being blindy religious and having a blind faith in science. And many scienticts are like that. My biology teacher used to say "Jesus was a historical figure" (and nothing more) as if he actually had a sure way of knowing that with his limited research into religious themes. Scientists can be irrational and hard to take seriously too (unless maybe if you identify yourself with that outlook so it becomes an important part of your identity).

But more interesting is the notion that there could also be an exact science to describe the spiritual/divine world (not like it's done by religions) and probably is by now or at least knowable to some (Theosophy seems quite close to that). I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be, as I have no doubt this dimension of life exists, and everything that exists has a science behind it.
 
Last edited:
Excellent point of view. I´m not very religious although I deeply respect its values and sure I have my beliefs as a Christian. However, like you said radical is, either, in religious not seeing anything else but relating everything to their Gods or a scientist who discards everything related to religion.
Great post indeed!
 
"Blind faith in science" is an invented concept that doesn't make any sense. It's patently anti scientific. Someone who has "blind faith in science" or accuses genuinely scientifically minded people of it fundamentally misunderstands science.
 
"Blind faith in science" only means that someone thinks either science has already worked all things out or that science can disprove all and any religious claims. And there are people like that.

They actually believe the advances in science that's been made so far can disprove the existence of God. When it's not even really connected because why would God want to hold us back from achieving scientific knowledge of our world?

It's a false choice and especially it's something pointless to identify with.
 
Ninae said:
Jesus was an Essene (like John the Baptist). He grew up in a puritan community that set them apart from the rest of the society he was living in. He was very unpopular with Rabbis and the religious authorities at that time.

If he had been a spokesman for the Rabbis they would have supported him, but he wasn't.
Click to expand...

ok first of all, there was never anyone named "jesus" at the time of the crusades because there is no "Jay" sound in the hebrew alphabet. the name Jesus was probably Yahushua. Secondly, do you know how many people were crucified during the crusades? do you know how many people were named Yahushua at the time? put together those probabilities and you have hundreds of people that were named Yahushua that were crucified.

if i may continue on technicalities, hebrew was a dead language until isreal actually became a state in 1948. people did not speak hebrew many centuries ago, it was the language of worship, meaning the people during the time of "Jesus" and before then, did not speak hebrew in conversation. rather, they probably spoke arabic or some sort of language relating to that. thus, many words of the english bible and torah are not translated correctly. even the people of israel probably dont read the torah with its original intention correctly. i relate this predicament to how sanskrit in the bhagavad gita is almost always translated incorrectly to english and other languages. most words lose certain meanings and adopt new ones with time. a word said today could mean something completely different hundreds of years ago. ironic as it may seem, language is a fluid idea. while language itself literally defines life in terms of black and white, multiple variables go into defining definitions for words such as culture, religion, emotions, etc... thus, the meanings of the torah and the bhagavad gita are thus nothing more than scholarly "guesses"

now i was raised jewish, but i dont believe in God. judaism is an ethnic religion, meaning there is more to the religion than just spirituality and god. i have never gone back to temple since my Bar mitzvah, and i dont really plan on going back. i dont like organized religion, and i feel more spiritual practicing buddhism. yes i will identify myself as jewish, but i dont pray, i dont read the torah, i dont do anything involving religion.. the only holidays i celebrate are the major ones, rosh hashanah and yom kippur and hannukah because my family celebrates them. it is like a christian who only celebrates christmas and never goes to church.

now, saying that judaism is devil worship is actually kind of funny because it is so ignorant. i actually laughed when i read that....

there is a saying in buddhism, "if you can find the buddha on the road, kill buddha." which means holding on to a belief systems inhibits the formation of new beliefs and perspectives. there is no one right answer in life, there are too many grey areas to say one idea or belief is absolute.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top