OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Gatorubet]

Muffler, sorry it's taken this long to get back to you. Had to honor the scum week poli-board shut down...


OK, your original question was: Question: to what end is it a political tool? Has this "end" changed throughout time in your opinion?

I think Leviticus might serve as a good start. I think it's pretty obvious that this particular book is an organization of rules/laws. Maybe not "Political" in one sense of the word, but at the same time, there is a component of making people behave in a certain way owing to fear of God. I would be content to call Leviticus essentially the same thing as the Code of Federal Regulations, or the United States Code in American Government. That is, a set of rules. So, in terms of "political" as a term of governance, I would think Leviticus fits.

Likewise, I've been reading about the prophecies of Jeremiah, and I can see how this may not be prophecy at all so much as it is an accounting of a specific time period in Jewish history. Much the same way as modern Americans keep some sort of eye on history for some purpose, I think that guys like Jeremiah were charged with the responsibility of preserving history for some purpose. I'm not being clear.... If we imagine the Jews, or at least some Jews, as an entity trying to obtain organization and power as a "state" we might see the Bible as an organized text handed down from generation to generation (ruler to ruler?) as a guideline... or a source of wisdom.. or... how to say this... as a preservation of past wisdom for future success. (Kinda like our own Constitution). The Bible, in it's recording of real life events, is like any other manuscript of historical import... Ancient Chinese scrolls... Egyptian carvings... clay tablets from Babylon. Same thing. The Jews ascribed each of their success and failures to their God (well, the failures as a judgment from their God from their own failings, I suppose) Doing so, and "establishing" God's role in governance, controls future behavior of Kings to be wise, to do "Good".. because God is watching. Skipping around a little bit, I hope that makes sense.

How has it changed? Not sure it has. I mean, I can see where the Jews still treat the world as if their God is in complete control of their successes and failures (as a nation). This would be true of Islam as well, I would add.... oddly, not so true of Christianity. At least not in my view. Ultimately, religion is politics, I think. To be clear, I do not mean to say that God is reduced to a political tool and is therefore otherwise imaginary. To the contrary, God is real (at least I think so), but He doesn't get involved the way Religion says he does. I mean... it makes no sense to me that God would be SO active in history for so long and then... all of a sudden... he just closes up shop for 2000 years. RELIGION is, to me, man organizing with other men of same belief for the purpose of power. What the power is is not really important. I don't mean to imply sinister purpose.... just trying to call it what it is... GOD, however, is something quite different.

Frankly, I can't see how God gives a shit about any of the day to day goings on in the life of Man.... Or.. why he'd manipulate it in any way. I'm troubled by an all powerful God who can't seem to put together a universe where he has to do magic to make sure things go OK.. Strikes me as outlandish. I mean, if you read some of the stories of the Bible (speaking again about the prophecies I've been reading of late) it's like God is sitting on High thinking... "Sweet Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you people? How many times do I have to tell you... STOP WITH THE IDOLS! Jesus!" (Sorry for my glib presentation.. it's just the way I've come to talk about this stuff over the years, I don't mean any offense) because the jews keep fucking up, over and over and over again. Anyway.... this god... seems.... pretty aloof and unprepared. I believe in a much different God.

All that said, I think that the POINT of it all (the Bible) is in the right ball park... That is to say, "giving it to God" makes people think of God with some regularity, and I see that as a good thing.



Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out!



Yeah, every time I hear of some "unexplained" thing, I think how great is this universe? I just think there is so much more out there to learn than what is immediately around us.... we're so young. The unexplained ... it has a reason.. it is explained and natural.. we just don't quite understand... and THAT, I think, is the meaning of life.


I concur. I wanted to touch on your last sentence.... I find myself much more comfortable around atheists. I find that most of them actually believe in God, they just don't know that they do.... and they're usually much easier to talk to because they try to stick with facts and not stories used to back up their beliefs. That's not meant as a backhand towards any theists reading this.. I'm just speaking in a general way.. and that's been my expirience. I also like talking to atheists because they can test my beliefs... I have to be ready to make sense to them in defense of my God, or they'll jump me immediately and point out how foolish I am to believe such a thing in the face of fact X, Y or Z to the contrary. Thus, I've come to accept that I MUST accept the reality around me as real, and thus any God must ALSO be compatible with the same. So far, my God is. I don't think, however, other people's God is. I don't mean people on this board necessarily, I just mean some people I've met in life. If believing in your God, for example, requires the Earth to be 6,000 years old...



Hope so... I figure I'll get it eventually. In some ways I have. I just need to remember that a Paradox isn't a problem, it's just an answer. P = notP It's the same thing.


I have not heard of Yetzer. I have heard God created both good and evil. I can live with that, but, ultimately, if it's God's creation, it is the same. I think Good and Evil are mostly man's constructions of culture and ethics. In a country with a severe population problem, abortion seems a perfectly fine solution. Some here in the US would consider that Evil... what does God think? I doubt he cares. What is death to God anyway? What harm have I done if I kill you? If you believe in God and the life that comes after this life, I don't see the foul. Now, that's not an endorsement of killing. It's a comment on "punishment." I DO NOT believe killing is OK. I believe in living and let live... I do not believe in encroaching on my neighbor.. whehter his things or his life... I believe in learning... and to maximize my learning, it's best if more people are around, I guess. But, I'm troubled that we have this idea that dying is some kind of bad thing.... if we also believe in God. But, then, I also don't understand why a Christian wouldn't welcome the coming of Armageddon so they'd get to be with their Christ for 1,000 years and instead seem to fear it.

I am getting off track. I don't believe in labels. I mean, yeah, I can say something is Good or bad.. or whatever... but that's just a description of my value judgment on it and not some sort of real thing. What is Good? It depends on who you ask. And, again, if God created evil... well... I don't see how he could get all pissed off about someone doing what he created to be done.... sorta setting up a sadistic bastard God if he creates a thing he despises simple so he can punish those who will commit it. EVERYTHING JUST IS. That's what I think.



It's something my Mom tried to get me to believe... something she believed. Something I'm coming to realize is part of the key to my peace with the universe. I do believe it, I just don't believe it to the core like she did... that was part of her person... me? Well... I mean... my profession pretty much establishes I cannot remove myself from OF the world. But, I'm working on it. Mom was able to look at the most foul bum and see why God would love him. I, most the time, just see something to joke about.... at least outwardly that's how I behave. She (Mom) was a better person than I in this regard... of course.. "better" has no meaning either... but, it's a way to categorize my aspirations, I guess.




I need to be reminded of this. Community is something that I must get to with the resolution of my paradox re: mistrusting people. I'm not there yet.

Ayn Rand, is that you?

 

[muffler dragon]

Muffler, sorry it's taken this long to get back to you. Had to honor the scum week poli-board shut down...

No need to apologize. Actually, I should apologize for not following it as well. I made my "good/evil" post during the week when I didn't realize that it's a more/less site wide avoidance of this subforum.

I think Leviticus might serve as a good start. I think it's pretty obvious that this particular book is an organization of rules/laws. Maybe not "Political" in one sense of the word, but at the same time, there is a component of making people behave in a certain way owing to fear of God. I would be content to call Leviticus essentially the same thing as the Code of Federal Regulations, or the United States Code in American Government. That is, a set of rules. So, in terms of "political" as a term of governance, I would think Leviticus fits.

The only variance I would add to your points above is the timing of Leviticus. It was written prior to going in to the "Promised Land"; whereas, the other documents you discuss are written after the formation of the entities they concern.

Likewise, I've been reading about the prophecies of Jeremiah, and I can see how this may not be prophecy at all so much as it is an accounting of a specific time period in Jewish history.

As a reminder, I would like to note that prophets in Israel primarily dealt with their own generation. Sure, there are things that are discussed regarding future happenings; however, this was not the main focus.

Much the same way as modern Americans keep some sort of eye on history for some purpose, I think that guys like Jeremiah were charged with the responsibility of preserving history for some purpose. I'm not being clear.... If we imagine the Jews, or at least some Jews, as an entity trying to obtain organization and power as a "state" we might see the Bible as an organized text handed down from generation to generation (ruler to ruler?) as a guideline... or a source of wisdom.. or... how to say this... as a preservation of past wisdom for future success. (Kinda like our own Constitution). The Bible, in it's recording of real life events, is like any other manuscript of historical import... Ancient Chinese scrolls... Egyptian carvings... clay tablets from Babylon. Same thing.

I don't see any ambiguity in your statements. I understand exactly what you're saying.

The Jews ascribed each of their success and failures to their God (well, the failures as a judgment from their God from their own failings, I suppose) Doing so, and "establishing" God's role in governance, controls future behavior of Kings to be wise, to do "Good".. because God is watching. Skipping around a little bit, I hope that makes sense.

It does make sense. The only comment I have is that your parenthetical statement is not something to gloss over lightly when considering the Jewish Bible. Personal accountability is HUGE in Judaism, and that is a point that should be foremost when reading the Tanakh. Personally, it helped me understand things in a more humble fashion.

How has it changed? Not sure it has. I mean, I can see where the Jews still treat the world as if their God is in complete control of their successes and failures (as a nation).

Another topic for another time, but I would say that the secular nation of the government of Israel isn't complete in line with this thinking, but I understand what you mean if for no other reason than historical leanings by Israel.

This would be true of Islam as well, I would add.... oddly, not so true of Christianity. At least not in my view. Ultimately, religion is politics, I think. To be clear, I do not mean to say that God is reduced to a political tool and is therefore otherwise imaginary. To the contrary, God is real (at least I think so), but He doesn't get involved the way Religion says he does. I mean... it makes no sense to me that God would be SO active in history for so long and then... all of a sudden... he just closes up shop for 2000 years. RELIGION is, to me, man organizing with other men of same belief for the purpose of power. What the power is is not really important. I don't mean to imply sinister purpose.... just trying to call it what it is... GOD, however, is something quite different.

Very interesting points. (no agreement nor disagreement, once again)

Frankly, I can't see how God gives a shit about any of the day to day goings on in the life of Man.... Or.. why he'd manipulate it in any way. I'm troubled by an all powerful God who can't seem to put together a universe where he has to do magic to make sure things go OK.. Strikes me as outlandish. I mean, if you read some of the stories of the Bible (speaking again about the prophecies I've been reading of late) it's like God is sitting on High thinking... "Sweet Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you people? How many times do I have to tell you... STOP WITH THE IDOLS! Jesus!" (Sorry for my glib presentation.. it's just the way I've come to talk about this stuff over the years, I don't mean any offense) because the jews keep fucking up, over and over and over again. Anyway.... this god... seems.... pretty aloof and unprepared. I believe in a much different God.

I would disagree on two different points: 1) G-d not giving a shit and 2) G-d being aloof. When I look at my role as a parent, and then compare that to the manner of G-d in the Tanakh; then I can "see" things a LOT better. Could just be me though.

All that said, I think that the POINT of it all (the Bible) is in the right ball park... That is to say, "giving it to God" makes people think of God with some regularity, and I see that as a good thing.

I can appreciate that.

Yeah, every time I hear of some "unexplained" thing, I think how great is this universe? I just think there is so much more out there to learn than what is immediately around us.... we're so young. The unexplained ... it has a reason.. it is explained and natural.. we just don't quite understand... and THAT, I think, is the meaning of life.

100% agreement.

I concur. I wanted to touch on your last sentence.... I find myself much more comfortable around atheists. I find that most of them actually believe in God, they just don't know that they do.... and they're usually much easier to talk to because they try to stick with facts and not stories used to back up their beliefs. That's not meant as a backhand towards any theists reading this.. I'm just speaking in a general way.. and that's been my expirience. I also like talking to atheists because they can test my beliefs... I have to be ready to make sense to them in defense of my God, or they'll jump me immediately and point out how foolish I am to believe such a thing in the face of fact X, Y or Z to the contrary. Thus, I've come to accept that I MUST accept the reality around me as real, and thus any God must ALSO be compatible with the same. So far, my God is.[/qutoe]

I think it boils down to respecting each other as human beings. Furthermore, when the whole "hell-fire/damnation" consideration is removed, people are less inclined to judgment both ways. Thus, open, respectful, enjoyable dialogue can insue.

I don't think, however, other people's God is. I don't mean people on this board necessarily, I just mean some people I've met in life. If believing in your God, for example, requires the Earth to be 6,000 years old...

While it may sound harsh, I'll go ahead and consider this for a minute from my personal history. There are many different considerations regarding G-d, humanity, and the universe. Two points that I find infringe on good discussions regarding these three items are: 1) evangelism 2) lack of information. I won't go into this now as it's completely unrelated, but I just thought I would share.

Hope so... I figure I'll get it eventually. In some ways I have. I just need to remember that a Paradox isn't a problem, it's just an answer. P = notP It's the same thing.

LOL!!!

I have not heard of Yetzer. I have heard God created both good and evil. I can live with that, but, ultimately, if it's God's creation, it is the same. I think Good and Evil are mostly man's constructions of culture and ethics.

I made a post regarding this that can be an outlet for continuing the discussion.

In a country with a severe population problem, abortion seems a perfectly fine solution. Some here in the US would consider that Evil... what does God think? I doubt he cares. What is death to God anyway? What harm have I done if I kill you? If you believe in God and the life that comes after this life, I don't see the foul. Now, that's not an endorsement of killing. It's a comment on "punishment." I DO NOT believe killing is OK. I believe in living and let live... I do not believe in encroaching on my neighbor.. whehter his things or his life... I believe in learning... and to maximize my learning, it's best if more people are around, I guess. But, I'm troubled that we have this idea that dying is some kind of bad thing.... if we also believe in God. But, then, I also don't understand why a Christian wouldn't welcome the coming of Armageddon so they'd get to be with their Christ for 1,000 years and instead seem to fear it.

Lots of hot button topics in that paragraph that I'll leave for the time being.

I am getting off track. I don't believe in labels. I mean, yeah, I can say something is Good or bad.. or whatever... but that's just a description of my value judgment on it and not some sort of real thing. What is Good? It depends on who you ask. And, again, if God created evil... well... I don't see how he could get all pissed off about someone doing what he created to be done.... sorta setting up a sadistic bastard God if he creates a thing he despises simple so he can punish those who will commit it. EVERYTHING JUST IS. That's what I think.

Feel free to write the same thing if my other post doesn't present a better picture of where I'm coming from.

It's something my Mom tried to get me to believe... something she believed. Something I'm coming to realize is part of the key to my peace with the universe. I do believe it, I just don't believe it to the core like she did... that was part of her person... me? Well... I mean... my profession pretty much establishes I cannot remove myself from OF the world. But, I'm working on it. Mom was able to look at the most foul bum and see why God would love him. I, most the time, just see something to joke about.... at least outwardly that's how I behave. She (Mom) was a better person than I in this regard... of course.. "better" has no meaning either... but, it's a way to categorize my aspirations, I guess.

Very interesting.

I need to be reminded of this. Community is something that I must get to with the resolution of my paradox re: mistrusting people. I'm not there yet.

Actually, I think you're there. It's just a matter of including more.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Muffler -

I'm not exactly sure what post you are referencing, so if you could point that one out I'd appreciate it. That said, I did some reading on the concept of Yetzer. Apparently, Yetzer is a sort of "yin and yang" where the yetzer tov represents the moral conscience, or an inner "voice" which reminds one to consider the ramifications of acting in a potentially forbidden manner. Meanwhile, the yetzer ra represents one's selfish nature to do an act. From what I read, the "evil" that the yetzer ra represents is NOT evil in the conventional sense of the word. That is, the "selfish impulse" for sex, for example, is not evil per se, but can lead one to commit rape or other things considered "sexual evils."

I'm struck by two things. First I'll discuss the psychological parallels I see and second I'll talk about philosophical "Good v. Evil" issues.

Psychologically, yetzer tov and yetzer ra remind me - a Psych major in undergrad - immediately of the concepts of Super Ego and Id. The Id, as I'm sure you know, represents the unconscious mind which "controls" our impulses for pleasure or our desires. Instict and impulses that should be satisfied without regard for consequence. Like the yetzer ra, left alone, these represent nothing inherently "evil" in the satisfaction of these impulses, but could lead to such "evil" where unchecked. Same thing, the desire for sex could lead to rape if no consideration of moral consequence.

Contrasted with the Superego, the Id is "held in check" much the same way as I'd imagine the yetzer ra is often governed by the morality inherent in the yetzer tov. The Superego would consider the moral consequences of committing a forbidden act.

In this, I find a couple of interesting points. First, Freud is often given the credit for the idea of conflicting psychological pressures being exerted in the human mind. It would appear the "Genesis" for the idea comes much much earlier than Freud. Genesis 2:7 says that G-d formed man - vayyitzer. Surely you know more about the hebrew than I, but from my research the existence of two yods in this word provides the basis for the concept of yetzer - or the duality of man. Given what I have already said about my understanding of the Creation story, for example, I am of course interested in how man understood this "psychology" well before there was a science to call it "real." Ancient wisdom, I suppose is what I'm getting at, which leads me to afford the Bible - particularly in it's ... what I'll call philosophical chapter (as opposed to it's historical chapters (ie the Book of Jerehmiah) - was some how "correct" before people had "proof" (I realize the concepts of Id and Superego are far from "proved" in some scientific law sort of way) Thus, again, I find credibility in the Bible as a ... inspired text of wisdom, I'll say.

Second, I'm also struck by the philosophical problems inherent in the concept as it relates to G-d's nature. If we believe G-d only creates "good" the idea of yetzer tov and yetzer ra get us nowhere. I think we can quickly agree yetzer tov is "good" in that the whole purpose of the idea is morality. Yetzer ra is more complicated, but I guess it is said without it man would not build shelter, marry, have kids and so on. So, in as much as yetzer ra is also a G-dly creation, it too is inherently good. In my way of thinking, however, the next step is problematic for a "good evil" dichotomy with any "real" meaning.

Of course, the answer to the issue is the idea of free will. Man having the free will to slap G-d in the face and act immoral. I personally cannot accept this owing to my refusal to accept that acts have moral value beyond the culture in question. To offer some illustration: We are commanded - Thou shalt not kill. Simple enough. And yet, there are many circumstances where we believe killing is OK, justified and otherwise "moral" How can this be? If I kill a man to satisfy my own depravity, I'm committing evil... however, if I kill because my King want's to acquire more land... well.. that seems OK. The very same act, of course, comes with highly different consequences. In terms of a "pure" philosophy, if I may, such reasoning cannot stand. It strikes me as government... societal controls... Do not kill, or you shall be punished... but, if your leaders require you to fight in a war (for whatever reason) you shall not be punished. What does G-d have to do with these decisions? If we SHALL NOT kill, I see no wiggleroom.

I realize there are answers to this quandry and those answers may well have their foundation in how the authors of the Bible behaved with regard to these commands. I mean, didn't Moses "kill" when he let the Red Sea go back after passage by the Jews? Of course he did... but, of course, we'd also say that wasn't Moses, that was G-d. OK... sure... but... why is G-d doing that which we're lead to believe He forbids? That's why I say G-d doesn't "care" Morality, to me, has little to do with G-d. I do not believe in a judgmental G-d... mostly because in doing so we make G-d a very weak "individual."

To further this - How can we have an all powerful G-d who seems to be thwarted by human foolishness at every turn? Taken a step furhter, consider the story of Satan. God creates this angel, perfect in every way (If I understand angels). Yet, somehow this angel gets a burr up his ass and is later removed from heaven altogether.... punished.... Wait a second here.... G-d created this angel... and He either did so imperfectly or He did so with the express purpose of having this angel fail... to endure eternal damnation for some purpose of G-d's... it would, I think, be not much unlike me deciding to treat one of my children with distain and hate, even if my "larger purpose" is to make life better for my other child. (IN other words, the 'greater good' argumet attempts to gloss over the depravity of the original choice... it's a justification.. but not a 'pure' conclusion) I don't give a god of this kind power. Because such a god is just a man... no better... no worse... just a guy with a particular mindset, who we're supposed to fear because of his magical powers.

No, to me I can only become subject to a infinite G-d. A G-d who IS... This god who makes human decisions... sometimes with the appearance of being arbitrary... To me... this god is a personification of some particular culture... This god is not G-D. G-d, I believe, is THE creator. Likewise, being made in his image man too creates... And while G-d "cares" for his creation, I do not believe G-d is so incompentent in his ability to create that constant intervention and "punch out" work is required to make sure the creation functions correctly. At least as a matter of CONSEQUENCES

I believe G-d created the fabric of reality. But, in that with the exception of G-d there is NOTHING but that fabric, it is ALL GOOD. When an "evil" man rises to power and exterminates millions of people, it is for us to learn from... to define, if you will, the parameters of the nature of reality. It is neither good nor evil, until MAN judges it so. And .. behaves accordingly in the future... learns... But, I ask again, what is "death" to G-d? How can Hitler kill a holocaust victim's soul? He cant. He took life, but he did not take LIFE. Man cannot take LIFE. Least I can't see how.

Good and evil, to me, are not metaphysical in any way. They are constructions of order. G-d could care less because in HIS reality, everything just IS... as is HE. It's almost as if I see reality as G-d's learning. I can't think of any other way to describe this, though it misses the mark... but, what I mean is.... G-d IS... and G-d DOES... and when He does.... he does so for the purpose of HIS knowledge.... to say G-d knows everything, we say that EVERYTHING is. To know ALL is to do all. To understand the infinite ramifications of event A, G-d (metaphorically here a Scientist) sets up the experiment... to understand .... to KNOW... in my mind, WE are G-d... Not our individual selves... but our conglomerate... Indeed, I cannot imagine anything else... so long as I believe in an infinte G-d. When I make choice A or choice B, not only do I learn, but more to the point, it is G-D who is learning.... EDIT: Experiencing rather than learning

Beyond the point, but this is also why I believe in infinite universes (M-Theory) and chaos theory as more accurate descriptions of the nature of reality. The key, if you will, to the omniscience v. free will question is held in the understanding that in this reality I DO appear to choose one thing over another... I have the free will to do an act, and not some ohter... but... in G-Ds reality.... I have not decided to do only one and not the other... for in some other universe I have done the other... or... simple said, I never fail to do any act. Nor do you... or anyone els... the ENGINE that drive reality is the infinite possibilities multiplied by the infinite parameters. I'm not much worried about time because of this.... And.. the way I think about it... it fits the notion that G-D is the alpha and omega.. The GLORY of G-d is that He came up with a way to keep a system sustaining forever.... for there can be NO end when each reality can be changed by a factor of one... or... for example.. there is a universe where I made this exact same post, but I mispelled one word. Or... I mispelled two... or zero... or this word... but not that word... until EACH event plays out to it's possibility, time moves forward.... And, as I said, the glory of the Engine is that it's self sustaining forever.. for you can always add one.

 

[muffler dragon]

Muffler -

I'm not exactly sure what post you are referencing, so if you could point that one out I'd appreciate it.

LOL! I can't find it. I made a post during Michigan week that apparently did not make it into the fold.

That said, I did some reading on the concept of Yetzer. Apparently, Yetzer is a sort of "yin and yang" where the yetzer tov represents the moral conscience, or an inner "voice" which reminds one to consider the ramifications of acting in a potentially forbidden manner. Meanwhile, the yetzer ra represents one's selfish nature to do an act. From what I read, the "evil" that the yetzer ra represents is NOT evil in the conventional sense of the word. That is, the "selfish impulse" for sex, for example, is not evil per se, but can lead one to commit rape or other things considered "sexual evils."

This is a good summation of what I had presented before.

I'm struck by two things. First I'll discuss the psychological parallels I see and second I'll talk about philosophical "Good v. Evil" issues.

Psychologically, yetzer tov and yetzer ra remind me - a Psych major in undergrad - immediately of the concepts of Super Ego and Id. The Id, as I'm sure you know, represents the unconscious mind which "controls" our impulses for pleasure or our desires. Instict and impulses that should be satisfied without regard for consequence. Like the yetzer ra, left alone, these represent nothing inherently "evil" in the satisfaction of these impulses, but could lead to such "evil" where unchecked. Same thing, the desire for sex could lead to rape if no consideration of moral consequence.

Contrasted with the Superego, the Id is "held in check" much the same way as I'd imagine the yetzer ra is often governed by the morality inherent in the yetzer tov. The Superego would consider the moral consequences of committing a forbidden act.

In this, I find a couple of interesting points. First, Freud is often given the credit for the idea of conflicting psychological pressures being exerted in the human mind. It would appear the "Genesis" for the idea comes much much earlier than Freud. Genesis 2:7 says that G-d formed man - vayyitzer. Surely you know more about the hebrew than I, but from my research the existence of two yods in this word provides the basis for the concept of yetzer - or the duality of man. Given what I have already said about my understanding of the Creation story, for example, I am of course interested in how man understood this "psychology" well before there was a science to call it "real." Ancient wisdom, I suppose is what I'm getting at, which leads me to afford the Bible - particularly in it's ... what I'll call philosophical chapter (as opposed to it's historical chapters (ie the Book of Jerehmiah) - was some how "correct" before people had "proof" (I realize the concepts of Id and Superego are far from "proved" in some scientific law sort of way) Thus, again, I find credibility in the Bible as a ... inspired text of wisdom, I'll say.

I don't have a degreed understanding of Psych in my repertoire, but that sounds cool above.

Second, I'm also struck by the philosophical problems inherent in the concept as it relates to G-d's nature. If we believe G-d only creates "good" the idea of yetzer tov and yetzer ra get us nowhere. I think we can quickly agree yetzer tov is "good" in that the whole purpose of the idea is morality. Yetzer ra is more complicated, but I guess it is said without it man would not build shelter, marry, have kids and so on. So, in as much as yetzer ra is also a G-dly creation, it too is inherently good. In my way of thinking, however, the next step is problematic for a "good evil" dichotomy with any "real" meaning.

I should note that it is held in Judaism that G-d created both good and evil.

Of course, the answer to the issue is the idea of free will. Man having the free will to slap G-d in the face and act immoral. I personally cannot accept this owing to my refusal to accept that acts have moral value beyond the culture in question. To offer some illustration: We are commanded - Thou shalt not kill. Simple enough. And yet, there are many circumstances where we believe killing is OK, justified and otherwise "moral" How can this be? If I kill a man to satisfy my own depravity, I'm committing evil... however, if I kill because my King want's to acquire more land... well.. that seems OK. The very same act, of course, comes with highly different consequences. In terms of a "pure" philosophy, if I may, such reasoning cannot stand. It strikes me as government... societal controls... Do not kill, or you shall be punished... but, if your leaders require you to fight in a war (for whatever reason) you shall not be punished. What does G-d have to do with these decisions? If we SHALL NOT kill, I see no wiggleroom.

I may be wrong, but on this particular point of "kill". The basic meaning is more a matter of pre-meditated murder not the causing of death by accident. But to what you say above, this could also catapult into a discussion of capital punishment.

There's obviously a lot to go into regarding this, but I wanted to make one particular distinction. The Decalogue (Ten Commandments) are part of the Mosaic covenant, and while they are good outlines, in my belief structure they do not correspond to all of humanity. Thus, it would probably be of benefit to defer to Jewish tradition on the exact understanding of how this should play out. Unfortunately, I haven't spent any time getting an grasp on this thought.

I realize there are answers to this quandry and those answers may well have their foundation in how the authors of the Bible behaved with regard to these commands. I mean, didn't Moses "kill" when he let the Red Sea go back after passage by the Jews? Of course he did... but, of course, we'd also say that wasn't Moses, that was G-d. OK... sure... but... why is G-d doing that which we're lead to believe He forbids? That's why I say G-d doesn't "care" Morality, to me, has little to do with G-d. I do not believe in a judgmental G-d... mostly because in doing so we make G-d a very weak "individual."

These are considerations that I, freely admit, have not considered before. I'm sorry that I don't have much of a response at present, but I'll have to do some pondering to give such thoughts their due value.

To further this - How can we have an all powerful G-d who seems to be thwarted by human foolishness at every turn?

I can't say that I follow what you mean here.

Taken a step furhter, consider the story of Satan. God creates this angel, perfect in every way (If I understand angels). Yet, somehow this angel gets a burr up his ass and is later removed from heaven altogether.... punished.... Wait a second here.... G-d created this angel... and He either did so imperfectly or He did so with the express purpose of having this angel fail... to endure eternal damnation for some purpose of G-d's... it would, I think, be not much unlike me deciding to treat one of my children with distain and hate, even if my "larger purpose" is to make life better for my other child. (IN other words, the 'greater good' argumet attempts to gloss over the depravity of the original choice... it's a justification.. but not a 'pure' conclusion) I don't give a god of this kind power. Because such a god is just a man... no better... no worse... just a guy with a particular mindset, who we're supposed to fear because of his magical powers.

Sorry to disappoint once again; however, it should be noted that the Christian concept of Satan (as described above) is foreign to Judaism.

No, to me I can only become subject to a infinite G-d. A G-d who IS... This god who makes human decisions... sometimes with the appearance of being arbitrary... To me... this god is a personification of some particular culture... This god is not G-D. G-d, I believe, is THE creator. Likewise, being made in his image man too creates... And while G-d "cares" for his creation, I do not believe G-d is so incompentent in his ability to create that constant intervention and "punch out" work is required to make sure the creation functions correctly. At least as a matter of CONSEQUENCES

I would agree.

I believe G-d created the fabric of reality. But, in that with the exception of G-d there is NOTHING but that fabric, it is ALL GOOD. When an "evil" man rises to power and exterminates millions of people, it is for us to learn from... to define, if you will, the parameters of the nature of reality. It is neither good nor evil, until MAN judges it so. And .. behaves accordingly in the future... learns... But, I ask again, what is "death" to G-d? How can Hitler kill a holocaust victim's soul? He cant. He took life, but he did not take LIFE. Man cannot take LIFE. Least I can't see how.

Very interesting. And I'm beginning to understand more of what you're presenting. It's a matter of how to judge good v. evil. It's a matter of perspective.

Good and evil, to me, are not metaphysical in any way. They are constructions of order. G-d could care less because in HIS reality, everything just IS... as is HE. It's almost as if I see reality as G-d's learning. I can't think of any other way to describe this, though it misses the mark... but, what I mean is.... G-d IS... and G-d DOES... and when He does.... he does so for the purpose of HIS knowledge.... to say G-d knows everything, we say that EVERYTHING is. To know ALL is to do all. To understand the infinite ramifications of event A, G-d (metaphorically here a Scientist) sets up the experiment... to understand .... to KNOW... in my mind, WE are G-d... Not our individual selves... but our conglomerate... Indeed, I cannot imagine anything else... so long as I believe in an infinte G-d. When I make choice A or choice B, not only do I learn, but more to the point, it is G-D who is learning.... EDIT: Experiencing rather than learning

I understand your point; however, I can't say that I'm in agreement nor disagreement when it comes to describing G-d. I try to not to put my finite mind into quandries of describing the Infinite.

Beyond the point, but this is also why I believe in infinite universes (M-Theory) and chaos theory as more accurate descriptions of the nature of reality. The key, if you will, to the omniscience v. free will question is held in the understanding that in this reality I DO appear to choose one thing over another... I have the free will to do an act, and not some ohter... but... in G-Ds reality.... I have not decided to do only one and not the other... for in some other universe I have done the other... or... simple said, I never fail to do any act. Nor do you... or anyone els... the ENGINE that drive reality is the infinite possibilities multiplied by the infinite parameters. I'm not much worried about time because of this.... And.. the way I think about it... it fits the notion that G-D is the alpha and omega..

The only thing I would add though is that there must be a manner of personal accountability (from my POV). To do away with that is peril.

The GLORY of G-d is that He came up with a way to keep a system sustaining forever.... for there can be NO end when each reality can be changed by a factor of one... or... for example.. there is a universe where I made this exact same post, but I mispelled one word. Or... I mispelled two... or zero... or this word... but not that word... until EACH event plays out to it's possibility, time moves forward.... And, as I said, the glory of the Engine is that it's self sustaining forever.. for you can always add one.

Very interesting thoughts indeed. I'm going to go to lunch, catch my breath, and re-read what you've posted. Good stuff!!!

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Muffler - I can get your post, I think I know where it is.... it will end up here in just a moment, assuming I'm right.....

I decided to go back through this thread and see what interesting topics were brought up.

Good and Evil is one, and I thought I would comment.

In Judaism, there is the premise that G-d created everything. This includes evil.

Isaiah 45
7. Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord, Who makes all these.

How does this involve humanity?

Well, there is the belief that we have inclinations (yetzer). There is the good inclination and evil/bad inclination. These two inclinations are what provide us with choices in situations. Yet, even these two inclinations do not provide us with a "black & white" situation, because good can be gleaned from following the evil/bad inclination and vice versa. The evil/bad inclination is what drives us to succeed in the work place. It's what makes us desire our spouses sexually and so forth.

What is the base understanding of these two inclinations?

Answer: we can control how we operate for ourselves and with our fellow human beings. There is nothing that man cannot choose to do.

Where does this leave us with the evil decisions made by others?

This is their free ability to do as they desire. The only thing we can control is what we ourselves do.

May not sound/read like much of an explanation, but that's the way of the world from a Judaic POV.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I can't say that I follow what you mean here.

My remark has to do with how it seems that so many times - even after G-d's deliverence of the Commandments - are caught worshiping idols, for example. In one sense, we see a G-d who must be frustrated that he has to keep telling these guys, "Knock it off, I'm serious" by way of prophets. And it makes me wonder, if G-d is so put out by this act, and he's all powerful and all, why doesn't he just fix the problem? Of course, then we get in to concepts of free will and so on. But, that, in turn reduces back to the whole Truth that God created it all to begin with. If He doesn't like Idol worship, why did he make a system where Idol worship would become such a problem? Even today, if you view Christianity in a certain way, idol worship continues with vigor. If G-d is "against" this sort of thing, then isn't it fair to say He's failed in his creation?

So, in order to move past these sorts of quandries, I surmise that the lessons about Idol worship are not so much from G-d - in terms of consequences - so much as they are from men trying to teach other men how to appreciate the glory of G-d. If a man has no choice, as I believe, but to expierence reality and that reality is one expression of G-d, ultimately it matters very little if we're worshiping idols, or coveting our neighbor's things and so on. I suppose I should posit also, and I would hope this would clear up where I'm coming from on some level, I believe G-d is LOVE. I don't know... I understand the point of personal responsibility as social animals... I get that... but, when talking about the infinite nature of G-d, there's a breakdown of consequence that I can't understand.. which of course, makes sense, lest I'd be G-d, right?

Sorry to disappoint once again; however, it should be noted that the Christian concept of Satan (as described above) is foreign to Judaism.

My background is Catholic, so no doubt my understandings of Satan is understood with that backdrop. Though, I've come to reject Satan as anything, really. I mean, wouldn't it be fair to say that giving Satan power via fear, we fear him as some kind of demi-god, at least? If Satan is real, he is still subordinate to G-d, and I have no fear of something which G-d can stop. Of course, concepts of some giant battle of Good and Evil must also thereby ring hollow, as we already know who the winner is... or G-d isn't G-d at all... ironically, should there be any question who wins, we do not have ONE God at all... but two.. of equal potential... and if the "bad one" (Satan) were to win any epic battle at the end times, well... he'd be G-d afterall, and the guy we're calling G-d now not All Powerful and thus we're all worshiping the wrong guy.... it's a loose loose idea, making little sense and carrying no weight with me. Though, I can appreciate it's ability to convince others.

Gotta get home... I'll check back to this thread later....

 

[muffler dragon]

Muffler - I can get your post, I think I know where it is.... it will end up here in just a moment, assuming I'm right.....

Thanks, brah. Maybe someone will find it worth a read. I'll remember NOT to post in here during scUM week next year.

 

[muffler dragon]

My remark has to do with how it seems that so many times - even after G-d's deliverence of the Commandments - are caught worshiping idols, for example. In one sense, we see a G-d who must be frustrated that he has to keep telling these guys, "Knock it off, I'm serious" by way of prophets. And it makes me wonder, if G-d is so put out by this act, and he's all powerful and all, why doesn't he just fix the problem? Of course, then we get in to concepts of free will and so on. But, that, in turn reduces back to the whole Truth that God created it all to begin with. If He doesn't like Idol worship, why did he make a system where Idol worship would become such a problem? Even today, if you view Christianity in a certain way, idol worship continues with vigor. If G-d is "against" this sort of thing, then isn't it fair to say He's failed in his creation?

I guess I look at the failure of human beings as the opportunity for self-rectification. Yes, I imagine some things that we all do would be an "irritation" to G-d; but I think that irritation pales in comparison to the joy when we get something right. Once again, I compare it to that child-parent thing. I've really come to a newfound appreciation for the way G-d perceives things, because of my interactions with my child.

So, in order to move past these sorts of quandries, I surmise that the lessons about Idol worship are not so much from G-d - in terms of consequences - so much as they are from men trying to teach other men how to appreciate the glory of G-d. If a man has no choice, as I believe, but to expierence reality and that reality is one expression of G-d, ultimately it matters very little if we're worshiping idols, or coveting our neighbor's things and so on. I suppose I should posit also, and I would hope this would clear up where I'm coming from on some level, I believe G-d is LOVE. I don't know... I understand the point of personal responsibility as social animals... I get that... but, when talking about the infinite nature of G-d, there's a breakdown of consequence that I can't understand.. which of course, makes sense, lest I'd be G-d, right?

LOL!!! True. I understand what you're writing.

My background is Catholic, so no doubt my understandings of Satan is understood with that backdrop. Though, I've come to reject Satan as anything, really. I mean, wouldn't it be fair to say that giving Satan power via fear, we fear him as some kind of demi-god, at least?

Oh, certainly. I would definitely say that is the case for most of Christianity. In fact, I would say that it's similar to a lopsided duallity.

If Satan is real, he is still subordinate to G-d, and I have no fear of something which G-d can stop. Of course, concepts of some giant battle of Good and Evil must also thereby ring hollow, as we already know who the winner is... or G-d isn't G-d at all... ironically, should there be any question who wins, we do not have ONE God at all... but two.. of equal potential... and if the "bad one" (Satan) were to win any epic battle at the end times, well... he'd be G-d afterall, and the guy we're calling G-d now not All Powerful and thus we're all worshiping the wrong guy.... it's a loose loose idea, making little sense and carrying no weight with me. Though, I can appreciate it's ability to convince others.

Just to share. The concept of HaSatan (The Adversary) in Judaism is manifold in tradition. Here are a few:

1) HaSatan is any adversary that attempts to get you to do something you shouldn't.
2) HaSatan is an angelic adversary that does the bidding of G-d in order to test you.
3) HaSatan is a personification of the inclination to do the wrong thing.

I'm sure there are more, but maybe this will help with understanding my POV.

 

[Gatorubet]

I somehow had a post get lost in the cyber-ether, but it basically thanked you both for your very informative and thoughtful comments. I tend to think that God is not a micro-manager, and much like our penchant for anthropomorphism, we attribute human characteristics to our Deity as well in order to make God's workings an easier concept to understand than the awesome incomprehensible power that is our Creator.

 

[muffler dragon]

I somehow had a post get lost in the cyber-ether, but it basically thanked you both for your very informative and thoughtful comments.

Thanks and you're welcome.

I tend to think that God is not a micro-manager, and much like our penchant for anthropomorphism, we attribute human characteristics to our Deity as well in order to make God's workings an easier concept to understand than the awesome incomprehensible power that is our Creator.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Just to share. The concept of HaSatan (The Adversary) in Judaism is manifold in tradition. Here are a few:

1) HaSatan is any adversary that attempts to get you to do something you shouldn't.
2) HaSatan is an angelic adversary that does the bidding of G-d in order to test you.
3) HaSatan is a personification of the inclination to do the wrong thing.

I'm sure there are more, but maybe this will help with understanding my POV.

Doesn't that make HaSatan Yetzer Ra?

 

[muffler dragon]

Doesn't that make HaSatan Yetzer Ra?

That's what I meant to say by #3. It's just one option/tradition.

Personally, after my departure from Christianity, I have actually attempted to sidestep any type of personification of HaSatan whatsoever. It's something I'm sure that I'll come to grips with some time, but it makes me feel better to NOT think about some sort of being having it "out for me".

I don't know if you've ever read or heard of Frank Peretti, but that dude's fiction did some damage to me in my single, formative years.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Have not read any works by that guy. A quick Wiki reveals that he is well received among Christian colleges and the like, some going so far as to call his books second in importance to the Bible. This, despite his minimal qualifications on religious matters ("The Evangelical Response to the New Age", Irving Hexham, p. 157 (wiki cite, not mine))

In as much as I reject "spiritual warfare" for the reasons already stated, and with recognition that I have no authority to make any remark about him being that I'm ignorant of his work, I figure he's just another fire and brimstone apocalyptic convincing people to be afraid of that which has no real power, if it even is (Satan).

 

[muffler dragon]

Have not read any works by that guy. A quick Wiki reveals that he is well received among Christian colleges and the like, some going so far as to call his books second in importance to the Bible. This, despite his minimal qualifications on religious matters ("The Evangelical Response to the New Age", Irving Hexham, p. 157 (wiki cite, not mine))

In as much as I reject "spiritual warfare" for the reasons already stated, and with recognition that I have no authority to make any remark about him being that I'm ignorant of his work, I figure he's just another fire and brimstone apocalyptic convincing people to be afraid of that which has no real power, if it even is (Satan).

Pretty good summation. I never had a problem (in fact, I quite liked) his non-fiction; however, he attempts to fictionalize spiritual warfare as tangible elements was just a bit too much.

Btw, do you think we ran everyone else off with our recent posts?

 

[MolGenBuckeye]

In as much as I reject "spiritual warfare" for the reasons already stated, and with recognition that I have no authority to make any remark about him being that I'm ignorant of his work, I figure he's just another fire and brimstone apocalyptic convincing people to be afraid of that which has no real power, if it even is (Satan).

I actually wouldn't characterize Peretti's work as "fire and brimstone" at all. I read some of his early books, and thought they were an interesting take. I certainly can understand muffler's tangibility concerns, though. Haven't read any of his non-fiction, I don't think.