Support for a literal interpretation of the Bible?

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Correct. I don't believe that was the intention of the author of those books.


The "part" of G-d that something like that would eminate from would be more well-known as the "holy Spirit"

I doubt Maimonides would accept the idea of a Holy Spirit - at least in a fashion that suggests it is an identifiable part of G-d that is different than any other part of him.

But..

In my own philosophy, I must confess to not seeing the error in studying the whole of something even by focusing on a small part of that whole essence. I guess Maimonides would say, even the "smallest" part of G-d is exactly the same as the "largest" And, I agree with that... but at the same time, I guess I just don't see a giant quandry about discussing the possibilities of G-d, whatever they may be. In other words, unlike the consequences of Maimonides' position (to the extent that I understand it), I do not see the "evil" in attempting to understand something about G-d, even if those bits and pieces are not the whole. Truthfully, I think Maimonides can be understood to agree that the real problem with thinking about G-d in parts is that in doing so, we begin to worship something that isnt actually G-d.

Does that make sense? I'm trying to say that studying various aspects of G-d, in quantifiable parts, does not make G-d something less than whatever He is... The real violation of any Commandment (whether understood as a commandment with consequences (crime and punishment), or as pointing the direction towards understanding some kind of universal truth) is when we worship something that is not G-d's oneness.

What about prophecy?

I'd imagine prophecy to be the same thing. When Maimonides says G-d doesn't "talk" he meant to anyone. To say that G-d even can "talk" is, to Maimonides, ridiculous.

I disagree. I think silence has more meaning than any of the bullshit hymns/prayers (perhaps bullshit is too strong of a word) that people memorize spew out without any real meanings coming from their heart/soul.

I personally concur and find this silence quite instructive... It's really just the same thing they do in Yoga, or meditation, or whatever... clear your mind.. become one with the nothingness... whatever....

My point is not that it's actually meaningless, just more that to most people, it carries no meaning... because most people, I think, don't think they're doing real work unless they're connecting dots, or whatever... to Rambam, the real key to a true religion is comming to terms with the reality that approaching G-d is not like you approach man. So, while we have various rituals we go through to signal to our target we're ready to do whatever, and we know how to do that in reality... to contemplate G-d, we have to do something different.

Ironically, we don't actually have to do anything different. As I've said before, in my view, anything we do ... everything that can be or is... has not choice but to glorify G-d.... there is nothing else. (And before anyone thinks I mean that somehow reality works differently than it does, rest assured reality remains the same as whatever it is.)

 

[muffler dragon]

I'd imagine prophecy to be the same thing. When Maimonides says G-d doesn't "talk" he meant to anyone. To say that G-d even can "talk" is, to Maimonides, ridiculous.

FWIW, Jewish tradition holds that angels can speak on behalf of G-d to human beings. This would hold true with the angelic discussions to Abraham as well as when the Angel of the Lord speaks (i.e. burning bush, etc). Thus, there is audible noise; however, it is NOT HaShem speaking.

Btw, the discussion on "silence" is particularly fascinating to me. I could think on that for a LONG time.

 

[stxbuck]

Bottom line-was there a T-Rex running around the Garden of Eden?

 

[Gatorubet]

Bottom line-was there a T-Rex running around the Garden of Eden?

O god, life is strange,
People come and people go,
Some move fast and some move slow,
No, no, no, no, no.

 

[Muck]

Bottom line-was there a T-Rex running around the Garden of Eden?

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=4PvLc2c5fOw&feature=related]YouTube - Hayley visits the Creation Museum[/ame]

 

[JCOSU86]

Fer crissakes, don't you have work to do?

So, I've been reading Maimonides for the first time in over fifteen years. Well.. I'm not reading the Guide for the Perplexed itself, instead I'm reading Kenneth Seeskin's 1991 Book which discusses the Guide which I last read in a Philosophy of Religion class I took in college. Anyway, with the topic heading in mind:

I'd like to know under what reason, as it compares to Maimonides contentions (which I'll outline as I understand them in a moment), one can think that the Bible - specifically the Old Test. is to be understood literally.

Shema Yisrael Adonoi Eloheynu Adoni Ehad.
Hear, O Israel, the Lord Our G-d, the Lord is One

This daily prayer, declares more than simple monotheism. It's not as easy as saying, there is but One true G-d. Instead, it says that that G-d is One... to talk about G-d's parts, even to the extent that we might think we're glorifying him - say calling him All Knowing - actually is an insult to G-d in as much as it denies his being ONE. G-d admits no plurality. In other words, to identify some part of G-d, even an infinite one, states that G-d is composed of parts making a whole. Maimonides would prefer to say, not what G-d is, but what G-d is not. "G-d is not without power" instead of "G-d is omnipotent" In "negative theology" we do not say what may be the individual parts of G-d and thereby suggest something other than Oneness.

One might ask, "But isn't saying "G-d is not without power" really just a way of saying G-d has power? And in doing so, aren't we once again piecing together a G-d of parts and not ONE?" Well.. yes... that's true. But Maimonides would not intend his negative theology to imply that. Instead, he would mean "G-d is not without power, nor does he possess it in any manner comparable to other things" Or, its not that G-d's properties - whatever they might be as we might contemplate them piecemeal - are different in degree from our own, but instead are different IN KIND. Actually, Maimonides would go further and say the best way to think about G-d is absolute silence, but appreciates that doing so is not for everyone.

In any event, the point is, G-d is unlike man. He is not more powerful than we. Instead, his power is on a completely different scale of review (If it could even be review, which I would say Maimonides would believe it cannot... and certainly not by man himself). He is not more perfect than man in any way at all. Instead, he is not comparable to man on these, and any metric.

OK.. the Bible also tells us in the Second Commandment that it is a sin to practice Idolatry. "Thou shalt not make unto thee graven image, nor any manner of likeness, or any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them."

Some have gone so far as to say that even thinking about G-d in anthropomorphic terms violates this commandment, and in doing so does not distinguish itself from a single deity form of paganism. Well, maybe... maybe not... I don't know. But, can't we say that - considering Maimonides' outline about what G-d is (not) - that it's true that whatever G-d might be doing, he's not walking with Moses. He's not sitting on a throne... he's not talking to Noah. To say that G-d is doing these things... talking, sitting, walking.. as a man might... Judaism - and later, Christianity - become nothing more than single deity paganism, right? Indeed, if we conceive of G-d as ONE, sitting, walking, talking... have no meaning in a literal sense.

Follow? If we admit to a G-d who sits, then G-d necessarily admits to plurality. To sit, for example, we need a front and a back. But, to be ONE - He has neither. Maimonides would hold that G-d would appear precisely the same when "viewed" from any angle.

Thus, every line in the Bible (Specifically the Torah) which speaks of G-d in anthropomorphic terms must be speaking in a non-literal way, otherwise it is not speaking about a G-d who is One or it is breaking its own description of a commandment against Idolatry. Thus, when we talk of G-d "seeing" we cannot accept that He looked upon something with His eyes. To have eyes, we'd have to admit that there is some other part of G-d which are not eyes... and we can't do that.

So.. Maimonides resolves that the Bible is written as it is because a jump from Paganism to Monotheism cannot be made wholesale. In short, the Bible is part of an educational process whose purpose is not to deceive the reader in to thinking G-d literally walked with any man, or literally spoke to any man, or any such thing. It is a vehicle, written in parable and narrative, to help people reach a state of monotheism - in the truest sense of the word. But, the Bible, out of necessity, speaks in the language of man, often times conveys ideas as if G-d were the lead character or hero of a novel in corporeal terms. But, whatever G-d is - he is not to be understood as that character.

Thus, the Bible can not be understood literally.