Now where were we?
Ah, yes. Here:
"Religions allow someone else to write a commentary on how YOU should live YOUR life."
No one reads those commentaries but people who are already Jewish and go there for guidance. In any case, in Judaism the advice is optional; we impose no sanctions of any kind on other Jews who choose to live differently, whether the issue is homosexuality or eating pork. We do tend to frown on murder and theft, though I'm not sure that that's because we're Jews.
"This new system of science and reason requires you to put forth some mental effort but it is quite knowable and clear."
I'm still waiting to hear how it would be different.
"Ignorant does not mean "knuckledragging" it means "lacking knowledge."
The question is whether the knowledge that was lacking was relevant to the issues with which they were concerned.
"It has changed greatly! We are not small bands, tribes or family units."
Of course we are; the ways we group ourselves have changed, but not the fact that we still identify ourselves as members of groups. The industry or business we work in, our political affiliations, our ethnic identities, the neighborhoods in which we live, and so on. Family units were still around, too, the last time I looked, though their structure and permanence have changed.
"We are a global community and religions are incapable of addressing this change."
But most religions have worldwide organizations that transcend national boundaries, and always have. Religions were international before there was such a thing as a "multinational corporation." you can say something like this, but that doesn't make it so.
"...they are about deviding people along religious lines..."
True enough, but I think that's true of anything that people consider part of their identity. The question ought to be how one's religion views people who follow a different one. Judaism teaches that non-Jews are to be respected and extended the same justice, mercy and charity as another Jew, and that they are as welcome in Heaven (if there is one) as any of us. The teachings of Christianity about "heathens" and of Islam about "infidels" are admittedly a bit different, but I don't speak for them.
If you think I'm saying that Judaism is a better religion--well, as far as that aspect of religion is concerned, I suppose I am. If anyone can tell me why I would be wrong--concerning that aspect only--I'd be glad to hear it.
"...and keeping as much as possible for themselves while denying as much as possible to others."
You keep insisting that all religions teach things that Judaism does not. This is another example.
"Science has shown that this is wrong. In fact, science has led to species close to us being granted more rights and better treatment than was often afforded those outside the ingroup of any religion."
If we're talking about animal rights, Jews were the first people on Earth to raise that issue or show any awareness of it. Examples on request, straight from the Torah.
"And when was the last time a literary critic insisted anyone live their life through the teachings of some old book . . . besides religious biblical scholars that is."
You're changing the argument. We were talking here about how a decision was known to be the right one, not what it was for. Consensus is the standard for historians, literary critics, and philosophers as well as for rabbis--and historians and philosophers also make recommendations about how one should live one's life, just as Jewish tradition does. The word "insist" does not apply in any of those cases.
"How do you know which part needs to changed or discarded?"
I think that's clear enough. Page after page after page talking about tolerance and mercy and accepting the "stranger," and then two verses that say "Kill the gays"--well, it's not rocket science to figure out the dominant principle and spot the aberration.
"Why wasn't it already done?"
Now you're quibbling. It has to be done sometime.
"It has no practical value for this exact reason. If I am trying to decide whether I should kill someone who has wronged me, the torah or bible can be used to make an argument for or against the idea. Which one is right? Do I flip a coin? No, I have to rely on something else, usually my own better judgement based on my knowledge of the world."
Forgive me, but that's horse manure. The Torah gives no individual permission to kill anyone except in self-defense or in defense of another. In fact, the Jews were the first to institute a method of stopping or preventing the never-ending blood vendettas and revenge killings that are still taken for granted in that part of the world, by the establishment of "sanctuary cities".
"Jews get there morality from somewhere else because the torah plays both sides of the issue. It is something else that ultimately makes you decide."
You are repeating what you have been told or what you have read. If you had ever troubled to actually study Torah with abstify group or at least a good commentary, as opposed to a casual and probably selective surface reading, you would know that the Torah doesn't "play both sides" of any issue.
It's unfair and an illegitimate argument to dictate to another what the meaning of his religious document is, while ignoring the teaching of that religion about that meaning--and then condemn that religion for having standards which you have imposed upon it while ignoring the ones that it actually has.
"We say that the Torah teaches (x)."
"No, it doesn't! It teaches
! Now why do you believe
?"
Or alternatively, "It teaches both (x) and
! How can you reconcile them?"
If you want to critique the teachings of Judaism, that's fine; no problem. Jews do that every week in Torah study. But you really ought to address what it actually teaches.
"All his incorrect teachings have been discarded and no physician consults the work of Hippocrates to decide on a treatment for a newly discovered disease."
You miss the point. The PRINCIPLES that Hippocrates laid down are still valid, and his methods--observe, record, treat, repeat--are still followed.
In the same way, we consult the Torah--or, in most instances, we consult the commentary--to see how to make a moral judgment in an ambiguous situation. We do not consult the Torah for advice on how to water our camels.
You seem to fail to appreciate how the Torah is used. We don't look at the story and just do what it says--"Hmmm, King David wanted his neighbor's wife, so he had the husband killed and took her. Guess I'll do that, too..." We look at what others said about the story and not only learn what decision was made, but how to make a decision. Torah study doesn't teach us what to think; it teaches us how to think for ourselves.
"why then are religious people looking for answers to modern, global problems in ancient, tribal texts?"
Were we supposed to? I may be a religious Jew, but if I want to learn what to do about global warming, I don't think the Torah is going to help much. I don't try to find phone numbers in it, either. Do you have some weird idea that the Bible is the only book we read?
"Tell me something about the universe, its creation, man or his creation that the torah or bible got right."
Okay, and it might be instructive. In Torah study, we sometimes focus on one word or phrase that seems to be odd or out of place, and try to figure out why it's there. The idea is that God is trying to tell us something, and it's our job to figure out what it is.
I know, I know; "You mean your God is so powerful He couldn't make himself clear?" Of course He could, if He chose to. Therefore, there must be a reason why He didn't.
Here's a hint; we believe that
God intentionally left the Universe imperfect and incomplete, so that humans could repair and perfect it and thus participate in the Creation. The principle is called "Tikkun Olam," the Repair of the World, and it's very old. The Covenant is not just an image or a poetic idea, you see; it really is a contract. God needs us as much as we need Him. He acts through us (humans, not just Jews). How else would He do anything? Pass a few million miracles per second?
Anyway. In Genesis, God says, "Let US make man in OUR image." there's no mistake; the Hebrew is plural, and God didn't use the "royal we". So to whom was He talking? And from whom did He need help in making man?
There has been much speculation, especially about angels, which are not mentioned otherwise; I have even seen this passage offered as proof that the Torah teaches polytheism. Feh. There's only one answer if you look at it logically. Who else was there?
God was speaking to the animals He had already created. No one else existed. Do you see the implications?
The animals produced man's physical form from their own stock--presumably primates--and thus helped create man in their own image; and God modified that physical being to give it the powers of rational thought, self-awareness or consciousness, and free will--in God's image (since God has no physical form, that phrase could hardly mean anything else). Also, no timeframe is specified ("evening and morning, one day" must likewise mean something else, since the Sun was not created till Day 3, IIRC).
Do you see why Jews have no problem with Evolution? Our religion already grasped the basic idea--that humans developed from lower creatures--and then Darwin came along and made the process clear, or at least began to. Do you also see why Jews scratch their heads in puzzlement at Christians who insist on reading Genesis as if it were a book of literal history or a biology text? It is neither.
The truths it communicates are not found lying on its surface. Finding them requires intelligence, rationality, and a process of logical thought--rather like life itself, no? And when those truths are found, they are more profound and significant than a mere sequence of literal events. Indeed, one wonders what the point of THAT would have been.
As you have pointed out, humans in ancient times had little in the way of technical or scientific knowledge. Try to imagine how anyone, even God Himself, could have communicated to them the process of creation as we understand it today (not that that understanding is complete even now): ten dimensions of time and space, a "micropellet" of enormously compressed energy and primordial proto-matter, the Big Bang, the expanding sphere of energy being transformed into matter, "superstrings," the clustering of matter into gigantic clouds of dust and gas--and we're still a long way from the random combinations of particles into proto-protein strands that can replicate themselves...
Can you see their eyeballs spinning?
And if it WERE possible to give them all this information, two questions remain: (1) what would they then know that would be of any benefit to them whatever? Technical knowledge is important in its own way, but it has practical limits. One may learn every detail of the design and function of a modern internal-combustion engine, electronic fuel injection, turbochargers, an automatic transmission, and a limited-slip differential, but knowing all of that does not mean that one knows how to drive.
(2) If all knowledge necessary to humanity were clearly spelled out in the Torah, what would there be left for humans to learn or to become? What would be the value of reason if everything were already known?
Let's have no more of "Why didn't He make Himself clear," then. That process would have no end, and it is a positive benefit to humans that we have to figure things out for ourselves--specifically including the meaning of the Torah. Your sixth-grade science teacher knew how the experiment was going to turn out, but he made you perform it anyway.
"Tell me of a modern global problem that either one can solve more effectively that modern methods."
Okay. The worldwide AIDS epidemic would stop in its tracks if humans began to practice strict monogamy, as taught in the Torah. How's that?
The Bible does not pretend to be a guidebook for international politics, nor for biological science, medicine, geology, astrophysics, or even literal history. It is primarily a book about personal and interpersonal behavior and about how the individual person ought to live. And the first principle of those is, "Use your brain and think for yourself." This principle is not so much spelled out explicitly in the Torah as implied by its structure and nature--by its occasional ambiguity and its frequent obscurity on tangential questions like, as above, evolution. An important issue, to be sure, but not one that affects everyday life very much.
"The fact that the poeple in your religion are entitled to special treatment when it comes to justice, or the revenge that passed for justice back in the day."
Once again, you are alleging that the Torah, and Judaism, teach the polar opposite of what they actually DO teach. If you insist on replacing the actual content of my religion with false substitutions of your own imagination, we will very shortly have nothing to talk about. I'm here to discuss Judaism. You are talking about something else. It's as if you were to criticize a Muslim for excessive devotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus. "I'm sorry, were you talking to me?"
"And religions had a stunningly unspectacular track record in solving those issues. No longer can we just kill the people who frustratre us or don't agree with our view."
As Reagan said, "There he goes again.". Judaism has never taught nor practiced such things, at least not since the time of the conquest of Canaan, and apparently not even then. (It is rather a relief to Jews that archaeology seems to be proving that that violent conquest never occurred, and that there was instead a relatively peaceful intemingling of the cultures at that place and time. The accounts of those massacres and genocides have been hard for us to understand or explain for centuries. Better to find that the Torah was simply mistaken in those accounts than to suspect that God condoned such horrors.)
At any rate, once again you are directing perfectly valid criticisms of SOME religions at ALL of them, including one--mine--to which they do not apply.
Knock it off. I do not defend all religions, or religion in general, and have no intention of being forced to do so. If you have criticisms that specifically apply to Judaism, I'll be glad to hear them, but so far you're failing to do that.
As I remarked on the other thread, it's way beyond unfair to blame religious persecution and religiously-inspired murder on the people who have been the most frequent victims of them.
"I have news for you. EverythiNG you mention is done completely different today than it was in the time you wish to draw your lessons from."
In what ways? Technology and environments can change, but the principles of justice and basic morality remain essentially the same, IMO. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
"Which is why the genocides and wars based on religion keep happening. Yeah, religion has learned a lot!"
See above.
To choose only one obvious example among hundreds: straight up, do you blame Jews for the Holocaust? If so, how does that work? If not, why do you keep bringing up such things?
"Really? I think of America, Canada, Britain, countries no longer saddled with the blight of religious government."
I thought that one of the biggest problems in America was supposed to be the scandalously huge influence of religion; on government, the media, education, the arts, and on public and private life. As long as there are so many complaints of this nature on this board, it's a bit disingenuous to claim that the US--or any other Western nation--has discarded all vestiges of the past and is now an atheist paradise.
"You are wrong about everything else because you believe the superstitions of long ago, poorly informed people."
Shall I list the scientists, philosophers, artists, writers, and other hugely influential
persons throughout history that have appreciated, cherished, and believed in the Bible? We shall begin with Sir Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and go on from there. Were they wrong about "everything else"? Was their judgment so impaired by their belief in "the superstitions of long ago, poorly informed people" that they could do or produce nothing of value?
Tell your mathematician friends to burn their copies of the Principia Mathematica; it has no value. Newton was wrong about everything, because he believed in the Bible. Why, it's even worse than that; he believed that the Bible contained hidden, encoded messages. Surely the man was a superstitious imbecile and none of his work can be relied upon...
Would you admit that you have overstated your case just a trifle?
"The error is in thinking that religions have the answers."
Again, I do not defend religion in general, only my own; and Judaism claims to have SOME answers, but certainly not all of them. Jews are found in the sciences out of all proportion to our numbers, and we have ALWAYS regarded learning of ALL kinds as worthwhile, even vital, and yes, even sacred. We do not spend all our time and energy studying Torah. We read, and even write, other books as well.
"That if you are just a little more religious, a little more faithful ,the results of embracing religions will be better than they were in the past..."
Religions in general again. That particular leitmotif is growing tiresome. At any rate, of all people on Earth, Jews have no warrant for believing what you say we do here.
"...as if you have a monopoly on fundamentalist fervour."
That is a complete non sequitur.
"Belief on faith always leads to bad things."
Sometimes, even often; certainly not always. Another enormous overstatement.
"Belief on evidence is the escape pod from such insanity."
I decline to characterize belief in religion, even religion in general, as "insanity". That said, belief on evidence is generally a good thing.
One might consider the "evidence" that, in spite of the fact that the Jews have always been among the smallest and least powerful of the world's cultures and civilizations, we are still around, while so many others have vanished entire. We must have been doing SOMETHING right, or we would have gone the way of the Sumerians, the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and the empires of Alexander the Great and Imperial Rome. Oh, their descendants are still around, to be sure; but their cultures, their religions, and their civilizations are gone, leaving only traces behind. On the other hand, the Jewish culture, religion and civilization (its corpus of laws, customs, rituals and traditional history) remain alive and vital to this day, and we still influence the world around us out of all proportion to our numbers. The percentage of Jews in the world's population has never much exceeded 1 1/2 percent; but the percentage of Nobel Prizes, in the sciences alone, that have been awarded to Jews exceeds that by a very considerable margin.
Offhand, I would say that the results, for Jews, of embracing our religion in the past has not been all that bad. We're still here, and we're still deeply involved in making the world a better place. That's been our mission from the beginning, and we're still at it.
"It has been nice discussing this with you. Thank you.
Ian"
Likewise. I love discussing these things.
I also love to write. (Can you tell?)
My thanks in return, Ian. Anytime.
Charles
