Sigh. Alright, we're here again pondering the meaning of life. I halfway hate myself when I think about these issues because I sound irritatingly like some angsty teenager, but in reality people don't typically figure it out to any real satisfaction, they just ignore it by embracing one distraction after another. Perhaps that's easier to do as an adult when there are more practical concerns (whether necessary or artificial) which can serve as distractions. But in any event this issue should bother people right down to their very being, whether they go to highschool or can drink alcohol legally.
Of course nobody really knows the answer but there are a two basic approaches: one, that there is no point and the only "goal" is to make yourself as fulfilling a life experience as you can - however you define that for yourself. Or two, there is a point and the ideal is to match your goals to be in proper accordance with that point - however you understand the point to be.
Obviously you can see the basic self-centered vs externally centered foci between the approaches. There's a value judgement there that makes (at least) me feel that selfish concerns should not be the ends of one's existence, but that hardly serves as a point of fact to base a conclusion on. I go back and forth on this issue - often several times a day. That is, when I'm not distracted. When I'm feeling idealistic and moralistic I find myself leaning towards there being a reason for existence - where what we do matters, where our choices and the effects of our choices matter beyond how they make us feel. In those times I feel encouraged to pursue an active course of bettering the world, fighting for causes, conscientiously intervening in things gone wrong.
But then there are other times when I think that everything I know and everyone who knows me will be gone and lost and long forgotten by some not-too-distant future time. So I feel fatalistic and disinclined to make an effort to change anything at all. Kohelet. Humanity is filled with the wretched, the poor, the liars, the hypocrites; persecuters and the persecuted - all destined to die after a few short years, why work yourself up about it? This has been the staus quo for virtually all of human history and there is little sign of it changing. I'm constantly amazed at how far we've gone and how we've survived so long when there is so many WRONGS in how people do things. Our public institutions reek of intrigue and scandals. Our private lives fill the newspapers with crime and senselessness. Civilization itself may just be a bubble waiting to burst. Is anything worth fighting for?
In the end I make the conscious decision to live as though there is a point. But in my heart the battle wages and I fear that the other side - the void of fatalism and selfish nihilism - may take the field.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
70 comments:
Kohelet was wrong. The world does not stay the same forever and ever. There is an evolution, it's just slow and barely perceptible.
And that is the meaning of it all- the purpose of everything is for the world to evolve... into something. We don't know. Maybe Some One does. I don't know. But the trend from the past seems to be toward greater consciousness and complexity at a faster and faster rate.
The only question is whether we have any power to consciously effect matters or not. I suspect we are affecting it continuously, though not always in the manner that we believe.
I must also add that the question of a "meaning" of life is one that results from a particular cultural mode of thinking (Greek based?)
that separates the rational from the subjective. Subjectively, life is essentially meaningful.
It also is based on linearity which means that point a must arrive at point b, which differs from point A. A cyclical worldview common to ancient as well as some modern indigenous peoples side steps the need for any change or progression to be meaningful.
As well, pondering meaning is a luxury to us who have won the battle of survival.
Not that this is helpful to us, belonging as we do to our own culture and not theirs.
Kisarita,
"Kohelet was wrong. The world does not stay the same forever and ever. There is an evolution, it's just slow and barely perceptible."
Sure, but that's a trivial point.
"And that is the meaning of it all- the purpose of everything is for the world to evolve... into something."
A huge assumption. There could be no more purpose here than there is when your food will evolve into spoiled yuck if you leave it out of the fridge overnight.
"Subjectively, life is essentially meaningful."
Depends on the subject. But there is no rational method of thinking which doesn't try to bring subjective speculations down to earth.
>however you define that for yourself....however you understand the point to be.
I'm assuming that you wrote it that way purposely.
It seems to be that however you look at it, in the end of the day, you're making it up for yourself. You seem to be admitting that there can't be genuine knowledge of a Higher or Ultimate meaning.
Now one might ask, "What's the point of believing in such a thing, if, sakh hakol, you're just following your own opinion on the matter?" But I think you answer that when you say, "In those times I feel encouraged to pursue an active course of bettering the world, fighting for causes, conscientiously intervening in things gone wrong." The psychological disposition that you find yourself in when believing in this Ultimate Purpose seems to be a happier and healthier disposition.
The trick is finding a way to believe in this sort of thing. Or finding some other way to want to strive for something a kin to the Ultimate good despite feeling that life is meaningless.
However, I feel that if you have time to pontificate on the meaning of life, and then all the more time to figure out that it's meaningless, which I don't think would be the first conclusion you'd come to, you have entirely too much time on your hands. My recommendation would be to go do something, maybe even something worthwhile.
In the Terry Pratchett classic, Small Gods, Death is confronting the villian of the story, Chief Inquisitor Vorbis who is, to put it mildly, a very nasty person.
Vorbis has just been killed and is now standing at the edge of Death's realm, surrounded by endless emptiness. When he asks why he's alone, Death says:
"You have heard the expression: Hell is other people?"
"Yes" shouts Vorbis.
"In time you will find that it is not true."
A meaningful life is one spent helping others for no greater purpose than to see a smile on their face when they start to do better. It can be the post-hip replacement patient taking a sturdy step for the first time in years. It can be the palliative patient whose pain is finally under control. It can be the little kid whose sutures you're just placed. That is what makes a meaningful life.
"Hell is other people" means you couldn't see a higher purpose to life so the here and now, the thrill of the moment, becomes a guiding purpose. But other people, their needs and sometimes their mere presence, get in the way. That makes being around others hell.
But the opposite is also true. A person's value is in how much better he makes his little corner of the world. And lucky you, you're in the best profession for it. You have a chance to spend the next several decades, in whatever speciality you choose, making people's live's better and at the end, when you turn 120, you will be able to say "Yeah, the world's a little better because of me. I did the best I could"
FU,
"I'm assuming that you wrote it that way purposely."
Sure, because there is an infinite numbers of potential variations on those two great themes.
"It seems to be that however you look at it, in the end of the day, you're making it up for yourself. You seem to be admitting that there can't be genuine knowledge of a Higher or Ultimate meaning."
I didn't say that one is necessarily "making it up" but of course I agree that knowledge of the ultimate is highly unlikely to be held by anyone.
"The trick is finding a way to believe in this sort of thing."
It's not a trick. There are aspects of reality that incline me without forcing towards the idea of ultimate meaning. And then there are aspects that do the opposite. As I said, I go back and forth.
"However, I feel that if you have time to pontificate on the meaning of life, and then all the more time to figure out that it's meaningless, which I don't think would be the first conclusion you'd come to, you have entirely too much time on your hands. My recommendation would be to go do something, maybe even something worthwhile."
I'm not pontificating - I just ponder with expression through the written word. In all likelihood I will do something that is commonly understood to be worthwhile, but I question whether it really is.
GI,
"A meaningful life is one spent helping others for no greater purpose than to see a smile on their face when they start to do better."
Meaningful to whom? I know plenty of deeply dissatisfied doctors.
"and at the end, when you turn 120, you will be able to say "Yeah, the world's a little better because of me. I did the best I could""
It's ironic how much weight we give to the feelings we think we'll have on our deathbeds. The day you die is only one day out of a life of perhaps 30,000. Eat, drink, be merry.
OP,
>I didn't say that one is necessarily "making it up" but of course I agree that knowledge of the ultimate is highly unlikely to be held by anyone.
What's the difference between, "Define for yourself" or "however you understand the point" and "making it up for yourself"?
>incline me without forcing
interesting phrase... could you explain further?
>As I said, I go back and forth.
On a subject like this one, I highly doubt that either option will offer much but contrast. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle, or completely misguided and a new way of looking at the subject is in order.
>I'm not pontificating - I just ponder with expression through the written word.
I used pontificate incorrectly. Thanks for pointing that out. But put in your phrase and I'd say the same.
FU,
"What's the difference between, "Define for yourself" or "however you understand the point" and "making it up for yourself"?"
What one finds to be fulfilling needn't be contrived. Similarly, what one believes to be of ultimate meaning may not be knowingly constructed in artificiality.
"interesting phrase... could you explain further?"
Some of the views people hold are held before they have all the data - and when they really like that view but find out that the data doesn't support it they may nudge the data or reorient the issue to force a resolution they prefer. So I said that with respect to an ultimate meaning there are natural phenomena which lead me to suspect the concept valid: without forcing the opinion. I don't have to work on the facts, the conclusion comes on its own.
Orthoprax, nary a day goes by when those or similar thoughts don't cross my mind.
> one, that there is no point and the only "goal" is to make yourself as fulfilling a life experience as you can - however you define that for yourself.
Even just this half of the equation requires much thought. Sometimes, I think life is about spending it in the "least painful" way. Seeking pleasure is just a mask for the above. Avoiding boredom is also just avoiding pain. And lastly, even seeking purpose is to avoid the pain of purposelessness. And I suspect even being altruistic is more of the same.
Yet at the same time, good people feel good when they do good for other people. So do what's good for you; meaning doing what's good for other people and you'll be happy as well. If you're happy being selfish, then, I dare say that's fine too, as long as you don't hurt others.
I suspect you'll be happiest by doing good for others.
Kohelet had it right. 8:15
"And I praised joy, for there is nothing better for man under the sun than to eat and to drink and to be merry, and that will accompany him in his toil the days of his life that God gave him under the sun."
So eat, drink and be merry (And do good).
Disagree that you should strive to live your life so the world can be a little bit better. That's a certain recipe for depression and meaninglessness. Very few of us are so influenctial that we actually have a perceivable impact.
Unless, you narrow your "world." If your "world" is your nearest and dearest, then you have a fighting chance to live and die a happy and meaningful life.
Nice post OP
I dare ask, how does your belief, in whatever it is you believe (creator or whatever which way you call it) affect your thinking on this matter
"When I'm feeling idealistic and moralistic I find myself leaning towards there being a reason for existence -- where what we do matters, where our choices and the effects of our choices matter beyond how they make us feel. In those times I feel encouraged to pursue an active course of bettering the world, fighting for causes, conscientiously intervening in things gone wrong."
I suspect you meant to add the word "ultimately" before the word "matter" and "matters." For without that adverb, even a fatalist and nihilist could agree with everything past the dash.
On another note, for those who see their meaning in helping others, I submit the following thought-provoking joke, relayed by R' Abraham Twersky:
There is a story of two loiterers who were arrested for loitering. When they were brought before the judge, he asked the first loiterer:
"What were you doing when the officer arrested you?"
"Nothing", the man answered.
The judge turned to the second man, "and what were you doing?"
"I was helping him," he answered, pointing to his companion.
"Goal of Life"
by
Ayatullah Murtada Mutahhari
http://www.al-islam.org/short/goal/
I hope this helps answer some of your questions. At least that's what I can offer from an islamic perspective
shalom!
Just live your life, try to enjoy, and help your fellows do the same. That's all there is.
>Even just this half of the equation requires much thought. Sometimes, I think life is about spending it in the "least painful" way.
BHB,
Not for nothing are we called Apikorsim. You describe the basic idea of Epicureanism, the only philosophy I would ever ascribe to (if I needed to pick one).
Kisarita,
"Disagree that you should strive to live your life so the world can be a little bit better. That's a certain recipe for depression and meaninglessness. Very few of us are so influenctial that we actually have a perceivable impact."
Heh, well fortunate for me I'll likely be working in such an influential world.
HH,
"I dare ask, how does your belief, in whatever it is you believe (creator or whatever which way you call it) affect your thinking on this matter"
It directly correlates.
Alex,
"I suspect you meant to add the word "ultimately" before the word "matter" and "matters." For without that adverb, even a fatalist and nihilist could agree with everything past the dash."
I don't think so. Logically all they should say is that nothing matters except in how things make you feel.
Shalmo,
"I hope this helps answer some of your questions. At least that's what I can offer from an islamic perspective"
Yes..quite enlightening..
JA,
"Just live your life, try to enjoy, and help your fellows do the same. That's all there is."
I've heard it said that the only philosophical question that really matters is why we should not commit suicide. The lack of goal orientation makes your recipe for life seem shallow.
>why we should not commit suicide
Go ahead, no one is stopping. Point is, a philosophical question doesn't create a real problem. If there is no purpose to it, philosophy won't create one. It may delude you into thinking there is a purpose, but that's it.
The problem with following a religion that emphasizes action over belief, is that it gives you no answer on why we are here and what this life is about, instead it just tells you how to live it.
In fact the bible seemingly implies there is no life after this one:
Ecclesiastes 9
5 For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward,
and even the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Their love, their hate
and their jealousy have long since vanished;
never again will they have a part
in anything that happens under the sun.
Btw Orthoporax your struggles are not really all that different from Bart Ehrman. In fact the reason for his apostasy was this exact reason; that the bible fails to answer why we humans suffer as he notes in his book entitled 'God's Problem': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7cmUCjnCgE
I very much disagree with your statements about how nobody really has an answer as to why we are here, or any of these other great metaphysical questions.
Your nihilism comes from the fact that the lunacy that is Judaism has failed to give you an answer on life's most important questions. That doesn't mean there isn't an answer, it just means Judaism failed to provide it.
Case in Point:
I know why I am here. I know the meaning of life. I know why humans exist. I know why we suffer. I know where we are headed after we die. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Its not that God never gave us clear answers for all these hard questions, he did, its just that not everyone is willing to listen to them.
Peace!
Shalmo,
I was waiting for "Praise be our Lord Jesus Christ" so I'm disappointed.
In any event, all religions, all philosophical systems, are all worth the same load of crap. They do nothing for the thinking man.
>...all religions, all philosophical systems, are all worth the same load of crap. They do nothing for the thinking man.
ROFL!
"I was waiting for "Praise be our Lord Jesus Christ" so I'm disappointed."
You asshole. Where the fuck did you get the notion that I am a christian?
I can assure you there isn't a creed I hate more than the one where God had to committ suicide to redeem mankind of sins.
"In any event, all religions, all philosophical systems, are all worth the same load of crap. They do nothing for the thinking man."
and for that perhaps all I should do is repeat what I previously stated: 'Its not that God never gave us clear answers for all these hard questions, he did, its just that not everyone is willing to listen to them'
Its interesting you claim that philosophical systems do nothing for the thinking man, when thinking is really all there is to philosophy. It seems you are not use to thinking a lot. In which case I suggest you start to THINK more, and blow less steam out of your ass.
You didn't provide any counterpoint, all you gave was a big straw-man that really has nothing to do with the meaning of life that is the topic at hand.
FU,
I'm not getting if that's with me or at me. I was obviously exaggerating (only a bit though), but what do you answer to a fool who writes:
"I know why I am here. I know the meaning of life. I know why humans exist. I know why we suffer. I know where we are headed after we die. And I wouldn't have it any other way."
I followed the dictum in Proverbs:
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.(26:5).
>You didn't provide any counterpoint
A counterpoint to what? to this:
"I know why I am here. I know the meaning of life. I know why humans exist. I know why we suffer. I know where we are headed after we die. And I wouldn't have it any other way."
You can read my answer in the last comment.
^^That wasn't the totality of my post dumbass.
You seem to have totally missed my point with taking it out of context. Here we have another straw-man.
I will be ignoring you now, you are just not worth the effort.
Orthoprax I await your response.
One last thing.
Please don't be a hypocrite and quote scripture you don't even believe in
>I will be ignoring you now, you are just not worth the effort.
Same here.
Acher,
"If there is no purpose to it, philosophy won't create one. It may delude you into thinking there is a purpose, but that's it."
Just as I don't find any philosophical system of ultimate meaning particularly compelling I also am deeply skeptical of those who claim certitude that there is no purpose.
Shalmo,
"The problem with following a religion that emphasizes action over belief, is that it gives you no answer on why we are here and what this life is about, instead it just tells you how to live it."
Judaism maintains a number of basic philosophies about the purpose of life and all the certainties that you claim to possess as well. There is nothing special about what you think you know.
Acher,
You're a thinking man that scoffs at all philosophical systems. Surely you can figure it out.
FU,
"Skeptic" ever heard of that? I have studied my fair share of philosophy, most of it is a fancy version of sophistry. I've also worshiped that citadel before I went inside, but once I did there isn't much there. I wish it were otherwise, because the topic is still one of my favorites, but I have to call it as I see it.
>Just as I don't find any philosophical system of ultimate meaning particularly compelling I also am deeply skeptical of those who claim certitude that there is no purpose.
Orthoprax,
Fair enough. I did not mean to convey an air of certitude, but what can I do. I'm very disappointed with this field. I thought it would give me what you (and I) are looking for, but it failed miserably. So while I still can't be certain, I'm pretty disillusioned about it.
>It directly correlates.
Anything more specific?
HH,
If nothing ultimately matters then the metaphysical composition of reality is of no consequence whatsoever. It becomes irrelevant.
My lingering beliefs about life's ultimate worthwhileness helps support a metaphysically important conception of existence.
"Judaism maintains a number of basic philosophies about the purpose of life and all the certainties that you claim to possess as well. There is nothing special about what you think you know."
Judaism TODAY is not the Judaism of even a thousand years ago. What is Jewish thought has been an ever changing phenomenon coming from influence from all the cultures Jews have taken theology from (Greeks, Cannanites, Egyptians, etc etc). And as the Ecclesiates verses I just showed, it seems even the concept of an afterlife is a later phenomenon in Jewish creeds.
Now to answer your question.
You assert there is nothing special about what I know, since Judaism has answers for these questions as well
My rebuttal to that would be that clearly Judaism hasn't given you an answer, or at least a satisfactory one. Hence why you made this thread.
That said just because Judaism hasn't given you an answer, where do you come off assuming nobody else has answer to these questions. Please don't assert the limitations of the Jewish creed (with all the lunacy that comes with it), upon the rest of mankind.
Anyway....
Let's start with God.
Do you believe there is a God?
Do you believe that this God intervenes in his creation, cares about its conduct?
Do you believe that this life is a test for an eternity that comes after this one, or like primitive Jewry do you believe that this life is all there is, and after it comes nothingness?
What do you feel about statements such as the purpose of this life is to worship God? Do find that statement ludicrous or worth some forethought? (worship of God doesn't just involve repetitive daily religious rituals, or at least that's what my creed says)
Or are you simply agnostic on all these issues?
Answer these questions and maybe then I can help you formulate an answer that best serves you.
Shalmo,
It's amusing to me how you think your creed differs so strongly on these issues as compared to the other monotheistic religions.
It doesn't.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism differ on some of the details but the basics of ethical monotheism is a common similarity. I know this song and dance and I'm not going to humor an attempt by you to teach me the steps.
OP,
I actually see things in 4 simplistic scenarios:
A) No god, no point. I figure then what makes us happy is fulfilling our nature, and to keep it simple and Darwinistic, this means preservation of the species. Being successful social animals, I think we tend to be happiest (and most successful in survival) in semi altruistic close knit social groups that have molded our pleasure centers for thousands of years. There's a nice little Vonnegut speech on this (I think in "wampeters and Fomiters")As I am unlikely to start human life on another planet at this point, the first option is feasable and more palatable then gluttony. Judaism is mine and fulfills the above criteria.
B) God but no meaning: Possible but doesn't seem likely. Meaning then reverts to A)
C) My god is real and there is meaning: Jackpot! Judaism does have a great track record of survival, and at least lately quality of life.
D) God is real, but I picked the wrong one. Hopefully that god will be kind to us!
Considering A is what you are doing anyway, B doesn't change things, C albeit chancey is wonderful and wouldn't it be nice, D seems less likely but even if equal odds, any religion is as good as any other, so you might as well stick with what you know and makes you happy.
So have a nice family, home & friends, be nice to others, follow your brand of Judaism and maybe you will have a bonus divine blessing.
One final quote from Koheles:
"Increase Knowledge, Increase Pain". That's what you - and many of us - go through. Most people aren't smart enough to be bothered with these existential issues.
Don't think that because you are younger and have less responsibilities that you have the 'luxury' for these existential questions. I only wish that when I was your age I had confronted these issues head on instead of hiding and running from the questions. I don't have that luxury anymore - as I have a family to support and have committed to a life of Faith - but being busy doesn't solve existential angst. It just litmits your ability to responsibly do something about it.
Shalmo:
You have it all figured out!! You wise man. Please share with us all of your wisdom. We are searching for (another) Fundamentalist simplistic rapturous and idiotic answer to life's complex and unanswerable problems.
We don't think that Judaism hasn't answered these problems, we think that revealed dogmatic religion - of any stripe or shape - is speaking a different language and is thus unable to deal with these issues in our language.
We are all well aware of the various dogmas of the various faiths and we find their premises lacking.
When you are ready to discuss idea without resorting to alleged revealed doctrines, we can talk.
Asalm Aleikum.
Jeff,
"So have a nice family, home & friends, be nice to others, follow your brand of Judaism and maybe you will have a bonus divine blessing."
Sounds fine to me. But the existential dilemma comes to a head with regard to things that may not directly effect me. Personal ambition is a strong driving force but it doesn't make me care much about the plights of others or contemporary ethical issues. The dilemma dulls my interest in learning and dims my hopes for the future. It's a spirit breaker that makes it difficult to enjoy any ephemeral joy or success.
Do over,
"Most people aren't smart enough to be bothered with these existential issues."
Heh, shows how smart we are.
"Don't think that because you are younger and have less responsibilities that you have the 'luxury' for these existential questions."
My point wasn't that I have fewer responsibilities than my more socially established elders (I would even dare say that there have been long stretches of time in my recent life when I have been far more busy than the average middle-aged adult) but that these kinds of issues have been stereotypically assigned to the concerns of teenagers when really they should be a concern for people of all ages. Busy adults may just be better at ignoring them because they have more immediate concerns on their minds that distract them. (Perhaps by design.)
Orthoprax
"It's amusing to me how you think your creed differs so strongly on these issues as compared to the other monotheistic religions."
Oh but it does. Very very very much. And you what you have presented me so far in all our debates so far, shows me you don't have much knowledge of my creed to make such a false assertion. All you have shown me is that you are good as copying and pasting christian missionary sites whose arguments have been refuted time and time again. If I went to Ernst Zendel or David Duke to learn about Judaism, you would have a field day with me :)
But we are not talking about my creed, we are talking about YOUR attempts at findings answers for the big questions of life.
"It doesn't."
Stop being so arrogant. I was simply trying to help you.
"Christianity, Islam and Judaism differ on some of the details but the basics of ethical monotheism is a common similarity. I know this song and dance and I'm not going to humor an attempt by you to teach me the steps."
WRONG. There are a wide variety of fundamental differences for all the big questions.
But you don't even seem the least bit interested in hearing me out.
I wasn't trying to convert you, I was simply trying to discuss, but if you aren't interested in hearing me out then I will drop it altogether.
Do over!:
"You have it all figured out!!"
Yeah I think I do :)
"You wise man. Please share with us all of your wisdom. We are searching for (another) Fundamentalist simplistic rapturous and idiotic answer to life's complex and unanswerable problems."
So then do you have an answer for all of the man's questions?
This is no different than an atheist telling me that he doesn't know how the universe came into being, all he knows is that God didn't do it.
Lack of an answer is not an answer at all, its a co-out
Perhaps all you can say is you don't have an answer for these metaphysical questions, but you are sure that the ones I come up with are false.
Which is just stupid.
"We don't think that Judaism hasn't answered these problems, we think that revealed dogmatic religion - of any stripe or shape - is speaking a different language and is thus unable to deal with these issues in our language.
We are all well aware of the various dogmas of the various faiths and we find their premises lacking.
When you are ready to discuss idea without resorting to alleged revealed doctrines, we can talk."
Goody! So now you have told me your an anti-theist.
Where does that get us?
I'll give you the same advice I gave Orthoprax, don't juxtapose the limitations of the Jewish creed on every other world-view out there, especially when you aren't informed enough about those other world-views to pass away these simplistic characterizations of them.
Oh and you spelled the salams wrong :)
Orthoprax I only asked you those questions because I need to know where you stand in order for me to give you an answer that best suits you.
If there isn't a God, then we are all insignificant molecules existing in a sea of randomness, headed for eventual nothingness (with the Andromeda galaxy about to crash into the Milky Way).
Its hard to define purpose in that scenario since it is built on the presupposition that there never even was a purpose to the universe to begin with.
You can come up with ethical models like the golden rule; make everyone happy and make yourself happy. But its impossible to come up with a reason as why we should be ethical, or to decipher a purpose behind this existence. And I know the atheists here will disagree.
I'm not saying being an atheist means you can't be moral, I just don't see how you can define purpose or an ethical model that has any spirit to ground it in. Without an absolute power its impossible to escape moral relativism.
Now on the flip side let's say there is a God (and I do think you somewhat believe in a higher power), then it is possible to establish absolute principles about truth and morality.
But ofcourse then comes the debate on whether absolute models even exist.
This is where you might resolve yourself between deism and theism. Now deism seemingly however resolves the dilemna of atheist by providing a creator, and thus a purpose for our being as well as a focal point for morality even existing. However it still isn't without flaw.
And while this is a very old and often enough recycled argument, the deist God is without contact with us and isn't really that different than no God at all. Whether an atheist or a deist, you have to find a way of resolving moral relativism.
Is it ok to murder the man next to me so I can take his money to feed my children? When left with only one piece of bread should I give it to my hungry children? But then isn't it an amoral response to myself to starve myself just so I can feed my children? Are the rights of society greater than the rights of the individual? Is abortion ok? Euthanasia? Defining justice is hard whether you have an inactive God or no God at all.
You resolve all of that when you get to theism. Occam's razor, taking the simplest explanation, helps you resolve all the brainmush that the non-theist world brings.
And I'm assuming you are still a theist (a skeptical one, but still at least one who believes in a higher power)
And if that is the case, then by all means start with God. Think about what God wants, why he made the universe, what role you play in that design and then move to creating a base for yourself from there onwards.
Shalmo, I think you have it wrong. It's not that Judaism doesn't have a good answer. It's that by claiming to be a revealed religion and by it not being able to convincingly live up to that claim, it has no authority with which to speak to purpose and meaning anymore. So if you're talking about Islam and or/Christinaity as providing a better answer, that's even more laughable than Judaism.
Do Over,
> but being busy doesn't solve existential angst.
I think it does to some extent. If you busy yourself all your life with work, family, volunteering, hobbies. Well, at least it takes away some of the pain.
But I can't wait to retire (roll's eyes.)
Shalmo,
I've studied enough of the basic reasons people believe Islam is valid and find none of them even remotely compelling. Beyond that there is nothing to discuss. I don't have to "present you" with anything. I wouldn't even humor the kind of discussion you are offering if it were coming from a rabbi.
And for the record, the reasonings of your last post could have been written to the T by any yeshivah high school kid. There is nothing unique about your approach. I have heard it all before.
Orthoprax:
"I've studied enough of the basic reasons people believe Islam is valid and find none of them even remotely compelling. Beyond that there is nothing to discuss. I don't have to "present you" with anything. I wouldn't even humor the kind of discussion you are offering if it were coming from a rabbi."
Oh I am certain you have "examined" quite a bit. Quoting something as ridiculous as answering-islam alone tells me what you have "examined"; which really isn't much at all. But I am not here to discuss that
"And for the record, the reasonings of your last post could have been written to the T by any yeshivah high school kid. There is nothing unique about your approach. I have heard it all before."
Dude you opened thread about meaning and purpose. I don't know why you keep bringing my religion into the matter, we are not discussing it (or at least I am not).
My aim here was to provide you a secular answer for your questions because I feel sorry for you. Hence why I am not invoking theology.
I am certain you have heard those answers before, but at the end of the day who here is the one suffering from nihilism and the "void of fatalism"? Whether they satisfy you or not you might consider that perhaps these answers are the only ones available for these tough question. My main point stands, the only way to end this stalemate with your lost soul is to start with God and then proceed to creating a paradigm from then onwards. If you don't you are gonna be stuck right where you are now. That's the curse that comes with free will. Your choice!
Baal Habos:
"Shalmo, I think you have it wrong. It's not that Judaism doesn't have a good answer. It's that by claiming to be a revealed religion and by it not being able to convincingly live up to that claim, it has no authority with which to speak to purpose and meaning anymore. So if you're talking about Islam and or/Christinaity as providing a better answer, that's even more laughable than Judaism."
Alas you too are juxtaposing the limits of the Jewish creed on those other religions you just mentioned.
From memory, around 60% of today's Jews are atheists and agnostics. Which is startling compared to the ratio of believers in the other two abrahamic faiths, which testifies to the failure of Judaism, and further strengthens why you can't juxtapose the limitations of one upon the others.
If you have a better answer for Orthoprax's questions, then by all means let's hear it out.
But once again I am trying to discuss this in a secular manner, without invoking theology
My argument is that if you start with a theistic world-view (which doesn't even require religion) then you can come to a paradigm that resolves the "void of fatalism and selfish nihilism". The non-theist world-views don't seem to be able to resolve it IMHO.
>From memory, around 60% of today's Jews are atheists and agnostics. Which is startling compared to the ratio of believers in the other two abrahamic faiths, which testifies to the failure of Judaism, and further strengthens why you can't juxtapose the limitations of one upon the others.
I don't consider my skepticism to be a failure of Judaism. I was perfectly fine with my faith AND elated with Judaism until I began to question it's historicity.
I don't know much about the other Abramaic faiths except for the fact that if Judaism is false then those are certainly false because they are both based on the OT.
As to God without religion, I'm agnostic about that. And since God did not reveal himself to me, any objective purpose I would find, is, at best, a guess.
If you know better, then please spill the beans.
Shalmo-
I believe that both the Quaran and Christianity base their beliefs on the revelation at Sinai. They just hold that G-D either spoke to Jesus at a later date or Mohamed. If I am wrong please inform me of a source so I can see the error.
Plus- I am unsure of which Judaism you refer to that does not believe in the afterlife. All of orthodox Judaism's oral tradition says that a jew that does not believe in the world to come is not actually invited to the world to come. Not sure why the basic understanding of a verse from koheles, which is all an allegory and full of parables, would disprove that.
Also, just to ask orthoprax, what exactly is your question that you are posing? Should you live like G-D exists even if he doesn't? If that is it, it follows one of the philosophical schools of thought. The one that says might as well since if you are wrong then you will lose the eternal world. If you were right and G-D does not exist, then you missed out only on a few pleasures. But I am just interested on what this conversation is actually about.
Shalmo,
"Oh I am certain you have "examined" quite a bit. Quoting something as ridiculous as answering-islam alone tells me what you have "examined"; which really isn't much at all. But I am not here to discuss that"
Funny, 'cause you keep bringing it up.
"My aim here was to provide you a secular answer for your questions because I feel sorry for you. Hence why I am not invoking theology....My main point stands, the only way to end this stalemate with your lost soul is to start with God and then proceed to creating a paradigm from then onwards."
Huh?
"From memory, around 60% of today's Jews are atheists and agnostics. Which is startling compared to the ratio of believers in the other two abrahamic faiths"
Only if you ignore the fact that a non-believing man of faith in Islam or Christianity is an oxymoron. Jews are unique that they can remain Jews without faith.
E-man,
"Also, just to ask orthoprax, what exactly is your question that you are posing? Should you live like G-D exists even if he doesn't?"
Yes, after a fashion but not as crassly described as such. I'm not asking a question.
"But I am just interested on what this conversation is actually about."
My post was about the existential human condition. Shalmo is trying to convince me otherwise by suggesting routes of thought I have long since considered.
I hear what you are saying in your post, why do we think the world has a G-D or higher purpose and on the other side, why do we think it doesn't. I wrote a whole post on my blog why I believe in G-D, but I am not going to discuss those ideas.
I want to focus on your question here, purpose for believing. Basically, the question to ask is this, do you trust your forefathers or not? If you think that Judaism is a mass conspiracy theory then no reason to believe. However, if you think it is sincere then that is all the proof you need. G-D spoke to the entire nation of the Jewish people.
It is kinda like most types of history in the world. Do I trust the historians or are they lying to me? Now, if I were creating the Jewish religion I would have just claimed one prophet talked to G-D just like Islam and Christianity. Much easier to tell people. But to tell every single Jew that their ancestor spoke to G-D themselves, that is pretty crazy.
This is why a discussion of Judaism always begins with Mt Sinai and not the creation of the world. There is no real way to say a higher power exists unless you spoke to or heard from that higher power.
E-man,
"Basically, the question to ask is this, do you trust your forefathers or not? If you think that Judaism is a mass conspiracy theory then no reason to believe. However, if you think it is sincere then that is all the proof you need. G-D spoke to the entire nation of the Jewish people."
You're obviously new here to the skeptical jblogosphere and you seem like a well-meaning fellow. So I'm giving you fair warning that if you really want to go down this road and discuss this issue - particularly that of the classical kuzari argument - be prepared for the possibility that your comforting emunah peshutah will never be the same again.
Consider, briefly, for the possibility that our forefathers were neither liars nor recipients of revelation but that they were illiterate, superstitious people from the iron age who built a commonly accepted mythic history based on legends and half-remembered stories which was then passed along orally down the generations with as reliable a coherence as any game of broken telephone.
We have good reason to believe the Trojan War really happened - but is Homer's Iliad a reliable representation of events? Were the Greeks, a hundred thousand strong who fought in battle, lying to their children? Is the Iliad the production of a massive conspiracy?
I have long, long since considered such topics of debate.
Baal Habos:
"I don't consider my skepticism to be a failure of Judaism. I was perfectly fine with my faith AND elated with Judaism until I began to question it's historicity."
There you go again!
You say you questioned Judaism because of its historicity. That is a good criticism of any religion. Modern Israeli archaeology has totally debunked the history of the Torah. Or things like all the contemporary records of Iranian history that totally refute the Esther story as forgery. And so forth with all the Jewish stories that have their origins with mythology from the cannanites, egyptians, sumerians, babylonians, hittites, greeks, zorastrians, etc etc etc
Now the reason you can't apply this standard to Islam is because every significant event in Islamic history has a plethora of contemporary evidence, far more than the other two abrahamic faiths (there is more data available on Mohammed and his life than any other figure in all of human history and I can back this up with secular references should you want them), but this is a long long long discussion and I don't wish to take this thread off-topic
"I don't know much about the other Abramaic faiths except for the fact that if Judaism is false then those are certainly false because they are both based on the OT."
Yes Chrisitianity bases itself on the OT, but Islam doesn't.
In Islam there is nothing even remotely similar to Yahweh ordering people to eat their own children (Deut. 28: 53-57), or the often enough repeated instructions throughout the bible on the slaying of animals, women, children (1 Samuel 15: 1- 3), or cursing a man with bowel disease to the point that his bowels literally drop from his body (2 Chronicles 21: 12-19 ), or having bears rip apart 42 children just for making fun of a man's bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24), or God literally coming down to enjoy a man literally being hacked to pieces (1 Samuel 15:33), or something as revolting as Ezekiel 4:1-15. Much has been written about the ghastly books of the OT. Islam has none of that (thank God). Contrary to passages like Ezekiel 9:4-6 we are ordered in the Quran to never harm women, children and non-combatants in war.
“The Prophet Muhammad was not a warrior, but he found himself, like many of the Axial Age sages, in a violent society and he eventually brought peace to the region by practicing a daring policy of non-violence. He stopped the violence and went into Mecca unarmed and forced the Meccan to negotiate with him accepting terms that his followers thought were disgraceful,” - Karen Armstrong (secular authority on Islam)
And again this is a very long topic of discussion, which I am more than willing to have with you somewhere else (by email if you want), because I don't not wish to take this thread off topic, since what we are supposed to be discussing is the meaning of life, NOT my religious affiliations.
"As to God without religion, I'm agnostic about that. And since God did not reveal himself to me, any objective purpose I would find, is, at best, a guess."
You are absolutely correct. Which is what I have been saying throughout this thread. Without God you cannot have any absolute since everything would then be subjective
"If you know better, then please spill the beans."
Well I first will have to convince you there is a God.
Have you read Paul Davies' "The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?"
Its a fascinating book, written by a non-believer, who has written about why science has reached a point where its no longer possible to deny the question on why the universe is exactly fine tuned for life.
You may also wish to pick up Francis Collins' "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief"
Both ofcourse have a place for the evolutionary process in creation, so so check them out.
Orthoprax:
"Funny, 'cause you keep bringing it up "
Only in response to your claim that all three forms of ethical monotheism are the same, WHICH THEY MOST ASSUREDLY ARE NOT. There are extreme fundamental differences between all three faiths. Jewish monotheism isn't as absolute as the islamic one. Even Rambam felt the anthropormorphic God of the midrash was kefirah, hence why he reformed Judaism taking in bits and pieces of islamic monotheism, but not the whole thing.
"Only if you ignore the fact that a non-believing man of faith in Islam or Christianity is an oxymoron. Jews are unique that they can remain Jews without faith."
Actually this isn't unique to Judaism at all. Almost all primitive mythologies consider race not faith to determine whom you belong to. Hindus today in this regard are no different than Jews.
I find great wisdom in Islam and Christianity view that individual beliefs can make you part of a group, rather than what flows in your blood. Having a rabbinical court decide where one's affiliations lie is just too primitive.
"My post was about the existential human condition. Shalmo is trying to convince me otherwise by suggesting routes of thought I have long since considered."
OK
Then what do you want?
What sort of answer will satisfy you?
Orthoprax-
I think Homers writings are different because they are meant as a story not as a history.
"Consider, briefly, for the possibility that our forefathers were neither liars nor recipients of revelation but that they were illiterate, superstitious people from the iron age who built a commonly accepted mythic history based on legends and half-remembered stories which was then passed along orally down the generations with as reliable a coherence as any game of broken telephone."
The difference is that along with the oral tradition there is a written tradition which is very unique to Judaism from that time period. Also, the fact that it is monotheistic is unique to that time period.
I have heard thoughts that maybe Dovid Hamelech made up the whole thing, but it sounds like you are saying something else which seems very unlikely since there was no similarities to this and other types of oral traditions.
E-Man:
"I believe that both the Quaran and Christianity base their beliefs on the revelation at Sinai. They just hold that G-D either spoke to Jesus at a later date or Mohamed. If I am wrong please inform me of a source so I can see the error."
Christianity does indeed base their belief on everything written in your Torah. Islam however rejects it.
This means that they the way modern Israeli archaeology has determined that the history in the Torah is more or less the political propaganda of Judea's kings, then that would refute both Judaism and Christianity of being true. However it wouldn't refute Islam because Islam does not lay any claims of authority to either Jewish or Christian holy books.
"Plus- I am unsure of which Judaism you refer to that does not believe in the afterlife. All of orthodox Judaism's oral tradition says that a jew that does not believe in the world to come is not actually invited to the world to come. Not sure why the basic understanding of a verse from koheles, which is all an allegory and full of parables, would disprove that."
Well Orthodox Judaism is not the only Judaism. Modern Judaism descends from the Pharisees in second temple Judea.
But they were just one Jewish sect. They were countless other sects such as the Sadducees and Karaites who totally rejected your Oral Torah. There were also the mystics or Essenes. And many others that I can name. And some of these sects rejected an afterlife. So which one is true? There are LOTS of arguments I can bring against the so-called Oral Torah, such as why is it that only Pharisees had one yet the other Jewish sects didn't. The Pharisees were the Zorastrian-influenced party since Pharisse comes from the word 'parsi' which is the persian word for Zorastrian, in other words they took many ideas from Zorastrians and incoporated them into Judaism (the concept of an afterlife may indeed be such a concept), as the Ecclesiastes verse I showed implies there isn't an afterlife and the concept of an afterlife is silent in the Torah, leading many to believe its a later development in Jewish thought.
"I want to focus on your question here, purpose for believing. Basically, the question to ask is this, do you trust your forefathers or not? "
Many of the Jewish forefathers were also liars. Maimonides despite being the greatest Jewish scholar of all time was also a notorious liar.
"It is kinda like most types of history in the world. Do I trust the historians or are they lying to me? Now, if I were creating the Jewish religion I would have just claimed one prophet talked to G-D just like Islam and Christianity. Much easier to tell people. But to tell every single Jew that their ancestor spoke to G-D themselves, that is pretty crazy."
LOL
Not this again
My friend the concept of a single man or prophet hearing the words of God is what is more unique in history, not national revelation as Chabad propaganda claims. Almost every pagan religion claims to have an origin through national revelation, its actually a much more unique idea for a single man to hear God speak than a nation.
In short, the argument is that Judaism is unique because it has, at its origin, a mass revelation. Millions of people stood at Mt. Sinai and literally heard God speak. Putting aside, for a moment, the fact that the only proof that this happened is because it says it in the very book you're trying to prove, it's a fair argument.
The Aztecs, for example, had a national revelation story. They believed that their god, Huitzilopochtli, led them (in person) to the site of present-day Mexico City. Based on Rabbi Mizrachi's assertion, the very fact that another group even claims a mass revelation shows that the Torah is not true.
(According the Aubin Codex, the Aztecs originally came from a place called Aztlan. They lived under the ruling of a powerful elite called the "Azteca Chicomoztoca". Huitzilopochtli ordered them to abandon Aztlan to find a new home. He also ordered them never to call themselves Aztec; instead they should be called "Mexica." Huitzilopochtli guided them through a long journey. For a time, Huitzilopochtli left them in the charge of his sister Malinalxochitl, who, according to legend, founded Malinalco, but the Aztecs resented her ruling and called back Huitzilopochtli. He put his sister to sleep and ordered the Aztecs to leave the place. When she woke up and realized she was alone, she became angry and desired revenge. She gave birth to a son called Copil. When he grew up, he confronted Huitzilpochtli, who had to kill him. Huitzilopochtli then took his heart and threw it in the middle of Lake Texcoco. Many years later, Huitzilopochtli ordered the Aztecs to search for Copil's heart and build their city over it. The sign would be an eagle perched on a cactus, eating a precious serpent. The Aztecs finally found the eagle, who bowed to them, and they built a temple in the place, which became Tenochtitlan.)
If anything the mass revelation tidbit provides us with insight to just how pagan Judaism is, because it’s a common features of pagan religions to have mass revelation stories where a god reveals himself, leads people on vast journeys, etc etc
You seem to be misinformed about Islam because Islam is based on the revelations received to countless prophets in muslim literature, not just Mohammed. In your Torah do you remember that Abraham and his family were blessed, before Issac was born. That blessing on Ishmael, what happened to it? According to the Artscroll Chumash that prophecy was fulfilled in Mohamed.
E-Man:
"This statement is just false. I don't know how else to say it. 100% false."
"Also false. But I did see a great YOUTUBE video that an Iranian "Scientist" said that there is absolute proof that the Earth is flat. So maybe you are getting your "facts" from this guy."
Ah I don't what this has to do with anything, and I am not sure you ever even saw such a video
Are you talking about the Esther story? Because there is ZERO contemporary validity for it. Iranian records even during this period were far more sophisticated than Jewish ones, and there is not even a mention of a queen Esther or of any of the said events of thousands of iranians being killed even remotely verifiable. The same is true in records of contemporaries of Iran such as the hindus who recorded what was going on here during this time, and not even they back up what the fictitious story in the book of Esther.
"Sorry to be so annoying about this and posting a third one in a row but I just wanted to give a link to show that shalmo is just wrong http://markset565.blogspot.com/search/label/Archaeology"
I am sorry but quoting some christian apologist, who are know to make all sorts of outlandish claims, is not reliable at all.
And btw do you know what these christians think of your bible? Do you know how distort verses like Isaiah 7:14, or Isaiah 9:6 to apply them to Jesus in order to convert Jews? How can you believe people who use your own holy book to lie so much?
anyway here's a good reading for you:
'The Demise of Biblical Archaeology':
Indeed , there is now so much contrary evidence against the historical accuracy of the Bible that the term "biblical archaeology" has now been discarded in professional archeology! [The preferred term now being Syro-Palestinian archaeology. The whole paradigm of archaeology in the Near East has shifted away from thinking of the Bible as a reliable archaeological field guide to that of a collection of ancient fairy tales and legends.
The BBC journalist Matthew Sturgis account in his book "It Ain't Necessarily So" (2001) summarizes the current situation nicely:
A new generation of archaeologists has emerged...they are challenging the intellectual assumptions of their predecessors...During the years since World War II it has become harder and harder to escape this sense of doubt. The expected discoveries of specific biblical artifacts and buildings were simply not being made...Discrepancies between the biblical account and the ever increasing archaeological record become more noticeable and harder to ignore...Rather than using the Old Testament as a field guide, the current crop of archaeologists is increasingly putting the Bible aside...The very term biblical archaeology has become tainted, and is now rejected by many academics...The old quest to confirm the historical truths of the events in the Bible has been replaced by a new agenda: to build a full and detailed picture of life in the ancient Near East. If the Bible is consulted at all, it is approached with varying degrees of skepticism. The onus of proof has shifted: the text [of the Bible] is now considered historically unreliable until proven otherwise.
Over the last decade, quote a number of books have been published outlining this state of affairs.
* T.W. Davis, “Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology”, Oxford 2004
* I. Finkelstein, “The Bible Unearthed”, Free Press 2001
* A.D. Marcus, “The View from Nebo”, Little, Brown & Co 2000
* M. Sturgis, “It Ain’t Necessarily So”, Headline 2001
* T.L. Thompson, “The Mythic Past”, Basic Books 1999
* T.L. Thompson, “The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives”, Trinity 2002
Basically the main thesis of these books can be summarized as follows: much of what passed as history (such Abraham and the “patriarchal narrative”, Moses and the exodus and the conquest of Canaan) is now considered, based on the mass of available archaeological evidence, to be largely mythical. The Israeli archaeologist, I. Finkelstein (see his book above) goes even further; he asserts that historical evidence is lacking for even the united kingdom of David and Solomon! Indeed today some of the major events and characters of the Old Testament are no longer considered historical!
* Abraham and the patriarchal narratives
* Moses and Exodus
* Joshua and the conquest of Canaan.
While it is true that David and Solomon existed, the archaeological evidence shows that the kingdom of David and Solomon were nowhere near how they are described in the Bible. Indeed Jerusalem during the time of David and Solomon was little more than a village with less than 5,000 people!
There are clear fictive elements in other Biblical books as well.
* The books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah contain contradictions, elements of numerology and anachronisms.
* The books of Ruth, Esther, Job and Jonah are works of pure fiction.
* The book of Daniel is fraudulent fiction masquerading as a prophetic work.
In short, the Bible is not a "good Book".
Here is the video about the Muslim scientist that says the world is flat http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/04/muslim-scientists-debate-whether-earth.html
>Now the reason you can't apply this standard to Islam is because every significant event in Islamic history has a plethora of contemporary evidence,
You're funny. I'm not going into that, but you're being foolish. If a religion like Mormonism can catch on, a mere 100 years ago, all bets are off 1500 years ago.
Anyhow, without extraordinary proof, all religion is off the table. Think of Hume's maxim "The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention) , "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish."
>Yes Chrisitianity bases itself on the OT, but Islam doesn't.
Islam reveres the prophet Moses. How can you trust a religion like that when you just said the whole historicity of Jews is suspect?
>Islam has none of that (thank God).
Right, Islam is the religion of peace. And don't tell me that all the violence today is not true Islam. If it is, how come the millions and millions of moderate Islam does not take a stance and come out strongly against Islamic terrorism.
>Well I first will have to convince you there is a God.
Go ahead, try.
>Have you read Paul Davies' "The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?"
I'm very familair with the concept.
>You may also wish to pick up Francis Collins' "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief"
I read that. Extremely lame. Here's my post about that - http://baalhabos.blogspot.com/2006/09/oh-my-god_29.html
That was before I switched to Haloscan, and unfortunately the Blogger comments are not displayable.
E-man, do youself a favor and stick to Torah blogs. For believers, there's nothing in this but heartache.
Shalmo,
"Only in response to your claim that all three forms of ethical monotheism are the same, WHICH THEY MOST ASSUREDLY ARE NOT. There are extreme fundamental differences between all three faiths."
Yes, trivial differences. Nothing significant on the approach for the meaning of life - y'know, the topic of discussion.
"Actually this isn't unique to Judaism at all."
Unique among the three Abrahamic faiths we were discussing was what I was referring to.
"I find great wisdom in Islam and Christianity view that individual beliefs can make you part of a group, rather than what flows in your blood. Having a rabbinical court decide where one's affiliations lie is just too primitive."
Yes, the concept of family is primitive. Touche.
"Then what do you want?"
Who says I was asking for anything?
"What sort of answer will satisfy you?"
Likely none of which you think you possess.
Eman,
"I think Homers writings are different because they are meant as a story not as a history."
Yes, and? The point is that the people believed in all sorts of supernatural aspects of the story - as history.
"The difference is that along with the oral tradition there is a written tradition which is very unique to Judaism from that time period."
What time period? How early do you believe the Torah was written and how do you know that? Modern scholars point out a number of textual clues that imply late authorship.
"I have heard thoughts that maybe Dovid Hamelech made up the whole thing, but it sounds like you are saying something else which seems very unlikely since there was no similarities to this and other types of oral traditions."
What do you mean? Virtually all the tribal tales and ancient religions are based on legends and stories passed down orally initally and then sometimes later put onto parchment. And some of their traditions are way out there.
Baal,
Watching Eman and Shalmo go at it is heartbreaking. They're both a little right but there are errors found throughout each's argumentation.
>In Islam there is nothing even remotely similar to Yahweh ordering people to eat their own children (Deut. 28: 53-57),
I have already established not to waste my time with fools like you, but I couldn't stand for this. Are you an utter and complete imbecile. If you quote a source (especially one as widely available as Deuteronomy), take care to at least understand what it's saying.
Since law school is calling me, this will be my last reply
E-man:
You are hopeless! I'm curious how you would feel if I went to white supremists like David Duke to learn about what Jews are upto.
The arabs and the iranians knew the world was round long long before Islam came around, so people who make all these conspiracy theories about what the Quran says don't realize how ridiculous their claims end up being.
That site is run by a notorious liar named David Wood, who just recently got his ass kicked by Baradawi.
And just to let you know these same christians that you are citing also distort verses like Isaiah 7:14 (claiming falsely that almah means virgin in reference to Jesus), etc etc in order to convert Jews to Christianity. So I would think twice before using them. Try www.call-to-monotheism.com for refutations for their stuff
Baal:
"You're funny. I'm not going into that, but you're being foolish. If a religion like Mormonism can catch on, a mere 100 years ago, all bets are off 1500 years ago."
Hardly! The reason so many contemporary records exist is because of the great emphasis Mohammed put on universal education, hence even his enemies could write about him.
Age has nothing to do with it. There is more contemporary support for Mayan and Chinese historical records predating 3500 years than there is contemporary evidence for Jewish records.
Now I'm not gonna bother with the other stuff you wrote, because that will not get us anywhere.
Orthoprax:
"Who says I was asking for anything?"
Then why make such a thread?
"Likely none of which you think you possess."
Indeed. This says it all.
I was only trying to help.
Farewell!
E-man,
To be honest, I see that you made a lot of claims but you didn't offer much in the way of facts. Giving some random example of a Muslim 'proving' the world is flat is meaningless, just like you could no doubt find some Lubab who 'proves' that the sun revolves around the earth. You can't use that as being indicative of the religious text or of mainstream belief.
Archeologically there are a number of issues that are strong problems for the traditional understanding. These issues are not limited to problems of just absence of evidence. For a full understanding you cannot just throw up a link of one guy who's conclusion you favor. You should go and study the issues on your own.
You cannot say that because the Aztec's revelation happened on a different continent and at a different century it therefore is without relevance. Those are not meaningful distinctions and I think you know that.
Nor is it a meaningul response to simply call the other person's assertions false without follow up. You may be right, but that hardly amounts to a meaningful debate.
Now don't get me wrong, I think Shalmo is a jerk, his facts selectively chosen, his conclusions biased as hell and his methods preclusive to real debate because he throws a thousand different issues at you at once and goes off on a hundred tangents at will, but he does at least deal in debatable points.
Personally I hardly think it's even worth discussing issues with him at all but if you're going to do it you can't do it half-assed.
Orthoprax-
You are right, I just didn't want to have to spend hours proving him wrong. I am not going to bother anymore with him. One thing though, thi Muslim guy that says the Earth is flat is a respected "scientist" among the Muslims. A "lubob might claim something, but he is in no way regarded as a scientist or expert, that was my point.
OP,
"But the existential dilemma comes to a head with regard to things that may not directly effect me. Personal ambition is a strong driving force but it doesn't make me care much ... It's a spirit breaker that makes it difficult to enjoy any ephemeral joy or success."
Pardon some warm fuzzies here: God or no God, it feels good to do good, and it feels good to feel good. Sometimes our human mind overthinks itself to its own harm. Even without a grand scheme, isn't it wonderful that altruism and simple kindness is common? Because this is human nature, and following it makes people happy. You can be disfunctional and quite unhappy, but when in doubt, why not make a cheap leap of faith and choose kindness and happiness.
I've discussed before that I think faith is an important aspect of life and belief. I consider faith just a different kind of logic, similar to the effect of emotions on logic and decision making process.
Even on something as stupid as buying a pair of shoes, logic might dictate the cheaper more robust pair, but you might just have your heart set on the Nike's, and you won't ever enjoy the other pair
Salmo,
I'd take you a bit more seriously if you weren't a Holocaust denier...
Here are some sites that will point you to the archeological evidence that exists in israel. It in no way proves that the bible is wrong. However, there is some evidence that looks promising on the validity of the bible.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/israel-archaeology.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/mckenzie-david.html?_r=2
http://www.jewishchronicle.org/article.php?article_id=10882
https://www.amazines.com/article_detail.cfm/677542?articleid=677542&title=Hebrew%2Carchaeology%2CKing%2CDavid%2COld%2CTestament
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081121-biblical-city.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081103-hebrew-text_2.html
i've read the quran in original and translation. quite a boring book, i couldn't even finish it. pretty much all it does is refer back to the bible. so much for the differences between judaism and islam.
The Meaning of Life-
"Meaning" is emotional. Religious or other ideological concepts are the theme, the metaphor and the structure by which we organize and express it. Strip that and you are left with a shapeless vague blob for meaning, but if you had it before hopefully it will come back.
Post a Comment