Jewish Atheism

[shunyadragon]

I realize that. Why do you disagree?

Simply, I am not an atheist.

For instance, why don't you think that the idea that God listens to prayer suggests anthropomorphic characteristics of God?

God does not 'listen' in the anthropomorphic sense. In the Baha'i faith the answers are already in the writings and we pray and meditate for understanding the guidance provided.

God does not speak to humans as in the anthropomorphic sense that many if not most Christians believe.

 

[Fool]

Without biblical anthropomorphism we are left with the 'unmoved Mover' of the philosophers, without a 'personal' God. In what other way than the use of anthropomorphism could Israel hand on what they believed to be their experience of their God?

one that isn't separate from self. Hear 'o' israel the Lord is ONE.

ONE body

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Simply, I am not an atheist.

Relevance?

God does not 'listen' in the anthropomorphic sense.

If you're using the term "listen" to describe the process, then it's in the anthropomorphic sense.

In the Baha'i faith the answers are already in the writings and we pray and meditate for understanding the guidance provided.

The idea that God is "guiding" you is another example of an anthropomorphism, IMO.

God does not speak to humans as in the anthropomorphic sense that many if not most Christians believe.

Again: if you're using the term "speak" at all, then it's in the anthropomorphic sense.

To confirm my facts, I did a quick Googling of the Baha'i concept of God. What I found said that the Baha'i faith considers God to be a personal entity capable of love. Do you agree with this description?

 

[shunyadragon]

Relevance?

Simply a difference in belief.

If you're using the term "listen" to describe the process, then it's in the anthropomorphic sense.


The idea that God is "guiding" you is another example of an anthropomorphism, IMO.


Again: if you're using the term "speak" at all, then it's in the anthropomorphic sense.

To confirm my facts, I did a quick Googling of the Baha'i concept of God. What I found said that the Baha'i faith considers God to be a personal entity capable of love. Do you agree with this description?

My view of prayer and meditation is not listen and speaking or a dialogue in the Christian sense.

Actually not the topic of the thread, The topic is 'Jewish atheism.'

 

[shunyadragon]

one that isn't separate from self. Hear 'o' israel the Lord is ONE.

ONE body

No body

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Simply a difference in belief.

There are plenty of theists who even believe that their gods have taken human form.

My view of prayer and meditation is not listen and speaking or a dialogue in the Christian sense.

Actually not the topic of the thread, The topic is 'Jewish atheism.'

... which makes me wonder why you keep bringing up Christianity.

 

[Fool]

No body

sorry but yes, it has a formless body of it's own state of existence. otherwise it cannot exist. existence requires a state of being.

you're suggesting that it isn't? or doesn't exist?

 

[shunyadragon]

sorry but yes, it has a formless body of it's own state of existence. otherwise it cannot exist. existence requires a state of being.

you're suggesting that it isn't? or doesn't exist?

Sorry, but no.

Formless existence has no body by definition.

the apophatic understanding of God does not allow for attributing positive characteristics such as a 'body.' simply check your simple dictionary definition for 'body.'

This view only allows for negative statements as to what God is not. Such as God does not have a 'body,' nor a definable 'form.'

 

[shunyadragon]

There are plenty of theists who even believe that their gods have taken human form.

So what?!?!!?

... which makes me wonder why you keep bringing up Christianity.

As clearly stated for comparison concerning the history and origin of Jewish beliefs as opposed to the history and origin of Christian beliefs, I never made any argument nor assumption of the validity of these beliefs as a part of the discussion. The discussion was the nature and origin of Jewish atheism as a matter of fact of the history of the belief.

 

[Fool]

Sorry, but no.

Formless existence has no body by definition.

the apophatic understanding of God does not allow for attributing positive characteristics such as a 'body.' simply check your simple dictionary definition for 'body.'

This view only allows for negative statements as to what God is not. Such as God does not have a 'body,' nor a definable 'form.'

formless existence is an existence that isn't defined. in order to exist it has to be; so it takes the paradox of existing as no thing and not as nothing. its self generating, or self sustaining thing that has a body; which is not created, defined, or formed.

like the old idea of god being a circle; whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is know where.

same from dao. the tao that can be defined is not the tao but the tao exists. it isn't without substance, or a body, it's without limits, or a static form. its form is dynamic, or constant change.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what?!?!!?

You suggested that considering gods as anthropomorphic is something that only atheists do. I'm pointing out that not only do many theists give their gods human characteristics, but some actually put them in the form of human beings.

As clearly stated for comparison concerning the history and origin of Jewish beliefs as opposed to the history and origin of Christian beliefs, I never made any argument nor assumption of the validity of these beliefs as a part of the discussion. The discussion was the nature and origin of Jewish atheism as a matter of fact of the history of the belief.

So all that stuff about the Baha'i faith in your first post at the start of this tangent was off-topic?

 

[pearl]

This view only allows for negative statements as to what God is not. Such as God does not have a 'body,' nor a definable 'form.'

Nor a voice.

 

[shunyadragon]

You suggested that considering gods as anthropomorphic is something that only atheists do.

No.

I'm pointing out that not only do many theists give their gods human characteristics, but some actually put them in the form of human beings.

That is a given and not the subject of the thread.

So all that stuff about the Baha'i faith in your first post at the start of this tangent was off-topic?

No, just comparative belief, and not an argument to support one belief nor another.

 

[Grandliseur]

unsupported by objective verifiable evidence

That remains the question.

How do you react to the archaeological finds that do exist in Saudi Arabia, even Israel, the pillars of Solomon, demonstrating that the Exodus account has real physical remains?
Once I took the time, here on this site, to provide people with the Google Earth GPS locations for some of these things. This may be done again depending.

 

[shunyadragon]

That remains the question.

How do you react to the archaeological finds that do exist in Saudi Arabia, even Israel, the pillars of Solomon, demonstrating that the Exodus account has real physical remains?
Once I took the time, here on this site, to provide people with the Google Earth GPS locations for some of these things. This may be done again depending.

Off Topic. Need another thread to deal with this.

 

[blü 2]

So is atheism inherent if taken far enough? Ironic?

To quote from your linked article ─

if God were a composite, there would have to be a cause prior to God, which is absurd (GP 2. Intro., premise 21). For the same reason, God cannot be subsumed under a wider concept as man is subsumed under animal (GP 1.52). Once God fell under a genus, there would be something prior to or more inclusive than God, either of which is absurd. Without a genus or a minimal form of composition, there is no possibility of defining God and thus no possibility of saying what God is. Even superlatives are of no help. To say that God is the wisest or most powerful thing in the universe is still to subsume God under a wider description.
​

Which means that any discussion of 'God' would be about something no one can or does know anything about, earning the familiar rebuke, 'You have no idea what you're talking about.'

Which fits the data rather well.

 

[Fool]

To quote from your linked article ─

if God were a composite, there would have to be a cause prior to God, which is absurd (GP 2. Intro., premise 21). For the same reason, God cannot be subsumed under a wider concept as man is subsumed under animal (GP 1.52). Once God fell under a genus, there would be something prior to or more inclusive than God, either of which is absurd. Without a genus or a minimal form of composition, there is no possibility of defining God and thus no possibility of saying what God is. Even superlatives are of no help. To say that God is the wisest or most powerful thing in the universe is still to subsume God under a wider description.
​

Which means that any discussion of 'God' would be about something no one can or does know anything about, earning the familiar rebuke, 'You have no idea what you're talking about.'

Which fits the data rather well.

hermetics wouldn't agree with the whole article.

also as the quoter notes by stating God is the wisest, or most powerful thing in the universe separates thing from other things of the universe. the All, or Absolute, ceases to be all when it's assumed as a duality.

so i would agree that a person would have no idea of what they were talking about when they see the All as separate from self and the self as separate from the all.

a house divided against itself will fall.

“know yourself and you will win all battles”
― Sun Tzu

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War


He Who Knows Himself Knows His Lord | Sidi Muhammad Press

 

[Tumah]

Needs explanation and a coherent response. The difference in the evolution of Christianity and a literal Genesis based on early establishment of doctrine and dogma dependent on a literal Genesis is basic history. So is the reliance on Midrash in Judaism.

The development of the humanist naturalist intellectual view of Reconstruction Judaism in Europe in the 18th and 19th century based on the writings of Jewish intellectuals is also a matter of history.

Of course, considering your belief in Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, you would not agree with these views, but nonetheless it is not conjecture, and you need to back this simplistic assertion with references.

We are not dealing with the question of what is the true Jewish belief.

The direct interpretation of Scripture being the ancient way Jews interpreted Scripture as opposed to through Midrash is the point of contention. Whatever method early Christians or even Jewish Christians used for interpreting Scripture is not necessarily an indication of how early Jews who were not Christian interpreted Scripture. That there were Jews, proto-Christian or ignorant, who interpreted Genesis in a literal fashion, is not indication that there were no learned Jews who did not interpret Genesis in a literal fashion.

 

[shunyadragon]

The direct interpretation of Scripture being the ancient way Jews interpreted Scripture as opposed to through Midrash is the point of contention. Whatever method early Christians or even Jewish Christians used for interpreting Scripture is not necessarily an indication of how early Jews who were not Christian interpreted Scripture. That there were Jews, proto-Christian or ignorant, who interpreted Genesis in a literal fashion, is not indication that there were no learned Jews who did not interpret Genesis in a literal fashion.

At the time of Jesus Christ lived do you have any references that the Jews of the time did not interpret Genesis literally except for variations in the time frame.?

I believe the Talmud considered the Book of Genesis to be roughly literal and humanity descended from Adam. I also believe that by ~1100 AD and possibly earlier Jewish scholars were clearly moving away from a literal Genesis time frame. other issues as the literal decendent from from Adam as first human, and the flood, and more to allegorical interpretations of Genesis. Philo of Alexandra was the first to give up the literal seven day time frame, but the 6 day time frame is not the only way to consider Genesis literal. Some Jews and early Christians believed in both literal and allegorical interpretations of Genesis.

I was only using the Christianity comparison was to show some of the reasons for the difference in the evolving interpretation, and not remotely who was right or wrong. The fact that Christianity did not give up the literal interpretation of Genesis until very late and reluctantly with many if not most believers today still believing in a literal Genesis with varying time frames is because their doctrine and dogma was dependent on a literal Genesis.

 

[Tumah]

At the time of Jesus Christ lived do you have any references that the Jews of the time did not interpret Genesis literally except for variations in the time frame.?

I believe the Talmud considered the Book of Genesis to be roughly literal and humanity descended from Adam. I also believe that by ~1100 AD and possibly earlier Jewish scholars were clearly moving away from a literal Genesis time frame. other issues as the literal decendent from from Adam as first human, and the flood, and more to allegorical interpretations of Genesis. Philo of Alexandra was the first to give up the literal seven day time frame, but the 6 day time frame is not the only way to consider Genesis literal. Some Jews and early Christians believed in both literal and allegorical interpretations of Genesis.

I was only using the Christianity comparison was to show some of the reasons for the difference in the evolving interpretation, and not remotely who was right or wrong. The fact that Christianity did not give up the literal interpretation of Genesis until very late and reluctantly with many if not most believers today still believing in a literal Genesis with varying time frames is because their doctrine and dogma was dependent on a literal Genesis.

The fact that there doctrine is dependent on a literal Genesis only points to the fact that the people who fabricated their doctrine believed it so. If Christianity was representative of typical Jewish belief, we'd call it Judaism, not Christianity. I'm not even sure it's possible to use such an open phrase such as "Jewish belief" because it implies that all Jews were knowledgeable Sages and that is simply not true any more than it is in other religions. It's probably even less true because there was a much bigger gap between the learned and the ignorant in those days than there is today. We also know that there were a number of sects around the time in question with different beliefs.

That being said, I'm inclined to say that Pharisaic belief was the most widespread (or I should say adherence, as most were likely ignorant) and as the majority should represent Jewish belief of the time. Still, the authors of the NT don't seem to be that familiar with Pharisaic belief either. I've noted that the authors of the NT have Jesus argue against the purpose of the Sabbath rather than the logic behind prohibiting picking grains and mistakenly assume that it would be prohibited to supernaturally heal someone on the Sabbath because of a Rabbinic prohibition to heal on the Sabbath (that was never extended to supernatural means). It's almost as if they know what Pharisaic Jews do, but not why - as if they live among Pharisees and see what they do, but are not knowledgeable about the doctrine behind it. So I don't see it as a stretch at all to say that just because Christians believe something, doesn't mean that this is what knowledgeable Jews believed at some point.

As for the Talmud, the teaching of the Creation was considered a secret during Mishnaic times
:

One may not lecture on forbidden relations in front of three [students], and not on the act of Genesis (ie. Creation) in front of two and not on the Chariot in front of one unless he is wise...
- Mishnah​

It's hard to date something by when it was written or printed in Judaism, because we have a prohibition to write down the Oral Torah. The entire progression of the transcription of the parts of the Talmud reflect a hesitancy to write anything but the bare minimum to ensure perpetuation of the tradition. That applies even more so to secrets such as the Creation that were even hidden from initiates. I feel comfortable saying that the authors of the NT who did not receive the traditions of the Pharisees would have not known anything about the Pharisaic views of Genesis.