- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 33,988
- Reaction score
- 14,478
I knew I was using verses of the Hebrew Bible you ass. You were the fool who did not realize they were the Prohpets not the Torah,
YOU are a Biblical illiterate.
You know no theology.
You have not read the Bible.
You are a baby Christian.
I know the Bible 50 time better than you do. AND I'm smart enought to know it is Bull ****. You are almost brain dead.
Come on out of the Matrix dude.
http://www.ex-christian.net/
I'd hate to wade into anything here... nah actually, why not?
Okay, first of all, "Torah" is used in a variety of ways. Most narrowly, it's considered the first five books of Moses; it is also used as a synonym for "TANAKH," an abbreviation for "Torah/Navi'im/Ketuvim", which Christians think of (after some rearrangement, etc.), as the "Old Testament." Literally, "Torah" means "instruction;" hence, the tradition in Judaism that there is a written Torah and an oral Torah, handed down generation to generation. This last belief strongly influenced the claims to legitimacy of Chasidism in general, and Kaballah in particular (much of which takes as a founding premise, the existence of this oral Torah.)
So to upbraid someone for "not knowing" that something appears in the prophets not in the "Torah," is really a definitional quibble. The prophets are in the Torah, by many broader definitions (whereas they are the Nevi'im by the definition that gave rise to the acronym TANAKH.)
I've gone on regarding historical ("higher") criticism on other threads, and on still others, I've attempted to explain the value of questioning what one doesn't know, rather than claiming to know it.
I believe, for my part, that such questioning within my own tradition must be done with respect; for I have not jettisoned belief, as has Grogan. From what I do know, what I have questioned and examined, Grogan's response is as legitimate as a religious response, not more so and not less so. There is no conclusive labratory evidence for or against the hypothesized Almighty, after all, and in the absence of such conclusive evidence, we must make a leap of faith to be either atheist or religious.
A man who accepts scientific method unquestioningly as the only legitimate form of inquiry, can defend the position of Atheism as not a leap of faith; however, the moment one says that scientific method is one very good and very specialized mode of inquiry, rather than the ultimate, Atheism becomes a leap of faith as well (this rather hinges on burden of proof; but that's beyond the scope of this post.)
As regard the writings Grogan is so fond of going after, I do not discuss them in detail here, precisely because that is a sure way to have one's faith ridiculed. If that is what one desires, one issues challenges to disputations. I do not do this.
Grogan takes the scriptures as historical accounts, on face value; or as quasi-historical accounts, little non-historical encapsulations of theology (which is perhaps closer to the truth.)
I look at the scriptures as having an historical dimension, which, with much painstaking attention, can be sifted through. The scriptures were written by and for men. Like Grogan, for instance, I do not think God sends beasts to rip apart children who called a prophet "baldy." Unlike Grogan, however, I see the scriptures as a patchwork of stories, chronicles, poetry, and other forms comprising the literature of an ancient culture -- that is, my own culture, at its roots.
And whereas Christianity's and Islam's classics were composed with an overarching religiosity in mind, the TANAKH came into being over the span of about a thousand years (about the length of time it took Rome to rise and fall, for a comparison.) More, depending how you're counting. The point here is, these texts are a collection of types of work, each displaying authorship, intent, political agenda, date of authorship, etc.
These works were not written the afternoon before Jesus was born, in order to set the stage for his drama. They were not written, at the time of their writing, in order to enforce one or another theology. They are in many cases pre-existent works or "traditions" originally divorced from their ultimate "morals" in the Jewish tradition -- and within that tradition, the moral of each is ultimately debateable, even among the orthodox.
The discussions treating these works as theological statements, or part of the machinery of salvation in the Christian model, are alien to the believing Jew's ear, although I do respect the Christian uses of pre-existent materials. After all, that is exactly what I have just discussed vis a vis Jewish use of preexistent materials.
Similarly, the idea that one is getting a very valuable view of these scriptures if one only attends to their worst (to the modern eye) difficulties, is errant. There is more to study in the TANAKH than its "deficiencies," if one takes Jewish scripture as a snapshot. It is quite simply not a snapshot, but a tapestry.
There is a story that Hillel is approached by a pagan, who tells him to explain Judaism standing on one foot.
Hillel says "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your neighbor. All the rest is commentary. Now go and study."
Supposedly the pagan converts, but after a long, long time. That's probably the pace I'd like to see conversions proceed on, so there's time for that "go and study" bit.
Grogan, I've written before that asking questions puts you on the right track; I will say to you, as I say of myself and of 3tob4, that being triumphantly satisfied with one's answers, is as intellectually dangerous as never asking the questions. I am not certain this will permeate for you, and I'm pretty sure it never really has for 3toB, but there it is.
From a Jewish perspective, as I've said before, one's very identity is wrapped up in "struggle with God" (Yisra'el.) It is not a problematic stage of progression before one finds peaceful acceptance and harmonious arrangement of all the ragged details of life and religion. Struggle is the point, to ask the next question, and question the answer, etc. One can lose faith, but basic to Judaism -- basic enough that it's even assumed, from the Garden onward -- one can not really lose curiosity.
I have heard that one feature of "Heaven" in some folk descriptions, is that your questions are all answered.
If the answers are definitive, I think they might be thinking of Hell. Huh. Come to think of it, maybe it's the same place.
PFnV