Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Yes, the poster must be careful to (1) NOT assume that God doesn't exist; (2) NOT assume that God doesn't have knowledge; (3) NOT assume that God doesn't grant this knowledge to humans; (4) NOT assume that some humans are incapable of understanding/using that knowledge; and (5) NOT assume the Torah is inaccurate.
The only reason why I accept the above assumptions as fact is because I used logic and reasoning to make my decision. Through the use of my intellect - not emotion - I have consciously concluded that God must exist and that the Torah is true.
As I've read these posts, I'm wondering if I'm getting what you all are saying. Is it that you are saying that believing in a creator takes faith and is not proven, but not believing does not take faith and is a proven logic? This is what I'm deducing from these posts. Am I wrong?
the concept of God is something that cannot be analyzed by using logic or science.
Your "text" refutes nothing. It contains only what the author(s) wrote down (and it has changed many times over the few thousand years this text has been around).
Quote:Your "text" refutes nothing. It contains only what the author(s) wrote down (and it has changed many times over the few thousand years this text has been around).
I would like to see evidence of this. As far as I'm aware one of the guiding principles of Jewish scribes was to copy the text faithfully. Any deviation from the original would be disposed of.
"it has changed many times over the few thousand years"
More on that subject, Evanman, you might find interesting - again, from my follower of the Torah friend:
Quote:"it has changed many times over the few thousand years"
Please support your claim that the Torah has changed. In return, I offer you this research, On the Text of the Torah, by Rabbi Gil Student, which traces the history of the Torah to the present day and concludes as follows.
"We began with the task of searching for evidence that the Torah we have is incorrect and to find methods of fixing it. However, we have not found convincing evidence that anything has been changed or omitted in the Torah text throughout history.... After tracing through the transmission of the Torah, we find that it has been preserved in an almost perfect form."
~ http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html
"Almost perfect form," meaning that a handful of individual letters have come into doubt. Literally, a handful of letters. Moreover, the nature of these letters is such that they do not change the meaning of the text. There is no exact parallel in English, but I'll offer this inexact example. In English, we pronounce "behavior" and "behaviour" exactly the same - and the two words mean exactly the same thing. The letter "u" does not change the phonetics or the meaning of the text. Likewise, the handful of doubtful letters in the present day Torah do not change either the phonetics or the meaning of the text.
The entire article is well worth the read, for anybody interested in the veracity of the present day Torah text.
Acheick wrote:As I've read these posts, I'm wondering if I'm getting what you all are saying. Is it that you are saying that believing in a creator takes faith and is not proven, but not believing does not take faith and is a proven logic? This is what I'm deducing from these posts. Am I wrong?
I'm sure everyone has their own take on this, but what I am saying is that the concept of God is something that cannot be analyzed by using logic or science.
When one applies the logic of science to the concept of God (as accepted by all religions) it will end up disproving that concept. And yet the existence of that concept is undeniable and has a tangible impact on society today.
Those who want to apply logic to religion are free to do so, but they should be aware of the fact that they are reasoning on an entirely different level of logic.
Your Jewish friend, for example, is using the logic native to his/her reality and religion to prove the existence of his/her reality ("The Torah is the Word of God because the Torah says it is"). This type of circular logic is what you get when you try to combine scientific and religious logic.
Does that help?
I have no doubt that a few millenia from now science and religion will both have evolved to form a seamless entity of their own. But that entity will be as different from our current sciences and religions as the sciences and religions of 2000 years ago are from today's.
I would like to see evidence of this. As far as I'm aware one of the guiding principles of Jewish scribes was to copy the text faithfully. Any deviation from the original would be disposed of.
That simple answer would be that God doesn't intervene, because there is no God.
God is a concept -- a concept that billions of people have accepted as a reality simply because it has been ever present since their birth. It cannot be proved nor disproved. It cannot be scientifically studied and analyzed nor can it be discounted as irrelavent.
Religion is simply what you get when people anthropomorphize that concept.
"...as if The Bible/Torah have been scientifically proven as fact. If that was indeed the case, then neither Judaism nor Christanity can be aptly called "faiths" as they would be based on indisputable facts that would be accepted by all."
"[Your friend's] reality is based on what they have been taught all their lives, and they experience everything through the filter of their faith"
"every answer should be based on what is right, not who is right. Inherently, religion is about who is right."
Acheick, your friend seems confident he has found all the answers he needs in his reality. He seems to believe that those answers apply to the rest of the world as well.
All his statements, while admirable attempts at logic, are all based on his religious perspective and do not address all religions.
He is conviced that "Judaism is about "what" is right - not "who" is right.".
I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps I know more about his religion than he does. Maybe all those debates with the Rabbis taught me something afterall.
One is a Christian, because one believes Jesus is right. One is Jewish because one believes Moses is right. One is Muslim because one believes Mohammed is right.
It all boils down to who's definition of 'right' is right, therefore essentially it is about who is right.
It is human nature to want to be right. It is human nature to want to have all the answers. I think it makes your friend feel good that he has or has access to the "right" answer for every question.
But in order to really discover what is right, one must abandon any preconceived ideas and be willing to accept that not every question has an answer.
Well, Walker, one thing for sure, I'm having an eye opener as to the way Judaism is followed and the different ways of looking at it.
My original interest in Judaism stemmed from my understanding that debate and questioning of their faith is highly encouraged. I thought this approach would lend itself well to keeping a religion based on independently verifiable facts.
In regards to religion, it is my hope, that I will be able to give my daughters the opportunity to create a reality for themselves that encompasses as broad a spectrum of religious faiths as possible. I believe that is the only way for them to better comprehend what the concept of God really is.[/[/quote]
This is the same as to how I felt with my children. I took them to my mother's church and gave them the opportunity to have the knowledge and left the rest up to them. Some have gone on with it, some have not or found other paths more to their liking. I would never insist on anything. I might suggest or encourage, but I feel that faith or a religious following is deeply personal and should be up to each individual to follow the path they chose. As long as they don't sacrifice virgins or something obviously wrong.
I think you are a very caring father and your daughters are very fortunate.
WalkerJ wrote:
That simple answer would be that God doesn't intervene, because there is no God.
God is a concept -- a concept that billions of people have accepted as a reality simply because it has been ever present since their birth. It cannot be proved nor disproved. It cannot be scientifically studied and analyzed nor can it be discounted as irrelavent.
Religion is simply what you get when people anthropomorphize that concept.
Well, I don't know what many people call God. To me God is the light. God is the creative energy of the universe - so on and so forth. If you think God is a man with a bear who is all powerful and punishes you and blesses you how he sees fit, then you may as well join the Family.
I do not think that is what God is. Ever read the Tao? Ever take a look at how some other parts of the world see God? I find it quite interesting.
My point is this: Human transcribers are many orders of magnitude less accurate than DNA polymerase III. Do you really expect me to believe the Torah--as transcribed by humans, spread across the Mediterranean, and over millennia--has no noticeable and, by statistical probability, important mistakes? I am not taking about leaving out a "u" here-and-there; I am taking about entire words, phrases, and even whole sections of text.
The meaning of words change over time (see: etymology) and often dramatically. The entire job of the Supreme Court in any modern democracy is to interpret a constitution. That is, they try to figure out what the original authors meant by a statement (and even a single word). In the US, for an example, their constitution is only around 230 years old and, yet, they have heated debates over what the original authors meant.
"Human transcribers are many orders of magnitude less accurate than DNA polymerase III"
"Do you really expect me to believe the Torah--as transcribed by humans, spread across the Mediterranean, and over millennia--has no noticeable and, by statistical probability, important mistakes? I am not taking about leaving out a 'u' here-and-there; I am taking about entire words, phrases, and even whole sections of text."
The meaning of words change over time... None of the above even factors in the intentions of the individual scribes over the thousands of years. Each could have introduced their own bias when transcribing (really "translating") the Torah . . . whether intentional or not."