Religions

[Mia]

It is sad to read this and as you know it has happened in England as well.These people tend to take their faith to the extreem.Their own pride comes before any love for their child.This is something that the West will never understand or condone..I feel for these young girls who are forced to marry,maybe in time the old way will die out,as the younger Moslim community raise their own children.

[spot]

Why do you call those circumstances religious, Stardust? I'd interpret them as cultural. If you compare the two articles you referenced, Der Spiegel's is a typical newspaper magazine view with the loose language and bias you'd expect from a profit-making populist muck-stirrer. The Amnesty article makes not the slightest suggestion that religion is a factor in the problem it describes, it relates cultural attitudes in Pakistan. I know which I'd trust to be better researched.

Describing honor killings as an aspect of Muslim life rather than as an aspect of Turkish life doesn't stand scrutiny. There are large Muslim populations whose culture doesn't include honor killings - Indonesia, for example, has more Muslims than any other country on earth but honor killings aren't part of life there. Honor killings do happen in non-Muslim communities in Turkey, though. In the setting of the article, it's a Turkish phenomenon being labeled a Muslim effect by writers inflaming a story to sell more copies.

[Ted]

Stardust:-6

Spot is quite correct on that. It is a cultural issue that pervades much of the east. Cultures do change but slowly.

All of the great faiths of the world began with the same tenets; justice and kindness. In every faith there are extremists not just in Islam. Christians have them as do Hindus etc. Consider the horrors of Iraq. This does not represent Islam but is purely political as were the difficulties in Ireland. Religion can be used to justify just about anything if one wants to twist it and mutilate it.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

Stardust:-6

That vicar was absolutely out of line. Judgment is God's alone and not any human being.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[double helix]

Ted;680777 wrote: Stardust:-6

Spot is quite correct on that. It is a cultural issue that pervades much of the east. Cultures do change but slowly.

All of the great faiths of the world began with the same tenets; justice and kindness. In every faith there are extremists not just in Islam. Christians have them as do Hindus etc. Consider the horrors of Iraq. This does not represent Islam but is purely political as were the difficulties in Ireland. Religion can be used to justify just about anything if one wants to twist it and mutilate it.

Shalom

Ted:-6
While I agree that Islam, Christianiy and Judeism carry those tenets I am curious as to which 'GREAT" religions other than these began with the tenets of Justice and kindness. Surely non of the ancient ones prior to these. Please enlighten me.

[spot]

double helix;684513 wrote: While I agree that Islam, Christianiy and Judeism carry those tenets I am curious as to which 'GREAT" religions other than these began with the tenets of Justice and kindness. Surely non of the ancient ones prior to these. Please enlighten me.


Here's a possible list of all the Great religions:

Christianity (1900 million) 27 AD

Islam (1100 million) 610 AD

Hinduism (781 million) 15th century BC

Buddhism (324 million) 6th century BC

Sikhism (19 million) 1469 AD

Judaism (14 million) 20th century BC

Bahá'í Faith (6.1 million) 19th century AD

Confucianism (5.3 million) 6th century BC

Jainism (4.9 million) 6th century BC

Shinto (2.8 million) 3rd century BC

Judaism's the oldest of them all on that list, so what's available as an ancient Great religion prior to Judaism that we could consider as a possible answer to your question?

Or is this list of Great religions incompete?

[double helix]

spot;684518 wrote: Here's a possible list of all the Great religions:

Christianity (1900 million) 27 AD

Islam (1100 million) 610 AD

Hinduism (781 million) 15th century BC

Buddhism (324 million) 6th century BC

Sikhism (19 million) 1469 AD

Judaism (14 million) 20th century BC

Bahá'í Faith (6.1 million) 19th century AD

Confucianism (5.3 million) 6th century BC

Jainism (4.9 million) 6th century BC

Shinto (2.8 million) 3rd century BC

Or is this list of Great religions incomplete?


So, if Judaism began in 2000 BC...it would be the oldest one to have those tenets. Not Greek religions, not Roman nor Egyptian which all espoused the will of the gods, death, afterlife and for some rebirth.

I would suggest it was Judaism, Hellenise through its exposure to Greek Politics and law, that first embraced the tenets of justice and kindness. In fact I would suggest that it is from Judaism's foundations that Democracy was developed.

Prior to Judaism, what montheistic religion was there?

[double helix]

Zoroastrianism? Still practiced by some in Pakistan. The worship of the Sun monothisisticly, yes, but with several other characters (minor gods) playing bit parts. Similar, yes, to Christianity, but not so to Judeism and in no way just or kind.

[spot]

double helix;684526 wrote: So, if Judaism began in 2000 BC...it would be the oldest one to have those tenets. Not Greek religions, not Roman nor Egyptian which all espoused the will of the gods, death, afterlife and for some rebirth.

I would suggest it was Judaism, Hellenise through its exposure to Greek Politics and law, that first embraced the tenets of justice and kindness. In fact I would suggest that it is from Judaism's foundations that Democracy was developed.

Prior to Judaism, what montheistic religion was there?
Akhenaten, 13th century BC, Egypt, and he didn't exactly leave a lot of writing behind to interpret him with. I call that "prior to" since I don't date Judaism to the 20th century BC, we've agreed to differ over that.

What utterly baffles me is this notion you have that Judaism ever, remotely, even slightly, embraced the tenets of justice and kindness. Where does that come from? You keep asserting things as though they're obviously and apparently and unchallengably true and as far as I'm concerned they're an inversion of reality. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

When you've done that you might like to provide even one small association between Judaism's foundations and Democracy, as obscure as you like.

[spot]

double helix;684528 wrote: Zoroastrianism? Still practiced by some in Pakistan. The worship of the Sun monothisisticly, yes, but with several other characters (minor gods) playing bit parts. Similar, yes, to Christianity, but not so to Judeism and in no way just or kind.


That's a thousand years younger - 9th/10th century BC.

[gmc]

spot;684518 wrote: Here's a possible list of all the Great religions:

Christianity (1900 million) 27 AD

Islam (1100 million) 610 AD

Hinduism (781 million) 15th century BC

Buddhism (324 million) 6th century BC

Sikhism (19 million) 1469 AD

Judaism (14 million) 20th century BC

Bahá'í Faith (6.1 million) 19th century AD

Confucianism (5.3 million) 6th century BC

Jainism (4.9 million) 6th century BC

Shinto (2.8 million) 3rd century BC

Judaism's the oldest of them all on that list, so what's available as an ancient Great religion prior to Judaism that we could consider as a possible answer to your question?

Or is this list of Great religions incompete?


Confucianism isn't a religion but rather a philosophical system.

The list is probably incomplete since one thing that is different about judaism is that it was written down in a language that survived.

posted by double helix

While I agree that Islam, Christianiy and Judeism carry those tenets I am curious as to which 'GREAT" religions other than these began with the tenets of Justice and kindness. Surely non of the ancient ones prior to these. Please enlighten me.




Monotheist religions by their very nature lacking intolerant of those who do not follow their religion. The god of judaism is hardly a cuddly figure-there should be no god but me. Indeed the old testament is full of what to do about unbelievers.

On the other hand justice and kindness is a good survival tactic for any group. Far from being exceptional is was probably a commonplace practice. The notion that suddenly we all became civilised thanks to Christianity is an absurd one.

posted by double helix

In fact I would suggest that it is from Judaism's foundations that Democracy was developed.


Monotheism is by it's nature hierarchical so societies with one god tend to be hierarchical with the leaders anointed by god-divine right of kings and all that. Each man in his place ordained by god rich man poor man the good lord made them all. More to the point questioning that order is blasphemy and against god.

democracy, republic, the concept of individual freedom are all pagan in origin and owe nothing to Judaism.

posted by spot

What utterly baffles me is this notion you have that Judaism ever, remotely, even slightly, embraced the tenets of justice and kindness. Where does that come from? You keep asserting things as though they're obviously and apparently and unchallengably true and as far as I'm concerned they're an inversion of reality. Just saying it doesn't make it so.


We must be cross posting. I'm in shock now as I find myself in agreement with you.

[double helix]

spot;684529 wrote: Akhenaten, 13th century BC, Egypt, and he didn't exactly leave a lot of writing behind to interpret him with. I call that "prior to" since I don't date Judaism to the 20th century BC, we've agreed to differ over that.

What utterly baffles me is this notion you have that Judaism ever, remotely, even slightly, embraced the tenets of justice and kindness. Where does that come from? You keep asserting things as though they're obviously and apparently and unchallengably true and as far as I'm concerned they're an inversion of reality. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

When you've done that you might like to provide even one small association between Judaism's foundations and Democracy, as obscure as you like.
Akhenaten, did he not establish a religion that worshiped the Sun as the only god, giver of life to all things and death. And did this religion not collapse due in most part to Akhenatens son, or Wife asserting they were the Sun and the Moon and thus the God, or some such events.

Your list states 20th century BC, so is that not 2000 BC?

It all started during the last of three wars with Rome. A Rabbi ben Zakkai, slipped out of besieged Jerusalem and begged the Roman General to grant him one wish, after predicting the General would become Cesar. Rabbi ben Zakkai and his successors formed a Jewish monastery, keeping alive the Jewish beliefs.

Over a thousand years these Jewish teachings became the Jewish Talmudic Code. This code keep the Jewish faith alive and passed on the teachings to all Jews in every known country.

Among this code is the foundations of justice and kindness, judicial fairness and legalities that are used with our own highest courts today.

To name a few of the kindnesses, All Jewish communities with120 males or more formed there own Court, they must begin self imposed taxes of which to be used to build schools and for charity as well as to keep the Jewish community self-supportive.

Every community was responsible for a school system the provided universal education, free to the fatherless, orphans and all needy, not just Jews. All teachers must be paid well. No member of the community could go hungry. From these customs stems the modern Jewish custom of always taking care of its own needy, a Cardinal principal of all Jews everywhere.

Also, Jewish law stipulates that a portion of taxes collected must be given in charity to the well being of peoples outside the Jewish faith, to any man who demanded it and to the local community. All Jewish doctors must provide care for any man who asks, or is in need of it.

All Jews were/are required to follow the laws of the country in which they live, and to fight in the military of said country even if it means fighting against Jews on the other side. These laws allowed the Jewish people to maintain their Jewish faith and their nationality of the country they lived in.

Is this not Separation of Church and State.

According to Jewish law at the time of Christs Crucifixion and since, no one could be arrested in the night, tried on the sabbath, or accused without cause. Two or more witnesses must be brought against a defendant and the defendant assumed innocent until proven guilty, and then appeal must be given to the general public for evidence that would provide exoneration even as the defendant was led to his judgment.

Is innocent until proven guilty, right to trial and to appeal not the foundation of our democratic judicial laws?

There is more, like the Jews were the first to require education for all, recognise the rights of women and children and to espouse fairness and justice in judicial and social matters. They allowed conversion through history, could deny no one out of prejudice and became the scholars, teachers, doctors and lawyers of every community they resided in.



Plus they were the only religion that developed a portable God. One that dwells within and is remembered in every tradition and prayer.

[spot]

double helix;684537 wrote: There is more, like the Jews were the first to require education for all, recognise the rights of women and children and to espouse fairness and justice in judicial and social matters. They allowed conversion throuh history, denied no one out of predjidice and became the scollars, teachers, doctors and lawyers of every community they resided in.

Plus they were the only religion that developed a portable God. One that dwells within and is rememberd in every tradition and prayer.Christ on a bicycle, DH, there's not one word of that which I'd acknowledge to be true. You're saying all of this without the least attempt at referencing any justification whatever. I simply don't believe any of this. Where, anywhere, do you find anyone else saying it? Who told you that "the Jews were the first to require education for all", for example? You can't just announce it and think the mere announcement makes it a fact. I can see, absolutely, that if it were a fact then your original claims would be instantly and obviously true. I think you've invented these "facts" in order to make your claim seem reasonable. It's wish-fulfillment on a huge scale. It has nothing to prop it up, you're building your position on sand. By all means show me someone with authority making the same statement and I'll apologise immediately for my ignorance.

They allowed conversion through history? What does that mean? They allowed Jews to become non-Jews throughout history? Nonsense. They allowed non-Jews to become Jews throughout history? Equally nonsense. Which are you trying to claim?

Every single instance in your last post is post-Christianity, by the way. If you want to demonstrate claims about Judaism, as opposed to the Talmudic tradition, you'll need to demonstrate that the claim covers the pre-Talmudic period as well.

Your list states 20th century BC, so is that not 2000 BC?I was responding to your question about "what predates this", I obviously put your date into the list. As I've explained elsewhere, I'd settle for the 6th century BC as the foundation of Judaism, and I gave my reasons and a supporting reference.

[double helix]

spot;684543 wrote: Christ on a bicycle, DH, there's not one word of that which I'd acknowledge to be true. You're saying all of this without the least attempt at referencing any justification whatever. I simply don't believe any of this. Where, anywhere, do you find anyone else saying it? Who told you that "the Jews were the first to require education for all", for example? You can't just announce it and think the mere announcement makes it a fact. I can see, absolutely, that if it were a fact then your original claims would be instantly and obviously true. I think you've invented these "facts" in order to make your claim seem reasonable. It's wish-fulfillment on a huge scale. It has nothing to prop it up, you're building your position on sand. By all means show me someone with authority making the same statement and I'll apologise immediately for my ignorance.

They allowed conversion through history? What does that mean? They allowed Jews to become non-Jews throughout history? Nonsense. They allowed non-Jews to become Jews throughout history? Equally nonsense. Which are you trying to claim?

Every single instance in your last post is post-Christianity, by the way. If you want to demonstrate claims about Judaism, as opposed to the Talmudic tradition, you'll need to demonstrate that the claim covers the pre-Talmudic period as well.


Im sorry, did you want me to google links for you. I am quoting from the text of a book, the one I first posted about called "Jews, God and History." written by Max I Dimont. Second edition. There are seven and a half pages of referances, do you want me to list them all?

Perhaps just a few then? ABRAHMS, ISREAL: Jewish life in the Middle Ages, AUSUBEL, NATHAN: Pictorial History of the Jewish People, BARON, SALO: Social and Religious History of the Jewish People, are you getting the picture? One more perhaps, and that should keep you busy googling for a while. FINKELSTEIN, LOUIS: The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion.

[double helix]

spot;684543 wrote: Christ on a bicycle, DH, there's not one word of that which I'd acknowledge to be true. You're saying all of this without the least attempt at referencing any justification whatever. I simply don't believe any of this. Where, anywhere, do you find anyone else saying it? Who told you that "the Jews were the first to require education for all", for example? You can't just announce it and think the mere announcement makes it a fact. I can see, absolutely, that if it were a fact then your original claims would be instantly and obviously true. I think you've invented these "facts" in order to make your claim seem reasonable. It's wish-fulfillment on a huge scale. It has nothing to prop it up, you're building your position on sand. By all means show me someone with authority making the same statement and I'll apologise immediately for my ignorance.

They allowed conversion through history? What does that mean? They allowed Jews to become non-Jews throughout history? Nonsense. They allowed non-Jews to become Jews throughout history? Equally nonsense. Which are you trying to claim?

Every single instance in your last post is post-Christianity, by the way. If you want to demonstrate claims about Judaism, as opposed to the Talmudic tradition, you'll need to demonstrate that the claim covers the pre-Talmudic period as well.

I was responding to your question about "what predates this", I obviously put your date into the list. As I've explained elsewhere, I'd settle for the 6th century BC as the foundation of Judaism, and I gave my reasons and a supporting reference.
No, all are pre Christianity asside from the ref. to "at the time of Christs crusifiction".

Pre-Talmudic, really. lol. Yes, well I think if you google those referances and the Author of the book I am quoting, you may discover your mistake. The Talmud came about over a thousand years, was developed to bring the scattered people of Isreal some identity and formulate a unity among all Jewish peoples of every country.

And yes they allowed conversion of non-Jews into Jews and intermarriage up to the last great war with Rome. The genocide that followed decimated the Jewish peoples and scattered them to the four corners of the world as slaves and refugees. Thus Rabbi's realized, as the Jewish people interbread with the people of the lands they were tossed into, and as different sects of Jewish people developed, they would lose the original Jewish teachings. So the laws were changed from shortly before Christ was born and on, that Jew must marry Jew.

[spot]

double helix;684546 wrote: Im sorry, did you want me to google links for you. I am quoting from the text of a book, the one I first posted about called "Jews, God and History." written by Max I Dimont. Second edition. There are seven and a half pages of referances, do you want me to list them all?

Perhaps just a few then? ABRAHMS, ISREAL: Jewish life in the Middle Ages, AUSUBEL, NATHAN: Pictorial History of the Jewish People, BARON, SALO: Social and Religious History of the Jewish People, are you getting the picture? One more perhaps, and that should keep you busy googling for a while. FINKELSTEIN, LOUIS: The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion.


Then what you're quoting from is not in the same context as the thread. Okay, if you want me to take each one apart one at a time then that's what I'll do. Not a single one of those claims of yours is an accurate description of Judaism, and you're giving me nothing whatever to find out what each of your claims is actually trying to say.

So let's start with "They allowed conversion through history". What does that mean? They allowed Jews to become non-Jews throughout history? Nonsense. They allowed non-Jews to become Jews throughout history? Equally nonsense. Which are you trying to claim?

Jews were always allowed to become non-Jews? Have a glance through http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/berlinerblau1.htm at the plagues, boils, wrath and mayhem meted out to those Jews who chose to be "a rebellious brood, steadfastly ignoring Torah, worshiping under every green tree and whoring after foreign gods". The old testament was awash with the blood of dead Jews who tried to worship other gods.

Non-Jews are always allowed to become Jews? Have a quick glance through http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editle ... artid=5002 for a hint of how impossible people find that this year. Have a guess what chance a West-Bank Palestinian has if he requests recognition that he has converted to being a Jew.

I hate to have to pick stuff apart in this detail but you're hiding behind "I read it in a book" - all I can do is show each statement to be nothing to do with Judaism.

[spot]

double helix;684551 wrote: No, all are pre Christianity asside from the ref. to "at the time of Christs crusifiction".

Pre-Talmudic, really. lol. Yes, well I think if you google those referances and the Author of the book I am quoting, you may discover your mistake. The Talmud came about over a thousand years, was developed to bring the scattered people of Isreal some identity and formulate a unity among all Jewish peoples of every country.

And yes they allowed conversion of non-Jews into Jews and intermarriage up to the last great war with Rome. The genocide that followed decimated the Jewish peoples and scattered them to the four corners of the world as slaves and refugees. Thus Rabbi's realized, as the Jewish people interbread with the people of the lands they were tossed into, and as different sects of Jewish people developed, they would lose the original Jewish teachings. So the laws were changed from shortly before Christ was born and on, that Jew must marry Jew.


You began that post with "It all started during the last of three wars with Rome" - 69 to 72 AD. Everything you describe develops from that, you said. That's all post-Christianity in my book. I'm trying hard to keep track of what you're saying but you don't seem to have much grasp of that yourself. "The Talmud came about over a thousand years", yes. From the fall of Jerusalem. After the start of Christianity. How do you make any of this pre-Christian??

And "They allowed conversion through history" now reduces to "except for the last 2000 years"? Where's the solid floor of this discussion? What on earth does "through history" mean if it excludes the last 2000 years?

[spot]

double helix;684537 wrote: There is more, like the Jews were the first to require education for all.


Here we go - education for all. Who and when were these "Jews were the first to require education for all"? Does "all" mean both sexes or just boys, out of interest? What age group did it cover?

What I have initially, to compare it with, is:

The pre-Columbian Aztecs required all male children to attend school until the age of 16: "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus", Charles Mann.

Scotland required all "children of freeholders and nobles" to attend school, from 1496.

I don't want to look further because you might, for example, be refering to the Deuteronomic requirement of the Torah that every father teach his boys the Deuteronomic requirements of the Torah. I don't, myself, regard that as education.

If you can give an instance of a Judaic demand to "recognise the rights of women and children and to espouse fairness and justice in judicial and social matters" I can again compare it with appropriate material. I have absolutely no idea whether you mean 19th century, 10th century or 1st century here. It's just too broad to be meaningful. Whatever it is, in my opinion the word "Judaic" refers specifically to practices instituted from the time of the Return from Exile onward. If it only came in with the exposition and application of the Talmud after the 10th century AD then that's better described as Talmudic tradition, not Judaic. It's why we have words, so we can be precise with them.

You follow it with a strange assertion that there's a Judaic commitment that "denied no one out of prejudice". It has to be based on some original statement but I can't work it out blind. From my point of view the old testament is packed from start to finish with Judaic insistence that God's Chosen people deny things to the rest of the world and that they be prejudiced in favour of their own. The Talmudic schools which you may or may not have been discussing were for Jews, orphans and the needy. The "orphans and the needy" bit is from the Torah, the "Jews" bit seems fairly like prejudiced denial to me. Do you see my problem, fishing around your vague claims with no focus to latch on to?

[Ted]

Wow! Go away for a few days and look what happens.

Where to start?

Karen Armstrong in her book "The Great Transformation" shows that back as far as 4500 BCE we see the rise of a recognition of the need for justice and kindness and that all of the great faiths began on this premise, including Confusionism which may or may not be classed as a religion.

In the book "The Birth of Christianity" by J. D. Crossan a world renowned and recognized as the premier Jesus scholar shows that up to and including the time of Jesus there was not one Judaism but many. This is also supported by Gerstenberger's book "Theologies of the Old Testament" and J. Meek in "Hebrew Origins".

Here I would like to address the whole issue of the origins of the Hebrew people. According to both M. Fox and J. D. Crossan as well as Finkelstein and Silberman there was no massive invasion of Hebrew people into Canaan. The story of the Exodus is a myth arising out of the expuslion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta. There is not one shred of evidence for the Exodus as written. Also supported by the Naked Archaeologist on a program on the Exodus. None of this however, negates the truths to be found in the ancient myths. The stories were created to tell a truth and that they do.

The Old Testament was finally compiled from oral tradition, including at least three different traditions, during the Babylonian exile. This is support in "The Bible Unearthed", Finkelstein and Silberman and by Crossan in lectures he delivered during during a course at the Vancouver School of Theology as well as in the "One Volume Commentary on the Bible".

Another mistake that is made today is to say that God is God and Allah and Vishnu, and the Great Spirit are something different. This also includes the sun. God has a thousand names and probably there are as many concepts of God as their are humans to accept the reality of God. All of mankind, a general statement, are searching for the one Ultimate Reality. Our names for God and our concepts are all of a metaphorical nature because the Divine is simply beyond definition or description by any language.

The very concept of monotheism has its own problems because it sets up a duality rather than a unity and as spot has so well shown, all kinds of animosities and prejudices and ridiculous claims to having a handle on the one true God. Panentheism is a much better approach than theism since it creates a unity as opposed to a duality.

Reading the OT is not as easy as picking it up and reading it if one is at all thinking in Christian terms. The OT must be read in light of the NT. Since we, as Christians, see in Jesus a true manifestation of God, at least as far as humanly possible we must consider many of the stories in the OT based on what we see in the stories of Jesus. For example in Num 31 God apparently not only condones but encourages and even commands war crimes.

The book by Gerstenberger, "Theologies in the Old Testament" shows a clear development from polytheism to monotheism that is to be found in the OT.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[spot]

I'm glad you mentioned Karen Armstrong, Ted. The two books of hers I read around Christmas are both relevant to the questions here, though saying "go and read these books" isn't an option in a forum thread.

* A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (1993)

* The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (2000)

They're startlingly good and readable.

[double helix]

spot;684553 wrote: Then what you're quoting from is not in the same context as the thread. Okay, if you want me to take each one apart one at a time then that's what I'll do. Not a single one of those claims of yours is an accurate description of Judaism, and you're giving me nothing whatever to find out what each of your claims is actually trying to say.

So let's start with "They allowed conversion through history". What does that mean? They allowed Jews to become non-Jews throughout history? Nonsense. They allowed non-Jews to become Jews throughout history? Equally nonsense. Which are you trying to claim?

Jews were always allowed to become non-Jews? Have a glance through http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/berlinerblau1.htm at the plagues, boils, wrath and mayhem meted out to those Jews who chose to be "a rebellious brood, steadfastly ignoring Torah, worshiping under every green tree and whoring after foreign gods". The old testament was awash with the blood of dead Jews who tried to worship other gods.

Non-Jews are always allowed to become Jews? Have a quick glance through http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editle ... artid=5002 for a hint of how impossible people find that this year. Have a guess what chance a West-Bank Palestinian has if he requests recognition that he has converted to being a Jew.

I hate to have to pick stuff apart in this detail but you're hiding behind "I read it in a book" - all I can do is show each statement to be nothing to do with Judaism.


Then, stop acting like a jerk and picking things apart. Anyone on here can google the book title, the authors that I did give as part of the bibliography and know that its a legitimate history book by a legitimate author who used SEVEN PAGES of historical resources to write the book. Your trying to say you know more then SEVEN PAGES of historical writings by multiple experts while trying to rely on the questionable resource of "The Bible" and the "Torah" both collections of writings Historians have proven was culled, edited, and reworded to fit the authors of the times intent. Do you even realise that whole sections of biblical writings were left out of both the Torah and Christian Bible? Do you even comprehend the massive manipulation religion is? That its not about God, but about controlling people, nations, politics.

Now, having said that let me add this. You are one stupid turtle. Thats S. T. U. P. I. D. as in what a complete idot you are with your head so far inside your shell you've lost touch with the real world.

That aside, spot, what was the last non-fiction piece of writing you have read? Just out of curiosity. And, no, you can't include Wikipedia.

[double helix]

Ted;684916 wrote: Wow! Go away for a few days and look what happens.

Where to start?

Karen Armstrong in her book "The Great Transformation" shows that back as far as 4500 BCE we see the rise of a recognition of the need for justice and kindness and that all of the great faiths began on this premise, including Confusionism which may or may not be classed as a religion.

In the book "The Birth of Christianity" by J. D. Crossan a world renowned and recognized as the premier Jesus scholar shows that up to and including the time of Jesus there was not one Judaism but many. This is also supported by Gerstenberger's book "Theologies of the Old Testament" and J. Meek in "Hebrew Origins".

Here I would like to address the whole issue of the origins of the Hebrew people. According to both M. Fox and J. D. Crossan as well as Finkelstein and Silberman there was no massive invasion of Hebrew people into Canaan. The story of the Exodus is a myth arising out of the expuslion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta. There is not one shred of evidence for the Exodus as written. Also supported by the Naked Archaeologist on a program on the Exodus. None of this however, negates the truths to be found in the ancient myths. The stories were created to tell a truth and that they do.

The Old Testament was finally compiled from oral tradition, including at least three different traditions, during the Babylonian exile. This is support in "The Bible Unearthed", Finkelstein and Silberman and by Crossan in lectures he delivered during during a course at the Vancouver School of Theology as well as in the "One Volume Commentary on the Bible".

Another mistake that is made today is to say that God is God and Allah and Vishnu, and the Great Spirit are something different. This also includes the sun. God has a thousand names and probably there are as many concepts of God as their are humans to accept the reality of God. All of mankind, a general statement, are searching for the one Ultimate Reality. Our names for God and our concepts are all of a metaphorical nature because the Divine is simply beyond definition or description by any language.

The very concept of monotheism has its own problems because it sets up a duality rather than a unity and as spot has so well shown, all kinds of animosities and prejudices and ridiculous claims to having a handle on the one true God. Panentheism is a much better approach than theism since it creates a unity as opposed to a duality.

Reading the OT is not as easy as picking it up and reading it if one is at all thinking in Christian terms. The OT must be read in light of the NT. Since we, as Christians, see in Jesus a true manifestation of God, at least as far as humanly possible we must consider many of the stories in the OT based on what we see in the stories of Jesus. For example in Num 31 God apparently not only condones but encourages and even commands war crimes.

The book by Gerstenberger, "Theologies in the Old Testament" shows a clear development from polytheism to monotheism that is to be found in the OT.

Shalom

Ted:-6


I enjoyed your post very much.

In RE: to the OT and NT, historians have stated more than naught, that stories of both books are contradictory. That is, the times, events and sequence does not jive on book to another.

Also, histories, admitted or proven through research, have been altered, omitted, or reworded to better attain the religious bodies intent.

I am concerned too, that I keep hearing eastern Philosophies proclaimed religions. Buddhism, Tao, Confucianism, all Eastern Philosophies have their own rich histories un-entwined with "God" and Western monotheism. Most involve inner spiritualism, change and growth within self and not "god", or multipule Gods in persuit of their own goals.

Of course I am speaking as a laymen here having read and studied religion as a hobby only.

[spot]

What exactly is "google" supposed to do, presented with a book title and an author? Of course I know the book exists. I'm asking you, in several previous posts, what your quote means.

There's two kinds of statement. Here's an example.

Robert Stephenson's development of the modern steam locomotive provided a deciding impetus to the Western Industrial Revolution of the mid-19th century.

compared to

The Scots were the direct cause of British Imperialist ambition.

They both actually say the same thing if the subject is India in 1870. To find out why the second is true you need to be able to find the first. The first includes relevant facts. The second is a generalized deduction based on the previous facts among others.

So, the quotes you gave me from the book are a deductions. "the Jews were the first to require education for all" might be true but the fact would be which Jews and when. I've asked which and when. I have no idea whether you're talking about 1000 BC, 100 AD or 1870 AD and I have no way whatever of finding out. Is google going to tell me? I don't see how it could. If you can provide the factual basis for "the Jews were the first to require education for all" then I can know what it means. As it stands it means nothing to me because it's non-factual, it's a claim. If it's a claim by a respected author in a useful book then believe me, he'll have said in it what he bases his claim on.

Similarly with "They allowed conversion through history". It's a claim. I asked what it meant and you've responded that they allowed conversion one way, but not for the last 2000 years - is that right? How does the response tally with the claim?

Start with a fact or two. Which Jews were the first to require education for all? I'm honestly interested in the answer. When were they doing it? Did they include girls as well as boys? Did they include the children of working non-Jews in "all"? I'm sure the quote appeared in your book. I'm sure the author must have explained what he was talking about if he was a historian.



eta: and as a complete though bewildered aside, since you ask - "Wild Wales: its People, Language and Scenery" by George Borrow, 1862. I'm on page 120, I was reading it about six hours ago.

[double helix]

spot;685179 wrote: What exactly is "google" supposed to do, presented with a book title and an author? Of course I know the book exists. I'm asking you, in several previous posts, what your quote means.=.
Good lord man, it means that Jews, of various SECTS OF JUDEISM, were captured, conquered, enslaved, assimilated, throughout history up to fifty years or so before the birth of Christ. They wed gentiles, converted to gentile religion, had gentiles convert to Judaism, birthed gentile children, and were birthed by gentiles. Then, after the last decimation by the Roman Empire, the Jewish monks afore mentiond, realized that the Jewish nation, the PEOPLE themselves were on the verge of disappearing, assimilating into the nations of the world. That little obscure enclave of monks began to form the Talmud, began to produce edicts, proclaimed that NO JEW could marry a gentile, the NO GENTILE could convert to Judaism, that only Jewish females could produce true Jews and they did this to re-establish the Jewish nation within the mass of nations the Jews had been scattared to in the world.

You don't like Jews, do you?

[spot]

double helix;685181 wrote: Good lord man, it means that Jews, of various SECTS OF JUDEISM, were captured, conquered, enslaved, assimilated, throughout history up to fifty years or so before the birth of Christ. They wed gentiles, converted to gentile religion, had gentiles convert to Judaism, birthed gentile children, and were birthed by gentiles. Then, after the last decimation by the Roman Empire, the Jewish monks afore mentiond, realized that the Jewish nation, the PEOPLE themselves were on the verge of disappearing, assimilating into the nations of the world. That little obscure enclave of monks began to form the Talmud, began to produce edicts, proclaimed that NO JEW could marry a gentile, the NO GENTILE could convert to Judaism, that only Jewish females could produce true Jews and they did this to re-establish the Jewish nation within the mass of nations the Jews had been scattared to in the world.

You don't like Jews, do you?
You just can't keep track of who said what, that's your trouble. All of this is about your claim in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=14 that "the Jews were the first to require education for all, recognise the rights of women and children and to espouse fairness and justice in judicial and social matters. They allowed conversion through history, could deny no one out of prejudice" which was all of it so ludicrous that I challenged you on it. Not a word of that stands scrutiny. As you now continue to stridently announce, "They allowed conversion through history" is rubbish. Don't, whatever you do, suggest that I ever claimed it was true.

The problem with discussing matters with you is that you're so self-contradictory - I have absolutely no idea what your position is. How, for example, do you get to:the questionable resource of "The Bible" and the "Torah" both collections of writings Historians have proven was culled, edited, and reworded to fit the authors of the times intentfrom its complete inversion, within two days:Most historians feel that Judaism began with Abraham, who was a Hebrew. But where did Abraham come from? About the year 2000 BC a man named Terah and his son Abraham, his son's wife, Sarah and his grandson Lot, who was Nephew of Abraham, moved out of Babylonia. Terah's geneology traces him to Shem, one of the three sons of Noah.

[gmc]

double helix;684546 wrote: Im sorry, did you want me to google links for you. I am quoting from the text of a book, the one I first posted about called "Jews, God and History." written by Max I Dimont. Second edition. There are seven and a half pages of referances, do you want me to list them all?.


Maybe you need to widen your reading a bit. As in find out a bit more about other ancient cultures around at the time. The jews were surrounded by other tribes and other cultures about which we know very little except what the bible tells us and that is hardly an objective source. as you say yourself

Also, histories, admitted or proven through research, have been altered, omitted, or reworded to better attain the religious bodies intent.




Al least you do not seem to be one of those demented nutters that think the bible is the unchanged word of god and shoild be taken literally.

posted by double helix

There is more, like the Jews were the first to require education for all, recognise the rights of women and children and to espouse fairness and justice in judicial and social matters. They allowed conversion through history, could deny no one out of prejudice and became the scholars, teachers, doctors and lawyers of every community they resided in.


I see spot has looked at education. Try this link



http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/tetlow1.asp

In general women in the Old Testament were legally the property of men.(87) This condition is characteristic of patriarchal societies. Before marriage the girl was the property of her father. After marriage a woman became the property of her husband.(88) Widows were placed under the authority of their fathers, sons or brothers-in-law.(89) polygamy was common. Women were considered objects of property among the spoils of war.(90)

The ten commandments are an example of early, yet continuous, legal tradition of Israel. Stylistically they are addressed to men. The last commandment lists a wife among objects of property which are not to be coveted. Yet men are also exhorted to honor mothers as well as fathers, and to allow both women and men to rest on the sabbath.

A woman achieved some measure of social status by becoming the mother of a son. Conversely, a sterile woman was divorced. Sarah and Rebecca were especially revered as the mothers of Israel. The narratives about the patriarchal period, although written much later, mention some freedom of women to appear in public.(91) Later Hebrew women generally led a harem-like existence, confined within the home. As time went on, the restrictions gradually became more elaborate and were combined with formal penalties for their transgression. The patriarch ruled family and clan in Hebrew society. Inheritance passed from father to son. Men could initiate divorce at will. Women were bound in marital fidelity.


Christianity was born into this complex and syncretistic world. The societies of this world still by and large advocated the traditional role of subordination and silence of women as the ideal. Yet in real life the women of history were neither subordinate nor silent. The ideal was challenged in the forum of real life. The tension and conflict generated by this challenge were the social milieu in which New Testament Christianity was formulated.


The idea that we owe everything to christainity/Judaism and the bible is ludicrous-insulting to our ancestors and shows a breathtaking history of ancient history and indeed modern history as well.

posted by double helix

I am concerned too, that I keep hearing eastern Philosophies proclaimed religions. Buddhism, Tao, Confucianism, all Eastern Philosophies have their own rich histories un-entwined with "God" and Western monotheism. Most involve inner spiritualism, change and growth within self and not "god", or multipule Gods in persuit of their own goals.


I'd agree with you there. I find that irritating as well it's almost as if those of a religious disposition cannot conceive of anyone not believing in a god to worship.

[Ted]

DH:-6

I am well acquainted with Jewish history as well as the history of the Christian church and the history of the development of the Bible. I have studied and continue to study both formally and informally under some of the worlds well recognized scholars.

That the Bible contains contradictions and alterations in no way negates it as an important religious document. If one understands the nature of ancient midrash and the use of many genres of writing style the contradictions and alterations are of little to no importance.

As far as Confucionism, Buddhism goes I do not refer to them as a religion but a faith. They are every bit as much a faith as is scientism etc.

I should comment on the question of Abraham. He is listed by scholars as being from the period known as pre-history and as such his historicity is questionable.

You might find the following site useful.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 5&letter=A

JewishEncyclopedia.com - ADULTERY

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

I do hope that we do not have to stoop to the level of name calling. Personally I find it very offensive. Personal attacks are uncalled for in any discussion. Surely we can agree to disagree without mud slinging.

Thanks

Shalom

Ted:-6

[spot]

Ted;685319 wrote: I do hope that we do not have to stoop to the level of name calling. Personally I find it very offensive. Personal attacks are uncalled for in any discussion. Surely we can agree to disagree without mud slinging.Go and boil your bottom, son of a silly person. I blow my nose at you.

[Ted]

Pinky:-6

Well put. You are correct. The problem is the extremist.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

spot:-6

I was referring to the use of idiot and stupid. Unnecessary and uncalled for.

I do think your points were well taken. Some of the statements from DH I too had problems with.

Shalom

Ted:-6