Has God Abandoned His Children?

[Jinx]

IYHO, why does God hide himself away from man, and seemingly ignore the problems of being mortal? What could be the reasoning for allowing the innocent to suffer? I recognize God is not a vending machine of instant graification. But, sometimes, I wonder how even He can stomach such imbalance of justice in this world. All the "have-nots" can do is cling to their hope. Will the tables ever be turned?

And, if you share this feeling, how do you cure your feelings of perpetual "indigestion" to keep a smile on your face each day?
- Jinx

[Zyada]

Here is my take on this:

Have you ever known someone whose parents always shielded them from the consequences of their actions, or the bad things that happens to all of us? I have, and they are usually pretty worthless. Would you want your parents to do this for you?

God treats us as adults. He hasn't abandoned us, but He knows that we must be the instruments of goodness and change in this world. He has given us teachings that, if we all accepted them, would make our world a better place:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Judge not, lest you be judged.
Love others as you love yourself.


God does not force us to follow these teachings; He leaves it to our intelligence and our judgement to see the truth in them. If he were to force us to follow these rules, we would be no different than the sheep in the fields that are herded by dogs and men. He does not treat us as children, punishing us when we violate his rules, nor does he shield us from the grim truths of the world.

Yes, this means that terrible things happen - because he does not shield us from the consequences of our actions or the actions of others. How could we learn how important these were if we never experienced the consequences of violating these commandments?

If I am not mistaken, these commandments don't show up in just the Christian religion. I know the "Golden Rule" shows up in many theologies, and is common in ethical considerations even when not attached to a theology.

If Christians and other theologies spent more time teaching these ethics, and less time trying to convince people that our idea of God is the only acceptable way to percieve God, this would be a much better world.

And the world is becoming better.

Despite so many Christians (and I only pick on Christians because it is the only religion I know well) actively spreading the opposite messages.


Just 60 years ago, the U.S. government villified and terrorized the Japanese during WWII just because we were fighting their country. Last year, after the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government explicitly stated that middle easterners in America were to be given the same protections that all Americans enjoy. Christian churches opened their arms and hearts to Muslims.

75 years ago, killing a black man was considered good sport in places in the U.S. Now killing a man just because of the color of his skin is a worse crime than killing for money.

200 years ago, sodomy was punishable by death. Now, homosexuality is acceptable by much of society. (Some may not consider that getting better, but I certainly do)

As bad as the number of crimes commited against children this year seems, it is far better now than it has been in the past. Remember that news is news because it is not common, and that there is far less tendency to blame victims of rape now than ever before. So there is much more openess about rape and related crimes. Can you imagine a teenager who was raped getting on the cover of a national magazine in the 50s? It would have been unlikely that they would have even told anyone outside their family. My mom told me in the 70s that if I was raped we shouldn't prosecute because it might make me a target. (My thought was, if someone raped me, I would do all I can to get justice)

And I haven't even mentioned the advances in medicine and technology that make our world a better place.



The reason (IMO) that the world is becoming a better place is because more people are basing their life on love.

"And now, these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love" 1st Corinthians, 13:13

[ElwoodCuse]

Because he either (a) doesn't exist or (b) doesn't care.

Hey, you asked for opinions.

[Rutabegger]

This is one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions, right?

[robertliguori]

Well, Zyada, that's a good argument, except it's totally wrong. The relationship between God and people is nothing like the relationship between parents and children. The reason parents push their children is that they won't be around forever. And even if God has decided not to intervene, why doesn't He do public appearances? Why, for that matter, did he get upset at the stuff (acceptable homosexuality) that you claim is an advancement now?

[slortar]

Personally, I think it's because God has skipped across the state line and is currently living with some washed-up ex-stripper in a trailer park off the interstate outside of Tulsa.

Man, when I catch up with that fat old bastard, Jerry Springer's going to have to set aside an entire WEEK. And I'm not putting up with that old self-determination line either--that's just a cheap-assed way to get out of paying child support...

[cmkeller]

Because G-d wants people to do good things out of moral goodness.

If G-d's will were clearly manifest on Earth, and divine justice clearly dispensed, people would do good out of pragmatic calculation...not because of a distinction between right and wrong.

So instead, he works behind the scenes to achieve such ends...justice dispensed, but not so clearly as to remove the "morality choice" in peoples' lives.

[robertliguori]

So, cmkeller, when did God change his mind about this? There's lots of times where God worked miracles and smited people in the bible.

[Jack Batty]

Holy Great Debates, Batman.

A question that presupposes a hotly debate issue -- that God exists.

Should I be discouraged from contributing to this thread becasue I'm an atheist? Or should my contribution include my honest humble opinion, since it was asked for?

Quite a dilemma.

In my humble opinion, this thread is seed for yet another Great Debate thread on religion, (or more entertaingly, a Pit thread).

[kevja]

I wonder if God ever asks Himself -- gee, I wonder why those humans can't learn to live together, treat each other right, and share the world, instead of waiting for some kind of magic miracle from me.

[Jinx]

Originally posted by kevja
I wonder if God ever asks Himself -- gee, I wonder why those humans can't learn to live together, treat each other right, and share the world, instead of waiting for some kind of magic miracle from me.

Yes, Kevja...I wonder this, too. Also along these lines, I wonder if God is tired of us making the same dumb mistakes from one generation to the next. Sure, we study history, but often it seems we learn so little...

Beyond all that has already been said in this thread, assuming the SDoper(s) reading this believes in a God, then why do the good die young? Some might say God needs these people up in eternity more than we need these people down here on earth. But, shouldn't long life be a blessing? The untimely death of a loved-one just tears the rest of us to pieces - hurting us and often leaving many doubting God.

It just seems awful lonely down here without some reassurance from above. And, it gives the rats a leading edge as we keep losing the good prematurely. - Jinx

[Zyada]

Originally posted by robertliguori
Well, Zyada, that's a good argument, except it's totally wrong. The relationship between God and people is nothing like the relationship between parents and children. The reason parents push their children is that they won't be around forever. And even if God has decided not to intervene, why doesn't He do public appearances? Why, for that matter, did he get upset at the stuff (acceptable homosexuality) that you claim is an advancement now?

Interesting point of view there robert.

#1 The theology of Christianity makes it very clear that God considers us to have a parent/child relationship with him. "Our Father, which art in heaven"

#2 It's mortality that makes parents teach their children morals? Given the very human tendency to not really believe you are going to die until you are nearly dead, I don't believe that a parent's perception of mortality has anything to do with it.

#3 Why God doesn't "make public appearances" is an interesting question that has probably generated books already. My own opinion is that by doing so, God would move from faith to science. And that there is a true advantage in pursuing faith where science can't lead us. Which, oddly enough, some scientific research has shown that faith is good for you.

#4 Whether the Bible condemns homosexuality is a whole 'nother debate. My father, who studied to become a Baptist minister, believed that it didn't, and I trust his opinion. But even if the Bible condemned homosexuality the way it does adultery, the New Testament clearly shows that it is God's responsibility, <i>not ours</i> to deal with sin. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

[DrMatrix]

Threads of a religious nature always turn into debates. I’ll move this to Great Debates.

Off to Great Debates.

DrMatrix – General Questions Moderator

[robertliguori]

I'll let someone else give the chapter and verse that condemns homosexuality (well, male homosexuality).
And if I see a stranger about to off themselves out of sheer stupidity, I'll help them, if only out of naked self-interest and hopes of a cash reward. So, does God care less about people than I do?
And what's with plagues, anyway? God obviously has power over them. They don't really help people. And yes, they cull the weak. But, it that was God's goal, then He could have just as easily caused them not to be born. Or to ascend to heaven in a cloud of golden light. Basically, I look around at the world, and muse that if the best God can do exactly resembles what we would expect of a world goverened by The Cold Equations, I wonder what's going on. And, if science has determined that faith is healthy, it's because God has made it so, remember.
And I posit that if you knew that you would always be there to guide your children, and always could guide them, you would.

[AZCowboy]

Zyada said:
He has given us teachings that, if we all accepted them, would make our world a better place.

Who is "us", exactly? Does it include the Mayans, the Aztecs, and the Inuits? How bout the those of Asia, the Orient, or Polynesia? Was it just random luck that Jesus was Jewish? Would Christianity be any different if Jesus was Chinese?


Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Judge not, lest you be judged.
Love others as you love yourself.

Does He live by those rules, too?


He leaves it to our intelligence and our judgement to see the truth in them.

I can see the truth in them. I didn't need God to teach me.


If he were to force us to follow these rules, we would be no different than the sheep in the fields that are herded by dogs and men.

Force? How 'bout a few hints? Perhaps even some straight-talk guidance? Navigating Manhattan isn't herding sheep.


He does not treat us as children, punishing us when we violate his rules, ...

Really? Has He ever punished someone for violating His rules? Are we sure He won't in the future?


...nor does he shield us from the grim truths of the world.
If only He would point them out. To everyone. Wouldn't you try to do that for your child?


How could we learn how important these [actions] were if we never experienced the consequences of violating these commandments?
[actions] and emphasis added

Is that different from "punishing us when we violate his rules"?


If I am not mistaken, these commandments don't show up in just the Christian religion. I know the "Golden Rule" shows up in many theologies, and is common in ethical considerations even when not attached to a theology.

OK, so some of these "unenlightened" cultures developed some of His rules independently, right? How about the other two? Could all of His rules be developed independently, too?


If Christians and other theologies spent more time teaching these ethics, and less time trying to convince people that our idea of God is the only acceptable way to percieve God, this would be a much better world.

Oh, thank ...Him, we agree!


And the world is becoming better.

If I accept that, are your suggesting that Christians should receive credit for the list of items that follow?


The reason (IMO) that the world is becoming a better place is because more people are basing their life on love.

A truly beautiful sentiment.

While my tone may sound confrontational (hey, it's GD now!), I am seriouly interested in how you resolve this mess.

[Ranchoth]

Well, odd as it may sound, South Park had a plausible sounding theory...

Stan: Why would God let Kenny die, Chef? Why? Kenny's my fr-f-f-friend. Why can't God take someone else's f-f-friend?
Chef: [sighs] Stan, sometimes God takes those closest to us, because it makes him feel better about himself. He is a very vengeful God, Stan. He's all pissed off about something we did thousands of years ago. He just can't get over it, so he doesn't care who he takes.Children, puppies, it don't matter to him, so long as it makes us sad. Do you understand.
Stan: But then, why does God give us anything to start with?
Chef: Well, look at it this way: if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away. If you never give it a lollipop to begin with, then you would have nothin' to cry about. That's like God, who gives us life and love and help just so that he can tear it all away and make us cry, so he can drink the sweet milk of our tears. You see, it's our tears, Stan, that give God his great power. [pause]
Stan: I think I understand.

You have to admit, that would answer a whoooole lot of nagging questions. :eek:


Ranchoth

[JThunder]

Originally posted by robertliguori
So, cmkeller, when did God change his mind about this? There's lots of times where God worked miracles and smited people in the bible.

Come on, youngster. You should know better than that.

Did cmkeller say that God never intervenes? It seems to me that you're misrepresenting his position.
There's a big difference between saying that God "works behind the scenes to achieve such ends" and saying that he never performs miracles anymore.

[robertliguori]

Well, the God of the OT wasn't really one for working behind the scenes. Why didn't he just do it right in the first place? Or, what changed? Why did God lay an ass-whoopin down on Sodom and Gommorah, and spare Nazi Germany? (Rhetorical question. Germany isn't in a tectonically active area.)

[cmkeller]

robertligouri:

So, cmkeller, when did God change his mind about this? There's lots of times where God worked miracles and smited people in the bible.

He never changed his mind. During Biblical times, there were unique circumstances which in his calculation overrode the momentary free-will considerations. However, if one traces the frequency of direct divine intervention amongst mankind through the Bible (the OT, that is, since I'm speaking from a Judaic perspective), it is clear that after reaching a peak at the time of the Exodus from Egypt and the following forty years in the desert, there is a gradual, steady reduction in direct divine intervention. That peak level of Divine interaction at that precise time was, in his calculation, necessary to establish the authority of the Torah and the Israelite people as permanent fixtures on the world landscape. Once this was done, he gradually hid his involvement more and more.

In addition, there has also been a moderation of extremes since those times. The very virtuous of back then were more virtuous than those of today (and therefore merited direct divine guidance and intervention, whereas these days, we don't) and the evil of back then were more evil than the evil of today. We hold up Nazi Germany as the epitome of evil in modern times, but bear in mind that that regime only lasted twelve years, and that human society had by that time learned to be horrified at such things. Societies like the one wiped out by the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah practiced and perpetuated their evil unhindered by any human agency for centuries before G-d declared that leaving them alone any longer would be too damaging to the world.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[cranky]

Why? Hey, good question.

Here's my answer to why: God does not exist. There is absolutely zero evidence of the existance of god, and nothing in the universe requires that god exist for it to be.

So, how do we as people rationalize things happening when we believe that god exists and cares about us?? We invent excuses as to why bad things happen, such as "God treats us as adults. He gave us the rules, and now we have to follow them" Hey, that's great, but what about people being attacked and tormented by those who don't follow them? If the rightious were proven to have fewer bad things happen to them, this might be a valid argument, but it rains on the just and on the unjust equally. What about the babies who are raped or murdered before they are even able to fathom the concept of god? Are they simply "not following the rules" too?

Of course, the question changes when you ask "which god?" I assume that you mean the christian god as outlined in the Bible, but there are perhaps hundreds, or even thousands of gods that people have/do believe in. The one common element to all of them is that none have evidence of their existance. You can believe in one god, but there will always be someone else out there whose holy book or set of beliefs tells them to persecute or kill you for not believing in their god.

Faith in gods came about in a time when early man was trying to explain everyday things, but had as yet no science to show him how to figure them out... Once science came along, supernatural explanations gave way to rational, logical, realistic explanations and we now see that the world makes more sense without a god than it does with.

[The Great Philosopher]

Originally posted by cranky
"Here's my answer to why: God does not exist. There is absolutely zero evidence of the existance of god and nothing in the universe requires that god exist for it to be."


Actually, the universe itself requires that God for it to be. If there was not some divine intervention that createad the universe, how did this universe come about? This is where science falls apart, because science is confined to the universe.


Hey, that's great, but what about people being attacked and tormented by those who don't follow them? If the rightious were proven to have fewer bad things happen to them, this might be a valid argument, but it rains on the just and on the unjust equally. What about the babies who are raped or murdered before they are even able to fathom the concept of god? Are they simply "not following the rules" too?"


I don't believe so, no.


God gave us clear laws and commandments to live by - most of these have already been outlined in this thread. However, if someone then decides to violate every one of those commandments, and proceeds to attack a God-fearing believe, what do you expect to do about it? Strike that man dead with a lightning bolt as he picks up his knife or gun?

The Bible informs us that if we do not abide by His laws in this life, we will be punished in the next. If someone ignores this ruling, and rapes and kills a baby, how can that act be blamed on God? That helpless, innocent baby was not being punished by God, it was a victim of evil in our world. The baby would have never become a victim had the man never violated God's laws.

[AZCowboy]

cmkeller wrote:
That peak level of Divine interaction at that precise time was, in his calculation, necessary to establish the authority of the Torah and the Israelite people as permanent fixtures on the world landscape. Once this was done, he gradually hid his involvement more and more.

So He accomplished this task?

Why the favoritism for the Israelites? Why didn't He "enlighten" or intervene in other cultures? Certainly, He could forsee the centuries of strife and religious wars by not doing so...


We hold up Nazi Germany as the epitome of evil in modern times, but bear in mind that that regime only lasted twelve years, and that human society had by that time learned to be horrified at such things.

OK. What about the Dark Ages? The Crusades?


Societies like the one wiped out by the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah practiced and perpetuated their evil unhindered by any human agency for centuries before G-d declared that leaving them alone any longer would be too damaging to the world.

In the event that such an evil society developed today, do you believe He would again intervene, or is He done with us?

The Great Philosopher wrote:
Actually, the universe itself requires that God for it to be. If there was not some divine intervention that createad the universe, how did this universe come about?

IF it does require divine intervention, it certainly doesn't require the Christian deity. But why MUST it be divine intervention? Why couldn't it come about through natural processes? And, you know, if you go back through some recursive series, you'll just have to explain who created Him! Isn't it, through Occam's Razor, more logical to conclude that we don't know how the universe came to be, and man created god?


The Bible informs us that if we do not abide by His laws in this life, we will be punished in the next. ... The baby would have never become a victim had the man never violated God's laws.

OK, so he does "punish" us, if only in the next life. What about people never exposed to His wisdom? What if the man that violated His laws had never heard of him? If we all have to live by His rules, wouldn't you expect Him to make that clear to EVERYONE?

[cranky]

Originally posted by The Great Philosopher


Actually, the universe itself requires that God for it to be. If there was not some divine intervention that createad the universe, how did this universe come about? This is where science falls apart, because science is confined to the universe.



"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?" --Cosmos, Carl Sagan p.257

[robertliguori]

First, TGP, what created God? If not for some anthromorphological intervention, how did he come about? (Hah!)
And TGP, God made evil. (And no waffling. God made everything, evil exists, therefore God made evil.) He knew what he was doing and could have changed things, but he didn't.


Next, CMKeller: Well, that's a very nice theory. I hadn't thought of it in that way before. Got any proof? By proof, I mean some scripture mentioning this. Because, while your theory is valid, Occam's guillotine will still chop it to ribbons. And re Nazi Germany: Do the math. 10 million innocents died, not counting soldiers. Would God have stepped in for 20 million? 50 million? That really doesn't fit with the image of a God who would leave 99 safe sheep to help 1 lost sheep. And even if some righteous smiting was out of the question, would it have been so hard to make a huge voice from the sky say, "The Nazis are lying bastards and hope to kill you all. Leave now."

Basically, either, No, God never existed, and thus couldn't have abandoned us, or He has abandoned us as far as large, direct miracles go. And, with no evidence suggesting that God would one day abandon everyone, I'm gonna go with the former.

[cmkeller]

AZCowboy:

So He accomplished this task?

I'd say he did.

Why the favoritism for the Israelites? Why didn't He "enlighten" or intervene in other cultures? Certainly, He could forsee the centuries of strife and religious wars by not doing so...

It was a reward to their forefather Abraham for his development of faith in G-d in a time of universal idolatry.

And who says he didn't enlighten or intervene in other cultures? Ever read the story of Balaam in the book of Numbers? He was a non-Israelite prophet of G-d. Ditto Job. How about the book of Jonah? Jonah was sent on a mission to admonish the people of Ninveh - not Jews. And those are just the examples that the Torah has recorded.

However, the specific wonders that he did in Egypt and at Sinai to create in the Israelites an overwhelming atmosphere of awe and gratitude for G-d - those were part of G-d's reward to Abraham.

OK. What about the Dark Ages? The Crusades?

What about them? The Crusades, while they did take place over a period of centuries, were an occasional event, a series of wars. The Dark Ages weren't particularly evil, either. They might not have been shining examples of human rights from a twenty-first century perspective, but feudalism certainly wasn't a malicious social policy.

In the event that such an evil society developed today, do you believe He would again intervene, or is He done with us?

All I can say to that question is...G-d only knows. I couldn't presume to guess exactly what eartly stimulus is required before he decides he must act with overt miracles.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by AZCowboy


Why the favoritism for the Israelites? Why didn't He "enlighten" or intervene in other cultures? Certainly, He could forsee the centuries of strife and religious wars by not doing so...


Just to add two more points to cmkeller's excellent answer...

1. Jewish tradition, in fact, teaches that the Torah was offered to the other nations of the world. They, however, rejected it.

2. In any event, one could say that God has enlightened the world to His worship through the spread of Christianity and Islam. Both religions came from Judaism and converted otherwise pagans/idol worshippers to the worship of God through these two religions. With the spread of these two religions, it certainly can be said that God has enlightened a significant (and possibly majority) of the world.

Zev Steinhardt

[Gaudere]

God is enlightening the people of the world to the One True God and His Truth by spreading false idolatry (Christianity, in the Jewish viewpoint)? Lo, he *does* work in mysterious ways. :eek:

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Gaudere
God is enlightening the people of the world to the One True God and His Truth by spreading false idolatry (Christianity, in the Jewish viewpoint)? Lo, he *does* work in mysterious ways. :eek:

From the standpoint of Judaism, Islam is not idolatry. (Note: It is forbidden for a Jew to become a Muslim, but it is not a problem for a non-Jew).

Christianity, according to some authorities, is also not idolatry. Whether or not the prohibition of idolatry includes shutfus (a "partnership" of God and the local diety) is a debated topic among Jewish halachic authorities. I heard a lecture given on this topic by Rabbi Yissachar Frand (a noted rabbi in Baltimore). I was basing my statement on the views that permit a non-Jew to believe in a shutfus.

It should also be noted that within Christianity, the degree of "idolatryness" (for lack of a better word) varies among different demoninations. Unitarians, for example, would not be considered idolaters according to most authorities.

Zev Steinhardt

[Gaudere]

I thought it was idolatry because it was worshipping a man as if he was God. That Jesus was a man and God is an almost universally accepted axiom in Christianity.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Gaudere
I thought it was idolatry because it was worshipping a man as if he was God. That Jesus was a man and God is an almost universally accepted axiom in Christianity.

The question that actually comes into play is worshipping God (the Father, in Trinity parlance) + Jesus. That is a classic case of shutfus and the subject of the debate.

In any event, it could reasonably be said that, from the Jewish POV, even a shutfus is better and more "enlightened" than worshipping statues or a pantheon (a la the ancient Greeks and Romans).

Zev Steinhardt

[Gaudere]

Yeah, but in Chrtistian thought, Jesus IS God. The Big G God. AND man. Is the theory that Christians are simply mistaken, and are worshipping two different Gods, though they think they are worshipping only one that is both God and man? If intent matters, Christians certainly appear to be *intending* to beleive in and worhsip the Big G God as a man.

[AZCowboy]

cmkeller and zev_steinhardt, I must first lead off that I am very impressed and respectful of the intelligence you both bring to these discussions/debates. In fact, I first came across the SDMB when the "Who wrote the Bible" series came out, and I read many of the resulting threads in which you both participated. With this topic in particular, and on this board generally, I am just a neophyte. Take pity on my soul.

So, cmkeller, you believe He "established the authority of the Torah ... as permanent fixtures on the world landscape"? What would you point to as evidence - the number of followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? Or something else?

And, no, cmkeller, I am not well read on these subjects (I learned more from the threads referenced above than I did in five years of Sunday school!). Do any of the stories you mention of other enlightened cultures refer to peoples of cultures that were otherwise unknown to Israelites (or perhaps more proper, the prophets or authors of the holy texts)? Was there any clue in the ancient texts that He made the chosen few aware of cultures they had yet to experience?

cmkeller wrote:
All I can say to that question is...G-d only knows. I couldn't presume to guess exactly what eartly stimulus is required before he decides he must act with overt miracles.
The question is what you believe, and to carry it a bit further hypothetically, do you believe He would use the same criteria he used in the OT, or has his "policy" changed?

zev_steinhardt wrote:
... one could say that God has enlightened the world to His worship through the spread of Christianity and Islam.

I suppose I could easily accept this, if at the time of his "active" enlightenment, those He made himself known to had the knowledge and capability to spread the word to all corners of the Earth. Starting in the 14th century, the Christians at least, had the capability to spread their knowledge and influence worldwide. But not prior. Doesn't it seem odd to you that He would expect them to do something He knew they couldn't do - and wouldn't be able to do for centuries?

Are there any corroborating legends, myths, or ancient stories from cultures far away from the near/middle east that sound like the Christian deity enlightening Himself to them? And any explanations why they might have rejected Him?

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by AZCowboy
cmkeller and zev_steinhardt, I must first lead off that I am very impressed and respectful of the intelligence you both bring to these discussions/debates. In fact, I first came across the SDMB when the "Who wrote the Bible" series came out, and I read many of the resulting threads in which you both participated. With this topic in particular, and on this board generally, I am just a neophyte. Take pity on my soul.


Thank you for the compliment AZCowboy. It's nice to know that one is appreciated. :)


I suppose I could easily accept this, if at the time of his "active" enlightenment, those He made himself known to had the knowledge and capability to spread the word to all corners of the Earth. Starting in the 14th century, the Christians at least, had the capability to spread their knowledge and influence worldwide. But not prior. Doesn't it seem odd to you that He would expect them to do something He knew they couldn't do - and wouldn't be able to do for centuries?


I don't pretend to know God's mind, and as such, I cannot answer why God would do this or that. I can only offer my viewpoint, bolstered by my knowledge of Jewish tradition.

It could well be said that the "incubation" period of Christianity prior to the 14th century was necessary for it's expansion afterwards. Suppose Christianity had come along not 2000 years ago, but only 80 years ago, with the advent of television, radio and, more recently, the Internet. Could they spread their message faster in the last 80 years than they could in the previous 1920? Sure. Until the telegraph, the quickest way to get information from one place to another was to manually transport it. But without the 1500+ year buildup that Christianity had, I don't think that the communications revolution of the last 80 years would have helped to make it's message more universal. In fact, one could argue that the communications revolution happened in order to make God more accessible to people.


Are there any corroborating legends, myths, or ancient stories from cultures far away from the near/middle east that sound like the Christian deity enlightening Himself to them? And any explanations why they might have rejected Him?

None that I know of. You'd probably be better off asking a Christian that question. Don't forget that Judaism does not endorse Jesus as a messiah or deity, nor does it endorse Islam as a religion. It simply says that these are better alternatives for non-Jews than literal idol-worship.

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Gaudere
Yeah, but in Chrtistian thought, Jesus IS God. The Big G God. AND man. Is the theory that Christians are simply mistaken, and are worshipping two different Gods, though they think they are worshipping only one that is both God and man? If intent matters, Christians certainly appear to be *intending* to beleive in and worhsip the Big G God as a man.

That's a good point Gaudere and an important distinction. If Christians are actually worshipping Jesus, then, yes, that would be considered idolatry. If, however, they are worshipping God + Jesus (+ the Holy Ghost) then that would, according to some authorities, be permissible.

Zev Steinhardt

[cmkeller]

robertligouri:

Well, that's a very nice theory. I hadn't thought of it in that way before. Got any proof? By proof, I mean some scripture mentioning this.

There are numerous places in scripture where G-d says that in response to sin he will hide his presence. Primary amongst them is Deuteronomy 31:17-18 -

On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and difficulties will come upon them, and on that day they will ask, 'Have not these disasters come upon us because our God is not with us?' And I will certainly hide my face on that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods.


Because, while your theory is valid, Occam's guillotine will still chop it to ribbons.

Sorry, but I do not see that Occam's razor relates to this issue at all.

And re Nazi Germany: Do the math. 10 million innocents died, not counting soldiers. Would God have stepped in for 20 million? 50 million? That really doesn't fit with the image of a God who would leave 99 safe sheep to help 1 lost sheep.

I'm not quite sure where that "99 sheep" reference comes from...is it a New Testament reference? Bear in mind that I don't hold of that...

In any case, as much as I agree with you about the evils of Nazi Germany, you have to understand the kind of threshhold G-d has for miraculously wiping out a whole society. Read Genesis 18:16-33, where G-d informs Abraham of his intention to destroy Sodom et al. Abraham prays that G-d spare those nations due to the fact that, for all their evil, they still manage to produce a fifty righteous people. In response, G-d tells Abraham that if Sodom et al had indeed managed to produce fifty righteous people, he would indeed not destroy it. Abraham reaches further...45 righteous people, 40, 30, 20...after each request, G-d informs him that that number of righteous would have saved Sodom from that fate. Finally, after G-d tells Abraham that those cities failed to produce even ten righteous people, even Abraham gives up pleading.

In analysis, it is clear that regardless of the level or number of evil deeds committed by the Sodomites, the exitence of ten righteous people amongst them would have saved them!. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the production of righteousness is the primary consideration in judgment of a society, and the commission of evil secondary. As long as a society is not so corrupt as to be unable to produce ten righteous people - and I think we can both agree that Nazi-era Germany, bad as it was, does not fall into this category - its evil does not warrant supernatural destruction.

Two footnotes to this answer:

1) It is significant that of the generation wiped out by the flood of Noah, only eight - Noah, his three sons, and the wives of all four - were deemed worthy of being saved. This number falls short of that threshhold of ten. Quite consistent.

2) The emphasis on production of righteousness is consistent with the explanation I gave earlier regarding why G-d does not generally intervene overtly - the fact that it would end up suppressing genuinely moral choice of righteousness over evil. Even in the face of all this horror and injustice, as long as righteousness is still produced in sufficient amounts (and that "sufficient" is pretty small, when you think about it) G-d considers it important not to interfere with that.

And even if some righteous smiting was out of the question, would it have been so hard to make a huge voice from the sky say, "The Nazis are lying bastards and hope to kill you all. Leave now."

Well, all I can say to this is that a voice from the sky was hardly necessary. The signs of what was coming were pretty clear to anyone who had wanted to heed them. Those who didn't were those who refused to believe it could happen...not those who were genuinely unable to see it.

AZCowboy:

So, cmkeller, you believe He "established the authority of the Torah ... as permanent fixtures on the world landscape"? What would you point to as evidence - the number of followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? Or something else?

I think you misunderstood what I meant (in retrospect, maybe I phrased it wrong). What I meant was that by giving the Torah in the manner of a miraculous public Divine revealation, he established the basis for its authority amongst the Israelites (and anyone who wishes to ask). When challenged by some other religion claiming prophetic authority - say, for example, Islam - why should a Jew think that his own religion is correct rather than the new one? Why trust the Jewish prophets more than the other ones? Because millions of people heard the voice of G-d declaring the Torah, as opposed to having to trust the word of a single prophet regarding these others.

And, no, cmkeller, I am not well read on these subjects (I learned more from the threads referenced above than I did in five years of Sunday school!). Do any of the stories you mention of other enlightened cultures refer to peoples of cultures that were otherwise unknown to Israelites (or perhaps more proper, the prophets or authors of the holy texts)?

No, those cultures were ones that the Israelites were familiar with.

Was there any clue in the ancient texts that He made the chosen few aware of cultures they had yet to experience?

Some, though there is some dispute over whether the "clues" in question refer to what we think they do. For example, in modern times (going back at least as far as the Roman era), the Hebrew words "Tzarfat" and "Sefard" refer to France and Spain, respectively. These words are in the Old Testament, though not all Biblical authorities agree that the Biblical references are to those nations.

The question is what you believe, and to carry it a bit further hypothetically, do you believe He would use the same criteria he used in the OT, or has his "policy" changed?

I believe he would be - and is - consistent (with the caveat that no matter what, he'd never bring a world-destroying flood again since he promised not to).

Chaim Mattis Keller

[cmkeller]

Oh, I had meant to include the scriptual cite for that "Tzarfat" and "Sefard" reference - it's from Obadiah 1:20.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[robertliguori]

By inconsistent, I mean that God should be able to pick out the unrighteous, and smite them specifically. So, out of the cities of Sodom and Gommorah city, there were not ten righteous people? How many children, I wonder.
And the Occam's guillotine comment meant that if God is said to have evinced behaviors in the past, and no longer does so, it's safer to assume he never did than that he changed.
I mean, God could smite any number of people individually. And yet, the wicked survive. Heck, he sent some bears to tear up some children after they made fun of a bald priest, and commanded any number of massacres. Maybe it's a good thing that the God of the OT isn't around.

[cmkeller]

robertligouri:

By inconsistent, I mean that God should be able to pick out the unrighteous, and smite them specifically.

And he does (in our belief) - it's just not always apparent to all.

And the Occam's guillotine comment meant that if God is said to have evinced behaviors in the past, and no longer does so, it's safer to assume he never did than that he changed.

Sorry, but that's an absurd. If he's said to have evinced certain behaviors in response to certain conditions, then it's equally safe to assume that the conditions stopped occurring.

If someone told you that his parents used to ground him for not doing his homework, then after a while you never see him being grounded, does Occam's Razor make it safe to assume that the person in question never had a father?

I mean, God could smite any number of people individually. And yet, the wicked survive.

Yes, the wicked survive. Without the wicked's survival, the whole freely-chosen virtue thing would be completely out the window. It wouldn't be a moral choice, it would be a matter of survival.

Chaim Mattis Keller