OK, this may get a little more technical than I wanted to get, but here goes…
In Jewish law, there are three different levels of “unintentional” transgressions.
The first is called an oneis. An oneis is something over which a person has no control. An example of an oneis is one who is required to eat matzah on Passover, but, try his darndest, there are no matzos to be found.
The second is called a shogeg. A shogeg is negligent to some degree. An example would be someone who forgot that today was Shabbos and drove to work.
The third is a mayzid. This is a willful transgression.
The Levitical portion you quoted, Opus1, is for people who fall into the category of shogeg. For an oneis there is no punishment.
Therefore, one who forgets that it is Shabbos and drives to work is required to bring a sacrifice (as the chapter you quoted entails). One who never heard of the law of Shabbos (for whatever reason) is not required to bring a sacrifice is not held liable at all.
As an atheist I am most comfortable with those who are tolerant to those of other beliefs. They cause no fuss and make my environment more pleasant to be in.
However, should I ever be convinced that there IS a God and that religion X is actually CORRECT then y’all better just watch out!
If I really truly earnestly believed that God exists and that X is the truth then this MUST be the single most important thing in my life. I would simply HAVE to try to convince everybody of its truth - because for their own benefit it is vital that they believe in the same way as me. If the religion says that it is the one true way then - dangnabbit - it IS the one true way! In a funny way I actually respect those who ARE evangelical proselytizers. From many angles, it’s the only reasonable path to take.
However that doesn’t make them any easier to live with…
I realize this is probably a very unpopular opinion, but this is how I see it:
To me, religion is a quest to find spiritual truth, The same way science is a quest to find physical truth. Either there is a God, or there is not. Once you’ve determined that question to your own satisfaction, there is not a whole lot of leeway in where you can go from there. You determine what God wants from you, or if He wants anything at all from you, and there you go. Your religion. Your quest for spiritual fulfillment. Or, you decide that there is no god. Quest over. Nothing more is required.
I’m really bothered by the whole attitude people seem to have about religion: That is, shopping for a god or a religion as if they were trying on suits to see which one looks best on them or makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. IMO, that’s totally contrary to the spirit of the quest. There seems to be no interest in truth for many people, just that they’re looking for a set of rules (or lack thereof) that they feel happy with. I know people who choose a belief system because they “want something to believe in,” even though they acknowledge that they don’t believe in it!!! Where is the sense in that? Why go through the motions of some religion, adhering to its restrictions, talking about its benefits, when you don’t even accept it as true? If I did not believe that the bible teaches truth, there is no way AT ALL that I would choose to restrict myself to a Christian lifestyle. In that sense, I find atheists (PLEASE spell that word right, it’s not ‘athiests’!!!) to be much more honest, even if I disagree with their outlook. I think the whole mess is connected to the current trend towards moral relativism. If you decide that there’s no RIGHT and WRONG, only RIGHT FOR ME and WRONG FOR ME, then you can easily extend that to there being no TRUE and UNTRUE, only TRUE FOR ME and UNTRUE FOR ME, which I find to be silly.
Anyway, I’m not looking for a fight, just offering my view. Flame away if you must (I know you will).
It’s a trenchant, even harsh, dichotomy – if you firmly believe in the truth of anything at all, are you then forced to condemn everyone who doesn’t share that truth? Are those the only two possibilities?
As long as you stay in the same Aristotelian level of yes-versus-no (the horizontal dimension, so to speak), then the only choice you can have is “my way or the highway.” The possibility of harmonizing different views of truth is to take them to a transcendent level (the vertical dimension).
The Swiss thinker Frithjof Schuon explained the transcendent unity of religions this way. The esoteric dimensions of the various religions unite on the higher, formless level. They differ materially on the level of form, the level of exoteric religions. The different forms cannot be reconciled without seeing the higher formless dimension where the differences are reconciled.
Historically, the mystics of each religion have been able to share mutual understanding and acceptance because they have shared the ultimate vision of the formless Reality. The Muslim Sufis and Hindu yogis, for example, have respected one another’s religions because they have seen beyond the divisons of plurality. The same is true of Kabbalists and Christian mystics and Sufis. The mystics of each faith have more in common with each other than do the exoteric religion adherents.
The beauty of this perspective is that it respects the particular forms of the different religions, and each one’s reason for being what it is, at the same time it transcends the differences to see the ultimate oneness. This could be valuable to a world tormented by bitter religious conflicts. In India, it helped maintain peace and harmony between Hindus and Muslims for centuries. The conflicts became worse in the past century with the rise of fundamentalism on both sides. The transcendent unity of religions could be the cure for the disease of fundamentalist hatred. It allows you to be a devout, conscientious believer of your own faith without attacking others.
Mojo, can you please repeat that in layman terms for those of us who never achieved your level of scholarship.
It actually sounds pretty good to me, but I’m not sure.
If I say that an atom is an atom because it is an atom, who is to say that it isnt one? I believe shakespere said it best when he said “Would a rose smell as sweet if by any other name?” A fact is a fact is a fact, and if you dont like it, its still a fact. I dont care if people get huffy with me about it, but I’m telling you that that sucker is an atom. I’m just not saying what atom it is. I’ll let you people figure out the metaphors yourself.
well, that was intended for dragon, because were both taking chemistry together and I think he knows what I’m talking about, but what I meant was this. What I follow is what I follow. if It said in the bible that all people with blonde hair was going to Hell (which it doesnt) I gaurontee (sp I know) there would be some bozo out there who would try to pass of that “scripture” as being “false” and “God really diddnt mean that” well I think thats crap. if people cant take the bibles comandments for what they are, they shouldnt follow any of it. So, what I’m saying is, you cant get mad at someone who beleves what a religion states, and if you try to change it like so many do today, your a weak minded fool.
Look at it this way… religions are NOTHING MORE than businesses. They are there to make money. Microsoft will gladly tell you that Windows is the “One” True Operating System. Linux, etc are all inferior. You don’t make money without touting your product as the best. Religions wouldn’t make money if they kept their customers open-minded towards other companies…errr… religions.
???