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.
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.
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…
OK. What about the Dark Ages? The Crusades?
In the event that such an evil society developed today, do you believe He would again intervene, or is He done with us?
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?
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?
“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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just to add two more points to cmkeller’s excellent answer…
Jewish tradition, in fact, teaches that the Torah was offered to the other nations of the world. They, however, rejected it.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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 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?
Thank you for the compliment AZCowboy. It’s nice to know that one is appreciated.
**
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.
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.
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.
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 -
Sorry, but I do not see that Occam’s razor relates to this issue at all.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
No, those cultures were ones that the Israelites were familiar with.
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.
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).
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.
And he does (in our belief) - it’s just not always apparent to all.
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?
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.
