Why did God choose the Jews?
For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I gave Egypt for your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in your place. Since you were precious in My sight, You have been honored, And I have loved you; Therefore I will give men for you, And people for your life. (Isaiah 43: 3-4)
This is one passage among countless in the Old Testament indicating God's special relationship with the Jews/ Hebrews.
However, despite the intensity of this divine love affair, nowhere is it ever explained exactly why God loves them so much, and chose them.
Why? What is so special about them? Why not choose, say, the Koreans or the Incas or the Ostrogoths or the Somalis or some other ethnic group?Because it was the Jews who wrote it! Of course they're going to name themselves as the chosen ones! They chose one out of 33 Canaanite gods as their own "true god".
True, whose who wrote the OT history books, can be very bias. Christain just use OT because they don't have a history.
Ancient cultures, Hebrews are no different, tend to think of themselves as the only civilized people on earth while all others are barbarians. Of course things haven't changes much since then because we have religious sects (Christian, Muslims, etc) that think they're the "chosen" ones while everyone else is going to hell. But the Jews' view of being the "chosen" ones seriously deteriorated over the years. Mainstream Jews no longer view God as the great and powerful and seriously downgraded him after the Holocaust.
Each God says you have two choice's Up Or Down?
Since Hell is the worst concept that anyone could imagine. All these religious groups kill for who has the right God.
I just report the freak show , with a get out hell card, I will never use.
God di not choose them out of many nations.
He called Abram to serve Him, and said that He would , in essence, create a nation out of his descendants.
Genesis 12;1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. 4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him:If true, then by choosing Abram/ Abraham he was choosing the Jews (his descendants) by default, so the question remains.
And anyway, if making a nation out of Abram's descendants was a reward to Abram, that just raises another question: why did God choose to reward him in that way? He could have rewarded him in any number of other ways. It also raises yet another question: why didn't God make a nation out of other prophets or prominent men as a reward? Why did he reward only Abram with a nation?No matter who is woulda coulda shoulda been, the same question would arise. The fact is that we live in a fallen world and we are to fight against the struggles of sin. It still is a good question, and I don't know if their actually is an answer
Christianity and Judaism claim that God can be understood. Yet he seems to do many things that cannot be understood, or that are frequently misunderstood.
I agree but would like to add a little to it. God called all men. Abram heard and listened to God's voice. The Bible says that Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him as righteousness.
Most do not believe God or even believe he is real. It is the same today.
If you would read farther into Genesis, you will also notice how God called Isaac as being Abraham's only son. Ishmael is not mentioned as being a son of Abraham by God.Ok, this is the most valuable response so far. Where is it written that God called all men?
If God called all men, wouldn't there be some kind of record in other cultures/ societies of this calling?
And anyway, as I asked Aka-DJ, why did God choose to "reward" Abram with a nation? Why not reward him in some other way?
And why not reward some of the other prophets with their own nations, too? How come only Abram gets a nation?Would someone have a record of someone calling out to them if they did not hear the one calling? 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
He is still calling even today.
I have no idea why God did what He did. He is the only one that can answer that question. To my knowledge, nothing is written pertaining to why He did it that way except maybe in Ezekiel about the bloody baby. Chapter 16. I will have to study it to make sure what it is about.
I think even Ishmael was made into a great nation. Of course I could be wrong.The citation you give doesn't really indicate that God called all men before/ during calling Abram, which is what I asked for. And it's from a book that was written long after Abram and the OT.
There would be a good chance of there being a record of it. The Old Testament serves as a record of many dead polytheistic beliefs of the Near East. The New Testament records contemporary Roman practices.
The record might also come in the form of beliefs and doctrines within large religious traditions. For example, Hinduism is a vast and complex religious tradition that was definitely around at the time of Abraham. It accommodates a variety of polytheistic, monotheistic and even atheistic tendencies. It would therefore be a fantastic opportunity for such a record.
"I have no idea why God did what He did."
That's pretty telling. Don't you find it a little odd? Creating a nation has a pretty big impact on the fate of the human race. And we're talking about creating human beings as a reward to another human being. Isn't that a little dehumanizing to the ones that serve as a "reward"? Doesn't it throw a monkey wrench into the whole concept of "free will" and individual salvation that Christians love so much?
Surely God foresaw all the sinning and disobedience of the Israelites--and yet he expected them to be a "nation of priests" (or something to that effect), in the mold of their patriarch Abraham. How do you explain this? A nation of sinning priests?
I think this issue carries much greater implications than you seem to believe.Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Old Testament verse. God never changes. He is the same today as He has always been.
No belief system can outdate God. Hinduism is one of man's many attempts of trying to understand God. God cannot be understood. No one can know Him, but what He has revealed to us, we can know.
I don't have to know how everything works or why it works. I know this computer works but I do not really know how it works.
Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. Not just one nation, but many.
Gen 18:18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
You speak of dehumanizing. Israel was granted land by God Himself. It was given to Abraham. Gen 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Everything in the Old Testament points to one thing. That s the coming of the Messiah. God did forsee all the sinning and wickedness. It is because of the sinful nature of man that Jesus Christ came to be born and to die.Again, I see no indication that God made an effort to call all men.
My point was that there would be a record of some kind in human cultures somewhere, at some time, regardless of whether anything "predates" God or not.
You don't have to know how the computer works, but you could if you wanted to. The computer operates according to certain basic physical laws. Those basic laws are 100% understood. The same cannot be said of the basic laws, decisions, motivations and idiosyncrasies of God.
Many nations from Abram--that just complicates things even more!
Israel granted land--Respectfully, so what? That doesn't change the "human reward" issue vis-a-vis Abraham.
Exodus 19:6 just reiterates what I just said--that God expected them to be a nation of priests. Yet it didn't turn out that way. It's easy to say in hindsight "it was all leading up to Jesus."
Jesus came to save all sinful men, all nations, not just the sinners of Israel. I'm talking about Israel here. But whatever, it's a minor point.
I could go on and on with these questions. The point is simply that there are many unresolvable issues here. But you've made a valiant effort
He was rewarded because (in spite of his own ideas, and those of others) he believed enough to stand out from the crowd; he accepted the "offer" to establish the Covenant. The reward for such a simple action of "yes, I'll do it" resulted in a massive reward --considering "back in the day" a man was valued by other men, based on how many children, wives and livestock he possessed.
The result of a single mans' acceptance of this offer, resulted in a generational "blessing", still in effect today. In short, they are not "the chosen ones" but the result of one mans faith.
Not to forget, before Abram (and even after) there was no such nation as the "Jews". The Jews came later as a single theology based on Mosaic "Pragmatic Ritualism". Israel came first, then the Jews.
As it is said, "Not all who call themselves Israel are Israel".
Meaning there was Israel (the faithful) and then there are the Jews (the religious).
James.So then God lowered himself to play by human standards? And temporary standards, at that?
What "standards" are you remarking on?
The standard of the time that you mentioned:
"a man was valued by other men, based on how many children, wives and livestock he possessed."
So God played to those standards and values that people held at that time.As I said, valued by other men (humans). "God" was merely re-establishing unification between "He" and humanity. It just so happens this man Abram of a very well-to-do tribe of people accepted the offer to be the cornerstone of that reunification.
The reward was apparently massive for just that singular instance.
Which to some is a sign of the bounty that comes with simple faith.
In my own mind, experience, it was a prelude to the bounty of Abundant (Eternal) Life available to anyone who does the same --meaning acts on faith alone.
James.Yeah, I understand the reward was massive, I got that part. What I'm saying is that God gave Abram a reward based on the values of the time. That's what you're saying. So if the people of the time valued, say, Gatorade as much or more, then God would have given him a massive amount of Gatorade as a reward, right?
If so, then doesn't that indicate that God was bending himself to the transient desires and whims of the people of the time? Seems like a silly move on God's part, doesn't it?
Aside from a number of other issues...The reward given Abram was a multitude of generations of humans to follow him. That was the actual reward. The "effect" of that reward seems to have included human standards of prosperity --not necessarily "God" handing Abram a bank of gold and 10k sheep. Seems man gave these to him or, more than likely, as a result of the many offspring, they accumulated possessions.
This is one reason they say Israel was often a wealthy clan, because they had a tendency to "keep it in the family". And their families being quite large, made them that much more wealthy (as in children, wives, possessions, livestock, etc).
So, "God" would not be bending to human conditions. If fact, Abram had to wait an additional 60 plus years to see that reward come to pass, in Issac, even though he had two other wives that bore children.
James.No, you still misunderstand. I'm not talking about the material wealth of Jews. The world of Abram valued large families and generations of descendants, right? So that is the reward that God gave him.
Today's world does not value those things as much, so if God were to reward someone today, it would be with something else (whatever we value today--a high-traffic website with Google ads, the latest iPad, or whatever).
So:
Generations of descendants >> is to >> Abram
as
Website >> is to >> Me
as
Gatorade >> is to >> NFL player
God was indeed bending to human values of the time by giving Abram what human values of the time valued.Not really, just because humans in Abrams time valued those items (large families, etc) does not mean God was bending to human conditions or playing favorites. I would venture to say, of natural blessings, procreation would be one of Gods own items, not mans item of choice.
Seems, in order to fulfill His reunification plan, additional humans were required in large numbers. Notably, from Jethro, son of Midian son of Keturah (one of the three Abram wives) came Miriam, Moses wife. From Sarah, came Issac, Jacob (Israel), Levi (priest of Israel, Kohath and Amram who is the father of Moses. So we are talking about 5 generations.
Now, today, we can look and people say "God" blessed them with wealth and I would probably laugh them out the door, since I do not see what God needs with money, or a reason to bless people based on economic value, or electronic gadgets. And although modern Judeo-Christian (even Islamic) philosophies often accredit God for their prosperity, I am highly inclined to think it is from millions giving dollars on Saturday/Sunday to keep the Synagogue/Church/Mosque going or the hard work of the individual to achieve their goals. and any actual blessing or reward from Creator would be a natural one --like long life, perfect health, wisdom, children etc.
In Abrams case, his goal was to have a son of pure birth, via Sarah. And since he accepted the offer to be the lineage from which Moses & Messiah would come, the reward came with it.
James.Ok, I think we're on the same page now. I do, however, think that procreation and large families was a major priority for the people of the time. Hence, it became "God's priority." The easiest way to understand the Old Testament narrative is in the context of the simple worldview of the people who wrote it, and what they wanted (escaping the bondage of Egypt, conquest of their enemies, new land to settle in, fertile women, geopolitical influence, etc). But that, of course, is a whole other discussion.
"Now, today, we can look and people say "God" blessed them with wealth and I would probably laugh them out the door"
And they, in turn, would be laughing all the way to the bank, my friend, lol!A Jewish perspective on the original post...
Jews wrestle with the concept of "chosenness" but not because of the standard assumption that it has to do with race. There is nothing in Jewish texts that deals with race. The Tanakh has several stories of people converting to Judaism, something that would be impossible if Jewishness were genetically based. Ruth, a convert, was the great-grandmother of David, and the supposed ancestor of the Messiah (this is why Christians claim Jesus was a descendent of her). And today, you can see Jews of all colors all around the world.
What Jews can all agree on is that what makes Jews "chosen" is Jews' acceptance of the covenant, which prescribes a certain standard of behavior, not belief or bloodline. Why Israel was "chosen" is debated in the Talmud; one Talmudic rabbi suggested that God offered the covenant to all the world's people, but it was rejected by all but Israel. But it is repeated often that it is that keeping the covenant is what makes Jews Jews, and is what makes Jews "chosen" as a special people by God.
What the Jews were "blessed" with (and this is what Jews often wrestle with, since fate hasn't generally been kind to Jews) was a role in making the world more Godly. Jews do not believe that God is knowable or all-powerful (God does or can not override natural events or human behavior, as simple reality makes clear), but God is perceived as wholly good while man has both good and evil impulses. Judaism is all about controlling our behavior, doing good, and becoming better people. In Judaism, there is no existential punishment for doing bad (there is no hell, no eternal punishment, no Devil, etc.); the only punishment is that doing bad makes it easier to continue to do bad, with the threat that you could be irredeemably wicked.
Judaism is also a religion that explicitly evolves. What made Jews Jews 2500 years ago is not what made Jews Jews even 700 years later. It's a religion that focuses on reinterpretation and adaption to changes in human development. I personally believe it's one that's always been ahead of the curve, even during ancient times when its code of conduct was ahead of its peers (even if terribly brutal by modern standards).
Maybe what Jews "chosenness" has given it is the ability to survive, something that almost all of its peers, many of whom were far more powerful, were unable to do...lol. Indeed they would Sec, indeed they would.
What I find interesting, in the history of it, is nearly half way through the 5 generations, arises Egypt, who enslaved half of Africa, much of the Persian territory and eventually the Hebrews. I think, due to their numbers, Israel became the largest, most organized threat. A very savvy and well "funded" people, with strong ties to other tribes --mainly Abrams brothers which suggests they controlled everything from SE turkey to the Lower Nile peninsula. After Joseph moved the family to Goshen and they building the twin cities, whatever transpired, triggered a massive movement by Egypt that enslaved Israel --some 3 million men plus women and children. For its time, it was the largest capital enslavement in history. The 2nd wave would come with Babylon. the 3rd and final wave with Rome.
james.
Leave us not forget that it is the old testament Hebrews that God said he chose, BUT, Jesus re-wrote all of that with the new testament teaching that God loves everyone equally.
That just brings up another question: why did God change his mind? And why at that particular time and place?
And if God loved everyone equally, wouldn't it have been more effective to send that message, say, to China or the Native Americans, or another culture that did not have a tradition of monotheism in place?
Also, perhaps more intriguingly, how can God change his mind? How can a perfect being contradict himself?the people that wrote the bible didn't know other parts of the world existed
That's true, but presumably God could deliver a similar kind of message to those other peoples.
Hmmm... He wasn't trapped on Mt. Sinai the whole time was he?@bailey exactly and that is why most religious books hardly cover more regions...another confirmation that religion are man made...
You know, Dave, I think I would have a better appreciation and trust in your god if he had instead simply told us all from the get go to respect everyone equally until further respect is earned, rather than get us all poking out each others eye teeth, and then flip-flopping on it later.
He didn't even come out and face us himself, but instead sent his son to do his bidding. Look what happened when the lynch mob got hold of him.Beelzedad: Finely I can see your point on some things. This is refreshing to see for a change. I think when he gave his laws his commandments he specifically spells out how people should be toward him and each other, but as usual some just like to test things and see how far they can push the envelope. As for sending his son to do his bidding, I believe the son volunteered for the job.
That is why your god should have instead simply told us all to respect one another, end of story. That way, he would get the love and worship he deserved rather than making commandments for it.
That's not how the bible puts it. He was sent as if he were a soldier on a mission carrying out an order.Careful there Beelzebub.. Those whose assume things they don't have knowledge of may may speak lies when their agenda is the guiding purpose..
Matthew 26:53
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Even though God's plan was to go through. Christ CHOSE to do it.
He was on a mission. That He wanted accomplished as well.
Luke 24:25-26
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
You see. Christ did what He done because He had a purpose to do so. For the glory of God, and to save the people who love God and seek God.
John 17:1-4
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
Wonderful how scripture clears things up so nicely huh?
He always had a CHOICE. He LOVES us... And that's EXACTLY how the Bible puts it.
Suicide NO! Martyrdom Possibly? Blind obedience to a parent definitely yes. Just as Abraham did with his son.
That's a great point, Dave. One that's often overlooked!
Blind obedience is not praise-worthy; would one like to be blind?
It cannot be called martyrdom.
Obviously, you take it for granted that the Jewish scripture is historical. What if you question the assumption in the first place? I'd say that the Jews wrote their own scriptures to understand their own particular history. Good for them. They 'think" that they have been chosen. Sure. Of course. That's their right to 'think' that they have been chosen. Neither you nor I need to get bent out of shape over what the ancient Jews thought of themselves as. If you study different mythologies of the world, lots of other races have been chosen, too. I don't take ancient myths as history. Neither should you or anyone else.
Lol, did you see my name? I am a "secularist," I don't follow any religion. It's simply a question for discussion.
Great point about other races being chosen.
I think the bible is a great book but it was written by men to their own convenience, many would say God told them what to write, but in the end written by men interpreted is so many ways over the years, unfortunately in my own personal opinion not the last word.
I agree completely ,i was raised that all are eqial in the face of God?
So I guess that when a story is told generations on to generations that a lot is bend to own convience .....I know there is faith ,and there are angels ,guerdian angels and message's to guide me because i am a psychic i cant denie there is more between heaven and earth but the bible or the Koran is written to control people and make them fear for God and his punishment ,its just a way to keep people down walking like sheeps in a group fear the strongest power there is ........we need to be openminded and free spirits ,everyone is special and we all deserve to be loved but then we have to start to love ourselfs and our life .....Blessed be angelheart1
We may never know! It might be a good question for someone to ask God after they get to Heaven.
My opinion is simply that He had to start somewhere.Not the most satisfying answer, but honest anyway.
God always goes where God is needed most. Evidently, the israelites were a wretched lot.
Now, that's an interesting take. A kind of divine socialism, lol. A system of "grace redistribution."
Well, check it out. God told the israelites not to covet their neighbors property. They whined and theymoaned constantly. Some even wanted to return to Egypt. Forty years of that. Then they come to the river Jordan, saw the cool place that the Canaanites had...and wanted it. Moses said "Go get it, but, alas, I won't be going with." Then they went down, and took Canaan by force. Obviously, they hadn't changed much from the golden calf group at the site of the ten commandments. Kill no one. Would have been better to remain Nomads. Why? Because they were an ungrateful bunch, that's why. Why else do they wail at the wall?
This is a test...this is only a test....this is a once per millenial test of the Global communications system. This test is performed once per 1000 years to determine if anyone has been paying attention. We will now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. Thank you.
It is a misunderstanding of the scribes; every nation and people are equal to the Creato-God.
Seems like the scribes easily lend themselves to "misunderstanding," lol. How do you know your interpretation of the scribes is the correct one?
Maybe god doesnt exist and he didnt choose anyone. Maybe people living with the Jews decided they didnt like the jewish religion and decided to make up their own and as a result, they would have to be the chosen ones.
I cannot say, for I am powerless to say ... Why God Created Adam, hence, Humans ... But I know, Adam was Expelled from Paradise, for his Transgression ... That after a life of "Repentance" ... he was readmitted into Paradise.
Thats why, Humans, in following the Adamic, commit Sin ... But are mostly Allowed to Repent, for the Transgressions ...
The Lord Hath Shown us The Way to Repent ... and after we Repent, we are Readmitted into The Ordained Abode for the Righteous among Adam's Progeny ... The Believing Humans ...
Jews are a part, of humankind, and only God Knows, why He Chose them, to be His Chosen, among humans ...
But they, as headstrong deniers, have always Transgressed His Sanction ... Most of them Never Repent ... nor make amends ... They, keep on Transgressing The Ordained Limits ... And such are not the Attributes of the Repentants, or Believers.
Ever since, the Jews, are First Exiled ... in The Warning, but due their persistence in Folly, most of their Fallacious ones, stand Condemned, for eternity ...
Because, the Jews, neither did, nor do they now, Repent, or Amend ... in their false Racial, now called, a national pride, manifest in their not Believing In God's placed Limitations on human Actions ... but Believing in their Race's Superiority over fellow humans !
Pride, Is the Cause, of Satan, being Banished from The Divine Presence.
For it is the Weak, who shall Inherit the Earth.Who's history is documented and remembered? The winners or the losers?
In this case, who is considered the chosen? Those who wrote the bible (Hebrew in OT and Gentiles in NT) or those who read the bible after it was written.God started out with one nation. Today he starts out with one person.
Do not think that the rest of the nations did not notice the Hebrews and they eventually learned that God was with the Hebrews. God picked the smallest race, not the biggest and most powerful, "because they were few in number" and in bondage. And God did what God does best, relieve them from their bondage and set them free from bondage and then He took them into a land that flowed with milk and honey and gave that land to Them for an inheritance in Him, inspite that others occupied it. As we will get the promised land after the resurrection that others will not get.
Nebuchadnezzar, a Babylonian, recognized the God of the Hebrews, One pharaoh knew God through Joseph (coat of many colors)
Way back in time there were descendants from Noah, Esau became the leader of the Edomites. Shem of the Arabians. There was only this little basin in the middle of our planet that God would show himself to all nations by this one insignificant nation, the Hebrews.
Today He wants to show himself by each Christian or His nation.____________
If I told you I would Be stoned. Some truths aren't suppose to written on a forum for all to see.
A covenant is not a law or commandment.
It is an agreement that both have to uphold or neither have to.
If God was not pleased and wanted to end that covenant with Israel at any time he could have.Because God wanted to. God has personal preferences too and also because Araham , who was called 2the friend of God" was the FIRST Jew. There was no Jew or Judaism before Araham, thus, in a sense, God organized and "created" the Jewish people.
Contrary to popular belief, it was Moses who approached Yahweh and not the other way around. Yahweh was a god to other people, the Kenites, before he became the god of the Israelites.
The Kenite hypothesis attempts to explain the origin of the Yahwist religion. It proposes that the Israelites learned of Yahweh through Moses who himself was acquainted with through his Kenite father-in-law Kenite father who was a Midianite priest. When Moses fled Egypt to the wilderness, he joined the Kenites, a Midianite tribe of nomads living in the desert about Sinai. Moses married into this tribe. Their tribal deity was Yahweh, the Kenite god. Moses therefore converted to their religion and became a devotee of Yahweh’s. It was obligatory for a man to convert to the religion of his wife.
"The connection of Yahweh with Sinai, that we have already
considered so fully, suggests that he was the God of the people who
dwelt at Sinai. Apparently he was worshiped there long before the
arrival of Israel. A priest of Midian was stationed there, according
to Exod. 2 : 16 (J), and Exod. 3 : 1 (cf. 18:1,12 f.) (E). The god whom
he served can only have been Yahweh, whom a unanimous and
persistent tradition associates with Sinai. Horeb was already the
" mountain of God," according to Exod. 3 : 1 (E), before Moses received
there his revelation. In 3:12 (E) Yahweh says: "When thou hast
brought forth the children of Israel out of Egypt, ye shall serve God
upon this mountain." This implies that Horeb is a sanctuary where
the worship of Yahweh is already established. In 19:10 (E) the
people on arriving at Horeb sanctify themselves and wash their
clothes, as men were accustomed to do when visiting a holy place.
In 3 : 5 (J) Sinai is holy ground even before any revelation is made
to Moses. In 3: 18 (J) the people ask that they may go three days'
journey into the wilderness in order that they may sacrifice to Yahweh.
In 19:4 (J) Yahweh says, when Israel arrives at Sinai: "I have
brought you to myself." Such statements are inconsistent with the
theory that Sinai first became a sanctuary of Yahweh in consequence
of the revelation of Moses; they show that it was already a holy
place in pre-Mosaic times. But, as we have seen, Israel did not
worship Yahweh before the exodus, and there is no tradition con-
necting it with Sinai before the time of Moses ; consequently, Yahweh
must have been the God of the people inhabiting Mount Sinai before
the arrival of Israel. "
So Yahweh decided to become the leaders of the Israelites once Moses converted to Yahweh worship. So, no, Yahweh was not exclusive to the Jews. He was also a physical entity who participated in wars.
https://archive.org/stream/jstor-314101 … 9_djvu.txt
If you were a bloke with a notion to write a 'holy' book, would you write it for your own people or for some other people?
Every religion is inclusive of its own and exclusive of others."Why did God choose the Jews?" Because then they get to have it their own way.
Simple answer - he didn't. Some superstitious men with big beards just got together and wrote that.
- just_curiousposted 14 years ago
0Whether chosen or not, history has proven it to be a dubious honor. They've suffered more, as a people, than any other group throughout history. Society's view of the TaNakH and the Bible caused them centuries of persecution by the Christians, attempted annihilation by Hitler and now hoped for annihilation by Islam.
Whatever your take on the TaNakH or the Christian Bible I think they deserve respect for maintaining their identity throughout the centuries of persecution. Whether chosen by any god or not, they're an amazing people. I would say if they were chosen it was as much as for their tenacity as anything else.They certainly have suffered, but not the most. There have been many groups that are no longer even in existence--victims of genocide or total conquest. So automatically those are worse-off.
Unfortunately the Jews of Israel seem to be taking a cue from their former oppressors nowadays vis-a-vis the Palestinians. I think that's the real source of the animosity on the part of many Muslims.
"I would say if they were chosen it was as much as for their tenacity as anything else."
Sounds like a chicken-and-egg situation to me, lol.Chicken and egg? Of course.
I think if you review the history and rhetoric, the muslim hatred of the jews has much darker roots than the palestinian conflict. To say otherwise ignores obvious facts.
I would be curious what example you might propose that would reflect the scale of persecution suffered by the jewish people. It would need to show evidence that it persisted over several millennium, permeated society on multiple continents, crossed religious and social barriers, manifested itself in the literature of these societies, forced its children to hide their heritage in fear of the inquisition and ensured that they were kept in ghettos and poverty. And, of course, the example must include the fact that their nation is under constant threat from those who consider them not worthy of continued existenceOh, the Muslims certainly have a long history of hatred toward the Jews, just like the Christians. I didn't mean to deny that. I'm saying the stuff you see in the news today is principally influenced by Israel and Palestine.
There are similar histories of hatred toward Christians and Hindus and others on the part of the Muslims, but the Jews have a "special" place in their heart nowadays. I don't think one can adequately explain that particular level of vitriol without Israel and its perceived injustices.
Black Africans come pretty close to what you describe. As do the Gypsies within Europe. But every group of people and their history is unique. It's a macabre and bizarre exercise to try to say "this person with one eye and no legs is worse off than that person with no arms and half an ear."
But my main point was that there are nations that are completely dead. That makes them automatically worse off than the Jews. Life always beats death, in my book.Well, true. The Jewish people do still exist. And I would never deny the fact that many groups have been persecuted. I simply think one should call a spade a spade. And, to me, the Jewish people are the spade most persecuted.
But I do know we all use different criteria and I certainly see your point.
After what happened in Genesis 11, I think God put a longer-range plan into play. Man needed redemption, even after His previously wiping out all the evil with the flood and keeping only Noah, et al. Man still went wayward. So, he prepared to send his Son by raising up a nation. God's dealings with that nation was to demonstrate to the rest of the world why He needed to send His Son. Though that nation went wayward, as well, that nation also kept the traditions of Moses and the prophets, so that to this day we have the records of what God said through His prophets. What they said was basically the Israelites need redemption through a Savior, and many future events surrounding the coming of that Savior were foretold. It was all recorded. And now we can see how many of those prophecies have been fulfilled. His Son came. This was all to help man see it is of God's doing and why they needed the Son to come and die for them. There are prophecies yet to be fulfilled, too, in the end times. As these are fulfilled one by one, it is to demonstrate it is of God's doing. Again, we have a record of these prophecies because God had a nation to preserve them in a written record.
But that is just stating the question in a different form: why did God choose to have the savior come out of the Jewish nation? Why not have him come out of, say, Mongolia or Nigeria or Hawaii?
Presumably another nation would have gone "wayward" just as much as the Jews did, and would have kept traditions and doctrines just as much as the Jews did.Yes, that's right. Other nations would have gone wayward, too. I see, so why God singled out one nation is not part of your question. As to why Abraham, he came out of the 'cradle of civilization'. Seems you are not taking into consideration the historical context back then. Why are you insisting there were civilization in the places you name back then for God to choose from? How do you know there were civilizations there at that point in time?
All historic evidence suggests that humans first originated in africa so why dont they have the original scriptures from god? Why did god wait until they moved to Israel and Mecca?
The mDNA results suggests humans were first established in North Africa, yes. But that has nothing to do with "when" Abram was called. In fact, the text suggests highly it was Abram looking for Creator instead of Creator looking for him. Considering the righteous mentality, and Creator being of a righteous mentality, seeks out the same in humans constantly, came across Abram. His location was actually not far from where geneticists consider the "origination" to be.
Ur (part of modern day Iraq/Kuwait) is believed to have contained one of the first baal temples, made of acacia and palm, just on the banks of the Euphrates --which begins way up north in Syria and right down to the gulf). given the need for water, and the lay of the land, a 1,600 kilometer "migration" across Saudi Arabia, is not impossible to consider. As for having "original scripts", perhaps they did, but given the various tribes, languages, disputes, etc, might have been lost, stolen or buried and forgotten.
James.Africans worship "Jah"
Egyptians worshipped "Horus"
Maybe god didnt choose who to bless. Maybe each country created their own god and therefore, whichever country you look at, was chosen by their particular god.Egyptians did not exist at the time of Abram.
But what I do find funny in their mythology is how Isis collected her dismembered hubbies body parts --less his procreating member-- and was able to fashion Horus. Hmm, them `gyptians are miracle workers -- jeje.
I believe --and stand corrected if inaccurate, the people of Ur worshiped the Sumerian icon Nanaa (spelling?) and believed their origin was Erik. Their language suggests an African tribal dialect.
I am not at all aware of claims by any of the tribes as to having been "chosen", which means Abram did not consider himself "chosen" but blessed to have been chosen from among many --especially the many varieties of deities, tribal rituals, etc he was engulfed in.
Either way, history is a very interesting thing.
JamesI agree history is very interesting and religion is a very big part of history. I like the egyptians beliefs they are quite amusing although they are no more far fetched than any other beliefs I have encountered.
and at one time all the continents were connected
Back to the original question: "Why not choose, say, the Koreans or the Incas or the Ostrogoths or the Somalis or some other ethnic group?"
Back in Noah's day, God "saw that man's wickedness was widespread on the earth" (Gen 6) and found Noah was a righteous man. So he and his family were saved out of the flood that wiped out everything else that was wicked. When mankind began to turn away from him again, God didn't want to wipe them out again with a flood, so confused their language (Gen 11) and called one of Noah's descendants via his eldest son to move to a different land (Gen 12). Why via Noah's eldest and why Abram who in the lineage came from the line of the eldest descendants? How about, first come is first servedYou actually pointed out some problems there. God confused the languages yet he also claims not to confuse anything at another part of the bible.
I believe the exact wording in the bible was that noah found grace in the eyes of the lord.
Does that mean god changed his mind after noah spoke to him and decided to let him live? Doesnt god already know everything then?
Why would an all powerful all LOVING god deliberatley drown millions of people including children and babies?
Couldnt he just magically make them all nice people? Didnt he create them in HIS image? Isnt god nice?
So many questions so many questions.These are certainly fair questions. One of my children had a lot of questions like these. In my effort to try and offer a fair response I went on a search and found this book: "God of the Possible: Does God Ever Change His Mind?" by Gregory A. Boyd. Have you heard of the Open View of God? It challenges some of the traditional theological positions. It provides a view helpful for such questions as, 'Why does God create certain people to only then send them to hell?' And, 'Does God foreknow the outcome of every decision we will ever make?' I'm not on commission or anything for promoting this book, but mentioning it because we found it very helpful for our many questions.
Although I havent read the book and I dont often read due to lack of time (always working or debating) I am fairly sure (although I could be wrong) that it wont contain anything ne that I havent been presented with over the last few years of debating theists of different religions.
If there is amything in particular you'd like me to address I'll always give it a look over and try to present a logical response but to keep it simple, try to think, could I have done that better if I was god?
Would you drown children and babies if you could simply think the universe back out of existance and create a fresh? Did they need to suffer? If you could create people exaclty as you want, then wouldnt you create good people and not people that want to "sin"?What about the thought that God doesn't know how all the future will turn out? BTW, it is a really easy read and only about 150 pp. The short answer to your last questions here is, yes, they needed to be removed in order to attempt a removal of evil. He did create man exactly as he wanted and that included mankind with a choice things. I must admit, though, someone who puts time into debating and not studying up on the issues is not a very good debater, in the end. I would encourage you to prioritize some time for real study on the issues, too.
You didnt address my question. Im not addressing the topic of if they needed to be removed or not. Im questionning HOW they were removed.
You also did not address my point of god creating evil and why he didnt just not create it to save himself the hassel and the need for him to punish people.
You also said something that implied god is not all knowing and that is contradictory to the bible.
Why drown the children and babies? I have spent many hours studying religion. When it comes to reading theist books however, past experience has proven that they never contain arguments that have not already been presented to me and are therefor a waste of my time since no new information is ever presented.
After reading a few and never finding anything new, I'd rather just wait until someone else finds an argument for me to refute. I have never been presented with one that was irrefutable and did not raise further questions just like the ones you are presenting me with.
You do know, the simple answer is that tha christian god is not real, the bible was made up by primitive people who made a lot of mistakes and had very questionable morals and values.
That would answer EVERYTHING.
Unfortunately, Boyd winds up not explaining himself very well at all as he circumnavigates the biblical claim that god is omniscient:
"1 John 3:20: "For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything" (NIV); 1 Samuel 15:29: "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind" (NIV); and Isaiah 46:9-10, "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come" (NIV). In Isaiah 41:22-23, Yahweh, by revealing what idols cannot do, indicates what he can
do: "Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; as for the former events, declare what they were, that we may consider them, and know their outcome; or announce to us what is coming. Declare the things that are going to come afterward, that we may know that you are gods .... Behold, you are of no account, and your work amounts to nothing ...." (NASB). Another passage would be Ephesians 2:lO: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (NASB)."
Boyd's argument is thus:
"If God does not foreknow future free actions, it is not because his knowledge of the future is in any sense incomplete. It's because there is, in this view, nothing dejnite there for God to know!" According to Boyd, "free actions do not exist to be known until free agents create them."This is what i love about the things of God.
There is always something new and exciting.
Free actions do not exist to be known until free agents create them.
wonderful.
I will be pondering this.
Ms Dee:
No, I did ask why God singled out, or "chose," that particular nation. You said to have Jesus come from them. So that just begs the question--why did he choose to have Jesus come from them.
"Seems you are not taking into consideration the historical context back then. Why are you insisting there were civilization in the places you name back then for God to choose from?"
Well, Chinese civilization goes back to at least 2000 BC, so right around that time. There were settlements all over Africa by this time. The Indus Valley civilization occurred around 3000 BC or earlier, putting it right around the time of Abraham and the start of Jewish culture.
There were cultures all over the Mediterranean, Anatolia and Persia by this time. "Civilization" arose independently in several places around the globe. But even more interestingly, there were a plethora of other cultures and groups in the very region that the Jews came from.
But this is all beside the main point of Jesus. Since Jesus came around in year zero, God theoretically could have put him in any culture on the globe of that time. He did not need 2000 to 3000 preceding years just to send Jesus. Around the time of Jesus, there were even more places God could have chosen from. So why that particular group? And if it's all about Jesus, why not send him earlier on, to save even more people?These are all fair questions. It is sounding like you have a very questioning mind and once some answers are proposed to your initial question, this begs more questions. Have you done a lot of biblical and ancient history study to get a really good grasp of the background history of that time? I find a REALLY good grasp of the actual context helps immensely with the many questions that can come about all this.
To offer my two cents worth of further thoughts, though, is that God wanted to start a new nation in Canaan, not China or elsewhere. Included in that was to replace the idol worshipers currently in Canaan at that time with a new nation who worshiped him. He also wanted someone from Noah's lineage to send there. I think he may have tried to send Abram's father, but he only got as far as Haran.
I could suggest also that this all has to do with, at least in part, with God's war with evil. IMHO, God is choosing his battles, as we see throughout the scriptures. I have read another of Gregory A. Boyd's books that we found helpful along this line -- again, I do not get any commission for this, or anything. It is, "Satan and the Problem with Evil". A good grasp of Satan's role in the world is a must for understanding God's work and purposes in the world. A warfare worldview of scripture lends huge insight into how to view God. This book, too, challenges some of the classical Calvinist interpretations, which do not provide adequate answers.
Why is god battling with evil when he created it?
Isaiah 45:7 I the lord created evil
Surely he could have done without creating evil and then there would be no need for him to battle with it?
Satan couldnt possibly be evil if god hadnt created evil. Evil would be non existant.WHy do you think God created evil when the Is 45:7 actually means 'I form light and create darkness'? Some good studies on the word 'darkness' here in this context say it implies this darkness he creates is done so by withdrawing some of the light. Light cannot dwell in darkness. When the created chooses darkness, light naturally withdraws from it. It is erroneous to believe God creates evil.
Evil is a man concept. It has no meaning to God or for God. After he created, he stepped back and said "It is all good." where then is the evil? The evil lurks in the minds of us all to conceive to do harm to one another, and to covet that which doesn't belong to us. We are the evil here. Admitting that is the first step towards true understanding of the Divine Spirit which dwells within each and every one of us. All seven (soon to be eight) billion of us. Realization of this would bring a respect of personal sanctity unparalelled in earth's history.
And yet, it has brought only centuries of death and destruction as we believe it and have attempted to fulfill that scriptural representation of mankind, unparalleled by any other so-called realization.
The realisation that man is evil is the main reason that crusaders killed all the infidels.
It is a cause for many deaths based on a ridiculous belief.
The translation of "darkness" is not a common one. It is also translated as "calamity" and "grave disaster".
You seemed to pick out the translation that you liked best even though it is not the most common one.
Why would more than half the translated bibles today tanslate it as "evil" if thats not what it means?Untrue. I was in my previous career an exegete and I go back to the most sound source text according to scholars. So I pick based on scholarly support. The other translations you refer to are based on the Textus Receptus, a Greek translation of the original that has significantly more problems.
Ok so there is debate on that topic but to go from another angle, didnt god create everything?
Where did the concept of sin come from? Actions of sin are considered to be evil are they not?
If the concept of sinning and evil always exist regardless of what god did, then who created them? Someone else?
Put it this way, if god didnt create evil, who did?I don't understand why you think evil has to be "created". Living beings and things are created. Why would a choice to worship God be something "created"?
So you dont think that everything was or needs to be created? Then why do you believe the universe was created?
The bible says god created the earth, not just living things. The bible says god put the tree of knowledge in the garden.
If god was battling with evil as you put it, then why wouldnt he just leave out the tree of knowledge instead and therefore not introduce evil into the world himself?
God put the tree there, god put the ability for humans to be evil.
Dont forget, before they te from the tree, they didnt know what evil was so they didnt even know they were doing something wrong did they? They had no idea about the concept of right and wrong.
How were they to know they were doing wrong when they ate of the tree? They didnt know disobeying god was wrong because they didnt even know what wrong meant.
God did it.
1.Sin is doing anything, willfully by an adutlt peson, which is not desired of him eithically; morally and spiritually.
2.Good has been created; when one creates a north pole, south pole is automatically comes thereby; evil is that opposite pole.North and south is not a good analogy and by no means does creating good mean that evil automatically exists.
The opposite of light is not darkness. It is lack of light.
If there was no good, there doesnt have to be evil, there could be neither good nor evil.
Walking down the street is neither good nor evil. It is a perfectly acceptable action should there be no good in the world.
So is eating, making children, and driving a car to work. Not good, not evil.
Evil is not a requirement of good.
Well, yes, I've always been a questioner and a critic of all ideas. That is why I'm not religious. I doubt that I would ever be able to order my life around ideas and concepts that are so full of shortcomings.
Sure, I've studied the Bible and various Christian thinkers and philosophers. But I don't think one needs a PhD in theology to make sense of these issues, because (1) most of the people who reach that level of education still don't agree on all this stuff, and (2) more importantly, the Bible and the whole message of God is supposed to be accessible and intelligible to all people.
The "context" of the Bible is often cited, but the only true context was an ancient world full of barbaric, savage practices and beliefs.
Hate to be politically incorrect, but I simply don't give the benefit of the doubt to ideas and beliefs formed in a world where women were valued as little more than vessels for offspring, where women were the property of their father or husband, where draconian physical punishments were the rule and not the exception, where no knowledge of science or anything resembling it existed, and where psychotic xenophobic tribalism underlay government and society. What an awful and disturbing world they lived in. I prefer to not have any part of it.
As far as Canaan, again, this is simply the same question in a different form--why did God choose Canaan to start a nation instead of China? There were plenty of idol worshippers in China, southeast Asia and India/ Pakistan at the time. What was so special about Canaan?
The real question, at bottom, is what is God really doing here. What is his real game.
I think the various Christians on this forum, who have given it a good try, nevertheless have not solved this fundamental problem.What is God really doing here? Mmmmm
As I understand it He desires to have a relationship with humanity. He chose Abram to after it all went pear shaped with Adam's descendants and subsequently Noah's descendants. Why Abram? Who knows. Perhaps he was more receptive to God that his contemporaries. God obviously saw something in him and later on said that Israel would be a nation of priests charged with bringing humanity to God."Why Abram? Who knows. Perhaps he was more receptive to God that his contemporaries."
Perhaps. Or perhaps God simply chose him arbitrarily. I find it very hard to believe that there would not have been at least ONE other human being SOMEWHERE in the entire world of hundreds of thousands of the time that would have been receptive to God's message. Assuming, that is, that God made an effort to communicate with other people... which we don't know, evidently.
Zoroastrianism was a major religion in Persia at the time, and it featured an early form of monotheism, for example. There's at least several thousand good contenders right there.Zoroastrianism is not strictly monotheistic, it is dualistic. In opposition to Ahura Mazda, there is the evil entity called Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, with a continual warfare going on between them.
In Judaism, God said that besides Him there is no other. That is, there is no evil spiritual entity opposing Him; one that the Church calls Satan. Granted, Zoroastrianism had a huge influence on Jewish culture and beliefs during their time in Babylon, but those beliefs are not found in the bible.
So Abram or Zoroaster? I'm still with Abraham because even with regards the fact that Zoroaster did have a revelation that the polytheistic system made no sense, he still decided that there was a need for an evil spiritual entity in the world, whereas Judaism states that evil comes from men's hearts.Apparently the Jews copied off the pagan ugartic texts
http://phoenicia.org/ugarbibl.htmlAlso transubstantiation (the roman catholic belief that crackers and wine are the body and blood of christ) is a plageurisation of pagan sacrificual rituals.
Research St. Patrick and how he went to Ireland while fleeing England (when the romans attacked ond forced christianity on all the pagans under penalty of death) and was forced to incorporate pagan rituals into his christian teaching so he wouldnt be killed for being too different.Fascinating stuff, Baileybear. Looks like God has a copyright infringement case in his future!
That's why I said "an early form of monotheism," a prototype of monotheism, if you will. I do so love when people actually read what I wrote... sigh...
In any case, my point remains that there surely would have been SOMEONE on the entire planet earth that would have been receptive to God's message, if he actually tried communicate with them... assuming this is not simply a self-serving tribal myth...
The two biggest groups of people that come to my mind that would have had a good chance of being receptive to it (if God supposedly made such an effort) were the Zoroastrians and the Hindus.
He choose them because he could not find 3 wise men and a virgin in Rome!
"If you could create people exaclty as you want, then wouldn't you create good people and not people that want to "sin"?"
Assuming God created people, he did create 'good-born-people'. It is people that change them into bad through the facilities of the mind.Thats a pretty bare assertion dont you think? Are you saying that convicted murderers were born good and taught to be evil murderers? By who? their parents?
Prove that anyone was created. Your making some pretty bold claims there and I'd like to see some evidence.
- Twenty One Daysposted 14 years ago0
From what the lineage shows, Abram was not the "first" to be called, although I am not certain if Terah was nor Nahor & Haran. But, considering all three assisted Abram in his departure "down stream" through Turkey with all his flocks, etc, it would seem likely they knew of this calling to some degree...
What I find very interesting is the lineage and the length of time until Issac was born. As it was from Nahor that Laban and eventually Rebekah, Issac's wife came, who would be the mother of Jacob (Israel).
James. hehehe,, thats imposible ,,god never change his mind,, if he can change i would wish to him that to chang the character of people in this world,, stop all the gumblers,,and any bad things ,,
All aspects of the image. Hearkens to the Israelites wanderin' in the widerness.
Why did God choose the Jews?
All nations are equal in the eyes of the Creator-God.God chose the Jews because the Jews wrote the Bible. If the Incas had written the Bible, chances are they would have written that the Incas are the chosen. Their Bible probably wouldn't have much to say about the Jews at all.
I love the profile pic!
(No gods were damaged in this post.)
Why did God choose the Jews?
All nations are equal in the eyes of the Creator-God.
God chose Krishna and Zoroaster as he did choose Moses from his people.It only traces the evolution of the Jewish people and their theo-centric culture. Must we take everything literally? When G-d chooses you in ancient literature, it only means that has become your destiny. When G-d commands you, it only means that is your nature.
G-d in this context is all the forces coming together to form "a people" when they were formerly slaves. It is their adherence to their faith that chose their destiny and liberation.
It is an amazing story and an inspiring one. Don't dumb it down folks.Not according to the religions in question.
hmm...please have a macroscopic understanding of world mythology so that you don't have to battle ignorance. Instead, you will see why that's happening and no longer participate in the ignorance.
Please realize that the question is not about world mythology, it's about the specific beliefs of these specific religions.
Any similarities or connections to other world myths and beliefs is another discussion altogether.that is my point, it is not a different topic altogether. The question Why did G-d choose the Jews is based on Jewish Literature, is it not? The problem of that question is it is belaboring a metaphor as though it were a historical event.
It is a story. You cannot possibly confirm that G-d infact chooses in any way. You cannot even confirm if there is a G-d. It is not factual. It is symbolic. They have significance that counter to what most people believe are understood by the learned rabbis. It is only the wishy-washy types and the christians who are equally wishy-washy who take it literally because they really couldn't give a real rat's ass what it really means. They just want their bake-off and christmas charities and mouthing off things they heard when they were three.
I already told you what it means. It is nothing to be hurt about. It means something happened that fated them to be the Jewish people. That is what is meant. Their identity is tied to G-d and that is what is being celebrated. Now continuing to color in ways that only angers others is already war-mongering.Well, you can call them wishy-washy, and while I may very well agree, that is their religion. It's wishy-washy, it's about sin, it's about Noah's ark, it's about the slavery in Egypt, it's about the resurrection, it's about hell, it's about this and it's about that. That's just what it is.
Now, we can certainly take a step back objectively and see COUNTLESS similarities with many other religions, superstitions and belief systems all over the world.
Of course I agree it's a story. Of course I agree you cannot possibly confirm any such thing about God, and certainly not that God exists. But that is my belief, as a "secularist," relevant outside this discussion. For the purpose of this discussion, I'm assuming some basic things, and seeing where the logic takes us.
I certainly do not agree, however, that it is meant to be symbolic. It certainly wasn't for the ancient Jews who wrote these words. Perhaps to some such as yourself, or others who study at the Joseph Campbell School of Theology, but as far as the real believing Christians and Jews are concerned, it's real, my friend. It's very real...
And BTW, I don't see much war-mongering. I actually think the discussion has been pretty civil.The resurrection and hell? Are you aware that Judaism has no beliefs about Jesus whatsoever, much less his supposed resurrection, and hell does not exist in Judaism?
As to the "countless" similarities to other religions, I think you mean Christianity which adopted plenty of Mediterranean pagan beliefs as a kind of fusion belief system. But Judaism adopted several beliefs from host cultures, including the "book of the dead" talked about during the Days of Awe, which was a Babylonian-like belief.
Furthermore, there is very little historical record of Jews being slaves in Egypt; if anything, evidence points to a small group of slaves that escaped Egypt just joined the Israelite nation.
There is no evidence whatsoever for an Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, or Noah's Ark. These are all metaphoric, and with powerful symbolic meaning.
For fundamentalist Christians and Jews, these are all historical fact. But why are you so insistent on using their perspective? Are fundamentalist beliefs the only ones worth respecting?Obviously I was referring to Christianity. Should have made that more clear.
Both Judaism and Christianity have countless similarities with other world belief systems. It's pretty well-established by now that Zoroastrianism was an important influence on Judaism, as were contemporary beliefs in the eastern Mediterranean, as you mentioned.
What we know today as "fundamentalism" was simply the entire religion (both Christianity and Judaism) for almost all of their history, until the last few centuries when new insights into the age of the world and the evolution of people have arisen. And there are still many holdouts. And many that are not considered to be "fundamentalist."
Literalism still lies at the heart of Judaism and Christianity, and all religions. Perhaps not total, 100% literalism, but I would submit that most Christians literally believe that Jesus was born to a virgin and resurrected from the dead, for example. And most Jews literally believe that God etched out the 10 commandments, a la Charlton Heston. Moreover, most Jews certainly believe that "thou shalt not kill" is not a metaphorical statement, but a literal one.
Any religion makes literal claims about the world. So it's not unjustified to employ a literalist approach to understand it. The perspective you are advocating is not a primary or widely-held one, among either practicing Jews or Christians.It is the context of a verse from the Word Revealed that would decide whether it is to be taken litreal or smybolic.
[6] And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments. [7] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. [8] Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. [9] Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. [10] But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.
[11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. [12] Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.
[13] Thou shalt not kill.
[14] Thou shalt not commit adultery. [15] Thou shalt not steal.
[16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. [17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his. [18] And all the people saw the voices and the flames, and the sound of the trumpet, and the mount smoking: and being terrified and struck with fear, they stood afar off, [19] Saying to Moses: Speak thou to us, and we will hear: let not the Lord speak to us, lest we die. [20] And Moses said to the people: Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that the dread of him might be in you, and you should not sin.
Book Of Exodus Chapter 20
Bible mentions that human beings are not to be killed, literally.
Yet a lot of killing has been made in the Jewish and Christian history.Obviously the "context" of a verse doesn't help us understand whether it's supposed to be metaphorical or literal.
One man's literal is another man's metaphor.
Moreover, it is illogical to use a book to explain itself.
Q "How do I understand the Bible?"
A "By using the Bible"
Lol...Obviosly such an observation is wrong; one cannot understand Bible without reading it like one cannot understand science without studying it.
And how does one understand what one reads in the Bible?
Your answer: the context, and the other verses in the Bible.
See my previous comment.
By contrast, one understands science by referencing it to something else--other knowledge that one has learned.I don't have any objection if you want to study science from the fiction books not related to science; it is your own free will.
I don't have any objection if you want to study science from the fiction books, either. Fiction such as the Bible or the Quran. You're free to do whatever you want.
But if you want to understand real science, then you will have to use logic, reason and critical thinking.
Logic, reason and critical thinking do not apply to the holy books, unfortunately. It's just whatever you want it to say.
I'd be interested why you're so confident that most Jews or Christians believe that scripture describes the literal truth. This survey seems to suggest a third of Christians do:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThi … -True.aspx
Among Jews, it is even lower, since fundamentalists comprise a far lower percentage among all Jews, and Judaism is explicitly open to a wide range of beliefs, even among those who consider themselves "ultra-Orthodox."
Your choice of the "thou shalt not kill" is a curious one, considering this is one "commandment" which just about everyone can agree on, regardless of their faith or lack of faith. I wonder why you wouldn't consider one of the other 613 commandments traditional Jews consider obligatory to follow, and how many Jews think things like avoiding fabrics of mixed fibers is one commanded by God. I suspect because your perception of Jews is colored by your familiarity with Christianity, and Christians' (often very wrong) views of Jewish practices and beliefs.
I suspect you also are eager to defend your own secular viewpoint, and that's all the more easy when you paint all religious people as a bunch of fundamentalist loons who read all scripture literally. (I often see the same among religious fundamentalists who paint all atheists as nihilists.)Fascinatingly, the survey you cite proves my point. I quote:
"About one in five Americans believe the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man.""
About 20% believe it is simply stories and legends, etc. That means that a whopping 80% believe it is more than that.
Note the careful wording of the author: "The majority of those Americans who don't believe that the Bible is literally true believe that it is the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally." (my emphasis)
Again, I don't think one has to be a pure literalist to be religious. But one certainly has to take some things literally.
And in any case, a third of Americans taking the ENTIRE Bible literally is a HUGE number. (Remember, this is 1/3 of Americans, not 1/3 of American Christians.) Surely factoring in the "not 100% literal" crowd (i.e., maybe 20% of it is literal, or 50% is literal), we have mostly the entire Christian population of America.
Outside of the rich world, in places like Africa or Latin America, we can be confident that the vast majority of Christians view it literally more or less in its entirety (hence the witch hunts and vicious homophobia we see nowadays in some parts of Africa). And that's pretty much all of modern Christendom, right there.
Since we're citing surveys, allow me to blow your mind. Again, my point is not about the entire Bible per se, it's simply that literalism is essential on some level to all religious belief. Accordingly, when you break things down a bit and ask Americans if they literally believe in various stories, we see much higher numbers:
"A new nationwide survey by The Barna Group explored a half dozen stories drawn from the Bible. The Barna researchers asked a sample of 1005 adults if they trusted those stories to be factually accurate or to be narratives that were not factually accurate but were designed to teach principles. A majority of adults indicated that they accepted five of the six stories - including the virgin birth of Jesus Christ - as being literally true, while half accepted the sixth story as an accurate depiction of an historical event." ( http://www.barna.org/barna-update/artic … -of-christ )
It goes on to say that a massive 75% of Americans believe the virgin birth is literally true! Again, accounting for non-Christians, it's safe to say that practically all Christians in this country believe that! And I could go on about the other stories. But the article is fascinating. Some put it even higher than that.
Here's an article on Richard Dawkins' site (sorry, unintentional, it just came up in my Google search) discussing the same study: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2061
64% believe in Noah's flood, and 56% believe in Eve-and-the-serpent.
So there you go
I just pulled "thou shalt not kill" out of my head. I could have referenced adultery, coveting, bearing false witness, loving God, or lots of others. The same literalistic mentality applies. I wouldn't read too far between the lines. Of course many "Jews" are "Jewish" only in ethnicity/ cultural identity. It's not a religious label for them. But among those that are seriously religious (which is what we're talking about), literalism must play some kind of role. They have to literally believe in a God, for instance.
I don't think all religious people are loons. But religion comes from a loony place. Thus it prospers among loons. And thus the loons tend to dominate religion and set the standard for what it's all about. Historically this is certainly the case. And today, it is true as well, although not as much.
For the most part, truly enlightened people tend to either not be religious at all, or, again, "religious" only in name/ nominally. Those who take a very metaphorical route like what you're advocating tend to borrow beliefs from a variety of religions and thus, cannot belong to any one religion.
Damn, that was a long comment.Barna Group - an evangelical Christian polling firm. This is what you consider an authority on these matters? I don't. I'll take Gallup's numbers over a firm that has a vested interest in portraying most of American Christians as fundamentalist as they are.
Your arguments are a bit of a moving target. First you claim that most Christians believe in the virgin birth, and that a majority of Jews believe God wrote the 10 commandments. Then, when you were unable to support this contention without resorting to an evangelical Christian polling firm (oh, the irony!), then you said, well, 1/3 is still too many. As an atheist, maybe with evangelical instincts of your own, you might think that, but that's entirely a matter of opinion. Your belief that most American Christians read the Bible literally is not supported by facts. I'll say another "oh, the irony" since it's clearly not gratuitious here.
For a third "oh, the irony" I'll reference your insistence that to be properly religious, you must have certain beliefs. For a fourth, I'll call on your need for a religion to be "pure" (i.e. without any other borrowed elements) in order for it to really be a religion. For a fifth, I point to your claim that metaphorical understandings of Biblical scripture don't count.
I'm not entirely sure "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" wouldn't apply to the arguments you're using yourself.Huh???
Ok, forget about Barna. Whatever. One third of Americans is still a HUGE number to believe that, as I said. Do you really think it's so unreasonable to say that, beyond that one-third, more people don't accept the entire Bible literally, but they still accept some of it? We're talking about human beings here, with a range of complex feelings and beliefs. The study you cited points to this fact.
And as I said, the very study you cited indicates that 80% believe it is more than just fables and legends. That means they believe there is something real--something literal--at work.
I reiterate, I never said most American Christians read the Bible literally. I said that some level of literal interpretation is held by a large majority of Americans. You keep wanting to project some simplistic black/ white argument onto me, but that's not what I'm saying at all.
Here's a good secular source for you ( http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons# ). 33% of Americans say their holy book (not just the Bible) is literally true, word for word (confirming the Gallup number), and an additional 30% say it is the word of God, but not literally true word for word. In that 30% we can easily imagine all sorts of semi-literal ideas. An additional 28% say it is written by men, not God. That's good, but someone who literally believes in the virgin birth of Jesus may very well think the Bible was a man-made account of those kinds of miracles.
Here's another good secular source: Harris polling ( http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/11/2 … 5820071129 ). 72% believe Jesus is God or the son of God, and 62% believe in a literal hell and devil. These are literal beliefs. The evidence is there.
And in any case my earlier point about more primitive cultures in the developing world stands.
"For a third "oh, the irony" I'll reference your insistence that to be properly religious, you must have certain beliefs."
Simply what the religious say about themselves, in the aggregate.
For a fourth, I'll call on your need for a religion to be "pure" (i.e. without any other borrowed elements) in order for it to really be a religion.
Don't know where I said that. In fact I affirmed from the top that both Judaism and Christianity borrowed elements from preceding faiths.
For a fifth, I point to your claim that metaphorical understandings of Biblical scripture don't count.
Never said that. I said they're not as central.
If you just read what I write instead of projecting stuff, you'll see what I'm saying (I hope).I am using what you're saying.
It really doesn't in the case of Judaism. As I understand it, you don't know/understand much about Judaism, so I'll forgive you this.
But Christianity is different; it has a dogma. You are literally required to consider Jesus to be the son of God to be Christian. Nevertheless, polling says that a third (not most) literally interpret scripture.
OK, well, the Harris Poll seems to confirm this. My bad.
Nope, not even close. Reread the Pew results. Judaism doesn't work that way. And those ~5% who say things like Judaism is the only path to "eternal life", or that there is only one correct way to interpret Judaism's teachings, are probably "Messianic Jews" or Christians (the rest of us Jews do not consider them practicers of Judaism).
BTW did you download the full PDF? It has some, um, very strange results. Apparently 8% of self-identified atheists are absolutely certain there is a God. (pg 9)
Anyway, I wanted to come back to your earlier point about religiously-fueled homophobia in Africa. The poll says Jews' and atheists' views on homosexuality and abortion are statistically the same (pg 18). Keep in mind that only 11% of surveyed Jews are atheist (something that's allowed in Judaism, by the way).Ok, well if you consider atheism to be allowed in Judaism, then I can forgive you too because it seems that your conception of "Judaism" is really the set of cultural traditions of the ethnic Jews, whereas I am referring more to the religious component (which, yes, does include an ethnic component). Judaism is a monotheistic religion. It believes in a God. Atheism is simply impossible to reconcile with that belief.
I'm the first to admit I'm no expert on Judaism
Regarding literalism, again, every religion claims something. Whatever it claims, is its literal claim. If it claims "God exists," then you have to literally believe that there is a being up there somewhere. And so on. Without that literal belief, you don't have a religion. That is why it is central and essential.
"Nevertheless, polling says that a third (not most) literally interpret scripture."
Good. Never said that most Americans literally interpret scripture.
"Nope, not even close. Reread the Pew results. Judaism doesn't work that way."
Ok, I exaggerated on Charlton Heston. Still, over a third of American Jews believe the texts are the word of God. Most disagree. But remember, American ethnic Jews are very secularized (which is related to their high marks on education and wealth, and attitudes on homosexuality you mentioned).
Of course an ethnic Jew, because of those strong ethnocultural ties, will tell a pollster asking about his religion "I'm Jewish" even if he never goes to temple. Same goes for many so-called "Christians" in America, because religion in America is often a cultural/ community affair, less so about true beliefs. To understand a religion, we need to look at the real practitioners of it, not just those who "claim" to follow this or that. (This is also why the proportion of true Christians who are literally-minded is higher than these polls show. We must factor in the secular people who call themselves "Christian.")
Sure, I looked at the whole report. I used it in my series on humanism and religion. (Here is the hub dealing with Judaism, I'm sure you can have fun with it: http://hubpages.com/hub/Humanists-Guide … d-Buddhism )
Very strange results--the typical magic of polls. That's why we need to read a little more into it and use a little intuition, as I have tried to do, when interpreting the results.
It's like solving a crime. You don't have 100% clear evidence, but that doesn't prevent you from stitching together a reasonable narrative based on the evidence you do have.
Also, I keep forgetting to mention this, but the BIGGEST example of modern Judaism's literalism is the state of Israel. Israel exists in that location because Judaism believes that God gave that land to the Jews (and here we come full circle to the original point). It's not metaphorical. Millions of Israelis don't think it's metaphorical. If it was "metaphorical land" Jews could live anywhere. But they wanted that strip of land, right there. That's where they built their state, and are still fighting tooth and nail for it today. That's as tangible as it gets.Wrong. Ask any religious Jew if atheism is grounds for apostasy in his religion. Jews, even the highly observant ones, do not ask you what your beliefs are. You can not help what you believe. What you do is what's stressed in Judaism, and what's required in terms of behavior depends on the particular movement you follow.
But, yes, nowadays, if you believe in Jesus, for example, most Jews will not consider you Jewish, but this has a lot to do with the fact that Christians have created lots of problems for Jews over the past 1700 years or so.So? A third believe that the Torah is the word of God. Good for them. Believing that is entirely sanctioned in Judaism. So is not believing it, which is about the other 2/3. The other 2/3 is not atheist--the same poll makes clear that only 11% of Jews are atheist. I know as a person who was raised Christian, that this is difficult for you to wrap your head around, but Jews are not required to believe anything in particular to be Jewish.
Not only for "ethnic Jews." I am a convert. Never during my conversion process did the beit din (rabbinical court) ask me if I believed in God, or about my beliefs at all. They did ask me a lot about what my planned course of behavior was.There's plenty of data on how often Jews attend temple and pray, how many believe in God, etc in the same poll. You don't have to resort to guesses.Well, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ is your savior, you are automatically not a Christian. You can "culturally" be a Christian, but belief is required since Christianity is a dogmatic religion. Judaism is not. It's possible to not believe and still be a "true" Jew.
And about Israel: not true. Israel was founded by secular Jews who recognized that a homeland where Jews were the majority was the only way Jews would be able to escape the neverending cycle of persecution and death when they were minorities in other countries. They chose the Levant because of an unbroken (even if small) presence of Jews there since ancient times, and because it was their homeland before the diaspora.
Sure, the ultrareligious exist but they are johnny-come-latelys, and the truly ultra-Orthodox are either agnostic about Israel's existence (they immigrate because the state supports them; they are not economically productive) or opposed to it. According to scripture, Israel should not exist until the Messiah comes."Ask any religious Jew if atheism is grounds for apostasy in his religion."
Well, gee, it doesn't have to be apostasy, lol! Black and white again. But c'mon. I agree that action is stressed more in Judaism and belief in Christianity. But both action and belief are important for all religions. If you don't agree that Judaism is a monotheistic religion, then again, we're simply talking past each other. Again, your conception of Judaism sounds more like a collection of cultural communities, not a religion.
"So? A third believe ... only 11% of Jews are atheist."
You seem to think that being "secular" means being atheist. Black/ white again. The vast majority of Americans lead predominantly secular lives while nevertheless believing in some kind of God. I'm saying most ethnic Jews in the US are secular, but just like everyone else will tell a pollster they believe in a religion, even if they don't behave accordingly.
I know as a person who was raised Christian
Whoa! There you go again with those assumptions. I was not raised Christian. I've never been religious in my life. No basis for that one AT ALL, lol.
There's plenty of data on how often Jews attend temple and pray, how many believe in God, etc in the same poll.
Yeah, and surprise surprise, the majority attend religious services a few times a year or less often. I understand the behavior thing. Really, I do, although you'll never believe me. But at some point you're either in, or you're out. I can accept a wide variety of behaviors and beliefs in a single religion, but at some point it gets so flexible that it just disintegrates.
According to you, since you don't have to believe anything to be Jewish, and since there is some sect or community somewhere that accepts almost any behavior, maybe I'm a Jew! And I didn't even know it, lol! Seriously, I'm just as nice to people in my daily life as many of these "Jews," I give to charity, etc. What you're saying, in essence, is that I am a very liberal kind of Jew. And by extension, most people are.
Zionism was a largely secular movement, yes. But its fundamentals are in the religious belief of a promised land. (Similar to the anti-abortion movement or anti-gay marriage; it's primarily political, but has its roots in religious beliefs for most.)
If all they wanted was a piece of land, they could have easily set their sights on Brooklyn--there were more Jews there than in Palestine. They chose Palestine for the secular reasons you mentioned, and also because of the special religious/ cultural significance "the promised land" held for them. Most Jews were far more familiar with Brooklyn, or Poland, or London, than they were with Palestine, culturally, economically, socially, etc. But they wanted that land, right there. That kind of irrational thinking can only be caused by religion.OK - let's begin again.
Judaism holds that there is only one God, but Jews (much less anyone else) are not required to believe in God. Most Jews (89%, according to the Pew poll) believe in God, but those other 11% are not considered "bad Jews" or apostates. If your definition of a religion is a necessary pairing with a dogma, then Judaism (except the ultra-Orthodox variety, or less than 5% of religious Jewry, who have clung to Maimonides's 13 principles of faith) is indeed not a religion.
I didn't say 11% of Jews were secular. The poll says 11% believe there is no God, which makes them atheist, not secular. And I don't understand what you mean by secular. You can be secular and still believe in God, right? Is that the case for you?
By Jewish definitions, attending services is completely optional. There are only a few prayers that require a minyan (a quorum of 10 people) and you don't need to attend a synagogue to do those. Sorry, again, if you think this means that those "high holyday" Jews (who attend service for Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur) are not really religious, but the vast majority are.
And while you might have not been raised Christian, you were, like we all were, immersed in a Christian-centric culture, which points to faith and church attendance as proof of religiosity. These are not the markers of a religious lifestyle in Judaism.
And, no, you're not Jewish. You could do everything that Jews do and still not be Jewish. But don't worry - we don't proselytize.
As to Zionism's choice for the promised land: did you know that Uganda and part of the then-USSR were among the choices considered by Zionists? As I mentioned before, the Levant, at the time relatively unpopulated and with an unbroken Jewish presence and acknowledgement as the Jewish homeland, made it the preferred choice, and not only for religious reasons.Oy vey... let's not.
"Judaism holds that there is only one God, but Jews (much less anyone else) are not required to believe in God."
Haha, uhh... what? How can you believe in a religion if you don't accept the claim of the religion.
"You can be secular and still believe in God, right? Is that the case for you?"
Nope, not for me. Yes you can be secular and still believe in God. "Secular" means simply living a life that is not really affected by or interested in religion. A person can have the esoteric belief in a God, but 99% of their life (goals, desires, behavior, lifestyle, other beliefs) is world-based. It's a more nuanced situation than the black/white I know you love.
There is a continuum from radical fundamentalist to pure irreligion. Most Americans are on the more secular side of that spectrum.
"And, no, you're not Jewish. You could do everything that Jews do and still not be Jewish."
Well, this COMPLETELY contradicts everything you've said to this point. You said it's all about action. Yet now action isn't enough.
"did you know that Uganda and part of the then-USSR were among the choices considered by Zionists?"
Nope. Interesting stuff. We agree that both secular (including culture/ history/ ethnic heritage) and religious motivations were behind it. But the bottom line: you don't have Israel where it is today without the Jewish religion.
Your original criticism was my taking things literally in Christianity and Judaism. You eventually succumbed to my position on Christianity, but continue to hold out on Judaism. My point is simply that if a person is said to "believe" in a religion, they need to accept some claims of that religion. And those claims contain an important "literal" component, even if metaphors play a role. At some point one has to literally say "I believe X."
Even if action is stressed, that action has to come from somewhere. It comes from a belief: "I believe I should act this way, because of XYZ" etc.Oy vey... let's not.
Haha, uhh... what? How can you believe in a religion if you don't accept the claim of the religion.
Judaism is a religion you follow, not one you believe in. Ask any rabbi if you don't believe me. I chuckle now when I hear the phrase "Jewish faith" (always said by people who only know Christianity); the term is pretty much meaningless among most Jews.
Nope, not for me. Yes you can be secular and still believe in God. "Secular" means simply living a life that is not really affected by or interested in religion. A person can have the esoteric belief in a God, but 99% of their life (goals, desires, behavior, lifestyle, other beliefs) is world-based. It's a more nuanced situation than the black/white I know you love.
Any reason you've started to strike this combative tone? I thought this was quite civil so far. Secular can mean many things; your definition is a valid one.
"And, no, you're not Jewish. You could do everything that Jews do and still not be Jewish."
Well, this COMPLETELY contradicts everything you've said to this point. You said it's all about action. Yet now action isn't enough.
Belief and behavior are not the only possible dimensions to membership in a religion. Let's say you move to Italy. You learn to speak flawless, accentless Italian. You eat pizza, pasta and veal piccata. You closely follow Italian politics. All of your friends are Italian. You adore Italy and consider it your homeland. Are you Italian?
But the bottom line: you don't have Israel where it is today without the Jewish religion.
If by meaning that there would be no Jewish people without the Jewish religion, you're right. But, as I said before, strictly speaking Judaism would argue against the modern state of Israel, since the Messiah has not yet come. The ultra-religious are generally either neutral on or against Israel's existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredim_and_Zionism
My point is simply that if a person is said to "believe" in a religion, they need to accept some claims of that religion.
Yes, that's true, but believing in Judaism is optional in Judaism. Following Judaism is not, and it does not require belief.
Even if action is stressed, that action has to come from somewhere. It comes from a belief: "I believe I should act this way, because of XYZ" etc.
How about, I follow Judaism because I don't want my neighbors to think I'm a bad Jew? Totally valid reason to follow Jewish law. It doesn't matter what motivates you to follow the mitzvot, but rather that you do.I didn't mean to sound combative. Sorry if that's how you took it.
"Are you Italian?"
Depends, of course. "Italian" has two basic meanings, like all such national labels--cultural and ethnic. Some would say culture is the essence of it, and some would say ethnic. Culture speaks to behavior, action, lifestyle. Ethnicity speaks to genetics.
If you are equating Judaism with Italy, then you're saying that if I live a Jewish lifestyle and act and live like a Jew--action--that is not enough to qualify. Thus, you're saying one must also be ethnically Jewish to qualify. If that's your argument, so be it (I don't think it's correct, since Judaism does accept converts). But it does contradict what you said earlier that ethnicity doesn't matter.
Yes, all we have is blood, action and belief. That's pretty much it, the whole of the human experience right there.
"How about, I follow Judaism because I don't want my neighbors to think I'm a bad Jew? Totally valid reason to follow Jewish law."
Ok, this is interesting. As I said, I'm no expert on Judaism. Suppose this is correct, this is what Judaism holds. My position, I will argue, is STILL correct, for the following reason.
Traditional Muslims believe that a baby born to a Muslim father is automatically a Muslim. The baby has no choice in the matter. He's a Muslim by default, unless and until he renounces Islam, at which time he becomes an apostate.
Now, the question: is this true? Is a baby born to a Muslim father REALLY a Muslim? According to Islam and its self-serving, expansionist beliefs, yes. According to an objective, outside perspective, no. To be a Muslim one must believe and act in certain ways. If any person--regardless of parentage--does not believe and act in those ways, they may be called "Muslim" by Islam, but should not be called "Muslim" by an objective standard.
Same thing here. If Judaism claims that someone is a Jew even if they believe in their heart "Satan is the truth," that's fine for Judaism and its own ideas. But according to an objective standard, that makes no sense.
We should learn what a religion believes to understand what it believes, but we cannot allow an objective perspective to be compromised by the niceties of a particular religion, because then it ceases being objective. From the Muslim perspective, the "objective" truth is Allah, praying 5 times a day, etc. But from a real objective perspective, this is just a set of beliefs, nothing more.
So while what you say may be "true" as far as Judaism is concerned, it is not "true" by an objective standard of what "religion" is.
For instance, I could start a religion tomorrow that says "everyone on earth is a member of my religion, and all other religions are just manifestations of my one true religion." That's fine as far as my new religion is concerned for its own beliefs, but objectively, it's not correct.If you are equating Judaism with Italy, then you're saying that if I live a Jewish lifestyle and act and live like a Jew--action--that is not enough to qualify. Thus, you're saying one must also be ethnically Jewish to qualify. If that's your argument, so be it (I don't think it's correct, since Judaism does accept converts). But it does contradict what you said earlier that ethnicity doesn't matter.
The requirements for being Jewish are either being born Jewish (i.e. you have a Jewish mother) or through conversion. Simply living a "Jewish lifestyle" does not make you Jewish, any more than leading an Italian lifestyle gives you the right to try to vote out Berlusconi.
Traditional Muslims believe that a baby born to a Muslim father is automatically a Muslim. The baby has no choice in the matter. He's a Muslim by default, unless and until he renounces Islam, at which time he becomes an apostate.
It's similar in Judaism, but it's passed via the mother, not the father. Also, there's no way to "unbecome" a Jew; if you were born a Jew or convert, you will always technically be a Jew. (But if you stop practicing altogether or convert to another religion, you're de facto not Jewish anymore)
Now, the question: is this true? Is a baby born to a Muslim father REALLY a Muslim? According to Islam and its self-serving, expansionist beliefs, yes. According to an objective, outside perspective, no. To be a Muslim one must believe and act in certain ways. If any person--regardless of parentage--does not believe and act in those ways, they may be called "Muslim" by Islam, but should not be called "Muslim" by an objective standard.
Same thing here. If Judaism claims that someone is a Jew even if they believe in their heart "Satan is the truth," that's fine for Judaism and its own ideas. But according to an objective standard, that makes no sense.
Interesting, and understandable, and I suppose it depends on your perspective. I personally agree that if you don't consider yourself Muslim or Jewish anymore, then you're no longer Muslim or Jewish.
So while what you say may be "true" as far as Judaism is concerned, it is not "true" by an objective standard of what "religion" is.
Sure, I can understand that. The Jewish definition of Judaism and the "objective" (dogmatic) definition don't necessarily have to be in line with each other. But I still think you're confusing "religion" with "belief" or "dogma", again, because we live in a Christian-centric culture where they're practically synonymous with each other.
Is Buddhism a religion?I thought you were asking about the essence of Italian-ness, not having the right to vote for Italian PM. I stand by my earlier take on the issue of Italian cultural membership: actions and/or blood.
Anyway, if Judaism is as you describe--you become a member by simply applying for citizenship and promising to obey the law--then it is simply a nation, or a cultural community, as I've said. That is incorrect, because Judaism does make claims about the supernatural. Nation-states don't make claims about the supernatural, they just have a form and an ID card.
Either way, I think you agree, this is just the self-referential internal niceties of Judaism. It's not relevant to an objective standard of "religion."
Sure Buddhism is a religion. If you don't accept (read: *believe*) the four noble truths, the eightfold path, the Buddha's teachings, etc, you ain't in the club. You can meditate as much as you want. There is a debate as to where the "philosophy" of Buddhism ends and the "religion" begins. And of course some are more flexible in how they define membership. But that's the basic idea.
"But I still think you're confusing "religion" with "belief" or "dogma", again, because we live in a Christian-centric culture where they're practically synonymous with each other."
It is you who is confusing "religion" with "culture" or "ethnocultural heritage"--very action-centric and even blood-centric. A person can certainly be part of the "Jewish ethnocultural community" and be a late-night Devil worshipper. That's not religion.
And this isn't just Christianity at all. It applies to Islam, Hinduism, shamanistic and animistic religions--they all contain both belief and action components.
All nations are equal in the eyes of the Creator-God.
God chose Krishna and Zoroaster as he did choose Moses from his people.What makes you think God chose "The Jews"?
Abraham was not a Jew. (Genesis 14:13) Isaac was not a Jew. Jacob was not a Jew. (they were Hebrews)
Moses was not a Jew. (He was a Levite Exodus 4:14)
Aaron was not a Jew. (He was a Levite Exodus 4:14)
ALL the Priests God chose were not Jews. (They were Levites- Numbers 1:50)
The Jews did not come into existence until Judah was born to Leah (Gen 29:35)
Before Judah was born, God had already made the Promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; never to Leahs son, Judah.
None of the Priests of Israel were Jews. (Heb 7:14)
Joseph, son of Israel was not a Jew. (He was a Hebrew-Gen 39:17)
The Apostle Paul was not a Jew, (He was a Hebrew from the tribe of Benjamin- Phillipians 3:5)
If you are Christs' (according to Romans 8:9) then are you Abrahams' seed and HEIRS according to the Promise (Galatians 3:29). As a Christian, you will inherit whatever Abraham inherits.
Whatever Abraham was promised is to be the inheritance of all Christians. Was Abraham promised Heaven?
Lets see:
(Gen. 12:2-3,6-7) ...go into a land that I will show you...I will make of you a great nation....Abraham departed...they went forth into the land of Caanaan...Unto your seed will I give this land...the land of Caanaan.
(Genesis 13:15) For all the land which you see to you will I give it, and to your seed forever.
The land of Caanaan, much of which is occupied by the Jews today, was promised to Abraham and his descendants. THATS WHY IT'S CALLED "THE PROMISED LAND"!
Notice that it is a region on this earth, not up in Heaven somewhere!
Was this promise expanded until it ultimately included the whole earth? See Romans 4:13:
For the promise that he should be the heir of THE WORLD, was not to Abraham, or to his seed (Christians) through the Law, but throuh the righteousness of faith.
NOT ONE WORD ABOUT HEAVEN! Christians are to inherit the earth, together with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets of God, FOREVER.
This promise is to ALL people of the earth, not just the Jews. In Christ, all men will come to the knowledge of the truth, and have an opportunity to inherit, with the father of the Faithful- Abraham!Oh, that's all based on a misuderstanding. Sometime soon some scrolls will be found in a cave in the Middle East and it'll finally be realized that what He meant is that the Pygmies are his real chosen people.
Because he thought that them little round hats they wear would hide their bald spots...He always thinks ahead does God. let us praise him!
Why did God choose the Jews?
That does not mean that others were not chosen by the Creator-God for His Converse.
The Creator-God chose from every people and honored them with His Message.
Jews were no exception.Here is a question. Why does it matter?
If God is GOD wouldn't His choice be trustworthy?
And likely to have very good reasons I'm sure..
And there is no way to actually find out. No one knows. Never will on earth.
But just for kicks I'll give you an answer that is absolutely correct..
"God works in mysterious ways."And that is how the Creator-God Allah YHWH saved Jesus a cursed death on the Cross as inteded by the Jews. Jesus escaped against all odds and immigrated to India, secretly.
The Creator-"God works in mysterious ways" sometimes, as per His wisdom.That has nothing to do with the subject of this thread paar..
The Jews were chosen by the Creator-God for accepting the prophets messengers; not to deny them. The Jews wanted to kill Jesus on the Cross to prove him a false prophet; they failed and hence it is true that the Creator-"God works in mysterious ways" as per His wisdom.
The Jews defied the original Covenant for which they were chosen by the Creator-God; their merit for being chosen was lost.
Kinda a roof question. Sorta like opening a book in the middle and asking a question about a statement there.
Treasure doesn't just float to the surface, you gotta dig.
It is evident that God didn't choose the Jews because they were such a Holy people, He held onto the bloodlines because of another reason.because they used a flawd bracket system where the jews beat the irish because they gave them a mountain of patatoes
Look the Jews that we see today are not the biblical Jews the ones I live around are white and true Hebrews were a semetic people looking more Arab or ethiopian so the ones that suffer today are false Jews who took on the role of the so called chosen people and they suffer hatred because of usury and greed and that superiority mindset . The true chosen people of Yahuwah are the people that truly believe in him and his son Yahushua and that call upon his true name not his titles
Jesus or Yahushua was not a son of god;as Mary was not wife of the Christian-god-the-father.
Was she?- brotheryochananposted 13 years ago0
Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
Deuteronomy 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
Deuteronomy 7:8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keeps covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
Deuteronomy 7:10 And repays them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hates him, he will repay him to his face. " For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."
Thinking maybe this be posted in the 'why people don't like religion' thread.Abraham was Jewish and because of his faithfulness to God in Genesis, HE chose him.
- Digsposted 13 years ago0
God honored the faith of Abraham. For apart from faith , it is impossible to please God.
Not true.
From the time of Moses onward, Judaism has been a religion of deeds, not faith. There is not a single mitzvah that commands faith. The Covenant does not demand faith in G-d, but rather to walk with G-d. There is a difference.God blesses obediance for sure, however God blessed Abraham and entered into a covenant with him and his descendants (the Jewish people), for his (Abraham's), belief--not deeds--counting it to him as righteousness (Genesis 15: 6). In the Hebrew language the word belief (aman), means faithfulness and trustworthiness. Moses was not the father of the Jewish people. God blessed Abraham with Isaac, the son of promise based on Abraham's faithfulness (believing what God said to him), not Ishmael, son of his flesh. Not all of Abraham's descendants are Jewish. I am not minimizing the importance of obediance, but it is impossible to please God apart from faith. Obediance is an act of faith.
Yes, that is the classical Christian understanding, understandable because Christianity is a dogmatic faith. It is not the Jewish understanding. To Jews, faith is meaningless until you put belief and words into action.
Abraham's covenant required ten deeds, not simply a faith. And his covenant said his descendants would be numerous, they would get a land, and they would be delivered from their slavemasters.
The covenant with Moses made Jews a nation of priests (Ex 19:5-6), and is completely based on actions (mitzvot), not on any required beliefs. This is why Judaism accepts converts - something missing in your telling of who is a Jew - because anyone can enter the Covenant by agreeing to perform the mitzvot. Halakha does not require you to ask a potential convert what his/her beliefs are.
As for Ishmael: G-d blessed him and his descendants, too (Gen 17:20).I hear what you are saying, but the point I am striving to make is why perform any deeds for a God in whom you have no faith? Deeds are meaningless unless performed as an act of faith. Deeds without underlying faith (belief) in God are pointless acts! Right about Ishmael, but the original question was why God chose the Jews? Answer--because of the belief (faith), of Abraham, not because of Moses who came long after God's covenant with Abraham and his seed (the Jewish people). Without the Abrahamic Covenant there would not have been a Mosaic Covenant.
Abraham's deeds were performed in faith believing that what God had spoken to him was true and would come to pass. Abraham obeyed God and acted to sacrifice Isaac, because he believed. He did not act to perform a deed ordered by a God in whom he had no faith.
In Deuteronomy 32:20, Moses recounts God's wrath against a "perverse generation--unfaithful children." In Numbers 12:7, God says of Moses,"he is faithful in all my household. I speak with him directly, openly, and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord." Old Testament Accounts of God responding directly to the faith of believers are to numerous to encapsulate here.
I am not Jewish, but I know the same God known by Abraham and Moses.I understand, and for a lot (most?) Jews, belief in G-d is what motivates them to perform the mitzvot. For Abraham, that was certainly the case, although in his case (and Moses's), G-d revealed himself in a more direct manner that didn't rely completely on faith.
For many other Jews, peer pressure, or belief that Judaism is an ethical approach to follow anyway (even if you don't believe in G-d), might motivate them to follow the mitzvot. According to Judaism, the latter are no worse Jews than the former. A Jew who believes but doesn't perform good deeds is a worse Jew than one who is agnostic or atheist who still does.
The Masoretic texts point to different language than the KJV or other Christian retellings of Jewish scripture (or Islamic ones, for that matter). Deut 32:20 chastises a "treacherous breed, children with no loyalty in them" (again, no belief is mentioned; they were praying to idols, which contravenes a mitzvah). In Num 12:7 he says Moses is "trusted throughout My household." Again, no mention of belief. Moses was chosen because he was trusted to convey an important message accurately (in contrast to his siblings, Miriam and Aaron).
The Christian and Muslim texts translate the original Hebrew texts differently and come to different conclusions. Jews, Muslims and Christians believe in the same G-d but draw different beliefs about him.
It is a very simple reason, really. He chose the Jews as an EXAMPLE and he chose them because of their weakness. He did this to show His power. It is the same reason He made David a King (because he was weak). The example of the Jews is an example for the entire world about what people should and shouldn’t do. They have given us equal of examples of both, as you might note by reading the Bible.
- Muldanianmanposted 13 years ago0
Of course, the books of the Old Testament claim that God chose the Jews, because they were written by Jews. It is common for religious groups to believe that they are God's chosen people. As a former Jehovah's Witness, I believed that I belonged to the chosen people. The pope has claimed that the Roman Catholic religion is the one true path to God. There are few religions which recognise the worth of other religions, because this would diminish their own worth. What other evidence is there that God chose the Jews, other than the writings of the Jews themselves?
I always thought...
He chose them because of a Covenant He made with Abraham, (Old Testimate)
I guess, in theory, God could have chosen any ethnic group or even none at all. However, He did decide that the Messiah (Jesus) would come in a particular way at a particular time.
To ask why Jesus came from the Jews is to ask why God chose Abraham. The Old Testament explains that preparation for the Messiah began with God's selection of Abraham to be the forefather of the Redeemer.
Thats all I know about it, I may not be totaly correct here.
'In Theory, Practice and Theory work together, but in Practice...it never does" - Yogi BerraI think someone made a good sense by saying the Jews wrote the bible. It is their God although they said he is the God of all nations. But we know know each tribe had their own God and if they should turn their history to a scripture then you will know that God love them more than he loved the Jews. This because one man serves a God that does not love him.The point is that the bible spread and displaced other traditional religions so it seems God loves and choose the Jews. A God for all must love equally.
Related Discussions
- 227
Did God forsake the Jews during the Holocaust?
by Claire Evans 10 years ago
Jews were delivered from Egypt by God in the Old Testament but weren't delivered from Hitler. Why? Why did God suddenly go silent after Jesus?
- 27
Where in the Bible does it say that the Jews are God's "chosen people"?
by Chaplain Bernell Wesley 10 years ago
Where in the Bible does it say that the Jews are God's "chosen people"?Isaiah 19:25 says Egypt is God's people and Israel is His inheritance? Where in the Bible does it say that the Jews are God's "chosen people"?
- 353
Why Are Christians Afraid To Follow Jesus?
by Ronnie wrenchBiscuit 8 years ago
Why Are Christians Afraid To Follow Jesus?Once again, the Christian mainstream has turned it's back on the image of God. "...Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me ..." .A brief history:• 1830: mainstream Christians do nothing to...
- 45
Why does God choose some and reject others?
by Jacob 11 years ago
Why does God choose some and reject others?
- 257
Why Jews don't believe in Jesus
by Truly Different 13 years ago
"Why don't Jews believe in Jesus?"Every time I come from Israel to visit my friend here in USA, I am asked this question by certain people. I always answer that Jews do not deny existence of Jesus, they just don't give him an honor of being a Messiah. I explain WHY. Nevertheless,...
- 73
teaching of mohamed and teaching of jesus
by darknight444 13 years ago
i saw e post that the teaching of mohamed are againste the teachting of jesus soo i poste thise to clairifie to you aboute the religion of jesus and islamislam came to clairify the first revalationislam came to assert the first revalations like the torah and the gospel ,it does not contradict with...