48
   

Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 07:55 am
@Ionus,
Maimonides had access to the same sources on the issue as any modern scholar.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 07:56 am
@Ionus,
What the heck is "carion" and when did anyone see a lobster eat that?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 07:58 am
@Olivier5,
I find that hard to believe because the scientific method was yet to be invented and most of what a modern scholar would use was still lying buried in the desert . He would have had to travel a great deal just to research, now we pick up the phone and ask a colleague or search the internet for research papers .
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 08:02 am
@Ionus,
There is no evidence about the motivations behind Leviticus hiding anywhere in the desert. As usual you have no clue.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 08:09 am
@Olivier5,
The word is carrion and it means dead animals used for food by other animals . All the banned foods, pigs, shellfish and so on, eat carrion . The idea was that the animal was contaminated by rotting meat in the days when it was custom to eat an animals entrails . They were probably right then about wild pigs, they would have had many diseases as they were not kept as livestock . To make Christianity more palatable to Romans they abandoned the Jewish dietary laws which were revived by Muslims . Romans didn't eat wild pigs like Jews and Muslims would have had to do, so it sort of all makes sense .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 08:11 am
@Olivier5,
Leviticus: a book of ritual and ethics: a Continental commentary
J Milgrom - Fortress Press
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 12:27 pm
@Ionus,
Speculations about why the lobster is forbidden as food, and the rational that it is because they are scavengers like the forbidden vultures, are as old as Maimoides' speculation on the reason for circumcision.

As far as I know, modern scholarship hasn't shed any new light as to a definitive reason why.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 04:00 pm
@Ionus,
But let's get right down to it.

Why is god so inept? He will create things and then place conditions on them?

Any parent knows if there is something they don't want their young children to play with, they put it in a place to make it more difficult to obtain. When parents fail at this we correctly deem them terrible parents.

God places the tree of knowledge in a place where the first two created humans can get to it? He didn't see any potential problem with this?

God creates all kinds of edible creatures and then places conditions on eating them? If god created the Earth solely for the purpose of humans why create all these other things and then place conditions on them?

An all powerful being who is claimed to also be all knowing, surely acts in ways that seem to suggest that he is either not all knowing or just plain stupid.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 04:12 pm
@Olivier5,
The main reason for Jewish dietary laws as well as other particulars of the Mosaic Law was to serve as a sign when one came along who could actually keep the law. Christians identify that one as Jesus. That's why the Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 04:17 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

The main reason for Jewish dietary laws as well as other particulars of the Mosaic Law was to serve as a sign when one came along who could actually keep the law. Christians identify that one as Jesus. That's why the Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians.


This argument is a bit of a contradiction, since Jesus is quoted to have said he has not come to change the law's of Moses. So was he just wrong? It's probably more like modern christians are unaware of this statement and just go with the one they keep hearing that is false.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 04:21 pm
@Krumple,
The tree of the knowledge of good and bad was not a poison tree.
It served only one purpose.
Would Adam and Eve be content with God's arrangement, or would they choose to make decisions about good and bad (think morality) according to their own inclinations? By choosing independence, they and the tempter essentially committed mutiny. They took over mankind's state of affairs.

How has that worked so far? Not so good, eh? How long will it be before God takes back the helm?

To be continued. . .
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 04:25 pm
@Krumple,
Jesus showed something quite different by his words and behavior. Obvious to 1st century Christians. Why not you?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 04:32 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

The tree of the knowledge of good and bad was not a poison tree.
It served only one purpose.
Would Adam and Eve be content with God's arrangement, or would they choose to make decisions about good and bad (think morality) according to their own inclinations? By choosing independence, they and the tempter essentially committed mutiny. They took over mankind's state of affairs.

How has that worked so far? Not so good, eh? How long will it be before God takes back the helm?

To be continued. . .


THEY DID NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL...BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG.

THAT KNOWLEDGE WAS WITHHELD FROM THEM.

THEY COULD NOT MUTINY.

WHEN ARE YOU FINALLY GOING TO GET THAT?


Yes, this time I WAS shouting.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 04:41 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

The tree of the knowledge of good and bad was not a poison tree.
It served only one purpose.
Would Adam and Eve be content with God's arrangement, or would they choose to make decisions about good and bad (think morality) according to their own inclinations? By choosing independence, they and the tempter essentially committed mutiny. They took over mankind's state of affairs.

How has that worked so far? Not so good, eh? How long will it be before God takes back the helm?

To be continued. . .


But like I have pointed out before. If god is all knowing, he would have known they would ignore his request even before he created them. The consequence of this is that he created them destined for banishment. So which is it? God is either not all knowing or he is. But if he is all knowing then his motive for carrying this out seems rather harsh.

This is why I don't buy the whole argument that our life is a test. God wouldn't need to test humans if he was all knowing, he would have already known the result of each person before they even existed therefore their life is just a delay before the sentence is handed down.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 04:43 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Jesus showed something quite different by his words and behavior. Obvious to 1st century Christians. Why not you?


I didn't see anything overly special about anything Jesus said. The Buddha was recorded to have said not only similar things but added in a few more that are even better as well as important. Important yet Jesus never mentions them. And the Buddha existed 500 years before Jesus. So clearly Jesus was not revolutionary.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 10:53 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
As far as I know, modern scholarship hasn't shed any new light as to a definitive reason why.
Then I have to ask what are your qualifications if you want us to take your knowledge of what is and isn't as a guide ? Studies of the Middle East have enormously enhanced our knowledge of customs and rituals . The Dead Sea Scrolls, the translation of hieroglyphs, entire libraries coming out of the sand...need I go on ?
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 10:58 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Why is god so inept?
He isnt . We are left to our own devices . Some people chose to do whatever they want, so God had to have a more direct role to influence them to do good .

Quote:
He will create things and then place conditions on them?
Evolution formed us, God created the universe . What is time to God ?

Quote:
God places the tree of knowledge in a place where the first two created humans can get to it? He didn't see any potential problem with this?
God had nothing to do with it . That is all a priest's imagination .

Note : I am not religious, I am giving you an interpretation by modern theology .
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 11:01 pm
@Ionus,
That's why I asked you, what modern scholarship has to say about kashrut in regard to the lobster, not speculations that have been around since Maimoides.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2015 11:07 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
If god is all knowing, he would have known they would ignore his request even before he created them. The consequence of this is that he created them destined for banishment. So which is it? God is either not all knowing or he is. But if he is all knowing then his motive for carrying this out seems rather harsh.

According to neo's dogma, God chooses not to know whether each one of us will follow him or our own devices. God is indulging the devil in a wager, of sorts, in regard to our choice.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2015 12:04 am
@InfraBlue,
My apologies, I read you wrong .

First, circumcision :
The origins of circumcision in the western world go back to Egypt as the sun god Ra was circumcised and it was performed when a boy entered puberty . This is a huge clue . It was unimportant just for hygiene, but was necessary prior to acceptance as a sexually active male . The Egyptians were very concerned with hygiene, shaving all hair to prevent parasites on even children, just allowing a top knot of hair, so if circumcision was done for hygiene it would have been done earlier in a boy's life .

The Jews picked up the habit when they were nomads living on the fringes of the Egyptian cities . When Moses left Egypt, the custom changed to circumcising a new born boy, which has been dramatised in the Bible by the story of Zipporah . This was probaly because of a belief that it was less painful to do it then, and this was justified as being a new covenant with God who was to give them the "land of milk and honey", which is actually a euphemism for sex and pregnancy . Fertility was important if you were to survive .
As I said before :
Quote:
....for a polygamist society, where a foreskin can carry very nasty infections from one woman to another . When they do pornos they cut filming for the penis to be wiped down with swabs to prevent germs healthy to one woman but dangerous to another from spreading . Having penetration with a woman then taking that fluid and bacteria to another will cause very severe infections most times . This made circumcision necessary for the health of women in a desert .


Secondly, Kashrut rules :
These are not as clear cut but going by the Dead Sea scrolls they have their origins in banning animals that eat carrion . Others were found to have parasites .
Then other animals got thrown in for reasons unknown, perhaps to prevent Jews from dining with their unclean neighbours and being susceptible to ideas contrary to Judaism . The ban also involved blood which was believed to house the soul . Just so you couldn't cheat, the ban also applied to mixing banned foods with good foods .

All ancient religions have this banning of certain foods, so it seems to be an attempt at primitive medicine . What was Kashrut has changed to include more things as history progressed but seems to have followed fashion to a certain extent . Some foods were banned from their time in Egypt, such as shellfish...the Egyptians in general thought the higher rank you were the less you should eat from the Nile, so fish were acceptable to peasants but not for the Pharoah .

The exile in Babylon reinforced circumcision and Kashrut as the priests fought to maintain their identity as a people . Once restored to Judea, many locally produced products were re-emphasised (buy local) .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.06 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 07:59:15