[Yaakov ben Avraham]

QUOTE from Lord Dave: "And what do you base the existence of angels and djinn on?  Is it because your Rabbi said so?  Is it because a 4,000 year old book says so?  Or is it because everyone around you says so?"

And upon what do you base their non-existence on?

I base their existence on the experience of many men in Scripture. I base the existence of Djinn on my own personal experience, which I shall not explain to you, except to say that I believe it to be a valid experience of the existence of a Djinn. And, said 4,000 yo book has been around far longer than you or me, and will continue to be around long after we are dust. I have seen no reason to accept the attacks of idiots the like of Richard Dawkins, whose name will be forgotten within a year or two of his death, I expect.

The name of Moses, however, has not been forgotten in 4500 years. So ask me which one I trust more, Moses or Richard Dawkins. I think my point has been made.

[Lord Dave]

QUOTE from Lord Dave: "And what do you base the existence of angels and djinn on?  Is it because your Rabbi said so?  Is it because a 4,000 year old book says so?  Or is it because everyone around you says so?"

And upon what do you base their non-existence on?

The same thing I base the non-existence of Unicorns.  Do YOU believe in Unicorns?  And Dragons?  Maybe the Easter Bunny?  Or what about Santa Clause?  They have stories about them.  Heck, we have tons of pictures AND they're believed by more people than all the Jews in the world.

I base their existence on the experience of many men in Scripture. I base the existence of Djinn on my own personal experience, which I shall not explain to you, except to say that I believe it to be a valid experience of the existence of a Djinn. And, said 4,000 yo book has been around far longer than you or me, and will continue to be around long after we are dust. I have seen no reason to accept the attacks of idiots the like of Richard Dawkins, whose name will be forgotten within a year or two of his death, I expect.

The name of Moses, however, has not been forgotten in 4500 years. So ask me which one I trust more, Moses or Richard Dawkins. I think my point has been made.

Neither have the great Pharos of Egypt, or the Gods of Olympus, or even Norse Gods.  Are they just as real?

Believing in the words of someone who had stuff written about them 4,000 years ago is not very credible as a source.  For all you know, Moses may not even be his real name.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

"Name
Moses' name is given to him by Pharaoh's daughter: "He became her son, and she named him Moshe (Moses)." This name may be either Egyptian or Hebrew. If connected to an Egyptian root, via msy "to be born" and ms, "a son", it forms a wordplay: "he became her son, and she named him Son." There should, however, be a divine element to the name Moses (bearers of the Egyptian name are the "son of" a god, as in Thutmose, "son of Thut"), and his full name may therefore have included the name of one of the Egyptian gods. If the name is from a Hebrew root, then it is connected to the verb "to draw out": "I drew him (masha) out of the water," states Pharaoh's daughter, possibly looking forward to Moses at the well in Midian, or to his role in saving Israel at the Red Sea. Most scholars agree that the name is Egyptian, and that the Hebrew etymology is a later interpretation.[11]" {Wikipedia}.

Therefore I expect his name was Moshe, but derived from the Egyptian, since his foster mother was Egyptian. I seriously doubt she would have called him anything in Hebrew. The fact that the word is also a word in Hebrew (meaning something else, of course), is coincidental, and lucky for us, particularly insofar as that "something else" has something to do with narrative of his birth (being drawn out of the water).

[Vindictus]

If I were to base my worldview on a book, I think LotR would be better. At least it's more internally consistent.

Also, Dawkins is a world renown scientist. He has published heaps of literature (atheist books aside) and even has a foundation in his name. I don't think he'll be forgotten quickly.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Interestingly enough, the author of LotR was an EXTREMELY devout Roman Catholic. JRR Tolkien rejected most of Vatican II, especially the changes to the Mass, particularly the use of the vernacular, insisting on responding to his Priest in Latin, even after the service was being done in English.

So, when I hear people talking about JRR Tolkien being more consistent than the Bible, I laugh, because they are unknowingly making fools of themselves.

[Vindictus]

Interestingly enough, the author of LotR was an EXTREMELY devout Roman Catholic. JRR Tolkien rejected most of Vatican II, especially the changes to the Mass, particularly the use of the vernacular, insisting on responding to his Priest in Latin, even after the service was being done in English.

So, when I hear people talking about JRR Tolkien being more consistent than the Bible, I laugh, because they are unknowingly making fools of themselves.

What? I said his mythos was more internally consistent. There's entire websites devoted to pointing out the inconsistencies in the Bible, not so for the Tolkienverse. It was written by one man throughout his lifetime, and while he wasn't always consistent, it was more consistent than a text authored by dozens of people over hundreds of years.

Besides, it's just plain cooler. The Abrahamic God ranges from a crazy murderer to a benevolent retart. Eru is significantly less bizarre.

[Rama Set]

Eri is practically deistic with only a couple of interventions since the beginning of Ëa.

[Fortuna]

Why do you believe in something that has no verifiable evidence?

[Ghost of V]

What an original question, Andrew.


Short answer, faith.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

The fact that you can't spell "retard" right speaks volumes. That is precisely the point. I won't speak for the so-called "New Testament". It is not a book I believe in, it is not a part of my Faith, and I consider it as irrelevant to my life as I do the Qur'an or the Bhagavad-Gita.

But, looking at the Jewish Bible alone of 24 Books (the Protestants divide these books differently and come up with 39, but the text is the same), the fact that they were written by so many people, and yet, are as consistent as they are is quite amazing. I estimate that the Hebrew Bible had approximately 25 authors in total. Looking at the text the way Protestants divide it, into 39 individual books (Jews count the Minor Prophets, of which there are 12, as one book, and they count 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, and Ezra and Nehemiah, as each being one book), one can see that there is considerable unity in the text. Of course, your modern day so-called "liberal biblical scholars" would say otherwise. Not that that is particularly relevant, given that they can't even get the New Testament right regarding the so-called "Q" source. How could I possibly expect them to get the Divine Word right?

You telling me that there are websites devoted to the inconsistencies of the Bible is about as relevant as informing me that in reality, the Pope is indeed Catholic. I am aware of the websites, and have read quite a few of them. Invariably they are critical of Christianity, rather than Judaism, so they spend most of their time on the New Testament, or on a Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

Keep in mind, I have read the New Testament twice, which I expect is probably at least once or twice more than you have. I have  read the Hebrew Bible once in full, and the Torah twice, which again, is probably at least once or twice more than you have. And in Shul we go through the entire Torah once a year. So, that should count as well.

My inevitable conclusion to the Hebrew Scriptures is the following: If there is something in it that you do not understand, or that appears inconsistent, this is due to your lack of understanding. I would advise seeking out resources that are reliable, both pro and con, to bring to the matter, and exploring the true meaning of the text, and without taking the verses out of context. In fact, if at all you find verses that make no sense, don't just read those, but rather, read the entire chapter in which they appear, and perhaps the chapter before, and the chapter after. This will give you a background for what the author is trying to say.

But remember, and THIS IS KEY: if you fail to comprehend the text, it is not because of a weakness in the text. It is because your mind is failing to comprehend. There IS an answer. It is your duty to find it. That is the simple answer to that. It really isn't that hard.

Allow me to demonstrate by way of example. The Torah has often been used to display the idea that Moses did not write all of it, or for that matter, any of it. Instead, we are told that the Yahwist Source, the Elohist Source, the Priestly Source, and Deuteronomist Source wrote it (JEPD Sources). These sources later were redacted into one complete volume that we today know as the Pentateauch.

In a word, BULLSHIT. Moses wrote the Torah. Moses led the people out of Egypt. As far as numbers go, that is a debatable question. For an interesting take on that, read the following:  Source: http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec095.htm

And the following:  Source: http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec107.htm

Both are Christian sources, but contain much good information.

Anyway, why did Moses refer to God as "YHWH" at one point and as "Elohim" at another point? I don't know, and frankly, I don't care much. It was how he chose to do it, or how God told him to do it. Perhaps it had to do with the nature of God being first God, and later, friend. I am not sure. But both titles are acceptable to God.

And why would Deuteronomy have to be written separately from the other four books? There is absolutely no reason to assume this unless you have an agenda to push. And why would the Priests need to write their stuff separately? Moses WAS a Priest. He was uniquely qualified for writing that material as well as the rest of it. So, what is the major malfunction here?

The rest of the Hebrew Bible has no contradictions that can't be explained. It is your duty to see that they are, rather than questioning the text. So, grow up, put on your big-boy pants, and get to work!

[Vindictus]

Eri is practically deistic with only a couple of interventions since the beginning of Ëa.

Yes, except he doesn't dare people to kill their kids before yelling "LOL JKS! Cut your doodle instead".

[Lord Dave]

"Name
Moses' name is given to him by Pharaoh's daughter: "He became her son, and she named him Moshe (Moses)." This name may be either Egyptian or Hebrew. If connected to an Egyptian root, via msy "to be born" and ms, "a son", it forms a wordplay: "he became her son, and she named him Son." There should, however, be a divine element to the name Moses (bearers of the Egyptian name are the "son of" a god, as in Thutmose, "son of Thut"), and his full name may therefore have included the name of one of the Egyptian gods. If the name is from a Hebrew root, then it is connected to the verb "to draw out": "I drew him (masha) out of the water," states Pharaoh's daughter, possibly looking forward to Moses at the well in Midian, or to his role in saving Israel at the Red Sea. Most scholars agree that the name is Egyptian, and that the Hebrew etymology is a later interpretation.[11]" {Wikipedia}.

Therefore I expect his name was Moshe, but derived from the Egyptian, since his foster mother was Egyptian. I seriously doubt she would have called him anything in Hebrew. The fact that the word is also a word in Hebrew (meaning something else, of course), is coincidental, and lucky for us, particularly insofar as that "something else" has something to do with narrative of his birth (being drawn out of the water).

This doesn't prove that he was actually named Moses or Moshe.

Also:

The fact that you can't spell "retard" right speaks volumes. That is precisely the point. I won't speak for the so-called "New Testament". It is not a book I believe in, it is not a part of my Faith, and I consider it as irrelevant to my life as I do the Qur'an or the Bhagavad-Gita.

But, looking at the Jewish Bible alone of 24 Books (the Protestants divide these books differently and come up with 39, but the text is the same), the fact that they were written by so many people, and yet, are as consistent as they are is quite amazing. I estimate that the Hebrew Bible had approximately 25 authors in total. Looking at the text the way Protestants divide it, into 39 individual books (Jews count the Minor Prophets, of which there are 12, as one book, and they count 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, and Ezra and Nehemiah, as each being one book), one can see that there is considerable unity in the text. Of course, your modern day so-called "liberal biblical scholars" would say otherwise. Not that that is particularly relevant, given that they can't even get the New Testament right regarding the so-called "Q" source. How could I possibly expect them to get the Divine Word right?

You telling me that there are websites devoted to the inconsistencies of the Bible is about as relevant as informing me that in reality, the Pope is indeed Catholic. I am aware of the websites, and have read quite a few of them. Invariably they are critical of Christianity, rather than Judaism, so they spend most of their time on the New Testament, or on a Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

Keep in mind, I have read the New Testament twice, which I expect is probably at least once or twice more than you have. I have  read the Hebrew Bible once in full, and the Torah twice, which again, is probably at least once or twice more than you have. And in Shul we go through the entire Torah once a year. So, that should count as well.

My inevitable conclusion to the Hebrew Scriptures is the following: If there is something in it that you do not understand, or that appears inconsistent, this is due to your lack of understanding. I would advise seeking out resources that are reliable, both pro and con, to bring to the matter, and exploring the true meaning of the text, and without taking the verses out of context. In fact, if at all you find verses that make no sense, don't just read those, but rather, read the entire chapter in which they appear, and perhaps the chapter before, and the chapter after. This will give you a background for what the author is trying to say.

But remember, and THIS IS KEY: if you fail to comprehend the text, it is not because of a weakness in the text. It is because your mind is failing to comprehend. There IS an answer. It is your duty to find it. That is the simple answer to that. It really isn't that hard.

Allow me to demonstrate by way of example. The Torah has often been used to display the idea that Moses did not write all of it, or for that matter, any of it. Instead, we are told that the Yahwist Source, the Elowist Source, the Priestly Source, and Deuteronomist Source wrote it (JEPD Sources). These sources later were redacted into one complete volume that we today know as the Pentateauch.

In a word, BULLSHIT. Moses wrote the Torah. Moses led the people out of Egypt. As far as numbers go, that is a debatable question. For an interesting take on that, read the following:  Source: http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec095.htm

And the following:  Source: http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec107.htm

Both are Christian sources, but contain much good information.

Anyway, why did Moses refer to God as "YHWH" at one point and as "Elohim" at another point? I don't know, and frankly, I don't care much. It was how he chose to do it, or how God told him to do it. Perhaps it had to do with the nature of God being first God, and later, friend. I am not sure. But both titles are acceptable to God.

And why would Deuteronomy have to be written separately from the other four books? There is absolutely no reason to assume this unless you have an agenda to push. And why would the Priests need to write their stuff separately? Moses WAS a Priest. He was uniquely qualified for writing that material as well as the rest of it. So, what is the major malfunction here?

The rest of the Hebrew Bible has no contradictions that can't be explained. It is your duty to see that they are, rather than questioning the text. So, grow up, put on your big-boy pants, and get to work!

Please stop this.  We're far more intelligent than you seem to assume.  We know, all too well, that you're being delusional if you honestly believe that "My Faith isn't wrong, you're just stupid/ignorant" is a valid argument. 

[Rama Set]

Eri is practically deistic with only a couple of interventions since the beginning of Ëa.

Yes, except he doesn't dare people to kill their kids before yelling "LOL JKS! Cut your doodle instead".

Well he did annihilate the Great Armament of the Numenorians, so Eru was not exactly the nicest God ever.

[Vindictus]

Eri is practically deistic with only a couple of interventions since the beginning of Ëa.

Yes, except he doesn't dare people to kill their kids before yelling "LOL JKS! Cut your doodle instead".

Well he did annihilate the Great Armament of the Numenorians, so Eru was not exactly the nicest God ever.

They sailed to Valinor in order to start a war, I think they got what they deserved.

[Rama Set]

Eri is practically deistic with only a couple of interventions since the beginning of Ëa.

Yes, except he doesn't dare people to kill their kids before yelling "LOL JKS! Cut your doodle instead".

Well he did annihilate the Great Armament of the Numenorians, so Eru was not exactly the nicest God ever.

They sailed to Valinor in order to start a war, I think they got what they deserved.

Yaakov'd.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

QUOTE: "Please stop this.  We're far more intelligent than you seem to assume.  We know, all too well, that you're being delusional if you honestly believe that "My Faith isn't wrong, you're just stupid/ignorant" is a valid argument."

Well, you are clearly ignorant as the nature of Judaism. You seem to perceive Judaism as a Religion like any other. It is not. Judaism, as I have said many times, is the Civilisation of the Jewish People. Its largest component may be Religion, but it is hardly only that. Our Civilisation is such that it combines aspects of Religion with Culture, Philosophy, and even Folkways. So you take something as sublime as the Bible and combine it with inane aspects of the Yiddishkeit such as Yiddish jokes, and you have the beginnings of Judaism as a Civilisation. Of course, there is much more. Everything about being a Jew can be classified as "practicing Judaism", from eating and drinking to praying. Your claim of knowing anything all too well, that I am delusional, is simply you being ignorant. It holds valid only in your mind.

Keep in mind that Jews saw God on Mt. Sinai. We had a National Theophany. Unlike every other religion on the planet, who depend on one person to have seen God (whom they then identify as a Prophet), we as a People saw God. You can read about this in the book of Exodus. I would recommend the book to you, even if you are a non-believer, since you might learn a little something.

But Jews as a People accepted the Commandments of Torah. We were the only nation to do so. God made us a People for Himself. As such, we are His Chosen, to be a Light unto the Nations. We have brought Monotheism to the world, and stand before  God as the mediator between God and a sinful race. We are the Priesthood, if you will, of the human race.

It is said that you can tell the moral qualities of a nation by how it treats its Jews. That is the bellwether. If a nation treats its Jews well, then you can generally expect that said nation will be a nation wherein law and order will abide, and where none shall be afraid. In a land where the Jews are brutalised, you will generally see that other people end up treated the same way.

For more reference to "Judaism as a Civilization", see the book of that title, written in America by Mordecai M. Kaplan, the seminal work on the subject. Originally written in 1934, the text has remained in print ever since, as it is the magnum opus of the founding father of Reconstructionist Judaism.

Fundamentally,the Atheist comes into the impossible situation that, no matter how hard he tries, he cannot prove the non-existence, or even probable non-existence, of God. The Theist, on the other hand, can prove the probable existence of God. This has been done often in theological discourse.

And when the Atheist attempts to criticise the Hebrew Scriptures, he runs into the problem that we use the same text all over the world, namely, the Masoretic Text. Although other texts are sometimes used for reference, ultimately, the Masoretic Text is taken as standard. Given that Christianity has no idea what standard they use (in fact, it varies from denomination to denomination), this makes Judaism much more pleasant to study.

The text of the Jewish Bible is remarkably consistent for having app. 25 authors over a period of about 2600 years from Moshe to Malachi. If you are having a hard time "getting it", that is an issue within you, not the Bible.

The fact is, you are grossly ignorant of Judaism as a Civilisation. I would say that for someone who denies believing  in God, you seem to spend an AWFUL amount of time here and in other threads attempting to refute belief in God. Sucks to be you that you aren't very successful. The only people who agree with you are people who already agreed with you at the get-go.

So where does that leave us? Oh, yes, the claim that I am delusional. How so? Given that app. 90% of the world believes in a Higher Power, I would suggest to you that someone who believes that the Universe and all that therein is came about by accident is TOTALLY delusional. If NOTHING exists, then how can SOMETHING come to exist, without an Uncaused Cause? Read up on your Plato, then come talk to me. And Read up on your Hebrew Scriptures. Then come talk to me.

By the way, could we eliminate the LotR from discussion? Take it to another thread!

[Rama Set]

In order:

1. Your immersion if your delusional belief in to your culture does not make it truer, only sadder.

2. Your only source for a national revelation is self referential and totally unreliable as such.

3. People can make current remarks about how cultures treat Jews and so on, but no serious thinker would imply morality is tied to treatment of Jews as there are moral cultures that would not have had contact with Jews until the last century or two. It is only a sassy intellectual exercise no different in intellectual  substance than this very thread.
 
4. Academics have shown by the always ethno-centric nature of religion and the spontaneous nature with which they can pop up (e.g. Cargo cults) that God is likely not to exist. As with all things in the scientific realm, there are no absolutes. We save those for you, the religious fanatic.

5. Atheists and agnostics spend a lot of time rebutting religious folk because of the dangerous and heinous thoughts that the religious utter, like casting aspersions on the millions of lawful and good Muslims because of the actions of some thousands.

6. 90% believe in some higher power ergo there must be God is utterly fallacious and goes by the name Argumentum ad Populem.

7. Again, I must stress that although creation need not be willful the laws of physics do not create phenomena by accident. Please learn the difference.

8. There have been many good arguments against the impossibility of an uncaused cause. Look them up your ignorance combined with acrimony and self-righteousness is unbecoming.

9. Eru's judgement upon the Great Armament was unjust because it was imposed upon a majority that were likely conscripted by the lords of Numenór. However, it was likely his last act in Eä and was obviously to preserve its unfolding cosmic harmony and as such could be viewed as righteous.

[Rushy]

Unlike every other religion on the planet, who depend on one person to have seen God (whom they then identify as a Prophet), we as a People saw God.

But Yaakov, you haven't seen god. That must mean you weren't the chosen people after all.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Unlike every other religion on the planet, who depend on one person to have seen God (whom they then identify as a Prophet), we as a People saw God.

But Yaakov, you haven't seen god. That must mean you weren't the chosen people after all.

I don't have to have. When my Forefathers saw God, they accepted the Torah for them and their descendants.

In order:

1. Your immersion if your delusional belief in to your culture does not make it truer, only sadder.

Your statement is utterly illogical. The Jew's very continued existence against all odds is proof of that. And your claim that my culture is delusional is not backed up by any evidence. The fact is undeniable that a sizable number of persons SAW GOD at Mt. Sinai. You can do with that what you wish.

2. Your only source for a national revelation is self referential and totally unreliable as such.

I am again inclined to disagree. Since the history of my People is both oral and written, it is very likely to be as true as Troy. Remember Heinrich Schliemann. You have a whole nation that saw the Deity. That is hard to gainsay. I don't think its self referential at all. In fact, we have learned from experience how to wrestle with God. We know our forefathers saw him in the deserts of Sinai, but we also know that in the Holocaust, he was silent. So, we have learned to struggle with him. But we have never denied what our forefathers have told us. An entire nation for 4500 years doesn't lie about things like that and get away with it.

3. People can make current remarks about how cultures treat Jews and so on, but no serious thinker would imply morality is tied to treatment of Jews as there are moral cultures that would not have had contact with Jews until the last century or two. It is only a sassy intellectual exercise no different in intellectual  substance than this very thread.

I am, of course, speaking of those cultures that have had frequent interaction with Jews. Actually there was a survey done of 190 countries, in which it was determined that 26% of adults worldwide harboured anti-Semitic feelings. The largest percentage was in the "Palestinian" Territories, where it was 93%. The lowest was in Laos, where it was at 0.02%. Any serious thinker would consider the morality of a culture that has harboured Jews in its territory for a long period of time to be partially determined by how it has treated said Jews.
 
4. Academics have shown by the always ethno-centric nature of religion and the spontaneous nature with which they can pop up (e.g. Cargo cults) that God is likely not to exist. As with all things in the scientific realm, there are no absolutes. We save those for you, the religious fanatic.

Since the fact that religion popping up has nothing whatsoever to do with whether God actually exists or not, the whole point is irrelevant. Some savage on Papua New Guinea after WWII building fake aeroplanes to entice "the gods" back is no commentary on whether a Supreme Being actually exists or not. Any "academic" who says it is probably received his credentials from a Cracker Jack box. As I said in an earlier post, the Atheist has no proof or even probable proof that God does not exist. At least the Theist has probable proof that he does.

5. Atheists and agnostics spend a lot of time rebutting religious folk because of the dangerous and heinous thoughts that the religious utter, like casting aspersions on the millions of lawful and good Muslims because of the actions of some thousands.

Of course, I'll keep in mind the dangerous thoughts of the atheists during the French Revolution, or the Russian, or the Chinese, or the Cambodian, or the Ethiopian, or... Lets see how many millions of people State sponsored Atheism has managed to kill. In Russia, some 40 million. In China, some 60 million. In Cambodia, 2 million. Shall I continue?

6. 90% believe in some higher power ergo there must be God is utterly fallacious and goes by the name Argumentum ad Populem.

I am not using the argument in that sense. I am merely saying that it is not up to us to prove to you that God exists. It is up to you to prove otherwise.

7. Again, I must stress that although creation need not be willful the laws of physics do not create phenomena by accident. Please learn the difference.

We've been over this. Please demonstrate. If you are not able to, then be silent.

8. There have been many good arguments against the impossibility of an uncaused cause. Look them up your ignorance combined with acrimony and self-righteousness is unbecoming.

Demonstrate or be silent. Plato, Aristotle, and MANY others would disagree, thank you.

9. Eru's judgement upon the Great Armament was unjust because it was imposed upon a majority that were likely conscripted by the lords of Numenór. However, it was likely his last act in Eä and was obviously to preserve its unfolding cosmic harmony and as such could be viewed as righteous.

[beardo]

Atheism is Communism now.