Creative,

Perhaps we do have the ability to understand Why, if we are open to it. The Bible is a great resource to understand the human condition.

The Bible is one of our greatest learning tools so it would be pretty foolish to not USE it to learn and grow as human beings.

Why would you blame the Bible or religion for peoples foolish choices? Is it Jodi Foster's fault that John Hinckly decided to shoot Ronald Reagen in order to prove his love for her?

People who hurt other people are not acting religiously. G-d is full of love and compassion and that is what He asks from all of us.

Um Spider,

I would agree that the overall message of Christianity does not contradict Judaism, but the specifics, particularly in one area very much do. Judaism is very clear that G-d is One, not three. "Hear, O Israel: G-d is our G-d, G-d, the One and Only." That prayer from the Bible is the most emphasized and clear cut expression of a singular G-d who is One.

In addition in Jewish tradition a man can be a prophet or even a messiah, but turning a man into G-d is very near to idol worship.

Beyond this point Judaism and Christianity share a very similar message and are indeed very supportive of each other.

Creative,

I very much agree with you for the most part. It’s certainly how I intend to raise my children. However there are aspects of morality and religion that are beyond a child’s ability to grasp.

For example the notion of prayer. A child might have a hard time grasping the notion of G-d or why he or she should pray to show appreciation or to feel connected to G-d. As a small child we encourage with notions of rewards – which is something a child can comprehend. As the child matures we can then teach them that prayer has its own merits and one does not need a reward system as incentive to do so.

Your description of abusive behavior is not one sanctioned by G-d or religion. Rather it reflects the teacher or parents inability to articulate words and marks them as terrible teachers or parents (let alone their level of growth as human beings.)

What I am finding very interesting in this thread is that people are very angry with religion and actions that some religious people have taken. It seems that the overall view and understanding of religion is very clouded by negative emotions or traumatic events.

People do very bad things. Sometimes those people call themselves religious, that does not make their actions a religious one. Judging G-d or religion based on the actions of particular people is like judging mankind based on the actions of Hitler or Stalin. Individuals (in power) do bad things sometimes. That is their own personal failing, not G-d’s.

Abracadabra,

Let’s play with your paragraph a bit. Let’s replace “fear of God” with “fear of the police”. Would you say that the police are used to control people? Even funnier is that the police (or FBI) is used to make sure that you pay your taxes. (And the government insists on more taxes then any religion mandated for charity!)

My point is that to a certain degree society needs some type of law and order. Do PEOPLE who are in charge of the law and order at the moment sometimes take it too far? Do they sometimes abuse their position of power in the name of law and order?

Well religion pretty much worked the same way through history. They were a form of law and order. Sometimes the people in powerful positions abused religion to do some very unreligious things. But you can’t blame religion per se for the wrong actions of individual people – regardless of what titles they held.

I think (at least one of) our differences lie in the fact that the religion you seem to be portraying is of a very childish level. Enlightened religion is one that embraces the intellect and encourages exploration and truth seeking. What it does not do is make the intellect its ONLY value. It embraces the duality of human strength and ability – both our intellect and our intuitive souls. It is not an either or. Nor is it one strength defies the other. Both are a necessity for human growth and wisdom.

Redykeulous,

There is a concept “teach a child according to his ability.” Many children only have the comprehension capabilities of not stealing because there will be a punishment. Hopefully as they mature they can be taught and explained the inherent wrong in taking what is not yours.

Unfortunately in large parts of society today even grown ups are at this very basic conceptual level. How many adults today would steal a million dollars if they were guaranteed to not get caught and bear no consequences for their actions? Too many.

Religious and moral values need to be instilled at a young age for most folks. Hopefully as they mature we can take their education to the next level.

Believing in G-d or doing good deeds as a quid pro qou is a very childish approach to religion and G-d. It is what we teach children because it is the level of their comprehension. As we mature (unfortunately many of us never mature) we grow out of this childish approach to religion and we begin to comprehend the awesomeness, the kindness, the ultimate love of our Creator.

I love G-d not because He can beat me up if I don’t. I love G-d because I have come to realize that He is the ultimate being of Love in the universe. I love G-d because I am in awe of his kindness in giving me life and an opportunity to grow, find joy, and embark on my road of personal development. I love G-d because He has power and capabilities far beyond my comprehension and yet He still cares about little old me.

Once I am aware of G-d and His capabilities, His wisdom, and His being the Creator of all, then it makes logical sense to listen to His words and instructions.

It sounds like a lot of people have encountered religion as a fear based entity that is here to control you rather then allow you to soar and grow. I am very sorry if that has been your experience. There is a lot there if one is open to exploring.

“Well, here you sit, on a electronic network that spans the globe, making the Gutenburg press look laughable in comparison. You don't go hungry, you're probably not overly concerned that you'll die of the Bubonic Plague and you're likely to live to be a relatively pain-free octogenarian. You even have enough leisure time to comptemplate questions like these.

…Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most theologians teach that Man was given dominion over the earth?”


KerryO,

You bring up a number of great points. It is incredible what mankind has accomplished using reason and logic. Reason and logic are great gifts and must be used to examine the how of all the things. Mankind has done a phenomenal job of it and today we sit in 2008 with technology and medicine that elevates our standard of life. Bravo!

You are also correct that most religions believe that Man was given dominion over the earth to do just that – increase our ability to survive.

I am not opposed to any of it nor did I mean to take away its important and significance. As you write that by conquering earth we are able to sit and contemplate questions like these.

But that is in fact the point. It is not enough to conquer the world for a better life. We also then must take it to the next level and understand the WHY of things. Why are we here? What is our ultimate purpose?

Without conquering the world (technology, moving beyond survival mode) we could not have the frame of mind necessary to really delve into the next crucial mission of life – the WHY part. So the HOW part is crucial, but only as a first step to getting to the WHY part.

Rav Heschel’s point was that if you stop at the HOW part and say that reason and logic is all that there is, then we are just “a seeker after the maximum degree of comfort for the minimum expenditure of energy.”

Now lets get to the WHY part.

You wrote:

“And what senses are those? Let's be precise here, because it's that precision that makes the difference. If those 'senses' are quantifiable, then do so. If not, then explain why they merit an exception and on what ethical grounds.”

…And theologians conveniently use the (mis)conception of mystery as sophistry to say to the reader "Stop thinking here.”

Ahaaa… Once again you make a very good argument. If I say that we must use our intuition, instinct, and all our inner senses as well as reason to understand the WHY part, then you have dismissed me because you want me to exclusively use my reason and logic because intuition and instinct can not be explained logically.

Well let’s see if I can break it down and show that there is knowledge and understanding outside of logic and reason.

Logic and reason has left the scientific world with the notion that there is no knowable reason WHY we are here. Based on logic alone we apparently are here as random accidents in a cosmic collision. Yet most people can sense, intuitively and instinctually, that it is not so. The sheer number of random happenings for survivability to happen doesn’t “feel” like an accident. We also can sense something greater at work here. Many define that in different ways, but nonetheless they can sense something very awesome in the world.

I saw somewhere (What the bleep do we know) that we are only aware of 2000 bits of information out of the 400 billion bits of information we are processing per second. That would partially explain our intuitive process. More importantly it’s a great example of the concept of knowing but not really knowing. We can comprehend that our mind has many capabilities, yet we don’t understand the extent of its powers.

It very much reminds me of playing Poker. The greatest poker players are not the mathematicians who can calculate the best possible odds. Poker requires knowledge of the odds, combined with a keen sense of intuition, ability to control one’s emotions and pick up all the human cues and clues that you opponent inadvertently leaves.

Poker has taught me that we pick up far more information than we can rationally explain. I happen to be very good at poker and just by watching how a player touches his chips or cards, by his expressions and words, by his or her choice of dollar amount; I can “feel” what cards s/he has. Yes, a lot can be rationally explained, but a lot more info is gathered by my mind then I can rationally point to, that goes into my intuitive process.

Religion is the same. A dry rationalist will be missing half or three quarters of the necessary information to see the whole picture. That is not to say that reason and logic don’t play a crucial part, they do, but they are only one part of the necessary tools that humans have to comprehend the WHY of the world.

KerryO,

A tool for what end? Rabbi Heschel is pointing out that reason is not enough, we have to engage all our senses. Nor does he dismiss reason in the slightest. Its about balance and utilizing all our abilities including but not exclusively reason. Take a look at the following paragraphs from his brilliant book:

“Our age is one in which usefulness is thought to be the chief merit of nature; in which the attainment of power, the utilization of its resources is taken to be the chief purpose of man in G-d’s creation. Man has indeed become primarily a tool-making animal, and the world in now a gigantic tool box for the satisfaction of his needs.

The Greeks learned in order to comprehend. The Hebrews learned in order to revere. The modern man learns in order to use. To Bacon we owe the formulation, “Knowledge is power.” This is how people are urged to study: knowledge means success. We do not know any more how to justify any value except in terms of expediency. Man is willing to define himself as “a seeker after the maximum degree of comfort for the minimum expenditure of energy.” He equates value with that which avails. He feels, acts, and thinks as if the sole purpose of the universe were to satisfy his needs.

To the modern man everything seems calculable; everything reducible to a figure. He has supreme faith in statistics and abhors the idea of a mystery. Obstinately he ignores the fact that we are all surrounded by things which we apprehend but cannot comprehend; that even reason is a mystery to itself. He is sure of his ability to explain all mystery away. Only a generation ago he was convinced that science was on the way to solve all the enigmas of the world.

In the words of a poet:

Whatever there is to know
That we shall know some day.

Religious knowledge is regarded as the lowest form of knowledge.

…In the place of G-d, humanity – the grand etre – becomes the supreme object of adoration. However, what is considered an achievement from the perspective of modern man may be judged a privation by the post-modern man. “In future generations, people will find difficulty in understanding how at one time generations existed who did not regard the idea of G-d as the highest concept of which man is capable, but who, on the contrary, were ashamed of it and considered the development of atheism a sign of progress in the emancipation of human thought” (Walter Schubart - 1950)

Here are two of my favorite quotes for you folks to chew on. Its from G-d in Search Of Man by A. J. Heschel.

“Only those will apprehend religion who can probe its depth, who can combine intuition and love with the rigor of method.”

"The worship of reason is arrogance and betrays a lack of intelligence. The rejection of reason is cowardice and betrays a lack of faith.”

Very nicely put AaronzDad and Kat! Kudos for genuinely caring! ;-)

Everybody deserves compassion. It’s not reserved for only the worst possible tragedy. JustKev you might mean well and even have a good solution for Rod, but saying it with love will most likely get your message through and allow him to be open to it.

But then again everyone has a different style so do your thing, just try and soften the edges a bit so he can hear you. ;-)

Gee whiz wilkers! A little compassion people! Rod is not exactly at the top of his game at the moment but you don’t have to chop his head off and kick him while he is down. A good rule of thumb – If you don’t have anything positive to say – don’t say anything!

Where the heck is the Christmas spirit around here anyway?

There is no question that we are limited in our ability to describe and understand G-d. However that does not preclude G-d from contacting us and giving us instructions about life and morality.

It would be kind of strange for G-d to create the world and not give us an operating manual. I bet you would be pretty upset if you got a new computer without an operating manual.

Do you really believe that we as a human race don’t need guidance? Take a look at the last few thousand years and how humans have treated each other. We desperately need morality and the notion of love, charity and kindness to be instructed to us.

In fact if you look at how the United States – the most advanced civilization that ever existed (as far as equality, freedom, charity etc) – was founded, you will see that it is based on the moral principles of the Bible.

When the Psalmist refers to Elokim (gods) in that context he is referring to Judges. In fact the whole Psalm 82 is referring to judges and their responsibility to carry out G-d’s fair justice.

The proper translation of the Psalm is as follows:

1. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; in the midst of judges, shall He judge.

6. I have said, You are angelic; and all of you are children of the most High.

“I have said, You are angelic. In this manner the Holy Spirit of G-d addresses itself to the judges of the realm (Alshich):

You, the honest judge who represents the Will of G-d on earth, are called Elokim (Exodus 22:8), just as the angels and celestial bodies who perform G-d’s Will are called Elokim. All of you are selfless agents of the Almighty. Your sole concern is to ensure that G-d’s world runs smoothly (Radak).”

End of Quote.

You can see an indisputable use of the term Elokim to refer to judges in Exodus 22:8:

“For every item of liability – whether an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or a garment – regarding any lost item about which he says, “This is it!” to the court (Elokim) shall come both their claims. Whomever the court (Elokim) finds guilty shall pay double to his fellow.”

Then why would the Bible use a plural expression in Gen 1:26 and the singular in Gen 1:27 if it is referring to the exact same thing – the Trinity? Wouldn’t it use the same expression for both?

If Gen 1:26 is referring to G-d and angels, and Gen 1:27 is referring to G-d alone, then it makes sense for one to be plural and one to be singular.

Lets put on our detective hats. Look at the end of the sentence. “...in our image, after our likeness.”

Rashi explains that the angels were also created in G-d’s image. So when G-d says “our image our likeness” He is referring to beings that He created as well in His likeness – ergo He was talking about the angels.

It’s very important when quoting the Bible to not take it out of context. You can’t quote one line and leave out the next. Even more important is to ask good questions and not just give up, but seek answers.

Lets tackle the issue at hand:

Gen 1:26 “And G-d said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

Rashi explains that “us” refers to G-d consulting with angels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi

“The humility of the Holy One, Blessed is He, we have learned from here. Since man is in the likeness of the angels and they would be jealous of him, - for this reason, He consulted them…

…Although [the angels] did not assist [G-d] in [man’s] creation, and there is room on the basis of this phrase for the heretics to claim supremacy by saying that the bible itself indicates that many gods participated in the creation of man – the verse did not refrain from teaching us proper conduct and the trait of humility that the greater one should consult and take permission from the lesser one.

And if it had written, “I shall make man,” we would not have learned that He was speaking with His court; rather we would have thought He was addressing Himself, and we would not have learned from G-d’s example that the greater should consult with the lesser one.

The rebuttal to the heretics it wrote next to the verse which gives them room for error. It is “And He created man,” which uses the singular verb; it did not write, “and they created.”

End of quote.

Gen 1:26 “And G-d said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

Gen 1:27 “And G-d created Man in his image, in the image of G-d He created him…”

You can clearly see that when G-d is discussing making man He uses the plural but when He actually creates man He uses the singular. Which fits beautifully with Rashi’s explanation that G-d consulted with the angels but Created man Himself as only He could.

How is that different than Christianity? My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the idea of the trinity is that there are three "offshoots" that "represent different aspects of God's being."

What's very interesting is that the Bible (original testament) keeps on talking about "One" - that G-d is one. There is a very strong emphasis on "One".

It kind of gets tricky once you start breaking that up into more than one. I just read that Mormons believe that the trinity is three distinct beings.

The lines between monotheistic and polytheistic can become blurry really quickly if we are not careful.

Religion is a fascinating but very sensitive subject. No offense was meant with my comments ;-)