muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
A balanced view of any philosophy needs analysis in various ways, including its history.
Looking purely at current events, and judging a philosophy on that is a blind way of doing things..
..dangerous, even.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Judging a Religion
- Thread starter mangalavara
- Start date
Looking purely at current events, and judging a philosophy on that is a blind way of doing things..
..dangerous, even.
I Am Hugh
Researcher
I think so, yes. The immortal soul from Socrates/Plato. Now, the thing about that is, mythology and the syncretism of religion can be a convoluted subject. The Greek word psyche, is, after all, just a word. With various applications and meanings. And as mythologies, philosophies, doctrines, religions intertwine you have all sorts of temporal and traditional as well as linguistic considerations. Interpretations.
The Hebrew Elohim, for example, comes from El, and a root word meaning mighty/strong. It is applied to men, God, angels, the judges, gods, including pagan gods like Dagon, Ashtoreth and Marduk. (Psalm 82:1, 6; Exodus 4:16; 7:1; 8:4-5; 1 Samuel 5:7; 1 Kings 11:5; Daniel 1:2). So, it's used for God, plural gods and single gods as a plural of majesty.
Okay. What basis is there that the DDJ supports the interpretation you allege it does, exactly?
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Are you certain? It could be the direction of influence is reversed? It could be that both cultures came to the same conclusion independently?
Yes. What is taught in the Hebrew bible is that these powers appear to be plural, but they are all part of an unparalleled unique unity without any division. <--- That is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. There really isn't any religion which comes close to this theology excluding maybe Hinduism. It's certainly not Greek. The Platonic "Absolute" delegates authority to the lower power the logos. That's not what's happening in the Hebrew Bible. That's the whole point. God in the Hebrew bible does not defer nor delegate. It's ALL one being: forward and backward, from left to right, inner and outer, forever and ever and always.
I Am Hugh
Researcher
I'm rarely certain. Certainty is more often than not stagnation in the learning process.
Hmmm. I think it unlikely, because, as I've said, it (Greek psyche) is just a word. It's a question of what it means, the etymology more than the common or traditional definition. The same word for Butterfly, for example. Why? Because the Greek philosophers in question saw the immortal soul as transforming, like a butterfly. Uh - let's see - the English word soul is associated with bodies of water due to the pagan superstition that the immortal soul was bound in bodies of water upon death, so they couldn't harm the living. That's easy to find online, but more difficult to find the reasoning behind that. The original word meant "to bind." They would bind the ankles and wrists upon burial for the same reason. The Jewish Publication Society discontinued the use of the English word (soul) in their translation of the Torah due to its "completely inaccurate" translation of the Hebrew Nefesh. (New York Times, October 12, 1962)
That doesn't explain the "powers" being unique or united with the pagan gods mentioned. A god (Hebrew el, Elohim) is anything or anyone attributed a might greater than the one attributing it. Anyone or anything venerated in that sense.
Again, you take a traditional position of there being only one Elohim while overlooking not to have any before the one. It's subjective, you see?
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
I see. Your only source regarding Judaism is coming from the JPS? That is a free translation brought by the Reform Judaism Movement whose raison d'etre, arguably, is to erase spirituality from Judaism. It's free. You get what you pay for,
The immortal soul is the neshama. Not the nefesh. The neshama. Nishamti. The breath of God, breathed directly into humanity?
You see? These are details which are overlooked. And the inherent bias of the Reform Movement's JPS is not being considered? It says Jewish it comes from Jews so it's assumed to be accurate?
It does indeed. But you don't see it yet. Moses teaches and it's written. Paraphrasing, forgive me, : "God did all of this so that you, Israelites, will know: YHVH is Elohim, ALL of them are one. Without any gaps in between."
I can show you. Micah 4:5. Notice: Elohav? Their gods are included.
You're going with etymology, but you're not including the reasons for the etymology. What is the difference between Ail ( aleph-lamed ) the word which means "power" and Elohai, the word meaning God. Do you see it? Among other things, which are also significant, the letter Hei. The "H" is added do you know what that means?
Put simply, it is a hand. The hand of God. A hamsa? Here is the etymology and derivation:
The Hei is written, if you look at it on paper, as a Yud and a Dalet combined. Yud-Dalet. That's the word Yad. It literally means "hand" "Yad" = "Hand" in Hebrew. The letter hei is the 5th letter. Hello! 5 fingers.
Guess what else? Yud is the 10th letter. Dalet is the 4th letter. Add them? 14. Now look at your hand and count the segments. There's 14. Each finger has 3, except for the thumb which has 2. That's 14. The hei is the hand of God, added to the word Ail, "Aleph-Lamed" which is a, as you correctly stated, a divine power. I could go deeper, there's more to this.The point is: In Judaism, there are no gaps. The God concept here is an unparalleled unity without any division. From the absolutely infinite one, the hand of God is concealed in the material world through many many many, nearly infinite layers. Those layers are like gloves on a hand. Hand-in-glove-in-glove-in-glove-in-glove-in-glove-in-glove... all they way to the material realm. No gaps. These other divine powers are like the finger tips on the gloves. But those fingertips are nested, one within the other within the other within the other... those are described as the angelic hosts. YHVH is the Lord of Hosts.
Judaism does not deny that these powers exist. We acknowledge them, but we will never bow to them or serve them. That's because the Mt. Sinai event engraved YHVH on our eternal souls. Technically we ahve always had such an engraving. That's a consequence of eternity. None the less, we do not deny these other powers exist. We simply believe, we see them for what they are. Mighty Forces of nature, which is the more literal understanding of the the meaning of the word Elohim. Elohim = HaTevah. But all of it is the singular hand of God revealing itself, through many layers of concealment. These powers exist, but have no will of their own. Like gravity, electricity, wind... etc. I would never bow to gravity nor ask it for favor. It's like that.
Does that help?
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Not at all. Grammatically, it's written singular. Look for yourself. Not subjective. See? There is no need to argue. It's written singular. I'm not choosing that.
Do you know how to check the conjugation of the verbs? I can show you how using an interlinear translation online.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
We don't live in history. We live in the present.
The world today is not the same world we used to live in.
Go back 2000 years and Rome was the place you would want to be.
By today's standards, it would be a hellhole.
blame it on the vampires
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
..well, what is the present? How did we get here?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
By evolving our standards as a result of lessons learned from the past.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Hopefully .. so you are an optimist then.
Me? Not so much .. I expect mankind to repeat World War .. there are just too many lessons,
and not enough students.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
In general, yes, but not particularly. And it certainly has no bearing on the post you are replying to.
Great. What that has to do with the subject at hand though.... beats me.Me? Not so much .. I expect mankind to repeat World War .. there are just too many lessons,
and not enough students.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
You said: "The world today is not the same world we used to live in."
It's an illusion .. it is subject to change .. continually.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes, it's called progress.
What used to be the best place to live in the past, would be considered a hellhole today.
So when we evaluate ideologies or "ways of living", we use today's standards. Not the standards of yesteryear.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
No .. you do.
I do not judge by what you judge. I see that this worldly life is subject to change.
People have a false sense of security, and only assume that their apparent success / wealth
will be with them for the foreseeable future.
That is only an assumption, and one which history shows otherwise .. an assumption I
don't agree with.
Civilizations rise and fall.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
OK. Then, how do you judge a religion?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I said "A balanced view of any philosophy needs analysis in various ways, including its history."
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I'ld say that sane people, do.
But off course that is how "I" do it. That's what this thread is about, isn't it? How we as individuals do it.
It is. And the way we might judge things tomorrow might be different from how we judge them today.
But it makes no sense to use standards from the past to judge things today.
We use today's standards. Which is why today we don't consider keeping slaves a good thing, while we had no problems with it in the past.
Obviously we can't use whatever standards might be applicable in the future.
Today's standards is the best we can currently do.
I don't see what the point is of that comment. I'm not talking about success or wealth or even security.
Sure. So?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That's extremely vague and it doesn't tell us anything.