CheezePavilion wrote:Nomad wrote:CheezePavilion wrote:Get out of our theist thread Paleo, you've making us all look dumb!
By misquoting lines from one of the most famous scientists of all time, who also happened to be a devout theist?
By taking one of the lines from one of the most famous alchemists of all time, and pointing out that however humble the sentiment it may have expressed, it nevertheless acknowledges that we can see farther than they did.
I guess I'm the only one seeing the irony of quoting someone from the 18th century to make the point that we in the 21st century "see farther" than others in the distant past?
No? ....Just me then?...
OK...carry on.
As an aside, I'm listening to a book on the history of the scientific revolution right now, and Newton said that line to sarcastically mock Robert Hooke, who was particularly short, and an occasional political enemy of Newton's.
Wow. I really didn't think that one line would inspire all this back and forth. I assumed everyone knew the Newton reference, but made a point of inverting it. Sort of how Diogenes made a point of inverting the whole "paying court to Dionysius" and "washing lettuces". But now it appears I'm in the awkward position of having to explain a joke.
I actually didn't know the Newton reference (sig now adjusted accordingly). I don't think anyone ever argued that there was no value to the "wisdom of past ages", to use your phrasing, only that we know more now than we did in the past, raising the question of how that colors our view of the world.
Palecon:
As a matter of fact, I have been disinclined to notice your take on the famed Newton quote, since I think that it's somewhat dangerous, but since it's already taken on some space, I might as well.
I think it's dangerous and illogical to have a positive bias for subsequent logical takes simply because they are formed temporally later, or because they have more theorems on which they depend. In fact, a rigorous approach to logic would say that basing your view and theorem on subsequent theorems strictly makes it weaker than every previous one, since you are depending on the veracity of every theorem you reference as well as the assumptions of each of those necessary theorems.
The closer the theorem is to its assumptions, and the fewer those assumptions are, the stronger it is. Comparatively, a scientific theory that cleaves very closely to observed facts and keeps itself as simple as possible is the stronger.
We cannot discount previous takes on a topic simply because they were made earlier. Each such item should be discussed and considered strictly on its own merits, dependent on neither who said it, nor when it was said. Every idea we harbor in which we aggrandize ourselves or the past, or the future needlessly biaises our analysis of items for absolutely no gain whatsoever.
LarryC wrote:We cannot discount previous takes on a topic simply because it was made earlier. Each such item should be discussed and considered strictly on its own merits, dependent on neither who said it, or when it was said.
This.
On the other hand, if you've had a few thousand years to discount an idea, is it really worth re-hashing over and over again?
LarryC wrote:We cannot discount previous takes on a topic simply because it was made earlier. Each such item should be discussed and considered strictly on its own merits, dependent on neither who said it, or when it was said.
This.
...What? Really?
It is incredibly important when taking "past wisdom" (which I assume is a euphemism for scripture in the context of this thread) to consider both who said it (for cultural context) and when it was said (for historical/societal context). Such considerations can, in fact, completely change, on the order of downright reversal, what is being said. As in all things, it's not always the case, but it is no less important regardless. To do otherwise is irresponsible.
darrenl wrote:LarryC wrote:We cannot discount previous takes on a topic simply because it was made earlier. Each such item should be discussed and considered strictly on its own merits, dependent on neither who said it, or when it was said.
This.
...What? Really?
It is incredibly important when taking "past wisdom" (which I assume is a euphemism for scripture in the context of this thread) to consider both who said it (for cultural context) and when it was said (for historical/societal context). Such considerations can, in fact, completely change, on the order of downright reversal, what is being said. As in all things, it's not always the case, but it is no less important regardless. To do otherwise is irresponsible.
It is easy to agree with something that supports your opinion:)
Tanglebones:
Each idea stands on its own merit. Whether you consider it worth your time to rehash an idea that's been discounted numerous times by a variety of groups and people is your own lookout.
NSMike:
It goes without saying that the context and milieu of an idea is part of what it is. The character of who said it is what's not supposed to be on the table. The Theory of Relativity is a valid idea regardless of who said it, or whether or not he finished college, or whether or not he was rich or otherwise.
The moral value of the complete idea (including the culture and context of it, natch) is the valuable thing. It doesn't matter whether it was said 2000 years ago, or today. It stands or falls on its own merits.
There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity... It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn.
CheezePavilion wrote:Nomad wrote:CheezePavilion wrote:Get out of our theist thread Paleo, you've making us all look dumb!
By misquoting lines from one of the most famous scientists of all time, who also happened to be a devout theist?
By taking one of the lines from one of the most famous alchemists of all time, and pointing out that however humble the sentiment it may have expressed, it nevertheless acknowledges that we can see farther than they did.
I guess I'm the only one seeing the irony of quoting someone from the 18th century to make the point that we in the 21st century "see farther" than others in the distant past?
No? ....Just me then?...
OK...carry on.
I think a lot of what Paleo meant is that they may have come up with some very intelligent ways of looking at the world, ways that are still superior in some cases to anything we can come up with even, but there's a difference between, let's say, the 'formulas' of their thought--what I think LarryC is referring to when he says "logical takes"--and their conclusions.
No matter how smart they were, they did not have all the data we have today to plug into their formulas. So when we read them, we read them more for the questions they asked than the answers they came up with. Why? Because they asked those questions with access to so much less data than we have now.
Interesting, but:
Plenty of atheists use genocides or strange laws from the Old Testament as an opening gambit when confronting Catholics. Trouble is, not all Catholics think that the Old Testament stories are entirely historical documents and most don’t believe that present day Christians are bound by all Talmudic laws. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ changed the rules.
I wasn't aware that Catholics used the Talmud at all, on account of it being a Rabbinic text, and Jesus apparently not being a big fan of that crowd. I'm guessing the author meant Torah, but didn't understand the difference.
Garden Ninja wrote:Interesting, but:
Plenty of atheists use genocides or strange laws from the Old Testament as an opening gambit when confronting Catholics. Trouble is, not all Catholics think that the Old Testament stories are entirely historical documents and most don’t believe that present day Christians are bound by all Talmudic laws. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ changed the rules.I wasn't aware that Catholics used the Talmud at all, on account of it being a Rabbinic text, and Jesus apparently not being a big fan of that crowd. I'm guessing the author meant Torah, but didn't understand the difference.
I'm actually not clear if OT, Torah and Talmud are synonymous. Can you fill me in Ninja?
We certainly are encouraged to use the OT...but I personally have not as of yet. On the OT, I heard one priest say he is always jealous of Jewish converts to the Catholic faith because they are extremely intimate with the OT. Within the OT is the NT, and the NT fulfills the OT.
The terms Talmud and Gemara are often used interchangeably. The Gemara is the basis for all codes of rabbinic law and is much quoted in other rabbinic literature. The whole Talmud is also traditionally referred to as Shas (ש"ס), a Hebrew abbreviation of shisha sedarim, the "six orders" of the Mishnah.
+++++
+++++
edit:
I wasn't aware that Catholics used the Talmud at all, on account of it being a Rabbinic text, and Jesus apparently not being a big fan of that crowd. I'm guessing the author meant Torah, but didn't understand the difference.
As far as I know, there *was* no such thing as a Rabbi in Jesus' day. The Rabbinical tradition is a tradition that emerges after the destruction of the Temple. Considering one of the problems Jesus had with Judiasm at the time was how inflexible it had become, I'm not sure he'd have the same issues with Rabbinical Judiasm.
And also as far as I know, we don't use the Talmud.
Certainly. It's certainly easy to get confused when unknown terms are thrown around. I'm sure there is plenty of Christian "jargon" that would totally baffle me without further explanation. Torah, Tanakh and Talmud are often used in similar contexts so that doesn't help things.
The equivalent term for Old Testament is Tanakh, which and acronym for Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim. The exact number of books depends on how you break it down, and there are some differences in from the OT.
The Torah is the 5 Books of Moses. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Number, Deuteronomy.
Nevi'im means Prophets and contains Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Ezekiel as distinct books. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi are sometimes collected together. Samuel and Kings are not typically broken down into 2 books each, like in the OT.
Ketuvim means Writings, and contains Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther (which, if I'm not mistaken, is the only book of the Tanakh that doesn't contain the Name of God), Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Chronicles. Ezra and Nehemiah are typically treated as a single book, and Chronicles is one book, rather than two as well.
Rabbinic (and therefore modern) Tradition holds that when Moses received the Written Torah (5 Books) at Mount Sinai, at the same time, he also received an Oral Torah, which told interpretations and a method of interpretation for the Written Torah. After the destruction of the Second Temple, they feared the knowledge would be lost, so it was written down in the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), which takes the form of various Rabbis discussing various possible interpretations of the Torah, as well as the "rules" for interpretation. (My Rabbi, when explaining this, was fond of the phrase "God is at least as smart as your mother...")
The Talmud actually refers to two different texts: Jerusalem Talmud and Babylonian Talmud (c. 400 CE and 500 CE, if I remember right). In both cases, they take the text of the Mishnah (though only part of it; both of them are "unfinished"), and expound on it with additional commentary called Gemara.
Edit, since I apparently took 30 minutes to write my post:
-------------------
As far as I know, there *was* no such thing as a Rabbi in Jesus' day. The Rabbinical tradition is a tradition that emerges after the destruction of the Temple. Considering one of the problems Jesus had with Judiasm at the time was how inflexible it had become, I'm not sure he'd have the same issues with Rabbinical Judiasm.
And also as far as I know, we don't use the Talmud.
As I mentioned briefly upthread, the Rabbinic tradition is a continuation of the Pharisaic tradition. The two main schools of thought within the movement in antiquity trace back to Hillel and Shammai, both of whom are typically said to have lived around 100 BCE. So they wouldn't be called Rabbis, but the movement existed.
Jesus may have been more familiar with the School of Shammai, which was much more strict, while the School of Hillel was more lenient.
I suppose it's also possible that he was actually referring to the Sadducees (or lumping the two groups together), which was largely made up of the priesthood, and rejected the existence of Oral Torah (it made the priesthood less important, so that may be part of it) and held to a much more straightforward reading of the Torah. But the Sadducees were a very distinct group and not fans of the Pharisees, so that seems unlikely, unless it was a political move to avoid pissing off those in power. If I'm not mistaken, the NT is similarly quiet regarding the Romans.
CheezePavilion wrote:As far as I know, there *was* no such thing as a Rabbi in Jesus' day. The Rabbinical tradition is a tradition that emerges after the destruction of the Temple. Considering one of the problems Jesus had with Judiasm at the time was how inflexible it had become, I'm not sure he'd have the same issues with Rabbinical Judiasm.
And also as far as I know, we don't use the Talmud.
As I mentioned briefly upthread, the Rabbinic tradition is a continuation of the Pharisaic tradition. The two main schools of thought within the movement in antiquity trace back to Hillel and Shammai, both of whom are typically said to have lived around 100 BCE. So they wouldn't be called Rabbis, but the movement existed.
Jesus may have been more familiar with the School of Shammai, which was much more strict, while the School of Hillel was more lenient.
I suppose it's also possible that he was actually referring to the Sadducees (or lumping the two groups together), which was largely made up of the priesthood, and rejected the existence of Oral Torah (it made the priesthood less important, so that may be part of it) and held to a much more straightforward reading of the Torah. But the Sadducees were a very distinct group and not fans of the Pharisees, so that seems unlikely, unless it was a political move to avoid pissing off those in power. If I'm not mistaken, the NT is similarly quiet regarding the Romans.
You're right--that's a better way to put it: I was making it sound like Rabbinical Judaism came out of nowhere when that's not true (and I know better!).
From what I remember regarding Jesus and Judiasm and his not being a fan of some of it, it was mostly centered around when the letter of the law was put before the spirit of the law. Modern Rabbis, I could see him being a big fan of them. For instance, this was pretty surprising to me when I read about it a while back. That goes a heck of a lot further than asking whether you can pull an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath!
Like many Protestant denominations, Conservative Jews are divided over homosexuality: torn between the Hebrew scriptures' condemnation of it as an "abomination" and a desire to encourage same-sex couples to form long-lasting, monogamous relationships.
I suppose it's been another 5 years since that decision, but some people aren't torn at all. I remember, probably a bit before this decision, though I'm not certain what his personal thoughts on the issue were, my Rabbi said something along the lines of this type of change being inevitable. At some point even the Orthodox would have women rabbis and LGBT rabbis. Delaware recently passed a law to allow same sex unions, and the Rabbi at my current shul testified before the panel (state senate maybe?). I forget all the details of his story, but his main point was that the traditional interpretation of that passage is wrong. The surrounding text is all about forbidding certain types of worship, specifically Molech worship (which supposedly involved temple cult prostitutes, though it's disputed whether such a practice ever existed), and it could only be understood in that context. It has nothing to do with same sex relationships in general.
Just didn't want ya to get the wrong impression of that Jesus guy and what was going on in the NT. When I heard about this concept while reading about the same-sex marriage debate in Judiasm, I thought "yeah--can't see Jesus having too much of a problem with people who espouse that idea."
Just didn't want ya to get the wrong impression of that Jesus guy and what was going on in the NT. When I heard about this concept while reading about the same-sex marriage debate in Judiasm, I thought "yeah--can't see Jesus having too much of a problem with people who espouse that idea."
Certainly. I'm not that familiar with the NT so I don't know how strongly it was phrased there, but I assume his beef with Pharisees wasn't anything as strong as "Pharisees are evil", and more along the lines of a theological / philosophical dispute. At least some scholars think Jesus may have been an Essene (seems plausible), which was a third group that weren't big fans of the other two, so that's not surprising. If the NT is your only exposure to pharisees, I can understand it being used as a negative. And to reiterate / clarify, when I said I felt unwelcome, that was overstating it; a tad uncomfortable, maybe, but not unwelcome. Rather than the off the cuff remark I made, I should have used it as a chance to educate. Anyway....
Garden Ninja...maybe you can also go into how Judaism views Jesus? I've always been curious to hear it from the perspective of a practicing Jew (...which I'm assuming you are given your knowledge and what you've said up to now....)
(What I am is a bit complicated, but "practicing Jew" is accurate.)
I can try, though "How Judaism views Jesus" is kind of a nebulous concept. This might not be what your after, but to keep it focused, I'll stick to the Messiah concept.
This Wikipedia has a decent overview.
There are several theological incompatibilities between Jewish theology and Christian theology in general, obviously, but if you just look at Jesus himself, then he is just a guy. No more or less relevant to Judaism than anyone else (at least from the standpoint of religion; the impact of Christianity on the Jewish history is a whole other issue).
Judaism and Christianity have very different concepts for what the term Messiah means. Christianity, if I understand it right, basically teaches that Messiah is synonymous with Jesus. This is reflected in the word Christ, from the Greek "christos" which means "anointed one" (same meaning as the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which is were the word "messiah" comes from), and is used as though it were his last name. In Judaism, the Messiah must fulfill certain tasks all of which culminate in a Messianic Age. Since we aren't living in a Messianic Age, the Messiah hasn't come yet. If I understand the history right, early Christians responded to the lack of messianic age with the concept of the Second Coming, which they believed would be in their lifetime.
Further, even if he were the Messiah, he would still just be a guy. A very important guy, on level with the Prophets, but still human. The idea of the Messiah being God, or part of God, or the Son of God (not totally clear on how the Trinity concept works) is Christian in origin, so far as I'm aware.
With respect, Certis already booted LarryC from our thread. We should play nice and back off, regardless of the claims made. Let the fellow theists argue whether or not Jesus as a historical figure matters to the thread.
This.
I think Paleocon's question was thought provoking and interesting. However, we begged and pleaded with people to stop badgering us in "our" thread. I wish we'd extend the same courtesy.
NSMike wrote:With respect, Certis already booted LarryC from our thread. We should play nice and back off, regardless of the claims made. Let the fellow theists argue whether or not Jesus as a historical figure matters to the thread.
This.
I think Paleocon's question was thought provoking and interesting. However, we begged and pleaded with people to stop badgering us in "our" thread. I wish we'd extend the same courtesy.
Hence why I apologized and stepped out.
Pages