is it not clear that judaism is true?

[gooduser07]

so here we go:

first of all, I appreciate all of your responses. thank you for the welcomes, and thank you for the points made.

a lot has been said.

some of the points made were:
the claims argument is not compelling..
can't base a proof on texts that you assume a priori are god-given.
even if the claims were true, doesn't mean there aren't other gods.
belief not based on logical proofs, but on just what one knows or feels to be true (impqueen), or the inner experience (bananabrain).

I direct the responses below to one person at a time, but since a number of people hit on the same points, there is interrelevancy here.

dauer,

I think you've hit the crux of it right here. It's a claim. I don't think making the larger claim makes a religion more likely to be true. It's really a matter of faith

you say that larger scale of a claim doesn't make it more believable and compare it with the claim of G. incarnate and LDS modern day acceptance, and say that if the latter two claims could be swallowed, and even in modern times, then a claim of mass revelation and miracles could also be swallowed, and certainly back then. but there seems to be a critical difference between the sorts. the claims of G. incarnate and Joseph Smith being a prophet are not falsifiable. if a person made such a claim one day, and the claim were false, the audience would still have no basis upon which to repudiate such a claim (without making some a priori assumptions about prophecy and god). on the other hand, a claim of millions of people experiencing a supernatural event that they comprehend to be a revelation of a god is a claim that is falsifiable. ie if a person made such a claim one day and it were false, then the audience could ask, if such an event actually occurred, why does the nation not have it in its national consciousness - why is not written about, spoken about, etc.. so if it's not written about, etc., then there would be a very strong case against the claim. if it is, indeed, written about, then either the claim is true, or the false claim was introduced earlier. skepticism would push for the second possiblity, but this would only push the question further and further back. in the end, one ends up with the question, how could such a claim be started.

impqueen,

They are claims, it doesn't mean the rest of the world has to believe them.

I agree that claims alone aren't very compelling bases for belief, and would go even further to say that claims alone don't even mean that progeny of the original claimers should believe the claims. but the argument I'm pointing to here is by the force not of the claims themselves, but of historical logic of how claims get started and what kinds of outrageous claims are allowed by humanity to get started and persist without even direct contradiction.
many outrageous claims have been made in history, but I don't know of any that were both highly outrageous and falsifiable except for the claims of sinaitic revelation and mass miracles of the exodus and desert periods. and I don't know of any records of repudiations of such claims that are contemporary to or soon after those periods.

Arguments based on sacred texts won't work on those who don't believe the texts are the word of God.

I don't begin with the assumption that the texts are the word of god.

Why is it more reasonable to assume that they are true?

as above, in answer to dauer.

From a polytheistic perspective, even if they are true, it doesn't mean your God is the only God.

if the claims are true, then there seem to be 2 reasons to repudiate polytheism:

1) accepting the claim of sinaitic revelation, there may be no good reason to doubt the validity of the bible as the legacy of that revelation and its status as the word of god. in the bible it says that god is the one god above and below (I could find chapter and verse if you want).

2) accepting the claims, there was a revelation of a supernatural power at the time of the exodus to mankind. the quality of miracles during the exodus period paint a picture of a power that is in charge of many aspects of nature (such as water, animals, lice, precipitation, sunlight, human life). if there is evidence of one supernatural power, who seems to be in charge of quite a lot of what's in nature, if not all of it, and no evidence of any other such power, why would one believe in another such power.

Faith isn't something that comes from logical arguments and reasoning (at least, that's what I think about faith) it is about things you just know or feel to be true.

I think you're right ultimately about faith. it's an act of the heart. the issue for me is that I grew up with a given belief system in my heart. and yet I know that other people grow up with other belief systems in their hearts. of all the belief systems that kids grow up with (and adults remain with or come to on their own), many of them are mutually exclusive. if one believes in a single ultimate truth and believes that the variety of belief systems are truly at odds, then it means that it doesn't make sense to believe based on what's in the heart alone, if one is interested that his beliefs correspond to what is absolutely true. it becomes necessary then to formulate and evaluate the various bases for belief systems, including rational arguments. informed by such an inquiry, the heart stands a much better chance of its belief corresponding to what's truly real. at least that's how I read it.

snoopy,

That's not to say that this 0.22% are not "right", but it suggests to me that it means it is not so clear.

and that's exactly what I'm trying to understand, why not? is there a critical objection to the argument, are there arguments for other belief systems of equal or superior compelling nature, or something else.

china cat sunflower, thanks for the recommendation.

what would also be really interesting if there is such a thing is a book / site / blog or something that goes through the rational or other bases that indicate the veracity of a number of the major (and perhaps some minor) belief systems, or at least why one would want to subscribe to such a belief system or practice. maybe we could write it together when we finish this discussion.

leo, thank you for your input.

josephm, I actually value people's opinions as more than just cheap. that's part of why I introduced the question to the forum to begin with (also b/c besides opinions, there are solid points of logic and facts that people mention)..

bananabrain, thanks for your input. the comments above about the force of the argument being from historical logic rather than the claims themselves I think respond to your points as well.

btw, the responses so far have mentioned potential problems with the claims argument, but none have mentioned compelling bases for other systems. I would be very appreciative to hear compelling reasons to believe in other systems - polytheism, atheism, hinduism - any non-bible-based system.

best,

abie

[dauer]

if a person made such a claim one day, and the claim were false, the audience would still have no basis upon which to repudiate such a claim (without making some a priori assumptions about prophecy and god). on the other hand, a claim of millions of people experiencing a supernatural event that they comprehend to be a revelation of a god is a claim that is falsifiable. ie if a person made such a claim one day and it were false, then the audience could ask, if such an event actually occurred, why does the nation not have it in its national consciousness - why is not written about, spoken about, etc..

You're ignoring an important point I made, which is that just because we consider myth a certain way does not mean our ancestors conceived of it the same way. Deuteronomy resembles a Hittite Vassal Treaty with good reason. By taking on forms familiar to the people they more readily accepted it as a communal myth, that is, not as literal history but as a told, relatable story about their past as a people. I can understand the need to unite the people. We're talking about taking the religion of nomadic shepherds and the religion of an earth-centered agrarian society and fusing them together into something somewhat cohesive. I have no doubt that some of the myths came from earlier sources, for example the parallels between the Torah and the Epic of Gilgamesh as well as other local sources, but that does not mean that any of the myths were ever literally true. You're taking a modern rationalist perspective and reflecting it backward onto our ancestors when we have no evidence that they did look at things in such a way. Their writings strongly suggest otherwise. If they really did look at the world that way then they were wrong on many accounts, such as a seven-day creation, a solid firmament upon which sits the throne of G!d. But if they're mythical thinkers then it's not so problematic.

There's also the possibility that there were naysayers, but the political powers were pushing a myth in order to indoctrinate the population. Personally I find the idea that there could have been a significant number of naysayers unlikely. To me it would seem the highest level of education would be found among the monarchy and those close to them.

in the end, one ends up with the question, how could such a claim be started.

By a people in need of a communal myth that could unite disparate communities and establish a code of law universal to the population absolutely it's necessary.

One of the interesting things about the story of revelation is the people say, "no no it's too much for us." And moshe rabbeinu gets the rest by himself. This seems to be a way of saying to the population, "Divine revelation is too much for you. Leave that to the authorities in the community." Another thing that's interesting is the lack of agrarian leaders. Perhaps that is because the authorities were mostly from the invading nomadic society, or perhaps it is because there was a lot of persecution of the nomads and this was a way of asserting v'ahavtah et ha-ger.

In the United States we have a myth codified into the American psyche that we all have a vote in electing the president. It's just not true. The electoral college determines who the president is. The electoral college was always a part of the way things work and we accepted the myth anyway. There was a desire to view the United States as placing extended power into the hands of the people that motivated the acceptance of the myth.

and I don't know of any records of repudiations of such claims that are contemporary to or soon after those periods.

Maybe because those who disagreed either didn't have a voice or had their records destroyed? The victors write the history books.

[Impqueen]

Originally Posted by gooduser07

I don't begin with the assumption that the texts are the word of god.

Sorry - assumption on my part

Originally Posted by gooduser07

if the claims are true, then there seem to be 2 reasons to repudiate polytheism:

1) accepting the claim of sinaitic revelation,

I'm afraid when I mentioned miracles I was thinking more about parting of the Red Sea and plagues etc rather than the revelation itself. I don't necessarily dispute the revelation though, but think of it in terms of the Jewish god speaking to his chosen people. As a non-Jew, he isn't talking to me... (Just like to say here that my knowledge of Judaism is even worse than my knowledge of Christianity - which is partly why I'm here.)

Originally Posted by gooduser07

in the bible it says that god is the one god above and below

Ah well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

Originally Posted by gooduser07

2) accepting the claims, there was a revelation of a supernatural power at the time of the exodus to mankind. the quality of miracles during the exodus period paint a picture of a power that is in charge of many aspects of nature (such as water, animals, lice, precipitation, sunlight, human life). if there is evidence of one supernatural power, who seems to be in charge of quite a lot of what's in nature, if not all of it, and no evidence of any other such power, why would one believe in another such power.

Why do you say there's no evidence of any other power? Myth from every culture under the sun attributes control of these things to different gods. Just because my partner drives his car sometimes, doesn't mean I can't drive it too. (Poor analogy I know, but I'm tired, so sue me. )

Originally Posted by gooduser07

I think you're right ultimately about faith. it's an act of the heart. the issue for me is that I grew up with a given belief system in my heart. and yet I know that other people grow up with other belief systems in their hearts. of all the belief systems that kids grow up with (and adults remain with or come to on their own), many of them are mutually exclusive. if one believes in a single ultimate truth and believes that the variety of belief systems are truly at odds, then it means that it doesn't make sense to believe based on what's in the heart alone, if one is interested that his beliefs correspond to what is absolutely true. it becomes necessary then to formulate and evaluate the various bases for belief systems, including rational arguments. informed by such an inquiry, the heart stands a much better chance of its belief corresponding to what's truly real. at least that's how I read it.

Rational argument does come into it but the starting point is 'feeling' or 'faith' and the final test has to be 'does this feel right?' not 'does this make logical sense?' What I believe on this question is that there is truth out there (probably), but we can't know it, not when incarnated anyway. So all we can do is reach towards whatever feels, to us, to be closest to truth. And rather like it is possible to look at a colour and have an argument over whether it's green or blue, our minds interpret the incoming information in slightly different ways. In life, mind always stands between us and truth, so we just have to do the best with what we have (and not take it too personally when someone else thinks the green cloth is blue).

Originally Posted by gooduser07

btw, the responses so far have mentioned potential problems with the claims argument, but none have mentioned compelling bases for other systems. I would be very appreciative to hear compelling reasons to believe in other systems - polytheism, atheism, hinduism - any non-bible-based system.

I can tell you why I'm polytheist, if that would help. I started from a position of agnosticism ... I believe there is a higher power. There is no logic to this except that I feel there is something out there. Monotheism simply doesn't make sense to me; the world is so messed up, wierd and confusing how can there be one intelligence at work? At least - how can there be one omniscient and benevolent intelligence at work? That there are many powers at work seems more likely. Especially if they're not all infallible or benevolent. I don't think these are necessarily 'compelling claims' they are simply what I feel and how I've reasoned within that feeling. I don't expect anyone else to believe it... I'm just thankful no-one's put me in a white coat with long sleeves yet.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

Sorry .. I'm just thankful no-one's put me in a white coat with long sleeves yet.

YouTube - They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa - Napoleon XIV

[Impqueen]

Ah you see the difference is, I maintain a good facade of normality much of the time. But now and again.... *twitch*

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by gooduser07

in the end, one ends up with the question, how could such a claim be started?

i think you're kind of flying in the face of the way the Oral Law works. remember, when you look at a piece of mishnah and then a piece of gemara, the sages are trying to establish not what the halakhah is, but why it is the way it is, by examining the reasoning of the sages in whose name the teachings are given and by analysing their consistency and integrity to a minute degree. you'll have a mishnah which appears to be contradicted by a baraita which appears to describe the same situation, so the gemara will spend its time trying to establish if they contradict each other or not or if they are actually describing subtly different cases, in order to conclude that the baraita or mishnah concerned contain no redundancy.

the argument I'm pointing to here is by the force not of the claims themselves, but of historical logic of how claims get started and what kinds of outrageous claims are allowed by humanity to get started and persist without even direct contradiction.

the point is that nobody is questioning what is *assumed axiomatically* to be true - ie, that moshe received Torah at sinai and passed it on to joshua, etc all the way down to the zugot and tannaim. by the time it is written down, the original claim is in fact *mythic* - which is not to say untrue, but not subjectable to verification by historical means. there is no such thing as an "outrageous" claim in the context of religious myth, because each thing is as outrageous as the next. in other words, it is pointless arguing about whether it is impossible or not for something to get started or not because actually, the examination fails if you can't even verify the chain of tradition, which, in fact, is precisely what the sages are struggling with when they're trying to work out whether it was rabbi meir or resh lakish who made a particular anonymous ruling by comparing it to other rulings which are agreed to be by those persons and assuming moreover that there is consistency throughout unless there is some reason to suppose that the rulings refer to different situations.

you'd be far better to ask yourself why, if the texts are supposedly later than the exodus, they take the trouble to record the conditions of a nomadic camp in such detail when these conditions would not have been applicable for a thousand years by the time the rules were supposedly written. you might also ask why it is we assume that one "person" could not have written all of this based on apparent stylistic differences, when lord macaulay verifiably wrote not only poetry but the indian penal code.

then there seem to be 2 reasons to repudiate polytheism:
1) accepting the claim of sinaitic revelation, there may be no good reason to doubt the validity of the bible as the legacy of that revelation and its status as the word of god. in the bible it says that god is the one god above and below (I could find chapter and verse if you want).

but that is also a classic "argument from authority" based upon the fact that you have to be able to accept that the Torah wasn't lying in the first place, G!D Forbid.

2) accepting the claims, there was a revelation of a supernatural power at the time of the exodus to mankind. the quality of miracles during the exodus period paint a picture of a power that is in charge of many aspects of nature (such as water, animals, lice, precipitation, sunlight, human life). if there is evidence of one supernatural power, who seems to be in charge of quite a lot of what's in nature, if not all of it, and no evidence of any other such power, why would one believe in another such power.

if that is true, then what is your reaction to the book of job and the problem of theodicy - when bad things happen to good people? is that not "evidence" of two powers?

if one believes in a single ultimate truth and believes that the variety of belief systems are truly at odds, then it means that it doesn't make sense to believe based on what's in the heart alone, if one is interested that his beliefs correspond to what is absolutely true.

but philosophically, it cannot be established that *anything* corresponds to absolute "truth" that does not rely on axiomatic beliefs. you sound like a mediaeval rationalist insisting that there have to be demonstrable proofs for everything. i suggest that you get a copy of rambam's "guide for the perplexed". in fact, while we're on the subject, have a look at his 13 principles of faith and you'll see a precise and comprehensive list of the things that are necessarily based on pure faith alone and cannot be demonstrated logically. everything else in Torah follows on from them. even rambam, considered (erroneously in my opinion) as an arch-rationalist exclusivist, conceded that some stuff just *can't* be proven.

is there a critical objection to the argument, are there arguments for other belief systems of equal or superior compelling nature, or something else.

the critical objection is that the same level of proof based on the claims of the Torah itself can be adduced to show that almost any belief system is true if it itself says that it is. furthermore, the internal experience of other texts and belief systems can be reliably shown to produce comparable feelings of 'absolute truth' when applied to the Qur'an, for example - the quality of the arabic is said to be of a supernatural nature by those who are familiar with the language.

to sum up, historical logic proceeds in all cases from *axioms*, whether religious, scientific, aesthetic or otherwise. to deny the existence of such axioms and their philosophical function puts you in disagreement with some of the most rational sages in the history of judaism.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

BB,

excellent post.

Gooduser,

I suggest you also have a look at As A Driven Leaf by Milton Steinberg. It's a novel that uses figures from the Talmud to examine contemporary issues. The main focus is on Elisha ben Abuyah who is driven in a search for truth that can be known without any axiomatic assumptions at all.

Dauer

[bananabrain]

ooh, yes, good recommendation. in fact, everyone should read it!

b'shalom

bananabrain

[gooduser07]

Originally Posted by dauer

You're ignoring an important point I made, which is that just because we consider myth a certain way does not mean our ancestors conceived of it the same way.

in what respect would they not conceive of myth the same way? to take on unfalsifiable legends is one thing (and even then, not necessarily to the extent that they would stake their lives on the veracity of such stories). but to take on falsifiable ones that actually have strong logic against them is quite a different thing, and it seems difficult to propose that they would have bought this type as well. (eg. imagine a situation of someone introducing a claim of 2 million jews having witnessed a divine revelation, but that the nation has no writings or stories of such things). the claims here weren't made in any allegorical terms, and there is heavy stress in the bible of the nation having witnessed it with their own eyes, so it's difficult to say that people would have accepted such a story as anything but a claim of literal history.

Originally Posted by dauer

I can understand the need to unite the people. We're talking about taking the religion of nomadic shepherds and the religion of an earth-centered agrarian society and fusing them together into something somewhat cohesive.

the fact that one could come up with other benefits that the introduction of such a history could offer, such as uniting a nation, doesn't mean that people would adopt claims that seem patently false just to accomplish this. again, an unfalsifiable legend with no holes in it, maybe. a claim of literal history with a gaping hole in it, doubtful.

is it that you think that acceptance even of the second class of claims was possible back then

Originally Posted by dauer

I have no doubt that some of the myths came from earlier sources, for example the parallels between the Torah and the Epic of Gilgamesh as well as other local sources

similarity of storyline doesn't dictate plagiarism, and especially not if we're dealing w/ the possibility that the torah is divine. I agree that such a similarity should be noted, but it seems the much more important factor to weigh is some kind of more direct indication of whether the revelation occurred, like the argument from massive claim. ie, if this argument is credited, there is no problem at all with the similarity between literatures, and in fact may just be an indication of the truth of the event.

Originally Posted by dauer

If they really did look at the world that way then they were wrong on many accounts, such as a seven-day creation, a solid firmament upon which sits the throne of G!d.

I'm not sure why you say the seven days couldn't be literal (cf gerald schroeder's book, genesis and the big bang), or which part you're referring to in the throne of g?, etc, but I think that in any event, there's a clear distinction between everything in the genesis story and the events of the exodus. the genesis story is a few chapters of words to describe the mysteries of creation. the exodus story is given, and heavily emphasized in the text itself, as an historical account that was witnessed by people, and that should be remembered.

Originally Posted by dauer

I suggest you also have a look at As A Driven Leaf by Milton Steinberg. It's a novel that uses figures from the Talmud to examine contemporary issues. The main focus is on Elisha ben Abuyah who is driven in a search for truth that can be known without any axiomatic assumptions at all.

indeed, that does sound interesting. thank you for the reference.

abie

[gooduser07]

impqueen and bb, I really did want to respond tonight, but it's gotten dreadfully late here (israeli time).
I hope to reply another time.
all the best,
abie

[gooduser07]

in the meanwhile,
I haven't heard yet from the buddhists, hindus and wiccans on this forum why they believe what they believe. can I invite?

abie

[gooduser07]

ok, I started a new thread for the above question, "why do you believe what you believe".

abie

[dauer]

in what respect would they not conceive of myth the same way?

As something literal. There isn't even a level of interpretation in present day Judaism that translates as literal. We have pshat and sometimes that can be literal, but not always. It's the plain meaning.

to take on unfalsifiable legends is one thing (and even then, not necessarily to the extent that they would stake their lives on the veracity of such stories). but to take on falsifiable ones that actually have strong logic against them is quite a different thing, and it seems difficult to propose that they would have bought this type as well.

I think you're projection your own rationalist, empirical worldview too strongly on the ancient israelites. What about the pragmatic and symbolic motivations? I'm not suggesting they were originally taken to be literally true. Stories told around the campfire grow and evolve, become the stories of a people. Implausibility is hardly evidence.

. imagine a situation of someone introducing a claim of 2 million jews having witnessed a divine revelation, but that the nation has no writings or stories of such things

Yes, I understand what you're saying. But I don't agree. And it's not about how you or I might understand it were we there. We come after the introduction and dissemination of the predominant rationalist approach to the world around us.

the claims here weren't made in any allegorical terms

What about it isn't allegory? The whole thing can be seen as a propagandic argument for the Divine authority of the leadership, and that the common folk should stay out of that role as well as, given Deuteronomy, an argument for why a people just coming out of exile should come together and re-establish order, spoken in the format of a vassal treaty they would have been familiar with.

the fact that one could come up with other benefits that the introduction of such a history could offer, such as uniting a nation, doesn't mean that people would adopt claims that seem patently false just to accomplish this. again, an unfalsifiable legend with no holes in it, maybe. a claim of literal history with a gaping hole in it, doubtful.

But who's saying that it was originally taken as literal history? That's what happens with canon over time as the people involved are removed from the source. The arguments you're making could be argued for most any myth. I don't see anything more implausible about revelation to a whole people than that a man is born to a virgin as the literal son of G!d.

And while pragmatic reasons don't automatically mean they would, I'm not suggesting that as Truth. However Occam's razor would tell us that it's more likely than your metaphysical suggestion because it's a less complicated answer that doesn't involve the supernatural.

similarity of storyline doesn't dictate plagiarism, and especially not if we're dealing w/ the possibility that the torah is divine

I'm not assuming axiomatically that the Torah is Divine. I wouldn't make that type of assumption. If you want to dialogue on this then you can't expect everyone you're speaking with to accept your assumptions. And while I can't establish a causal relationship I'm not suggesting it's Truth, but only that it's a far more reasonable explanation, especially when Occam's razor is applied. You can't write off all of my arguments because they don't support your assumptions and expect me to take your arguments seriously.

like the argument from massive claim. ie, if this argument is credited, there is no problem at all with the similarity between literatures, and in fact may just be an indication of the truth of the event.

But the problem is that we haven't established any validity at all to the claim for mass revelation. It's only you insisting that it must be more true than the rest because it's so implausible, thus involving the supernatural in something that could otherwise be answered using much more reasonable evidence. I think you'll find if you do the research that the argument has never been objectively credited. There are defenses of it just as there are defenses of other world myths, but they they don't serve to convince anyone. They're comfort for some of those who hold to the belief and those looking for an excuse to hold belief in order to convince themselves. I have some questions for you too.

Do you feel like in order for it to be worthwhile it must be literally true?

Are you trying to convince everyone else? To convince yourself? To find answers about something you're uncertain of?

I'm not sure why you say the seven days couldn't be literal (cf gerald schroeder's book, genesis and the big bang)

Genesis and the Big Bang is drash, not pshat. And it's not something arrived at by looking at science and trying to see if Torah fits. It's just like Rambam did with Aristotle, taking science and making it fit to the text. I haven't read it but generally books like this follow the familiar pattern in religious interpretation of finding what doesn't agree according to the interpreter's understanding of the world and showing how it can. Like saying for example that a day can be longer because this is the first place the word yom is used and therefore could indicate any length of time. Or that the light on the first day isn't light as we know it but some type of spiritual light, even though the text never states that. Judaism doesn't read this literally. It accepts it as a mystical text, with good reason.

The throne of G!d isn't mentioned here. It's mentioned I think in tehillim, possibly elsewhere in Nach though as it's been a while, where the cosmology is developed further. G!d's throne sits atop the solid firmament. If it's all valid then surely you must take into account other places in Tanach where the cosmology is further developed.

the exodus story is given, and heavily emphasized in the text itself, as an historical account that was witnessed by people, and that should be remembered.

Yeah but you're assuming their sense of history was the same as ours which an analysis of the claims of the text and other mythical texts from that time period of different people suggests isn't true. They were all accepting things that we would find literally implausible. Look at the religion of the natives to Australia. They view the world in a radically different way than most societies do today. Something you might accept as implausible is perfectly valid for them.

I think really Torah is much more theology and ideology than history, but it disguises itself as a history book by riffing on history and legend. Look at how the assumption that exile was a punishment from YHWH instead of another god conquering YHWH transformed Jewish beliefs. Any other people in the area would have been conquered. That would've been it. They'd assimilate. But in that moment god became G!d. It forced the writers of scripture to think in different ways. That's an example of how we begin to interpret the text differently based on historical experiences or the contemporary mindset. And from that the text just flower. It explodes with new meaning to each generation. As the gemara records, R. Akiva's Torah was different than Moses' Torah. R. Akiva said that these things he said were given to Moses, but Moses could not make sense of it. Now here is also another example of something implausible that was accepted. And today we still accept that it's a drash, not meant to be taken literally. But the Torah is much earlier, pre-rabbinic Judaism. And a lot happened, a lot of tohu vavohu. So that flexible nature gets lost to literalism by those who would wish preserve their stories.

Dauer

[gooduser07]

dauer,
to answer your question, I am looking for truth. not to convince anyone of any ideas.
basically, I grew up w/ torah, and realized at a certain point that the tradition bears questioning since there are many traditions and belief systems in the world, and many people of high iq's subscribe to many of these. upon an initial questioning of my own traditions, I had seen strong evidence (from a number of angles, but including the mass-revelation argument) for torah. so the question reverses itself, if you get my meaning. why do others not believe in torah? hence, this thread.

if I argued w/ people it was to test the mettle of their ideas. at root, I am trying to understand, not to convince.

not only do I not expect others to take on my assumptions, but I don't make assumptions myself. if you look carefully at the way I phrased things, you may notice this.

to answer your other question, it's hard for me to conceive of following a religion if what they say is true isn't true. for judaism, I think that there are some aggadot that the tradition itself says were only meant allegorically. so if I discovered these things weren't literally true, no problem. but for the things that the tradition says are to be taken literally (which I think is most things, and certainly exodus and sinai), if I discover them to be untrue, then there would be a problem.

having said all this, I must also say that I can see that it may become difficult for me to continue the thread for now. I'm in the process of moving countries, and it may take a while. I do thank you for what you've shared. maybe it can be continued another time.

all the best,
gooduser07

[dauer]

Thanks for giving a little background.

Have a safe journey.

Dauer