is it not clear that judaism is true?

G

gooduser07

Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
0
in ultimate truth of reality, is it not clear that judaism is it?​

I have only recently begun to look at other belief systems, so please excuse if the answer is obvious. it is not obvious to me at this point.

idea is as follows:​
judaism seems true for a variety of reasons. one of the most prominent is judaism's unique claims of national revelation and multiplicity of large-scale miracles in egypt, the desert, and afterwards, some of which were sustained over a 39 year period. such claims could either be made up or true. it seems more reasonable to assume they are true.

if it is clear that judaism is true, why do all the buddhists, secularists, and subscribers of all the other (non-bible-based) beliief systems in the world practice their respective systems and not judaism?​

is it that the above arguments of mass revelation, etc, are not found to be compelling by all these people? is it that they are compelling, but the other systems have lines of argument of equal or superior compelling nature? something else?

any insight would be appreciated

gooduser​
 
Hey gooduser. Welcome to c-r. :)

judaism seems true for a variety of reasons. one of the most prominent is judaism's unique claims of national revelation and multiplicity of large-scale miracles in egypt, the desert, and afterwards, some of which were sustained over a 39 year period.
Click to expand...

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 could argue against this that nobody would ever have accepted such extraordinary claims when they were made, even back then, and yet if that were true nobody would have accepted G!d incarnate on earth either. But that happened at a time where people viewed the world in terms of myth. It may not have been meant quite the way we would understand it in a literal sense. And, to point out an exception to the rule of more recent folks not accepting radically new myth, there's the LDS Church. So I don't think an argument that because the myth is hard to swallow for us that it must then be hard to swallow for our ancestors would be a very good response if you made it.

if it is clear that judaism is true, why do all the buddhists, secularists, and subscribers of all the other (non-bible-based) beliief systems in the world practice their respective systems and not judaism?
Click to expand...

It sounds like it is fairly clear to you, but the reason people follow other religions is because it's not clear. And there are people of other religions who would also make similar claims about their respective religions. But the claim to the universal truth of a religion has never been universaly agreed to.


I think that in approaching the question of "made up or true" it doesn't really have to be black and white. Some of it might be true. It might be historically false but still contain truths. There are many shades between black and white.

Dauer
 
Whoever. It's about trying to figure out why the best and brightest progressive and otherwise young Jews are agnostic on their own faith and enamored of the Eastern tradition. It's about Jubu's.

Chris
 
Yeah, I've read it. I've been to a retreat with Reb Zalman and Reb Moshe's shul is about a mile from my house. It's a great book. But Jews going East is really only a side issue that's primarily addressed in later chapters. It's more centered on the first delegation of Jewish leaders to go meet the Dalai Lama. It brings in different teachings about Judaism that the rabbis felt were relevant and in some of the cases translates the terms so that it's easier to understand as well as those the Dalai Lama was specifically interested in, like surviving in exile. But some of the best parts of the book for me were about the journey, not what happened when they got there.

There's something Reb Zalman said in the name of Reb Shlomo Carlebach that I'm not sure is ever mentioned in the book. Reb Shlomo taught, from a teaching in the Mei HaShiloach (it's from last week's parsha and I've been reading along a bit in the mei hashiloah and am not sure quite the way it relates, but I've read from the author of my translation in an interview that the way Reb Shlomo would drash on the mei hashiloach, it wasn't always clear the connection) that with the Holocaust the Jewish people had come into contact with death which rendered them tamei. There had been a huge spiritual death. The only way to remove that degree of tumah is with the ashes of a red heifer which must be done by a kohein who hasn't been rendered tamei. And it's done outside the camp. So some of the Jewish people (a nation of priests) went out of the camp to other kohanim (that is the spiritual sages of other traditions) to have the tumah removed. Then they could bring that back with them to Judaism. At that point they would be able to help remove some of the spiritual death from the rest of the Jewish community. A lot of this has happened by means of Jewish Renewal which has been a way back for people who have left without having to forsake the things they've learned and to at the same time learn Jewish ways of expressing it and the best way to share those teachings that mesh with Judaism with fellow Jews.

Dauer
 
That's a super interesting take Dauer, I really appreciate that. I most enjoyed the travelogue bits as well. I have a friend who's big into renewal. She turned me on to the book and the Tikkun site.

I don't think Judaism is as accessible as Buddhism. It's certainly not as exotic. I think that most of the trending should be seen in the larger context of the postmodern disillusionment coming out of the cultural revolution of the fifties and sixties.

Chris
 
gooduser07 said:
in ultimate truth of reality, is it not clear that judaism is it?​


I have only recently begun to look at other belief systems, so please excuse if the answer is obvious. it is not obvious to me at this point.

idea is as follows:​
judaism seems true for a variety of reasons. one of the most prominent is judaism's unique claims of national revelation and multiplicity of large-scale miracles in egypt, the desert, and afterwards, some of which were sustained over a 39 year period. such claims could either be made up or true. it seems more reasonable to assume they are true.

if it is clear that judaism is true, why do all the buddhists, secularists, and subscribers of all the other (non-bible-based) beliief systems in the world practice their respective systems and not judaism?​

is it that the above arguments of mass revelation, etc, are not found to be compelling by all these people? is it that they are compelling, but the other systems have lines of argument of equal or superior compelling nature? something else?

any insight would be appreciated


gooduser​
Click to expand...

hello, gooduser and welcome to cr!

i read your post and i am in complete agreement with you. i for one was on a different path apart from God's path so i understand what its like to not believe in God. but, from my point of view these scriptures give a sense of how God works when it comes to those that don't have knowledge of God:


Isaiah 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Isaiah 42:18 Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. 19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant? 20 Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not. 21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

just my point of view. thanks and God bless...
 
gooduser07 said:
in ultimate truth of reality, is it not clear that judaism is it?​
Click to expand...


No

​
gooduser07 said:
I have only recently begun to look at other belief systems, so please excuse if the answer is obvious. it is not obvious to me at this point.
Click to expand...

That's okay :) I think the key is to look at it from another's perspective.

gooduser07 said:
idea is as follows:​
judaism seems true for a variety of reasons. one of the most prominent is judaism's unique claims of national revelation
Click to expand...

They are claims, it doesn't mean the rest of the world has to believe them.
gooduser07 said:
and multiplicity of large-scale miracles in egypt, the desert, and afterwards, some of which were sustained over a 39 year period. such claims could either be made up or true. it seems more reasonable to assume they are true.
Click to expand...

Why is it more reasonable to assume that they are true? From a polytheistic perspective, even if they are true, it doesn't mean your God is the only God.

gooduser07 said:
if it is clear that judaism is true, why do all the buddhists, secularists, and subscribers of all the other (non-bible-based) beliief systems in the world practice their respective systems and not judaism?

is it that the above arguments of mass revelation, etc, are not found to be compelling by all these people? is it that they are compelling, but the other systems have lines of argument of equal or superior compelling nature? something else?​
Click to expand...


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. You strongly feel Judaism is true, that's great, but not all of us feel that. Arguments based on sacred texts won't work on those who don't believe the texts are the word of God.
​
 
gooduser07 said:
in ultimate truth of reality, is it not clear that judaism is it?​
Click to expand...

Hi gooduser and welcome to CR :)

My answer to your primary question would be that it currently appears to be clear to about 0.22% of the world's population. 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.

Major Religions Ranked by Size

Snoopy.
 
gooduser07,

like a couple of other people have pointed out, the unique claims of national revelation, miracles etc (in which, in case you weren't aware, i also believe) remain, despite all rhetorical and philosophical manoeuvrings, just that - claims.

basically, if it was clear that judaism was "true", then it would be self-evident - and therefore would convince everyone who came across it to convert. however, judaism is not a universalist religion. we do not seek converts, because we do not believe that judaism is right for everyone. we believe it is right for jews. if you believed it was right for everyone, you'd feel compelled to go out and evangelise, even to tribespeople in the amazonian jungle. we don't think like that - and religions that do (christianity and islam being the most obvious examples) have (and continue to) upon many occasions get so excited about their "good news" and "final revelation" that they just *have* to convert you - and if you don't want to convert, your quality of life suffers an immediate downturn.

exclusive truth => universalism => evangelism => forced conversion or persecution

this is the inescapable logic of religious history. instead of which, we maintain that "the righteous amongst the nations inherit a portion in the World to Come" which drives a set of criteria for whether one is to be considered righteous as a non-jews, namely to follow the seven noahide laws, of which you have no doubt heard.

arguments of mass revelation, satisfying though they may be to the kiruv movement, nevertheless rest upon the transmission of accurate reporting of this mass witnessing, which means the account in the Torah, which is *one* source with no corroborating evidence. in other words, we only have the Torah's word for it that there were 600,000 people there and we only have the word of the chain of tradition (see the first chapter of pirkei avot) that Torah has been correctly transmitted. so it's not that the argument isn't compelling - it's just that it's only compelling if you accept a whole bunch of axiomatic stuff that goes with it.

at the end of the day, one's inner experience must be able to confirm one's outer experience. i cannot account for the anomalous survival of the jewish people and its re-establishment in its land, against all laws of historical logic. i cannot account for the resilience and disproportionate influence that jews have had on human culture, even lapsed jews like marx, freud or einstein. most of all, i cannot account for the construction of Torah itself, nor for its integrity, nor for its complexity and consistency with the system that it supports. it doesn't *feel* merely human to me in the depth that it exhibits. i don't even have to go to the "bible codes" of eliyahu rips for that - the way that the mystics plumb the esoteric depths of Torah and the way that that speaks to my inner self does that in the same way that hearing a truly great piece of music does. you just know. but, obviously, you cannot convey this to someone whose aesthetic is different, or who just doesn't get it. not everyone likes bach's fugues and not everyone likes the new prince album. it's just one of those things we all have to deal with.

Impqueen said:
From a polytheistic perspective, even if they are true, it doesn't mean your God is the only God.
Click to expand...
in a polytheistic environment, it might be interpreted as such - but judaism maintains that there is only One Infinite Divine and, depending on your point of view, that all other ideas of "god" are either illusory products of the human imagination or simply aspects or interfaces of the Ultimate Reality wearing, as it were, different hats. idolatry is a matter of how you behave, not really about how you describe G!D.

china cat sunflower et al:

i've read "the jew in the lotus" and thought it was great. only someone nicked my copy a few years back. i met some of the rabbis who were in it and at least one of them, yitz greenberg, indirectly became a great influence on my religious development. in fact, several of them have influenced me through their writing or their students.

you may, if you wish, also be interested in taking a look at the outreach-meister r. akiva tatz's "letters to a buddhist jew" although i suspect his take would be more akin to that of gooduser07 than of anyone elses. it certainly isn't a genuine work of comparative religion, as rabbi tatz is far more interested in saying "oh, anything they have in buddhism we already have in judaism except better" - he's interested in "saving" the eponymous jubu rather than exploring his beliefs. and whilst i have a certain amount of sympathy with his aim, i would certainly not suggest that r. tatz's brand of strict orthodoxy was appropriate for every jew.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
BB,

Have you read the Big Book of Jewish Humor, co-authored by Reb Moshe Waldoks (http://www.tbzbrookline.org/reb/humorist.php?id=5807&page=5807)? Of all the books by all of the rabbis in that book this one has been the most spiritually transformative. It led me to a direct encounter with the Divine and left me yearning for constant devekut with G!d, especially the excerpt from MAD Magazine, a parody of Fiddler on the Roof called Antenna on the Roof. If it weren't for the picture of a dog with ears that look like peyos and the comic of a bar mitzvah boy exposing himself to the congregation and proclaiming to the disgusted faces, "I'm a man!" I think I'd have left Judaism long ago and become a militant proponent of positive atheism.

I haven't read anything by Yitz or Blu Greenberg but have wanted to. Now that it's on my mind I'll have to add a book or two to my growing amazon wishlist for later purchase. What would you suggest I read?

Dauer
 
hur hur hur. i haven't actually read any of yitz's books, but have read quite a few of his articles and lectures. plus his moral leadership in setting up "clal" has been an inspiration - someone who is prepared to test the comfort zone in the name of creating an inclusive, liberal-minded, open orthodoxy. i'd also recommend blu greenberg's "women in judaism" - it's a basic, probably quite dated text now but it is really a fundamental piece of work for anyone who doesn't see why orthodoxy and feminism should be mutually exclusive.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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​


​
 
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..
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Maybe because those who disagreed either didn't have a voice or had their records destroyed? The victors write the history books.
 
gooduser07 said:
I don't begin with the assumption that the texts are the word of god.
Click to expand...

Sorry - assumption on my part :eek:

gooduser07 said:
if the claims are true, then there seem to be 2 reasons to repudiate polytheism:
1) accepting the claim of sinaitic revelation, ​
Click to expand...


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.)
gooduser07 said:
in the bible it says that god is the one god above and below
Click to expand...


Ah well, he would say that, wouldn't he? :p
gooduser07 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :eek:)
​

gooduser07 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).

gooduser07 said:
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.​
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
Ah you see the difference is, I maintain a good facade of normality much of the time. But now and again.... *twitch*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top