2 questions on subjects I don't understand

[Nige55]

1. Why not ?
2. Would you 'loose interest' in your child when they do wrong ?

 

[jayem]

I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm just stating the non-believer's perspective. Just so all the various answers to the questions are included.

1. Why would God, who made everything chose one group of people, the Jews to be his "chosen" group?

Because the OT was written by the ancient Hebrews. This was the god they created, for their culture. So naturally, this god favors this particular tribe. Just like the Hindu, Aztec, Norse, and all the gods of all societies seem to have a special interest and preference for the people who imagined them.

2. Why would God be so interested in if people "sin"

Religion evolved because it promotes social cohesion. A tribe has the best chance to proliferate if the members cooperate with each other. Widespread anti-social acts, like murdering or stealing resources from fellow tribe members will cause a society to fail. These behaviors are less likely to occur if the tribe believes that such actions are against its god's will, and will incur its wrath. All of the world's religions proscribe certain acts as sinful and punishable by their god(s). It's a way to maintain an orderly society.

 

[Dave RP]

I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm just stating the non-believer's perspective. Just so all the various answers to the questions are included.



Because the OT was written by the ancient Hebrews. This was the god they created, for their culture. So naturally, this god favors this particular tribe. Just like the Hindu, Aztec, Norse, and all the gods of all societies seem to have a special interest and preference for the people who imagined them.

Indeed, history is written by the winners.

Religion evolved because it promotes social cohesion. A tribe has the best chance to proliferate if the members cooperate with each other. Widespread anti-social acts, like murdering or stealing resources from fellow tribe members will cause a society to fail. These behaviors are less likely to occur if the tribe believes that such actions are against its god's will, and will incur its wrath. All of the world's religions proscribe certain acts as sinful and punishable by their god(s). It's a way to maintain an orderly society.

I think you could add that we are naturally curious, and looking at the stars, the universe etc. we look for answers, at the time there was no scientific research so we made up phantom gods to show how it all came about. i always note how gods are to be worshipped on bended knee, just like ancient kings, they are an extension of ancient kingship - "worship the Lord your God/ worship the Lord your king" in the same way. It's a method of control.

I asked the question however to get a believers perspective. These things interest me.

 

[Dave-W]

Thanks for the response.

On the Israel thing, I still don't get it, if salvation is for all then Israel is irrelevant and they cannot be the "chosen" people, they are just one tribe like any other.

On the sin thing, if every person sins then why make such a fuss about it, I'm only mentioning that because my partner is getting some stick from her church for dating me, but given everyone is a sinner why should this be important?

As has been stated, God chose a man and the tribe that formed from his descendants. While that may seem irrelevant today, Paul tells us in Romans 11 that the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable. So there is still a special place and function for the Jewish people.

As to #2, God is holy and desires to communicate with other holy beings. Sin puts a stopper in that process.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why didn't God choose Aussies instead ? The landscape is more beautiful for one.

Post us a picture out your window.

 

[SkyWriting]

1. Why would God, who made everything chose one group of people, the Jews to be his "chosen" group?
2. Why would God be so interested in if people "sin"

1.Everything needs a starting point I guess.
2.Sin is the result of rejecting God.

Thanks to Adam, we are all offspring from the original sinner and inherit his
legacy. As a result we are all born into a sin condition becasue Adam was
thrown out of the Garden. In order to get back in good graces with God
He sent His only Son to cover for our sins.

 

[Protos]

1. I can discern no reason for an allegedly infinite, eternal, omnimax deity to choose a particular people group/priesthood/prophets or any other form of intermediary;
2. An interested deity cannot be omnimax.

1. This would be true if God was doing things with respect to Himself only. Which would mean He's not "omnimax." What I mean is, God has no reason to choose anyone or use "intermediaries" if He is simply trying to do something. But if He wants to elucidate a point by using a man as a symbol, whether it's Abraham, Adam, or Jesus, then the symbolism can be as arbitrary as He wants, so long as we understand it.

2. What do you mean and why?

Because the OT was written by the ancient Hebrews. This was the god they created, for their culture. So naturally, this god favors this particular tribe. Just like the Hindu, Aztec, Norse, and all the gods of all societies seem to have a special interest and preference for the people who imagined them.

Yet unlike other religions the OT resisted the dominant religious practices of the "Baalim" whose influence was undeniably popular from Mesopotamian religion through Egypt - practices like cultic prostitution and henotheism (Assyria, Babylon, Persia) would've infiltrated the Old Testament and not have been resisted almost to the point of extermination of the religious precepts.

Religion evolved because it promotes social cohesion. A tribe has the best chance to proliferate if the members cooperate with each other. Widespread anti-social acts, like murdering or stealing resources from fellow tribe members will cause a society to fail. These behaviors are less likely to occur if the tribe believes that such actions are against its god's will, and will incur its wrath. All of the world's religions proscribe certain acts as sinful and punishable by their god(s). It's a way to maintain an orderly society.

Yet why were there indigenous people without an afterlife? Sadducees, pre-Islamic Arabians, pre-Christian South Africans?

Tribal affiliations by themselves are much more powerful than religion. Everyone had their own gods, which makes your hypothesis even more divisive than with no religion. You are thinking of centralized religious systems in centralized states. That is not tribalism (which is why Hindus have millions of gods who used to be individual families' household deities like any other society (e.g. Laban's gods)).

I think you could add that we are naturally curious, and looking at the stars, the universe etc. we look for answers, at the time there was no scientific research so we made up phantom gods to show how it all came about. i always note how gods are to be worshipped on bended knee, just like ancient kings, they are an extension of ancient kingship - "worship the Lord your God/ worship the Lord your king" in the same way. It's a method of control.

Religion like anything (e.g. science, government) can be used for control. It doesn't necessarily invalidate truths it might contain. Ancient kings were also priests, so quite obviously religion was a powerful tool that everyone wanted to use. It wasn't until the High Middle Ages with the rise of the mercantile/middle class that the clergy and nobility took a backseat to the common man.

 

[jayem]

Yet unlike other religions the OT resisted the dominant religious practices of the "Baalim" whose influence was undeniably popular from Mesopotamian religion through Egypt - practices like cultic prostitution and henotheism (Assyria, Babylon, Persia) would've infiltrated the Old Testament and not have been resisted almost to the point of extermination of the religious precepts.

But other cultures did influence the OT. At least in the legends. In college, I read parts of a book by Robert Graves (the British classicist who wrote I, Claudius,) He wrote about the Sumerian and other middle eastern myths and folklore that influenced the Hebrew Genesis account. It's apparently still available:

Hebrew Myths

You know that a recurring theme in the OT is that the Hebrews must keep themselves separate from other tribes and maintain a unique identity. (I suspect that's the real reason for circumcision. It may also be part of the reason for the dietary laws.) The very first commandment is not to worship other gods. Under penalty of death. To me, it's very likely that there was cultural exchange between the Hebrews and other tribes. Which was so threatening to the tribal leaders who wrote the OT (i.e., Moses and the later high priests,) that they concocted the 600+ OT laws, with harsh punishments for violations, in order to control the population's behavior. This goes along with the idea that maintaining social order and cohesion is why religion evolved.

Yet why were there indigenous people without an afterlife? Sadducees, pre-Islamic Arabians, pre-Christian South Africans?

I think afterlife beliefs are a different issue. Thousands of years ago, everyday life was risky. And people were highly superstitious. The threat of offending a god, and incurring punishment in this life was likely enough incentive to toe the line.

 

[ananda]

1. This would be true if God was doing things with respect to Himself only. Which would mean He's not "omnimax." What I mean is, God has no reason to choose anyone or use "intermediaries" if He is simply trying to do something. But if He wants to elucidate a point by using a man as a symbol, whether it's Abraham, Adam, or Jesus, then the symbolism can be as arbitrary as He wants, so long as we understand it.

It was in response to Dave's question, so yes, it was in "respect to himself only".

2. What do you mean and why?

A "God" who is allegedly perfect and complete in and of itself should have no interest in anything, because interest implies that that "God" is actually not perfect and not complete (it is interested in something which either adds or subtracts from its perfect completion).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

1. Why would God, who made everything chose one group of people, the Jews to be his "chosen" group?
2. Why would God be so interested in if people "sin"

(1) He was pleased to do so, to at least save some people from destruction, instead of allowing everyone to perish without hope.

(2) < shrugs > Show me where God said He is interested in what you are talking about .

 

[Protos]

It was in response to Dave's question, so yes, it was in "respect to himself only".

By "himself" I meant God - there's simply no reason to assume God couldn't use Abraham to bring about the religion that ancient people changed (Rom. 1) in a symbolic way. There are many other examples.

A "God" who is allegedly perfect and complete in and of itself should have no interest in anything, because interest implies that that "God" is actually not perfect and not complete (it is interested in something which either adds or subtracts from its perfect completion).

Interesting point, but I don't feel that's necessary to suppose. Interest for humans usually presupposes lack of knowledge. It doesn't have to have this breadth for God. You can be interested in your loved ones' well-being without being "less perfect," however you define that. Why do you feel it subtracts from God's perfection?

 

[Protos]

But other cultures did influence the OT. At least in the legends. In college, I read parts of a book by Robert Graves (the British classicist who wrote I, Claudius,) He wrote about the Sumerian and other middle eastern myths and folklore that influenced the Hebrew Genesis account.

Similarities in prose do not concern us here. Hammurabi's law code, which predates Moses' no matter where you put him, is also near-completely similar. If God decided to bring His religion via Abraham instead of imposing an iron fist upon everyone like the hand in Daniel, obviously God would've used genres, literature, and concepts that people understood, which didn't contradict his purpose: whether the Sumerian/Assyrian epic on Creation, or Hammurabi's Code (yet compare "Korah's Parable" - laws that have no practical purpose). The fact that Abraham is called out of nowhere by a God no longer truly worshipped was itself groundbreaking - if a tribe died out, their gods died out too and no one could worship them, because the sacrifices to feed them would no longer be performed.

The points I made regarding cultic prostitution and non-monolatrous henotheism with the "Baalim" is far more compelling than this implication of syncretism merely because one author used a popular way of describing the world's origin.

In those days, stock expressions were very important because everyone understood what they meant right off the bat. You see this in Homer all the time. It doesn't mean dependence e.g. plagiarism any more than Muslims building mosques like Greek churches in the West and like Persian temples in the East is proof of anything but how people expressed themselves.

You know that a recurring theme in the OT is that the Hebrews must keep themselves separate from other tribes and maintain a unique identity. (I suspect that's the real reason for circumcision. It may also be part of the reason for the dietary laws.)

Without a doubt. The origin of the dietary laws and circumcision are Egyptian (they hated pigs and were circumcised), which supports my hypothesis above. Pre-Islamic Arabians were also circumcised.

The very first commandment is not to worship other gods. Under penalty of death. To me, it's very likely that there was cultural exchange between the Hebrews and other tribes. Which was so threatening to the tribal leaders who wrote the OT (i.e., Moses and the later high priests,) that they concocted the 600+ OT laws, with harsh punishments for violations, in order to control the population's behavior. This goes along with the idea that maintaining social order and cohesion is why religion evolved.

The only problem is that the early Israelites were an egalitarian society, which had no centralized leadership that could've enforced this. Ergo, there must have been some very good reasons for the Israelite religion's unique precepts (rejection of cultic prostitution (cf. Gen. 38)) to not only arise but to continue existing in the face of the much more attractive Canaanite religions. Please find a parallel, I'm all ears.

I think afterlife beliefs are a different issue. Thousands of years ago, everyday life was risky. And people were highly superstitious. The threat of offending a god, and incurring punishment in this life was likely enough incentive to toe the line.

Without the afterlife, your point about religion doesn't have much force, especially because the connection between "which god is angry" and "why am I punished" is not only vague but frequently ignored (see complaints in Proverbs of "the wicked triumphing while the righteous die out"). This is why the Qur'an constantly complains of the "irreligious" bedouins in the countryside.

Similarly, some pre-Christian South African tribes who were atheists had rampant violence because of this. (I lost the citation, but I'll find it if you insist).

 

[Dave-W]

A "God" who is allegedly perfect and complete in and of itself should have no interest in anything,

Why?

 

[ananda]

By "himself" I meant God - there's simply no reason to assume God couldn't use Abraham to bring about the religion that ancient people changed (Rom. 1) in a symbolic way. There are many other examples.

It is irrational and illogical to me, that a deity which is supposed to transcend space and time would be so limited by space and time.

Interesting point, but I don't feel that's necessary to suppose. Interest for humans usually presupposes lack of knowledge. It doesn't have to have this breadth for God. You can be interested in your loved ones' well-being without being "less perfect," however you define that. Why do you feel it subtracts from God's perfection?

Activity among imperfect beings is due to the fact that we are active, and in a constant effort, to address our imperfections, to alleviate our discontentments or sufferings. E.g. It would likely add to my discontentment to not be interested and active in my loved one's well-being.

A being who is perfect is altogether complete, and must necessarily be inactive.

 

[ananda]

Why?

Activity is a sign of imperfection. We are active when we seek to address various imperfections we perceive in our lives.

 

[Strathos]

Activity is a sign of imperfection. We are active when we seek to address various imperfections we perceive in our lives.

What about acting to help others?

 

[ananda]

What about acting to help others?

It is the same.

Does it not add to us when we help others (e.g. it makes us feel good, better than we were previously; or, it prevents us from feeling bad, such as a sense of guilt if we do not help)?

 

[Strathos]

It is the same.

Does it not add to us when we help others (e.g. it makes us feel good, better than we were previously; or, it prevents us from feeling bad, such as a sense of guilt if we do not help)?

So you don't believe someone can help out of pure selflessness?

 

[ananda]

So you don't believe someone can help out of pure selflessness?

I don't see how that can happen. As I see it, there's always some give & take in every action.

 

[Dave-W]

Activity is a sign of imperfection. We are active when we seek to address various imperfections we perceive in our lives.

Sounds rather human to me.

Why would God follow a human motivation?