I'm back, though a little changed

[cnorman19]

It's been about a year since I left the forum, and I have decided to return -- with a few changed attitudes. The slight change in my screenname is intended to respect those changes (I suppose I could have called myself "cnorman18.2").

First is a personal commitment to this advice: "One is not required to attend every argument to which one is invited."

There are a LOT of common debates here for which I simply have no time or energy, starting with the "prove God exists" wild-goose chase. As I've said very often, that's an intellectual board game without even a possible resolution -- and questions that CANNOT be answered have no practical importance. Don't bother me with it. I am not sure that I "believe in God" in any conventional sense myself -- and more important, I don't think that it matters. The idea that "religion" is synonymous with "belief in God" is an intellectual error of high degree in the first place.

The same goes for the whole "evolution vs. Creation" rabbit hole. I don't bother to engage in struggling with questions that have long since been answered, either.

My primary interest, as it has been from the beginning back in 2007 or so, is to educate others about the modern Jewish religion. This is not (as those who know me will recall) in any kind of effort to proselytize; Jews don't do that, and haven't since approximately the fall of Rome. It's more to promote understanding. We Jews don't talk much about Judaism except "in-house," and though that's historically understandable, it leaves the door open to a LOT of mythology, stereotyping, and plain old misunderstandings and misconceptions. There are those here who have demonstrated that they prefer their misconceptions, and that is their right -- but those who dismiss my own opinions (which are based on 20+ years of learning from various rabbis of different branches) will find that it will be equally easy for me to dismiss theirs. I admit a certain wariness of anything I find antisemitic, and a fierce resolve to expose and correct such ideas, and I do not apologize for either. (I add that I will NOT be discussing the subject of modern Israel, the policies and practices of which are not determined by the modern Jewish religion. I support the State of Israel and its right to exist and defend itself -- but not necessarily its current Government; and that is all I have to say on THAT subject.)

I look forward to the kind of discussions and debates that I once enjoyed here; substantive, respectful and honest, with an interest on both sides in actually learning something one didn't know and perhaps gaining a new insight into things one DID know -- as opposed to scoring ego points, humiliating opponents, and doing victory dances.

Does it sound like I'm coming in with a poor attitude? Maybe I am, but it's informed by seven years or so of bitter experience. I don't expect to display any unpleasantness; if someone posts something that I don't think is worth my effort to respond, I shall post a period ( . ) and nothing more, to indicate that I read it and have nothing to say. That's not so unpleasant.

Hello to all my friends. I HOPE it will be good to be back; I am determined to make this a pleasant experience again -- but I have learned that it doesn't hurt to leave if it isn't.

Be well, all. See you around the forums.

Charles

[cnorman19]

I decided I WOULD reply once more to your last post directed to me, and see if my response penetrates your smug certainty about all these matters. I post also just in case anyone else reading this thread is “buying into� your transparently self-serving “analysis.�

Where does all this personal negativity come from Charles?

I'm getting no snarkier than you have in your own posts here. See below.

Where have I ever said anything negative about you on a personal level?

Perhaps when you said that I am either too dumb to understand my own religion, or else lying about it? Is that not the meaning of what you've told me about the ideas I've attempted to communicate to you? I actually think I spoke about that in my last post, and at some length....

Apparently you didn't comprehend that either.

Do you always insist that if someone doesn't agree with your opinions on things this requires that there needs to be person degradation and mud slinging? Is this part of the "Modern Jewish Tradition"?

There! An EXCELLENT example! The issue is a good deal more than "not agreeing" here. It's positive misrepresentation and lampooning of my thoughts and words, refusal to even acknowledge my own arguments, refusal to acknowledge when I corrected and refuted your own, and much more. I consider that "mud slinging" and "person degrading" as well -- and your obvious ridicule and smear of the Jewish tradition, just above, is yet another example of it. You are clearly trying to provoke and bait, and then you express outrage when you get precisely the result you intend? Sorry, but "I'm not buying it."

I think that's a fair question, because I have never suggested anything personally negative about you as an individual.

Except, again, that I am too dumb to understand my own religion, my own Scriptures, or that I'm lying about my beliefs and ideas thereto pertaining. Strange how you think that's somehow benign and friendly.

I have no reason to dislike you on a personal level.

Likewise. I have not addressed any remarks at all about your character or your intelligence; only your behavior, your arguments, and your apparent attitude. We have had cordial conversations on this forum before, and we have agreed on many things; but your repeated hammering your drum on these particular topics, after I politely and cordially requested and advised you not to engage me again, is rather another matter; and I note that it is YOU, not I, who are now diverting the topic from actual ideas to alleged personal offenses.

The central thesis of your position is simple enough: (One) You demand that I understand and believe in the Bible in a certain way, and if I don’t, then my religion is — your words here — “nothing more than extreme "denial" disguised as abstract ambiguity� and “pretending.� Put another way: You have insisted, and repeatedly, that if I don’t believe in the Bible in the Divinely given, supernaturally-received way which YOU DEMAND I that accept, that I must not actually believe in God at all and my religion is ipso facto mere faking and hypocrisy.

I agree that you understand my position.

However, I totally disagree with you that these are "MY DEMANDS". On the contrary, the literal Bible is what makes these demands.

And there it is. You INSIST that the Bible can be ONLY understood in this way; in other words, your response is, "I'm right," more or less as predicted. Let's see what else you have on my point #1:

And the only way to get around that is to reject what the Bible literally has to say in favor of some abstract so-called "interpretation" that, from my perspective does nothing more than reject what the Bible literally says in favor of pretending that it could have be written differently.

Oh? Please quote where I said anything remotely resembling "Pretending that it could have been written differently." Good example of making stuff up and putting it in my mouth; thanks very much.

I also believe that many Christians use this same type of apologetic "excuses" for refusing to acknowledge what these ancient scriptures literally have to say.

That's another bad habit you have and another weakness in your arguments, already noted by Goat in this thread and multiple times last year by me; you see Judaism through a Christian lens, and constantly compare the Jewish religion to Christianity, whether it's warranted or not. It's not, of course, especially in this case. The Jewish approach to Scripture is not at all similar to the Christian approach, even though you very much wish (and, yes, DEMAND) that it were.

So I don't claim this as "My Demand". My position is that this is what the original authors of the scriptures themselves demand.

Which I actually addressed in my point #8, but you're not -- as predicted -- going to even acknowledge that or any of the OTHER arguments I posted there. No response or rebuttal at all; not even an acknowledgment of those facts and arguments.

And you call this a "debate."

Moreover, once you reject what the scriptures literally have to say, then as far as I'm concerned you have literally rejected the scriptures.

Dealt with in points #10 and #11, but with no rebuttal, response or acknowledgment from you.

That should be pretty obvious I think.

Oh, SOMETHING is obvious, all right; that I post arguments which you ignore without even a PRETENSE of engaging with them, and you repeat all your same old distortions and misstatements of my positions without a qualm -- even after I've explicitly corrected your twisting. THAT is VERY obvious.

Okay, now we have it; your response to #1 is "Yes, that's what I think, and I'm right." Nothing more. No response to the arguments I posted in that paragraph or any of those following. None. At. All.

Okay, let's go on:

And here’s the really silly part: (Two) You hand me an absolute indictment and condemnation of the tradition that has become the center of my life, which of course entails an absolute indictment of my own character and intellectual integrity — and then you tell me I shouldn’t take it PERSONALLY? “You are either deceiving yourself about your beliefs and are too dumb to notice, or you are consciously lying about their significance and pretending to believe in God — but don’t take that personally. No offense intended.� Seriously?

This is typical of many theists. If their beliefs are questioned they scream "Personal Foul".

A falsehood. I'm not objecting to your "questioning" my beliefs (especially since I'm on the record many times as saying that I don't regard "beliefs" as important); I'm objecting to your falsifying them and distorting them to suit your own argument. We could have a marvelous and fruitful discussion about your disagreements with my ideas -- but we've never gotten that far. You keep insisting that I'm saying things that I'm not saying. THAT is the issue here; and in this bit, you are insisting, again, that your misrepresentations are true and accurate reflections of my thoughts. Do you really expect me to AGREE with your twisting of my words? Do you really think I'm going to say, "Oh, gee, you know, you're right; I must not believe in God in any way, shape or form," when I know and YOU KNOW that that is NOT THE TRUTH?

An excellent example follows:

You're the one who posted in your very OP that you don't even know if a God exists and you don't think it even matters.

And once again, you repeat your truncated quote that distorts my meaning and intent -- even after being explicitly corrected on that very specific point.

If that's true, then why would you be offended that I question that very thing?

Because it's NOT true, and that's NOT what I said and NOT what I meant; and I've already told you that, and more than once.

You state your position and then seem to be offended when someone accepts it.

No, and obviously "no." I state my position, and I OBJECT when someone FALSIFIES it and substitutes an entirely different position that suits them better than what I actually meant and said. Even after being corrected, you still insist that your statement was a fair reflection of my thoughts.

It wasn't. Oh, and pretending that the issue is my being "offended," casting my disagreement as if it's some kind of emotional issue, is an old and tired tactic around this forum. I'm OBJECTING having statements and positions falsely attributed to me.

Okay, there we have it on point #2. Once again, your response is "I'm right, and I couldn't possibly be wrong, and you therefore don't have anything to complain about or object to."

Let's go on:

Okay, now leaving that aside, let’s consider another FACT. YOURS is the position that is irrational and makes no sense, and here’s why: (Three) YOU, YOURSELF, DON’T BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE IN THE WAY THAT YOU DEMAND I SHOULD. I don’t see how YOU can possibly defend your own demand!

It's not my demand that you believe in the Bible literally. It's the authors of the Bible who make those demands. I simply recognize this FACT. A fact that you have even conceded to. Even you have stated in this very thread that you acknowledge that these scriptures claim to speak on divine authority.

Really? Exactly where did I say that? I DID say, "Who said it DIDN'T come from God" -- but that's not the same thing as saying unequivocally that the Bible, and ALL of the Bible, certainly DID come from God, now is it? And it's not saying that it came DIRECTLY from God, either -- which I made very clear indeed. Still, all those nuances are dismissed in favor of the short, simple, black-and-white statement that you WISH I had made.

You see? Once again, you twist my words to make up a position that you like better than my own -- and you seem addicted to black/white, up/down, yes/no propositions on all these matters. FALSE DICHOTOMY, as I mentioned in my last -- and, again, that you do not respond to nor even acknowledge.

You do realize, do you not, that merely IGNORING an argument does not constitute REFUTING it?

And that is the core of my position. I simply acknowledge this as well. I'm not making any "Demands" at all. I'm just going by what the scriptures literally say.

And rejecting, as I explained, any idea that there could be any value or meaning in the Scriptures anywhere other than on the surface. Origins, antecedents, context, other passages in Scripture, all that's just nonsense and "absurd" and "abstraction."

Okay, there we go for #3. "It's not ME that demands you read the Bible literally -- it's the BIBLE, and no other approach is acceptable." Demand, claim, diktat, immutable principle that cannot be questioned -- tomayto, tomahto....

The opinions of scholars of all faiths on five continents for two thousand years and more mean NOTHING, but your own opinion is supremely RIGHT and must be acknowledged so.

Even though you yourself would not be caught dead reading it that way and taking it seriously, of course....

Okay, there we are, once again: "I'm right, and I cannot possibly be wrong, and therefore," etc., etc.

Perhaps you’d care to try to explain why you dictatorially command that others hold a belief that you yourself routinely mock and lampoon as “ancient folklore.� (I, myself, suspect that I know the reason, and we’ll get to that presently.)

I look forward to reading your suspicions.

Funny, that; you don't seem to have gotten that far. In any case, I see nothing here pertaining to them, or to many of the other arguments that preceded them.

In the meantime I'm not the one who is "dictating" anything.

Oh, no; you're just proclaiming that any other way of approaching the Bible, other than the way you insist upon (which, again, you would never take yourself) is a phony excuse for dismissing and devaluing it entirely.

Phfft.

Once again: "I'm right, I could not possibly be wrong, and therefore you have nothing to complain about or object to."

Let's see, what comes next?

Further: While you’re doing all this, (Four) you routinely misstate and distort the things I’ve said and replace them with expressions more convenient to your arguments. Examples? Sure.

You said, “You also claim to not even be sure if there is a God� — when that is NOT what I said. My actual quote was, “I am not sure that I "believe in God" in any conventional sense myself.� You ripped a few words from a much more nuanced statement and rephrased it to suit your argument. You’ve read my posts in the past; you KNOW that I think the “conventional� concept of God is far too small and too limited to hold any real value. My own ideas about God are both less rigidly defined and less arrogantly limited than the “conventional� view — but that’s a topic for a different thread. I DO believe in God, and you unquestionably know that. Further, I said that belief doesn't matter, not that God doesn't matter; but in your last, you throw in THAT distortion, too. Once again, you put words in my mouth that suit you, and you know perfectly well that you are doing exactly that.

The problem with all of this still remains. If you are here to "educate" then what do you expect people to do? LISTEN to your abstract notions of a non-conventional idea of a "God" that clearly then wouldn't even be remotely related to the personified Jealous God described in the Bible?

Clearly your modern day abstract ideas of a "God" are not the same as the idea that the original authors of these scriptures literally wrote about.

Have you ever read the Book of Job, DI? Where God speaks out of the whirlwind and demonstrates that He is far, far beyond anything that any human has ever conceived? Did you know that the rabbis of the Talmud -- that's two thousand years ago -- agreed that Job never lived, that he was never an actual person? Do you know the significance, in Jewish teachings from the very beginning, of the scene at the Burning Bush, the most direct and detail theophany in the entire Bible?

No, you don't. You don't understand ANY of those things. As you say, you have no clue about the beliefs of modern Jews -- but perhaps more significant is that you have no clue about the beliefs of ANCIENT Jews, either, or even of those who WROTE the Bible. All you have is your shallow surface reading, and nothing more. "Moby Dick is just a story about a guy who went fishing" is a rough analogue of your level of Biblical scholarship and understanding.

As far as I can see you're pulling the same "stunt" as modern day Progressive Christians, and I don't buy into their paradigms either for the very same reason. They simply aren't consistent and cannot be supported by the original scriptures.

But that won't stop them from continually complaining that they simply believe in "God" in a totally different way from how these ancient scriptures described God.

And there is the key point; Those ancient Scriptures don't "describe God" in the way YOU think they do, either, and they never did. If you actually knew anything about Biblical scholarship and the history of of the Bible itself, you'd know that; but you don't.

Ah, well. There it is; you're confirming what I said -- that you distort and misstate my positions, even after being corrected on them, even here, even now, and you STILL insist that you are RIGHT -- without presenting anything other than your bare, unsourced and unsupported assertions, to prove it. We are all to accept your Divine Insight and acknowledge your astonishing wisdom, and abandon any other approach.

Sure.

You also said, “Who cares what they believe if [Jews] don't claim that any of it came from any God?� and I never said anything remotely resembling that — which I noted in my next post, and which you ignored without comment or response, a pattern which I have seen you repeat again and again.

I don't see where this view has any merit.

And I do believe that I have already expressed this.

Which says, of course, absolutely nothing of substance. No arguments, no reasoning, no facts, no rebuttals, no defense of your plainly and clearly stuffing words into my mouth; nothing at all. I want everyone to notice that you did not address what I actually said in that brief sentence at all, in any way. You didn't even bother to deny its truth; you just -- as I predicted that you would -- dismissed it with no substantive response whatever.

Here is my bottom line Charles.

If the Jews believe as you describe then it's not that I'm ignorant of how the Jews believe and need to be educated, but the real truth is that I DO indeed understand where they are coming from and I simply don't accept that their views have any merit.

So in this case it's not about misunderstanding them or being ignorant of their views. It's more correct to simply recognize and acknowledge that I simply don't see any value in their highly contradictory and self-inconsistent position.

Except that you keep demonstrating, and vividly, and repeatedly, that you do NOT understand ANYTHING about what Jews believe; you don't even understand what I, myself, am saying -- even after I correct you and correct you and repeat my arguments till I'm blue in the face. You just ignore it all, substitute your own distortions and caricatures of everything I say, cling to them and repeat them even after being corrected, and march on as if you're some sort of authority on the subject of what I think, and that I know nothing about that. If that's civil and rational debate, I'm George Clooney.

Many Christian apologists have described very similar views on Christianity, but the scriptures simply don't support those views. And that's truly the bottom line right there as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, the views and ideas of Christian apologists are a completely irrelevant and unrelated non sequitur in this discussion. But do go on.

Yet again, you said, “[Jews] have simply lost sight of reality and are looking at the words of these ancient texts as having come into existence without any will, volition, attitude, or motivation behind them.� Again, I never said any such thing; you distorted and misinterpreted — I suspect quite deliberately — my remarks into something that I did not say or mean to say. And once again, I explained that very carefully and completely in my next post; and, once again, you never even acknowledged that explanation, never mind countered it. You simply repeated that same distortion and misstatement in your next post, AGAIN, as if I’d said nothing.

The problem is that this doesn't help. In fact, I have argued these same apologies with Christians countless times because they use the same type of apologetic excuses.

I don't think I quite got that. Are you admitting that you distort and twist the remarks of Christians about their beliefs too? That you refuse to acknowledge it when they carefully explain your misconceptions, too, and that you continue to insist on the same specious and thoroughly refuted points, as you do with me?

If not, what on Earth does your little speech here have to do with anything I just said?

You say:

"What I'm saying is precisely that Jews, myself included, are trying to look at those words and UNDERSTAND the will, volition, attitudes and motivation behind them, that is, those of the PEOPLE who WROTE them."

But that shouldn't be the slightest bit difficult at all. You should be able to figure that out in less than 5 minutes.

Either some God actually inspired these writings, and therefore the will, volition, attitude, and motivation all belong to this God, and also the words should indeed be accepted verbatim literally. Surely a God who is making these demands isn't going to get it screwed up.

OR, there is no God behind them and the will, volition, attitudes, and motivation are purely those of moral men who are claiming to speak for a God when in truth there is no God directing them to say these things.

So I don't see why people should be studying these things for generation after generation trying to figure out something so SIMPLE.

Either these scriptures came from a God and should indeed be very clear and correct verbatim as written, or there's no point even even bothering wasting time on them since the only other alternative is that they are just the ramblings of mortal men who never spoke for any God from the get go.

I don't see why religious people think this is so difficult to figure out.

Yes, FALSE DICHOTOMIES are usually very simple and easy to understand. Either/or; this/that; nothing in between.

Either the Bible is the literal, infallible and inerrant Word of the Living God that must be obeyed without question in every single detail -- or it's a pile of worthless trash that should be discarded and forgotten. No third option. Nothing in between.

And that seems like a reasonable and defensible intellectual position to you? Really?

I don't think I could have made that up if I wanted to lampoon YOUR thinking; it's just too bizarre for words. I think I'll just let all of that just stand there, as you said it. I've rarely seen statements on this forum that so effectively disprove themselves, but that's one of them.

And I'd bet a week's pay that you don't even grasp the beginnings of why that is so ludicrous -- and irrational.

I suspect that they cling to these religions for totally other reasons. Perhaps an uncontrollable hope and dream that their might actually be some sort of God and these scriptures seem to be the only thing around that claim to describe or speak for God?

Or maybe it's just because they were brought up to believe in these religions and feel that they must 'Defend" them to death for the sake of family pride or something?

I think I said something about "just your fantasies, man" some time ago.

I don't why people are so bent on clinging to these religions, but I think it's crystal clear that they have no rational reason to cling.

As far as I'm concerned Charles, if your purpose is to "educate" then we are indeed done...

Oh, I DO hope so. I've had students before who had absolutely no hope of grasping the ideas I was trying to present, but that generally had to do with mathematical concepts.

...because as far as I can see the Jews are doing precisely as I have always suspected.

I need to go out now so I can't address every point you brought up at the moment.

Riiiight. You haven't actually addressed any so far; why would I expect you to address any of the others?

But I just don't see where Judaism is anymore rational than Christianity or Islam.

I will grant that Judaism is less "obnoxious" in general, at least in terms of proselytizing, etc. But as far as having anymore merit? No. I just don't see it.

All I see are very WEAK apologetic arguments no different from what many Christians have been arguing for years.

But there's no reason for you to make this into a personal war between Charles and DI.

In fact, as far as I'm concerned that's just yet another diversionary tactic that is used when apologetics fail.

Well, personally, since I keep addressing IDEAS and not PERSONALITIES, I consider your trying to paint this as some sort of personal feud is the "diversionary tactic."

I predicted in my last that you would "merely wave away anything I have to say without any substantive response whatever, and then return to your smug certainty that you’re absolutely right about all these matters without so much as an attempt at proving it beyond your own, bare, unsupported and unsourced assertions" -- and I take no pleasure in pointing out that that is PRECISELY what you have done.

By my count, we got up to point #4; and by my scoring on actual responses to my criticisms and arguments, you remain steady at 0. There was nothing here but exactly that which I predicted we would see -- "I'm right and I could not possibly be wrong," and quite literally nothing more.

I would note, once again -- I'd call it a pretty safe bet -- that you have, to date, never read a single book on the Jewish religion; nor a booklet, nor a pamphlet, nor a page, other than what you have seen here, on this forum. You have NOTHING to back up anything you say, other than your own -- as I said -- unsourced and unsupported assertions; which, as I have shown and you have now proven, aren't even responsive to or reflective of the actual arguments that you have seen here with your own eyes. You dismiss all but your own "divine insight," and appear to be incapable of even contemplating the possibility that you might be wrong about anything.

I was right when I posted the " . " last night. I shall confine myself to that kind of response to your non sequiturs and baseless rants in the future. There is truly nothing to talk about here, and no one to debate or even have a discussion with. I'd get a better and more meaningful response shouting down a well; at least the echo would reflect something I actually said. I simply have nothing more to say to you, and will not respond to further posts of yours.

And I ask, once again, that you not attempt to engage me again. I mean that. There's really no point in it at all.

Oh, and don't take it personally, okay?

[cnorman19]

[Replying to post 20 by WinePusher]

So his telling me that I'm either an idiot, in that I don't understand my own religion or the significance of my own beliefs -- or a liar, in that I might be a closet atheist who just won't own up to it -- both, admittedly, expressed in a circumspect and faux-subtle manner -- all done while blatantly twisting and misrepresenting everything I say, even after repeated explanations and corrections -- doesn't count for anything? That's all perfectly OK?

Oh, wait, I remember; others have done the same to you, so it's perfectly OK that they do it to me, too. I guess I missed that part when I was studying moral theology and ethics in seminary.

And his posts are more persuasive? Really?

Well, I guess we don't have anything to talk about, either. Have a nice evening.

[Divine Insight]

I decided I WOULD reply once more to your last post directed to me, and see if my response penetrates your smug certainty about all these matters. I post also just in case anyone else reading this thread is “buying into� your transparently self-serving “analysis.�

Where does all this personal negativity come from Charles?

I'm getting no snarkier than you have in your own posts here. See below.

Where have I ever said anything negative about you on a personal level?

Perhaps when you said that I am either too dumb to understand my own religion, or else lying about it? Is that not the meaning of what you've told me about the ideas I've attempted to communicate to you?

I have never suggested either of these things. This is your own imagination.

This is a problem with many theists. When their apologetics is questioned they take it extremely personal and end up turning it into an emotional mud-slinging contest.

I'm not really interested in conversing with you on this topic anymore myself. As far as I'm concerned you don't need to "defend" your beliefs to me anyway. I don't understand why you feel such an extreme need to defend your beliefs to other people.

I imagine that you wouldn't care for my personal spiritual beliefs either. But you can trust me when I say that I couldn't care less. There's no way I would even bother trying to "defend" my personal beliefs to anyone.

If someone is interested in hearing them fine. But I'm not about to go onto a forum proclaiming that I'm here to "educate" people on my beliefs, and if they don't "get it" I'm going to start accusing them of being too smug to listen.

I don't get all your emotional and personal hostilities Charles. If you are that sensitive about your personal beliefs, then perhaps you shouldn't even bother trying to "educate" other people on what you believe unless they specifically ask.

Why should you even care? Do you need the approval of other people?

[cnorman19]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

And nothing to say about anything else I said? Really? Just this?

Oh, well.


" . "

[Zzyzx]

.
It is good to see you back after a sabbatical Charles. I did the same a couple years ago (a then-wife said that when I debate frequently all my conversations sound like a debate -- which is probably quite accurate).

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

And nothing to say about anything else I said? Really? Just this?

Oh, well.


" . "

Are you kidding me Charlies? You need to go back and reread your very own posts. That post was nothing but a very long rant about how you believe I don't understand a single solitary thing. I think it was extremely "personal" actually.

Let me just take one small excerpt:

Have you ever read the Book of Job, DI? Where God speaks out of the whirlwind and demonstrates that He is far, far beyond anything that any human has ever conceived? Did you know that the rabbis of the Talmud -- that's two thousand years ago -- agreed that Job never lived, that he was never an actual person? Do you know the significance, in Jewish teachings from the very beginning, of the scene at the Burning Bush, the most direct and detail theophany in the entire Bible?

No, you don't. You don't understand ANY of those things. As you say, you have no clue about the beliefs of modern Jews -- but perhaps more significant is that you have no clue about the beliefs of ANCIENT Jews, either, or even of those who WROTE the Bible. All you have is your shallow surface reading, and nothing more. "Moby Dick is just a story about a guy who went fishing" is a rough analogue of your level of Biblical scholarship and understanding.

This is all absolute nonsense and unwarranted speculation from you ABOUT me and how YOU IMAGINE I think about things.

Not only have I read the Book of Job but it was in fact one of my most favorite books in the Old Testament. I've not only read it but I had studied it to the hilt and discussed many different interpretations that people have had about this particular story.

Today when I read the Book of Job I can't help but see it as one of the most ignorant books in the entire Bible actually. For one thing this story has Satan actually going to God and asking for permission to screw over Job.

Think about that just for a moment. Here we have the evil Satan obediently going to God to request permission to mess with Job, and God actually GRANTS permission proving that Satan simply doesn't kill Job. Then Satan goes back and kills all of Job's family, which was apparently OK by God.

More importantly, what about all these other people who were affected by this, don't they even count?

The story is, IMHO absolutely absurd. And this holds even if it was an entirely made-up piece of fiction. I personally don't agree with whoever wrote this story that this story makes any sense, or say anything good about "God".

Also, this Author has God bragging to Job about all the things he created including a fire-breathing beast of some sort (no doubt meant to be a fire-breathing dragon as these were common in fictional tales). And this is supposed to convey to Job the POWER of God?

Excuse me for rolling my eyes, but in all honestly I would expect a more intelligent example of why God is all powerful than to brag that he can create fire-breathing dragons that no man can tame. To me that's just utterly stupid. In fact, why would God have created such beasts in any case?

All this God would have been conveying to me is how utterly stupid he his.

I'm not the slightest bit impressed with the book of Job. And I'm not impressed with anyone who thinks it contains any profound meanings either.

In fact, when reading it today, it read EXACTLY how I would expect it to read if it had been written by some person living in that superstitious era and was trying to convince the common folk that some God is "Infinitely more powerful" than they are. This book has the mentality of the era.

It DOES NOT have reveal the mentality of a supposedly all-wise, all-intelligent God.

The behavior of God in the Book of Job is more what I would expect from someone down at the local pub bragging about how great they are because they can pump more iron than the next guy, or whatever.

So no, I'm not impressed with the Book of Job.

[WinePusher]

So his telling me that I'm either an idiot, in that I don't understand my own religion or the significance of my own beliefs -- or a liar, in that I might be a closet atheist who just won't own up to it -- both, admittedly, expressed in a circumspect and faux-subtle manner -- all done while blatantly twisting and misrepresenting everything I say, even after repeated explanations and corrections -- doesn't count for anything? That's all perfectly OK?

Of course not, calling people an idiot is completely unjustified. I must have missed have missed it when DI said this. Perhaps you can provide the quote? And all the other things you mention: twisting words, misrepresenting you even after you clarified yourself over and over, well that's just part of the territory.

Oh, wait, I remember; others have done the same to you, so it's perfectly OK that they do it to me, too. I guess I missed that part when I was studying moral theology and ethics in seminary.

Well, first of all DI is one of the better non theist debaters on this site so I don't know what the problem is. He actually makes arguments instead of asking just asking questions, but I suppose you'd rather him just ask questions right, since you said that one of your goals is to educated people about your religion. You see, I'd rather engage in a debate with an opponent who makes arguments rather than just answer a bunch of questions for someone who is uninformed on the topic.

And his posts are more persuasive? Really?

Yes, because he's approaching the dialogue in a much more cordial and calmer manner. The content of both your posts is on par, but I find myself agreeing with him since he's going about it in a more professional manner.

Well, I guess we don't have anything to talk about, either. Have a nice evening.

You too.

[cnorman19]

All I'm seeing is a couple of people who continue to studiously ignore and/or dismiss everything I have to say, countering the little they DO acknowledge ("one small excerpt," e.g.) with nothing more than bare, unsupported opinion and rant.

Even my motivations for being here are being misrepresented and, frankly, lied about; it's not about "seeking approval" or "needing acceptance" or being "emotionally upset" or any such nonsense; it's about not having one's ideas falsified and caricatured. That would include my remarks on the book of Job. Here is a rather more mature and nuanced look at that remarkable book. It does NOT call for a response, whether a dismissal or yet another facile caricature.

Finally: I've asked, politely and civilly, that DI no longer attempt to engage me in debate. I'm perfectly willing to let this go, since we're getting nowhere. It will be interesting to see if that is acceptable to DI, or if he chooses to continue his badgering.

As for Winepusher --

" . "

[WinePusher]

As for Winepusher --

" . "

Not sure what a period in quotation marks is supposed to mean. But, you claimed that Divine Insight called you an idiot. I've read his posts and didn't see any area so I must of missed it, my bad. Can you please back up your claim and link the quote where Divine Insight called you an idiot?

[cnorman19]

[Replying to post 29 by WinePusher]

The period denotes that I have read a post but see no particular need to reply.

As for the rest -- look up the definition of "implication."