User talk:Eequor/Archives/Zealotry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objection to Jewish mythology[edit]


I OBJECT most strongly to placing the classical Jewish texts under the category "Jewish Mythology". "Category:Jewish mythology" and the Subcategories being "Category:Jewish texts" And then God becomes ARBITRARILY part of "mythology"! Perhaps Midrash could go with it, BUT not these others. I vote that the titles be REVERSED and that "Jewish mythology" become a Subtext of Jewish texts. I plan to take this to arbitration!IZAK 12:23, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, okay. It's a little silly to start voting on my talk page, though. You might as well make the appropriate changes yourself.
As for the latter, all religions have mythologies, which gods are most certainly a part of. --Eequor 04:04, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Eequor, please note my change of Category:Jewish mysticism. I have moved this "up" a level to go directly under Category:Judaism, as I do not believe it should be a subset of Category:Jewish mythology. See also Category_talk:Jewish mysticism, where I've left a more in-depth explanation. Please discuss; I ended up undoing a lot of categorisation edits on Jewish articles today, and I hope we can work something out. JFW | T@lk 20:07, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Clash between Jewish history and Israeli history[edit]

Hi, Please note that JEWISH history comes before modern Israeli History. There is already a category Category:Israel and Zionism and it would not help readers of Wiki to be confused by two "lines" of history categories : One for "Jewish" and one for "Israeli" when they are the exact same thing really. What do you say? IZAK 14:33, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are differences between the three:
But Category:Israeli history seems like it belongs under Category:Israel and Zionism too, so I'll do that. --Eequor 15:12, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Never mind, I see that Category:Israel is already there. --Eequor 15:13, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Eequor: That's funny, I thought that modern Zionism was mostly secular. Does being "Israeli" have nothing to do with any sort of Zionism at all, or are you just a knee-jerk anti-Judaism person no matter what  :-) ??? IZAK 08:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea I'm antisemitic? I think I'm just anti-you. --Eequor 12:30, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Eequor:I just love it! I did NOT accuse you of being "anti-Semitic" at all, for all I know you are a rabbi, I was just using YOUR own words :..." It would be fair to say she has a fierce antipathy for the three major religions -- Judaism, Islam, and especially Christianity."...isn't that what you write about YOURSELF?! Take it easy, I happen to like you...IZAK 12:38, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yet you call me a witch. [1] --Eequor 12:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mythology and religion[edit]

  • My apologies if you mistunderstood me, I did not refer to YOU as a "witch" (besides, I think that real witches do NOT really exist nowadays -- but there sure are lots of wannabees and phony-balony ones -- and that it's just "mythology" in any case, don't you agree?). My objecton was that no rational person would allow Judaism to be interpreted by those who want to place it on a par with people who "believe" in the witches as mythology or not. Look at my words carefully: "What's the matter Eequar, are you afraid of the NPOV FACTS that are here, do you want witches to take over Judaism now??" I most definitely DID NOT call you or anyone else specifically a "witch"! I was asking if you would want witches (as group of fictitious cockamamy mythological voodoo artists) to be the ones deciding what is or is not Judaism and what Judaism does or does not believe in. So don't get so jumpy, and I still like you. IZAK 03:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You really don't understand what mythology and religion are, do you? Mythology has nothing to do with fictionality. Religion has nothing to do with truth. Mythology is the collection of beliefs, stories, and deities of a religion. Religion is the collection of practices based on those beliefs. Mythology can neither be verified nor denied. The only part of religion that is verifiable is the history of what its followers have done, including their present and continuing actions. I suggest you get a firmer understanding of what the terminology means before you try to talk about it seriously. --Eequor 12:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Eequor: YOU say: "Religion has nothing to do with truth", where did you learn that??? How do YOU know that YOUR statement is "TRUE"? You obviously do NOT get what religion is about in any case, especially not the Jewish religion, as actually according to Judaism, the Torah upon which it is based is not just THE Truth , but it's actually the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Now I know this runs counter to your way of thinking, as for some reason you seem to think that it's okay to apply notions about "myths", "stories" and "deities" (which Judaism would never accept, NOT just merely me "personally") as Judaism believes in ONLY ONE True God...yes,I know, you are rubbing your eyes in "disbelief", but why should you be so ignorant of Judaism when it is so simple to grasp: Just ONE God; Just ONE Torah; Just ONE covenant with ONE people (the Jews); All being just ONE Truth. That's Judaism 101. So give me a break with all the hokum about (as you say it):" Mythology is the collection of beliefs, stories, and deities of a religion. Religion is the collection of practices based on those beliefs" blah, blah, blah,......tell that to the "marines" as we used to say in the good ol' days. Got it now, or are we getting there...I am very patient with friends. IZAK 13:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Religion professes to know The Truth, but that does not make it true. Can you prove that gods exist? Nobody can. It cannot be known whether a religion holds the truth, and thus what you make of it is an opinion and nothing more. --Eequor

Hi again:Firstly, Judaism is not a "religion" in the conventional sense. Secondly, there are many types of well-known philosophical proofs for God's existence that have been around for a long time: 1) The argument from Design: If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had been designed. Now look at the universe; is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God. 2) The ontological argument: God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist. 3) The cosmological argument (God as "First cause"): Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God." IZAK 17:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. Nothing can be proven without experiential knowledge.
1 is countered by the anthropic principle. If all coincidences in the universe had not occurred as they did, we would not be here to observe their results. It is meaningless to talk about the chances of the coincidences happening. Probability only applies to potential events. The chance of a different universe developing exactly the same way would surely be very small, but the "chance" of our universe developing as it did is 100%.
2 is circular reasoning. It presumes the existence of a perfect god and then defines perfection as "existence of god". Is it not said that nobody can know the true nature of the Judeochristian God? On what do you base your claim that God is perfect? I would argue that the state of the world and the vast suffering taking place clearly demonstrates that God is not perfect.
Who is to say that existence is perfection? We exist and cannot contemplate nonexistence; therefore our view of existence is very biased. Perhaps nonexistence is perfect. Buddhism believes so.
3 is a non sequitur. The cosmological argument argues only that a "first cause" existed, and then fails to prove even that in its rush to leap to a conclusion. It makes a huge assumption about causality, namely that causality is real. It further assumes that causality is strictly linear. It cannot be known whether time had a first event. Where does a circle begin?
The argument also fails to demonstrate the continued existence of the "first event". Consider Abraham and the Jewish people. Jews exist today; Abraham does not. Yet Abraham was the ancestor of all Jews.
The cosmological argument closes with a statement that is at worst a leap of faith and at best a misrepresentation. The argument argues for nothing except the existence of a first event. To then name the first event God might make the argument look important, but there is no meaning in the name given to the first event. One might as well name the first event Blue.
Why name the first event God, then? Because the argument is intended as a deception. The name God is attached to very much meaning. The closing statement means to form an association between "first cause" and the meaning of God.
Does your God deceive you? The cosmological argument claims that He does. --Eequor 18:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How is Judaism not a religion? A religion is composed of a set of beliefs, correct behavior based upon those beliefs, and possibly mysticism or mythology to provide context for the beliefs. Judaism contains all four. See Jewish principles of faith. --Eequor 18:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Examples of the four aspects of religion:
It is my religion, and I consider its beliefs to be correct and its mythology to be true. I feel secure in the truth of my mythology: I have experiential knowledge of my goddess. --Eequor 18:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi there Eequor again: YOU had asked: "Can you prove that gods exist? Nobody can." and I provided you with THREE classical ways of "PROVING" that God exists that I did not "invent" but which have been used by philosophers (not just theologians) for hundreds of years. You then launch into arguments "against" those proofs for God's existence. Now, the fact that one can always come up with counter-arguments is well-accepted by Judaism because it believes in the FREEDOM OF CHOICE so that you are always free to ignore perfectly valid PROOFS (which you asked for) and reject the fact that there is only one true God. What is actually beautiful is when YOU say that: "Nothing can be proven without experiential knowledge" which is EXACTLY what Judaism believes as well, as Judaism teaches through the Torah that since THE ENTIRE NATION OF ISRAEL E X P E R I E N C E D and witnessed the Revelation of God at Mount Sinai when he gave the Ten Commandments to Moses THEREFORE we can rely on the fact that they reported a true experience and that is one of the main reasons that Jews should believe in God, because their ancestors EXPERIENCED God themselves. You may have experienced your own encounters with something, but the Torah says that there are also alternative experiences that whilst they may be "real", must also be avoided as they are harmful to one's own spiritual well-being. Take care. IZAK 05:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's a contradiction, and hypocritical. You just said Judaism accepts experiential knowledge. Now you claim it does not.
How are we to know that the Ten Commandments were not an alternative experience? We cannot know that God spoke to Moses first. Maybe your entire religion is based on an experience harmful to your spiritual well-being. --Eequor 06:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(Oh, and by the way, Judaism is not a "religion" --with a God restricted to a place of worship or acting capriciously--, it is a "way of life" -- with 613 mitzvot that deal with all human emotions and relations, elevating all mankind created in the Divine image and thus being divine too.) IZAK 05:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just because a line of reasoning has been used for hundreds of years doesn't mean it's logically sound. People used to believe the sun orbited the Earth, too. See critical thinking. God gave you a brain, didn't he? Try thinking about things on your own instead of following others like some ruminant.
None of those "proofs" you suggest actually prove anything. They may have been called proofs at times, but that does not make them proofs.
You still don't get what religion is. Religion has nothing to do with places of worship. Any Protestant will tell you that. Religions are ways of life. --Eequor 06:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well hon, I am using my brain, and it tells me that someone who runs around convinced that there is a "blue godess" must have watched too many Walt Disney movies (or is suffering from some sort of delusional condition best left unsaid). IZAK 06:33, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I and my goddess happen to have a sense of humor. --Eequor 06:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The arguments/proofs that you seem so allergic too are not meant to produce a "genie" at the end of the line so that "out pops a little god to make you happy"...the idea is meant to be that they are logical enough to provide the LOGICAL argumentation YOU said does "not" exist. As for the Protestants? And where do you think they got their best ideas from if not from the "Old Testament" of Judaism itself? ... which brings us back to the very beginning that one should not class Judaism and its belief system as "mythology" in the first place. IZAK 06:33, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. Those arguments are not logical enough. They can be quickly shown to be fallacious.
What does the relation of Protestantism to Judaism have to do with anything? Protestantism is a reaction to Catholicism, which is a religion that places great emphasis on places of worship.
How does that bring us back to Jewish mythology being invalid? Non sequitur. --Eequor 06:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)