lvron@saturn.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) (02/08/91)
Mr. Moderator, you asked for a case to be made regarding tolerance, as
applied to Christians. I will attempt to make a first cut at it, because
I personally believe both the Bible and tradition (where consistent) lead
the Church in the direction of tolerance. If you don't post it, oh well.
First, we have to define "tolerance." The dictionary definition is "a
bearing of views, beliefs, and practices of others that differ from one's
own." That IMPO matches well with the common usage in the newsgroup. Look
also at the term "bearing." It means "endurance." We have to limit the
discussion to this definition. If, when someone says that Christians are
intolerant, that person means "the Christians think their faith is the only
true faith; the Christians think they are the only ones who will go to
Heaven," then, by that person's terms, I am intolerant, and I would not be
anything else. C. S. Lewis makes this case in _Mere Christianity_.
BTW, this is Mr. Lindborg's definition of "intolerant," based on his postings
here and in another newsgroup in which I have encountered him. It is not the
dictionary definition, or the definition of common usage.
Having a definition, we go on to the scope of the views involved. Most
common usage in this newsgroup would involve religious issues, of course, so
I will confine myself to that type of issue.
Having a definition, and a scope, we turn next to types of Biblical text
aimed at tolerance. These would be teachings and examples. Teachings are
given concerning the treatment of neighbors and the disposition of
controversies. The treatment of neighbors is of concern here because the
accounts of neighbors generally do not indicate the views of the neighbor.
Where the view of a neighbor is considered, such as the case of the Good
Samaritan, it is generally a worst-case view, relative to that of the
observer.
TEACHINGS
Regarding neighbors:
o Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy
hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh
the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor
doeth evil to his neighbor, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor.
(Psalm 15:1-3)
o Withhold not good from them to whom it it due, when it is in the power of
thine hand to do it...Devise not evil against thy neighbor, seeing he
dwelleth securely by thee. Strive not with a man without cause, if he
have done thee no harm. (Proverbs 3:27-32)
o ...But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, "And who is my
neighbor?" (the parable of the Good Samaritan) ..."Which now of these
three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?"
And he said, "He that showed mercy on him." Then said Jesus unto him, "Go,
and do thou likewise." (Luke 10:25-37)
Regarding controversies:
o But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and
strivings about the Law, for they are unprofitable and vain. (Titus 3:9)
Comments:
My neighbor appears to be anyone who needs me. Their stand on issues is
irrelevant. And, if I am to be a good neighbor, I must determine to do that
person good and not harm. Further, it is not necessary for the person to
be in "dire need" for me to respond; simple "need" will do. It is not
necessary for the person to seek my help; if I can give it, I must. I must
expect nothing in return (not even conversion).
I only gave one passage regarding controversies, because I thought it was
clear. My only problem is one of application: I have trouble keeping from
jumping into the fray, especially if I see Christians getting beat up on
by "tolerant" people. That really frosts me.
EXAMPLES
o Christ's asking forgiveness for those who were crucifying him would
seem perhaps the ultimate example. (Luke 23:34)
o Peter's vision in Acts 10 indicates that Peter must not be quick to
classify professors among the unclean for lacking his background.
Comments:
Individuals having a different background/training than that which I have,
if they profess Christ, are not to be considered lesser people, or lesser
Christians. And, if I am persecuted for matters of faith, I am not supposed
to respond in kind. I am not supposed to agree with those who have other
views, just to placate them; but I am not supposed to pray for/wish them
evil, or to do them evil.
Summary:
A first glance at certain Scriptures indicates that I am to endure the
differing opinions of others, or at least to serve them (as my neighbors)
as I would those who share my opinions. Passages exist that tell me to
avoid controversies as well. So I at the very least instructed to give
good and not evil to those who disagree with me, and to avoid picking
fights with them.
So: what about the apparent intolerance shown by God in the Old Testament?
I don't know how to deal with that yet: the wars and mass slayings carry
the appearance to some of a contradiction in terms. I'll take a further
look at that and let you know. But if anybody wants to throw their $0.02
in, I would be glad to summarize.
RG
Tolerant of agnostics, but not a certain Agnostic with an Attitude.lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (02/12/91)
Organization: University of Washington Computer Science In article <Feb.8.02.48.48.1991.15504@athos.rutgers.edu> lvron@saturn.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) writes: >First, we have to define "tolerance." The dictionary definition is "a >bearing of views, beliefs, and practices of others that differ from one's >own." >If, when someone says that Christians are >intolerant, that person means "the Christians think their faith is the only >true faith; the Christians think they are the only ones who will go to >Heaven," then, by that person's terms, I am intolerant, and I would not be >anything else. Not quite. I contested that the intollerance stemed from the fact that you believe everyone else is going to hell, not that you are the only ones going to heaven. A fundamental difference since I have no desire to exist for all eternity in any form, period. >BTW, this is Mr. Lindborg's definition of "intolerant," based on his postings >here and in another newsgroup in which I have encountered him. It is not the >dictionary definition, or the definition of common usage. Really? I think it matches quite well. When I speak of the intollerance of Christianity, I'm speaking of the actions of Christians... which, of course, are not always tollerant. Neither of us needs a run down on church attrocities over the last 1200 years so I'll skip it. Further, we see quite a lot of intollerance (a *lack* of bearing of views....) in recent history. For instance up untill the 1950s it was not possible for a teacher of any other religion besides Christianity to get through immigration. There are countless other such examples of which I'll spare you... >Having a definition, and a scope, we turn next to types of Biblical text >aimed at tolerance. These would be teachings and examples. Teachings are >given concerning the treatment of neighbors and the disposition of >controversies. The treatment of neighbors is of concern here because the >accounts of neighbors generally do not indicate the views of the neighbor. >Where the view of a neighbor is considered, such as the case of the Good >Samaritan, it is generally a worst-case view, relative to that of the >observer. [Biblical quotes deleted for brevity] Again, its the intollerance of Christianity that bothers me... not the idealized view of what a Christian *should* be as depicted in the Bible. I'm quite aware of the flood of well intentioned ideas set forth throughout the New Testament. Unfortunately its rare that we see these ideas implemented in any real sense... >Individuals having a different background/training than that which I have, >if they profess Christ, are not to be considered lesser people, or lesser >Christians. *if they profess Christ*. Then if someone does NOT profess Christ it is alright (and certainly probable) to think of them as 'lesser' people? They are, after all, going to spend eternity in hell unless they see the inherint 'truth' in what you believe. >And, if I am persecuted for matters of faith, I am not supposed >to respond in kind. Again, don't get me started. From the time of Constantine on we see quite a lot of persecution being delt out at the hands of the Christians. One must ponder what the world would be like today if Constantine saw, say, the Buddah in the sky instead of the Cross... >I am not supposed to agree with those who have other >views, just to placate them; but I am not supposed to pray for/wish them >evil, or to do them evil. Of course not... you are supposed to convince them of the truth and validity of your set of beliefs. Unfortunately many Christians in their zeal to do just this go so far as to employ violence and repression to meet these ends... >So: what about the apparent intolerance shown by God in the Old Testament? Yes, what of it? For instance how would you like to have been a farmer in Caanan around 1200 BCE? Minding your own business when suddenly here comes Joshua down from the hills with his band of thugs, kicking ass and taking names for no other apparent reason then they believed their god said this land was theirs. Me thinks they would not be too concerned with your dictionary defintion of 'tollerance'... >I don't know how to deal with that yet: the wars and mass slayings carry >the appearance to some of a contradiction in terms. Yes, indeed they do. >RG >Tolerant of agnostics, but not a certain Agnostic with an Attitude. Well! I suppose I'll have to loose the attitude or incur your wrath... Jeff Lindborg Meek agnostic.
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (02/12/91)
In article <Feb.8.02.48.48.1991.15504@athos.rutgers.edu>, lvron@saturn.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) writes: > Having a definition, and a scope, we turn next to types of Biblical text > aimed at tolerance. These would be teachings and examples. Teachings are > given concerning the treatment of neighbors and the disposition of > controversies. The treatment of neighbors is of concern here because the > accounts of neighbors generally do not indicate the views of the neighbor. > Where the view of a neighbor is considered, such as the case of the Good > Samaritan, it is generally a worst-case view, relative to that of the > observer. > TEACHINGS > Regarding controversies: > > o But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and > strivings about the Law, for they are unprofitable and vain. (Titus 3:9) > I only gave one passage regarding controversies, because I thought it was > clear. My only problem is one of application: I have trouble keeping from > jumping into the fray, especially if I see Christians getting beat up on > by "tolerant" people. That really frosts me. I think I would agree with Ron. We should not let disputes and controversies interfere with doing the work of the kingdom. But on the other hand, we are told very clearly not to tolerate teachers of false doctrine in the church. "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk they deceive the minds of naive people. Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil." --Romans 16:17-19. Clearly arguments about genealogies are useless to the christian--except perhaps the genealogy of Christ; that might have some interest. Similar useless arguments that have occurred in various churches include one about the exact moment the real presence of the Lord's body and blood takes place in the Lord's supper. Controversies on such matters are useless. In the case of the Lord's supper, it is much more important to know that we actually receive the Lord's body and blood, as he said, than it is to know *when* it happens. Exactly *how* it happens is not terribly important either, except that our senses tell us that we are eating bread and drinking wine together with the body and blood. What is important is that we believe what is taught in the Bible and that we do what Christ commanded. But we cannot be tolerant of teaching that is contrary to 'the teaching we have learned'. For us the 'teaching we have learned' is that found in the Bible. So if, for instance, someone teaches that we are saved by a combination of works and faith, I cannot tolerate that person as a teacher in my church. I cannot practice fellowhip with him. I may yet tolerate him as a neighbor, but not in my church. Simlilarly if someone insists that the real presence takes place through transubstantiation, which is not taught anywhere in the bible, I must reject him as a teacher for he goes beyond what scripture clearly teaches. He is stirring up controversies by teaching false doctrine. What is more, he is directing my attention away from what Christ has done for me, and towards what his priest does. We must teach and defend those doctrines which are clearly taught in the Bible and reject those that are not. We must be tolerant and careful not to violate the conscience of the weak christian, regarding that which is neither commanded nor forbidden by God. That is what Romans 14, 15:1-13 is all about. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) (02/16/91)
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >I have no desire to >exist for all eternity in any form, period. Whether that is what you *desire* doesn't really have much to do with it, does it? Either you will or you won't, and the object is to determine which of those two alternatives is the case. >you are supposed to convince them of the truth and validity >of your set of beliefs. Unfortunately many Christians in their zeal to >do just this go so far as to employ violence and repression to meet these >ends... A problem for sure. Just remember that not all of us are like that. Some of us simply find the evidence for the Biblical record and for Christianity compelling, and have therefore surrendered in faith to Jesus. Some of us also find the evidence and the experience worthy of telling others about. You're allowed to believe whatever you want. That's what free will is all about. But if you're wrong, you're wrong. All the sincerity in the world can't make up for being sincerely wrong. -- Geoff Allen uunet!pmafire!geoff geoff@pmafire.inel.gov
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (02/19/91)
In article <Feb.15.19.03.03.1991.621@athos.rutgers.edu> geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) writes: >lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >>I have no desire to >>exist for all eternity in any form, period. >Whether that is what you *desire* doesn't really have much to do with >it, does it? Either you will or you won't, and the object is to >determine which of those two alternatives is the case. Well since this obviously can not be proved, you're in a bit of a pickle... You choose to beleive there is an afterlife capable of being either blissfull or horific and you center your beliefs around that assumption. I make no such assumption, hence my beliefs center around a different idea... >>you are supposed to convince them of the truth and validity >>of your set of beliefs. Unfortunately many Christians in their zeal to >>do just this go so far as to employ violence and repression to meet these >>ends... >A problem for sure. Just remember that not all of us are like that. >Some of us simply find the evidence for the Biblical record and for >Christianity compelling, and have therefore surrendered in faith to >Jesus. Unfortunately most of the human family would tend to disagree with you on that one, me included. Which is fine except you believe that all the people who do not see the truth the same way you do are going to spend eternity in torment and pain. I can't beleive this does not taint your view of those who do not prescribe to your religion...regardless of how much you insist you 'love' them. >Some of us also find the evidence and the experience worthy of >telling others about. Which is fine... I find the dogma and inconsistencies of your religion (and most other religions I've studied) worthy of telling others about. So we agree... >You're allowed to believe whatever you want. That's what free will is >all about. But if you're wrong, you're wrong. All the sincerity in the >world can't make up for being sincerely wrong. Yes, your god takes a very dim view of those "he blessed" with skeptical minds, doesn't he? >Geoff Allen Jeff Lindborg On the Highway to Hell
lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (logan shaw) (02/19/91)
In article <Feb.12.04.18.36.1991.13274@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >Organization: University of Washington Computer Science >In article <Feb.8.02.48.48.1991.15504@athos.rutgers.edu> lvron@saturn.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) writes: >>BTW, this is Mr. Lindborg's definition of "intolerant," based on his postings >>here and in another newsgroup in which I have encountered him. It is not the >>dictionary definition, or the definition of common usage. > >Really? I think it matches quite well. When I speak of the intollerance of >Christianity, I'm speaking of the actions of Christians... which, of course, >are not always tollerant. Neither of us needs a run down on church attrocities >over the last 1200 years so I'll skip it. Further, we see quite a lot of >intollerance (a *lack* of bearing of views....) in recent history. For instance >up untill the 1950s it was not possible for a teacher of any other religion >besides Christianity to get through immigration. There are countless other >such examples of which I'll spare you... Before we can get anything accomplished here, we have to get one thing straight. The actions of someone who is labelled 'Christian' do not necessarily reflect what real Christianity is. People screw up. Christians are still people. They are going to screw up. In addition, there are plenty of church members and church leaders who are not even Christians. You cannot judge Christianity by what churches have done throughout Christianity -- you can only judge humanity by this. If you're trying to say that the church throughout history is guilty of messing up severly, then you're right. I admit it -- we're guilty. This is one of the cool things about Christianity. God has a perfect right to justly blow us all to shreds. Yet He is very cool about these things. He still loves us all. It's really pretty amazing. >Again, its the intollerance of Christianity that bothers me... not the >idealized view of what a Christian *should* be as depicted in the Bible. >I'm quite aware of the flood of well intentioned ideas set forth throughout >the New Testament. Unfortunately its rare that we see these ideas >implemented in any real sense... One of the ideas put forth in the Bible is that people are going to screw up, and screw up badly. Hence the Amazing Grace that God offers us. You cannot say Christianity is false because one of the things it puts forth to be true actually happens. Who is a sinner? Everyone, including me. >*if they profess Christ*. Then if someone does NOT profess Christ it is >alright (and certainly probable) to think of them as 'lesser' people? Absolutely not. The more I get to know God, the more I realize how pathetic I am. I _know_ what I should do and I don't always do it. Romans 2:2 says "Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." Isaiah 2:12 says "For the Lord of hosts will have a day of reckoning against everyone who is proud and lofty." The amazing thing is that even though this grieves me, I'm still joyful. Forgiveness if really wonderful. Try it -- you'll like it. > They >are, after all, going to spend eternity in hell unless they see the >inherint 'truth' in what you believe. Such a shame that those who drive their cars into brick walls are punished for not seeing the 'truth' that the brick wall is not good to run into. It's not a pleasant thought, so it must not be true. >Again, don't get me started. From the time of Constantine on we see quite a >lot of persecution being delt out at the hands of the Christians. One must >ponder what the world would be like today if Constantine saw, say, the Buddah >in the sky instead of the Cross... The church has screwed up. It's a sad fact. But, are you saying that the church is unique at screwing up? >Of course not... you are supposed to convince them of the truth and validity >of your set of beliefs. Unfortunately many Christians in their zeal to >do just this go so far as to employ violence and repression to meet these >ends... And the dumb thing is that violence and repression don't convince anybody of anything. Did you ever notice that jesus Christ was peaceful? >>So: what about the apparent intolerance shown by God in the Old Testament? > >Yes, what of it? For instance how would you like to have been a farmer in >Caanan around 1200 BCE? Minding your own business when suddenly here comes >Joshua down from the hills with his band of thugs, kicking ass and taking >names for no other apparent reason then they believed their god said this >land was theirs. Me thinks they would not be too concerned with your >dictionary defintion of 'tollerance'... If I remember right, the Jews had occupied that land years before they were taken captive by the Egyptians. What I'm saying is that it was _their_ land. And, I'm sure the Canaanites weren't about to give it back. The battles against other nations such as Philistia were also generally after the other nations had invaded Israel. It is not 'intolerant' to defend your land against invading armies. >Jeff Lindborg >Meek agnostic. -Logan -- =----------------Logan-Shaw---(lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu)----------------= "A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right...You understand sleep when you are awake, not while you are sleeping" - C. S. Lewis, _Mere_Christianity_
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (02/28/91)
In article <Feb.25.09.42.07.1991.1959@athos.rutgers.edu> johnb@searchtech.com (John Baldwin) writes: >In article <Feb.18.22.19.45.1991.13379@athos.rutgers.edu> > lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >In article <Feb.15.19.03.03.1991.621@athos.rutgers.edu> > geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) writes: >GA> A problem for sure. Just remember that not all of us are like that. >GA> Some of us simply find the evidence for the Biblical record and for >GA> Christianity compelling, and have therefore surrendered in faith to >GA> Jesus. > >JL> Unfortunately most of the human family would tend to disagree with you on >JL> that one, me included. Which is fine except you believe that all the >JL> people who do not see the truth the same way you do are going to spend >JL> eternity in torment and pain. I can't beleive this does not taint your >JL> view of those who do not prescribe to your religion... regardless of >JL> how much you insist you 'love' them. >it seems a bit presumptuous to speak for the rest of the >human race... and even if a multitude of others have a poor >opinion of someone, does that necessarily make the opinion >accurate? I was refering to the fact that the vast majority of the human family is *not* Christian and, as such, would dissagree with the idea that there are "compelling" reasons for "having" to be a Christian. In this respect I think I can speak for the rest of the human race... >Eternal condemnation (or 'damnation') is NOT something to feel smug >about, `knowing that those who don't believe as you do will be punished >for their failure to believe.' [I speak Ab Absurdum here.] I never implyed you felt "smug"... if you have a complex, this is something you'll have to work out on your own. >Eternal condemnation is like a natural disaster. A person who sees >such a disaster heading his or her way rarely feels smug or gloats >when neighbors and friends are unaware. Instead, they usually feel >an urgency to warn them, if given enough time! Of course the correlation between what you believe will happen to us when we die an a natural disaster is slim at best. But I'll work with your analogy. >Imagine being in the Southwest U.S. and hearing a tornado heading >your way, while hosting a party. None of your guests have ever >experienced a tornado; neither have you, but you are from that >area, and none of your guests are. You might reasonably be expected >to warn those guests with a sense of urgency: "Get into the cellar, quick!" yes, and how will you feel if they reject your advice? Be honest... you would think they were fools, wouldn't you? And in this little scenario they would be. Would you not feel they were somehow less intelligent then yourself? Of course... they are rejecting your wise advice and in doing so and dooming themselves. Unfortunately there are MANY different opinions on the idea of a god (or gods) and what he/she/they require/want from us. Yours is only one among many. There is no evidence to support any of them... they are all based on faith and, as such, each is as legitamite a view as yours. >The rational Christian has found evidence what has "demanded a verdict," >i.e. evidence so compelling and difficult to honestly refute that this >person finds he or she MUST become a Christian. I would be interested in hearing this "evidence" as I spent 22 years as a practicing Christian and found no such evidence myself. I believe many (perhaps most) people become Christian for two reasons. One: they are raised Christian and believe it as firmly as they would believe the earth is flat if they were taught all their life that it was so. Two: fear of the unknown. Particularly, the fear of death. Christianity (among many other religions) offers a method by which a person can obtain personal imortality. This is a very appealing idea and one which a person who fears death would cling to quite readily. >It should be no surprise >then that rational Christians would feel such a sense of urgency with >respect to the issue of salvation (going to heaven vs. going to hell.) Yes. We've seen how dangerous this sense of "urgency" can be, haven't we? The Spaniards smashed the heads of Indian babies against the rocks so their souls would be saved before their parents could lead them away from truth of Christianity. While their actions were reprehensible, you must admit that, according to you, they achieved their purpose. >When you have every reason to believe that someone is going to perish >unless you tell them something, it is most emphatically NOT being >very loving to keep silent. Worse yet, to gloat or feel smug! Again, no one suggested you were gloating or feeling smug. Any problems you have with this are your own making... >we can't just sit idly by and watch people perish. Why not? Apparently your god does just that... >John Baldwin Jeff Lindborg "I don't have to fight, to prove I'm right. I don't need to be forgiven..." -The Who [I haven't said much about this debate, because the justification of Christianity is clearly an acceptable subject for this group. However I have to say that this discussion is going in a direction that isn't likely to accomplish much. It's a replay of what has been happening in talk.religion.misc repeatedly. I'm not necessarily going to prohibit followups, but I'd like to ask people to think carefully whether they really expect to accomplish anything useful. --clh]
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (03/01/91)
In article <Feb.26.04.27.18.1991.12754@athos.rutgers.edu> psburns@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS) writes: >[The original posting contained a couple of pages of quoted >discussion between Jeff Lindborg and Geoff Allen, whose subject >seems irrelevant to this response. It involved the truth of >Christianity. This response is to the signature: > >Jeff Lindborg > >On the Highway to Hell >--clh] >Jeff, >My heart breaks for you, even though you don't want it to. It greives me >that you sign yourself "On the Highway to Hell" as if hell is a place to >look forward to being sometime. Actualy, its a lyric from AC/DC (a rather ruckus heavy metal band for those of you not hip to such things). No, I don't believe hell is a place to look forward to... I don't believe in the existence of a hell or a heaven or a life after this one for that matter. The entire concept of a life after death didn't enter your monotheistic belief system till around 250 BCE. Its a Greco-Roman idea that was incorporated durring the Hellenistic period. I believe it to be a fabrication of the minds of men. Period. >I don't know what hell is like, but why >take a chance? What would you like me to do? Force myself into beleiving somehting I find, in a word, silly? If I told you you were doomed if you did not believe in flying pigs on planet endor, would you be able to force youself to buy into just so you "wouldn't take the chance"? I doubt it. What if Islam is right? What if Judaism is right? What if the Zoroansrians are right? What if the Romans were right (we're all doomed!). Are you not "taking a chance" by not believing in their religions? Yes, you are. You choose Christianity because you belive it to embody the truth. I choose to reject all organized religions because I believe them to all embody nothing but the imaginations of men... >I personally have chosen to not take that chance, and I >chose to live my life for Jesus, with the expectation of spending eternity >with him in Paradise. (I hope there's skiing there!) Wont skiing get boring after a few billion years? Jeff Lindborg "You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you sill have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. I will choose the path that's clear: I will choose freewill!" -RUSH [It's true that scholars believe that relatively concrete ideas about personal judgement after death were formulated fairly late in Judaism. However as far as I know those who ascribe them to outside influences believe it came from contact with Persians during the exile. Of course from early days there had been a confidence in God as a judge who would make things come out right, and it appears that there was at least some kind of survival in Sheol after death (though in the earlier books not much is said about it, and there is even a comment somewhere about not being able to praise God in Sheol). One of the changes in the prophets, e.g. Ezekiel, was an increasing personalization of the religion, so that for example it was no longer believed that children would be held responsible by God for the sins of their parents. It seems quite consistent with these developments that God's judgement should be seen as including people after their death, and not just the eventual triumph of the nation. My suspicion is that exposure to Persians during the exile may have in some ways catalyzed changes in concepts, but that those changes were consistent with the natural course of development of Judaism -- otherwise it's unlikely that Jews would have adopted them. I'll leave comments about Greek and Roman ideas to others that know more about that culture than I do. Commentaries I've seen have suggested that early Greek and Roman ideas about the afterlife were fairly similar to early Hebrew ideas, and so they wouldn't be the basis for any change in Jewish concepts. But I'm not going to say any more than that. --clh]
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (03/01/91)
>In s.r.C, someone writes: > If I remember right, the Jews had occupied that land years before they > were taken captive by the Egyptians. What I'm saying is that it was > _their_ land. And, I'm sure the Canaanites weren't about to give it > back. If you read about the forty years in the wilderness, God granted the land to the children of Israel only upon certain conditions. The land did NOT belong to those complaining Israelites of whom God promised would never enter the land because of disobedience. In fact, the "complaining" Israelites, and even Moses himself, never even lived in the Promised Land. Further, during the Babylonian captivity, the Bible says that God Himself was on the side of Nebucanezzer (sp?), because the Hebrew enslavement was a punishment from God. Again, many from this generation never lived in, or even saw, the Promised Land. So, what it all boils down to is that the Promised Land, just like every other land on this planet, BELONGS TO GOD. Man is allowed to use the land according to what God will allow. Thus, the Hebrews were allowed to have the Promised Land upon certain conditions, and God could and still can revoke that privelage at any time. Elizabeth
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (03/06/91)
In article <Feb.28.17.24.34.1991.5542@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >The entire concept of a life after death didn't enter your >monotheistic belief system till around 250 BCE. Its a Greco-Roman idea >that was incorporated durring the Hellenistic period. I believe it to >be a fabrication of the minds of men. Period. Welll.... Aside from the question of accuracy of your claim about when the idea of an afterlife entered Judaism -- it's pretty clearly present in the story of Saul and the Witch of Endor, for example... Logic and rationalism are also a fabrication of the minds of men. Period. In fact, at least in Western culture, the come from -- wait for it -- the Greeks. Since that's grounds for rejecting the afterlife, I take it it's also grounds for rejecting rationalism? Jeff, mein freund, you're arguing in a circle. And from the rock'n'roll front... "And so with gods and men, the sheep remain inside their pen, until the Shepard leads his flock away..." - Genesis Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
murphy@mips.com (Mike Murphy) (03/06/91)
In article <Feb.25.08.36.22.1991.956@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: >If you read Genesis, you learn that Joseph went into Egypt somewhat >voluntarily. He became a helper of Pharoah (a prophet as later ages >in Israel would call such people) and was there quite happily. The >Bible makes it clear that the Egyptians enslaved Israel after they had >voluntarily entered Egypt. I hesitate to criticize mib after his eloquent plea for understanding in another post, but his description of Joseph "voluntarily" entering Egypt is different from the one that comes to my mind. When I read Genesis, I see Joseph being sold by his brothers into slavery, and that is how he entered Egypt. It is true that he accepted his situation and became happy there, but I think that's more of a statement about how God can turn even bad circumstances into good than about Joseph's desire to go to Egypt. Also, Israel (i.e. Joseph's family) only came to Egypt because there was a famine in their land and Egypt had food.
billy@stl.stc.co.uk (Billy Khan) (03/07/91)
Well Hi Mr. Jeff Lindborg and the other guy who was chatting to him.. Well I am a christian, so you may feel that disqualifies me from being objective, but anyway... Religion, well its always a sticky point. But christianity has too major differences to most religions. (Probably all religions) A Anyone is eligible not matter who, what, where they are in life. B It offers a DIRECT and PERSONAL relationship with the guy who made the universe in the first place. (I'm not talking emotional experience, though that might be the case. I'm not even talking about amazing powers, though that may happen too. I'm talking about a relationship with God, which is the same as any other relationship. If you imagine the best relationship you have had. An old friend, girl- friend, etc... Then God is like that. He's said he loves everyone and would want us to love him back. That doesn't mean that you just turn around one day and say 'Oh okay, I love you too'. Anyon who's been in love (unselfish love atleast) knows that it takes time to get to know and understand, trust and finally love your partner. God fills that part of your soul that is looking for the answer to life (which, face it, we're all looking for) On the subject of heaven. Well I don't think they'll be much skiing somehow. Any physical thing would be pretty tedious after a few million years. No, I think heaven is more like this. Sorry to use girlfriends (or boyfriends of course if you are a girl!) but its a good analogy. Imagine how much you like them, the smile, the expressions, the bits of character that make them who they are. Then imagine being so together (spiritually) that you know each others thoughts and emotions. Then imagine sharing emotions and feelings with everyone, all your friends with God presiding over with unending love. Thats want I think heaven will be like, with lots of singing and music too! Christianity isn't so much a religion as an experience and a way of life. Jesus offers hope, healing, joy, freedom and love. It breaks his heart (and mine) when people reject him. I think you would be cut up to if you had made such a sacrifice and then everyone just ignored you. You are free to do what you want in this life, but only a fool would not grasp the lifeline thrown to him as he was about to drown. We all stand condemned by what we have done Mr Lindborg, I am no better or worse than you. But I am saved by grace, not by anything I have managed to do. Jesus' gift is free, all that he offers is free, there are no strings attached. Remember, you could be hit by a bus tomorrow.
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (03/08/91)
In article <Mar.6.00.15.41.1991.24555@athos.rutgers.edu> murphy@mips.com (Mike Murphy) writes:
I hesitate to criticize mib after his eloquent plea for understanding
in another post, but his description of Joseph "voluntarily" entering Egypt
is different from the one that comes to my mind. When I read Genesis,
I see Joseph being sold by his brothers into slavery, and that is how
he entered Egypt. It is true that he accepted his situation and became
happy there, but I think that's more of a statement about how God can
turn even bad circumstances into good than about Joseph's desire to go
to Egypt. Also, Israel (i.e. Joseph's family) only came to Egypt because
there was a famine in their land and Egypt had food.
Heck, when I make as dumb a blunder as this, you should certainly
point it out. Joseph went to Egypt as a slave, and, with God, turned
it into great good. The entire movement of Israel to Egypt was
definitely not voluntary, though it was ultimately a "comfortable"
place for them to be. Sorry for posting such a dismal blunder...
-mibYZKCU@cunyvm.bitnet (Yaakov Kayman) (03/08/91)
In article <Feb.28.17.35.38.1991.5690@athos.rutgers.edu>, ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) says: > >If you read about the forty years in the wilderness, God granted the land >to the children of Israel only upon certain conditions. Anyone reading the book of Genesis can see that G-d promised the Jewish patriarchs that He would give the Land (of Canaan - what is now in part Israel) to their descendants. This occurred well before the forty years in the wilderness. >So, what it all boils down to is that the Promised Land, just like every >other land on this planet, BELONGS TO GOD. Man is allowed to use the >land according to what God will allow. Thus, the Hebrews were allowed to >have the Promised Land upon certain conditions, and God could and still can >revoke that privilege at any time. > Yes. While I as a Jew do not agree with the Christian view of just what G-d is, all that exists certainly does belong to Him. As I often like to say, contrary to the opinion of the late (and to me, unlamented) Saudi UN ambassador, Jamil Baroudi, G-d is very much in the real estate busi- ness. > >Elizabeth Yaakov K. -------- Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock Internet: YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU about whom the wolves complain"