This finding marked a key feature in the way that the conflict is moving in the international arena and the polarisation between Israel and US on the one hand and European allies on the other. “The tense political relations between both Israel and the European Union, and recently between the EU and Washington as well, can also be delineated by religious beliefs,” said the poll’s authors. “Israelis and Americans view Europe as godless and decadent, but for the Brahmins in Brussels, Israel and the United States are drifting into fundamentalist Crazyland.”Religious wars. The problem with all types of exceptionalism is that exceptionalism leads to fanaticism and devaluing other people.
The melding of American exceptionalism with Israeli exceptionalism is especially troubling in a region of Islamic exceptionalism.
Europe is not immune to exceptionalism either, for example, Western exceptionalism, which is sometime equated and white exceptionalism.
MintNews Press
Majority of Israeli Jews Believe They Are ‘Chosen People’
MintNews Press
Majority of Israeli Jews Believe They Are ‘Chosen People’
Middle East Monitor
71 comments:
Choose someone else?
One should read the Old Testament, at least, to see the downside of being chosen, i.e. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more. Luke 12:48
Nor were the Hebrews chosen because of their righteousness but for the sake of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, their ancestors.
Or as Tom might say, the concept of being chosen is nuanced and not subject to facile analysis.
I just think what an amazing religion Buddhism is. The opposite of our theistic religions. It's huge, but we could have done with it in the West. Meta Loving Kindness meditation. Such gentleness.
"Or as Tom might say, the concept of being chosen is nuanced and not subject to facile analysis."
Or as I might say, the concept of being chosen is self-righteous garbage.
As for Abraham, Issac and Jacob, that's Jewish fiction, just like the magic "six million."™
One way to demonstrate its false... if it is false...
Leaving aside how much credence we should have in the concept of a "chosen people", it fails if it is directed at the "Hebrews". Using the same Biblical argument that Israel and its supporters in fact leads to the the opposite conclusion. It is the Hebrews or descendants of Abraham who are the true inheritors of the Holy Land. Many make the mistake by supposing that these are synonymous with the Jews. As we will see, this claim cannot be maintained.
Almost all Israelis do *NOT* have Hebrew ancestry. It is the modern Palestinians (the occupied Christians and Muslims of Palestine) who have Hebrew ancestry, having converted to Christianity and Islam. Where does that leave the Hebrews as the "chosen people"? By this standard, it is the Israelis who are the anti-semites for denting the Palestinians (the true Hebrews and Jews of Palestine) the right to the lands God promised the Hebrews, or descendants of Abraham. Again, in the case of Abraham, since most Israelis cannot trace their ancestry to the Middle East (Abraham was from modern day south-east Iraq), then they are not the rightful occupiers of the Holy Land but nothing more than European colonisers. Genetic science is a bitch.
Doesn't exceptionalism stem from tribal-centrism and ethno-centrism and don't these in turn originate in predation and anti-predation?
Just because the Greeks adopted a Semitic religion (Christianity), does not mean they are Semites. Same applies with those people of Europe who converted to Judaism -- it makes them no more Semites than the Greeks.
You know, if this weren't a serious site, for sure this thread would have derailed into a for-or-against circumcision thread ;)
Me: against.
you know, if this weren't a serious site, for sure this thread would have derailed into a for-or-against circumcision thread ;)
Now that you mention it, if this were a sane world, infantile genital mutilation would be seen for what it is.
This is comparable to female genital mutilation, forced conversion at the sword and sati (suttee).
This is comparable to female genital mutilation, T. Hickey
Not at all, not if a clitorectomy is performed.
I've been circumcised (like many for public health reasons) and I can assure you that my sex life never suffered for it. I doubt the same can be said for women who've had their clitoris amputated.
I assume from your comment that this choice was voluntary and arrived at after reaching majority.
That is not the case with infants. That is the common factor in other cases I cited — not voluntary.
No, I was circumcised as an infant. Still, it did me no harm and saved me from some potential health troubles growing up and expense as an adult so I'm glad it was done. So where then is the harm?
Otoh, female genital mutilation causes genuine harm and should be outlawed. There is no comparison.
Cultural.
As if all cultures are equal.
One of the "cultural" problems with the Amorites in Canaan was child sacrifice. For that and other offenses they were to be driven out or annihilated if they tried to remain. And, btw, they were given 430 years to repent while the Hebrews remained in Egypt.
Later, because the Hebrews failed to drive all of them out or annihilate them as commanded, they too fell prey to the same practices and were in turn driven out or killed, first the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and later the Southern Kingdom (Judah - Babylonian Captivity).
Annihilating children for the sins of the parents? Well, well, well. All expansionist genocidal lunatics have an excuse. In the traditions of one scripture, it is on the alleged instructions of a superbeing in another dimension who delights in the deaths of sinless babies and children. I can well understand the killing of sinful adults, but what justification is there to murder sinless, innocent babies and children? Interestingly, if driven out the Amorites could continue with child sacrifice elsewhere, since the Hebrews were not going to follow them around and inhibit their child sacrifices. The issue seems to be that they were doing it on holy ground. Even more interesting, the Hebrews are instructed to murder children in order to bring to an end child sacrifice. That's a novel solution, I must say.
Anyway, is there any actual evidence for any of this? Or is it a story that modern-day genocidal lunatics with territorial ambitions and an insatiable bloodlust tell themselves and brainwash the next generation? If there is evidence for this madness - that an entire people believed it was their divine mission to slaughter every living thing - this is a sign of psychopathy, and, worse still, if people believe it today, a sign of psychopathic genocidal tendencies, even schizophrenic genocidal tendencies by channeling the insane writings of a wandering tribe via the supposed divine whisperings of the great superbeing from the other dimension.
By the way, Andrew, even the Bible (Kings II, if memory serves) doesn't have the whole population being transported to Babylon. The figures are certainly no more than ten percent or fewer. Plus, the archaeological evidence shows the story as presented to be hugely exaggerated.
As if all cultures are equal.
Anthropology shows that shows that culture, including tradition, custom and institutions, is the most significant influence in nurture, which complements nature.
People that are embedded in a culture take their cultures as the standard and conflated their cultural world view with reality.
Reflection on this reveals that world views are relative and there is no absolute standard n human affairs other than nature, i.e., biology, including evolutionary theory.
The reason science is possible is that nature (biology) is essential the same for all humans that are "normal." That is, we experience essentially the same phenomena with the senses, although we interpret the phenomena differently based on cultural bias.
The Hebrews annihilated with the "edge of the sword" while the Amorites made their children "pass through the flames."
I'd certainly prefer the former.
Btw, the Hebrews are descendants of Jacob, a subset of the descendants of Abraham (and Isaac) and the Jews are a subset of the descendants of Jacob. Thus I suspect that your knowledge of the Old Testament is less than adequate.
I admit that reading the Old Testament can be shocking to modern ears but what is amazing is WHY the God of the Old Testament becomes angry and that includes the mistreatment of widows, orphans, aliens and social injustice.
And let's not forget that we'd have none of a government-backed usury cartel if Deuteronomy 23:19-23 and other parts of the OT had been taken seriously by Christians.
make that Deuteronomy 23:19-20.
Reflection on this reveals that world views are relative and there is no absolute standard n human affairs other than nature, i.e., biology, ... Tom Hickey [bold added]
Which is why it is absurd to conflate male circumcision with female genital mutilation.
Which is why it is absurd to conflate male circumcision with female genital mutilation.
Ask the Muslims that practice both about their view of it.
I believe I told the story of my encounter with a Muslim friend who said that he could not understand how Christians could believe that an infinite God could fit into a finite human body. I answered that Christians cannot understand how Muslims think that there is naytingf an omnipotent God cannot do. We both got a laugh out if, but it illustrates my point here. It's cultural (learned).
I answered that Christians cannot understand how Muslims think that there is naytingf an omnipotent God cannot do. Tom Hickey
Where in the Bible does it say God is omnipotent? The Bible certainly contradicts that God is all-knowing (else how could He regret making Saul king?)
Then let's not imagine more things about the God of the Bible than He has revealed and thereby seek to discredit Him unjustly.
Where in the Bible does it say God is omnipotent? The Bible certainly contradicts that God is all-knowing (else how could He regret making Saul king?)
Then let's not imagine more things about the God of the Bible than He has revealed and thereby seek to discredit Him unjustly.
Your view is eccentric. In many groups it is heretical. But some sects hold more limited views, such as the LDS (Mormonism).
Christian theology generally holds that God isomnipresent, omniscient , and omnipotentomnipotent, as do most other theistic traditions.
"Omnipresent" means "in all and above all", as distinct from pantheism, meaning only "in all." "In all and above all" is called " panentheism ." "Omniscient" means "all-knowing." "Omnipotent" means "all-powerful" or "all-mighty.
Even Fundamentalists find biblical sources for this doctrine.
https://www.thebridgeonline.net/sermons/the-god-of-the-bible-is-omnipresent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/
https://bible.org/seriespage/6-characteristics-god-part-two
http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/omni.pdf
Andrew, writing "Hebrews" was a simple error. But it says a lot that you focus on the minor error rather than the substantial points raised. Of course I've read the Bible. I didn't have a choice, not with my parents and the schools I attended. In fact it meant, and in many ways still means, a lot to me. Nevertheless, I do have a lot of issues with the Bible, and far more with the sects who haven't got a Christian bone in their body. I think it is safe to say that Jesus would be as disgusted and angered by the many sects/churches as he was with the money lenders/changers. Their evil knows no bounds: war, money and perversion is their God.
Nevertheless, my knowledge or lack of is irrelevant to the points made. It's not a contest. The points I made are on the basis of archaeological fact, genetic fact, historical fact, and moral decency. A God, if such a thing exits, could not possibly demand the murder of babies and children. Anyone who believes that such a God is good has their work cut out convincing anyone with any ethical sense. The fact that no one has been able to justify this should tell you something. Lots of very highly trained and intelligent religious scholars and clerics have had thousands of years to come up with something. Silence prevails.
Tom, any Christian or Muslim who doesn't understand that God cannot do ANYTHING is a theological ignoramus. The scriptures indicate that in various ways, although I'm much less happy with the examples given of this inability. Again, it makes no sense for God to "regret" anything. And if God is to "regret" anything at all, then it should be divinely sanctioning the murder of INNOCENT and SINLESS babies and children. The common refrain is that God moves in a mysterious way, or some such diversionary piffle. Whatever else can be claimed, mysterious isn't one. A more accurate description would be incomprehensible beyond measure, utterly weird and clear as mud.
Having made things incomprehensible (an alleged Trinity that no one can make head or tail of, the divine sanctioning of the slaughter of INNOCENTS, etc), weird (restricting the joining of a congregation on the basis of deformed testicles; the resting, regretting and other anthropomorphisms, demanding the stoning of anyone who mentions the name of God, etc) and so unclear (where do you start?) that it makes your head hurt, He then asks you to have faith in the incomprehensibility and savage madness He demands! I'm with the impish Galileo: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use..."
John, in the view of perennial wisdom "God" doesn't do anything. Absolute means unchanging. Infinite means that there is nothin else but "God." I think I've already told the joke of the Buddhist monk that encounters another and says, "What's happening, brother?" The other responds, "Nothing ever happens."
"Creation" taken literally is a myth that stoops to our limited understanding since finite consciousness conflates appearance with reality.
BTW "God" is a Western term. The mythology is specifically Western. Other traditions have different mythologies.
But the experience of the mystics is identical as it must be logically, since realization of that which is undifferentiated (pure consciousness) cannot be distinguished. Anyone that has had a taste of this state, however brief, knows this by direct acquaintance.
The mystics of the world report their experience of ultimate reality in the same terms, negatively, e.g., "not this, not this" (Upanishads), "the cloud of unknowing" (Christian mystics), and "emptiness" (Buddhists).
This realization is ineffable and can only be pointed to by those that have realized it.
Affirmative statements about it are by way of analogy. Aquinas sets this forth in Summa contra gentiles, Bk 1, ch. 15-35, for example.
Tom, that's a lot to chew over, but then the sophistication of these philosophies and traditions are really something. For a long while, I dismissed it all as theological post-modernism, a spiritual treacle that could have been come from Lacan or Kristeva. I still can't claim to even a shallow understanding, but the Eastern philosophies are intriguing, Having had a thoroughly Christian upbringing makes appreciating anything outside the narrow Abrahamic tradition very hard. It's all very alien, although there is much that looks intellectually stimulating and useful. There is of course a lot to dislike if one, for example, were to look at the role of Buddhist violence in Sri Lanka or Myanmar, or Hindu violence in India, proving once and for all the vacuity of the deeply held view about the Eastern traditions are more peaceable. None of this should distract from the core messages that inform many billions of lives. I'm very slowly inching to a better appreciation, but being a rather analytical person with a monotheistic background is proving a hindrance in some ways, although useful in other ways. It's not in me to become a Buddhist or anything else, but wisdom is found in the most unexpected places, and I like learning about other people's belief systems and how they originated.
I don't know if you follow Robert Wright's interviews on YouTube, but I've found him and his many Eastern-influenced guests educative and dispellers of some of the worst howlers that Westerners erroneously believe about other traditions. I can't remember where I read a Japanese theologian making the case that all religions are at their core mystical/spiritual in the SAME way, not mystical/spiritual in different ways. I remember it being an absolutely fascinating thesis, and now I can't find it! From an anthropological point of view, most humans are hardwired for deep spiritual connection. The evolutionary and psychological aspects will be a wonder to behold.
As alien as I have found these traditions, however, it must be said that they are much further advanced when it comes to connecting with mankind's spiritual side. Before struggling with the more opaque and less accessible classics of these traditions, it's probably best to start with authors like Dale Wright, who has a nice pedagogical style.
John, if you read in perennial wisdom, you will see the similarity of the accounts left by the mystics of all wisdom traditions that lie at the heart of these traditions and connect them with reality that is accessible at deeper levels of experience. Accessing this in experience is the core spirituality that the sages have set forth.
Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy, which mostly a collection of quotes, is a fairly short, easy read and it's a good place to begin. A. N. Wilson's World Scripture-An Anthology of Sacred Texts is heftier and contains a lot of quotes on different subjects. Sacred Texts hosts many of the great works. holybooks.com provides extensive downloads. And all this is free! And if you get into it, there are free resources all over the place. It's an open secret, to quote Rumi.
Last comment here so I’ll put it as simply as I heard it this week: - if the earth is 4.6B years old, in comparison, humans have been around for less than a day. In other words, we know nothing about life. We are not even in diapers yet. We just have gigantic egos – that’s all. The second point is harder to realise: - it just doesn’t matter. Russia doesn’t matter and America doesn’t matter and the economy and all of the politics doesn’t matter. They are not reality. We come to this earth to find the self. That is the only reality we should concern ourselves with. But admittedly, there is a lot of understanding goes behind that statement. The rest of it will never ever be sorted out until the self is known, because that is what gives a human being Clarity. Clarity is the sword, the shining sea, that divides heart from mind – then they begin to function – and only then. Before that its dreamtime all the way through. Nice to have known some of you; take care, listen to your heart ... Ciao
JohnB.
I want to make another pitch for Meher Baba regarding this.
While the texts of perennial wisdom are avialble in abundance on the Internet, understanding them and putting it all together on one's own is both somewhat difficult because the concepts and conceptual modeling are unfamiliar. In addition, most of the texts are in languages other than English and were written in the context of previous times so they are difficult to grasp without background.
Meher Baba's works are in English however, and he is a contemporary (1894-1969). He had both Eastern and Western disciples and was a world teacher.
Moreover, he claimed to have brought a new dispensation of the age-old teaching, although he declared, "I have come not to teach, but to awaken."
His works are freely available at the Meher Baba Trust Library, which includes a neat search function at the top of the page listing the works together with links.
So if you want to cut to the chase, this is what I recommend.
Reading is usual to become convince that there is something worth pursuing. Eventually, one needs to move from theory to practice. That is set forth, too.
In the final analysis, everyone is guided by their own heart. It's a matter of being open.
There is no general rule or method applicable to all who aspire to realize God. Every man must work out his own salvation, and must choose his own method, although his choice is mostly determined by the total effect of the mind impressions (sanskaras) acquired in previous lives. He should be guided by the creed of his conscience, and follow the method that best suits his spiritual tendency, his physical aptitude and his external circumstances. Truth is One, but the approach to it is essentially individual. The Sufis say, There are as many ways to God as there are souls of men.
— Meher Baba, God Speaks: The Theme of Creation and Its Purpose. Walnut Creek, CA: Sufism Reoriented, 1973, 2nd Edition, Supl. 2, p. 206.
@ jrbrach
Well said above.
We will miss your wisdom and big heart.
May the Force be with you.
Andrew, writing "Hebrews" was a simple error. But it says a lot that you focus on the minor error rather than the substantial points raised. john
It's not a minor error; not when discussing who may or may not have a God-given right to live where they live.
Substantial? Then how about for example: Should children be left to starve after their parents are killed? Is a quick death the worse thing that can happen to one? Does not death preclude further sinning or in the case of young children ANY sinning? Is physical death the end of existence? Do parents not contaminate their children to some extent with own sins?
And since you invoked Jesus; He is the arch-defender of the Old Testament saying, for example, "... and scripture cannot be broken ..." John 10:36.
Even Fundamentalists find biblical sources for this doctrine.
Tom Hickey
My point is not that the God of the Bible is not the most powerful Being (though He is clearly not all-knowing, else He would not need to search hearts and test minds (Psalm 139:23, Jeremiah 17:10, etc. )) but that extra-Biblical speculation and extrapolation have created a straw-God.
The ONLY reliable source of knowledge about the God of the Bible is the Bible itself; that should be obvious.
Debatable, but for those that believe this, there is the problem of the many different interpretations that have resulted in different denominations in Christianity, and a multiplicity of sects and schools of thought within those denominations, all of which are firmly convinced in their own minds that they are right and everyone that disagrees with them is wrong.
Interesting article on which descendants of Abraham were given land, according to the Bible, and where.
Interesting article on which descendants of Abraham were given land, according to the Bible, and where.
How does one prove that one is a descendent of Abraham?
Part 1.
Andrew: "It's not a minor error; not when discussing who may or may not have a God-given right to live where they live."
Living on planet earth and instilled with a sense of morality apparently makes me an extremist, although I would describe myself as reasonable. What is unreasonable is defending the stealing of another people's country and their ethnic cleansing because another people claim that it was promised to them thousands of years ago from a superbeing from another dimension.
Anyway, as my first comment makes clear. The land was promised to the progeny of Abraham. In fact since it is all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates, I hope you understand that what you are demanding, in order to fulfil this promise, is almost certainly world war three and the end of the human race. Now, given that the vast majority of Israeli Jews do not have any lineal connection to the Middle East, they cannot be its true inheritors, can they? Meanwhile the Palestinians who are the descendants of the monotheistic people who lived in Canaan/Palestine/Holy Land, then it is surely they who are the true inheritors? That's the conclusion if we are forced to use the Bible as a real estate contract. There is no getting away from that fact. For various reasons I do not wish to use religious scriptures as a legal document which parcels out land on a discriminatory basis and encourages ethnic cleansing and war. Others do, and that's their problem, although they go to great lengths to twist the passages to mean something else entirely: in order to fulfil the promise made by the superbeing from another dimension, we must in fact ignore it, take it away from the people it was promised to, who have unfortunately converted to Christianity and Islam, and give it to another people who overwhelmingly have NO historic ties to the land and were NOT promised it. The most ardent supporters of this madness, violence and heresy are Christians. Not content with this, these "Christians" demand that Palestinian Christians be ethnically cleansed and butchered in order to fulfil a new interpretation of the scripture. That's the conclusion if we take the words of the scripture seriously and determine, using genetics, who are the true ancestors of the people who lived in the Holy Land. Since this clashes with the new and heretical interpretation, we need to ignore the evidence. Evidence, even cast-iron-proof, is presumably the work of Satan, with science a doubly satanic work.
Andrew: "Do parents not contaminate their children to some extent with own sins?"
No, they don't. There is never any justification for the murder of babies and children. That anyone can justify it is dumbfounding.
Andrew: "Should children be left to starve after their parents are killed? Is a quick death the worse thing that can happen to one? Does not death preclude further sinning or in the case of young children ANY sinning?"
Why couldn't they be adopted by the murderers of the parents? Why couldn't God some terrible affliction to force them out of the land. A drought could have done it, or a storm, a disease, a vision that would lead them out, any other number of things. God isn't short of options. No, apparently the ONLY possibility is to murder everyone, even the SINLESS and INNOCENT.
Part 2.
Andrew: He is the arch-defender of the Old Testament saying, for example, "... and scripture cannot be broken ..."
What on earth are you talking about? All Christian denominations reject almost all of the Old Testament, cherry-picking what is convenient. Only "Jews for Jesus" can claim full devotion to the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus. Everyone else is a Pauline heretic, following what is essentially a pagan religion. It is impossible to get "Christianity" out of the Old Testament. The only honest interpretation of the Old Testament and the New Testament is Judaism with Jesus as the Messiah. End of story. What passes for "Christianity" is a heretical denunciation of the Old Testament. Very brilliant religious minds using highly ingenious arguments were required to distort Judaism into Christiainity and claim it is ALL found in the Old Testament. That's entirely obvious. I suppose you keep kosher, argue for polygamy, don't wear wool and linen at the same time, demand that a man with deformed testicles cannot join your congregation, demand death for bestiality (for the rapist and the innocent beast), demand death for the speaking of God's name, and hundreds of other things. I doubt you do. The only HONEST interpretation is one that demands ALL these things, not a new religion, infused with paganism, created by Paul.
"Do parents not contaminate their children to some extent with own sins?"
History is path-dependent. Families, groups, entire societies and therefore the whole world is affected socially, politically, and economically by previous choices of individuals and individuals acting in concert.
Those that know history see this playing out today around the world, and they can also anticipate what the offspring of the living generation will encounter and what their offspring will encounter, at least in outline.
Both good and bad choices have causal effects stretching back in time and extending forward in time, iaw the "law of karma" — action and consequence. There is individual karma and group karma as well. In Biblical terms, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."
Tom: "How does one prove that one is a descendent of Abraham?"
You can't because we do not have his DNA. But what we can do is make an extremely informed decision. People who cannot show that their lineages come from the Middle East cannot be the people who populated the Holy Land thousands of years ago. Those who can prove that their lineages trace back many thousands of years are therefore the descendants of the people who claim that the scriptures are the rightful claimants. The vast majority of Israelis fail this test. The vast majority of Palestinians pass this test.
Moreover, as we know from archaeological evidence that the Roman banishment of the Jews is a nonsense, and that the Jews didn't go anywhere and subsequently converted to Christianity and later Islam. That's a fact. People can then make up their minds on this ethnic test. It's interesting that the people who have this position, change it to agree with their biases and bigotry. It's no longer the descendants of Abraham. It's the Jews, even if they're Europeans and converted to Judaism rather recently.
I have no wish to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion or anything else. My position is that the Palestinians should have a state in the occupied territories. That's the international legal position, which every country accepts except the U.S. and Israel. Religious wackos disagree and demand further ethnic cleansing, world war three and the end of the human race. Apparently, they're the "moderates". The "extremists", like us, wish to see the law enforced and an occupied and ethnically cleansed people see the creation of the state they were promised when their country was ripped apart and handed over to European settlers who have no link to the country, unlike the Palestinians who have an intimate history going back thousands of years. The creation of Israel is LEGALLY bound up with the creation of a Palestinian state. By law, Israel is an illegal state until a Palestinian state exists.
How does one prove that one is a descendent of Abraham? Tom Hickey
The point is that Canaan was given to the Hebrews ONLY, not to other descendants of Abraham who, at least wrt to Ishmael and Esau, were given OTHER non-overlapping lands.
What on earth are you talking about? All Christian denominations reject almost all of the Old Testament, ... john
Then they reject what Jesus (and Paul and Peter) said about Scripture.
The only HONEST interpretation is one that demands ALL these things, not a new religion, infused with paganism, created by Paul.
I don't think that is quite correct under the Torah and its interpretation by the rabbis.
Jews are subject to the Law of Moses, expressed in the Pentateuch in terms of injunctions (mitzvoth). Gentiles are only required to follow the Laws of Noah, since they are not included in the covenant with Abraham. Christians and Muslims do follow those laws a part of their religious code of conduct.
Paul was correct, which is to be expected since he was "learned," while the apostles were not. Acts reveals that in the confrontation between Peter and Paul about this before the assembly, Paul won. It was recognized then and thereafter than Gentiles were exempt from the Law of Moses. (Act 15:1-31)
The point is that Canaan was given to the Hebrews ONLY, not to other descendants of Abraham who, at least wrt to Ishmael and Esau, were given OTHER non-overlapping lands.
How does a contemporary person prove they are of "Hebrew" descent, e.g., an Ashkenazi or Ethiopian claiming to be such.
Christian views on the Old Covenant
Basically, Jews, Christians and Muslims agree on the prophets of the Hebrew Scripture, but not their interpretation.
Only fundamentals in these faith believe that the scripture is literally true in all respects. Those that do agree, chiefly Fundamentalist Protestants, agree to disagree with respect to the light each receives from the Holy Spirit. There is no authority to decide this other than that imposed arbitrarily by denominations and sects.
Why is this important? Because it is an a important causal factor in unfolding events involving Jews, Christians and Muslims, in the Middle East in particular. So appreciating what people believe and anticipating with they are willing to act on and how is essential to understanding the unfolding situation.
AA may hold an eccentric position but there are a lot of people involved holding eccentric positions and that's part of the problem.
AA may hold an eccentric position ... Tom Hickey
If the plain meaning of Scripture is eccentric.
And btw, my "eccentric" position on God's origin, clearly implied by Isaiah 43:10, reconciles Creationism and evolution, which in itself should argue that people should (gasp!) take Scripture at its plain meaning by default.
Andrew, I don't care what Paul said. Why should I? Paul is a usurper. Even when I was a Christian, I found Paul to be difficult to swallow. If people want to follow Paul's interpretation, fine. What Peter's exact role is still subject to controversy: the claim that Peter is the "rock" on which a church is built is doubtful in the extreme.
Jesus is the issue. What did Jesus say, and not what was Jesus made to say hundreds of years later by the Church. Famously, in the earliest surviving parchments of the New Testament, the story of the woman taken in adultery does not appear. It appears hundreds of years later, having been inserted by a scribe, presumably by church edict. It's a made up story. Textual scholars agree that almost no writings exist from the time of Jesus. It all comes much later. The oldest surviving piece of text that can be dated to within fifty or so years of the death of Jesus is smaller than a credit card. Further existing text comes very much later. Anything could have happened, and it probably did.
Jesus is made to say far too many contradictory and heretical things for anyone to claim that he is the "arch-defender" of the OT. It's quite clear when he is defending the OT, which is presumably the real Jesus. And it's quite clear when he is saying things entirely contradictory or heretical, and therefore the words of the church.
Andrew is being unnecessarily difficult. Whatever else one may wish to say about the Hebrews, their genetic make-up did not suddenly change into one that can be traced to Europe. Can we all agree on that much? Or are we going to end up having a man lived with dinosaurs argument, with God changing the genetic markers of the people of the Holy Land in order to test our faith? The vast majority of Israeli Jews do not have the genetic markers that trace back to the Holy Land or the wider Middle East. The people who do are the Palestinians, although because of natural "interracial" sexual mixing there can't absolutes, but on the whole it is the Palestinians who have the infinitely stronger scientific case. Unless thousands of years ago God played a trick on us and changed the genetic make-up of the Palestinians to make them look as if they can trace their ancestry to that very place, then they clearly are the descendants of the people who lived there. But that messes with the loony rightwing "Christian" story.
Tom: "How does a contemporary person prove they are of "Hebrew" descent, e.g., an Ashkenazi or Ethiopian claiming to be such."
I'm not a geneticist. Their techniques are extremely sophisticated, using mitochondrial DNA, haplogroups, etc. It is theoretically possible to trace the whole human race back to almost any time you choose using these techniques. For an introduction to these techniques see Spencer Wells' books "The Journey of Man" and "Deep Ancestry", as well as National Geographic's Genographic Project. Anyway, those are the techniques. Applying them to any person or people will tell give you a detailed record of their geographic ancestry. I might send away for a kit and test myself.
The archaeological evidence is just as convincing. Since the Romans never expelled the Jewish population, and they never left, the people who inhabited Palestine before the creation of the state of Israel are the descendants of those who lived there thousands of years ago. Before the creation of the state of Israel, approximately 5% of the population was Jewish and 95% Muslim and Christian. I'll try to find the scientific papers and link to them if they're not behind a paywall, which most scientific papers are.
plain meaning of Scripture is eccentric
Plain to you.
Tom: "Paul was correct, which is to be expected since he was "learned," while the apostles were not."
Not according to many rabbis. Their opinion is that Paul knew little, and what he did know was wrong. Since I'm not a Jew or an expert in Jewish law, I have no option but to take their word for it. Similarly, since I'm not a geneticist or an expert on genetics, I have no option but to trust their work.
Why would Jesus intentionally surround himself illiterates? Because it wasn't necessary to be an expert, and it's always the religious class who make religious innovations and the people least likely to listen to the truth, then as now. Furthermore, what we seem to now have is a Jesus who has come to affirm the law of Moses and at the same time create a new religion, without the Mosaic baggage, for the gentiles. This doesn't make any real sense.
John, my point in asking about the Ashkenazi and Ethiopians is that this came up in Israel and TPTB decided that the (black) Ethiopian who were professed Jews were not of Jewish heritage and therefore legible to claim citizenship on the basis of ethnicity but now that policy seems to be changing. The question is whether it is due to racism.
Ethiopian Jews in Israel
Here is an interesting tidbit about the Ark of the Covenant being in Ethiopia.
The Chapel of the Tablet at the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion in Axum allegedly houses the original Ark of the Covenant.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church claims to possess the Ark of the Covenant, or Tabot, in Axum. The object is currently kept under guard in a treasury near the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion. Replicas of the Axum tabot are kept in every Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church, each with its own dedication to a particular saint; the most popular of these include Mary, George and Michael.[75]
The Kebra Nagast was composed to legitimise the Solomonic dynasty, which ruled the Ethiopian Empire following its establishment in 1270. It narrates how the real Ark of the Covenant was brought to Ethiopia by Menelik I with divine assistance, while a forgery was left in the Temple in Jerusalem. Although the Kebra Nagast is the best-known account of this belief, it predates the document. Abu al-Makarim, writing in the last quarter of the twelfth century, makes one early reference to this belief that they possessed the Ark. "The Abyssinians possess also the Ark of the Covenant", he wrote, and, after a description of the object, describes how the liturgy is celebrated upon the Ark four times a year, "on the feast of the great nativity, on the feast of the glorious Baptism, on the feast of the holy Resurrection, and on the feast of the illuminating Cross."[76]
In his 1992 book The Sign and the Seal, British writer Graham Hancock suggests, contrary to the Kebra Nagast, that the ark spent several years in Egypt before it came to Ethiopia via the Nile River, where it was kept in the islands of Lake Tana for about four hundred years and finally taken to Axum.[77] Archaeologist John Holladay of the University of Toronto called Hancock's theory "garbage and hogwash," while Edward Ullendorff, a former Professor of Ethiopian Studies at the University of London, said he "wasted a lot of time reading it."[78]
On 25 June 2009, the patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia, Abune Paulos, said he would announce to the world the next day the unveiling of the Ark of the Covenant, which he said had been kept safe and secure in a church in Axum, Ethiopia.[79] The following day, on 26 June 2009, the patriarch announced that he would not unveil the Ark after all, but that instead he could attest to its current status.[80]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant#Ethiopia
Not according to many rabbis
Yes, but did they study withGamaliel l? :o
CORRECTION: "TPTB decided that the (black) Ethiopian who were professed Jews were not of Jewish heritage and therefore legible to claim citizenship on the basis of ethnicity but now that policy seems to be changing," should be, "TPTB decided that the (black) Ethiopian who were professed Jews were of Jewish heritage and therefore legible to claim citizenship on the basis of ethnicity but now that policy seems to be changing."
My bad.
Plain to you. Tom Hickey
Not at first since I had extra-Biblical preconceptions and ideas that made me stumble over nearly every word.
Now it comes easy to me and I find the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments to be consistent.
Not that some parts are not very disturbing. However, I've learned that the Bible is sometimes, it seems, deliberately provocative so as, it would appear, to turn away those who make hasty judgments.
From the preeminent scientific journal Nature:
"Here we show that all four major founders, ~40% of Ashkenazi mtDNA variation, have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus. Furthermore, most of the remaining minor founders share a similar deep European ancestry. Thus the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe. These results point to a significant role for the conversion of women in the formation of Ashkenazi communities, and provide the foundation for a detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history."
See: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3543
Genetic science is a bitch. That's why racists and religious bigots hate it. It's not the "playing God" that bothers the religious bigots. It's the fact that we can now prove the origins of the human race, and it categorically disproves all the world's religious traditions.
The relevant Biblical passages are very clear. All promises except one are specifically to Abraham's descendants. One is to the Israelites, which means descendants of Jacob, grandson of Abraham. Religion is not mentioned, nor is the word Jew, because neither Abraham or Jacob are Jews. The sole issue in the passages is that of Abrahamic and Israelite descent. The cast majority of Israeli Jews do not have this descent. Strictly speaking, using Andrew's imperial religious standard, the Ashkenazis must be ethnically cleansed like the Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Muslims.
As a "Christian" of the Pauline persuasion, Andrew doesn't care what Paul says.
Paul: "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but 'and to your seed', meaning one person, who is Christ." Galatians 3:16.
Paul:"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:28-3:29.
Paul: "It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith." Romans 4:13.
The first two directly refer to Christians, of whom Andrew is unsure whether they should or should not be ethically cleansed. The last relates to Christians, not other faiths. If Andrew took any of this seriously he'd be for the ethnic cleansing of all but Palestinian Christians, but he hates them as well because his church brainwashed him with gibberish about the Jews having to go back to the Promised Land and murder and ethnically cleanse people and then set up vast concentration camps and an apartheid regime in order to hasten the return of Jesus. All of which is a very modern American heretical interpretation. Like televangelism, it has the same intellectual heft.
As far as I am aware, God did not promise it to racist Europeans who converted to Judaism ... john
They might not be converts at all but actual physical descendants of Jacob, however much their genes have been diluted over time.
I'd say the burden of proof then, given their religious heritage, practices and firm belief that they are Hebrews, is on those who say European Jews are NOT Hebrews.
You presume way too much, John, and thereby slander in the process.
FYI, I consider the Conquest of Canaan, a unique, never to be repeated event and according to God's plan to reveal and make a name for Himself in a way that certainly allows but does not COMPEL belief in Him.
Andrew, genetics is a phenomenally accurate science. The Nature article that I linked to gives us an answer people have asked for some time. Many don't like the answer. Tough luck. What you are now asking is whether it is not conceivably possible that their genes have been diluted over time so that they are almost absent. It's unlikely in the extreme. Nevertheless, is it theoretically possible? Yes, is the answer, but then that could also be the case with the Ethiopian Jews, but very few people are making a fuss about that, instead accepting it because it happens to agree with their prejudices.
Similarly, is it possible that man was placed here by aliens in the last week but set up a theme park called earth with a history that suggests we've been here for a very long time in order to fool us? Yes, it's possible. Far too many religious people have an issue with science, and always trying to twist the science so that it is in agreement with their scriptures. They can do that if they wish. I don't play that game. When something is a fact, it's pointless messing around with the evidence to give you the answer you desire. There was no Jewish exile. Ashkenazi Jews, indeed most Jews, have no lineal connection to the Promised Land. Those Jews that do have a lineal connection are treated like third class citizens. Meanwhile, Palestinians have the right to be murdered and ethnically cleansed. This is a moral outrage, and it'll lead to something truly appalling if nothing is done.
If I have slandered you, then I beg your forgiveness. However, all I did was REPEAT what you wrote: you state that "maybe" Palestinian Christian have a right to their historic homeland, but Muslim Palestinians have no such right because of their conversion from Judaism and/or Christianity to Islam. That's discriminatory, and any objective reader would read it as such. Countries belong to the people who live there, not those who ethnically cleanse the original inhabitants. That's my standard. I don't regret having Christian socialist parents, or spending most a lot of my time with them demonstrating for peace and dishing out tea and soup to the hungry. I wholeheartedly recommend it. I may have lost my faith, but I haven't lost those moral standards. Truth and justice are not commodities to be bargained. I am willing to listen to other points of view, but I don't suffer injustice gladly and I will answer as strongly as I can any injustice. You came over as justifying one of the world's great injustices. If I have misrepresented your position or you feel I have slandered you, then I sincerely apologise.
Yes, is the answer, but then that could also be the case with the Ethiopian Jews, but very few people are making a fuss about that, instead accepting it because it happens to agree with their prejudices. John
I was just going to mention that the same logic applies to Ethiopian Jews and, btw, it was an Ethiopian who rescued Jeremiah from the mud pit Zedekiah imprisoned him in.
Btw, I would have remained silent except for Tom's ludicrous comparison of male circumcision to female genital mutilation.
But back to genetics: Let's assume 5 generations per century and 20 centuries since a supposed pure-blooded Hebrew intermarried with an African or European and his descendants did likewise. That's a dilution of 2 to the 100th power or so and a great many descendants too, all of whom would be legitimate descendants of Jacob.
So it may be impossible, like you say, to disprove that someone is a descendant of Jacob, but given traditional Hebrew clannishness and the Mosaic Law to enforce that clannishness, I'd say that conversions are not a very likely source of additions to the 12 tribes of Israel and that therefor the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise.
Btw, I would have remained silent except for Tom's ludicrous comparison of male circumcision to female genital mutilation.
Involuntary violence perpetrated on infants unnecessarily because custom and tradition.
Traditionalism often clashes with liberalism.
So it may be impossible, like you say, to disprove that someone is a descendant of Jacob, but given traditional Hebrew clannishness and the Mosaic Law to enforce that clannishness, I'd say that conversions are not a very likely source of additions to the 12 tribes of Israel and that therefor the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise.
If it is impossible to disproved (and it is not impossible using modern science) then it is also impossible to prove. It is a belief.
Beliefs are not admissible in a court of law.
The Biblical argument for Zionism is groundless.
If it is impossible to disproved (and it is not impossible using modern science) then it is also impossible to prove. Tom Hickey [bold added]
Let's say we somehow determined a gene sequence that was unique to Jacob. Then that sequence might be passed on to some of Jacobs descendants but not to others yet all would be legitimate descendants of Jacob even though only some could prove it. So it would be possible to prove who was a descendant in some cases yet impossible to disprove, based on that gene sequence, that others may also be descendants since they may not have inherited that gene sequence.
Andrew, by your standard ANYONE could be a descendant of Abraham/Jacob, and that their genes have been so diluted to remove all trace. The same argument for the Ashkenazi Jews and Ethiopian Jews could be made of Fijians, Japanese, Zulus or Eskimos. Given the evidence, the question shouldn't be whether it is theoretically possible to still accept the traditional narrative, but rather, why are there so many European Jews? For which, we have an answer: conversion. Similarly, we have an answer for why Palestine had so few Jews when it was overwhelmingly populated with Jews two thousand years ago. Again the answer is conversion. Conversions, then as now, occur for any number of reasons.
The issue is not whether something is conceivably possible but the explanatory power of the competing theories. The likelihood of what you are suggesting is so fantastically minuscule that nobody in the field now takes it seriously. Up until relatively recently, those who didn't like the answers questioned the science. That's fair. I don't have a problem with that. Science should be critically questioned. It's a good thing. Tying up loose ends is important: one minor loose end eventually gave us quantum mechanics. There weren't any serious "loose ends" with the genetic tests, but it was important and useful to eliminate them. As a result, the tests are now extremely stringent and far more accurate than the already amazingly accurate ones that came before. The latest tests, however, are now so outstanding and have overcome the extremely minor criticisms made of previous tests. These results are now simply accepted as established scientific fact by population geneticists. One prominent Jewish geneticist who holds to the traditional narrative of exile and expulsion states that it is essentially impossible to develop any other reasonable thesis because the scientific findings are now so overwhelming, and any other explanation for the results are quite simply too far-fetched to entertain.
As for the burden of proof, it is exactly the opposite. Those who believe the traditional story can't mechanically reply that it's theoretically possible. It's theoretically possible Mongolians and Australian aboriginals are descendants of Abraham. No one in science continues with a "theoretically possible" hypothesis when the evidence is so overwhelmingly against it. Since it is just as likely that all Mongolian yak herders are descendants of Abraham, why make the claim for a select few who happen to be Jews?
As for circumcision, I'm personally not in favour of male circumcision, but it's of no concern to the state and criminal law. It's a family issue, regardless of whether it's possible to end it or not. There are so few complications, and a solid argument can be made for the hygienic benefits. Female circumcision is another matter entirely. It is unusually cruel, the death rate is unacceptably high, and very, very many women suffer serious health problems for the rest of their lives, to name but a few of the terrible drawbacks. It is barbaric, and we must find a reasonable and effective way of doing away with it. The best way to end it is through education and developmental aid.
Ten Lost Tribes — Wikipedia
Haim F. Ghiuzeli, The Myth of the Ten Lost Tribes
Michael Freund, Finding a Lost Tribe of Israel in India
James O'Shea, Are the Celts one of the ten lost tribes of Israel?
Curious how the ten lost tribes are supposedly located all over the world, except in Palestine or Arabia, where they originated.
... but rather, why are there so many European Jews? John
Ashkenazi Jews (scroll down to "Genetic origins")
Thank you for your deserved condemnation of comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation.
And btw, the requirement that all males be circumcised and other unpleasant/restrictive provisions of the Mosaic Law argue against anyone desiring to become a convert. And for what if they don't share in the promises reserved for actual physical descendants of Jacob?
Just to tie up the thread about male versus female genital mutilation.
Libertarians view issue based on the principle of not permitting perpetration of involuntary violence.
Many traditionalists view tradition as taking precedence — as long it fits with their own world view, e.g., religious justification.
Two lessons to draw from this.
1. Liberal globalization is clashing with traditional values. owing to this difference in world view.
2. The liberal ideal of separation of church and state is challenged by traditionalism.
Presently , the world is in the midst of this conflict of social, political and economic frameworks — traditionalism and liberalism, with fascism and communism also in the mix.
US politics is also heavily affected by one issue voters based on these presumptions.
The outcome of this is uncertain wrt to the historical dialectic.
It looked like liberalization and liberal globalization were on a roll, but it successes have been energized traditionalists to block it.
As one can see from the above give and take, there is no common ground for resolving the issues rationally.
This is a problem for liberalism since liberalism insists on rationality while traditionalism rejects it in favor of tradition and belief systems.
Part 1.
The wikipedia entry needs to be updated with the more modern and sophisticated techniques, which no one in the field now disputes. The tests the wikipedia entry discusses don't include all those that showed the opposite results. The field was finding its feet. That's why the techniques had to be updated. Interestingly, when the tests were showing that Ashkenazi Jews had direct lineal connections to Palestine, no one made a fuss, although the historians and archaeologists were somewhat nonplussed because they knew the traditional story of how Jews came to Europe (exile by the Romans) was an absurd myth. In my experience, wikipedia isn't the best place to find out about science, and it's too prone to prejudice when it comes to controversial things. If you want to know what's going on in science, investigate up-to-date peer-reviewed scientific journals. But that's just me.
It's even true that there have been serious books written by geneticists who have shown that the genetic tests are in accord with the traditional story. That was then, not now. The *SAME* geneticists who held to the traditional narrative of expulsion have given it up. It's too far-fetched to be credible. Scientists don't hold on to near impossible theories when confronted with evidence. The modern and far more powerful tests limit the traditional narrative to such an extent that it is all but impossible to hold to the dilution thesis. Now, one can say, as you do, "But it's not impossible!" And that is perfectly true, but that is to misunderstand what is expected of science. If one tried hard enough, we could come up with a flat earth theory: gigantic invisible mirrors creating optical illusions and whatnot. After all, it's not impossible!
All scientific tests have loopholes and discrepancies until eventually various competing theories fall away because they don't satisfactorily explain the new findings, or do so in a ludicrous fashion, or the loopholes are closed: flat earth, steady state universe, young earth creationism, intelligent design, etc. What you're demanding is unheard of in science. No sensible scientist supports near impossible theories because they can't be disproven, and disproven because the sceptic has intentionally designed his theory in that way. Scientists create tests for theories that can be disproven, not ones intentionally designed to be scientifically unprovable. The scientists who had supported the traditional narrative never argued that it applies to Eskimos or Zulus. Why not? The issue was how to explain European Jewry. Could they have a lineal connection to Palestine. It was possible. That's fine, although as I've pointed out the archaeologists and historians never believed a word of it because there was no evidence for it. Some tests showed a link, and some showed there wasn't. What else could scientists do but design better tests? They did so. The answers are now in, and nobody disputes it within the scientific community.
You're keen to link to the limited and contested scientific evidence which supports the traditional narrative, but very less keen on the far more sophisticated and newer scientific evidence which overturn the traditional narrative, and which nobody now disputes. Strange that.
Part 2.
The geneticists are convinced that European Jews were historically European and converted to Judaism. The historians have never been in any doubt about this. The archaeologists have also never been in any doubt about this. Apparently geneticists, archaeologists and historians are all wrong. If you want to advance that theory, fine. The fact that there is no historical, archaeological or modern scientific evidence for the traditional narrative doesn't bother you. The fact that there is staggering amounts of evidence for the opposite narrative can all be dismissed. All because it is still technically and theoretically possible to hold to the traditional narrative if so many fantastically improbable things happened again and again and again, leaving no trace. This is no different to tossing a coin and predicting it will land on its side a million times in a row. Is it theoretically possible? Yes. Is it likely? No, it's not. Anyway, don't worry, it won't be long before the tests are so sophisticated that they'll be able to date us all back to a small apelike community in Africa, and all the geographical areas all our ancestors had lived. But you won't believe that evidence either, will you?
Anyway, why should you care? You say that the conquering of Canaan was a one off affair. So why get all bothered who lives there now? Why not support the fair and internationally accepted resolutions for a Palestinian state?
The modern and far more powerful tests limit the traditional narrative to such an extent that it is all but impossible to hold to the dilution thesis. John
Actually, the dilution hypothesis, while certainly logical, is not at all required according to the wiki article which presents positive evidence of a Middle Eastern origin of Ashkenazi Jews.
You're keen to link to the limited and contested scientific evidence which supports the traditional narrative, but very less keen on the far more sophisticated and newer scientific evidence which overturn the traditional narrative, and which nobody now disputes. John [bold added]
Links please. I'm willing to be corrected, if the case is as strong as you make it out to be.
Strange that. John
What's strange is your continual slights on my character when your time would be better spent, I'd think, providing supporting evidence for your fervent claims.
"Here we show that all four major founders, ~40% of Ashkenazi mtDNA variation, have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus. Furthermore, most of the remaining minor founders share a similar deep European ancestry. Thus the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe. These results point to a significant role for the conversion of women in the formation of Ashkenazi communities, and provide the foundation for a detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history."
via John
Fine, that's what the wiki article says too, the Ashkenazi Jewish women are of European descent.
But what about the men?
Mitochondrial DNA, which is the *KEY* indicator of human geogenomics (our geographical past), is ONLY found in women. That doesn't change anything, as far as the geneticists are concerned.
Nevertheless, Andrew, what you ask is fair. I will try to find the links. But as you may or may not know, almost all modern scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals are behind a cripplingly expensive pay wall, and I no longer have access to an academic institution which would allow for a free search. I will nevertheless do my best.
You should be cognisant of one crucial thing. Even if I supplied the necessary evidence, the thesis that you have been propounding is scientifically impossible to prove or disprove, and one that even the many Jewish and other geneticists who held to the traditional narrative no longer accept. Scientists just don't use that sort of standard. Likewise, and contrary to common belief, special relativity does not do away with the aether. The relativistic position is that such a thing is in principle impossible to detect, not impossible to exist, which is a vitally crucial distinction. Yet no serious physicist takes seriously the existence of the aether.
Perhaps God fiddled around with the DNA evidence to test our faith, just as he did by placing dinosaur bones in the ground, or making the earth appear to be billions of years old, or making it appear that the Genesis story of creation is completely wrong, or making it appear that humans are a branch of the great apes, or making the archaeological evidence disappear that would verify various passages in the Bible, etc? And don't say you don't know Christians who don't believe this. Perhaps you're not one of them, but the standards asked of science by fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Muslim and others are not scientific standards. They're omniscient standards, and that's a capability humans do not have, no matter what Dawkins and Dennett may say.
Perhaps God fiddled around with the DNA evidence to test our faith, just as he did by placing dinosaur bones in the ground, or making the earth appear to be billions of years old, or making it appear that the Genesis story of creation is completely wrong, or making it appear that humans are a branch of the great apes, or making the archaeological evidence disappear that would verify various passages in the Bible, etc? John
I believe none of the above nor is it supported by the Bible either, e.g. how can the Earth be only 6000 years old if God shows His kindness to a 1000 generations? Or does a generation take only 6 years?
As for missing archaeological evidence, I'll simply note that the Bible says that God kept the Hebrew's clothing and shoes from wearing out on the Exodus.
My own views have been largely informed by a Phd in Astrophysics who is also a practicing Christian - Dr. Hugh Ross at www.reasons.org.
Post a Comment