This is one of my earlier posts, and I'm glad to be looking at it again. It could use a rewrite and the inclusion of sources. (I originally did not include sources out of fear of appearing too scholarly, but I have since repented, as you can see in recent posts.)
The points I was thinking of is that when people attack close minded fundamentalists, they are generally being equally close minded, which leads to embarrassing mistakes eventually.
"Any accuracy in the Bible, no matter how accidental or irrelevant, is not a sophisticated thing to acknowledge." Good line!
It's funny, I have a similar way of thinking about it, imagining the Torah *is* true - what we find over the 3000 years following is exactly what one would expect to find if it were true. First, when it becomes acceptable to say that we were replaced, they say we were replaced, then when it becomes acceptable to deny some, they deny some. And when enough time has passed to question its authenticity all the way, they question the authenticity all the way. Quite predictable! This doesn't make the Torah true in any way (other things do) but it's interesting to think about.
What's interesting to me is that these rebuttals where we use imagery are indeed unsophisticated because they are purely speculative (no offense), but when they use the same silly imagery to denounce us, it becomes 'schlolarly' and 'scholastic brilliance'. Case in point, when they 'explain' how religion or Judaism began, it is pure speculation, but they are unabashed to express their theories as facts in public. Sad.
Really, I don't write this stuff to fight against them, but to shore up the other side. Many people do not even know there is a discussion. All the smart people think so. Well, here is a smart person who does not think so. ראשית חכמה יראת ה' נ
Aw thank you! You can delete. I was going to guess הודו but I wasn't confident enough. Looking forward to the answers!
Whats your point?
I mean, did you read it?
Smart answer: Humility is the point.
Simplified answer: People who claim to be rationalist are like Dr Jubel.
I did read it. I wasn't sure what it was addressing.
This is one of my earlier posts, and I'm glad to be looking at it again. It could use a rewrite and the inclusion of sources. (I originally did not include sources out of fear of appearing too scholarly, but I have since repented, as you can see in recent posts.)
The points I was thinking of is that when people attack close minded fundamentalists, they are generally being equally close minded, which leads to embarrassing mistakes eventually.
"Any accuracy in the Bible, no matter how accidental or irrelevant, is not a sophisticated thing to acknowledge." Good line!
It's funny, I have a similar way of thinking about it, imagining the Torah *is* true - what we find over the 3000 years following is exactly what one would expect to find if it were true. First, when it becomes acceptable to say that we were replaced, they say we were replaced, then when it becomes acceptable to deny some, they deny some. And when enough time has passed to question its authenticity all the way, they question the authenticity all the way. Quite predictable! This doesn't make the Torah true in any way (other things do) but it's interesting to think about.
Thank you! Please subscribe, I never intend to monetize!
What's interesting to me is that these rebuttals where we use imagery are indeed unsophisticated because they are purely speculative (no offense), but when they use the same silly imagery to denounce us, it becomes 'schlolarly' and 'scholastic brilliance'. Case in point, when they 'explain' how religion or Judaism began, it is pure speculation, but they are unabashed to express their theories as facts in public. Sad.
Really, I don't write this stuff to fight against them, but to shore up the other side. Many people do not even know there is a discussion. All the smart people think so. Well, here is a smart person who does not think so. ראשית חכמה יראת ה' נ
Well said!