Balancing Skepticism and Faith

Thank you Delvo. That cleared up a few fuzzy points about the change from nomads to villagers.

The things I had read put the poly to mono conversion just before the settling down and as a reason to conquer the pagans.

Something that seemed unnecessary when they were welcomed in by other accounts.

A gradual evolution of ideas over generations to one god gaining the qualities of many others had been demonstrated multiple times in human history.
 
Actually there is:
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/arti...wish/Nephilim-Fallen-Angels-Giants-or-Men.htm

They and their descendants are the nephilim, the giants and mighty ones referred to later on in the narrative...

The Talmud, Niddah 61a, explains that Og (who was a giant, and one of their descendants) survived the great flood by holding onto Noah’s ark and staying close to it.​

I am well aware of Chabad (a mystical kharedi sect) and also tractate niddah from Talmud.

The "explanation" about Og is simply one story, among many extra-biblical stories/commentaries, attempting to "explain" the problem of the nephilim surviving the Flood.

There is no explanation in the Bible/Torah given for how/why the nephilim survived The Flood.....
 
Last edited:
I am well aware of Chabad (a mystical kharedi sect) and also tractate niddah from Talmud.

The "explanation" about Og is simply one story, among many extra-biblical stories/commentaries, attempting to "explain" the problem of the nephilim surviving the Flood.

There is no explanation in the Bible/Torah given for how/why the nephilim survived The Flood.....

Maybe they were tall enough to find some submerged land high enough to keep their mouths and noses above the surface? :)

OK - I'll get my coat...
 
Maybe they were tall enough to find some submerged land high enough to keep their mouths and noses above the surface? :)

OK - I'll get my coat...

:D

Sounds easier than hanging on to the ark for months....and any other stories floating around :)
 
Zivan,

When I was growing up in a Jewish household in the US, we learned that "chosen" didn't mean better, it meant visible and/or symbolic, like a flag, or a sign on a building, or a motto.

Do you know whether this interpretation is supported by any of the verses in the Tanach?

In your circles do Jews in Israel hold this view?

To the extent that it's true, probably most Christians have never known about this Jewish perspective.
 
Last edited:
Zivan,

When I was growing up in a Jewish household in the US, we learned that "chosen" didn't mean better, it meant visible and/or symbolic, like a flag, or a sign on a building, or a motto.

I was also taught that "chosen" definitely did not mean better.

I heard, variously, that we* were chosen to be given the Torah at Mt. Sinai, or that we ourselves chose to accept the Torah voluntarily.

Either way, it meant having extra responsibility** and not "specialness".

It is taught that the reason all people were descended from Adam ("adam" means "human/humanity") was that no one could say they were better than anyone else, and that all people have a share in "The World to Come" (Heaven).

*The Torah/Bible says that the Israelites that came out of Egypt were a "mixed multitude" which included Israelites and non-Israelites at Sinai.

**The "extra responsibility" was the 613 mitzvot (commands) accepted at Sinai. Prior to that the Israelites along with the rest of humanity only had the seven Laws/commands given to Noah after the Flood.

Do you know whether this interpretation is supported by any of the verses in the Tanach?

I do not know of a specific verse(s) for the interpretation you were given but there are verses which show symbolism/motto such as "Light unto the Nations" (Isaiah).

Exodus 19:8 is used to show that the Israelites/mixed multitude volunarily chose to accept the Torah:
And all the people replied in unison and said, "All that YHVH has spoken we shall do!" and Moses took the words of the people back to YHVH.



In your circles do Jews in Israel hold this view?
Most Jews in Israel are secular so the subject is not even discussed, except in a joking manner. Such as when Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof", who hard a hard life, says to God, (paraphrasing) "I know we are your chosen people, but could you please choose someone else instead?"

The religious people, that I know personally, accept the "chosen but not better than" view.

To the extent that it's true, probably most Christians have never known about this Jewish perspective.

Oh, I agree so much!

Whenever I hear the term "Chosen People" it is almost always said by non-Jews and usually with the meaning of "specialness", which is always jarring. It has been used historically as one reason for anti-semitism ("We will show those uppity jews that they are not special."). That is another reason Jews avoid discussing the term at all.
 
Last edited:
attempt5001,

I'll echo Zivan's reply of thanks, and stay a little off-topic with this question:

Did your prior understanding of the Jews as "the chosen people" match what Zivan and I and most Jews believe, or were you taught that the Jews see themselves as better than non-Jews (whom Jews call in English "gentiles")?
 
I am well aware of Chabad (a mystical kharedi sect) and also tractate niddah from Talmud.

The "explanation" about Og is simply one story, among many extra-biblical stories/commentaries, attempting to "explain" the problem of the nephilim surviving the Flood.

There is no explanation in the Bible/Torah given for how/why the nephilim survived The Flood.....
Well, that's not entirely accurate either. According to Genesis 6:

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of the Elohim came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.​

(My highlighting above. Highlighting not in original source. :) ) When the "sons of the Elohim" mated with humans, the resulting children were giants. "Also after that" suggests that this happened both before and after the Flood.

The Bible wins again!
 
Last edited:
attempt5001,

I'll echo Zivan's reply of thanks, and stay a little off-topic with this question:

Did your prior understanding of the Jews as "the chosen people" match what Zivan and I and most Jews believe, or were you taught that the Jews see themselves as better than non-Jews (whom Jews call in English "gentiles")?

I think I assumed Jews had a sense of being "set-part", and "favoured". I didn't have any knowledge of whether modern-day Jews think of themselves in that way, but the Old-Testament accounts of being "God's chosen people" instructed to do things like "take that land and wipe out every person and animal there" seemed to infer a certain preference. I think most Christians consider that this "favour" has shifted to (or includes) them due to their acceptance of Jesus (sometimes with a respectful acknowledgement of having been "grafted" in to the family of God's original chosen people).

Your discussion has given me another opportunity to recognize presumptions in my own thinking and consider different perspectives, which I appreciate very much. Cheers!
 
"Strangely enough," he said ironically but without malice, "this was my reason for asking."

Stay warm there in the North. :)

I thought it might be :)

Thanks. We've exchanged the -20oC and snowy we had earlier in the week for 0oC and freezing rain today :/ Not sure which is worse. (maybe I'll go google some southern holiday destinations to escape reality for a bit.) ;)
 
Right. Yeah, I meant to right "never really". Thanks for catching that.

One thing that stands out to me from reading your comments is that I'm pretty confident you have given a lot more thought about the details and logical implications of Christian edicts than most Christians have. :) I remember a young skeptic challenging me many years ago about verses in genesis that seem to imply offspring-generating unions between "angels" and humans. I had never read it before and had no idea how to respond. It still makes no sense to me and even feels like an excerpt from Roman mythology that found it's way into the old testament. I bet you start a lot of conversations with Christians where you have given the topic considerable thought and they are simply responding off the cuff. It seems strange, no doubt, that someone would be so impassioned about something they have given such little thought, but I think that's the reality a lot of the time.

Yes, with considerable shuffling feet.

I find it amazing also that the faithful give so little thought to this kind of detail.

I was actually thinking about the whole "soul" think the last time I read through the bible from start to finish (which actually lead to a lot more questions than peace of mind). I did, at the time, actually picture a point in human evolution in which God decided to invest a "soul" (his "breath of life") into mankind, after which there emerged a new nature to their speaking and reasoning and relating (to him and to each other). This was really just a thought exercise, but interesting to ponder on a very existential level.


Reading the whole Bible is a way to get a kick start into atheism. Dan Dennett, when delving into the reasons why clergy lost their faith, found many lost a lot in seminary after in depth study of scripture.

I'm not too familiar with official Catholic edicts and I think a number of churches wouldn't even take a strong position about any literal interpretations of the soul. I don't know for sure, but I don't think many current Christian churches would envision a a big inventory of immortal souls up in heaven being doled out into babies with some small percent chance of making their way back to heaven as a best-case scenario. I can't remember ever hearing any official teaching about this and I think many Christians (modern and historical) would say that's a question for the seminary to debate, but wouldn't give it much thought themselves. I have to admit I never did much.


Yes, I suspect that is true in perhaps the majority of cases.

Although as you say, the notion of souls being doled out into babies would not be envisaged by many Christian Churches, I really can't see an alternative notion. This is one of those issues deftly shoved to one side, or even laughed off by dogma diddlers.

Something else confounding the the contemplation of souled creatures (us), versus the souless (everything else in the animal kingdom), are the studies of some animals displaying emotional attachment. We also have the reverse displayed, when we see some of us born into a vegetative state, and possibly more confounding still, when injury or illness renders someone so. What has happened to the soul?


Sorry, not a great answer I know. I also fall into the "believed without giving the details a lot of thought" group in many ways.


You've done well and perhaps you are falling out of that group.:)
 

Back
Top Bottom