This is a henotheistic god, the one god of the people. The first statement of monotheism occurs in Isaiah: — Fooloso4

This is a common claim, but I think incorrect. The Hebrew is clear that it's referring to God as one, not that Yawheh alone is Israel's God. Echad means one in 546 other biblical verses, and can't be read you mean "alone" here.

At any rate, the general point we agree to, which is that monotheism is a later development.

Moses unites the various stories and beliefs that developed over time among the Egyptian Jews. — Fooloso4

I agree with what you've said here, and the theory is that the Egyptian Jews were the Levites, the priests, descendants of Moses, and the ones who were in Egypt at the time of enslavement.

"Levi" means attached or joined, arguably meaning they joined the Israelites later and brought their God to them. The names of every Levite in the Bible is of Egyptian origin.

For example, compare the early God who has children who have sex with humans:

Genesis 6:4

"In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times."

To the later monotheistic God:

Deuteronomy 6:4

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord."

The evolution of God moves from direct interaction in human affairs, to just direct communication, to communication only through prophets, to silence.

The primitive Yahweh even had a wife named Asherah. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42154769/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/did-god-have-wife-scholar-says-he-did/

Such is the mythology upon which our society is built.

How is the God of Abraham different from the God of Moses?

And since Jews have traditionally held that Moses wrote Genesis, how do they account for the change? — frank

If you turn to Orthodox Judaism, you are left with the strange belief that the Torah was written entirely by God through Moses. (See Maimonides 8th principle of faith: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/332555/jewish/Maimonides-13-Principles-of-Faith.htm). That is a statement of faith and it cannot be argued, but is a matter of acceptance.

It's fairly clear the Torah was written by 100s of people over thousands of years and that there are 4 or more books edited together to form what we have today. Stories are duplicated in different texts with variations and events occurring out of order sometimes. It's a matter of Biblical scholarship.

The God of the Torah evolves over time, from being the most powerful of all gods (the concept of monolatry) to being the only god (the concept of monotheism). There are passages that refer to other gods, and it's fairly clear there were two gods described in the Torah, Yahweh of priestly origin described by the Levites and El of Israeli origins. It does seem that the Levites were the only group actually enslaved in Israel (and far less than 1,000,000 of them as described in the bible) and when they arrived in Israel, they melded their respective gods together to form the monotheistic religion we have today.

Obviously the evolution of God isn't something believed in by people of faith, but if you read the book as a book and you interpret it like all other ancient texts, you aren't left with the views espoused by the faithful.

There is no such thing as a "mosaic" God. — frank

The conception of God (and His behavior) changed over time, particularly after Moses' departure after Exodus. So, reference to the Mosaic God does reference something distinct.

know of three mainstream religions which may be said to believe in the "mosaic" God - Judaism, Christianity and Islam — BrianW

Is this correct? I know that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam believe in the Abrahamic God, just by virtue of Ishmael and Isaac having the same father (Abraham) and Christianity being an offshoot of Judaism, but are you saying that Islam follows the OT (the 5 books of Moses and the Mosaic traditions)?

If the Muslim tradition breaks at Abraham and doesn't follow forward from there to Moses, then it's arguable whether Islam and Jews (and Christians) worship the same god, considering the substantial changes in the concept of the deity over time.

Anyway, I realize I'm harping on a side issue, but you made a claim about Islam that I wasn't aware of, but maybe it was just an error on your part. I don't know.

When my father died, (I was 20) I wasn't much bothered, which is of course the most inappropriate of all. As if there is a feeling debt that ought to be paid. He was brought up a Wee Free, no toys on Sunday, Christian Miserablist, and became a Communist and then a good socialist. I guess he did well enough to live a peaceable life with wife and children through the war and pass on less trauma than he inherited. — unenlightened

Old school traditional father son relationships were odd. My dad was omni-present but never really there. I thought he was just quirky, regimented, certain, duty bound, but maybe he had Aspergers. That makes more sense to me. I over compensate now nicely with my kids, so they can have something to dissect when I'm gone.

Miserablism - nice term. It describes my brand of childhood religion well. The Sabbath was a day you were freed of all joy.

One is allowed and expected to feel sadness, loss, confusion, but one might well also feel relief, anger, indifference, even pleasure. — unenlightened

I have often felt that the feeling of losing a loved one falls somewhere on a spectrum, at one end devastation and the other end emancipation and then a million points in between. Perhaps the sudden and unexpected loss of a child would be at the far end of being pure devastation and the loss of a horrible abuser pure emancipation, but the rest points in between. When it's someone you've seen suffer, it does move toward emancipation to some degree. The emancipation can be confusing and even guilt provoking and perhaps in some cases the feeling of devastation might make little sense.

I remember as a child watching my mother's casket lowered into the ground thinking thank God it was finally over, but it never really is. We carry such things to our graves.

There are certainly oppressive governments that limit their citizens wealth to the point of starvation. Those tend to be communist ones (I know, I know, they just haven't figured out how to do Marxism properly, but it's not Marxism that is failed).

Regardless, we can argue about the great unfairness of the taxation system, how corporations are permitted too much control of capital, and whatever. The cause of poverty is none of that. Perhaps some tinkering (or even overhauling) would result in more wealth to more people, but the poor aren't poor because of a rigged system. Some folks aren't going to be able to catch, throw, or run very well even if the field were perfectly level.

Please answer the gentleman's valid and interesting question and stop talking about me and sperm. Thank you. — Baden

But bodily fluids are funny.

"Gluey mist". I liked that choice of words. — S

I'm a modern day Shakespeare. I like to think of the baby batter being puffed into the loins as opposed to pecker snot pumping out in chunky spurts. The former is so much more romantic, delicate, and softer, like a fairy floating on a cloud. The little tailed sperm soldiers just drift around looking to impregnate and destroy the young maiden's future, leaving her to her trailer, crack, and Mountain Dew.

Back in the old PF you seemed less savage, Hanny. — Wallows

I was quite refined at the old PF. Good memory.

Fucked up? That's probably the tamest thing you've ever said on here. Are you OK? Do you need help? — Michael

I'm just a little stressed. You mother refuses to lubricate with anything but hand soap and I'm completely raw, but I do smell of heavenly lavender.

I think I'm going to be ok. Thanks for listening to me.

an easy, sassy feminist. — Michael

I was looking for an innie not an outie though.

@Michael and @S. I got nothing to say to you, but just wanted to tag you so you might see my fucked up post above.

You're welcome.

What is philosophy for you? An intellectual challenge? A vocation? A schema? A mystery? — Pantagruel

It's the name of the new sexy perfume I just invented in my head - Philosophy by Hanover. The bottle is shaped like the silhouette of @Baden and when you squeeze the bulb, a gluey mist ejaculates, smelling of a thousand angels.

That's what philosophy is to me. I'm surprised I'm the first to say this.

Would the Brits finally exit? I want to see what happens. I'm really starting to get bored with this. Let the train crash already.

My brother was recently in Houston, Texas. He noted how overweight people are there — Baden

Tell your brother we thank him for the sociological study, but he's now welcome to get the fuck out of the US and go back to Croatia or wherever the Baden clan is from.

I stayed at an AirBnb in Paris a while back and the owner had a photo album I took the liberty of reviewing, and apparently he thought it funny to document every fat American ass in his recent trip to Washington DC. He did tell a rather poignant story in photo.

These feminists you reference, are they easy? If they are, have your brother bring me one before he gets the fuck out. Let him know we have a "leave no trace" thing here, meaning he needs to pack out all his shit when he leaves, literally. But bring me the easy feminist first, one with plenty of sass please.

Here some days, gone another. Hehe Good to see you also sir! Sorry not too often — hyena in petticoat

One question really. Why do you forsake me?

Hence, programming is an aptitude similar to composing music. It is not possible to "teach" it. Either you manage to figure it out by yourself, or else, you will never be able to do it. That is why most programmers cannot program. — alcontali

Most computer programmers have degrees from universities and there are also schools that teach music. That you find it easier to self teach says something about you, not about the world generally. It also sounds like you struggled in school, although maybe you didn't, but that's what it sounds like.

I can perfectly see how you were tested for your academic attainment. I just need to take a look at the multiple-choice questions you were supposed to answer. That says it all. — alcontali

Rigorous analysis.

They were trained on memorizing useless information. We have photocopiers for that job. Cheaper and better. They were trained on executing tedious procedures. We have computers for that job. Cheaper and better. So, what do we need them for, huh? — alcontali

I'm guessing some useless graduate programs those computers.

How were you able to transcend your useless education and gain such wisdom?

Both systems test the student on their ability to memorize useless information and moderately also on their capacity to execute tedious procedures. Hence, it favours those personalities that have acquired the strongest resistance against boredom and which have the strongest inclination to slavish orthodoxy. — alcontali

That doesn't describe my educational experience. If you were educated in Europe, how do you know what my experience was in the US?

The reason why graduates from both systems are increasingly considered by future employers to be utterly useless and utmost inept individuals, is because they were specifically trained to excel in uselessness and ineptitude. That is why they successfully graduate with such good grades in the first place. — alcontali

No they're not. It's not as if we have a declining GNP every generation.

If your objective is to maximize your income, then you have to choose an occupation that provides that. I don't advocate chasing money. It's a hollow existence and beyond sustenance and then a handful of luxuries, money offers little, certainly not fulfillment.

The reality is that some things have higher financial value than others, and we needn't pay a teacher what we pay a surgeon out of a since of fairness, especially in light of what I've said: financial rewards are not a declaration of human worth. If your passion is growing tomatoes, have at it, but you can't expect to sell them for the price of steak. You can't make the world want to buy your produce.

One of the worst assumptions of all economics is that people should like producing things, and that production is good in and of itself. The assumption is we should throw more people into the world so they can be happy producing things. Kill me now please. :vomit: — schopenhauer1

I've not suggested the purpose of our creation is to maximize production or that there is an inherent good in maximizing one's financial success. That's just a straw man that you've concocted.

I didn't think he was troubled, at least no more than the next guy. I thought he just enjoyed penning highschoolish essays and thought his every pretty drawing deserved to be posted on the refrigerator. His failing was less his shallow posts than his failure to defend them or engage in discussion. He presented as someone who just wanted to broadcast a monologue and then move on to another topic.

His departure leaves nothing to miss because he never made himself knowable.

To say the New Testament is about "love", is very warped and corrupt. — chatterbears

It's a matter of interpretation and levels of literalism you wish to impose.

I'm not convinced that meat was a common source of food for most people (not rich ones) in the ancient world. Only if you owned many livestock could you afford to regularly eat from your walking supply. If you had only a few animals (more likely) eating one of them would have decreased one's wealth, perhaps quite significantly. — Bitter Crank

This question, like all, is answered by Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Israelite_cuisine#Meat

Meat was fairly uncommon as you suspected:

"The Israelites usually ate meat from domesticated goats and sheep. Goat’s meat was the most common. Fat-tailed sheep were the predominant variety of sheep in ancient Israel but as sheep were valued more than goats, they were eaten less often. The fat of the tail was considered a delicacy[53]. Beef and venison were eaten primarily by the elites, and fattened calves provided veal for the wealthy (for example, as mentioned in the Bible, Amos 6:4).[54]

For most people, meat was eaten only a few times a year when animals were slaughtered for the major festivals, or at tribal meetings, celebrations such as weddings, and for the visits of important guests (1 Samuel 28:24). Only at the king's table was meat served daily, according to the Bible.[18]"

One of the benefits of having a temple (of any sort) in town was the chance to share in the meat of sacrificed animals. It wasn't the mainstay of anyone (outside of a priesthood), but it helped. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I think it was the Levites who would have benefited from some of the sacrifices, but the Levites main source of food was from the tithe, which was 10% of the agricultural products (including livestock) from the other Hebrew tribes who had land (the Levites had no land). The fact that the tithe existed and related to livestock shows they weren't vegetarians. Additionally, the laws of koshruth required ritualistic slaughter, eliminating the possibility of hunting, making the ancient Hebrews agrarian farmers, increasing the likelihood of them having animal protein as a common source of food.

Fascinating stuff.

Really? So, you're basically saying that philosophers can't make money from their trade, therefore they need government handouts to support them? — Wallows

Thank you for crystalizing.

Tbh, I'm speculating from what I know from unis outside the U.S. — Baden

My son is a finance major. I'll ask him what they teach him about Marx. If it's significant, I'll stop paying his tuition.

Marx is not generally covered in finance and accounting though maybe to some degree in economics whereas he's likely to feature more in philosophy courses I would think. And yes, the unsures stats suggest only lawyers know less about socialism than business majors. :D — Baden

You're now equating Marxist philosophy to socialism in practice, which I don't think really equates. I would expect a business major to learn the effects of government regulation and involvement in the economy as it attempts to protect the general welfare of society. It's not as if all economics major just study the theoretical purely libertarian model.

I think he was just highlighting the differences in the "unsure" responses. — Terrapin Station

Except that being unsure doesn't necessarily indicate an inability to understand, but just that the decision is nuanced and not entirely clear. To assume it's an inability to understand shows a bias in favor of the intellectual ability of a philosophy major against a business major, as we can assume both are taught about socialism at some point in their studies.

Because they understand it. Hence by far the lowest numbers of unsures. — Baden

Curious how those with business majors (economics, finance, etc.) can't understand socialism. You'd think a better explanation is that they do understand it, yet reject it.

It's because philosophy majors have no ability to turn their craft into making money, but remain certain that they have something valuable (although monetarily of little value) to impart upon society, so they ask those whose labors actually result in financial success to provide for them so that they can enjoy the benefits of society they could otherwise not afford.

Those whose focus is on business and the earning of money (the mundane fields of finance, law, and accounting), don't seem as needful of the social pooling of money for the general welfare.

No people are not dinosaurs — Alexis Schaffer

I read this to mean that every person is a dinosaur.

A) Some dinosaurs are people

This is only true if there are any people because every person is a dinosaur, but you've not clarified that any people exist.

B) All people are dinosaurs

This is how I defined the sentence, so I'd say it's true.

C) Some people are not dinosaurs

This is false.

D) No dinosaurs are not people

This is false

The rules about cleanliness were directed much more toward spiritual cleanliness than physical cleanliness. Women weren't impure during menstruation because menstrual blood was unsanitary; — Bitter Crank

Yeah, but when it's flowing like the mighty Mississippi, I must forego, regardless of how amorous I might be feeling. I didn't need to read Leviticus to arrive at that rule, but perhaps I'm just a tidy sort.

The sacrificial laws of Leviticus which are set forth in very specific detail, even explaining which parts of the animal the priests can eat and how the blood is to be splattered, eliminate any possibility for veganism in the OT. There is also a detailed listing of which animals can and cannot be eaten (the laws of koshruth), again making any claim that the OT advocated veganism entirely inconsistent with the text.

That is not to say that veganism and modern day (post temple destruction) Judaism are not compatible. There is no requirement that one eat meat, and one who eats only vegetables will necessarily be keeping kosher because all vegetables are kosher.

Your question related to Christianity, though, which makes the application of the OT generally limited anyway. Christians are not bound by the rigorous laws of the OT, and so if you limit your inquiry to the New Testament, you can make perhaps a better argument for veganism as a Christian/love related idea, evaluating the question holistically. I don't think though you will find many Christians willing to condemn those as unChristian for eating meat. That would seem like a stretch to make that religion fit your personal ideology.

As it happens, the first three names on the list – and they are just alphabetical for now, with a public vote to pick the top 10 open – are all wrestling with identity. Naomi Alderman’s novel Disobedience, about a London rabbi’s bisexual daughter, explores how faith communities can find space for difference; Syrian architect Marwa al-Sabouni explains how deadly walls of misunderstanding in Syria grew up due to a dearth of public spaces; philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah reconciles the importance of grounded identities with the need to protect vulnerable groups... — Tom Clark

I find this research intriguing and perhaps worthy of the Hanover award, not primarily because it references female bisexuality, but only because of that.

This should be open to a public vote. From a list of 5, compiled by the contributors and readers of this thread. Who can best answer the question 'Who Am I ?' :chin:
Not me. You. Who are you ? — Amity

This decision is too important to submit to democratic decision. The gods must decide. We shall submit this to lots, the drawing of a straw, rocks paper scissors, or perhaps we shall see if a designated witch drowns or survives.

Let's make a deal: I'll now say that the Nobel Committee was full of Swedish shit (in awarding the prize to Dylan) and you can now start calling Bob's lyrics poetry. — Bitter Crank

Let's go further and admit that the Nobel prize is bullshit, coming in a close second only to the Hanover Award. For someone to think it matters that Dylan got the prize means they must think the prize matters.

The way the Hanover award is awarded is I carefully review the prospect's body of work, pretending to critically evaluate it, and then I give it to the guy who is most politically aligned with my views. I won it again this year. In your face @Baden. Maybe next year.