one was a slave (Moses) — Agent Smith

Moses wasn’t a slave. Jesus was not a Cohen, i.e. not a priest.

Moses wasn’t a slave. Jesus was not a Cohen, i.e. not a priest. — Ennui Elucidator

What were they then?

What were they then? — Agent Smith

Jesus is alleged to be of the house of Judah (which makes no sense, but whatever). Moses was adopted by the Pharaoh's daughter shortly after birth and raised as an Egyptian prince.

:up:

Pharaoh's daughter — Ennui Elucidator

:hearts:

What do you think that these people had in common? It also may be important to think about their differences too. In particular, the Buddha did not necessarily believe in God while Jesus saw his own role and mission in relation to God, his father in heaven.

One viewpoint which I am also familiar with is that of Benjamin Creme, an esoteric artist in England, is that both Jesus and the Buddha were spiritual brothers and Masters. Creme had some very unusual ideas, especially a belief that Maitreya was living in East London, which he had been saying since the late seventies. He founded a group, Share International, and a specific form of meditation, transmission meditation, which he and his followers believed was about channeling the energies of the Masters. One really unusual idea which he had was that Jesus was only Christ during the few years of his ministry.

important to think about their differences too — Jack Cummins

Differences are, for sure, critical to get the full picture but they wouldn't explain why all of these people turned to religion. When people do the same thing, it's (usually) because they have something in common unless...all of them hit upon the same idea by fluke.

Suffering & Evil, all religions seem to be more or less about these two banes of humanity in particular and life in general. The difference (vide supra Jack, you're on point) is their approach to these issues (existing philosophies, zeitgeist, culture, and so on). Different perspectives on a problem yield different solutions.

Egyptian prince. — Ennui Elucidator

:vomit: :grin:

It is true that all religions are about suffering and evil as a starting point but there are many other aspects as well, including a whole basis for social ethics, often focusing on the importance of compassion. Of course, some philosophy points of view are based on ideas about the problem of suffering and evil too, but without the emphasis on the 'supernatural'. It is debatable whether Buddhism has any conception of the supernatural in the way most religions have.

180 Proof came close but, in my humble opinion, failed to hit the bullseye. — Agent Smith

Explain.

Explain — 180 Proof

:sweat:

You're on the mark in saying it's about salvation but salvation is a concept applicable even to those who are, let's just say, not exactly suffering or facing evil. I could be wrong of course but that's how I understand it (as of now).

Pains (evil & suffering) occupy a distinct and vital place in the philosophy of mind for several reasons. One is that pains seem to collapse the appearance/reality distinction. If an object appears to you to be red it might not be so in reality, but if you seem to yourself to be in pain you must be so: there can be no case here of seeming at all. — Wikipedia

Pain is as real as it gets. The supernatural, then, is an illusion for, by definition, it's pain-free (heaven, nirvana, moksha, etc.)

The question about pain and suffering in connection with religious ways of thinking is whether it is about physical or emotional pain. In some ways, people may regard physical pain as more real, but it may be that mental and emotional pain can be as harsh. Emotional pain and physical pain could be seen as hell and ecstatic experience can be seen as heaven in this life. It may be that people mystify the concepts of both heaven and hell as being in a supernatural realm. As far as nirvana and moksha, it is hard to know if they are more goals rather than something which people can attain fully. They are seen mostly as future possibilities.

I suppose that this does apply to heaven as well because even if someone is having a wonderful life of joy it is likely that they will experience pain at some point simply because this comes with the experience of sentience. That may be why heaven and nirvana are seen as more likely in a life beyond the body. Of course, many Christians do believe in a resurrection at the end of the world. This is often viewed as a form of paradise on earth, rather like utopia.

physical or emotional pain — Jack Cummins

I don't find this helpful. Pain is pain, emotional/physical. Are you trying to say that heaven is a place state of zero emotional pain but some physical pain? Maybe vice versa.

Emotional pain, to tell you the truth, is, according to John Stuart Mill of utilitarianism fame (unadulterated hedonism mind you), better than living in a fool's paradise.

It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. — J. S. Mill

Sorry if my answer wasn't helpful, but I don't know if heaven or hell could ever be permanent because it is questionable whether they could be without any aspects of the other. When I used to hear of people in heaven for eternity as told in the Bible, I used to think how can they be happy if people who were close to them had gone to hell.

I am not sure that I wouldn't rather be a fool satisfied rather than Socrates in many ways. Some people seem to have such a lot more enjoyment and good fortune in life than others. It may be partly due to attitude and underlying temperament, but life often seems so unfair. Most of the time I am probably somewhere in between being satisfied and disgruntled, but I don't like it I am as miserable and lying on my bed listening to The Doors, The Smith's and The Manic Street Preachers, although they do help. But, getting back to religion, I don't want to go to the other extreme and be singing and dancing to hymns. I would prefer to be reading some existential angst of Kierkergaard and some wallowing in Sartre...

I am not sure that I wouldn't rather be a fool satisfied rather than Socrates in many ways — Jack Cummins

Different strokes for different folks. Hedonism isn't the only game in town, see. Of course that'll sound like I've lost my marbles, but the question is, is there anyone sane left in this world? Life is too tough or it's too easy, the sweet spot in the middle few have ever had the privilege of living. Given that, I'm entitled to an opinion just as you are and everyone else.

As for wanting to live in fool's paradise, remember the quote's origins - John Stuart Mill who put, get this, hedonism on the map! Dogfooding!

When people do the same thing, it's (usually) because they have something in common unless...all of them hit upon the same idea by fluke. — Agent Smith

None of the people you are discussing hit upon the same idea. It is only by ignoring all of the substance of the various traditions around the mentioned individuals that you can claim similarity. Also, the enduring traditions of the religions are not equally as invested in the various figures you mentioned.

Trying to force commonality between religions serves little purpose besides advancing notions of universalism despite the evidence to the contrary.

"Heaven or Hell"
placebo or nocebo
boredom or pain
junk or withdrawal
coma (dreamless sleep) or quadriplegia (buried alive)
lobotomy or torture ...

You've missed the point of , Smith: what (those) religious figures have in common, IMO, is they make promises to their followers which can only be fulfilled after their followers die – false promise (means), not "salvation" (ends), is my point.

they make promises to their followers which can only be fulfilled after their followers die — 180 Proof

Do you mind finding a single quote of Moses where he talks about the afterlife? Or where he says, "You all must be dead before god will give you the land"? Moses is neither Jesus nor Buddha. He was an outgroup prophet that did what god said within earshot/miracleshot of the people around him. He is even alleged to have had someone else do the public talking for him. He and his brother die in the wilderness within site of the promised land as an act of public cruelty by god. The Israelites, within their lifetimes, conquer/vanquish/eradicate countless peoples/nations as their god among gods gives them the land god promised their forebearers. They get the promised land. No waiting necessary.

Do you mind finding a single quote of Moses where he talks about the afterlife? Or where he says, "You all must be dead before god will give you the land"? — Ennui Elucidator

:roll: I responded to this

1. Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism)
2. Mahavira (Jainism)
3. Moses (Judaism)
4. Jesus (Christianity)
5. Mohammed (Islam)
6. Zarathustra (Zoroastrainism) — Agent Smith

where "Moses" is indicated as representative of "Judaism", or the Covenant of Abraham and YHWH which is the promise to Abraham to provide for his descendents aka "the Israelites" as stated in scripture Bereishit 17:5-11 (Tanakh). Every observant Jew keeps the Covenant and (many of) the 613 mitzvahs for the providential favor (blessings) of all Jews who will ever live after her and says Kaddish prayers (Rabbi Akiva) for those who have died, particularly their parents, siblings and children.

If my goyish understanding of Judaism is lacking or mistaken, someone please correct what I've written here. The religion, it seems to me, is founded on the (reciprocal) promise of saving the Jewish people from oblivion re: Kohelet 3:20 (Tanakh).

"Heaven or Hell"
placebo or nocebo
boredom or pain
junk or withdrawal
coma (dreamless sleep) or quadriplegia (buried alive)
lobotomy or torture ...

↪Agent Smith You've missed the point of ↪180 Proof, Smith: what (those) religious figures have in common, IMO, is they make promises to their followers which can only be fulfilled after their followers die – false promise (means), not "salvation" (ends), is my point. — 180 Proof

I see. What's of great interest to me is the explanation for this behavior: going against the wisdom of one bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. People are ever ready to gamble away what's an actual thought unsatisfactory life for an only possible but better afterlife. To put this into perspective, it's like refusing a $100 payment for a 50/50 chance of winning $1,000,000. Come to think of it, it actually makes sense! :chin: It seems people aren't fools (re Pascal's wager).

I responded to this
1. Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism)
2. Mahavira (Jainism)
3. Moses (Judaism)
4. Jesus (Christianity)
5. Mohammed (Islam)
6. Zarathustra (Zoroastrainism)
— Agent Smith
where "Moses" is indicated as representative of "Judaism", or the Covenant of Abraham and YHWH which is the promise to Abraham to provide for his descendents aka "the Israelites" as stated in scripture Bereishit 17:5-11 (Tanakh). Every observant Jew keeps the Covenant and the 613 mitzvahs for the providential favor (blessings) of all Jews who will ever live after her and says Kaddish prayers (Rabbi Akiva) for those who have died, particularly their parents, siblings and children.

If my goyish understanding of Judaism is lacking or mistaken, someone please correct what I've written here. The religion, it seems to me, is founded on the (reciprocal) promise of saving the Jewish people from oblivion re: Kohelet 3:20 (Tanakh). — 180 Proof

I'll need some time to process this.

People are ever ready to gamble away what's an actual thought unsatisfactory life for an only possible but better afterlife. — Agent Smith

Re: wishful thinking (i.e. optimism bias).

:up: I was thinking risk-lover but what about the reasonableness of Pascal's wager?

Two choices:

1. $100 payment, no questions asked (life)

OR

2. A p% chance of $1,000,000 (afterlife), $100 entry fee to play the game.

Expected value for option 1 is simply $$100.$

Expected value for option 2 is
$\frac{100-p}{100}\times -$100 + \frac{p}{100} \times $1,000,000 = 10,001p-100$

If the afterlife is more profitable then

10,001p - 100 $\gt$ 100

$p \gt \frac{200}{10,001} \approx \frac{200}{10,000} = 0.02$

The probabiity of an afterlife > 0.02% if religion is to make sense. 0.02% is a very low value; I'm sure the odds of life after death are much, much higher i.e. it makes sense to play the game (theism is a better deal than atheism).

Pascal's Wager amounts to a forced false dichotomy.

where "Moses" is indicated as representative of "Judaism" — 180 Proof

What's the common thread, the leitmotif, that unites the following personalities? — Agent Smith

He asked what these personalities had in common, not what these religions had in common. Taking Moses as a symbol for Judaism (which didn’t exist and which he isn’t) in the midst of the major reinvention of the Israelites (a disposed people) as they emerged from Egypt and returned to the promised land is not what the question was or why I said what I said. Moses (the figure in the story) is not a Jesus or Buddha analog. And his message sure wasn’t about salvation in another life.

And yes, your goyish understanding sucks, but it is some good PR for a bad retelling. If you actually want to talk about what Judaism is, it would be swell if you didn’t resort to the political messaging of a group interested in self legitimization.

————-

To add a touch of clarity/context for the muddle that is about to come: if god doesn’t exist and all of the Jewish claims about a relationship to god are false, you can’t look to Jewish mythology (even Jewish origin mythology) to explain what Judaism is or is not or how/why it came to be. You have to study Judaism historical Judaism the same you do any other historical subject. With that said, what we know about people like Moses is what is contained in the story book, not some secret trove of complete historical evidence.

The story of the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews is long with many different periods of thought. As they encountered various cultures, were conquered, dispossessed, reestablished, reconquered, redispossed, etc. the way that Jews thought about themselves and the significance of their religious heritage changed. When you see things like “salvation” what you are seeing is a type of Helenization of the Jews that occured during the latter half of the 2nd temple period through its destruction and co-evolution with early Christianity. That some group of people within a Jewish community tried to incorporate foreign ideas into Jewish thought and that group of people came to have significant influence in how later Judaism discussed things is not an indication that these ideas are either pervasive in the minds of Jews throughout time and/or related to the foundations of Jewish thought.

Looking to contemporary “orthodoxy” as a guide to what historic Judaism was is a fool’s errand. It is what people do that wish to be a part of a particular Jewish community, not what people interested in the historic development of Judaism do. Creation myths (and the ways that are modified/emphasized by particular groups) are about legitimizing the status quo (or subverting it establish a new power). They are not actual studies of the historical record.

In the context of a philosophy forum, the assumption should be that religious myth is ahistorical, i.e. that the mere fact that a myth is told does not indicate that it is true. We cannot, therefore, simply accept what contemporary practitioners of a religion represent to be the truth of their existence.

Now back to the muddle.

——-

You can start with historic question of a) when Judaism came to be and b) whether it is even sensible to say it was founded. Mythic history doesn’t dictate the “facts” of what Judaism is - especially since there is scant historical evidence of either the Exodus or the existence of Moses (and especially not any of the associated miracles or covenants with god).

The biggest issue with what you are missing is that Judaism is theoretically the cultural heritage of people exiled from the land and their historic encounter with what it was to be in exile while maintaining an enduring myth of group identity revolving around a long gone promised land. Your 613 mitzvot didn’t exist when the 2nd temple was destroyed and sure as hell didn’t exist when Moses is alleged to have been around or when Israel first got his name.

In any event, the typical schtick around the 613 mitzvot is that some are explicable and some are not, but they are kept because god said so and not in expectation of some reward. There are but a handful where the tradition says, “Do this in order to obtain that.” While the late 2nd temple period saw talk of the after-life, there was never a time where normative Judaism would have claimed that adherence to the mitzvot was to bring about some better circumstance in the after-life. I commend to you the high-holiday liturgy (traditional or otherwise) and what are considered to be the most important of Jewish prayers - prayers for life and present safekeeping. You do not find people praying for their eternal souls.

Also, your telling of Abraham is off. He was actually rewarded by god during his life and was promised that his blessings would continue. He wasn’t some schlub that toiled in hopes that future generations would benefit, he was rewarded by god in his lifetime and not promised salvation in some here after.

To the extent Judaism might have a salvation myth, it is centered around the coming of the Messiah that will result in the ingathering of the Jews, the return of the Temple, and the Davidic line being reestablished. What is amusing about this is that Judaism is not a temple based religion and no one actually wants it to go back to that (or to have a king). These are symbolic positions within the context of a religion expressly concerned with living. As the saying goes, “You shall live..”

You might consider some of the oldest prayers in Judaism for a sense of what Jews have thought was important from the “beginning”. The Amidah is one such collection of prayers (as is the Kaddish, but the Kaddish is used for more purposes than you might realize). The mourner’s Kaddish, which is what you referred to, says the following:

Glorified and sanctified be God’s great name throughout the world
which He has created according to His will.

May He establish His kingdom in your lifetime and during your days,
and within the life of the entire House of Israel, speedily and soon;
and say, Amen.

May His great name be blessed forever and to all eternity.

Blessed and praised, glorified and exalted, extolled and honored,
adored and lauded be the name of the Holy One, blessed be He,
beyond all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations that
are ever spoken in the world; and say, Amen.

May there be abundant peace from heaven, and life, for us
and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

He who creates peace in His celestial heights,
may He create peace for us and for all Israel;
and say, Amen.
— “Random Kaddish Translation”

You’ll notice a distinct lack of prayers for the souls of the dead in the after-life. The prayer is for life and to bless the living.

If you say so ...

If you say so ... — 180 Proof

Says the man who cites Ecclesiastes in support of salvation in the afterlife…


5For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for their remembrance is forgotten.
6Also their love, as well as their hate, as well as their provocation has already been lost, and they have no more share forever in all that is done under the sun.
7Go, eat your bread joyfully and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already accepted your deeds.
8At all times, let your garments be white, and let oil not be wanting on your head.
9Enjoy life with the wife whom you love all the days of the life of your vanity, whom He has given you under the sun, all the days of your vanity, for that is your portion in life and in your toil that you toil under the sun.
10Whatever your hand attains to do [as long as you are] with your strength, do; for there is neither deed nor reckoning, neither knowledge nor wisdom in the grave, where you are going.

:meh: