Posted on 11/24/2001 4:17:58 AM PST by chemicalman
Edited on 07/14/2004 12:58:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Q. Do Jews believe in an afterlife?
A. "As many Jews as there are, there are that many opinions," said Rabbi David Goldstein of Touro Synagogue.
However monolithic Judaism might look from a distance, it contains a good deal of diversity of thought even on a question one might think as basic as whether anything lies beyond the grave -- which, incidentally, is not a question of great concern in most of Judaism, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
I concur...plus I like to goad ppl on!!! ;-)
In addition to Daniel, Ezekial goes quite a bit into detail about a future resurrection in chapter 37 and future events in later chapters.
I do not know about heaven or hell, but the existence of God is much more evident, at least through indirect observations (much like a black hole can be "seen" by its effects). Pascal's wager approaches this, but Pascal was wrong because probability and statistics are makers of false theories and poorly indicate what to do, what tool to use.
Looking at the dark past of tyrannies, we can see that whenever liberty and progress occured, it was when those tyrannies mysteriously vanished. Whether it is the dinausors, huge beasts that frail people could not compete with, Pharoh against the Jews, or a tattered bunch of militia soldiers attacking a world power like England, there is no way that good would have been able to wrestle itself from the undying grip of evil by itself.
Even the US Declaration makes God implicit. The balance of powers of the US constitution in fact is proof positive that slavery and evil comes from our dependence on Earthly powers that evil can leverage against us. Hence we balance the powers against each other, hence evil competes for us against other evils, we are free. Under God would hence mean just that: not enslaved to earthly powers that leverage us. Denying the under God principle would in fact violate the separation of church and state, because then we would live under secular powers and theories that would be both used for religious belief and government.
Nevertheless, the church itself exerts powers of its own, hence the church should also play a part in the competition of powers out there, hence the freedom of religion should flourish. But in the end, the nation knows what slavery means and that stating things in the name of God amounts to blasphemer, again, implicitly respecting the existence of God.
Judaism is no stranger to the omnipotence of God, hence heaven and hell are implicitly open questions in Judaism, but they are certainly not the central issue. In fact the actions of Elijah are proof that there is another world in the OT. Elijah never died, he went to heaven directly on a chariot while alive.
The central issue in Judaism is found in the Tohra when God demands the Jews to give Him the benefit of the doubt while walking in the desert. But they seldom do, hence he fries them on a regular basis as they attempt to extort from Him goods. If God can do us good on this Earth, help us flee Egypt as was witnessed, maintain our clothes (they never tore and were intact even after 40 years), certainly we owe God one. It is a matter of qualification, not merit. Enjoyment is found in serving God, not in well being, and maybe not even in hopes of heaven (hope is a lack of faith in God), if not we would be slaves to well being, and not free.
Indeed, we are free when we show our persecutors that we will not repent to them, while we openly repent to those we persecute, no matter the consequences of that. In sickness or in health, strong or weak, doing what is right, asking our enemy to repent while he persecutes us, is the only real freedom there is, because it is an action independent of Earthly powers, it is true faith.
Ahhhhh, then I do apologise for thinking it was you who was "foolish"... the title goes to Pascal, by all means.
And what of the pagans who endured death at the hands of Christians and Muslims? Apparently they also believed they had the truth.
I cannot believe people are still using Pascal's Wager in Christian apologetics anymore. I suspect that sophisticated apologists do not as it was always so vulnerable to anything resembling logic.
It's very simple, Pascal assumes that the choice is between belief in Christianity and non-belief. Therefore he makes his argument that it is better to believe and face oblivion, than to not and face hell. That might be fine, if there were only one religious vision in this world.
However, what if some extinct non-Christian religion(Mithraism as an example) was correct? What if Islam is the true religion? Or what if only ONE brand of Christianity is accepted as divine currency by the "Almighty" but not the others? What if Buddhist thought is the truth? Then all theists have been wasting their time. You see here the flaws inherent in Pascal's argument.
As brilliant as Pascal was, his "Wager" never should have been made public. It damages his reputation.
You have a lot of company. And it is easy enough to see the consequences of that rejection in our society.
Christians have a variety of beliefs ranging from "literal, inerrant Word of God" to "collection of writings that can be analysed and interpreted in a variety of ways to extract truths about God".
The concept of religion need not have an afterlife. Even strict Theravada Buddhism would argue that there is no "soul" as we typically understand it. We live multiple incarnations until we find enlightenment, reach nirvana, and become as nothing. Same thing in Hinduism, samsara is the cycle of suffering. Only when that cycle is broken with the extinguishment of the soul, is there finally peace.
A person of your intellect must realize that men are not above embellishing to get others to believe what they are already certain is true. But even if you were born yesterday, you should still know that even today's world is full of people who honestly believe they've seen things that they have not. If someone strongly believes in UFOs, for example, they are much more likely to see them.
Consider also Gibbon's backdoor argument, in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. According to the Apostolic Fathers, Christian miracles were a common occurrence in pre-Constantinian Rome. Gibbon marvelled (ironically) at the faith of the Roman pagans, who (according to the Apostolic Fathers, some of whom were martyred, and therefore not liars, as you say) frequently witnessed Christian miracles en masse. And yet, these pagan individuals somehow managed to hang onto their faith in spite of what they themselves witnessed. Gibbon professed to be too weak of intellect to solve this mystery, but his clear implication was that the miracles never occurred.
These men claimed to have witnessed the acts...Would you die for a lie?
Surely you don't believe that the Christian religion is the only...well, you know the rest.
It is not that hard to understand when their own religious works teach about an afterlife. The question to each Jew is, Do you Believe or Not Your Own Religious Teachings?
Ah, the crux of the problem. Very sad. These "liberal Judaists" are the same people who are the core of the left-wing. They stomp on our civil rights. They give Jews in general a very bad name.
It is the belief system of those who do not believe in God. And you are right, it makes no sense except to them.
So you're saying that the Apostles had no faith?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.