Philosophy Now Forum

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 1:59 pm Sorry, we may be talking about different things.There have been "states" organized by a single tribe. But often not, even going way back (the Hittites were not a tribe but a "state" involving something like eight ethnic groups. And some few tribes not exclusive, like the Kurds (never a "state" but containing multiple tribes). An example of that here would be the Kiowa (Kiowa and Kiowa Apache -- originally a refugee tribe the Kiowa took in).

I'd think discussions about "states" belongs in the political section. Especially if discussing the modern period, when many states are multi-ethnic Think of China -- which is far from being just Han (I think China is more than 50 ethnic groups)

Ethnic customs and ethnic myths often separate individuals one from another.
Social forces that unify people are

*recognition of a common moral tenet such as the Golden Rule

* sharing meals, work, and leisure perhaps especially arts and sports.

*ethical trading practices that include reciprocity

*liberal education

*social mobility

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 12:49 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 12:01 am ...many Christians believe, by itself, moral behavior is worthless...

Not "worthless." Just not a kind of currency that buys favour with God. It has its value, not the least of which is that it's better that people behave morally, for all of us. However, Secularism cannot provide secularists with the reasons they need to believe that any particular behaviour or restraint of behaviour is "moral," so Secularism's just not involved in the benefits of that.

All religions are NOT "about the same thing"

Just as I have been pointing out. And you'll find that, as a consequence, their proposed "moralities" are different, as well.

The line you grabbed from Isaiah (which?) is discussing clean/unclean. That IS a focus of Judaism, "how can we live clean?" (how can we be cleansed) where this "unclean" is of many sorts, ONE of which is uncleanliness conveyed by sin (and that category is not "contagious" like some of the other categories). Note that USUALLY the prophets are shouting "just doing the rituals, the designated sacrifices, etc. not enough", also need moral behavior and righteousness. Here in that line the prophet is saying the reverse, just moral behavior and righteousness not enough, FOR CLEANLINESS (in other words, why what logic do you get to think him talking about "salvation").

Because that's the very subject with which the prophet is concerned. Let me give you more of the context:

"Behold, You were angry, for we sinned,
We continued in our sins for a long time;
Yet shall we be saved?

For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our wrongdoings, like the wind, take us away.

There is no one who calls on Your name,
Who stirs himself to take hold of You;
For You have hidden Your face from us
And have surrendered us to the power of our wrongdoings." (Is. 64: 5-7)

You can see that the question of how people can be saved from the power of their evil is essential in this context. And that the "unclean" refers to leprosy, and the "filthy garment" is literally something very vile indeed, if you're familiar with the Hebrew. In other words, the problem for us is that we've become defiled, so that even "righteous deeds" amount to no more than trash rags defiled with human waste. So the moral is insufficent to secure salvation. What is needed is the cleansing and salvation from God.

And this passage is quoted again, in Romans 3: 10-18... you can check...and applies to all the human race, not merely to Israel.

The Jewish clean/unclean is very complicated, different sorts of uncleanliness may be "contagious" in different ways. Christianity (well after its first century or two) concerned only with the kind caused by sin.

Jesus Christ Himself clarified this. The Jewish legalists, the Pharisees, He said, had badly misunderstood how righteousness could be obtained. And so he spoke to them in these terms:

"When the Pharisee saw this, he was surprised that Jesus had not first ceremonially washed before the meal. But the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish; but your inside is full of greed and wickedness. You foolish ones, did He who made the outside not make the inside also? But give that which is within as a charitable gift, and then all things are clean for you. But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithes of mint, rue, and every kind of garden herb, and yet you ignore justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the seat of honor in the synagogues and personal greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you! For you are like unseen tombs, and the people who walk over them are unaware of it.” (Luke 11:38-44)

If others here are interested in discussing issues of morality, conscience, etc. things like how knowing a moral code causes us to act/not act in accord with it, etc. can we please go off and do that. Those things do not depend on the moral code being the one true/proper/correct moral code.

Actually, they do. For we cannot say what is "moral" without already assuming some meta-system of moral valuation (MS), remember? So what MS are you using when you speak of "morality"?

But you will also find that moral codes are not very good motivators, by themselves. It's one thing to know right and wrong, but quite another to stick to that when incentives are powerful in the other direction. And "moral codes" do not come packaged with incentives. They'll tell you when you've gone wrong; but of themselves, they won't make you want to go right. The motives for that have to come from the authority behind the code.

It's like speed limits. You know the code is "Go no faster than 100 km. on this stretch of highway." But does anybody find in that code a reason not to go faster? However, if there's a policeman in his car by the sign, suddenly the incentive to behave in accordance with the code is rather strong.

Just so, moral codes are not motives. They no more make us behave than a thermometer makes it hot or cold outside. The thermometer can tell us it IS cold, but has no function in MAKING the air cold.

Yes, but there is a better way than policing and disincentives to motivate people to obey religious or civil laws. The better way is to portray by way of the creative arts how sympathy and human kindness together with common sanity and practicality produce happiness and prosperity.

[

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 12:49 am The Jewish legalists, the Pharisees, He said, had badly misunderstood how righteousness could be obtained. And so he spoke to them in these terms:

Yes indeed, all the places where Jesus is distancing himself from the Pharisees are troubling, hard to understand. See, there were two main divisions at the time, Pharisees and Sadducees. The difference was doctrinal, not how legalist. They ALL were legalist, but see how Hillel rules (almost 100 years before Jesus). The doctrinal difference was about the soul/afterlife.

Jesus is a Pharisee (he believes the soul continues after death - THAT is they key difference between Pharisee and Sadducee)

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 5:40 pm
Yes, but there is a better way than policing and disincentives to motivate people to obey religious or civil laws. The better way is to portray by way of the creative arts how sympathy and human kindness together with common sanity and practicality produce happiness and prosperity.

Maybe you should point to where your recommended alternative has been successfully practiced. Where would that be?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 7:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 12:49 am The Jewish legalists, the Pharisees, He said, had badly misunderstood how righteousness could be obtained. And so he spoke to them in these terms:

Yes indeed, all the places where Jesus is distancing himself from the Pharisees are troubling, hard to understand. See, there were two main divisions at the time, Pharisees and Sadducees. The difference was doctrinal, not how legalist. They ALL were legalist, but see how Hillel rules (almost 100 years before Jesus). The doctrinal difference was about the soul/afterlife.

Jesus is a Pharisee (he believes the soul continues after death - THAT is they key difference between Pharisee and Sadducee)

Jesus was not a Pharisee. He agreed with them on the soul continuing after death, but not on their traditions or their morality, and he did not pass the qualifications of that sect, so no Pharisee would have accepted Him as one of them.

But anybody who believes Torah should also know there’s an afterlife, so it’s not surprising that Jesus Christ affirmed Torah. That the Pharisees also did, if only about this matter, shouldn’t give us any concern. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 21, 2025 12:25 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 5:40 pm
Yes, but there is a better way than policing and disincentives to motivate people to obey religious or civil laws. The better way is to portray by way of the creative arts how sympathy and human kindness together with common sanity and practicality produce happiness and prosperity.

Maybe you should point to where your recommended alternative has been successfully practiced. Where would that be?

The Good Book itself has influenced many people to be human kind and sympathetic. The Bible has also been weaponised which is what a fruit -cake does.

Jesus himself taught by parables which are a form of creative art.Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers a theatrical gesture: and Jesus orchestrated his own theatrical entry into Jerusalem.Theatre as we know it evolved from religious ritual.

You tell me where education in liberal creative arts has not resulted in empathy, sympathy, and sanity.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 21, 2025 7:36 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 21, 2025 12:25 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 5:40 pm
Yes, but there is a better way than policing and disincentives to motivate people to obey religious or civil laws. The better way is to portray by way of the creative arts how sympathy and human kindness together with common sanity and practicality produce happiness and prosperity.

Maybe you should point to where your recommended alternative has been successfully practiced. Where would that be?

The Good Book itself has influenced many people to be human kind and sympathetic.

No doubt, that’s true. But where has this business of “creative arts,” plus “common sanity” and “practicality” been used to “produce happiness and prosperity”?

Jesus himself taught by parables which are a form of creative art.Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers a theatrical gesture: and Jesus orchestrated his own theatrical entry into Jerusalem.Theatre as we know it evolved from religious ritual.

That’s one heck of a stretch, B. For one thing, you’re assuming the form, not the content, made the difference. But even more so, you’re using an adjective “theatrical,” as if it was the main noun, “theatre.” There was no “theatre”in Christ, though the Pharisees would have preferred it to be nothing but that, and the use of parables to explain truth was very routine in the ancient world, as it remains today…but it does not suggest that the implications of either was merely a “creative” exercise, or that the “arts” were saving the world.

And you recommend this procedure for us, not for Christ. So say again: where has such an approach ever succeeded?

You tell me where education in liberal creative arts has not resulted in empathy, sympathy, and sanity.

Oh, that’s easy. The arts have often produced obscenities, blasphemies, lies…think of Soviet Realism, or the Futurism so beloved by Mussolini, or the urine and feces soaked productions put into art galleries. Or think of the violent theatre of the ancient Greeks and Romans, or the long association between theatre and prostitution, and you’ll have plenty of such examples. Or how about Hollywood’s culture of abuse and pedo activity? You haven’t forgotten the famed “casting couch,” have you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 21, 2025 12:28 am
The Jewish legalists, the Pharisees, He said, had badly misunderstood how righteousness could be obtained. And so he spoke to them in these terms:

Jesus was not a Pharisee. He agreed with them on the soul continuing after death, but not on their traditions or their morality, and he did not pass the qualifications of that sect, so no Pharisee would have accepted Him as one of them.

But anybody who believes Torah should also know there’s an afterlife,

Taking out of order:

The soul and afterlife
Do you imagine the Sadducees could not read Torah or were stupid? It is simply NOT "cut and dried". Both sides of this dispute could find qotes to trow at each other.

What Pharisees were like (and probably why are the Gospels not specifying which "house" (school)
The leading sages, usually on opposite sides, were Hillel the Elder and Shammai. Not strictly speaking contemporary, Hillel about 50 years older, bt the disputes between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai continued (school of Hillel, school of Shammai). While the traditional death of Hillel is fter the birth of Jesus, that is just because giving him the honor of 20 years. But it IS possible that Shammai was still alive/teaching. Before the Revolt of 79 (destruction of the Temple) Bet Shammai was dominant (controlled the Sanhedrin most of Jesus's life). It was only much later that the opinions of Bet Hillel won out (95% of the time, modern Jews go by Bet Hillel rulings)

That's why the Gospels might have kept saying just Pharisees rather than specifying Bet Shammai Pharisees. In other words, only if mening "one of those extreme liberal Pharisees) would you say "a Bet Hillel Pharisee". But please understand "liberal" and "conservative" have a specialized meaning related to how the law is to be interpreted/followed. Strict vs lenient/practical (and taking into account economics) a better description. And NOT consistent in completely different areas (say commercial law as opposed to farming law as opposed to divorce law, etc.).

Jesus and the early Christians WERE originally accepted as part of Judaism, especially those in Judea. It is only with Nicea when the Christians threw out some of the 'heresies" of the first couple hundred years that the separation was complete everywhere. If you look hard, you can find opinions of Reb Jeshua and Bet Jeshua in Mishna. But first, you need to study Hillel and Bet Hillel, Only after doing that are you in a position to say things like "Jesus differed greatly on moral issues" << maybe you could even find an example >>

I am suggesting if you do this, you will end up concluding Jesus not so different as to be OBVIOUSLY outside of Bet Hillel. At the same time, in some other area, strict letter of the law (follows Bet Shammai on divorce). BTW, there was a tradition that you could chose to follow Bet Shammaii or Bet Hillel, but not cherry pick back and forth. If doing that to always choose the stricter, a fool; if to always choosing the easier, more lenient, evil. Jesus is not siding with Bet Shmmai on divorce for strictness reasons but moral reasons BTW, Bet Hillel is not really saying "any grounds for divorce , even trivial" but that the husband can bring to the judges for any reason and up to the judges to decide if sufficient grounds. They are arguing could be other SERIOUS grounds besides sexual impropriety.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Aug 21, 2025 5:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 21, 2025 12:28 am
The Jewish legalists, the Pharisees, He said, had badly misunderstood how righteousness could be obtained. And so he spoke to them in these terms:

Jesus was not a Pharisee. He agreed with them on the soul continuing after death, but not on their traditions or their morality, and he did not pass the qualifications of that sect, so no Pharisee would have accepted Him as one of them.

But anybody who believes Torah should also know there’s an afterlife,

Taking out of order:

The soul and afterlife
Do you imagine the Sadducees could not read Torah or were stupid? It is simply NOT "cut and dried". Both sides of this dispute could find qotes to trow at each other.

And yet, as Christ pointed out to them, those who believed there was no afterlife were calling their God a “god of the dead.” And He himself rebuked their disbelief, and specifically claimed the afterlife not only exists but is the real hope of the Torah-faithful.

So is was the Sadducees who were off-base. The Pharisees got it right, if only by accident.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 21, 2025 6:34 pm
But anybody who believes Torah should also know there’s an afterlife

And yet, as Christ pointed out to them, those who believed there was no afterlife were calling their God a “god of the dead.” And He himself rebuked their disbelief, and specifically claimed the afterlife not only exists but is the real hope of the Torah-faithful.

So is was the Sadducees who were off-base. The Pharisees got it right, if only by accident.

Uh ...... do you NOT see why your response was non sequitor?

You were arguing based on IN THE TORAH. The Sadducee vs Pharisee debate began around 200 BCE. So appeal to what Jesus said over 200years later not relevant. BUT, should you wish to continue invoking "god speaking on the matter" let me try to explain a fundamental philosophical difference about what Torah according to Judaism. The law, divinely given to men, unalterable, even by signs from god. In other words, once given and presumed to INTERNALLY contain what they need to interpret it.

Made explicit in the Talmud in the book about "lost property/found things". Reb Eliezer is in a minority of one in a dispute with the other sages. He can't find a quote in Torah to back up his position so he invokes divine aid, miracles to prove he is right. I think they were a tree uprooting, a stream flowing backwards, and finally the walls or the room they were in leaning inward threatening to collapse and kill them all. (I'm sure about the last one) Reb Joshua rebukes the walls, saying they had no place in the debate (were not evidence from Torah) This story illustrates a fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity. It's often interpreted as emphasizing the importance of human interpretation and the supremacy of human reasoning in determining Jewish law, even over miraculous signs or heavenly voices.

Does this sound familiar? It's a dispute over the absolute power of god, the paradox question "can God create a stone too heavy for God to move?" Judaism is saying yes and Christianity no. << substitute "unalterable law" for stone >>

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Aug 21, 2025 9:06 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 21, 2025 6:34 pm
But anybody who believes Torah should also know there’s an afterlife

And yet, as Christ pointed out to them, those who believed there was no afterlife were calling their God a “god of the dead.” And He himself rebuked their disbelief, and specifically claimed the afterlife not only exists but is the real hope of the Torah-faithful.

So is was the Sadducees who were off-base. The Pharisees got it right, if only by accident.

Uh ...... do you NOT see why your response was non sequitor?

You were arguing based on IN THE TORAH.

So was Jesus Christ. Exodus 3:6, and Mark 12.

Jesus replied, [to the Sadducees] “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

And indeed, they were…as is modern Judaism, which also rejects the afterlife, and thus makes God out to be no more than the God of the dead. Torah proves it. Moses’s account was right.

IC, this is a philosophy forum. I am NOT trying to convince you Judaism is right and Christianity wrong. I am just trying to help you understand the philosophical differences between Judaism and Christianity. Note in the example I gave you, Reb Eliezer, speaking for a minority, is holding "miracles DO matter as evidence" and Reb Joshua speaking for the majority "no they don't, not as evidence (about Torah)". That's a philosophical difference, which might help you understand why only a minority of Jews became Christian.

Nor is this really about a difference about how they saw the power of God. Jews were not actually saying God COULDN'T alter what God had declared unalterable, but that God WOULD NOT do such a thing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 21, 2025 11:03 pm And indeed, they were…as is modern Judaism, which also rejects the afterlife, and thus makes God out to be no more than the God of the dead. Torah proves it. Moses’s account was right.

Judaism only rejects the Christian notion of afterlife. If you want help with how Judaism understands "soul" I can give you references. But THIS FORUM is not the place. That's for a "comparative religions" forum.

I know this is difficult for you because you "know the truth". That's how you get from "Jews reject the (true) Christian version of afterlife" to "Jews reject any notion of soul(s) and afterlife". If you can't suspend (not give up) your belief only Christianity has truth you cannot study other religions. When you study other religions, you are trying to understand what OTHER PEOPLE believe to be true.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Aug 22, 2025 12:16 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 21, 2025 11:03 pm And indeed, they were…as is modern Judaism, which also rejects the afterlife, and thus makes God out to be no more than the God of the dead. Torah proves it. Moses’s account was right.

Judaism only rejects the Christian notion of afterlife.

Not true. If you say that God is “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and they’re all dead,” then you’re calling your God “the god of the dead.” It can’t be anything else. So Judaism rejects the Mosaic understanding of afterlife.

If you want help with how Judaism understands "soul" I can give you references. But THIS FORUM is not the place. That's for a "comparative religions" forum.

Well, we’re in it now, so go ahead. If you think that objection is relevant, then you can hardly avoid justifying it. Fire away.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Aug 21, 2025 11:56 pm IC, this is a philosophy forum. I am NOT trying to convince you Judaism is right and Christianity wrong.

Shouldn’t you be? I mean, if you think Judaism is in any sense correct, why wouldn’t you make a case for it? I would.

…only a minority of Jews became Christian.

I really can’t think of any metric that would be less relevant. I’ve never thought that “truth” and “consensus” with any group were ever synonymous, and I think the historical evidence of the opposite is abundant. Often, the majority is simply wrong.

But here are some interesting facts you may not know. All the original disciples were devout Jews. So was the apostle Paul, who was a Benjamite Pharisee and persecutor of the church. The first church council ever recorded was convened to discuss the question, Is it even possible for a Gentile to be a Christian? That’s just how Jewish Christianity is. And meanwhile, Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Israel, even if no Jews were to know it. But quite a few did, and quite a few do.

Nor is this really about a difference about how they saw the power of God. Jews were not actually saying God COULDN'T alter what God had declared unalterable, but that God WOULD NOT do such a thing.

That’s a distinction with no difference. Christians also believe that God does not alter anything He has declared unalterable. The question remains, though: exactly what did God declare unalterable? It certainly was not the Pharisaic traditions.