The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Abrahamic Religion summed up: "Blasphemers, heretics, and heathens will all go to hell."

What more needs to be said? Religions of intimidation.

Kind of leaving out a lot.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:45 pm Kind of leaving out a lot.

Fair enough.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:29 pm Abrahamic Religion summed up: "Blasphemers, heretics, and heathens will all go to hell."

What more needs to be said? Religions of intimidation.

But WHY are you saying this of Abrahamic Religion? Judaism doesn't consign non-Jews to anything, let alone a hell. Jews are not responsible for Christianity or Islam.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 3:31 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:29 pm Abrahamic Religion summed up: "Blasphemers, heretics, and heathens will all go to hell."

What more needs to be said? Religions of intimidation.

But WHY are you saying this of Abrahamic Religion? Judaism doesn't consign non-Jews to anything, let alone a hell. Jews are not responsible for Christianity or Islam.

It's a mistake even to call Islam "Abrahamic." Mo got the story of Abraham completely wrong.

But Jews and Christians do agree on the accuracy of the Torah version. And it's HaShem or YHWH, if you prefer, that is responsible for both Christianity and Judaism.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 4:08 am
It's a mistake even to call Islam "Abrahamic." Mo got the story of Abraham completely wrong.

But Jews and Christians do agree on the accuracy of the Torah version. And it's HaShem or YHWH, if you prefer, that is responsible for both Christianity and Judaism.

Uh, I disagree that the Ishmaelite version of the narrative is necessarily wrong. That's not about Abraham but son's of Sarah vs sons of Hagar.The Jewish narrative is just one side of that.

And Jews and Christians most certainly do not agree. Only seems like that because rarely in Jewish history has it been worth their while to point that out. It is a tab safer for Jews if Christians are mistaken in this regard.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 2:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 4:08 am
It's a mistake even to call Islam "Abrahamic." Mo got the story of Abraham completely wrong.

But Jews and Christians do agree on the accuracy of the Torah version. And it's HaShem or YHWH, if you prefer, that is responsible for both Christianity and Judaism.

Uh, I disagree that the Ishmaelite version of the narrative is necessarily wrong.

You really cannot. Either Ishmael was the son of the promise of Abraham, or Isaac was. As the NT explains, Ishmael's birth was purely natural -- he occurred when a fertile male met a fertile female. But if you read Torah, you know that God waited until Abraham was well past the point of being able to produce children, and his wife, Sarah, was barren as the desert. So only one birth was miraculous, and only one was the son of the promise.

As Torah insists, "As for Ishmael, I have heard you [Abraham]; behold, I will bless him, and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. But I will establish My covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year.” And again, "through Isaac your descendants will be named." (Gen. 21:12)

It is a tab safer for Jews if Christians are mistaken in this regard.

I don't think there's anything more Jewish than Torah. If what modern Jews think is the case is "safer" at the cost of misreading Torah, then I suggest that's less Jewish than Jewish folks should really want to be. As for "safer," I don't think it's very wise for the Jews to become even a "tab" less vigilant about their neighbours than they have historically been. The ancient antipathy between Isaac and the claimed "sons of Ishmael" is alive and well, it seems. A couple of synagogues in my area just got shot at, in fact.

Jews would prefer that you, a non-Jew, not be telling them how to read, or how not to read Torah.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 6:05 pm Jews would prefer that you, a non-Jew, not be telling them how to read, or how not to read Torah.

Then read it for yourself. I gave you the precise reference, and you can read it in your own copy of Torah, and tell me how it allows you to continue to believe that Ishmael is the son of the promise to Abraham.

And if you can...well, I know you can't. The truth is that Islam got that -- and many other things -- badly wrong about the same tradition to which it tries to appeal for its own authority, the Judeo-Christian one. That's kind of embarassing. And it's necessitated Islamic apologists to insist that your Torah is corrupt, and the Koran is correct. Unfortunately for Islam, no manuscript tradition indicating any such process of "corruption" exists. Mo just got stuff wrong...and often, wildly wrong.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:29 pm Abrahamic Religion summed up: "Blasphemers, heretics, and heathens will all go to hell."

What more needs to be said? Religions of intimidation.

The Bible says that God wills that none of us be lost.

God would not create something that would be useless and empty.

Have no fear, there is no hell ,or talking serpents.

Supernatural beliefs are stupid beliefs.

someone needs to read Moby Dick...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2026 9:57 pm someone needs to read Moby Dick...

-Imp

Just the opening line.

Call me Ishmael?

Despite recently reading Moby Dick for the very first time, I still don't get why the narrator is called Ishmael. Why is that?

By the way, not a lot of people notice that Ahab is Baha! spelled backwards.

RickLewis wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 1:00 pm Call me Ishmael?

Despite recently reading Moby Dick for the very first time, I still don't get why the narrator is called Ishmael. Why is that?

You read Moby Dick? My condolences. Much of the the book actually fails to advance the main plot, and forms a sort of sociological compendium of odd whaling facts, as I recall. It was a pretty painful reading experience. I was tempted to take out a pair of scissors and cut out each second chapter, just so I could have the main story without all the cetological ramblings.

Brave lad.

Ishmael, assuming it's a reference to the Abrahamic story, is a rejected son. He's cast out into the wilderness, along with his mother, on account of not being the son of promise but abusing him, instead. As such, he becomes a permanent adversary to everybody: he would dwell in the wilderness, not in civilization, and as the Scripture puts it, "he will be a wild donkey of a man; His hand will be against everyone, And everyone’s hand will be against him; and he will live in defiance of all his brothers.”

As for what connection Melville was aiming for, it's hard to say, exactly. It's a sort of cypher. After all, Melville writes "Call me Ishmael," not "My name is Ishmael." So we know from the very first line that we're not supposed to know the real identity of the author, but to see him as an Ishmael-like figure. (And there really is no other "Ishmael" for him to be alluding to.)

So if you figure it out from that, you're a better man than I. Years after suffering through the book, I've never been able to resolve that to a point of total satisfaction. And I wonder if Melville wasn't merely being too clever with whatever he was hoping we'd understand, or just felt it gave the opening stylish flair. The theme is certainly not overtly developed throughout the book. "Ishmael" remains a kind of unstable ghost of a figure, flitting around the narration in inconsistent ways.

be careful of whom you follow

-Imp