Jewish atheists

[Acumen]

The idea for this thread is taken from the Learn About Judaism board.  In the past and present, I've heard the statement given about Judaism that "the righteous of all nations will have a share in the world to come."

The question I have and am willing to debate is what is meant by "righteous?"  In the OT, God gives a commandment to the Israelites to love Him with their whole heart.  However, I believe thise poses a particular problem for those Jews who profess to be atheists.

I've heard the response that, indirectly, atheists can love God by following his commandments without actually believing in His existence.  However, to me, that is really valuing a set of commandments, not really loving God.  And to push the point further, if following God's commandments without believing in His existence is indirectly loving God, then isn't this in fact an admission that one is not loving God "with the whole heart?"  And if this is the case, doesn't this call into question the atheist's righteousness?

-Acumen   

[Howiedds]

The question I have and am willing to debate is what is meant by "righteous?"

Everyone may have an opinion that differs slightly from the opinion of others, but generally I would consider righteous living to be what we as Christians and Jews have come to expect from the phrase the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of humankind: feeding the hungry. clothing the naked, protecting the powerless, treating all the children of God as the children of God, your brothers and sisters, with each human being of inestimable value.


 In the OT, God gives a commandment to the Israelites to love Him with their whole heart.  However, I believe thise poses a particular problem for those Jews who profess to be atheists.

I think traditional Jews would agree that a problem is posed by atheism.

I've heard the response that, indirectly, atheists can love God by following his commandments without actually believing in His existence. 

Or, that atheists can live lives of morality, ethics, justice, mercy, and love without believing in God and that is what God requires of us. Would believing in God top off the desert? Sure. Which is preferable, the atheist who denies God's existence and lives as if he believes in God or the believer who lives as if he does not?

Being certain of my answers to you is way above my pay grade, and I don't preoccupy myself with the questions in any case.

[Acumen]

Howie,

Acumen:  I've heard the response that, indirectly, atheists can love God by following his commandments without actually believing in His existence. 

Howie:  Or, that atheists can live lives of morality, ethics, justice, mercy, and love without believing in God and that is what God requires of us. Would believing in God top off the desert? Sure. Which is preferable, the atheist who denies God's existence and lives as if he believes in God or the believer who lives as if he does not?

I guess my point is that God requires us to love Him, and someone cannot love a person/being who they thought had never existed.  I may love the code of hammurabi, but this doesn't mean that I love him as a person. 

And even if someone, in theory, can love God without believing in His existence, how is it possible to love Him with one's whole heart?  Loving with one's whole heart would involve the entire picture, which would involve topping off the desert, wouldn't it?

Being certain of my answers to you is way above my pay grade, and I don't preoccupy myself with the questions in any case.

Shoot, I'm not even certain of my answers, the best either of us can hope for is at least a good argument.   

-Acumen

[Howiedds]

Acumen:

I guess my point is that God requires us to love Him,

Certainly the Jewish phrase from Deuteronomy 6:5, And thou shall love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul (life), and with all they might (resources), leaves little doubt, from a traditional Jewish view, that you are correct. These words make up part of our Shema, the watchwords of the Jewish faith.

There is no pussyfooting around with the words. They mean in Hebrew exactly as we understand them in English. The love of God is being demanded. The worshiper is declaring the unity of God in the earlier verses and is to surrender unconditionally his mind and heart to God. If the Unity of God is the basis for the Jewish creed, the love of God is to be the basis of Jewish life.

But the noblest spiritual surrender and love of God, Jews believe, is to live and act toward our fellow human beings so as to make God and His teachings, beloved in their eyes. It is our attention to good deeds, deeds of lovingkindness, that will make us and others aware of the One in whose name they are performed. Each deed of loving kindness, we believe, is an act of loving God.

With all thy heart is another way of saying that God demands the whole of man, his undivided allegiance. The Rabbis explain that it means "with all thy desires," even our evil inclinations. All our passions and ambitions must be subject to God's teachings and be made to serve Him.

Your view and the Jewish view are the same. Now living it ... well, I'll get back to you on that.

[gracebyfaith]

This reminds me of the NT Scripture

1 John 4:20

20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
KJV

The "fool" says in his heart there is no God.  Though I can't judge the heart, I doubt
if a person can be righteous and a fool simultaneously.  He may appear to be "righteous"
by his deeds, but God judges the heart??? 

When God was ready to burn Sodom and Gomorrah, He only considered those who
believed in Him righteous - the rest burned...just a thought.

[Howiedds]

grace:

This reminds me of the NT Scripture

As a student of your testament, there is much that I can find in it, particularly "the red," that expresses the same principles as one finds in Judaism regarding how God expects humankind to behave.

That should be no surprise seeing as how Jesus the Jew is whom we read in "the red."

If only more folks would realize how much we have in common...

[metis]

Acumen and Howie, what do you guys know anyway???

Nice to see you two, and I hope to have many further discussions with you and others here as well.

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

You know vern, you could have kept your bnet handle, so we know who we're correcting.   

[metis]

You know vern, you could have kept your bnet handle, so we know who we're correcting.   

Correcting???  Didn't you notice I'm omniscient?

[Acumen]

Is that really a picture of you, because you look a lot younger.   

[metis]

IMO, I tend to think that what's more important than politically correct belief is how one deals with all of "creation".  It's normal to question, especially when there's so little evidence to go on.  However, this hopefully should not be confused with how we may treat others.  

For example, Buddhism in non-theistic, and yet it is quite well recognized that morality towards others is strongly taught in dharma.  Another example would be secular humanists, who may not believe in a deity, but whom nevertheless believe in treating others with respect.

Within Judaism, there are some who think that maybe a humanistic atheist or agnostic might possibly achieve heaven since their heart is in the right spot.  On the other hand there are some theists who may be far from being humanistic towards others and/or in total disregard for "creation".  

Shalom,
Vern  

[metis]

Is that really a picture of you, because you look a lot younger.   

My razor broke.

[SUPERMAN]

Metis,

Welcome to BeliefCorner!  We hope your stay is most comfortable.

[metis]

Metis,

Welcome to BeliefCorner!  We hope your stay is most comfortable.

Thankyou very much, and I look forward to your insights.

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Ahhh . . .  I think Superman is mostly muscle.  But who knows how the red sun might affect his brain, right?

[Acumen]

Vra,

For example, Buddhism in non-theistic, and yet it is quite well recognized that morality towards others is strongly taught in dharma.  Another example would be secular humanists, who may not believe in a deity, but whom nevertheless believe in treating others with respect.

Why do atheists believe that showing others respect is moral?  How do they know what morality is if the foundation of that morality is something they deny?  Of course, this is not to say that the atheist cannot be moral, but I think it strongly questions if the can know what morality is.

-Acumen

[metis]

Why do atheists believe that showing others respect is moral?  How do they know what morality is if the foundation of that morality is something they deny?  Of course, this is not to say that the atheist cannot be moral, but I think it strongly questions if the can know what morality is.

HHDL (the Dalai Lama) states that the most basic lesson we learn as humans occurs at a very early age, and that is when we are treated kindly by our parents it feels "good", but when we're hurt or neglected we feel "bad".  Can any lesson be any simpler or more basic than that? 

Morality simply does not just emerge from religion, and we find much the same when the animal world is studied.  Animals have morals and not all of those morals are instinctive, and yet there is not much of a doubt amongst biologists that much of it still is driven by our genetic codes (BTW, a big gold star for your forehead if you can tell us what the picture for my avatar actually is, and two big stars if you can figure out why I've decided to use that as "my" picture; this contest is open to anyone unless you work for me  ).

All human societies have morals even though there certainly are some fluctuations one to another.  Even without any religious concepts whatsoever, each society would still have to establish certain morals in order to function.  Even though we often accentuate competition when it comes to natural selection, there's also cooperation that is essential for social animals such as ourselves.

Shalom,
Vern       

[Acumen]

Vern,

Morality simply does not just emerge from religion, and we find much the same when the animal world is studied.  

Well, I never really said that morality emerged from religion.  Instead, I believe that morality has its origin in God.

Animals have morals and not all of those morals are instinctive, and yet there is not much of a doubt amongst biologists that much of it still is driven by our genetic codes

I agree.  However, I think the morality of animals is derived from God.

All human societies have morals even though there certainly are some fluctuations one to another.  Even without any religious concepts whatsoever, each society would still have to establish certain morals in order to function.  

Right, I wouldn't never argue that different cultures don't have moral rules.  However, I would state that these cultures wouldn't know what morals rules were indeed true without some reflection on God.

Personally, I make a distinction between morality and convention.  Convention changes from culture to culture and has some basis in the maintenance of a society.  Convention is relative to human discretion.  Convention tells us how to be a good citizen or a good neighbor.  Morality is the meaning of life.  Morality tells us how to be a good human being.  Convention tells dogs how to pee outside.  Morality tells them how to defend themselves when they are attacked.

-Acumen

[metis]

Well, I never really said that morality emerged from religion.  Instead, I believe that morality has its origin in God.

That may well be true, but I can't hang my hat on that.  Without evidence, I have no reason to believe as such, but neither do I deny the hypothetical possibility.

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Vern,

Look at it from this standpoint -- if morality doesn't stem from God, then there is no real justifiable reason to correct others if you think they are being immoral.  For instance, if your friend lies to you, make a mental note that he does this sort of thing, but can you really be upset with him if morality is relative?  If you told him that lying is wrong, couldn't he reasonably respond that it's only wrong for you, but not for him?

-Acumen