ABH Re: Babylonia or bust!!
- --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...> wrote:
> Hi Rich,
> <<You don't need to tell me the bible is in doubt for its historical content.
> I've posted repeatedly the Torah is political science, not history.>>
> Personally I agree that the torah is formost political, and perhaps in part history. In part it does haveÂ some morally sane stuff too,Â but I don't think it's science.
It is science, so you don't know what it is.
" And here in Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible, we have indeed found the core elements of what Kevin MacDonald has identified as the "evolutionary strategy of Judaism." The religious commitment to high K/high r reproduction allegorized in Genesis is hidden in plain sight:
Adam and Eve
Learn as much as you can for as long as you live
Maximum phenotypic potential
Jacob and Esau
Marry well among your own
Maximum genotypic potential (high K)
Abraham and Isaac
Have as many children as you can
Maximum reproductive potential (high r)
Joseph in Egypt
Sojourn rather than settle, centralize control whenever you can
Maximum economic and political potential
In Adolphe Frank's The Kabbalah, the Religious Philosophy of the Hebrews we find the following: "At issue is an interpretation, or rather a doctrine which, although known, was taught under the seal of mystery; of a science no less fixed in form than in principles If we are to believe Maimonides who, although a stranger to the Kabbalah, could not deny its existence the first half, entitled `The Story of Genesis,' taught the science of nature "34
From The Book of Genesis from a Darwinian Perspective
If you knew some evolutionary biology, you'd know it was science.
Since the science of nature is amoral, then religion is just a tool and you don't blame tools for the behavior of the men who wield them.
to keep it scientifically:
yes no = no
not no = yes
yes yes = yes
not yes = no
From: richfaussette <RFaussette@...>
Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 4:28:49 AM
Subject: ABH Re: Science in Genesis
--- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...> wrote:
> <<As for Moses and the Midianites, I didn't post anything about them and I
>agree that the slaughter was not moral, but then the point is moot because I
>myself told you in my post that the Torah was amoral. >>
> not moral is immoral, not amoral.
> Ian Onvlee
When I wrote that I agreed that the slaughter was not moral, it was my opinion
based on an obvious departure from my set of moral standards.
I then specifically said that the point was moot because the Torah is amoral;
not my opinion this time based on a departure from my moral standards, but moot
because there is science in the Torah. Science is amoral. There can be no
departure from a moral standard that does not exist.
Amorality (no standards) is NOT morality (standards).
That makes perfect sense.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]