Musing About Black and White Thinking in the Abrahamic Religions

[BluePhantom]

I was thinking about this today in relation to another topic, but it struck me that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) have strong traditions with 'black and white thinking' that persist to the present day. This is the 'you are either for God or for evil' perspective. It's the 'we are right and you are wrong' point of view. There is no denying that these religions have a very strong 'all or nothing' element that has been pounded into followers for thousands of years in some cases. These religions don't allow much room for 'I am still trying to sort it all out' attitudes...at least not how they are practiced today and for much of history.

It occurred to me today that this may have roots in how ancient Hebrew was spoken. In ancient Hebrew, there was no specific present tense. There was past tense and future tense and present tense was the same thing as future tense. So for example in ancient Hebrew, if your wife asked if you had taken out the trash and you were carrying it out as she asked, you would not say "I am doing it now", you would say "no I haven't" because even though you were in the process of doing it, it had not yet been accomplished. It was either done or it wasn't.

The name of God, YHWH, can be looked at similarly. Usually, it is translated "I am what I am", but it also means (arguably more accurately) "I will be what I will be". So future and present tense combined resulting in one way or the other....all or nothing.Many eastern religions such as Buddhism and Taoism allow for many middle paths, but their language allowed for those nuances as well. Over time, the Tao Te Ching, for example, allows for many more translations and interpretations which preserve those nuances, while ancient Hebrew does not.

Certainly, the historical application of black and white thinking is far more complex, delving into politics, power struggles between Popes and Kings, etc, but it occurs to me that there may be some basis in how ancient Hebrew was spoken and that filtered into the religions by osmosis and a lack of freedom in translation.

Any thoughts?

 

[BluePhantom]

Let me guess......I just interrupted the usual standard of conversation on the religion boards in a manner which resembles this.

 

[there4eyeM]

Dualism is precisely the theme, and could not be more clearly, and eloquently, expressed than in the Garden story. It is really quite a beautiful allegory, if taken correctly. Humankind partakes of the 'realization', the 'knowledge' of the possibility of looking at the universe through the filter of 'good' and 'evil'.
Very telling.

 

[BluePhantom]

Dualism is precisely the theme, and could not be more clearly, and eloquently, expressed than in the Garden story. It is really quite a beautiful allegory, if taken correctly. Humankind partakes of the 'realization', the 'knowledge' of the possibility of looking at the universe through the filter of 'good' and 'evil'.
Very telling.

Well....here's the thing. Language reflects the world-view of a society. What I mean is that the ancient Hebrews did not develop all or nothing thinking because their language demanded it. Their language was developed to reflect their world-view. So the lack of an isolated present tense in ancient Hebrew resulted from the manner in the way the ancient Hebrews viewed the world and not vice-versa. That perspective continued and was clearly reflected in the gospels and the rest of the New Testament. But if you read closely, Jesus introduced a lot of 'in-between nuances' that represented a softer way than the black and white philosophy of the Pharisees. But you really have to look hard to see them because the cultural mindset was dualistic. To be sure, sometimes Jesus reflected that exactly. Sometimes He was very much 'all or nothing', but sometimes He wasn't.

But now lets go to future translations...the Septuagint, the Vulgate, etc. Greek and Latin allow for nuances but Hebrew...not so much...at least not linguistically. So when translating the Old Testament into Greek and Latin there were no nuances in the Hebrew language to translate. Thus, the tradition and mindset continued even thought that may not have been the original intent.

Make sense?

 

[Picaro]

But, can't such nuances be determined from context? And, since the biblical traditions are oral, maybe tonal inflections mattered that lose something when written down? Toward the 1st century A.D. many scholars had already changed over to Greek as the primary written language, with biblical Hebrew teachings of the Torah and other Judaic theology being practically a secret cult, only taught to priests in training or a few scribes.

 

[RandomVariable]

There are certain truths in this world. The argument that you don't like God and therefore you get to redefine him is flawed. It is similar to saying you don't like gravity so you are going to rewrite the laws of gravity. Why should new born babies who have done nothing wrong their entire short lives, they have not even learned to walk, why should they go splat on the sidewalk when thrown from the top of a tall building. Gravity should stop innocent people from going splat when getting thrown off tall buildings. They should float about 3 feet off the ground for a few seconds, unless its a baby who floats until someone comes and gets it. You don't get to redefine God because you are dissatisfied with the truth.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I was thinking about this today in relation to another topic, but it struck me that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) have strong traditions with 'black and white thinking' that persist to the present day. This is the 'you are either for God or for evil' perspective. It's the 'we are right and you are wrong' point of view. There is no denying that these religions have a very strong 'all or nothing' element that has been pounded into followers for thousands of years in some cases. These religions don't allow much room for 'I am still trying to sort it all out' attitudes...at least not how they are practiced today and for much of history.

It occurred to me today that this may have roots in how ancient Hebrew was spoken. In ancient Hebrew, there was no specific present tense. There was past tense and future tense and present tense was the same thing as future tense. So for example in ancient Hebrew, if your wife asked if you had taken out the trash and you were carrying it out as she asked, you would not say "I am doing it now", you would say "no I haven't" because even though you were in the process of doing it, it had not yet been accomplished. It was either done or it wasn't.

The name of God, YHWH, can be looked at similarly. Usually, it is translated "I am what I am", but it also means (arguably more accurately) "I will be what I will be". So future and present tense combined resulting in one way or the other....all or nothing.Many eastern religions such as Buddhism and Taoism allow for many middle paths, but their language allowed for those nuances as well. Over time, the Tao Te Ching, for example, allows for many more translations and interpretations which preserve those nuances, while ancient Hebrew does not.

Certainly, the historical application of black and white thinking is far more complex, delving into politics, power struggles between Popes and Kings, etc, but it occurs to me that there may be some basis in how ancient Hebrew was spoken and that filtered into the religions by osmosis and a lack of freedom in translation.

Any thoughts?

Judaism doesn't have the 'with us, or against us' thing Christianity and Islam both do. Nor does Judaism maintain that if not Jewish you go to hell. Be whatever you are, and if "good" you'll be rewarded just like anyone else.

 

[Hollie]

There are certain truths in this world. The argument that you don't like God and therefore you get to redefine him is flawed. It is similar to saying you don't like gravity so you are going to rewrite the laws of gravity. Why should new born babies who have done nothing wrong their entire short lives, they have not even learned to walk, why should they go splat on the sidewalk when thrown from the top of a tall building. Gravity should stop innocent people from going splat when getting thrown off tall buildings. They should float about 3 feet off the ground for a few seconds, unless its a baby who floats until someone comes and gets it. You don't get to redefine God because you are dissatisfied with the truth.

One of the "twoofs" you're choosing to ignore is that your polytheistic gawds represent a distillation of the thousands of gawds which preceeded yours. Had you been born in a different geographic part of the globe, your gawds would be very different.

Your gawds are simply the gawds customary to a particular part of the globe in a particular period of time.

 

[RandomVariable]

There are certain truths in this world. The argument that you don't like God and therefore you get to redefine him is flawed. It is similar to saying you don't like gravity so you are going to rewrite the laws of gravity. Why should new born babies who have done nothing wrong their entire short lives, they have not even learned to walk, why should they go splat on the sidewalk when thrown from the top of a tall building. Gravity should stop innocent people from going splat when getting thrown off tall buildings. They should float about 3 feet off the ground for a few seconds, unless its a baby who floats until someone comes and gets it. You don't get to redefine God because you are dissatisfied with the truth.

One of the "twoofs" you're choosing to ignore is that your polytheistic gawds represent a distillation of the thousands of gawds which preceeded yours. Had you been born in a different geographic part of the globe, your gawds would be very different.

Your gawds are simply the gawds customary to a particular part of the globe in a particular period of time.

If my God had told me he was a different god then he would have been a different god but he is not. He is the God, the God of Abraham, the one and only real God of Abraham. Hey, before God told me who he was I was open to any one of many, that includes islam, I was even open to many, but no other god showed up. No other god is showing up. I believe everyone with find this one to be plenty.

 

[Hollie]

There are certain truths in this world. The argument that you don't like God and therefore you get to redefine him is flawed. It is similar to saying you don't like gravity so you are going to rewrite the laws of gravity. Why should new born babies who have done nothing wrong their entire short lives, they have not even learned to walk, why should they go splat on the sidewalk when thrown from the top of a tall building. Gravity should stop innocent people from going splat when getting thrown off tall buildings. They should float about 3 feet off the ground for a few seconds, unless its a baby who floats until someone comes and gets it. You don't get to redefine God because you are dissatisfied with the truth.

One of the "twoofs" you're choosing to ignore is that your polytheistic gawds represent a distillation of the thousands of gawds which preceeded yours. Had you been born in a different geographic part of the globe, your gawds would be very different.

Your gawds are simply the gawds customary to a particular part of the globe in a particular period of time.

If my God had told me he was a different god then he would have been a different god but he is not. He is the God, the God of Abraham, the one and only real God of Abraham. Hey, before God told me who he was I was open to any one of many, that includes islam, I was even open to many, but no other god showed up. No other god is showing up. I believe everyone with find this one to be plenty.

Your gawds are the gawds customary to this part of the globe. People elsewhere hear voices from the other gawds customary to their geographic region.

Those other, true gawds, have played a cruel joke on you. They told me so.

 

[RandomVariable]

There are certain truths in this world. The argument that you don't like God and therefore you get to redefine him is flawed. It is similar to saying you don't like gravity so you are going to rewrite the laws of gravity. Why should new born babies who have done nothing wrong their entire short lives, they have not even learned to walk, why should they go splat on the sidewalk when thrown from the top of a tall building. Gravity should stop innocent people from going splat when getting thrown off tall buildings. They should float about 3 feet off the ground for a few seconds, unless its a baby who floats until someone comes and gets it. You don't get to redefine God because you are dissatisfied with the truth.

One of the "twoofs" you're choosing to ignore is that your polytheistic gawds represent a distillation of the thousands of gawds which preceeded yours. Had you been born in a different geographic part of the globe, your gawds would be very different.

Your gawds are simply the gawds customary to a particular part of the globe in a particular period of time.

If my God had told me he was a different god then he would have been a different god but he is not. He is the God, the God of Abraham, the one and only real God of Abraham. Hey, before God told me who he was I was open to any one of many, that includes islam, I was even open to many, but no other god showed up. No other god is showing up. I believe everyone with find this one to be plenty.

Your gawds are the gawds customary to this part of the globe. People elsewhere hear voices from the other gawds customary to their geographic region.

Those other, true gawds, have played a cruel joke on you. They told me so.

Conversations with God can go to levels you have can not even fathom. You are oblivious to your very own creation. And yes, you too were created.

 

[Hollie]

There are certain truths in this world. The argument that you don't like God and therefore you get to redefine him is flawed. It is similar to saying you don't like gravity so you are going to rewrite the laws of gravity. Why should new born babies who have done nothing wrong their entire short lives, they have not even learned to walk, why should they go splat on the sidewalk when thrown from the top of a tall building. Gravity should stop innocent people from going splat when getting thrown off tall buildings. They should float about 3 feet off the ground for a few seconds, unless its a baby who floats until someone comes and gets it. You don't get to redefine God because you are dissatisfied with the truth.

One of the "twoofs" you're choosing to ignore is that your polytheistic gawds represent a distillation of the thousands of gawds which preceeded yours. Had you been born in a different geographic part of the globe, your gawds would be very different.

Your gawds are simply the gawds customary to a particular part of the globe in a particular period of time.

If my God had told me he was a different god then he would have been a different god but he is not. He is the God, the God of Abraham, the one and only real God of Abraham. Hey, before God told me who he was I was open to any one of many, that includes islam, I was even open to many, but no other god showed up. No other god is showing up. I believe everyone with find this one to be plenty.

Your gawds are the gawds customary to this part of the globe. People elsewhere hear voices from the other gawds customary to their geographic region.

Those other, true gawds, have played a cruel joke on you. They told me so.

Conversations with God can go to levels you have can not even fathom. You are oblivious to your very own creation. And yes, you too were created.

You didn't address my gawds being the true gawds. You were intellectually lazy and did nothing more than accept the gawds you were given as a part of your geographic, familial circumstances. In that respect, you're just the typical religious clone.

 

[BluePhantom]

There are certain truths in this world. The argument that you don't like God and therefore you get to redefine him is flawed. It is similar to saying you don't like gravity so you are going to rewrite the laws of gravity. Why should new born babies who have done nothing wrong their entire short lives, they have not even learned to walk, why should they go splat on the sidewalk when thrown from the top of a tall building. Gravity should stop innocent people from going splat when getting thrown off tall buildings. They should float about 3 feet off the ground for a few seconds, unless its a baby who floats until someone comes and gets it. You don't get to redefine God because you are dissatisfied with the truth.

Well I am not sure what this has to do with the OP, so I am not going to get too far into this here, but I will comment that I agree with you in certain senses. What I mean is that when we open ourselves to God and allow the relationship to grow freely we must be very careful to ensure that it is growing in the direction God is determining and not what we are determining. So for example, if one says 'I am going to step away from an organized religion and just follow God', that's great, but we can trick ourselves into thinking that our worldly desires represent spiritual growth and God. It's the difference between allowing God to reveal Himself to us and through us, and re-inventing God in our own image in order to satisfy a want or a need that is motivated by material issues and not spiritual ones.

 

[BluePhantom]

But, can't such nuances be determined from context? And, since the biblical traditions are oral, maybe tonal inflections mattered that lose something when written down? Toward the 1st century A.D. many scholars had already changed over to Greek as the primary written language, with biblical Hebrew teachings of the Torah and other Judaic theology being practically a secret cult, only taught to priests in training or a few scribes.

To some degree nuances can be determined by context, but other times no. There are certain things people argue about to this day that have some serious implications and are based in how one reads the tense (present or future) in ancient Hebrew. The prophecy given to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:14 is a great example of this. It can be read as something that is currently happening and/or as something that will happen. Different Greek manuscripts from antiquity write it in both ways; some translate it as a current event and some translate it as a future event. The intention of the author cannot be determined by what is written.

Yes, the NT is written in Greek, but, as best we can tell, it was written mainly by Greek speaking Jews (i.e. Paul of Tarsus) who, despite having a language that allowed for more nuance, still thought like a Jew and related to the world in a very dualistic manner. I agree with Delta that Judaism is less dualistic than either Islam or Christianity, but it is still dualistic nonetheless.

I don't know the answer to this question. I am sorting it out for myself which is why I started the thread....to gather other thoughts.

 

[TrinityPower]

I was thinking about this today in relation to another topic, but it struck me that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) have strong traditions with 'black and white thinking' that persist to the present day. This is the 'you are either for God or for evil' perspective. It's the 'we are right and you are wrong' point of view. There is no denying that these religions have a very strong 'all or nothing' element that has been pounded into followers for thousands of years in some cases. These religions don't allow much room for 'I am still trying to sort it all out' attitudes...at least not how they are practiced today and for much of history.

It occurred to me today that this may have roots in how ancient Hebrew was spoken. In ancient Hebrew, there was no specific present tense. There was past tense and future tense and present tense was the same thing as future tense. So for example in ancient Hebrew, if your wife asked if you had taken out the trash and you were carrying it out as she asked, you would not say "I am doing it now", you would say "no I haven't" because even though you were in the process of doing it, it had not yet been accomplished. It was either done or it wasn't.

The name of God, YHWH, can be looked at similarly. Usually, it is translated "I am what I am", but it also means (arguably more accurately) "I will be what I will be". So future and present tense combined resulting in one way or the other....all or nothing.Many eastern religions such as Buddhism and Taoism allow for many middle paths, but their language allowed for those nuances as well. Over time, the Tao Te Ching, for example, allows for many more translations and interpretations which preserve those nuances, while ancient Hebrew does not.

Certainly, the historical application of black and white thinking is far more complex, delving into politics, power struggles between Popes and Kings, etc, but it occurs to me that there may be some basis in how ancient Hebrew was spoken and that filtered into the religions by osmosis and a lack of freedom in translation.

Any thoughts?

I think it depends on the passage. Some things were certainly time specific and chronological, others were not and are always in a state of being

 

[RandomVariable]

There are certain truths in this world. The argument that you don't like God and therefore you get to redefine him is flawed. It is similar to saying you don't like gravity so you are going to rewrite the laws of gravity. Why should new born babies who have done nothing wrong their entire short lives, they have not even learned to walk, why should they go splat on the sidewalk when thrown from the top of a tall building. Gravity should stop innocent people from going splat when getting thrown off tall buildings. They should float about 3 feet off the ground for a few seconds, unless its a baby who floats until someone comes and gets it. You don't get to redefine God because you are dissatisfied with the truth.

Well I am not sure what this has to do with the OP, so I am not going to get too far into this here, but I will comment that I agree with you in certain senses. What I mean is that when we open ourselves to God and allow the relationship to grow freely we must be very careful to ensure that it is growing in the direction God is determining and not what we are determining. So for example, if one says 'I am going to step away from an organized religion and just follow God', that's great, but we can trick ourselves into thinking that our worldly desires represent spiritual growth and God. It's the difference between allowing God to reveal Himself to us and through us, and re-inventing God in our own image in order to satisfy a want or a need that is motivated by material issues and not spiritual ones.

You are trying to claim the higher ground on me by showing how you are more inclusive. Sorry, it does not work that why. When God created mankind he had certain parameters in mind. Those who go outside those parameters go against God's will. It might not be the prettiest scenario but it is the real scenario.

 

[RandomVariable]

There are certain truths in this world. The argument that you don't like God and therefore you get to redefine him is flawed. It is similar to saying you don't like gravity so you are going to rewrite the laws of gravity. Why should new born babies who have done nothing wrong their entire short lives, they have not even learned to walk, why should they go splat on the sidewalk when thrown from the top of a tall building. Gravity should stop innocent people from going splat when getting thrown off tall buildings. They should float about 3 feet off the ground for a few seconds, unless its a baby who floats until someone comes and gets it. You don't get to redefine God because you are dissatisfied with the truth.

One of the "twoofs" you're choosing to ignore is that your polytheistic gawds represent a distillation of the thousands of gawds which preceeded yours. Had you been born in a different geographic part of the globe, your gawds would be very different.

Your gawds are simply the gawds customary to a particular part of the globe in a particular period of time.

If my God had told me he was a different god then he would have been a different god but he is not. He is the God, the God of Abraham, the one and only real God of Abraham. Hey, before God told me who he was I was open to any one of many, that includes islam, I was even open to many, but no other god showed up. No other god is showing up. I believe everyone with find this one to be plenty.

Your gawds are the gawds customary to this part of the globe. People elsewhere hear voices from the other gawds customary to their geographic region.

Those other, true gawds, have played a cruel joke on you. They told me so.

Conversations with God can go to levels you have can not even fathom. You are oblivious to your very own creation. And yes, you too were created.

You didn't address my gawds being the true gawds. You were intellectually lazy and did nothing more than accept the gawds you were given as a part of your geographic, familial circumstances. In that respect, you're just the typical religious clone.

That sure sounds familiar to something I have heard before. Are you or have you ever been muslim?

 

[Hollie]

One of the "twoofs" you're choosing to ignore is that your polytheistic gawds represent a distillation of the thousands of gawds which preceeded yours. Had you been born in a different geographic part of the globe, your gawds would be very different.

Your gawds are simply the gawds customary to a particular part of the globe in a particular period of time.

If my God had told me he was a different god then he would have been a different god but he is not. He is the God, the God of Abraham, the one and only real God of Abraham. Hey, before God told me who he was I was open to any one of many, that includes islam, I was even open to many, but no other god showed up. No other god is showing up. I believe everyone with find this one to be plenty.

Your gawds are the gawds customary to this part of the globe. People elsewhere hear voices from the other gawds customary to their geographic region.

Those other, true gawds, have played a cruel joke on you. They told me so.

Conversations with God can go to levels you have can not even fathom. You are oblivious to your very own creation. And yes, you too were created.

You didn't address my gawds being the true gawds. You were intellectually lazy and did nothing more than accept the gawds you were given as a part of your geographic, familial circumstances. In that respect, you're just the typical religious clone.

That sure sounds familiar to something I have heard before. Are you or have you ever been muslim?

I never expected an honest response. Have you ever been honest about anything?

 

[RandomVariable]

If my God had told me he was a different god then he would have been a different god but he is not. He is the God, the God of Abraham, the one and only real God of Abraham. Hey, before God told me who he was I was open to any one of many, that includes islam, I was even open to many, but no other god showed up. No other god is showing up. I believe everyone with find this one to be plenty.

Your gawds are the gawds customary to this part of the globe. People elsewhere hear voices from the other gawds customary to their geographic region.

Those other, true gawds, have played a cruel joke on you. They told me so.

Conversations with God can go to levels you have can not even fathom. You are oblivious to your very own creation. And yes, you too were created.

You didn't address my gawds being the true gawds. You were intellectually lazy and did nothing more than accept the gawds you were given as a part of your geographic, familial circumstances. In that respect, you're just the typical religious clone.

That sure sounds familiar to something I have heard before. Are you or have you ever been muslim?

I never expected an honest response. Have you ever been honest about anything?

I have a question for you, Hollie. Do you believe you descended from primitive primates. And it is an honest question. We can case it around for as long as you like. Even until you look like a complete moron as you did the last time we played this game.

 

[Hollie]

Your gawds are the gawds customary to this part of the globe. People elsewhere hear voices from the other gawds customary to their geographic region.

Those other, true gawds, have played a cruel joke on you. They told me so.

Conversations with God can go to levels you have can not even fathom. You are oblivious to your very own creation. And yes, you too were created.

You didn't address my gawds being the true gawds. You were intellectually lazy and did nothing more than accept the gawds you were given as a part of your geographic, familial circumstances. In that respect, you're just the typical religious clone.

That sure sounds familiar to something I have heard before. Are you or have you ever been muslim?

I never expected an honest response. Have you ever been honest about anything?

I have a question for you, Hollie. Do you believe you descended from primitive primates. And it is an honest question. We can case it around for as long as you like. Even until you look like a complete moron as you did the last time we played this game.

The angry, self-hating religionist thing is so cute. Let me guess, you're a Flat Earth'er.

Does the jeebus approve of that behavior?