Abraham - Voltaire

In his Philosophical Dictionary, Voltaire continues to use his piercing logic in a sarcastic manner to provoke thought. In the article entitled Abraham about the patriarch of the Hebrews he questions why we as modern human beings believe the Jews and their "history and ancient fables" are historical records.

First, he questions the age of Abraham. This ties into one of 21 burning questions for August-September. What are we to make of the ages of human beings being recorded in the Biblical text. Abraham was 135 when he left Mesopotamia for Shechem (Israel). Then he was 140 when he traveled from Israel to Egypt. He was 160 when he was promised that Isaac would be born within a year. He lived until he was 205. Surely this alone would be enough to invite skepticism.

Second, he questions why Abraham would make some of these journeys. Why would a man leave Mesopotamia, a culturally rich area for the relative backwater Shechem? Why would he think to travel from Shechem to Egypt when there was a famine in his new promised land? Besides the incredible distances that he would have to travel there is what Voltaire astutely points out, the obvious language barrier.

Third, he touches on one of the odder parts of the Abrahamic story - when he travels to Egypt to escape the famine and then again to a desert kingdom he beseeches his wife Sarah to claim that she is Abraham's sister, not his wife. In doing so Abraham becomes vastly wealthy.

Where Voltaire then goes is a bit of a stretch, but an intriguing look at the commonality of religions or at least the perceived similarities of religions and how they relate to identifying features of existence. He finds it silly that the Jews, descendants of Abraham who came from an ancient and sophisticated society (Mesopotamia - Chaldea) visited an ancient and sophisticated society (Egypt) and would have passed through an ancient and sophisticated society (Assyria) could have taught the world anything new. Instead he reasons that the Jews took more from the surrounding societies and appropriated the myths for their own bent. He reasons that the name Israel is Chaldaean, the Hebrew names for God: Eloi, Adonai, Jehovah and Hiao are of Phoenician origin, the name of Abraham himself being derived from an ancient religion along the Euphrates called Kish-Ibrahim, Milat-Ibrahim. He notes, "It is hard to penetrate the shadows of antiquity; but it is evident that all the kingodms of Asia had been flourishing mightily, long before the vagabond horde of Arabs, called Jews, had a small spot of earth that was their own, before they had a town, laws, or a settled religion" (pp 61-62).

Now, I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. Voltaire seems awfully intent in every passage to bash Hebraic sensibilities, but he does raise excellent skeptical points. While we are not yet to the Abraham section of Genesis in our glacial pace through the Old Testament it foreshadows difficulties for the faithful that we will be encountering in our journey. If one is going to be a believer then how does one reconcile such things? I feel as though we are seeing an existential moment in the distance where we must look into the abyss. Shall we turn back? No. Will we calmly stare down the void and embrace the emptiness in some sort of homage to Camus? Or will we leap in Kierkegaardian fashion into the safety trembling in fear all the way? Or will we discover that there is no real existential pitfall and simple faith can put to rest such skepticism. After all Voltaire, great and powerful as he may be in his own (and my mind) he is but one voice of skepticism. There may be many more but there are an equal number of those who embrace these "fables" as gospel.

My continuing fascination with things like this though is the religious comparisons. We do not know very much of the Kish-Ibrahim, Milat-Ibrahim religion of the Euphrates or of other Ancient Near Eastern compared to latter ones like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But, Islam's borrowing of Christianity and Judaism and Christianity's borrowing of Judaism and possibly Zoroastrianism and Judaism's borrowing of other, more ancient Near Ancient religions that were not quite settled yet does not demand that the religion doing the borrowing is incorrect. It could just as well easily say that the religion doing the borrowing has collected the right portions of the true religion (if there is such a thing). It could have removed the wheat from the chaff and begun to bake a delicious bread. Voltaire's observations are piercing in the sense that he recognizes the inter-connectivity of the religions of the Ancient Near East at the time of Abraham and immediately following. However, his jump that the Jews have merely borrowed from more ancient religions to form some sort of crafty hodgepodge that is void of truth and merely fable reflects a personal rejection of faith more than a statement of fact.

21 Burning Questions for August-September

Well, things have been a bit hectic around here lately, so much so that I haven't been keeping up with this little nascent endeavor of the mind of mine. But here we are to offer a synopsis of our first few posts and ask the 21 Burning Questions that arose in our research in August & September.

1. Why are there differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

2. Is Genesis 1/Genesis 2 supposed to be viewed as literal, allegorical or something along the continuum in betwixt the two?

3. When God creates man he does so in "our image" and "our likeness" in Genesis 1 & 2. Does this "our" signify multiple gods or is there something in the Old Testament that is foreshadowing the Trinitarian language of later Christianity? Genesis 3 then has God referring to himself as 'us'. Once again is this some sort of multiplicity of gods, a royal we, a literary device or a reference to the Trinitarianism of Christianity?

4. In Genesis 1/Genesis 2 God creates man in the image of God and in the likeness of God. Is there a difference between the two?

5. What is the difference in defining God in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Genesis? In Genesis 1 God is simply referred to as God. In Genesis 2 God is referred to as the LORD God. Is there a difference? What significance is there here?

6. Why are religions so similar on certain topics like origin stories?

7. Why did Cain & Abel bring sacrifices in Genesis 4 without prompting?

8. Did Cain's sin come from his order of concerns when he is approached by God about what he has done to Abel?

9. Where are the people coming from that Cain is afraid of when he learns of his banishment?

10. Is there something religious in nature about the mark Cain received in banishment? Is there some notion of God/gods being tied to specific geographical regions and this mark an assurance from God that He is with Cain regardless of where Cain is on this earth?

11. What does the story of Lamech have to do with anything in Genesis 4?

12. Where did Cain's wife come from?

13. Worship began in the time of Enosh according to the geneology in Genesis 4.  If this is true then what were the sacrifices offered by Cain & Abel?

14. What is the significance of "human capital contracts"? What are my thoughts on the ethical nature of these endeavors?

15. Adam's son is made in his own image and his own likeness in Genesis 5. Is there something significant about this language being echoed?

16. What are we to make of the ages of the people mentioned in Genesis 5's genealogical record?

17. What is the significance of Enoch and his walking with God?

18. "Sons of God, daughters of man" were marrying in Genesis 5. What does that mean?

19. What/who are the Nephilim?

20. Why had mankind's inclinations become so evil that God wished to destroy them?

21. What did Noah do in order to find favor with God?

These are the burning questions of August-September. Let us hope that October brings about some burning answers.

Genesis 6 - The Story of Noah

Synopsis:

Noah was a righteous man with three sons, Shem, Ham & Japheth. The Lord commanded Noah to build an ark and gave him the directions to do so. He decided to destroy the world because it was full of violence and the people of the earth had become corrupted. The Lord instructed Noah to bring on board with him his family and two of every living creature as well as every type of food. The Lord decided to make a covenant with Noah to spare him of this destruction.

Thoughts/Questions:

How was Noah to bring all of the creatures of the earth into such a small ship?

The covenant that God made with Noah seems to be important, more research should be made into this.

The last verse also seems significant for the story. "Noah did everything just as God commanded him" (Genesis 6:22). This shows the faith that Noah had in God and gives credence to Genesis 6:9 that described Noah as a righteous man, walking faithfully with God.

While, I want to continue my research from as blank of a slate as I possibly can, the story of Noah is one that I have been familiar with for much of my life. It was taught to me early on in Sunday Schools in various forms with various lessons. But, what are we to make of Noah? Is he to be taken as a literal-historical figure? Is the Biblical Flood something to be taken as a real event? Or is he to be taken as an allegory to be understood of the virtues of faith and the consequences of evil and sin? The topic of Noah is a broad one in which much research has been done. In the coming weeks and months I will post more research on Noah before coming to any conclusion, if any conclusion is ever to be reached. In some ways the intellectual pursuit that I am undertaking is an end unto itself.

Imago Dei

Imago Dei is the Latin phrase meaning image of God. Since in Genesis it talks as humankind being created in the image of God I believe it is a central theme to understanding human existence, something I'd like to understand for a number of reasons. It is a central theological theme in Christianity, Judaism and Sufi Islam albeit understood within each religion differently. Because of this it seems an important topic to consider and attempt to tackle.

Basically, the Image of God can be understood in three ways: substantive, relational or functional. In the substantive understanding of the Image of God human beings have some characteristics that are found in God. The relational understanding of Image of God maintains that while human beings may have some of the traits of God the image only becomes clear when one is in relationship with God. The functional understanding of the Image of God states that we as human beings were charged with a task by God, ruling over the earth and by doing this we mirror God's rule over the universe.

Of course this is on the tip of the iceberg when it comes to discussing the Imago Dei and each of these three ways of understanding has various nuances that will be explored further. But, for now, the Imago Dei seems to be a vital point of interest in understanding who man is in his existence and since that is a pertinent topic in any intellectual path we shall continue to visit it in the future.

Genesis 6 - Wickedness of Man & The Nephilim

Synopsis:

The world was full of people now. The sons of God saw that the daughters of women were beautiful and married them. But the Lord decides that His spirit will not contend with them forever because man is mortal and/or corrupt. He put their number at 120 years.

The Nephilim were on the earth at this time, and after. They were the heroes of old.

The Lord saw how wicked mankind had become. Mankind's thoughts were ever on evil and the Lord regretted that He had made mankind. He decided to wipe them out, along with all of the animals. But, Noah had found favor with God.

Questions:

What is the sons of God marrying the daughters of women mean? Is this implying that the sons of God are angels or God had fathered mortal men and they mated with daughters of women? Or does this imply that Adam who was created in the image of God and the likeness of God was in fact a "son of God". Adam's children then who were created in the image and likeness of Adam (Genesis 5:3) were essentially the sons of God? If this were the case then it would give some credence to the theory that man had existed and Adam was chosen from among all mankind by God to be special in the way that God chose Noah and Abraham later on. These then would be God's sons who commingled with the daughters of women, men and women that were not specially chosen or appointed by God for His divine purpose.

But, then what are the Nephilim?

Why had mankind's thoughts become so wicked over time? What is it about man's nature that God was full of regret in creating him?

What did Noah do to find favor with the Lord?

Genesis 5 - The Geneaology of Adam to Noah

Synopsis:

When God created mankind He did so in the likeness of God.
Adam had Seth. Adam lived for 930 years and had numerous children.
Seth had Enosh. Seth lived 912 years and had numerous children.
Enosh had Kenan. Enosh lived 905 years and had numerous children.
Kenan had Mahalalel. Kenan lived 910 years and had numerous children.
Mahalalel had Jared. Mahalalel lived 895 years and had numerous children.
Jared had Enoch. Jared lived 962 years and had numerous children.
Enoch had Methuselah. Enoch lived 365 years, had numerous children, but Enoch walked with God. Because of this God took Enoch away.
Methuselah had Lamech. Methuselah lived 969 years and had numerous children.
Lamech had Noah. Lamech lived 777 years and had numerous children.

Noah was named Noah because "He will comfort us in labor and painful toil caused by the ground the LORD has cursed".

Noah became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Questions/Observations

1. Adam had a son in "his own likeness" and "his own image". What is the significance of Adam having a son in the same terminology that God had Adam?

2. Why did Enoch get taken away? What did he do differently that warranted that approach?

3. What am I to make of the incredible ages these early men lived to?

Abbé - Voltaire

Once again we go to Voltaire in our intellectual journey. In his Philosophical Dictionary we just started at the first little blurb, Abbé. In it he is critical of the Monsieur l'Abbé because the name Abbé (father) should not be held by such a wicked class of folks. Voltaire takes issue with these heads of monks because they have taken the vow of poverty and since doing so acquired massive amounts of wealth and power. In his sarcastic way he argues for the Abbés' claims to wealth - the bishops used to be poor, so why can't we the abbés break off our poverty shackles and acquire wealth and power as well. Voltaire says go for it, "overrun the land; it belongs to the strong man, or the clever who seize it." He states that the Abbés have profited from the ignorance, superstition and insanity prevalent in the masses but warns them: "tremble, lest the day of reason arrive".

One of the things I like about Voltaire's critique is that it initially attacks the excesses of the religious leaders and their hypocrisy but not the religion itself. He criticizes the religious leaders who are growing wealthy while the poor starve at their doorsteps. This is a proper critique of religion. There is something wrong with religious leaders who become wealthy and indignant to the poor. The callous nature of this is truly something for "religion to be indignant at. However, what I don't like about Voltaire's or most criticism of religion is that it blames the religious' rise to prominence on the ignorance, superstition and insanity in the masses. The notion that religion is based on superstition is an old argument put forth by skeptics of every age. But, this assumes that the skeptics of every age (usually a tiny portion of the population at large) are the only enlightened ones. This form of intellectual elitism is as unpalatable as the hypocritical religious leaders.

I wonder though if we are in the age when the religious leaders are trembling because the day of reason has arisen. This reason has led us to the laissez-faire approach to ethics and morality that we see today. I think that much of this reason bravado is masked behind an intellectual cowardice that is post-modern philosophy. If the post-modern thinking of relativism is truly the way to go then let us apply it with conviction. Do not piecemeal adapt it to suit your own moral convictions but celebrate it and live it. Grant that 2+2=4 only for some and that 2+2=5 for others. Show the intellectual courage and fortitude to adopt your live and let live guiding principle in mathematics. Let the superstitious wallow in their pitiful notion that there is something that is correct and something that is not. Let us wallow in our own insanity. That way you can be clever, for the world belongs to those clever enough to take it right? But beware, lest the day come once again when the insane like me find ourselves once again called upon to instill some good ole insanity back into power.

The New Business of Indentured Servitude

An article in The Economist June 15th, 2013 Edition struck me this week. I know, I'm a bit behind on my reading. The article is about crowdsourcing future earnings. Basically, there are a number of new websites like Upstart, Pave, CareerConcept and Lumni that are giving people a chance to write a dossier about themselves and what they would do with the money that people can invest in them. In return the "investors would receive a percentage of the person's pre-tax income over a number of years" (The Economist, pp75).

The scary thing about this is that it sounds like a new version of the indentured servitude model that was so in vogue during the early colonial period of immigration to the United States. Investors pay for the way to the new world and in doing so the party who was invested in would serve as a "servant" for an agreed upon number of years. The potential for abuse in this hundreds year old scenario were borne out of desperation. Desperate to find some better economic conditions the indentured would stay on longer than the original contract. The free labor that the landowners got made the wealthier even wealthy. As today's economic prospects for young, educated but highly indebted college graduates continues to stay stagnant the desperation seems to be rising throughout the country. While each of these sites seems to put a cap on the amount that the invested in party has to pay out (10% for pave, 7% for Upstart and Upstart caps the total amount the invested in party has to pay at 5x the initial investment), there still seems to be a scary precedent being set here.

The one that seems to strike me as most dangerous is Lumni. Lumni focuses on low-income students in countries like Mexico, Chile and America. The other bit that makes me feel a bit queasy is the terminology associated with this type of investing. This whole concept is called "human-capital contracts". Oren Bass, a co-founder of Pave prefers to call them "social financial agreements". I like to call my gambling losses "economic lessons", but the lessons or losses seem to have the same effect on me.