The history of religions on one foot
In the beginning man created God
In the opening I will confess twice, first of all - I did not come to reinvent the wheel, but to illuminate some kind of dark corner in relation to religion and belief. Second - this list comes to complete an article I wrote in Hidaan and which is dated October 31, 2010 and has the title - "Faith please. That's how it started".
In almost every ancient civilization, certainly pagan, the need to rely on a mysterious force, superior or inferior, to deal with problems that lack understanding, for generations of course, such as sunrise and sunset, earthquake, volcanic eruption, birth and death, desert and flood, is burned into the deep consciousness. These phenomena undoubtedly created traumas, personalities and collectives among our archaic ancestors. And where a question arises, the answer will surely be found - the dependence on higher powers, and the almost focused answer was born in ancient societies, even without there being any geographical or chronological connection between them. There is always that "sage" born, who will invent the answer in the religious context and derive personal profit from it, he and his descendants after him.
In front of a group of students, I usually "invent" such a situation in order to wonder about the possibility of finding the same answer as above to the same problem shrouded in mystery and mystery. It is said that somewhere in the oral-historical era, a born leader who gathered the tribe around him and mouthed an apocalyptic message: "Dear public, tomorrow the sun will not rise!" He said and did not add and did not interpret. The public recoiled and his grip loosened. O-then the "Prophet of Wrath" calmed him down with hope in his mouth, saying: "Friends, calm down! I have the power to bring about the removal of the phenomenon of fear. There is a mysterious figure somewhere responsible for the whole phenomenon. I can try and contact her to ask her to remove the threat, and this on the condition that you believe in me and compensate the character through me with various gifts!" The public, of course, responded to his request, just like a visit to a potential collector of sponsorship fees at a certain business, and to everyone's "surprise" the next day the sun came out. The same event could also have occurred in connection with a solar or lunar eclipse, you name it.
A perhaps winding but logical line connects the stories of Robinson Crusoe on the deserted island and the film in which the actor Tom Hanks portrays the character of the vice president of the communications company "FedEx", whose plane crashed near a deserted island, and in which our hero created an image of a god with the help of a balloon ball and a wooden pole, whom he worshiped and He believed and thus relieved the feeling of loneliness that befell him as a sign of having no origin.
This is also the formula for inventing beliefs and developing religions throughout history, and to a large extent both in our present day and within the lines of our borders. A public that finds it difficult to hold on to a rationale finds itself buried, literally, in religious swamps, demanding and demanding, and handcuffed to the mouthpieces of religious sages of all kinds. Especially in the very ancient times, when the individual was surrounded by circles of mystery and only waited for a certain man to be rescued from there, and the rest is history.
Here we have the logical, historical infrastructure of the formation of religions and beliefs, along the lines of "In Genesis man created God". And if so, it is clear almost without any shadow of a doubt that the created God, created by man, will be the likeness and image of man, and from the belief and hope of the inventor, that it is possible to reverse the creation, with a clear intention, and claim, and why not, that God created the Man in his likeness and image.
It is not for nothing, then, that the divine figures in every religion are very close in their image and likeness to the likeness and image of man. Here in the humanization process there is a desire to sanctify the status of God on the one hand and on the other hand to raise the value of man and even allow him the thought that God is like him..
And in any case, let's not forget that the Bible was written by human beings - and more precisely by a priestly, opinionated, deuteronomistic junta, who had every reason in the world to shape the biblical text according to their worldview.
At the beginning of the biblical work, it is known and clear that it was written many hundreds of years after the dating of its events and the fruits of the labor of the priests, it is stated with emphasis that "And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... And God created man in his image, in the image of God created him. Male and female he created them" (Genesis, 27:26-XNUMX). It is worth noting that a cardinal contradiction arises from this between the creation of the male and the female in this chapter, when in the next chapter the creation of the woman from the body/rib of man is told, and moreover to know that from this the man and the woman are equal in their holiness, but this is already another opera.
In any case, also in Genesis 5:3-XNUMX, we read that "This is the book of Adam's history on the day God created Adam." In the image of God made him. Male and female in Ram... And there was a man thirty and one hundred years old and he was born in his image according to his image, and he called his name Sheth."
Despite my tiresome search for an interpretation other than the symbolism of abstraction and the immanent spirituality, both among the commentators of the ancient era and among the commentators of our time, and I came up with pottery in my hands, with the exception of relying on the commentary of Rashi, born in the tenth century AD in the Ile-de-France of the City of Lights For the future (and how symbolic it is) who claims, in pseudo-heresy, seemingly of course, that by "the image of God" is meant in the pattern of God, literally as the pattern of God's coin and God's portrait. And this in itself is amazing, both in its audacity on the one hand, and in the disregard of the public who believe in his interpretation on the other hand along the paths of history. In Sage literature that predates Rashi's generation, that is, in the second-fourth centuries AD, it is claimed that the matter of figurines expresses preferred social traits and quality of behavior among humans, meaning that this is a completely abstract interpretation. Maimonides, born in the 13th century, believed that "Betzelem El" means to have abstract intelligence, and the word "image" only teaches about an abstract imagination. And after him, the Ramban and the following generations up to the present day, and even the interesting and quite original philosopher, and no doubt brave in his thoughts, Prof. Yeshayahu Leibovitz, failed, in my opinion, in emphasizing the issue of idolatry in the abstract context.
And perhaps we will go to the Bible and check the contexts of the phrase "image", and here are some examples: "And King Ahaz sent to Uriah the priest the image of the altar and its pattern" (10 Kings 18:5); "And out of it the likeness of four beasts" (Isaiah 26:XNUMX); "This is from them - the image of a man for pleasure" (Ezekiel XNUMX:XNUMX); "As a sapphire stone looks like a throne, and on the likeness of a throne there is a look like a man on it" (Ezekiel XNUMX:XNUMX) and more. Before us there is undoubtedly a physical and not a virtual and abstract association with the word figure.
Moreover, Ezekiel himself seems to take us back to the book of Genesis, to the creation of man in the image of God and in his likeness, but in the opposite direction - from man to God, and in his famous vision he paints God as the image of man, as the mirror of man. Just amazing and interesting.
And here is the "heresy" thing - if image and likeness are abstract expressions, then we are all supposed to be an intelligent species without a body, without organs.
In any case, I would be "evil from Daoriyata" in this matter if I follow the rabbinic line that strips and simplifies in relation to the first commandment. And immediately. But in the meantime, I will emphasize that in modest resemblance to Hans-Christian-Andersen's Zatot, who shouted at the top of his voice: "The King is naked!", and to say that "Betzelem El" is nothing but the physiological-organic-visual pattern of a person.
Well, if human beings were created in the image of God, then God changes form and image, which appears in every belief of an ancient civilization as a natural and self-evident thing. And if "in the beginning man created God", then anyway there is a physical-visual identity between man and God.
And the book of Genesis emphasizes later (Genesis 6:XNUMX): "He who sheds man's blood, his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man." Beyond the perverted idea of an eye for an eye, the most wrong of all wrongs, comes from this poignant teaching that murdering a person is similar to murdering God, physical murder of someone who was created in the image of God, and enough for wisdom to imply.
It is therefore interesting how the divine abstraction that so characterizes Judaism was born alongside the monotheistic faith, which, by the way, is also quite questionable, and at least problematic in the conceptual context of this and the chronological context of this. And from the time she was born, how were the verses above that categorically point to divine personification explained to the public.
Moreover, how do these verses reconcile with the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other God before me" (Exodus 3:XNUMX)?
... for all the commandments, according to Halacha and Law, as is customary in any society, seek to make a fence and a reservation to accepted customs and lifestyles practiced in any society. In other words, we are talking about a war on paganism and, in fact, all attachment and dedication to another god. And who will create and make the other god? Man of course! And this immediately connects us with the Risha - in the beginning man created God.
Moreover, with the religious assumption at that time, that God is all-powerful, the question arises as to why he is afraid of being rejected in front of another god, unless man is the one he created! It is even hinted in the text itself - "You shall not have..." on the assumption that "be" is connected to "do" and indeed later on it is said that "You shall not make for yourself a statue or any image that is in the heavens above or that is in the earth below, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them and you shall not serve them, for I, the Lord your God, am not jealous.
And now to the "evil from Dauriata". If we start from a point of departure that indeed the accepted interpretation regarding "in his image and likeness" was - the abstract and not the physical one, then why can't we interpret and interpret the instruction of the first commandment, in its continuation - "You shall not make for yourself a statue or any likeness..." (Exodus 4:XNUMX), as an abstract instruction - Not a real statue or image but something immanent, intangible in definition and realization. Will the religious commentators agree to this? of course not.
We have already emphasized that we learn about them anyway. In other words, the instructions in the Ten Commandments seek to build a fence and a caveat, such as in the areas of theft, murder, adultery and... the sanctification of wooden and stone statues. That is to say that the people of Israel were more pagan than monotheistic, and we learn about this even from the end of the first verse, when reforming kings such as Hezekiah and Josiah sought to centralize the worship and failed miserably. Which points to pagan processes and currents much more than monotheistic.
And to close the circle with which we opened the present article, we will emphasize that we must not forget again and again, at least from the empirical starting point, that everything was written by a man, by the priestly dynasties for generations, and they definitely had something to lose, especially in Jerusalem around the temple, if the public increases in turning its face from the worship of the one God to paganism . And they surely knew that "in the beginning man created God" - Genesis chapter XNUMX according to the author's formula, and if I take the quote from Ezekiel as an aid, then man created God in his image, in his pattern - in the image of man and in the mold of man.
39 תגובות
How can one write an article like this without mentioning Yeshayahu Leibovitz and his reference to these claims...?
https://geniuses.club/genius/yeshayahu-leibowitz
Of course, his ideas were profound and not esoteric in this context, and in general.
My feeling is that the writer, unfortunately, is prone to pseudo-intellectual shallowness.
The amount of responses here only illustrates the need for valuable writers in the field.
"He doesn't have a body and he won't get it from the body getter and he has no imagination at all"
And it was said - atheism is a type of religion like health is a type of disease
A religious article by a religious person whose religion is atheism.
With one thing I can agree: certainly that man created God. This is true in all religions except Judaism.
0k
The most unscientific article I have ever heard
In a night of scrambled theories against one clear testimony of thousands of people that was passed down from generation to generation and its tremendous power went down to the circumcision they did to you
To the honorable Mr. Loram Epsom, as you probably know the nickname you have chosen is another name for meaningless gibberish and that
More or less what you produced in your response, I'm sorry, but the first-order interpretation you make of "sunset", without going down to deeper layers, is simply disappointing - if the story was so simplistic, it wouldn't have won the title of story
The best MDB (short) of all time.
I already wrote about Mr. Nissim's linear approach, childish on the verge of primal, or the catchphrase of the move, in a previous comment, the good news is that over the years they will discover more faces and aspects of human existence, and the things
We will understand at one point or another.
Since I have already tried several times to remove from my mental fixation some of the respondents with an allergy to the term "faith"
who insist on not understanding that most people's perception of reality is based on rules of thumb and beliefs (Za
Assumptions that cannot be proven or disproved, but can be evaluated by the plausibility test and quantified by probabilities - and that
This is especially true for the scientific world... After all, only in the last twenty years has the principle of locality, an unshakable cornerstone in physics and human logic, been found to be something that is probably wrong! So what was before? There was an unfounded belief that he was right! ), and since excavations for those who are not open to listening are a noel act, I wish Shabbat Shalom, a lot of wisdom, fruitful scientific research and curiosity to all the respondents, but I will not address this topic anymore.
Wondering
There is science and there is nonsense. What you are suggesting is without any evidence base. Do you want to believe any nonsense? Be healthy. But, don't look down on other people just because they see the king naked.
Science is "observation, offering an explanation and testing". This. And it works. Science has shown that the earth is not the center of the universe, man is nothing but an animal and that there is no soul. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something. It's really simple…
Shmulik
It is clear to me that I will be on the wise side, forgive me, the right one...
It seems to me that "wondering" missed the point of Asimov's story "Sunset". Isn't it only a diligent mapping of the movements of the various suns in the sky, building a theory and formula on the behavior of gravity, drawing conclusions about the existence of a hidden celestial body and understanding the consequences of its existence on human psychology on that planet could have redeemed it from the unhappy cycles in which it is subjected. If this theory had been developed a hundred years before the event and not a few months before it, they would probably have been able to prepare for it better and not lose their cities, culture and sanity once again.
How surprising, ignoring and collecting meaningless claims and grounding in reality, from a person whose worldview is based on his desire for the things he believes in to be the truth and if reality contradicts it, he should simply ignore it.
And another small thing for the move, the sentence "The human essence is not based on beliefs at all." I don't know what makes you think that" is perhaps the most self-conscious sentence someone can say while conscious.
Of course, we are not talking about "faith" only in the religious sense, but any theory, perception or conduct based on assumptions that are not deterministically based but on probability or personal preference (almost everything)... The concept of Bayesian faith is the most scientific concept in the world, and describes a million things that people do in a day A day every hour, and you didn't even know you were like that... (maybe now you are).
To the honorable commenters walking death and miracles, I am bothering to comment in order to open up mental options for people like you, on the one hand curious and looking for meaning, and on the other hand not always with training is sufficient ability, you don't really have to read or comment on them, really not.
Even for people with a limited ability to be a pluralist or to break out of a mental fixation, whether it is age or a lack of life experience, reading the things I wrote has already changed your reality a little, so there is a chance that one day you will realize that human reality is an extremely complex story.
The science to which we all owe so much cannot provide all the answers, and we must look for more channels for growth
and understanding. There is no doubt that the greatest chance to develop and especially to leave this planet depends mainly on science, but also the chance of extinction by machines with consciousness (Ray Kurzweil and the singularity theory).
You are invited to read "Sunset" by Isaac Asimov and understand that to run a human society you need more than test tubes, algorithms and theories in scientific journalism.
Raphael … thanks for your comment, I forgot about that theory, and I might check your suggestion 🙂
Miracles,
I know but I just wanted you to see what, at least one physicist says about the big bang, in a lecture that is not for laymen. Although I tried, I very quickly stopped understanding a large part of the terms that were said there 🙂
Beyond that, in your "argument" with the wrong one, you know that I am with you. Why don't you correct him when he babbles that everything is beliefs?
Shmulik
I love when the big bang is used as evidence that there was no big bang…
The same people also claim that science cannot know everything, but they do….
Sean, Sean Carroll.
I don't know what hit me...
Wondering
But rather
b) Listen, if you are not able to deal with completely simple arguments, and the most you are able to do is to ignore and imagine to yourself that this is how you solved your problem, then it is better to ignore in the form of not responding at all.
c) The human essence is not based on beliefs at all. I don't know what makes you think that. But just because you tell yourself something because you want it to be that way doesn't mean it's true. By the way, a person can live without any faith and it will not hurt him at all.
Miracles,
Known for the Big Bang, hear Shane Carroll, minute 21:30
https://youtu.be/vMDft1Xzn1M?t=1289
Wondering
Tetha claims on the one hand that science is limited, that man is limited and so on - then you invent a hypothesis that you yourself admit has no basis.
And what's more - this is a hypothesis that contradicts all science. According to science, there is no "before the big bang", therefore it is impossible that there was a creator.
Wondering
You have strong and good responses, it's a shame you're stuck in this deism, you could have been a lecturer in the "Deuteronomy".
walking dead
I'm sorry but you're talking.
Maybe at least if we have come to a situation where the concept of "belief" is in the picture, you should understand that the whole human essence is based on beliefs (remember that generalizations are always wrong when they are an empirical result?), so let's let people believe what they want and not attack or belittle the beliefs of others, because our own beliefs are equal to those of others in the test of objectivity and "logic".
Wondering
If we already allow ourselves to wonder about the things we cannot know through logical and scientific mechanisms, then one of those things we cannot know is what the things we will never be able to know.
Which tools exactly are you talking about by the way when you say that one should continue to try to understand reality with additional tools? Deciding that I choose to believe something because I badly want it to be true and that is why it is now true is not a tool for understanding reality no matter how much you choose to believe that it is indeed so.
Regarding your concepts of God, then if it is only about - "someone or something who defined
the physical laws according to which everything behaves" - then someone or something has no meaning in its influence on your day-to-day conduct and there is no justification to attach this abstract and meaningless identity to the identity of the gods of the kind that require the existence of some way of life and seeing them as one being. In fact this concept of God is meaningless.
Dear Nissim, I really don't have too much to offer you, you are the so-called "fixed" with a conception of God from the Garden, the one with the long beard who sits among the clouds.
There are 2 points that you will have to make an effort and understand in order to open your horizons and get out of the place where you are stuck:
1) You must recognize the fact that there are things that cannot be examined or captured with the tools that exist today, or at all, about disability
Human logic and the inability to make every problem computational will be able to find materials elsewhere - this fact
People like you need to wake up from the romantic view of the 20th century that science is omnipotent, it is not important
Continue to try to understand reality with additional tools.
2) Leave the concept of God from the Genon, or another religious concept, the existence of a creator for the vast universe that we
We live in it (a universe where the creation of our world is only a matter of technology and time), it is about someone or something that defined
the physical laws according to which everything behaves, and this is a certainly reasonable theory, and there is no reason to rule it out without it
Proofs... if you want to be rational and logical then your negation is worth accepting without proofs, read
about the deism movement and realize that you are simply wrong, and try to get out of the hollow and standard "secular" box,
It's just a shame because it gives the impression that you're actually trying to be a thinking person.
Raphael
Who asked you??? What is wrong with my answer?
Raphael
Do you know GIGO?
(garbage in, garbage out)
That's exactly how it is. When you deal with a junk book, you get junk output. It doesn't really matter who does it and in what way.
The same goes for your response. I put it in the input and see what the output is. Do yourself a favor, go back to your cowardly box, where you've been running for the past two months, and stop making spam comments on the site.
Agree with Ofer. A shallow and boring article for Eife.
As above the reactions of Nissim the tireless compulsive responder.
The law in its image and likeness and absolute divine validity
Wondering
In science there is no place for a creator. You can believe what you want, but the idea of a creator drops the foundation of our scientific knowledge.
There is nothing that cannot be scientifically tested. You claim "a creator exists" - so please suggest a way to test the claim, otherwise it has no meaning.
You claim "there was once a creator who initiated the big bang" - then again, suggest a way to test it.
Say something meaningful already - without all the mumbo-jumbo...
My poor opinion:
extremely shallow. Sorry, even shallower.
You simply do not understand what you are talking about and even worse, you are pumping your private (broken) world of values to the readers as if it were a Sinaitic Torah.
A small mistake I would like to correct.
Any reason or excuse that God was created by man makes my heart happy. This is how I keep getting stronger in the section
My atheist.
But you have to be precise when writing articles on a scientific website about local references - I mean: Genesis 3:5-XNUMX.
The above chapter should be chapter 3 5-XNUMX. Apparently a typo. And as sages say - the tip of iodine.
Please proofread properly before.
Overall the story is nice
Nissim, I still envy you, very much, for a very tight and self-confident world view, which is equal to almost any religion
Another that is based on blind faith in something (in God, Allah, Jesus or in your case in the absolute abilities of man).
The conclusion you reached that those who know more believe less is simply not true (this is true, perhaps, for average intelligent people, not for mountaineers), anyone who studies and deepens "heavy" topics usually comes to the conclusion that our knowledge is zero, a drop in the ocean, and that the number of questions increases About the amount of answers as you research and demand things.
This is why modesty and humility usually characterize the truly great.
I suggest you read about the deism movement, which disconnects the concept of the creator/architect of the universe from the practical religions we know in everyday life - religions as a psychological and social mechanism are a necessity and not unfair to people who recognize that we all live with very little knowledge about the nature of life and how things really work, while in terms of understanding The reality is that even the great thinkers and serious scientists do not childishly (or stupidly) deny the existence of a planner for the universe, simply because this is not a way to analyze and draw conclusions.
Well,
If you bring a movie plot as an example, it is recommended not to make a mistake in the essential details.
Tom Hanks didn't worship the ball like a god, he was just his friend. And FedEx is not a telecommunications company.
If a "winding but logical line" leads to a destination that does not exist, the logic is questionable...
Man does not know and probably will not know why we are here, why the universe exists and why the big bang happened
That's why you can't rule out a God who made everything our reality, but you can't prove it either... I just hope there is something beyond life
Man does not know and probably will not know why we are here, why the universe exists and why the big bang happened
That's why you can't rule out a God who made everything our reality, but you can't prove it either... I just hope there is something beyond life
How can a human being who is such a small creature, who was born only yesterday, and if you go up to the roof you will no longer see him because he is small, instead of marveling at the infinite creation, decides one day that he is smart, and already has a mind, and he already knows if there is a G-d or not , you are so small, that God has to ask if you exist...
And as much as humans research, they don't even know what the universe is made of.
So don't talk high..
Dear Sir,
Although I agreed with the logic of many of the ideas you presented below, you did not prove any of your points. For example, the same example story that is used as an explanation (with some disdain for human intelligence) for the formation of all religions wherever they are, indeed explains the existence of religions and traditions - but is there any additional evidence for this, or is it a nice mythological story that was made up for the purpose of the war on religion?
Moreover, how did you get from the hypothesis (based on parts of ambiguous verses, although quite convincing and in contrast to many dozens of thinkers who dealt with the same subject before you) that God was indeed invented in the form of man, to the complete denial of all monotheistic thought? Did you consider additional possibilities (such as the development of ideas over the years, the refinement of perception, linguistic differences, and so on), which you simply spared the reader - or did you just immediately jump to the conclusion?
One way or another, the story you presented in your article seems vaguely believable, and I would appreciate it if you could add a placeholder and perhaps a little discussion between different historical possibilities, based on an archaeological find and not just trendy musings and musings
Wondering
There is no need to be jealous of simple logic... But I'll take that as a compliment.
Today we are dealing with the particles of the first second of the Big Bang. This is an indescribable achievement of physics researchers.
We know today how the brain works on many levels. We know how to control individual neurons in the brain, and we are able to read minds (simple things for now.... wait a few more years and you will be even more amazed).
So physicists have several theories for the mechanism of the start of the Big Bang, and there is nothing mysterious about the brain (the brain is terrifyingly complex, but there is nothing that will prevent us in the future from understanding every neuron and every connection between neurons that we want).
So you are saying that God is a need of those who do not know? It seems to me that you are right - the more a person knows, the less his need for religious belief. Studies show that not only knowledge reduces religious belief, but also intelligence (don't kill the messenger 🙂 )
Miracles I am so jealous of people like you who have reached the "end of history" and understand how to explain the world around us in a mechanistic way with the minimal and rather poor knowledge that humanity has.
Without going into the issue of whether all the primitive mechanisms you mentioned (memory, the ability to deduce, etc.) that evolved so that you could run away from a lion or to find something to eat in the forest, can really allow the perception of deep meanings
Embracing the universe, are you sure you can explain with what we have today what caused the big bang? Why is there a period?
Life for the stars and galaxies? What is this strange game of life in which we all participate and why? Mainly why is all this happening?
We have some small theories that allow us to heat water, turn on lights and travel from place to place, we have made good progress in the field of "how to do things", although the first rain turns us all into cave dwellers on poles and a seasonal virus into colonies, but no one has any idea why all this happens, even Not to you, and if you put your personal denial mechanism aside you'll realize that you don't understand anything, really don't.
The illusion of power that we all have from the achievements of science, especially for people of science, entrepreneurship and technology, has an important role, because it allows us to continue on the path of progress and enlightenment, but most people seek solace in other places, no less worthy and suitable for the maintenance of billions of people as a productive and cultural society.
That is why God and faith are an inseparable part of human existence. Maybe one day it will be possible to change this, but that day is far from us. very very far
Wondering
I don't understand the concept of "the meaning of life". We live as a result of something, not for the purpose of something. Ask why we live, the answer lies in the past, not in the future.
The role of our consciousness is to build a model of the world to anticipate the future - the ultimate goal of culture. For this we have senses, memory, reasoning ability, emotions and so on.
Today we know that we don't need "God" to explain the world, and we need to understand that we have about 80 years to live, and we should make good use of them 🙂
From your article it appears that humans, wherever they are, need "God", therefore all those who try to destroy him consciously deny the soul and human nature, a very stupid and irrational act.
The concept of God can be replaced by the continuous striving of the human race to find meaning in the short and illogical life we all experience: grow, learn, work, reproduce and die. To all the amusing people who are terribly looking for rationality... after all, there is no point understood from the first moment for those who bother to think a bit, and only psychological mechanisms give the soul the basis to continue to grow evolutionary.
In this sense, God is a psychological defense mechanism, exists and exists just like any other psychological phenomenon, and the ridiculous attempts to prove that he "doesn't exist" are banal and not really intelligent.
By the way, God is not to blame for anything done in his name, just as the search for meaning can lead societies to mass murder
(Iraq and Syria) or to the stabbing and trampling of innocent citizens in the street in the name of protecting nonsense from a logical point of view, it can also lead to benevolence and the creation of a humane and supportive society.... It is not God but what we do with him.
Shabbat Shalom.