How did you come to your religion?

[Gravity]

What is morally binding about a philosophy? Unless a Moral Code is seen to be Divinely Established and Etermally binding, no one will care to follow it once it conflicts with the tiniest self interest.

Ahh, so it has to be a carrot and stick? "Flatter and praise me or you will be TORTURED FOR ETERNITY" said the God of love.

 

[Neildo]

The problem with threads like these is that their application of the word "religion" is entirely secular. Ancient Hebrew didn't even have a word for religion - the closest to it you'll find is the word da'at, derived from the Persian, and used in reference to an edict of the King (i.e., the final word). It eventually came to describe the custom and tradition (as a King's edict would become). For a long time, Israel had only God for a king, and the pentatech was His edict.

That's because at the time the Semites couldn't make up their mind of what to believe in. They couldn't decide whether to follow the Canaanite's religion or the Yahweh religion from the Midianites so they took a little of both, or even the beliefs of when they conquered Babylon. There was no word for their religion because religion didn't really come about until those times because that's when beliefs highly began to be copied from other religions due to all the wars at that time. The previous "religions" weren't really religions as the Gods interacted with the people in their daily lives as if they actually lived with them, but people of today consider that to just be "myths". Religion only really came about when the Gods were no longer interacting with people on a common level which was around the time Monothesism came into play and that's when all the speculation, assumptions, and philosophy of who and what that "one God" really is. Well, at least I consider religion to be different and not apply to Polytheism.

But never, ever, will I fall into the trap of thinking it's religion that makes that relationship possible.

Good thinking.

What is morally binding about a philosophy? Unless a Moral Code is seen to be Divinely Established and Etermally binding, no one will care to follow it once it conflicts with the tiniest self interest.

Well it was usually the people (those in charge) to actually carry out the punishment of breaking the laws of God. So in a sense, the same would apply to philosophy as well. While the commoners wouldn't have to fear divine power, they would still have to fear the men that do the punishing for their God.

- N

 

[Jenyar]

They couldn't decide whether to follow the Canaanite's religion or the Yahweh religion from the Midianites so they took a little of both

What about the laws they took into Canaan? Remember, they came from Egypt. In Egypt there was only one short-lived period that was monotheistic during Akhenaton's reign, but it didn't catch on. Midian was a son of Abraham - the nation of Midianites was part of the promise God made to him. They were also the people who took Joseph into Egypt as a slave and sold him to Potiphar, where he welcomed his father Israel and brothers into Egypt. Among them was Levi, from whose descendents Moses was born. Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, was a Midian priest, who took him in after he fled from Egypt. Jethro knew the God of the Hebrews (Ex.18). But when God spoke to Moses from the burning bush, He declared:

"I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." (Ex.3:6)​

Jethro's decendents were the Kenites (Judges 4:11), who befriended the Israelites (Judges 1:16) and separated themselves from the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:6) who opposed Israel.

Knowledge of God was never exclusive to Israel. Maybe you thought that. But even Abraham payed tribute to a priest called Melchizedek, "king of Salem" (Gen.14:18).

Well it was usually the people (those in charge) to actually carry out the punishment of breaking the laws of God.

Not so in Judaism. The council of priests/elders simply pronounced the verdict according to the law. It was up to people to carry out the punishment (apply the law). A law is nothing if it doesn't conflict with self-interest when necessary.