The shocking Truth [Archive] - Armageddon Online Forums

Beatnik Bob

Aug 23rd, 2005, 8:07 PM

You guys are insane! First of all. In the original torah it said: god created them and called "their" name Adom (Adom Kadmon: the primordial soul). There is no: "its eves falt", about it. Because adom, (acording to the Torah, Talmud, and the Kabbalah) Was not 1 soul but all basic humanity. It says in the Talmud that some spirits in adom kadmon left adom. When the forbiden fruit was about to be partaken in. Actually the Torah didnt nessasarilly "happen", theyre more like dreams(if that makes sence). (Genisis especially) they mean something. Chavah (eve) came from adom so it was an atribute of adom that took the fruit(the fruit . It doesnt really mean a physical woman or man. You people are missing the whole point of humanity: unity. adom was eve, eve was adom. They were(are) all one. Thats what the star of david means, the triangle pointing down represents the decending feminine (it is sometimes refered to as the chalis). A and the triangle pointing up represents the rising masculine. What happened to the oneness and unity with you people?? And someone also mentioned "god is comming back bro". My answer is: When did Adonai(g-d) ever leave?? Stories in the Torah are actually sort of a message to humanity, about humanity. The sacred femanine,or Shekinah actually represents the whole of humanity. You people actually believe there was an actual physical snake, a man a woman, and a fruit. No, it all symbolises something. (Like any phycologist will tell you about dreams) You people also believe theres a jesus. i dont believe in a human god like jesus. I believe in a god that you cant portray in a picture, a god that is a bigining without end. Not some nonsence pagan idolitry with a human face. A "human" as god! would you believe this idolitry? I thought there was only "one" god. not this father "and" son nonsence.....I bielieve in god......not jesus.

Philosopher Foelhe

Aug 23rd, 2005, 9:11 PM

I thought there was only "one" god. not this father "and" son nonsence

Actually, Jesus wasn't a god separate from Yahweh. According to the New Testament, he was the physical manifestation of that god. Sort of. The bible does refer to them as father and son, but it seems to me they mostly refer to those roles as facets of the same being. Confusing? Hell yes! We're dealing with a being which is supposedly omnipotent, here! You were expecting a cute care package with a bow?

A "human" as god! would you believe this idolitry?

Help me out here, Bob. Do you believe in a God so insignificant that he couldn't take the role as a human? Or do you believe that God is so indifferent toward our position that he wouldn't bother to interact with us on a base level?

I'm not trying to be mean, or start a fight or anything. I just can't understand this fury at the idea that God could take a particular form. It only seems like common sense that he would have the ability to do so, and it only seems like common sense that, if he cares about us, he'd have the inclination to do so. I'm not saying he did, obviously, but can you really be so disturbed by the possibility?

liberdave

Aug 23rd, 2005, 11:17 PM

Not some nonsence pagan idolitry with a human face. A "human" as god! Wow, I never thought I would hear christians be called pagans.

marglarg

Aug 23rd, 2005, 11:49 PM

Where's Jake99 when ya need him hey ... we really need an opinion of someone on the inside !!

Beatnik Bob

Aug 24th, 2005, 8:25 PM

Help me out here, Bob. Do you believe in a God so insignificant that he couldn't take the role as a human? Or do you believe that God is so indifferent toward our position that he wouldn't bother to interact with us on a base level?

Actually the Talmud and Mishnah (judaisms oral teachings) and Kabbalah speak of All humanity being a shard from G-d.Why would he bother confining himself to the image of a human? So that he could be worshiped in that form. I think G-d would rather be worshiped as the true Adonai. You say G-d is omnipotent.(i agree) But that doesnt mean that he would take the image of a golden calf.(is this making sence). (i repeat) Were all a shard of G-d. Thats how he created humanity, with his own essence. Ok, he used himself to make the whole world. But that doesnt mean you worship a rock or trea either (like some groups). And just because G-d put himself into making all humanity doesnt mean you worship your best friend. Christianity itself has VERY pagan roots. For example: The virgin mary with child is actually a rip-off of Isis and Horus. Two egiptian gods. (i could go on even further, and i will if you are willing to hear it, let me know). Acording to you Foele I should worship this this chair im sitting on. Because It has some of G-d put into it to allow it to be created. I failed to mention all this before because my post is long as it is......Christianity truly is idolitry.....

Philosopher Foelhe

Aug 24th, 2005, 8:51 PM

Why would he bother confining himself to the image of a human?

Dunno. According to Christians, it was to save them from ultimate sin. I don't buy it, but then it's not my religion.

It might have something to do with giving people a good sharp kick in the ass, get them moving, reacting. Let's assume Jesus was the messiah for a second; we see in the bible that he constantly critisized the Pharisees, who were the philosophical badasses of the day. Maybe he was annoyed that people would leave their spiritual matters to some stranger to deal with? Maybe he wanted Joe Average to start thinking again?

But the only thing I can really say for certain is that he is God, and thus inscrutable. I don't know why he does this stuff. We just keep guessing and hoping to hell we're not terribly screwed when the curtain is drawn.

Acording to you Foele I should worship this this chair im sitting on. Because It has some of G-d put into it to allow it to be created.

Not at all. Put it this way - your chair may have a little bit of God in it, but odds are it's only, like, .1% god and 99.9% chair. I wouldn't worship anyone on this forum, because pretty much every person on earth is 1% god, 99% human, at the very best. If I met someone who I could tell was 50% god, 50% human, I don't know if I'd worship that person, but I would at least treat him/her with incredible respect.

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Aug 25th, 2005, 3:00 PM

(Like any phycologist will tell you about dreams)
I'm just waiting for DBA or Keebler to point out that a phycologist studies algae, not dreams...

Hey, Bob, I noticed that you specified your location as being the U.S. You wouldn't happen to be from the south, would you?

Beatnik Bob

Aug 25th, 2005, 8:11 PM

Did you guys even know that the Talmud and Torah forbids the making of graven images (jesus). Im thankfully not from the south. Why do you ask?

liberdave

Aug 25th, 2005, 11:45 PM

Did you guys even know that the Talmud and Torah forbids the making of graven images (jesus). Im thankfully not from the south. Why do you ask? I hate to burst your bubble bob, but judaism has its roots planted firmly in a multi-godded pantheon (or pagan). Elohim? El? Adonai? Those ring a bell? Elohim were individual gods within a early judaic pantheon. Now the get relegated to "angel" status. El? He was A cheif male god. Adonai? Well he was the conglomeration of Sumerian gods rolling around at the time. Do a logical progression from Mesopotamian religions through Zoroasterism into Judaism and out Christianity and you wil see a ladder of (il)logical progression. So you calling Christianity pagan is like white people calling chinese people "immigrants", when they themselves are considered, by american indians, to be "immigrants". And, of course, I wouldn't have to talk about the stories in the Old Testament that are esseintially rip offs of old pagan stories (ie simularities between The Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark?)

Hey, Bob, I noticed that you specified your location as being the U.S. You wouldn't happen to be from the south, would you?Nope he's Jewish Bill! We ain't gots to many of dem folks down hea!

Did you guys even know that the Talmud and Torah forbids the making of graven images (jesus)And why did we need to listen to the Talmud OR the Torah again? And just WHO are you accusing of worshipping graven images? eh?

Philosopher Foelhe

Aug 26th, 2005, 12:43 AM

Did you guys even know that the Talmud and Torah forbids the making of graven images (jesus). Im thankfully not from the south. Why do you ask?

It's damned confusing following the same argument in two threads. A brief review from our brother argument - Jesus was not a graven image. Graven images are statues or carvings, such as the gold calf you've mentioned in... one of these threads. I'm not sure which. They do not apply to men.

If Jesus was a false god, yes, the Torah and Talmud would be horribly against it. But you haven't really proven that.

Beatnik Bob

Aug 26th, 2005, 4:45 PM

I hate to burst your bubble bob, but judaism has its roots planted firmly in a multi-godded pantheon (or pagan). Elohim? El? Adonai? Those ring a bell? Elohim were individual gods within a early judaic pantheon. Now the get relegated to "angel" status. El? He was A cheif male god. Adonai? Well he was the conglomeration of Sumerian gods rolling around at the time. Do a logical progression from Mesopotamian religions through Zoroasterism into Judaism and out Christianity and you wil see a ladder of (il)logical progression. I agree, all humankind was made up of polytheistic peoples at one time, but at leaste there was a group of people who knew it was somehow messed up and broke away from that form of worship(the jews). Thats actually what it really means to be a jew, a person that questions and thinks about things very deaply. And Judaism is recognized as being the first monotheistic religeon. Meanwhile the early christians are still praying to some serpent god until jesus is born and they start praying to him as a god, and they think they're finally a monotheistic religeon but really there still a pagan religeon, worshiping a graven image of G-d, which is completelly disaproved of in Duetoronomy. And then christianity comes along and starts stealing things from the Torah and quote it like they actually know it, but notice they dont quote things they dont understand, scriptures that actually point out that jesus isnt G-d. For instance the son G-d is not jesus but Israel (so the children of ignorance know, that is a tribe). Israel is Humanity. But this doesnt mean you worship Humanity, you worship the true G-d. I think Foelhe noted that a concept of jesus is easier to grasp, something you could touch at one time. Im sure thats why people worshiped a golden calf at one time(you could touch it). But that doesnt mean you should worship an idol just because you can touch it and grasp a concept of it.
And, of course, I wouldn't have to talk about the stories in the Old Testament that are esseintially rip offs of old pagan stories. Actually please tell me, maybe were both in this together then, Because Christianity is an extreme rip off religeon as well, example: Virgin with child is a rip-off of the egiptian gods Horus and Isis.
WHO are you accusing of worshipping graven images? eh? Im acusing Christians because they seem to be the only real religeon that worships in a church with a GRAVEN image of G-d, as Jesus, plastered up onto the cieling. And what i dont understand why you limit the son of G-d to just ONE person jesus. When in fact were ALL the children of G-d. (Thats what the Bible means about Israel as being a son of G-d, Israel is Humanity)......its not one person..... I'm sorry for my mistakes with the quote boxes.

Beatnik Bob

Aug 26th, 2005, 5:09 PM

Jesus was not a graven image. Graven images are statues or carvings, such as the gold calf you've mentioned in... one of these threads. I'm not sure which. They do not apply to men
OH YES THEY DO FOELHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The definition of graven image is ANY statue or carving. And abviously our society doesnt really make statues glued to text books for example, we use pictures now. So the same thing goes for pictures (the dictionary says pictures are recognized as graven images anyway). And therefore the pictures (and in some cases statues) of Jesus are graven images. And theres a commandment against ANY graven image in the book of Dueteronomy. And the Torah and Talmud ARE against it. Look at my previous post, i dont want to have to type it all again.

Philosopher Foelhe

Aug 27th, 2005, 12:46 AM

Thats actually what it really means to be a jew, a person that questions and thinks about things very deaply. And Judaism is recognized as being the first monotheistic religeon.

Point one: Being a Jew maybe MEANT being someone that questions and thinks of things very deeply. The truth is that a lot of Judiasts are just as ignorant and set in their ways as a member of any other religion. Don't try to say that's not true - I've got personal experience that says otherwise. Joining a certain group or religion does NOT make you any wiser than the average Tom, Dick and Harry, no matter what group is being discussed.

Point two: Actually, Hinduism is recognized as the first monotheistic religion. Maybe you were confused because Hinduists worship Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, but these three gods are actually considered one person - Brahman.

And then christianity comes along and starts stealing things from the Torah and quote it like they actually know it, but notice they dont quote things they dont understand, scriptures that actually point out that jesus isnt G-d. For instance the son G-d is not jesus but Israel (so the children of ignorance know, that is a tribe).

Point three: Okay, Israel is the metaphorical son of God, perhaps, but that doesn't really prove that Jesus isn't the spiritual son of God. Care to try again? You mentioned Deuteronomy but didn't actually give any details.

Point four: Try not to throw around phrazes like "children of ignorance" when discussing a particular religion; it makes you look like a bigot. I will accept it as unbelievable arrogance and move on. Also, they teach stories about the tribe of Israel in Sunday School when most little Christian children are, like, eight. Just so you know.

I think Foelhe noted that a concept of jesus is easier to grasp, something you could touch at one time. Im sure thats why people worshiped a golden calf at one time(you could touch it). But that doesnt mean you should worship an idol just because you can touch it and grasp a concept of it.

Point five: That's why I said that people might tend to worship Jesus more than God, since you asked that earlier. I also pointed out that this was speculation on my part, especially since all the churches I've been to worship God more. I didn't say that people worshipped Jesus because he was easier to grasp. If that was the way it worked, I'd be worshipping my computer right now. People worship Jesus because they really believe he was divine. Don't scold them for taking the "easy way".

I was going to make another point about idol worship, but I'll leave it since you challenge me on this later.

Actually please tell me, maybe were both in this together then, Because Christianity is an extreme rip off religeon as well, example: Virgin with child is a rip-off of the egiptian gods Horus and Isis.

Point six: I can't actually disagree with you here, but you deflected criticism from Judaism into another slam at Christianity. Christians ripped some of their myths off Pagan religions. Judaists ripped some of their myths off Pagan religions. Accusing Christianity of doing the same thing your religion does is hypocritical.

The definition of graven image is ANY statue or carving. And abviously our society doesnt really make statues glued to text books for example, we use pictures now. So the same thing goes for pictures (the dictionary says pictures are recognized as graven images anyway). And therefore the pictures (and in some cases statues) of Jesus are graven images.

Point seven: Okay, are you accusing Christians of making graven images, or of worshipping them. If you're accusing Christians of making them, yes, okay, guilty as charged - but if that's a sin, it kind've blows for any Judiasts out there who like painting.

If you're accusing them of worshipping them, you don't know much about Christianity - the images of Jesus in the church are not worshipped, they merely stand as reminders of Jesus' life and sacrifice. It's absolutely the same as a historical tapestry - it tells a story, but the story is what is significant.

Point eight, which will probably piss somebody off: Even if the graven image is of a god, it shouldn't be worshipped. I can respect that. But... why do you spell God as "G-d"? Aren't you putting too much focus on the letters G-O-D rather than the Omnipotent Being which you believe created the earth? Aren't you giving the WORD a status which borders on deifications? Aren't you breaking the rule you claim to be horrified Christianity is breaking?

Beatnik Bob

Aug 27th, 2005, 10:41 AM

Wow Foelhe. You probably are what the ORIGINAL Jew was suppost to be(Aka, compliment). Any way, im still going to quote you on some stuff. Ok, you said you dont worship the IMAGES THEMSELVES......but dont tell me that when your praying an image of jesus, posibly from a picture you have seen, doesnt apeare in your head THATS what it means by graven images really. You may not worship THE image itself, because everybody, as you mentioned learn in sunday school, prety much kind of have an idea of what jesus looked like. Aka, the picture of jesus is already "graven" in their mind. So they may not be bowing down to a piture on the wall (your right, its probably there so people know what there praying to, or maybe just for art, theres no problem drawing a human, just WORSHIPING the same person you portray in your picture). But they're worshiping the person in their mind. And I realise that hinduism's Siva, Vishnu, and Brahma are prayed to as one. But they still have their falts. I happen to actually of just read the "Ramayana". And although it may be a fiction story about Vishnu incarnating as a man named Rama, and how ramas wife Sita(an incarnation of Lakshmani) is captured by the great rakshasa lord Ravana, and how Rama finds friendship with a race of monkeys called Vanaras who help meet Ravana and his legions in battle, and how when Ravana is dead, all the gods are so overjoyed that Indra gives Rama's Vanaras a boon. And Rama finds out from his gurus' that the whole reason he came to Buhmi was to slay Ravana. And he rules the world for a thousand years and etc. But i noticed that they worshiped like sertain thing, like a lake a lotus blosom, some worshiped Sita, etc. I speculate that they realise that everything has a bit of the divine put into it but that doesnt mean you worship a chair (like i mentioned to you before). Some actually worshiped Rama, not Vishnu. And it was just Rama, no Siva or the father of the race of rakshasas, Brahma. Just Rama! And thats what Hinduism and Christianity have in common, you(wait, not you you already specified that if someone calls you a christian you'll......) worship jesus but not the eternal Hashem, who is everything at once. And yes i realise i write God like this: G-d. I know your not suppost to write Gods name like that all the time,only in certain sentences, but i am a human. And i got carried away with it. I apologize if writing Gods name like that affended some people. But its suppost to be pointing to G-d's atribute of divinity. Oh my, i just remembered something!!! I remembered when you said that one reason jesus was worshiped was because he did a bunch of stuff like heal the blind and stuff. But Judaism also has Moses who who struck a rock and water came out and parted the red sea. But do Jews pray in Moses's name? Or even in Abraham's?? No, we still pray to God. I know that was a little out of the "blue"(dig it? Vishnu, the Blue God)and all. ok back on the debate. You said that Jesus was the spiritual son of God, and Israel is the metaphoricle son of god. No Foelhe, Humanity is the SPIRITUAL son of God (havent i said that were all children of god at leaste once in all my posts on this religeon site?). Man! im forced to keep repeating myself again AND AGAIN!! I said that were all created from the essense of God, and were ALL his children! Im sorry for getting pissed but i dislike repeating myself to people as many times as i have. Its probably my falt though for not firmly establishing the concept. And when did i mension Dueturonomy? Was it when i was saying that it forbids graven images in Duetoronomy?? Ok, what else......oh, how do you get the smilies to work on this site?? I was going to a ttempt to create an atmosphere of less tention with one of the smilies.......if they would bloody work.....and im sorry for my lack of focusing. I realise that i stray from the debate and go off on something, and then switch back to the debate all of a sudden. Anyway, i want to hear your reply.

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Aug 27th, 2005, 10:44 AM

Point eight, which will probably piss somebody off: Even if the graven image is of a god, it shouldn't be worshipped. I can respect that. But... why do you spell God as "G-d"? Aren't you putting too much focus on the letters G-O-D rather than the Omnipotent Being which you believe created the earth? Aren't you giving the WORD a status which borders on deifications? Aren't you breaking the rule you claim to be horrified Christianity is breaking?
Good call, PF!

Beatnik Bob

Aug 27th, 2005, 11:50 AM

Good call, PF!
If you would read my previous post i responded to that proving his statement false. But ill repeat it for you. When i write God like this: G-d. Its showing G-d's divinity. Representing that G-d goes beyond a name. And writting God's name like that is a bit of a habit for me anyway. Read my previous post.

Philosopher Foelhe

Aug 27th, 2005, 4:17 PM

... Alright, before I get started on this, I'm gonna have to ask that in the future, you use the Enter key from time to time. It makes it hard to figure out what you're saying if everything you write is jumbled into one "subject".

Anyway, getting away from the Grammar Nazi within...

Ok, you said you dont worship the IMAGES THEMSELVES......but dont tell me that when your praying an image of jesus, posibly from a picture you have seen, doesnt apeare in your head THATS what it means by graven images really.

Sorry, but I just can't agree with this. I may be misquoting, but doesn't the Torah say, "Thou shalt not worship graven images"? Whatever Christians see in their minds-eye when they pray, they're sending the worship to a being they believe is divine.

You may not worship THE image itself, because everybody, as you mentioned learn in sunday school, prety much kind of have an idea of what jesus looked like. Aka, the picture of jesus is already "graven" in their mind.

A lot of people are highly visual - they come up with pictures of what they're thinking about, often without really meaning to. It's true with Jesus, it's true with God. I think accusing those people of idolatry is a bit unfair.

And I realise that hinduism's Siva, Vishnu, and Brahma are prayed to as one. But they still have their falts.

... Well, that doesn't really change the fact that Hinduism is really the first monotheistic religion. Focusing on some of your actual complaints of the religion onward...

But i noticed that they worshiped like sertain thing, like a lake a lotus blosom, some worshiped Sita, etc. I speculate that they realise that everything has a bit of the divine put into it but that doesnt mean you worship a chair

Hmm... I don't really know much about Hinduism, I'm afraid, so I can't say much about this. Anyone on the board know anything about Hinduism?

Some actually worshiped Rama, not Vishnu. And it was just Rama, no Siva or the father of the race of rakshasas, Brahma. Just Rama!

But according to your description of the story, Rama was the reincarnation of Vishnu. Doesn't that make him divine?

And thats what Hinduism and Christianity have in common, you(wait, not you you already specified that if someone calls you a christian you'll......)worship jesus but not the eternal Hashem, who is everything at once.

Smart man! :D I'm actually not quite as bad as the quote implies, although I have my days. But thanks for paying attention to that. :2thumbs:

As for your actual point - again, I don't know much about Hinduism. But I think with Christianity, worshippers give thanks to God, who is the Alpha and Omega etc. etc. etc., and they give thanks to Jesus, who give them access to God's divinity. Whether you believe Jesus gives you "access" to God (which I don't) is pretty much incidental. They believe what they believe. *shrugs*

And yes i realise i write God like this: G-d. I know your not suppost to write Gods name like that all the time,only in certain sentences, but i am a human. And i got carried away with it. I apologize if writing Gods name like that affended some people.

Oh, I wasn't offended. I just wondered why you were annoyed at Christians for putting too much focus on "earthly representations" of Jesus, but you couldn't write God's name out. If it's just habit, that's fine. But I wonder - when are you actually supposed to write "g-d"?

Oh my, i just remembered something!!! I remembered when you said that one reason jesus was worshiped was because he did a bunch of stuff like heal the blind and stuff. But Judaism also has Moses who who struck a rock and water came out and parted the red sea. But do Jews pray in Moses's name? Or even in Abraham's?? No, we still pray to God.

Well, in theory, Jesus also rose from the dead with his own power. He also died pretty much on purpose, for us. Two things no one else has ever done. (Addendum: Paul claimed he also rose from the dead, but then again, Paul was a little crazy. I have no idea how Christians who actually listen to Paul explain this.)

I know that was a little out of the "blue"(dig it? Vishnu, the Blue God)and all. ok back on the debate.

You said that Jesus was the spiritual son of God, and Israel is the metaphoricle son of god. No Foelhe, Humanity is the SPIRITUAL son of God (havent i said that were all children of god at leaste once in all my posts on this religeon site?). Man! im forced to keep repeating myself again AND AGAIN!! I said that were all created from the essense of God, and were ALL his children! Im sorry for getting pissed but i dislike repeating myself to people as many times as i have.

*grins* Oh, buddy. Eventually you'll learn that on this site, you'll repeat yourself again and again and again. Just because this is a debate site, and sometimes debates cover the same ground when people are prodding your argument for holes. Don't take it personally.

Anyway, perhaps I spoke badly. Jesus was the biological son of God? Uh, no. Jesus was the physical son of God? I'm not sure how that works. Well, it's hard to clarify my point on this, except to say that even if we are all the spiritual children of God, there is a possibility that another person may be on another level of spirituality. There are many, many levels.

It's like I said earlier. A chair probably has a tiny bit of divinity in it. You and I probably have a greater degree of divinity within us, but still nothing of particular note. A messiah, on the other hand, might have a huge degree of divinity, almost to the point where he's one with God. That's what I'm getting at.

Was it when i was saying that it forbids graven images in Duetoronomy?? Ok, what else......oh, how do you get the smilies to work on this site?? I was going to a ttempt to create an atmosphere of less tention with one of the smilies.......if they would bloody work.....and im sorry for my lack of focusing. I realise that i stray from the debate and go off on something, and then switch back to the debate all of a sudden. Anyway, i want to hear your reply.

I think I can cover all of this at once.

I mentioned Deuteronomy because I though you implied there was a message in Deuteronomy that disproved Christianity. You were going for the "graven images" bit? Okay, that's cleared up.

The smileys should be right next to the area in the replies where you type. If you don't see the smiley you want, just click on the "more" bottom and another window should pop up. Putting them in your message is easy - just leave the cursor where you want the smiley to go, then click on the face of your choice.

As for the meandering debate don't worry - we're still on subject! That puts you leagues ahead of quite a few of the people on here. (No offense, guys!)

Beatnik Bob

Aug 27th, 2005, 9:39 PM

They may BELIEVE he is divine. But (like you previously said) he might not be. I mean, Paul realy was a greatly disturbed being. And why would christianity base their whole doctrin on a bunch of letters Paul wrote. And actually its not really "worship". But rather forbiding the creation of graven images for somebody to come to a conclusion of one certain form, which is intended to be G-d. But you still havn't told me why G-ds form is limited to just jesus. Why not me for example. (actually thats sort of a joke). I mean, i dont get why its always JUST Jesus? Because we are ALL the sons and daughters of HaShem. Were all the physical son of G-d god darn it!!! But why do you think one man is closer to G-d than you or me? Arent ALL humans created equal? Ok i guess they arent as close to G-d if they murder or something, but still.....equality man. We all have the same level towards G-d. There's no "teachers pet" in this situation. Oh, and did i mention that im extremely glad that your not a christian. It alows you to be more open minded on this subject. And YOU gain your access to G-d, your spirit is actually your conection to G-d. You dont need Idolitry with a human face to connect to G-d. Hese right in your head. Some beilieve its your pienal gland.

Just because Rama is an incarnation of Vishnu doesnt nessisarily make Rama more divine than Vishnu. So dont you worship the one with more divinity. Because it also mentions later on that Rama isnt the first form Vishnu incarnated into. So why worship Rama with the intent of worshiping Vishnu, because Rama isnt the only Vishnu(if that makes sence). And that kind of ties into Christianity. But you should read "the Ramayana" ("yana" meaning physical and/or spiritual journey) Its a very good book, although theres alot of different translations for it. But anyway, im not sure if there still a monotheistic religeon. Because in some parts of the book i read that some of the people actually prayed/worshiped Agni(god of fire) Or Indra(king of the Devas) Or even Vanura(lord of the seas). And an asortment of other elemental gods, kings, Rishis, and Brahmanas(followers/ worshipers of Bramana).

And thanks for the smilie help :D . Thats Groovy. I'd like to here your reply anyway. And im i the only Jewish person on this site?

Philosopher Foelhe

Aug 28th, 2005, 12:10 AM

They may BELIEVE he is divine. But (like you previously said) he might not be.

Well, yeah, but the same thing could be said of your God, couldn't it? You believe he exists, but he might not. The point is that you (like Christians) have decided that you believe your God exists. And you have decided to stick to your guns. So have they.

I mean, Paul realy was a greatly disturbed being. And why would christianity base their whole doctrin on a bunch of letters Paul wrote.

*chuckles* Well, to be totally fair, we don't know if Paul was really insane. You think so because you disagree with Christianity. I think so because Jesus laid this great road for people to follow with the "All men are brothers" line of thought, and Paul fucked it up with, "... except, y'know, all those bastards! *points* Those guys SUCK!" But a lot of Christians I know think Paul was a nitwit, and we can't even say for sure that those who follow him are in the wrong. So it's tricky.

And actually its not really "worship". But rather forbiding the creation of graven images for somebody to come to a conclusion of one certain form, which is intended to be G-d.

Oh. I've actually never heard that before. Hmm...

Well, I've been trying to argue that Christianity stands with all of the tenants of Judaism. I guess now that's not true... but allow me to point out two things that were pretty much destined to come into play with this argument.

1. In the New Testament of the Bible, I do believe Jesus said, "The old has passed; all has been made new." Most Christians see that as, "We were steeped in sin, but now we've been purified!" But in this case, it might partly have to do with this law. We could not imagine God, but when Jesus came (says the Christian) we were given a shard of him, an image that we could interact with for a short time, and remember.

2. Just because Christians do it doesn't mean it's supported by Christianity. It's possible crucifixes and pictures of Jesus are heresy, and Christians don't even realize it. That does not necessarily mean Jesus himself was not a messiah - it just means Christians have fucked up.

But you still havn't told me why G-ds form is limited to just jesus. Why not me for example. (actually thats sort of a joke). I mean, i dont get why its always JUST Jesus? Because we are ALL the sons and daughters of HaShem.

It's an extension of what I said earlier, how you and I could be 1% HaShem, and a messiah could be 50% HaShem. In this case, Christians believe that Jesus was 100% HaShem, and that it would be impossible for any other man to reach even near that high.

But why do you think one man is closer to G-d than you or me?

You mean, why do Christians think one man is closer to God than you or me? :smokin:

I think Christians believe humanity is naturally flawed, and that God cannot interact directly with those flaws. So he sends a go-between, to prepare us until God can deal with us. Or something. Wow, it's been a really long time since I've gone to church.

Arent ALL humans created equal? Ok i guess they arent as close to G-d if they murder or something, but still.....equality man. We all have the same level towards G-d. There's no "teachers pet" in this situation.

I used to be very big on the "All men are created equally!" stance. But look at people, really look at them, and you see this isn't true. You have people like me, who can't walk down the goddamn street without thinking about God. You have people like some of the atheists on this forum, who are good and ethical people, but who can't feel God at all in their lives. You have people who treat others like trash because the idea of empathy is a foreign concept to them.

You look at all these people, and you see a huge degree of difference in their spiritual lives, which can't really be explained by their circumstance or history. I can't really think of it as anything but a difference in raw material. Which tells me we aren't all created equal.

So, do I think there's a possibility for someone to be so "clued in" that they become a messiah of sorts? Sure. Granted, I don't think there's any one Great and Mighty Savior, but that's my opinion.

You dont need Idolitry with a human face to connect to G-d. Hese right in your head. Some beilieve its your pienal gland.

LOL! Hail, Discordia, hail! That's awesome.

I do agree with you, but here as in all places it becomes a matter of opinion. Some people believe they're separate from God, and they need an "in". I don't agree with it, you don't agree with it, but I don't think it's so harmful that it has to be stomped down. And I don't think it's a blight on the face of Judaism, either.

Just because Rama is an incarnation of Vishnu doesnt nessisarily make Rama more divine than Vishnu. So dont you worship the one with more divinity. Because it also mentions later on that Rama isnt the first form Vishnu incarnated into. So why worship Rama with the intent of worshiping Vishnu, because Rama isnt the only Vishnu(if that makes sence).

Yes, I understand. I'd suggest that the reason people worship Rama is that his existance proves Vishnu cares about people. Vishnu is a powerful, all-knowing God. We're just a bunch of people, islands in this ocean world we can only begin to understand. When a god takes the form of a man, it forms a connection between the two different concepts. A lot of people feel the need for those connections.

But you should read "the Ramayana" ("yana" meaning physical and/or spiritual journey) Its a very good book, although theres alot of different translations for it.

Religious text to study! W00T! :headbang: Much thanks, Bob.

But anyway, im not sure if there still a monotheistic religeon. Because in some parts of the book i read that some of the people actually prayed/worshiped Agni(god of fire) Or Indra(king of the Devas) Or even Vanura(lord of the seas). And an asortment of other elemental gods, kings, Rishis, and Brahmanas(followers/ worshipers of Bramana).

Well... I guess I don't know. I'm afraid Hinduism is one of maybe three major religions I haven't studied in-depth. I've been told there's debate as to whether Hinduism is monotheistic or trinitarian. I believe even those dieties you mentioned are facets of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, who are then facets of Brahman. But I'd be the first to admit I'm not really clear on all of this.

And thanks for the smilie help :D . Thats Groovy. I'd like to here your reply anyway. And im i the only Jewish person on this site?

Hey, I'm glad to help! I don't know if we have any more Jews on the forum, to be honest. Geez, we gotta map out the religious topography of this site sometime.

Edit: Damn quote boxes! So inanely picky! *shakes fist impotently at screen*

liberdave

Aug 29th, 2005, 12:53 PM

And Judaism is recognized as being the first monotheistic religeon. Actually, Zoroastrianism is considered to be the first monotheisic religion. It was influencing the jews while they were still in Babylonian captivity.

Meanwhile the early christians are still praying to some serpent god But were still monotheistic in nature. The gnostics (these early christians) were a still somewhere in that pagan/jew synthesis.
until jesus is born and they start praying to him as a god, First off, how could they be christians before jesus was born? And then jesus still wasn't god, he was the 'son of god' and the son of man too, but hey, i didn't say it made sense!:alcoholic

And even then, christians still and they think they're finally a monotheistic religeon but really there still a pagan religeon, worshiping a graven image of G-d, which is completelly disaproved of in Duetoronomy. See, that is a jewish response to christianity. When you talk of christians you have to put them into the context of the New Testament, yeah they hold the ten commandments high... but... jesus' teachings come first. Ever heard the phrase "WWJD?" it was never "Do what it said in the ten commandments."

And then christianity comes along and starts stealing things from the Torah and quote it like they actually know it,Well, they did know it, most they were mostly jews.

I think Foelhe noted that a concept of jesus is easier to grasp, something you could touch at one time. Im sure thats why people worshiped a golden calf at one time(you could touch it). But that doesnt mean you should worship an idol just because you can touch it and grasp a concept of it. But does it also mean you should worship it because you can't touch it and grasp it?

Because Christianity is an extreme rip off religeon as well, Ok, here you used the words "as well" did you imply that judaism was a rip-off religion? because if so, then:

Im acusing Christians because they seem to be the only real religeon that worships in a church with a GRAVEN image of G-d, as Jesus, plastered up onto the cieling. And what i dont understand why you limit the son of G-d to just ONE person jesus. When in fact were ALL the children of G-d. (Thats what the Bible means about Israel as being a son of G-d, Israel is Humanity) Then you never actually cover the point of my previous comment. See, here's the problem, some people like to believe that their religion is a pristine example of a unique divine-mortal relationship. When in actuality, most of it is taken from a different source, is usually out of context, and entirely self serving. Bob I think learning a little bit of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis%2C_antithesis%2C_synthesis) subject will help you better understand things
Well, I could literally go on for another hour about this, but I have to go. But, I wanted to make few random points.
1)Hinduism is not a monotheism. It is a monism. There are huge differences. God does not acurately describe their "being" of worship. So thus, they are not theists in any way.
2)Yes, Paul was a fucking disturbed individual. Christianity (as we know it today) was created roughly this way, Paul was walking down the street to go kill jesus (which is waaaay fucked off in the first place, because as Bob could tell us, jews can not kill other jews, you just cant do it.) Well, half way there he said to himself "waoh! Fuck this! Instead of killing jesus like I was going to,Why don't I just go off and worship him instead!" :crazy: And then he went and united all of the "sects" of christians and helped form the Pauline Church as we know it today. The motherfucker never even met jesus, let alone talked to him!

dcookcan

Aug 29th, 2005, 3:17 PM

This is a very interesting thread and I have a lot that I would like to add and comment on, but I'm sure that I'll have trouble staying on topic. So I'll try to just make a few points.

The El, Elohim and Adonai point: These are simply titles, to which haShem can be added. These are used to describe a POSITION. My kids call me Dad and I respond to it, but that is not my name; it is simply describing my relationship with my kids.

The WWJD point: Christianity has totally missed the mark in coining this phrase because they totally ignore what he actually did. They turn him into some kind of airy fairy faggy boy that wouldn't hurt a flee. I would like to see it changed to WDJD - What did Jesus do? He honored the Torah in everything he did.

Paul: Christianity has idolized Paul and his writings, ignoring 95% of their bible. Paul calls himself a Pharisaical Jew (note that he doesn't say I used to be...). Peter also talks about Paul saying - His writings are hard to understand and the unlearned twist them to their own destruction. (Christianity has twisted Paul's words to make them mean anything they want and they think Paul's word trump all other scripture).

Jesus' mission: what did Jesus actually say he came to do (based on what is recorded in the bible)? He said he came to seek the lost sheep from the house of Israel. To a Jew, this might make sense based on the TaNaCH; however, christianity has twisted the meaning of this as well. Israel was not a tribe, it was a nation and a person (Jacob). The tribes were Jacob's sons.

I hope my ramblings make sense.

Cherisa, I think you're onto something. I have been doing the same four seven years. Haven't been to church since...can't remember. btw there are 613 commandments, the ten are a summary or categorization of the others. Rabbinic commentary is quite interesting because they further categorize them into two - Love God and Love your neighbour. Some have further reduced it to - Love God because all of the other commandments flow from that.

D34DGuY

Aug 29th, 2005, 6:57 PM

well honestly, I have to say that I am Complety convinced that its impossible....There is so many thing about religion that point in the favor of bullshit....To me its a nice fairy tail, to say that god Created everything is the easy answer to all of those impossible questions. Our feeble human minds are not able to comprehend most of the universe's wonders. Religion was first created as a form of law, I mean come on the 10 commandments are all simple moral issues, that almost all would like to live thier lives by. With that said just look at how the catholic religion has changed over the many many years. The bible has been rewriten many many times. what better way to convince the masses to do the right thing, than a terrible existance for all eternity....gimme a break. Religion all around contradicts itself all of the time. What about all of those bad things happening in the catholic world. Rapist priests.....Thats all i need to say. Something is very wrong with the higher ups in the catholic religion (not all). The funny thing to me reguarding the sexual abuses cases with the catholic churches, is that they where able to settle for tens of millions of dollars.....Where do they get all that money, to me its just a huge money scam. thats all I have to say about that for the moment. Not trying to single catholics out, but they make the most news.

This is my first post on the website, though I have been reading posts and the new for some time now. I am not trying to offend anyone, these are my beliefs and thats all I am here to do,express myself. I would like to say hi to all of you people out there posting on this site. Its been nice to read your thoughts. I'll be posting regularly now as I have more time to collect my thoughts.

Philosopher Foelhe

Aug 29th, 2005, 7:48 PM

Religion all around contradicts itself all of the time.

This is the only thing I can actively disagree with in your post. I know you can argue that Christianity contradicts itself, ditto Judaism and Islam, but I don't think religions like Wicca or Buddhism contradict themselves. Care to tell me if and when they do?

Otherwise, it's all your opinion and none of my business. Welcome to the forum. :2thumbs:

liberdave

Aug 30th, 2005, 10:56 AM

Religion all around contradicts itself all of the time. The whole point of any religion is to coerce you into a thought process that you would naturally not have. OR To take an existing human trait and expound and pervert it. Even Wicca is a coercion. It (in it's purest form) teaches you not to harm anyone. Which is probably a good thing over all, but it wants you to not do something you would otherwise do. Most forms of monotheism replaces the maternal dependance for an idealized divine dependance. Now, the real trick is, using each paradigm to get the results you want. So what if you wake up and go to work jewish, come home and relax like a wiccan, then go out and do some hedonistic drinking and dancing like a balls out satanist? Go for broke, fix it, and go some more. :2thumbs: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you did anything at all".

Philosopher Foelhe

Aug 30th, 2005, 11:06 AM

The whole point of any religion is to coerce you into a thought process that you would naturally not have. OR To take an existing human trait and expound and pervert it. Even Wicca is a coercion. It (in it's purest form) teaches you not to harm anyone. Which is probably a good thing over all, but it wants you to not do something you would otherwise do.

Totally disagree. Yeah, religions have rules, but most people ignore the ones they don't like and follow their own personal code, no matter what sawbones they hang it on. At it's best, religion is a focus to do what you think needs doing, but which you find difficult (the Wiccan from the previous example fighting to control his/her temper). At worst, it's an excuse to follow your own depraved urges without guilt (a Christian performing a gay bashing because "God is against homosexuality"). That's pretty much all religion is, in my experience.

As for a human trait being "perverted", which you could use to describe the first path, I don't think that's a perversion any more than going to AA meetings is a "perversion" towards sobriety.

Beatnik Bob

Aug 30th, 2005, 8:24 PM

Im really mad! i responded to all your quotes Foelhe. And it wasnt POSTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What happened?

Philosopher Foelhe

Aug 30th, 2005, 11:42 PM

The forum ate your post? Dude, that sucks. If you can't recover it, take your time posting again. I know how frustrating it can be trying to cover the argument you've already gone up against. Don't worry, I'll be waiting. :2thumbs:

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Aug 31st, 2005, 9:22 AM

Im really mad! i responded to all your quotes Foelhe. And it wasnt POSTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What happened?
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I'm sorry. I really feel bad for you, but that's funny stuff!!! After the first time that I lost a post that way, I simply got into the habit of highlighting my text and copying it before I clicked on the "post message" button. But you had to learn it the hard way...

Beatnik Bob

Aug 31st, 2005, 6:20 PM

The SECOND time writing this whole thing!!!! At least if i was doing a real talking debate, i wouldn't lose the words in my mouth! Anyway.......

Well, yeah, but the same thing could be said of your God, couldn't it? You believe he exists, but he might not. The point is that you (like Christians) have decided that you believe your God exists. And you have decided to stick to your guns. So have they. I said "they may beilieve he is devine, but he might not be," because I was sort of just pointing out that Paul was messed up, and just because Paul said he's an incarnation of G-d and he's devine, doesnt mean he's really devine.

*chuckles* Well, to be totally fair, we don't know if Paul was really insane. You think so because you disagree with Christianity. I think so because Jesus laid this great road for people to follow with the "All men are brothers" line of thought, and Paul fucked it up with, "... except, y'know, all those bastards! *points* Those guys SUCK!" But a lot of Christians I know think Paul was a nitwit, and we can't even say for sure that those who follow him are in the wrong. So it's tricky.
I dont think Paul was insane because i disagree with Christianity. I think he was insane because he lead people to believe that Jesus was G-d. Jesus really taught people about G-d. And to follow the scriptures. Not about himself, and to pray to himself. Jesus was just like any other Rabbi at the time. Teaching people about God!

Oh. I've actually never heard that before. Hmm...
I know.....not very many non-jews read(or even know) about the Talmud.

1. In the New Testament of the Bible, I do believe Jesus said, "The old has passed; all has been made new." Most Christians see that as, "We were steeped in sin, but now we've been purified!" But in this case, it might partly have to do with this law. We could not imagine God, but when Jesus came (says the Christian) we were given a shard of him, an image that we could interact with for a short time, and remember. The idea isnt to be able to see G-d, but to remember the teachings that were taght. When you think about the 10 comandements, do you think about two stone tablets, or what comandments were written on them? You usually remember the teachings (conclusion)Dont worship Jesus, but rather remember his teachings. And the teachings of all the great Rabbis and teachers that lived throughout history.

2. Just because Christians do it doesn't mean it's supported by Christianity. It's possible crucifixes and pictures of Jesus are heresy, and Christians don't even realize it. That does not necessarily mean Jesus himself was not a messiah - it just means Christians have fucked up.
Anybody can achieve the right to be considered 'son of G-d'. Not just Jesus.

It's an extension of what I said earlier, how you and I could be 1% HaShem, and a messiah could be 50% HaShem. In this case, Christians believe that Jesus was 100% HaShem, and that it would be impossible for any other man to reach even near that high.
Why not??? Anyone can achieve the level of a Messiah.

You mean, why do Christians think one man is closer to God than you or me? :smokin:
......i meant to say that......**a cold sweat starts to pour from face**

I think Christians believe humanity is naturally flawed, and that God cannot interact directly with those flaws. So he sends a go-between, to prepare us until God can deal with us. Or something. Wow, it's been a really long time since I've gone to church.
Are you saying that G-d is so lowly that he needs a go-between to acomplish his will? Actually, G-d's "go-between" is the Torah, our conection to G-d. And we are apart of G-d. We are here to make g-d complete........(you should read the Kabbala too).

I used to be very big on the "All men are created equally!" stance. But look at people, really look at them, and you see this isn't true. You have people like me, who can't walk down the goddamn street without thinking about God. You have people like some of the atheists on this forum, who are good and ethical people, but who can't feel God at all in their lives. You have people who treat others like trash because the idea of empathy is a foreign concept to them.

You look at all these people, and you see a huge degree of difference in their spiritual lives, which can't really be explained by their circumstance or history. I can't really think of it as anything but a difference in raw material. Which tells me we aren't all created equal.

So, do I think there's a possibility for someone to be so "clued in" that they become a messiah of sorts? Sure. Granted, I don't think there's any one Great and Mighty Savior, but that's my opinion. YES! YES! YES FOELHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU HIT THE BULES EYE MAN!!!!!!!! Anyone can achieve the level of becoming a messiah. Thats what the son of G-d is. A person who has achieved the level of becomeing a messiah. A person that has "united with the Shekinah". A child of israel. Were still all the children of G-d. But some have "raised there shards". (im reading the Talmud right now). And it does speak of israel as being 'G-d's twin'. When it says the "son of G-d", it means israel. Israel is considered a colective of those souls who comprise the 'nation of israel'. Israel is also closely conected with the Shekinah. And an individual that unites with the Shekinah is considered a 'member of the nation of israel'. Thats what you'd consider a messiah. So why worship just Jesus? He was indeed a good teacher and Rabbi, but is that reason enough to worship somebody? Theres been alot of good Rabbis and teachers in the past. If your going to worship Jesus, you might as well worship Abraham, Moses, etc. And nobody i know really does that. Remember the teachings of the fathers.. I just realised this when reading Talmud. Man, this site is like insperation to study my religeon more.

LOL! Hail, Discordia, hail! That's awesome.
???????.....sure, thanks.....i guess......?????????

I do agree with you, but here as in all places it becomes a matter of opinion. Some people believe they're separate from God, and they need an "in". I don't agree with it, you don't agree with it, but I don't think it's so harmful that it has to be stomped down. And I don't think it's a blight on the face of Judaism, either.
Actually i find the graven image thing offensive. But Isn't that why G-d gave us the Torah? As an "in". And isnt that what prayer is for. And why Jews say the Sh'ma every morning and night? Arent those our conections to G-d?

Yes, I understand. I'd suggest that the reason people worship Rama is that his existance proves Vishnu cares about people. Vishnu is a powerful, all-knowing God. We're just a bunch of people, islands in this ocean world we can only begin to understand. When a god takes the form of a man, it forms a connection between the two different concepts. A lot of people feel the need for those connections. Yes, but why just the Rama figure? And also, shouldn't they be contemplating what Rama taught. And also trying to act like him, (an exact embodiment of Dharma). Rama was more like a role-model. Not a worship figure.

Religious text to study! W00T! :headbang: Much thanks, Bob.
No problem man, im just happy to return the favor of you assisting me in the art of smilies.

Well... I guess I don't know. I'm afraid Hinduism is one of maybe three major religions I haven't studied in-depth. I've been told there's debate as to whether Hinduism is monotheistic or trinitarian. I believe even those dieties you mentioned are facets of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, who are then facets of Brahman. But I'd be the first to admit I'm not really clear on all of this.
I may not be a well learned Hindu shcolar either, but im pretty sure your right about the facets thing.

Liberdave: I already responded to your post in one of my previouse posts.(Foelhe and you asked pretty much the same questions).
And welcome to the "CHUD" Cherisa. :lol: Dig it? Has anybody ever seen "the Hebrew Hammer"?

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 1st, 2005, 1:39 AM

I dont think Paul was insane because i disagree with Christianity. I think he was insane because he lead people to believe that Jesus was G-d.

... Which is a belief of Christianity. Which you disagree with. No offence, but this is really just splitting hairs.

Jesus really taught people about G-d. And to follow the scriptures. Not about himself, and to pray to himself. Jesus was just like any other Rabbi at the time. Teaching people about God!

It's been two thousand years since Jesus died. Can you truly say this with any certainty? Or is it just what you believe?

The idea isnt to be able to see G-d, but to remember the teachings that were taght. When you think about the 10 comandements, do you think about two stone tablets, or what comandments were written on them? You usually remember the teachings (conclusion)Dont worship Jesus, but rather remember his teachings. And the teachings of all the great Rabbis and teachers that lived throughout history.

Actually, I generally see the stone tablets. :schizo: But really, just because the point is to listen to what Jesus says doesn't mean we can't imagine what he looks like. Like I said earlier - a lot of people imagine God as this large, stout man with a big white beard. Doesn't mean they don't believe in what he says.

Anybody can achieve the right to be considered 'son of G-d'. Not just Jesus.

Well, we're all considered son of God, yes. I think Jesus supposedly took it to a new level.

Of course, if you're talking about that level, then that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. *shrugs*

Why not??? Anyone can achieve the level of a Messiah.

Again, I agree, Christians don't. What you believe is really up to you.

......i meant to say that......**a cold sweat starts to pour from face**

*grins* Don't worry, Bob! I don't bite! ... Much.

Are you saying that G-d is so lowly that he needs a go-between to acomplish his will? Actually, G-d's "go-between" is the Torah, our conection to G-d. And we are apart of G-d. We are here to make g-d complete........(you should read the Kabbala too).

Doesn't the Torah have various verses when people are told not to look on the face of God, because it will kill them? I remember Moses and/or Aaron were in one of these.

But really, it's not that God is lowly. It's that God is mighty. Christians think we'd take one look at him and our brains would snap.

And an individual that unites with the Shekinah is considered a 'member of the nation of israel'. Thats what you'd consider a messiah. So why worship just Jesus? He was indeed a good teacher and Rabbi, but is that reason enough to worship somebody? Theres been alot of good Rabbis and teachers in the past. If your going to worship Jesus, you might as well worship Abraham, Moses, etc. And nobody i know really does that.

*grins* Glad I said something you thought was clever. As for why Christians focus on Jesus - sadly, they don't agree with me as to what makes a messiah. Again, that's their decision.

???????.....sure, thanks.....i guess......?????????

LOL! Sorry, when you said that about the peneal gland, I though you were talking about the Discordians, a sort've goofy "religion" who worships a goddess of Chaos and is just awesomely, awesomely funny. Guess I misunderstood what you were going for there. Sorry.

Actually i find the graven image thing offensive. But Isn't that why G-d gave us the Torah? As an "in". And isnt that what prayer is for. And why Jews say the Sh'ma every morning and night? Arent those our conections to G-d?

*shrugs* All roads lead to Rome. Just because the Torah and Sh'ma are what you consider a connection to God, doesn't mean there aren't other connections.

Yes, but why just the Rama figure? And also, shouldn't they be contemplating what Rama taught. And also trying to act like him, (an exact embodiment of Dharma). Rama was more like a role-model. Not a worship figure.

I'm not sure, so I'll leave this question, and anything else I missed, to someone on the board who actually knows something about the subject. :2thumbs:

Assassin X

Sep 4th, 2005, 7:51 PM

Didnt bother reading any of the posts really, but im guessing its about God and what not.

Ive always said I think its funny people always want to say he isnt real and work so hard to try and prove it, such as making tons of posts, getting "10 Commandments" removed, no prayer in school, ...etc

Well for something that isnt real people sure get beyond angry about it, almost to the point of violent (in some cases violent). I guess the truth is they are so pissed that in the back of their minds (sub-conciously) they know he exists so thats why the fight so hard to try and prove he doesnt because they just dont want to admit it in the real world....or their mind (once again way in the back) doesnt let them.

Face it, you cant prove he does exist, yet you cant prove he doesnt. Thats all i'll say because I just stay out of religious debates. I like watching non-religous people tear it apart and look for any little thing so they can make it look fake and make them selves more secure llike there is no person higher then humans.

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 5th, 2005, 4:44 PM

I'd suggest actually reading the thread next time you choose to post, since this entire discussion has been about whether Christianity follows Judaist laws. The existance of God hasn't really been the topic of discussion.

Also (because I can't really let this one go) the reason the Ten Commandments shouldn't be in legal buildings, and the reason there shouldn't be led prayer in schools, is that it implies that people who follow other religions are inferior. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the existance of God.

And we discuss religion because we like to look at it logically. I think everyone on this forum would admit that we can't say for sure whether or not God exists. Doesn't mean we can't discuss it.

(Well, no, that's not true. I'm sure there are some die-hard religious/anti-religious folks who would happily scream forever about how right they are, but that's not the point.)

Edit: I just realized this thread started as another religious discussion entirely! D'oh! The rest of my points still stand, however.

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Sep 5th, 2005, 7:30 PM

they know he exists so thats why the fight so hard to try and prove he doesnt because they just dont want to admit it in the real world...
Good effort, but it's actually the other way around - people who believe in a higher being are too pansy-assed to live in the real world without someone looking over them, even though God's idea of "looking over them" involves killing people by the thousands with tsunamis and hurricanes. God is their security blanket. Pathetic actually. And this next statement doesn't apply to all religious people, but non-religious people don't try to prove that God doesn't exist out of denial, we do it to prevent the religious fundy assholes from doing really, really, really, really STUPID things and being racist bigots because an invisible man told them to do stupid things and be racist bigots for absolutely NO constructive reason whatsoever. Other than that, Assassin X, you were close...

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 6th, 2005, 4:23 AM

*fifteen minutes of angry ranting DELETED*

Actually, Nye, some of us aren't really sure God is on our side. And some of us believe he's out there due to instinct, or by putting the pieces together and coming up with, yes, a different picture than you have. Could you kindly get over your tendancy to treat every believer like a child? It makes you sound like a crazed radio-evangelist, and frankly it's beginning to wear on my nerves.

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Sep 6th, 2005, 8:20 AM

liberdave

Sep 6th, 2005, 8:57 AM

Totally disagree. Yeah, religions have rules, but most people ignore the ones they don't like and follow their own personal code, no matter what sawbones they hang it on. But that's not the point, I'm trying to attack the idea of religion as a whole, not peoples attitudes towards it. Heh, changing peoples attitudes is a dead end road.
At it's best, religion is a focus to do what you think needs doing, but which you find difficult ... At worst, it's an excuse to follow your own depraved urges without guilt ... That's pretty much all religion is, in my experience. So, you're saying that religion is a crutch to keep us doing things the right way, or to give us a reason to?

As for a human trait being "perverted", which you could use to describe the first path, I don't think that's a perversion any more than going to AA meetings is a "perversion" towards sobriety. Does the AA/drunk analogy disqualify the argument? I think not.

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 6th, 2005, 1:19 PM

Sorry, Foelhe. You constantly amaze me with your neutrality and diplomacy on these boards and I respect you for that. My rants are never intended to apply to EVERYBODY despite the fact that they sometimes sound that way. I try to respect the beliefs of others, but when somebody makes an incredibly ridiculous statement like the one that Assassin X made, then I will respond strongly. My apologies to those people that I offended - I only intended to offend Assassin X...

*chuckles* Yes, I probably reacted a little strongly to that, and I apologize. I just think you need to be a bit more careful when challenging fools who use religion as a shield, lest you catch innocents in the crossfire. Keep in mind the only reason I occasionally aim my ire at you is because you, of all people, should know better. If you knew me IRL, you'd know that's the highest compliment I can pay. :2thumbs:

But that's not the point, I'm trying to attack the idea of religion as a whole, not peoples attitudes towards it. Heh, changing peoples attitudes is a dead end road.

I'll admit religion in and of itself leads to trouble, but I think you have to look at religion as a tool, and base it on the merits of how it's used, not why it was created. Just my two cents.

So, you're saying that religion is a crutch to keep us doing things the right way, or to give us a reason to?

The crutch one. People react to the world around them, not to theories and invisible beings, so religion itself doesn't really lend itself to change. Only the people who claim fealty to a religion can do that.

Does the AA/drunk analogy disqualify the argument? I think not.

... It doesn't disqualify it, no. I'm just saying that "perversion" isn't really the best term for the situation, because of the negative connotations of that word, whereas some of the changes religion brings about are positive. Semantic argument, s'all

40oz

Sep 7th, 2005, 11:50 PM

What really sucks about these topics is I absolutely 100% believe that this is real and that Christ is soon to return. The signs of these times are too much to be a coincidence. But, I may be a physco freak and my mind is all fugged up. (I am on countless meds)

Anyways you all should be honored rather then spiteful that someone would dare share their beliefs with you in hopes that you too may see what we see. Be it Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, and all others. People of faith that believe they have it (the right faith) would want as many as can be come along and believe it too. No one can make you..

Why else do any of you think someone would share what they believe when criticism is the most likely response?

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 8th, 2005, 12:18 AM

Anyways you all should be honored rather then spiteful that someone would dare share their beliefs with you in hopes that you too may see what we see. Be it Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, and all others. People of faith that believe they have it (the right faith) would want as many as can be come along and believe it too. No one can make you..

I think the reason most people criticize others who talk about their religion do so because they also believe they have the right faith. In the case of the atheists in the board, this is the overriding Faith in Logic. They see you operating on logical fallacies (blaspheming against Logic, to stretch the analogy to the breaking point) and step up to defend their belief, and hopefully to make another convert in Logic's cause. Occasionally they may get a bit hostile, but hey, you Christians aren't always a bed of friggin' roses either.

Er... no offense to the atheists on the forum. This might be just a tad tactless, but it seems right to me.

nrj

Sep 8th, 2005, 2:06 AM

None taken! What really sucks on this boards, is that christ is not going to return. It's just coincidences, plenty or not. I hope the christians on the board see it from my point of wiev now. We can sit here and say:
"He will come!"
"No!"
"Does to!"
"Does not!"
Forever, but that would be immature.

Edit: The last part was directed towards 40.

40oz

Sep 8th, 2005, 2:55 AM

nrj, I understand that you and I do not see things the same. If you think for a minute "What If?" I also will think "What If?" and that is all we can do. If I have waisted my life (whats rest of it) being a moral, kind, giving, loving person, then why is it atheist have such a problem even IF these beliefs are a fantasy (which they are not). Heres a what if example (none biblical) What if heaven is what you make it to be in your mind? What you have thought to be heaven as long as you have lived is what is burnt into your minds eye and thus that is where you go (locked into) when you expire? What if? If this is the case then some would be locked into a mind of nothingness. And that is just one what if.. To not believe in a grand creator is dangerous imo, but to not even a what if is foolish.

40oz

Sep 8th, 2005, 3:05 AM

Foelhe, I enjoy reading your post in that this is what is meant by discussion and debate. Never once did I say to believe what I believe or else. That is your individual responsability. No one can say, "They Didnt know."

nrj

Sep 8th, 2005, 4:13 AM

You have not wasted you're life on being a moral person. Neither have I. Seems like we've both been moral persons, but I do it because I love my fellow humans. Any ways, I have nothing agaisnt you. So, I'll end this pointless discussion between us about the prophecies.

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Sep 8th, 2005, 10:54 AM

The signs of these times are too much to be a coincidence.
Please give us a few of these specific signs that you are talking about and then we can decide for ourselves what they mean...

40oz

Sep 8th, 2005, 12:01 PM

Humanity as a whole has never ever witnessed such events as 9/11, the tsunami, and New Orleans (I am not saying they haven't happened to local areas but as a whole). Allot of other biblical events that occur "In this Timeframe" saturns rings (signs and wonders?) There have always been wars and rumors of wars. But never on this scale. Biblical (you may say coincidence and that is fine with me) are happening now more then ever before. I honestly believe that modern day churchs are teaching the wrong doctrine. For instance to believe in the "rapture" is unbiblical. The Ideal there there will be one antichrist is unbiblical (there are many of them). This generation (myself included) has grown up with atari, ninetendo, walkmans, DVD, you name it we got it. Its all meant to take away or distract us from the heavenly father IMO. Yeah sure, technology is great, oh btw this is another biblical prophecy. That knowledge "in these days, for the last 100 years or so) will explode. Take a look here to get a better grasp of what I believe. Before anyone attacks please remember this is my truth (In my mind this is truth, perhaps not yours therefore my reality is in danger not yours) However, my truth is shared by millions.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1274030/posts

INCREASE IN KNOWLEDGE AND TRAVEL

Daniel 12:4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."

Billy Graham was quoted as saying, "ninety percent of all the engineers and scientists who have ever lived are alive today." Air travel, space travel, DNA research and human cloning are all examples of the rapid increase in knowledge in our generation.

RETURN OF THE ETHIOPIAN JEWS TO ISRAEL

Zephaniah 3:10-11 "From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia My worshipers, My dispersed ones, will bring My offerings. In that day you will feel no shame because of all your deeds by which you have rebelled against Me; For then I will remove from your midst your proud, exulting ones, and you will never again be haughty on My holy mountain."

In 1984, Operation Moses saw the airlift of 15,000 Jews who had already fled to refugee camps in Sudan to escape starvation. In 1991, Operation Solomon flew 20,000 Jews to Israel from Ethiopia itself. A further airlift began in June of 1999, aimed at transporting the last 3,000 members of the Quara Jewish community from northeastern Ethiopia to Israel.

RETURN OF THE ONE PURE LANGUAGE, HEBREW, TO ISRAEL

Zephaniah 3:9 "For then I will return to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent."

Prior to the restoration of Israel in 1948, Hebrew was a dead language. Now Hebrew is spoken throughout Israel.

PLANS FOR THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT

The United Nations, World Trade Organization, International Criminal Court, UN peacekeeping/police force, numerous UN NGO's, and other agencies are preliminary steps to the formation of a one world government. We now have the communications technology, transportation, and the pro-globalization media necessary to usher in the one world government headed by the antichrist. The increasing terrorist threat and the middle east conflict will only speed up the formation of this governing body as fear and promises of better security make more people willing to give up their national sovereignty for global governance.

Just for those who wont click the link.

nrj

Sep 8th, 2005, 1:08 PM

Um... There are about 50 million atheists in the U.S., and about 90 million of them in Europe... That's over 100 million atheists, and I have not even looked at the asians or east indians and aussies. Does this mean that the atheists are right to?

Sammy56

Sep 8th, 2005, 3:41 PM

Allot of other biblical events that occur "In this Timeframe" saturns rings (signs and wonders?)
Wait, what do Saturn's rings have to do with all this? We've been able to observe them since the 1600's. If I wanted to I can see them with my telescope. How is seeing Saturn's rings a sign of a rapture?

40oz

Sep 8th, 2005, 4:00 PM

Allot of the problem is communication (on my part.) Yes we have been able to see saturns rings for a very long time. Which is why we know that the rings are shrinking for the past 25 years.

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Sep 8th, 2005, 4:06 PM

then why is it atheist have such a problem even IF these beliefs are a fantasy
For the simple fact that some (not all!) religious people do things in the name of God that range from just plain stupid to starting wars and committing acts of horrendous violence. It is absolutely DISGUSTING how some psychopaths feel justified in committing horribly inhuman acts simply because they THINK that's what God wants them to do.

To not believe in a grand creator is dangerous imo, but to not even a what if is foolish.
Why do you think that non-belief is dangerous? I'm not completely convinced with the "what if" scenario. A lot of people don't smoke because they don't want to get lung cancer. But what if a smoker says to you "Hey, 'what if' you get breast cancer next year and die anyway?" Does this "what if" philosophy actually give justification for this person to smoke cigarettes? This is a legitimate argument because I've met smokers who think this way (one of whom is the son - my cousin - of my uncle who I've already mentioned here on the boards who died a few years ago from lung cancer secondary to smoking). There are a BILLION "what if" scenarios out there that could influence how you live your life. Your particular "what if" scenario is actually valid, but it is still based on an unknown assumption that is itself based on faith, not fact...

40oz

Sep 8th, 2005, 6:25 PM

For the simple fact that some (not all!) religious people do things in the name of God that range from just plain stupid to starting wars and committing acts of horrendous violence. It is absolutely DISGUSTING how some psychopaths feel justified in committing horribly inhuman acts simply because they THINK that's what God wants them to do.

Why do you think that non-belief is dangerous? I'm not completely convinced with the "what if" scenario. A lot of people don't smoke because they don't want to get lung cancer. But what if a smoker says to you "Hey, 'what if' you get breast cancer next year and die anyway?" Does this "what if" philosophy actually give justification for this person to smoke cigarettes? This is a legitimate argument because I've met smokers who think this way (one of whom is the son - my cousin - of my uncle who I've already mentioned here on the boards who died a few years ago from lung cancer secondary to smoking). There are a BILLION "what if" scenarios out there that could influence how you live your life. Your particular "what if" scenario is actually valid, but it is still based on an unknown assumption that is itself based on faith, not fact...

1st. I concur, however this is basically a stereotype in which we try so hard to abolish with regards to race. Yet it still thrives in modern society regarding a personal belief? Yes I can see the "not all" but ask anyone what they think about a satanist and what would you hear?

2nd. Again I concur, but understand that I am expressing myself from a spiritual perspective and therefore I obviously believe in an afterlife. Do I believe I have it all figured out? Hell no, but there is hope.

There is no proof, yet there is no doubt in my mind that what I am talking about is real and true. Step outside of yourself for a moment try to think what it would be like for someone to tell you what you believe is true is really not true at all.

We cannot understand each other because I cannot understand what it is like to not believe in God. And you cannot understand what it is like to believe. A fact can also be defined as a matter of objective/subjective reality. I have a daughter, do you know her name? She has a name, and she is my daughter. Her name is Ashley. Now do you know her name?

Common subjective realities are pain, happiness, your conscious, our mind. They are all real yet you cant see them or touch them.

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html
http://www.objectivethought.com/objectivism/reality.html

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Sep 9th, 2005, 9:22 AM

What DO you all think of Satanists?
I personally don't think any differently of a Satanist as I would a Christian or a Muslim or an Atheist. I believe that ANYBODY has a right to live their life in any way that they choose just as long as they are not hurting anybody. On the extreme end of that philosophy lies the KKK. Now, I am personally disgusted with everything that the KKK stands for and would like to hang them all by their nutsacks, but as long as they don't physically hurt anybody or disrupt society in any way, then they can burn as many crosses as they like for all I care. In fact, I believe that simply ignoring them hurts them more than actually trying to stop them from doing their thing. That's my 2 cents which roughly converts to 3 cents Canadian...

nrj

Sep 9th, 2005, 10:12 AM

I personally think, that as long as you love mankind and think about others, then you're ok. Fuck beliefs. That's not relevant. Well, thats just my 15 öre.

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 9th, 2005, 11:01 AM

There is no proof, yet there is no doubt in my mind that what I am talking about is real and true. Step outside of yourself for a moment try to think what it would be like for someone to tell you what you believe is true is really not true at all.

That sounds to me like the nature of debate, 40oz. One person puts forward a theory, others point out flaws in that theory. Hopefully, both parties go away wiser. That's really the best you can hope for.

What DO you all think of Satanists?

I try not to judge people by the word they use to simplify their beliefs, but rather the beliefs themselves.

That's my 2 cents which roughly converts to 3 cents Canadian...

Well, thats just my 15 öre.

ROFL! Quick, can anyone convert 2 cents into Spanish doubloons?

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Sep 9th, 2005, 1:41 PM

Yes we have been able to see saturns rings for a very long time. Which is why we know that the rings are shrinking for the past 25 years.
All that you're doing is talking about natural phenomena here. For all we know, Saturn's rings have been shrinking for the past 2 billion years and we're just noticing it now with our piddly 25-year window of observation. Also, you're talking about this shrinking as though it is a remarkable harbinger of something dire that is about to happen to us. Well, if you look at the rest of the galaxy (let alone the universe), there are tons of stars EXPLODING among other spectacular cosmic displays. In other words, there are much more catastrophic and spectacular things currently happening in the galaxy. Of all of the things to pick, why did you pick the shrinking of Saturn's rings to be a Biblical sign and where in the Bible does it say that Saturn's rings will shrink?

nrj

Sep 10th, 2005, 10:52 AM

ROFL! Quick, can anyone convert 2 cents into Spanish doubloons? I don't really think we have any one from Spain here. And isn't Spain a part of the EMU, and thus have euros?

Beatnik Bob

Sep 10th, 2005, 11:19 AM

I have finally returned to you small childish brats of G-d! Remember my past arguments Foelhe??? You dig it daddy-o?? Ok, anyway. People like 40oz(and other christians) seem to just be waiting all the time for the end of the world. They said it would be the end of the world durring the cold war. People thought everyone would die from so many nuclear bombs. And now christians believe that there is soon to be a rapture, because scientists have already started putting RFID technology into prisoners and hospital patiants with like alzhiemers or something. The fact is people are always believing the end of the world will come from mt. Visuvius to Pearl harbor and the world wars. You people are missing the whole point of why were here in the first place. According to the kabbala were here to sort of carry-out G-d's wishess. You know how i mentioned before that the son of G-d is really someone considered to be united with the shekinah a therefore a recognized member of 'israel'? (not the country). And i also said were in another sence wereall the children of G-d. Well were here to better ourselves, complete ourselves, unite with the shekinah. And we are actually reparing G-d through our deeds on earth. Now im not sure if this is true or not. It might just be symbology, saying that our actions affects things on a higher level. And i noticed 40 implied that he thinks G-d is comeing back. My answer: when did G-d ever leave? And your also forgeting nature does have a say in this as well as corupt human minds. Its not all divine intervention.

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 10th, 2005, 1:39 PM

I don't really think we have any one from Spain here. And isn't Spain a part of the EMU, and thus have euros?

Ya, the Spanish doubloon hasn't seen use since... what, the seventeenth century? Eighteenth? It's best known outside of Spain as pirate's gold. Don't mind me, I'm just being a goofball.

People like 40oz(and other christians) seem to just be waiting all the time for the end of the world.

I just want to point out the irony of you saying this on a site called Armageddon Online. Not that I disagree with you, but... yeah.

You people are missing the whole point of why were here in the first place. According to the kabbala were here to sort of carry-out G-d's wishess.

And if God's wishes are to hit the reset button?

And i also said were in another sence wereall the children of G-d. Well were here to better ourselves, complete ourselves, unite with the shekinah. And we are actually reparing G-d through our deeds on earth. Now im not sure if this is true or not. It might just be symbology, saying that our actions affects things on a higher level.

... Well, okay, but you yourself admit this is an opinion. And of course, if you say we're supposed to unite with the shekinah, maybe now is the time to take things to the next level, AKA literally being called home.

And i noticed 40 implied that he thinks G-d is comeing back. My answer: when did G-d ever leave?

This goes back to the argument about whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was divine - if he was a part of God, he did leave and he could return.

In spite of this argument, I do agree with you. 40oz, most of the evidence you present is based on our perspectives at this time, not anything really knew happening. I think you're wrong that war in this time is any worse than WWII, or the Crusades in Europe. And I think the only new element in this current case of 9/11, the tsunami, and Katrina is that globalization means these issues affect everyone around the world. Well, I'm not gonna say you're completely wrong there, but it sounds like a self-fulfilling prophesy. We were bound to get it together globally.

Before anyone attacks please remember this is my truth

... I tried to think of a polite way to say this, but in the end, I'm just going to be blunt. This is a cowardly tactic. Giving out all this information, then saying, "But don't try to argue against it! This is my Truth(TM)!" isn't really in the spirit of debate. And I could argue that a thousand years ago, people's "truth" was that the world was flat and bleeding cured fevers. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but an argument doesn't become out of bounds just because you think it's right.

40oz

Sep 10th, 2005, 6:52 PM

Understood and right indeed. My mistake. I am still an infant in my faith, I am still learning. I am also not a very good debater, as many have seen me act childish. However, I did state somewhere that my "truth" is shared by millions.

The point about the calamities worldwide was that now we are seeing things escalate larger in proportion then every before. View graphs of earthquakes since we started to record them. Look at the sun.. Look at the seas. All this has been here and "done" things throughout history. But not on a scale as of lately. Sure there may have been a massive hurricane 1000 years ago somewhere that caused a massive tsunami.

This however can not be attributed to prophecy because was not recorded/witnessed by the whole of the earth. Logically, any thing that God plans and reveals through one of his prophets would have to have been able to read about it (history) or see it first hand.

Come to think of it, I do have proof that Christ is our lord and savior. PM me if you want it. Anyone can pm me....

Protostar

Sep 11th, 2005, 11:08 AM

Ok, here is one for ya OZ. When moses came down the mountain he had 10 laws.
THAT WAS DIRECTLY FROM GOD. So who/why was the bible written? If the laws already came from god, why was a bible written? When IN FACT god had already stated all the information?

DarkAce

Sep 11th, 2005, 1:34 PM

The jewish religion doesn't begin with Moses, but with Abraham which came way before Moses hit the scene.

It began as storytelling, not as a rule book.

Things escalating in larger proportions? No, not really. It's due to the widely available and accessible media does it appear that way to people who don't know better.

Depending on how far back you want to look (or even know about) this is nothing. Hell I'd say the plague would of been a good sign of the end, but here we are centuries later.
Given the mass extinctions, ice ages, pole shifts, etc. Anything catastropic caused by nature in recent memory is insignificant in the grander scheme of history.

40oz

Sep 11th, 2005, 2:42 PM

Yes darkace your right. But that in itself is part of what I am saying. The availability to see these events through the media is "part" of the prophecy.

Protostar, the ten commandments do not explain or even mention the love the Creator has for his people. It does not tell us about the saving grace of the Christ. This is equivalent in saying why is there a phone book? Why not just have a few emergency phone numbers instead of a whole book?

DarkAce

Sep 12th, 2005, 4:36 PM

That's purely conjecture though 40oz and is nothing more than people seeing what they want to see(don't get me wrong though, there is much data available to show of upcoming disasters and scenarios that could very well be probable, but to equate this very loosely with bible prophecy and to equate that this is the Jesus returns scenario is ludicrous). 'Prophecies' are widely open to interpretations, and usually people go with the interpretation that is most reasonable and logical to the situation and can be backed up by the facts if possible.

For example, why does it rain? One could 'interpret' that it rains because God's crying. Another would interpret it occuring describing it through the process of condensation and precipitation. Using one's best judgement, reason, and logic, (provided that we actually have tested the latter theory and found it to be true, guess how the weather person can predict the weather) which interpretation would you choose?

Now the mirky part that seems to perplex people and why some are so gullible is that some merely choose the interpretations that suite them, regardless if it's the right one or not. Why people do this could be explained through any number of reasons. The other options are too difficult for them to understand, emotional trauma, etc.

So the question becomes, what's your reasoning for choosing the interpretation that you have chosen?

Beatnik Bob

Sep 14th, 2005, 4:11 PM

Just a question for all you crazy fundamentalist christians. Would you christians worship a rabbi??? If no, than why are you people worshiping Jesus? Why is a G-d image reduced to just him? There are many people that are great religeous schalors and teachers. Why, out of ever one throughout history, is the jesus figure chosen? You dont worship someone just because they've been united with the Shekinah. Answer these.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 14th, 2005, 4:36 PM

I have another question. How do I do those things like when Foelhe wrote about screaming like a banshe if he was called a Christian. You know what I mean.....right?.......

evilwill

Sep 14th, 2005, 7:49 PM

I believe you're referring to a signature.

In which case you should click on "Quick Links" at the top of the page, then click on "Edit Signature". That should sort you out.

DarkAce

Sep 15th, 2005, 12:41 AM

Would you christians worship a rabbi??? If no, than why are you people worshiping Jesus?

There's a difference between a teacher and the inherent son of God. Jesus had magical powers, all I've seen a rabbie do is make foreskin disappear...

Why is a G-d image reduced to just him?

Because Jesus was a man. It's easier for the human psyche to grasp and connect with this than some omnipotent being.

Also define worship? Does people praying and asking Jesus for help count as worship?

Why, out of ever one throughout history, is the jesus figure chosen?

Well that has to do with that particular religion and it's dominance on social and political areas.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 15th, 2005, 6:38 PM

There's a difference between a teacher and the inherent son of God. Jesus had magical powers, all I've seen a rabbie do is make foreskin disappear...
1. Jesus was a very good Rabbi and teacher. The idea that he was some magical magician dude was conceived by the ranting and raving Paul. And keep in mind that these accounts are from the new testament. Which, unlike the Torah, have been screwed around with for almost 2000 years. Most likely when Jesus died, a bunch of grave robbers stole his body.
2. Rabbis are religious teachers that study the Torah. And the Moyle is the person that does the removal of the foreskin.

Because Jesus was a man. It's easier for the human psyche to grasp and connect with this than some omnipotent being.

Also define worship? Does people praying and asking Jesus for help count as worship?

Are you saying i can worship a golden calf? But you still haven’t answered my question. Why is it JUST Jesus? Humans can grasp a concept like me or you. Why not US then. Your misinterpreting what the son of G-d really means. The son of G-d is Israel(not the country). When an individual unites with the Shekinah he is recognized as a member of Israel.

This is why evolution probably came about, people like Evil Will got sick of this insane Christian dogma. Evolution might not be true but it was never the less, a stand against Christianity.

I still can’t manage to do it though, Evil Will. Where is this "Quick Links"?

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 15th, 2005, 7:56 PM

Jesus was a very good Rabbi and teacher. The idea that he was some magical magician dude was conceived by the ranting and raving Paul.

If you could prove that, sure, but otherwise it's all conjecture, and while it's fine that you believe this, it's not fine to tell others what they should believe.

And keep in mind that these accounts are from the new testament. Which, unlike the Torah, have been screwed around with for almost 2000 years.

Do you know for a fact that the Torah has been completely untouched? That book has been around for a very long time, even longer than the bible.

Most likely when Jesus died, a bunch of grave robbers stole his body.

This is conjecture. Probably true, but conjecture all the same.

Why is it JUST Jesus? Humans can grasp a concept like me or you. Why not US then. Your misinterpreting what the son of G-d really means. The son of G-d is Israel(not the country). When an individual unites with the Shekinah he is recognized as a member of Israel.

Conjecture.

This is why evolution probably came about, people like Evil Will got sick of this insane Christian dogma. Evolution might not be true but it was never the less, a stand against Christianity.

... Uh, any time you advise fighting dogma and lies with dogma and lies, you might step back and review your opinions. That's a dangerous path to take.

Of course, it doesn't matter. Charles Darwin, the man who first came up with the theory of evolution (Peanut Gallery: "Well, DUH!") was actually a Christian himself. So it wasn't a stand against Christianity at all.

I still can’t manage to do it though, Evil Will. Where is this "Quick Links"?

I don't know where Quick Links is either... but if you look at the top of the screen, you should see two bars, one above and one below the place on the screen that tells you what subject you're looking at. Look at the second bar, second box, which says "User CP". Click that, look down the left-hand side of the screen until you see "Edit Signature".

Sammy56

Sep 15th, 2005, 9:04 PM

Originally Posted by Philosopher Foelhe
Charles Darwin, the man who first came up with the theory of evolution was actually a Christian himself.
Are you sure about that? I have always heard he was an agnostic and when I looked it up here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Views_on_religion) is said-

"In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that he did "not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation", but was always insistent that he was agnostic and had "never been an atheist".

I've heard others say he was Christian, but I have never found a source to prove it.

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob
Are you saying i can worship a golden calf?
I am going to try to explain this how I see it. Jesus, whether he was the Son of God or not, was human. Humans relate to other humans. Humans have a little trouble relating to something that is omnipotent. Humans also aren't very good at relating to animals. We can relate to other humans however, because, for the most part, all humans go through the same basic experiences. Pain-physical or emotional, rejection, humiliation, anger at others or directed to you, happiness, and sadness, just to name a few. We don't know if animals feel these emotions in the same way, or if they even feel them at all, so I don't think many people are going to relate to a golden calf. But, if you do want to worship a golden calf, far be it from me to stop you. We also do not know that God, if there is a God, feels emotions. But we do know that other humans have the same emotions we do. Therefore, we understand them better, which is why someone would find it easier to worship and pray to Jesus. Just my opinion here.

liberdave

Sep 16th, 2005, 12:33 AM

So what if I was to tell you that the Ten Commandments were just a rip-off of the Egyptian Book of the Dead?
http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/2_cmndmts_book_of_the_dead.html
Oh, and here's the actual book for reference...
http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/
I posted this link a while ago and it was ignored, so I'll post it again to see if it might help us understand this mess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis%2C_antithesis%2C_synthesis

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 16th, 2005, 1:12 AM

Are you sure about that? I have always heard he was an agnostic

Not entirely, but I'm pretty sure he was a Christian at the time he discovered evolution, at least. Or the first time he realized it was a real possibility. I seem to remember hearing he was shocked by the implications, so it doesn't surprise me that he at least became agnostic as he grew older. Granted, I'm pretty vague on the details (as if you couldn't tell from the rest of my post! :D). The way I heard it, he traveled to... a coast in Africa, I think, to do biological work, and that's when he saw similarities that later led him to evolution. Can you tell history is not my strong point? :dork:

Edit: Okay, actually decided to look some of this crap up. Let's roll.

Edison did not discover evolution in Africa, but in South America, on the Galapogos Islands. Apparently I suck at history AND geography! :2thumbs:

Here (http://www.aboutdarwin.com/) is a site which claims Darwin was a Christian when he was younger. I don't know for sure how trustworthy this site is, but considering the info they have onsite, God knows they did a lot of research. Also, they way they phrase things on the religious section ("he found it very difficult to let go of his religious beliefs") makes me think they aren't terribly fond of the fact, which lends it credence. So, take that as you will.

Sammy56

Sep 16th, 2005, 7:20 AM

Can you tell history is not my strong point?
Do not worry, it's not mine either.

Edison did not discover evolution in Africa, but in South America, on the Galapogos Islands. Apparently I suck at history AND geography!
You mean Darwin right? :D

Here is a site which claims Darwin was a Christian when he was younger. I don't know for sure how trustworthy this site is...
Interesting site, and it looked reliable to me, but I only glanced at it quickly. Him being a Christian before and while working on his theory does make more sense. Thanks for finding that site. Our Biology books this year go really in depth for evolution but they don't say much about Darwin himself. I think I am going to check it out more after school tonight.

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Sep 16th, 2005, 8:15 AM

Edison did not discover evolution in Africa, but in South America, on the Galapogos Islands. Apparently I suck at history AND geography!
And you apparently suck at biographies as well... I wasn't aware that Edison came up with the theory of evolution! BAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I KNOW that you meant to say "Darwin", but it's still funny... ;-)

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 16th, 2005, 11:05 AM

... History, geography and science! Make a note!

Truth is, if it's "soft science" like language, theology or philosophy, I can bullshit all day, but when it comes to pure hard fact, I'm pretty much screwed. Ah, well.

nrj

Sep 16th, 2005, 12:32 PM

Well, languages require hard fact. I mean, you cannot possibly figure out by yourself what I'm writing right now:

Förstår du vad jag säger, Foelhe? Jag tror inte det, men om du gör det så är du jäkligt grym på att lista ut språk!

I mean, you have to know some words, the grammar rules, the pronounciations... And that's hard fact.

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 16th, 2005, 12:38 PM

True, but I'm talking about the merits of syntax, how you can change the words of a sentence and change, not the meaning so much, but the resonance behind the meaning. Language does have concrete rules that apply, but it also has minor variations which display the thought process of the writer/speaker, which you can analyze and decipher. That tends to be a little softer and more open to interpretation.

nrj

Sep 16th, 2005, 12:44 PM

Yes, but you still need some knowledge about swedish to for example deciefer what I just wrote. Even though I have some phrases only mentioned in Gothenburg, it cannot really be interprented to: "Hello! Hi are you?" since the greeting is nowhere in the phrase... But, otherwise, I can agree on that you don't need that much knowledge of the language to make yourself understood. I mean, look at me. I really suck at english, but you understand the posts, right?

*Waiting for B.Nyes joke about swedes...*

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 17th, 2005, 1:23 AM

Well, no, I think you do need to be able to understand the basic building blocks of language. Maybe language was the wrong word to use here. I'd say "literature", but that seems too limiting to me. Basically, I'm talking about that point where words stop being mathematical and start becoming an art form. That's where I thrive.

nrj

Sep 17th, 2005, 3:58 AM

Hmm... Makes sense to me. Ok, so when the language becomes art, you're the Einstein then.

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 17th, 2005, 5:34 AM

Or Edison, as the case may be. :D

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Sep 17th, 2005, 10:22 AM

Förstår du vad jag säger, Foelhe? Jag tror inte det, men om du gör det så är du jäkligt grym på att lista ut språk!
I can't BELIEVE that you just said that about Foelhe's mother! I doubt that she uses bananas in that fashion!

*Waiting for B.Nyes joke about swedes...*
I'm all out of Swedish jokes... :-(

nrj

Sep 17th, 2005, 5:47 PM

LOL! :Llol: And I can't believe how the hell you could figure that one out!

Assassin X

Sep 18th, 2005, 4:15 AM

Hmmmm.....

nrj

Sep 18th, 2005, 8:23 AM

Hmmmm..... You guessed it... This thread's sick.
:crazy:

Defiant Noquisi

Sep 18th, 2005, 9:32 PM

Well, languages require hard fact. I mean, you cannot possibly figure out by yourself what I'm writing right now:

Förstår du vad jag säger, Foelhe? Jag tror inte det, men om du gör det så är du jäkligt grym på att lista ut språk! LOL, you ball buster!

Im hungry, send me some lefse!

Beatnik Bob

Sep 20th, 2005, 4:14 PM

If you could prove that, sure, but otherwise it's all conjecture, and while it's fine that you believe this, it's not fine to tell others what they should believe. Does it not say in the Bible that Jesus was a religious teacher? Religious teacher and a Rabbi are the same thing.

Do you know for a fact that the Torah has been completely untouched? That book has been around for a very long time, even longer than the bible. People have compared todays Torah with the Torah found in the dead sea scrolls. Because Jews dont believe in changing the Torah. Poeples' "comments" on it were put in the Talmud. They didn't change the Torah.

This is conjecture. Probably true, but conjecture all the same.
In this you were commenting on the thing i said about Jesus's body actually being stolen from grave robbers instead of him being raised from the dead. I was not saying that was a fact that his body was stolen by grave robbers, I was not around 2000 years ago. I simply expresing Paul's insanity.

Conjecture.
Sorry bro.....its actually not conjecture. If what I said was conjecture than the Bible, Torah, Talmud, Koran, and any other religious book that exists is conjecture. Because what i said wasn't my opinion. It was the Talmud's opinion. Thats not conjecture.

... Uh, any time you advise fighting dogma and lies with dogma and lies, you might step back and review your opinions. That's a dangerous path to take.

Of course, it doesn't matter. Charles Darwin, the man who first came up with the theory of evolution (Peanut Gallery: "Well, DUH!") was actually a Christian himself. So it wasn't a stand against Christianity at all.
Thats my point!!! He WAS a Christian (this is just my opinion) and thats probably why he created evolution, because he didn't agree with the Christian dogma.

Jesus, whether he was the son of God or not was human, humans relate to other humans
I'm a human too you know. And humans can also in a sense relate to statues and what not.

I don't know where Quick Links is either... but if you look at the top of the screen, you should see two bars, one above and one below the place on the screen that tells you what subject you're looking at. Look at the second bar, second box, which says "User CP". Click that, look down the left-hand side of the screen until you see "Edit Signature".
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 20th, 2005, 5:05 PM

Does it not say in the Bible that Jesus was a religious teacher? Religious teacher and a Rabbi are the same thing.

Well, yes, he was a religious teacher. The question at this point is whether he was something more. Whether his "divinity" was a figment of Paul's imagination - that is the conjecture.

People have compared todays Torah with the Torah found in the dead sea scrolls. Because Jews dont believe in changing the Torah. Poeples' "comments" on it were put in the Talmud. They didn't change the Torah.

Pardon me for saying so, but weren't the Dead Sea Scrolls carbon-dated to the year 400 C.E.? So that doesn't necessarily prove the Torah has never been tampered with.

Of course (as I should've said at the beginning) even if the Torah has never been changed, that doesn't prove it's divinity.

In this you were commenting on the thing i said about Jesus's body actually being stolen from grave robbers instead of him being raised from the dead. I was not saying that was a fact that his body was stolen by grave robbers, I was not around 2000 years ago. I simply expresing Paul's insanity.

Yes, and Paul's insanity is still under conjecture.

Sorry bro.....its actually not conjecture. If what I said was conjecture than the Bible, Torah, Talmud, Koran, and any other religious book that exists is conjecture.

Yes, which they are. We don't know for sure that any of the books listed are actually divinely inspired. We also don't know if the divine inspiration that may be there has expressed itself correctly, or if it was somehow flawed in its transition from God to man. Perhaps these are a more solid form of conjecture, but they still are not proven by any means.

At this point I will agree that if that's in there, the Bible doesn't agree with the Torah. So you're right there. The question may now be which of the two books are flawed, if not both.

Thats my point!!! He WAS a Christian (this is just my opinion) and thats probably why he created evolution, because he didn't agree with the Christian dogma.

It's possible, I suppose, but the evidence seems to be against it, since if you check that site I listed earlier it talks about him repeating bible verses to the sailors he traveled with.

I'm a human too you know. And humans can also in a sense relate to statues and what not.

... Well, okay, but that doesn't really have much to do with divinity in and of itself. Why people worship Jesus is less important than whether or not they're right.

Now, as to the signature, I'll try to clarify.

Scroll to the top of the page. See the large "Armageddon Online" written at the very top? Below that is a bar, with options like, "Disclaimer & Rules", "Site Articles", etc. Under that is a read-out of what page you're looking at right now. (Mine says "Reply to Article", yours should say "The shocking Truth".) Under that is another bar of topics, "Support AO", "User CP", and so on. "Quick Links" is next to "Log Out" on the right end of the bar. (There it is!) Click on it

That should pull up a handful of options. Look under "User Control Panel", and you'll see "Edit Signature". Click on that. Then you should be able to type whatever you want on your signature. Hope that helps!

Beatnik Bob

Sep 20th, 2005, 6:16 PM

Well, yes, he was a religious teacher. The question at this point is whether he was something more. Whether his "divinity" was a figment of Paul's imagination - that is the conjecture.
Jesus wasn't G-d, Because it says so in the Talmud(I do believe I already clarified who the son of G-d really is). It probably was the insanity of Paul though. As I already stated the New Testament has been screwed with more than the Torah. Because its considered blasphemy to change the writings of Moses. And if you have a question of the Talmud’s authenticity on this subject, well the fathers did come to that conclusion from the Torah. Which is supposed to be divine because it’s G-d’s teachings. Any individual who unites with the Shekinah can be considered divine. Does that mean Christians have to worship more than one person similar to Jesus? Because there hasn’t been only been one person like Jesus in history.

Pardon me for saying so, but weren't the Dead Sea Scrolls carbon-dated to the year 400 C.E.? So that doesn't necessarily prove the Torah has never been tampered with.

Of course (as I should've said at the beginning) even if the Torah has never been changed, that doesn't prove it's divinity.
Carbon dating doesn't always work anyway..........Ok so you say the Dead Sea scrolls were carbon dated to 400 C.E.? If I remember correctly it was mentioned that they were from B.C.E. times. And I don’t think any Jew would change it though. Because if you remember there was no such thing as reform Judaism then, were talking people who are so strict with the Torah that they think they're not allowed in a synagogue if they have diseased testicles or penis. Personally its probably symbolism as the Talmud proves, but they think only a Rabbi can interpret the Torah.......anyway what I mean to say is that if people like them are so strict. Then would they really change the Torah. Because its considered blasphemy to change the Torah. Like during the 1800's they were having a problem with Torahs being stolen and nobody would write their name on one to prove it was theirs because that was blasphemy too.

Yes, and Paul's insanity is still under conjecture.
The New Testament has still been screwed with for centuries. I can’t remember how many books have been removed from the New Testament. There was only one good one that was interesting but it was ripped out.

Yes, which they are. We don't know for sure that any of the books listed are actually divinely inspired. We also don't know if the divine inspiration that may be there has expressed itself correctly, or if it was somehow flawed in its transition from God to man. Perhaps these are a more solid form of conjecture, but they still are not proven by any means.

At this point I will agree that if that's in there, the Bible doesn't agree with the Torah. So you're right there. The question may now be which of the two books are flawed, if not both. What again? :drool:

It's possible, I suppose, but the evidence seems to be against it, since if you check that site I listed earlier it talks about him repeating bible verses to the sailors he traveled with.
Interesting..........how trustable was that site again? I just want to make sure.

... Well, okay, but that doesn't really have much to do with divinity in and of itself. Why people worship Jesus is less important than whether or not they're right.
So a Christian worships Jesus because they think he is divine, and you’re saying whether he is divine or not is more important? Please clarify.

Scroll to the top of the page. See the large "Armageddon Online" written at the very top? Below that is a bar, with options like, "Disclaimer & Rules", "Site Articles", etc. Under that is a read-out of what page you're looking at right now. (Mine says "Reply to Article", yours should say "The shocking Truth".) Under that is another bar of topics, "Support AO", "User CP", and so on. "Quick Links" is next to "Log Out" on the right end of the bar. (There it is!) Click on it

That should pull up a handful of options. Look under "User Control Panel", and you'll see "Edit Signature". Click on that. Then you should be able to type whatever you want on your signature. Hope that helps!
Thanks for the help! I think I've got it now.

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 20th, 2005, 6:46 PM

Jesus wasn't G-d, Because it says so in the Talmud

Didn't you say that the Talmud was interpretations of the Torah? Couldn't those interpretations be incorrect?

And if you have a question of the Talmud’s authenticity on this subject, well the fathers did come to that conclusion from the Torah.

Oh, you were expecting this question. Nice job! Well, that still doesn't necessarily mean the fathers were correct in their stance on the book. Even wise men make mistakes.

Any individual who unites with the Shekinah can be considered divine. Does that mean Christians have to worship more than one person similar to Jesus? Because there hasn’t been only been one person like Jesus in history.

Well, that is a valid question. A lot of Christians believe the other people with Christ-like characteristics were either myths or liars. I'll leave this one up to any Christians who want to give more details, since I'll admit I don't agree with their exclusiveness here.

Carbon dating doesn't always work anyway..........Ok so you say the Dead Sea scrolls were carbon dated to 400 C.E.? If I remember correctly it was mentioned that they were from B.C.E. times.

... Another history question. :alcoholic Uh, anyone else wanna take this one?

And I don’t think any Jew would change it though. Because if you remember there was no such thing as reform Judaism then, were talking people who are so strict with the Torah that they think they're not allowed in a synagogue if they have diseased testicles or penis.

True, but it only takes one unscrupulous person to quietly screw around with a book. And it could've been incorrect originally, if the author wrote from his own perspective.

What again? :drool:

*grins* Hey, I'm just sayin'. It is entirely possible the first writer of the Torah was mistaken on some issues. And now I understand that this actually comes from the Talmud, so it's just as likely the mistake came from that arena.

Interesting..........how trustable was that site again? I just want to make sure.

Hard to say with a website, but they did seem to be pretty thorough. And they also seemed displeased with the fact, which gives it credence. Most people lie to make the world fit them better.

So a Christian worships Jesus because they think he is divine, and you’re saying whether he is divine or not is more important? Please clarify.

It... well, it seemed like you're getting focused on the fact that Jesus was a man. And that kind of matters, but at the same time not really. If Jesus was divine he should be acknowledged, whereas if he wasn't, he should not. You kept saying that worshipping Jesus was like worshipping a statue, and I keep thinking, "Was it a divine statue?" That may sound blasphemous to you, but I just think it's better to focus on the quality of God and not the form. I'm not sure this makes any sense, but there ya go.

Thanks for the help! I think I've got it now.

Glad to be of service! I'm just glad we can argue over a volatile subject and still help one another out. :2thumbs:

Beatnik Bob

Sep 21st, 2005, 8:06 PM

Didn't you say that the Talmud was interpretations of the Torah? Couldn't those interpretations be incorrect?
Incorrect??? No. Unless Genesis is incorrect and there never was a divine entity that created the world. Plus, the Talmud isn't just interpretations. Its Judaism’s oral teachings!

Well, that still doesn't necessarily mean the fathers were correct in their stance on the book. Even wise men make mistakes.
It doesn't really work that way. And if it did, does that mean the whole Torah is a big mistake written by Moses? I would disagree.

Well, that is a valid question. A lot of Christians believe the other people with Christ-like characteristics were either myths or liars. I'll leave this one up to any Christians who want to give more details, since I'll admit I don't agree with their exclusiveness here.
Myths and liars, eh? Pretty much every Rabbi believes Abraham, Moses, etc. were individuals unified and considered members of Israel. So now Moses is considered a myth and a liar huh? A don’t know about you but that seems a bit.........

True, but it only takes one unscrupulous person to quietly screw around with a book. And it could've been incorrect originally, if the author wrote from his own perspective.
Do you really believe that ONE human went through each Torah throughout the world and changed em'? I wouldn’t believe that even if it was the Roman Empire. Jews have risked their life’s......even DIED to save the Torah throughout history. And if there was somebody that scrupulous.......I think he'd think twice about changing them. He would probably be to scared to do it for fear of what Moses might do if he found out. I mean, they've probably all seen Moses in his bad judgmental mood, like throwing two huge Ten Commandment tablets at a golden calf.

It is entirely possible the first writer of the Torah was mistaken on some issues. And now I understand that this actually comes from the Talmud, so it's just as likely the mistake came from that arena.
Moses mistaken?!? :lol: The great Rabbis of the time mistaken? :lol:

It... well, it seemed like you're getting focused on the fact that Jesus was a man. And that kind of matters, but at the same time not really. If Jesus was divine he should be acknowledged, whereas if he wasn't, he should not. You kept saying that worshipping Jesus was like worshipping a statue, and I keep thinking, "Was it a divine statue?" That may sound blasphemous to you, but I just think it's better to focus on the quality of God and not the form. I'm not sure this makes any sense, but there ya go. You said it! Foelhe says, "Focus on the quality of G-d and not the form." Thats what I've been saying this whole time: don't put a bunch of graven images of Jesus in your head.....instead focus on the true G-d. An idea......of sorts. Like on the Sefirot, one of G-d's attributes is Einsoff: Nothingness without end. Repeat: Nothingness. Repeat it after me: noth-ing-ness. Good job!! *reaches over and pats your head*. Another thing that gets me though is when they do that "in Jesus name amen" thing. It' almost like they put even a name before G-d!

Beatnik Bob

Sep 21st, 2005, 8:34 PM

[Quote]You might be Jewish in ancestery, but I have become Jewish by choice. Since January I have adhered to the laws Yahweh set for people... Also I am a Christian. Dietary wise I eat kosher foods, I also worship God on the Sabbath which is saturday. I don't celebrate Christmas, But I do celebrate Easter,I am looking for more INFO on Jewish Holy days and times.
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You celabrate EASTER!!!!!!!!!???????????!!!!!!!!!!! Isn't that when Christians celabrate Jesus's suposed resurection? Your not really jewish at all are you?
You'll have to choose ONE. As me and Foelhe have been descusing, you're no Jew if you worship some human as G-d. Thats how we(me and other Jews) believe. But so why would you worship easter and not christmas. They both imply a Jesus figure as G-d.

I would consider myself a christian Jew, I beleive that Christ is the Messiah, If you read the Torah Isaiah 53:. I believe he paid the price for my sins by the shedding of his blood.
If you believe all that your not really Jewish. People think Christianity and Judaism are similar because they're both mono-theistic religeouns, but they are far from similar. Its like saying your half christian half buhdist.

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 21st, 2005, 10:26 PM

For the most part, I'll throw my hat into the ring here. If you believe in the Talmud, you believe in the Talmud, and that's fine. But I don't think it's right to tell other people what they should believe, based entirely on your own beliefs. Just my opinion.

DarkAce

Sep 22nd, 2005, 1:29 AM

I didn't know your variety came in jew here....

Incorrect??? No. Unless Genesis is incorrect and there never was a divine entity that created the world. Plus, the Talmud isn't just interpretations. Its Judaism’s oral teachings!

The Talmud consists of rabbinic discussions on Jewish law, Jewish ethics, customs, legends and stories. How do we know their word is infallible? It's the written work of many men, men are fallible, thus we shouldn't be quick to shrug off the credibility of the work.

Blah blah blah :::sticks fingers in ears and shouts whenever beliefs are questioned:::

The reasoning stems from the belief that the entire Torah wasn't written by Moses.

Both Judaism and Christianity assumed that the Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) were written by Moses, as the Bible itself states. However, in recent centuries, alternate authorship has been proposed. The documentary hypothesis is now accepted by essentially all mainline and liberal theologians.

11th Century CE: Isaac ibn Yashush suggested that the list of the Edomite kings in Genesis 36 was added by an unknown person after Moses died. For this assertion, he became known as "Isaac the Blunderer." 1

15th Century: Bishop Tostatus suggested that certain passages were written by one of the prophets, not by Moses.

16th Century: Andreas van Maes suggested that an editor added additional material to some of Moses' writings.

17th Century: Thomas Hobbes prepared a collection of passages that seemed to negate Moses' authorship.

18th Century: Three investigators (Witter, Astruc and Eichhorn) independently concluded that doublets in the Torah were written by two different authors. A doublet is a story that is described twice, as in:
the two creation stories in Genesis
two descriptions of the covenant between God and Abraham
two stories about the naming of Isaac
two stories about the renaming of Jacob
two versions of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5)
two accounts of Moses' striking the rock at Meribah

These doublets appeared to contradict each other. In most cases, one referred to God as Yahweh while the other used the term Elohim.

19th Century: Scholars noticed that there were a few triplets in the Torah. This indicated that a third author was involved. Then, they determined that the book of Deuteronomy was written in a different language style from the remaining 4 books in the Pentateuch. Finally, by the end of the 19th Century, liberal scholars reached a consensus that 4 authors and one redactor (editor) had been actively involved in the writing of the Pentateuch.

20th Century: Academics have continued to refine the Documentary Hypothesis by identifying which verses (and parts of verses) were authored by the various writers. They have also attempted to uncover the names of the authors. In 1943, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in which he urged academics to study the sources of Biblical texts. Recent archeological discoveries and new linguistic analysis tools have facilitated the research into the hypothesis.

Belief in the documentary hypothesis was triggered by a number of factors, such as:

Anachronisms, like the list of the Edomite kings
Duplicate and triplicate passages.
Various passages portrayed God in different ways.
The flood story appears to involve the meshing of two separate stories
The belief, centuries ago, by archeologists and linguists that writing among the ancient Hebrews only developed after the events portrayed in the Pentateuch. Thus, Moses would have been incapable of writing the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures.

These factors led theologians to the conclusion that the Pentateuch is a hybrid document which was written well after Moses' death, and much later than the events portrayed.

For the rest, click here:http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm
Also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

You said it! Foelhe says, "Focus on the quality of G-d and not the form." Thats what I've been saying this whole time: don't put a bunch of graven images of Jesus in your head.....instead focus on the true G-d. An idea......of sorts.

Christians (well the 'smart' ones) see Jesus as the logos, the word. God is too much of an abstract notion for most to comprehend, (what with all his omnipotence) so Jesus is used to connect/bond us with the God concept. A medium of sorts if you'd say.
One could even go so far as to say the way you guys treat your traditions is in the same vein as the way Christians use symbols. Idoltary all around eh?

All in all everyone is free to choose to belief in whatever they want. However Cherisa you can't call yourself jewish if you don't adhere to it's specific beliefs/traditions and law. Your welcome to belief and practice but you're not really jewish. Your hybrid beliefs are just that and I don't see why you'd feel a need to name them specifically. They are what they are.

DarkAce

Sep 22nd, 2005, 10:09 AM

Like I said earlier, you're free to practice and believe in whatever you want, but it wouldn't make you a 'true' member of the jewish community since what you're doing is considered blasphemous and against jewish tradition put fourth by most jewish groups. So basically that translates to if your going to a synagogue it'd be highly disrespectful to preach to them about Jesus, etc.

Heh, Jew for Jesus. Sounds like your beliefs are similar to that of the Evangelical Protestant movement "Jews for Jesus" that more or less strives for the goal of converting Jews to Christianity.

Jews for Jesus is rejected as "un-Jewish" by Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Judaism and by other messianic Jewish groups and by many Christians. Its critics charge that Jews for Jesus is Jewish in name only, due to the organization's lack of Torah observance and a statement of faith indistinguishable from those of other Evangelical para-church groups.

The Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington, an umbrella organization that includes Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran and Presbyterian church groups, has condemned Jews for Jesus as promoting activities "harmful to the spirit of interreligious respect and tolerance". The conference also denounces the group's "deceptive proselytizing efforts", stating that when practiced on "vulnerable populations" such as the young or the elderly, these efforts are "tantamount to coerced conversions". The Rev. Clark Lobenstine, a Presbyterian (PCUSA) minister and executive director of the Conference, has stated that his group condemns Jews for Jesus and other messianic Jewish groups by name because they "go beyond the bounds of appropriate and ethically based religious outreach".

The Board of Governors of The Long Island Council of Churches voiced similar sentiments in a statement that "noted with alarm" the "subterfuge and dishonesty" inherent in the "mixing [of] religious symbols in ways which distort their essential meaning", and named Jews for Jesus as one of the three groups about whom such behavior was alleged.

It's great you've learned to live and eat well now.

I also had learned to live and eat well too, but my inspiration came from grade school health class.

repentantsinner

Sep 22nd, 2005, 10:44 AM

Anybody, like Cherisa, who converts becomes a daughter (son) of Abraham and is grafted onto the olive tree of spiritual Israel. You could say she is a Jew in spirit if not by the letter. I went through the same thing myself.

DarkAce

Sep 22nd, 2005, 1:52 PM

There is a difference between converting, and adopting beliefs. If she were to follow and adhere to the laws/traditions/whatever of the jewish faith, then she would be able to be a part of that religious group and call herself a Jew. What she's doing is simply picking and choosing what parts of the religion she "likes" and rejecting the rest (that rest being some of the most basic principles and tenets of judaism).

To illustrate in an example, that would be like me choosing to follow the traditions of Islam, but reject that Mohammad was an important prophet and founder of Islam and instead but Jesus in his place, and choose not to follow the five pillars of Islam. These are the basic tenets of Islam and for me to reject them is not only blasphemous to their beliefs as well as disrespectful, I wouldn't be able to take part in any muslim temple.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 22nd, 2005, 5:54 PM

Suppose there is a Hindu guy, and he converts to Judaism. He worships G-d and in addition worships Agni, Vayu, Varuna, Bhumi, Indra, Siva, etc. Is this man really Jewish? No, he would not be considered Jewish.

Rule Number One (1): In Judaism the son of G-d is an individual who unites with the Shekinah, and therefore considered a member of the nation of Israel (not the physical country). So people like Abraham, Moses, and Jacob would be considered sons of G-d.

I also note that Dark Ace said people worship Jesus because he is easier to comprehend than G-d. Just keep in mind then that you're praying to a person that died 2000 years ago, and not G-d. And why is it limited to just the Jesus figure anyway?

And also keep in mind that on the sefirot, one of G-d's ten attributes is einsoff or nothingness without end. So repeat after me: nothingness. This means that G-d has no form. And also Judaism’s oral teachings are indeed on equal terms with the Torah Foelhe. One reason that makes the Talmud legitimate is because the Rabies gave reasons in their debates, there aren’t just a bunch of mindless statements in the Talmud. I'd suggest you actually read some parts of the Talmud, so you can actually understand what I'm talking about Foelhe. You've probably never read a word of Talmud in your life Foelhe (except for what I've quoted from it on this

DarkAce

Sep 22nd, 2005, 8:16 PM

Who says people just pray to Jesus? Most pray to loved ones, saints, etc.

One reason that makes the Talmud legitimate is because the Rabies gave reasons in their debates, there aren’t just a bunch of mindless statements in the Talmud. I'd suggest you actually read some parts of the Talmud,

Why does that make it legitimate? We have plenty of theologians that discuss and expand on (insert religion here) religious ideas, theories, etc. Should we take their work and compile it into a sacred work? Would that make it any more right?

I think you're misunderstanding the problem or choice of word(s) to describe the problem that's been brought up about the Talmud. I'm not saying it's some kind of crazy ranting by a bunch of crazy people, because it's not. It has some very sound reasoning and logic used by the Rabbis in their discussions of topic. What I'm establishing is that their word isn't abosolute in the sense you seem to be preaching of it.

Sammy56

Sep 23rd, 2005, 7:21 AM

i think that the Hurricane Katrina and the Isreali's leaving Gaza are interrelated.
Why do you think that? I mean, you kinda just made a statement and didn't tell why you believe it or how it is true. Honesntly, I do not see how the two are related. Yes, they are both substantial events that both happended fairly recently, but one deals with political change and the other deals with some nasty weather. Also, they did not happen in the same place, but on different sides of the world. I do not see how these two events are realted in anyway except for the time periods in which they occured, but I am interested on hearing why you do think they are related. Could you please be more specific?

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Sep 23rd, 2005, 7:59 AM

We just get to reap the wrath of God
Shenanigans. I've just about had it with this bullshit about increased natural disasters are God's wrath blah blah blah blah... Well then, what's up with the plane that had to make an emergency landing when its front landing gear didn't come down properly? All of the passengers... survived! What's up with that? I propose that the end of the world is NOT coming because unprecedented GOOD things are happening! I mean, this type of happy ending with a plane NEVER happens! It's a sign! And not only that, but it was foreseen in a prophecy told by... ME!!! Remember? I distinctly made a prophecy that said "STUFF WILL HAPPEN"!!! And it DID!!! KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!

Mezurashi

Sep 23rd, 2005, 9:43 AM

I distinctly made a prophecy that said "STUFF WILL HAPPEN"!!! And it DID!!! KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!

Well, So Did I!
http://www.armageddononline.org/forums/showpost.php?p=79966&postcount=13

dammit, did you post before I did? I hate being 'second fiddle' when it comes to general, vague and somewhat fuzzy forecasts. So here's one I know will come true.

In the next year - my hair will grow longer, my penis won't, people will find all manner of 'God' based excuses for Gov't ineptness and I will lose my temper at least once (if not more).

nrj

Sep 23rd, 2005, 10:20 AM

Um... Cherisa, please, how can you possibly say that all of those people was wicked and cruel? And I can happily give you an example of a 60 year old atheist who escaped nazi-germany and who breaths fine. That ain't enough of evidence for you? But, another question, how come he sends hurricanes to kill people from various religions, including lawfull christians, instead of just saying "mo!" and all of us atheists and criminals lie dead?

Beatnik Bob

Sep 23rd, 2005, 4:34 PM

The majority of people think the world is more bad than good due to the media. Which as we all know, is made up of hard news more than soft news.

And Cherisa: you're still not, and never will be, Jewish until you drop the Jesus worship. You're welcome to believe what you want, but don't specify yourself as being Jewish, because you're not.

nrj

Sep 23rd, 2005, 4:39 PM

Who the hell said I think the world's just a big asshole? i don't see the world as dark or light. I see it as grey.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 23rd, 2005, 5:02 PM

I said the "majority" of people, not necessarily just you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

mickydoolittle

Sep 23rd, 2005, 6:41 PM

Sorry bro.....its actually not conjecture. If what I said was conjecture than the Bible, Torah, Talmud, Koran, and any other religious book that exists is conjecture. Because what i said wasn't my opinion.
1. conjecture (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=conjecture)

A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork. It was the Talmud's opinion. Thats not conjecture.
WTF mate? Contradict yourself much, or was Sybil writing that last post? ...an opinion is conjecture.

Oh, and in reference to the religious texts you mention above, they are conjecture; hence the gospel according to: fill in the blank. :bondage:

mickydoolittle

Sep 23rd, 2005, 6:42 PM

Sorry bro.....its actually not conjecture. If what I said was conjecture than the Bible, Torah, Talmud, Koran, and any other religious book that exists is conjecture. Because what i said wasn't my opinion.
1. conjecture (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=conjecture)
A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork.

It was the Talmud's opinion. Thats not conjecture.
WTF mate? Contradict yourself much, or was Sybil writing that last post? ...an opinion is conjecture.

Oh, and in reference to the religious texts you mention above, they are conjecture; hence the gospel according to: fill in the blank. :bondage:

repentantsinner

Sep 23rd, 2005, 7:22 PM

It's been awhile Mickey, i'd been wondering where you went. The cutting dege of sarcasm lends spice to the board. Welcome back.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 23rd, 2005, 9:38 PM

1. conjecture (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=conjecture)
A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork.
What I meant was that if the Talmud is considered conjecture than any other religious texts are conjecture.

WTF mate? Contradict yourself much, or was Sybil writing that last post? ...an opinion is conjecture.

Oh, and in reference to the religious texts you mention above, they are conjecture; hence the gospel according to: fill in the blank. :bondage: You really don't know what the Talmud is do you. You've probably never read a word of
Talmud in you're life. The Talmud is opinion-like in the point of view of an atheist. But not if you're Jewish, because interpretations in the Talmud are backed-up by quotes in the Torah. I'm sorry, I should have specified to the forum viewers.
Edit: Bloody quote boxes!

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 23rd, 2005, 9:49 PM

What I meant was that if the Talmud is considered conjecture than any other religious texts are conjecture.

Uh, first of all, most religious texts are straight-up "histories" of sorts of interactions with God, either just some blessed individual doing God's work or God himself shouting out commands. Whereas the Talmud was written by people, of the opinions of those people. Not the same.

Secondly, yes, all religious texts are conjecture. If they were not, we'd know for a fact that Jesus was the son of God. We don't know that.

The Talmud is opinion-like in the point of view of an atheist. But not if you're Jewish, because interpretations in the Talmud are backed-up by quotes in the Torah. I'm sorry, I should have specified to the forum viewers.

Sooo... every Jewish man on Earth has the same opinion on every word of the Torah? I'm fairly certain that's not the case. And even if these theories are backed up by quotes in the Torah? Someone could very easily take my "Goddammit!" post from earlier and say, "Philosopher Foelhe is calling for God to damn this website!" Just because you use someone else's words doesn't mean you've used them correctly. I've seen plenty of people misquote and misinterpret what other people are trying to say.

And if what's in the Talmud is so clearly obvious from the Torah, why do you need the Talmud in the first place?

Edit: Okay, so I realized that the "Goddammit" post was in another thread. Whoops. I'm changing this to the "Hail, Discordia, Hail!" post, as I do not worship chaos. Either works.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 23rd, 2005, 11:10 PM

Uh, first of all, most religious texts are straight-up "histories" of sorts of interactions with God, either just some blessed individual doing God's work or God himself shouting out commands. Whereas the Talmud was written by people, of the opinions of those people. Not the same.
Like I said, the Talmud shows the symbolism in the Torah, and backs it up with Torah quotes. Ok, I’m going to give you a real example from the Talmud *walks to a nearby shelf and pulls out a big black volume of the Talmud and flips through the pages*. Ok.....I shall quote STRAIT from the Talmud, so listen up, because its pretty hard to memorize this whole thing, and I don’t intend on repeating. Here is the Mishnah(hard to explain, kind of like a chapter, some times the Talmud is referred to the Mishnah)It says.......Rabbi Simeon says: be alert in reciting the Sh'ma and the prayer. When thou prayest, do not make of thy prayer something automatic, but a plea for compassion, a supplication before G-d, blessed be he, for it is said, For He is a God gracious and compassionate, long-suffering and abundant in mercy, and repenteth Him of evil (Joel 2:13). And be not wicked in thine own sight. And the Talmud gives the Sh'ma as an example for "Let all thine actions be for the sake of heaven". And one thing I thought was interesting in the Talmud was when it says: "......do not let words come out of your mouth while your heart turns to worldly preoccupations and your thoughts wander......Let rather your mouth and heart be at one in the love of God." Is it implying then, that you should forget physical things on Earth and be one with God's heart. Is Jesus not a physical form? Anyway.....I'll give you another Mishnah. Beloved is man for he was created in the image. Extraordinary is the love made known to him that he was created in the image, as it is said, For in the image of God made He man (Genesis 9:6). And then it says: "By "image," no physical likeness is intended. The term image refers to the intelligence and understanding....And it is by this image that man is distinguished from the beast and the fowl.(Nahmias) Is this implying that humans are made in the form of the attributes by God, so since humans are not made in a physical image, God is therefore not in the likeness of a humans physical form, which means God is not that of a physical being. If you want more Mishnahs' let me know.

Sooo... every Jewish man on Earth has the same opinion on every word of the Torah? I'm fairly certain that's not the case. And even if these theories are backed up by quotes in the Torah? Someone could very easily take my "Goddammit!" post from earlier and say, "Philosopher Foelhe is calling for God to damn this website!" Just because you use someone else's words doesn't mean you've used them correctly. I've seen plenty of people misquote and misinterpret what other people are trying to say.
Each post you do you are proving to me, more and more, that you have never even heard of the Talmud before i mentioned it somewhere at the beginning of this thread(let me know if I'm right). Anyway, that’s still not how the Talmud works. Let me use the Sh'ma for an example(please tell me you know what that is). Lets suppose the Mishnah is: the evening Sh'ma. So a bunch of rabies get together and sort of debate at what exact time you should say the Sh'ma in the evening. One rabbi says it should be said at this time (gives time) then gives an example from the Torah. Then another Rabbi says, "no you're still wrong, it's this time(gives time), then gives an example from the Torah.

Edit: I forgot to put one of the quotes from the Talmud in bold print, in order to distinguish the words of the Talmud, with my words.

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 23rd, 2005, 11:47 PM

Let me go back for a bit - I missed something you said awhile back and wanted to reply to it.

Myths and liars, eh? Pretty much every Rabbi believes Abraham, Moses, etc. were individuals unified and considered members of Israel. So now Moses is considered a myth and a liar huh? A don’t know about you but that seems a bit.........

No no no. Moses is not considered by Christians as on the same tier as Jesus. He doesn't have to be a myth or a liar.

When you were talking about those who were "similar" to Jesus, I thought you were talking about men like Krishna, men who also claimed to die for us and rise again. Those people are considered myths or liars. Moses, Abraham, and the rest of the great Judaists are generally considered wise men... just not on the same level.

On with the show!

Is it implying then, that you should forget physical things on Earth and be one with God's heart. Is Jesus not a physical form?

I think the implication is that you shouldn't be in love with earthly desires, that the first thing in your mind shouldn't be lust or money or food or whatever else people obsess about. The thing is, whether Jesus is the messiah, when Christians think of Jesus, they think about ascending to a higher level of being, through compassion and giving. (Non-Christians on the board may argue with me here, but I think the flawed members of Christianity don't give much thought to Jesus' good works.) That is a godly thought, in my mind. So I think you're stretching.

Is this implying that humans are made in the form of the attributes by God, so since humans are not made in a physical image, God is therefore not in the likeness of a humans physical form, which means God is not that of a physical being.

And here's where I start thinking the opinions of the Rabbis who speak in the Talmud may be affecting their judgement. While I agree that I doubt God looks like us in his natural form (whatever that may be) that doesn't preclude him from taking that form for his own purposes. Or perhaps this particular rabbi is talking about God's natural form, and you're misinterpreting.

Each post you do you are proving to me, more and more, that you have never even heard of the Talmud before i mentioned it somewhere at the beginning of this thread(let me know if I'm right).

That's fair. I've never read the Talmud, though I did know what it was. I am pretty much using the information you give us throughout this argument. For example...

So a bunch of rabies get together and sort of debate at what exact time you should say the Sh'ma in the evening. One rabbi says it should be said at this time (gives time) then gives an example from the Torah. Then another Rabbi says, "no you're still wrong, it's this time(gives time), then gives an example from the Torah.

Look, this example is basically shooting yourself in the foot. You admit that Rabbis don't always agree on their clarification of the Torah. So, doesn't that prove the fact that at least one of them is wrong? And if one of them is wrong in this instance, isn't it possible that they're wrong on other issues, such as the ones we're discussing on Christianity?

I'm honestly not trying to belittle the Talmud, and I'm sure they've put plenty of thought into what they wrote in it. But you cannot use what they write as proof that you have the correct opinion. These are learned men, but (oh Lord, I have to say it) they aren't God. They don't necessarily have the correct interpretation of the Torah, if one exists.

mickydoolittle

Sep 23rd, 2005, 11:53 PM

What I meant was that if the Talmud is considered conjecture than any other religious texts are conjecture.

Yeah..blah blah blippety blah. Nobody really gives a damn. :jamn:

You really don't know what the Talmud is do you. You've probably never read a word of Talmud in you're life. The Talmud is opinion-like in the point of view of an atheist. But not if you're Jewish, because interpretations in the Talmud are backed-up by quotes in the Torah. I'm sorry, I should have specified to the forum viewers.
Edit: Bloody quote boxes!

Well, first you start off by attempting to insult me, then you support my post via the same feeble attempt at a flame. Sybil, I wish to communicate with BND...ok? Don't be sorry as it is a waste of time as well as a waste of forum space. :alcoholic Moreover, in that I am not hassidic nor hebrew, the talmud serves no purpose in my life--I guess it is pretty much the same for me as it is for those who devout their lives to following it's content insomuch as we both are wasting our time...torah schmora....one could attempt to apply the same argument to the reports supporting evidence of WMD's in Iraq...it's all bullshit genius....don't you get it?

B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. It's why I voted for bush--twice, cuz I'm ever the mushroom. (I am AMERICAn). I suppose I'm no different in that aspect from a religious fundie. :Bott:

grrrrrr. ...fundies...

Beatnik Bob

Sep 24th, 2005, 12:59 AM

When you were talking about those who were "similar" to Jesus, I thought you were talking about men like Krishna, men who also claimed to die for us and rise again. Those people are considered myths or liars. Moses, Abraham, and the rest of the great Judaists are generally considered wise men... just not on the same level. Moses and Abraham are also considered to be 'sons of G-d' since they are considered to be united with the Shekinah, and members of Israel.

I think the implication is that you shouldn't be in love with earthly desires, that the first thing in your mind shouldn't be lust or money or food or whatever else people obsess about. The thing is, whether Jesus is the messiah, when Christians think of Jesus, they think about ascending to a higher level of being, through compassion and giving. (Non-Christians on the board may argue with me here, but I think the flawed members of Christianity don't give much thought to Jesus' good works.) That is a godly thought, in my mind. So I think you're stretching. Oh Shmekah! It said exactly what you're saying in the Talmud. I didn't read the whole Mishna. O whell.

And here's where I start thinking the opinions of the Rabbis who speak in the Talmud may be affecting their judgment. While I agree that I doubt God looks like us in his natural form (whatever that may be) that doesn't preclude him from taking that form for his own purposes. Or perhaps this particular rabbi is talking about God's natural form, and you're misinterpreting.
1. his natural form, as is said through the sefirot, is Einsof: the nothingness without end.
2. I've always believed that religions like Hinduism were worshiping God in a different way. They recognized the Earth as being apart of G-d, and every living organism as being a piece of something of divine nature. Because God is never thought of being a whole huge being, God, in Judaism, is a difficult concept. He is made up of thousands of shards, spread throughout the universe. Think of it this way: the Earth is an incarnation of G-d, the beasts of the Earth, the fowl of the air, the creatures of the water, the planets, the universe all apart of G-d. It is spoken of as a great chalice shattering and every shard of G-d creating life. In a sense Jesus, as well as all humanity, are incarnations of pieces of G-d. G-d is considered so omnipotent, that he can never incarnate as an individual, rather all humanity, and the universe for that matter. And an individual united with the Shekinah is an individual with "raised shards". It is said that a great chalice shattered(obviously G-d isn't a chalice, its symbolism) and through it's breaking the whole universe came into existence. In a sense you and me.....and even Jake, are all forms of incarnations of G-d. That’s my theory on why Hindus worship things like water, fire, and the Earth.....they recognize the divine spark. This does not mean that just because everything has divinity in it that one worship those things. A Jew worships the other concept of God as the sefirot. The ten attributes of G-d: Wisdom, justice, mercy, nothingness without end, beauty, the divine crown, understanding, eternity, glory, foundation, and there’s the missing link, the eleventh "attribute" Shekinah (Gods presence in the world= humanity). G-d is so omnipotent that he incarnated into every aspect of the whole eternal universe, he incarnated into me, you, our planet, and little old Jake, our Sun, and Jesus as well. We were ALL created of divine nature.

That's fair. I've never read the Talmud, though I did know what it was. I am pretty much using the information you give us throughout this argument. For example...
That’s cool. But I still recommend studying it so you have an idea of what i try to say in my posts, plus it’s just good to know about other religions. I myself read a fair amount of Hindu beliefs and teachings.

Look, this example is basically shooting yourself in the foot. You admit that Rabbis don't always agree on their clarification of the Torah. So, doesn't that prove the fact that at least one of them is wrong? And if one of them is wrong in this instance, isn't it possible that they're wrong on other issues, such as the ones we're discussing on Christianity?
I apologize, its very hard to describe the Talmud without writing the whole thing in a post. I may have led you to believe something other than my real point. That was to try to give you an understanding of how it works.

I'm honestly not trying to belittle the Talmud, and I'm sure they've put plenty of thought into what they wrote in it. But you cannot use what they write as proof that you have the correct opinion. These are learned men, but (oh Lord, I have to say it) they aren't God. They don't necessarily have the correct interpretation of the Torah, if one exists. DUH! One reason the Talmud was made was for people to be encouraged to try to interpret Torah, for as the Zohar says: it is our obligation to interpret the Torah. And the Talmud is simply expressing thoughts that should be taken into consideration. The Talmud, in a sense, does what a Rabbi does at services, except down on paper. In the end, the idea is for oneself to interpret the Torah. Note: the Talmud is called the wisdom of the fathers. The Talmud is the oral teachings of Judaism.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 24th, 2005, 8:44 AM

Oh, and in responce to when you said the Talmud isn't devine because it's written by Rabbies and not Moses, and so therefor it's "opinoin" doesn't matter. Well, my responce is: who the HELL do you think wrote the New Tesament!?!

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 24th, 2005, 12:26 PM

Moses and Abraham are also considered to be 'sons of G-d' since they are considered to be united with the Shekinah, and members of Israel.

And most Christians would agree that these are holy men... just not as holy as Jesus himself.

Think of it this way: the Earth is an incarnation of G-d, the beasts of the Earth, the fowl of the air, the creatures of the water, the planets, the universe all apart of G-d.

I like that. I really do. But you have to understand that you can't belittle Christians just because they don't see this in the same way. That's all I'm saying.

That’s cool. But I still recommend studying it so you have an idea of what i try to say in my posts, plus it’s just good to know about other religions. I myself read a fair amount of Hindu beliefs and teachings.

True. I'll try to get ahold of a Talmud when I can. I wonder if my library carries one.

I apologize, its very hard to describe the Talmud without writing the whole thing in a post. I may have led you to believe something other than my real point.

Well, here's why I should read the Talmud. I'm not trying to be rude, of course, but... I thought you described the purpose of the book pretty well. In fact, you even gave examples from the text. Is it possible that some of those Rabbi's were incorrect of their assessment of the bible? I know these are smart men, but even intellect sometimes slips.

One reason the Talmud was made was for people to be encouraged to try to interpret Torah, for as the Zohar says: it is our obligation to interpret the Torah.

But if Christians have interpreted the Torah in such a way as to make the existance of a "Christ-figure" possible, can you be sure their interpretation isn't valid?

Oh, and in responce to when you said the Talmud isn't devine because it's written by Rabbies and not Moses, and so therefor it's "opinoin" doesn't matter. Well, my responce is: who the HELL do you think wrote the New Tesament!?!

In theory, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts were historical documents, written by people who could see what was going on. Just like much of the Torah. So while they may not be entirely right, what they wrote was factual (again, in theory) because they were actually watching all this.

And then there's the rest of the New Testament, which is basically letters from Paul and a few other people. And you're right, that is highly suspect. Even when I was a Christian, I quietly ignored that part of the bible.

Which is exactly the point. When you have people telling stories of what actually happened, that can be taken seriously, but if Paul's theories of the bible can be believed to be nonsensical, why can't other people have been mistaken on their study of the Torah.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 24th, 2005, 6:23 PM

And most Christians would agree that these are holy men... just not as holy as Jesus himself.Like i said....EVERYONE is an incarnation of God, we're all equal to a certain extent. I admit there are those individuals that have 'raised there shards', but still, one recognizes the divine idea of G-d, not those united with the Shekinah.

I like that. I really do. But you have to understand that you can't belittle Christians just because they don't see this in the same way. That's all I'm saying. It's not like I'm the only person that sees this way, most of Judaism has this belief system. And in addition, is Christianity not based off of Judaism? It seems an illegitimate act that Christianity will rip-off certain bits and pieces of Judaism, but not the whole thing because it doesn't agree with their dogma. It doesn't seem justifiable that Christianity will steal what they like, but not the whole thing. (I'm going to give an example) Its like me stealing a sentence from a book. The original sentence is: And Angada slid down the mountain, to a boiling cauldron of molten lava. And Suppose I steal a part of it and add what I like to it so the sentence instead says: And Angada slid down the mountain, to meet his beloved friend, Kusa. But that's still not what really happened. Is it making sense now?

True. I'll try to get a hold of a Talmud when I can. I wonder if my library carries one.
:2thumbs:

Well, here's why I should read the Talmud. I'm not trying to be rude, of course, but... I thought you described the purpose of the book pretty well. In fact, you even gave examples from the text. Is it possible that some of those Rabbi's were incorrect of their assessment of the bible? I know these are smart men, but even intellect sometimes slips. These aren’t just smart men, they are sages! Like Hillel and Maimonides. And Jews generally don't like making mistakes in our religion. For instance if a scribe makes a mistake when writing the Torah, guess what he has to do? You don't want to know. And I didn't give the whole Mishna. I just gave what I thought was most important. But really one Mishna goes on for pages and pages. It lists hundreds of Torah quotes per Mishna.
Never mind, I'll just give you some of the rest of the Mishna for the "images" one. And I'll just say this, it is like debating in the sense that one topic will branch off and become many, like in this one where a similar quote branches from the images one. Here it is: Beloved are Israel for they were called children of God. Extraordinary is the love made known to them that they were called children of God, as it is said, Ye are the children of the Lord, your God (Deuteronomy 14:1).
Beloved are Israel for to them was given a precious implement. Extraordinary is the love made known to them that they were given the precious implement with which the world was created, as it is said, For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not My Torah (Proverbs 4:2). And then it says: PRECIOUS IMPLEMENT WITH WHICH THE WORLD WAS CREATED: It is written, With the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth(Genesis 1:1), and the word "beginning" refers only to the Torah, as it is said, The Lord acquired me as the beginning of His way(Proverbs 8:22). It says also, Then I was by Him as the instrument of His craft (Proverbs 8:30): Says the Torah, "I was the instrument made use of by the Holy One at the very beginning"-for God studied it and created the universe accordingly. (me speaking now) And it goes on and on. See, that’s kind of how it works. It gives statements (ones in bold), and gives Torah quote (ones in italic), and says what each part of the statements mean (ones in capital). When it really comes down to it, the Talmud is allot of teachings, not really guess work, but stating the fact of interpretation.

But if Christians have interpreted the Torah in such a way as to make the existence of a "Christ-figure" possible, can you be sure their interpretation isn't valid? They rip-off only the parts the things they think supports their doctrine. If they ripped-off the whole thing, they would realize that their interpretations didn't mach up with the Torah. It's easy to get what you want with bits and pieces of the truth, but not with the whole truth.

And then there's the rest of the New Testament, which is basically letters from Paul and a few other people. And you're right, that is highly suspect. Even when I was a Christian, I quietly ignored that part of the bible.

Which is exactly the point. When you have people telling stories of what actually happened, that can be taken seriously, but if Paul's theories of the bible can be believed to be nonsensical, why can't other people have been mistaken on their study of the Torah. Was Paul really studying something? But anyway, I don't feel I need to really answer this, since I pretty much previously explained in this post, how the Talmud doesn't really work like that, the Talmud is more teachings than a speculation.

Edit: I forgot again to put one of the Talmu quotes in bold.

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 24th, 2005, 6:39 PM

The original sentence is: And Angada slid down the mountain, to a boiling cauldron of molten lava. And Suppose I steal a part of it and add what I like to it so the sentence instead says: And Angada slid down the mountain, to meet his beloved friend, Kusa. But that's still not what really happened.

But did Angada slide down the mountain to a boiling cauldron of molten lava?

The thing is, we don't know if the Torah is true. You certainly believe that it is, and that's fine. There's also the point that the Talmud is half this sentance. The Torah might say, "Angada slid down the mountain," and the Talmud might say, "where there was molten lava." Christians don't necessarily believe the Talmud is holy writ. You can contest this as much as you like, but the point is you cannot ask everyone to believe in your holy books. You're Jewish and believe in the Talmud, and that's absolutely fine. Christians do not believe in the Talmud (individuals like Cherisa notwithstanding). That's fine as well.

These aren’t just smart men, they are sages!

Ah, that's where the difference between Christianity and Judaism lies. Christians believe that these people were wise men, but still merely men. Touched by God, but not necessarily imbued with all of his wisdom. *shrugs*

They rip-off only the parts the things they think supports their doctrine. If they ripped-off the whole thing, they would realize that their interpretations didn't mach up with the Torah.

Can you give me an example where the Torah disagreed with the Bible, without relating to the Talmud? I know the Talmud quotes from the Torah, and feel free to use the Talmud to reference this point, but when you quote this I only want to hear things directly from the Torah.

Now, even if you manage to do this I'm going to hit you with the "All things are made new" argument. I think it's only fair you know this ahead of time. But I would like to know where the Torah explicitly says there can be no messiah without translation through the Talmud.

the Talmud doesn't really work like that, the Talmud is more teachings than a speculation.

I... can't really agree with you here. Maybe they are "teachings", but let's face it, this is a case where Rabbi's took information from the Torah, and then said, "What this actually means is..." Whether they were correct or not, I would still call that speculation.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 25th, 2005, 9:04 PM

Just keep patient awhile. I need to ask my Rabbi something on the Talmud thing. Ok? Are we cool daddy-o?

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 25th, 2005, 9:21 PM

Take all the time you need.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 25th, 2005, 10:24 PM

Actually, I think I'll respond to all the things that don't require consultancies with my Rabbi.

But did Angada slide down the mountain to a boiling cauldron of molten lava?

The thing is, we don't know if the Torah is true. You certainly believe that it is, and that's fine. There's also the point that the Talmud is half this sentence. The Torah might say, "Angada slid down the mountain," and the Talmud might say, "Where there was molten lava." Christians don't necessarily believe the Talmud is holy writ. You can contest this as much as you like, but the point is you cannot ask everyone to believe in your holy books. You're Jewish and believe in the Talmud, and that's absolutely fine. Christians do not believe in the Talmud (individuals like Cherisa notwithstanding). That's fine as well.
1. Isn't Christianity based on Judaism? You can’t tell me that there is no such thing as an Old Testament in the Bible. And I thought it was a given that we agreed the idea of G-d creating everything and all that jazz is true, because in the beginning of this argument I was originally trying to debate a Christian on the existence of Jesus as G-d. And of course Christians believe allot of the Torah, so therefore it would be true between Jews and Christians. I guess you're coming to these conclusions because you aren't a Christian or Jew. Which is definitely completely fine?
2. And my point with the Angada thing was that Christians steal bits and pieces of Judaism, and make it into what supports their doctrine. And I was merely trying to imply that if you don’t just take the whole thing and instead parts of it, it isn't what really happened.
3.And I wasn't aware that my Angada statement had anything to do with the Talmud.

Ah, that's where the difference between Christianity and Judaism lies. Christians believe that these people were wise men, but still merely men. Touched by God, but not necessarily imbued with all of his wisdom. *shrugs*
Ok, I'm going to try to explain this as best I can, but I'll still have to ask my Rabbi this question, where I may get a totally different explanation than what I'm about to give. Anyway, ok the Talmud (as I tried explaining a few posts back) Is more like how Jews believe written down. Its like Jewish common sense, for instance, all Jews believe (even before the Talmud was written) that when it says in the Torah that we were created in G-ds image that it meant intelligence, and what defines humans from animals. So they decided to write the Talmud, to have the belief system for future generations of Jews(who of course aren't pre-programmed into any religion the moment they're born). Like Moses didn't believe in G-d as a human, if he did he would have hit himself with the ten commandments. And then it goes back to Christianity ripping bits and pieces from Judaism, but not excepting the full picture. And was Moses just touched by G-d, and not imbued with all his wisdom? If so, than why did God let him write the Torah?

Can you give me an example where the Torah disagreed with the Bible, without relating to the Talmud? I know the Talmud quotes from the Torah, and feel free to use the Talmud to reference this point, but when you quote this I only want to hear things directly from the Torah. This is a hard one since the Torah is in the bible. I think you mean where the Torah disagree with the "New Testament". (I've seen parts where it does that......but finding those places again......) It's not as easy as you think to search the whole Torah for proof though, because I seem to have misplaced the Talmud for reference. Oh, and another thing on how the Talmud could be fact even though it's not written by Moses is: we'll, you know when I quoted Talmud and wrote that G-d expressed his love to Judaism through the giving of the Torah? Well that was a quote made by Jeremiah. It's like this: a really great well known apostle type person says a quote, and other even less known Rabies comment on it. So anyway, since Jeremiah made that quote in the Talmud, and Jeremiah is in the Torah (and there's a whole book thing about him, I'd say his word is legitimate.

Now, even if you manage to do this I'm going to hit you with the "All things are made new" argument. I think it's only fair you know this ahead of time. But I would like to know where the Torah explicitly says there can be no messiah without translation through the Talmud. What do you mean by all images are made new?

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 25th, 2005, 11:23 PM

You can’t tell me that there is no such thing as an Old Testament in the Bible.

OH! Well, that may clarify things. I thought the Old Testament had been changed in it's move to the Bible. Convenient for me, at least.

And my point with the Angada thing was that Christians steal bits and pieces of Judaism, and make it into what supports their doctrine. And I was merely trying to imply that if you don’t just take the whole thing and instead parts of it, it isn't what really happened.

That's fair. I'd like to see just where the Torah/Old Testament disagrees with the New, but I guess we'll cover that later.

And I wasn't aware that my Angada statement had anything to do with the Talmud.

Then I was mistaken. Sorry, I thought you were still using the Talmud in this argument.

So they decided to write the Talmud, to have the belief system for future generations of Jews

Okay. I still think it is possible there were misinterpretations along the line, but I understand where you're coming from now.

And was Moses just touched by G-d, and not imbued with all his wisdom? If so, than why did God let him write the Torah?

Ah, gotta kick myself on the delivery on this one. Wisdom wasn't exactly what I was going for here, but I'm not sure how to describe what I mean. Essense, I guess? Better yet, to consider it from the point of the HaShem - Christians believe that Moses might've had a high degree of... uh, relation to the HaShem. (How does that go again? :dork:) But Jesus' connection was just much greater. Doesn't mean Moses wasn't a great man, just that he wasn't on the same level.

... Of course, I don't think the average Christian is even aware of HaShem, per say, but I think that's the closest I'm gonna get here. :D

It's not as easy as you think to search the whole Torah for proof though, because I seem to have misplaced the Talmud for reference.

As someone who's clawed his way through the Bible doing just such, I understand. Again, take your time.

we'll, you know when I quoted Talmud and wrote that G-d expressed his love to Judaism through the giving of the Torah? Well that was a quote made by Jeremiah. It's like this: a really great well known apostle type person says a quote, and other even less known Rabies comment on it. So anyway, since Jeremiah made that quote in the Talmud, and Jeremiah is in the Torah (and there's a whole book thing about him, I'd say his word is legitimate.

... Eh...

I do agree that this certainly gives parts of the Talmud more credence (from a Judaist point of view), but I don't know if it necessarily proves it's legitimate, for two reasons.

One, we don't really know... how can I say this politely? We don't really know what God intended to be in the Torah. It's a possibility that even if the Torah is blessed by God, the Book of Jeremiah might not have been part of that blessing. Keep in mind that God does allow free will, and by the rules if Jeremiah managed to convince enough people his words belonged in the Torah, they'd be in the Torah. I'm not trying to be rude here, but it's possible.

Two, if Jeremiah was granted the wisdom to write his Book, we don't know how much wisdom he received. Does that make any sense? He might've been mistaken on some issues, just because God didn't inform him of those facts.

Anyway, being nitpicky. Moving on!

What do you mean by all images are made new?

When Jesus rose from the dead in the New Testament, he said, "Behold, the old has passed and all shall be made new." If the New Testament doesn't agree with the Old, it could be part of that which "passed".

This is what I've taken to calling a "Dead-Switch Argument". There's not really anything you can do against it, and it pretty much kills the debate in one fell swoop. I hate using them, since I'm all about considering things from the other person's viewpoint and a Dead-Switch Argument makes it impossible for that viewpoint to be heard. On the other hand, Jesus did say this. And we don't know exactly what he meant by it. So... since I'm defending Christianity, I may have to pull this sucker out. But I feel guilty about it, so I thought I'd give fair warning.

(But if you blow a hole in it, I will be well and truly impressed and shall shower praise upon you for the rest of my days. So it's not all bad.)

DarkAce

Sep 26th, 2005, 12:36 AM

1. Isn't Christianity based on Judaism?

Christianity has it's foundations in Judaism, as Jesus was a jew. But as Jesus was a revisionist, his teachings and the many people that followed him in the creation of Christianity parted from most of the jewish ways in establishing itself as a valid religion and not just some jewish sect. For instance they don't follow the dietary laws or some of the other 600+ (or 300+ since the destruction of the temple) laws you guys have.

2. And my point with the Angada thing was that Christians steal bits and pieces of Judaism, and make it into what supports their doctrine. And I was merely trying to imply that if you don’t just take the whole thing and instead parts of it, it isn't what really happened.

What isn't what really happened? They're not so much changing events, but rather interpreting certain things said based solely on quotes from the Old testament without full understanding of the entire thing.
If it were up to me I'd much prefer it if Christians didn't follow any of the OT and left it the hell alone. Much of the negativity that has occured due to religion on part of Christians often comes with justification of someones interpretation warranted by the OT.

But without the OT, Christianity wouldn't be legitamate.

Ok, I'm going to try to explain this as best I can,

You don't have to keep repeating yourself, most already get it, if not I'll give it a brief try in a sentence or less.
The Talmud is much like having a debate written on paper, also it's like having a professor give a lecture on a subject and the Talmud is the written notes. The end.

Now where we part ways is that you seem determined that the Torah is fact and everything in it is fact. Like I've posted before (http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=82439&postcount=109)
it's most likely that Moses didn't write the first five books of the bible (the Pentateuch). The torah, much like the rest of the bible was written by many different authors over an extended period of time, often with the events described happening way, way before they were actually written down.

I've posted the links before, but it seems you missed them. Here's a little more taste...

Background to the theory

The main areas considered by these critics when supporting the Documentary Hypothesis are:

The variations in the divine names in Genesis;
The secondary variations in diction and style;
The parallel or duplicate accounts (doublets);
The continuity of the various sources;
The political assumptions implicit in the text;
The interests of the author.

Doublets and triplets are stories that are repeated with different points of view. Famous doublets include Genesis's creation accounts; the stories of the covenant between God and Abraham; the naming of Isaac; the two stories in which Abraham claims to a king that his wife is really his sister; and the two stories of the revelation to Jacob at Bet-El. A famed triplet is the three different versions of how the town of Be'ersheba got its name.

There are many portions of the Torah which seem to imply more than one author. Some examples include:

The creation story in Genesis first describes a somewhat 'evolutionary' process, with first the planet created, then the lower forms of life, then animals, and finally man and woman being created together. It then begins the story again, but this time man is created first, then animals to assuage man's loneliness, and when this failed, Adam's wife Eve was created.

The flood story in Genesis appears to claim that 2 of all kinds of animal went on the ark, but also that 7 of certain kinds went on, and that the flood lasted a year, but also lasted only 40 days.
Numbers 25 describes the rebellion at Peor, and refers to daughters of Moabite; the next sentence says that one woman was a Midianite.

The Ten Commandments appear in Exodus 20, but in a slightly different wording in Deuteronomy 5. A second, almost completely different set of Ten Commandments appears in Exodus 34.
In some locations God is friendly, and capable of errors and regret, and walks the earth talking to humans, but in others God is unmerciful and distant (although just).

A number of places or individuals have multiple names. For instance, the name of the mountain that Moses climbed to receive the commandments is given in some places as Horeb and in others as Sinai, Moses' father-in-law is known by at least three names in the Hebrew original (יֶתֶר, יִתְרוֹ, and רְעוּאֵל), etc.

There are classical rabbinical interpretations accounting for all of these differences, but many are rather strained and are not in perfect harmony with the actual text.

The Modern Theory

The theory proposes that the Torah was composed from four earlier source texts, which were combined by a redactor (referred to as R)

J - the Jahwist. J describes a human-like God called Yahweh and has its main interest reflecting Judah and the Aaronid priesthood. J has an extremely eloquent style. J uses an earlier form of the Hebrew language than P.

E - the Elohist. E describes a human-like God initially called El (which is sometimes Elohim according to the rules of Hebrew grammar), and called Yahweh after the burning bush, and has its main interest reflecting biblical Israel and the Shiloh priesthood. E has a moderately eloquent style. E uses an earlier form of the Hebrew language than P.

P - the Priestly source. P describes a distant and unmerciful (but just) God sometimes referred to as Elohim and El Shaddai. P partly duplicates J and E, but altering details to suit P's opinion, and also consists of most of Leviticus. P has its main interest in an Aaronid priesthood and King Hezekiah. P has a low level of literary style, and has an interest in lists and dates.

D - the Deuteronomist. D consists entirely of most of Deuteronomy. D probably also wrote the Deteronomistic history (Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings). D has its interest reflecting the Shiloh priesthood and King Josiah. D uses a form of Hebrew similar to P, but in a different literary style.

For the rest, click here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
Also check out: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm

DarkAce

Sep 26th, 2005, 12:43 AM

To further my point with some Talmudic/Rabbi references..:

However, classical Judaism notes a number of exceptions: Over the millennia scribal errors have crept into the text of the Torah. The Masoretes (7th to 10th centuries CE) compared all extant variations and attempted to create a definitive text. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra and Joseph Bonfils observed that some phrases in the Torah present information that should only have been known after the time of Moses. Some classical rabbis drew on their observations to postulate that these sections of the Torah were written by Joshua or perhaps some later prophet. Other rabbis would not accept this view.

The Talmud (tractate Shabbat 115b) states that a peculiar section in the book of Numbers 10:35-36, surrounded by inverted Hebrew letter nuns, in fact is a separate book. On this verse a Midrash on the book of Mishle states that "These two verses stem from an independent book which existed, but was suppressed!" Another, possibly earlier midrash, Ta'ame Haserot Viyterot, states that this section actually comes from the book of prophecy of Eldad and Medad. The Talmud says that four books of the Torah were dictated by God, but Deuteronomy was written by Moses in his own words (Talmud Bavli, Megillah 31b). For more information on these issues from an Orthodox Jewish perspective, see Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations, edited by Shalom Carmy (Jason Aronson, Inc.) and Handbook of Jewish Thought, Volume I, by Aryeh Kaplan (Moznaim Pub.)

Individual rabbis and scholars have on occasion pointed out that the Torah showed signs of not being written entirely by Moses.

Rabbi Judah ben Ilai held that the final verses of the Torah must have been written by Joshua. (Talmud, Bava Batra 15a and Menachot 30a, and in Midrash Sifrei 357.)

Parts of the Midrash retain evidence of the redactional period during which Ezra redacted and canonized the text of the Torah as we know it today. A rabbinic tradition states that at this time (440 B.C.E.) the text of the Torah was edited by Ezra, and there were ten places in the Torah where he was uncertain as to how to fix the text; these passages were marked with special punctuation marks called the eser nekudot.

In the middle ages, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra and others noted that there were several places in the Torah that apparently could not have been written in Moses's lifetime. For example, see Ibn Ezra's comments on Genesis 12:6, 22:14, Deuteronomy 1:2, 3:11 and 34:1,6. Ibn Ezra's comments were elucidated by Rabbi Joseph Bonfils in his commentary on Ibn Ezra's work.

In the twelfth century, the commentator R. Joseph ben Isaac, known as the Bekhor Shor, noted that a number of wilderness narratives in Exodus and Numbers are very similar, in particular, the incidents of water from the rock, and the stories about manna and the quail. He theorized that both of these incidents actually happened once, but that parallel traditions about these events eventually developed, both of which made their way into the Torah.

In the thirteenth century, R. Hezekiah ben Manoah (known as the Hizkuni) noticed the same textual anomalies that Ibn Ezra noted; thus R. Hezekiah's commentary on Genesis 12:6 notes that this section "is written from the perspective of the future.".

Beatnik Bob

Sep 26th, 2005, 8:01 PM

I do beleive the Torah and NOT the Talmud.

I believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. That is why I worship him.

That's why you're not Jewish.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 26th, 2005, 9:32 PM

OH! Well, that may clarify things. I thought the Old Testament had been changed in it's move to the Bible. Convenient for me, at least. It was changed. I was simply expressing that Christianity did come from Judaism; otherwise they wouldn't even have an Old Testament.

That's fair. I'd like to see just where the Torah/Old Testament disagrees with the New, but I guess we'll cover that later. :2thumbs:

Then I was mistaken. Sorry, I thought you were still using the Talmud in this argument.
No problem :2thumbs: what's a debate without occasional misconceptions/misinterpretations?

Okay. I still think it is possible there were misinterpretations along the line, but I understand where you're coming from now.
Thank's for the understanding.

Ah, gotta kick myself on the delivery on this one. Wisdom wasn't exactly what I was going for here, but I'm not sure how to describe what I mean. Essense, I guess? Better yet, to consider it from the point of the HaShem - Christians believe that Moses might've had a high degree of... uh, relation to the HaShem. (How does that go again? :dork:) But Jesus' connection was just much greater. Doesn't mean Moses wasn't a great man, just that he wasn't on the same level.
As far as I can see, Moses was closer to God than Jesus. What did Jesus really do for the world besides say he was dying for people's sins, and in my opinion it would take more than one person dying to save everyone’s sins. But anyway, if anybody did anything to help humanity it was Moses, since he got the Torah from God, and gave it to the Jewish people, who are scattered all over the world. So if anybody, Moses was more of a person affecting the world.

As someone who's clawed his way through the Bible doing just such, I understand. Again, take your time.
Again, thanks for the understanding.

I do agree that this certainly gives parts of the Talmud more credence (from a Judaist point of view), but I don't know if it necessarily proves it's legitimate, for two reasons.

One, we don't really know... how can I say this politely? We don't really know what God intended to be in the Torah. It's a possibility that even if the Torah is blessed by God, the Book of Jeremiah might not have been part of that blessing. Keep in mind that God does allow free will, and by the rules if Jeremiah managed to convince enough people his words belonged in the Torah, they'd be in the Torah. I'm not trying to be rude here, but it's possible.

Two, if Jeremiah was granted the wisdom to write his Book, we don't know how much wisdom he received. Does that make any sense? He might've been mistaken on some issues, just because God didn't inform him of those facts. I'm going to say a few important things about Judaism, that the Rabbi told me: (a Talmud quote that you absolutely must read) It is written, And I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment (Exodus 24:12): the law refers to the Written Torah; the commandment refers to the Oral Torah. (me now) and it goes on, and then it says (back to quoting again) By "Talmud" is meant the Oral Torah, for it is the commentary on the Written Torah. Indeed, were it not for the interpretations which Moses received from the mouth of the Almighty, we could not know the true meaning of the Written Torah.(me now). So you see now? What you call "guesswork" is actually an essential component to understanding the written tradition. Think about it. How do we know what the letter gimmel sounds like? (Hebrew letter for "G"). How do we know that bet can sometimes make a 'v' sound, and at other times a 'b' sound? We could just look at a letter and make up any sound we like to go along with it if we wanted to but that doesn't make it true. This is how it is with the Mishna. The oral tradition (Mishnah) is what has been passed down from one generation to the next. Much of the teachings of the kabbalah have their origins in the Misnah. Do you understand now?

When Jesus rose from the dead in the New Testament, he said, "Behold, the old has passed and all shall be made new." If the New Testament doesn't agree with the Old, it could be part of that which "passed".

This is what I've taken to calling a "Dead-Switch Argument". There's not really anything you can do against it, and it pretty much kills the debate in one fell swoop. I hate using them, since I'm all about considering things from the other person's viewpoint and a Dead-Switch Argument makes it impossible for that viewpoint to be heard. On the other hand, Jesus did say this. And we don't know exactly what he meant by it. So... since I'm defending Christianity, I may have to pull this sucker out. But I feel guilty about it, so I thought I'd give fair warning.

(But if you blow a hole in it, I will be well and truly impressed and shall shower praise upon you for the rest of my days. So it's not all bad.)
I think I understand now. And look at my previous quote on you.

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 26th, 2005, 10:15 PM

As far as I can see, Moses was closer to God than Jesus. What did Jesus really do for the world besides say he was dying for people's sins, and in my opinion it would take more than one person dying to save everyone’s sins. But anyway, if anybody did anything to help humanity it was Moses, since he got the Torah from God, and gave it to the Jewish people, who are scattered all over the world.

Well, judging from Christian "mythology", the reason Jesus' death was so important was because... well, sin and death are intertwined. Right? In the Old Testament, at least, this is true. So, we see in the bible that Jesus had the strength to resist sin in the desert. This showed he had the strength to resist death, as well. And, when he defied death, he defied sin, thus breaking sin's strangle-hold on the human race. So, that's why Christians consider Jesus more important.

Indeed, were it not for the interpretations which Moses received from the mouth of the Almighty, we could not know the true meaning of the Written Torah.

I'm not sure I get this. God told Moses the laws of the Torah. Then God translated the Torah for Moses, which became the Talmud. Couldn't you just... cut out the middle man here? Why do you need the Torah at all?

The oral tradition (Mishnah) is what has been passed down from one generation to the next.

You call it the oral tradition, but if that's what it was supposed to be why was it written down?

Another point - when was it written down? Again, it was an oral tradition, so I assume for some generations it was simply passed down from person to person. Is it possible that the meaning might've changed during that time? Possibly this answers my first question.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 26th, 2005, 11:22 PM

Well, judging from Christian "mythology", the reason Jesus' death was so important was because... well, sin and death are intertwined. Right? In the Old Testament, at least, this is true. So, we see in the bible that Jesus had the strength to resist sin in the desert. This showed he had the strength to resist death, as well. And, when he defied death, he defied sin, thus breaking sin's strangle-hold on the human race. So, that's why Christians consider Jesus more important.
Moses actually wrote the Torah which affects millions of Jews across the globe. All Jesus did was......die. And Abraham resisted sin, like when he created Judaism. Abraham when he was around 13 went into his fathers shop and smashed all the Sumerian sculptures(that's one reason why we have Benei Mitzvah's when one turns 13). Was that not resisting sin? And as far as I can tell, people slaughter and kill and commit just as sinful(if not more) as 2000 years ago.

I'm not sure I get this. God told Moses the laws of the Torah. Then God translated the Torah for Moses, which became the Talmud. Couldn't you just... cut out the middle man here? Why do you need the Torah at all? Because one can not exist without the other. there can be no law without giving guidelines on how it should be followed and there cant be guidelines without the law.

You call it the oral tradition, but if that's what it was supposed to be why was it written down?

Another point - when was it written down? Again, it was an oral tradition, so I assume for some generations it was simply passed down from person to person. Is it possible that the meaning might've changed during that time? Possibly this answers my first question. The reason it's called the Oral Tradition is because it "speaks" the commandment. Not necessarily really speaking. So yes, it can be written down. And the Mishna is very, very old. If you want to ask that question, you might as we'll ask when the Torah was written. So I'd say about 3000 years ago, along with the Mishnah, which is often referred to as a second Torah.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 26th, 2005, 11:25 PM

Shocking huh?

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 27th, 2005, 12:15 AM

Moses actually wrote the Torah which affects millions of Jews across the globe. All Jesus did was......die.

Which, Christians believe, affects everyone on earth.

And Abraham resisted sin, like when he created Judaism. Abraham when he was around 13 went into his fathers shop and smashed all the Sumerian sculptures(that's one reason why we have Benei Mitzvah's when one turns 13). Was that not resisting sin?

"Yes, officer, I did break into that pottery store and break those sculptures, but you see, I was resisting sin."

... Wow, if there's a hell, I'm going there for sure. :52: Just kidding. I'll be good now.

Anyway, from the Christian point of view, Abraham was certainly resisting sin, but he didn't defeat it. Or at least, he may have defeated the smaller sin that he was facing, but he didn't defeat Sin in all its hideous glory. Jesus actually defeated all which was evil, in a sense.

And as far as I can tell, people slaughter and kill and commit just as sinful(if not more) as 2000 years ago.

Well, from the Christian viewpoint, it might help if you think of sin as a heavy net, holding everyone down. It's a strong net, which can't be broken... except Jesus shot right through it. Anyway, the net is still all there (Law of conservation of mass! :D ) but there's a hole, and if you follow Jesus you can crawl out.

It's not a perfect simile by any means (It doesn't explain why Christians can still sin, for instance), but it does it's job as an example.

Because one can not exist without the other. there can be no law without giving guidelines on how it should be followed and there cant be guidelines without the law.

Actually, because I'm a rat bastard today, I have to point out that it's certainly possible for there to be laws without guidelines of how they should be carried out.

Now, here's where I show my hand.

You believe the Torah and the Talmud are spiritually blessed. The thing is, Christians believe the Torah is spiritually blessed, but the Talmud is not. Now, from your arguments, you find this abhorrent. And I guess that's understandable, because it feels disrespectful to the Talmud. But, you can't control what other people find holy or don't, nor should you.

The truth is, there's nothing in the Torah that proves the Talmud is true, no, "For clarification, turn to page 228 of the Talmud for Moses' commentary," or any such thing. (Unless there is, in which case I'd like to hear it.) So, while your faith and your experiences may lead you to believe the Talmud and Torah are interconnected, there's no reason someone can't believe in the Torah and not the Talmud. And that is what Christians choose to do. And that's their choice.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 27th, 2005, 6:58 PM

Which, Christians believe, affects everyone on earth.

"Yes, officer, I did break into that pottery store and break those sculptures, but you see, I was resisting sin."

... Wow, if there's a hell, I'm going there for sure. :52: Just kidding. I'll be good now.

Anyway, from the Christian point of view, Abraham was certainly resisting sin, but he didn't defeat it. Or at least, he may have defeated the smaller sin that he was facing, but he didn't defeat Sin in all its hideous glory. Jesus actually defeated all which was evil, in a sense.

Jesus’s death couldn't possibly have effected that many people(you said everyone), I mean, if there are millions of Jews out there-which there most certainly are!- then exclude those millions from your insane belief, along with many other religions that couldn't care less about Jesus and you have around 75% of nonbelievers. HAH!!! Oh, and it's different because it was his father's shop.

Well, from the Christian viewpoint, it might help if you think of sin as a heavy net, holding everyone down. It's a strong net, which can't be broken... except Jesus shot right through it. Anyway, the net is still all there (Law of conservation of mass! :D ) but there's a hole, and if you follow Jesus you can crawl out.

It's not a perfect simile by any means (It doesn't explain why Christians can still sin, for instance), but it does it's job as an example. "It does its job as an example........" :bs: no it does not!!! Death solves nothing...If Jesus really wanted to help and "free us" of our sins, he would have stayed alive. Death CANNOT I repeat CANNOT!!!!! shoot through a net of "sins" and help in any way except to distract us from the truth!!! All it does is fool us into believing this strange nonsense about the Lord delivering us from sin when all this terrible suffering is going on out in the world! Some deliverance!!! Christians still sin, Christians led a whole crusade against Palestine in the name of G-d and killed many innocent Muslims and Jews!!! You ARE a rat bastard today.

Actually, because I'm a rat bastard today, I have to point out that it's certainly possible for there to be laws without guidelines of how they should be carried out. Can there be a law without the commandments. There can't be laws without guidelines because, think about it, Suppose Moses all of a sudden brings down the Mishna to the Jewish people, and it gives a bunch of ways to follow something (they don't know what). To them, they're just a bunch or rules for nothing. That’s why you need a Mishna for the Torah, do you not understand? The written law, and the "law" that speaks its commandment.
And same thing with just a Torah and no Mishna. The Jewish people would see a bunch of laws and say ".......so you gave us laws God. How is this supposed to be followed. To us they're just a bunch of laws with nothing really defining them.

You believe the Torah and the Talmud are spiritually blessed. The thing is, Christians believe the Torah is spiritually blessed, but the Talmud is not. Now, from your arguments, you find this abhorrent. And I guess that's understandable, because it feels disrespectful to the Talmud. But, you can't control what other people find holy or don't, nor should you.
Wanna bet? The Jewish people can if you Christians, you heard me,(obviously you're on the Christian side, so you might as well be a Christian), you Christians rip and steal what you want but leave what doesn't support your doctrine. Which goes back to the Angada thing.

The truth is, there's nothing in the Torah that proves the Talmud is true, no, "For clarification, turn to page 228 of the Talmud for Moses' commentary," or any such thing. (Unless there is, in which case I'd like to hear it.) So, while your faith and your experiences may lead you to believe the Talmud and Torah are interconnected, there's no reason someone can't believe in the Torah and not the Talmud. And that is what Christians choose to do. And that's their choice. Does it say what page to turn to in the Bible on certain parts? And that's also why they think Jesus is divine and some sort of pagan human God. See, the thing is, if Christians actually showed respect to the whole Torah(the Mishna is the other half, law and commandment) they would know that what they worshiped was not valid. And also you said that Christians except the Torah, (DUH) but it says right in the Torah: And I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and commandment(Exodus 24:12) So why do they not except the Mishna?

And don't forget the Holy Bible which Christians believe is true. What do you mean "Christians", you speak as if you do not believe in the New Testament and are not Christian, which of course you are, since you said so yourself you believe in Jesus, which you believe it says that he is a God from the New Testament.

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 27th, 2005, 7:50 PM

Bob, please sit down, take five deep breaths, and kindly calm the fuck down.

Jesus’s death couldn't possibly have effected that many people(you said everyone), I mean, if there are millions of Jews out there-which there most certainly are!- then exclude those millions from your insane belief, along with many other religions that couldn't care less about Jesus and you have around 75% of nonbelievers. HAH!!! Oh, and it's different because it was his father's shop.

First of all, the "yes officer" thing was a joke. I was kidding. It was not meant at all seriously. I had kind've hoped you'd get that from the fact that I said, "Yes, Abraham resisted sin" not two paragraphs later.

As for the 75% of non-Christians, keep in mind that they did have a choice to follow the New Testament, whether or not the New Testament. Giving someone a choice does affect that person, whether they choose to take it or not. After all, you're on this forum, saying that Christians are completely wrong. So, didn't Jesus' death affect you?

And it's not my belief. I'd like to think I've made this pretty clear.

Death solves nothing...If Jesus really wanted to help and "free us" of our sins, he would have stayed alive. Death CANNOT I repeat CANNOT!!!!! shoot through a net of "sins" and help in any way except to distract us from the truth!!! All it does is fool us into believing this strange nonsense about the Lord delivering us from sin when all this terrible suffering is going on out in the world!

In YOUR opinion. In YOUR opinion. In YOUR opinion. In YOUR opinion. The fact that it's my opinion too doesn't matter here. It's still an OPINION, and therefore not of interest in a debate.

Christians still sin, Christians led a whole crusade against Palestine in the name of G-d and killed many innocent Muslims and Jews!!!

Yes. Christians still sin, by their own standards. LIKE I SAID. Did I not say this wasn't a perfect example? It's a complicated issue, for chrissakes!

And same thing with just a Torah and no Mishna. The Jewish people would see a bunch of laws and say ".......so you gave us laws God. How is this supposed to be followed. To us they're just a bunch of laws with nothing really defining them.

Totally disagree. I could follow the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy if I so chose, and I've never read the Talmud. The Torah lays out what you shouldn't do, and the penalties for doing it. I'm not saying it's ironclad, but you can figure out how to act from that.

You speak as if you do not believe in the New Testament and are not Christian, which of course you are, since you said so yourself you believe in Jesus, which you believe it says that he is a God from the New Testament.

The Bible is literature. As a literary character, Jesus is the messiah. IRL, I have no fucking idea, and neither do you. Just because you can't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm suddenly "showing my true colors".

you Christians, you heard me,(obviously you're on the Christian side, so you might as well be a Christian)

... Wow. Congratulations, you've just crossed the line that separates religious questioning from religious bigotry. What next, you gonna call me a commie traitor?

Look, Bob, the reason I've been defending Christianity in this thread is because I believe in people's right to choose their beliefs. If somebody came in here and started saying that all Judaists were unholy or whatever, I would be defending your religion with the same fevor that I've been defending Christianity.

Don't snipe at me because I'm against your agenda. I'm not. I don't give a flying fuck about your agenda... but I'm fighting for your right to have it. And Christian's right to have theirs, and atheist's right to have theirs, and Wiccan's right to have theirs, and every single religion that has ever existed and will ever exist, I will defend their right to speak their mind. So get off my fucking back before you start something you can't handle, CAPISHE?!

DarkAce

Sep 27th, 2005, 10:04 PM

And same thing with just a Torah and no Mishna. The Jewish people would see a bunch of laws and say ".......so you gave us laws God. How is this supposed to be followed. To us they're just a bunch of laws with nothing really defining them.

They're left up to our own interpretations, that's what the Mishna is really, rabbi's interpretation of what this and that mean in the Torah. The Mishna, or oral law wasn't written down and edited together until around 200 A.D and was continually added on to after that which it eventually became a part of the Talmud along with the Gemara. (By the way, which Talmud do you follow?)

You guys derived many of your customs, legislation, etc. from the Talmud (which is basically rabbinic discussions on Jewish law, Jewish ethics, customs, legends and stories). Guess what? Christians have something that's similar along those lines, it's called [b]Dogmata[b].

You really need to stop with the whole My religion is better than yours! theme that continues throughout your posts. It's gone full circle and yet you've contributed really nothing towards your point, in my view. I've given you my answers to some of your points in my earlier posts, but they seem to go unnoticed/not retorted.

liberdave

Sep 28th, 2005, 8:36 AM

Ok guys, either we're going to argue the fate of mankind nicely, or this thread gets put into the mod cannon and shot in the wild blue yonder. I understand that people get feverish talking religions, but even Aristotle was smart enough to know he didn't and couldn't know everything. Realize that folks is folks and they might think bassackwards than what you were told was "veritas". Have a nice day! :indec:

DarkAce

Sep 28th, 2005, 3:28 PM

This is actually one of the more civil discussions we've had on a religious topic, I don't see any reason to lock it as it's not really breaking any of the forum rules. Perhaps it's gone off-topic (I really have no idea what this is about, I originally thought 40oz was going to reveal he's gay or something) but most threads tend to do that...

If this is about people playing nicely, and respecting each other's views (wtf?) you got quite a lot of threads to visit.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 28th, 2005, 10:08 PM

They're left up to our own interpretations, that's what the Mishna is really, rabbi's interpretation of what this and that mean in the Torah. The Mishna, or oral law wasn't written down and edited together until around 200 A.D and was continually added on to after that which it eventually became a part of the Talmud along with the Gemara. (By the way, which Talmud do you follow?) Please don't make a fool of yourself DarkAce. The real Mishna was written 3000 years ago. I don't want to seem mean but, you really have no idea of what the Mishna really is, do you? Theoriginal Mishna was the commandments that were given to Moses on mount Sinai. The Jewish people received the law (Torah) and commandment(Mishnah) together on mount Sinai. And to your answer to which Talmud do I follow, I follow the Jewish commandment.

You guys derived many of your customs, legislation, etc. from the Talmud (which is basically rabbinic discussions on Jewish law, Jewish ethics, customs, legends and stories). Guess what? Christians have something that's similar along those lines, it's called [b]Dogmata[b]. I'm greatly sorry, but you're "accusation" isn't true. We follow the law and commandment. You still don't get it do you? The Mishnah are the commandments that were passed down through the generations. And keep in mind, our "legends" are actually symbolism, which you would know if you read the Talmud. And is the dogmata as old as 3000 years? I wouldn't think the dogmata is really that old, since Christianity has only been around for roughly 2000 years. And there must be a reason why this "dogmata" isn't excepted by, or even heard about, by Christians. Believe me, I have a little of both sides, my dad was Christian, and my mom was Jewish. But in Judaism one is Jewish no matter what, as long as the person that gave birth to you is Jewish, *shrugs*

You really need to stop with the whole My religion is better than yours! theme that continues throughout your posts. It's gone full circle and yet you've contributed really nothing towards your point, in my view. I've given you my answers to some of your points in my earlier posts, but they seem to go unnoticed/not retorted. They went "unnoticed" because I didn't feel like doing one post twice. You did pretty much the same things as Foelhe. And I didn't realize a was giving a "My religion is better than yours!" impression. I was trying to show that Jesus isn't G-d through my Judaism. Not a pointing finger thing and a "he's dumb!" debate.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 28th, 2005, 10:11 PM

And Foelhe, I didn't mean it when I said all that stuff. I was trying to illustrate a point which you have already rendered invalid. Sorry if my "demonstration/example" was to harsh. Are we cool?

Philosopher Foelhe

Sep 28th, 2005, 11:12 PM

And Foelhe, I didn't mean it when I said all that stuff. I was trying to illustrate a point which you have already rendered invalid. Sorry if my "demonstration/example" was to harsh. Are we cool?

We're cool. You had the bad luck to stumble onto three of my major pet peeves at the same time, when I wasn't expecting it, so... I kinda reacted badly. Funny how one misunderstanding is easily sorted out, but several misunderstandings can converge into this horrible knot which can seem almost impossible to untangle.

As for the argument at hand, there's not much I can say right now except this - we live in a world which is complicated and insane, and it's hard to figure out where we fit in the great scheme of things. But people do keep trying to figure that out, people from all walks of life who come up with all different answers. I would suggest that, even if you feel Christians have erred in their view of the world, that you cut them some slack. They have Christianity, which gives them comfort. You have Judaism, and as passionately and loyally as you speak about it I would be stunned if it didn't give you comfort. Maybe Christianity is a false comfort, I do not know. But why begrudge people that?

liberdave

Sep 28th, 2005, 11:26 PM

This is actually one of the more civil discussions we've had on a religious topic I know and want to try to nurture it from degrading into a mess.

I don't see any reason to lock it as it's not really breaking any of the forum rules. I wont lock it. No forum rules have been broken. This kind of healthy argument is what we all need. The badgering of religious standards is what gets me out of bed in the morning!

I originally thought 40oz was going to reveal he's gay or something. PPHHHHTTtttt. LOL!!!!

If this is about people playing nicely, and respecting each other's views... No one has to respect anyone. We're not social dictators. But I understand that these topics can explode (very literally). And I wanted to take the pot off of the burner before it boiled over. Neither Bob nor Foelhe broke any rules but I wanted to (attempt) to keep a thread that people have been following within the realm of AO standards. Or we attract more guys like the ones we have had in the past... :bubble:

DarkAce

Sep 28th, 2005, 11:51 PM

The real Mishna was written 3000 years ago. I don't want to seem mean but, you really have no idea of what the Mishna really is, do you?

Apparently you lack reading comprehension skills as well. If you re-read what I had wrote, "The Mishna, or oral law wasn't written down and edited together until around 200 A.D and was continually added on to after that which it eventually became a part of the Talmud along with the Gemara." (Hint: I bolded it for you.)

The assumption is that it was given along with the Torah, but that doesn't make it true. (As I addressed in my other posts making the arguement that Moses didn't even write the Torah. That's what I wanted you to retort.) If you were given the law (the Torah) and understanding of the law (The Oral Law, it wasn't called the Mishnah until it was written down) right from the start, than why was the Mishna debated/added on to for centuries (Gemara), eventually becoming compilations of two different authorative scripts, The Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud.

I mean if it the Oral Law was given to us right from the beginning, there shouldn't of been a need for this, right?

I'm greatly sorry, but you're "accusation" isn't true. We follow the law and commandment. You still don't get it do you? The Mishnah are the commandments that were passed down through the generations.

What accusation is that you speak of? No one was suggesting you don't follow the Torah. Again if you re-read what I wrote, "You guys derived many of your customs, legislation, etc. from the Talmud". I made no mention of you just following the Talmud. Of course my statement is true, because the Talmud is more or less the understanding of the law, hence why those things would be derived from it.

It seems your only talking point is that nobody understands what your saying. Suffice to say, I understand it quite well, it seems your the one who doesn't want to hear the answers given.

Dogmata..is dogma. The doctrine of faith which is basically the core principles of the religion. What was compiled to be dogma was debated on by bishops for centuries over many councils.

They went "unnoticed" because I didn't feel like doing one post twice. You did pretty much the same things as Foelhe.

Really? I wasn't aware Foelhe was making the specific arguements that: The Torah wasn't written by Moses, and the 'divine' legitimacy you hold for the Mishna/Talmud. I provided reasonable evidence to conclude so, what have you provided?

And I didn't realize a was giving a "My religion is better than yours!" impression.

Well with comments like this:

"Christians actually showed respect to the whole Torah(the Mishna is the other half, law and commandment) they would know that what they worshiped was not valid.".

Calling something like that can be taken negatively.

Or we attract more guys like the ones we have had in the past...

Understood liberdave, good call on the pre-emptive modding:2thumbs: Although I guess it's neccesary to have people like that from time to time. The drama usually helps to stir intelligent discussion between the normal posters as well as the unrelentless trolling verbal diareah that follows.

Beatnik Bob

Sep 29th, 2005, 8:21 PM

Apparently you lack reading comprehension skills as well. If you re-read what I had wrote, "The Mishna, or oral law wasn't written down and edited together until around 200 A.D and was continually added on to after that which it eventually became a part of the Talmud along with the Gemara." (Hint: I bolded it for you.) One reason it was written down, is because of the destruction of the temple and being "kicked out" of Israel. See, when we lived in Israel, there was no real need for a written down Mishna, it was all there in the temple. For an example on the commandment thing: You know when the Torah says, "You must not commit murder" or whatever well, nobody really needed a translation for that (same with other things like the "images" translation). All the commandments are fundamental basics of Judaism. Rabies didn't feel they needed to be written down until they didn't live in Israel. Israel was almost their connection to G-d, Besides the Torah. How it was is that the Torah was given to Moses, and he was "given" the commandments for it. Moses was taught the way it should be followed. So he comes down to the Jewish people and they receive the Torah, and the commandment for it.

The assumption is that it was given along with the Torah, but that doesn't make it true. (As I addressed in my other posts making the argument that Moses didn't even write the Torah. That's what I wanted you to retort.) If you were given the law (the Torah) and understanding of the law (The Oral Law, it wasn't called the Mishnah until it was written down) right from the start, than why was the Mishna debated/added on to for centuries (Gemara), eventually becoming compilations of two different authoritive scripts, The Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud.
I mean if it the Oral Law was given to us right from the beginning, there shouldn't of been a need for this, right? Actually, what probably threw me off on when you were talking about Moses not writing the Torah was when you put that quote box around it, thought maybe you were quoting someone. Anyway, it was called the Talmud when it was written, but also, do you even know what Mishna means???? And again, when the Jews left Israel they went all over the world. And the Mishna was written down in different places of the Earth. But they were all the basic fundamental laws that every Jew knew by heart.

What accusation is that you speak of? No one was suggesting you don't follow the Torah. Again if you re-read what I wrote, "You guys derived many of your customs, legislation, etc. from the Talmud". I made no mention of you just following the Talmud. Of course my statement is true, because the Talmud is more or less the understanding of the law, hence why those things would be derived from it. Are you stating a fact, or something that you expect me to debate? Can you rephrase the statement? Sorry, I'm a bit slow today.

It seems your only talking point is that nobody understands what you’re saying. Suffice to say, I understand it quite well, it seems your the one who doesn't want to hear the answers given.
When did I say that? Your statement seems to me like a large wad of conjecture.

Dogmata..is dogma. The doctrine of faith which is basically the core principles of the religion. What was compiled to be dogma was debated on by bishops for centuries over many councils. Doesn't seem to much like an oral tradition to me if they debated it so. Because the Mishna isn't debated, since it has been always known and excepted since 3000 years ago.

Really? I wasn't aware Foelhe was making the specific arguments that: The Torah wasn't written by Moses, and the 'divine' legitimacy you hold for the Mishna/Talmud. I provided reasonable evidence to conclude so, what have you provided? What have I provided!!???!!?!! I've given quotes from the Torah and Mishnah to back up my points. And then I gave reasons why the Mishna is considered divine. And why it speaks "truth", or is on equal terms as the Torah. And why it is considered such becuase things can be "distorted" by not having the law AND commandment. And etc. And now I'm debating with you right now=giving reasons and statements and quotes to back-up this debate. My quotes from other posts apply to you as well as Foelhe.

"Christians actually showed respect to the whole Torah(the Mishna is the other half, law and commandment) they would know that what they worshiped was not valid.". It just doesn't make sense that they accept a bunch of laws, rather than what those laws actually mean. So they really don't have a comprehension on what the Old Testament really means.(who could blame them without them, when they have no oral tradition). One can come up with whatever things they want, but that doesn't make it true. For example: In Judaism a child learns Hebrew, and the mother is teaching the child the sounds that the letters make: "This is bet, and it makes the "v" sound, and it also makes the "b" sound, and this is shin, it makes the "sh" sound, and sometimes the "s" sound". That is an example of fundamental Jewish teachings; it doesn't necessarily need to be written down.

Oh! And Foelhe, I was looking through the Torah, and I found a place where the Torah disagrees with the Bible.
And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, the beasts of the Earth, and all the creeping things that creepeth upon the Earth."(Genesis 1:27) And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them.(Genesis 1:28) God blessed them and God said to them, "Be fertile and multiply, fill the Earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, and everything that creepeth upon the Earth."(Genesis 1:29) This is different from the Bible because, the Bible teaches that there was only one human. Whereas the Torah teaches that God created both at the same time and that there was separation between them, man and female. I’ll try to find another one if you want.

DarkAce

Sep 29th, 2005, 11:36 PM

One reason it was written down, is because of the destruction of the temple and being "kicked out" of Israel. See, when we lived in Israel, there was no real need for a written down Mishna, it was all there in the temple.

Kicked out of Palestine...What was all in the temple?

Rabies didn't feel they needed to be written down until they didn't live in Israel. Israel was almost their connection to G-d,

The largest jewish community around those times was in Babylon. Jews had been living all over the place before and didn't need to have the "Oral Law" written down then.
The real reason it was written was because of the massacre the Romans dealt to the jews during all their revolts. Judah felt the need to write it down because he felt with the massive loss of jewish teachers that the Oral Law would be forgotten.

Anyway, it was called the Talmud when it was written, but also, do you even know what Mishna means???? And again, when the Jews left Israel they went all over the world. And the Mishna was written down in different places of the Earth. But they were all the basic fundamental laws that every Jew knew by heart.

No, it was called the Mishna when it was written down by Judah the Prince. What's called the Talmud is the combination of the Mishna and Gemara. I don't have to explain what the Gemara is to you do I?
If these were fundamental laws that ever Jew knew by heart, A)There wouldn't be a need to write it down and B) Why is there such discussion and debate found in the Talmud over interpretations of the Mishna?

When did I say that? Your statement seems to me like a large wad of conjecture.

With statements like (paraphrasing): Do you even know what the Talmud is?! I bet you haven't even heard of the Talmud, etc.

Doesn't seem to much like an oral tradition to me if they debated it so. Because the Mishna isn't debated, since it has been always known and excepted since 3000 years ago.

The Mishna isn't debated? You are aware of all the commentaries of the Rabbi's in the Talmud right? Now given from one of your own quotes "DUH! One reason the Talmud was made was for people to be encouraged to try to interpret Torah, for as the Zohar says: it is our obligation to interpret the Torah. And the Talmud is simply expressing thoughts that should be taken into consideration."

Well it's common sense that not everyone's interpretation is spot on right on the first try, and also the thoughts to be taken into consideration is what's generally debated.

The Mishna being known for over 3000 years and given simultaneously with the Torah to Moses is not a fact, and only a belief held by Orthodox Judaism. The other sects of Judaism, Conservative and Reform does not accept that train of thought.

Given this chain of authority, one might wonder why the Mishna and Talmud are filled with debates between rabbis; shouldn't they have all been recipients of the same, unambiguous tradition?

I didn't claim dogmata to be oral tradition, but as more of along the lines of the Talmud with it's discussions and debates about the law, etc. Of course these debates weren't record in a book and encouraged to be read by all it's followers (inquiring questions are often shunned in Christianity) this is actually quite a vague connection on second thought...

What have I provided!!???!!?!!

Using scripture to prove scripture doesn't cut it jack...we don't let that fly with the Christians that try it here and your not going to get away with it either.

This is different from the Bible because, the Bible teaches that there was only one human. Whereas the Torah teaches that God created both at the same time and that there was separation between them, man and female. I’ll try to find another one if you want.

Actually that's in the Bible also. It's one of the bible contradictions people often point out...

Beatnik Bob

Oct 2nd, 2005, 1:55 PM

It comes down to this......I started a debate about Jesus not being G-d. And I gave reasons for it by quoting Torah and Mishna. And quoting from those is not illegitimate because, as we all know, this is a religious debate, and I'm not going to just say "Jesus isn't G-d because I say so," that's not how it works, since this is a religious debate, I use examples from the Torah and Mishna to disprove the existence of Jesus as God.

We'll, I said ONE reason they wrote down the Mishna was because it was like a connection to Israel, and you're right, Babylon was not Israel. And yes, another reason they wrote it down was because of the massacre. I greatly apologize for not giving every single reason why it was written down. And I don't know if you've seen the "Fiddler on the Roof" or not, but it gives numerous details supporting that many, not all, Jews knew how to even read or write. And while that movie may not be an actual fact, it lists very important things that actually did happen, like when the Jews were raided by the Russians on a daily basis, and evicted from their homes. So it did state plenty of facts, and Jews being illiterate being one of them. Have you ever noticed how the priests in the Torah were the only ones who could read the Torah? This is because many couldn't read it. One reason that the Mishna was the Oral law, because it was encouraged that people know the laws of their people, so even if one could not read, you would still know the Jewish law. And I also note that you quoted me on something that I said, about the Talmud being used to encourage the interpreting of Torah or something, well, that is a very good example, almost perfect! That Christians rip-off bits and pieces of my religion, and then really don't know the whole "truth". Because if you quoted me on everything, you would realize that I also implied that I had to check on something with my Rabbi. What a wonderful example of one ripping off something that was said, and using it to their advantage, but not realizing that it is not really valid since it says so in other places of the same "area". You see?

Actually, that's in the Bible, it's one of the Bible contradictions people often point out.
Thus the differences between the Torah, and the New Testament. *Applauds* you have backed up my statement that the Torah is different from the New Testament.

And also, I didn't necessarily mean that the Mishna was something every Jew knew, I was simply emphasizing that the Mishna is an extremely important component in Judaism. Obviously there are Jews that aren't religious in the Jewish faith.

Anyway, it comes down to this: You are Christian, right? Christianity comes from Judaism, am I right? And Jews have the oral and written tradition, am I right? And Christians don't, right? And so Christians have "words" and they are making up sounds for them, so, while the letter tav, doesn't make the "ka" sound, it really makes the "t" sound, but Christians don't have an oral teaching that says so, so they go on with their lives thinking that the letter they see on a piece of paper (called tav) is pronounced "ka". And so, are these Christians beliefs true? Is the letter tav in fact pronounced "ka", well, is it?
Just want to say something though, G-d almighty!!! This is freaking hard debating with people who have no sensitivity to the subtle idolatry in Christianity!

Beatnik Bob

Oct 6th, 2005, 5:54 PM

And I just thought of something else! Foelhe, or someone, said that humans need Jesus as a physical connection to G-d. Doesn't that mean that mean that Christianity is worshipping two gods then? And if the worship of Siva, Vishnu, and Brahma isn't considered a mono-theistic religion, then why is the worship of the father and the son and the holy ghost considered mono-theistic???

DarkAce

Oct 6th, 2005, 7:47 PM

You mind pointing out the quotes you listed stating this? Because from what I remember you mostly just posted "Jesus was a graven image because so and so interpreted this passage to mean Israel and not Jesus..." Keyword, interpret. Doesn't make it fact.
If you could, if possible re-post the quotes for that arguement that way I don't mistakingly argue the wrong ones and I avoid reading through all those shitty posts again.

We'll, I said ONE reason they wrote down the Mishna was because it was like a connection to Israel, and you're right, Babylon was not Israel. And yes, another reason they wrote it down was because of the massacre. I greatly apologize for not giving every single reason why it was written down.

It's not about stating "every single reason", but the important ones. Your post devoid of that very important and essentially only reason, seems that you had no prior knowledge of that prior to me mentioning it and were bullshitting your way through yet another piss poor rebuttal.

And I don't know if you've seen the "Fiddler on the Roof" or not, but it gives numerous details supporting that many, not all, Jews knew how to even read or write. And while that movie may not be an actual fact, it lists very important things that actually did happen, like when the Jews were raided by the Russians on a daily basis, and evicted from their homes.

My comment about the hebrews not being able to read and write was directed towards the time of Moses and the implications that had in regards towards the Torah.

And I also note that you quoted me on something that I said, about the Talmud being used to encourage the interpreting of Torah or something, well, that is a very good example, almost perfect! That Christians rip-off bits and pieces of my religion, and then really don't know the whole "truth". Because if you quoted me on everything, you would realize that I also implied that I had to check on something with my Rabbi.

First off, I'm not Christian. Second, ripping off your religion and don't know the whole truth? Wtf are you talking about? I quoted a point you made in order to provide a rebuttal and to counter point, which is normally done in debating.

What does my quoting of you have anything to do with your Rabbi?

What a wonderful example of one ripping off something that was said, and using it to their advantage, but not realizing that it is not really valid since it says so in other places of the same "area". You see?

Eh?

Thus the differences between the Torah, and the New Testament. *Applauds* you have backed up my statement that the Torah is different from the New Testament.

No shit they're different, I wasn't aware anyone applied they were the same.

You are Christian, right?

Nope.

Christianity comes from Judaism, am I right?

It has it's roots in judaism, more of a blend of mitharism and other pagan religions much in the same way judaism is derived from pagan rituals traditions.

And Christians don't, right?

Not neccesarily. If we looked at what indeed the purpose of the Mishna is:

In the Mishna, the name for the sixty-three tractates in which Rabbi Judah set down the Oral Law, Jewish law is systematically codified, unlike in the Torah. For example, if a person wanted to find every law in the Torah about the Sabbath, he would have to locate scattered references in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Indeed, in order to know everything the Torah said on a given subject, one either had to read through all of it or know its contents by heart. Rabbi Judah avoided this problem by arranging the Mishna topically. All laws pertaining to the Sabbath were put into one tractate called Shabbat (Hebrew for "Sabbath"). The laws contained in Shabbat's twenty-four chapters are far more extensive than those contained in the Torah, for the Mishna summarizes the Oral Law's extensive Sabbath legislation. The tractate Shabbat is part of a larger "order" called Mo'ed (Hebrew for "holiday"), which is one of six orders that comprise the Mishna. Some of the other tractates in Mo'ed specify the Oral Laws of Passover (Pesachim); Purim (Megillah); Rosh ha*Shana; Yom Kippur (Yoma); and Sukkot.

The first of the six orders is called Zera'im (Seeds), and deals with the agricultural rules of ancient Palestine, particularly with the details of the produce that were to be presented as offerings at the Temple in Jerusalem. The most famous tractate in Zera'im, however, Brakhot (Blessings) has little to do with agriculture. It records laws concerning different blessings and when they are to be recited.

Another order, called Nezikin (Damages), contains ten tractates summarizing Jewish civil and criminal law.

Another order, Nashim (Women), deals with issues between the sexes, including both laws of marriage, Kiddushin, and of divorce, Gittin.

A fifth order, Kodashim, outlines the laws of sacrifices and ritual slaughter. The sixth order, Taharot, contains the laws of purity and impurity.

For example, the fourth of the Ten Commandments, ordains, "Remember the Sabbath day to make it holy" (Exodus 20:8). From the Sabbath's inclusion in the Ten Commandments, it is clear that the Torah regards it as an important holiday. Yet when one looks for the specific biblical laws regulating how to observe the day, one finds only injunctions against lighting a fire, going away from one's dwelling, cutting down a tree, plowing and harvesting. Would merely refraining from these few activities fulfill the biblical command to make the Sabbath holy? Indeed, the Sabbath rituals that are most commonly associated with holiness-lighting of candles, reciting the kiddush, and the reading of the weekly Torah portion are found not in the Torah, but in the Oral Law.

The Torah also is silent on many important subjects. We take it for granted that the large majority of couples want their wedding ceremony to be religious, but the Torah itself has nothing to say concerning a marriage ceremony. To be sure, the Torah presumes that people will get married — "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24) — but nowhere in the Torah is a marriage ceremony recorded. Only in the Oral Law do we find details on how to perform a Jewish wedding.

Without an oral tradition, some of the Torah's laws would be incomprehensible. In the Shema's first paragraph, the Bible instructs: "And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart. And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and you shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise up. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes" (see Deuteronomy 6:4*8).

"Bind them for a sign upon your hand," the last verse instructs. Bind what? The Torah doesn't say. "And they shall be for frontlets between your eyes." What are frontlets? The Hebrew word for frontlets, totafot is used three times in the Torah — always in this context (Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18) — and is as obscure as is the English. Only in the Oral Law do we learn that what a Jewish male should bind upon his hand and between his eyes are tefillin (phylacteries).

Finally, an Oral Law was needed to mitigate certain categorical Torah laws that would have caused grave problems if carried out literally. The Written Law, for example, demands an "eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24). Did this imply that if one person accidentally blinded another, he should be blinded in return? That seems to be the Torah's wish. But the Oral Law explains that the verse must be understood as requiring monetary compensation: the value of an eye is what must be paid.

For these three reasons-the frequent lack of details in Torah legislation, the incomprehensibility of some terms in the Torah, and the objections to following some Torah laws literally- Oral law was necessary

Taking all that into context, yes christians do have this.

And so Christians have "words" and they are making up sounds for them, so, while the letter tav, doesn't make the "ka" sound, it really makes the "t" sound, but Christians don't have an oral teaching that says so, so they go on with their lives thinking that the letter they see on a piece of paper (called tav) is pronounced "ka". And so, are these Christians beliefs true? Is the letter tav in fact pronounced "ka", well, is it?

Well going along with this innane example, they wouldn't need a religious document to teach them that because of other adequate learning material available, I dunno, say the alphabet?

Although I understand your overall point, my arguement is that what you may hold as 'truth' isn't any different than what a christian may hold as 'truth' because they are both not reliable 'facts'. Using one's own religious scripture to prove a point is even more dubious and if you cannot see as to why then I end this debate here as it would be futile to go on.

Just want to say something though, G-d almighty!!! This is freaking hard debating with people who have no sensitivity to the subtle idolatry in Christianity!

If you want to discuss Christianity we can surely so. It becomes 'difficult' when one trys to promote one's own religion over another while refusing to see the hypocrisy in their own to begin with. Your not going to get away that easy.

Philosopher Foelhe

Oct 6th, 2005, 11:52 PM

For the most part I've got nothing new to say on this topic, since it doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but since I've been quoted I shall respond here.

Foelhe, or someone, said that humans need Jesus as a physical connection to G-d. Doesn't that mean that mean that Christianity is worshipping two gods then? And if the worship of Siva, Vishnu, and Brahma isn't considered a mono-theistic religion, then why is the worship of the father and the son and the holy ghost considered mono-theistic???

First of all, after liberdave (... I think it was liberdave) said Hinduism was not a monotheistic religion, I did a bit of research. According to ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/) , there is some religious debate as to whether Hinduism is monotheistic or trinitarian. Frankly, I trust this site, since I've used it before and it's never led me wrong to the best of my knowledge, but take that as you will. So saying Hinduism is not monotheistic is perhaps a bit hasty. Sorry, liberdave.

Secondly, keep in mind that Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma do not have the relationship God and Jesus do in Christian mythology. It might be better to look at the relationship between Vishnu and Rama, who are not considered separate dieties at all.

nrj

Oct 7th, 2005, 1:18 AM

Beatnik Bob: I'm not that high on religions (thanks to that, my SO grade dropped to G) so I don't know if I should say something. But I want to throw in my two cents now:

All religions have some sort of a "messenger" from god, who tells them what to do to make him happy, perform some miracles, give them some teachings from god etc.

And all religions think higher of the messenger then en avarage person, eg. me, and I think that pretty much includes judaism. I think you would consider the ones who wrote the talmud and the torah more "spritual" then me, and it's natural. All religions think of the messengers as more spirutual then avarage.

Beatnik Bob

Oct 11th, 2005, 4:22 PM

People, you know that Christians use symbolism all the time, so why is it wrong when Jews do? Like about that thing about the bread being G-d and wine being his blood, and the serpent in the Garden of Eden being Satan.
And you know how Joseph (ring a bell anyone) interpreted dreams? His dream interpretations weren't wrong. So it comes to this, is Jeremiah and other religious leaders on the same level as Joseph? And speaking of "ring a bell" what do you think that phrase means? Did I ask you if my words rang a bronze bell? What do you think I meant by "ring a bell?" You see, the phrase "ring a bell" has been past down from generation to generation, an oral thing.

And Foelhe, I'm pretty sure I'm getting somewhere now.

DarkAce

Oct 11th, 2005, 5:27 PM

Congradulations, you've established....
...
.......
...........
absolutely nothing.

Your posts have increasingly deterioated into postings about seemingly randomn nonsense.

Who has said it's wrong that Jews do it? If anything the point being made is that Jews do it aswell, there is no double standard being applied.

What's wrong with the use of symbolism? The use of symbolism isn't exclusive to religious use. The use of symbolism is actually one of the most suggestive and economical ways of communicating.

In literature, "symbolism" may refer to the use of abstract concepts, as a way to obfuscate any literal interpretation, or to allow for the broader applicability of the prose to meanings beyond what may be literally described. Many writers, in fact most or all authors of fiction, make symbolic use of concepts and objects as rhetorical devices central to the meaning of their works.

Beatnik Bob

Oct 11th, 2005, 5:40 PM

Who has said it's wrong that Jews do it? If anything the point being made is that Jews do it aswell, there is no double standard being applied.

What's wrong with the use of symbolism? The use of symbolism isn't exclusive to religious use. The use of symbolism is actually one of the most suggestive and economical ways of communicating.

In literature, "symbolism" may refer to the use of abstract concepts, as a way to obfuscate any literal interpretation, or to allow for the broader applicability of the prose to meanings beyond what may be literally described. Many writers, in fact most or all authors of fiction, make symbolic use of concepts and objects as rhetorical devices central to the meaning of their works. So are you admitting that the Talmud is valid? Because I actually am getting somewhere, because, by proving the authenticity of the Mishna, it can be easily proven that Jesus is not God.

DarkAce

Oct 11th, 2005, 5:53 PM

In what sense do you mean valid?

I hold the Talmud 'valid' as in the same sight I hold the entire Bible as 'valid', which really means....

Beatnik Bob

Oct 11th, 2005, 6:07 PM

.......Which means that Jesus is not G-d. Hey, you said you hold the Mishnah as a valid source. And I've already put plenty of passages from the Mishna on here that contradict the existence of Jesus as God.

DarkAce

Oct 11th, 2005, 6:43 PM

Which you still haven't answered the question of in what sense do you mean valid?. I have to be honest, I went out on a limb thinking you'd actually answer a question for once (previous posts have reminded me not to try anymore) but you've proven to me once again that you're either so caught up in your own drivel that you overlook the questions or the more plausible reasoning being that you merely can't answer them, atleast not sufficiently.

I said I hold the Mishnah as a valid source? A valid source in regards to what? Jewish religious teaching? If that be the case then yes, I hold it as a 'valid' source in regards to that. But the way you keep throwing around the term valid as if it's to mean those bodies of work are divinely inspired, which they aren't. This of course ties into my original statement of "which really means...." The Talmud, the Bible, etc. are works comprised of polictal and cultural factors, as well as the authors own bias. It's much less a work of God's words than more of a work of cultural survival.

(Ever wonder about Kosher laws and why your forbidden not to eat pig? It has more to do with the fact that the cooking of pig wasn't done right in those times and were killing numerous people. It wasn't that 'God' didn't want people to eat pig. Same with circumcision. It was done due the to climate of where the hebrews lived and the infrequency of bathing that getting cut would help prevent infection down there. These simple rules were given religious symbolism and meaning in order to get people to follow them. It's alot easier to say "because God wants it this way" then to have to explain it in 'logical' terms.)

Like I asked earlier can you kindly provide those statements again, because like I said earlier:

You mind pointing out the quotes you listed stating this? Because from what I remember you mostly just posted "Jesus was a graven image because so and so interpreted this passage to mean Israel and not Jesus..." Keyword, interpret. Doesn't make it fact.
If you could, if possible re-post the quotes for that arguement that way I don't mistakingly argue the wrong ones and I avoid reading through all those shitty posts again.

Beatnik Bob

Oct 11th, 2005, 6:56 PM

Don't tell me you have overlooked every single post I made, describing how it is valid! My G-d!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you this blind? Did I not talk about Jerimiah(there is a book about him in the Torah) talking in the Mishna? If the Torah is valid, than the Mishna is valid. Please, just read other posts on this.

DarkAce

Oct 11th, 2005, 7:12 PM

Beatnik Bob

Oct 11th, 2005, 7:31 PM

My asking you to post statements was in regards to your claims that the Mishna proves Jesus wasn't God....(reading comprehension F)

Again valid in what sense? The Mishna often quotes the Torah...what difference does that make?
Again the validity of the Torah...I already posted before the theory that Moses didn't even write it and gave reasons as to why. All I got from you was dead silence on that subject and you moved on to other innane ramblings or changing the subject back to the whether Jesus was God or some shit like that.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????
All I'm getting from you are non-sense ramblings. Are you asking me to quote another thing from the Mishna that contradicts the belief of Jesus as God? Which I suppose I can do for a second time, if you are incapable of looking back through the posts. And I thought that it didn't matter who wrote the Torah, only that it was written. MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now I understand it is you who is causing this thread to get nowhere! I thought it was a given that we agreed on the Torah being valid, if not, then my argument/debate is not with you, but a Christian.

Philosopher Foelhe

Oct 11th, 2005, 9:47 PM

Only a matter of time before I came back to this argument. *thwaps himself for his own stupidity*

I thought it was a given that we agreed on the Torah being valid, if not, then my argument/debate is not with you, but a Christian.

Two points, Bob.

First, the Torah is not necessarily valid, even if Christianity is. After all, there could be flaws within the document which disrupt and hide the truth. That doesn't mean the God it mentions is false; he could just be misrepresented. The New Testament might well be the edited version, so to speak, where Jesus is sent to make corrections in the original Torah. Not what I believe, but it is a possibility.

Secondly, even if the Torah is a holy book, the Talmud might not be. Again, the age-old argument - you believe it's holy, and that's fine. But Christians don't believe it's holy, and that's fine as well. You can't push your religious beliefs off on anyone else.

DarkAce

Oct 12th, 2005, 12:27 AM

It seems I have to put things in point form for you to understand.

-I don't view the Torah (the Bible, Quran, etc.) as a divinely inspired infallible piece of work.

-You have repetively wrote that the Torah was written by Moses and the Oral law given to him at the same time. I have challenged this assumption, provided counter points even using the very own Talmud to suggest otherwise.

-You claim Jesus isn't God. Christians don't see Jesus as God, but the 'son' of God. The Trinity establishes that they're one and the same. I think this is best explained not by thinking of them as three seperate entities, but all from the same source, all of us. You've said you know eastern religions, so I'm hoping you're familar with this concept.

-For the record I personally don't hold Jesus as being anything more than a man, however you so righteously claim that point. I have yet to see you adequately prove why. At most you have taken some vague passages from the Mishna of something the Rabbis interpreted and trying to apply it to the situation of Jesus. It's regardless if I hold the Torah as valid or not, as it's not neccesary in order to argue the points you'll probably bring up.

Now quit running yourself in circles...

Yes, if you can post some evidence from the Mishna that clearly proves Jesus wasn't the son of God and in turn make that into a coherent arguement in order to debate, that would be wonderful. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to do considering jews don't hold the view that Jesus was the "Christos", I just want to see if your capable of doing so.

Beatnik Bob

Oct 12th, 2005, 3:59 PM

First, the Torah is not necessarily valid, even if Christianity is. After all, there could be flaws within the document which disrupt and hide the truth. That doesn't mean the God it mentions is false; he could just be misrepresented. The New Testament might well be the edited version, so to speak, where Jesus is sent to make corrections in the original Torah. Not what I believe, but it is a possibility.
But the New Testament could be a misinterpretation as well.
And I was actually hoping to debate a Christian, because that just ruins the whole idea when you start debating the existence of Jesus as God, and the someone who doesn't even believe in G-d starts debating that it all is irrelevant(Note to DarkAce: this is as much a post for your viewing, as it is for Foelhe).Because you see, that wasn't even the intention of me starting this debate.

Secondly, even if the Torah is a holy book, the Talmud might not be. Again, the age-old argument - you believe it's holy, and that's fine. But Christians don't believe it's holy, and that's fine as well. You can't push your religious beliefs off on anyone else.
I note that you spoke earlier in this debate about how certain people were touched by God in different ways. How exactly does this work? In the Torah, Joseph's interpretations of the Pharos’s dream turned out to be true, so can Jeremiah’s interpretations be true also? And how is it Christians doesn’t except the interpretations of Judaism? Don't Christians do interpretations as well? Like about the snake in the Garden of Eden being Satan. So how are the Jewish interpretations not accepted? Because it is our religion, Judaism came before Christianity, so don't we know what we're talking about? I think it's perfectly fine for the Christians to translate the New Testament(which I don't know how they would, they don't exactly have an oral tradition, except for this dogmata thing that I haven't even heard about). And the Jews can have our oral laws as well. But keep in mind, that the Old Testament is held in more recognition than the New Testament. Think about it, in the Torah it talks about how there is only one G-d, Ten Commandments, and other Commandments, and basically almost everything that governs the Jews. And in the New Testament it talks about how Jesus is God and all that stuff (I'm pretty sure just about everyone knows about that stuff). But the New Testament really wouldn't be anything without the Old Testament, which is not so with just the Old Testament, as you can see with Judaism. So, in conclusion, the oral of the Torah is really what counts. Am I making sense??

Beatnik Bob

Oct 12th, 2005, 5:23 PM

[Quote]It seems I have to put things in point form for you to understand. Actually it kind of did help. I don't mind admitting that I'm a rather slow person.

I don't view the Torah (the Bible, Quran, etc.) as a divinely inspired infallible piece of work. You don't? Sorry, I thought you did.

You have repetively wrote that the Torah was written by Moses and the Oral law given to him at the same time. I have challenged this assumption, provided counter points even using the very own Talmud to suggest otherwise. You own the Talmud???!!!??!??? I thought you said you didn't?

You claim Jesus isn't God. Christians don't see Jesus as God, but the 'son' of God. The Trinity establishes that they're one and the same. I think this is best explained not by thinking of them as three separate entities, but all from the same source, all of us. You've said you know eastern religions, so I'm hoping you're familiar with this concept. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait a second, so if Jesus is the son of G-d, then why exactly do Christians worship him? Are Christians worshipping two gods?

I also understand people need a physical form to connect to, and in the original G-d concept (Judaism) G-d is seen as an idea, like mercy, Judgment, compassion, things like that. Now don't get me wrong, Jews don't worship mercy or Judgment, they worship one HaShem, who shows mercy, compassion, and all that stuff(an idea). See, it just seems strange that Christians worship Jesus ('son of God) and G-d. And Jews Just go right out and worship HaShem, none of this two part God. But it makes sense that G-d would make us in His image of intelligence, since he is an idea. If G-d was so omnipotent, I don't know why he would even require arms and legs.

For the record I personally don't hold Jesus as being anything more than a man, however you so righteously claim that point. I have yet to see you adequately prove why. At most you have taken some vague passages from the Mishna of something the Rabbis interpreted and trying to apply it to the situation of Jesus. It's regardless if I hold the Torah as valid or not, as it's not necessary in order to argue the points you'll probably bring up. Actually the Torah is pretty necessary in our debate. Every passage in the Mishna gives passages from the Torah. And I've used quite a few Mishnah quotes. And actually that's a pretty good stance to hold, not being Jewish or Christian, because it allows you to be more open minded. And I also just wanted to say something out of the blue, remember other passages from the Mishna that I quoted? Well, some of them said things like: "It is said that......." And it says thing like that because, as we all know, the Mishna was oral, and it was being written down, so they said things like that in it.

Yes, if you can post some evidence from the Mishna that clearly proves Jesus wasn't the son of God and in turn make that into a coherent argument in order to debate, that would be wonderful. Ok, here’s one, if you want another let me know…….
Beloved is man for he was created in the image. Extraordinary is the love made known to him that he was created in the image, as it is said, For in the image of God made He man(Genesis 9:6)
THE IMAGE: By "image," no physical likeness is intended. The term image refers to the intelligence and understanding....And it is by this image that man is distinguished from the beasts and the fowl.
(me now) and that makes pretty good sense, because Jews believe that when the Torah talks about them being the children of G-d, humanity is often referred to as Israel(one who wrestles with G-d), or the Shekinah. So the people of Israel aren’t chosen by G-d, but humanity. It makes perfect sense for G-d to choose humans as his chosen creatures, rather than say a Komodo dragon. And I'm pretty sure it actually says that in the Mishna as well. But also, according to us, God's chosen humans are those who worship him as one G-d. But anyway, the reason this disproves Jesus’ existence as G-d is because Jesus has a physical image. And he is prayed to as G-d. I happen to know quite a few people that end their prayers with, "........In Jesus’ name we pray."

just want to see if your capable of doing so. And you talk about it being wrong when I say things like that. If you're going to accuse people of doing something, don't do it yourself.

And it was Rosh Hashanah a week or so ago, so I thought I'd honor that by calling a truce, because I realize there is an air of hostility on this debate (Rosh Hashanah is the new year, and a time of forgiveness and reconciliation for the Jews). A truce in the sense that we continue to debate.........but with less.....nastiness, is that cool?

DarkAce

Oct 12th, 2005, 5:52 PM

But the New Testament could be a misinterpretation as well.

All religions could be misinterpretations. I don't see why you keep taking things as a Christian vs. Jew angle.
Again Jesus isn't considered God and if you have read the New Testament you'd see that there's clearly a distinction between the two. Now you might bring up the trinity which basically states one God, three forms. (As a side note I've never agreed with the Christian view of the tri-nature of the 'God' force. It's more or less another attempt by the fore fathers to merge pagan ideas and greek philosophy into making Christianity a valid and structured religion. The bible often contradicts this tri-nature of 'God' in terms of Jesus.)

We can find the concept of the trinity in many religions. Example;

In one of the Hindu religious scripts, (the Puranas) more than two thousand years ago, a devotee addressing the Trinity of gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, saying that he recognised only one God. He asks the Three Lords which is the true divinity that he might address to him alone his vows and adorations. The three Gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, becoming manifest to him, replied,

Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only by semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation and destruction, but he is one.

And I was actually hoping to debate a Christian, because that just ruins the whole idea when you start debating the existence of Jesus as God, and the someone who doesn't even believe in G-d starts debating that it all is irrelevant(Note to DarkAce: this is as much a post for your viewing, as it is for Foelhe).Because you see, that wasn't even the intention of me starting this debate.

My irrelevant comment was directed towards my being a Christian or not, because it is irrelevant. I don't have to be a christian in order to debate christianity as I'm versed enough in it to adequately comment on it. (Which increasingly it seems you don't know much about judaism. Are you a convert, and if so how long have you been practicing judaism?)

I don't have to be a math professor in order to discuss the principles of math, do I? No, of course not.

Furthermore who said I don't believe in the 'God' concept? I surely haven't. Indeed I'm actually a strong believer in the 'God' force, whatever it may be.

You also realize that neither I nor Foelhe are christians, right?

the Torah, Joseph's interpretations of the Pharos’s dream turned out to be true, so can Jeremiah’s interpretations be true also?

And what exactly are those interpretations that you speak of?

And how is it Christians doesn’t except the interpretations of Judaism? Don't Christians do interpretations as well?

Interpretations are interpretations. People don't just accept all of them. Some are more logical than others while others could be frickin ridiculous. That was one of points of the Talmud, the Rabbis debating these interpretations. Same with Christianity and anything else. Of course they make interpretations, why wouldn't they? People see different things.

Judaism came before Christianity, so don't we know what we're talking about?

What does it matter if Judaism came before? Peoples ideals change. Jesus was in all regards a reformer. Islam holds the belief that both Christianity and Judaism are either corrupted, lost their way and misinterepted much. Yet both came long before the latter so by your arguements they should follow everything of the former religions?

But keep in mind, that the Old Testament is held in more recognition than the New Testament.

Held in more recognition in what sense? There are far more christians then jews, and Christians rarely read from the Old Testament except for the same few passages or when they are looking for confirmation on condemning something.

Am I making sense??

The white rabbit was pretty. Follow the path to the hole. See spot run. Run spot run. I like soup. In conclusion your an idiot.

Ah look! I can randomnly tie sentences that have nothing to do with each other in an crude attempt to try and make a point which I clearly don't have and think no one would notice too!

Beatnik Bob

Oct 12th, 2005, 6:35 PM

MY ONE-HUNDREDTH POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In one of the Hindu religious scripts, (the Puranas) more than two thousand years ago, a devotee addressing the Trinity of gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, saying that he recognized only one God. He asks the Three Lords which is the true divinity that he might address to him alone his vows and adorations. The three Gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, becoming manifest to him, replied,

Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only by semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation and destruction, but he is one. And on the side Hindus, worship fire, water, Indra, etc.

My irrelevant comment was directed towards my being a Christian or not, because it is irrelevant. I don't have to be a christian in order to debate christianity as I'm versed enough in it to adequately comment on it. (Which increasingly it seems you don't know much about judaism. Are you a convert and if so how long have you been practicing Judaism?) What makes you think I don't understand Judaism? And I've been practicing Judaism all my life.

And what exactly are those interpretations that you speak of? Jeremiah the prophet has allot of interpretations in the Mishna, why? Do you wish to hear one?

Interpretations are interpretations. People don't just accept all of them. Some are more logical than others while others could be frickin ridiculous. That was one of points of the Talmud, the Rabbis debating these interpretations. Same with Christianity and anything else. Of course they make interpretations, why wouldn't they? People see different things. Keep in mind that the Talmud doesn't only debate. The Talmud also has Judaism’s oral laws.

What does it matter if Judaism came before? Peoples ideals change. Jesus was in all regards a reformer. Islam holds the belief that both Christianity and Judaism are either corrupted, lost their way and misinterpreted much. Yet both came long before the latter so by your arguments they should follow everything of the former religions?
It matters because Christianity comes from Judaism, and Christianity even incorporates allot of Jewish teachings into their doctrine (Old Testament) And, Jesus was a reformer eh? So going to his disciples and asking them to worship him is reforming?

Held in more recognition in what sense? There are far more Christians then Jews, and Christians rarely read from the Old Testament except for the same few passages or when they are looking for confirmation on condemning something. In the sense that without the Old Testament, there would be no New Testament.......well, there would, except it would just be some nowhere idea. And even though there are more Christians than Jews, that doesn't matter, because the Christians still use Jewish doctrine (like the old Testament). And it doesn’t really matter if Christians don’t read from the Old Testament, because it is an important part of their religion, since they

The white rabbit was pretty. Follow the path to the hole. See spot run. Run spot run. I like soup. In conclusion you’re an idiot.

Ah look! I can randomly tie sentences that have nothing to do with each other in an crude attempt to try and make a point which I clearly don't have and think no one would notice too! Please don't act like an ace-hole (Dig it? Ass-ace? HA!). And obviously I make sense, since you don’t respond to every single thing I say. And also, I never even said those things. If my words were beyond you, then it is you who are the idiot. So why don't you just........ Leave me alone!!!!!!!! CAPIESHE!!!!!!!?????!!?!?!??!???? Because you're really pushing it!!!! I even tried doing a truce!

DarkAce

Oct 12th, 2005, 6:43 PM

You own the Talmud???!!!??!??? I thought you said you didn't?

Never said I did, however the internet is quite a powerful tool. You could find pretty much anything given you know what to look for.

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait a second, so if Jesus is the son of G-d, then why exactly do Christians worship him? Are Christians worshipping two gods?

Christians don't exactly 'worship' Jesus. That's like saying muslims worship Muhammad. However Christians hold Jesus as another form of God (not another God, but a form of the same one and only 'God') in the concept of the Holy Trinity. (See my above post for further reference.)

Actually the Torah is pretty necessary in our debate.

I never said it wasn't. What I said wasn't neccesary was whether I believed in it being the divine word of God or not. Of course the Torah is neccesary for this debate as I'm asking for quotes from it on the debunking of Jesus.

Every passage in the Mishna gives passages from the Torah.

It doesn't actually, and it was quite the work of the Midrash and Talmuds in order to Connect the Mishnaic law with the Torah law.

Beloved is man for he was created in the image. Extraordinary is the love made known to him that he was created in the image, as it is said, For in the image of God made He man(Genesis 9:6)

Now that's the quote from the bible, the 'divine' word of God. Now without any prior knowledge of what one rabbis interpretation of what that passage means, how exactly does that simple passage dispprove Jesus?

(me now) and that makes pretty good sense, because Jews believe that when the Torah talks about them being the children of G-d, humanity is often referred to as Israel(one who wrestles with G-d), or the Shekinah. So the people of Israel aren’t chosen by G-d, but humanity. It makes perfect sense for G-d to choose humans as his chosen creatures, rather than say a Komodo dragon. And I'm pretty sure it actually says that in the Mishna as well. But also, according to us, God's chosen humans are those who worship him as one G-d. But anyway, the reason this disproves Jesus’ existence as G-d is because Jesus has a physical image. And he is prayed to as G-d. I happen to know quite a few people that end their prayers with, "........In Jesus’ name we pray."

You do realize your interpretations has nothing to do with the passage you posted right? You posted the passage and then went on to talk about subjects that have no connection with the passage posted. Essentially posting of that passage served no purpose as it really doesn't validate your interpretation.

Furthermore your assumptions brought up in your interpretation is based upon what? Were not the hebrews God's chosen people because of the covenant made between God and Jacob?

You should of used the story of the golden calf to help you with this arguement.. Anyway Jesus isn't prayed to as God. When some pray to relatives, does that mean they are praying to them as if they were gods? Jesus is suppose to act as conduit between us and God. He sort of speaks on our behalf to God. Atleast that's the Catholic view from what I can remember.

And you talk about it being wrong when I say things like that.

I'm not sure what you mean, but it's probably because not for the act of doing so, but because of what you said being wrong.

And it was Rosh Hashanah a week or so ago, so I thought I'd honor that by calling a truce, because I realize there is an air of hostility on this debate (Rosh Hashanah is the new year, and a time of forgiveness and reconciliation for the Jews). A truce in the sense that we continue to debate.........but with less.....nastiness, is that cool?

I wouldn't take my posts to heart. I don't really mean them as an insult. I do them in this manner because I find it most effective for debating. When done in a condescending manner, especially towards people that have the "know-it-all" attitude (ah the irony) it either forces that person to shut up (usually because they are spewing such BS and nonsense) or to take the debate seriously in an effort to make the other look stupid. This forces them to carefully word their posts and do research on the material in order for them not to look even more stupid in the process.

Of course there are the cases where people just reply back cussing out, but that's rather childish and makes them look even worst.

And in some cases you get the person to never come back. That's a good thing depending on the type of person. This has worked rather well in the past with the amount of ridiculous bible thumpers we used to get. Keyword "used" to.

All in all my posts are done with a little flair to make them more interesting and to evoke that passion to debate. So try not to be too offended by them;p

DarkAce

Oct 12th, 2005, 7:21 PM

And on the side Hindus

Hindus have actually thousands if not millions of deities. The thing is they're all essentially derived from the same ones.

What makes you think I don't understand Judaism? And I've been practicing Judaism all my life.

By your abudant lack of any coherent rebuttal. It doesn't really matter if you've been practicing it all your life (however long that may be) because that doesn't neccesarily mean you understand yor religion more so than someone who's been practicing it say for a few years. Since your so keen on Christians they too can be accused of the same. The same meaning not really knowing their religion even though they claim to be a member of it. You go up an average christian and start asking hard line theological questions or about religious historical account abd they'd most likely be hardpressed to answer you.

Keep in mind that the Talmud doesn't only debate. The Talmud also has Judaism’s oral laws.

I've never claimed it's only about debating. I've established that fact quite a few pages behind and stated many times of what the Talmud is.

It matters because Christianity comes from Judaism, and Christianity even incorporates allot of Jewish teachings into their doctrine (Old Testament) And, Jesus was a reformer eh? So going to his disciples and asking them to worship him is reforming?

And Christianity incorporates many pagan beliefs and traditions the same as Judaism does, what does it matter?
Jesus was a teacher, and taught many ideas that was against the then current jewish mentality. People liked what he said and believed in his cause, hence the following. People have done that and still do that even today. They don't neccesarily 'worship' their leaders of the movement, organization, etc. in the way you seem to suggest.

In the sense that without the Old Testament, there would be no New Testament.......

Well that's a no brainer, as Jesus was suppose to be the messiah described in the Old Testament and was the one that fulfilled all those prophecies described in the Old Testament. Not to mention that he himself was a Jew and the laws he followed and beliefs were of jewish origin...

well, there would, except it would just be some nowhere idea.

Not really, it does provide a lot of good philosophy buried behind the story telling. A great deal more then what's found in the Old Testament. Like I've said before, the world probably would of been far off better if Christians didn't even use the OT because most of the horrible things done in the name of the Christian religion has come from interpreting the OT and using that as justification.

And even though there are more Christians than Jews, that doesn't matter,

You said the Old Testament is held in higher regard than the New Testament. Well if there are far, far fewer people that read it how exactly is it held in higher regard? If it was wouldn't it make sense that more people would read the OT than the NT? Yes it's an important part of their religion, no one has said otherwise, but it doesn't mean the OT is held in higher regard as you claim.

And obviously I make sense, since you don’t respond to every single thing I say.

I don't think you understand how forums work. It would be pointless for me to post everything because your post is already there...why waste time posting the entire thing again? People use quotes in order to make it easier for people to understand what point they're argueing/debating.

So why don't you just........ Leave me alone!!!!!!!! CAPIESHE!!!!!!!?????!!?!?!??!???? Because you're really pushing it!!!! I even tried doing a truce!

It's rather hard to stop when you keep replying to me...
What happens after you've been pushed too far? You get Moses to tap dance on my ass?

Philosopher Foelhe

Oct 13th, 2005, 9:24 PM

I don't think you understand how forums work. It would be pointless for me to post everything because your post is already there

I don't think he cares if you quote his entire post. I think he cares that you respond to all he says. And now that this has come up, I have to say I am damn tired of watching people weasel out of points simply by ignoring them. Not this case in particular, but it happens a lot.

I'd suggest, Bob, that if you felt someone missed an important point, that you call attention to it in particular in your next post, rather than a general shout-out. There's a lot of crap online, and if we spend our time checking and rechecking every silly argument we're gonna waste one hell of a lot of time.

Mezurashi

Oct 14th, 2005, 10:01 AM

Not that I have a lot to say, but why do so many North American Christians ending up sounding like they belong to Christians AGAINST Christ?

The whole 'Jesus was a Jew' thing has plagued bigoted redneck God Worshippers forever - now it seems to be spilling over into mainstream Christianity.

Has it not occured to these people that they are, in a sense, rejecting the foundations of their belief systems?

Anyways, my tiny interjection ... I now leave you to your endless debating :2thumbs:

Beatnik Bob

Oct 14th, 2005, 12:19 PM

Wait a second DarkAce, are you saying that Christians don't worship Jesus? Are there any Christians on this forum that worship Jesus!?!? There has to be.......I've visited plenty of Churches before.

And with the Hindus, are you sure that they don't pray to Vishnu, Siva, and Brahma as seperate gods? When they pray, are you sure they have the intent of praying to one God. Because I've read plenty of Hindu books, and they are all portrayed as seperate dieties and gods. Bhumi(Earth godess) isn't the same as Agni(fire god). And Vayu(wind) isn't related to Vurana(water). The only two things I see related, are Vishnu, and Rama(Rama is an incarnation of Vishnu).

Do you happen to really know what the word messiah means? It means: anointed one. So, in Christianity, Jesus was anointed by G-d. He was just anointed, considered holy, but not someone who should be worshiped.
I went into a church once, and there, plastered on the wall, was a big picture of Jesus's face, and a congregation of Christians looking at the picture, and praying to Jesus, saying things like: "Praise Jesus!" "and "Praise the Lord!" and "Oh heavenly Father!" Passages of Torah passed through my mind at this site, like passages in Duetoronomy that specifically forbid graven images. You cant tell me that Christians don't pray to Jesus. Because Christians are always talking about how the father the son and the holy gohst, are all one God, so Christians believe that Jesus really is G-d.

And the OT is held in higher regard because it is the one that really talks about there being one G-d and etc..... Ok, maybe Christians still except the NT more because it states that Jesus is God, but the OT is still more important to the very fundamental belief that there is ONE G-d.

Also, keep in mind that the first Torah was written in HEBREW. And when things are changed from hebrew to english, they tend to take on different meanings. In the Torah when it talks about G-d makeing man in his image, it has the word "deemel" which actually means an image of inteligence, but when deemel is changed into english, it becomes "image", which by english speaking poeple would mean physical image. So the Torah makes alot of sense to a hebrew speaking Jew, more so than in english speaking Christian. Because in hebrew, root letters mean alot, you can always tell the simalarities between words, if they have comon lettering. Like Aba means father, and ema is mother. Aba is spelt: Alef, Bet, Alef. And Ema is spelt: Alef, Mem, Alef. They both have two Alefs, and the similarity in this case is that they are both parents.

EDIT: And Foelhe: Do you want a Torah passage that disproves the existence of Jesus as God??? You asked for one awhile back.....

Beatnik Bob

Oct 14th, 2005, 12:47 PM

What happens after you've been pushed too far? You get Moses to tap dance on my ass?
:2thumbs: Yup, he's on his way now. And actually, he's going to smack you with the Ten Commandments........And maybe tap dance on your ass as well......

DarkAce

Oct 15th, 2005, 1:34 AM

Wait a second DarkAce, are you saying that Christians don't worship Jesus? Are there any Christians on this forum that worship Jesus!?!? There has to be.......I've visited plenty of Churches before.

Again, like I said earlier, what do you consider 'worship'?

And with the Hindus, are you sure that they don't pray to Vishnu, Siva, and Brahma as seperate gods? When they pray, are you sure they have the intent of praying to one God. Because I've read plenty of Hindu books, and they are all portrayed as seperate dieties and gods. Bhumi(Earth godess) isn't the same as Agni(fire god). And Vayu(wind) isn't related to Vurana(water). The only two things I see related, are Vishnu, and Rama(Rama is an incarnation of Vishnu).

Most forms of Hinduism are henotheistic religions. They recognize a single deity, and view other Gods and Goddesses as manifestations or aspects of that supreme God.

Do you happen to really know what the word messiah means? It means: anointed one. So, in Christianity, Jesus was anointed by G-d. He was just anointed, considered holy, but not someone who should be worshiped.

Yes, literally it does. However it's also the belief that Jesus was the messiah the jews were waiting for (except the jews don't believe he was the messiah they were waiting/still waiting for.)

I went into a church once, and there, plastered on the wall, was a big picture of Jesus's face, and a congregation of Christians looking at the picture, and praying to Jesus, saying things like: "Praise Jesus!" "and "Praise the Lord!" and "Oh heavenly Father!" Passages of Torah passed through my mind at this site, like passages in Duetoronomy that specifically forbid graven images. You cant tell me that Christians don't pray to Jesus. Because Christians are always talking about how the father the son and the holy gohst, are all one God, so Christians believe that Jesus really is G-d.

Well that's why ignorance plays a big role in your understanding. Depending on the church, you'll find pictures/statues of saints, angels, Jesus, Mary, etc. In some you'll find a simple cross. It really depends on the denomination.

I've never said they don't pray to Jesus. If you've been reading ym posts I already made mention of the belief that Jesus is sort of like a conduit towards the heavenly Father. Jesus is viewed as the logos incarnate, an aspect of God, thus they are one and the same. This has already been mentioned earlier on discussion of the trinity.
(I should just really keep reposting my same posts over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again...)

Do jews not have images in their synagogues? Are you honestly going to tell me otherwise? Since late antiquity, Jews have, in fact, decorated their synagogues and manuscripts with a wide variety of images. These images, frequently borrowed from non-Jewish sources.

Also, keep in mind that the first Torah was written in HEBREW. And when things are changed from hebrew to english, they tend to take on different meanings. In the Torah when it talks about G-d makeing man in his image, it has the word "deemel" which actually means an image of inteligence, but when deemel is changed into english, it becomes "image",

I've also made mention of this translation dilemna some time ago aswell... First off it went from hebrew to greek, to a whole bunch of other languages before arriving in english. Like you already made reference to, some words do not have a direct translation in another language. Other words just don't exist in the other and it's up to the translators to find a similar word to fill in the blanks. Also one has to keep in mind the reference certain words have in that [b]culture which would mean something else in another, etc.

This is one of my major reasonings of not believing the Bible is the infallible word of God.

Yup, he's on his way now. And actually, he's going to smack you with the Ten Commandments........And maybe tap dance on your ass as well......

Great tell him to bring me one of those spinning tops...

Beatnik Bob

Oct 15th, 2005, 8:07 PM

Again, like I said earlier, what do you consider 'worship'? I guess by worship, I mean praying. Christians pray to Jesus.

And don't Christians consider the father the son and the holy gohst as all the same entity? So they do worship Jesus as God.

Most forms of Hinduism are henotheistic religions. They recognize a single deity, and view other Gods and Goddesses as manifestations or aspects of that supreme God.How is it, that even though Jews believe all humanity is an incarnation of G-d, we refrain from worshipping other humans?

According to you, I guess there is no such thing as many gods. And maybe when people were worshiping the elements, they were worshipping G-d. Maybe the ancient hebrews, were right to worship a golden calf, because God created all cows, so cows must be truelly divine. Who ever bielieveth in the cow, shall not perish, but have everlasting life! See, the thing is, G-d obviously didn't like being worshipped through a cow, or why would he get upset at the hebrews? So why would he enjoy being worshipped through a human?

Yes, literally it does. However it's also the belief that Jesus was the messiah the jews were waiting for (except the jews don't believe he was the messiah they were waiting/still waiting for.) Yes, but we are also taught that it is an extreme mitzvote(besides studying Torah) to not sit around and wait for someone to come along, but to actually get up and help the world. But Jews also don't believe in worshipping (or praying) to this messiah, we are instructed to worship the Eternal One, no matter what. But anyway, since Jesus isn't the messiah, why are Christians always praying to him?

Well that's why ignorance plays a big role in your understanding. Depending on the church, you'll find pictures/statues of saints, angels, Jesus, Mary, etc. In some you'll find a simple cross. It really depends on the denomination. I realize this, but why it is considered idolitry, is because, those statues, are the same statues of the dieties Christians worship.

I've never said they don't pray to Jesus. If you've been reading ym posts I already made mention of the belief that Jesus is sort of like a conduit towards the heavenly Father. Jesus is viewed as the logos incarnate, an aspect of God, thus they are one and the same. This has already been mentioned earlier on discussion of the trinity. Actually the original ten 'attributes' of G-d didn't have Jesus as one of them, humanity was one of them. And if you're going to think about it the way you see it, then children are an incarnation of their parents. So if for some reason you wanted to pray to my mom, for example, would you pray to her through me? I know I'm not making to much sense, it's what happens when I try following a thought process, it translates in a distorted form.

Do jews not have images in their synagogues? Are you honestly going to tell me otherwise? Since late antiquity, Jews have, in fact, decorated their synagogues and manuscripts with a wide variety of images. These images, frequently borrowed from non-Jewish sources. I understand what your getting at. But, just as an example, there is a picture of a past rabbi in my synagogue. We don't worship this rabbi. There's also a star of david above the place where we keep the Torah scroll in our synagogue, but we don't worship that either, it's just a symbol very important to Judaism. As well as symbolising oneness, the triangle pointing up represents masculine(the rising masculine), the one pointing down represents feminine(the dessending feminine). So put two together and you get one! :lol:

I've also made mention of this translation dilemna some time ago aswell... First off it went from hebrew to greek, to a whole bunch of other languages before arriving in english. Like you already made reference to, some words do not have a direct translation in another language. Other words just don't exist in the other and it's up to the translators to find a similar word to fill in the blanks. Also one has to keep in mind the reference certain words have in that [b]culture which would mean something else in another, etc. Doesn't this in itself already dissprove the existence of Jesus as God? Because, since the Torah (in hebrew) states that we were created in God's image of intelligence, and not physical, so than Jesus (a physical image) can't be God. It seems to me, that Christianity is a big missunderstanding......and maybe because it's easier to think of G-d as a person, rather than mercy, and compassion.

Great tell him to bring me one of those spinning tops...
Why?

DarkAce

Oct 16th, 2005, 1:43 AM

I guess by worship, I mean praying. Christians pray to Jesus.

And don't Christians consider the father the son and the holy gohst as all the same entity? So they do worship Jesus as God.

People pray to deceased loved ones, does that mean they 'worship' them? No. Praying is mostly just (one-sided) communication. Although that depends on what exactly they're praying for.

You keep getting caught up on the physical aspect and entity of Jesus. Jesus is the logos, the word incarnate. Get it? His flesh doesn't matter but more of what he represents. Since the logos is inseperate from 'God', thus Jesus is an aspect of 'God' but not the 'God'.

(Of course my personal view is that Jesus was merely human and all this divine BS is nothing more then the early church fathers trying to combine pagan and philosophical concepts in an effort to structurize their religion bringing about unity in order to convert others.)

How is it, that even though Jews believe all humanity is an incarnation of G-d, we refrain from worshipping other humans?

I dunno, going by your definition of worship, couldn't it be said then that you guys worship Abraham, Moses, King David, etc.?
Where does it states Jews believe all of humanity is an incarnation of God btw?

(I like how you started to spell God, G-d, like you're suppose to, Ah but wait you went back to spelling it God later on in your post, blasphemy! Heh, for a second I thought you were getting all jewy on me...)

According to you, I guess there is no such thing as many gods.

Not according to me. You asked me about hinduism and them worshipping many Gods/Goddesses and I gave you what it states in their religion.

See, the thing is, G-d obviously didn't like being worshipped through a cow, or why would he get upset at the hebrews?

I'm not sure how you were able to make such a conclusion with the calf, but keep in mind no one really knows what/why God supposidly does and does not. There are many instances in which God does things that contradict his loving and good nature. There are other instances when God doesn't seem to be all knowing and even regretful. There many, many stories in the Torah that humanize God, which further lends credence to the BS that is the bible/Torah.

So why would he enjoy being worshipped through a human?

well the New Testament states otherwise. Furthermore isn't he constantly going through humans in order to be worshipped in the first place? I mean with all the prophets he needs and all the other people to write down his words for him, doesn't it strike you as odd he just doesn't do it himself?

I realize this, but why it is considered idolitry, is because, those statues, are the same statues of the dieties Christians worship.

I agree, although they are not worshipped on par as with 'God', they do detract from the essence of 'God' and could be considered idoltary. (I think this was one of the reasons muslims hold christians as corrupted.)

Actually the original ten 'attributes' of G-d didn't have Jesus as one of them,

Well that would make sense as Jesus wouldn't show up for quite some centuries..

So if for some reason you wanted to pray to my mom, for example, would you pray to her through me?

Well if I knew you and I didn't know your mom and I wanted to ask her a question, I would most likely ask you to ask her for me. Which is a somewhat similar case with Jesus. Christians do not know 'God' as the jews do (a character with human traits that constantly takes part in the events in our lives), but more in that omni-licous way. Therefore in order to get to know God, we have Jesus, the word, teach us and bring our prayers and questions towards God in an attempt of connecting with God through Jesus.

but we don't worship that either, it's just a symbol very important to Judaism.

Can not the same be said of Christian churches then? Merely symbols important to them?
(also they 'pretty up' the place. It's without questions some of these churches are such a beautiful work of art. Especially the gothic/orthodox ones...)

Doesn't this in itself already dissprove the existence of Jesus as God?

Hardly does. It more or less proves to not trust the bible/torah without question.

since the Torah (in hebrew) states that we were created in God's image of intelligence, and not physical, so than Jesus (a physical image) can't be God.

How do you know it's intelligence, and why do you think that as fact?

Furthermore that doesn't disprove Jesus but merely states that humans don't look like God. That's the way I comprehended that....

Why?

Because it seems to be the only worth while jewish creation.
(Kidding, kidding...)

Beatnik Bob

Oct 16th, 2005, 5:57 PM

People pray to deceased loved ones, does that mean they 'worship' them? No. Praying is mostly just (one-sided) communication. Although that depends on what exactly they're praying for. Dear heavenly DarkAce, give me the power to fly to the Moon, and back.

According to a Jewish standpoint, this is extremely blasphemous, and to a Christian as well.

You keep getting caught up on the physical aspect and entity of Jesus. Jesus is the logos, the word incarnate. Get it? His flesh doesn't matter but more of what he represents. Since the logos is inseperate from 'God', thus Jesus is an aspect of 'God' but not the 'God'.
That's actually a very Jewish outlook on things. No Jew today knows what Abraham looked like, and nor does it matter; because it's the belief system that he founded which counts. See, the thing is, I don't think Christians really believe that way, they think that when they die, there will be some white robbed old man, waiting to welcome them to heaven, no omnipotent being, just the one Jesus.

Of course my personal view is that Jesus was merely human and all this divine BS is nothing more then the early church fathers trying to combine pagan and philosophical concepts in an effort to structurize their religion bringing about unity in order to convert others.
Yeah, all Christianity is, is a big misunderstanding.

I dunno, going by your definition of worship, couldn't it be said then that you guys worship Abraham, Moses, King David, etc.?
Where does it states Jews believe all of humanity is an incarnation of God btw?
1. I guess I used a wrong definition of worship. Because, obviously, I don't believe it's wrong for someone to say, HELP ME!!! SAVE ME FROM DROWNING ED!! I guess that could be considered praying to someone, in this case Ed. I guess what I mean by worship is excessive devotion, to an entity that is considered divine.
And if Jews showed as much devotion to Abraham as the amount I'm talking about......I guarantee, they wouldn't be considered a Jew. I happen to know as a fact, that Jews don't devote themselves to Abraham, as much as they devote themselves to G-d.

2. The Hebrew word Shekinah actually means G-d's whole presence on the Earth. So one could only conclude that all humans were meant.

Actually, according to us, all humanity is a feminine aspect. It's G-d's feminine side.

I like how you started to spell God, G-d, like you're suppose to, Ah but wait you went back to spelling it God later on in your post, blasphemy! Heh, for a second I thought you were getting all jewy on me...
Actually, there was a reason why in some cases, I spelt G-d's name G-o-d. Whenever I said things like 'Jesus as God,' I wrote it like that, because I was trying to show in my lettering that it's blasphemous to Jews for a human to be G-d. I wasn't about to write that G-d as Jesus is divine.

Not according to me. You asked me about Hinduism and them worshipping many Gods/Goddesses and I gave you what it states in their religion. See how important oral laws are? If Hinduism didn't have one, I would (and did) assume that they worshiped many gods. And if Christianity and Hinduism are so alike, why do they condemn them?

There are many instances in which God does things that contradict his loving and good nature.
This is why we have a Mishna.

There are other instances when God doesn't seem to be all knowing and even regretful. There many, many stories in the Torah that humanize God, which further lends credence to the BS that is the bible/Torah.
Again, we have an oral law.

well the New Testament states otherwise. Furthermore isn't he constantly going through humans in order to be worshipped in the first place? I mean with all the prophets he needs and all the other people to write down his words for him, doesn't it strike you as odd he just doesn't do it himself? Well, according to us, G-d is doing it himself, since all humans are apart of G-d.

I agree, although they are not worshipped on par as with 'God', they do detract from the essence of 'God' and could be considered idoltary. So Christians are braking one of the commandments that they claim to observe, and keep. Not to Christian, considering that this isn't an individual thing, a whole religion does this.

Well that would make sense as Jesus wouldn't show up for quite some centuries
There was also no mention of a messiah being an 'attribute' of G-d either.

Well if I knew you and I didn't know your mom and I wanted to ask her a question, I would most likely ask you to ask her for me. Which is a somewhat similar case with Jesus. Christians do not know 'God' as the Jews do (a character with human traits that constantly takes part in the events in our lives), but more in that omni-licous way. Therefore in order to get to know God, we have Jesus, the word, teach us and bring our prayers and questions towards God in an attempt of connecting with God through Jesus. How can one worship G-d without even 'knowing' him? And keep in mind, Christians believe that the father the son and the holy ghost are all the same entity, so there is no 'knowing' about it.

Can not the same be said of Christian churches then? Merely symbols important to them? Again, Catholics (which is what I have decided to call them, and which is who they rightfully are, have you ever heard of the Nicene Creed?) worship Jesus, Jews don't worship our star of david......

Hardly does. It more or less proves to not trust the bible/torah without question.
What do you mean Torah? I already said that the traditional Torah is in Hebrew. It's the Bible, (which is traditionally Latin, which is pretty similar to English, since they both have the same letters) which can’t be trusted, because things get messed up when changing from Hebrew to English.

How do you know it's intelligence, and why do you think that as fact? I know it is intelligence, because I can read, and understand, a bit of Hebrew, so the Torah means intelligence. And I believe that as fact because I am Jewish, the same reason Catholics believe Jesus as God.

(Kidding, kidding...)
:2thumbs:

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Oct 16th, 2005, 8:34 PM

Bobbo, why is it again that you type in "G-d" instead of "God"? Do ALL Jewish people do this? It seems kind of silly to me how you do this. I mean, when you SAY the word out loud, do you actually say "Gee, hyphen, dee" instead of just saying "God"? I suspect that the answer is no, in response to which I would ask "why not?" Why can you SAY God, but you can't TYPE it? Doesn't that seem kind of silly? Does anyone else here find that strange?

Marajadex

Oct 16th, 2005, 8:46 PM

Does anyone else here find that strange?I do find it interesting that some people choose to omit the center letter out of the word God. Same as some people feel the need to either capitalize or not the first letter. I was brought up learning that it was correct to use the capital G when writing God. Seems rather insulting to me to leave a letter out and replace it with a dash or some other character. It is as if it were a curse word. Like when someone writes shit and edits themselvs to write sh-t or s#it.

Any how... Bill did ask and that is my take on it.

Beatnik Bob

Oct 17th, 2005, 5:10 PM

when we say G-d, we actually usually say Adonai, or Hashem, but we say G-d too. And when I write it: G-d, it's showing that even G-d's name is so divine, it can't be written. And actually, it's kind of a habit.

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Oct 17th, 2005, 6:17 PM

And when I write it: G-d, it's showing that even G-d's name is so divine, it can't be written.
Isn't it weird how God's name is so divine that it can't be written (even though I just did) but not so divine that we can't SAY it? Come on, Bob! Do it! Replace that hyphen with an "o"! What would happen if you DID write it out in full? Seriously, would it be such a bad thing?

Philosopher Foelhe

Oct 17th, 2005, 6:23 PM

What would happen if you DID write it out in full? Seriously, what it be such a bad thing?

Huh. Something I actually know about Judaism. Well, I think.

The way I've heard it, it's not so much the writing of the word that's a problem, it's the fact that you have something solid and permanent which "represents God" in a way. Judaists believe if you write the word "God" on a piece of paper, and then that paper is torn or burned and the word "God" is destroyed... well, it's a bad, bad thing.

Of course, I still don't see the difference between defining a diety as a picture and defining a diety as three letters. I think we had this conversation before, actually.

Beatnik Bob

Oct 17th, 2005, 7:43 PM

G-O-D

Happy?

Beatnik Bob

Oct 17th, 2005, 8:01 PM

I just thaught I'd put something else in, for the Jesus as God debate.

*The Nicene Creed*

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This is how Christians believe, this is their Nicene Creed.

Notice how it talks about God being seated on the right hand side of the father, is that by chance saying that Christianity worships two gods? Because as everyone knows, Christians believe in literal interpretations of pretty much everything.

This is also what makes Catholisism the same as Christianity. Because they both believe in the Creed of Nicene.

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Oct 18th, 2005, 10:41 AM

G-O-D
Happy?
NO! Spell it out without the hyphens! DO IT!

dcookcan

Oct 18th, 2005, 12:29 PM

Isn't it weird how God's name is so divine that it can't be written (even though I just did) but not so divine that we can't SAY it? Come on, Bob! Do it! Replace that hyphen with an "o"! What would happen if you DID write it out in full? Seriously, would it be such a bad thing?

I'm surprised that Bob did not pick up on this little mistake. You did not write or say God's name. All you have done is writtin and said one of God's Titles.

It is my understanding that Judaism will not utter God's name because they do not want to break the third (I think it's the third) commandment. Do not take the LORD your God's name in vain. In Judaism, His name is held so sacred that they have 'hidden' its pronunciation so that no one will 'take his name in vain'. To the Jew, this means to make his name common and bring it to nothingness. Therefore, when they are reading the Torah in Hebrew, they will read haShem or Adonai rather than pronouncing the 'unpronounceable' name of God. It has also been theorized that the vowel markings that were added to the Hebrew letters have also been purposefully altered on God's name. The vowel markings used on His name are the same vowel markings used for 'Adonai'. This was done to remind the reader that they should say Adonai instead of pronouncing the name.

Being a non-Jew (former christian), I have no idea how to pronounce the name in English. Yehovah is the pronunciation that is used when pronouncing the vowel markings used in the Hebrew. Yahweh is the pronunciation that many scholars believe is right. The other pronunications around are not valid.

So, in a sense, the Jews have hidden God's name so well, that no one knows how to pronounce it. Not even the Jews.

And Bob, you are spot on in saying christianity is idolatrous, based on the very scriptures they claim to 'live by'. You don't need Talmud to prove it.