Religion

[philpot123]

It varied, depending on the government of the time, and how willing the courts were to enforce it.

 

 

 

We know that in some reigns it was used for rather menial offenses.

 

 

 

Yep. In fact, that was the one I was referring to. The Leviticus passage uses a different word, Ba'al ob, or those who are masters over ghosts while the go to verse uses Yidde'oni, those who gain information from the dead

 

 

 

And yet, here you are, breaking the Sabbath, even if you consider Sunday the Sabbath.

That's very interesting. Thanks!

 

 

 

Never said I was perfect Yes, personally I do feel convicted about Sabbath-breaking, and it's an area I've been examining myself in lately.

 

 

And yet this is the problem that many have with those who take a literal belief in the Bible - they cherry-pick the bits they like, and conveniently ignore those they don't. If someone wants to use the Bible as their principle argument in a case, that XYZ shouldn't be allowed because the Bible says so, then what about everything else? Why is it some parts are interpreted, and some parts taken literally - almost always at the convenience of the reader? Why is it that when I argue that some parts of the Bible are out-of-date and need to be read in the context of the times, more hard-line believers will ignore my argument when it doesn't conform with the creature-comforts of their lives, and yet will use the self-same argument - which is now perfectly justifiable in their eyes - when it benefits them? This is my biggest gripe with most organised religions - either take the whole of your holy text literally word-for-word, or accept that all of it is open to interpretation. Don't just chose the bits you like.

 

Short answer, a lot of people either don't know their own scriptures or are not grounded in fundamentalism to the point where they're willing to admit that if they disagree with a portion of scripture, that doesn't make it wrong. So they pull what they want from the OT law, and then claim it's "out of date" when other portions of it are addressed. I don't like it any more than you do As I said, the view I've landed on isn't about "ignoring" the parts we don't like. It's a (quite possibly wrong) view of the relationship between the new/old testament that voids the ceremonial part of the law and the strict punishments for the moral law in light of the NT passages saying things like we are no longer "slaves to the law" and things of that nature, while anything that was morally wrong then remains morally wrong now.

 

Yay for wikipedia articles that know more than I do! It doesn't quite explain what we're talking about entirely, but it's a quick rundown of my theological beliefs, if anyone cares to know.

 

Calvinism

Covenant Theology

[Ashes The Second]

I don't understand people who use such outdated religious texts to actually define why they believe something like abortion is wrong. Is it factual? No. Yes, it does hold some 'this was what was right wayyyyy back when.' It can't apply for modern day as a 'survival guide'. It simply can't; there are so many holes, I could make a swiss-cheese omelet out of it.

[NobleOwl]

I don't understand people who use such outdated religious texts to actually define why they believe something like abortion is wrong. Is it factual? No. Yes, it does hold some 'this was what was right wayyyyy back when.' It can't apply for modern day as a 'survival guide'. It simply can't; there are so many holes, I could make a swiss-cheese omelet out of it.

Actually, I personally use the Tanakh and Talmud to explain why I feel abortion is not wrong. That said, it's a very interesting position, actually.

 

It's a (quite possibly wrong) view of the relationship between the new/old testament that voids the ceremonial part of the law and the strict punishments for the moral law in light of the NT passages saying things like we are no longer "slaves to the law" and things of that nature, while anything that was morally wrong then remains morally wrong now.

 

The issue I have with that is it makes G-d a liar. The idea that a covenant can supersede an eternal covenant made at Sinai, is a problem to me. If you void part or all of an eternal covenant, it can no longer, be eternal.

 

And he took the book of the perpetual covenant, and read in the hearing of the people; and they said: 'All that HaShem hath spoken will we do, and obey.'

 

And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said: 'Behold the blood of the eternal covenant, which HaShem hath made with you in agreement with all these words.' (Exodus [shemot] 24: 7-8)

 

[inlaterdays]

The idea that a covenant can supersede an eternal covenant made at Sinai, is a problem to me. If you void part or all of an eternal covenant, it can no longer, be eternal.

NobleOwl, this is something that I've always been curious about, but when I asked the question in confirmation class, I was told to just memorize the material for the quiz.

 

(To be fair, it can't have been easy on the teacher - who was a church elder volunteer, I believe - dealing with a very curious group of high schoolers.)

 

I do understand that the Christian Church teaches that salvation comes through Christ, but as far as I can recall, Christ never said to stop following what we call the Old Testament. I think it was Paul and later writers who said that the New Covenant abrogated the Old Covenant, but I will admit that it's still confusing to me.

 

(L'Shanah Tovah, by the way.)

[philpot123]

The issue I have with that is it makes G-d a liar. The idea that a covenant can supersede an eternal covenant made at Sinai, is a problem to me. If you void part or all of an eternal covenant, it can no longer, be eternal.

 

And he took the book of the perpetual covenant, and read in the hearing of the people; and they said: 'All that HaShem hath spoken will we do, and obey.'

 

And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said: 'Behold the blood of the eternal covenant, which HaShem hath made with you in agreement with all these words.' (Exodus [shemot] 24: 7-8)

It's the same objection you raised very early on in my forum discussions here, when you first corrected some of my assumptions about Judaism (which I'm still quite appreciative of! ) and, same as then, I still don't have a well-crafted answer. I know I've heard it discussed and debated often enough, but I can't present the position well enough to make sense of it. I'll work on that!

[Alpha1]

Definately not fair. In fact Islam is just a peaceful as Christianity. In fact ponder this; Christainity, Jeudism, and Islam all pray to the same god.

 

There are a lot of differences between the three, so there’s little sense in claiming that they pray to the same god. Jews think they're the bearers of a special covenant with God, and Muslims/Christians think that nonbelievers go to a place full of fire. Christianity has a rationale at least for not controlling peoples’ lives and “winning in this world”.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar

 

Where is it in Islam? The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism is the fundamentals of Islam. Mohammed himself was a conquering warlord. Jesus was essentially a hippie who got crucified. Etc.

 

The issue I have with that is it makes G-d a liar.

 

2 Chronicles

 

18:19 And the LORD said: who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one spoke saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.

20 And there came forth the spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said: I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him: Wherewith?

21 And he said: I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said: Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also; go forth, and do so.

22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets; and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.' {S}

 

People like to say that the king of Israel wanted to hear a lie, or the prophets would have told him the good version anyway. Same argument? Lord, liar, lunatic, or legend?

 

[brairtrainer]

There are a lot of differences between the three, so there’s little sense in claiming that they pray to the same god. Jews think they're the bearers of a special covenant with God, and Muslims/Christians think that nonbelievers go to a place full of fire. Christianity has a rationale at least for not controlling peoples’ lives and “winning in this world”.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar

 

Where is it in Islam? The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism is the fundamentals of Islam. Mohammed himself was a conquering warlord. Jesus was essentially a hippie who got crucified. Etc.

 

 

 

2 Chronicles

 

18:19 And the LORD said: who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one spoke saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.

20 And there came forth the spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said: I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him: Wherewith?

21 And he said: I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said: Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also; go forth, and do so.

22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets; and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.' {S}

 

People like to say that the king of Israel wanted to hear a lie, or the prophets would have told him the good version anyway. Same argument? Lord, liar, lunatic, or legend?

As a Christian and a person who studied the founding of both Christianity and Islam I believe that they are praying to the same god, for a couple of reasons.

 

1. There are some Jewish people who do believe Jesus was the messiah, but have reasons for not being Chirstian. Most of these have to do with the fact of some of the Christian beliefs and it is much more comfortable for them to stay as the same religion as Jesus, though they are uncommon.

 

2. Christianity developed right out of Jewdisim, and most Christains will tell you that we do pray to the same god.

 

3. In Islam Jesus is seen as a prophet and Muhammed did preach to listen to what Jesus said.

 

4. If you study the texts you'll find the begining of the koran, the torah (most of it) and the old testement to be very similar if not the same (allowing for translations being off/errors)

[ShinyTomato]

1. There are some Jewish people who do believe Jesus was the messiah, but have reasons for not being Chirstian. Most of these have to do with the fact of some of the Christian beliefs and it is much more comfortable for them to stay as the same religion as Jesus, though they are uncommon.

 

If they believe Jesus was the Messiah, they are no longer Jewish as in, a believer in Judaism. The belief in a dying-resurrecting-saviour messiah is completely against Judaism, because no one can bear the sins of another person, and G-d does not become human, and G-d would not enable a virgin birth.

 

Jesus, from a Jewish perspective, was a bad Jew, who was not from the proper bloodlines, who sinned, who had no tribe or House, and did not fulfill the necessary prophecies to be the Messiah.

 

While "Messianic Judaism" does exist, almost all of their clergy and higher ups started in the Baptist church, and have produced multiple pamphlets into conning Jews into thinking their "Judaism + Jesus" is an accepted Jewish sect.

 

Christianity developed right out of Jewdisim, and most Christains will tell you that we do pray to the same god.

 

Except, Jews will disagree as Christianity believes that Jesus was G-d, which goes against the idea that G-d is one, and inseparable, that is a major tenet of Judaism. The Christian Bible states that Jesus is not omnipotent, which means he can't be one with an Omnipotent G-d.

 

 

the torah (most of it) and the old testement to be very similar if not the same (allowing for translations being off/errors)

 

Nope. Plus, the Torah is the first five books, the Tanakh is closest to the Old Testament, but the Old Testament has a lot cut out of it and slanted.

Edited September 18, 2012 by ShinyTomato

[philpot123]

Jesus was essentially a hippie who got crucified. Etc.

 

Right, because turning over tables, making a whip of cords, and driving money-changers from the Temple was totally pacifistic

[AngelKitty]

So I've been googling around trying to find things out about Islam. I stumbled across this site, while trying to find out how Muslims felt about cats (typical me...). The site is full of questions people send in about Islam, answered by an Imam from Saudi Arabia. They've got answers to questions ranging from the biography of Mohammed to simple daily life questions and counseling.

 

Obviously this is all from one Imam's perspective (and I don't agree with most of what he says) but it's an interesting read nonetheless for anyone who wants to know more about Islam.

[Awdz]

Except, Jews will disagree as Christianity believes that Jesus was G-d, which goes against the idea that G-d is one, and inseparable, that is a major tenet of Judaism. The Christian Bible states that Jesus is not omnipotent, which means he can't be one with an Omnipotent G-d.

I do not consider God taking human form to teach humans in a manner which they could better understand as God being separated into multiple parts. God is omnipresent; being in physical form is no more separate from God than wiggling just one finger makes it separate from the rest of the body - it's just moving differently for a period of time.

 

Also, there is a vast difference between "not omnipotent" and Jesus being omnipotent but choosing for our sakes not to exercise that power. I expect that I (and most other Christians) interpret whatever part you say states that rather differently than you do.

 

The issue I have with that is it makes G-d a liar. The idea that a covenant can supersede an eternal covenant made at Sinai, is a problem to me. If you void part or all of an eternal covenant, it can no longer, be eternal.

How then do you reconcile that in the 10 commandments, God said "Thou shalt not kill," and then when the Israelites reached the promised land, God told them to kill the inhabitants of the land they were moving into?

Edited September 19, 2012 by Awdz Bodkins

[TikindiDragon]

How then do you reconcile that in the 10 commandments, God said "Thou shalt not kill," and then when the Israelites reached the promised land, God told them to kill the inhabitants of the land they were moving into?

Depends on how you're translating it. "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit murder" are two rather different things.

[Awdz]

Depends on how you're translating it. "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit murder" are two rather different things.

The stories talk about women and children all being slaughtered too. Soldiers in battle is one thing, but it goes beyond that.

[ShinyTomato]

Also, there is a vast difference between "not omnipotent" and Jesus being omnipotent but choosing for our sakes not to exercise that power. I expect that I (and most other Christians) interpret whatever part you say states that rather differently than you do.

 

Mark 8: 22-26, the healing of the blind man at Bethesda takes two attempts.

 

Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 both state that Jesus does not know all, meaning he lacks omniscience, and since he outright states that G-d knows and he does not...

 

Luke 2: 52 states that Jesus grew in wisdom, meaning that he could not have been omniscient, and that he grew in favour with G-d, meaning they cannot be one.

 

Hebrews 5:8 says that Jesus learned obedience, again meaning that he could not be omniscient.

 

Isaiah 43 10-11 boils down another problem:

 

understand that I am He; before Me there was no G-d formed, neither shall any be formed after Me. I, even I, am HaShem; and beside Me there is no saviour.

 

The stories talk about women and children all being slaughtered too. Soldiers in battle is one thing, but it goes beyond that.

 

That doesn't mean that they weren't a threat.

[Awdz]

Mark 8: 22-26, the healing of the blind man at Bethesda takes two attempts.

So? I can come up with reasons why Jesus may have chosen to ease the guy into clear sight. It does not mean Jesus could not have done it all at once, only that He did not.

 

Mark 13:32 and  Matthew 24:36 both state that Jesus does not know all, meaning he lacks omniscience, and since he outright states that G-d knows and he does not...

Consider that He is teaching the disciples, sharing what He knows. God knows when the end will be, but if Jesus says He, in human form, knows it, all His followers would be distracted from developing a better relationship with God. For their sakes, the Son of Man must not know it even though God does. It becomes a paradox, much like "Where did God come from?"

 

Luke 2: 52 states that Jesus grew in wisdom, meaning that he could not have been omniscient, and that he grew in favour with G-d, meaning they cannot be one.

I take it more as how much wisdom God chose to reveal through His human form, and was more pleased the more it was appropriate to share as the physical body grew.

 

Hebrews 5:8 says that Jesus learned obedience, again meaning that he could not be omniscient.

Again, the teaching paradox - Jesus showed us how to live and develop a better relationship with God. Also, this is a statement in a letter that was more a sermon urging the followers to stay faithful during hardship - thus the example of obedience through suffering as demonstrated by Jesus.

 

Isaiah 43 10-11 boils down another problem:

 

understand that I am He; before Me there was no G-d formed, neither shall any be formed after Me.  I, even I, am HaShem; and beside Me there is no saviour.

I do not understand why this is a problem? God is, and God is our saviour, revealed to us in the form of Creator, Jesus, and Holy Spirit to help us turn back to God and away from sin. There is no other God and it is only by the grace (undeserved love) of God that we have any hope.

 

That doesn't mean that they weren't a threat.

Right. And not one infant could be spared and raised as a Hebrew. In essence, the "chosen people" moved in at the expense of the "non-chosen."

How do you reconcile "Thou shalt not kill" with a command for that?

Edited September 21, 2012 by Awdz Bodkins

[NobleOwl]

Tag team!

 

the Son of Man must not know it even though God does. It becomes a paradox

 

No, it becomes a way that is obvious that he is not omniscient.

 

Jesus showed us how to live and develop a better relationship with God.

 

I disagree. Jesus makes it harder to reach G-d, that's not a better relationship. When I want to talk to my neighbor, I don't send my child to do it.

 

I do not understand why this is a problem? God is, and God is our saviour, revealed to us in the form of Creator, Jesus, and Holy Spirit to help us turn back to God and away from sin. There is no other God and it is only by the grace (undeserved love) of God that we have any hope.

 

Because in Hebrew, it uses two words, which mean physical and spiritual -- unless you believe that Jesus had the same physical form at the time of creation....

 

And not one infant could be spared and raised as a Hebrew.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but infants weren't killed. Infants didn't count. They never do. They are always skipped over. This is what you get for reading badly translated Cliff Notes.

 

In essence, the "chosen people" moved in at the expense of the "non-chosen."

 

Not anymore than anyone else. Were there cultures wiped out? Yes. Did they kill everyone? No. It was different for each people. The Gibeonites, for example, were the offshoots of the Amorites, and when Saul broke a vow to the Gibeonites and killed some of them, G-d punished Israel with famine. Balaam was a Moabite, who in Numbers, tried to convince the Moabite king not to try and curse the Israelites, because G-d had spoken to him and told him not to speak it. He traps them later, and brings a deadly plague on Israel.

 

How do you reconcile "Thou shalt not kill" with a command for that?

 

Because G-d never says "Thou shalt not kill."

 

Ratsach means what we would call "homicide". "Harag" means what we would call "premeditated murder," and "Nakah" mean "to slay in anger." The word used in the commandments is the word for homicide: "Ratsach."

[Alpha1]

As a Christian and a person who studied the founding of both Christianity and Islam I believe that they are praying to the same god, for a couple of reasons.

 

Koran

 

3:85 Whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.

 

5:72 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. ... Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.

 

Mark 8: 22-26, the healing of the blind man at Bethesda takes two attempts.

 

Oh-ho-ho, It's magic. You know. Never believe it's not so.

 

Do you think a god could have absolute omnipotence?

 

Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 both state that Jesus does not know all, meaning he lacks omniscience, and since he outright states that G-d knows and he does not...

 

Luke 2: 52 states that Jesus grew in wisdom, meaning that he could not have been omniscient, and that he grew in favour with G-d, meaning they cannot be one.

 

Hebrews 5:8 says that Jesus learned obedience, again meaning that he could not be omniscient.

 

God, Jesus, and the Holy Spook are magically one at the same time; God knows and doesn’t know at the same time. Glory!

 

It's a boomerang!

 

Genesis

6:6 And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.

7 And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.'

 

That doesn't mean that they weren't a threat.

 

This calls into question his omnipotence and omniscience attributes. Why didn’t he just kill all the ones that would be a threat or protect his chosen people if a threat arose? Why not engineer their genetics in such a way that the least possible amount later on would act in a threatening manner to his chosen ones? Why not create only souls that he knows will act obedient in life?

 

The path taken hardly resembles one of a being that is omnipotent or omniscient. One good example of this is how Judah couldn’t defeat the iron chariots because his people were disobedient, so they were punished. Why isn’t there a 100% track record?

 

[NobleOwl]

This calls into question his omnipotence and omniscience attributes. Why didn’t he just kill all the ones that would be a threat or protect his chosen people if a threat arose?

 

Because then there would never be any danger and they would not grow.

 

Why not engineer their genetics in such a way that the least possible amount later on would act in a threatening manner to his chosen ones?

 

Because Judaism isn't genetic. And that would contravene their own protection instincts. Just because they didn't choose to be chosen, doesn't make them lesser.

 

Why not create only souls that he knows will act obedient in life?

 

Because that would be morally wrong. Diversity, learning from our sins, our mistakes, is what makes us the greatest of creations. With Christianity, that idea goes out the window, because all your sins are covered with "repentance." Consequence either slips away or become eternal. Eternal consequence for temporal situations.

 

The path taken hardly resembles one of a being that is omnipotent or omniscient.

 

Why?

 

If a parent knows their child is going to fall off of a bike, does that mean they never teach them?

 

Why isn’t there a 100% track record?

 

Because G-d is a parent, not a puppeteer.

[Awdz]

Tag team!

 

 

 

No, it becomes a way that is obvious that he is not omniscient.

*shrugs* Okay, if paradoxes are not allowed, where do you say that God came from? What created the Creator?

 

I disagree. Jesus makes it harder to reach G-d, that's not a better relationship. When I want to talk to my neighbor, I don't send my child to do it.

Jesus is God. And while you find it harder to relate to God in that form, God is reaching out to all of us in a vast variety of ways. I'm reminded again of the elephant and the blind men.

 

Because in Hebrew, it uses two words, which mean physical and spiritual -- unless you believe that Jesus had the same physical form at the time of creation....

I believe humans are a blending of physical and spiritual. I really do not get your insistance that the two are exclusive.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but infants weren't killed. Infants didn't count. They never do. They are always skipped over. This is what you get for reading badly translated Cliff Notes.

No? Tell me what it really says, then. How did they survive:

Joshua 6:21 "devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys." If the babes were less than livestock, how did they survive with no one left to take care of them? Which is more cruel, outright death or abandonment?

Joshua 8:2 the Lord tells Joshua "You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho" and in verses 19-22 it tells about them burning the city, killing any who fled out of it. Again, was it worse for them to be burned, slaughtered by sword, or abandoned? In this one at least they took the livestock as booty, so maybe some children were adopted.

Joshua 10:28, 30, 32-33, 35, 37, 38, 40 tell about wiping out towns, utterly destroying every person in them, leaving no survivors. Joshua 11:14 "...and they did not leave any who breathed." How badly is that mistranslated?

 

And I think all of those 31 kings listed in Joshua 12:9-24 & their people slain by the Israelites would say that yes, the "chosen" moved in at their "non-chosen" expense.

 

Ratsach means what we would call "homicide". "Harag" means what we would call "premeditated murder," and "Nakah" mean "to slay in anger." The word used in the commandments is the word for homicide: "Ratsach."

Right, and planning how to wipe out a city full of people that just happens to be in the way of you settling down is not homicide. The better term would probably be genocide. Nuances in what kinds of killing are what, except in defense, are pretty much lost on me.

[Awdz]

Because that would be morally wrong. Diversity, learning from our sins, our mistakes, is what makes us the greatest of creations. With Christianity, that idea goes out the window, because all your sins are covered with "repentance." Consequence either slips away or become eternal. Eternal consequence for temporal situations.

Wrong about Christianity, and any Christian that tries to tell you that we cannot learn from our sins is mistaken. There is a huge difference between being given [a second chance that includes dealing with cleaning up after the first sin] and being given [a "go do whatever you want free of repercussions"]. Forgiveness entails the former; blindness/idiocy encompasses the latter.

 

Because G-d is a parent, not a puppeteer.

Don't you see how odd your saying this and yet rejecting how Jesus healed sounds? Alpha1 could just retort, "No, it becomes a way that is obvious that he is not omnipotent."

Edited September 22, 2012 by Awdz Bodkins

[Alpha1]

Because then there would never be any danger

 

Isn’t that a good thing? Is there any danger in the afterlife?

 

and they would not grow.

 

Here’s an analogy to ponder on: Flowers need perfect conditions. Weeds grow through concrete.

 

For both of the above, what is the trend in society? Well-to-do people will pay more to live in communities with less crime and have their children attend schools with students that have better support systems.

 

Because Judaism isn't genetic.

 

Why would it be out of question if he has caused a major flood, famine, altered battle outcomes, etc.? Did Noah live for 950 years?

 

And that would contravene their own protection instincts. Just because they didn't choose to be chosen, doesn't make them lesser.

 

What do you mean? They could still have” free will”, and it’s better than them all being killed.

 

Because that would be morally wrong. Diversity, learning from our sins, our mistakes, is what makes us the greatest of creations.

 

Diversity? Why would it be morally wrong to remove genes that increase aggression, lack of empathy, and other antisocial behavior?

 

Why?

 

 

If a parent knows their child is going to fall off of a bike, does that mean they never teach them?

 

With a snap of his fingers, God could add the circuitry, so they could ride the bike and have an easier time with trial and error.

 

I don’t think that’s exactly analogous to what is found in the Tanakh, though.

 

This is more like it.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/pro...5f97_story.html

 

Because G-d is a parent, not a puppeteer.

 

Is he a puppeteer in the afterlife? Do you have the same intelligence and personality when you leave this world?

 

[NobleOwl]

*shrugs* Okay, if paradoxes are not allowed, where do you say that God came from? What created the Creator?

 

There are several Jewish views.

 

1. G-d came from the remnants of a prior universe before this universe was started.

 

2. G-d exists in all places in all time, at the same time, in a state of temporal grace. (Sort of like the TARDIS, but more expansive)

 

3. G-d is the universe, and created Himself. This sounds hokey, but the idea is basically emergent consciousness from complexity, as reflected in Emergent Consciousness from the Early Universe to Our Mind, published by the University of Padua, in quantum physics.

 

Jesus is God. And while you find it harder to relate to God in that form, God is reaching out to all of us in a vast variety of ways. I'm reminded again of the elephant and the blind men.

 

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

Is, or is not, the basis of Christianity, that one must "be saved" by Jesus to reach G-d?

 

I believe humans are a blending of physical and spiritual. I really do not get your insistance that the two are exclusive.

 

I'm not saying that they are. I am saying the TEXT says that no god will be given form (physical) or form (spiritual) after G-d came into existence. Unless you're saying that Jesus had his physical body then, he cannot be G-d, because that would contravene the text.

 

No? Tell me what it really says, then. How did they survive:

 

The Talmud gives clear instructions for warfare, for the children to be taken out of mercy, as the Pharaoh's daughter had mercy on Moses. It also gives instructions that you cannot kill a mother in from of her child.

 

...and they did not leave any who breathed." How badly is that mistranslated?

 

Very.

 

And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, and the children, Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any that breathed.

 

And I think all of those 31 kings listed in Joshua 12:9-24 & their people slain by the Israelites would say that yes, the "chosen" moved in at their "non-chosen" expense.

 

They were given the option to share the land. They did not take it.

 

Right, and planning how to wipe out a city full of people that just happens to be in the way of you settling down is not homicide. The better term would probably be genocide. Nuances in what kinds of killing are what, except in defense, are pretty much lost on me.

 

You say that as if they wanted to do so. The cities were given the option to share the land, not the cities some chose that path, others did not. Those that did not, instead, decided to expel the Israelites by force, even those who were not threatened by Israel moving in.

 

and when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, vex them not, nor contend with them; for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon for a possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession. (Deut. 2:19)

 

A few chapters later:

 

because they met you not with bread and with water in the way as they had sworn, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Aram-naharaim, to curse thee. (Deut. 23:5)

 

 

Wrong about Christianity, and any Christian that tries to tell you that we cannot learn from our sins is mistaken. There is a huge difference between being given [a second chance that includes dealing with cleaning up after the first sin] and being given [a "go do whatever you want free of repercussions"]. Forgiveness entails the former; blindness/idiocy encompasses the latter.

 

Then there are quite a few mistaken preachers I have met in my time.

 

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all grievous sin. (I John, 1:7)

 

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience eternally. (Hebrews 9:14)

 

let us draw near to G-d with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from any guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water (Hebrews 10:22)

 

Blessed are those

whose transgressions are forgiven,

whose sins are covered.

Blessed is the one

whose sin the Lord will never count against them (Romans 4:7-8)

 

This problem is a big one -- the sins are never counted against them. They're "covered," and in some verses "hidden," not treated with proper consequence.

 

And, probably the most heinous of verses about the whole thing, let's just flat out lie.

 

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Hebrews 9:22)

 

Don't you see how odd your saying this and yet rejecting how Jesus healed sounds?

 

No. What makes you say so?

 

Isn’t that a good thing? Is there any danger in the afterlife?

 

No. It's a horrible thing. We grow through danger, through experience, through pain. I'm not an expert on the afterlife by any means, but since it's full of people, I would say so.

 

For both of the above, what is the trend in society? Well-to-do people will pay more to live in communities with less crime and have their children attend schools with students that have better support systems.

 

Perfect conditions do not better people make. Even in concrete, flowers can grow.

 

 

Why would it be out of question if he has caused a major flood, famine, altered battle outcomes, etc.? Did Noah live for 950 years?

 

Because choice is important, because those who choose to be Jewish are just as beloved.

 

What do you mean? They could still have” free will”, and it’s better than them all being killed.

 

But it wouldn't be their will. It would be the will G-d forced on them through manipulating who they were. They would have to be someone completely different, their lives would have to be completely different, he would have to change on a fundamental level who they were, and that is a disgusting, mentally abhorrent thought. The Ammonites, from what inscriptions we have, would rather have gone the way they did, than to be altered into something like that. It would be a horror to them. They likely would have preferred death.

 

Diversity? Why would it be morally wrong to remove genes that increase aggression, lack of empathy, and other antisocial behavior?

 

Because they are useful in human development. He could have just as easily removed the ability to question, but then, you wouldn't be Alpha.

 

Comic

 

Sorry, that doesn't work with the Jewish view of G-d.

 

With a snap of his fingers, God could add the circuitry, so they could ride the bike and have an easier time with trial and error.

 

And what else would we use that for, if we didn't have those error experiences tot he same level we do, Alpha? Do you know what horrors we would create?

 

I don’t think that’s exactly analogous to what is found in the Tanakh, though.

 

That's just insulting, Alpha. Seriously. And this is why I try not to talk to you, because you pull things and then i get reported for being offensive or insulting. So, after this, to avoid that happening again, I shall say have a pleasant day and leave you be.

 

Is he a puppeteer in the afterlife? Do you have the same intelligence and personality when you leave this world?

 

Yes, you do.

[Kai]

There is no point for an omnipotent omniscience god to teach anyone anything. He chose to create things flawed and stupid in the first place. It would be better if he just made perfect stuff in the first place instead of convolutedly fixing the failed stuff he created for no reason.

[Awdz]

There are several Jewish views.

 

1. G-d came from the remnants of a prior universe before this universe was started.

 

2. G-d exists in all places in all time, at the same time, in a state of temporal grace. (Sort of like the TARDIS, but more expansive)

 

3. G-d is the universe, and created Himself. This sounds hokey, but the idea is basically emergent consciousness from complexity, as reflected in Emergent Consciousness from the Early Universe to Our Mind, published by the University of Padua, in quantum physics.

The point is, those all indicate a paradox about God being the single omnipotent, omnipresent Creator of the universe. It appears that you accept that paradox, yet you automatically disdain any other even when it fits with God building a better relationship with the created, as though you know everything there is to know about God - which no human (other than Jesus) can. I'm saying there's more going on than we understand, but that fits with us developing a better relationship with God.

 

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

Is, or is not, the basis of Christianity, that one must "be saved" by Jesus to reach G-d?

As Jesus is God, and it is only by the grace (undeserved love) of God that we are saved, the answer is yes.

How God reaches out to each individual may be very different from one to the next.

 

I'm not saying that they are. I am saying the TEXT says that no god will be given form (physical) or form (spiritual) after G-d came into existence. Unless you're saying that Jesus had his physical body then, he cannot be G-d, because that would contravene the text.

Well since God created time and thus exists beyond it, Jesus did exist then; human form is simply another way God is revealed to us. I understood the text to make the point that there is no other god but the One, and never will be.

 

If God cannot take physical form, what exactly was the burning bush to which Moses spoke before confronting the pharoah? What was the piller of fire and cloud that led the Israelites out of Egypt? Are you saying it was not God that appeared before them?

 

The Talmud gives clear instructions for warfare, for the children to be taken out of mercy, as the Pharaoh's daughter had mercy on Moses. It also gives instructions that you cannot kill a mother in from of her child.

 

 

Very.

 

And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, and the children, Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any that breathed.

So now you are saying that they were all adopted, those about whom you previously said, "That doesn't mean that they weren't a threat."? That is, all the ones that were not casualties in the fires, etc., since the cities were not evacuated before the attacks.

 

They were given the option to share the land. They did not take it.

That would be a direct conflict with Deuteronomy 7:2, which forbade any covenant with them, instead directing utter destruction of those peoples.

 

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all grievous sin. (I John, 1:7)

Put it in context, please, with at least the statement before and after it:

"If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking darkness, we lie and do not do what it true; but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

This is saying we sin, but by the grace of God we get a second chance to have a relationship with God after all. Otherwise, having made even one mistake, we would be condemned, hopeless, and there would be no point to even try. Instead, we can learn from our mistakes to be better people and have a better relationship with God.

 

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience eternally. (Hebrews 9:14)

This is directed at those familiar with sacrifice of unblemished animals for forgiveness of sins. If being willing to obediently give up prized possessions equates to forgiveness, then being obediently willing to give up everything one has, including one's life, should equate to much greater forgiveness - and this forgiveness was requested to be used on our behalves. God loves us enough to give us a reason to keep trying even when we may think it's hopeless.

 

let us draw near to G-d with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from any guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water (Hebrews 10:22)

 

Blessed are those

    whose transgressions are forgiven,

    whose sins are covered.

Blessed is the one

    whose sin the Lord will never count against them (Romans 4:7-8)

 

This problem is a big one -- the sins are never counted against them. They're "covered," and in some verses "hidden," not treated with proper consequence.

It is not a problem, it is more of the same concept explained above - we cannot live if we are already lost, so God gives us a second chance. The goal is for each one of us to develop a healthy relationship with God.

 

And, probably the most heinous of verses about the whole thing, let's just flat out lie.

 

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Hebrews 9:22)

According to the law, when there is a temple, blood sacrifices are the preferred way. You have said yourself that your messiah cannot come now because he could not fulfill the law without being able to perform the rituals in the temple. If the author of the letter understood blood sacrifice as the only way to true forgiveness, perhaps that is because that was what was taught by the temple leaders at the time.

 

No. What makes you say so?

Because Alpha1 could use your exact words to refute you in the same manner that you did me. In both cases, I think it is wrong to assume limitations on the capacity in which God may operate.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Awdz Bodkins

[brairtrainer]

The point is, those all indicate a paradox about God being the single omnipotent, omnipresent Creator of the universe. It appears that you accept that paradox, yet you automatically disdain any other even when it fits with God building a better relationship with the created, as though you know everything there is to know about God - which no human (other than Jesus) can. I'm saying there's more going on than we understand, but that fits with us developing a better relationship with God.

 

 

Yes I accept the paradox, but that is because I see God and his son Jesus as two people and one person at the same time. God is omnipotent, preforms miriacles, etc. Jesus was the form that he took as human and so to better relate to us covered most of his vision, making him no longer truely omnipontent. But thats just my personal belief.

 

Another thing, I take some stories in the bible literally, and others not. The story of creation I don't take as literally because it was used to explain two things. The creation of the earth as well as the seven day week therefore cannot be taken literally.

 

There is an uncanny resemblence to the story of creation and what we know about evelution in terms of when things evolved. Which has lead me to believe the story was simplified for the masses of that time. (because thinking that humans weren't around at the dawn of time was rough to think about.)