[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Why all the hatred? Is it because of some erroneous belief of yours that atheism has a morally superior historical track record? (If so, you should do some studying up on the 20th Century track record of communism, which is an atheist political movement. Atheism has caused more suffering, death and destruction in the world than even the worst manifestations of evil in religions.) Is it because you're in love with the thoroughly sick, twisted and decaying secular culture?

Communism isn't an "atheist political movement." There's no such thing, since atheism isn't a political belief. Besides, the source of communism's evil is government without restrictions. The tyranny of communism and the tyranny of Christendom had the exact same cause.

And I love our secular culture. Nothing sick, twisted, or decaying about it. Culturally, westerners today enjoy the greatest culture in history: freedom, science, and tolerance.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Communism isn't an "atheist political movement." There's no such thing, since atheism isn't a political belief.

Is Christianity a political belief? It's possible to have a Christian political movement.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Is it because of some erroneous belief of yours that atheism has a morally superior historical track record? (If so, you should do some studying up on the 20th Century track record of communism, which is an atheist political movement. Atheism has caused more suffering, death and destruction in the world than even the worst manifestations of evil in religions.) Is it because you're in love with the thoroughly sick, twisted and decaying secular culture?

That's a rather `interesting' point of view on the history of mankind and requires you to ignore centuries of abominable crimes committed in the name of religion. Even today, most bloody conflicts on Earth have a religious component (even if it is just a purported justification of war crimes).

The societies which flourish the most are those that are the most secular, first and foremost the United States. Secular societies with a firm stance on religious tolerance give you the best of all worlds: you can follow any belief you'd like and you're protected from persecution from others. On the contrary, societies and countries where religion is strong are typically stagnating.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Is Christianity a political belief? It's possible to have a Christian political movement.

Christianity is neither a political belief nor a political movement. That doesn't mean Christianity doesn't enter politics at times.

[Laminar]

...an "atheist political movement." There's no such thing, since atheism isn't a political belief.

Christianity is neither a political belief nor a political movement. That doesn't mean Christianity doesn't enter politics at times.

So could it be deducted that atheism enters politics at times?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The societies which flourish the most are those that are the most secular

Ahh, so that explains why North Korea is doing so well. I was wondering.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

In many ways. While I do believe that one can theoretically lead some kind of moral existence based on secular humanism alone, and while I believe I would be quite moral without religion, I also believe that devotion to Torah enhances my morality in many concrete ways. And I have also seen a lot of anecdotal proof of people acting in immoral ways because of a lack of the objective moral criteria that many religions provide.

Religion does not change the core of humanity, it does not improve who we are. People do not stop behaving immorally if they are faithful.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yes, I am more compassionate than I otherwise would be because of my religious outlook. I was less compassionate when Torah was not actively guiding my life. I have far greater compassion for the poor, for the disadvantaged, for the ignorant, for the disabled, etc..

In my opinion, the search for morals is a personal journey: you were looking for a moral yard stick and you've found it in religion. Others look elsewhere and do not feel the need to associate themselves with a particular religion. Or worse: they feel their sense of morality clashes with official doctrine.

One more concrete example: how do people cope with personal tragedies? Some people turn to religion, others turn away from religion and others do neither. So does religion help if you are faced with a tough situation? If you belong to the first group, then yes. But if you belong to the others, no. Religion isn't the be-all-end-all path, but just one of many.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I am less judgmental toward others and seek to create more peace and harmony, especially in my personal relationships.

I'm sorry to say, but that's not how you come across here. I will not make the mistake of thinking that your online persona is the same as the Big Mac in the real world, but when you post here, you often come across as someone who is rather judgmental, someone who has a less of a capacity to accept opinions and beliefs that differ from yours. This is in my opinion a trend among people who weren't just `born' into a religion, but who have found a rather strict variant of their religion of choice. These people tend to see something nefarious in people who hold convictions (political, religious, personal or otherwise) different from their own.

Perhaps I'm doing you wrong, but I can only judge you based on our interactions here.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

...you often come across as someone who is rather judgmental, someone who has a less of a capacity to accept opinions and beliefs that differ from yours.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

OK. I'll play. How does holding a religious belief help you to be a better person than not holding a religious belief?

Let's forget about moral codes and think about laws: we follow laws because there is punishment if we don't. Perhaps most would follow the law without threat of punishment, but at least some require that threat. Religion functions similarily: God rewards obedience and punishes defiance. The decline in belief in God and Hell has changed the way we think about ethical behaviour.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Again, the Torah is eternal and not subject to revision.

The oral Torah watered down ("revised") the really unpleasant stuff to non-existence.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Now you're asking me if it's possible for G-d to later become a man. And I say in response that it is impossible for G-d to become a man because to do so would violate His unchanging attributes that He has given us to know Him by, and we also know that according to G-d He does not change. It says in Isaiah that "even to (your) old age, I am the same," and says in Malachi 3 that "I the L-rd have not changed." Moreover, it would be utterly impossible for the G-d of the Hebrew Scriptures to ever incarnate and walk among men on earth and be perceived by them because G-d can not be "seen" by mortals and live. We learn this in Exodus 32 - even Moshe Rabbeinu, the highest prophet of all time - could not see G-d's "face" and live. Moshe had to be shielded by a rock AND by His hand while a more direct manifestation of G-d's presence passed by, and all Moshe was allowed to see was a glimpse of His "back," which our sages teach was the L-rd's Tefillin strap. That was for the highest prophet who G-d spoke to directly and who was trusted in all of G-d's house - even he was in danger from a glimpse of G-d's back. That's how you can know for a fact that equating a man (or someone in the form of man) with G-d is an utter falsehood by G-d's eternal standard, the Torah. His power is so immense that anything approaching a direct manifestation of His glory would kill any mortals around to see it. Any power short of that is plainly not G-d. Plus, G-d through Moshe's speech in Devarim (Deuteronomy) cautions us that we saw "no form" in the fire at Mount Sinai when He met the nation directly to give it the Torah and that any creation of a form to worship G-d through is a terrible corruption, a great sin that leads to very serious punishment.

God appears in human form several times in the Torah: "walking in the garden of Eden," or appearing with 2 angels shortly before destroying Sodom. The oral Torah "explains" this by saying an angel representing God appears as a proxy, but that's an interpretative slant, not in the text itself.

It makes little logical sense to say God can appear as a burning bush, or a pillar of fire or smoke, but can't appear as a man if he chooses, especially since man is "made in the image of God." (A statement with a dozen possible interpretations, and we have no idea what the original author intended to say.)

And God wears a Tefillin? That's a bizarre thing to believe. Seriously, that's the strangest thing I've ever heard a monotheist say about God.

I'd even fetch a large T and some big nails to kill that figure so that this time at least I could personally take credit for killing a false god. Harsh? Absolutely. Disrespectful? Surely, and I'm sorry it is. But that's the truth.

Uh, I don't think you're helping maintain a sane discussion.

There is actually a much better verse you could have challenged me with in response to my application of Number 23. But as for Samuel 15, that isn't even a good come back to me. Yes, the word "nacham" is used in both verses and usually translated as repent, but it's used in two different contexts. In Numbers 23:19 G-d is saying He does not relent from the good he intends to do, and that's why Balaam cannot offer a prophetic curse of the people whom G-d blesses. In that verse from Samuel, it is said that G-d regretted (nacham) making Saul king because He knew Saul would transgress. Those are two different uses of the word nacham with two entirely different contexts, just as words in any language can have different meanings depending on context.

Sorry, I don't buy this. God expresses something like regret several times, for instance after flooding the earth. And he promises to never do it again. So God does change: from a God who would flood the earth to a God who wouldn't flood the earth.

As for lpk's examples, if you're referring to his apologies for abused quotations of the Hebrew Scriptures found in the gospels, I think I have shown such defenses cannot be maintained. lpk agreed with me that the gospels abuse quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures by improperly translating words, taking them out of their historical context, denying their blatantly obvious fulfillment in the context of history, and inserting them so far out of context that one can only defend the usage by claiming the quotations are being used completely non-literally just for the purpose of deceptively strengthening Christian claims.

I didn't make such a blanket statement. Sometimes the NT abuses the context, and sometimes it doesn't; it really depends on who's writing. Also, the NT's interpretation is often no worse than traditional rabbinic interpretations, or even self-referential interpretations in the Tanakh itself. For instance, Exodus says Moses was so named because he was taken from the water; this is false. "Moses" was a common Egyptian name of many Pharohs, such as Rameses ("Ra-Moses") and Ahmose and Thutmose ("Thoth-Moses"). Most "explanations" of name origins in the Torah are flatly wrong.

Going back to rabbinic vs NT interpretations, I doubt any exegesis older than 100 years or so carries much value anymore. We've learned more about the Bible in the last century than all other centuries combined. And some material remains undecipherable, as idioms or cultural cues have completely vanished. We'll never know why Israelites were banned from boiling baby goats in their mother's milk, but we can say with certainty that it has nothing to do with not eating cheeseburgers.

You as a Christian are accustomed to believing that you have a monopoly on religious truth, and you are also accustomed to believing for the most part the Christian lie that Jews are scorned and rejected by G-d.

No mainstream church believes this anymore. For instance, the Catholic Church asserts that the Covenant with the Jews is eternal. In the last century, Christianity's attitude to Judaism has completely changed, with the small exception of the irrelevant fringe groups. Most of this change is the result of modern exegesis of the NT: Paul clearly says that the Covenant is eternal, for instance.

I hope that with this reply I have begun to explain what these discussions for me are rooted in: out of a genuine regard for others and their spiritual welfare. Not for my own pride, enjoyment or narrow glorification.

Your comment about killing a false god says otherwise.

He desires faith in and service to Him alone. And it's clear to me, at least, that even the Christian Greek Testament affirms belief in only one single deity and does not equate Jesus with that deity.

You keep saying that, but the Book of John and the opening and closing of Revelation says otherwise. (Incidentally, Revelation to John was written in at least 2 stages: the central core which is very Jewish apocalyptic stuff, and very late Christian opening and closing.)

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

In many ways. While I do believe that one can theoretically lead some kind of moral existence based on secular humanism alone, and while I believe I would be quite moral without religion, I also believe that devotion to Torah enhances my morality in many concrete ways. And I have also seen a lot of anecdotal proof of people acting in immoral ways because of a lack of the objective moral criteria that many religions provide.

"Don't hurt people" isn't objective enough?

High ideals of Judeo-Christian morality cannot be denied as a part of the founding of America, the country that I believe to be one of the most powerful human forces for good in the history of the world.

Nit-pick: there's no such thing as "Judeo-Christian." It's a nonsense idea from the early Cold War. They were "Marxist-Leninist," we were "Judeo-Christian." But both religions are too broad with too many sects, so identifying a set of "Judeo-Christian values" is impossible.

For while many will disagree, I think that modern Western civilization values on morality, equality, fair treatment, proportionate justice, individual rights, etc. can clearly be traced to, indeed, Judaism. There's a reason why we call it Judeo-Christian values.

Count me disagreeable.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Sorry, I don't buy this. God expresses something like regret several times, for instance after flooding the earth. And he promises to never do it again. So God does change: from a God who would flood the earth to a God who wouldn't flood the earth.

Or is He always a God that would only flood the Earth once?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

So could it be deducted that atheism enters politics at times?

There is advocacy of theocracy, and opposition to theocracy. The specific prayers, funny hats, and songs are irrelevant. Theocracy is the same as other forms of tyranny.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ahh, so that explains why North Korea is doing so well. I was wondering.

Marxism is an apocalyptic religion, not secular at all.

[ebuddy]

Eesh, I thought I was wordy BigMac.

I'll be back on Sunday-ish to address your response. In the meantime, you seemed to have placed a theoretical limit on God's nature that is patently unnecessary and inconsistent. i.e. can you tell me how many meanings there are in English for the word "regret"? Why should I conclude that Hebrew would be any less definitive (as a language certainly more exhaustive and literal) than English with the Hebrew use of "nacham"?

I would also caution your audacity in claiming that someone is not diligently studying their Scriptures including the usage of Hebrew in its cultural and historical context. Your arguments must be extremely powerful to assume this authority and with due respect, I'm not sure you've shown your qualifications for this degree of confidence. For someone as dedicated to addressing popularized myth, you certainly employ more than your fair share of it in regards to Christianity. Some introspect for you I hope.

BTW, I've been curious about your having replaced "repent" with "relent" on a couple of occasions. I can't tell if this is deliberate or disingenuous. Regardless, I'll be back to address your response in more detail later.

[Chongo]

Several times through the Pentateuch and the books of the Prophets, the Spirit of the Lord/G-d is used (Ruach HaKodesh).
Geneisi 2

ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of G-d hovered over the face of the waters

Isaiah 61

א רוּחַ אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, עָלָי--יַעַן מָשַׁח יְהוָה אֹתִי לְבַשֵּׂר עֲנָוִים, שְׁלָחַנִי לַחֲבֹשׁ לְנִשְׁבְּרֵי-לֵב, לִקְרֹא לִשְׁבוּיִם דְּרוֹר, וְלַאֲסוּרִים פְּקַח-קוֹחַ. 1 The spirit of the Lord G-D is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to bring good tidings unto the humble; He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the eyes to them that are bound;

So, G-d and Ruach HaKodesh are one in the same?

[Big Mac]

This thread has been moving a bit faster than my desire to respond to it, but I'll try to get responses done some time today. You know, I was reflecting on this thread today and it came into my mind that this thread provides me with such a clear example of why the rabbis mourned the day the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into other languages. They weren't upset because they wanted to keep the knowledge to themselves, but rather they were upset because the non-Jewish world would misinterpret, misuse and abuse the Scriptures - sometimes willfully, other times inadvertently. If you take the Hebrew out of the Hebrew Scriptures - both in terms of original language and in terms of the capacity to think and understand in the Hebraic context - then you very likely will misunderstand, misinterpret and misuse the Scriptures. And really I'm not targeting this narrowly to Christians (or to Muslims); it applies to agnostics and atheists as well.

In the mean time I want to respond to Chongo's post above mine: It's funny, my cousin and I were just discussing this point earlier. You really think the existence of G-d's spirit (ruach in Hebrew) means there are two distinct deities or two distinct parts of a complex unified godhead, Chongo? If you think so, then think about this. I could say that my hands are typing this reply right now, but are my hands distinct from the rest of me? Do they have any independent will? I would hope not, but if so I'd have to look into treatment for multiple personality disorders. And neither does G-d's spirit have an independent will - it's a noted part of His essence. Do you ever see it acting independently of G-d, or speaking independently of G-d? Does G-d ever speak to or concerning His spirit as if He is speaking to a different entity? Did the spirit of G-d create the earth independent of the rest of G-d? Absolutely not. G-d's spirit is an intrinsic aspect of Him. G-d puts His spirit on people and they speak words of prophecy, but G-d's spirit doesn't independently put itself on people. In fact, given that G-d actively puts His spirit on mortals for them to prophesy (rather than the divine spirit somehow independently putting itself on humans) shows with absolute clarity that His spirit is an intrinsic aspect of Him and not in any respect an independent and coequal part of a complex godhead. Btw, every human being has a divinely provided ruach, Chongo, just as G-d has a ruach. Our spirits are not distinctly separate or coequal with any other part of us as individual human beings - our spirit and soul parts are indivisible aspects of our existence. Likewise, neither is G-d's spirit in any way separate or divisible from the rest of Him. A noted aspect of Him, yes, and an attribute that teaches us about Him, yes, but never a coequal, coeternal, distinct personage and part of a complex multi-part godhead.

Edit: I think I already addressed Genesis 2. As for Isaiah 61, yes you are correct in stating there that the spirit of the L-rd is part of the L-rd. the spirit of the L-rd is upon Isaiah because the L-rd has anointed him to bring good tidings to the humble. The L-rd as anointed him and has placed His spirit upon Isaiah so that he may deliver prophecy. Do you read it any other way?

Now if you want to separate G-d into multiple deities you have the free will to do that, but G-d says that He is One and only and not a multitude of gods. Polytheists (and I'm not calling you a polytheist, mind you) are accustomed to worshiping many different manifestations of potentially divine power - that's why they have a multitude of deities. Polytheists classically had different deities for different powers they perceived in the heavens and the earth. Polytheists can look at different attributes of G-d and come up with many gods because there are different ways of perceiving Him. But that's not what G-d declares about Himself, and that's not what He wants us to know about Him. He declares throughout the Hebrew Scriptures that He is absolutely One and only, and that there are no other deities with Him. Separating Him and His spirit as two separate, distinct yet combined entities is completely contrary to the whole message of the Hebrew Scriptures.

But if you insist on creating two entities out of G-d and His spirit, why stop there? You can continue to divide Him in many ways if you're so inclined. What about the Angel of the L-rd? That's very similar to the spirit of the L-rd, right? G-d's angel is closely linked to G-d and is called by His name, Torah says. So if I were sitting at the table with the vile Constantine at the Council of Nicea, when Trinitarian Christianity was being enforced as the definitive doctrine of Christianity, I would have asked, if you're going to divide G-d and His spirit why stop there? You guys should have a Quadarian deity by all rights. And I'm sure there are many other ways to divide G-d into yet more parts. If you were so inclined, you could take each major name or title that the L-rd goes by and divide Him into parts based on those different divine appellations. You could do that, but that definitely doesn't fly according to the TaNaKh and Torah Judaism.

But let's try to assume your belief for the sake of argument. If G-d had, Chas v'Shalom, intended to tell us that He should be understood as one Deity with two or three or more distinct, co-equal, co-eternal personages or divisions that are in compound one, then He would have come out and told us such explicitly in the Torah and the rest of the NaKh. He wouldn't have said over and over and over again throughout the Hebrew Scriptures that He is one, that no other deities should be worshiped along with Him, and that in truth there are no other deities with Him or other than Him. There is no trace of a dual, tripartite, quad or penti-deity in the Hebrew Scriptures - very much entirely the opposite. And again the point I'll make is that the Torah is eternal and not subject to revision, and no matter what anyone says if there is a religious doctrine not found in the Torah I as a Jew must unequivocally reject it. And dividing G-d isn't simply not in the Torah by omission, a complex, multi-part godhead is a doctrine that is actively, repeatedly and unambiguously rejected by the Torah. And it certainly doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Communism isn't an "atheist political movement." There's no such thing, since atheism isn't a political belief. Besides, the source of communism's evil is government without restrictions. The tyranny of communism and the tyranny of Christendom had the exact same cause.

But at least when Christians were tyrannical they thought they were serving a higher purpose/their deity. When communists have been tyrannical their tyranny has been for its own sake/their own ends. There is a qualitative difference and a huge quantitative difference.

And I love our secular culture. Nothing sick, twisted, or decaying about it. Culturally, westerners today enjoy the greatest culture in history: freedom, science, and tolerance.

No? You seriously don't think so? Western society is sick, and it's dying, and if you don't see that then you're shutting your eyes to it. We see the evidence all around us of the decay today. We see that the United States is falling apart, for one, and so is Western Europe. We're being destroyed by Socialist deficit spending and enormous Socialist, quasi-fascist governments. And just look at the decay in society. Various forms of perversion and immorality are so ubiquitous as to be commonplace. Promiscuity is celebrated by the media, and divorce rates are very high. Corruption in government is at epidemic levels, but again such is tolerated as business as usual. Most of those ills indicate a distinct lack of morality, a morality that traditionally comes from religion.

Secondly, the great antecedents of freedom in western society, whether you look at the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence, have substantial religious components.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's a rather `interesting' point of view on the history of mankind and requires you to ignore centuries of abominable crimes committed in the name of religion. Even today, most bloody conflicts on Earth have a religious component (even if it is just a purported justification of war crimes).

I have no qualms with those statements. You're right about most bloody conflicts today having a religious component, unfortunately, and it's usually one religion responsible: Islam. I created a thread on that subject not too long ago. But nonetheless the greatest mass murdering in history has been committed by the godless Nazi and Communist regimes - that's a fact.

The societies which flourish the most are those that are the most secular, first and foremost the United States. Secular societies with a firm stance on religious tolerance give you the best of all worlds: you can follow any belief you'd like and you're protected from persecution from others. On the contrary, societies and countries where religion is strong are typically stagnating.

Uh, the United States is certainly NOT a country with one of the most secular societies. However, I will grant that you are right regarding the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise and preclusion of establishment of religion, which provides an excellent balance protecting religion and not forcing it down other people's throats. Yet, I wouldn't call the Constitution a purely secular charter. If it were then religion would be restricted. In truth the Constitution is religiously neutral for the sake of protecting all religions and promoting none particularly.

Edited Addition:

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Religion does not change the core of humanity, it does not improve who we are. People do not stop behaving immorally if they are faithful.

I don't mean to sound preachy, OreoCookie, but you speak as a man who has no personal experience sincerely incorporating religion into your own life, and since you haven't experienced it for yourself, you don't understand or appreciate its effects. Nor are you ever likely to accept as truth the positive moral effects others describe as a result of embracing religious ethics. And that's understandable. Before I became a penitent Torah observer, I would sometimes listen to preachers and think how high and mighty they were for extolling the virtues of religiosity. But now I sometimes make the same points they make, and it's not because I want to sound like a preacher. It's because I now see first hand what they were talking about. I still believe that one can potentially be a moral person without religion and just purely on a humanistic basis, but I now know that that level of morality can never be as strong as the morality that has its basis on the objective moral criteria that some religions provide.

In my opinion, the search for morals is a personal journey: you were looking for a moral yard stick and you've found it in religion. Others look elsewhere and do not feel the need to associate themselves with a particular religion. Or worse: they feel their sense of morality clashes with official doctrine.

The search for morals is a personal journey - yes absolutely I agree with that point. However, I disagree with you when you say that I was looking for a moral yard stick. I was content with my level of morality prior to becoming more religious. I became more religious not out of a desire to gain a better standard of morality but instead to put my belief that the Torah is truth into practice by living closer to the Torah standard. (I must also admit that my original level of morality was not based on a purely secular standard; it was based at least in part on my original level of Jewishness.)

One more concrete example: how do people cope with personal tragedies? Some people turn to religion, others turn away from religion and others do neither. So does religion help if you are faced with a tough situation? If you belong to the first group, then yes. But if you belong to the others, no. Religion isn't the be-all-end-all path, but just one of many.

I have never claimed otherwise.

I'm sorry to say, but that's not how you come across here. I will not make the mistake of thinking that your online persona is the same as the Big Mac in the real world, but when you post here, you often come across as someone who is rather judgmental, someone who has a less of a capacity to accept opinions and beliefs that differ from yours.

You are correct not to assume that my online persona is the same as my offline personality - they are different. My relative level of anonymity around here affords me the opportunity to be less filtered and less concerned with saying controversial things than I otherwise would be on a daily basis. However, these are my views and I stand by them. Politically I am often not accepting of divergent views because I think that very often in politics there are very clear demarcations between right and wrong views. And politically I am very serious about what I see as violations, falsehoods, corruptions and degradations of truth and justice. However, if back in 2008 I had possessed the level of faith that I now possess, I probably would have been much less vitriolic toward the election of President Obama. I accept G-d's will that allowed a left-wing radical unqualified for high office to be elected. It's part of the divine plan.

Religiously I am accepting of the beliefs of others to the extent that I do not wish to convert others and recognize that there are many paths to the divine. But nonetheless when it comes to religion I am even less accepting of violations, falsehoods, corruptions and degradations because I take such things very, very seriously.

This is in my opinion a trend among people who weren't just `born' into a religion, but who have found a rather strict variant of their religion of choice. These people tend to see something nefarious in people who hold convictions (political, religious, personal or otherwise) different from their own.

Some of what you write here is accurate, some is not. I was born into a religion, Judaism, and I came to realize that in order to live according to my beliefs I had to become a much more Torah-observant Jew. That much is absolutely true. It's also true that politically speaking I do indeed ascribe nefarious motives to certain wrongheaded political actions and views that other people hold. Other I ascribe to ignorance. When it comes to religion, much of the disagreements I have with others is as a result, IMO, of their ignorance of given religious topics. Those who originally corrupted the religion that came to be Christianity were either woefully ignorant or evil, or both, but Christians that have based themselves on those teachings are almost entirely not evil, just ignorant.

Perhaps I'm doing you wrong, but I can only judge you based on our interactions here.

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. I think that some of your observations are true, but in other respects you yourself are quick to judge others.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But at least when Christians were tyrannical they thought they were serving a higher purpose/their deity. When communists have been tyrannical their tyranny has been for its own sake/their own ends.

What kind of justification is that. If anything, religion was in most cases just a pretext, wars have been waged to increase the political influence. South America has not been colonized to convert all those misguided indian tribes to Christianity, but it was about acquiring resources and wealth.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No? You seriously don't think so? Western society is sick, and it's dying, and if you don't see that then you're shutting your eyes to it. We see the evidence all around us of the decay today. We see that the United States is falling apart, for one, and so is Western Europe.

We're living longer than ever before, we're safer than ever before. My grandparents' generation could have died in a war while there has been no war in Europe since the end of World War 2.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And just look at the decay in society. Various forms of perversion and immorality are so ubiquitous as to be commonplace. Promiscuity is celebrated by the media, and divorce rates are very high. Corruption in government is at epidemic levels, but again such is tolerated as business as usual. Most of those ills indicate a distinct lack of morality, a morality that traditionally comes from religion.

These traits have always existed in society, they were just hidden better. With the internet it's much easier to spread information to the most remote corners of the world. Something that was virtually impossible 100 years ago. Not too long ago, slavery was commonplace and accepted, of course there was as much sex as there is today. Morality of religion makes people hide these things.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: your degree of religiousness has very little to do with whether you act according to a strict code of ethics or not. Some of the 9/11 hijackers (which we can all agree on claimed to be very devout muslims) had porn on their computer -- just like the rest of us. Catholicism doesn't stop mafiosi in Latin America or Italy from extorting and killing people in the most brutal ways imaginable.

If you want to look at the most problematic countries, it's typically those that do not have attained a sufficient degree of secularity and democratization. On the surface, you can make the argument that it's just the opposite of what you claim: the societies that are the most religious tend to be in the worst shape. I could cite statistics of violent crimes, for instance. But in my opinion, the fact whether a country is a secular democracy and to what degree has much more to say about whether society is `sick' or not.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have no qualms with those statements. You're right about most bloody conflicts today having a religious component, unfortunately, and it's usually one religion responsible: Islam. I created a thread on that subject not too long ago.

That's politics of today. If you look a little back, e. g. at the Thirty Years War, you have a long, drawn out war where Protestants and Catholics were fighting over land. It decimated about 15-30 % of Germany's population (~17 million people). While what you're saying is true today, the reason can be traced back to the secularization of Europe. That's what took Christianity out of many equations. But I think it's not because Christianity is a more `docile' religion, but that societies which have emerged from Christian countries have mostly moved to secular states.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But nonetheless the greatest mass murdering in history has been committed by the godless Nazi and Communist regimes - that's a fact.

If you relate the number of casualties to the total population, there are quite a few genocides that come close to the crimes of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. About 75 % (1.5 million of 2 million) of the Armenian minority was eradicated in the time span between 1915 and 1917. I don't want to downplay the significance of these atrocities in the slightest bit, but I want to point out that if you put those war crimes into perspective with other historical events, there are others of a similar order of magnitude.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Uh, the United States is certainly NOT a country with one of the most secular societies.

You're confusing secular with atheist/non-religious. Secular just means that one's religion is a private matter and not regulated by the state.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yet, I wouldn't call the Constitution a purely secular charter. If it were then religion would be restricted. In truth the Constitution is religiously neutral.

The no establishment clause says clearly that there is a separation of state and church/religion. By definition of the word this means the US Constitution establishes a secular state.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Western society is sick, and it's dying, and if you don't see that then you're shutting your eyes to it. We see the evidence all around us of the decay today.

I suspect you only think this because there's a liberal President in the White House and that your perceived decay will end as soon as a conservative is back in there.

[The Final Dakar]

There was an earthquake 30 miles from DC. Heavenly commentary on the financial reform bill?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But nonetheless the greatest mass murdering in history has been committed by the godless Nazi and Communist regimes - that's a fact.

Adolf Hitler's religious views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The no establishment clause says clearly that there is a separation of state and church/religion. By definition of the word this means the US Constitution establishes a secular state.

By reading the Federalist papers, you'll understand that the US would not have an official religion, or endorse any specific one. It never says a separation exists. The rest is legislation from the bench.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

By reading the Federalist papers, you'll understand that the US would not have an official religion, or endorse any specific one. It never says a separation exists. The rest is legislation from the bench.

The no establishment clause in the Constitution is quite clear, the first part, `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' is the clause that establishes a separation of church and state, i. e. by definition of the word, the US is a secular state.

The second half of the text, `… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' ensures that the state does not give preference of religion A over religion B or religion A over no religion at all, etc.

But let's not side-track the discussion here.

[Big Mac]

Please note that I had to put my additional responses to OreoCookie in an edit of my previous post because this one ended up too long with them in it.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Let's forget about moral codes and think about laws: we follow laws because there is punishment if we don't. Perhaps most would follow the law without threat of punishment, but at least some require that threat. Religion functions similarily: God rewards obedience and punishes defiance. The decline in belief in God and Hell has changed the way we think about ethical behaviour.

I think that's definitely correct.

The oral Torah watered down ("revised") the really unpleasant stuff to non-existence.

That would be false (but I do thank you for using the term oral Torah). The oral Torah sometimes made modifications to mitzvot in order for them not to be openly violated, but those cases are rare. The one really notable example is the Prozbul, a loosening of the Torah standard pertaining to the release of debts after 7 years. It was a necessary rabbinical enactment to loosen that mitzvah because people were suffering because they could not obtain loans given default fears, and that was prompting the violation of the mitzvah not to withhold money because of the approach of the seventh year. In earlier times when there were much higher levels of holiness, the mitzvah could stand on its own, but in the nation's degraded condition an exception needed to be made. If you can point out some other "really unpleasant" examples please do so. Actually, the common charge against the Talmud is that it added restrictions by instituting rabbinical fences that prevent Jews from committing Torah sins by fencing off areas of conduct that otherwise would be permissible but which would put the people in closer proximity to activities the Torah forbids. That's quite different from the Torah being watered down.

God appears in human form several times in the Torah: "walking in the garden of Eden," or appearing with 2 angels shortly before destroying Sodom. The oral Torah "explains" this by saying an angel representing God appears as a proxy, but that's an interpretative slant, not in the text itself.

How do you know that G-d "walking in the garden" means in any way that He literally took on a human form? Scripture sometimes uses anthropomorphic descriptions of G-d for humans to relate to, but that does not mean He ever literally appeared as a form that one could visibly perceive. And beyond that, the Torah forbids the people to ever represent Him as any likeness, calling it a corruption:

"And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form, the likeness of male or female." Deut. 4:15.

When Christians worship a statue of Jesus on the cross they are worshiping a graven image. But even when Protestants worship just the mental conception of a man as god they are worshiping a likeness, and the worship of any likeness is impermissible according to the Torah.

As for your claim that G-d appeared with two angels. I understand why Christians get that wrong because truthfully I can see where the confusion comes up, but it's clearly a very wrong belief and I'm surprised that a person with your level of knowledge would make that mistake. I want you to read the text carefully, particularly chapter 18 (mentioned just so that others know the chapter we're discussing) verses 21-23, and I think you'll see the obviousness of your error. And besides the direct chapter and verse disproof of your claim, how can you possibly claim that Abraham was allowed to visibly see a form of G-d given that Moshe who is clearly much greater than Abraham was not allowed to?

It makes little logical sense to say God can appear as a burning bush, or a pillar of fire or smoke, but can't appear as a man if he chooses, especially since man is "made in the image of God." (A statement with a dozen possible interpretations, and we have no idea what the original author intended to say.)

No image was seen at Sinai when the people experienced G-d's direct revelation, anyone who teaches G-d can be likened to an image is called corrupt, and G-d tells Moshe no man can see His face and live. That's conclusive and absolute. Now there is a minority view that G-d could potentially have a form that no one is allowed to see, but the majority hold that He has no form and that any reference to elements of a form are metaphorical. A Theophany is very different from a direct manifestation. In other words, G-d showed himself through the burning bush, and His presence was manifestly at Mount Sinai in the fire, but you can't say the bush or the mountains are the physical forms of G-d.

And God wears a Tefillin? That's a bizarre thing to believe. Seriously, that's the strangest thing I've ever heard a monotheist say about God.

I don't know why. It may be a surprising teaching, but I don't know why it would be strange for a monotheist to say. I don't even get the reference you're trying to make by saying that.

Uh, I don't think you're helping maintain a sane discussion.

Perhaps not in that regard, but I'm just explaining my level of devotion to the Torah. It is divine and eternal. It will never be changed or revoked in any way. I'm just explaining my level of devotion to it. Even if there were an historical Jesus, nothing anyone can say about that figure changes one iota of Torah. If such a figure called himself G-d back then he deserved to die, and if anyone claimed the same today that person would deserve to die as well. The Torah is eternal and not subject to revision or revocation.

Sorry, I don't buy this. God expresses something like regret several times, for instance after flooding the earth. And he promises to never do it again. So God does change: from a God who would flood the earth to a God who wouldn't flood the earth.

G-d does express regret, certainly, and I already explained the nature of His regret. As for your contention that He regretted flooding the earth, I don't see that anywhere in the text. The flood was a necessary disaster because the earth had become perverted, and G-d didn't regret His judgment. He pledged that due to Noah's righteousness He would never again destroy His work by flood, but on the other hand He never said no other global disasters would ever occur, did he?

I didn't make such a blanket statement. Sometimes the NT abuses the context, and sometimes it doesn't; it really depends on who's writing. Also, the NT's interpretation is often no worse than traditional rabbinic interpretations,

Such as?

or even self-referential interpretations in the Tanakh itself. For instance, Exodus says Moses was so named because he was taken from the water; this is false. "Moses" was a common Egyptian name of many Pharohs, such as Rameses ("Ra-Moses") and Ahmose and Thutmose ("Thoth-Moses"). Most "explanations" of name origins in the Torah are flatly wrong.

Flatly wrong? Au contraire. The Hebrew etymology of Moshe as "to draw out" is perfectly fine from a Hebrew point of view. It's only wrong if you assume that the princess could not have named him a Hebrew name, and given that she knew it was a Hebrew child it makes perfect sense that she could have done just that. Please, lpk, if you think you know better than Torah you should wake up out of your slumber and apologize. (In fact, the old Jewish Encyclopedia found online says that the only reason why that etymology is questioned is because scholars of the time the encyclopedia was authored doubted that the Egyptian would know any Hebrew. But she clearly knew something about the Hebrews, so that critical explanation against the text doesn't hold in my view.)

Going back to rabbinic vs NT interpretations, I doubt any exegesis older than 100 years or so carries much value anymore. We've learned more about the Bible in the last century than all other centuries combined.

I forget in what context you are writing those specific lines, but I don't really know how you can possibly claim that any Christian scriptural interpretation older than 100 years no longer carries much value. That cannot be the case, for if it were Christians would have to reject the so-called New Testament completely. The gospels are riddled with false interpretations, often willfully false ones. It's a religion based on a false claims, as much as I hate to offend my Christian friends by saying such a thing. The truth is the truth. If outmoded interpretations that have been debunked no longer apply then the interpreter in question invariably would have to throw out the Christian canon completely.

And some material remains undecipherable, as idioms or cultural cues have completely vanished. We'll never know why Israelites were banned from boiling baby goats in their mother's milk, but we can say with certainty that it has nothing to do with not eating cheeseburgers.

Why? How can you say with certainty that the prohibition against boiling a calf in its mother's milk has nothing to do with cheeseburgers? Based on what interpretive model do you make that claim? Personally, I base myself on what was handed down from Sinai, which I believe to be captured in the Talmud.

No mainstream church believes this anymore. For instance, the Catholic Church asserts that the Covenant with the Jews is eternal.

I'd be very interested to see a source for that. I know that the Church retracted its assertion of deicide (although whichever Mormon church Glenn Beck goes to didn't get that memo, even though Mormons normally have an affinity for Jews), but if you can show me where the Church says that the Sinai covenant is eternal I'd be happy to note that.

In the last century, Christianity's attitude to Judaism has completely changed, with the small exception of the irrelevant fringe groups. Most of this change is the result of modern exegesis of the NT: Paul clearly says that the Covenant is eternal, for instance.

Where? As I've admitted, I can barely read that material without losing my lunch, so if that's something I've overlooked I'll be pleased to note it as well.

Your comment about killing a false god says otherwise.

It's hard to talk about these topics without sounding inflammatory. I'm merely stating a fact. If there were an historical Jesus who did equate himself with G-d, I would have been among the first to pick up stones against him. False prophets and false gods are sentenced to death, and the Torah calls for no mercy on their account.

You keep saying that, but the Book of John and the opening and closing of Revelation says otherwise.

John is more explicit with the linkage, but even John still doesn't completely equate Jesus with his deity. When Jesus is asked how he can see "the Father and I are one," he tells the Jews ready to stone him that the Scriptures call them gods. Are we supposed to read that Jesus was deceitfully downplaying his claim, or are we supposed to believe that he was truthfully saying that he as a (supposedly) righteous Jews has a claim to call himself one with the deity, as does any other righteous Jew? The Christian scriptures are full of tortured theological dilemmas like that one.

As for Revelation, it too portrays Jesus as being lesser than the deity. Look at the opening line, "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place."

(Incidentally, Revelation to John was written in at least 2 stages: the central core which is very Jewish apocalyptic stuff, and very late Christian opening and closing.)

I am aware of that. It was originally just a derivative of Daniel.

"Don't hurt people" isn't objective enough?

That's objective, but what authority is saying "don't hurt people?" Is that a universal command? Is there such a thing as self-defense or just wars? What if you're starving and you have to take food by force? What if you're anti-social? There are a lot of ifs to ponder if you're just basing yourself on very broad moral precepts.

Nit-pick: there's no such thing as "Judeo-Christian." It's a nonsense idea from the early Cold War. They were "Marxist-Leninist," we were "Judeo-Christian." But both religions are too broad with too many sects, so identifying a set of "Judeo-Christian values" is impossible.

That's an interesting explanation of the term and a good point. I'll have to research that aspect further. As I said I don't really love the term myself, but whether or not it was coined in the era of the Cold War doesn't change the fact that it's remained part of the popular lexicon.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Eesh, I thought I was wordy BigMac.

I eat this stuff up. It's a fun pass time to be able to debate like this, so I naturally indulge.

I'll be back on Sunday-ish to address your response. In the meantime, you seemed to have placed a theoretical limit on God's nature that is patently unnecessary and inconsistent. i.e. can you tell me how many meanings there are in English for the word "regret"? Why should I conclude that Hebrew would be any less definitive (as a language certainly more exhaustive and literal) than English with the Hebrew use of "nacham"?

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote, respectfully. I was arguing that there are indeed multiple meanings of the Hebrew term nacham but that they're very much dependent upon the context. The L-rd can express regret, certainly. But the passage we were discussing used "nacham" not in the context of regret but rather as relent. The prophecy Balaam spoke meant that G-d will not on the one hand intend to bless something and then subsequently not to do so. He wasn't talking about G-d being unable to regret that something occurred, because G-d does use nacham in the context of regretting things like making Saul king (since He knew ahead of time that He would have to strip the kingship but made Saul king for a period of time anyway because that was part of His plan). Nacham is used in that Numbers verse very specifically to say that what G-d blesses He will bless rather than relent (nacham) from doing so, and that Balaam has no power to curse what G-d intends to bless. Now if you want to insist the word nacham should be understood as repent instead, the reading doesn't make any sense: A number of times G-d is repenting/regretting things, as we've noted before. If nacham always had the same context (as you ebuddy seem to imply), then you cannot make sense of that verse. Nacham can mean repent, or it can mean relent. And in truth, very often you see it used with an entirely different meaning: comfort. If any person doubts that just check a concordance; they are available for free online.

Btw, there is the Talmudic teaching that any thing prophesied for good will ultimately always come to pass, but a negative prophecy is conditional and may be averted by repentance. That's what helps explain that prophecy - when G-d intends to do a positive action He will always do it.

I would also caution your audacity in claiming that someone is not diligently studying their Scriptures including the usage of Hebrew in its cultural and historical context. Your arguments must be extremely powerful to assume this authority and with due respect, I'm not sure you've shown your qualifications for this degree of confidence.

I am truly sorry that you took my previous words so personally. They weren't personally targeted toward you, ebuddy. Based on your reaction I'm starting to repent () my choice of holding these sorts of discussions here. I value you as a political ally and don't want at all to turn you into an enemy. Now that I have laid out so many of my views on Christianity in these threads, I will think long and hard in the future about saying anything more on the topic.

I was talking generally about Christians who may use the Hebrew Scriptures irresponsibly, not about you specifically. I don't really know much about your personal tendencies in that regard. What I do know is that the precedent set by your religion from its outset is not a positive one in how it deals with the Hebrew Scriptures. I can't really expect much other than the same from devout Christians who are fully invested in Christian theology. The Christian canon is irresponsible with my people's texts, so most Christians abide by that standard and base their thoughts on scriptural interpretation by the teachings of their canon. If that does not apply to you then I apologize if you took my general words as an indictment of your scholarship.

For someone as dedicated to addressing popularized myth, you certainly employ more than your fair share of it in regards to Christianity. Some introspect for you I hope.

I will be very happy to admit I am wrong if you can show me places where I have misconstrued aspects of Christianity.

BTW, I've been curious about your having replaced "repent" with "relent" on a couple of occasions. I can't tell if this is deliberate or disingenuous. Regardless, I'll be back to address your response in more detail later.

Deliberate or disingenuous? It is deliberate, and it's honest. Nacham can be translated either way depending on the context. Good Jewish translations of Numbers 23 use relent, for the reasons I already articulated. And as I noted above, it's used to mean comfort far more often than it's used to mean anything else.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's a religion based on a false claims, as much as I hate to offend my Christian friends by saying such a thing.

Oops. Talk about locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Let's just say that your recent output has had me seeing Luther's rants in a different light. And you made my ignore list.

You assume that my beliefs are based on "faith" (you've said this a couple of times), since I reject the OT. Never once did it occur to you that my beliefs are based on 20+ years of experimentation with reality - hard science, researching subjects which would fry your brain. It's not "faith" - it's "know". "Faith" is for beginners, as are your books.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The truth is the truth.

The truth is that you should get on your knees and ask God what the truth is, instead of following the teachings of fat old politicians in posh frocks.

You don't know the truth... You read books and follow rules invented by men. You restrict God with your man-made rules. You know nothing of God. Get on your knees and find out the truth - He will answer.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't mean to sound preachy, OreoCookie, but you speak as a man who has no personal experience sincerely incorporating religion into your own life, and since you haven't experienced it for yourself, you don't understand or appreciate its effects.

That's awfully presumptuous: you don't know me nor do you know my path in life. On two occasions in life was I interested in different religions (Catholicism and Buddhism), but I decided against joining both of them. I can tell you the story, but I don't think it's particularly relevant.

In case of Catholicism, I simply disagreed with the official stance on moral issues on too many occasions, for instance. My family raised my siblings and me so that we could choose our own religion. To claim I don't understand just because I haven't turned towards religion to seek guidance is arrogant and wrong (not in the moral sense, but in the factual sense), I have made a conscious decision against any particular religion. Personally, I was able to take much, much more out of Buddhist texts than the Bible.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

… but I now know that that level of morality can never be as strong as the morality that has its basis on the objective moral criteria that some religions provide.

I disagree about the use of the word objective: nothing can be objective. It's God-given if you believe in it, but it isn't objective.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The search for morals is a personal journey - yes absolutely I agree with that point. However, I disagree with you when you say that I was looking for a moral yard stick. I was content with my level of morality prior to becoming more religious. I became more religious not out of a desire to gain a better standard of morality but instead to put my belief that the Torah is truth into practice by living closer to the Torah standard. (I must also admit that my original level of morality was not based on a purely secular standard; it was based at least in part on my original level of Jewishness.)

I originally wanted to write something like `emptiness' or `desire for some `truth'' rather than the search for a moral yard stick. But in any case, you draw your sense of morality from following the Torah strictly, right? And now you're following it more strictly than before, correct? So even if a search for moral guidance wasn't one of your most pressing needs turning to the Torah was the solution for, you now draw your moral guidance from the Torah, sola scriptura?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

However, these are my views and I stand by them. Politically I am often not accepting of divergent views because I think that very often in politics there are very clear demarcations between right and wrong views. And politically I am very serious about what I see as violations, falsehoods, corruptions and degradations of truth and justice.

…

It's also true that politically speaking I do indeed ascribe nefarious motives to certain wrongheaded political actions and views that other people hold. Other I ascribe to ignorance. When it comes to religion, much of the disagreements I have with others is as a result, IMO, of their ignorance of given religious topics. Those who originally corrupted the religion that came to be Christianity were either woefully ignorant or evil, or both, but Christians that have based themselves on those teachings are not almost entirely not evil, just ignorant.

I don't think having very little tolerance and being open about it is a very good trait and frankly, it's the only type of person that very quickly irritates me. I think it's misguided and you lack humility, an attribute I associate with quite a few religious leaders.

And I wouldn't like to be part of a religion that thinks of people who think differently as a mixture of nefariousness, ignorance, woeful ignorance and evil. I think it's the worst one can draw from religion.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Oops. Talk about locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I'm sorry any of this comes as a shock to you Doofy. You've known I'm a religious Jew, right? Part of that means I reject Christianity unequivocally. It means I see through it as false, at least to the great extent that it worships a man as a deity - a Jewish man who supposedly lived and died 2,000 years ago and could not fulfill the prophecies he himself allegedly made of his imminent return to usher in his father's kingdom. I'm sorry that that is disturbing news to you.

Let's just say that your recent output has had me seeing Luther's rants in a different light. And you made my ignore list.

Which parts of his rants? That Christians should lock the doors of synagogues and burn Jews alive - that sort of thing?

As for your ignore list, I'm very sorry to know that. When we communicated by PM you told me that the only way I could severe our friendship is if I were to stab you in the back. I have done no such thing. Of course, I can't blame you for turning away from me because I see how much Christianity means to you, and it must be very painful for you to read my words. I would hope that one day you will come to reassess this situation and know that what I have posted in these threads is not a personal slight against you or any other Christian. I don't mean to offend you personally. What I mean to do is to shed holy light so that you can draw closer to the one and only G-d and His eternal Torah, instead of worshiping in a way that is called by Him corrupt numerous times. That's my hope.

You assume that my beliefs are based on "faith" (you've said this a couple of times), since I reject the OT.

That's definitely what you've implied, Doofy. Please forgive me if I've misunderstood you.

Never once did it occur to you that my beliefs are based on 20+ years of experimentation with reality - hard science, researching subjects which would fry your brain. It's not "faith" - it's "know". "Faith" is for beginners, as are your books.

Faith is for beginners? Not according to my scriptures or to your Christian canon. But the whole point I've been driving at in these threads is that I don't base my belief on faith alone. So when you say you've been experimenting with reality for 20 years, could you possibly clue the rest of us in on the nature of those experiments? If you think such things will fry my brain, I'm willing to hear the details, but experimentation and frying of brains sounds an awful lot like illicit drug references to me, and if that's what you're hinting at I'm not into that scene. And if I'm right in that assumption, I really don't think doing drugs can get you closer to the truth about the divine. Clearly in your case, Doofy, it has not, and I'm not saying that just to spurn you. In rejecting the Torah as you apparently do, even if you deny it, you're worlds away from the truth.

The truth is that you should get on your knees and ask God what the truth is, instead of following the teachings of fat old politicians in posh frocks.

I know the truth, Doofy. It just conflicts completely with what you hold. I'm sorry about that. We still believe in one G-d, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, do we not? I just know for a fact that that G-d would never incarnate, never violate the Torah and teach others to do so, never get killed by heathens, never allow people to write up a mixed up, contradictory, thoroughly corrupt set of texts that violate nearly everything established by the Hebrew Scriptures to be true, and never on top of all that promise an imminent return to end this world in the days of his initial followers' lives and then fail to deliver. I know that for a fact, and I hope one day you will too. If I'm right about the timeline, you'll find out not too long from now.

You don't know the truth... You read books and follow rules invented by men.

I abide first and foremost by the Torah, secondarily by the Navim (the Prophets) and closely thereafter by the Ketuvim (the Inspired Writings). After that I abide by the Talmud - the oral Torah and its commentaries. I also follow the teachings of my father and his fathers, and my rabbis and their rabbis, to know that my people were personally led out of Egyptian bondage by G-d. To know that my ancestors stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and came into direct contact with G-d and that millions of Jews received the Ten Commandments at that time. To know that Moshe Rabbeinu brought forth the whole Torah from Mount Sinai. To know the history of the prophets and the sages who taught us Torah through the generations. That's what I know and that's what I follow. Now if you want to say the Torah or the Navim or any other holy Jewish texts were "invented" by man as if to call them fictional, that's your call, although it's very strange if you're going to claim that and also say you're doing it in a Christian context.

And by the way, Doofy, if you're a Christian and rely on the Christian scriptures as you said you do, you should note that you're the one relying on the books made by men. Most of whom weren't even Jewish, did not receive the Torah at Sinai. Many of whom were known to be ignoramuses. Paul was known as a liar and a deceiver, and James only reluctantly allowed him to spread the religion. Yours is the faith of men, Doofy, not mine. I base myself on what's eternal, which is G-d's direct testimony that was written down from day one. I follow the religion of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Of Moses and of David. Your earliest scriptures weren't even written until decades after your deity was supposedly murdered by uncircumcised heathens, and then it was those same heathens who took your religion over and modeled it in their image after their polytheistic traditions, with a dying and resurrecting mangod placed in a Jewish setting. That's your religion, Doofy, and yet you mock me for my adherence to the one and only G-d and His eternal Torah? Stunning.

You restrict God with your man-made rules. You know nothing of God. Get on your knees and find out the truth - He will answer.

Nope. Sorry. If you want to claim such things try to debate me on the merits of what I've been writing in these threads, Doofy. At an early point you said you weren't even going to listen, and that's fine. Now you're saying you've put me on your ignore list. That's your prerogative. But if you're not going to give me a chance at all in your mind by even reading my posts, then you can't simultaneously claim that I restrict G-d with man-made rules. I know for a fact that through His Torah He teaches things about Himself that are true, and enduring, and that will never change. G-d's unchanging teachings about Himself and about what He expects of us are communicated in His Torah, which is called emet, truth. If you deny that and claim the Torah is a fabrication of man, then we're on two entirely different theological planets. I pray to G-d every day, but I don't pray for basic truths about Him since He already gave them to my people thousands of years ago.

And by the way, it may shock you, but I can tell you with certainty that the L-rd has already affirmed the path that I am on. Just this past Shabbos I got two positive providential indications that I'd have to be in a coma to ignore or chalk up to chance. And a few days later I was spared a serious car crash that I was shocked did not occur, would have been my fault if it had, and which would have otherwise totaled my car at the very least. G-d has already manifestly shown me I am doing His will, based on everything I know to be true. Some will, of course, mock me and tell me I'm a superstitious idiot for believing "chance" occurrences are actually manifestations of the divine will. While the skeptical side of me is sympathetic to that expressed skepticism, there's no way for me to be skeptical after these experiences. Now if you can claim the same about yourself, more power to you. Perhaps G-d truly wants you to be a Christian, at least for now. In the end, though, it's already prophesied that my people will be exalted for keeping His Torah. And I am confident that we are so very close to the day when your eyes will be opened, you will atone for your sins, and you too will seek His Torah in a manner unblemished by the baggage of idolatry. May that day come speedily for the sake of all of the King's children.

At this point I also want to declare the following: While I do not think such is the case, if I am going against the divine will by exposing my Christian friends to the light of Torah before the proper time, I very sincerely and contritely apologize from the deepest part of my soul. I think it is safe to do so since Torah truth is so widely available on the Internet, but if I am pushing too hard before the destined time I am very sorry. My zealousness for HaShem and His Torah compels me to act in this fashion, but if I am pushing those who aren't yet prepared to receive your Torah, G-d, then I humbly pray for your forgiveness.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And if I'm right in that assumption, I really don't think doing drugs can get you closer to the truth about the divine. Clearly in your case, Doofy, it has not, and I'm not saying that just to spurn you. In rejecting the Torah as you apparently do, even if you deny it, you're worlds away from the truth.

Clearly, from his posts everywhere on this forum, well....

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm sorry any of this comes as a shock to you Doofy. You've known I'm a religious Jew, right? Part of that means I reject Christianity unequivocally.

I have no truck with people who reject Christianity. That's their bag. And formally I had no problem with the Jewish rejection of it. That was until I saw how you reject it - with a world-class arrogance. I never realised that orthodox Jews are such assholes in how they go about this rejection - that's the only revelation to me here.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Which parts of his rants? That Christians should lock the doors of synagogues and burn Jews alive - that sort of thing?

I must have missed that bit.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As for your ignore list, I'm very sorry to know that. When we communicated by PM you told me that the only way I could severe our friendship is if I were to stab you in the back. I have done no such thing.

Other than declaring that copyright should only last four years, you mean? Those long copyrights are my retirement. You endorse taking money out of my retirement, that's stabbing me in the back.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Of course, I can't blame you for turning away from me because I see how much Christianity means to you, and it must be very painful for you to read my words. I would hope that one day you will come to reassess this situation and know that what I have posted in these threads is not a personal slight against you or any other Christian.

It pains me to see that you're so arrogant.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Faith is for beginners? Not according to my scriptures or to your Christian canon. But the whole point I've been driving at in these threads is that I don't base my belief on faith alone. So when you say you've been experimenting with reality for 20 years, could you possibly clue the rest of us in on the nature of those experiments? If you think such things will fry my brain, I'm willing to hear the details, but experimentation and frying of brains sounds an awful lot like illicit drug references to me, and if that's what you're hinting at I'm not into that scene. And if I'm right in that assumption, I really don't think doing drugs can get you closer to the truth about the divine. Clearly in your case, Doofy, it has not, and I'm not saying that just to spurn you. In rejecting the Torah as you apparently do, even if you deny it, you're worlds away from the truth.

Again, more arrogance.

You'll never get the details out of me - that kind of information isn't for those of limited intellect. At least one other person here knows exactly what I mean (and he won't give you the details either).

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I know the truth, Doofy. It just conflicts completely with what you hold. I'm sorry about that. We still believe in one G-d, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, do we not?

I believe in God. You believe in your ancestors.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I just know for a fact that that G-d would never incarnate, never violate the Torah and teach others to do so, never get killed by heathens, never allow people to write up a mixed up, contradictory, thoroughly corrupt set of texts that violate nearly everything established by the Hebrew Scriptures to be true, and never on top of all that promise an imminent return to end this world in the days of his initial followers' lives and then fail to deliver. I know that for a fact, and I hope one day you will too. If I'm right about the timeline, you'll find out not too long from now.

Don't hold your breath.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I abide first and foremost by the Torah, secondarily by the Navim (the Prophets) and closely thereafter by the Ketuvim (the Inspired Writings). After that I abide by the Talmud - the oral Torah and its commentaries. I also follow the teachings of my father and his fathers, and my rabbis and their rabbis, to know that my people were personally led out of Egyptian bondage by G-d.

I abide first and foremost by God. And then my mum. And then the MacNN moderators/admins.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And by the way, Doofy, if you're a Christian and rely on the Christian scriptures as you said you do

I didn't say that. I rely on God. Period.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

you should note that you're the one relying on the books made by men. Most of whom weren't even Jewish, did not receive the Torah at Sinai. Many of whom were known to be ignoramuses.

Your arrogance is astounding.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Nope. Sorry.

So, let's have this straight. You won't get on your knees and ask God directly what the truth is?
That sums it all up.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I pray to G-d every day, but I don't pray for basic truths about Him since He already gave them to my people thousands of years ago.

So, not even to double-check? Scared of what He might tell you?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I have no truck with people who reject Christianity. That's their bag. And formally I had no problem with the Jewish rejection of it. That was until I saw how you reject it - with a world-class arrogance. I never realised that orthodox Jews are such assholes in how they go about this rejection - that's the only revelation to me here.

Doofy, come now. You make it sound like I beat your child with a stick. You really take it that personally? Do you care how arrogant I am? Look at it from my perspective for a second. Various Christian denominations have been claiming for 2,000 years that without the blood sacrifice of Jesus, the most pious Jews will forever burn in hell. That we don't know the basics about the G-d we've been worshiping long before the advent of Christianity. Now here I come along in 2010 on the MacNN Forums and tell Doofy and ebuddy and other Christians who are watching that in fact you're worshiping a false god. Indeed, a false god who I would be proud to put to death if given the opportunity. A false god who supposedly, if you believe the gospels, violated G-d's eternal laws and taught others to do so. I also declared that your Christian scriptures are filled with falsehoods. I've said that theologically you don't know what you're talking about if you worship a mangod, and that the way you worship is corrupt according to the Torah. That's the jist of it. Did I ever accuse you of the absurd and filthy crime of killing a deity? Did I ever say any of you would go to hell for worshiping in a corrupt fashion, let alone suffer for all eternity? Absolutely not. We don't have to reciprocate in kind, nor do we feel it necessary to try to frighten non-believers with hell-fire in order to entice them to join our ranks. We just rely on truth. That's all.

Of course, I've also told you that there are many paths to G-d and that He must certainly be forgiving toward Christians because He allowed Christianity to prosper as it has. Frankly, what I've been telling you here happens to be far, far kinder than what your churches have been telling me people. But I understand why you react to me as you do. The truth hurts, Doofy. I'm sorry that our online friendship, such that it was, ended over it, but that's okay. This too was part of the divine plan.

I must have missed that bit.

That's quite all right. His Jew-hatred is legendary. And your unfortunate anger toward me proves a venerable saying.

Other than declaring that copyright should only last four years, you mean? Those long copyrights are my retirement. You endorse taking money out of my retirement, that's stabbing me in the back.

Wow, you're angry at me over a couple of posts I made on the subject of copyrights? That I really didn't see coming. Look, Doofy, that's just my insignificant opinion on the subject, and nothing will ever happen to your royalties just based on what I think. Personally, as a market trader I don't get royalties based on my trading performance. The notion that someone should perpetually get paid for productive work they've long since finished is one I have some trouble accepting. Very few industries pay out like that. I'm happy yours does, but you have to be prepared that the gravy train may end some day, regardless of what I think. Personally, I think it's absurd for you to fault me on that basis, of all things.

There's actually a similar issue in my line of work. The US futures regulatory agency, the CFTC, threatened in a proposal to drastically reduce the amount of margin that traders could access in the spot foreign currency market. I'm very much against that proposal because it would have a major impact on my bottom line and ability to profit in the future, but you know what? If you came out completely in support of that reduction in margin it wouldn't cause me to think of you as a backstabber in the least. To each his own, though.

It pains me to see that you're so arrogant.

Uh huh. There was nothing remotely arrogant about that particular set of statements you quoted. I'm truly sorry you feel that way, though.

You'll never get the details out of me - that kind of information isn't for those of limited intellect. At least one other person here knows exactly what I mean (and he won't give you the details either).

Yeah, I already know that besson's never going to tell me those exalted secrets.

I believe in God. You believe in your ancestors.

Cute. I believe in G-d, and I also have number of foundational supports for why and how I do so. I don't believe in G-d because He appeared to me in a dream or because I dropped acid and opened the Doors of perception in order to speak to him.

Doofy, just to satisfy my curiosity, are you calling yourself a prophet?

I didn't say that. I rely on God. Period.

So you weren't speaking of your own personal beliefs when you claimed that Jesus revoked the Hebrew Scriptures so that all that's left is the so-called New Testament? You don't believe in the text of the Christian scriptures?

When you say you believe in G-d, period, that means to me that you believe in a deity that you have personally defined. A god all to yourself, of your own personal creation. Not an objectively verifiable G-d that others have known, but a supernatural force based on your own parameters. Is that the deity you're talking about?

Your arrogance is astounding.

And you think you're not portraying any arrogance in this discussion? Not even a tad? You're saying that you have empirically, scientifically verified the truth of your religious beliefs and that your experimentation is known to one other person on these forums in particular. I wonder how many others have this earth shattering proof, exclusive divine information. I'm also wondering why you haven't moved to spread your gospel given that you think you know something that the general public and those of limited intellects have never heard of before. Just to confirm the claim.

So, let's have this straight. You won't get on your knees and ask God directly what the truth is? That sums it all up.

I pray to Him for a variety of things on a daily basis, including wisdom and truth. I'm not so arrogant or deluded to expect that He will make me a prophet and speak to me directly or have an angel come and tutor me. Besides, He has no need to conference with me because I already know His truth, which He gave to my people at Sinai. And yes, I trust my ancestors because they were the ones who received the national revelation at Sinai. And I am merely a link in the chain emanating from Sinai. I am merely the natural product of my mother and father, as they were to their parents, going all the way back to the giving of the Torah. I trust my ancestors, for I am the living embodiment of them, so I too received the Torah at Sinai, and so too will my children.

So, not even to double-check? Scared of what He might tell you?

Not in the least. As I said before, I can affirm without any doubt that He has already in the last two weeks validated the Torah path I'm on right now in spectacular ways that could not have occurred by chance. Ways in which I could never have even hoped for prior to them occurring because they were too fantastic to think of even occurring. He has already told me I am doing His will, and now all that's left is for me to perform to the best of my abilities for Him.

Sorry to have derailed this thread, guys. Lock whenever you see fit, mods.

[Doofy]

We're done, Biggie.

Now, you're going to assume that my lack of response is due to your superior arguments. I assure you that this is not the case - I simply see no profit in continuing. You cannot see what I see until you humble yourself and get on your knees, and since you're too arrogant to do that there's really no point. I don't cast pearls before swine.

Toodle pip.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Not an objectively verifiable G-d that others have known

Which one was that again?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

We're done, Biggie. Now, you're going to assume that my lack of response is due to your superior arguments. I assure you that this is no the case - I simply see no profit in continuing. You cannot see what I see until you humble yourself and get on your knees, and since you're too arrogant to do that there's really no point. I don't cast pearls before swine. Toodle pip.

Catch you on the flip side, Doofy. Sorry things had to end up like this, but I'm sure we can agree it's G-d's will so it's for the best. Oh, and lest you be left with the impression that I somehow don't humble myself in front of G-d - I absolutely do on a daily basis. I just don't go begging for the answers to elementary questions that I was taught by my parents according to His will when I was merely days old. To ask him the theological equivalent of 2+2 would be a stupid waste of my and His time. I'm not a kindergartner. But if that's where your religiosity takes you, then I'm glad it works for you.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But nonetheless the greatest mass murdering in history has been committed by the godless Nazi and Communist regimes - that's a fact.

Your god murdered a little over 33 million people. Maybe Hitler was only trying to emulate your god.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Catch you on the flip side, Doofy. Sorry things had to end up like this, but I'm sure we can agree it's G-d's will so it's for the best.

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

Sometimes kids can be cruel, they're kids. It's apart of growing up that we learn what is acceptable behavior. But seriously, murdering 42 children by having them mauled by bears? If that's God's will, he can go f*ck himself.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Your god murdered a little over 33 million people.

And that comes from where now?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And that comes from where now?

30 million people from the flood, then 3 million odd from the various other people murdered. You know, the roughly 50,000 innocent new born babies in Egypt, that sort of thing.

[Big Mac]

Okay, that's cute. So what? He made all of creation, so it's up to Him to do as He desires with it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Okay, that's cute.

Probably what the mother said right before her child was murdered.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So what?

Right, we'll just sweep that one under the rug. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

He made all of creation, so it's up to Him to do as He desires with it.

You worship an adulterous, murdering, sociopath. I'm not an expert in psychology, but those characteristics are generally frowned upon. If your god is capable of such atrocities, don't you think it's possible He's capable of something as simple as a lie? He probably told you He created the Universe so you wouldn't question his crazy antics... either that or someone just overheard Him trying to impress a girl. "I created the Universe. Wanna go back to my place?"

[Big Mac]

You can tell Him all that when you see Him, olePigeon. Deal? Best of luck with that line of argument. Oh, and btw, how does anything you noted count as adultery?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You can tell Him all that when you see Him, olePigeon. Deal? Best of luck with that line of argument. Oh, and btw, how does anything you noted count as adultery?

He impregnated a married woman.

[besson3c]

This thread has proven to be very entertaining. This almost resembles Abe at his peak... I will get on my knees and prey for more!

Will one of you please teach me how to prey properly? Do I drink the grape juice and the little cookie thing before and after I prey, and which hymn should I sing?

[olePigeon]

Well, you could sacrifice a goat or a bull on an alter. That's a good start. Then from there you can pretty much choose your pantheon. If you pray to God, Zeus, Osiris, Vishnu, and Odin, I think you have your bases covered. Oh wait, don't forget the Great Spirit and Quetzalcoatl.

[snoppyGurl]

This story is a waste of time. This wasn't some act of god or anything like that. If you believe in a god, cool, but this isn't some sign from him.

[Chongo]

Some random thoughts and questions.

Back in the day, if a "young woman" was NOT a virgin, the usual result was stoning.

When Big Mac said Yeshua could not save himself, It sure sounded a lot like "

Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us."

Is it true that Elohim is plural, and Eloah is the singular?

Why would Jacob name the place in which he wrestled "Penuel" (face of God) if he wrestled with an angel?

Big Mac, take a look at this website and tell us what you think.
Hoshana Rabbah

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Big Mac, take a look at this website and tell us what you think.
Hoshana Rabbah

Wow, lots of crazy here:

The prophecies of the Bible describe America geographically, politically and historically. The Bible describes America’s political, economic and military greatness. America’s arch-enemies in the end times will be the Islamo-Facists nations and their communist allies; Elohim will use America’s enemies to bring it to its knees spiritually.

It's like Mormonism meets Scofield.

[lpkmckenna]

Doofy and Big Mac have made 'NN history out of this thread. Glorious!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Big Mac, take a look at this website and tell us what you think.
Hoshana Rabbah

And when you are done please make me a sandwich.


... Somebody forgot the magic word.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

He impregnated a married woman.

Well, in case you missed the whole thrust of this discussion, I am not a Christian. I vehemently reject the notion that the G-d I know - the G-d of the Hebrew Scriptures - would ever cause His spirit to impregnate a woman. But it is a valid argument against Christians - Christian theology makes their conception of the deity an adulterer and their mangod a mamzer - a bastard born without a valid marital relationship. If they want to take their religion literally, it also makes that figure disqualified from being of the House of David (a key requirement of Mashiach) because tribal affiliation comes from the father and his lineage, but they claim Jesus did not have a biological human father.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This thread has proven to be very entertaining. This almost resembles Abe at his peak... I will get on my knees and prey for more!

I don't think you'll be getting much more because I'm pretty much done with this thread. My intention was only to debate religion, not alienate friends. I failed in that endeavor.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Back in the day, if a "young woman" was NOT a virgin, the usual result was stoning.

Not quite. If she falsely represented herself as a virgin when getting married and it was later determined she was not a virgin, she could be stoned. Or if she had been a virgin when betrothed but then found to have had sex with someone other than her husband, she could be stoned for that as well. But simply not being a virgin without being married was not a capital offense.

When Big Mac said Yeshua could not save himself, It sure sounded a lot like. . .

Well, yeah, that's kind of the point. When the gospels portray the disciples as being astonished upon Jesus supposedly saying he was destined to die, they were astonished because they had no tradition saying that the awaited deliverer would die before completing the mission. If the gospels accounts are to be believed in that regard, Jesus' followers did not apply Isaiah 53 to him. In fact, when he informs them don't they pray for such a thing never to happen?

The Mashiach we are awaiting and have been waiting for since the destruction of the Second Temple will accomplish within one life the grand things prophesied for him to do. He will compel all the Jewish people to return to the Torah, repair any breaches in our divine service, ingather the exiles back to the Land, victoriously fight the wars of Israel, become known to and obeyed by all the inhabitants of the world, spread universal knowledge of G-d, produce universal peace and harmony - an end to all wars, and restore the Holy Temple for the third and permanent time. That is what he is prophesied to do.

As we've already discussed, some Jewish denominations like Chabad leave open the possibility that a messianic candidate who appears to have died a natural death can after a period of concealment be revealed or resurrected to finish the work, but that's a minority view from a Jewish law perspective. Interestingly, Rashi's commentary on Daniel actually says that King Mashiach will be revealed and then concealed for a period of 40 years before being revealed again to accomplish all.

In any event, if you look at what is claimed about Jesus and what he allegedly accomplished, you can actually argue that in truth he was an anti-Mashiach - an anti-Christ so to speak (because Messiah (English) = Christos (transliterated Greek) = Mashiach (transliterated Hebrew) by denotation if not connotation). King Mashiach is destined to compel a return of sinful Jews back to the Torah and to repair the breaches in our observance, whereas the Jesus of Christianity supposedly preached against the Torah, supposedly claimed his advent was doing away with it, and thus caused ignorant Jews and millions of non-Jews to completely turn away from the eternal Torah. King Mashiach is destined to ingather the exiles, but the Jesus of Christianity did nothing of the kind; he may have spread the kind of messianic zealotry that led to the destruction of the Temple and the subsequent full conquering and dispersal of the Jews from the Land. King Mashiach is destined to victoriously fight the wars of Israel, but the Jesus of Christianity fought no wars and couldn't save himself from an ignoble death let alone all of Israel. King Mashiach is destined to spread knowledge of G-d to all people universally, but while the Jesus of Christianity certainly spread some level of Torah knowledge to much of the non-Jewish world, there is still a lot of the world's population that still to this day does not know or believe in the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. King Mashiach is destined to end all wars and create universal and lasting peace, whereas the Jesus of Christianity said his mission was to spread war. King Mashiach is destined to rebuild the Holy Temple and resume the Temple offerings, whereas the Jesus of Christianity boasted about the impending destruction of G-d's House instead of its restoration.

Is it true that Elohim is plural, and Eloah is the singular?

El-ah is a rare name of G-d, used in Job and in some of the later poetic books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Also, Elo-im can be used in its plural (such as in Ten Commandments when it refers to other gods), but it can also be used in a singular sense as when it applies to G-d. We know that in that case it is singular because when it is referring to G-d the verbs and adjectives used are always singular. Ancient Hebrew (like English) is strict with subject-verb singular or plural agreement. However, in Hebrew singular and plural subjects are also matched with singular and plural adjectives in addition to verbs. When referring to G-d by the name El-him, and in virtually all 2,000 examples of such usage, El-him always takes a singular verb and also singular adjective, so it's noted by the vast majority of scholars including most Christian scholars as a name of plural majesty but of singular personage. Wikipedia has a pretty decent article on the topic of divine names in Judaism.

Why would Jacob name the place in which he wrestled "Penuel" (face of God) if he wrestled with an angel?

As I noted before angels are closely associated with G-d. Even men have also been called by divine titles at times. At one point in Exodus G-d says that Moshe will be a god to Pharaoh and Aaron will be Moshe's prophet. The term used for god in that passage referring to Moshe is one that's also used for G-d, but no one claims that Moshe is literally part of the godhead.

Additionally Chongo, the recurring issue in your mind about whether Yacov wrestled with and saw an angel or G-d in that passage should be put to rest when you read Hosea 12. Christians get caught up in that passage (and in other passages including the three angels and G-d visiting Avraham) because they imagine it's a hint that G-d could possibly be seen physically and even wrestled with, but that's not at all the case; I don't need to resort to a rabbinical opinion because the Torah is clear to those who understand it (as with other such examples) And in that example the Prophet absolutely puts the issue to rest by referencing explicitly the fact that it was an angel he wrestled.

Big Mac, take a look at this website and tell us what you think.

It's a nice site as far as Hebraic Christian type sites go. Well formatted, with an intellectual bend, but based on wrongheaded assumptions about scripture and thus equivalent to what you can find from other Christian sources. Arguing that when the Torah says G-d "appeared" to various figures it actually means He appeared in bodily form is just contra-Torah because we know that no man, not even the highest prophet ever, can see His face and live. Plus, G-d says that when He appears to all other prophets He appears in dreams, but not so with Moshe who He speaks to "face to face." Yet even to Moshe G-d never fully shows Himself completely, only a glimpse of his "back." And moreover, Yacov couldn't possibly have been saying He wrestled with G-d because the figure he wrestled Yacov physically overcame; the figure in question had to beg Yacov to let him go. Nothing could ever at any time physically overcome G-d, so if Christians want to claim he was wrestling and even winning against G-d Himself they're just portraying ignorance of the text and subject.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Doofy and Big Mac have made 'NN history out of this thread. Glorious!

I wish that what had occurred between us had not happened. It was not my intention. I miscalculated the consequences of my words, and while I stand by them as truth I am very sorry for their effects.

[brassplayersrock²]

He’s up in the sky hiding in the clouds in his huge mansion, but we can’t see him up there. End of thread.

[Chongo]

The Mashiach we are awaiting and have been waiting for since the destruction of the Second Temple will accomplish within one life the grand things prophesied for him to do. He will compel all the Jewish people to return to the Torah, repair any breaches in our divine service, ingather the exiles back to the Land, victoriously fight the wars of Israel, become known to and obeyed by all the inhabitants of the world, spread universal knowledge of G-d, produce universal peace and harmony - an end to all wars, and restore the Holy Temple for the third and permanent time. That is what he is prophesied to do.

Conquering King vs Suffering Servant.

How does the 9th chapter of Daniel figure into all of this?

Know and understand this: From the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt Until one who is anointed and a leader, there shall be seven weeks. During sixty-two weeks it shall be rebuilt, With streets and trenches, in time of affliction.

Here is someone's math on this.

69 x 7 religious yrs ½ 360 days ½ modern yr 476.06

¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾ = modern yrs

½ religious yr ½ 365.25 days



Starting point was the decree to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 2:1-10 Mar/Apr 444 B.C.



476 years - Mar/Apr 445 B.C. + 1 = Mar/Apr 33 A.D.

(+ 1 is because 1 B.C to 1 A.D. is one year, not two.)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote, respectfully. I was arguing that there are indeed multiple meanings of the Hebrew term nacham but that they're very much dependent upon the context. The L-rd can express regret, certainly. But the passage we were discussing used "nacham" not in the context of regret but rather as relent. The prophecy Balaam spoke meant that G-d will not on the one hand intend to bless something and then subsequently not to do so. He wasn't talking about G-d being unable to regret that something occurred, because G-d does use nacham in the context of regretting things like making Saul king (since He knew ahead of time that He would have to strip the kingship but made Saul king for a period of time anyway because that was part of His plan). Nacham is used in that Numbers verse very specifically to say that what G-d blesses He will bless rather than relent (nacham) from doing so, and that Balaam has no power to curse what G-d intends to bless. Now if you want to insist the word nacham should be understood as repent instead, the reading doesn't make any sense: A number of times G-d is repenting/regretting things, as we've noted before. If nacham always had the same context (as you ebuddy seem to imply), then you cannot make sense of that verse. Nacham can mean repent, or it can mean relent. And in truth, very often you see it used with an entirely different meaning: comfort. If any person doubts that just check a concordance; they are available for free online.

Now I believe we're talking past one another. My original point was that I could easily strip a verse from its context in true "dimestore theological" form to indict Judaism for fallacy. To do so I would have to strip the verse from its context. I realize the context is different, but I don't see your "got'cha" example for the several reasons I listed including the notion that while God cannot be a lying, sinful, relenting man, He can most certainly be a Holy, perfect, unrelenting, sinless, God incarnate. Nothing you've cited thus far refutes this point.

Btw, there is the Talmudic teaching that any thing prophesied for good will ultimately always come to pass, but a negative prophecy is conditional and may be averted by repentance. That's what helps explain that prophecy - when G-d intends to do a positive action He will always do it.

Agreed however, in this instance the message in Numbers is not to be construed as some arbitrary limitation to God's nature, but of God's irrevocable promise of blessings to His people. You used this verse in the former; out of context Scripturally as a "got'cha" moment that I don't believe holds any weight. At least not Scripturally.

I am truly sorry that you took my previous words so personally. They weren't personally targeted toward you, ebuddy. Based on your reaction I'm starting to repent () my choice of holding these sorts of discussions here. I value you as a political ally and don't want at all to turn you into an enemy. Now that I have laid out so many of my views on Christianity in these threads, I will think long and hard in the future about saying anything more on the topic.

Doofy and I have gotten in some heated discussions in the past and they've ended short of the "ignore" feature of this forum. There's little doubt that you two will enjoy solidarity in other points, at other times even if it is not directed to one another in a reconciliatory fashion.

When you say that you'd kill Jesus again for example, I do not get offended. Others have gotten offended at this notion because of the inflammatory nature behind it of course, but I understand this to be little more than a stark religious difference between the two of us and one that is explained clearly in multiple places throughout Scripture. IMO it would be silly to feign outrage at this notion because I have no way of knowing you'd qualify as one of at least 23 to even try our God nor am I confident our God could be found guilty by such a court whose membership and proceedings enjoyed the adherence your own doctrine mandates. My faith teaches of a politically-motivated trial anyway; much less concerned with religious doctrinal integrity than merely eliminating an extremely influential and inconvenient figure. Besides, Christian doctrine teaches that God petitioned forgiveness on your behalf at the cross already BigMac.

I was talking generally about Christians who may use the Hebrew Scriptures irresponsibly, not about you specifically. I don't really know much about your personal tendencies in that regard. What I do know is that the precedent set by your religion from its outset is not a positive one in how it deals with the Hebrew Scriptures. I can't really expect much other than the same from devout Christians who are fully invested in Christian theology. The Christian canon is irresponsible with my people's texts, so most Christians abide by that standard and base their thoughts on scriptural interpretation by the teachings of their canon. If that does not apply to you then I apologize if you took my general words as an indictment of your scholarship.

I am not taking your general words as an indictment of my scholarship as much as the scholarship of hundreds of thousands before me teaching something other than your caricature of Christian doctrine. Is your faith not riddled with heretics and liars? Point to me the singular source of your doctrinal authority, is it not the Divine working through human hands? To whom shall we deem the sole proprietor of this truth if not God? i.e. do not put so much weight on those hostile to you as to fuel an anger, a pride, or a vengeance that is not yours to prosecute anyway.

I will be very happy to admit I am wrong if you can show me places where I have misconstrued aspects of Christianity.

Romans 11:25-29; I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

While I am at times taken aback by some anti-semitic heresy suggesting a severed relationship between God and His elect; there is no broken promise and in fact there never will be. I consider myself blessed to have been raised up in this teaching and my fellowship does not interpret any Scripture as "the most pious Jews will forever burn in hell." If there was anything that offended me, it was this remark as it assigns Scriptural bastardization to Christianity (some sects of it) over the sober reality that mankind of all creed can and will do so, including Jews.

I and most I know adhere to doctrine that simply allows we gentiles to partake of the nourishing sap from the olive root and as such we are taught that we are not to boast over those branches because we do not support the root, but the root supports us. i.e. You are the elect BigMac; you and your faithful Jewish brethren. Those teaching otherwise are too often bent on something other than Scriptural integrity and adherents to these ideals are not diligent students, but duped sheeple just as capable of deception as those who may be worshipping with you.