On Judaism

ForeverYoung wrote:

Frank, dauer:

I really see you debating past one another.

Please, Frank, there are nuances of which dauer posts that are valid.

"Can't we all just get along?" :wink:

You're on a debate forum, this is what passes for getting along.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

dauer wrote:

Quote:
Rubbish!

Deal with what the Torah descibes...or acknowledge that you are not up to the task.

I think I said already that I don't agree with the biblical perception of God. I don't believe God ever interferes with the laws of physics. If it says, "God did this." I say, "Why was it written that way?"

This one is not a Jew Frank, he's a deist. He doesn't recognise the torah or any other writing as an authority on god and its actions, and he does not belive god interferes with the laws of physics. That off course makes the Tora nothing more than a collection of speculations.

I think if you stop trying to debate the deist as a jew, even though he identifies himself as such, you'll have more luck.

I understand what you are saying, Ein, but I suspect he is both.

He challenged me on a statement about what is written in the first five books of the Bible...and now, since he seems unable to substantiate his challenge, seems intent on throwing in all sorts of irrelevent stuff.

I'm merely pointing this out to him.

In any case, the Bible can be discussed and argued without any considerations about whether or not it is divine or myth.

0 Replies

My goodness. Aren't we busy?
Okay Frank, we have done this before.
You ask for an explanation for the wacky words of the Torah;
I give you one based on whatever rabbinical source that I come up with;
You tell me that that is not the Torah!

As you do not seem to be able to get beyond this particular point, I am going to explain it once again.
The belief system of Judaism says that Moses received both the Written Torah - the one you are trying to argue; and the Oral Torah.
The Oral Torah was to explain the written Torah.
The Oral Torah was eventually written down in what is called the Talmud.
The tradition of consulting the Oral Torah to decipher the Written Torah continues to this day with continual disagreements and agreements as to what G-d actually meant or said - in the form of commentaries which are accepted (or not) as valid exegesis of the Torah; meaning as a continuation of this process of the Oral Torah.

You seem to want to insist that this is not Judaism, only the "First Five Books of the bible" is Judaism.
This is incorrect.
You may believe that Judaism and its Written Torah and its Oral Torah and its Minhagim and its silly hats and its zetzing and gerplopping and all of its zochin are wacky.
You may believe that de Jews are tryin' to pull a fast one on ya here, sayin' that deres more than jus' de Written Torah, but it ain't so.
That's the fac Jac.

So, when a (educated or Torah observant) Jew argues on religion, he is arguing on the Jewish religion, which is based on thousands of years of commentaries and understanding of what G-d commanded His people to do - in His Torah - which encompasses this 3,500 year tradition of the Jews.

You have a perfect right to define your belief system and to believe that the G-d of the Jews or whomever is wacked.
But it is highly illogical for you to tell me or Dauer or any other Jew what it is that they believe.
If I believe the moon is made out of Green Cheese, you are going to tell me "Non, non, mon petite; Zees is not your belief. You really believe ze moon is made out of Pork Sausage?"
I think not.
Very Happy

Oh, and Merry Christmas, ya old Scrooge.
Very Happy

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

You seem to want to insist that this is not Judaism, only the "First Five Books of the bible" is Judaism.

I DEFY YOU TO FIND ANYTHING I HAVE EVER SAID...here in the thread or anywhere else during my last 5 years in Internet forums where I said anything even close to that.

I was confining my comments in this thread to the words in the first five books of the Bible. I have mentioned that a half dozen times already...and it just doesn't seem to sink in.

I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE ORAL TRADITION...I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE TALMUD...I HAVE ACKNOWLEGED THAT I AM NOT JEWISH...AND IT IS ABSURD TO SUPPOSE THAT I WAS INCLUDING ANY OF THAT MATERIAL IN WHAT I HAD TO SAY.

Essentially my comment was that anyone reading those first five books would come away with a very negative impression of the god of the Bible.

It was, in part, a play on words on something you wrote...that for non-observant Jews, cannot accept the god of the Torah as God because the god described therein is so bloodthirsty, arbitrary, silly, and demonic.

(I will acknowledge here that originally, when I read the word Torah in your comment, I was thinking only of the first five books of the Bible...something you will have to forgive a Goy for doing, because mostly, that is what we think of when we non-Jews think of when the Torah is mentioned.)

I was being ironic...saying that not only non-observant Jews would come away with that feeling...but ANYONE reading that material.

How we got off on this other tangent...I have no idea.

But I have steadfastly confined myself to that narrow commentary....and have been very, very, very insistent that I was talking ONLY ABOUT THOSE FIRST FIVE BOOKS.

Dauer...and now you....seem to want to argue the red herring that the first five books of the Bible are not the entirety of the Jewish tradition.

I NEVER HAVE ARGUED AGAINST THAT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

I don't know how else to say that!!!!!

Quote:

Oh, and Merry Christmas, ya old Scrooge.

Thank you. Thanksgiving is actually my favorite holiday...but Christmas runs a very close second.

0 Replies

To make things easier...from now on I will only use the word "Pentateuch" where I have formerly been using Torah.

0 Replies

Frank, if you would like some basic info regarding the Talmud, this site is quite good: http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/TalmudPage.html

0 Replies

cavfancier, oh, geez, you had to wind him up again. Twisted Evil

I loves you, Frank, but, hey, you've been rather 'curmudgeony' lately. Could it be you got them too-many-religious-holiday-time blues? :wink:

0 Replies

Well, it is a good site. Isn't A2K all about knowledge exchange? Personally, I believe in all religions, mainly so I can take every day of the year off. Wink

0 Replies

ForeverYoung wrote:

cavfancier, oh, geez, you had to wind him up again.

I loves you, Frank, but, hey, you've been rather 'curmudgeony' lately. Could it be you got them too-many-religious-holiday-time blues? :wink:

Choose one:

1) Me!!! Why I'm not a curmudgeon. I'm a sweetheart. A pussycat!

2) You're new here, FY. If you think this is "curmudgeony"...you'd better hold on to your hat, because this is honey and cream compared to what sometimes gets served up.

Thanks for the link, Cav....I've put it into my favorites.

0 Replies

Thanks Frank. It is an excellent site.

0 Replies

ForeverYoung wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
All of this was why there was a need for the new testament. It's like a five thousand year old game of "good cop, bad cop"

You really believe that?

All this time, I thought the "need" for the new testament is to pretend that Jesus, the Jewish rabbi, was actually the son of God.

That was how Christianity originated, right? So that, since Jesus died for the sins of all who accepted him, nobody ever need take responsibility for bad behavior on earth again? I mean the essential difference between the 2 religions is that Judaism believes in personal responsibility whereas Christianity believes that all one need do is ask Jesus' forgiveness and all is right with the world.

Absolutely. Keep in mind that Christianity was one of the many cults springing up as there was political turmoil. All the jews were supporting various messiahs, so there was lots of religious chaos, and MANY other likely candidates. Because the Roman Emperor constantine chose to support/enforce Christianity as the new religion (more as a means of control than the actual religion - the previous emperor had been persecuting christians, this specific band more than others, and Charlemange took advantage of the situation and gained support, as well as keeping his pegan rituals and he changed Christian documents to his liking.)

A very good parallel to this is Falun Gong practicioners - because they are being persecuted by the current Chinese government, you can bet that if they continue to grow in numbers, whoever next comes into power will support them. And if, with the most powerful government of the time, they started a holy war with all of the world they were in contact with, you can bet we'd all be Chinese speaking vegetarians.

Christianity fills a need in the progress of humanity - it provides a kind god, a more liberal response to many of the problems people were having with Judaism. This kind god is accompanied by an explaination for evil - instead of also coming from god it is lucifer (Satans) fault.

In addition it provided an alternative to animal sacrafice (coming out of vogue), and various other altering social movements. This is why there is a certain amount of talk back and forth between documents - the bible wasn't predicted by the torah, it was a RESPONSE to the torah.

And, actually, the thought that "Christianity believes that all one need do is ask Jesus' forgiveness and all is right with the world" is a fairly modern one, it started with the protestants if I remember correctly. Before that you had to do good deeds, give tithings, and be judged. Protestantism started as a response to the Church practice of charging people money for admittance into heaven (out of purgatory.)

0 Replies

Also, Christianity was an alternative to the militancy of the various Jewish factions at the time of the Roman occupation. It offered love as a response to the occupation, and also, more enveloping, as a way of life.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa, I do believe I will take what's behind door #1, thenkyewverymuch. :wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

ForeverYoung wrote:
Frank Apisa, I do believe I will take what's behind door #1, thenkyewverymuch. :wink:

Is that your final choice???

And considering that last comment of yours, FY...I must ask if you have visited this thread of mine:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=40988&highlight=

0 Replies

A Christmas present for Portal Star:

Jews for Jesus

and a plain ole' gift for Frank:

International Jewish Conspiracy

0 Replies

ForeverYoung wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
All of this was why there was a need for the new testament. It's like a five thousand year old game of "good cop, bad cop"

You really believe that?

All this time, I thought the "need" for the new testament is to pretend that Jesus, the Jewish rabbi, was actually the son of God.

That was how Christianity originated, right? So that, since Jesus died for the sins of all who accepted him, nobody ever need take responsibility for bad behavior on earth again? I mean the essential difference between the 2 religions is that Judaism believes in personal responsibility whereas Christianity believes that all one need do is ask Jesus' forgiveness and all is right with the world.

Hey Forever Young,

I think that the Christianity message is rather "don't worry, you won't fix anything worrying, just take responsibility". Jesus is portrayed as firm. He is not portrayed exactly like the one who spoils his children. Dont know much about Judaism but if it believes in personal responsibility... Infinite Inteligence bless Judaism. I am sure both faiths have their cons namely because some humas twist what is supposed to be teached to favor their own personal agendas. Let's face it, there are a lot of unfair humans.

Happy Holidays !

0 Replies

ForeverYoung wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Happy Hannuka.

Chanukah ended a week ago.

Shalom to the entire universe.

Hey Forever,

What an ignorant me. I almost said Happy Chanukah to you on my latest reply.

Shalom ! :wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Moishe3rd wrote:
You seem to want to insist that this is not Judaism, only the "First Five Books of the bible" is Judaism.

I DEFY YOU TO FIND ANYTHING I HAVE EVER SAID...here in the thread or anywhere else during my last 5 years in Internet forums where I said anything even close to that.

I was confining my comments in this thread to the words in the first five books of the Bible. I have mentioned that a half dozen times already...and it just doesn't seem to sink in.

I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE ORAL TRADITION...I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE TALMUD...I HAVE ACKNOWLEGED THAT I AM NOT JEWISH...AND IT IS ABSURD TO SUPPOSE THAT I WAS INCLUDING ANY OF THAT MATERIAL IN WHAT I HAD TO SAY.

Essentially my comment was that anyone reading those first five books would come away with a very negative impression of the god of the Bible.

It was, in part, a play on words on something you wrote...that for non-observant Jews, cannot accept the god of the Torah as God because the god described therein is so bloodthirsty, arbitrary, silly, and demonic.

(I will acknowledge here that originally, when I read the word Torah in your comment, I was thinking only of the first five books of the Bible...something you will have to forgive a Goy for doing, because mostly, that is what we think of when we non-Jews think of when the Torah is mentioned.)

I was being ironic...saying that not only non-observant Jews would come away with that feeling...but ANYONE reading that material.

How we got off on this other tangent...I have no idea.

But I have steadfastly confined myself to that narrow commentary....and have been very, very, very insistent that I was talking ONLY ABOUT THOSE FIRST FIVE BOOKS.

Dauer...and now you....seem to want to argue the red herring that the first five books of the Bible are not the entirety of the Jewish tradition.

I NEVER HAVE ARGUED AGAINST THAT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

I don't know how else to say that!!!!!

Quote:
Oh, and Merry Christmas, ya old Scrooge.

Thank you. Thanksgiving is actually my favorite holiday...but Christmas runs a very close second.

Okey dokey.
In that case, feel free.
I believe that I may even be somewhat sympathetic to your interpretation of the "bible," which is why I am not a Christian.
Why pursue what does not make sense?, eh.

That being said, because I am indeed an "Orthodox" Jew and, as one of the premises of being Torah observant is to study and learn Torah as much as humanly possible (and more than that :wink: ), I have been able to make a great deal of sense out of the five books of Moses and what you call the old testament. G-d is not illogical or demonic in my tradition because we spend a lot of time trying to understand what G-d requires of us and how we can relate to those requirements.
It's actually a lot of fun! Smile

(Except for the overindulgence in food thing... )

I must admit it would be (and was) very confusing and illogical to take an Engish translation of the Pentateuch, without explanation, and try to understand G-d in a positive religious sense....
Why, it might require re-inventing G-d in a more positive image - like a redeemer and nice savior guy - more human, ya know. Heck, it might require a whole new testament to understand this G-d guy if you didn't have the Oral tradition.... :wink:
Things that make you go "Hmmmm....."

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

I must admit it would be (and was) very confusing and illogical to take an Engish translation of the Pentateuch, without explanation, and try to understand G-d in a positive religious sense....
Why, it might require re-inventing G-d in a more positive image - like a redeemer and nice savior guy - more human, ya know. Heck, it might require a whole new testament to understand this G-d guy if you didn't have the Oral tradition.... :wink:
Things that make you go "Hmmmm....."

lol

Out of the ballpark!

I love that, Moishe...........thanks. Very Happy

0 Replies

ForeverYoung wrote:

A Christmas present for Portal Star:

Jews for Jesus

and a plain ole' gift for Frank:

International Jewish Conspiracy

I don't get it.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know