That was kind of cool. Do any of you know a couple of guys called Elder Groberg and Elder Montez? They just came to my door to talk to me about the LDS Church. I'm not really that happy about them being in this neighborhood (a predominantly Orthodox Jewish neighborhood), but at least it'll give them practice dealing with people who are really hostile.
For my part, I was cordial, and that was at least in part because of my exposure to Mormons on this forum. I know they aren't intending harm.
I did suggest that if they want to know what God really says and wants from us, I could set aside some time. I mean, we don't proselytize, but there's a level of knowledge that's okay to share, and these guys really seemed to want to know what God wants. I gave them my e-mail address so they can contact me if they have any questions.
I'm wicked tired today, or I might have had them in and pulled out the books.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Oh man. that NEVER happens to me!
I Love talking to missionaries! I majored in Jewish-Christian relations! I know so many of the major discussions that have been going on for centuries! I heard this dude on the train talking to this Jewish girl who looked at him puzzled as he quoted Isiah 53 - and i whirled around and was all - oh, you translate that word as virgin, we translate it as young woman - the same word is used by Rebecca in Genesis. It was AWESOME!
I actually always wanted to talk to Scientologists and to Mormons missionaries. The former for fun, and the latter because they seem genuinely interesting to speak with.
One day, on the way to be a shomer (er..Best Man?) for a friend who was getting married I bumped into two guys, white shirts, black pants, skinny ties, name tags, i was so bummed i couldn't stay and chat!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Um, that's Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah 53 is suffering servant stuff. You have to have it straight when dealing with missionaries.
They have a Jewish-Christian relations major at YU?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I had a family of LDS employees at one of my stores. They were always amazed that they had a boss that knew about missions and also called them LDS rather than Mormon.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Um, that's Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah 53 is suffering servant stuff. You have to have it straight when dealing with missionaries.
They have a Jewish-Christian relations major at YU?
Good call. He quoted Isaiah 53 after 7:14.
I majored in Jewish History with a concentration on Jewish Christian relations - yeah, they have that.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Elder Groberg ... wonder if he's related to Kolipoki.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
'Scuze?
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Thanks for being kind to our "boys", Lisa.
The Kolipoki reference is from a book written by one of our church leaders, John Groberg. He was a missionary in Tonga in the 1950s and his last name was unpronouncable in their language, so they called him Kolipoki.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
They made it into a movie, The Other Side of Heaven. Elder Groberg - "Kolipoki" - is played by the same guy who plays Henry on Ugly Betty. (And Jake 2.0.) My kids love that movie.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
An Orthodox Jewish neighborhood will be hostile to the missionaries?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I gotta feel they would be really ... not welcome there.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: An Orthodox Jewish neighborhood will be hostile to the missionaries?
Uh, yeah. We value our children being raised as Jews. We tend to get really hostile to people trying to convince them to abandon that. I was polite, but that was because it was in the middle of the day, and my daughter wasn't home. It's not about LDS missionaries, but any missionaries.
The first thing I said to them when I saw their name tags, before they had a chance to say anything, was to laugh and tell them, "Hoo boy, are you in the wrong neighborhood."
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I guess they either know where they are and have decided to tough it out, or just started tracting in the neighborhood and will get the idea pretty soon.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Mmm. My neighborhood is also heavily Orthodox-Jewish.
A bunch of Jews for Jesus missionaries showed up at a major intersection and it was not a pretty site. Chabbad came out and set up a table directly opposite from them. There were fights and everything.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I mean, we don't proselytize, but there's a level of knowledge that's okay to share
I'd really like to know what this means.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We value our children being raised as Jews. We tend to get really hostile to people trying to convince them to abandon that.
Because members of all the other religions teach their children to convert at the drop of a hat. They sit around all day waiting for anyone from any different religion to knock on their door and rescue them from their personal hell of religious error. Most missionaries have to lug a baptismal font around behind them when they're knocking on doors because there isn't enough room in the church for everyone they talk to in a day to convert all at once.
Boy, I bet those missionaries were crapping their pants when they realized they were in a neighborhood where people are trying to raise their children in their own religion. Must have been quite the traumatic experience for them. If they ever dare venture out of their apartment again, I bet they're going to change their opening line from, "Are you familiar with the LDS Church?" to "You're not a Jew, are you?"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Mmm. My neighborhood is also heavily Orthodox-Jewish.
A bunch of Jews for Jesus missionaries showed up at a major intersection and it was not a pretty site. Chabbad came out and set up a table directly opposite from them. There were fights and everything.
I'd describe what I usually do with J4J types, but I'd probably get banned.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: I mean, we don't proselytize, but there's a level of knowledge that's okay to share
I'd really like to know what this means.
Okay. Basically, we aren't interested in non-Jews becoming Jews. We are, however, interested in non-Jews being good Noachides. Everyone on earth is descended from Noah, and so technically, every non-Jew is a Noachide. But we use the term specifically for non-Jews who recognize that God is One (no kids, for example) and who keep the basic Noachide commandments that all humanity is obligated to keep.
There's a point of view that views Noachidism as a form of Judaism, and that's sort of true, in terms of religious belief. But a non-Jew can be a good Noachide without converting. They just have to stop doing the stuff that they aren't allowed to do (briefly put).
Towards this end, it's okay to teach non-Jews the Torah that applies to them and whatever else they might need to be able to understand it. But the goal isn't conversion (even though some Noachides choose that path); it's just getting them to do the right thing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We value our children being raised as Jews. We tend to get really hostile to people trying to convince them to abandon that.
Because members of all the other religions teach their children to convert at the drop of a hat. They sit around all day waiting for anyone from any different religion to knock on their door and rescue them from their personal hell of religious error. Most missionaries have to lug a baptismal font around behind them when they're knocking on doors because there isn't enough room in the church for everyone they talk to in a day to convert all at once.
Boy, I bet those missionaries were crapping their pants when they realized they were in a neighborhood where people are trying to raise their children in their own religion. Must have been quite the traumatic experience for them. If they ever dare venture out of their apartment again, I bet they're going to change their opening line from, "Are you familiar with the LDS Church?" to "You're not a Jew, are you?"
<yawn>
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I have no moral problem with the use of violence against someone trying to get a Jew to become a Christian.
Really? You don't think the phrase, "No thank you, I'm happy in my own religion" is sufficient?
Or are you saying that if one of your neighbors considered using their own free will to re-examine their choice of religion, you'd find whoever was enabling them and make them an offer they couldn't refuse?
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Not that I've ever done so, but I'm certainly okay with it. If necessary, I'd simply view it as saving someone's life.
I'm glad not all Jews feel that way. Although the fact that some Jews (and Muslims and Christians and Hindus) do feel that way may help put some world events into context.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thanks, Lisa. I wondered if that was what you meant, and I'm glad you clarified.
Most people feel the same way that you do about raising their children in their religion. I served my mission in Italy, where being Catholic isn't just a religion, it's also a part of the national identity. Being baptized meant an enormous life change for our converts.
I hope the missionaries who visited you also recognize what a change they're asking of people, especially in your neighborhood. The degree of change doesn't modulate the truth of the message-- but it does mean that the messengers need to be more sensitive.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I have no moral problem with the use of violence against someone trying to get a Jew to become a Christian.
Really? You don't think the phrase, "No thank you, I'm happy in my own religion" is sufficient?
It can be. But not always. We just finished celebrating Hanukkah, Speed. The moment that started the war that resulted in Hanukkah was when the Greeks came into a town called Modi'in with a Jew who had gone over to Greek worship. He was there to publically engage in this worship, to show all the Jews of the town that it's not so bad. Mattithyias (father of Judah Maccabee) saved this Hellenized Jew from committing such a horrible sin by killing him.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Or are you saying that if one of your neighbors considered using their own free will to re-examine their choice of religion, you'd find whoever was enabling them and make them an offer they couldn't refuse?
That'd be awfully tempting. No, I might not, but mostly out of fear of repercussions. Certainly not for any moral reasons.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I might not, but mostly out of fear of repercussions. Certainly not for any moral reasons.
I don't know many Jews who feel the way that you do about this, Lisa. Would you say that this attitude is shared by the larger Jewish culture, or do you find that your beliefs about this subject are unique?
Specifically, I'm talking about the idea that it's moral to kill someone to prevent them from committing a sin.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Thanks, Lisa. I wondered if that was what you meant, and I'm glad you clarified.
Most people feel the same way that you do about raising their children in their religion. I served my mission in Italy, where being Catholic isn't just a religion, it's also a part of the national identity. Being baptized meant an enormous life change for our converts.
I hope the missionaries who visited you also recognize what a change they're asking of people, especially in your neighborhood. The degree of change doesn't modulate the truth of the message-- but it does mean that the messengers need to be more sensitive.
See, that's why I tried to be gentle with them, and why I gave them my e-mail address (well, Elder Groberg, at least; Elder Montez seemed a bit more prickly). It's clear that they think what they have is the truth, and that they would value having the truth. So if they're ever interested, now they have a way to get to it.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We just finished celebrating Hanukkah, Speed. The moment that started the war that resulted in Hanukkah was when the Greeks came into a town called Modi'in with a Jew who had gone over to Greek worship. He was there to publically engage in this worship, to show all the Jews of the town that it's not so bad. Mattithyias (father of Judah Maccabee) saved this Hellenized Jew from committing such a horrible sin by killing him.
And OJ Simpson* saved his ex-wife from the sin being with another man by killing both of them. So if I start celebrating "OJ Day" every June 12th, would that make it OK to emulate his behavior?
*allegedly
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I might not, but mostly out of fear of repercussions. Certainly not for any moral reasons.
I don't know many Jews who feel the way that you do about this, Lisa. Would you say that this attitude is shared by the larger Jewish culture, or do you find that your beliefs about this subject are unique?
Specifically, I'm talking about the idea that it's moral to kill someone to prevent them from committing a sin.
Not just any sin. Idolatry. Murder. Adultery (by the Jewish definition). And it's the position of Orthodox Judaism. Of course, it isn't practicable in a place like the US, but the principle applies. And I know a lot of Orthodox Jews who would take issue with my talking about it somewhere like here, but it's still what Judaism says.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We just finished celebrating Hanukkah, Speed. The moment that started the war that resulted in Hanukkah was when the Greeks came into a town called Modi'in with a Jew who had gone over to Greek worship. He was there to publically engage in this worship, to show all the Jews of the town that it's not so bad. Mattithyias (father of Judah Maccabee) saved this Hellenized Jew from committing such a horrible sin by killing him.
And OJ Simpson* saved his ex-wife from the sin being with another man by killing both of them. So if I start celebrating "OJ Day" every June 12th, would that make it OK to emulate his behavior?
*allegedly
It's interesting that if I were to post criticisms of, say, the LDS Church, I'd be warned and possibly banned. But you think it's okay to do what you're doing.
Once again, <yawn>
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Not just any sin. Idolatry. Murder. Adultery (by the Jewish definition). And it's the position of Orthodox Judaism. Of course, it isn't practicable in a place like the US, but the principle applies. And I know a lot of Orthodox Jews who would take issue with my talking about it somewhere like here, but it's still what Judaism says.
How does the Jewish definition of adultery differ from the wider culture's definition?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [It's interesting that if I were to post criticisms of, say, the LDS Church, I'd be warned and possibly banned. But you think it's okay to do what you're doing.
Yep. I also think it's OK to post criticisms of the LDS church. I also think it's OK to post criticisms of things that I believe in (I'm not LDS).
But I don't think it's OK to murder people for trying to change my mind, so I guess that's where our opinions differ.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm interested in what it means to be a Noachide. What rules do they have to follow? I wonder if it would come up in a google search...
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Or are you saying that if one of your neighbors considered using their own free will to re-examine their choice of religion, you'd find whoever was enabling them and make them an offer they couldn't refuse?
That'd be awfully tempting. No, I might not, but mostly out of fear of repercussions. Certainly not for any moral reasons.
So you'd be willing to kill for your beliefs, but you wouldn't be willing to go to jail for it?
Where in the Torah does God say it's okay to ignore his commandments if it's going to have any negative effect on your quality of life? That sounds like my kind of religion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It's interesting that if I were to post criticisms of, say, the LDS Church, I'd be warned and possibly banned. But you think it's okay to do what you're doing.
Not really-- if you were to post untruths or half-truths, you'd be warned. Certainly, you and others have been very critical of the LDS church's genealogy programs, and your conversation hasn't (IIRC) been stifled by the moderators merely for addressing the topic.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:According to Judaism's worldview, all people are required to follow these seven principles. Notice that practicing Judaism is not a requirement.
* Do not murder. * Do not steal. * Do not worship false gods. * Do not be sexually immoral. * Do not eat the limb of an animal before it is killed. * Do not curse G-d. * Set up courts of law and bring offenders to justice. No land should be lawless, all mankind is obliged to become involved to prevent that.
Is there a part of Jewish scripture directed specifically at Noachides that defines the terms 'false gods' and 'sexually immoral?'
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I have always had respect for religions and the religious who would die for their convictions. I have also had the same feelings for those who would fight even violently for the survival of their religion and convictions when there is physical harm even when a majority are critical of them for defending themselves. In cases like that, I don't even believe in proportional reaction.
However, when the same deliberately seek to kill those who want to share their own convictions in a non-violent way a line is crossed. It goes from strong convictions to evil. My absolute disgust for Muslims comes from what I see as a culture of religious violence and lack of respect for others. I don't care about the argument that extremist Muslims are a minority. History and silence of the majority are convicting of the group.
If what you say about the Orthodox Jews is true, then they are no better than the Muslims I despise. My respect for them just fell. Hopefully it doesn't reflect the opinions of other religious Jews. In the end, hopefully what you just said isn't really true, and the lack of such outward behavior is more reflective of thoughts and feelings.
Wow, Lisa, what a disgusting belief.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm curious about what it means to "curse god", too. Does KoM's usual schtick qualify?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Is there a part of Jewish scripture directed specifically at Noachides that defines the terms 'false gods' and 'sexually immoral?'
Um, do you mean Jewish scriptural interpretation or translation? After all, Jewish Scripture is the same as part or all of the Christian OT.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: According to Judaism's worldview, all people are required to follow these seven principles. Notice that practicing Judaism is not a requirement.
* Do not murder. * Do not steal. * Do not worship false gods. * Do not be sexually immoral. * Do not eat the limb of an animal before it is killed. * Do not curse G-d. * Set up courts of law and bring offenders to justice. No land should be lawless, all mankind is obliged to become involved to prevent that.
According to that statement, you're not expected to practice Judaism, but you're not allowed to worship any non-Judaic gods?
It sounds like they expect you to acknowledge that Judaism is the one true religion, but they also want to make it very clear to you that God doesn't like you or your kind as much as he likes them, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Of course, that may not be the official position, or maybe I'm misinterpreting that statement. But if that's what they believe, I'd personally feel better if they just sent out some missionaries.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How does the Jewish definition of adultery differ from the wider culture's definition?
Adultery, as such, is when a man (married or not) has sex with a woman who is married to someone else. In the context of the Big Three, it actually includes incest and bestiality and intercourse between men.
A non-married woman having sex with a married man is bad, but it isn't adultery in Jewish law.
quote:According to Judaism's worldview, all people are required to follow these seven principles. Notice that practicing Judaism is not a requirement.
* Do not murder. * Do not steal. * Do not worship false gods. * Do not be sexually immoral. * Do not eat the limb of an animal before it is killed. * Do not curse G-d. * Set up courts of law and bring offenders to justice. No land should be lawless, all mankind is obliged to become involved to prevent that.
Is there a part of Jewish scripture directed specifically at Noachides that defines the terms 'false gods' and 'sexually immoral?'
The "sexually immoral" is as I described above. The "false gods" would mean any object or human being or animal or tree or imagined deity of any kind. I'm not sure what you mean by "directed specifically at Noachides".
quote:Originally posted by Occasional:
quote:Is there a part of Jewish scripture directed specifically at Noachides that defines the terms 'false gods' and 'sexually immoral?'
Um, do you mean Jewish scriptural interpretation or translation? After all, Jewish Scripture is the same as part or all of the Christian OT.
Jewish Scripture isn't really the foundation of Jewish law. The Oral Torah isn't just interpretation; it's the basic corpus of Jewish law and lore, and was given at Sinai with the first five books of the Bible.
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: According to Judaism's worldview, all people are required to follow these seven principles. Notice that practicing Judaism is not a requirement.
According to that statement, you're not expected to practice Judaism, but you're not allowed to worship any non-Judaic gods?
Right. Judaism has a lot of distinctions in it. Women aren't required to do all the things men are. Men who aren't Kohanim aren't required to do all the things that Kohanim are. Non-Jews aren't required to do all the things Jews are. There's no judgement on any of these groups, either. A non-Jew who keeps all of the Noachide laws is every bit as righteous as a Jew who keeps all of Jewish law. And it's a helluva lot easier to do.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: It sounds like they expect you to acknowledge that Judaism is the one true religion, but they also want to make it very clear to you that God doesn't like you or your kind as much as he likes them, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Not at all. Maybe God likes you better, so He decided to cut you a break and give you fewer obligations. God is everyone's God. Not just ours.
But yes, Judaism is the one true religion. It just has different rules for Jews and non-Jews.
[ December 30, 2008, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think you people are being hard on Lisa not that she's ever displayed the inability to defend her arguments.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Oh man. Lisa? C'mon. Why are you discussing this?
Mipnei darkei shalom there are certain things that need a whole lot of context before explanation.
Here it comes: Orthodox Jews, as part of their very definition, believe in the Oral Law - explanation that we believe was given at Sinai along with the text. It goes into detail explaining the vague terms used by the text, and leaves open a multi-faceted approach to the Bible that has allowed it to weather the changing times.
Scott - That is where the terms of false gods and sexually immoral are described, specifically for non-Jews. In the talmud.
As for killing other people because of your beliefs.
I believe that NOWHERE are Jews commanded to kill non-Jews for their beliefs. Even if they are worshiping idols, committing sexual immoralities and the like. There is one nation/concept that Jews are indeed commanded to kill, but the subject of that commandment is complicated and the nation that we are commanded to eradicate is said to be threatening the very existence of the entire world - but again, for another time.
However, what Lisa said, is definitely true about Jews. It does not apply nowadays where we have no real country that is governed as a Jewish theocracy. However, at times when everyone lived under Jewish theocratic rule, where all submitted to the laws of Torah and the Talmud, then if someone committed the worship of foreign gods, adultery, murder, or sifting flour on the sabbath day - these people, if warned beforehand, viewed by two witnesses, and found guilty through an elaborate court system - would be subject to the death penalty.
The three sins that Lisa mentioned, specifically sexual immorality, idol worship, and murder are all deemed to be something worth rescuing one from. Thus, if one were about to engage in such a sin, it is deemed appropriate to kill a person, if that is the only way of stopping him, before he engages in that.
So just to distinguish, Judaism is not exactly like other religions that seek to impose their religion on others, spread by the sword, etc.
However, it is important to view all morality in the context of God. God is obviously the final arbiter on morality, he defines the very word. If you ask any Orthodox Jew if they find this troubling, they most often will not - it makes a lot of sense that these were the laws when we lived under rule of God, in a central location. However, if asked if someone were to re-institute these laws these days, i guarantee that all Orthodox Jews would be vicious opponents. Such laws have no place in our time.
We believe that in ancient times, the struggle was how to live in a world where God revealed Himself so openly, how to live with the divine and not hide from it - something that explains the otherwise ridiculous nature of the Jews in the desert.
Nowadays, where God is "hidden", it is our task to see Him in everything. Not to kill people for engaging in illicit behavior.
Look - religion is complex. You need to know a lot about what the sources say, the context, the attitude, before you can pass a judgment.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: The "sexually immoral" is as I described above. The "false gods" would mean any object or human being or animal or tree or imagined deity of any kind. I'm not sure what you mean by "directed specifically at Noachides".
Assume I'm skeptical about your definition "sexually immoral." Can you show me that your interpretation is correct?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Here it comes: Orthodox Jews, as part of their very definition, believe in the Oral Law - explanation that we believe was given at Sinai along with the text. It goes into detail explaining the vague terms used by the text, and leaves open a multi-faceted approach to the Bible that has allowed it to weather the changing times.
Scott - That is where the terms of false gods and sexually immoral are described, specifically for non-Jews. In the talmud.
Ah! Good. Is there a section/passage you can quote? Or commentary you can point to?
I have to admit, this is the first I've heard of something given on Sinai that wasn't directed toward Israel's descendants. If you can show it to me it would resolve a lot of my philosophical hang-ups with Judaism.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:However, if asked if someone were to re-institute these laws these days, i guarantee that all Orthodox Jews would be vicious opponents.
We have apparent evidence of at least one who would not be a vicious opponent. So "all" is a bit of a stretch...
But my general observation agrees with yours. Thanks, Amroth.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Oh, and If i could just address the point about non-Jews coming to convert Jews.
As I said, first, i don't think any laws exist regarding that particular activity - if a non-Jew tries to convert you, thou shalt kill him. No.
Jews are taught, "Da ma l'hashiv" - Know what to respond to a heretic or non believer. We believe in that which is rational, and we are not afraid to defend our beliefs against Christians, Muslims or whoever seek to convert us.
HOWEVER, we do NOT believe this is true among the ignorant. For children, or the uneducated, we believe it is best to shield them from things such as missionaries until they are educated enough to have an intelligent conversation with them. And no, by shield them, i dont mean shoot them.
As for Hannukah and Lisa's claim about it, it didnt exactly go down that way. The Greeks were an occupying power that invaded, defiled the temple by forcing idol worship, they also decreed the death penalty upon all who would learn Torah and practice God's commandments. Additionally, the Greeks instituted prima nocta where they governor would sleep with a bride before she was to be married.
So yes, the Jews did rebel and succeed - i doubt their intent was slaughtering Greeks - it was about regaining sovereignty in Israel.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: However, if asked if someone were to re-institute these laws these days, i guarantee that all Orthodox Jews would be vicious opponents. Such laws have no place in our time.
Right. First Moshiach needs to come and gather us. Then we reinstate the court system.
Regardless, individual zealots (like Mattisyahu) are almost never ok. I cannot imagine a situation where I would be willing to take on that responsibility.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I have to admit, this is the first I've heard of something given on Sinai that wasn't directed toward Israel's descendants. If you can show it to me it would resolve a lot of my philosophical hang-ups with Judaism.
How nice to know that the multiple conversations we have had on this very topic made so much impact. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I really am interested in what is meant by "cursing God". Is it a question of just rejecting God? Would atheism be seen as cursing god? Is it saying "damn you" to God?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Rivka--
Those conversations have made an impact.
But of evidence of the type Amroth described, I don't recall.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Gee, and I thought I was giving the poor, freezing young men who were at my door a break when I decided against giving them a piece of my mind about Prop 8. Killing them didn't even occur to me.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Noemon - rejecting God/atheism would probably go under worship of false Gods. Cursing God, yeah, if you said damn you to God, many religious individuals don t say God-D... for that reason (even though it may be different), etc.
And Scott - I'm working on getting you the exact text. The Talmud is very big...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote: Cursing God, yeah, if you said damn you to God, many religious individuals don't say God-D... for that reason (even though it may be different), etc.
I've always seem someone saying "God damn X" as calling down God's damnation on that thing, rather than cursing God himself.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: Killing them didn't even occur to me.
You've always struck me as kind of liberal, though.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And I know a lot of Orthodox Jews who would take issue with my talking about it somewhere like here, but it's still what Judaism says.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Oh man. Lisa? C'mon. Why are you discussing this?
Mipnei darkei shalom there are certain things that need a whole lot of context before explanation.
Case in point.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I believe that NOWHERE are Jews commanded to kill non-Jews for their beliefs. Even if they are worshiping idols, committing sexual immoralities and the like.
Well, I never actually said anything about killing non-Jews for idolatry. I spoke only about Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: However, what Lisa said, is definitely true about Jews. It does not apply nowadays where we have no real country that is governed as a Jewish theocracy. However, at times when everyone lived under Jewish theocratic rule, where all submitted to the laws of Torah and the Talmud, then if someone committed the worship of foreign gods, adultery, murder, or sifting flour on the sabbath day - these people, if warned beforehand, viewed by two witnesses, and found guilty through an elaborate court system - would be subject to the death penalty.
Nope. "One of these things is not like the other". Non-Jews are always allowed to sift flour on Shabbat. Only Jews get any punishment for it, let alone capital punishment.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: However, if asked if someone were to re-institute these laws these days, i guarantee that all Orthodox Jews would be vicious opponents. Such laws have no place in our time.
I guarantee you that you're wrong. Not in America, obviously, but in Israel? Once the Sanhedrin and batei din are back in order? Those laws are forever; they're just conditioned on the institution of the Sanhedrin and lesser batei din.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: We believe that in ancient times, the struggle was how to live in a world where God revealed Himself so openly, how to live with the divine and not hide from it - something that explains the otherwise ridiculous nature of the Jews in the desert.
I'm sorry... "ridiculous"?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
yeah, that was the (even though it may be different) - people stay away from putting God and curses in the same place.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Oh, and If i could just address the point about non-Jews coming to convert Jews.
As I said, first, i don't think any laws exist regarding that particular activity - if a non-Jew tries to convert you, thou shalt kill him. No.
I never said otherwise. Though if it's in Israel, that's a different story. Imprisonment or expulsion might be a better thing to do, though.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: As for Hannukah and Lisa's claim about it, it didnt exactly go down that way. The Greeks were an occupying power that invaded, defiled the temple by forcing idol worship, they also decreed the death penalty upon all who would learn Torah and practice God's commandments.
Right. That was after what happened with Mattiyahu. Look it up.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: The "sexually immoral" is as I described above. The "false gods" would mean any object or human being or animal or tree or imagined deity of any kind. I'm not sure what you mean by "directed specifically at Noachides".
Assume I'm skeptical about your definition "sexually immoral." Can you show me that your interpretation is correct?
For the answer to both questions, you can check out the book Path of the Righteous Gentile, which is also available on Google Books. I'm not sure what you'd accept as a source. The category called gilui arayot, which is translated as "sexual immorality" is defined the way I said. You can Google "gilui arayot" or "giluy arayot" or replace "arayot" with "arayos", and I'm sure you'll find a lot. If there's a specific type of source you'd like, I can probably find it for you.
This might be helpful as well, though I haven't seen everything on the site, so I can't endorse it generally.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: And Scott - I'm working on getting you the exact text. The Talmud is very big...
I have it on CD if you want me to look something up for you.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Gee, and I thought I was giving the poor, freezing young men who were at my door a break when I decided against giving them a piece of my mind about Prop 8. Killing them didn't even occur to me.
Didn't even cross my mind, either. Is there anyone here who doesn't have severe reading comprehension issues?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: For the answer to both questions, you can check out the book Path of the Righteous Gentile, which is also available on Google Books.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Gee, and I thought I was giving the poor, freezing young men who were at my door a break when I decided against giving them a piece of my mind about Prop 8. Killing them didn't even occur to me.
Didn't even cross my mind, either. Is there anyone here who doesn't have severe reading comprehension issues?
Is there a reason why I can't see that post myself? I can only see your quoted version...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Many Christians might welcome the Jewish idea of only keeping the commandments enunciated in the time of Noah. That way they can set aside the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue. But Christians have to deal with Jesus' statement in Luke 2:28: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Notice that He did not say the Sabbath was made for the Jews, He said the Sabbath was made for man. And it is on the basis of this that He next claimed: "Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath." (v. 29)
Genesis 2:2, 3 is the only place in Scripture that describes the actual establishment of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, which came at a time when Adam was the only human alive. Although the day of rest in Gen. 2:2,3 was not called the Sabbath, it was called the Sabbath explicitly in the fourth commandment (see Exodus 20:11; note this was originally written by God with His own finger).
As for the idea of killing someone to prevent him from sinning, don't you think that God can take into account what he would have done, in judging him? This works for the good for those who are faithful to God. I like the way that Ellen G. White put it: "The character is revealed, not by occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by the tendency of the habitual words and acts." (Steps to Christ, pp. 57-58)
So if you lose your temper and swear at your spouse, then go out and get hit by a truck before you have had time to come to your senses and repent, you will not necessary be rejected by God. God can do this, because He can impute to us the perfect righteous life of Jesus Christ, as well as impute to us His death in satisfaction of the penalty for our violations of His law.
The only way that anyone human can be saved is through the imputed life and death of Jesus Christ. So even those Jews who are good and faithful Jews, still may be saved from eternal destruction and be accepted by God into the eternal life of bliss through what Jesus Christ did for them, whether they know it or not. Same for the Animist tribesman in New Guinea who is faithful to all he knows.
This is why Christianity is so attractive. It consists of good news about what God has already done for us in Another. Just as our race was constituted a fallen race under the dominion of sin because of the fall of Adam, so in the same way our race is given a new unfallen heritage in the New Adam, Jesus Christ--who has become the new Head of our race, by joining our humanity to His divinity. (See Romans 5:17-19.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Armoth, back on page 1. And Scott quoted the same post at the top of this page.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Gee, and I thought I was giving the poor, freezing young men who were at my door a break when I decided against giving them a piece of my mind about Prop 8. Killing them didn't even occur to me.
Didn't even cross my mind, either. Is there anyone here who doesn't have severe reading comprehension issues?
Is there a reason why I can't see that post myself? I can only see your quoted version...
Let's see. I replied to Speed too quickly, because I was irked. So I edited my post to a simple <yawn>. But he'd started replying already, so the following snippets made it through:
quote:I have no moral problem with the use of violence against someone trying to get a Jew to become a Christian.
Not that I've ever done so, but I'm certainly okay with it. If necessary, I'd simply view it as saving someone's life.
I didn't say anything about killing anyone. Nor did I say I considered violence when those two LDS guys came to my door. The only thing I considered that I didn't do was asking them in (it was cold outside). But I didn't want to give the wrong impression, and I had to get back to work, so I didn't. I felt bad about that, but that's life.
If I saw someone trying to get a Jew to become a Christian, and there was no other way to stop them, and I could do it without getting put in jail, I could definitely see preventing them physically. And I see no moral issues with that. But in practice, there's almost always a way to get them to stop, or otherwise interfere with them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Many Christians might welcome the Jewish idea of only keeping the commandments enunciated in the time of Noah. That way they can set aside the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue.
Nope. Non-Jews aren't allowed to keep Shabbat. Shabbat is for Jews only. Goy she'shavat chayav mita A non-Jew who keeps Shabbat is (metaphorically and not literally worthy of capital punishment according to God's law.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But Christians have to deal with Jesus' statement in Luke 2:28: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Notice that He did not say the Sabbath was made for the Jews, He said the Sabbath was made for man.
Doesn't matter what he says. What God says is that the Sabbath day is "a sign between Me and the Children of Israel forever."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Genesis 2:2, 3 is the only place in Scripture that describes the actual establishment of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, which came at a time when Adam was the only human alive.
Nope. There are several other places in the Torah where it's commanded to rest on the seventh day because it's Shabbat. A commandment given only to Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This is why Christianity is so attractive.
To whom?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It consists of good news about what God has already done for us in Another. Just as our race was constituted a fallen race under the dominion of sin because of the fall of Adam,
Speak for yourself. If you consider yourself to be "under the dominion of sin", fine. I'm sure it works well as an excuse, but don't use God's Torah to try and support such a gross idea. I wasn't born under the dominion of sin. Sin is what you do; not who you are. That's the whole basis of racism, believing that people are better or worse because of who they are and not what they do.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Ron, Since when are we getting into a discussion about the difference between Christianity and Judaism?
On the topic of the sabbath day, you are wrong. Exodus 20:11 states that sabbath is on the SEVENTH day. That was commanded to 600,000 Jews 2,000 years after the creation of the world, so Adam was not the only one around. I never understood how Christians went about changing that to sunday even if you believe that Sabbath was made for man.
But thats what's interesting. Judaism believes in relationships. Relationships with human beings, with reality and with God. But Judaism very much stresses first understanding the reality you are trying to relate to.
I had this discussion on the Israel Gaza thread. Say that I am trying to relate to you - i first need to understand who you are so that I can properly be sensitive to you and react to your needs. Your reality obligates a reaction. It is not simply live and let live, but if you are poor, your existence obligates my charity. If you are hurt, your existence obligates me to give to you.
This is true ultimately on the God scale. Much of Jewish thought believes that the relationship between man and his brethren is meant to parallel the relationship between man and God. If I cannot learn how to properly relate to that which sits in front of me, how can I learn to relate to the Divine which is not always as apparent?
What I'm saying is that Jews believe that God already spoke to them. He made his intentions clear. Yea, he is God so He can ultimately judge all of us, why do we have to get involved? Well that's a rational argument, but it isnt when viewed in this context - Humans do not get to define morality, GOD does. Since God commanded us to set up courts, to judge, then that is what He wants! I mean, you beleive in the OT - check out the verses where God commands the death penatly for one who gathers sticks on the Sabbath. God clearly believes that it is important for humans not just to live and let live, but to become one, to be responsible for one another, not just in a secular court system, but in a religious one.
Unfortunately, we cannot practice in a religious court system as the world is currently not ready for that, but that doesnt meant that that isnt what God wants.
And lastly, I understand that Christians are happy with the sacrifice of Jesus for their eternal salvation, but for Jews, it doesn't quite fit. We are all imbued with purpose, with the betterment of the world, to recognize the creator in all that we do and to live life to the fullest, understanding that a simple bite of food is a conversation with God that is filled with kindness.
The OT says that God will never alter his covenant, so we're happy with what we have. As attractive as Christianity might be, we can only obligate ourselves to reality as we see it.
In order to relate to God, we believe we must first learn who God is. Included in that definition is the God who said that sabbath is on the 7th day, that court systems must be set up, and that in an ideal world, death penalties should be issued. It is the same God who tells me to wear strings off a 4 cornered garment, not to eat lobster, and to honor my father and mother. We cannot pick and choose that which we deem rationale and that which we do not.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I've reviewed the link that Lisa posted, but not the book.
AND I have to say that I still have a great many problems with Judaism, if what the link reports is true.
This goes back to the idea that Speed put forward-- from an outsider's perspective on Judaism, it appears that God favors people born of Israel more than He favors the rest of the world.
There are seven laws ascribed to all humanity; but according to the link, the penalties for breaking those laws is more severe for Gentiles than for Jews.
From the link:
quote:The many formalities of procedure essential when the accused is an Israelite need not be observed in the case of the Noachite.
quote:A gentile who curses God's Name, whether he uses God's unique Name or one of His other names, in any language, is liable to the death penalty. Blasphemy with one of the attributes of God's name is an action which, if committed by an Israelite, would not be regarded as criminal (Sanhedrin 56b).
quote:Similarly, a pursuer should be executed if he kills the person he is chasing when he could have saved the latter's potential victim by maiming one of the attacker's limbs. Under the same circumstances an Israelite would not be executed.
quote:A gentile is liable for sleeping with his mother even though she was seduced or raped by his father and never married to him. Regardless, she is his mother. He is liable for sleeping with his father's wife even after his father's death. He is liable for relations with a male whether a minor or an adult and with an animal whether young or old. In the latter instance, only the gentile is executed and not the animal. Jews are only commanded to kill an animal with which a Jew engaged in relations.
quote:Furthermore, there are instances where a gentile would be held liable and a Jew will not, for a gentile is liable for a limb or flesh from a living creature whether from a domesticated animal or a beast, whether from a kosher or non-kosher species. Similarly, a gentile is held liable for the prohibition of a limb from a living creature, for a limb or flesh which is separated from an animal that is moving convulsively even though a Jew has already severed the two signs.
Is the link correct? Is there any way to see equanimity in the way that God deals with Jews and Gentiles in light of these?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I never understood how Christians went about changing that to sunday even if you believe that Sabbath was made for man.
Jesus was resurrected on Sunday. For most Christians, this became the day of the Lord, the day we honor Christ's resurrection and the hope it brings to all humanity. Through the years, it became known as the Sabbath among Christians-- even though calling it the Sabbath isn't technically correct.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: On the topic of the sabbath day, you are wrong. Exodus 20:11 states that sabbath is on the SEVENTH day. That was commanded to 600,000 Jews
Male Jews between the ages of 20 and 60. It was more like 2-3 million Jews all told.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: 2,000 years after the creation of the world, so Adam was not the only one around. I never understood how Christians went about changing that to sunday even if you believe that Sabbath was made for man.
He's a Seventh Day Adventist, or some such. He does it on Saturday. But he's not allowed to.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Unfortunately, we cannot practice in a religious court system as the world is currently not ready for that, but that doesnt meant that that isnt what God wants.
I must have missed the part where the commandment of having the system of batei dinim was conditioned on "the world being ready".
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: The OT says that God will never alter his covenant, so we're happy with what we have. As attractive as Christianity might be,
Does it? To you, I mean.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Jews believe that when the world began there was no distinction among its members - all were here for the same divine purpose.
But after 1500 years, mankind pretty much failed. Abraham chose God, so God, in turn, chose Abraham. The initial covenant with the non-Jews stands, and that is the 7 noahide laws, but for those who seek a stronger relationship with God, God is willing to have a stronger relationship with them.
Judaism is open to all who want that relationship, but for those who cannot handle being that close to God, God, in his infinite mercy, is alright with that.
And what I mean by "can't handle being close to God" is complicated. Judaism does not believe that a relationship is about who you are with your partner, but about what you put in. God's closeness obligates. The closer you want to be with God, the more obligations fall upon you. So Abraham, who actively sought out God, was rewarded with a stronger relationship, but was also burdened with "ol malchus shamayim" - the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.
Jews are taught to bear this yoke, with the perspective that 80 years of human effort in struggling to uphold God's commandments is trite and pales to compare to the good of this world and the good of eternity that God gives us.
Yes you are right in saying that Jews and Gentiles are not dealt with in the same way - but as I said, anyone who so wishes to become a Jew may become one. Because Judaism recognizes how great a burden Judaism is, we are not obligated to convert people.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Lisa - you're right about the world being ready thing. But I didn't want to launch upon an explanation of the reasons why Sanhedrin stopped judging cases of diney nefashot, and the general reasons why we do not practice capital punishment nowadays - darkei shalom probably included.
As for the attractiveness of Christianity? I personally am not attracted. If I had to choose another religion - Buddhism is the way to go. Elimination of suffering and self discipline, Buddhisms tenants, to me, cooincide greatly with my favorite parts of Judaism.
But yes, studying Jewish-Christian relations, I understand what made Christianity attractive over the many years. It is, after all, Judaism's largest spinoff religion.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is the link correct? Is there any way to see equanimity in the way that God deals with Jews and Gentiles in light of these?
Do you mean "equanimity", or do you mean "equality"? The former means "mental or emotional stability or composure, esp. under tension or strain; calmness; equilibrium." The latter... well, we don't believe everyone is equal. Of potential equal value, yes, but everyone has different obligations and different rules. My cousin is a Kohen, and he can't go into a cemetary except to bury his parents or children (and maybe siblings and spouse, but I'm not sure about that). I'm not limited in that way. Men are obligated to put on tefillin every day; women are not. Jews are obligated to cut the foreskin off of their male children, and failing to do so carries a punishment of karet, which is the most severe punishment in Jewish law. Non-Jews are not obligated to do so (except possibly Arabs).
We discriminate. We differentiate. Between Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisraelim. Between adults and children. Between men and women. Between married people and single people. Between Jews and non-Jews. Between certain non-Jews and other non-Jews. Between light and dark and between Shabbat and weekdays. It's probably the most defining characteristic of Judaism, the distinctions we make.
There are a very, very few cases where the laws are more stringent for non-Jews. They are far outweighed by those where the laws are more stringent for Jews. I don't think it's something we need to apologize for.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I never understood how Christians went about changing that to sunday even if you believe that Sabbath was made for man.
When the Church consecrated Sunday to the public worship of God, it did not consider itself to be "changing" the Sabbath from one day to another. It was viewed as a different thing, although with some obvious similarities.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: This goes back to the idea that Speed put forward-- from an outsider's perspective on Judaism, it appears that God favors people born of Israel more than He favors the rest of the world.
I wasn't taught this.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: and with an animal whether young or old. In the latter instance, only the gentile is executed and not the animal. Jews are only commanded to kill an animal with which a Jew engaged in relations.
Btw, I'm not sure what your problem was with this one. If a Jew commits bestiality, you kill the Jew and the animal. If a non-Jew commits bestiality, you kill the non-Jew, but not the animal. That's more of a technicality of law than any kind of inequality, I'd think. Or did you think the Jew gets off free and we only kill the animal?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Buddhisms tenants
oops. Should I bother editing?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Nah, its okay. Just watch out for the proper use of apostrophe's.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The populous will thank you.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(I hope that gives the right affect.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Lisa--
Reason does not provide me with an understanding for why God-- who apparently sees "potential equal value" in everyone-- would have a Gentile killed for bestiality, but preserve the life of the animal, but allow a Jew who commits bestiality to live, but the animal has to die.
Do you understand how that appears to me, looking in from the outside of your religion? It definitely sends the impression that the life of a trespassed-against goat is more important to God than a perverted-gentile.
Can you explain the lowered standards of proof regarding culpability for Gentiles, in light of the idea that God sees "equal potential value" in all people, regardless of heritage? I mean, for goodness sakes-- gentiles don't even have to be warned of the law, sometimes, before they're put to death.
My problem isn't with differentiation of duty. It's the apparent discrepancies in mortal legal judgment between two people who committed the same sin, but who are born from different bloodlines.
quote:God's closeness obligates. The closer you want to be with God, the more obligations fall upon you. So Abraham, who actively sought out God, was rewarded with a stronger relationship, but was also burdened with "ol malchus shamayim" - the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.
In Mormonism, we have a similar belief-- that knowledge of the truth raises one's responsibility for obedience.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Lisa--
Reason does not provide me with an understanding for why God-- who apparently sees "potential equal value" in everyone-- would have a Gentile killed for bestiality, but preserve the life of the animal, but allow a Jew who commits bestiality to live, but the animal has to die.
Scott, this looks like it may be a misinterpretation. See Lisa's post above:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... Btw, I'm not sure what your problem was with this one. If a Jew commits bestiality, you kill the Jew and the animal. If a non-Jew commits bestiality, you kill the non-Jew, but not the animal. That's more of a technicality of law than any kind of inequality, I'd think. Or did you think the Jew gets off free and we only kill the animal?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:did you think the Jew gets off free and we only kill the animal?
Lisa, the part you quoted definitely implies that to me.
Here's the pertinent part of the quote:
quote:He is liable for relations with a male whether a minor or an adult and with an animal whether young or old. In the latter instance, only the gentile is executed and not the animal. Jews are only commanded to kill an animal with which a Jew engaged in relations.
Is the article you linked wrong?
The specific example aside, the tenor of my post above remains.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Reason does not provide me with an understanding for why God-- who apparently sees "potential equal value" in everyone-- would have a Gentile killed for bestiality, but preserve the life of the animal, but allow a Jew who commits bestiality to live, but the animal has to die.
You misunderstand. The Jew dies. The only difference between the two cases is whether the animal dies as well.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Can you explain the lowered standards of proof regarding culpability for Gentiles, in light of the idea that God sees "equal potential value" in all people, regardless of heritage? I mean, for goodness sakes-- gentiles don't even have to be warned of the law, sometimes, before they're put to death.
Part of it is that these laws are considered to be pretty much no-brainers. But I don't believe (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) that a non-Jew who violates one of these laws in good conscience, out of complete ignorance of the law, merits capital punishment. The "warning" we talk about in such cases is a whole procedure. Basically, you have to tell the person the parameters of the law at the time the event is happening, citing your sources, and have them say in front of witnesses that they understand and are going to do it anyway. That's the kind of warning that's required for capital punishment for a Jew and not for a non-Jew.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: My problem isn't with differentiation of duty. It's the apparent discrepancies in mortal legal judgment between two people who committed the same sin, but who are born from different bloodlines.
There are comparable differences between subgroups of Jews as well.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
As an aside:
rivka, I have learned a good deal about Judaism from your discussions here of the Noachide laws. I know Scott (like all of us) has been in and out for bits here and there, and I can certainly believe he quite honestly missed them.
I just wanted you to know they are held in fondness by me and to give you thanks for the time and patience you spent getting me to understand.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is the article you linked wrong?
No, but maybe it should have occurred to them that it wouldn't be obvious to all readers that a Jew who commits bestiality gets killed. I mean, I'm just as guilty. I looked at that quote and it totally didn't occur to me that it could be read as exempting the Jew, because it's so obvious to me from other sources. If you hadn't said something, I never would have imagined it could be read that way.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yes, Lisa, I expect the background assumptions make one parsing of the sentence seem obvious to someone who is immersed in the culture, whereas (I think) Scott reads a different parsing:
quote:He is liable for relations with a male whether a minor or an adult and with an animal whether young or old. In the latter instance, only the gentile is executed and not the animal. Jews are only commanded to kill an animal with which a Jew engaged in relations.
Interpretation 1, last sentence: [Other] Jews are only commanded to kill an animal. [i.e., They are commanded to kill only the animal.]
Interpretation 2: [Other] Jews are only commanded to kill an animal in one case, but not the other case.
---
[note some changes for clarification below]
The "only" modifies the commandment to kill the animal, not the extent of the killing in general. That is, it should be read as "only commanded to kill the animal," not "commanded to kill only the animal." I think.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's fair. I see it now.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I wish I got as excited about my daily chores as I do about metaphorically diagramming sentences.
This is going to be the [pique] of my excitement today, alas. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Lisa is correct. The Jew dies in the case of bestiality as well.
As for the discrepancies regarding standard of proof? I'm not sure that there are any.
I mean, i know that some commentators believe that the commandment to set up court systems is to enforce the other 6 noahide laws. If that is the case, then it's possible that the gentile courts would be more leninent than the Jewish ones.
Jewish courts are not so much about making sure punishments get meted out as they are about absolute certainties. There is no beyond a reasonable doubt, it's beyond the absolute shadow of any doubt. The warning system that Lisa referenced along with an enormous amount of technicalities made it so that a court that executed someone once in 70 years was considered a murderous court.
I don't know the laws of judging non-Jews well enough to comment on whether there are discrepancies or not.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: My problem isn't with differentiation of duty. It's the apparent discrepancies in mortal legal judgment between two people who committed the same sin, but who are born from different bloodlines. _____
There are comparable differences between subgroups of Jews as well.
That doesn't improve things, IMO.
NOTE:
I recognize the ironies inherent in a Mormon (with Mormonism's history of discrimination) arguing this topic.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't know the laws of judging non-Jews well enough to comment on whether there are discrepancies or not.
From the link:
quote:The Seven Noahide laws are general commandments with many details. Transgressing any one of them is considered such a breach in the natural order that the offender incurs the death penalty. Apart from a few exceptions, the death sentence for a Ben Noach is Sayif, death by the sword / decapitation, the least painful of the four modes of execution of criminals (see the Rambam's Hilchos Melachim 9:14). (The four methods of capital punishment in Torah are: S’kilah - Stoning; S’rifah - Burning; Hereg - Decapitation; Henek - Strangulation.) The many formalities of procedure essential when the accused is an Israelite need not be observed in the case of the Noachite. The latter may be convicted on the testimony of one witness, even on that of relatives, but not on that of a woman. He need have had no warning from the witnesses; and a single judge may pass sentence on him (Sanhedrin 57a, b; Rambam, Hilchos Melakim 9:14).
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Lisa, here are two quotes from the same post. I have a question about them.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Nope. Non-Jews aren't allowed to keep Shabbat. Shabbat is for Jews only. Goy she'shavat chayav mita A non-Jew who keeps Shabbat is (metaphorically and not literally worthy of capital punishment according to God's law.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It consists of good news about what God has already done for us in Another. Just as our race was constituted a fallen race under the dominion of sin because of the fall of Adam,
Speak for yourself. If you consider yourself to be "under the dominion of sin", fine. I'm sure it works well as an excuse, but don't use God's Torah to try and support such a gross idea. I wasn't born under the dominion of sin. Sin is what you do; not who you are. That's the whole basis of racism, believing that people are better or worse because of who they are and not what they do.
In the first quote, you are stating what someone who doesn't share your beliefs is not allowed to do under your belief system. You do not qualify the statement in any way.
In the second quote, you seem to be objecting to someone making a statement about people in general under his religious belief system.
I can't quite see any distinction between what you posted, and what you objected to Ron posting, in terms of speaking for oneself. It appears you did the same thing you objected to Ron doing, in the same post.
However, as you pointed out, your religion is one of many distinctions and discrimination, so I'm wondering if you perceive a distinction that I'm missing. I mean, other than that you think you're right and Ron's wrong. That's self evident and doesn't need pointing out. (As, I would think, it doesn't need pointing out that you don't consider Ron's beliefs to be applicable to yourself.)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Interesting. I just looked it up.
If I had to answer this, just with the limited background of Jewish Philosophy that I have, and in line with my previous post:
Like I said before, the closer you get to God, the more obligations are incumbent. A vast amount of the 613 commandments relate to the laws between man and friend. For instance, there are many laws that relate to honesty in business, civil disputes, kindness to your fellow man, all that the 7 noahide laws do not cover.
Presumably, if I were to extend the ideas i mentioned before, that is because adherence to those laws demand a level of obligation that not everyone is capable of. As such, as I mentioned, Judaism is certainly open to those who are capable, and those laws may even be volunteered by noahides who do not wish to convert.
The laws of Jews, to be judged in capital cases by a court of 71 judges, to be warned at the time of committing a crime, and the laws of testimony all relate to the extreme sensitivity that Jews are demanded to give one another when it comes to the sanctitiy of life. No sane Western country employs these methods.
Two witnesses? Warning AT THE TIME of the crime? 71 judges as opposed to a judge and a jury of 12? Murderers and rapists would be on the streets if such laws were extended to non-Jews. The idea could be that the tolerance and restraint expected when being so cautious is too much to ask of one who keeps only the 7 Noahide laws.
(btw - Another point is that the Jewish court system was based on the notion that whatever the courts don't catch - God will.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: In the second quote, you seem to be objecting to someone making a statement about people in general under his religious belief system.
I can't quite see any distinction between what you posted, and what you objected to Ron posting, in terms of speaking for oneself. It appears you did the same thing you objected to Ron doing, in the same post.
However, as you pointed out, your religion is one of many distinctions and discrimination, so I'm wondering if you perceive a distinction that I'm missing. I mean, other than that you think you're right and Ron's wrong. That's self evident and doesn't need pointing out. (As, I would think, it doesn't need pointing out that you don't consider Ron's beliefs to be applicable to yourself.)
There are two things. One is that even aside from religion, the idea that people are born bad just squicks me out. It makes the whole thing unfair from the get go. Saying that there are differences between people is nothing at all like saying people are inherently bad.
The other is that he's using our books as a source for what he's saying. Stephen King has a book called Danse Macabre, which is non-fiction. He talks about the difference between fear and dread and horror. And he points out that The Creature from the Black Lagoon is always going to be more horrifying than the Blob, or than a microbe, because it's like us, but wrong.
I don't think Hinduism is any better than Christianity (on the contrary), but Christianity bothers me more. And Ron's brand even more than that. Because Hindus are something completely "other". Whereas Ron takes something of ours, something of inestimable value, and perverts it into the opposite of itself.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The laws of Jews, to be judged in capital cases by a court of 71 judges, to be warned at the time of committing a crime, and the laws of testimony all relate to the extreme sensitivity that Jews are demanded to give one another when it comes to the sanctitiy of life.
But not to Gentiles?
Again, from the outside looking in, it seems an awful lot like the life of the Gentile was not considered nearly as important as the life of the Israelite.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: As such, as I mentioned, Judaism is certainly open to those who are capable, and those laws may even be volunteered by noahides who do not wish to convert.
Except for Shabbat. And certain sacrifices when the Temple is standing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The laws of Jews, to be judged in capital cases by a court of 71 judges, to be warned at the time of committing a crime, and the laws of testimony all relate to the extreme sensitivity that Jews are demanded to give one another when it comes to the sanctitiy of life. No sane Western country employs these methods.
Interestingly, several Muslim countries -- with some variations, of course -- do. The interesting thing about it is that while these initially seem like quite high standards of proof, in reality so many things justify capital punishment that merely being caught alone in a car with someone of the opposite sex by two policemen looking to persecute someone can be a fatal -- or, at the very least, expensive -- experience even in places as "liberal" as Libya.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The laws of Jews, to be judged in capital cases by a court of 71 judges, to be warned at the time of committing a crime, and the laws of testimony all relate to the extreme sensitivity that Jews are demanded to give one another when it comes to the sanctitiy of life.
But not to Gentiles?
Again, from the outside looking in, it seems an awful lot like the life of the Gentile was not considered nearly as important as the life of the Israelite.
That's not true generally speaking, but in some cases, yes, we're more solicitous towards our own. That doesn't mean that God views non-Jews as being "less than", only that the Torah recognizes the natural fact that people care for themselves first.
In the laws of tzedaka, for example (roughly: charity), the order of priority for giving goes (1) local Jews, (2) local non-Jews, (3) Jews elsewhere, (4) non-Jews elsewhere. You can say that it's terrible that we prioritize our own people, but what surprises me about that list is that it puts local non-Jews before Jews elsewhere.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The laws of Jews, to be judged in capital cases by a court of 71 judges, to be warned at the time of committing a crime, and the laws of testimony all relate to the extreme sensitivity that Jews are demanded to give one another when it comes to the sanctitiy of life.
But not to Gentiles?
Again, from the outside looking in, it seems an awful lot like the life of the Gentile was not considered nearly as important as the life of the Israelite.
Yes, perhaps it relates to a larger presumption of innocence - Jews, who have taken upon themselves the greater burden of the Kingdom of Heaven, perhaps logic demands that their day in court, where the very assumption of their innocence stands in jeopardy, are assumed a much larger probability of innocence.
I know what it looks like from the outside looking in. But these things need to be looked at in context. I myself have seen these laws for the first time and have studied them, be'iyun (in-depth) - the perspectives I am offering are rudimentary, and that's not very good. When I become more learned, perhaps I can offer you a better one?
Just out of curiosity, and if you don't mind me asking, what faith do you practice, if you do indeed practice a faith?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The laws of Jews, to be judged in capital cases by a court of 71 judges, to be warned at the time of committing a crime, and the laws of testimony all relate to the extreme sensitivity that Jews are demanded to give one another when it comes to the sanctitiy of life. No sane Western country employs these methods.
Interestingly, several Muslim countries -- with some variations, of course -- do. The interesting thing about it is that while these initially seem like quite high standards of proof, in reality so many things justify capital punishment that merely being caught alone in a car with someone of the opposite sex by two policemen looking to persecute someone can be a fatal -- or, at the very least, expensive -- experience even in places as "liberal" as Libya.
Tom, the police officer thing is plausible but the warning is not. In the Jewish court system, you must be warned and acknowledge the warning before the act is committed. You must say - hey you two! stop canoodling! Don't you know...xyz...and they they must say: yeah, we hear your warning, but we don't care...etc.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That's not true generally speaking
EDITED because I need to rethink my objections and be a bit more clear.
Amroth--
I'm a Mormon.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Scott, I'm not sure what kind of sources you want, but if you tell me, maybe I can help. I know that I wasn't taught that non-Jews were of lesser value. I will say that there is a group in Judaism that does teach that, but I have little to no respect for them on any number of counts. That's just one of them. I'll refrain from specifying who they are because the Mumbai Massacre was so recent.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Feisty...
Yea, i was also not taught that.
Know what's kinda interesting? When Christianity first began and tried to spread among the Jews, Christians were still keeping all the old laws, or at least most. But when Christianity dropped many Jewish laws to allow for it to spread among non-Jews it had much greater success.
I wonder if this supports my theory that Judaism is simply too hard for its obligations to be incumbent upon all humanity without them accepting it first.
Maybe that's another reason why Christianity is so attractive. I'm sorry Lisa - why Christianity is seen as attractive by some.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You must say - hey you two! stop canoodling! Don't you know...xyz...and they they must say: yeah, we hear your warning, but we don't care...etc.
This is technically the letter of the law in those countries, as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
I wonder if this supports my theory that Judaism is simply too hard for its obligations to be incumbent upon all humanity without them accepting it first.
Or just didn't make sense.
(As in, "you want us to cut our what?!? What the **** for?!)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
I wonder if this supports my theory that Judaism is simply too hard for its obligations to be incumbent upon all humanity without them accepting it first.
Or just didn't make sense.
(As in, "you want us to cut our what?!? What the **** for?!)
Bah. From that perspective every religion makes ZERO sense.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not really. A lot of the "rules" make sense. A lot of them are (to an outsider anyway) goofy.
The sense that you have to turn off your own idea of what makes sense and what doesn't may be often associated with religion, but it doesn't have to be.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
What point are you making?
I understand the context of the vast majority of the rules of my religion and they make perfect sense.
I understand the context of many rules of beliefs of Christianity, that to many of my peers, do NOT make perfect sense.
Put from the perspective of mocking circumcision bc it is a foreign concept, that means that one isn't delving too deep into the contexts of anything. So yeah, religion out of context, all religions out of context, seem silly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Feisty...
Yea, i was also not taught that.
Know what's kinda interesting? When Christianity first began and tried to spread among the Jews, Christians were still keeping all the old laws, or at least most. But when Christianity dropped many Jewish laws to allow for it to spread among non-Jews it had much greater success.
I wonder if this supports my theory that Judaism is simply too hard for its obligations to be incumbent upon all humanity without them accepting it first.
Maybe that's another reason why Christianity is so attractive. I'm sorry Lisa - why Christianity is seen as attractive by some.
I've appreciated all the writing you have been doing so far Armoth.
I think you should note Armoth that in the early days of Christianity virtually all their converts were Jews. The law of Moses would naturally remain near and dear to their hearts. If I as a Mormon were suddenly asked to say, sing a completely new set of hymns at church that I had never heard, I would miss the old hymns and may even insist that some are as good as the new set and should be included.
I completely understand your argument, as a Mormon, many Christians think the additional restrictions on alcohol, chastity until marriage, smoking, etc that we adhere to are too much.
The early debates on circumcision were admittedly foggier as circumcision predates the law of Moses by many hundreds of years. Jesus' so called fulfillment of the law does not necessarily mean that Christians should not circumcise their children as a token of their commitment.
But consider dietary restrictions. Those sorts of rules were exclusive to the law of Moses, and also encouraged early Christians to look at the gentiles, who they were supposed to be preaching the gospel to, as unclean. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not distinguish between clean and unclean, and as such when the head of Christianity said he fulfilled the law, many were slow to recognize the full ramifications of such a statement. Only by presenting that fulfillment in such stark terms i.e Peter being told to eat from a list of animals that included common and unclean, did he get the message that the law of Moses was fulfilled, and that the gospel was to be preached to all people.
Again I can certainly see how that all seems like a rationalization of an effort to first create a Christianity Lite that would be easier to swallow, and Christianity has indeed done things to make it more accessible. However you will find that there are still Christians who to varying degrees, "keep kosher" just to be safe. But I think the scriptures both Old and New clearly indicate what commandments transcend the law of Moses, and which ones were contained exclusively therein.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wasn't so much mocking circumsion as mocking the imagined response to suggesting it.
Where rules like "do not steal" have a clear and obvious practical reason. It has been suggested here that even trying attribute a practical reason for Jewish dietary laws was offensive.
The point I was trying to make was that people could have other reasons for not following certain laws other than that we are lazy or soft. "That makes no sense" is as likely as "that is too hard".
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Thanks!
Yeah. I hear you. Obviously, from the Jewish perspective, Law of Moses and the stuff that transcends it is odd. We don't really see things that way.
mean, in Genesis, after Jacob's struggle with the angel, it states that it is forbidden to eat the Gid Hanesheh - the sciatic nerve or tendon. I don't know of any Christian group that adheres to this prohibition.
Additionally, Jewish tradition explains that the Patriarchs, Abraham Isaac and Jacob did indeed distinguish between clean and unclean, and that they kept kosher. There is extensive commentary on the matter, especially concerning the fact that that Abraham did prepare a meal for the 3 angels that wasn't exactly kosher.
But yeah, i hear that some see room for distinguishing.
But why was the Law of Moses altered? Or rather, why are they considered exclusive to Israel and not to Christians? Is there a formula for the laws in the OT that are extended to Christians and those that are left behind?
Honor thy Father and Mother, but not so much Kosher? What about wearing tzitzit - strings attached to four cornered garments, or tfilin, the requirement to wear phylacteries?
Leviticus gets quoted all the time when talking about Homosexuals, is that only because Romans backs it up?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Leviticus gets quoted all the time when talking about Homosexuals, is that only because Romans backs it up?
What a very good question!
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I wasn't so much mocking circumsion as mocking the imagined response to suggesting it.
Where rules like "do not steal" have a clear and obvious practical reason. It has been suggested here that even trying attribute a practical reason for Jewish dietary laws was offensive.
The point I was trying to make was that people could have other reasons for not following certain laws other than that we are lazy or soft. "That makes no sense" is as likely as "that is too hard".
Gotcha. Didn't understand what you were trying to say.
Jews have a tradition that we hold very dear - When asked if we wanted to receive the Torah, the Bible says that we replied: "Naaseh Venishma" - We will do, and we will listen. - The commentaries all point out that we first said we will do, and afterward listen, not listen and then do. The point being that if God commanded it, we will not question, we will do. Only after will we seek to understand.
I know that doesn't quite help nowadays when there is no divine voice reading the laws to you, but through my own learning, I have done enough to prove to myself that that encounter did indeed happen.
Where am I going with this...
::shrug:: You may be right. I have no real understanding of what it must be like to try and convert someone. I guess I'm glad that isn't a part of Judaism.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I know that doesn't quite help nowadays when there is no divine voice reading the laws to you, but through my own learning, I have done enough to prove to myself that that encounter did indeed happen.
You have done nothing of the kind. There is no 'prove to myself'. Either you can prove something to the public at large, or you are just delusional.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. And there is a certain beauty in that.
But for people who don't believe that the encounter happened - or happened that way - it needs to make sense.
ETA: To Armoth
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I know that doesn't quite help nowadays when there is no divine voice reading the laws to you, but through my own learning, I have done enough to prove to myself that that encounter did indeed happen.
You have done nothing of the kind. There is no 'prove to myself'. Either you can prove something to the public at large, or you are just delusional.
Yeah, im aware. I didn't mean prove in the normal sense - actually, you can't really prove very much in that sense. You cannot prove that I exist. Or that you exist for that matter.
When I say prove, i mean in the sense that it is reasonable enough to me that it has met the threshold of proof through which I make important decisions based on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Either you can prove something to the public at large, or you are just delusional.
Bull. If I witness something happening, I will often not be able to prove to the public at large that it happened. It would be ridiculous to base the definition of "delusional" on whether I happen to be carrying a video camera when something happens.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Either you can prove something to the public at large, or you are just delusional.
I don't think that's true. I don't think I'm deluded for thinking that I just drank a sip of my coffee, even though I can't prove it at all.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yeah, but I'm not claiming that God spoke to me personally, or that I "feel" God, and i "KNOW" it to be true like many others often claim.
So the point is moot.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You would, however, be delusional to think that your belief in your coffee-sip was a proof.
quote:When I say prove, I mean in the sense that it is reasonable enough to me that it has met the threshold of proof through which I make important decisions based on.
And you don't find it at all curious that only people who happened to be told about this sequence of events as children, believe in the evidence given for it? If the evidence were really convincing, ought it not to be convincing even to people encountering it as adults?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Genesis, after Jacob's struggle with the angel, it states that it is forbidden to eat the Gid Hanesheh - the sciatic nerve or tendon
Could you do me a favor and quote where it says this, I do not have my scriptures in front of me.
quote:Additionally, Jewish tradition explains that the Patriarchs, Abraham Isaac and Jacob did indeed distinguish between clean and unclean, and that they kept kosher.
I intend no offense when I say tradition holds little weight for Mormons in this regard. Remember we think many of the "traditional interpretations" of key doctrines such as the Trinity and Original Sin are completely wrong. In the same token we believe that by the time Jesus came there were quite a few tradition based errors that were current among the Jews of the time. Again no offense intended.
quote:But why was the Law of Moses altered? Or rather, why are they considered exclusive to Israel and not to Christians? Is there a formula for the laws in the OT that are extended to Christians and those that are left behind?
We adhere to the words of the prophets both past and present. We also have the clarification of prophets of the past who lived under the law of Moses but recognized its' purpose. I do not know how familiar you are with the Book of Mormon but a prophet therein who lived centuries before the advent of Christ said,
"Yea, and they did keep the law of Moses; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of Moses as yet, for it was not all fulfilled. But notwithstanding the law of Moses, they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses was a type of his coming, and believing that they must keep those outward performances until the time that he should be revealed unto them.
Now they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses; but the law of Moses did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ; and thus they did retain a hope through faith, unto eternal salvation, relying upon the spirit of prophecy, which spake of those things to come."
As for what we elect to obey from the books of the Old Testament, from my own personal experience I see rules as being from two categories.
1: Rules that helps us live as God lives.
2: Rules that remind us of God and the importance of submitting our wills to him.
Rules such as wearing phylacteries or not eating shrimp are of the 2nd classification. They are rules that deal with day to day affairs and by having so many, the average Jew is made to remember God in all things. Rules such as the 10 commandments are in the 1st classification. Even in the law of Moses where it gives rules regarding sexuality are arguably from the first category. But even when a commandment seems to be without any moral import it still reminds us that we must subject ourselves to wisdom of God and allow him to teach us rather than us trying to steal wisdom for ourselves by deciding which of God's commandments are important.
Mormonism solves the problem of ascertaining God's will in modern times in the same way the ancient Jews and early Christians did, with prophets. The debate about many tenets of Christianity are less confusing because of this.
Anything of importance that cannot be figured out by simply reading the extensive canon is discussed by prophets who reveal the mind of the Lord on the matter.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You would, however, be delusional to think that your belief in your coffee-sip was a proof.
quote:When I say prove, I mean in the sense that it is reasonable enough to me that it has met the threshold of proof through which I make important decisions based on.
And you don't find it at all curious that only people who happened to be told about this sequence of events as children, believe in the evidence given for it? If the evidence were really convincing, ought it not to be convincing even to people encountering it as adults?
First of all, that isn't completely true. And of course i find it curious, I'm not an idiot.
However, there are plenty of sociological explanations the other way - many of them being the very human tendency to hide from obligation, and the tendency towards laziness and complacency.
I have respect for anyone who is a thoughtful individual, has done the research, learned the sides, and landed on one. I happen to land on one as well, but I think of myself as a well thought-out individual.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"I think of myself as a well thought-out individual."
I envy you. I have lots of features I think weren't well thought out at all. For instance, hairy earlobes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:However, there are plenty of sociological explanations the other way - many of them being the very human tendency to hide from obligation, and the tendency towards laziness and complacency.
And so, in order to defend your beliefs, you are going to add the further belief that of the several hundred million people who encounter Judaism as adults, all but a tiny, tiny percentage are lazy, complacent, or hiding from obligation? Is this really the path of maximum simplicity?
quote:I have respect for anyone who is a thoughtful individual, has done the research, learned the sides, and landed on one. I happen to land on one as well, but I think of myself as a well thought-out individual.
Of course you do. If you didn't, you'd start thinking some more. "The verb 'to believe falsely' does not have a first-person present indicative." I suggest that your judgement in this matter is not terribly relevant. I also suggest that your pious cry of 'respect' does not mesh very well with your appeal to "laziness, complacency [and] hiding from obligation".
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Genesis, 32:33 - "Therefore the Children of Israel are not to eat the displaced sinew on the ball of the thighbone to this day, because he struck the ball of Jacob's thighbone on the displaced sinew."
Is it only a children of Israel thing and not a Verus Israel thing?
----
On the 1 and 2 distinction.
I don't understand the live as God lives thing. God does not have a father and mother, he need'nt honor them. God, forgive me, cannot sleep with the male version of God and thus commit the sin of homosexuality.
oh wait. I just realized. Are we talking about Jesus? Like, live as Jesus lives? But Jesus DID, or at least i thought that he did keep these commandments.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I don't understand the live as God lives thing. God does not have a father and mother, he need'nt honor them. God, forgive me, cannot sleep with the male version of God and thus commit the sin of homosexuality.
In Mormon theology, if I understand correctly, their god does have parents. It also has a sex, and I believe there may be other gods around in different Universes. I'm not really clear on that part. But if it were so, then the Mormon god could presumably sleep with one of them.
Question for the Mormons here: Is the god who created this universe married?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:However, there are plenty of sociological explanations the other way - many of them being the very human tendency to hide from obligation, and the tendency towards laziness and complacency.
And so, in order to defend your beliefs, you are going to add the further belief that of the several hundred million people who encounter Judaism as adults, all but a tiny, tiny percentage are lazy, complacent, or hiding from obligation? Is this really the path of maximum simplicity?
quote:I have respect for anyone who is a thoughtful individual, has done the research, learned the sides, and landed on one. I happen to land on one as well, but I think of myself as a well thought-out individual.
Of course you do. If you didn't, you'd start thinking some more. "The verb 'to believe falsely' does not have a first-person present indicative." I suggest that your judgement in this matter is not terribly relevant. I also suggest that your pious cry of 'respect' does not mesh very well with your appeal to "laziness, complacency [and] hiding from obligation".
I hate to say this, but you've been a bit obnoxious. I am happy to answer your questions on my belief, and I'm sure you have a nicer way of presenting your objections than through snide remarks and condescension.
And I did not mean to explain the world currently. There are hundreds of sociological explanations that defend the allegation that if Judaism were true, why doesn't everyone just up and accept it.
My explanation did not take into account the hundreds of millions who encounter Judaism from OTHER religions, and who have the need to defend the way they were raised as well.
I don't mean to offend, but my point was that it is not a disproof, nor it is something that casts great rational peril on the allegation that after my own thought and research, something seemed the most rational to me, that it doesn't immediately seem rational to everyone else.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I know that doesn't quite help nowadays when there is no divine voice reading the laws to you, but through my own learning, I have done enough to prove to myself that that encounter did indeed happen.
You have done nothing of the kind. There is no 'prove to myself'. Either you can prove something to the public at large, or you are just delusional.
Right on schedule.
On the other hand, I actually found myself channeling KoM a little while talking to the Elders. Elder Groberg told me that God Himself told him that the Book of Mormon was true. I replied that it was himself telling himself that, and that God didn't tell him anything of the sort. I didn't use the word "delusional", but it was certainly what I was thinking.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Genesis, after Jacob's struggle with the angel, it states that it is forbidden to eat the Gid Hanesheh - the sciatic nerve or tendon
Could you do me a favor and quote where it says this, I do not have my scriptures in front of me.
Genesis 32:33.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Additionally, Jewish tradition explains that the Patriarchs, Abraham Isaac and Jacob did indeed distinguish between clean and unclean, and that they kept kosher.
I intend no offense when I say tradition holds little weight for Mormons in this regard.
That's what I was thinking. Plus, while there are midrashim (not traditions, Armoth -- consider what R' Abraham ben HaRambam had to say about people who take every midrash literally), there are others who say otherwise. Or do you think Moshe Rabbenu was a mamzer (chas v'shalom) because Amram married his aunt? And Ramban's quibble about it being outside of Eretz Yisrael isn't really convincing.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Remember we think many of the "traditional interpretations" of key doctrines such as the Trinity and Original Sin are completely wrong.
That's nice to hear.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: In the same token we believe that by the time Jesus came there were quite a few tradition based errors that were current among the Jews of the time. Again no offense intended.
None taken. Clearly you all don't accept the Oral Torah.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And so, in order to defend your beliefs, you are going to add the further belief that of the several hundred million people who encounter Judaism as adults, all but a tiny, tiny percentage are lazy, complacent, or hiding from obligation?
I hate to say this, but you've been a bit obnoxious.
Armoth, I'd like you to meet King of Men. KoM, this is Armoth.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'll echo Lisa on the no offense taken.
And Midrashim are traditions nonetheless. And no, i don't take all of them literally, but some of them do make valid points.
In the context of this discussion - the timelessness of mitzvoth, I felt it appropriate.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And so, in order to defend your beliefs, you are going to add the further belief that of the several hundred million people who encounter Judaism as adults, all but a tiny, tiny percentage are lazy, complacent, or hiding from obligation?
I hate to say this, but you've been a bit obnoxious.
Armoth, I'd like you to meet King of Men. KoM, this is Armoth.
Seriously?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote: I don't understand the live as God lives thing. God does not have a father and mother, he need'nt honor them. God, forgive me, cannot sleep with the male version of God and thus commit the sin of homosexuality.
Are you so sure God does not have a father? But laying that assumption aside honoring one's parents is right just as God the creator of our souls ought to be be venerated.
I would argue that God has more happiness than any human being has ever attained by virtue of his perfectness. By emulating the personality God possesses we align ourselves with the universal laws of righteousness, the results of which are happiness. God's commandments are by their nature designed to bring us the happiness he enjoys. Perhaps God is completely incapable of committing an act of homosexuality, I personally think God chooses to not commit sin rather then being unable to, God still apparently believes that homosexuality causes people to become less like him and therefore less happy then they could be. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Judaism has a similar belief - that we are emulating God and by doing so, we come closer to Him and thus to eternal happiness.
However, we believe that this is true for commandments like Kosher and Tefilin (Phylacteries) just as much as it is true for not lying or stealing. Since God commanded them, they are expressions of His will, and thus their fulfillment brings us closer to Him by emulating Him.
The Talmud even writes that God wears tefilin. (Obviously metaphorically speaking) - but the point is likely that the connection exists even through the commandments that are not type 1.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:And I did not mean to explain the world currently. There are hundreds of sociological explanations that defend the allegation that if Judaism were true, why doesn't everyone just up and accept it.
This is a place where it is important to be precise in language. In particular, I want to distinguish between "A proposition which is true" and "A proposition which has compelling evidence in its favour". Although there is overlap, the two are not identical. To borrow an example from above, it is true that I drank some tea half an hour ago, but the evidence in favour of this consists only of my assertion here, the contents of my stomach (which will be gone tomorrow) and the empty teacup on my desk.
Next, let me note that real evidence compels belief even against the hearer's will. If something has really good evidence, then people will believe it although it goes against their childhood religion. Germ theory didn't win out because the people who believed it had machine guns; it won because diseases were damn well stopped in their tracks.
What does your evidence consist in? Basically, a text which describes certain events; this text is claimed to be unchanged from what was written down by the direct eyewitnesses to the events in question, and the error-checking codes used in copying the text are given as evidence of this identity. (As an aside, we know from information theory that no error-checking procedure is perfect, even one involving humans; it would be an interesting problem to calculate the expected length of time until the Torah's meaning changes significantly - say, a 'shall' substituted for a 'shall not').
The text, however, is contradicted on several points by the archeological evidence. Just to start with, it claims an age (on a literal reading) for the human race of 6000 years or so, which is plain nonsense. It claims an Israelite population of several million while marching through the Sinai; nonsense. It claims a period of subjection in Egypt, which somehow escapes mention in the extensive Egyptian literature of the period, not to mention that Egypt's population at the time was only a few million; just how are they keeping these two million fighting men in bondage, anyway? Again, nonsense.
Compelling evidence compels. Your evidence compels only those who already believe the proposition; and not all of those, at that. And this is the evidence you put forth as "I have made a good-faith effort"? Pshaw. You've made a good effort at defending your own beliefs and your connection to your community. To find truth, you're going to have to work a bit harder.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I have never presented my evidence, nor would I do so in such a forum, and especially not to someone like you. No, not because of your beliefs, but because of your attitude.
However, many a learned individual have answers your very valid points - some of which I find compelling, others which, admittedly, i do not.
My discussion with you is over. I was under the impression that Hatrackers are not only interested in pursuing the truth, but that they are also pleasant people.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I have never presented my evidence, nor would I do so in such a forum, and especially not to someone like you. No, not because of your beliefs, but because of your attitude.
Making excuses when 'evidence' is challenged. Special pleading.
quote:However, many a learned individual have answers your very valid points - some of which I find compelling, others which, admittedly, i do not.
Appeal to authority.
quote:My discussion with you is over. I was under the impression that Hatrackers are not only interested in pursuing the truth, but that they are also pleasant people.
Evading questions you cannot answer.
Bog-standard theist tactics. Not very surprising, slightly disappointing. Slik er livet.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And so, in order to defend your beliefs, you are going to add the further belief that of the several hundred million people who encounter Judaism as adults, all but a tiny, tiny percentage are lazy, complacent, or hiding from obligation?
I hate to say this, but you've been a bit obnoxious.
Armoth, I'd like you to meet King of Men. KoM, this is Armoth.
Seriously?
Seriously.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
One sec, one sec. Lemme practice my not caring because you're a dirty heathen trick...
Any other stereotypes you want me to confirm? Or are you so threatened that you pop up on any thread where someone discusses their religious beliefs so that you can prove to yourself that you are right, over and over again?
That's right - i didn't see you commenting when we were discussing the 7 Noahide laws.
You're not the only justifiably arrogant elitist jerk on this forum. Remember that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am, actually. All the other elitist jerks are arrogant without justification.
I can see you're going to need a bit more practice if you intend to ignore me. I can also see that you don't have any actual answers, hence you are retreating into wounded dignity and personal insults. Classic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I happen to land on one as well...
Were you not born Jewish, into a family of Jews? That's not landing on; that's launching from.
quote:I have never presented my evidence, nor would I do so in such a forum, and especially not to someone like you. No, not because of your beliefs, but because of your attitude.
Hm. Would you present your evidence to me? I have roughly the same beliefs as KoM, but I'm marginally nicer about it and maybe a smidge less confrontational. I'd be very, very interested in proofs of the Hebrew God that would suffice to convince a critical observer.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I happen to land on one as well...
Were you not born Jewish, into a family of Jews? That's not landing on; that's launching from.
Point taken. On the other hand, I am one of 5 very close friends, all in the same launch pad - 3 of us have left Judaism. I wasn't exactly raised in a bubble.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
Question for the Mormons here: Is the god who created this universe married?
We believe yes is the only logical answer, but we have no specific revelation saying this.
quote:Genesis, 32:33 - "Therefore the Children of Israel are not to eat the displaced sinew on the ball of the thighbone to this day, because he struck the ball of Jacob's thighbone on the displaced sinew."
Is it only a children of Israel thing and not a Verus Israel thing?
I don't know of anybody who eats that part anyway. But in any case it seems to be something the literal descendants of Israel would do to commemorate the event. If God felt it was still important to observe that principle today he would reveal it through a prophet.
quote: I don't understand the live as God lives thing. God does not have a father and mother, he need'nt honor them. God, forgive me, cannot sleep with the male version of God and thus commit the sin of homosexuality.
Are you so sure God does not have a father? But laying that assumption aside honoring one's parents is right just as God the creator of our souls ought to be be venerated.
I would argue that God has more happiness than any human being has ever attained by virtue of his perfectness. By emulating the personality God possesses we align ourselves with the universal laws of righteousness, the results of which are happiness. God's commandments are by their nature designed to bring us the happiness he enjoys. Perhaps God is completely incapable of committing an act of homosexuality, I personally think God chooses to not commit sin rather then being unable to, God still apparently believes that homosexuality causes people to become less like him and therefore less happy then they could be.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So how do you account for all those people who have made themselves completely miserable by trying to live without acting on their homosexual impulses? The proposition "Lifestyle X increases human happiness" ought, if true, not to have such large numbers of counterexamples who will testify to how it made them dreadfully unhappy for years on end.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So how do you account for all those people who have made themselves completely miserable by trying to live without acting on their homosexual impulses? The proposition "Lifestyle X increases human happiness" ought, if true, not to have such large numbers of counterexamples who will testify to how it made them dreadfully unhappy for years on end.
You of all people should understand that there would be a large number of confounding variables that we'd have to take into account.
Beyond that, the act of resisting sin does not always carry happiness in the short term. If a man has an addiction to a drug he may live his entire life with a type of misery associated with rejecting that compulsion. He may never know relief until he is dead.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... On the other hand, I actually found myself channeling KoM a little while talking to the Elders. Elder Groberg told me that God Himself told him that the Book of Mormon was true. I replied that it was himself telling himself that, and that God didn't tell him anything of the sort. I didn't use the word "delusional", but it was certainly what I was thinking.
This is one of the things that amuses me sometimes. As atheists, in a very real sense, we simply say to *every* religion what each religion often says to each other. Plus, we actually say it rather than just thinking it.
As you pointed out earlier, Christianity can be seen as a perversion of Judaism, and Seventh Day especially so. But as atheists, we're completely outside of that, "other" as you said, not only to Judaism but to pretty much every religion with a deity.
Its an interesting dynamic.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I am, actually. All the other elitist jerks are arrogant without justification.
I have *some* justifications, but they're quite subjective.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You of all people should understand that there would be a large number of confounding variables that we'd have to take into account.
Would you like to suggest some? Gay men almost uniformly attempt to resist their urges to start with. Their reasons are not hard to understand; there are still large tracts of this country where being known to be gay literally risks death at the hands of thugs, and even without that, it's a huge social stigma. If such resistance really did make them happy, would they not continue? This is not confounding factors; this is 95% of the population in question. When you get to this level of contrary evidence, it is just dishonest to say "confounding factors"; rather it is then the original hypothesis which might be considered a confounding factor to whatever is causing the counter-evidence!
quote:Beyond that, the act of resisting sin does not always carry happiness in the short term.
(Sings) You will eat, bye and bye, In that glorious land above the sky; Work and pray, live on hay, You'll get pie in the sky when you die.
It does not occur to you that it is a bit dodgy to hold out a promise of happiness which you are not sure of, against a certain unhappiness proved many times by experiment? Have you ever known anyone who reported happiness in the afterlife on account of having resisted sin in this one?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The text, however, is contradicted on several points by the archeological evidence.
No, it isn't.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Just to start with, it claims an age (on a literal reading) for the human race of 6000 years or so, which is plain nonsense.
No, it isn't.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It claims an Israelite population of several million while marching through the Sinai; nonsense.
No, it isn't.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It claims a period of subjection in Egypt, which somehow escapes mention in the extensive Egyptian literature of the period, not to mention that Egypt's population at the time was only a few million; just how are they keeping these two million fighting men in bondage, anyway?
Actually, 600,000 fighting men. And they were slaves before their population got that big. Never underestimate a slave mentality. Also, what you wrote begs the question of what period you're looking at. We were in Egypt during the Old Kingdom, which has left precious little inscriptional evidence of any kind.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Lisa, I'm pretty sure several of those quotes from your second to last post were Armoth quoting BlackBlade but with the formating messed up so they weren't in quote boxes, not his own statements.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I happen to land on one as well...
Were you not born Jewish, into a family of Jews? That's not landing on; that's launching from.
I was raised non-religious. I landed on the side I landed on while I was in college, after I was no longer under whatever influence my upbringing had on me. Believe me, my family would love if I'd stop being religious.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Lisa, I'm pretty sure several of those quotes from your second to last post were Armoth quoting BlackBlade but with the formating messed up so they weren't in quote boxes, not his own statements.
I just realized that. <sigh> I'm going to kill that post.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I landed on the side I landed on while I was in college, after I was no longer under whatever influence my upbringing had on me.
Well, yes, but you are in many ways the exception that proves the rule, aren't you? Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
the literal age provided (6000) is based on calculating the ages chronologically of all the people mentioned up until some date which some christian monk came up with.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Oh man. Lisa. HAHAHAHAHHAHA That is the FUNNIEST THING EVER!!!!!!!
I didnt write any of that!!! I was quoting from above! I'm fairly new to hatrack and inept at using the quoting function properly....
Oh thats great...wow, I loved teh Reb Nachman thing, and the Aish thing. That was AWESOME!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
Honor thy Father and Mother, but not so much Kosher? What about wearing tzitzit - strings attached to four cornered garments, or tfilin, the requirement to wear phylacteries? backs it up?
I banish thee Undeath Abomination to the Abyss!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It would have made you about the most Mormon-esque Jew I've ever heard of. Which I guess is not impossible, but seems somewhat unlikely.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Like i said before - a lot of it Jews believe as well. Just not so much with the Jesus.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I was referring more to the specific phrasing. There's no way a non-Mormon Christian, let alone a Jew, would have written it just that way.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Oh man. Lisa. HAHAHAHAHHAHA That is the FUNNIEST THING EVER!!!!!!!
I didnt write any of that!!! I was quoting from above! I'm fairly new to hatrack and inept at using the quoting function properly....
Oh thats great...wow, I loved teh Reb Nachman thing, and the Aish thing. That was AWESOME!
And I missed it!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I landed on the side I landed on while I was in college, after I was no longer under whatever influence my upbringing had on me.
Well, yes, but you are in many ways the exception that proves the rule, aren't you?
The meaning of "prove" in that expression is "test". An exception proving the rule actually proves it not to be the rule.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Oh man. Lisa. HAHAHAHAHHAHA That is the FUNNIEST THING EVER!!!!!!!
I didnt write any of that!!! I was quoting from above! I'm fairly new to hatrack and inept at using the quoting function properly....
Oh thats great...wow, I loved teh Reb Nachman thing, and the Aish thing. That was AWESOME!
Grr... so I misunderstood. And it's Reb Noach (Weinberg), not Reb Nachman.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The meaning of "prove" in that expression is "test". An exception proving the rule actually proves it not to be the rule.
Yes, I'm aware of that. *laugh* And yet I'm absolutely sure you understood my meaning.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE]You of all people should understand that there would be a large number of confounding variables that we'd have to take into account.
quote:Would you like to suggest some? Gay men almost uniformly attempt to resist their urges to start with. Their reasons are not hard to understand; there are still large tracts of this country where being known to be gay literally risks death at the hands of thugs, and even without that, it's a huge social stigma. If such resistance really did make them happy, would they not continue? This is not confounding factors; this is 95% of the population in question. When you get to this level of contrary evidence, it is just dishonest to say "confounding factors"; rather it is then the original hypothesis which might be considered a confounding factor to whatever is causing the counter-evidence!
You seem to be discussing social pressure rather than theological. Of course many a person who resists his/her homosexuality purely based on social pressures will be much happier when those pressures are removed. That does not make for a fair comparison when we are dealing with people who are faithful members of the church vs those who leave because homosexuality proves to difficult a vice.
For one thing we would have to control for homosexuals who feel they have had spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of the gospel vs those who have not. You could control for those who attend church weekly, for temple worthiness, for membership in the church by years. You could control for homosexuals who are out about their feelings to their families and those who are not. Homosexuals who are supported by their families and communities and those who are not.
quote:Beyond that, the act of resisting sin does not always carry happiness in the short term.
quote: (Sings) You will eat, bye and bye, In that glorious land above the sky; Work and pray, live on hay, You'll get pie in the sky when you die.
It does not occur to you that it is a bit dodgy to hold out a promise of happiness which you are not sure of, against a certain unhappiness proved many times by experiment? Have you ever known anyone who reported happiness in the afterlife on account of having resisted sin in this one?
Another reason why Mormons suggest that each individual find out for themselves if Mormonism is God's prescription for humanity or something else.
And let's be honest, if a person died and miraculously came to life hours later and said that heaven was so amazing he was perfectly willing to give up homosexuality, it in of itself would do virtually nothing to sway you or even me.
edited for clarity.
[ December 31, 2008, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The meaning of "prove" in that expression is "test". An exception proving the rule actually proves it not to be the rule.
Yes, I'm aware of that. *laugh* And yet I'm absolutely sure you understood my meaning.
lol
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, I'm not sure what kind of sources you want, but if you tell me, maybe I can help. I know that I wasn't taught that non-Jews were of lesser value.
I'll accept any sources you want to show, Lisa, as long as they have context.
Mostly what I'm looking for is how you justify your statement-- that God (potentially) loves everyone equally-- with the discussion on the Noachides, which clearly show an inequality in the dispensation of justice.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
MMMM... Not a bad source, except that Judaism is full of talk about how LARGE the share is in the world to come, and the source doesn't suggest that there is equality there.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It isn't equal between different Jews, either. This is the same exact wording as "All Jews have a share in the World to Come". They wouldn't have used the same wording if they hadn't wanted to imply an equivalence.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yeah, but I'd assume that Jews have a whole lot more opportunity to gain a larger share than non-Jews.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
It's taken me forever to read this thread, so this is probably way out of context by now.
But I really enjoyed a comment about being "chosen" I read in a book once. He said it wasn't so much being chosen for a great reward; it was more like being chosen to wash the car or mow the lawn.
Sorry I don't have a better source, it was just an idea I liked.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Tanna DeBei Eliahu Rabba, chapter 9 says “I call heaven and earth as witnesses: Any individual, whether gentile or Jew, man or woman, servant or maid, can bring the Divine Spirit upon himself in accordance with his deeds.”
I can't find an online link for this.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Yeah, but I'd assume that Jews have a whole lot more opportunity to gain a larger share than non-Jews.
Maybe, maybe not. I think of it as the other way around. Non-Jews only have seven commandments; we have a godzillion. It's a lot easier for us to lose some of our share than it is for them.
Is the cup half full or half empty, I guess.
(I've always felt that if the cup wasn't so friggin' oversized, that wouldn't be an issue.)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I guess you're right. That's always the way I understood the difference between Jewish men and women, or men and kohanim.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Wow--there have certainly been a lot of posts today, two pages worth--and the day is only half done.
As for the claim that non-Jews are forbidden to keep the Sabbath, it would have been useful if the references were given for the supporting quote. I know it was not from the Bible. And to me that is the only Authority. Any such prohibitions in say, the Talmud, are like painting a target around an arrow that has already been shot.
When I give a statement as justifying authority for what I say, I always give the reference, so you know where it came from, and can verify it yourself. This is one of the fundamental requirements of any scholarly discourse.
According to the Bible, the Creation of the World is where all things begin for humanity, and there is where the Sabbath was originally created by God. Compare Genesis 2:2, 3 with Exodus 20:11, and there can be no disputing the fact, without denying the word of God Himself, written with His own finger on tables of stone. Let me quote Exodus 20:11, which gives the REASON for the seventh day being the Sabbath: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
Here there is no room for denying that the day of rest God set aside on the seventh day of Creation Week was the Sabbath. And at that time, no Jews existed. The seventh-day Sabbath is the only day God has blessed and hallowed. What right do Jews have to deny the rest of humanity a share in this blessing? Since the blessing was given when only Adam was alive, the blessing has to be for the whole human race.
Sorry, Lisa, et. al., but there is no logical way to deny this. Unless you want to claim that the Talmud (or whatever) is more inspired than Genesis 2 or Exodus 20.
As for the claim someone made that people are supposed to be stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, that is a case of taking something out of context, where the prohibition applied in a very specific situation in the past. Sound scholarship requires taking things in their proper context--recognizing those things that have general application, and distinguishing them from those things that are local applications.
Someone raised the question of where the custom of keeping Sunday among Christian came from. Probably the most comprehensive, exhaustive study of this was done by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, a Seventh-day Adventist who believe it or not graduated from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, and received several imprimaturs for his 1977 doctoral thesis, From Sabbath to Sunday : A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity. (Available from Amazon.com.) Dr. Bacchiocchi (who died only a few days ago from liver cancer at age 70), found that Christians all kept the seventh-day Sabbath until about 130 A.D., when the Jewish Christians were scattered after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and the Emperor Hadrian began issuing his extremely virulent anti-Jewish proclamations, threatening death to anyone who kept the Sabbath. Many Christians, at that time, began meeting on Sundays (in addition to covert meetings on the Sabbath), to distance themselves from the Jews, so they would not be arrested and executed.
Even after Christianity won over the Roman Empire (more or less) in the time of Constantine, Christians still kept both Sabbath and Sunday. It was decided to encourage Christians to favor Sunday, so the Empire could unify on a day kept by pagans as well as those Christians who were willing. This was done by decreeing Sabbath as a day of fasting, and Sunday as a day of feasting. It still took about 200 years, but finally Sunday-keeping became nearly universal (except for those holdouts who fled Rome and took refuge in the Piedmont mountains, later becoming known as the Valdois and Waldenses--who kept the original teachings and practices of Biblical Christianity, including observing the seventh-day Sabbath).
You see, the switch from keeping the Biblical Sabbath to keeping Sunday was all politics. Keeping Sunday was P.C.
The idea that Sunday keeping honors the Resurrection of Christ is sheer rationalization, for which there is not one word of warrant in the Bible. According to Romans 6:3-5, baptism by immersion is the divinely ordained means for commemorating the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ--that and living the new life led by the Spirit of God.
Christians today need to ask themselves, whose authority are they venerating when they keep Sunday? Are they bowing to the Creator, or to the creature? Which should have more weight--the traditions of men (even the traditions of the church), or the Law of God, written with His own finger on tables of stone?
[ December 31, 2008, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
A couple pages ago, Armoth commented that the commandments God gave to the Israelites were meant to bring them closer to God.
quote:God's closeness obligates. The closer you want to be with God, the more obligations fall upon you. So Abraham, who actively sought out God, was rewarded with a stronger relationship, but was also burdened with "ol malchus shamayim" - the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.
Assuming that that interpretation is correct, isn't forbidding a certain group of people from receiving or following commandments effectively distancing them from God?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Christians today need to ask themselves, whose authority are they venerating when they keep Sunday?
I'm not sure if you're one of those Christians who maintains that Mormons aren't Christians, but we venerate Sunday as our day of rest, according to the commandments given to us by God through modern prophets.
And furthermore, I'm not even sure that it really matters, within the context of Mormonism, WHEN the day of rest is observed; as long as a day is set aside in a consistent and ordered way among a congregation, for believers to meet together and worship and rest from doing anything else but honoring God and doing His work.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: A couple pages ago, Armoth commented that the commandments God gave to the Israelites were meant to bring them closer to God.
quote:God's closeness obligates. The closer you want to be with God, the more obligations fall upon you. So Abraham, who actively sought out God, was rewarded with a stronger relationship, but was also burdened with "ol malchus shamayim" - the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.
Assuming that that interpretation is correct, isn't forbidding a certain group of people from receiving or following commandments effectively distancing them from God?
I'm about to respond to the post above you, which should provide more detail. But Sabbath is considered a special covenant between God, and specifically the nation of Israel - It is a special gift to them for their harder role in this world.
I will always repeat - Judaism is open to all who wish to join, but for non-Jews, Sabbath is that which separates Jews from non Jews, specifically as a gift, or a reward.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Oh, one more thing:
There is such a thing as a ger toshav - a non-Jew who has accepted upon himself formally to keep the 7 Noahide laws and lives in Israel at the time of theocratic rule.
This ger toshav has many benefits and is included in a lot of Jewish ritual, etc. Rabbi Solomon ibn Isaac (Rashi), a major Jewish commentator and legal opinion cites that these non-Jews not only are not forbidden, but are required to keep the Sabbath. (See (Rashi, Tractate: Kritot 9, Yevamot 40))
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I will always repeat - Judaism is open to all who wish to join, but for non-Jews, Sabbath is that which separates Jews from non Jews, specifically as a gift, or a reward.
...and I'll always repeat, that's a terrible way to go about showing that God looks upon people of any bloodline equally.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Why? Because Sabbath is exclusive? I don't quite understand.
Lets use the framework we've been developing.
For one who is a non-Jew and recognizes the extraordinary value of the Sabbath, then his keeping of the Sabbath day without accepting upon himself the full yoke of the burden of heaven, is an insult. It is reaping reward without sowing.
It's like when a mother puts honey on bread because she is interested in her child eating the bread, not the honey. A bad child will lick off the honey and discard the bread.
A non-Jew is given the ability to come close to God WITHOUT all the burden, but to collect on the reward of sabbath, without the effort?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Ok, Ron:
Orthodox Jews believe in the Talmud, or the Oral Law as a fundamental component of Torah. Perhaps we should go into the reason for a written and oral law at some point - but perhaps the biggest proofs for the necessity of the Oral Law is that God often commands things that need further explication.
"Sit in a booth for 7 days" - What's a booth? When do we have to sit in it? Do we literally need to be sitting? Etc.
But yes, the source for a non-Jew's prohibition to keep the sabbath is in the talmud. I think it's funny that you think the talmud is like painting a target around an arrow that has already been fired, especially because Jews think that way of the New Testament.
But if your point was that my source isn't authoritative to you - then yes, you're right, of course.
As you say:
"According to the Bible, the Creation of the World is where all things begin for humanity, and there is where the Sabbath was originally created by God. Compare Genesis 2:2, 3 with Exodus 20:11, and there can be no disputing the fact, without denying the word of God Himself, written with His own finger on tables of stone. Let me quote Exodus 20:11, which gives the REASON for the seventh day being the Sabbath: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
Here there is no room for denying that the day of rest God set aside on the seventh day of Creation Week was the Sabbath. And at that time, no Jews existed. The seventh-day Sabbath is the only day God has blessed and hallowed. What right do Jews have to deny the rest of humanity a share in this blessing? Since the blessing was given when only Adam was alive, the blessing has to be for the whole human race."
You assume that Exodus gives the reason for that which was commanded in Genesis. In Genesis there is no commandment. It simply writes that God finished creating the world, and then, vayishbot (roughly, rested or abstained), He sanctified it, blessed it, etc.
Exodus is where the commandment actually is. That means that sabbath gets COMMANDED at a time when Adam is not the only guy around as we previously discussed.
Furthermore, lets take a look at Exodus 31:
31:13. Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them: See that you keep my sabbath; because it is a sign between me and you in your generations that you may know that I am the Lord, who sanctify you.
31:14. keep you my sabbath: for it is holy unto you: he that shall profane it, shall be put to death: he that shall do any work in it, his soul shall perish out of the midst of his people.
31:15. Six days shall you do work: in the seventh day is the sabbath, the rest holy to the Lord. Every one that shall do any work on this day, shall die.
31:16. Let the children of Israel keep the sabbath, and celebrate it in their generations. It is an everlasting covenant
31:17. Between me and the children of Israel, and a perpetual sign. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and in the seventh he ceased from work.
Here are a few things: One, it is between God and the people of Israel. It was commanded EXCLUSIVELY at that time. God revealed Himself just to Israel at that point, not to all of humanity - even you agree with that, right?
We do not seek to deny you the Sabbath. Even if it's a wonderful blessing, etc. We don't see ourselves as keeping that from you - we understand, However, that God did. Sabbath was not a covenant he extended to all mankind.
You continue:
"As for the claim someone made that people are supposed to be stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, that is a case of taking something out of context, where the prohibition applied in a very specific situation in the past. Sound scholarship requires taking things in their proper context--recognizing those things that have general application, and distinguishing them from those things that are local applications."
I'm not really sure what you are saying here. But, see above, 31:15, the capital punishment for the violation of the sabbath.
And here is where we get into Hebrew vs. English.
The verse says: "ki kol ha'oseh bah melocha" - you translate as: "Every one that shall do any work on this day"
Melocho does not mean work. The word, Avodah, in Hebrew, means work. Orthodox Jews believe that Melocho is a creative activity, the definition of which is given more clearly in the Talmud. But According the Nachmanidies, and many other commentaries, the idea here is that Sabbath is a testimony to the Creator and our abstention from creative activity affirms this testimony.
One can technically conduct business on the Sabbath and not violate any Torah commandments. (Though Rabbinic law prohibits most business).
The word melocho - which you translate as "work" - is the same root as the world for angel - or "malach" - or messenger. Angels and Messengers are Creative expressions, and extension of will of their sender - God, or human. They are creative forces.
Interestingly, the Torah does explicitly prohibit the lighting of fire on the Sabbath - which is the only melocho/creative activity mentioned explicitly in the Torah.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I've never before heard of this Noachide Law principle. If Jews really do believe that all people of all races are equal, and have equal rights and opportunity to the kingdom of God, why are they so against evangelism? I mean, if someone tries to get a member of the Chosen People to leave the faith it's a matter of war and death, but if someone of a different race wants the benefits of Judaism, and has an easier path in gaining that reward, it doesn't seem like anyone who knows enough to help them gives a damn.
If it turns out that Judaism is true, it sounds like there are thousands of people every day who are going to die and find out that they're cast out of God's presence because their Jewish friends didn't bother to bring up this Noachide thing to them.
I guess my question is whether this is due to canonized, institutionalized discrimination, or is it just a matter of the Jewish culture tending to not care about people of other races?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
There's something that's been puzzling me. I don't know if I can express it effectively, so bear with me. It's been said more than once that Jews are a special people - the covenant people, because of a covenant with God. And because of that covenant, they are closer with God; they also have more obligations on them to follow certain laws. For example, here:
quote:God's closeness obligates. The closer you want to be with God, the more obligations fall upon you. So Abraham, who actively sought out God, was rewarded with a stronger relationship, but was also burdened with "ol malchus shamayim" - the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.
But it has also been said more than once that non-Jews are not bound to keep many (if not most) of those laws. It was suggested that this was because you couldn't require people to obey the law who had not chosen the covenant - who had not sought to be closer to God, as it were.
This is the part I don't understand, because aren't all Jews under obligation to obey these laws? Aren't they all part of the covenant just by virtue of being born Jewish? And when did they choose that they wanted to be closer to God and accept the obligations that came with that? I understood that as a people, that covenant was made at Sinai, but modern Jews weren't at Sinai. Aren't they being required to follow the laws even though they didn't get a choice in the matter? (Obviously some Jews choose not to - secular Jews, I mean - but aren't they still, according to Orthodox Jews, supposed to be following those laws just by virtue of being Jewish? There's really not much of a choice, is there? It's all about birth.)
What am I missing?
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Christians today need to ask themselves, whose authority are they venerating when they keep Sunday? Are they bowing to the Creator, or to the creature? Which should have more weight--the traditions of men (even the traditions of the church), or the Law of God, written with His own finger on tables of stone?
Not to complicate what is essentially a (very interesting) discussion of Judaism, but the practice of Christians meeting for the Eucharist on "the Lord's Day" (Sunday) is as early as Justin Martyr's account of Christian worship, which is pretty early. It is implicit also in the Acts accounts. The question of God's law vs. traditions of the church is a moot one; we're not under the Law.
Orthodox Christians still consider Saturday a holy day and a day of rest, though the Lord's Day, beginning with evening prayer on Saturday, is greater.
EO also view original sin differently. The Greek fathers taught that humanity was born in a kind of immaturity; even without sin they would have needed to "grow up." After Adam's sin that task became harder, we and the earth were afflicted with a propensity to grow thorns instead of bear pure fruit, but it is not being "born bad" as Lisa put it. That seemed to be Augustine's idea and the western church ran with it, later having to explain limbo for babies etc. etc.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I will always repeat - Judaism is open to all who wish to join, but for non-Jews, Sabbath is that which separates Jews from non Jews, specifically as a gift, or a reward.
...and I'll always repeat, that's a terrible way to go about showing that God looks upon people of any bloodline equally.
I don't understand this objection. People of all bloodlines can convert to Judiasm.
A lot of Christian religions have this. For example, only people of certain sects can take communion or attend the temple, etc.
As for Sabbath, anyone can observe the Sabbath in a loose way. They just can't do it completely. For example, often someone who is in the process of converting will keep the Sabbath except for one small "transgression." Something like flicking a light switch or walking around outside with something in their pocket.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: This ger toshav has many benefits and is included in a lot of Jewish ritual, etc. Rabbi Solomon ibn Isaac (Rashi), a major Jewish commentator and legal opinion cites that these non-Jews not only are not forbidden, but are required to keep the Sabbath. (See (Rashi, Tractate: Kritot 9, Yevamot 40))
I'd like a better source than that, if you don't mind. I'm very skeptical about this. When citing Rashi, you give the divrei ha-matchil. And when citing the Talmud, you give not just the daf, but the amud. Or did you copy this reference from somewhere else without looking it up yourself?
Edit: I'm looking at Kritut 9a, and Rashi says no such thing. The Gemara says that a ger toshav can do melacha on Shabbat for himself the way Jews can on Chol HaMoed. Rashi points out that this refers to a davar ha-aved, which is the kind of thing Jews can do on Chol HaMoed. If your source claims that Rashi says the opposite of what he actually says, you should find a better source.
[ December 31, 2008, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: I've never before heard of this Noachide Law principle. If Jews really do believe that all people of all races are equal, and have equal rights and opportunity to the kingdom of God, why are they so against evangelism? I mean, if someone tries to get a member of the Chosen People to leave the faith it's a matter of war and death, but if someone of a different race wants the benefits of Judaism, and has an easier path in gaining that reward, it doesn't seem like anyone who knows enough to help them gives a damn.
If it turns out that Judaism is true, it sounds like there are thousands of people every day who are going to die and find out that they're cast out of God's presence because their Jewish friends didn't bother to bring up this Noachide thing to them.
I guess my question is whether this is due to canonized, institutionalized discrimination, or is it just a matter of the Jewish culture tending to not care about people of other races?
There is a group publicizing the Noachide laws. The same group that Lisa chose to disparage on the previous page.
So, I think the disconnect here is that you are seeing things with a Christian lens. Jews believe that people who do not know about a rule are not punished for not following it. For example, a Jewish infant that is kidnapped at birth is not punished for not being Torah observant.
I think the extension (although I have not learned this) is that a gentile who was not taught the Noachide laws would not be punished in the World to Come. So there is no need for evangelizing.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: So, I think the disconnect here is that you are seeing things with a Christian lens. Jews believe that people who do not know about a rule are not punished for not following it. For example, a Jewish infant that is kidnapped at birth is not punished for not being Torah observant.
I think the extension (although I have not learned this) is that a gentile who was not taught the Noachide laws would not be punished in the World to Come. So there is no need for evangelizing.
Then why in God's name was it brought up here? Are you saying that if I hadn't read this thread I could have lived forever in the Kingdom of God, but now that I did, if I don't accept these principles I'm going to be damned forever?
If that's the case, I can see why you don't evangelize. My question now is, why isn't this the most carefully guarded secret in your society? Why would you ever tell this to anyone except as a super-capital punishment?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: This is the part I don't understand, because aren't all Jews under obligation to obey these laws? Aren't they all part of the covenant just by virtue of being born Jewish? And when did they choose that they wanted to be closer to God and accept the obligations that came with that? I understood that as a people, that covenant was made at Sinai, but modern Jews weren't at Sinai. Aren't they being required to follow the laws even though they didn't get a choice in the matter?
It's a good question, and it is discussed in various Jewish sources. There are two basic answers: 1) All Jews (including those who would in future convert) stood at Sinai. Those who were not yet born were there in spirit. 2) There is a general concept in Jewish law that one person can act as an agent for a second without that person's explicit consent, if and only if they are doing something that is for their benefit. The generation at Sinai acted as agents for all future generations.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: I've never before heard of this Noachide Law principle. If Jews really do believe that all people of all races are equal, and have equal rights and opportunity to the kingdom of God, why are they so against evangelism? I mean, if someone tries to get a member of the Chosen People to leave the faith it's a matter of war and death, but if someone of a different race wants the benefits of Judaism, and has an easier path in gaining that reward, it doesn't seem like anyone who knows enough to help them gives a damn.
If it turns out that Judaism is true, it sounds like there are thousands of people every day who are going to die and find out that they're cast out of God's presence because their Jewish friends didn't bother to bring up this Noachide thing to them.
I guess my question is whether this is due to canonized, institutionalized discrimination, or is it just a matter of the Jewish culture tending to not care about people of other races?
I am tempted to completely ignore such blatantly biased ("when did you stop beating your wife?") questions. But I'll take a crack at it.
For 2000 years, Jews have been persecuted simply for being Jewish. Until about 50-100 years ago (and in some places even now), trying to tell one's neighbors about the Noachide Laws was an invitation to be ostracized, beaten up, and even killed. And most non-Jews had no interest in learning about them.
(If you go back to earlier times, such as the time of Shlomo Hamelech (King Solomon), it is clear that there were many practicing Noachides (gerei toshav) in the land of Israel, and they were welcomed.)
In the past ~50 years, there has been a growing interest from non-Jews, and a growing comfort among Jews about sharing this information. Groups have sprung up around the world, both of practicing Noachides and of Jews who support them. There are books (one of the best is available for free online (as an ebook), as well as for purchase from booksellers like Amazon), websites galore, even a few rabbis who specialize in answering questions that no one has asked for 2000 years. Personally, I participate in a forum specifically designed to answer questions from Noachides and other curious non-Jews (and refer them to various available resources, as appropriate).
What exactly is it that you would like us to be doing that we're not?
And the concept of "damnation" is a Christian one.
As for Ron, I have only one question. Where did he pick up the Dubno Maggid's parable about parables? Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: I've never before heard of this Noachide Law principle.
Well, you live and you learn.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: If Jews really do believe that all people of all races are equal, and have equal rights and opportunity to the kingdom of God, why are they so against evangelism?
First of all, not everyone is equal. Not all Jews are equal, let alone Jews and non-Jews. Equal value, yes. Equal rights and/or responsibilities? Absolutely not. For example, you have the right to drive your car on Shabbat. I don't. I have the right to eat the pascal sacrifice when the Temple is standing. You do not. Etc.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: I mean, if someone tries to get a member of the Chosen People to leave the faith it's a matter of war and death, but if someone of a different race wants the benefits of Judaism, and has an easier path in gaining that reward, it doesn't seem like anyone who knows enough to help them gives a damn.
Evangelism is a bad word in this context. We don't try to get converts because there's nothing wrong with being a non-Jew. We don't generally try and get non-Jews to keep the Noachide laws, simply put, because we're afraid of you.
Granted, the non-Jews of the world aren't as terrifying in 2008 as they have been throughout most of the past 2000 years, but you can hardly expect us to immediately adjust to the growing maturity of the general population. Up until a very short time ago, trying to get non-Jews to be Noachides could have gotten not only the "missionaries" killed, but their entire village. And it's not like we have any obligation to help you to the truth. We'd like to do so, but we're not about to risk our lives for it.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: If it turns out that Judaism is true, it sounds like there are thousands of people every day who are going to die and find out that they're cast out of God's presence because their Jewish friends didn't bother to bring up this Noachide thing to them.
Unlikely. Most people don't commit murder. Most people don't steal. Granted, there's an awful lot of idolatry out there, but I suspect that most of those people would be so disappointed that they were wrong that they'd wind up unhappy anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: I guess my question is whether this is due to canonized, institutionalized discrimination, or is it just a matter of the Jewish culture tending to not care about people of other races?
Race is a dumb word to use in this context. But no, of course we don't care about others as much as we care about ourselves. Especially when we've spent the past 2 millenia being butchered wholesale by those same others.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: My question now is, why isn't this the most carefully guarded secret in your society? Why would you ever tell this to anyone except as a super-capital punishment?
Why would you teach anyone to invest in the stock market? There's a good chance they will lose everything!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I will always repeat - Judaism is open to all who wish to join, but for non-Jews, Sabbath is that which separates Jews from non Jews, specifically as a gift, or a reward.
...and I'll always repeat, that's a terrible way to go about showing that God looks upon people of any bloodline equally.
That's sad. If you expect everything to be 100% the same for Jews and non-Jews, go ahead and dislike Judaism, because it'll never be what you want.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: So, I think the disconnect here is that you are seeing things with a Christian lens. Jews believe that people who do not know about a rule are not punished for not following it. For example, a Jewish infant that is kidnapped at birth is not punished for not being Torah observant.
I think the extension (although I have not learned this) is that a gentile who was not taught the Noachide laws would not be punished in the World to Come. So there is no need for evangelizing.
Then why in God's name was it brought up here? Are you saying that if I hadn't read this thread I could have lived forever in the Kingdom of God, but now that I did, if I don't accept these principles I'm going to be damned forever?
If that's the case, I can see why you don't evangelize. My question now is, why isn't this the most carefully guarded secret in your society? Why would you ever tell this to anyone except as a super-capital punishment?
Truth is truth. It's always a high value. Plus, I think she's wrong about the rule of "captured children" applying to non-Jews. While I have little doubt that God will take ignorance of the law into account (He is a merciful God, after all), the Noachide laws are so basic that I doubt anyone can flout them and expect things to be cool with God.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Yeah, now that I think about it, I think I'm probably wrong too. But I think that general merciful principle applies.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I go to get a bite to eat and Lisa and Rivka answer everything for me!
Just one thing to add - I believe that most Muslims do not violate the 7 Noahide laws, and that acc to some commentators, neither do Christians.
So not so much with the eternal damnation.
But yea, we hesitate to teach to non-Jews because they like to kill us. ::shrug::
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: This ger toshav has many benefits and is included in a lot of Jewish ritual, etc. Rabbi Solomon ibn Isaac (Rashi), a major Jewish commentator and legal opinion cites that these non-Jews not only are not forbidden, but are required to keep the Sabbath. (See (Rashi, Tractate: Kritot 9, Yevamot 40))
I'd like a better source than that, if you don't mind. I'm very skeptical about this. When citing Rashi, you give the divrei ha-matchil. And when citing the Talmud, you give not just the daf, but the amud. Or did you copy this reference from somewhere else without looking it up yourself?
Edit: I'm looking at Kritut 9a, and Rashi says no such thing. The Gemara says that a ger toshav can do melacha on Shabbat for himself the way Jews can on Chol HaMoed. Rashi points out that this refers to a davar ha-aved, which is the kind of thing Jews can do on Chol HaMoed. If your source claims that Rashi says the opposite of what he actually says, you should find a better source.
I learned this sugya before, but did not have the mekorot, so yes, I found them online.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ...the Noachide laws are so basic that I doubt anyone can flout them and expect things to be cool with God.
Really? According to what I've gathered from this thread, the Noachide laws expect me to renounce any alternate religious ideas I may have picked up ("Do not worship false gods") and essentially become Jewish. I may not have to keep kosher or observe the Sabbath, but I would have to accept that Judaism is the one true religion and worship your God. That doesn't sound too basic to me.
I haven't exhaustively followed all the religion threads here, but from what I've seen you've always said that Jews don't believe in proselytizing. The reasoning I've always gathered from you is that Jews don't really want other people to join their religion, and there isn't any need for Gentiles to convert to Judaism.
According to this thread that's not true. These rules aren't just a matter of not stealing or murdering. These rules specify that every person in the world must accept some form of Judaism or they'll suffer for eternity. That sounds like there is a serious and acute need for conversion.
I can understand why you'd be scared to proselyte. I'm sure Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't thrilled to be knocking on your doors themselves. But what I can't understand is the enmity against the idea of spreading religion. If you really, truly believe all this is true, risking your lives to save the immortal souls of others is an act of nobility.
And finally, if you really are God's chosen people, if He speaks to the world through you, why hasn't he given you a commandment one way or another regarding evangelism? It sounds like some Jews are, of their own volition, beginning to spread this word, but based on what I've heard it sounds like volunteer work. If he really loves everyone in the world, and we can't get into his presence without renouncing our false religions and accepting your understanding of him, why do you have a stack of commandments about sifting flour and counting steps and not a single word about saving the majority of humanity, beyond the idea that it's probably not worth the effort?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Speed - good questions.
One assumption that you have which is mistaken is that you need to accept Judaism as the one true religion. While this is preferable, it is not true.
You must believe in one God. I'm pretty sure most Muslims can check off the 7 commandments pretty easily, and as I mentioned earlier, some commentators believe Christians can do the same.
As for our status as the chosen people and the lack of a commandment to evangelize - Jews believe similar to many self-help books believe. You cannot actively change the behavior of other people. The best way to get people change is to be an example.
Jews believe that the state of the world is largely their fault. It is because we sin and are not perfect examples, the world has not yet reformed.
Edit: Hah. I remember teaching our El Salvadorian housekeeper the 7 noahide laws when I was a kid.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
So Jesus isn't necessarily defined as a "false God?"
I misunderstood that the first time around. I guess that makes some elements of this less confusing.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
It's a bit complicated. The dispute revolves around the concept of: Shituff - combination or joining.
For Jews it is considered idolatry to attach a divine being or another type of God to God Himself.
For non-Jews, this may not be the case.
Personally, based on my understanding and study of Christianity - the trinity are 3 and one. Yet they are all one. 3 aspects of one central being. I'm sure there are a whole different amount of interpretations, but to me - I'm inclined to side with the commentators who say Christianity is not idolatrous, but then again, im an ignoramus.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
No, the issue comes from Christians having multiple gods (depending on interpretation on Christian beliefs).
Upon further reflection, I think the idea of teaching the Noachide laws comes from the idea that the soul was wants to live the "right way." Teaching them helps relieve suffering if the gentile soul.
ETA: For example, say someone lived in an area where information about proper nutrition for growing children was just not available. You wouldn't judge them harshly for not feeding their children a balanced diet. However, you would still want them to have the information.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'm inclined to side with the commentators who say Christianity is not idolatrous, but then again, im an ignoramus.
Then call me an ignoramus as well, because I happen to agree.
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: For example, say someone lived in an area where information about proper nutrition for growing children was just not available. You wouldn't judge them harshly for not feeding their children a balanced diet. However, you would still want them to have the information.
Good analogy. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Point of curiosity: The first commandment is usually rendered in English "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Is this an accurate rendition of the Hebrew? And is it the same as the Noachide law having to do with worship?
Further, if the translation is accurate, would an atheist be in compliance with it? Certainly I hold no other god before the Christian (or Jewish) one.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Okay, that sounds somewhat more reasonable than I had understood on my first pass. Consider me satisfied with your answers.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Personally, based on my understanding and study of Christianity - the trinity are 3 and one. Yet they are all one. 3 aspects of one central being. I'm sure there are a whole different amount of interpretations, but to me - I'm inclined to side with the commentators who say Christianity is not idolatrous, but then again, im an ignoramus.
Just for the record, since this thread was begun with a tale of LDS missionaries, the Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. They believe that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate Gods, and any "oneness" expressed in scripture is merely a metaphor for unity of purpose.
So if the Elders do come back, maybe Lisa would have some sort of humanitarian duty to enlighten them. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Wow. Well THAT was rewarding! Thanks Speed!
I didn't know that about Mormons. Do they consider themselves polytheist? See, I didn't understand that whole thing a few pages back about God being married...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Point of curiosity: The first commandment is usually rendered in English "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Is this an accurate rendition of the Hebrew? And is it the same as the Noachide law having to do with worship?
Further, if the translation is accurate, would an atheist be in compliance with it? Certainly I hold no other god before the Christian (or Jewish) one.
Close enough; roughly; probably not. But why would you care?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I don't know that many of them would volunteer the word "polytheist." An understandable stance--they align themselves more with tratitional "Trinity" Christianity than most of what immediately springs to mind when you think of polytheism.
But they certainly believe in more than one God. Even their most superficial beliefs recognize that we're all governed by a "Godhead" of three.
So I guess that's a yes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Point of curiosity: The first commandment is usually rendered in English "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Is this an accurate rendition of the Hebrew? And is it the same as the Noachide law having to do with worship?
Further, if the translation is accurate, would an atheist be in compliance with it? Certainly I hold no other god before the Christian (or Jewish) one.
Close enough; roughly; probably not. But why would you care?
Well, I don't care, precisely, any more than I really care about, say, the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere. But there's such a thing as idle curiosity.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
GinaG, Christians basically kept the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper or Communion, as Protestants call it) anytime they felt like it. Early in church history, it was probably any time they got together and had a fellowship dinner. Jesus just said: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes." (1 Corinthians 11:26)
Jesus had the Communion service with the bread and wine after having the Passover dinner with His disciples. Many Christians say the Communion took the place of Passover. The Passover was observed once a year.
Also, the concept of not being "under law" really should be more explicitly stated as "not under the condemnation of the law" (if by law, you mean the Ten Commandments). John told us in 1 John 3:4 that "sin is the transgression of the law." (Other translations say "sin is lawlessness"; the original Greek is anomia--literally, without law.)
If the Law could be done away with, then Jesus need not have died in the first place. Without the law, there are no sinners in need of a Saviour. Jesus did not save us by doing away with the law we broke; He saved us by doing away with the condemnation for our breaking of the law--by paying its penalty that humanity owed.
You surely would not say that Christians are freed from the commandment not to kill, or steal, or blaspheme, etc. The only commandment anyone seems to want to do away with is the Sabbath commandment. And why? It is just because their tradition is to keep a different day. Why is tradition so important?
Armoth, Exodus 31 has to do with Moses' elaboration on the Law. The original statement of the Ten Commandments as such is in Exodus 20. This was written by God Himself, by His own finger, on tables of stone. Does it not seem significant to you that God did this?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Ron, Exodus 31:12 - "And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying"
Moses did not elaborate. God did.
Jews don't make as big of a deal of the 10 commandments as the rest of the world does. They hold the same legitimacy as the rest of the 613 commandments. It is certainly significant that God was more personally involved with the 10 commandments, but that doesn't mean that in a discourse about Sabbath, the 7th day, and to whom it was commanded, that we ignore the later words of God. Because it was not Moses, it was God who spoke in 31. That is the Jewish understanding of Moses and prophecy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The only commandment anyone seems to want to do away with is the Sabbath commandment. And why? It is just because their tradition is to keep a different day. Why is tradition so important?
Ron, could you please try not to make such statements about why others do things. It's beyond tiresome.
If you want to explain your view of Christianity, that's fine. If you want to attempt to demonstrate that your view of Christianity is correct and others' wrong, that's fine, too (within the limits of the TOS you promised to follow when you registered, of course).
But pretty much EVERY time you attempt to "explain" why those who disagree with you believe what they do, you are wrong - either due to gross oversimplification of others' beliefs or because of outright error. You are usually wrong about what others believe, too.
If you limited yourself to explaining what you actually know about - that is, what you believe - you'd look a lot less ignorant.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Jews don't make as big of a deal of the 10 commandments as the rest of the world does. They hold the same legitimacy as the rest of the 613 commandments.
Correction/clarification. There are NOT "10 commandments" -- not in Hebrew, anyway. Try "10 statements". Several are not commands at all; others include more than one commandment. (Leaving aside those opinions that claim there is an allusion to each and every one of the 613 somewhere in those 10 statements.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: It is certainly significant that God was more personally involved with the 10 commandments, but that doesn't mean that in a discourse about Sabbath, the 7th day, and to whom it was commanded, that we ignore the later words of God. Because it was not Moses, it was God who spoke in 31. That is the Jewish understanding of Moses and prophecy.
Mormons believe this as well. We have a pretty good scripture that condenses it all down,
"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."
Moses as a prophet and therefore God's mouthpiece when speaking as such is of equal importance to the words God himself says. But I suppose that is redundant because if a person speaks to me face to face or over the phone it does not change the fact that they said it.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote: Point of curiosity: The first commandment is usually rendered in English "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Is this an accurate rendition of the Hebrew? And is it the same as the Noachide law having to do with worship?
The first commandment actually is: "I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." (Exodus 20:2)
The second is: "You shall not have the gods of others in My presence. You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness which is in the heavens above, which is on the earth below, or which is in the water beneath the earth. You shall neither prostrate yourself before them nor worship them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a zealous God, Who visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, and [I] perform loving kindness to thousands [of generations], to those who love Me and to those who keep My commandments." (Exodus 20:3-6) JPS translation from chabad.org
The Noahide Law is just a pohibition against avodah zarah-worship of a foreign god (sanhedrin56a)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, my point remains. Is a man who does not worship any gods in compliance with this law? Rivka says no, but does not explain why.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
Denying the existence of God is a big deal and not okay. However, I think Maimonides says its better than believing in multiple gods or a god with limited power over the world, as it acknowledges God would be One and all-powerful.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That's sad. If you expect everything to be 100% the same for Jews and non-Jews, go ahead and dislike Judaism, because it'll never be what you want.
I expect a God that says He loves everyone equally to demonstrate it in a consistent way. I'm not seeing that consistency with what's been reported about Judaism here.
Can a gentile develop as strong a relationship with God, by honest obedience to the Noachide laws, as a Jew who has the same regard for the laws of Moses?
Lisa has stated that the laws given to Moses are eternal; in the life to come, will there be a division between Gentiles and the children of Israel?
About Mormons and polytheism:
Mormons worship Heavenly Father. We recognize the difference between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as being three distinct, separate beings, but NOT co-equal, in terms of worship. (No one prays to the Holy Ghost, for example)
From this point of view, we are monotheistic, in that we worship one god alone.
From another point of view, we are polytheistic, in that we believe that God's ultimate plan for men and women is for us to develop as He has developed-- capable of creating spirit children the way He created us. We believe that God has a female counterpart (separate and distinct from Him) but there isn't much information on her. They are our Heavenly Parents, and our greatest aim in mortal life, and throughout our existence, is to learn to become like them.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Mormons worship Heavenly Father. We recognize the difference between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as being three distinct, separate beings, but NOT co-equal, in terms of worship. (No one prays to the Holy Ghost, for example)
From this point of view, we are monotheistic, in that we worship one god alone.
In any case, if you believe in more than one God you're polytheistic. Doesn't matter which one you pray to.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Scott, feel free to dig up the Rebbetzin thread. I believe my discussion with you on this same topic is on about pages 2-3, but I'm not positive. I'm much too tired (long day at work, and I have another tomorrow) to dig it up myself.
The irony of someone who practices an unashamedly patriarchal religion having issues with "inequity" is entirely too much for me. I am bowing out of this part of the conversation; I'm finding even peripheral participation too frustrating.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Just one thing to add - I believe that most Muslims do not violate the 7 Noahide laws, and that acc to some commentators, neither do Christians.
Muslims, da. Christians, nyet. Other than the Meiri, who is absolutely a daat yachid about this, that is not an Orthodox Jewish position.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Funny. I've heard multiple rabbonim say otherwise.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: This ger toshav has many benefits and is included in a lot of Jewish ritual, etc. Rabbi Solomon ibn Isaac (Rashi), a major Jewish commentator and legal opinion cites that these non-Jews not only are not forbidden, but are required to keep the Sabbath. (See (Rashi, Tractate: Kritot 9, Yevamot 40))
I'd like a better source than that, if you don't mind. I'm very skeptical about this. When citing Rashi, you give the divrei ha-matchil. And when citing the Talmud, you give not just the daf, but the amud. Or did you copy this reference from somewhere else without looking it up yourself?
Edit: I'm looking at Kritut 9a, and Rashi says no such thing. The Gemara says that a ger toshav can do melacha on Shabbat for himself the way Jews can on Chol HaMoed. Rashi points out that this refers to a davar ha-aved, which is the kind of thing Jews can do on Chol HaMoed. If your source claims that Rashi says the opposite of what he actually says, you should find a better source.
I learned this sugya before, but did not have the mekorot, so yes, I found them online.
Very interesting. Thanks. That's a strange view for Rashi to present. Nevertheless, we definitely don't rule that way (see the Ein Mishpat on the page).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ...the Noachide laws are so basic that I doubt anyone can flout them and expect things to be cool with God.
Really? According to what I've gathered from this thread, the Noachide laws expect me to renounce any alternate religious ideas I may have picked up ("Do not worship false gods") and essentially become Jewish. I may not have to keep kosher or observe the Sabbath, but I would have to accept that Judaism is the one true religion and worship your God. That doesn't sound too basic to me.
Noachides should do that, but they aren't actually commanded to do that. You just have to not murder, not blaspheme, not worship idols (yeah, that would include Jesus), not steal, not eat Rocky Mountain Oysters (I think that's what they're called) or any other meat taken from a living animal, not have intercourse with someone else's wife, a close relative, an animal or another man, and be part of a legal system that enforces laws, and you're cool.
Just like it's better for a Jew to keep kosher because God said so than to keep kosher because, well, that's what my community does, but it's still better to keep kosher for imperfect reasons than not to keep kosher at all, the same is true for a non-Jew. Yes, you should recognize that the laws are from God, given to the Jews at Sinai, and that we're the ones who you need to go to if you want details about what God wants from you, but if you don't and you just keep those laws anyway, you should be fine.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: I haven't exhaustively followed all the religion threads here, but from what I've seen you've always said that Jews don't believe in proselytizing. The reasoning I've always gathered from you is that Jews don't really want other people to join their religion, and there isn't any need for Gentiles to convert to Judaism.
According to this thread that's not true. These rules aren't just a matter of not stealing or murdering. These rules specify that every person in the world must accept some form of Judaism or they'll suffer for eternity. That sounds like there is a serious and acute need for conversion.
We don't have "suffer for eternity". You must be confusing us with Christianity.
But you know, even if you were in deep, deep trouble with God for worshipping Jesus, that still doesn't create any kind of obligation on us to risk our lives to convince of it.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: I can understand why you'd be scared to proselyte. I'm sure Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't thrilled to be knocking on your doors themselves. But what I can't understand is the enmity against the idea of spreading religion.
What enmity would that be? Don't take things so personally. We don't proselyze. Well... God, the language really doesn't work well for this. We don't attempt to get non-Jews to convert to Judaism, because there's no need for any non-Jew to do so. Trying to educate non-Jews about their Noachide obligations is something we do if and when the subject arises. Lubavitch Hasidim have an outreach program specifically for this, and the nascent Sanhedrin in Israel has had official dealings with groups of Noachides. It's not something we take lightly. But... forgive me, but the cultural peaks and valleys of the non-Jewish world are capricious. You can say what you want about the "discomfort" some missionaries may feel about going door to door. I don't think any of them have found their entire community being locked into a synagogue which was then set on fire. That happened many, many times over the past several centuries, and for reasons far more trivial than our coming to tell you that your entire religion is based on untruths.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: If you really, truly believe all this is true, risking your lives to save the immortal souls of others is an act of nobility.
Feh. You go risk your life to save the souls of others. Have fun, and maybe send us a postcard. Is your blood redder than ours that we should risk shedding ours for you? Maybe when (if) we have a couple of centuries (one would be nice) of freedom from cries of Christkiller and Zionist Occupied Government and JewWatch dot com, we'll trust you enough to treat you as peers, and not as a potential danger.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: And finally, if you really are God's chosen people, if He speaks to the world through you, why hasn't he given you a commandment one way or another regarding evangelism?
Odd question. He hasn't given us commandments about what kind of music we should listen to, either. Though I imagine He'd probably incline towards classic rock, and sneer at rap.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: It sounds like some Jews are, of their own volition, beginning to spread this word, but based on what I've heard it sounds like volunteer work.
At the very most, yes.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: If he really loves everyone in the world, and we can't get into his presence without renouncing our false religions and accepting your understanding of him, why do you have a stack of commandments about sifting flour and counting steps and not a single word about saving the majority of humanity, beyond the idea that it's probably not worth the effort?
You look at things in terms of "salvation". We don't even really have such a concept. Do you steal or murder or commit incest or gnaw on living animals? If not, and if you show up for jury duty when you're called, you've got 5 out of 7 down right there. The biggest problem is obviously the worship of Jesus, and I guarantee you that if groups of Jews start going out to convince Christians that said worship is idolatry, Jews will pay for it in blood. Even in 2009. We don't see that as noble, Speed. We see it as stupid.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: So Jesus isn't necessarily defined as a "false God?"
I misunderstood that the first time around. I guess that makes some elements of this less confusing.
Jesus absolutely is. Even according to the fringe view that non-Jews are permitted to worship secondary deities along with God, that doesn't help with worshipping an actual human being.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: It's a bit complicated. The dispute revolves around the concept of: Shituff - combination or joining.
For Jews it is considered idolatry to attach a divine being or another type of God to God Himself.
For non-Jews, this may not be the case.
Personally, based on my understanding and study of Christianity - the trinity are 3 and one. Yet they are all one. 3 aspects of one central being. I'm sure there are a whole different amount of interpretations, but to me - I'm inclined to side with the commentators who say Christianity is not idolatrous, but then again, im an ignoramus.
Like I said, shituf is idolatry even for non-Jews according to the vast majority of authorities. But Christianity is more than just shituf. And forms of Christianity that use icons in their worship... whatever.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Point of curiosity: The first commandment is usually rendered in English "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Is this an accurate rendition of the Hebrew? And is it the same as the Noachide law having to do with worship?
Further, if the translation is accurate, would an atheist be in compliance with it? Certainly I hold no other god before the Christian (or Jewish) one.
Heh. Yes, the translation is accurate (enough), and yes, as an atheist, you'd be in compliance with it. There are those who would say that your atheism is a kind of worship of a particular system/methodology, but that's metaphorical and not literal.
You clearly are not an idolator. You're just wrong.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Just for the record, since this thread was begun with a tale of LDS missionaries, the Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. They believe that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate Gods, and any "oneness" expressed in scripture is merely a metaphor for unity of purpose.
I pretty much understood that to be the case. It's one of the reasons why I offered to find time to sit with them and help them out.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: So if the Elders do come back, maybe Lisa would have some sort of humanitarian duty to enlighten them.
I gave them my e-mail address as well, for precisely that reason. Note, btw, that I don't see myself as having any moral obligation to do so, let alone a religious obligation. But I think it's a good thing to do if possible, and I consider myself capable of at least getting them started with some solid background.
And I'd probably do the same for non-LDS missionaries. It's just that my time on Hatrack has softened me a little towards the LDS ones.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Can a gentile develop as strong a relationship with God, by honest obedience to the Noachide laws, as a Jew who has the same regard for the laws of Moses?
In all honesty, probably not. But that's like asking, "Can a high school student gain as strong an understanding of advanced physics as a graduate student?" No. But if he really wants to, he can go to college and then to grad school.
A non-Jew who really wants that kind of closeness with God has the option of converting. It's just extra-credit, is all.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Lisa has stated that the laws given to Moses are eternal; in the life to come, will there be a division between Gentiles and the children of Israel?
That's an excellent question. We don't claim to know as much about what happens after you die as the LDS Church. I do know that when we say the laws are eternal, we mean eternal in this world.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Funny. I've heard multiple rabbonim say otherwise.
You should ask them for sources. It's a common mistake, but a mistake nevertheless.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have had detailed discussions on the topic. The Meiri is not the only source as you claim.
*shrug* You're wrong, and I have zero interest in trying to convince you otherwise. I just want to make it clear to anyone else reading the thread that your view is not as universally accepted as you claim.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm with Rivka on this.
I've read Rabbi Dr. Haym Soloveichik on the possible bias of the Tosafists when it comes to martyrdom. It is indeed possible that their view of Christianity as a form of Avodah Zarah may also be a part of this bias. Even though the presumption that the Tosafists could be biased about anything makes me slightly uncomfortable...
Scott - I'm not sure Rivka, Lisa, nor I can answer your question about the potential to become AS close to God as Jews can.
However, we all agree and it is stipulated in the Talmud that all righteous gentiles, can earn their place in the world to come, just as Jews can. (Read "World to come" as Reward, just bc it makes me feel more comfortable).
We all agree, or at least Lisa and I did, that it is certainly POSSIBLE that non-Jews can become as close to God as Jews can. But I don't think any of us know of any sources that detail this issue specifically.
What we CAN say is that Jews and non-Jews have distinct roles, which are both legitimate and righteous. I certainly believe that we are rewarded commensurate with our effort - the extent to which we fulfill our potential. How that translates to this situation? I'm not sure.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Dagonee, you are misrepresenting my position and ascribing to me things I am not guilty of. It is no presumption for me to study the historic origins of Sunday-keeping among Christians, and to hear what many Sunday-keeping Christians today themselves say to justify their practice, and draw a proper, qualified conclusion as to why this practice continues. If you think I have misrepresented or drawn a false conclusion about why many modern Christians today keep Sunday, then you tell me what you think is the real reason.
You might be interested to know that the Roman Catholic church has been laughing at Protestants over this for a long time. They proudly admit in their literature that Christians observe Sunday today solely because the church of Rome instituted the change on its own authority, when there is no Scriptural warrant, and therefore they claim Protestants are inconsistent in rejecting the authority of the Papacy, when they keep a day that is the sign of that same authority.
quote:"Sunday is a Catholic Institution, and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles. . . .From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first."
"Protestantism, In discarding the authority of the (Roman Catholic) Church, has no good reasons for its Sunday theory, and ought logically to keep Saturday as the Sabbath."
—John Gilmary Shea, American Catholic Quarterly Review, January, 1883.
"It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church."
—Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, N.J. "News", March 18, 1903.
"Ques.- Have you any other way of proving that the (Catholic) Church has power to institute festivals of percept (to command holy days)?"
"Ans.- Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her: she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."
—Stephan Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, page 176.
I could go on with such quotations all day. At least Catholics are honest about Sunday-keeping. They keep Sunday in place of the Sabbath because of their church tradition, not from any Scriptural warrant.
Armoth, God told Moses to tell the people to let their lands lie fallow once every seven years, and to observe a Jubilee when all debts are cancelled once every 49 years, and many more such things. That does not elevate such precepts to the same level as the Ten Commandments. As I said before, sound scholarship requires taking things in context, and NOT taking things out of context.
For example, there are passages in the New Testament (such as 1 Corinthians 9:20, 21) where Paul speaks of Jews who live under the Law. Attention to context will show he was speaking of the whole package of instructions given for running the Jewish state. Obviously non-Jews are not required to live as if they were Jews living in Judea.
There are places where the responsibility of Gentiles is discussed. While the Sabbath usually is not mentioned directly, neither is it explictly excluded. It is assumed to be accepted as a binding obligation, just as the the commands not to commit murder or theft. If the early Christians had left off keeping the Sabbath, the Jewish authorities would have made a big issue of this. There is no hint in Scripture or history that they did so.
The last book of the Bible, containing the words of Jesus Himself as dictated to John, contains these words in the last chapter: "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city." (Revelation 22:14; NKJV)
I challenge anyone to find anywhere in the Bible where the Sabbath commandment is said not to be included in the commandments all people are to keep. And of course I reject completely the claim by Jews that the Sabbath was only for the Jews, since it was instituted on the seventh day of Creation Week, when only Adam was alive (and therefore in him all of humanity, not just the Jews, who did not come along until thousands of years later.) Also I accept as authoritative Jesus' direct statement in Mark 2:27: "The Sabbath was made for man...." (Not just the Jews.)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Ron. I'm not really sure what techniques you just used in your argument.
You reject what I say without providing back up.
For instance, the sabbatical year? Yes, Jews view those commandments to be JUST AS OBLIGATING as those for the Sabbath. In fact, last year was such a year - let me tell you, purchase of vegetables, acc to law, in Israel at that time is not very easy.
As for your repeated thing about contexts, im STILL not following you. What have we taken out of context? You have ignored my charge that christians don't keep the Sabbath even as the bible proscribed, ignored the fact that the commandment to keep the sabbath was specifically a covenant between the Jews and God, as expressed by God specifically in the verses quoted above, you ignored the death penalty stated explicitly by God for Sabbath transgressions, etc.
If you want to use New Testament to tell me why you keep certain commandments and not others, that's cool - but you can't tell me it comes from the OT. The OT charges a follower to keep ALL of God's laws. Indeed, I quoted the verse in 31 that said that the words of commandment were God's words merely relayed through Moses and not elaboration by a renegade prophet.
And I have stopped appreciating phrases such as "As I said before, sound scholarship requires taking things in context, and NOT taking things out of context." I let that slide the last time you said it, but it is incredibly rude.
If you'd like to show me how I've taken things out of context to the point where it slaps me in the face, that's cool - I'll take your challenges quietly, but the force of your argument does NOT empower you to use that tone.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
Why bother about Christians keeping Shabbos or Jews denying Christians the ability to keep Shabbos. I doubt any Christian actually abstains from all the 39 melochos, particuarly since they are not explained in the written Torah anyway.
I don't see a problem with different people following their traditions about the 7th day being a day of rest.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, you are misrepresenting my position and ascribing to me things I am not guilty of. It is no presumption for me to study the historic origins of Sunday-keeping among Christians, and to hear what many Sunday-keeping Christians today themselves say to justify their practice, and draw a proper, qualified conclusion as to why this practice continues.
It is an improper an unqualified conclusion. It misses the entire point of the discussion.
To say that the Church worships on Sunday "just because their tradition is to keep a different day" is to utterly ignore WHY the tradition came about and the theological reason behind it.
quote:If you think I have misrepresented or drawn a false conclusion about why many modern Christians today keep Sunday, then you tell me what you think is the real reason.
There are dozens of people here with whom I might have that conversation. You are certainly not one of them. Your attitude in this thread and countless others makes it abundantly clear that discussing issues like this with you is a waste of time.
And I don't consider talking to people knowing I won't convince them to see things my way a waste of time. You, however, have almost never shown any inkling of understanding the positions of others in these matters. You started off that way here and haven't changed course one whit.
quote:You might be interested to know that the Roman Catholic church has been laughing at Protestants over this for a long time.
The fact that you categorize those quotations as "laughing at Protestants" is a perfect example of your seeming inability to summarize the beliefs of others without twisting it to serve your own purpose.
I am quite aware that the Church did not justify the institution of Sunday worship based on scripture. It's not news to me.
quote:I could go on with such quotations all day. At least Catholics are honest about Sunday-keeping. They keep Sunday in place of the Sabbath because of their church tradition, not from any Scriptural warrant.
Having a tradition of doing something is not the same thing as tradition being the reason for doing that thing. It's your forced dichotomy - if not scripture, then "just tradition" - that is so tiresome.
And what's so sad is that there's no need for it. You could make your case for Saturday worship and rest without distorting the views of others.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam: Why bother about Christians keeping Shabbos or Jews denying Christians the ability to keep Shabbos. I doubt any Christian actually abstains from all the 39 melochos, particuarly since they are not explained in the written Torah anyway.
I don't see a problem with different people following their traditions about the 7th day being a day of rest.
Dunno. Ron didn't like that the Talmud forbids non-Jews from keeping the Sabbath. He tried to defend it using the Bible.
You're right. Christians do not abstain from Melocho, creative activity. They abstain from "work", which I already pointed out. Even though the verses do speak about not lighting a fire on the Sabbath...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Armoth and Dagonee, I don't know how you can misread things so completely. Everything I have said is completely and strictly logical, and I have backed it up with clear authority of Scripture point by point. I have even quoted Catholic sources where they openly acknowedge that Sunday-keeping is based solely on their own church's authority. Since they say explicitly that it does not come from any Scriptural authority, that means they are appealing to Catholic church tradition. I have discussed this with Catholic theologians and other Catholic apologists on this very point, and this is what they claim. As you should be able to see from the quotations from their own literature I provided, which are very much to the point.
And please make sure you take due note of the way that Catholics define their church tradition--they are not merely customs, they are the practices and teachings of early papal authorities, outside of Scripture. Catholics explicitly teach that this tradition has more authority than Scripture. (In this they are not that far apart from the practice of Jews, in seeing inspired authority in their extra-Scriptural writings, such as the Talmud, which are merely the practices and teachings of early Jewish rabbis.)
If you are not equal to the task of following and contending with strictly reasoned and authoritatively backed arguments, then it is no wonder you resort to false characterizations and base insults. But whom do you really expect to persuade with such sophomoric debating tactics?
As for your refusal to see how you are taking Scriptural passages out of context, I really don't see how I can make the matter any plainer than I already have. I gave you specific examples. You just don't want to accept the clear sense of what I said.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You just don't want to accept the clear sense of what I said.
Perhaps that implies that it's not so clear as all that?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The prohibition against building a fire on the Sabbath was in the context of the wilderness wandering, when God was making a special effort to train them to respect the Sabbath, since they had just spent 400 years in slavery to the Egyptians and had lost much of their faithful adherance to the teachings of the Patriarchs.
Specific applications of the Sabbath principle of abstaining from work have varied through the years of history. Jews, of course, try to codify everything. But their codes are too rigid. Thus Jesus taught His disciples it was OK to pick grain and separate the chaff out with their hands so they could eat it on the Sabbath, and He cited the practice of King David when he allowed his men to eat the sacred bread in the sanctuary, because they were starving. What many Jews apparently fail to understand is that there are OVERRIDING principles--such as the fact that "It is good to do well on the Sabbath day." Including helping your neighbor get his ox out of a ditch. The Jewish rulers in Jesus' time wanted to stone him for healing someone on the Sabbath from a lifelong affliction.
It is the privilege of every human being to ENTER INTO GOD'S REST WITH HIM ON THE SABBATH. (See Hebrews 4:9-11.) And please note that as Creator and Sustainer of all life on earth, God continues to enable your heart to beat, your lungs to draw breath, and your immune system to fight infection, and your body to be healed of injury. None of that stops on the Sabbath day. God did not create the Sabbath to be a burden, but to be a blessing. And so I am glad I do not have to work to earn a living on the Sabbath. (Although I could if I were a nurse or a doctor, especially ministering to people in the ER.) I do not even have to think about work on the Sabbath. I do not shop, I do not pay bills or even think about them, I do not even pay attention to advertisements clamoring for my attention. On the Sabbath I am free.
Adam and Eve were privileged to walk with God through the Garden of Eden on the Sabbath. Only Satan wants us to look upon the Sabbath as something burdensome and undesirable. That is why he inspired political and church leaders in the early Roman church to decree that Sabbath be a day for fasting and Sunday a day for feasting--so people would come to look with disfavor on the Sabbath, and welcome Sunday observance with gladness. In light of this, I for one refuse ever to fast on the Sabbath.
[ January 01, 2009, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
My understanding is that some forms of the Christianity are problematic with respect to the Noachide laws. Believing that Jesus is the son of G-d is not problematic, in itself. However, you must believe that Jesus has lesser powers to be "in compliance."
Additionally, I don't think atheism would count. It is not idolatry, but it violates the law to praise G-d.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: (In this they are not that far apart from the practice of Jews, in seeing inspired authority in their extra-Scriptural writings, such as the Talmud, which are merely the practices and teachings of early Jewish rabbis.)
If you are not equal to the task of following and contending with strictly reasoned and authoritatively backed arguments, then it is no wonder you resort to false characterizations and base insults. But whom do you really expect to persuade with such sophomoric debating tactics?
As for your refusal to see how you are taking Scriptural passages out of context, I really don't see how I can make the matter any plainer than I already have. I gave you specific examples. You just don't want to accept the clear sense of what I said.
First of all - Jews do NOT believe that the Talmud, or, more correctly, the Oral Law was not the traditions of a bunch of early Rabbis, but was given by God at the time of the giving of the written law. The Talmud is an attempt by early rabbis to put to writing the original Oral Law. You may not believe it, but we do, so please don't present it that way.
And sir, it is not I who resorted to insults. I'm sure others would agree that you have been rude in your discussion, and it is more than a little irksome. You need to respect the other side in your arguments or it is you who will have trouble coming across.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
rivka, one thing I have learned over the years through contact with many disharmonious minds, is that the clearest logic, the most authoritative arguments, by themselves do not always persuade people. The Spirit of God must reach their hearts, and bring them conviction and a warming sense that a better way is being offered, that if they accept truth as truth, they can know God better, and have a closer walk with Him. I do not know what is in the way of many people from accepting the truth that is so plain to me. But God does, and I can only do my best in setting forth the sound arguments backed by His Word properly handled, and leave it to Him to lead people when they are ready to advance and grow.
When people put up resistance by arguing, I can answer their arguments. But even when I do that time after time on every point they bring up, some people are not persuaded. To me, this does not mean that they are hopelessly evil, only that they are wrong. And the Spirit of God can fix that. I cannot make anyone see reason who is unwilling to. But I believe I can make my positions clear enough that anyone willing to see the truth can see it. The Spirit of God will have to take care of the rest, and bring them around eventually.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Armoth you are reading things I have not written if you say anyting I say is rude or insulting. Just contradicting you, arguing against your arguments, presenting evidence to show why your position is wrong, is not rude or insulting.
By the way, the Scriptures themselves, especially written by Moses, are what constitute the putting into writing what was before only Oral tradition passed down through the generations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have even quoted Catholic sources where they openly acknowedge that Sunday-keeping is based solely on their own church's authority.
Yes. And then you altered what they said and summarized it as "just because their tradition is to keep a different day."
Those are different things.
Catholics do not worship on Sunday "just because their tradition is to keep a different day." They have a tradition of worship on Sunday for a variety of reasons, none of which you've really addressed here.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Ron:
Let's start off with this:
How can you claim that the prohibition to light a fire on the sabbath applied only to that generation? Seems like you have an oral law of your own. Which parts of the bible only applied to the generation in the dessert and which did not? What are the sources that say this?
Pikuach Nefesh is Doecheh Shabbos - this mean that all cases of life endangerment push off the prohibitions of the sabbath. This means that if people were dying of starvation, they could certainly pick the grain from the chaff on the sabbath. For this reason, Jewish doctors remain on-call on the Sabbath, and are allowed to drive to the hospital to take care of their patients.
I don't know why you launched into a bunch of theology about Sabbath being a blessing and not a curse. Jews believe that abstention from the 39 major creative actions as a testimony to GOD being the creator and not us, is a great gift, for on the day of sabbath we are closest with the creator, merely by the results of an abstention.
Hebrews is in the NT if I'm not mistaken, right? So I'm not sure what it has to do with our argument. But your assumption that Sabbath is not a blessing if there are prohibitions on it is silly.
Fruthermore, Jews have a prohibition not only from fasting on the Sabbath day, but are forbidden to eat a large meal on the eve of sabbath in order to come into it with an appetite. Trust me, if you've ever been to an Orthodox Jew's house for a sabbath meal, you'll understand that we understand that it is a blessing.
I still have issues with your parcing of the words of God in the OT, deciding that certain things are Moses's elaboration, you're still ignoring the death penalty, deciding that certain things applied only to the generation of the desert, etc. You'll need to explain something like that to someone who does not share your beliefs, and who, in my opinion, takes the simpler course of assuming that the commandments and prohibitions apply to all and forever.
Personally, I think Christianity arose because Jews were being "religious" without being religious. They were keeping the laws meticulously but without the heart, spirit, and true character that is embodied in every one of the 613 commandments. It is something you can still see today - Rabbis or fundamentalist Jews who look incredibly religious and are indeed rotten people. Every religion has their share of this behavior. Christianity went through a number of reformations and splits as a result of this very phenomenon.
I, and Jews believe that we are meant, still, to cling to the God's original precepts (obviously, as we see them)though we must truly restore our relationship with God and with our fellow man with our hearts and souls as well as with meticulous legal observance.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Ron: "one thing I have learned over the years through contact with many disharmonious minds, is that the clearest logic, the most authoritative arguments, by themselves do not always persuade people."
Tell me about it...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Armoth you are reading things I have not written if you say anyting I say is rude or insulting. Just contradicting you, arguing against your arguments, presenting evidence to show why your position is wrong, is not rude or insulting.
By the way, the Scriptures themselves, especially written by Moses, are what constitute the putting into writing what was before only Oral tradition passed down through the generations.
First of all, trying to parse that last sentence is giving me a headache. Second of all, talking about dropping context. God gave us the Torah. We know better than you what He gave. The Torah He gave us was part oral (which you do not have) and part written (which is the first five books in their entirety).
If I write a note and give it to you, and at the time that I give it to you, I also tell you things, including what I meant by everything in the note, your disregarding what I say and going with the note itself (or rather, with your personal interpretation of the note) is misplaced arrogance, at best. Doing so when God is the one who gave the note and the oral instructions is beyond even hubris.
If Armoth wants to waste his time debating Bible interpretations with you, that's his perogative. Bottom line, though, the written Torah, all five books, has an enormous context that you know less about than a kindergartener knows about quantum physics. It's simply laughable to hear you telling those of us who are heirs to God's Torah what God really meant. It's sad, really.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ron believes that God was mistaken or changed his mind so he sent jesus to correct the matter.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Yeah, see, I don't think God gets mistaken.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: rivka, one thing I have learned over the years through contact with many disharmonious minds, is that the clearest logic, the most authoritative arguments, by themselves do not always persuade people.
The irony burns us, precious.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Yeah, see, I don't think God gets mistaken.
Something we agree on.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Yeah, see, I don't think God gets mistaken.
Something we agree on.
Oh! Oh! Me too!!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Woot I got somethign right!
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: GinaG, Christians basically kept the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper or Communion, as Protestants call it) anytime they felt like it.
Possibly, but according to Justin Martyr it was on the Lord's Day specifically.
quote: You surely would not say that Christians are freed from the commandment not to kill, or steal, or blaspheme, etc. The only commandment anyone seems to want to do away with is the Sabbath commandment. And why? It is just because their tradition is to keep a different day. Why is tradition so important?
That's certainly not true. Many commandments were set aside, as one can read first of all from the decisions of the council of Jerusalem.
Without the traditions of the church, you wouldn't even have the New Testament. I don't believe it's a "sin" to worship on a different day, but it's just what Christians do. Sort of like if your whole family decides to celebrate Christmas on the 24th, but you show up on the 25th because you think it's more "correct," well pooh for you, your roast beef has to get nuked and your eggnog is runny. (Of course, ironically, we celebrate on January 7th. Heh.)
P.S. Catholic polemicists will say a lot of things. Early sources are really the only ones that matter.
[ January 01, 2009, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: GinaG ]
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rivka:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Lisa: Yeah, see, I don't think God gets mistaken. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something we agree on. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh! Oh! Me too!!
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Like I said, shituf is idolatry even for non-Jews according to the vast majority of authorities. But Christianity is more than just shituf. And forms of Christianity that use icons in their worship... whatever.
Icons are not idols, contrary to what you may have heard from Chick Publications.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
Ron, here is the relevant portion from Justin Martyr's First Apology. He speaks about Sunday observance as something normal and established. That is hardly the "Roman church setting something by its sole authority." Justin Martyr wrote at the end of the first/beginning of the second century and his works are among the earliest Christian writings.
quote: And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Dr. Bacchiocchi did a thorough and comprehensive study of all these sources, including still earlier ones. The Catholics are right. Christians keep Sunday today solely because their church decided to change the day Christians keep. There is absolutely no evidence that any Christian anywhere kept Sunday until at least two generations after the Apostles died. I question the legitimacy of that quote attributed to Justin Martyr. It sounds like it was written in the second century A.D. He wasn't even born until 100 A.D., according to some sources. The time of his mid-career would be about the time of the Emperor Hadrian's anti-Jewish edicts. He certainly did not speak for the Apostles.
Most important of all, there is not any warrant whatsover in the Bible for keeping Sunday in place of the Sabbath, and that is the only Authority that matters to us Protestants who profess to believe in sola scriptura.
[ January 02, 2009, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: [QB] Scott, feel free to dig up the Rebbetzin thread. I believe my discussion with you on this same topic is on about pages 2-3, but I'm not positive. I'm much too tired (long day at work, and I have another tomorrow) to dig it up myself.
The discussion wasn't much of one. I asked why God distinguishes between Israelites and Gentiles; you responded with some links.
And that was that in that thread.
Shortly after you posted that, I created a thread called, "God Loves Rivka More Than Me." I can't find that thread now; and I don't recall deleting it. In any case, there wasn't much discussion there, either, about the discrepancies I've noted in this thread. Mostly, that thread was me apologizing for my bad taste in thread titles.
Which kind of sums up, IMO, the history of our discussions on this topic, rivka. I ask the question occasionally in a poorly worded, boorish, even offensive way; you or Ela get offended (with reason); and I back off without getting my question answered.
quote:The irony of someone who practices an unashamedly patriarchal religion having issues with "inequity" is entirely too much for me. I am bowing out of this part of the conversation; I'm finding even peripheral participation too frustrating.
You're not the first person to note this.
I'm perfectly fine with the idea that genders and bloodlines have different, segregated roles to fulfill in God's plan. I'm perfectly fine with Judaism's beliefs, and if you're comfortable with them, good on you. I do want to point out, however, that when the Jewish law regarding the death penalty apparently makes allowances for Jews that it doesn't for Gentiles; when it is stated that 'Closeness to God obligates' but those obligations are explicitly forbidden to Gentiles; when the ability to come closer to God (through study of the Torah) is discouraged to Gentiles:
It is not exactly as rosy a picture of Godly love as Jews might think. To someone on the outside, it looks an awful lot like God designed the system to make Gentiles second-class citizens.
As I've said before, I'm willing to look at arguments to the contrary.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Like I said, shituf is idolatry even for non-Jews according to the vast majority of authorities. But Christianity is more than just shituf. And forms of Christianity that use icons in their worship... whatever.
Icons are not idols, contrary to what you may have heard from Chick Publications.
I understand, but Judaism has its own definitions of such things.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Mormons worship Heavenly Father. We recognize the difference between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as being three distinct, separate beings, but NOT co-equal, in terms of worship. (No one prays to the Holy Ghost, for example)
From this point of view, we are monotheistic, in that we worship one god alone.
Good point, but here's what's interesting-- the societies described in the Book of Mormon were CLEARLY trinitarian. From an examination of the text, IMO, they did not have a complete understanding of the differences between God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Some of Joseph Smith's earlier writings also reflected very trinitarian ideals. It's not until we received the revelations in Doctrine and Covenants 143, in 1843 (a year before Joseph Smith's death), that a real distinction is made between the personages of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Another line of thinking is that if Jesus Christ is personally present, it is...er...kosher ( ) to pray to him directly. (Jesus makes a note of this later in the same scripture you quoted, as he prays to the Father). This also explains why Joseph Smith addressed the prayer dedicating the Kirtland temple directly to Jesus, rather than addressing Heavenly Father.
quote:In any case, if you believe in more than one God you're polytheistic. Doesn't matter which one you pray to.
Hmm? Well-- I suppose if you're defining it that way, then you're right. I like my definition better.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Technically, if you believe that multiple gods exist but you only worsip one of them you're henotheistic.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:henotheistic
:swoons:
dkw, you're faboo.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hmm. I could swear we'd had a more detailed conversation than that. (Although, you know, dismissing links that I specifically chose because I believe they answered your question may be part of the issue here. I consider that part of a conversation, and it seems that you don't. I don't choose them at random; I usually choose them because I think they do a better job of answering a given question than I can.) Maybe it was at GC. Maybe it was all in my head.
Regardless, I do see why you feel that Judaism considers non-Jews to be second-class citizens. I also see why people have tried to convince me that as a woman I was a second-class citizen within Judaism. However, while I understand where both are coming from, I disagree in both cases. In the latter, I have an inside view; I don't have the right perspective to speak from personal experience on the former.
Would talking to a practicing Noachide, someone who believes Judaism is true, but prefers to not convert, and lives their lives by those choices, be convincing to you? I doubt it. You are a remarkably stubborn individual. I think it's those dark butterflies of evil you keep snacking on.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:henotheistic
:swoons:
It is a pretty cool word.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Would talking to a practicing Noachide, someone who believes Judaism is true, but prefers to not convert, and lives their lives by those choices, be convincing to you? I doubt it. You are a remarkably stubborn individual. I think it's those dark butterflies of evil you keep snacking on.
I don't think there's anything remarkable about my stubbornness... Isn't everyone made this way?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Good point, but here's what's interesting-- the societies described in the Book of Mormon were CLEARLY trinitarian. From an examination of the text, IMO, they did not have a complete understanding of the differences between God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Some of Joseph Smith's earlier writings also reflected very trinitarian ideals. It's not until we received the revelations in Doctrine and Covenants 143, in 1843 (a year before Joseph Smith's death), that a real distinction is made between the personages of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
I'm not sure I get that... are you saying that the people all throughout the Book of Mormon thought it was OK to worship Jesus because they didn't understand that he's different than God? And Jesus didn't correct them even when he spent a week hanging out with them? And that God didn't tell any of their prophets about this important doctrine for nearly two millenia after this?
It's all new to me. I don't know that you've presented an air-tight case. But I guess if what you say is true, then it should be common sense among church leaders that no one should be worshipping Jesus now, right?
quote:Why would anyone say such a thing? Isn’t the name of our church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do we not worship Christ? Is not the Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ? How could anyone seriously doubt that Latter-day Saints are Christians?
quote:But there are some who style themselves as Christians who admire but do not worship Jesus. Some regard Him as a great teacher but not as the Great Redeemer. Yes, Jesus is the generous Lord of the expansive universe, but He is also Lord of the narrow path! Some people forget His latter Lordship.
Or like cards that are put in The New Era to explain to the world why we are really Christians?
quote:We love Jesus Christ. We worship Jesus Christ. He is our Savior and Redeemer.
What's the difference anyway? I mean, there's no law that makes polytheistic religions (or henotheistic religions) automatically worse than monotheistic religions. It may not make the LDS church fit in as cleanly with the Noachide laws, but if you really believe that your church is true, and your beliefs aren't harming anyone, I don't know why you'd feel that it's necessary to justify them or explain them away.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Throughout this whole argument my main concern has lain in the correct placement of the Sabbath.
Sure, Saturday is the last day of the week now, but how can we be sure that the world wasn't created on a Thursday? There's been enough time between the beginning of everything and now for that kind of clerical error to be made. Can anyone provide definitive proof that Saturday is, and has always been, the last day of the week?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What's the difference anyway? I mean, there's no law that makes polytheistic religions (or henotheistic religions) automatically worse than monotheistic religions. It may not make the LDS church fit in as cleanly with the Noachide laws, but if you really believe that your church is true, and your beliefs aren't harming anyone, I don't know why you'd feel that it's necessary to justify them or explain them away.
Because I'm stubborn and argumentative.
You're right-- in addition to God the Father, we also worship Jesus Christ.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Wow. I was name-dropped as having been offended and I have no recollection of the discussion.
Well, maybe some recollection, but not in too much detail. How long ago was this?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Throughout this whole argument my main concern has lain in the correct placement of the Sabbath.
Sure, Saturday is the last day of the week now, but how can we be sure that the world wasn't created on a Thursday? There's been enough time between the beginning of everything and now for that kind of clerical error to be made. Can anyone provide definitive proof that Saturday is, and has always been, the last day of the week?
No. There is no proof. But seeing as Saturday was always a day of significance for Jews, I'm pretty sure they kept the day since the commandment was given. To me, that's pretty weighty evidence.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't think there's anything remarkable about my stubbornness... Isn't everyone made this way?
Dunno. Heaven knows I'm at least as stubborn.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Throughout this whole argument my main concern has lain in the correct placement of the Sabbath.
Sure, Saturday is the last day of the week now, but how can we be sure that the world wasn't created on a Thursday? There's been enough time between the beginning of everything and now for that kind of clerical error to be made. Can anyone provide definitive proof that Saturday is, and has always been, the last day of the week?
No. There is no proof. But seeing as Saturday was always a day of significance for Jews, I'm pretty sure they kept the day since the commandment was given. To me, that's pretty weighty evidence.
To me that's circular reasoning! "Is Saturday the right day?" "Well, it's always been an important day, so it must be the right day." I don't think you thought that through.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Whatever you think of the reasoning, it isn't circular. You've not accurately assessed it.
1. Given there was someone in the past who knew the right day, and
2. there is good evidence that a group of people have been continuously passing down the right day since then,
3. it can be concluded that the day those people use now is probably the right day.
Given the two assumptions, the argument is quite reasonable. Not everyone would give the two assumptions, of course.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As you have written it, the argument is reasonable. But you've redacted it considerably from Armoth's version, which for your step 2 had only "Saturday has always been important". Which is precisely the point of dispute. No evidence is offered.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:But seeing as Saturday was always a day of significance for Jews
That implies knowledge (or at least strong belief) that it was always such a day. If you like, delete "there is good evidence" and leave just "a group of people have been continuously passing down the right day since then", which is extremely equivalent to what was written. The argument is still valid.
edit: of course, circular arguments are generally valid. The argument is both valid, and the conclusion is not assumed by the assumptions, which is what makes an argument circular.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Pedant.
Edit: this was aimed at KoM, who knew perfectly well what Armoth was saying.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That implies knowledge (or at least strong belief) that it was always such a day. If you like, delete "there is good evidence" and leave just "a group of people have been continuously passing down the right day since then", which is extremely equivalent to what was written. The argument is still valid.
Recall that the original question was "Is Saturday the right day?" Since we know that people have been passing it down for some time, this is equivalent to "Have people passed down the day correctly?" Therefore, to state "The Jews have passed down the day correctly" without further evidence offered is indeed circular: The desired conclusion is used as a premise.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Pedant.
Edit: this was aimed at KoM, who knew perfectly well what Armoth was saying.
Yes: He was saying he believes Saturday is the correct day, with no evidence attached.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No, he wasn't. You have to presuppose some mechanism whereby all the Jews in the world accepted a change in day, otherwise, Occam's Razor says it's the same day we have it now.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
So we've been running seven-day circles since day one with no cultural/religious or numerical crossover? Aren't there some gaps in the histories between Adam and Abraham?
This probably seems nit-picky, but I haven't read any answers to my question beyond "it's the right day because it's been the right day since anyone started paying attention."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Throughout this whole argument my main concern has lain in the correct placement of the Sabbath.
Sure, Saturday is the last day of the week now, but how can we be sure that the world wasn't created on a Thursday? There's been enough time between the beginning of everything and now for that kind of clerical error to be made. Can anyone provide definitive proof that Saturday is, and has always been, the last day of the week?
There hasn't been nearly enough time between the beginning of everything and now for that kind of clerical error to be made. This isn't something that's a curiosity in a book. This is something that hundreds of thousands of people do, every single week. It's ludicrous to imagine that so many people went "oops!" all at once.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No, he wasn't. You have to presuppose some mechanism whereby all the Jews in the world accepted a change in day, otherwise, Occam's Razor says it's the same day we have it now.
Well, just for starters there have been calendar reforms in the West. Second, just how sure are you that there have never been any disagreements between different Jewish communities? Consider the Christian disputes over the date of Easter. Such things can easily disappear from history when they occur in small groups that nobody really cares about except when a scapegoat is needed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: So we've been running seven-day circles since day one with no cultural/religious or numerical crossover? Aren't there some gaps in the histories between Adam and Abraham?
This probably seems nit-picky, but I haven't read any answers to my question beyond "it's the right day because it's been the right day since anyone started paying attention."
If God lied to us at Sinai about the day of the week, then none of it can be trusted anyway, so your question is a non-starter.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No, he wasn't. You have to presuppose some mechanism whereby all the Jews in the world accepted a change in day, otherwise, Occam's Razor says it's the same day we have it now.
Well, just for starters there have been calendar reforms in the West.
None involving the days of the week. If you think there have been, the burden of proof is on you to produce evidence of such. Don't bother, though, because you'll never find anything.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Second, just how sure are you that there have never been any disagreements between different Jewish communities?
We're the people of the book. All the arguments we've had internally have been loud and have been recorded for posterity. You can't hypothesize some dispute over the day of the week with zero evidence for it simply because it suits you. Though I think it's kind of ironic that you're trying to.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Consider the Christian disputes over the date of Easter. Such things can easily disappear from history when they occur in small groups that nobody really cares about except when a scapegoat is needed.
And a green and red speckled alien looking somewhat like a mongoose just landed on my doorstep and offered me a subscription to Out There Weekly, published on the third planet of Epsilon Eridani.
Boy, are you stretching, KoM. Making up silly hypotheses that aren't even hypotheses. They're flights of fancy. Come back with some evidence.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: So we've been running seven-day circles since day one with no cultural/religious or numerical crossover? Aren't there some gaps in the histories between Adam and Abraham?
This probably seems nit-picky, but I haven't read any answers to my question beyond "it's the right day because it's been the right day since anyone started paying attention."
If God lied to us at Sinai about the day of the week, then none of it can be trusted anyway, so your question is a non-starter.
Though I'm almost positive that God didn't say what day of the week it was to Moses at the time, it would have been a cruel joke to propose a Commandment that He knew people would screw up on a technicality. Good point.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:We're the people of the book. All the arguments we've had internally have been loud and have been recorded for posterity.
Let me correct that for you: All the arguments you know about were loud and recorded for posterity. Do you see the selection bias in this statement? Now, I don't particularly believe that the day of Saturday has changed, I'm basically arguing for the sake of it at this point. But I do think you are displaying a perfect example of a defensive crouch when the possibility that your oral tradition might get something wrong is so much as mentioned. Does it not occur to you that this is not the way to find truth? If you wanted to test your tradition, why this pricklyness whenever a possible test of it is mentioned? And if you don't want to test it, then why your trust in it? You can't know if the ice is thin without putting some weight on it. (Preferably the weight of someone heavy but expendable, of course.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As far as I know, the seven-day week dates back well before the Hebrews, as does the concept of the "sabbatum" -- originally an unlucky day on which no work could be done fruitfully (and on which therefore no work should be done); it was observed in Sumer, Egypt, China, and India. (Since most cultures named the days of the week after their names for the celestial bodies visible in the sky, and almost all cultures used a lunar month into which the week was easily divisible, it's possible that seven just happens to be a good length for a week once your society starts fiddling with astronomy.) The Romans used an eight-day week that was phased out following the spread of Christianity; the Chinese (like the Norse) used a five-day week for bureaucracy, later expanded to ten days (like, briefly, the French), and saved the seven-day week for astrology.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: (As an aside, we know from information theory that no error-checking procedure is perfect, even one involving humans; it would be an interesting problem to calculate the expected length of time until the Torah's meaning changes significantly - say, a 'shall' substituted for a 'shall not').
We have a copy of the "Thou Shalt Commit Adultery" bible in York. They had it on display all summer.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Yes, but clearly that error was caught. You tried to prove that errors can occur, but instead you irrefutably proved that any error in transcription or translation will inevitably be caught or corrected.
I mean, if that's not the case, name me one single example of a scriptural error that wasn't caught. SEE! Never going to happen.
You'll never escape my twisted web of logic! Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Actually I just think it's kind of cool. I'm not out to prove anything except that type errors can exist.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Dr. Bacchiocchi did a thorough and comprehensive study of all these sources, including still earlier ones. The Catholics are right. Christians keep Sunday today solely because their church decided to change the day Christians keep. There is absolutely no evidence that any Christian anywhere kept Sunday until at least two generations after the Apostles died.
That would be strange, since if it was solely the province of the Roman church to change the day of worship, there were four other sees not under their authority which nevertheless did the same. My church (Coptic Orthodox) broke with Rome in 451. The Nestorians broke even earlier. And yet all have Sunday worship.
Your theory sort of breaks down on reality.
quote: I question the legitimacy of that quote attributed to Justin Martyr. It sounds like it was written in the second century A.D. He wasn't even born until 100 A.D., according to some sources. The time of his mid-career would be about the time of the Emperor Hadrian's anti-Jewish edicts. He certainly did not speak for the Apostles.
Most important of all, there is not any warrant whatsover in the Bible for keeping Sunday in place of the Sabbath, and that is the only Authority that matters to us Protestants who profess to believe in sola scriptura.
There is no scholarly question about the Apologies, but obviously, if you want to be convinced of your thesis, you're not going to believe any evidence to the contrary.
Revelation does speak of the Lord's Day. And of course, the Scriptures don't mention sola scriptura as a doctrine any more than they do of a prescribed day of worship. All such things are derived of tradition.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by GinaG:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Like I said, shituf is idolatry even for non-Jews according to the vast majority of authorities. But Christianity is more than just shituf. And forms of Christianity that use icons in their worship... whatever.
Icons are not idols, contrary to what you may have heard from Chick Publications.
I understand, but Judaism has its own definitions of such things.
It's my understanding- feel free to correct it- that the prohibition of "graven images" refers to images in relief, i.e. statues and the like. Dura Europa shows that synagogues at the time of Jesus had fresco painting which is much like the tradition of icons, depicting "heroes of the faith" and patrons of that particular meeting place.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I doubt that the Jews of Jesus's time would kneel down and worship in front of those frescoes, though, or pray to the heroes for intercession.
Your year 451 does not contradict Ron's "at least two generations after the Apostles died", which would be ~200 at the latest.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Actually I just think it's kind of cool. I'm not out to prove anything except that type errors can exist.
Oh, sure, back away from a challenge...
(Just kidding. Both this and the previous post were just me goofing off and killing time while the clock runs out. I tried to crank up the sarcasm to make it unmissable, but sometimes my attempts fail.
But for the record, I also think it's kind of cool that you saw that Bible. It figures they'd have something like that in York.
You've really got to post a thread about your experiences, travels, pictures and the like. Or bump it if you already posted it and it slipped past me. I miss northern England, and I'd love to hear some exciting stories.)
Take that, and if you cross me again, I shall taunt you a second time. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
airmanfour, your question comes up from time to time, whether there is any confusion about the integrity of the weekly cycle being maintained throughout all history.
Armoth, Lisa, and others have made very good points that the Jews have been keeping the Sabbath every week throughout their history, and that when God gave them the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai, He surely would have made sure they knew which day He was talking about when He said "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." (Exodus 20:8.) And in fact, we see that He did do this, because for some time leading up to the events at Mt. Sinai, He had been giving them manna to eat six days a week, with a double portion on the sixth day, and no manna on Sabbath. Thus He made sure they were aware that on the sixth day of the week--the "Preparation Day," they were to collect an extra portion of Manna for use during the Sabbath, so they would not have to go out and collect manna on the Sabbath. See Exodus 16:22-30. Exodus 16:35 says that this went on for forty years.
Let me address another possible question, though it has not come up here. And that is the calendar changes that took place when the change was made from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar (the one we use now). If you investigate the history of this, you will find that because of the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar compared to the actual solar year, through the centuries the Roman Catholic Church found itself keeping festivals that were more and more out of sinc from when they were kept originally. The decision was made to bring the calendar back so the festivals would be kept about the same time as when they were observed at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.. This was done by adding 14 days to the calendar in October of 1582. This did not change the weekly cycle, however. They only changed the month-days, going from Thursday, October 4, to Friday October 15. So the sixth day of the week (Friday) still followed the fifth day of the week (Thursday).
While not all nations accepted the change to the Gregorian calendar at that time, later on when they did, they always converted by using the same expedient, of skipping month-days while not changing the week days.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I doubt that the Jews of Jesus's time would kneel down and worship in front of those frescoes, though, or pray to the heroes for intercession.
Venerating icons is respect and affection, not worship. All intercession, too, is ultimately directed to God.
However, I do understand that images were/are not used on the altar in Jewish worship.
quote: Your year 451 does not contradict Ron's "at least two generations after the Apostles died", which would be ~200 at the latest.
My point is that there was no such thing as "Rome's sole authority" at that point.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Take that, and if you cross me again, I shall taunt you a second time.
I'd make a crack about elderberries, but seeing as I spent a good portion of late summer smelling like them, it'd be a bit hypocritical of me.
I do have a blog where I write about being in England. It's become more about my research these days, but every now and then "England is crazy" gets elaborated into a post. It's a blogspot.com one, "debilitasmentis".
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
GinaG, yes, Revelation 1:10 mentions "the Lord's Day." John said: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day."
But that text does not say whether it was the first day of the week, or the seventh. We should allow the Bible to define its own terms, not read our definitions into it. Here is how the Bible identifies which day is the Lord's day:
Jesus said: "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath day." (Matthew 12:8; see also Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5.) So which day did Jesus say was His day in a special sense? He claimed lordship of the Sabbath day.
So in Revelation 1:10, John was saying that he was "in the spirit" on the Sabbath.
As for the discussion about images, and the claim that those who bow down to icons of saints are not "worshipping" them: Why is it that Catholics divide the Ten Commandments differently from most others, lumping the commandment about not making any graven images and bowing down to them, with the first commandment, that says we are to have no other gods before the true God? Catholics, when they summarize the commandments in all their catechisms, leave out entirely the words of what most others view as the second commandment, even though they do not deny that the text is there.
Then to preserve the number ten, since the Bible refers to God's "Ten commandments" (Ex. 34:28; see also Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Catholics divide up the tenth commandment into two, making "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" a separate commandment from "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house...nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass nor anything that is thy neighbor's."
Why do Catholics feel the need to de-emphasize the commandment which says: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them...." (Ex. 20:4, 5)? Could it have anything to do with the fact that their churches are filled with images of the "saints," and people do bow down to them?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I would urge anyone on this board who is interested in understanding what Catholics believe to ignore all of Ron's statements on the topic. He is demonstrably ignorant - and in the face of repeated corrections, I'd also add dishonest - about the topic.
It takes a trivial google search to confirm that the Catechism fully addresses the portion that Ron claims it ignores or deemphasizes. The rest of what he says about Catholics is pretty much incorrect, too.
I'm not going to argue with him about it any more, because he cares nothing for truth. I simply want to urge everyone who reads this who does care about truth to know that he doesn't offer it on this subject.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I understand, but [fill in the religious blank] has its own definitions of such things."
This, I find, is the one reason inter-religious conversations and understandings are mostly useless. Most disagreements boil down to what the believer understands about themselves and what those who are not believers insist it "really" means.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Occam's Razor says it's the same day we have it now.
Occam's Razor doesn't draw conclusions. The only information you can draw from Occam's razor is where to start your investigation, not where it ends.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Occam's Razor says it's the same day we have it now.
Occam's Razor doesn't draw conclusions. The only information you can draw from Occam's razor is where to start your investigation, not where it ends.
Occam's Razor just told me you're full of crap. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The first time I met Pierre Trudeau, he was shaving himself with Occam's Razor.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Dagonee, I would appreciate it if you would quit lying about me and indulging in base insults. Such things have no place in civilized discussion. It is very likely that I know far more about Catholic theology than you do. Certainly I have read the Catholic catechisms for myself. So have lots of other people. Catholics seem to feel the need to play with the way the commandments are listed for some reason.
You want to say that when Catholics bow down to images of saints in their churches they are not really worshipping them? OK fine. But may I point out, the pagans who bowed to the image of Neptune (the very same statue which in Rome is now called an icon of Saint Peter), they claimed they were not really worshipping the image either, but the god it represents.
Would admitting the obvious really kill you?
[ January 03, 2009, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, I would appreciate it if you would quit lying about me and indulging in base insults. Such things have no place in civilized discussion.
I agree. Which is why I would like you to stop engaging in them. But I know you won't, because you quite simply never do.
I haven't lied about you. I have corrected your errors such a large number of times that I no longer believe you are engaging in simple error. You are deliberately spreading lies. You've learned your lessons well.
quote:It is very likely that I know far more about Catholic theology than you do.
You exhibit such basic misunderstandings of Catholic theology that, if what you've discussed here is any indicator, your knowledge of Catholic theology is actually negative.
You are utterly incapable about talking accurately about what others believe, at least here. Usually I laugh it off. But your continued dishonest anti-Catholic propaganda has gotten very, very old on this site.
quote:Certainly I have read the Catholic catechisms for myself.
I've checked three catechisms - two printed and one online - and your description is wrong in all three. Each deals in depth with the portion you say they are hiding.
Similarly, what you say about bowing down to images of saints is wrong as well.
If you can't bother to be accurate, then stop talking about it at all. I'm sick to death of having to put up with your <bleeped for Samprimary's sensitive little eyes> here.
[ January 03, 2009, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jesus said: "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath day." (Matthew 12:8; see also Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5.) So which day did Jesus say was His day in a special sense? He claimed lordship of the Sabbath day.
Meaning Jesus is not the Lord of every other day, too? I don't agree with your logic. It doesn't even make basic sense. When Jesus said He was lord "even of the sabbath," He is saying He has prerogative. It downplays the importance of the sabbath, not the reverse.
quote: As for the discussion about images, and the claim that those who bow down to icons of saints are not "worshipping" them: Why is it that Catholics divide the Ten Commandments differently from most others, lumping the commandment about not making any graven images and bowing down to them, with the first commandment, that says we are to have no other gods before the true God? Catholics, when they summarize the commandments in all their catechisms, leave out entirely the words of what most others view as the second commandment, even though they do not deny that the text is there.
Why is it that certain religious perspectives in the west seem to be based entirely on anti-Catholicism, such that if anti-Catholicism weren't in the picture, they would simply blow away in the wind? That's the feeling I get, at any rate.
Nevertheless, I feel I should explain something I thought was obvious by now: I'm not Catholic. You'll have to ask someone else why Catholics do what they do.
As for the Orthodox, I could try to explain the veneration of icons to you, but I think it would likely be a waste of time besides being a further hijack of the thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm sick to death of having to put up with your bullshit here.
wah wah wah TOS TOS TOS
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Would admitting the obvious really kill you?
I dunno. You frequently act as though you are some sort of supernatural creature that would meet a grisly end if you ever, ever, even for a second, stopped being a complete imbecile about religion or politics.
So, you carefully check and recheck your posts, to make sure. "Is this post ignorant enough? Does it have enough lies and crass generalizations? Am I throwing in enough arrogant generalizations of people I disagree with? Heaven forbid this be the post that kills me."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You'll have to ask someone else why Catholics do what they do.
To be clear, though, he's not asking about something Catholics actually do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:wah wah wah TOS TOS TOS
Would that be why you quoted it? Because you care so much about the TOS?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Apparently you care about it about as much as I do!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:The first time I met Pierre Trudeau, he was shaving himself with Occam's Razor.
I hope he gave it back.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Occam's Razor can be found on the leader of Talon Company. It's superior to normal combat knives but as a light combat weapon it is still almost entirely useless, given that action point usage is not dramatically effected by the size of weapons and that no melee weapon can be targeted to specific body parts in VATS.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
What was that in English?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Fallout 3
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "I understand, but [fill in the religious blank] has its own definitions of such things."
This, I find, is the one reason inter-religious conversations and understandings are mostly useless. Most disagreements boil down to what the believer understands about themselves and what those who are not believers insist it "really" means.
I'm not sure that's true.
I learned a whole lot about different sects of Christianity just through this thread and I found it pretty useful.
As for the debate on icons - yeah, so Jews believe one thing and most Christians another. ::shrug:: I think Lisa just wanted to make it clear that not everyone believes that icons and idols are different.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by GinaG:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Like I said, shituf is idolatry even for non-Jews according to the vast majority of authorities. But Christianity is more than just shituf. And forms of Christianity that use icons in their worship... whatever.
Icons are not idols, contrary to what you may have heard from Chick Publications.
I understand, but Judaism has its own definitions of such things.
It's my understanding- feel free to correct it- that the prohibition of "graven images" refers to images in relief, i.e. statues and the like. Dura Europa shows that synagogues at the time of Jesus had fresco painting which is much like the tradition of icons, depicting "heroes of the faith" and patrons of that particular meeting place.
Graven images, we aren't allowed to have at all. But even non-graven images aren't allowed to be part of our worship. You can't for example, have a photo on the front of the ark containing the Torah. In fact, you aren't allowed to pray facing a reflective surface.
In any case, praying to a human being, whether you think he was a deity or not, is idolatry by Jewish definition.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Armoth, Lisa, and others have made very good points that the Jews have been keeping the Sabbath every week throughout their history, and that when God gave them the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai, He surely would have made sure they knew which day He was talking about when He said "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
You recognize that, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that we've passed down the rest of what God told us.
It isn't only Jews who are stiff-necked.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Fallout 3
Oh. If "Occam's razor" is supposed to be a straight razor used as a weapon, I got news for you. Unless your opponent is lying exposed in a non-defensive position, a straight razor is just as likely to cut off the fingers of the attacker as it is to do damage to the opponent. I cringe every time I see someone in a movie slinging a straight razor around like a set of nunchucks.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Its just an easter egg. The actual item is just modeled by a regular combat knife IIRC
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The first time my mother met Pierre Trudeau, he was eating Easter eggs.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, praying to a human being, whether you think he was a deity or not, is idolatry by Jewish definition.
Understood, but that is taking issue with the essence of Christianity, not specifically with "those who use icons in their worship."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
How did these dates get changed from 2008 to 2009?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps you could clarify what you're asking.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The dates of everything in this topic have been changed. The first post on page one is dated Dec. 29, 2008.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wasn't that when it was posted?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's certainly about when I remember it being posted. When do you recall it being posted, Ron?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I guess now we know how Sunday/Saturday (delete as applicable) got to be the day of rest. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Funny.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I thought so, certainly. Fortunately for you, I am not in charge of your grades, pay, or social status, so you are free not to laugh or even smile. Aren't you lucky?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The dates of everything in this topic have been changed. The first post on page one is dated Dec. 29, 2008.
Quick, what year is it?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, I realize you claim the Bible (O.T.) and all its promises exclusively for Jews, but your tradition aside, the Bible does not support your proprietary claims. God's Covenant with Abraham was for the purpose that "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed...." (Genesis 22:18a)
The Sabbath was created on the seventh day of Creation Week, when Adam alone was the entire human race. There is no way you can claim that for yourself. The fourth commandment does not say the seventh day is the Sabbath because God was making it an exclusive covenant for the Jews, it says the seventh day is the Sabbath because God set aside the seventh day of Creation Week as a memorial of His Creatorship: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11) The fourth commandment only enjoins the hearers to remember the Sabbath, it is not establishing anything new.
Lisa, Did the commandment "thou shalt not kill" also apply only to the Jews? Face it, the only commandment you want to claim is strictly for the Jews is the Sabbath commandment. Oddly enough, that is the only commandment that the majority of Christian denominations want to say does not apply to them. I guess in a perverse sort of way, then, Jews are in agreement with the Sunday-keeping Christians.
It saddens me though, that the people who should care the most about the Sabbath--having championed it for thousands of years often at the cost of their lives--seem not to appreciate the real reason why the weekly Sabbath is a holy day, and for whom it was meant to be a means for blessing and sanctified fellowship with God.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
"Thou shall not kill" is part of the Noachide laws, so it applies to everyone.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Fugu13, I saw posts that I remembered from almost a year ago on page one of this thread. Maybe something wierd happened in cyberspace, and this thread was cojoined with another, older thread. Only takes a few misplaced pointers. Nothing looks out of place now though. So I can't prove it.
OK, you folks who keep referring to "Noachide laws," will you please tell me what they are, and why you believe these should take the place of the Ten Commandments God wrote with His own finger on tables of stone at Mt. Sinai?
Here are the only commandments I find that God gave to Noah: "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." (Gen. 9:4) "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed." (Gen. 9:6) "Be fruitful, and multiply." (Gen. 9:7).
There is nothing in here about theft, or blaspheming God's name, or worshiping idols, or committing adultery, or telling lies to defame people, or coveting what others have, etc. Are all these things OK for all the descendents of Noah who are not Jews?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:you folks who keep referring to "Noachide laws," will you please tell me what they are
*facepalm*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ron, there is a fairly detailed discussion of what these laws entail located on the 5th page of this thread, between your first and second posts on that page.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Fugu13, I saw posts that I remembered from almost a year ago on page one of this thread. Maybe something wierd happened in cyberspace, and this thread was cojoined with another, older thread. Only takes a few misplaced pointers. Nothing looks out of place now though. So I can't prove it.
I have never seriously considered the idea that "Ron Lambert" might be someone's alt until now.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Why would that clinch it, Noemon?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It just seems like such over-the-top silliness, with such deadpan delivery, you know? It doesn't actually clinch it for me, though; it just put it on the table as an actual possibility. When it's been suggested in the past I've dismissed the idea more or less out of hand.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, I realize you claim the Bible (O.T.) and all its promises exclusively for Jews, but your tradition aside, the Bible does not support your proprietary claims. God's Covenant with Abraham was for the purpose that "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed...." (Genesis 22:18a)
Right. We're that seed. You get your blessings through us.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Sabbath was created on the seventh day of Creation Week, when Adam alone was the entire human race.
Oh, stop it. There was no commandment to anyone at that time to observe any Sabbath in any way. It was solely the day that God rested.
Shabbat as something for people to observe didn't come about until after we left Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There is no way you can claim that for yourself. The fourth commandment does not say the seventh day is the Sabbath because God was making it an exclusive covenant for the Jews, it says the seventh day is the Sabbath because God set aside the seventh day of Creation Week as a memorial of His Creatorship: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11) The fourth commandment only enjoins the hearers to remember the Sabbath, it is not establishing anything new.
Wrong. In Exodus it says to remember the Sabbath. In Deuteronomy it says to keep it. Both are positive commandments, and God told us the details of those commandments.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, Did the commandment "thou shalt not kill" also apply only to the Jews?
First of all, there is no commandment "thou shalt not kill." It's "Do not murder". When King James and company were doing their translation, the English word "kill" meant what "murder" means today. The modern use of "kill" was expressed by the word "slay" back then. "Thou shalt not kill" was a correct translation at the time, but it's incorrect today, simply because English usage has changed.
Second of all, the prohibition against murder is one of the Noachide laws, and it stems, not from the commandments given at Sinai, but from Genesis 9:6, where it says, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." So yes, non-Jews are also commanded not to murder. And no, the commandment "Thou shalt not murder" was commanded only to Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Face it, the only commandment you want to claim is strictly for the Jews is the Sabbath commandment.
Yes and no. That's the only one that non-Jews are forbidden to keep. None of the rest are commanded to non-Jews, but it's no big deal if you keep them.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It saddens me though, that the people who should care the most about the Sabbath--having championed it for thousands of years often at the cost of their lives--seem not to appreciate the real reason why the weekly Sabbath is a holy day, and for whom it was meant to be a means for blessing and sanctified fellowship with God.
You aren't keeping God's Sabbath, Ron. You're worshipping your own opinions. God has told us what He wants, and you've chosen to ignore that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: It just seems like such over-the-top silliness, with such deadpan delivery, you know? It doesn't actually clinch it for me, though; it just put it on the table as an actual possibility. When it's been suggested in the past I've dismissed the idea more or less out of hand.
Who is he, then? I don't recall seeing anyone else like him here.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Ron, there is a fairly detailed discussion of what these laws entail located on the 5th page of this thread, between your first and second posts on that page.
But that was all in 2008, and with Ron so confused about the year, maybe he can't find it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Fugu13, I saw posts that I remembered from almost a year ago on page one of this thread. Maybe something wierd happened in cyberspace, and this thread was cojoined with another, older thread. Only takes a few misplaced pointers. Nothing looks out of place now though. So I can't prove it.
You're odd. There's nothing from a year ago in this thread. There's material that's been rehashed because of people like you, who keep asking the same questions even after they've been answered.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: OK, you folks who keep referring to "Noachide laws," will you please tell me what they are, and why you believe these should take the place of the Ten Commandments God wrote with His own finger on tables of stone at Mt. Sinai?
They don't take the place of anything. They are the laws that God commanded all mankind. The commandments at Sinai were given to the Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Here are the only commandments I find that God gave to Noah: "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." (Gen. 9:4) "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed." (Gen. 9:6) "Be fruitful, and multiply." (Gen. 9:7).
There is nothing in here about theft, or blaspheming God's name, or worshiping idols, or committing adultery, or telling lies to defame people, or coveting what others have, etc. Are all these things OK for all the descendents of Noah who are not Jews?
See, Ron, the only way you can know what the Noachide laws are is to ask us. Jews. We're your source for knowledge of God.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Seriously? Didn't we go though this Ron?
Did you think my addressing your comments to Lisa that you can ignore the page of discussion we had?
Stop quoting the Bible to us over and over when we already DID the Bible quoting thing. I showed you how the covenant was exclusive: "Beni u bein Bnei Yisroel" - "Between ME and the children of Israel"
There was no commandment in Genesis. Show it to me.
"Remember the Sabbath" - again the translation is stinky. Zachor is a perpetual remembering - it doesn't mean "remember something that happened" - it means "keep this on your mind always". It is a commandment with many applications, one of them is to make sure that the Sabbath day is planned for all throughout the week. Like Lisa said, it parallels "Shamor" - "Observe" or "Guard" which appears in the Deuteronomy version of the commandments.
And lastly - C'mon, the Bible supports our claims for an exclusive covenant more than tradition. Take a look at the story - God makes a covenant with JUST ONE NATION. He appears to JUST ONE NATION. He gives commandments, establishes the tabernacle, talks about how great the bond is with JUST ONE NATION. He slays a whole bunch of Egyptians, spurns Esau and Ismael, the other progeny of Abraham, etc.
Weren't you the one who was all big on verses in context? It's like you forgot the whole story.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, I tend to forget things that happened a whole year ago too.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: See, Ron, the only way you can know what the Noachide laws are is to ask us. Jews. We're your source for knowledge of God.
I used to think that only fundamentalist Christians could be this obnoxious about their beliefs. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Well, I tend to forget things that happened a whole year ago too.
Heh.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: See, Ron, the only way you can know what the Noachide laws are is to ask us. Jews. We're your source for knowledge of God.
I used to think that only fundamentalist Christians could be this obnoxious about their beliefs.
It was special for Ron.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Really?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I actually like the no-nonsense approach of that line, and think it'd work well as a commercial tagline. You know how the LDS church did those "get closer to your family" spots back in the '80s? You could have a whole bunch of ads for Orthodox Jews:
"Jews: we talked to God so you don't have to." "Tired of wondering what God wants? Just ask a Jew." "Think you know your Bible? Think again."
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: It just seems like such over-the-top silliness, with such deadpan delivery, you know? It doesn't actually clinch it for me, though; it just put it on the table as an actual possibility. When it's been suggested in the past I've dismissed the idea more or less out of hand.
Who is he, then?
That's the thing--I have a hard time believing that anyone would bother with something so pointless as maintaining an alt for seven years. And even if someone were to be enough of an asshat to want to do that, and have enough drive to maintain it for that long, I can't believe that they wouldn't have slipped up often enough in that period of time to have been caught. And yet...that post. That post cannot have been serious, can it?
quote:I don't recall seeing anyone else like him here.
Well, his brother was more or less identical to him, back when he was posting.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I actually like the no-nonsense approach of that line, and think it'd work well as a commercial tagline. You know how the LDS church did those "get closer to your family" spots back in the '80s? You could have a whole bunch of ads for Orthodox Jews:
"Jews: we talked to God so you don't have to." "Tired of wondering what God wants? Just ask a Jew." "Think you know your Bible? Think again."
<grin> I like that.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
So, if we want to know something about God or the religion of the Bible, we should just ask a Jew? Well, Lisa, I have, and Jesus Christ said that the Ten Commandments--and especialy the fourth--are for everyone. He said: "The Sabbath was made for man"--Not just the Jews. (Mark 2:27)
Lisa, and others, you forget that the promise to the father of all Jews was this: "In YOUR SEED all nations shall be blessed." (Genesis 22:18.) As the Apostle Paul argues, this SEED, singular, refers to the Messiah and Saviour of the world. Paul goes on to argue that ONLY those who accept this Seed of Abraham are the true Jews, the true children of Abraham, because they are the only ones who receive the faith of Abraham. As Paul said: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:28, 29) This is how we Christians see it.
Those who keep the true faith of Jesus are the only true Israel of God today. Though God has not rejected the Jews, the Jews ceased to be the exclusive Israel of God in 34 A.D. That is when the time prophecy of 490 years "determined upon thy people" (Daniel 9:24) ran out.
So, Lisa, you can deny me the right to keep the Sabbath, and claim all the promises made to Israel, if you wish. I still claim them, and the right and privilege to keep the Sabbath, based on a sounder interpretation of Scripture than yours, and we will let God in the Judgment render His verdict.
Claudia Terese, I realize this subject of the Noachian laws has arisen years in the past. But the unsupported assertions of a few did not by any means settle the issue. Since some wish to bring up what they call the "Noachide Law" yet again, I still ask that they justify their claims about it, instead of just making more assertions.
Noemon, my brother who used to post here is not a Seventh-day Adventist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Those who keep the true faith of Jesus are the only true Israel of God today.
Well, if that's the way you feel about it, why did you bother asking Lisa for her opinion in the first place?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Noemon, my brother who used to post here is not a Seventh-day Adventist.
Ah, okay. I was talking more about tone and attitude than I was about the specifics of your belief systems, but that certainly wasn't clear from my post.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Woah, Ron your post is the height of arrogance. Lets put it in the same veins as a joke.
A Jew and a Christian are in a bar having a drink the Christian being an Evangelist sees it as his duty to talk to the Jew to get him to see the Truth of Jesus Christ talks to the Jew and asks if he has ever read the New Testament. The Jew replies "sorry, but I don't much like sequels."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Claudia Terese, I realize this subject of the Noachian laws has arisen years in the past.
[Edited out. Too dang snarky. My apologies.]
[ January 06, 2009, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: So, if we want to know something about God or the religion of the Bible, we should just ask a Jew? Well, Lisa, I have, and Jesus Christ said that the Ten Commandments--and especialy the fourth--are for everyone. He said: "The Sabbath was made for man"--Not just the Jews. (Mark 2:27)
Even positing that there was such a person, and that he said such a thing, that wouldn't mean it was for all men. Or do you think that women don't have to keep the Sabbath? See, this is the thing. Something that's only written is subject to the whim of whoever reads it. Someone wants to say "man means mankind" can do so. Someone who wants to say "man means only men" can do so. The only way to know for sure is to go by what God said, which is that the Sabbath is an eternal sign between Him and the children of Israel. And in the episode you refer to, the dichotomy was whether the Sabbath took precedence over the needs of man or not.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, and others, you forget that the promise to the father of all Jews was this: "In YOUR SEED all nations shall be blessed." (Genesis 22:18.) As the Apostle Paul argues, this SEED, singular, refers to the Messiah and Saviour of the world.
That's just silly. The same book says, explicitly, "For through Isaac shall seed be called to you." It's a collective noun, and doesn't refer to an individual alone. It means his descendents (and the thing about Isaac specifies which descendents). Not to mention the obvious fact that the Messiah isn't the "savior of the world". "He's just this guy." Leader of the Jewish people. Mankind doesn't require saving, because we aren't born in sin.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Paul goes on to argue that ONLY those who accept this Seed of Abraham are the true Jews, the true children of Abraham, because they are the only ones who receive the faith of Abraham.
Aw... isn't that cute. Now Jews aren't Jews, but non-Jews are if they worship a man.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Those who keep the true faith of Jesus are the only true Israel of God today. Though God has not rejected the Jews, the Jews ceased to be the exclusive Israel of God in 34 A.D.
Nice idea, but it isn't true. Israel is Israel. A bunch of wannabees (even numbering in the billions) don't change that.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: So, Lisa, you can deny me the right to keep the Sabbath, and claim all the promises made to Israel, if you wish.
I'm denying you nothing. God denies you the right to keep the Sabbath. Defy Him at your own peril, Ron.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I still claim them, and the right and privilege to keep the Sabbath, based on a sounder interpretation of Scripture than yours, and we will let God in the Judgment render His verdict.
"Sounder"? You're a hoot.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Claudia Terese, I realize this subject of the Noachian laws has arisen years in the past. But the unsupported assertions of a few did not by any means settle the issue. Since some wish to bring up what they call the "Noachide Law" yet again, I still ask that they justify their claims about it, instead of just making more assertions.
God said so.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Ron, are you a supercessionist? If so, are you also a premillennial dispensationalist?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I think I've lost track of this thread.
Is this still the same discussion about whether the Sabbath is on Saturday or Sunday, or about whether Christians have the right to keep the 7th day holy? Or has it deteriorated to whose religion is right with the atheist frequenters jabbing a few snarky jokes from the sidelines?
What is the central axis that the current debate revolves around? I'm seeing the same mixture of interesting points and arrogance from everyone in the pages I've read, but I still don't see what's driving it all.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Welcome to Hatrack. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
MattB, in answer to your questions, I do not believe in separate and distinct dispensations of divine grace. God has only ever had one way of saving human beings, and that is by the intervention of His Son as in effect the Surety or Co-Signer for the human race. Those who thought they were saved on the basis of their obedience to various traditions and standards (even including the Ten Commandments) MISUNDERSTOOD the means of salvation, but their time of ignorance was not a separate dispensation of God's grace. He merely takes into account how faithful someone is to what he knows, along with making allowances for that person's background and upbringing.
Before or after the Cross, all humans who will be saved will be saved solely because Christ lived and died in their place, as the New Adam. Before the Cross, the faithful looked forward to this in the types of the sacrificial system, inwhich an animal was slain, representing Christ. After the Cross, the faithful who understand submit to the rite of baptism by immersion, representing their identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in their place.
In Christ all who are of faith are reconstituted as a new human race with a sinless heritage, with the righteousness of God Himself imputed to them, since the only way for humans to be saved was for a righteousness outside of our race to be brought in, since no righteousness remained within the race of Adam. When the Son of God joined humanity to Himself, He forever joined our race to divinity. So for eternity we will share the throne of Christ, and the throne of Deity will be moved to earth. This is how much God had to do for us in order to dispense with our sins and restore us to followship with Himself.
Lucifer, in becoming Satan, charged that God was selfish, by not allowing any of His creatures to "evolve" into Godhood, and by insisting they had to follow His standard of righteousness. By elevating the most unworthy sapient race in the universe to sit on the throne of Deity, by sacrificing Himself on the Cross, by giving to our race His own righteousness that is equal to the Law, without any contribution whatsoever on our part, God in Christ is giving the full and final answer to Lucifer's charges.
The issues in the controversy between Christ and Satan are immensely greater than most people realize. They are truly cosmic in scale and importance.
The concern of some, like Lisa, that their particular ethnic group should have precedence over all others, fades into utter insignificance.
I also believe that the Second Coming of Christ is imminent, that He will take His saints out of this earth to Heaven for the one thousand years spoken of in Revelation 20, where and when the saints will review God's judgment of angels and humans; and following which Jesus, the saints, the New Jerusalem, and the throne of God will be returned/moved to earth, which will be re-created as the New Earth.
[ January 06, 2009, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I've asked Papa Janitor to cast a quick eye over us (benediction? blessing?), not for any one post or poster, but just so that we are on the radar. [The general topic is contentious enough and people are passionate enough that I think it's good to have a specific eye trained this way. That's all.]
A reference to the TOS: " You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs."
I note this publicly in case anyone else had the same thought, in order to prevent PJ from having to deal with multiple flags.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I was actually about to comment anyway -- I received a couple other whistles about this thread while I was away on vacation, and hadn't yet had time to read through the whole thread.
I believe it's possible that a couple of posts have pushed a little bit on that blurry line distinguishing between explaining one's beliefs and evangelizing (and perhaps the other line that distinguishes between disagreeing with others' beliefs and disparaging them). Please endeavor to remain on the proper side of whichever line you (general) may be nearing.
--PJ
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm gonna just go ahead and mention that MY beliefs are obviously the right ones, and everyone here should defer to me.
In fact, why don't we just all take turns saying, "I'm right and you're wrong" so we have that out of the way, and then we can go back to the real world of discussion where we actually support what we say if we expect other people to give it any thought.
Just an idea.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I think I've lost track of this thread.
Is this still the same discussion about whether the Sabbath is on Saturday or Sunday, or about whether Christians have the right to keep the 7th day holy? Or has it deteriorated to whose religion is right with the atheist frequenters jabbing a few snarky jokes from the sidelines?
What is the central axis that the current debate revolves around? I'm seeing the same mixture of interesting points and arrogance from everyone in the pages I've read, but I still don't see what's driving it all.
No, you've got it all wrong. This thread is, first and foremost, about whether it's morally justifiable and/or incumbent to murder missionaries for trying to change your mind about God.
Geez, whatever happened to reading comprehension. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm gonna just go ahead and mention that MY beliefs are obviously the right ones, and everyone here should defer to me.
In fact, why don't we just all take turns saying, "I'm right and you're wrong" so we have that out of the way, and then we can go back to the real world of discussion where we actually support what we say if we expect other people to give it any thought.
Just an idea.
May I ask who you are directing this comment to?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: In fact, why don't we just all take turns saying, "I'm right and you're wrong" so we have that out of the way, and then we can go back to the real world of discussion where we actually support what we say if we expect other people to give it any thought.
Just an idea.
Ok, I'll start.
quote:God said so.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
To whom you are directing this comment! Someone might just bump their head on that low hanging preposition.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It is to everyone who might now or ever disagree with me on any matter, religious, philosophical, psychological, medical, sociological, or otherwise!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB: Ron, are you a supercessionist? If so, are you also a premillennial dispensationalist?
GAAAAAAAAAH WORDS! HURT! BRAIN! Mercy!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ron, people been claiming the Second COming is night! for...... since the Bible was written, don't cha know it?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hey, everyone knows the Second Coming was a movie with Christopher Eccleston. And not a bad one, either.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Ron, people been claiming the Second COming is night! for...... since the Bible was written, don't cha know it?
I think you mean "nigh" Blayne. Though the Bible does say that the second coming will come "like a thief in the night."
If you look just alittle bit deeper into the Bible I think you will find that many of the apostles including John and Paul recognized that the second coming was not going to happen very soon.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
BlackBlade, some of the Apostles at times may have believed that the Second Coming of Christ was imminent. They were aware that it could be, if Christ had been received by His people, so He would have had a community of faithful witnesses. The "70 weeks" (490 years) prophecy of Daniel 9:24 terminated in 34 A.D.
But because God foresaw that Christ would not be accepted by most of those to whom He came, the 2300 days/years prophecy would also transpire.
The Apostle Paul said of Christ's return: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4; compare Daniel 11:36, 37; 7:25; Revelation 13:5-8)
While there may be an end-time re-fulfillment, much of these prophecies have already been fulfilled in past history.
In other words, most of the things that had to happen have already happened. All that remains is the time of final test for all the world, when everyone will be brought to the point of final decision. (See Revelation 3:10.) Some call this the Judgment of the Living. (See Daniel 7:13, 22, 26.) God is waiting to have a community of faithful believers who are ready to serve as witnesses to the truth for the final generation.
[ January 07, 2009, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, Ron, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Speed, I agree that murder of missionaries is the first and main point of the thread. I don't care to discuss what Sabbath day you care to observe (don't Muslims worship on Friday?), but putting my life in danger because I want to share my faith is far more disturbing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Really. That's really the first and main point of the thread. Are you on drugs?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It isn't an unreasonable conclusion. You were patting yourself on the back for not doing them an injury.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I was missionized yesterday. I went out to check the mail in ten degree weather with no jacket and was approached by two nice young Mormons. I politely told them I am Southern Baptist and cold and do not want to get into a discussion with them about theology at that point.
The one asked me why I thought there were so many religions, I said because different people interpret the Bible differently. He started to go into his prepared response and I interrupted him again and said I was cold and going inside. I didn't want to be rude, but I'm not going to argue why my religion is better than someone else's and I don't want someone to do that to me.
While I was talking with them, I thought of this thread. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Well? Did you want to kill them?
;-)
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
x I didn't want to be rude, but I'm not going to argue why my religion is better than someone else's and I don't want someone to do that to me.
But you're religion isn't better than someone else's. Thankfully the same can't be said for my religion.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
The only reason I would kill one would in that situation would be to cut him open and climb inside for warmth. "Mormons smell as good on the inside as they do on the outside."
*Star Wars reference just incase someone didn't get it.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
There are no Mormons in Star Wars. The only Star Wars character who is a member of a "real" religion is Jabba the Hutt (real name Ya'akov Horowitz).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
On a side note, I was in a college wide faculty meeting yesterday when one of faculty members who I barely know, told me he'd been approached by mormon missionaries recently and then said "They are using your name."
It made my stomach sink a bit. I'm happy to admit I'm LDS and tell people about my church, I just didn't know these missionaries well. I hope they are the really nice polite kind that people like and not the over zealous pushy kind that irritate people.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Rabbit, did you go on mission?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Brojack: That was a perfectly acceptable way to deal with missionaries. It isn't surprising for missionaries not to take the first no.
---
Rabbit: I don't quite understand what your colleague meant by, "They are using your name." The missionaries said they were friends of yours? They referred to themselves as Elder or Sister Rabbit? Or your surname?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It isn't surprising for missionaries not to take the first no.
Why not?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Armoth, Yes I served a mission.
BB, Based on the rest of the discussion, I suspect the missionaries were talking to him, they found out he was in Engineering at UWI and said "Oh, do you know Professor Rabbit in Chemical Engineering? She's a member of our church, we see her every Sunday at our meetings". If that's all that happened I don't have any problem.
The way he said "They are using your name" though made me wonder whether they were using my name as a sort of calling card when they met people from the University "Hi, do you know Dr. Rabbit? We are missionaries from her church" and that would tend to imply that I am sending these guys to contact my work colleagues when I'm not and that idea makes me very uncomfortable.
The odd thing is that I use my husband's surname at church and my surname exclusively at the work so I'm not quite sure what name they used or how he identified me from what they said. I guess it wouldn't be that hard since I'm the only white woman professor in Engineering and one of the few people from North America in the college.
[ January 16, 2009, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It isn't surprising for missionaries not to take the first no.
Why not?
I suppose for the same reasons that sales people rarely take the first no. They've found if they can keep you talking a bit longer you might get interested in the conversation and change your mind.
I'm sure there is a balance to be struck there but I've dealt with plenty of sales persons and missionaries who haven't found it and are obnoxiously pushy. That's part of why I worry about missionaries using my name when they contact people. If they are the obnoxiously pushy sort, I don't want people to associate me with them, even if I am happy to be associated with the church.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Name dropping is a common sales tactic when cold calling. The idea is to present a sense of familiarity or legitimacy without the costly overhead of actually establishing a relationship or rapport. I haven't seen missionaries do this before, but I'm not too surprised that some might.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Name dropping is a common sales tactic when cold calling.
I understand that but it doesn't make me more comfortable with them dropping my name.
Like I said, it sort of depends on what actually happened. If it came up in the course of conversation, I don't have any problem with it but if they were using my name to get in the door it would really bother me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It isn't surprising for missionaries not to take the first no.
Why not?
Well for instance it's not common to be approached by a stranger who then asks for a relatively large time commitment. Many people might say no just because it's a reflex. Sometimes people say no because they have misconceptions about Mormon missionaries. Sometimes people say no because they think the missionaries mean that they want to discuss with them "right now" rather than "at a convenient time." People might say no they don't want to talk about the missionary's message, but perhaps there is some other need the missionaries could help with, such as a small chore or helping emotionally for a problem that is pressing at the moment.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I understand that but it doesn't make me more comfortable with them dropping my name.
I understand completely. I hate it when a salesperson does that to me. It's an ugly form of deception.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is a part of me that wishes that people talking about their religion were less obnoxious and less deceptive than people selling other things.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Well for instance it's not common to be approached by a stranger who then asks for a relatively large time commitment. Many people might say no just because it's a reflex. Sometimes people say no because they have misconceptions about Mormon missionaries. Sometimes people say no because they think the missionaries mean that they want to discuss with them "right now" rather than "at a convenient time." People might say no they don't want to talk about the missionary's message, but perhaps there is some other need the missionaries could help with, such as a small chore or helping emotionally for a problem that is pressing at the moment.
As complete strangers, I think courtesy demands that they respect my initial response regardless of what they believe my motives to be.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wonder that they aren't? The existence of some obnoxious missionaries does not mean that all are as obnoxious as, say, those people who haunt the malls and sell magazine subscriptions so they can go to Rome.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is a part of me that wishes that people talking about their religion were less obnoxious and less deceptive than people selling other things.
This reminds me of a joke my district had at the Missionary Training Center:
Q: What's the difference between a Mormon missionary and an Amway salesman? A: Soap.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Everyone's mission is different. I'd never even heard of missionary compared to sales people until my second area when the RS pres referred to us as such, and we were more than a little bit offended. I think the central difference was self-interest - it hurt that people thought we were out there for our own self-interest. We certainly were trying as hard as we could to not be.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I wish I could find some tactful way to find out it the missionaries are misusing my name and ask them not to. Unfortunately, I can't think of a polite way to do this that either end up offending them or persuading them I'm on the high road to hell.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Well for instance it's not common to be approached by a stranger who then asks for a relatively large time commitment. Many people might say no just because it's a reflex. Sometimes people say no because they have misconceptions about Mormon missionaries. Sometimes people say no because they think the missionaries mean that they want to discuss with them "right now" rather than "at a convenient time." People might say no they don't want to talk about the missionary's message, but perhaps there is some other need the missionaries could help with, such as a small chore or helping emotionally for a problem that is pressing at the moment.
As complete strangers, I think courtesy demands that they respect my initial response regardless of what they believe my motives to be.
Well for one thing, no missionary should be approaching anybody without first introducing themselves and asking if you have a moment to talk. Courtesy to me seems to demand that you at least introduce yourself unless pressed by something important.
Is there really such a huge exertion between saying, "I'm sorry but I am not interested," letting the missionaries respond, and then emphatically but politely saying no again and bidding them good day?
As somebody who probably understands better than most where a missionary is coming from Matt I am surprised that you have that much patience. But then again, I suffer from the opposite effect. Because I served a mission I feel compelled to give people a chance to explain themselves every time they come to my doorstep. It annoys my wife when I sit there for 5-10 minutes before finally getting a person to leave.
Rabbit: Are you certain you don't know these particular missionaries from church, or through family connections? You could always call up their mission president and have him ask the missionaries at mission conference to not use members as an endorsement in their proselyting unless they know them personally.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Is there really such a huge exertion between saying, "I'm sorry but I am not interested," letting the missionaries respond, and then emphatically but politely saying no again and bidding them good day?
The couple times when it's occurred, it took at least 3-5 versions of "no" before they went on their way. They were at least as pushy as any door-to-door salesman that I've encountered.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Is there really such a huge exertion between saying, "I'm sorry but I am not interested," letting the missionaries respond, and then emphatically but politely saying no again and bidding them good day?
The couple times when it's occurred, it took at least 3-5 versions of "no" before they went on their way. They were at least as pushy as any door-to-door salesman that I've encountered.
Well that's on them then. It's unfortunate that missionaries do that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rabbit: Are you certain you don't know these particular missionaries from church, or through family connections? You could always call up their mission president and have him ask the missionaries at mission conference to not use members as an endorsement in their proselyting unless they know them personally. [/QB]
I'm quite confident that they must be one of the two pairs of Elders that serve in my branch. Three of the four of them are new in the area since early December and I was out of the country for 4 Sundays in that time frame. So I've very likely met these guys and spoken with them at least briefly, but I don't know them well enough to have an idea what kind of missionaries they might be and whether they are likely to have good judgement in such matters or not.
Missionaries are after all only 19-20 years old and people in that age range very commonly have poorly developed judgement skills even if they are very well intentioned.
My big concern is that the Elders may be creating the impression that I sent them to talk with my colleagues. Since I am still quite knew here and barely know most of the people in the college, it would be highly inappropriate for me to send Missionaries to talk to them and I don't want the Missionaries to the impression that I have.
I figure that I'll approach them when I see them on Sunday and say something like "Hey, I hear you've been using my name" in a light hearted tone. Depending on how they explain what happened, if it turns out they have been using my name as a sort of calling card, I'll let them know that this is inappropriate, could hurt my reputation and gently ask them to stop. Tact is not my strong point, so it worries me a bit.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit: That sounds like a good way to handle it. Tact may not be your strong suit, but missionaries should learn to maintain good relationships with the members of their ward/branch. You may also prevent an even worse mistake of a similar type down the road.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)