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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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!
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but I'd assume that Jews have a whole lot more opportunity to gain a larger share than non-Jews.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess you're right. That's always the way I understood the difference between Jewish men and women, or men and kohanim.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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))
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, now that I think about it, I think I'm probably wrong too. But I think that general merciful principle applies.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
