Will There Be Jews In Heaven?

[saintsaucey]

Mac and Bree and who ever else feels up to answering this. The Jews that haven't converted and accepted Christ as the Messiah, will they get to Heaven? Do they get a free pass because they are the chosen people. I was discusing this with my roommate and he seems to think as long as they follow the Mosaic law the Jews get a free pass.

[the4thpip]

Don't worry. If there's hell below, we're all gonna go.

[Sabrinaset]

I'm not really sure if the Jews are completely following the Mosaic Laws, since they're not sacrificing animals at the temple every year, there's no great priest and suchlike. Typo Lad could probably address that point FAR better than I could. But more importantly, it's not my place to say whether anyone else is going to heaven ... it's enough that I worry about myself!

[Alan Lynch]

I tend to think of Heaven as being this huge fuck-off place where all religions have a place. If you're good then you'll be rewarded with whatever your own personal Paradise is. Whether that's a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Godless athiest vision is up to you.

[Linkara]

As a Christian who believes in a loving, just God, I have a hard time believing that God would be so petty as to allow good people to go to Hell because they made the wrong choice about their faith. As such, I'd like to think that one's religious orientation isn't a real prerequisite for entry into heaven.

[DavidAllred]

Mac and Bree and who ever else feels up to answering this. The Jews that haven't converted and accepted Christ as the Messiah, will they get to Heaven? Do they get a free pass because they are the chosen people. I was discusing this with my roommate and he seems to think as long as they follow the Mosaic law the Jews get a free pass.

I think the correct answer to that question is what C.S. Lewis always used to say about who's in and who's out:

"How should I know? It's not up to me."

That said, some Christians who are not of the Lewis stripe do think they have the ability to successfully answer these kinds of questions.

Their theology is based on a few things Jesus said, and the apostle Paul. I'll give a gross sum up like this:

1) If you want to make the Mosiac Law your judge after death, then Moses will be your judge. Jesus basically said, "Good luck with that, because everyone in the world has already missed a few on that test, and most everyone is failing outta class really bad."

2) Then Jesus basically said, "I'm here, cause God doesn't want everyone failing out of his class. I'm going to take your bad grade, if you'll let me do that, God said He's won't use a "point" system anymore. It'll be class participation from here on out."

A gross summary, I realize.

It's also important to note that the concept of hell is not clearly laid out in the Bible. It does however indicate some sort of "separation" from God, which doesn't sound very pleasant. So my theology of that is basically, those who don't want anything to do with God cause He's mean or non-existant, pretty much get their wish in the here-after. A world with no God.

[Crowley]

I don't believe in a heaven.

Human beings have a great process during death that runs a peaceful scenario in our brains to shutdown our systems as we die. So I think for each of us we get the perfect ending we desire and then we get an eternal rest.

[Mr.EZ]

There won't be a single Jew in Heaven, not a one. There also won't be any Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists, Athiests, etc, because those are designations we've created to set ourselves apart from one another on Earth. Heaven is all about the oneness of us all, so while we may all go to Heaven, I really hope we're leaving all the labels behind us.

[JohnPopa]

Is it just me or does getting into Heaven have some serious continuity issues?

Maybe they need a Crisis to fix it all.

[Your Imaginary Pal]

Don't worry. If there's hell below, we're all gonna go.

curtis .....nice.

[dragonbat]

I'm not really sure if the Jews are completely following the Mosaic Laws, since they're not sacrificing animals at the temple every year, there's no great priest and suchlike. Typo Lad could probably address that point FAR better than I could. But more importantly, it's not my place to say whether anyone else is going to heaven ... it's enough that I worry about myself!

That's only relevant if there's a Temple.

[Cam63]

That's only relevant if there's a Temple.

As far as I know, Shirley is alive and well.

[TCJohnson]

So we should be sacrificing animals to her?

[ShaunN]

Dear Saintsaucy,

Hi! Your question assumes, of course, that the Christians and/or the Jews "have it right" and that their particular understanding of God is "correct" (to the exclusion of all others). Of course, I reject that notion entirely. The idea of a "chosen people" is a bit ludicrous (to me) and the notion that accepting Christ is the only way to get to heaven is also, to me, a bit preposterous. (And this doesn't even begin to get into the discussion of what "heaven" may actually be).

Those points being made, my understanding is that different Christian sects vary on their response to this. I think that the Baptist Churches with which I am familiar would say that anyone who does not accept Christ is doomed to Hell. That would certainly include Jews, who may even have a special place in Hell, given their original rejection of Christ. The Catholics, after Vatican II, came to the conclusion that it was possible to live a Christian life without being Christian. Thus, anyone can get to heaven, after spending a bit of time in Purgatory. But this would apply to anyone (Muslim, Hindu, Jew, etc) and I don't think I've ever read that the Jews get any special dispensation.

I would go along with an earlier comment: I think that notions of religion are entirely human-made. I think of religion as a "necessary evil" - it is a human effort to make sense of the unknown, to create social order and, in most cases, actually give a context and explanation to experiences and insights that some few humans have had. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, it is impossible for one person who has had a genuine spiritual experience/insight to convey that to others through words. You either experience and understand something for yourself or you do not. Religion is (in part) the failed effort to convey one person's insight to many others. Then, you end up with rules and regulations without an understanding of the deeper reasons for those rules.

Unlike Crowley, I don't think that near-death experiences are the brain's way of providing people with a comforting fantasy at the end of life. I expect that these experiences are real and actually do point us to some kind of fundamental truth. One of those truths, I think, is the unity of all things.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Cam63]

So we should be sacrificing animals to her?

By all means.

[MacQuarrie]

Mac and Bree and who ever else feels up to answering this. The Jews that haven't converted and accepted Christ as the Messiah, will they get to Heaven? Do they get a free pass because they are the chosen people. I was discusing this with my roommate and he seems to think as long as they follow the Mosaic law the Jews get a free pass.

We don't accept Christ. Christ accepts us. "For while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Read Romans 11:1-32, especially 11:25-27...
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."

God's going to save whom he wants, according to his own criteria. Doesn't he say over and over again, "my ways are not your ways" and "man looks at the outside, but God looks at the heart" and so on? He's not going to stay in the box and do what we say he can do.

Look at David. Everyone knew David couldn't possibly be king. His family was so sure he couldn't be king that when Samuel told Jesse to bring out his sons, Jesse didn't even bother to think of David; surely the last-born, still a kid, couldn't possibly be the future king? And yet he was. "A man after God's heart" the Bible calls him. Liar, murderer, adulterer, and a man after God's heart. God's ways are not our ways and he does not judge the way we do.

Are the Jews going to heaven? Depends on the Jew in question. Is he eagerly awaiting the Messiah? Is he keeping the law to the best of his ability and offering repentance and prayer when he fails?

God is not a vending machine. Salvation is not mechanistic; say the magic words and get your fire insurance. It doesn't work like that.

[Mr.EZ]

Well said, MacQuarrie, well said.

[LewisH]

I follow we do not believe in an afterlife. We live on through our children or, if we do not have children of our own then through the children of our relatives and fellow Jews. It is why family is so important to us.

However, other branches of Judaism do believe in the concept.

http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/beliefs/afterlife.htm

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8054_1.html

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/judaism06.html

[beetlebum]

Reposted from another thread:

There's a bit of an absolutism espoused by those who believe that Christ is the only way to heaven.

Granted, I do believe in him, and embrace him and his teachings; but, the truth is, I don't know for sure whether what I have chosen to believe is the absolute truth.

Soren Kierkegaard once said that truth is subjective, and when he said that; he did not mean to promote a sophism, nor deny what has essentially been established as ontic.

Why I am referencing Kierkegaard here? I'm doing so, simply because; in the same way Kierkegaard wrestled with objective certainty, so do we. We don't know who will get into heaven or hell. I personally, at times, do question whether or not God exists. I don't know for sure if my way is the right way, though I'm willing to believe that the path I have chosen is what's best for me.

Here are some Bible verses for you:

Luke 12 : 47-48: “That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. "

In this parable, Jesus is speaking of both orthodoxy (knowledge given to people through God’s revelation) and orthopraxy (correct action / activity). So, in other words, from this; it is easy to conclude that the person who is not an adherent of Christ and who does what is right according to the knowledge given to them is better off than the Christian who has access to Scripture but refuses to do what Scripture says. (See Romans 1:18-20 as well.)

Revelation 20:13 (NIV) says: “The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.”

Notice how it doesn't say that you are judged by what you know, but what you do.

But, as I've said before--I'd like to believe that if you are a good person, you'll get your just rewards, Christian or not.

I do believe that "kingdom" is the modifier in "kingdom of heaven", which not only refers to another place, but may refer to the here and now--an indexical comment on the current state of affairs.

The "kingdom of heaven" is within you, and you can be a part of it once you believe.

So, in conclusion; it's safe to say that you will be judged by your actions, but who gets into heaven or goes to hell is not for us to decide.

[stealthwise]

You only go to Valhalla if you die a warrior's death.

[stealthwise]

We all know that All Dogs go to Heaven.

The only Jews that get in are those that act as seeing-eye humans.

[LewisH]

that would consign someone to torture for failing to believe a narrow set of rules
strikes me as cowardly. Not only should such an entity NOT be worshipped but that entity should be opposed or at least ignored. Such an entity does not fit my definition of what a god or God should be.

[Dazzler]

I think so.

But I'm not God. You should all be thanking Him right now! :evilsmile:

Honestly, though, I don't think God would let good people go to waste over the details.

--Dazz

[beetlebum]

that would consign someone to torture for failing to believe a narrow set of rules
strikes me as cowardly. Not only should such an entity NOT be worshipped but that entity should be opposed or at least ignored. Such an entity does not fit my definition of what a god or God should be.

To whom were you addressing this statement to?

I should also clarify that --in the book of Samuel--it says that God looks not at a person's apperrance, but at a person's heart as well.

That is what is meant by judging them based on their actions.

Also, surely you can't deny the fact that orthopraxy --or just doing the right thing-- is a part of determining whether you are not a good person?

EDIT: Passive aggressive comments of this sort are cowardly.

[Buzz Dixon]

The Bible says these four Jews are in Heaven:
Enoch (technically not a Jew since the tribe of Judah was founded long after him, but included as a patriarch)
Moses (Hebrew, yes, Jew, no; he was of the tribe of Levi but gets grandfathered in among the Jews today)
Elijah
The good thief

There may very well be lots of others, these are the only four mentioned in the Old and New Testaments.

[Jared H.]

Welllll.... (http://youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc)

[bfrank]

Mac and Bree and who ever else feels up to answering this. The Jews that haven't converted and accepted Christ as the Messiah, will they get to Heaven? Do they get a free pass because they are the chosen people. I was discusing this with my roommate and he seems to think as long as they follow the Mosaic law the Jews get a free pass.

Isn't Jesus there?

[TCJohnson]

I really gotta wonder what the point of posting this thread on a board you know jewish people are going to read?

[ManofTheAtom]

I've been spending some time at a Yeshivah lately and fact is that the Jewish religion doesn't believe in a Heaven-like afterlife like Christians do (i.e. you die here and go somewhere).

The belief is that the world itself as we know it will change into a paradise-like existence after suffering a thousand years of dark times (the belief is that the world itself will only last for 7,000 years - hence the Jewish calendar being up to around 5,600+ -, of which years 6,000 through 7,000 will be dark times followed by 1,000 years of paradise existence, after which the world will simply end... or something along those lines. It does get quite contradictory in some places -kindda like a DC Comic after the umptenth reboot, heh).

The idea goes on to say that EVERYONE will make it to this paradise-like existence, just through different means.

For instance, those who are goody-goody are instantly in, while those who weren't just as good go to a place called Gehenna (think Hell, but without Lucifer), which is defined, sort of, as a place away from God, where these unworthy souls spend their time until they are worthy to enter the paraside-like realm (or something like that. It does get quite comic booky in some parts, to be honest).

A book I read at the Yeshiva said something about how life in this paradise-like realm would involve people living over 100 years and women giving birth to full-grown children 24/7.

The overall concept, as it was explained, was that the whole of human souls equal a single individual, Adam, whose soul splintered into every soul that has ever existed on Earth. The paraside-like existence is meant to unify the myriad souls into a single entity.

That's what I remember, more or less. So, to answer your question, will Jews make it to Heaven if they don't accept Christ as their savior, I'd have to say that it's irrelevant since your belief is that you're going to Heaven while the Jewish belief is that "Heaven" is coming to us. Other religions have their own beliefs which should be respected.

Neither one of us has the right to determine who is right or who is wrong. Personally, I think that if one is right then everyone is right, and if one is wrong then everyone is wrong.

Furthemore, the question itself is a little--- tacky, to be honest. The only thing I really take issue with Christianity is the belief that its followers have to bully others into accepting Jesus as their savior in order to make it to Heaven.

The fact of the matter is that every religion has the right to determine their own ideas of what form the afterlife will take, and no one really has the right to tell others how they'll make it there.

Or in other words, Judge Not, Lest Ye be Judged...

[Red Jack]

John 14:6

Yes. There can be Jews in heaven but only those Jews who acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah and who add the tenets of his new Covenant to those of the Old.

Everybody else burns.

[Grazzt]

John 14:6

Yes. There can be Jews in heaven but only those Jews who acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah and who add the tenets of his new Covenant to those of the Old.

Everybody else burns.

Actually, I thought 144 000 were chosen and given the seal of God at Armageddon. So even by the most literal of interpretations (I'm an atheist, so I don't really care one way or the other), at least some Jews are saved.

[beetlebum]

Yes that's a literal interpretation.

But outside of mainstream American Evangelical circles, most denominations view the Book of Revelations as allegory, and even take and eschatological view of the passages.

And again, it's not up for us to decide who gets into heaven and hell. Though I do believe that if you are just person, you will be rewarded, Jewish or not.

[bert]

I really gotta wonder what the point of posting this thread on a board you know jewish people are going to read?

yep.

I'm more offended/annoyed by this thread, than any question Saucey may have about my sexuality.

I realize he's very religious, he frequently talks about how he's a good Christian, and the girls he likes are always "good Christians".

well, I'm a bad Jew.

but *my* God loves me regardless of what anyone considers a "sin". . and being Jewish is certainly not one of those "sins"

[Red Jack]

yep.

I'm more offended/annoyed by this thread, than any question Saucey may have about my sexuality.

I realize he's very religious, he frequently talks about how he's a good Christian, and the girls he likes are always "good Christians".

well, I'm a bad Jew.

but *my* God loves me regardless of what anyone considers a "sin". . and being Jewish is certainly not one of those "sins"

Pretty much every one of the big faiths is both myopic and xenophobic. Even yours.

You can't really get "annoyed" if a Believer takes the founder/focal point of their Faith as his/her word. Christ is IT for Christians. Anyone who's not a Christian dies the real death. And, btw, there are versions of Judaism that say precisely the same thing about all the rest of us. Nobody gets to point the finger.

[DavidAllred]

Though I do believe that if you are just person, you will be rewarded, Jewish or not.

Is there such a thing? A truly just person?

My basic problem with religions in general (and I'm clergy, so I might also include some of my own) is this idea that somehow we "deserve" an afterlife because we're basically good people deep down. It seems like if that were truly the case, the concept of God is meaningless. Who needs God when we can do it on our own?

I've pretty much determined that I'm a damn mess on my own, and when left to my own devices I'm probably going to royally screw something up along the way. So I draw strength from outside my own flaws. Sounds highly schizophrenic, but it's the only way a life of faith makes any sense to me.

It's the poop and ice cream analogy...

I can mix as much ice cream into a bowl of poop as I want. I'm still never going to think its good enough to eat. Or visa-versa, I can put as little poop as possible in a bowl of ice cream, and I've probably still ruined my dessert.

If God is real, and if God represents all the best there is in this life and the next, I just don't see myself able to offer up my own life as something that would be particularly tasty to Him / Her.

I prefer the idea of a God who loves me in spite of my flaws... over one who loves me because of my strengths.

But I'm more than willing to admit that ultimately, I don't have a clue. And its not up to me anyway.

[Grazzt]

Anyone who's not a Christian dies the real death.

Except the ones who don't. Really, I can look up the reference for you if you want.

[TCJohnson]

Pretty much every one of the big faiths is both myopic and xenophobic. Even yours.

You can't really get "annoyed" if a Believer takes the founder/focal point of their Faith as his/her word. Christ is IT for Christians. Anyone who's not a Christian dies the real death. And, btw, there are versions of Judaism that say precisely the same thing about all the rest of us. Nobody gets to point the finger.

While this might be true, there is a time and a place for things. If a somebody on this board and asked if this country has been worse off since Lincoln freed the slaves, wouldn't you agree the guy was coming on here looking for trouble?


I have friends who believe I am going to hell because of my personal beliefs. You know what? We avoid the topic because we know it was going to start a fight.

I have trouble believing that SaintSaucey didn't know he would offend people by posting this.

[beetlebum]

Is there such a thing? A truly just person?

My basic problem with religions in general (and I'm clergy, so I might also include some of my own) is this idea that somehow we "deserve" an afterlife because we're basically good people deep down. It seems like if that were truly the case, the concept of God is meaningless. Who needs God when we can do it on our own?

I've pretty much determined that I'm a damn mess on my own, and when left to my own devices I'm probably going to royally screw something up along the way. So I draw strength from outside my own flaws. Sounds highly schizophrenic, but it's the only way a life of faith makes any sense to me.

It's the poop and ice cream analogy...

I can mix as much ice cream into a bowl of poop as I want. I'm still never going to think its good enough to eat. Or visa-versa, I can put as little poop as possible in a bowl of ice cream, and I've probably still ruined my dessert.

If God is real, and if God represents all the best there is in this life and the next, I just don't see myself able to offer up my own life as something that would be particularly tasty to Him / Her.

I prefer the idea of a God who loves me in spite of my flaws... over one who loves me because of my strengths.

But I'm more than willing to admit that ultimately, I don't have a clue. And its not up to me anyway.

Semantics (arrgh!) :p

What I meant to say (or should have said) was "good person" or "person who does good deeds". And of course, one does not have to be a saint in order to be a good person One does not have to be perfect in order to enter the "kingdom of heaven".

That's a part of the reason why Jesus' ministry was so controversial; the fact that he would embrace tax collectors, lepers and those generally considered worthy of contempt by the Pharisees.

I've my quibbles with the prosperity gospel and the Calvinist ideal of irresistible grace, and unconditional election as well. The truth is, I probably don't deserve to go to heaven. But I like to believe I can.

I'll admit that I'm not perfect either. I'm all dark and twisty--and that has led me to engage in some really daft behaviour in the past, and I'll probably end up doing daft things in the future.

But I do agree with you on the final point. Ultimately, it's not for us to decide.

[Red Jack]

While this might be true, there is a time and a place for things. If a somebody on this board and asked if this country has been worse off since Lincoln freed the slaves, wouldn't you agree the guy was coming on here looking for trouble?


I have friends who believe I am going to hell because of my personal beliefs. You know what? We avoid the topic because we know it was going to start a fight.

I have trouble believing that SaintSaucey didn't know he would offend people by posting this.

I don't think the question, in itself, is offensive. And I don't believe I could be friends with someone who felt there was something so fundamentally wrong with me that I would burn for all eternity because of it, whether we discussed it or not.

It's possible the question was meant to provoke but, in itself, it's just a question for which, scripturally, there is an answer.

Some Jews, under very specific conditions, get into Heaven. Most, as with most humans, will not. That's it. There's no wiggle room because it's not a factual situation. You don't get to argue because there's no common ground from which to proceed.

Grazzt: unless you're using something from the NT that Jesus himself is supposed to have said, anything that contradicts John 14:6 is false. The NT obviates the OT. That's the point of it. Nobody trumps Jesus.

[Mr.EZ]

I have trouble believing that SaintSaucey didn't know he would offend people by posting this.

The guy/kid uses the term "good Christian girls." Is it so hard to believe that he might be a little naive and not that worldly? He seems like a nice enough person, so I'd take any resentment you may be feeling for him with a grain of salt, and give him the benefit of the doubt.

Also, the person who makes a statement is baiting. The person that takes the bait, and not the high road, is the one looking for a fight.

[Grazzt]

Grazzt: unless you're using something from the NT that Jesus himself is supposed to have said, anything that contradicts John 14:6 is false. The NT obviates the OT. That's the point of it. Nobody trumps Jesus.

Revelation is all Jesus, right?

Revelation 7:2-4 Then I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, with the seal of the living God, and he called with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm earth and sea, saying, “Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.” And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel.

Sounds like they're saving a lot of Jews to me. I think they're later qualified to also have to be male virgins (or that might be a different 144,000).

[saintsaucey]

TC Actualy I didn't get it a second thought. Bree, Mac and Beet are the only ones I could think of with any religous vews which is why I addressed the thread to the two of them and anyone who felt up to answering. for the reccord I did so after working 12 hours and was about to fall asleep. The topic came up between me and my roommate and I wanted opinions on it. I sincerely apologise for any offense. It was not intended. You state there is a time and place for things. Explain what you mean by that, how I could have done this better.

Also I wanted opinions not facts. I was presupposing that all who answered were Christian and believed their way (Jesus's way) is the only way. That may be offensive but quite frankly aren't all religions like that.

And Enoch and Moses were before Jesus's time. He is the new covenant Of course any who came before him and followed the mosiac law would be forgiven.

Bert the apology was directed at you as well. I genuinely didn't mean to offend you.

[Red Jack]

Revelation is all Jesus, right?

Revelation 7:2-4 Then I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, with the seal of the living God, and he called with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm earth and sea, saying, “Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.” And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel.

Sounds like they're saving a lot of Jews to me. I think they're later qualified to also have to be male virgins (or that might be a different 144,000).

that's not a lot of Jews. Considering there are millions. So "some Jews, undr very specific conditions" is still apt. Saving less than a quarter million out of tens of millions means the VAST majority get to burn.

And, no, Revelations is pretty much zero Jesus. It's the most controversial book in the book.

[beetlebum]

Saint-

As I've stated before (like a million times) you could have just pm'ed us.

Also, there is a thread on the Comm Forum entitled "Ask A Christian". You could have asked your questions there.

I genuinely don't think that you meant any offence, but still.

A little advice never hurts. :smile:

[TCJohnson]

Saint-

As I've stated before (like a million times) you could have just pm'ed us.

Also, there is a thread on the Comm Forum entitled "Ask A Christian". You could have asked your questions there.

I genuinely don't think that you meant any offence, but still.

A little advice never hurts. :smile:


Or a board more geared towards christians.

This is what I mean by a time and a place.

[Anodyne]

Any religion that says, "Think as you're told and you won't be tormented for eternity" sounds too much like a protection racket to suit me.

[Red Jack]

Any religion that says, "Think as you're told and you won't be tormented for eternity" sounds too much like a protection racket to suit me.

Carrot and stick. They pretty much all do it.

[ManofTheAtom]

I don't know about Heaven, but we'll be in space

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cAVJyBshh0

[bert]

TC Actualy I didn't get it a second thought. Bree, Mac and Beet are the only ones I could think of with any religous vews which is why I addressed the thread to the two of them and anyone who felt up to answering. for the reccord I did so after working 12 hours and was about to fall asleep. The topic came up between me and my roommate and I wanted opinions on it. I sincerely apologise for any offense. It was not intended. You state there is a time and place for things. Explain what you mean by that, how I could have done this better.

Bert the apology was directed at you as well. I genuinely didn't mean to offend you.

Understood...

as for "how could you have done this better?"

1) PMs to the people you wanted the opinion from (but I wouldn't have gone this way. .I would have done #2)

2) title the thread -- "Religious question for discussion regarding getting into heaven".

or something along those lines.

you simply would not believe my gut reaction yesterday upon opening YABS and seeing "Will there be Jews in Heaven?"

I purposely avoided responding, because it would have been very nasty.

when TCJ realized what would happen w/ some YABSters (and was *exactly* my reaction when reading it?). . that's when I gave in and posted in the thread.

otherwise, I would have simply never responded in it at all.

[Evan Waters]

My own belief- yup. Jews, atheists, Muslims, agnostics, Wiccans, etc.

It's not really the name "Jesus" that is important. It's the principles He espoused and practiced, the call to help the least fortunate and to be willing to give of yourself to your own detriment, love everyone including your enemies, etc. It's the greater good that we have to follow. And it's not easy. Really sticking with morals and ethics means you make sacrifices. Sometimes you don't know what to do.

But I can't say for sure. It's not up to me.

[Grazzt]

Carrot and stick. They pretty much all do it.

Not really. Or at least, the whole "eternity of punishment and/or true death" is skipped except for the actively wicked and not just people unlucky enough to never have heard of/believed in God.

Sheol (correct me if I'm wrong) is a place of purification. It's bad, but you'll get out eventually (with the exception of a very few exceptionally bad people).

The Greeks, the Norse, and the Zorastrians added a third afterlife in, for people who weren't actively wicked or actively good.

And then there's any religion that believes in reincarnation, which does punish the people who were bad, but they always get another chance.

The only other major religions I can think of with the sort of eternal damnation/bliss dichotomy that Christianity has are the Egyptians and the Muslims.

[Paul McEnery]

Dear Saintsaucy,

Hi! Your question assumes, of course, that the Christians and/or the Jews "have it right" and that their particular understanding of God is "correct" (to the exclusion of all others). Of course, I reject that notion entirely. The idea of a "chosen people" is a bit ludicrous (to me) and the notion that accepting Christ is the only way to get to heaven is also, to me, a bit preposterous. (And this doesn't even begin to get into the discussion of what "heaven" may actually be).

Those points being made, my understanding is that different Christian sects vary on their response to this. I think that the Baptist Churches with which I am familiar would say that anyone who does not accept Christ is doomed to Hell. That would certainly include Jews, who may even have a special place in Hell, given their original rejection of Christ. The Catholics, after Vatican II, came to the conclusion that it was possible to live a Christian life without being Christian. Thus, anyone can get to heaven, after spending a bit of time in Purgatory. But this would apply to anyone (Muslim, Hindu, Jew, etc) and I don't think I've ever read that the Jews get any special dispensation.

I would go along with an earlier comment: I think that notions of religion are entirely human-made. I think of religion as a "necessary evil" - it is a human effort to make sense of the unknown, to create social order and, in most cases, actually give a context and explanation to experiences and insights that some few humans have had. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, it is impossible for one person who has had a genuine spiritual experience/insight to convey that to others through words. You either experience and understand something for yourself or you do not. Religion is (in part) the failed effort to convey one person's insight to many others. Then, you end up with rules and regulations without an understanding of the deeper reasons for those rules.

Unlike Crowley, I don't think that near-death experiences are the brain's way of providing people with a comforting fantasy at the end of life. I expect that these experiences are real and actually do point us to some kind of fundamental truth. One of those truths, I think, is the unity of all things.

Sincerely,

Shaun

I like Connie Willis's idea that NDE's are the failsafe mechanism in the brain trying to get us to WAKE UP WAKE UP IF YOU DON'T WAKE UP WE'RE ALL DOOMED.

As that great scientific work Jacob's Ladder also demonstrates.

[Red Jack]

Not really. Or at least, the whole "eternity of punishment and/or true death" is skipped except for the actively wicked and not just people unlucky enough to never have heard of/believed in God.

Sheol (correct me if I'm wrong) is a place of purification. It's bad, but you'll get out eventually (with the exception of a very few exceptionally bad people).

Check out the Moschiach myth and the fundamentalist Jewish interpretation thereof. Fairly similar to what happens to the non Christians in Revelations. And that ain't no coinkydink.

The Greeks, the Norse, and the Zorastrians added a third afterlife in, for people who weren't actively wicked or actively good.

Dead faiths (okay, the Z's aren't quite gone yet. but soon.). Not relevant. We're talking present tense. Of the three, the Zoroasterians have the most connection to the duality paradigm, which isn't surprising as they are all born of the same regional pre-Judaic faiths.

And then there's any religion that believes in reincarnation, which does punish the people who were bad, but they always get another chance.

Again, the karmic wheel IS hell. You're in it right now. The point is to get off. You don't "get" another chance. You MUST go through as many lives as it takes you to work off your karmic debt while, at the same time, adding to that debt with every life. Only seeking the state of No Mind can get you off the wheel.

Carrot, Stick.

The only other major religions I can think of with the sort of eternal damnation/bliss dichotomy that Christianity has are the Egyptians and the Muslims.

The minors tend t be more flexible on some points but the majors all basically follow the same paradigm. Certainly in practice if not in the dogma.

[saintsaucey]

Understood...

as for "how could you have done this better?"

1) PMs to the people you wanted the opinion from (but I wouldn't have gone this way. .I would have done #2)

2) title the thread -- "Religious question for discussion regarding getting into heaven".

or something along those lines.

you simply would not believe my gut reaction yesterday upon opening YABS and seeing "Will there be Jews in Heaven?"

I purposely avoided responding, because it would have been very nasty.

when TCJ realized what would happen w/ some YABSters (and was *exactly* my reaction when reading it?). . that's when I gave in and posted in the thread.

otherwise, I would have simply never responded in it at all.

Question because I don't believe we have ever talked about it bert, are you simply Jewish by origin or by faith as well? Do you go to Temple?

[Cam63]

Any religion that says, "Think as you're told and you won't be tormented for eternity" sounds too much like a protection racket to suit me.

I like this post.

[Charles RB]

Any religion that says, "Think as you're told and you won't be tormented for eternity" sounds too much like a protection racket to suit me.

And religions have gotten into turf wars with each other...

[Bob Violence]

All I know is, next Tuesday a lot of you are going to be very disappointed...:tongue:

[ManofTheAtom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven#In_Judaism

Jewish writings refer to a "new earth" as the abode of mankind following the resurrection of the dead.

Great, the afterlife is existence in a world of Silver Age nostalgia :rolleyes: (:tongue: )

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Understood...

as for "how could you have done this better?"

1) PMs to the people you wanted the opinion from (but I wouldn't have gone this way. .I would have done #2)

2) title the thread -- "Religious question for discussion regarding getting into heaven".

or something along those lines.

you simply would not believe my gut reaction yesterday upon opening YABS and seeing "Will there be Jews in Heaven?"

I purposely avoided responding, because it would have been very nasty.

when TCJ realized what would happen w/ some YABSters (and was *exactly* my reaction when reading it?). . that's when I gave in and posted in the thread.

otherwise, I would have simply never responded in it at all.

Or... you know.....

....find a Christian message board and post these questions there?

I know I'm not one to point fingers when it comes to off-topic posting, but generally I think mine sorta suit the YABS culture.... and I generally post for everyone, not for, like, three people.

Christian message boards, Saucy. They'll be good places for this sorta debate, with some thoughtful and considered opinion.

And get a BLOG! Posting here isn't a 'blog post'.... a blog's like an online diary. Post one, and you'll likely meet some like-minded people who you'll be able to have these discussions with.

Check this: http://www.christianblog.com/ (I can't surf there at work, but I imagine it may be valuable.)

[Charles RB]

I don't get this question anyway. Heaven's a popular gay club in a cosmopolitan city, there's bound to be some Jews there.

[shrike]

There is really no 'right' answer to this anyways, because even straight up christians totally read into the scriptures differently. It all depends from person to person.

[The Xenos]

No. South Park has it right. Only God's chosen people will be selected to go to heaven. And the correct answer is... Mormons. Yes. Mormons.

So Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Mr. T, and all others who did not pick the specific right way to worship God will be roasting in the firey pits of hell alonside Hitler, Dahlmer, and what ever other evil people are roasting down there.

It makes sense.. if you convert to the right religion. Convert now!

Well, just be glad it wasn't Jehovah's Witness. They put a population cap on heaven a while back.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I like to think that every good soul gets in basically. That God is like Santa Claus....you better be good for goodness sake ! It goes beyond religion. In the end he meets ya with a some books and his true book of what he really means.

Plus as he'll explain... "Its amazing how fucked up everyones made my words. It all started off with one teaching and soon theres so many different aspects to believe in me. I shrug my head at the morons who wage wars of it."

God also is a Beatles fan and we get free John Lennon concerts every Tuesday !

[TCJohnson]

Or... you know.....

....find a Christian message board and post these questions there?

I know I'm not one to point fingers when it comes to off-topic posting, but generally I think mine sorta suit the YABS culture.... and I generally post for everyone, not for, like, three people.

Christian message boards, Saucy. They'll be good places for this sorta debate, with some thoughtful and considered opinion.

And get a BLOG! Posting here isn't a 'blog post'.... a blog's like an online diary. Post one, and you'll likely meet some like-minded people who you'll be able to have these discussions with.

Check this: http://www.christianblog.com/ (I can't surf there at work, but I imagine it may be valuable.)


I don't mind debate about religion, and hope we can have it here. There is nothing off topic here at yabs. :D

But as you said, this post is not for everybody. It sorta sections off a part of the YABs population and then asks everybody else to pass judgement on them. That bothers me.

[MacQuarrie]

Revelation is all Jesus, right?

Revelation 7:2-4 Then I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, with the seal of the living God, and he called with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm earth and sea, saying, “Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.” And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel.

Sounds like they're saving a lot of Jews to me. I think they're later qualified to also have to be male virgins (or that might be a different 144,000).

Ah, but what does that "sealed" bit mean? One might argue that it means they are chosen to be saved and all the rest are doomed, but that seems pretty arbitrary.

Another, more popular understanding is that those 144,000 (12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel) are a large-scale recreation of Jesus' 12 Apostles, who will evangelize the world in one last big push before the Second Coming, so that because of those 144,000, millions more will be saved.

But we must always remember that REvelation is symbolic, and we don't know what all the symbols mean. We can put it against Daniel and compare, we can try to pick out where John is trying to describe things that there won't be words to describe for thousands of years from his time. Are the "locusts" really helicopters? We don't know.

That's the bottom line. We don't know. What we do know is that God always does what he says he will, but he never does it the way we expect. When we try to second-guess him, we are almost certain to be wrong. And he didn't tell us to try to figure this stuff out. He told us to love the Lord and to love our neighbor. Trying to figure out the book of REvelation is just so much clock-watching. Get on with it.

[MacQuarrie]

but *my* God loves me regardless of what anyone considers a "sin". . and being Jewish is certainly not one of those "sins"
That's the part that matters, I think.

Here's what I think happens....

When you meet God, he says to you, "my Heaven is perfect, and if I let you in as you are, you'll ruin it, because you aren't perfect. I can make you perfect if you'll allow me, and then you can come in. Will you let me perfect you, or would you prefer to stay as you are?"

If you know that God loves you and you trust him, you'll say yes and go into heaven. Whether you're a Christian or Jew or Moslem or Atheist doesn't really enter into it. Jesus has made it possible for you to be given the option to choose Heaven.

If your ego or fear get in the way and you insist on staying as you are, you have to stay eternally separated from God, because as an imperfect being you wouldn't be able to bear living in his presence, just as the people of Israel couldn't look at Moses when the glory of the Lord was upon him.

"Hell" is an act of mercy on his part.

But the reason to become a Christian isn't to get saved. It's because you understand that you have been. Once you understand that Christianity is not a prerequisite for salvation, but a response to it, you can then be about the business of loving your neighbors instead of lecturing them and handing them tracts.

[bert]

Question because I don't believe we have ever talked about it bert, are you simply Jewish by origin or by faith as well? Do you go to Temple?

that question makes no sense, Saucey.

I am not "simply Jewish"

I'm Jewish.

yes, I'm a member of a Synagogue, although I don't attend near as much as I should. I'm not an Orthadox Jew (as Morts is).

I dont' talk about my religion here. . I'm pretty much an open book on any other topic. . but my Religion is not something I'm comfortable discussing on CBR.

[kitty_tc_69]

Check out the Moschiach myth and the fundamentalist Jewish interpretation thereof. Fairly similar to what happens to the non Christians in Revelations. And that ain't no coinkydink.



Dead faiths (okay, the Z's aren't quite gone yet. but soon.). Not relevant. We're talking present tense. Of the three, the Zoroasterians have the most connection to the duality paradigm, which isn't surprising as they are all born of the same regional pre-Judaic faiths.



Again, the karmic wheel IS hell. You're in it right now. The point is to get off. You don't "get" another chance. You MUST go through as many lives as it takes you to work off your karmic debt while, at the same time, adding to that debt with every life. Only seeking the state of No Mind can get you off the wheel.

Carrot, Stick.



The minors tend t be more flexible on some points but the majors all basically follow the same paradigm. Certainly in practice if not in the dogma.

:evilangry: Hey. It's one thing to not believe in paganism, but it's not cool to not believe in pagans. We exist in greater numbers than you obviously imagine, and our beliefs are as valid and deserving of respect as any other.

[stealthwise]

If this guy's not getting into Heaven, then I don't want to hang out there.



http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/h30/hamwad/the_big_lebowski32.jpg

[saintsaucey]

that question makes no sense, Saucey.

I am not "simply Jewish"

I'm Jewish.

yes, I'm a member of a Synagogue, although I don't attend near as much as I should. I'm not an Orthadox Jew (as Morts is).

I dont' talk about my religion here. . I'm pretty much an open book on any other topic. . but my Religion is not something I'm comfortable discussing on CBR.


What I meant was are you Jewish in ethnic origin and don't participate in the regligous belief


I dont' talk about my religion here. . I'm pretty much an open book on any other topic. . but my Religion is not something I'm comfortable discussing on CBR.

Fair enough

[Red Jack]

:evilangry: Hey. It's one thing to not believe in paganism, but it's not cool to not believe in pagans. We exist in greater numbers than you obviously imagine, and our beliefs are as valid and deserving of respect as any other.

Big, small, it's all one to me. I don't offer you any more or less respect than any of the others.

On the other issue:

I don't think, based upon what's been on the table at YABS over the years, that there's anything inherently offensive in any question asked by any poster unless it's clear said poster is going after someone.

If you don't want to talk about your faith, don't. But we can talk about anything we like.

[stealthwise]

It's never been clear to me exactly what pagans are. They're like pixies, right?

[kitty_tc_69]

Big, small, it's all one to me. I don't offer you any more or less respect than any of the others.

But you did. You referred to several belief systems as 'dead' and claimed that all reincarnation adherents believe a certain way, and neither are the case. Norse paganism, or Asatru, is a recognized faith as are numerous branches of neopaganism including Wicca. These are not joke faiths, nor are they cults. They are genuine, legitimately recognized world faiths with legally protected status.

I'm not asking you to believe their articles of faith, but not acknowledging their existence and legitimacy as a recognized faith when discussing comparative religion is offensive.

[DavidAllred]

If this guy's not getting into Heaven, then I don't want to hang out there.

Were you listening to the dude's story, Donnie? Then you have no frame of reference... you're like a child that wanders into the middle of movie...

[stealthwise]

Were you listening to the dude's story, Donnie? Then you have no frame of reference... you're like a child that wanders into the middle of movie...

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FUCK A STRANGER IN THE ASS

[DavidAllred]

"Hell" is an act of mercy on his part.

But the reason to become a Christian isn't to get saved. It's because you understand that you have been. Once you understand that Christianity is not a prerequisite for salvation, but a response to it, you can then be about the business of loving your neighbors instead of lecturing them and handing them tracts.

That's pretty much the way I see it. It's sort of like God saying, "Jeez, I went to all the effort to make this place and you don't want in, well, ok. Here's the other place, you can have your wish, 'cause I'm not making anyone live here that doesn't want to."

[Mr.EZ]

If this guy's not getting into Heaven, then I don't want to hang out there.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/h30/hamwad/the_big_lebowski32.jpg

Damn straight!

[DavidAllred]

This whole conversation reminds me of the joke that probably everyone has heard, but maybe it will fall on fresh ears:

A man died and was met at the pearly gates by St. Peter, who ushered him in for a brief initiation of the place.

They began to walk a hallway with many doors. Peter stopped at the first door, turned the knob and they both peered inside. The room was full of energy and activity, wine being poured out by the gallons.

"What's going on here?" The man asked.

"These are the Quakers. Because they denied themselves earthy pleasures, God has given them a paradise full of every pleasurable imaginable." St. Peter replied.

They moved down the hall to the next room, St. Peter opened the door and the two looked inside. The room was full of men and women silently praying and worshipping God.

"What's this all about?" The man asked.

"These are the Catholics. Because they enjoyed many of the earthly pleasures in their lives and didn't hold back, God has asked them to spend some time in serious worship."

St. Peter closed the door and they continued down the hallway. Feeling brave, the man stopped in front of a closed door and reached for the handle.

"Who's in here?" He asked.

"Shhhh! Keep your voice down. These are the Baptists and they think they're the only ones here!"

[rick]

Here’s the problem.

If you accept what the New Testament says about Gods Covenant with the Jews as truth, then you also have to accept that God is a liar who doesn’t keep his word.

In Hebrews 8.8 it reads….

The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

And then of course in Luke when Jesu Bar Joseph passes around the wine the night before his execution, he claims that by drinking his “blood” a new covenant was created that supercedes all of the convents that came before it.


And yet all the way back in Exodus, God tells Moses that as long as the Jews obey God and follow God’s laws, which the Jews have done, then his Convent with them will be eternal.


So the question is pretty simple.

Does God keep his word or his he as big a lying sack of shit as your average used car salesman?

[kitty_tc_69]

Here’s the problem.

If you accept what the New Testament says about Gods Covenant with the Jews as truth, then you also have to accept that God is a liar who doesn’t keep his word.

In Hebrews 8.8 it reads….

The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

And then of course in Luke when Jesu Bar Joseph passes around the wine the night before his execution, he claims that by drinking his “blood” a new covenant was created that supercedes all of the convents that came before it.


And yet all the way back in Exodus, God tells Moses that as long as the Jews obey God and follow God’s laws, which the Jews have done, then his Convent with them will be eternal.


So the question is pretty simple.

Does God keep his word or his he as big a lying sack of shit as your average used car salesman?

This won't end well.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

This won't end well.

Someday, there'll be an unmoderated 'Ultra Mega Bad Ass Mother 3000 Religion Thread o Rama, Mk III!'

[kitty_tc_69]

Someday, there'll be an unmoderated 'Ultra Mega Bad Ass Mother 3000 Religion Thread o Rama, Mk III!'

Are you trying to get WWIII started? :wink: :biggrin:

[Buzz Dixon]

It's never been clear to me exactly what pagans are. They're like pixies, right?Technically, they're anyone with a religious belief other than atheist/agnostic or one of the Abrahamic religions.

[Buzz Dixon]

Here’s the problem.

If you accept what the New Testament says about Gods Covenant with the Jews as truth, then you also have to accept that God is a liar who doesn’t keep his word.

In Hebrews 8.8 it reads….

The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

And then of course in Luke when Jesu Bar Joseph passes around the wine the night before his execution, he claims that by drinking his “blood” a new covenant was created that supercedes all of the convents that came before it.


And yet all the way back in Exodus, God tells Moses that as long as the Jews obey God and follow God’s laws, which the Jews have done, then his Convent with them will be eternal.


So the question is pretty simple.

Does God keep his word or his he as big a lying sack of shit as your average used car salesman?From the Christian POV, obeying God means believing in Jesus.

Duh.

Anyone who believes in Christ is saved. As promised in the Old Testament, Christ came first to the Jews and only after His message was rejected did He allow it to go elsewhere.

The Jews were supposed to be a guiding light for the rest of the world. By the time of Christ they lost interest in spreading the faith. That's one of the reasons Christ had to come into the world.

[Red Jack]

But you did. You referred to several belief systems as 'dead' and claimed that all reincarnation adherents believe a certain way, and neither are the case. Norse paganism, or Asatru, is a recognized faith as are numerous branches of neopaganism including Wicca. These are not joke faiths, nor are they cults. They are genuine, legitimately recognized world faiths with legally protected status.

I'm not asking you to believe their articles of faith, but not acknowledging their existence and legitimacy as a recognized faith when discussing comparative religion is offensive.

Nobody worships the greek or norse gods. they are not living faiths. indeed I doubt anyone can say they know all the inner workings of those faiths. They are dead. The neo-versions of those fiahts, if they exist, are too small to be considered large.

As for reincarnation, I was referring to the buddhist/hindu notion of karma etc. Someone mentioned karma and I made the point that, if you're talking about that version of reincarnation, you're talking about all the souls on the wheel living in the false world of appetite and pain. That is the opposite of Nirvana and therefore hell. Life is hell. Something to be overcome and escaped. Certainly there are other faiths that include reincarnation but we weren't talking about them.

Zoroasterianism is, strictly by the numbers, a dying faith. Within a relatively short time it will be gone.

My step-mother is an animist and my father is a buddhist. My mother is a christian.

No faith is legitimate or illegitimate, only alive or dead. But, in terms of numbers, they can, quite legitimately, be described as large and small. There are billions of Christians. Relatively few Druids. Ergo Druidism is a tiny faith by comparison.

"Paganism" is not a faith but a catchall term to describe all those faiths outside the Judeo-Christian canon.

Shintoism and Inuit Animism are both pagan but neither of them is the same as the animism practiced by west africans or australian aborigines.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I always think of that episode of the Twilight Zone where the old hillbilly man died with his dog. He walked awhile and got to this side road where a man told him that led to heaven. He started to go on and was stopped and told that his dog couldn't go.

The old man said it best..."Its not much of a heaven if my Luke can't go with me..."


He walked on and later met a man who told him that this was the real Heaven . That God didn't mind one of his creatures going in...which was sweet.

[rick]

I always think of that episode of the Twilight Zone where the old hillbilly man died with his dog. He walked awhile and got to this side road where a man told him that led to heaven. He started to go on and was stopped and told that his dog couldn't go.

The old man said it best..."Its not much of a heaven if my Luke can't go with me..."


He walked on and later met a man who told him that this was the real Heaven . That God didn't mind one of his creatures going in...which was sweet.



Earl Hammer, the creator of the Waltons wrote that episode.

It was always one of my favorites.

[rick]

From the Christian POV, obeying God means believing in Jesus.

Duh.

Anyone who believes in Christ is saved. As promised in the Old Testament, Christ came first to the Jews and only after His message was rejected did He allow it to go elsewhere.

The Jews were supposed to be a guiding light for the rest of the world. By the time of Christ they lost interest in spreading the faith. That's one of the reasons Christ had to come into the world.


Well yeah, I understand the Christian perspective. I spent way too many years as a member of the Foursquare Gospel church not to have picked something up.

However, it doesn’t change that it takes a bit of a rewrite of Exodus to come up with the “proof” that peaceful, gentle, Jesu bar Joseph is the militaristic, sword carrying “Messiah” of the Torah, let alone coming up with the idea that God gives his word and then later on down the line changes his mind.

The Jews followed the law and stuck closely to their covenant with God. And if you accept the “truth” of the New Covenant, then you at the very least have to admit that God doesn’t keep his word.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Earl Hammer, the creator of the Waltons wrote that episode.

It was always one of my favorites.

See I never knew that. The things you learn. It was one of my favorites as well.

There was another one with a group of astronuants who crash landed on a planet. They saw their loved ones , even dead ones. THey said it was Heaven and that it was time to leave the ship. The guy in charge kept saying "No , no theres a logical explanation for it."

He made em take off and leave. But at the end I believe the scene showed them all dead in the ship...but their souls didn't realize it...

[Crowley]

Unlike Crowley, I don't think that near-death experiences are the brain's way of providing people with a comforting fantasy at the end of life. I expect that these experiences are real and actually do point us to some kind of fundamental truth. One of those truths, I think, is the unity of all things.

Hey ShaunN,

Just for clarification... I don't think this as you've stated it. Scientists have done studies that showed what occurred when brain death happens. (I tried my best to dig on up from the quote at the Body Worlds exhibit but I couldn't find it) What they found was that once the brain reaches a certain level of pain, the receptors within send calming signals to the brain and begin the ending scenario running through peoples head... what that scenario is exactly is unknown, but it's more or less a mean to end the electric activity in the brain... the way your computer might having a spinning apple or timeclock before it shuts down.

[kitty_tc_69]

Nobody worships the greek or norse gods. they are not living faiths. indeed I doubt anyone can say they know all the inner workings of those faiths. They are dead. The neo-versions of those fiahts, if they exist, are too small to be considered large.

You're doing it again. Look up Asatru, look up Gaianism, look up the prominence of Greek god and goddess worship in neopaganism. These faiths may be small, but they are not dead.

In fact, my ex-roommate would take quite exception to you telling him he were dead. He's a norse pagan. He is quite alive, and his religion is legally recognized. You're just wrong here.

Again, no one is telling you to believe what these faiths believe, but it's damned insulting to tell people their religion does not exist. Stop it.

[Red Jack]

You're doing it again. Look up Asatru, look up Gaianism, look up the prominence of Greek god and goddess worship in neopaganism. These faiths may be small, but they are not dead.

In fact, my ex-roommate would take quite exception to you telling him he were dead. He's a norse pagan. He is quite alive, and his religion is legally recognized. You're just wrong here.

Again, no one is telling you to believe what these faiths believe, but it's damned insulting to tell people their religion does not exist. Stop it.

Modern Gaia worshippers, despite what they may think, are not in continuity with the original worshippers of the same goddess. THose original rites are lost to antiquity.

Ditto any modern "Norse" pagans. You can call yourself anything you like but, if you're not doing it the way it was done b those who originated the faith, what you're doing is not that faith.

Neopaganism is, as I said, not a faith. It's a description, at best, of a subcultural movement.

I'm not knocking your beliefs or those of your ex-room mate. I have no idea what the specifics of those beliefs are. Lots of faiths are legally recognized. Scientology. Rastafarianism. It doesn't mean that they are either as significant to humanity as the big five or that they bear any resemblance to those original faiths whose names they took. They are small.

Paganism is not a faith. Nor is neo-paganism.

Wicca is a faith. Druidism is a faith. The new versions of those archaic faiths would be called Neo-Pagan as they are not truly directly connected to the original versions but are, rather, modern distillations or reconstructions.

The original Norse faith is dead. There are no more Norsemen. No more vikings. Their culture is dead. Their civilization is dead. Christendom ate it and them a long time ago.

I take back what I said about the Z's. There are 2 and half million of them and I thought it was less than that. They probably won't get bigger but they also probably won't die out either.

Thrown into a single pot there are roughly 1 million "Neo Pagans" in the world. That means the individual denominations are all tiny, smaller than the number of Rastas or Scientologists.

Hence, "little."

[the heckler]

Mark Twain
"heaven for climate, hell for company."

[kitty_tc_69]

Modern Gaia worshippers, despite what they may think, are not in continuity with the original worshippers of the same goddess. THose original rites are lost to antiquity.

Ditto any modern "Norse" pagans. You can call yourself anything you like but, if you're not doing it the way it was done b those who originated the faith, what you're doing is not that faith.

Neopaganism is, as I said, not a faith. It's a description, at best, of a subcultural movement.

I'm not knocking your beliefs or those of your ex-room mate. I have no idea what the specifics of those beliefs are. Lots of faiths are legally recognized. Scientology. Rastafarianism. It doesn't mean that they are either as significant to humanity as the big five or that they bear any resemblance to those original faiths whose names they took. They are small.

Paganism is not a faith. Nor is neo-paganism.

Wicca is a faith. Druidism is a faith. The new versions of those archaic faiths would be called Neo-Pagan as they are not truly directly connected to the original versions but are, rather, modern distillations or reconstructions.

The original Norse faith is dead. There are no more Norsemen. No more vikings. Their culture is dead. Their civilization is dead. Christendom ate it and them a long time ago.

I take back what I said about the Z's. There are 2 and half million of them and I thought it was less than that. They probably won't get bigger but they also probably won't die out either.

Thrown into a single pot there are roughly 1 million "Neo Pagans" in the world. That means the individual denominations are all tiny, smaller than the number of Rastas or Scientologists.

Hence, "little."

I didn't argue with your judgement of the size of the religions in question, but I remain at odds with you on your continued assertation that neopaganism is "not real". It's insulting, and is an attack on the legitimacy of these faiths. And while you claim it's not your intention to belittle the sincerity or legitimacy or recognized status of these faiths, you continue to make statements that do exactly that.

I'm going to ask you again to stop it.

[Dazzler]

I didn't argue with your judgement of the size of the religions in question, but I remain at odds with you on your continued assertation that neopaganism is "not real". It's insulting, and is an attack on the legitimacy of these faiths. And while you claim it's not your intention to belittle the sincerity or legitimacy or recognized status of these faiths, you continue to make statements that do exactly that.

I'm going to ask you again to stop it.
I don't mean to speak for Jack, but I don't believe he's saying that Neopaganism isn't real, he's saying that Neopagan is a classification for religions, although not a religion in and of itself.

At least, that's what i took from it.

--Dazz

[Red Jack]

I didn't argue with your judgement of the size of the religions in question, but I remain at odds with you on your continued assertation that neopaganism is "not real". It's insulting, and is an attack on the legitimacy of these faiths. And while you claim it's not your intention to belittle the sincerity or legitimacy or recognized status of these faiths, you continue to make statements that do exactly that.

I'm going to ask you again to stop it.

No.

Neo Paganism is not a faith. It's an umbrella term used to cover a lot of smaller faiths that have little-to-nothing in common beyond not being Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, African Animism or one of the other majors.

Paganism describes what you are not, not what you are. I'm sorry if this definition offends you but it is the proper one.

[kitty_tc_69]

No.

Neo Paganism is not a faith. It's an umbrella term used to cover a lot of smaller faiths that have little-to-nothing in common beyond not being Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, African Animism or one of the other majors.

Paganism describes what you are not, not what you are. I'm sorry if this definition offends you but it is the proper one.

So your definition of my religion is more valid than mine? I think the fuck not. You're a hair's breadth from my ignore list at this point. :mad:

[Red Jack]

So your definition of my religion is more valid than mine? I think the fuck not. You're a hair's breadth from my ignore list at this point. :mad:

Whatever. Ignore me. I'm crushed.

[kitty_tc_69]

Whatever. Ignore me. I'm crushed.

You could, on the other hand, perhaps consider that an actual pagan knows a little more about paganism than a christian does and stop repeatedly making arguments that you've been told are offensive and asked more than once to stop.

[Red Jack]

You could, on the other hand, perhaps consider that an actual pagan knows a little more about paganism than a christian does and stop repeatedly making arguments that you've been told are offensive and asked more than once to stop.

Or I could give you the actual definition of the word you're using incorrectly and hope it sinks in. I'm not a Christian, btw, nor am I insulting you. I don't think more or less of your faith than I do of any other.

I think you're just using a particular term incorrectly and getting hot about it.

[kitty_tc_69]

Or I could give you the actual definition of the word you're using incorrectly and hope it sinks in. I'm not a Christian, btw, nor am I insulting you. I don't think more or less of your faith than I do of any other.

I think you're just using a particular term incorrectly and getting hot about it.

You're wrong. Or do you not think pagans have the right to define the very word that is used to describe them?

Yes, one definition of paganism is "non-judeochristian" or what have you, as you described. That's the definition christians have traditionally used, and it means basically "not us".

Modern usage by people who self-identify as pagan is closer to a synonym for "polytheistic", and is a larger grouping of faiths that share certain common characteristics. The nature of paganism as a modern religion is tied in with the new age movement and is largely unorganized and highly individualistic, often consisting of lone individuals or small groups who self-teach and self-administer their faith and beliefs from their own research and contemplation. And while yes, not being one of the major monotheistic religions is a part of the identity, so are things we have in common. Modern neo-paganism is about finding your own path, even down to choosing the god or gods that fit you. Selecting your pantheon is one of the most important steps in establishing your faith and finding your path. Solidarity with others who are on their own paths like yours is a large part of pagan identity, at least as much as the "not you" part that comprises the earlier definition of the word. We reclaim the word pagan and use it as a badge of identity, rejecting the condemnation of those who originated it. Just as gay once meant merely "not straight" but gay people claimed the term and began applying positive meaning to it as what it is and not just what it is not, such has been the history of the term pagan for those who use it for themselves.

I don't care how many dictionary definitions you trot out, language is defined by usage and the usage I describe is how modern pagans utilize the term. The dictionary-writing establishment may not have caught up to the new usage yet, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

[Red Jack]

You're wrong. Or do you not think pagans have the right to define the very word that is used to describe them?

Yes, one definition of paganism is "non-judeochristian" or what have you, as you described. That's the definition christians have traditionally used, and it means basically "not us".

Modern usage by people who self-identify as pagan is closer to a synonym for "polytheistic", and is a larger grouping of faiths that share certain common characteristics. The nature of paganism as a modern religion is tied in with the new age movement and is largely unorganized and highly individualistic, often consisting of lone individuals or small groups who self-teach and self-administer their faith and beliefs from their own research and contemplation. And while yes, not being one of the major monotheistic religions is a part of the identity, so are things we have in common. Modern neo-paganism is about finding your own path, even down to choosing the god or gods that fit you. Selecting your pantheon is one of the most important steps in establishing your faith and finding your path. Solidarity with others who are on their own paths like yours is a large part of pagan identity, at least as much as the "not you" part that comprises the earlier definition of the word. We reclaim the word pagan and use it as a badge of identity, rejecting the condemnation of those who originated it. Just as gay once meant merely "not straight" but gay people claimed the term and began applying positive meaning to it as what it is and not just what it is not, such has been the history of the term pagan for those who use it for themselves.

I don't care how many dictionary definitions you trot out, language is defined by usage and the usage I describe is how modern pagans utilize the term. The dictionary-writing establishment may not have caught up to the new usage yet, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

I think the word pagan has a particular meaning and, if you don't like it, that's your own problem.

Language is defined/modified by common usage not individual usage. The "dictionary-writing establishment" will likely never "catch up" as there are not enough Neo-pagans, or pagans of any sort, to influence the common usage of these words.

You're stuck, I'm afraid. The smaller you are as a group, the less relevance your personal definitions of words will have. Language is for us all to communicate more effectively. If we're constantly throwing over the common usage in favor of each person's personal defs we won't be able to talk to each other.

IOW: I'm sticking with the mainstream usage and I can't help if that offends you. It's not my intent to do so but I'm not going to stop using English properly in order to make you feel better. You'll just have to deal with it.

[kitty_tc_69]

I think the word pagan has a particular meaning and, if you don't like it, that's your own problem.

Language is defined/modified by common usage not individual usage. The "dictionary-writing establishment" will likely never "catch up" as there are not enough Neo-pagans, or pagans of any sort, to influence the common usage of these words.

You're stuck, I'm afraid. The smaller you are as a group, the less relevance your personal definitions of words will have. Language is for us all to communicate more effectively. If we're constantly throwing over the common usage in favor of each person's personal defs we won't be able to talk to each other.

IOW: I'm sticking with the mainstream usage and I can't help if that offends you. It's not my intent to do so but I'm not going to stop using English properly in order to make you feel better. You'll just have to deal with it.

And you continue to insult and belittle my faith with every post you make. And you're still wrong.


Since the later 20th century, "Pagan" or "Paganism" has become widely used as a self-designation by adherents of Neopaganism.[3] As such, various modern scholars have begun to apply the term to three separate groups of faiths; Historical Polytheism (such as Celtic polytheism and Norse paganism), Folk/ethnic/Indigenous religions (such as Chinese folk religion and African traditional religion), and Neo-paganism (such as Wicca and Germanic Neopaganism).

The update you claim "will likely never happen" has already been logged. Your usage is out of date.

Paganism exists. We're real. We're documented and recognized as a world religion. No amount of putting your head in the sand (or anyplace else) is going to change that.

[Crowley]

And you continue to insult and belittle my faith with every post you make. And you're still wrong.



The update you claim "will likely never happen" has already been logged. Your usage is out of date.

Paganism exists. We're real. We're documented and recognized as a world religion. No amount of putting your head in the sand (or anyplace else) is going to change that.

You're taking a discussion in semantics very personally.

[Red Jack]

Yes, I feel that also.

Wikipedia is not a source.

[the4thpip]

Here’s the problem.

If you accept what the New Testament says about Gods Covenant with the Jews as truth, then you also have to accept that God is a liar who doesn’t keep his word.

In Hebrews 8.8 it reads….

The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

And then of course in Luke when Jesu Bar Joseph passes around the wine the night before his execution, he claims that by drinking his “blood” a new covenant was created that supercedes all of the convents that came before it.


And yet all the way back in Exodus, God tells Moses that as long as the Jews obey God and follow God’s laws, which the Jews have done, then his Convent with them will be eternal.


So the question is pretty simple.

Does God keep his word or his he as big a lying sack of shit as your average used car salesman?

God told me the new Titans series by DC would be good, too. Can't trust that guy.

[The Xenos]

This whole conversation reminds me of the joke that probably everyone has heard, but maybe it will fall on fresh ears:

A man died and was met at the pearly gates by St. Peter, who ushered him in for a brief initiation of the place.

They began to walk a hallway with many doors. Peter stopped at the first door, turned the knob and they both peered inside. The room was full of energy and activity, wine being poured out by the gallons.

"What's going on here?" The man asked.

"These are the Quakers. Because they denied themselves earthy pleasures, God has given them a paradise full of every pleasurable imaginable." St. Peter replied.

They moved down the hall to the next room, St. Peter opened the door and the two looked inside. The room was full of men and women silently praying and worshipping God.

"What's this all about?" The man asked.

"These are the Catholics. Because they enjoyed many of the earthly pleasures in their lives and didn't hold back, God has asked them to spend some time in serious worship."

St. Peter closed the door and they continued down the hallway. Feeling brave, the man stopped in front of a closed door and reached for the handle.

"Who's in here?" He asked.

"Shhhh! Keep your voice down. These are the Baptists and they think they're the only ones here!"

Ha! I almost went with posting that one myself. Though the version I heard had Catholics for the punchline. I'm pretty sure a Catholic teacher at my Catholic high school during a religion class was the one who told it to me first too. I won an award for religion one year at that high school and I wasn't even Catholic. I think a Jewish kid or two won it among the half dozen who won.

[kitty_tc_69]

You're taking a discussion in semantics very personally.

Semantics? The man has repeatedly claimed my religion is not a religion.

No. Neo Paganism is not a faith.

If you can't figure out how I can find that offensive, I can't help you.

-----

Yes, I feel that also.

Wikipedia is not a source.

How'd I know you were gonna play that card? You might as well stick your fingers in your ears and scream "la la la I can't hear you!" at this point.

I am done with you.

[cedardryad]

I tend to think of Heaven as being this huge fuck-off place where all religions have a place. If you're good then you'll be rewarded with whatever your own personal Paradise is. Whether that's a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Godless athiest vision is up to you.

Ditto.

10characterlimit.

[Red Jack]

Semantics? The man has repeatedly claimed my religion is not a religion.



If you can't figure out how I can find that offensive, I can't help you.



I don't care if you find dictionary definitions of words offensive. That's not my problem but yours. I'm still not sure why you're so hot about this.


How'd I know you were gonna play that card? You might as well stick your fingers in your ears and scream "la la la I can't hear you!" at this point.

I am done with you.

Well. That's crushing, I must say. The reason wikipedia isn't a source is, right now, if i want, I can go to that page, re-write it to suit my side of the "argument" and it will stand until someone else rewrites it. That means it is an unreliable source.

You do realize that there are many "neo pagans" who, while being classified as such by folks like you, do not consider their faiths to be either new or defined by their relationship to Judeo-Christianity.

Pagan, like heathen, was meant to be an insult to describe those without "real" faith who worshipped false, often hedonistic, pantheons. So, if you mean to spin it into a positive description the way blacks have with black or to remove it from "safe" social use the way blacks have with nigger, be my guest. I'm just saying that it's an uphill battle since the word itself was created speficially to describe what you and those who believe as you do are not.

Neo-Paganism may be a social movement but it is not a faith. Wicca is a faith that falls under the heading of Neo-Pagan. Frankly, I prefer to be called black than neo-nigger but that's just me.

In any case, the word means what it means. It will be some time before it means something else. If ever.

[cedardryad]

Nobody worships the greek or norse gods. they are not living faiths. indeed I doubt anyone can say they know all the inner workings of those faiths. They are dead. The neo-versions of those fiahts, if they exist, are too small to be considered large.

As for reincarnation, I was referring to the buddhist/hindu notion of karma etc. Someone mentioned karma and I made the point that, if you're talking about that version of reincarnation, you're talking about all the souls on the wheel living in the false world of appetite and pain. That is the opposite of Nirvana and therefore hell. Life is hell. Something to be overcome and escaped. Certainly there are other faiths that include reincarnation but we weren't talking about them.

Zoroasterianism is, strictly by the numbers, a dying faith. Within a relatively short time it will be gone.

My step-mother is an animist and my father is a buddhist. My mother is a christian.

No faith is legitimate or illegitimate, only alive or dead. But, in terms of numbers, they can, quite legitimately, be described as large and small. There are billions of Christians. Relatively few Druids. Ergo Druidism is a tiny faith by comparison.

"Paganism" is not a faith but a catchall term to describe all those faiths outside the Judeo-Christian canon.

Shintoism and Inuit Animism are both pagan but neither of them is the same as the animism practiced by west africans or australian aborigines.

It's harder with Neo religions like Druidry, where the older Druids really didn't write anything down. The written word was taboo and I think only few of the Druids began to write things down when the Christians moved in and tried to convert. So any history about Druids are from Romans, who were making Druids look bad so there was a reason for Romans to hate the Celts and Brits. So the whole burning man sacrifices were all made up. There are also people that glamorize Druidry and make it out to be something it isn't. The one person responsible for the "come back" was a fraud.

As a Druid, it is very hard to find a grove in my area, they are a very small group. Its even hard finding legitimate Druid books, you have to look at Celtic history books, not those Neo-pagan books because those are usually too 101. I personally don't like to consider Druidry a Neo pagan religion since it was around before the neo-pagan movement. There is a lot of controversy about this, about whether or not all Druids were killed off or converted, or if there were some that did go underground.

To me no religion ever really dies, they evolve. Druidry, Christianity, and Buddhism have similarities. Asatru can easily be as alive as it used to be because they did have written history and those that are interested in keeping things accurate will do what was done in the past.

[Alex L]

Saint-

As I've stated before (like a million times) you could have just pm'ed us.

Also, there is a thread on the Comm Forum entitled "Ask A Christian". You could have asked your questions there.

I genuinely don't think that you meant any offence, but still.

A little advice never hurts. :smile:

Even though it probably would have been a better solution, I find myself intrigued by this discussion. :redface:

Semantics? The man has repeatedly claimed my religion is not a religion.

Even off the Wiki...

Paganism...is a word used to refer to various religions and religious beliefs from across the world.

Neopaganism or Neo-Paganism is an umbrella term used to identify a wide variety of modern religious movements, particularly those influenced by historical pre-Christian European "pagan" religions.

Or, put another way...

I am Asian. But "Asian" is an umbrella term used to refer to a grouping of people.

I am actually Chinese, as 'Asia' is not a country from which my family can claim descent.

You're a pagan. But 'pagan' is a term referring to many different faiths (some are multiple human-appearing gods, some are animal-gods, some are Mother Earth).

Is there a more specific term by which we can recognize your beliefs?

[kitty_tc_69]

Or, put another way...

I am Asian. But "Asian" is an umbrella term used to refer to a grouping of people.

I am actually Chinese, as 'Asia' is not a country from which my family can claim descent.

You're a pagan. But 'pagan' is a term referring to many different faiths (some are multiple human-appearing gods, some are animal-gods, some are Mother Earth).

Is there a more specific term by which we can recognize your beliefs?

I prefer the term Pagan. I started off Wiccan, but I no longer feel comfortable with that name. Pagan is the name I choose, and I'm not the only one who does so regardless of how certain others might insist we have no claim to the name.

My faith, my life, my right to call it as I choose. All I'm asking is for my choices to be respected.

[LewisH]

is no less worthy a term for your religious beliefs than Judaism is for mine or
Christian is for others. Both of those terms also cover an umbrella of multiple
belief systems and practices as well. If we let the narrow minded and intolerant
rule our emotions, though, than they've won the argument. Take joy in your beliefs and pity those who think the world only spins one way cause it's still gonna wobble.

[kitty_tc_69]

Paganism is no less worthy a term for your religious beliefs than Judaism is for mine or
Christian is for others. Both of those terms also cover an umbrella of multiple
belief systems and practices as well. If we let the narrow minded and intolerant
rule our emotions, though, than they've won the argument. Take joy in your beliefs and pity those who think the world only spins one way cause it's still gonna wobble.

Thank you sincerely for the kind words. :smile:

[Red Jack]

is no less worthy a term for your religious beliefs than Judaism is for mine or
Christian is for others. Both of those terms also cover an umbrella of multiple
belief systems and practices as well. If we let the narrow minded and intolerant
rule our emotions, though, than they've won the argument. Take joy in your beliefs and pity those who think the world only spins one way cause it's still gonna wobble.

No. That's false.

While there is drift in the faiths you mentioned and many variant sects, the fact is the primary, central or core beliefs and means of expressing those beliefs are nearly identical. There is less of a split between Mormanism and Christianity, IOW, than there is between Voudoun and Shintoism.

Contrasted with the difference between Wicca and Shinto or Yoruba Animism and the Navajo brand and you'll see that, at absolute best, Pagan describes a lot of disparate faiths that have little in common beyond not being Christianity or Judaism (frankly, for many, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are pagan faiths too).

It's not a value judgment in the way it used to be, certainly, but it isn't a description of a faith either. Modern or Neo paganism is an amorphous social movement, not a faith. What are the organizing principles of paganism? what is the agreed upon mode of expression of belief? What is the canon? Etc. They're all classified as pagan because they're not Christians or, lately, Jews. NOT being one thing doesn't make them all the same thing. No humans are dogs but that doesn't make any of us fish who are just as much not dogs as we are.

I've got nothing against people using words in the ways that please them among their friends and like-minded individuals but, when you're in the common forum, outside your little nest, it is the common usages that hold sway.

I'm still shaking my head at how this was deemed offensive in the first place.

[MacQuarrie]

Here’s the problem.

If you accept what the New Testament says about Gods Covenant with the Jews as truth, then you also have to accept that God is a liar who doesn’t keep his word.

In Hebrews 8.8 it reads….

The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

And then of course in Luke when Jesu Bar Joseph passes around the wine the night before his execution, he claims that by drinking his “blood” a new covenant was created that supercedes all of the convents that came before it.


And yet all the way back in Exodus, God tells Moses that as long as the Jews obey God and follow God’s laws, which the Jews have done, then his Convent with them will be eternal.


So the question is pretty simple.

Does God keep his word or his he as big a lying sack of shit as your average used car salesman?
That depends a great deal on what you think the New Testament says.

Does the New Testament teach that all the promises made to Israel have been canceled? No.

Does it teach that those promises have been transferred away from Israel and given to the Christians? No.

Does it teach that the Law is no longer to be followed? No.

Does it teach that all those covenants (with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David) are eternal and unconditional, and continue to apply to the people of Israel to this very day? Yes.

Does it teach that Gentiles who become Christians are adopted into the family of Abraham and given access to the same promises? Yes.

Does it teach that "All Israel shall be saved"? Yes.

Fact: There was much controversy in the early church as to whether or not non-Jews could even become Christians; some argued that in order to be a Christian, a Gentile would first have to convert to Judaism.

Fact: The "new rules" that the church adopted apply only to Gentile believers. Jewish Christians are expected to remain Jewish, keep the Law and Commandments, and attend the synagogue.

Fact: Paul's final act as a free man, before being arrested, transported to Rome, tried, convicted and scheduled for eventual execution, was to participate in a ritual of purification at the temple, for which he shaved his head and paid the temple fees for himself and a group of young men undergoing the same ritual. He remained a Jew until the day he died, and saw no contradiction between Judaism and Christianity.

God keeps his covenants. New covenants add to, but do not negate earlier ones.

[Buzz Dixon]

Well yeah, I understand the Christian perspective. I spent way too many years as a member of the Foursquare Gospel church not to have picked something up.

However, it doesn’t change that it takes a bit of a rewrite of Exodus to come up with the “proof” that peaceful, gentle, Jesu bar Joseph is the militaristic, sword carrying “Messiah” of the Torah, let alone coming up with the idea that God gives his word and then later on down the line changes his mind.

The Jews followed the law and stuck closely to their covenant with God. And if you accept the “truth” of the New Covenant, then you at the very least have to admit that God doesn’t keep his word.No, they didn't. They repeatedly violated the commandments and repeatedly paid the price for doing so. Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews sold into slavery not once but twice because of their will full disobedience. -- and that's not counting the numerous times Philistines, Greeks, Romans, and others had temporary dominance over the kingdom of Judah.

By all rights, God would be perfectly justified in allowing the kingdom of Judah to be annihilated because He has never broken the contract despite the Jews doing so repeatedly (as is documented in numerous places in the Old Testament).

He has shown mercy on the Jews and has continued to honor His covenant with them whenever they wise up and realize they have been disobeying Him and ask for forgiveness. He has saved them again and again and again.

He promised them that the Messiah, the light unto the world, would come from the tribe of Judah, the house and lineage of David. This promise has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus. Christ preached almost exclusively to the Jews, He had very little interaction with the Samaritans and even less directly with the Romans (though He did heal one Roman centurion's servant, commenting that the centurion had more faith in God than any of the Jews of that day).

After the religious orthodoxy rejected His message, He gave His disciples the Great Commission to go out unto all the world proclaiming the Gospel (something the Jews were supposed to have done but never got around to).

And once the Gentiles were introduced to the Gospel, it was like passing the torch to pyromaniacs...

[kitty_tc_69]

No. That's false.

Modern or Neo paganism is an amorphous social movement, not a faith.

I'm still shaking my head at how this was deemed offensive in the first place.

This is the fourth time or better you have claimed that my religion is "not a faith". You are not the arbiter of religious legitimacy, and your approval or acknowledgement is not necessary for my faith to exist.

Reported and ignored.

[MacQuarrie]

This is the fourth time or better you have claimed that my religion is "not a faith". You are not the arbiter of religious legitimacy, and your approval or acknowledgement is not necessary for my faith to exist.

Reported and ignored.

Good policy. Red is a "can't be wrong". He is the sole arbiter of all truth, so nothing he says can ever be offensive, because he's always right and the truth can never be offensive. Ignore is where he belongs. Fortunately there's an ignore function in real life, and if I ever find myself in his presence I will in no way acknowledge his existence.

[Red Jack]

Good policy. Red is a "can't be wrong". He is the sole arbiter of all truth, so nothing he says can ever be offensive, because he's always right and the truth can never be offensive. Ignore is where he belongs. Fortunately there's an ignore function in real life, and if I ever find myself in his presence I will in no way acknowledge his existence.

You mean like just now?

Awesome.

I'm not sure what was "reported."

Here are WEBSTER'S defs

pa·gan
Pronunciation:
\ˈpā-gən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, civilian, country dweller, from pagus country district; akin to Latin pangere to fix — more at pact
Date:
14th century
1: heathen 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person
3: neo-pagan



neo–pa·gan
Pronunciation:
\-ˈpā-gən\
Function:
noun
Date:
1869
: a person who practices a contemporary form of paganism (as Wicca)


In what way did I inject my own sensibilities or judgments into this conversation? Words have meanings. Saying so is not an insult. In this case it wasn't even an analysis. just passing on a definition.

[MacQuarrie]

Well yeah, I understand the Christian perspective. I spent way too many years as a member of the Foursquare Gospel church not to have picked something up.

However, it doesn’t change that it takes a bit of a rewrite of Exodus to come up with the “proof” that peaceful, gentle, Jesu bar Joseph is the militaristic, sword carrying “Messiah” of the Torah, let alone coming up with the idea that God gives his word and then later on down the line changes his mind.
The militaristic sword-carrying messiah is Messiah ben David.

Messiah ben Joseph is the suffering messiah who is brought low in order to save his people, just as Joseph was sold into slavery and believed dead so that he could save not just his own family, but all the people of Canaan, Egypt, and all the surrounding lands.

Messiah ben David is the conquering king coming to bring his kingdom to fruition.
The Jews followed the law and stuck closely to their covenant with God. And if you accept the “truth” of the New Covenant, then you at the very least have to admit that God doesn’t keep his word.
Remember that the New Covenant was given as part of the Passover seder, and it involved the third cup of wine and the afikomen. The New Covenant does not erase or alter the Jews' covenant with God. It actually reaffirms the covenant and opens it up to non-Jews.

The point is that God keeps his word, and goes to great lengths to keep his word, and we stupid humans get it all wrong and attach our own prejudices and baggage to it.

[TCJohnson]

I think MacQuarrie won't get into heaven as long as he has that Michael Gross avatar! It's scaring me!

[kitty_tc_69]

Good policy. Red is a "can't be wrong". He is the sole arbiter of all truth, so nothing he says can ever be offensive, because he's always right and the truth can never be offensive. Ignore is where he belongs. Fortunately there's an ignore function in real life, and if I ever find myself in his presence I will in no way acknowledge his existence.

Cool cool... you and I may disagree on religion but I appreciate that you and I can disagree respectfully and it's cool that you can treat me with courtesy in spite of our differences. You'll certainly get the same from me in return. :smile:

[Gumbo Maximillian]

You know Kitty TC 69, I'm not sure there is any real difference between what he has said and what you have said inregards to the defination of Pagan.

Its kind of like getting angry about some one saying Judeo-Christianity isn't a faith.

Its not, its a grouping of faiths.

Just like Paganism is.

Though aside from that it is interesting how he downplays any religion that might fall into an area he doesn't cover.

[Red Jack]

You know Kitty TC 69, I'm not sure there is any real difference between what he has said and what you have said inregards to the defination of Pagan.

Its kind of like getting angry about some one saying Judeo-Christianity isn't a faith.

Its not, its a grouping of faiths.

Just like Paganism is.

Though aside from that it is interesting how he downplays any religion that might fall into an area he doesn't cover.

"He" meaning me?

Look. Let's get this straight. I didn't make this up. I'm not expressing an opinion. "Pagan" covers ANY non-Judeo-Christian iteration of faith and, indeed, INCLUDED Jews initially.

It is precisely the same as Romans referring to everyone outside the empire as "barbarians" or japanese referring to all non-japanese as "gaijin."

It says nothing about what any particular faith is, only what they are not, namely, Christians.

i don't know why anyone would take offense over something that is and has been in every english dictionary since they started writing them.

[sk716]

Red Jack, just because the worshiping of God and Jesus aren't involved doesn't make something not a faith or religion.

re·li·gion –noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

You're just going to have to learn to accept that not everyone worships your God.

[Red Jack]

Red Jack, just because the worshiping of God and Jesus aren't involved doesn't make something not a faith or religion.

re·li·gion –noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

You're just going to have to learn to accept that not everyone worships your God.

I don't have one, thanks. I am not a Christian and have said so, repeatedly. THis isn't an issue of dogma or one faith being better than another. It's strictly about the meaning of words and how to use them.

And, I think, if you read the definition you posted, you'll see it in no way contradicts anything I said. This is one of those situations where liking me or "agreeing" with me isn't important. It's just simple definitions of words and the comprehension thereof.

[Tages]

I tend to think of Heaven as being this huge fuck-off place where all religions have a place. If you're good then you'll be rewarded with whatever your own personal Paradise is. Whether that's a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Godless athiest vision is up to you.

Hmmmmn... (http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_019.htm)


http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r210/Kobages/a_irony.jpg

[Cam63]

I love that Einstein plays volleyball.

[Alex Scott]

I love that the followup strip, about the escape from Religion Hell, had Blaise Pascal, William Jennings Bryan, and the Wolf Man.

[MacQuarrie]

I think MacQuarrie won't get into heaven as long as he has that Michael Gross avatar! It's scaring me!

Is Mack the Knife better?

[kitty_tc_69]

Is Mack the Knife better?

Nope. Shoulda gone with Mac Tonight.

http://ahotmessblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mac_tonight.PNG

:tongue: :biggrin:

[TCJohnson]

Is Mack the Knife better?


Now there is a face that will take you to heaven.

[stealthwise]

I've decided that atheist is a biased term. It presupposes the importance of considering the existence of a monotheistic diety.

From now on people will be separated into two distinct groups: "Nopans" and "Pans." The "pans" believe that there is a potato pancake creature that lives in the sky and grants wishes to anyone who can make hash browns without burning them, yet still getting them just crispy enough to satisfy the sophisticated bruncher palate, while the "nopans" do not believe in a potato pancake creature that lives in the sky and grants wishes to anyone who can make hash browns without burning them, yet still getting them just crispy enough to satisfy the sophisticated bruncher palate.


With Ketchup!

[Typo Lad]

Oh howdid I miss this thread?!

So much to address.

Mac and Bree and who ever else feels up to answering this. The Jews that haven't converted and accepted Christ as the Messiah, will they get to Heaven? Do they get a free pass because they are the chosen people. I was discusing this with my roommate and he seems to think as long as they follow the Mosaic law the Jews get a free pass.

Hi there Saint. My name's Mordechai and I'm a (Modern/Centrist/Neo) Orthodox Jew. Just want to get my bias out there.

The first thing I want to point out is that being G-d's "Chosen People" isn't all good. I've made this point here before, but it's before your time I think. G-d singled out my people much as a teacher sometimes singles out a student. That student may not be the best or the brightest, but the teacher sees something in them. Due to that, the teacher puts extra pressure on them to try harder. In a way, it's actually harder.

As for heaven - What you call the "Mosiac Laws" are a list of 613 Commandments that are, frankly, impossible to keep. I can't do some because I'm not a Kohen (priest), not a woman, not a king of the house of David, not a farmer in Israel... etc. We're expected to keep what we can, as best we can. Each man was created "btzelmo", commonly translated as "in his image". Rav Joseph Solvechik (obm) says the "his" is on man, not G-d, and that we're all created with our own potential.

Moving right along... So I have 613 commandments to strive to keep. Gentiles, on the other hand, have 7. Don't murder, don't steal, be a monotheist, don't commit acts of rape & incest, don't eat the meat of a still living animal, don't curse in G-d's name, and establish courts of justice. Dead simple, and just like me, it's not an all-or-nothing situation. You keep what you can to the best of your ability and are judged based on that.

Now of course, the question is what is the afterlife...

I'm not really sure if the Jews are completely following the Mosaic Laws, since they're not sacrificing animals at the temple every year, there's no great priest and suchlike. Typo Lad could probably address that point FAR better than I could.

Psst! How'd I do?

The Sacrifices were replaced with prayers. As such, they can still be "given".

I tend to think of Heaven as being this huge fuck-off place where all religions have a place. If you're good then you'll be rewarded with whatever your own personal Paradise is. Whether that's a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Godless athiest vision is up to you.

There won't be a single Jew in Heaven, not a one. There also won't be any Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists, Athiests, etc, because those are designations we've created to set ourselves apart from one another on Earth. Heaven is all about the oneness of us all, so while we may all go to Heaven, I really hope we're leaving all the labels behind us.

Amen to both of you. G-d doesn't really care who's a Jew per se. He cares how well we treat each other. The rest is window dressing.

As a Christian who believes in a loving, just God, I have a hard time believing that God would be so petty as to allow good people to go to Hell because they made the wrong choice about their faith. As such, I'd like to think that one's religious orientation isn't a real prerequisite for entry into heaven.

As a Jew who believes in a just G-d, I don't want to believe in Hell, which is cool, because the concept doesn't really exist.

Lemme 'splain:

You die. You're judged. You have four options:

1) Heaven! You're in!
2) Oh, so sorry. Almost there. Here's this place that we'll call "hell" for argument's sake, where you stay for 12 months, tops, and are "cleansed", whatever that means. Lots of fire terminology, but that's more to do with analogies for purification. After all, you don't have a body, so what's going to burn?
3) Sorry, you have a lot more work to do. You get to be reborn. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Your life will be full of tests specifically designed to help you "get past" whatever kept you out of Heaven. Yes, that's right, Jews have a Wheel of Life.
4) Step 3 hasn't worked time and again. Sorry, time to hit the delete key.

4 is supposed to be insanely rare.

Mind, this is all based on teachings from all over and the minutia is argued, but that's the gist.

That's only relevant if there's a Temple.
As far as I know, Shirley is alive and well.
So we should be sacrificing animals to her?

Since she's now Temple-Black, would that be Satanism?


Are the Jews going to heaven? Depends on the Jew in question. Is he eagerly awaiting the Messiah? Is he keeping the law to the best of his ability and offering repentance and prayer when he fails?
God is not a vending machine. Salvation is not mechanistic; say the magic words and get your fire insurance. It doesn't work like that.

Nicely done again, Jim. You'd probably enjoy Maimonides classic work on repentance. He says there is a mechanism (Prayer, Penance, Charity), but that it's useless without actual meaning.

I follow we do not believe in an afterlife. We live on through our children or, if we do not have children of our own then through the children of our relatives and fellow Jews. It is why family is so important to us.

However, other branches of Judaism do believe in the concept.

In my branch, not only do we believe in an afterlife, but we "celebrate" the anniversary of a family member's death, a Yartzheit. We pray in honor of the soul who has passed and we say "the soul should have an Aliya (be called to the Torah, not sure what that means in Spiritual terms)".

Family is still important to us, because how we continue in This world is still via our Children. In fact, I'm at the point where I could care less about my own soul, as long as my daughter's is okay. I've done bad things and know I have work to do. I'd like her to not have to struggle as I did.
'
that would consign someone to torture for failing to believe a narrow set of rules
strikes me as cowardly. Not only should such an entity NOT be worshipped but that entity should be opposed or at least ignored. Such an entity does not fit my definition of what a god or God should be.

That's good, because no-where in the Torah does it say that will happen. Hell-as-torment is a post-Biblical invention, a boogeyman to scare children into obeying.

[Typo Lad]

I've been spending some time at a Yeshivah lately and fact is that the Jewish religion doesn't believe in a Heaven-like afterlife like Christians do (i.e. you die here and go somewhere).

Waaaaaaaal.... depends. What Yehishiva? What denomination? Some of the views you opine below are not exactly mainstream, and I'm fairly hardcore.

The belief is that the world itself as we know it will change into a paradise-like existence after suffering a thousand years of dark times (the belief is that the world itself will only last for 7,000 years - hence the Jewish calendar being up to around 5,600+ -, of which years 6,000 through 7,000 will be dark times followed by 1,000 years of paradise existence, after which the world will simply end... or something along those lines. It does get quite contradictory in some places -kindda like a DC Comic after the umptenth reboot, heh).

The dates are in dispute, but you're talking about Moshiach, which is not the same thing as Heaven. The post Mosiach age involves the restoration of departed souls to This world, with the explanation being that This world will then be on the level of the World-to-Come. However, in the mean time there is still the Next World.

Or so I've been taught.

The idea goes on to say that EVERYONE will make it to this paradise-like existence, just through different means.

For instance, those who are goody-goody are instantly in, while those who weren't just as good go to a place called Gehenna (think Hell, but without Lucifer), which is defined, sort of, as a place away from God, where these unworthy souls spend their time until they are worthy to enter the paraside-like realm (or something like that. It does get quite comic booky in some parts, to be honest).

Well, that's because it gets vague. This bit is what I was talking about in my last post, but that's about the Next World, not the Post-Moshiach "reboot" of this one.

A book I read at the Yeshiva said something about how life in this paradise-like realm would involve people living over 100 years and women giving birth to full-grown children 24/7.

Mmm. Kaballah. Title and Author, please? A lot of that is Apocrypha according to just about everyone.

The overall concept, as it was explained, was that the whole of human souls equal a single individual, Adam, whose soul splintered into every soul that has ever existed on Earth. The paraside-like existence is meant to unify the myriad souls into a single entity.

That's what I remember, more or less. So, to answer your question, will Jews make it to Heaven if they don't accept Christ as their savior, I'd have to say that it's irrelevant since your belief is that you're going to Heaven while the Jewish belief is that "Heaven" is coming to us. Other religions have their own beliefs which should be respected.

This'd be the non-mainstream bit. Frankly, I'm hard pressed to find a source at all outside heretical writings. I'd appreciate a source when you get a chance.

Neither one of us has the right to determine who is right or who is wrong. Personally, I think that if one is right then everyone is right, and if one is wrong then everyone is wrong.

I can't agree with that bit. One being wrong does not damn everyone. However, I do think more than one person can be "right".

Furthemore, the question itself is a little--- tacky, to be honest. The only thing I really take issue with Christianity is the belief that its followers have to bully others into accepting Jesus as their savior in order to make it to Heaven.

The fact of the matter is that every religion has the right to determine their own ideas of what form the afterlife will take, and no one really has the right to tell others how they'll make it there.

Or in other words, Judge Not, Lest Ye be Judged...

Now this bit I can get with. As Hillel the Elder said "[The Entirety of the Torah is]Do not do unto your neighbor that which is hateful to you. The rest is commentary."

[Typo Lad]

I'm more offended/annoyed by this thread, than any question Saucey may have about my sexuality.

I don't think he meant it that way bert. I think this is where he goes to ask things, for ill or good, and doesn't always consider that people may be offended.


well, I'm a bad Jew.

You stop that right now. The only "bad Jew" is one who rejects G-d, kills, or rapes. I know you and know that you are far, far from being a "bad Jew".

but *my* God loves me regardless of what anyone considers a "sin". . and being Jewish is certainly not one of those "sins"

Amen.

[Typo Lad]

Any religion that says, "Think as you're told and you won't be tormented for eternity" sounds too much like a protection racket to suit me.

I can agree. Another reason I like my faith.

you simply would not believe my gut reaction yesterday upon opening YABS and seeing "Will there be Jews in Heaven?"

I do!

"Well I don't wanna be in your dumb old heaven anyway! We'll start our own - and we'll have most of the good actors and musicians!"

Oh crap... we'd also have a ton of lawyers.

Oh worse... and Adam Sandler.

Check out the Moschiach myth and the fundamentalist Jewish interpretation thereof. Fairly similar to what happens to the non Christians in Revelations. And that ain't no coinkydink.

Really? So in Revelations non-Christians are treated as equals?

Got a source beyond bias? Keep in mind you're talking to someone who's been in the Yeshiva system since he was 3. There's a lot of nonsense people talk about when it comes to Moshiach that has no textual basis (like the "Gentiles will be our SLAVES!" nonsense I once heard). It's just people excusing bigotry by claiming it has a Biblical or Talmudic source when there is none.

The worst that could be said to happen to Non-Jews post-Moshiach would be that they'd convert.

Question because I don't believe we have ever talked about it bert, are you simply Jewish by origin or by faith as well? Do you go to Temple?

"Temple"? Really?

Define "by origin", saint. People can be born Jewish or convert. It's a race (well, a few races), and ethnicity, and a faith. As a faith, we're fragmented into sub-divisions. For example, some Jews only go to services a few times a year. Doesn't make them "less Jewish"

No-one is "simply" Jewish.


yes, I'm a member of a Synagogue, although I don't attend near as much as I should. I'm not an Orthodox Jew (as Morts is).

But I still love him.

I don't' talk about my religion here. . I'm pretty much an open book on any other topic. . but my Religion is not something I'm comfortable discussing on CBR.

Or in PM?

What I meant was are you Jewish in ethnic origin and don't participate in the religious belief


Well, as he refers to "His G-d", clearly he does.

[Typo Lad]

Here’s the problem.

If you accept what the New Testament says about Gods Covenant with the Jews as truth, then you also have to accept that God is a liar who doesn’t keep his word.

{snip}

And then of course in Luke when Jesu Bar Joseph passes around the wine the night before his execution, he claims that by drinking his “blood” a new covenant was created that supercedes all of the convents that came before it.

And yet all the way back in Exodus, God tells Moses that as long as the Jews obey God and follow God’s laws, which the Jews have done, then his Convent with them will be eternal.

So the question is pretty simple.

Does God keep his word or his he as big a lying sack of shit as your average used car salesman?

Well, if one is to play Christian's Advocate, the "New Covenant" could be seen as less of a "New Deal" and more of a "Rider" on the original.

One could also argue that my people broke the Covenant over and over and over. Just in terms of the Big Ten, by the time Mr. Bar Joseph rolls around, we've done everything short of offer ourselves up to Moloch while coveting our neighbor's wife's ass. By that argument, we deserved to be cut lose. Heck, by that argument it should have happened before we even entered Eretz Yisroel.



Anyone who believes in Christ is saved. As promised in the Old Testament, Christ came first to the Jews and only after His message was rejected did He allow it to go elsewhere.

The Jews were supposed to be a guiding light for the rest of the world. By the time of Christ they lost interest in spreading the faith. That's one of the reasons Christ had to come into the world.

Wellll.... the "light of the world" is really supposed to be less about spreading (prostilyzing is considered a sin), and more about being a good example.

[Charles RB]

Oh crap... we'd also have a ton of lawyers.

Oh worse... and Adam Sandler.

Bet you wish you had a Hell now.

[Typo Lad]

W
However, it doesn’t change that it takes a bit of a rewrite of Exodus to come up with the “proof” that peaceful, gentle, Jesu bar Joseph is the militaristic, sword carrying “Messiah” of the Torah, let alone coming up with the idea that God gives his word and then later on down the line changes his mind.

The argument was always that Mr. bar Joseph is Moshiach Ben Joseph (which makes calling him "bad Joseph" even better), not Moshiach ben Judah... or rather both rolled into one.

The Jews followed the law and stuck closely to their covenant with God. And if you accept the “truth” of the New Covenant, then you at the very least have to admit that God doesn’t keep his word.

I have to say, that requires quite a re-writting of the Prophets. We, in fact, did not. We sucked on toast. We had kings who defiled the Great Temple, murdered G-d's prophets, etc. We rejected G-d again and again.

Buzz makes that point later, but I have to take exception with one bit.


After the religious orthodoxy rejected His message, He gave His disciples the Great Commission to go out unto all the world proclaiming the Gospel (something the Jews were supposed to have done but never got around to).

And once the Gentiles were introduced to the Gospel, it was like passing the torch to pyromaniacs...

Nice analogy. Again, I dispute that we were "supposed to have done" it, as the Torah is fairly firm about the fact that we're not supposed to seek out converts.

And the irony is I've been posting here instead of saying morning services. Didn't realize I'd have so much to say. Be back.

[TCJohnson]

"Well I don't wanna be in your dumb old heaven anyway! We'll start our own - and we'll have most of the good actors and musicians!"

Oh crap... we'd also have a ton of lawyers.

Oh worse... and Adam Sandler.


And Will Shatner doing spoken word versions of rap songs. Suckers.

[Matt Doc Martin]

I don't think he meant it that way bert. I think this is where he goes to ask things, for ill or good, and doesn't always consider that people may be offended.



So does that make him inconsiderate or just an average moron?

[Typo Lad]

So does that make him inconsiderate or just an average moron?
I don't think he really deserves that.

I have my suspicions about saint's behaviors, but I don't think there's any malice nor do i think intillect is an issue.

Now play nice.

[a. non]

So does that make him inconsiderate or just an average moron?


Please don't be like that. I'm sure he didn't mean it as malicious or spiteful. It appeared like he wanted an honest debate, but had a flawed execution.

[Bob Violence]

I've decided that atheist is a biased term. It presupposes the importance of considering the existence of a monotheistic diety.

From now on people will be separated into two distinct groups: "Nopans" and "Pans." The "pans" believe that there is a potato pancake creature that lives in the sky and grants wishes to anyone who can make hash browns without burning them, yet still getting them just crispy enough to satisfy the sophisticated bruncher palate, while the "nopans" do not believe in a potato pancake creature that lives in the sky and grants wishes to anyone who can make hash browns without burning them, yet still getting them just crispy enough to satisfy the sophisticated bruncher palate.

With Ketchup!
Finally, something I can believe in other than that Flying Spagetti Monster cult.

[Red Jack]

Really? So in Revelations non-Christians are treated as equals?

Got a source beyond bias? Keep in mind you're talking to someone who's been in the Yeshiva system since he was 3. There's a lot of nonsense people talk about when it comes to Moshiach that has no textual basis (like the "Gentiles will be our SLAVES!" nonsense I once heard). It's just people excusing bigotry by claiming it has a Biblical or Talmudic source when there is none.

The worst that could be said to happen to Non-Jews post-Moshiach would be that they'd convert.



Before we go further on this, as I am repeatedly misquoted and mis paraphrased on these boards, I want to say, unequivocally, that I hold the Jewish faith to be precisely the same as all other faiths i.e. containing both wisdom and cancer. I don't hold it higher or lower than any faith nor do I regard its adherents as anything more or less than people who believe in a world construct I find fundamentally implausible beyond the realm of allegory. Which, again, makes them identical to all the other believers in magic out there.

That said, as Christianity is merely Judaism with its ethnic/xenophobic component removed, it is hardly surprising that aspects of Judaism (the OT) would be mirrored in the New Covenant despite Jesus's claim to have re-brokered the deal. Too many Christians like to talk about Jesus but, when push comes to shove, they scurry back to the OT for permission to act like jerks (permission that doesn't exist). And there's a reason. The OT sanctions a lot more bad behavior than the NT which sanctions none.

To answer your question, The Book of Obadiah (Ovadyah), verses 15 through to the end, detail the end times, the so-called "Day of Retribution" and the fate of the Edomites who can either be classified as Arabs or as the entire population of the gentile world depending on how fundie your fundies are and how racist their world view.

Like Revelations, Obadiah is a massively short book compared to the others and glosses over a great many fine details of how punishment and "retribution" are to be meted out. I don't find it surprising that you, personally, take a softer veiw of the scripture there, but, of course, you like your faith. You like it a LOT or you wouldn't be Orthodox.

I, OTOH, am indifferent to it. It's just one more way of thinking to me. No more, no less and, like any social system made up by humans, full of inconsistencies and loopholes people can (and do) use for spiteful purpose.

So, when I see the obvious parallels, they're going to get mentioned.

The idea that God is going to show up eventually and drop some payback on those who persecuted the faithful is by no means original to Judaism or limited to it. Which was my original point.

[saintsaucey]

Typo, again allow me to apologise to you if you were indeed offended. I was asking from a strictly Christian perspective, not realizing that there were Jewish people that came to this board. As I said I posted the topic after working twelve hours, it was the last thing I did before going to bed and it honestly did not cross my mind.

The reason I asked bert phraised my question to bert that way was because I was worried he thought it was strictly a racist thing. As you said there can be either people born to the Jewish nation or People who convert to the Jewish Religion.

To be perfectly honest I have never met a Jewish person (That I remember or am certain of) I'm from rual Indiana.

[Typo Lad]

Before we go further on this, as I am repeatedly misquoted and mis paraphrased on these boards,

You'll note that I did not do so. I'm not out to get you.

I want to say, unequivocally, that I hold the Jewish faith to be precisely the same as all other faiths i.e. containing both wisdom and cancer. I don't hold it higher or lower than any faith nor do I regard its adherents as anything more or less than people who believe in a world construct I find fundamentally implausible beyond the realm of allegory.

And I appreciate your stating that at the start. It's a sensitive issue and it pays to make sure people know where you stand. Despite being a man of faith, I also believe Religion can be a bad thing. It's a tool that can be wielded in a very wrong manner.

That said, as Christianity is merely Judaism with its ethnic/xenophobic component removed, it is hardly surprising that aspects of Judaism (the OT) would be mirrored in the New Covenant despite Jesus's claim to have re-brokered the deal.

I would politely dispute the idea that it was removed, as much as it was re-positioned a bit. While Converts were suddenly welcome, there was still an Us/Them mentality that remains strong for some even today.

Too many Christians like to talk about Jesus but, when push comes to shove, they scurry back to the OT for permission to act like jerks (permission that doesn't exist).

Again, we agree. I will add that many Jews do this too (or did I make that point already?).

To answer your question, The Book of Obadiah (Ovadyah), verses 15 through to the end, detail the end times, the so-called "Day of Retribution" and the fate of the Edomites who can either be classified as Arabs or as the entire population of the gentile world depending on how fundie your fundies are and how racist their world view.

Ahhh. Ovadyah.

The first thing I will point out is that I have not studied that particular text in depth. As part of Ketuvot (Writings), it is a highly disputed text. However, one thing I can very safely say is Edom most assuredly cannot be classified as the entire gentile world, and also not as Arabs.

In Torah terms, what we would call an "Arab" would be a descendant of Yishmael (Ishmael) or one of the other sons of Keturah/Hagar. The fate of the B'nai Yishmael is almost unanimously agreed to be that they will do penance and return to the faith of their father's father. In fact, Maimonides, who is essentially the grandfather of all modern Jewish thought, goes so far as to say that Islam is not Idol worship.

So who are "Edom"? Edom are the B'nai Esav (Esau), and differ from Yishaelites in that they deny G-d. They also are the source of one of the most troubling passages in the Torah - the commandment to wipe them off of the face of the Earth. Yes, the Torah commands genocidal actions in the taking of the Land, but the one about Edom is supposed to be perpetual. This is generally considered why Ovadyah chose them as an example. Because that's what Ovadyah is, really, a "compare and contrast" text. Or so I've been taught. Again, I have not studied it extensively.

In the Talmud, we are taught that it is impossible to carry out such a commandment, since we'd have no idea who was descended from them. Instead, we are told that we need to wipe out "Edomite" behavior. Ironically enough, the best definition of the sin of Edom is Xenophobia. Amusing, when you think about that.

Like Revelations, Obadiah is a massively short book compared to the others and glosses over a great many fine details of how punishment and "retribution" are to be meted out. I don't find it surprising that you, personally, take a softer veiw of the scripture there, but, of course, you like your faith. You like it a LOT or you wouldn't be Orthodox.

Actually, just because I'm Orthodox doesn't mean I always agree with my faith. I disagree strongly with my co-religionists on things, but that's normal. There are actual concepts in Judaism that I take real issue with, like Agunah (The "captive" wife, whose husband vanishes without giving her a divorce and is unable to remarry).

As for a 'soft view", it's not so much that as the view I take of all of Ne'vim and Ketuvot: They're full of allegory, idiomatic terms and poetic language. As such, things we think we "know" are often completely wrong. A great example is "Song of Songs", a text which no two Rabbis seem to be able to agree on the meaning of (which is, on the surface, a fairly raunchy bit of scripture). Christians use it, I believe, as a proof of the divinity of bar Joseph (I must thank rick for that).

Oh right, a point!

Point is, people will see what they see. You're not entirely wrong that my "school" of Judaism takes a "soft" view of things like that, and others choose to take a harsh. As someone else here said, we all bring out own baggage in when we read the Bible.


I, OTOH, am indifferent to it. It's just one more way of thinking to me. No more, no less and, like any social system made up by humans, full of inconsistencies and loopholes people can (and do) use for spiteful purpose.

If I may, you don't seem too "indifferent". I mean, you're at least interested enough to engage in discussion about it, right? I'm just asking.

While I disagree about the origins, I will certainly agree that any social system is rife for abuse, as even if it has a divine origin it would still involve Imperfect Man. I always look at it this way - if only G-d is perfect, then if you're an atheist no-one's perfect and if you're a deist then there's a perfect entity somewhere, but it's so far off from you that essentially no-one's perfect anyway.

The best we can try to do is perfect ourselves towards whatever we think perfection is and hope we don't step on anyone else or get stepped on.

The idea that God is going to show up eventually and drop some payback on those who persecuted the faithful is by no means original to Judaism or limited to it. Which was my original point.

I don't dispute that entire thesis, just your example. Which again, I have not studied in depth.

Have you, btw?

[Typo Lad]

Typo, again allow me to apologise to you if you were indeed offended.

I personally was not, but I certainly see where people would be. You're essentially asking "Hey, are bert, Typo, Sir Tim, Mike Netzer and all the other Jewish posters getting into our exclusive country club?". At least, that's kind of how it comes off.

I think I'm familiar enough with you by now that I guessed it was not your intent, and frankly, even if it was it's mild. I've been spat at, had rocks thrown at me, and had someone try to hit me with a car. Being asked if I'm going to get into Heaven is a minor deal.

I was asking from a strictly Christian perspective, not realizing that there were Jewish people that came to this board. As I said I posted the topic after working twelve hours, it was the last thing I did before going to bed and it honestly did not cross my mind.

Well, if I may be so bold, that was rather un-Christian of you to do. If one follows the teachings of bar Joseph, then one should aspire to be like him, yes? As such, one should try to have more empathy.

I'm sorry if that was offensive to you.

CBR is a huge site and there are lots of people of lots of faiths. When one is discussing faith, one should try to take a neutral stance.

The reason I asked bert phraised my question to bert that way was because I was worried he thought it was strictly a racist thing. As you said there can be either people born to the Jewish nation or People who convert to the Jewish Religion.

We're not so much a nation as we are a people and a faith. There are Hispanic, European, African, Indian, Arab and Asian Jews, all with a rich culture and history. We're more than just a bunch of Ashkenasim (well, other than myself and bert!).

To be perfectly honest I have never met a Jewish person (That I remember or am certain of) I'm from rual Indiana.

There are several (http://ijhs.org/) Jewish (http://www.connerprairie.org/HistoryOnline/jews.html) communities in Indiana (http://www.mavensearch.com/subjects/490), if you want to learn more. You could also resurrect the "ask the Jew" thread on Comm.

[Red Jack]

You'll note that I did not do so. I'm not out to get you.



And I appreciate your stating that at the start. It's a sensitive issue and it pays to make sure people know where you stand. Despite being a man of faith, I also believe Religion can be a bad thing. It's a tool that can be wielded in a very wrong manner.



I would politely dispute the idea that it was removed, as much as it was re-positioned a bit. While Converts were suddenly welcome, there was still an Us/Them mentality that remains strong for some even today.



Again, we agree. I will add that many Jews do this too (or did I make that point already?).



Ahhh. Ovadyah.

The first thing I will point out is that I have not studied that particular text in depth. As part of Ketuvot (Writings), it is a highly disputed text. However, one thing I can very safely say is Edom most assuredly cannot be classified as the entire gentile world, and also not as Arabs.

In Torah terms, what we would call an "Arab" would be a descendant of Yishmael (Ishmael) or one of the other sons of Keturah/Hagar. The fate of the B'nai Yishmael is almost unanimously agreed to be that they will do penance and return to the faith of their father's father. In fact, Maimonides, who is essentially the grandfather of all modern Jewish thought, goes so far as to say that Islam is not Idol worship.

So who are "Edom"? Edom are the B'nai Esav (Esau), and differ from Yishaelites in that they deny G-d. They also are the source of one of the most troubling passages in the Torah - the commandment to wipe them off of the face of the Earth. Yes, the Torah commands genocidal actions in the taking of the Land, but the one about Edom is supposed to be perpetual. This is generally considered why Ovadyah chose them as an example. Because that's what Ovadyah is, really, a "compare and contrast" text. Or so I've been taught. Again, I have not studied it extensively.

In the Talmud, we are taught that it is impossible to carry out such a commandment, since we'd have no idea who was descended from them. Instead, we are told that we need to wipe out "Edomite" behavior. Ironically enough, the best definition of the sin of Edom is Xenophobia. Amusing, when you think about that.



Actually, just because I'm Orthodox doesn't mean I always agree with my faith. I disagree strongly with my co-religionists on things, but that's normal. There are actual concepts in Judaism that I take real issue with, like Agunah (The "captive" wife, whose husband vanishes without giving her a divorce and is unable to remarry).

As for a 'soft view", it's not so much that as the view I take of all of Ne'vim and Ketuvot: They're full of allegory, idiomatic terms and poetic language. As such, things we think we "know" are often completely wrong. A great example is "Song of Songs", a text which no two Rabbis seem to be able to agree on the meaning of (which is, on the surface, a fairly raunchy bit of scripture). Christians use it, I believe, as a proof of the divinity of bar Joseph (I must thank rick for that).

Oh right, a point!

Point is, people will see what they see. You're not entirely wrong that my "school" of Judaism takes a "soft" view of things like that, and others choose to take a harsh. As someone else here said, we all bring out own baggage in when we read the Bible.

If I may, you don't seem too "indifferent". I mean, you're at least interested enough to engage in discussion about it, right? I'm just asking.

While I disagree about the origins, I will certainly agree that any social system is rife for abuse, as even if it has a divine origin it would still involve Imperfect Man. I always look at it this way - if only G-d is perfect, then if you're an atheist no-one's perfect and if you're a deist then there's a perfect entity somewhere, but it's so far off from you that essentially no-one's perfect anyway.

The best we can try to do is perfect ourselves towards whatever we think perfection is and hope we don't step on anyone else or get stepped on.

I don't dispute that entire thesis, just your example. Which again, I have not studied in depth.

Have you, btw?

Hm. It's hard to discuss these things without stepping on toes. To me all discussion of faith falls under the heading of "Comparative Mythology." So I am very interested in the various world faiths insofar as they influence the thinking of the majority of humans. Whether I agree or not, the majority of people on earth still believe in magic and act according to a worldview that includes Things Unseen and Unknowable. That interests me if for no other reason than it makes navigating among them easier. Plus a lot of the stories are just really awesome in a totally comic book way.

I'm not an atheist. I consider that to be an equally implausible worldview for the same reasons I'm not a "Theist." Neither side can prove their case. The question isn't that important to me. I'll die eventually and then I'll know (or, not, depending).

I'm a Jack. Not a Master. When someone who knows about a subject in detail and I know only the sketch version, I will always listen and incorporate that new view into my considerations. Like now.

I first heard of the Jewish version(s) of the end times when I was in my twenties and was, frankly, surprised to find out a few things that I hadn't ever heard of before, chiefly, the Jewish belief in reincarnation which is quite similar to the Hindu/Buddhist model. But I was disturbed to find there was an OT connection to what I consider an apocryphal and, at best, controversial book in the NT. Namely, REVELATIONS. To me Revelations is antithetical to the Jesus paradigm as Jesus is about Life and Revelations transforms his faith into a death cult. And yet Christians the world over embrace it.

I agree with you about the Them/Us themes in Christianity but, as it is a conceptual faith, designed to be evangelical, while Judaism is a self-focused, essentially tribal faith, there is more inherent flexibility in the former.

I wouldn't call my gaining knowledge of various world faiths "study" under any circumstances. I just really like a good yarn and will read one and enjoy it (mostly) regardless of the source. Good or bad, your bibles have some awesome stories in them which is my focus and the basis for most of my thematic "analyses" of the works.

I'm pleased that, just as Christianity has moved (despite scriptural prohibitions) to be more accepting of non-Christians (Jews in particular), Judaism has, in many cases, begun to recast itself as less insular and elitist.

(PS I know the edomites aren't "arabs." I was trying to use a more acceptable term for those who haven't read the books in question and don't know who Esau was.)

[Typo Lad]

Hm. It's hard to discuss these things without stepping on toes.

Ain't it just?

To me all discussion of faith falls under the heading of "Comparative Mythology."

I do understand, but the "trick" is to remember that for others, it isn't. So when you do something that they find insulting, it's best to do what saint did and say "Sorry, not what I meant by that."

It's prevented a few friendship-endings, for me.

So I am very interested in the various world faiths insofar as they influence the thinking of the majority of humans. Whether I agree or not, the majority of people on earth still believe in magic and act according to a worldview that included Things Unseen and Unknowable. That interests me if for no other reason than it makes navigating among them easier. Plus a lot of the stories are just really awesome in a totally comic book way.

I get that mind set. It's similar to why I feel most Jews should study other faiths in some way. We're a minority - we should know what the minority think and how they view us and themselves.

I take the view that G-d isn't Unknowable... we just don't have the tools yet.

I'm not an atheist. I consider that to be an equally implausible worldview for the same reasons I'm not a "Theist." Neither side can prove their case. The question isn't that important to me. I'll die eventually and then I'll know (or, not, depending).

I was referring to a general non-theist POV, rather than the more "militant" atheist sort. If I offended, I am sorry.

I'm a Jack. Not a Master. When someone who knows about a subject in detail and I know only the sketch version, I will always listen and incorporate that new view into my considerations. Like now.

I'm taking that as a compliment, just so you know.

I first heard of the Jewish version(s) of the end times when I was in my twenties and was, frankly, surprised to find out a few things that I hadn't ever heard of before, chiefly, the Jewish belief in reincarnation which is quite similar to the Hindu/Buddhist model.

I was in my teens when we got around to learning it. I knew a bit about it, but not the extent. It's important to note though, that this is an ongoing thing, happening even now according to my faith. It's also important to know that the End Days concept is not part of Moshiach, really. It's more like a reboot.

But I was disturbed to find there was an OT connection to what I consider an apocryphal and, at best, controversial book in the NT. Namely, REVELATIONS. To me Revelations is antithetical to the Jesus paradigm as Jesus is about Life and Revelations transforms his faith into a death cult. And yet Christians the world over embrace it.

Not all Christians do, for the record.

I am now going to apologize in advance if I offend any of our Christian posters.

Revelations is one of those books that brings me back to my comments on culture and idiom, and translation. When we go from Hebrew to Latin to English, we lose a lot of meaning, especially with poetic texts when the translator is trying to retain some aspect of the poetry.

As I'm assuming most of you know, Armageddon is an actual place, called Megido. The Great Battle of Megido, according to my faith and not trying to insult anyone who believes otherwise, mind you - already happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_%28609_BC%29). "Gog" and "Magog" are Egypt and what would become Babylon. Josiah barred Egypt from passing through Medigo, against the advise of the Prophet, and in turn he was slaughtered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon#Past_fulfillment). He did do just enough damage to Egypt so that the Chaldean's came back and took down Judah, so there is that.

Um, point?

Much of Revelations is based on that battle. The tone, the timing, etc. There's a Lament we read on Tisha B'av (the day we morn the destruction of both Temples, the battle of Megido having kicked that off) that appears in Revelations with the tenses flipped.

EDIT: this site (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/josiah.html) has a Christian view, and the last bit notes the verses in Lamentations/Chronicles/Zecharia and Revelations.

Jim MacQuarrie always points out that the big difference is his people believe Moshiach ben Joseph came, and my people do not believe he did. It also "counts" that my people believe Megido already happened and the terror of the "end times" was the Expulsion, and his do not.

Larger point? It goes back to taking what you want from a text and getting your own message.

I agree with you about the Them/Us themes in Christianity but, as it is a conceptual faith, designed to be evangelical, while Judaism is a self-focused, essentially tribal faith, there is more inherent flexibility in the former.

That I will agree with. Christianity, to me, seems a bit more "mass market".

Again, sorry if that offends anyone.

I wouldn't call my gaining knowledge of various world faiths "study" under any circumstances. I just really like a good yarn and will read one and enjoy it (mostly) regardless of the source. Good or bad, your bibles have some awesome stories in them which is my focus and the basis for most of my thematic "analyses" of the works.

The thing about the Torah is, it's incomplete. The "Bible" aka the Torah aka the Written Law, requires the Oral Law (Talmud) in order to make any sense (and of course, we're now so removed from the idiom of the Oral Law that we need commentary on that, and further commentary on the commentary. In a few generations we'll likely need yet another level). For example, the infamous "eye for an eye" - on the surface? Brutal. When one reads the Oral Law, one learns what it's actually about.

I'm pleased that, just as Christianity has moved (despite scriptural prohibitions) to be more accepting of non-Christians (Jews in particular), Judaism has, in many cases, begun to recast itself as less insular and elitist.

While we were always insular, I don't think we've had much of a chance to actually be elitist since around the Crusades, with exceptions. It was more of a perception due to the whole "chosen people" thing, which I already went into, and our faith's pushing us towards scholarship. The insular is a general reaction to being the world's punching bags for a long time, on top of the existing rules. Once people stop trying to kill us or change us, we can be a pretty fun bunch of guys.

(PS I know the edomites aren't "arabs." I was trying to use a more acceptable term for those who haven't read the books in question and don't know who Esau was.)

Ah. Well, I'm sorry, but while it might be a known term, it wasn't in any way accurate scholastically, so I had to take issue.

[kitty_tc_69]

Not trying to derail the topic here, but I'm curious as to something. I'm well aware of christianity's stance on paganism, but what is judiasm's? Do you still think "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is a good idea? Do you still think it was or is a good idea to slaughter nations or peoples who follow "false gods"? Or has that stance been repudiated in modern times?

I ask because in the conservative christianity I was raised in, we were regaled a lot with old testament stories of glorious battles against pagan nations which god helped the isrealites put to the sword and torch. We were also taught a lot about hating and distrusting seers, magic users, pagans, witches, etc etc etc who were all supposed to be consorting with demons. Of course, such teachings made my relations with paganism when I was exposed to the real thing uncomfortable at best to begin with, and it was a long time before I learned to know paganism for what it is, and became enamored of it and sought to join it.

If you're interested to know, our official position is we have no problem with any faith that has no problem with us, and we only condemn the harm and persecution that has been levied on us. That said, some of us can have long memories and nurse grudges for the slaughters and oppression we have endured at the hands of the judeo-christian empire. We're only human, and anger is natural.

My knowledge of judiasm is small, to be honest, and the crimes and oppressions I know are filtered through the lens of conservative christian teachings and most of them can be laid at the feet of the christian church and their interpretations of old testament wrath. I personally know of no modern policy in judiasm regarding paganism one way or another, so I'm curious to know. I know that the christians most often hate us, I know this first hand from being taught it as a child by christians when I was one of them. Does that hatred of pagans also extend to judiasm, or is it something christians have misinterpreted or has been changed in interpretatoin and policy since christianity split off?

Please don't take offense. I'm not anti-semetic, I assure you, but I am tentative due to things I was taught that claimed to speak for the jewish teachings. I want to know from the source.

[Typo Lad]

Not trying to derail the topic here, but I'm curious as to something. I'm well aware of christianity's stance on paganism, but what is judiasm's? Do you still think "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is a good idea?

Well, for starters, it has nothing to do with Paganism. Getting back to the whole Idiom thing, the original verse is not about "witchcraft" as a faith. It's not even about Witchcraft. it's a mistranslation of a mistranslation. The best translation would be "a necromancer" or possibly "one who pretends to have powers over the dead in order to fool others". The sort referred to by that passage are, according to what I was taught, people who would claim to communion with the dead and defile corpses as part of their rituals.

Further, that law only has impact when there is a King, a Temple and a Sanhedrin (Court). They have to judge the person. And no, not like Salem :)

Do you still think it was or is a good idea to slaughter nations or peoples who follow "false gods"? Or has that stance been repudiated in modern times?

The wars of conquest were one-time things, and worshiping false gods is only a death sentence for a Jew, and again, s/he has to be tried first.

I ask because in the conservative christianity I was raised in, we were regaled a lot with old testament stories of glorious battles against pagan nations which god helped the isrealites put to the sword and torch.

That's an old use of the word "pagan" to mean "Not Judeo-Christian". By that definition, Islam counts. The wars were with cults like Moloch and various aspects of Ba'al. Not the same thing as Gia (sp?).

We were also taught a lot about hating and distrusting seers, magic users, pagans, witches, etc etc etc who were all supposed to be consorting with demons.

Oversimplifications of verses taken out of context and in literal form in order to put down those different. We're supposed to be wary of claims of supernatural abilities, and post-Temple it's not supposed to exist at all except in isolated incidents.

Of course, such teachings made my relations with paganism when I was exposed to the real thing uncomfortable at best to begin with, and it was a long time before I learned to know paganism for what it is, and became enamored of it and sought to join it.

Again, the "paganism" in either text has little relation to modern Paganism, from a scholastic POV. The King James uses it as a catch-all term.

If you're interested to know, our official position is we have no problem with any faith that has no problem with us, and we only condemn the harm and persecution that has been levied on us. That said, some of us can have long memories and nurse grudges for the slaughters and oppression we have endured at the hands of the judeo-christian empire. We're only human, and anger is natural.

Unless you worship Moloch, Ba'al Tzfon, Ba'al Peor, Marduk, or another variation of Ba'al, then frankly, I don't believe your faith has been persecuted by by mine.

My knowledge of judiasm is small, to be honest, and the crimes and oppressions I know are filtered through the lens of conservative christian teachings and most of them can be laid at the feet of the christian church and their interpretations of old testament wrath. I personally know of no modern policy in judiasm regarding paganism one way or another, so I'm curious to know. I know that the christians most often hate us, I know this first hand from being taught it as a child by christians when I was one of them. Does that hatred of pagans also extend to judiasm, or is it something christians have misinterpreted or has been changed in interpretatoin and policy since christianity split off?

We're monotheists, and we cannot "accept" a pantheistic faith, but beyond that, our motto really is "If you're not Jewish and you're a good person, then you get to Heaven easier than we do".

If you're an asshole, you're stuck regardless of faith.

Please don't take offense. I'm not anti-semetic, I assure you, but I am tentative due to things I was taught that claimed to speak for the jewish teachings. I want to know from the source.

Well, that's not me. The source'd be the Torah. Still, glad to answer any questions. There's even an 'ask the Jew" thread on comm.

[TCJohnson]

Well, for starters, it has nothing to do with Paganism. Getting back to the whole Idiom thing, the original verse is not about "witchcraft" as a faith. It's not even about Witchcraft. it's a mistranslation of a mistranslation. The best translation would be "a necromancer" or possibly "one who pretends to have powers over the dead in order to fool others". The sort referred to by that passage are, according to what I was taught, people who would claim to communion with the dead and defile corpses as part of their rituals.

You mean like John Edwards?

[Matt Algren]

Well, for starters, it has nothing to do with Paganism. Getting back to the whole Idiom thing, the original verse is not about "witchcraft" as a faith. It's not even about Witchcraft. it's a mistranslation of a mistranslation. The best translation would be "a necromancer" or possibly "one who pretends to have powers over the dead in order to fool others". The sort referred to by that passage are, according to what I was taught, people who would claim to communion with the dead and defile corpses as part of their rituals.So what you're saying is, it's okay to kill John Edward?

Pretty please?

[Typo Lad]

You mean like John Edwards?

So what you're saying is, it's okay to kill John Edward?

Pretty please?

If we took him before a Bet Din, chosen by the Sanhedrin, while the Temple was standing, and had two witnesses who fit all the proper requirements (insanely hard), then yeah, he'd get ye olde death penalty.

I think first offense is strangulation.

[Puma]

We're monotheists, and we cannot "accept" a pantheistic faith, but beyond that, our motto really is "If you're not Jewish and you're a good person, then you get to Heaven easier than we do".
.

woo hoo! hope for this heathen after all ;)

[TCJohnson]

We're monotheists, and we cannot "accept" a pantheistic faith, but beyond that, our motto really is "If you're not Jewish and you're a good person, then you get to Heaven easier than we do".



But...>I thought Jews didn't believe in heaven.

[Matt Algren]

If we took him before a Bet Din, chosen by the Sanhedrin, while the Temple was standing, and had two witnesses who fit all the proper requirements (insanely hard), then yeah, he'd get ye olde death penalty.

I think first offense is strangulation.
Is there a punishment for the second offense? Cause the punishment for the first seems like it would take care of that.

[Typo Lad]

It's Hell we don't believe in, an a very different concept of Heaven.

[Typo Lad]

It's Hell we don't believe in, an a very different concept of Heaven.

Also, Matt, if someone survives the first offense, we'll talk. Strangulation involved a molten metal "milkshake".

At least it's not an enima..

[Michael P]

Is there a punishment for the second offense? Cause the punishment for the first seems like it would take care of that.

Well, if there's a second offense, then it turns out the guy was for real, and everyone probably feels really chagrined.

[TCJohnson]

It's Hell we don't believe in, an a very different concept of Heaven.

Interesting.

I have jewish friends tell me that jews did not believe in an afterlife at all (assuming that I did not misunderstand them).

[Typo Lad]

Interesting.

I have jewish friends tell me that jews did not believe in an afterlife at all (assuming that I did not misunderstand them).
They may have been Reform.

[Perry Holley]

But...>I thought Jews didn't believe in heaven.I believe that killing John Edwards gets you into the Jewish heaven.

And if it doesn't, well, it should.

[kitty_tc_69]

\Well, for starters, it has nothing to do with Paganism. Getting back to the whole Idiom thing, the original verse is not about "witchcraft" as a faith. It's not even about Witchcraft. it's a mistranslation of a mistranslation. The best translation would be "a necromancer" or possibly "one who pretends to have powers over the dead in order to fool others". The sort referred to by that passage are, according to what I was taught, people who would claim to communion with the dead and defile corpses as part of their rituals.

Further, that law only has impact when there is a King, a Temple and a Sanhedrin (Court). They have to judge the person. And no, not like Salem :)

The wars of conquest were one-time things, and worshiping false gods is only a death sentence for a Jew, and again, s/he has to be tried first.

That's an old use of the word "pagan" to mean "Not Judeo-Christian". By that definition, Islam counts. The wars were with cults like Moloch and various aspects of Ba'al. Not the same thing as Gia (sp?).

Oversimplifications of verses taken out of context and in literal form in order to put down those different.

Again, the "paganism" in either text has little relation to modern Paganism, from a scholastic POV. The King James uses it as a catch-all term.

Unless you worship Moloch, Ba'al Tzfon, Ba'al Peor, Marduk, or another variation of Ba'al, then frankly, I don't believe your faith has been persecuted by by mine.

I was hoping it was something like that. And while some pagans do choose Ba'al as their god figure, I'm not one of them and it's not terribly common either. Celtic gods are most commonly chosen, followed by norse and greek figures. I personally follow no god, only a goddess who is basically a deified version of the mother nature concept. An earth mother goddess, who is most commonly called Gaia but can and has been called many things by many different cultures over the millenia. That lack of a god figure is one of the reasons I identify as pagan and not wiccan, as the male/female duality is a core element of wicca which I reject.

We're monotheists, and we cannot "accept" a pantheistic faith, but beyond that, our motto really is "If you're not Jewish and you're a good person, then you get to Heaven easier than we do".


It's cool, I can't expect you to believe what I do, only leave me in peace to do so. :smile: If you're interested in what most pagans think, the most common interpretation (remember, this is from a pantheonic perspective) is that your god exists as a pantheon of one who is very strict about his followers acknowledging any other deities. And we could of course be wrong. That's one of the things that attracted me to paganism, the whole "this is what we believe but we don't know any more than anyone else knows, that's what faith is for... we prefer hope to a sense of false certainty".

We're supposed to be wary of claims of supernatural abilities, and post-Temple it's not supposed to exist at all except in isolated incidents.

Magic as pagans practice it is really a form of ritualized prayer. Like any other prayer, sometimes it's more effective than others, and if it were some kind of comic book superpower type of direct magic, we'd all be rich and surrounded by lovers and everything else. Unfortunately, we're only human and such a level of power is quite beyond us.

Thank you for the answers and interesting discussion of what is assuredly a sensitive topic. :smile:

[Alex Scott]

A great example is "Song of Songs", a text which no two Rabbis seem to be able to agree on the meaning of (which is, on the surface, a fairly raunchy bit of scripture). Christians use it, I believe, as a proof of the divinity of bar Joseph (I must thank rick for that).Actually, we use it as an allegory for the relationship between Christ and the Church/God and humanity. There's a "Bride/Bridegroom" metaphor that runs all through the New Testament, including some of Jesus' parables and Revelation, which I think is closely related to that interpretation.

As for Revelation, it's really based more on Ezekiel and Daniel (which ended up with the Prophets in the Septuagint, and by extension Christian Bibles), borrowing a lot of the same imagery and symbolism. Har-Megiddo is just one of the images that ended up in there--and really, its mention is very brief.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I personally was not, but I certainly see where people would be. You're essentially asking "Hey, are bert, Typo, Sir Tim, Mike Netzer and all the other Jewish posters getting into our exclusive country club?". At least, that's kind of how it comes off.
.

I can sense your frustration. Heaven is where all the kicking parties happen. I mean when most of us non-Jews are watching John Lennon and George Harrison jam to "While my Guitar Gently Weeps" you'll be stuck outside looking in. You poor Jews....no hot parties with the Heavenly Angels and gettin down with Jesus.

You guys are stuck with boring Moses. And him waving his arms and spreading the water at the non-Heaven side. Woody Allen making lame jokes and Adam Sandler singing the Hanaku song. Man...times like these I feel for you poor bastards.



:tongue:

[kitty_tc_69]

I can sense your frustration. Heaven is where all the kicking parties happen. I mean when most of us non-Jews are watching John Lennon and George Harrison jam to "While my Guitar Gently Weeps" you'll be stuck outside looking in. You poor Jews....no hot parties with the Heavenly Angels and gettin down with Jesus.

You guys are stuck with boring Moses. And him waving his arms and spreading the water at the non-Heaven side. Woody Allen making lame jokes and Adam Sandler singing the Hanaku song. Man...times like these I feel for you poor bastards.



:tongue:


What makes you think John Lennon's gonna be in Heaven? He's gonna be down with heathens like me waiting for his turn on stage behind Ozzy Osbourne, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, and the rest. Mick Jagger's gonna be there... and Jim Morrison... pretty much everyone cool is gonna be in Hell with us. You get Pat and Debbie Boone, Bob Hope, and all those lame christian rock bands. Sucks to be you, huh? Better start sinning, tickets are going fast! :tongue: :biggrin:

[Flying Saucers Over Oz]

Will there be any freight trains in Heaven
Any box cars in which we can hide
Will there be any tough cops or brakemen
Will they tell us that we cannot ride
Will the hobo chum with the rich man
Will we always have money to spend
Will we have to work for a living
In that land that lies hidden out there...

[Enyo]

I'm a polytheist and Ba'al and Anat are among the many ancestral deities I honor and worship. I practice magic, divination and communicate with the dead. I have traveled to the realms of the dead and I know where I'm going when I die.

I believe our souls go where our faith teaches us they'll go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enyo

[Sabrinaset]

I ... communicate with the dead. I have traveled to the realms of the dead ...

In all fairness, anyone who's ever been to the DMV has done the same thing! :tongue:

[MacQuarrie]

Cherry-picking a couple things to respond to....

I take the view that G-d isn't Unknowable... we just don't have the tools yet.
One of the key teachings of Christianity is that God made himself manifest in the form of Jesus so that he would no longer be unknowable. In geek terms, he ported himself to a human interface so that we could know him and he could share our experiences and thereby have empathy for us that would allow him to bypass the rigidity of judgment.

Revelations is one of those books that brings me back to my comments on culture and idiom, and translation. When we go from Hebrew to Latin to English, we lose a lot of meaning, especially with poetic texts when the translator is trying to retain some aspect of the poetry.
Revelations goes straight from Koine Greek to English without passign through Hebrew or Latin, but the point stands, since it's John basically trying to relate a really weird dream.
As I'm assuming most of you know, Armageddon is an actual place, called Megido. The Great Battle of Megido, according to my faith and not trying to insult anyone who believes otherwise, mind you - already happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_%28609_BC%29). "Gog" and "Magog" are Egypt and what would become Babylon. Josiah barred Egypt from passing through Medigo, against the advise of the Prophet, and in turn he was slaughtered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon#Past_fulfillment). He did do just enough damage to Egypt so that the Chaldean's came back and took down Judah, so there is that.

Um, point?

Much of Revelations is based on that battle. The tone, the timing, etc. There's a Lament we read on Tisha B'av (the day we morn the destruction of both Temples, the battle of Megido having kicked that off) that appears in Revelations with the tenses flipped.

EDIT: this site (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/josiah.html) has a Christian view, and the last bit notes the verses in Lamentations/Chronicles/Zecharia and Revelations.
Another key point of Christian doctrine is that God uses past events as illustrations for future events. Just as Jesus' life and trial have references to Joseph in Egypt, and the temple sacrifice is reflected very specifically in the crucifixion, and Jesus' "New Covenant" is a reiteration of Passover, and the coming of the Holy Spirit resonates with the meaning of Shavuot, and John the Baptist is an echo of Elijah, and so on and on, so the Armageddon of Revelation refers to the events of Megiddo as a reference point, an illustration of the enormity of what's coming. Do I understand it? Nope, but I'm pretty sure John wasn't just rehashing ancient history.

Jim MacQuarrie always points out that the big difference is his people believe Moshiach ben Joseph came, and my people do not believe he did. It also "counts" that my people believe Megido already happened and the terror of the "end times" was the Expulsion, and his do not.
Both of these points will be cleared up eventually, and you'll be happy to know that neither of them is on the final exam. Are you trusting that God will put all things right? Do you believe, as the Psalms say, that there is grace, mercy and forgiveness with God? Do you believe that the whole of the Law is encapsulated in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18? That's what's on the final.

That I will agree with. Christianity, to me, seems a bit more "mass market".
It is. It's supposed to be. The message for the Jews is "God is doing what he said he would, and your faith will be rewarded", while to the Gentiles it's "God has made a way for you to join in his family." It's supposed to be Good News. Good News is supposed to be shared and shouted from the rooftops. It's just that we stupid territorial humans keep wanting to add conditions and exclusions and sub-clauses.

[Enyo]

In all fairness, anyone who's ever been to the DMV has done the same thing! :tongue:

Oh yes!

:biggrin:

Have a blessed Solstice

[cedardryad]

On the magic topic, Christian priests are allowed to practice ritual magic. Their thumb and fore finger is blessed for this reason, that and giving out the holy Eucharist.

[Ian Boothby]

Mac and Bree and who ever else feels up to answering this. The Jews that haven't converted and accepted Christ as the Messiah, will they get to Heaven? Do they get a free pass because they are the chosen people. I was discusing this with my roommate and he seems to think as long as they follow the Mosaic law the Jews get a free pass.


My take is that if God allows hell to exist then God's evil. So pretty much everyone gets in or it's not heaven. Some folks might have a lot of explaining to do to others but it's really an all or nothing deal.

[MacQuarrie]

My take is that if God allows hell to exist then God's evil. So pretty much everyone gets in or it's not heaven. Some folks might have a lot of explaining to do to others but it's really an all or nothing deal.

Depends on what you mean by "hell".

What should God do with people who hate him and refuse to be in his presence? Should he force them to endure an eternity with the being they despise? In that case, God would be a merciless tyrant, wouldn't he? For those who love him, an eternity separated from God would be "hell", but for others, it might be their deepest heart's desire. Depends on your point of view, I suppose.

[Alex Scott]

Should he force them to endure an eternity with the being they despise?I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but that's exactly the position of the Eastern Orthodox church, as I understand it.

[Tages]

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but that's exactly the position of the Eastern Orthodox church, as I understand it.

More or less.

Everyone has the same destination, to be in the presence of God. The righteous will feel it as blissful perfection, whereas the unrighteous will experience guilt and pain. This is not something God inflicts upon them, it is something that they inflict upon themselves.

IIRC, it is also the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church that people can enter salvation after death, so the damned may not be eternally so.

[Typo Lad]

Cherry-picking a couple things to respond to....

Same here!

Both of these points will be cleared up eventually, and you'll be happy to know that neither of them is on the final exam. Are you trusting that God will put all things right? Do you believe, as the Psalms say, that there is grace, mercy and forgiveness with God? Do you believe that the whole of the Law is encapsulated in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18? That's what's on the final.

Nope. The whole of the law is the whole Torah. those verses are just some.

[Alex Scott]

More or less.

Everyone has the same destination, to be in the presence of God. The righteous will feel it as blissful perfection, whereas the unrighteous will experience guilt and pain. This is not something God inflicts upon them, it is something that they inflict upon themselves.

IIRC, it is also the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church that people can enter salvation after death, so the damned may not be eternally so.Now that's interesting. Is that some of Origen's influence?

I had an interesting idea about Heaven a few years ago: You have the City, and outside are all those who died in their sins. They're turned away, afraid to go in, because of their guilt and terror. But they're so deep in their lamentation that they don't notice the saints and angels standing next to them, saying, "Come on in! It's nice and warm! Jesus made cocoa!"

[Tages]

I kind of like the idea that Heaven and Hell are contemporaneous, viewed only as destinations from the POV of linear time.

Because I've had experiences that could easily pass as a taste of either.

[DavidAllred]

My take is that if God allows hell to exist then God's evil. So pretty much everyone gets in or it's not heaven. Some folks might have a lot of explaining to do to others but it's really an all or nothing deal.

I agree with Mac, why is giving people what they want such a bad thing? Some folks honestly just don't want anything to do with God. He'd be more of tyrant to make people go. So he basically says, "Here's a spot that I promise not to be." Then he says, "It's probably going to suck there."

[MacQuarrie]

Same here!



Nope. The whole of the law is the whole Torah. those verses are just some.

Okay, true. But the purpose of the law is those two verses. Everything is in service to those two ideals. Right?

[stealthwise]

I agree with Mac, why is giving people what they want such a bad thing? Some folks honestly just don't want anything to do with God. He'd be more of tyrant to make people go. So he basically says, "Here's a spot that I promise not to be." Then he says, "It's probably going to suck there."

Sounds pretty asshole-ish to me.

[DavidAllred]

Sounds pretty asshole-ish to me.

A bigger ass (to me) would be saying, "I'm so great I think everybody should hang with me whether they like it or not."

[MacQuarrie]

Sounds pretty asshole-ish to me.

"Every good and perfect gift comes from God." If God promises to remove himself entirely from a place so that people can live completely separated from him, what good and perfect things can be there?

Time? He made it. Space? His. Energy? Ditto. Passion? Creativity? Love? All his. What can he put there that people will like that won't have his fingerprints on it?

It's not that he wants to be an asshole about it. The people who demand to go there also demand that he stay out. His hands are tied.

[stealthwise]

"Every good and perfect gift comes from God." If God promises to remove himself entirely from a place so that people can live completely separated from him, what good and perfect things can be there?

Time? He made it. Space? His. Energy? Ditto. Passion? Creativity? Love? All his. What can he put there that people will like that won't have his fingerprints on it?

It's not that he wants to be an asshole about it. The people who demand to go there also demand that he stay out. His hands are tied.

And I thought Didio apologists were bad...

By that logic, Lucifer is good and perfect.

[MacQuarrie]

And I thought Didio apologists were bad...

By that logic, Lucifer is good and perfect.

I'm really not sure where you're coming from.

Illustration:
Jonah Weiland created CBR, and everything that's posted here is because he allows it to exist. He's given very loose standards and very lax rules about what can and can't be permitted here. If he doesn't like what somebody writes or links to, and it violates the very reasonable standards he's set, he can delete that person and everything they've written, and nobody can say jack about it. We all post here through the good graces of Mr. Weiland.

Now let's suppose that a CBR member by the name of, say, Lou Cypher, has become chief administrator and super-moderator of CBR and Jonah's hosting company, and one day he decides that he knows better than Jonah how the site should be run. So he attempts a coup. He contacts the advertisers, columnists and clients and tells them he's in charge now. Posts on all the message boards that he's now running CBR and Jonah will henceforth answer to him, since he's more qualified.

Would Jonah be an asshole if he deleted Lou's account, changed all the passwords, and booted him from the company?

Is Lou good and perfect for attempting to overthrow this dictatorial guy who is really just trying to continue to operate the company he founded and built from nothing?

Because that is exactly what you're saying.

[stealthwise]

Do we need to start at the beginning? Seriously, Stamen's comments, and yours, lead me to believe that what you were saying is that Hell exists because of God's absence from it, no?

That only good and perfect things come from God?

[MacQuarrie]

Do we need to start at the beginning? Seriously, Stamen's comments, and yours, lead me to believe that what you were saying is that Hell exists because of God's absence from it, no?

That only good and perfect things come from God?

That's what it says on the label, yes, if you're working within the Judeo-Christian tradition. But nobody says you have to. It happens to be the one that I think is true. Your mileage may vary.

[stealthwise]

That's what it says on the label, yes, if you're working within the Judeo-Christian tradition. But nobody says you have to. It happens to be the one that I think is true. Your mileage may vary.

So that doesn't answer my question about Lucifer. Does that boil down to free will?

[MacQuarrie]

So that doesn't answer my question about Lucifer. Does that boil down to free will?
Lucifer has free will. Free will does not include the right to claim ownership and dominion over that which one did not create or produce and was not given authority over. Everything that exists was created by God, including Lucifer. By definition, Lucifer is not qualified to usurp God's power any more than I am.

There is a "have your cake and eat it" dichotomy at work. Lucifer claims that he is more qualified than God to rule the universe, but he cannot do so without somehow taking God's power for himself. At some point he has to recognize that he's writing checks he can't cash.

The entire point of salvation, and by extension the time-space continuum and physical universe, is to demonstrate conclusively to Lucifer that (a) God has every right to judge him, and (b) If he were to admit that and ask forgiveness, he would be welcomed back into God's family with no recriminations and no conditions attached, just the way God forgives us. That's a pretty generous deal, but Lucifer is thus far too invested in his own ego to accept it.

But somehow that makes God an asshole?

[stealthwise]

Lucifer has free will. Free will does not include the right to claim ownership and dominion over that which one did not create or produce and was not given authority over. Everything that exists was created by God, including Lucifer. By definition, Lucifer is not qualified to usurp God's power any more than I am.

There is a "have your cake and eat it" dichotomy at work. Lucifer claims that he is more qualified than God to rule the universe, but he cannot do so without somehow taking God's power for himself. At some point he has to recognize that he's writing checks he can't cash.

The entire point of salvation, and by extension the time-space continuum and physical universe, is to demonstrate conclusively to Lucifer that (a) God has every right to judge him, and (b) If he were to admit that and ask forgiveness, he would be welcomed back into God's family with no recriminations and no conditions attached, just the way God forgives us. That's a pretty generous deal, but Lucifer is thus far too invested in his own ego to accept it.

But somehow that makes God an asshole?

So then God created Hell, the place for eternal suffering.

Asshole.

[MacQuarrie]

So then God created Hell, the place for eternal suffering.

Asshole.

The "eternal suffering" is comprised entirely and 100% of one thing, the absence of God.

If God forces people who hate him to live in his presence, he's an evil tyrant.

If he allows them to live apart from him (and by necessity, apart from everything he's created, by the explicit demand of the people involved), as an act of mercy, he's an asshole.

If you want the things God created, you have to put up with the creator. There's no way to have it otherwise.

[stealthwise]

The "eternal suffering" is comprised entirely and 100% of one thing, the absence of God.

If God forces people who hate him to live in his presence, he's an evil tyrant.

If he allows them to live apart from him (and by necessity, apart from everything he's created, by the explicit demand of the people involved), as an act of mercy, he's an asshole.

If you want the things God created, you have to put up with the creator. There's no way to have it otherwise.

Omnipresence? No? The whole thing doesn't add up, but that's to be expected from a book that's a translation of a translation of a translation... etc.

[kitty_tc_69]

The "eternal suffering" is comprised entirely and 100% of one thing, the absence of God.

And all the fire and torture have nothing to do with it, right? Riiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

[kitty_tc_69]

[double post, sorry]

[MacQuarrie]

And all the fire and torture have nothing to do with it, right? Riiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:
They're metaphorical, obviously.

[dragonbat]

You'll note that I did not do so. I'm not out to get you.





Ahhh. Ovadyah.

The first thing I will point out is that I have not studied that particular text in depth. As part of Ketuvot (Writings), it is a highly disputed text. However, one thing I can very safely say is Edom most assuredly cannot be classified as the entire gentile world, and also not as Arabs.

In Torah terms, what we would call an "Arab" would be a descendant of Yishmael (Ishmael) or one of the other sons of Keturah/Hagar. The fate of the B'nai Yishmael is almost unanimously agreed to be that they will do penance and return to the faith of their father's father. In fact, Maimonides, who is essentially the grandfather of all modern Jewish thought, goes so far as to say that Islam is not Idol worship.

So who are "Edom"? Edom are the B'nai Esav (Esau), and differ from Yishaelites in that they deny G-d. They also are the source of one of the most troubling passages in the Torah - the commandment to wipe them off of the face of the Earth. Yes, the Torah commands genocidal actions in the taking of the Land, but the one about Edom is supposed to be perpetual. This is generally considered why Ovadyah chose them as an example. Because that's what Ovadyah is, really, a "compare and contrast" text. Or so I've been taught. Again, I have not studied it extensively.

In the Talmud, we are taught that it is impossible to carry out such a commandment, since we'd have no idea who was descended from them. Instead, we are told that we need to wipe out "Edomite" behavior. Ironically enough, the best definition of the sin of Edom is Xenophobia. Amusing, when you think about that.



Actually, just because I'm Orthodox doesn't mean I always agree with my faith. I disagree strongly with my co-religionists on things, but that's normal. There are actual concepts in Judaism that I take real issue with, like Agunah (The "captive" wife, whose husband vanishes without giving her a divorce and is unable to remarry).

As for a 'soft view", it's not so much that as the view I take of all of Ne'vim and Ketuvot: They're full of allegory, idiomatic terms and poetic language. As such, things we think we "know" are often completely wrong. A great example is "Song of Songs", a text which no two Rabbis seem to be able to agree on the meaning of (which is, on the surface, a fairly raunchy bit of scripture). Christians use it, I believe, as a proof of the divinity of bar Joseph (I must thank rick for that).

Oh right, a point!

Point is, people will see what they see. You're not entirely wrong that my "school" of Judaism takes a "soft" view of things like that, and others choose to take a harsh. As someone else here said, we all bring out own baggage in when we read the Bible.



If I may, you don't seem too "indifferent". I mean, you're at least interested enough to engage in discussion about it, right? I'm just asking.

While I disagree about the origins, I will certainly agree that any social system is rife for abuse, as even if it has a divine origin it would still involve Imperfect Man. I always look at it this way - if only G-d is perfect, then if you're an atheist no-one's perfect and if you're a deist then there's a perfect entity somewhere, but it's so far off from you that essentially no-one's perfect anyway.

The best we can try to do is perfect ourselves towards whatever we think perfection is and hope we don't step on anyone else or get stepped on.



I don't dispute that entire thesis, just your example. Which again, I have not studied in depth.

Have you, btw?

Sorry but Obadiah is part of Trei Asar in Nevi'im, not K'suvim. AFAIK, it's not in dispute. Oh, and Edom usually refers to Rome. But agreed that today we don't know who is an Edomite, or a Moabite, Ammonite, Midianite, etc.

[Charles RB]

(b) If he were to admit that and ask forgiveness, he would be welcomed back into God's family with no recriminations and no conditions attached, just the way God forgives us.

I've not heard this concept before. Is this one that gets preached somewhere or a logical assumption you made based on the scripture?

[Typo Lad]

Sorry but Obadiah is part of Trei Asar in Nevi'im, not K'suvim. AFAIK, it's not in dispute. Oh, and Edom usually refers to Rome. But agreed that today we don't know who is an Edomite, or a Moabite, Ammonite, Midianite, etc.
Yeah, I actually logged in this morning to make those same corrections. Thanks.

[Typo Lad]

Omnipresence? No? The whole thing doesn't add up, but that's to be expected from a book that's a translation of a translation of a translation... etc.

To be fair, Lucifer, etc are not in the original.

And all the fire and torture have nothing to do with it, right? Riiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

Metaphors Kitty. How could you suffer "physical" torments without an actual body?

Or so Christians have explained to me.

[Ian Boothby]

I agree with Mac, why is giving people what they want such a bad thing? Some folks honestly just don't want anything to do with God. He'd be more of tyrant to make people go. So he basically says, "Here's a spot that I promise not to be." Then he says, "It's probably going to suck there."

That's not the Hell that gets talked about. It's the one where you sin and you're punished forever for what you did in your first 80 or so years.

Now okay, let's say someone doesn't want to be around God, fair enough. I'm assuming no lakes of fire are involved, they just don't want to be in the same area as God. Eternity is a really long time, eventually you're going to come by and check in. You'll probably leave again. In fact you'll do this an infinite amount of times since we're talking about forever.

[Ian Boothby]

They're metaphorical, obviously.


Not obvious to a lot of people. When you say the word, "Hell" people don't imagine an image of God very far away.

[Alex Scott]

Metaphors Kitty. How could you suffer "physical" torments without an actual body?
Actually, we are supposed to get our bodies back, new and improved; doesn't change the fact that it's supposed to be metaphorical, though. The lake of fire is supposed to be a symbol of emotional torment--there's one striking image in City of God where Augustine describes Hell as being eternally at war with oneself.

[MacQuarrie]

I've not heard this concept before. Is this one that gets preached somewhere or a logical assumption you made based on the scripture?

It's part of Universalist doctrine, as I understand it.I'm not a Unitarian, because I don't believe that everyone goes to Heaven. I think there's an opt-out clause for those who really hate the idea of having to live under God's rules.

[MacQuarrie]

That's not the Hell that gets talked about. It's the one where you sin and you're punished forever for what you did in your first 80 or so years.

Now okay, let's say someone doesn't want to be around God, fair enough. I'm assuming no lakes of fire are involved, they just don't want to be in the same area as God. Eternity is a really long time, eventually you're going to come by and check in. You'll probably leave again. In fact you'll do this an infinite amount of times since we're talking about forever.
Most of what people think they know about hell comes from medieval folklore filtered through half-understood snippets from the Bible they've never bothered to read.

For instance, most people think of Hell as the place where Satan is ruler. In actual biblical teaching, he's the #1 prisoner, the one the place was created for. (Matthew 25:41) Satan is not in Hell according to the Bible. He's in the earth attempting to mislead as many people as possible into Hell with him, with the idea that God will have to forgive and release them, and if God does that he'll have to also forgive and release Satan.

But make no mistake, no human was ever intended to go to Hell.

That great theologian Yoda said, "spirits are we; not this crude matter." Spirits are eternal. You're going to live forever. The only question is, where will you do it?

The question I always ask the "hellfire and damnation" Christians is, "do you think God is trying to get people into Heaven or keep them out?" I personally believe that God wants to save everybody; he doesn't want anyone to reject his love and choose to spend eternity apart from him. He'll allow it if you insist, but it's not what he wants.

The problem is that once you go there, there's no way to contact God and tell him you've changed your mind. He's not there, and he's not going to leave a phone.

But quite frankly I think that once you stand before God and he lays out the truth for you, you'd have to pretty darn stubborn to insist on Hell as the preferred alternative.

[stealthwise]

I've not heard this concept before. Is this one that gets preached somewhere or a logical assumption you made based on the scripture?

There's no such thing as a logical assumption when you're talking about scripture.

[Charles RB]

It's part of Universalist doctrine, as I understand it.

Ah.

The amount of different denominations and beliefs (and differences within denominations as seen by the current clash in the Anglican church) can get really confusing.

[Ian Boothby]

The problem is that once you go there, there's no way to contact God and tell him you've changed your mind. He's not there, and he's not going to leave a phone.

.

Why not? It's eternity, you'll probably change your mind and accept God eventually and if that's what he wants it doesn't make sense he'd not accept you later if that's what you both want.

If there's a hell and there's torment forever even if it's just because God isn't there, then God is evil and must be rejected. Anyone who allows eternal damnation is simply evil.

[section 8]

yes, even if you believe that only those who believein Christ will be accepted into heaven there are Messianic Jews, who belive in Jesus's divinity, and let us not forget tha Christ is a Jew

[Typo Lad]

yes, even if you believe that only those who believein Christ will be accepted into heaven there are Messianic Jews, who belive in Jesus's divinity, and let us not forget tha Christ is a Jew
Well, that's a minus from my POV. Makes the poor fellow into a blasphemer...

[beetlebum]

Re: Hell and the Bible.

In the NT; there are three words translated as hell: Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna, which is the Greek form of the Hebrew words Gee and Hinnom, meaning "the valley of Hinnom."

The word Hades is used in the NT eleven times. The word Hades here is used in the same context Sheol was in the OT.

I Cor. 15: 55. "O death, where is thy sting? O grave (hades), where is thy victory?"

Acts 2:31 "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." Was the soul of Christ ever in "hell", (the place of eternal torment?") The writer later clarifies by speaking of the resurrection of Christ--that is from the 'dead' (grave).

Hades is also used in a figurative sense to represent a state of degradation, calamity, and suffering; arising from several different causes.

Hermeneutics has also posited that Jesus' descriptions of "hell" has a remarkable affinity to the descriptions that Grecian poets gave of the after life. The parables of souls torment in flames are similar to the story of Phlegethon (the river of fire.)

In parabolical discourse--provided that the doctrines inculcated are strictly true--the terms in which they are inculcated may be such as are most familiar to the ears of the vulgar; and the images made use of such as they are best acquainted with. In other words; Jesus could have been using familiar myths as allegory, and taking what was already in the vulgate and using it to get a message across to whoever would listen.

Another word used to refer to a 'place of the dead' is Tartarus. It is used only once; in 2 Peter II: 4. "If God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to Tartarosas (hell).

Some scholars have even referred to the verse here as "truly Aeschylean"; that is dramatic, not literally true, and 'a figure of something else.'

On to Gehenna; which is a word that is used twelve times in the NT, and is always translated as "hell."

In Matthew 5: 29, 30; there is mention of the "whole body cast into hell."

It is a mixed reference--both figurative and literal--to the valley of Hinnom (Gehenna). There is a literal allusion to casting the bodies of criminals in the valley; but the association of soul and body indicates a figurative use to represent a "spiritual death"--as opposed to torment in the literal sense.

In Matthew 23: 15-27; Gehenna and the white sepulcher are "full of dead men's bones, and all uncleanness". They are symbols of the 'foulness' of the "Scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites," whom Jesus was addressing. "Two-fold more the child of hell,"--said in the context of they made their converts more corrupt than themselves (two fold).

The word Gehenna and the ones that proceeded it were expressions; figures of speech used to represent what it's like to be separated from God.

Philo of Alexandria (b. ca. 30 B.C.E.-d 45 C.E.) in his writings, used the word "aion" to denote endless, and "aionian" to refer to temporary duration.

The Greek form for "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46 is "kolasin aionion." Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, a singular that means "punishment, chastening, correction, and to cut off; as in pruning a tree to bare more fruit. "Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion". In the singular form, it means "pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time." (Note: the two words in many--but not all--translations become reversed changing the Greek into English)

In the Greek language, inflections to indicate mood, case, gender, etc. are common. Therefore; "aionion" may appear with different endings. "Aionion, aioniou, aionios," for example, are all different inflections of the adjective form of the noun "aion".

Neither the noun ("aion") nor the adjective ("aionios") etymologically mean "eternal", and yet theologians and and translators have improperly defined both of these words to support the idea that God will punish men “forever and ever.” The meaning of the word "aionios" is "age lasting". If “aion” (the noun) means “an indeterminate period of time” then it goes to follow that “aionios” (the adjective) will also have the same basic meaning.

To back up their claims, the proponents of "eternal" punishment will 'cite' examples in the NT where "aionios" is used with either God or the "eternal" life he gives us. The claim is if “aionios” is used to speak of God; then this proves that "aionios" should also mean ';eternal' when used in conjunction with punishment. An example: the word “aionios” is used in Matthew 25:46: "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment."

When the Bible speaks of the "aionian God" (1 Tim. 1:17), it does not mean that God is less than eternal. It simply means that he manifests himself within the framework of time (that which is seen is temporal). It means that he is aionian in the sense that he is transcendent, and manifests himself in several different ways.

As for whether or not hell contains “fire and brimstone”; you can trace its origins back to men like Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 160-240) Tertullian's propositions needed other modifications: According to Dr. Leroy Froom, it was Tertullian who first affirmed that the 'torments' of the lost will be co-equal, and co-exist with the happiness of the saved. It has also been alleged that Tertullian confessedly altered the sense of Scripture and the meaning of words, so as to interpret 'death' as eternal misery and 'destruction' and 'consume' as pain and anguish.

Pope John Paul II weighed in on this, as well. “Hell”, he stated, is "not a punishment imposed externally by God." The pontiff's remarks, in which he said the Bible "uses a symbolical language" when it refers to the heat and flames of hell, came after an editorial in an influential Jesuit magazine declared that hell "is not a 'place' but a 'state,' a person's 'state of being,' in which a person suffers from the deprivation of God."

Posted for the sole reason that I just wanted to remind people that we don't know what hell is really like, and to provide more information/context on what the Bible says about this.

[Buzz Dixon]

Sidebar re Lucifer's rebellion: Many, perhaps most, interpretations of this story assume Lucifer was trying to take over Heaven and or/usurp God, thus giving it a political slant. I wonder if the rebellion might have simply be a refusal to obey God, the same way a teen rebels against his/her parents by refusing to obey them.

The following is pure speculation on my part:

God assigned Satan the task of testing humanity. This does not necessarily mean in a pass/fail sense but perhaps more in the sense of how they were progressing, the way a piano teacher or a judo master tests a student. The object was not to play "gotcha" but to see where improvement was needed.

Satan, called the most beautiful of all the angels, was appalled by humanity and came to hate them. He tried to persuade God to destroy them. When God wouldn't destroy them but instead showed His intent to save them despite themselves, Satan rebelled and refused to serve God anymore and instead deliberately lead humanity to greater and greater acts of violence and depravity in the hopes of spiting God and perhaps to get God to change His mind and destroy mankind.

[Cam63]

So, " The Devil made me do it " is still a good defence tactic in court ?

[Typo Lad]

God assigned Satan the task of testing humanity. This does not necessarily mean in a pass/fail sense but perhaps more in the sense of how they were progressing, the way a piano teacher or a judo master tests a student. The object was not to play "gotcha" but to see where improvement was needed..

There is actually a school of Jewish thougtht hat says G-d doies use angels for this task.

[Buzz Dixon]

So, " The Devil made me do it " is still a good defence tactic in court ?No, the Devil suggests and encourages, but can not force action. That's where free will comes in.

(Those who want to ask about demonic possession, that's a whole 'nuther subject and still involves some compliantcy on the part of the possessed; I'm not exploring that subject in this thread.)

[Briareos]

I'm not entirely sure about Jews because the Bible in the New Testament states that Jews are special to God in a few places. I do know that unless you accept Jesus your not going period. It isn't about your good deeds or your bad deeds. Heaven is a place only for perfection and none of us are perfect. Jesus however is and he paid a price here on earth and because he paid that price he paid for all of our sins no matter what.

[TCJohnson]

I'm not entirely sure about Jews because the Bible in the New Testament states that Jews are special to God in a few places. I do know that unless you accept Jesus your not going period. It isn't about your good deeds or your bad deeds. Heaven is a place only for perfection and none of us are perfect. Jesus however is and he paid a price here on earth and because he paid that price he paid for all of our sins no matter what.

And how do you KNOW this?

[beetlebum]

And how do you KNOW this?

Just ignore him. He's a sodding blighter.

[DavidAllred]

On to Gehenna; which is a word that is used twelve times in the NT, and is always translated as "hell."

In Matthew 5: 29, 30; there is mention of the "whole body cast into hell."

It is a mixed reference--both figurative and literal--to the valley of Hinnom (Gehenna). There is a literal allusion to casting the bodies of criminals in the valley; but the association of soul and body indicates a figurative use to represent a "spiritual death"--as opposed to torment in the literal sense.

I read once that Gehenna and the valley of Hinnom was like a modern day trash heap where residents used to take their garbage and burn it. That the place also became the home to bodies of the dead that were not claimed for a proper burial. In this sense, when Jesus uses the word, he's basically saying its a place for things without a home or a purpose. I imagine the metaphor was pretty relevant in its day-- sort of like, "Hey, don't let your life end up in the dump." Over the course of history, the meanings got shifted around to be a literal place of suffering.

[TCJohnson]

Well, yeah, but I am still curious.

[Typo Lad]

I'm not entirely sure about Jews because the Bible in the New Testament states that Jews are special to God in a few places. I do know that unless you accept Jesus your not going period. It isn't about your good deeds or your bad deeds. Heaven is a place only for perfection and none of us are perfect. Jesus however is and he paid a price here on earth and because he paid that price he paid for all of our sins no matter what.
Mmmm. Yeah, that's it. Right there.

That's what I mean by sometimes, some Christians scare me.

[Matt Doc Martin]

Mmmm. Yeah, that's it. Right there.

That's what I mean by sometimes, some Christians scare me.

Anyone that believes in a magical invisible man with anger issues scares me.

But that Bri guy is kind of a moron.

[Cam63]

God needs some beer and maybe some easy listening music.

[Buzz Dixon]

God needs some beer and maybe some easy listening music.In Heaven there is no beer.

[Cam63]

Hell... here I come.

[Buzz Dixon]

That's why we drink beer here.

[Buzz Dixon]

Hell... here I come.In Hell they have near beer.

[Cam63]

Damn Damnation then !

[singoalla]

If god is allmighty, and the choices are A, love me and follow me and get into Heaven, or B, don't believe in me, don't follow me, and go to Hell, wether or not Hell is a place of actual burning and torment or just infinity of emptiness/God's presence/all alone forever, then there is No such thing as free will.

It is an ultimatum, and only bullies put forth ultimatums.

Now, if the choices were "this nice place where I exist" or "this Other nice place where I do not exist, nor will I take your phonecalls if you want to ask me a question", then ok, that is free will and a chance to say ok to god or not.

Then there's the idea that only people who believe in Jesus get into Heaven. Oookay. Well, fine. I'll start believing in Jesus, then I'll go on a murdering rampage, but that's ok, because I believe in Jesus and I asked forgiveness from god so I'm safe.

Then we've got atheist Joe who does good deeds, saves orphans, gives money to the poor, is a generally good guy and never thinks bad thoughts. He's going to the other Not So Nice Place (metaphorical or not) because he doesn't believe in Jesus.

Smells like bully-tactics to me. If rapists and killers can get into heaven, then I don't think I want to go there.

[singoalla]

If god is allmighty, and the choices are A, love me and follow me and get into Heaven, or B, don't believe in me, don't follow me, and go to Hell, wether or not Hell is a place of actual burning and torment or just infinity of emptiness/God's presence/all alone forever, then there is No such thing as free will.

It is an ultimatum, and only bullies put forth ultimatums. You're also dooming an entire people to metaphorical torment, along with everyone else who happened to be born to some other faith and not the Right one.

Now, if the choices were "this nice place where I exist" or "this Other nice place where I do not exist, nor will I take your phonecalls if you want to ask me a question", then ok, that is free will and a chance to say ok to god or not.


Then there's the idea that only people who believe in Jesus get into Heaven. Oookay. Well, fine. I'll start believing in Jesus, then I'll go on a murdering rampage, but that's ok, because I believe in Jesus and I asked forgiveness from god so I'm safe.

Then we've got atheist Joe who does good deeds, saves orphans, gives money to the poor, is a generally good guy and never thinks bad thoughts. He's going to the other Not So Nice Place (metaphorical or not) because he doesn't believe in Jesus.

[DavidAllred]

If god is allmighty, and the choices are A, love me and follow me and get into Heaven, or B, don't believe in me, don't follow me, and go to Hell, wether or not Hell is a place of actual burning and torment or just infinity of emptiness/God's presence/all alone forever, then there is No such thing as free will.

Free will doesn't imply infinite choices, merely choice. For example, I can't choose to be a married batchelor, or to make a square circle. The concept of presence / absence may be more of a logical necessity than an actual belief for people to chose or not chose.

It is an ultimatum, and only bullies put forth ultimatums.

Now, if the choices were "this nice place where I exist" or "this Other nice place where I do not exist, nor will I take your phonecalls if you want to ask me a question", then ok, that is free will and a chance to say ok to god or not.

That's an ultimatum. It says, "Make time and space work the way I want it to work." Even so, without absence the very concept of presence is meaningless. That absence or presence applies to anything from a bag of SunChips to Love itself.

Now as to the notion of hell being a place where God is absent, that's just a highly controversial theology. It has traces of the same logic we employ here everyday, which may or may not apply. Bottom line is no one really knows... or at least the ones that do aren't doing much talking anymore. :)

Disbelief in eternal consequence is the true "opium of the masses" for modern man. It is comforting to believe that our actions here play no roll in eternal destiny.

[the4thpip]

Mmmm. Yeah, that's it. Right there.

That's what I mean by sometimes, some Christians scare me.

Is it... because they don't know the difference between your and you're but still claim to understand a 2000 year old text?

[Typo Lad]

Heh. Nicely done, sir.

[Tages]

Free will doesn't imply infinite choices, merely choice. For example, I can't choose to be a married batchelor, or to make a square circle. The concept of presence / absence may be more of a logical necessity than an actual belief for people to chose or not chose.

Which leads to an interesting question: does free will, as traditionally defined, exist?

Modern neurobiology's recent findings would seem to suggest "no (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision)."

So, how do we square what we know with how one accepts or rejects God's offering of salvation accordingly?

*activates the beetlebum signal*

[DavidAllred]

Which leads to an interesting question: does free will, as traditionally defined, exist?

Modern neurobiology's recent findings would seem to suggest "no (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision)."

So, how do we square what we know with how one accepts or rejects God's offering of salvation accordingly?

*activates the beetlebum signal*

I think we'd need another thread for this... personally, I think it does exist, but only as a sort of randomized algorithm. Parameters are set, but within those parameters, we can choose.

[Tages]

Hmmmmn...I can see that.

I think it would be fun to try and reconcile existentialism with Calvinism (yes, my idea of fun is a little different from most peoples').

[beetlebum]

Now as to the notion of hell being a place where God is absent, that's just a highly controversial theology. It has traces of the same logic we employ here everyday, which may or may not apply. Bottom line is no one really knows... or at least the ones that do aren't doing much talking anymore. :)



You articulated what I wanted to say--and used less words to do so! :biggrin:

I just like to meander and explore the theology behind things like this.

As for free will; I'll get to that in a bit. I have to do some thinking--as well as some chores--first.

[beetlebum]

Then there's the idea that only people who believe in Jesus get into Heaven. Oookay. Well, fine. I'll start believing in Jesus, then I'll go on a murdering rampage, but that's ok, because I believe in Jesus and I asked forgiveness from god so I'm safe.

Then we've got atheist Joe who does good deeds, saves orphans, gives money to the poor, is a generally good guy and never thinks bad thoughts. He's going to the other Not So Nice Place (metaphorical or not) because he doesn't believe in Jesus.

Smells like bully-tactics to me. If rapists and killers can get into heaven, then I don't think I want to go there.

The only denomination that believes that you can get into heaven despite of whatever bad things you do--while still remaining a Christian--are the theological determinists, like the Calvinists.

To them, the concept of unconditional election makes it possible. Unconditional election states that--according to the doctrine of total depravity --the influence of sin has so inhibited the individual's volition that no one is willing, or able, to follow God.

Therefore, God's choice to save someone does not hinge on anything inherent in the person or on any act that the person performs or belief that the person exercises. They are saved no matter what, unable to resist the call of irresistible grace.

Most mainstream denominations reject that line of thinking.

As I stated earlier, the Bible does indicate that you are judged by your actions (orthopraxy) as opposed to what you know. Orthopraxy--in this context-- does not necessarily mean following any theological discipline, but just doing the right thing (regardless of belief.)

So is it possible for Joe atheist to get into heaven? I believe so. But ultimately, it's not up for us to decide.

As for free will; I'll get to that later.

[DavidAllred]

The only denomination that believes that you can get into heaven despite of whatever bad things you do--while still remaining a Christian--are the theological determinists, like the Calvinists.

True confession time for me: I lean toward Calvinism from a logical perspective (my mind), but in issues of the heart, I tend to lean away from it. For me, it's one of the beauties of faith-- that the joy is not in finding the answers, but learning how to live fully in the questions.

[beetlebum]

True confession time for me: I lean toward Calvinism from a logical perspective (my mind), but in issues of the heart, I tend to lean away from it. For me, it's one of the beauties of faith-- that the joy is not in finding the answers, but learning how to live fully in the questions.

Well said.

But can you further expand on how you lean towards Calvinism (at least in your mind)?

[DavidAllred]

Well said.

But can you further expand on how you lean towards Calvinism (at least in your mind)?

Man, it really is true confession time.

The problem for me and my faith has always been the problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil). For the last 20 years of my life, it has pushed me and pulled me and suspect it always will.

Evil is an open assault on God's fundamental nature and my said allegiances to such a God. If God is not all-good, then why worship such a being? If God is not all-powerful, then he can't back his promises and faith in anyone or anything unable to back their word is foolishness.

There's only a few ways out of this conundrum, and Calvinism is one of them. I probably won't do it justice here, but I'm pretty much a theological transhumanist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanist) who believes that God exists outside of time and space and set a series of events in motion that ultimately end in an omega point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_point) of sorts which combines the best of all possible worlds into the best of one world.

Contrary to a utilitarian God, I can rest in thinking of a god of logical necessity whose omni-benevolence requires the concepts of empathy and forgiveness which are not possible in a utopia. Hence, to reach this utopia (Romans 8:17ff (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+8:22&t=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en)), we enter into a process of world making that can only be described as the "pangs of childbirth." We're trusted enough to be given nearly complete freedom to make our world, one that we still don't take all that seriously.

It makes sense to me to think that God "foreknew" and "pre-destined" events in each possible world in order to reach the best possible world, and would go so far as to endure a cross in order to create a symbol of both identification and hope for humanity.

All of that is mental masturbation. That's why at some point, you just have to let certain things go, and live day by day using your heart.

[40footwolf]

This strikes me as one of those loaded questions, like "How often do you beat your wife?"

[beetlebum]

There's only a few ways out of this conundrum, and Calvinism is one of them. I probably won't do it justice here, but I'm pretty much a theological transhumanist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanist) who believes that God exists outside of time and space and set a series of events in motion that ultimately end in an omega point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_point) of sorts which combines the best of all possible worlds into the best of one world.

I believe God may exist out of time and space, as well. However, as I stated earlier, he can manifest himself within the framework of time. Examples: His interaction with Moses and the "burning bush".

I also have my problems with certain aspects of Calvinism. I don't really like the concept of 'total depravity'. I don't think that every act of succour is faulty, and weak in implementation, as there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct its condition; that every act is 'egoist' in disguise.

I also don't fancy mine much when it comes to 'unconditional election', and the concept of the 'perseverance of the saints' (which ties in to a previous response I gave, and about the concept of not being able to 'throw your salvation away'.)

As flawed as man might be, I don't think we're that faulty.

It makes sense to me to think that God "foreknew" and "pre-destined" events in each possible world in order to reach the best possible world, and would go so far as to endure a cross in order to create a symbol of both identification and hope for humanity.

All of that is mental masturbation. That's why at some point, you just have to let certain things go, and live day by day using your heart.

I guess what you meant to say is that you believe in a 'moderate' form of Calvinism. Otherwise, a belief in a completely deterministic system would conflict with a belief in free will. Perhaps God does know that certain events will happen before they occur (though I would be reluctant to endorse the Film Roll Theory.)

I think my position is summed up best by a response I posted in another thread:

My own position on this is that hyper-Calvinism can slide into the heresy of fatalism, or the denial that God loves all people; whereas hyper-Arminianism may veer off into Pelagianism. The more moderate forms of (irresistible, and prevenient grace) each are both plausible, and can be symbiotic, in conjecture to one another, in terms of saving grace.

However, you do have a point that sometimes we do need to let go and not to worry so much, though there is nothing with wondering--and discussing--things like this (lest the wondering veer off into nascent worry.)

Matthew 6:33-34: But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

[singoalla]

The only denomination that believes that you can get into heaven despite of whatever bad things you do--while still remaining a Christian--are the theological determinists, like the Calvinists.

There is a surprisingly large majority of American Christians who believe this. Not just Bri. I've met them frequently and discussed this at length, and they simply will not budge from their conviction: If you do not believe in god and Jesus you will go to hell and hell is a place of torment (actual real torment).

If you do believe in god and Jesus you will go to heaven no matter what you've done.

Not really discussing it (although we certainly can! :smile: ) it's just that a lot of people in the US believes this. Especially the one's living in the center.

[MacQuarrie]

There is a surprisingly large majority of American Christians who believe this. Not just Bri. I've met them frequently and discussed this at length, and they simply will not budge from their conviction: If you do not believe in god and Jesus you will go to hell and hell is a place of torment (actual real torment).

If you do believe in god and Jesus you will go to heaven no matter what you've done.

Not really discussing it (although we certainly can! :smile: ) it's just that a lot of people in the US believes this. Especially the one's living in the center.

That's because America is the place of the Rugged Individualist. As such, we have to put ourselves at the center of everything, including the Gospel.

In the selfish Gospel, my salvation does not depend upon the saving grace and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, it depends on me. Even though the Bible I profess to believe says over and over that it's all him, not me, that while I was a sinner he died for me, that salvation comes from faith, not works, and that faith isn't effort on my part but a free gift of God, even though the Bible says all that, I will ignore it and declare that it is MY choosing to trust Jesus tha tis the key point.

We're good at missing the key point. In this case, the key point is that 2000 years ago, God balanced the scales and wiped the slate and declared every debt of sin finished and paid in full. And it had nothing to do with you or me. Whether you believe in Christ or not, he died on your behalf. Even if you don't believe in him.

Go back and check the book; the purpose of becoming a Christian is not to get saved; it's to have peace, the peace that comes from discovering that you already were saved, thousands of years before you ever thought to worry about it. It's all on him, not you. That's the point. But we Americans can't accept that. There may not be an "I" in TEAM, but there sure is a "me" in America.

As my former pastor used to say, the church would be great if it weren't for all these dang Christians.