Talking Religion...

[buckeyegrad]

So, if I were to say a Flat Earth has no place in science, I would be incorrect because there used to be a bunch of folks who thought, incorrectly, that it was so, based on the "science" of their day?

Likewise, since I can link to the Flat Earth Society should I believe the idea still has merit when the weight of the evidence is so crushingly in favor of a round earth?

Mr. Apple, let me introduce you to Mr. Orange.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Why do a lot of Christians feel that accepting Jesus as "god" is crucial to ones eternal salvation?

What is that "acceptance?" What qualifies and what dosen't? Why?

 

[muffler dragon]

Let's follow this train of thought from the beginning, bgrad.

I originally wrote:

I will say openly and immediately that the Genesis record of Chapters 1 & 2 are not to be interpreted literally. Thus, YEC has no place from a Judaic POV, and the original Hebrew gives no context to support that argument.
Basically, my point is that I understand how both of you guys would present the contention that Genesis and Evolution/Origins are completely incongruent. However, I believe that if one decides to look at it from a different perspective (outside of the common YEC, Creationism, etc) spectrum; then there can be commonalities.

Please note that I wrote that Genesis 1 & 2 are not to be interpreted literally, AND that the original Hebrew gives no context to support the argument.

Here is what Rashi says about the creation record:

Chumash with Rashi - Berei[censored] - Parshah[censored].htm

In the beginning of God?s creation of. Heb. בְּרֵאשִית בָּרָא. This verse calls for a midrashic interpretation [because according to its simple interpretation, the vowelization of the word בָּרָא, should be different, as Rashi explains further]. It teaches us that the sequence of the Creation as written is impossible, as is written immediately below] as our Rabbis stated (Letters of R. Akiva , letter ?beth? ; Gen. Rabbah 1:6; Lev. Rabbah 36:4): [God created the world] for the sake of the Torah, which is called (Prov. 8:22): ?the beginning of His way,? and for the sake of Israel, who are called (Jer. 2:3) ?the first of His grain.? But if you wish to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: ?At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth was astonishing with emptiness, and darkness?and God said, ?Let there be light.?? But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation, to say that these came first, for if it came to teach this, it should have written:?At first (בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה) He created the heavens and the earth,? for there is no רֵאשִׁית in Scripture that is not connected to the following word, [i.e., in the construct state] like (ibid. 27:1):?In the beginning of (בְּרֵאשִית) the reign of Jehoiakim? ; (below 10:10)?the beginning of (רֵאשִׁית) his reign? ; (Deut. 18:4)?the first (רֵאשִׁית) of your corn.? Here too, you say בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אלֹהִים, like בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֹא, in the beginning of creating. And similar to this is,?At the beginning of the Lord?s speaking (דִּבֶּר) to Hosea,? (Hos. 1:2), i.e., at the beginning of the speaking (דִּבּוּרוֹ) of the Holy One, Blessed be He, to Hosea, ?the Lord said to Hosea, etc.? Now if you say that it came to teach that these (i.e., heaven and earth) were created first, and that its meaning is: In the beginning of all, He created these-and that there are elliptical verses that omit one word, like (Job 3:9): ?For [He] did not shut the doors of my [mother?s] womb,? and it does not explain who it was who shut [the womb]; and like (Isa. 8:4): ?he will carry off the wealth of Damascus,? and it does not explain who will carry it off; and like (Amos 6:12): ?or will one plow with cattle,? and it does not explain: ?if a man will plow with cattle? ; and like (Isa. 46: 10): ?telling the end from the beginning,? and it does not explain that [it means] telling the end of a matter from the beginning of a matter-if so, [if you say that Scripture indicates the order of creation] be astounded at yourself, for the water preceded, as it is written: ?and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water,? and Scripture did not yet disclose when the creation of water took place! From this you learn that the water preceded the earth. Moreover, the heavens were created from fire and water. Perforce, you must admit that Scripture did not teach us anything about the sequence of the earlier and the later [acts of creation].

You then wrote:

I'm not challenging that the modern Jewish view allows for or even accepts an Old Earth, what I am challenging is the blanket statement that a Young Earth "has no place from a Judaic POV". Even what you post suggests that a Young Earth POV "has a place", although it may not be the current, dominant view in Judaism.

Rashi is by no means a "modern" Jewish view. As to the remainder of your statement, please keep in mind the entire context of what I said regarding the original Hebrew.

As for tract in Talmud that I refrenced, of course when Messiah will come is the point of those passages. And it is discussed in the context of the world existing for 7000 years. So, simply saying that it is discussing Messiah doesn't really address the "has not place from a Judaic POV", since the assumptions of the tract would indicate that such a view in fact does have a place.

And this is based on non-scientific fact geneologies.

Furthermore, Ibn Ezra's commentary on Genesis from the 11th Century provides additional evidence to the older writings of the Talmud that Judaism certainly allowed for Young Earth interpretation to have a place.
Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition

And sense I know you pretty much doubt anything that comes from Christian writers,

I don't doubt everything that comes from Christian writers. However, the disservice of this particular link is that you don't even provide primary source material for Ibn Ezra's writing. It's footnoted by the author and nothing more. If you want to make a statement using Jewish tradition; then, at least, provide the material without someone else's interpretation of what is being said.

here are even more current writings on the Old Earth/Young Earth question from a Jewish perspective that shows that YE has a place in Judaism.
How Old is the Universe? - Miscellaneous
The Age of the Universe - Letters

The first link has a footnote at the bottom that states that the age of the earth is based on the chronologies of Genesis. Once again, this isn't a scientific fact.

Regarding the letter by the Rebbe, it's well known that he did not think highly of certain scientific theories. Yet, please remember what I have said regarding ALL of the context of my initial statement.

I then wrote:

I don't understand why you're challenging my statement considering you're not Jewish nor Judaic.

To which you responded:

I'm challenging it because it is not correct.

As for the whole "you're not Jewish" comment, well, I'm not even going to get into that with you.

Of course, if the criteria for making comments about Jewish beliefs is that one has to be Jewish, then why are you always making definitive claims of what Jews believe and don't believe since you are not Jewish?

Your "challenge" is obviously lacking thus far. I've supported my position. I have wondered if I should have lessened my initial statement; however, I've decided at this point in time that I have no interest.

Regarding the "Jewish" thing, either get into the discussion with me about it or don't. When you attempt a self-denial, and then engage in the very thing you're not going to do... well... it doesn't look consistent.

As for myself, I, being a Noachide, have accepted the Judaic view concerning Gentiles; therefore, while I am not "Jewish", I am Judaic.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Let's follow this train of thought from the beginning, bgrad.

I originally wrote:



Please note that I wrote that Genesis 1 & 2 are not to be interpreted literally, AND that the original Hebrew gives no context to support the argument.

Here is what Rashi says about the creation record:

Chumash with Rashi - Berei[censored] - Parshah[censored].htm



You then wrote:



Rashi is by no means a "modern" Jewish view. As to the remainder of your statement, please keep in mind the entire context of what I said regarding the original Hebrew.



And this is based on non-scientific fact geneologies.



I don't doubt everything that comes from Christian writers. However, the disservice of this particular link is that you don't even provide primary source material for Ibn Ezra's writing. It's footnoted by the author and nothing more. If you want to make a statement using Jewish tradition; then, at least, provide the material without someone else's interpretation of what is being said.



The first link has a footnote at the bottom that states that the age of the earth is based on the chronologies of Genesis. Once again, this isn't a scientific fact.

Regarding the letter by the Rebbe, it's well known that he did not think highly of certain scientific theories. Yet, please remember what I have said regarding ALL of the context of my initial statement.

I then wrote:



To which you responded:



Your "challenge" is obviously lacking thus far. I've supported my position. I have wondered if I should have lessened my initial statement; however, I've decided at this point in time that I have no interest.

Regarding the "Jewish" thing, either get into the discussion with me about it or don't. When you attempt a self-denial, and then engage in the very thing you're not going to do... well... it doesn't look consistent.

As for myself, I, being a Noachide, have accepted the Judaic view concerning Gentiles; therefore, while I am not "Jewish", I am Judaic.

And now I remember why I stopped all discussions with you regarding religion over a year ago. My mistake for thinking things had changed and it was worth a try again. I'm tired of you twisting statements and words, declaring what is legitimate and not legitimate, acting as though you are the authoritative voice of Judaism, and charging people with doing the very same things you routinely do.

Well, I'll move on now and you won't hear from me anymore as I'm tired of banging my head against this wall.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Cheese makes my poop hard

 

[muffler dragon]

Cheese makes my poop hard

The people buying cars aren't the ones stealing them.

 

[MaxBuck]

Why do a lot of Christians feel that accepting Jesus as "god" is crucial to ones eternal salvation?

The simple answer is that to believe otherwise would be heretical. The basis for Christian theologic orthodoxy on this subject can be found in the following scripture:

John 14:6 (New International Version)

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

The orthodox interpretation of this verse is that unless one accepts that Jesus is the Messiah, one cannot obtain salvation. Or so I have been taught, in any event.

 

[Gatorubet]

John 14:6 (New International Version)
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

The orthodox interpretation of this verse is that unless one accepts that Jesus is the Messiah, one cannot obtain salvation. Or so I have been taught, in any event.

Much like "and I say to thee. thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" is used to support an absolute certainty that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church and all Christians, I have come to wonder if the John quote could have other meanings no less certain as saying "unless you agree to the doctrines that state that Christ is your Savior and the only way for you to get to Heaven, and unless you agree with that doctrinal statement, no matter your love for your fellow man and your following the Golden Rule, my man, you will go to Hell."

I think that the "many mansions" thing is cause for me to be a little less doctrinal and exclusionary, because - ya know - "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Golden Rule types I see getting some love. The kind of judgmental people whose lives and actions scream "only I know how to find favor in God's eyes, by following my interpretation of doctrine", well, not so much...

 

[buckeyegrad]

Golden Rule types I see getting some love. The kind of judgmental people whose lives and actions scream "only I know how to find favor in God's eyes, by following my interpretation of doctrine", well, not so much...

I'd be interested in hearing what you think of my perspective of the Golden Rule. To me, one of the greatest acts of love someone could show me is that I am doing something in error of or contrary to Jesus' teachings. If this is the case, then if I was to do onto others as I would have them do on to me, I need to offer correction when I believe they are in error or doing something contrary. To simply say, hey, what you believe is what you believe, would not be an act of love from my perspective. (And please understand, I genuinely do believe this--in fact, I think this was a huge part of Jesus' ministry and message--I'm not just setting up a hypothetical for the sake of arguing.)

 

[Gatorubet]

I'd be interested in hearing what you think of my perspective of the Golden Rule. To me, one of the greatest acts of love someone could show me is that I am doing something in error of or contrary to Jesus' teachings. If this is the case, then if I was to do onto others as I would have them do on to me, I need to offer correction when I believe they are in error or doing something contrary. To simply say, hey, what you believe is what you believe, would not be an act of love from my perspective. (And please understand, I genuinely do believe this--in fact, I think this was a huge part of Jesus' ministry and message--I'm not just setting up a hypothetical for the sake of arguing.)

Grad, I am the last human on earth that would be offended if you set up a hypothetical for the sake of arguing....

That said, I must point out that I first try to go to a Red line Bible to see what Jesus said, and not what one of the duh-ciples said later. This is just me, but I have a hard time accepting the word of disciples as authoritarian (as opposed to what Christ said) when it is pretty much accepted that they were clueless much of the time. Christ was really patient with them considering they could not get much of what he taught.

Having narrowed the scope of what could be considered "Jesus' teachings" to the red line quotes, I agree with you - to an extent. I cannot accept Christ's teachings on divorce as written and traditionally interpreted.

If a husband or wife is not committing adultery, but the marriage has become a loveless one that is unhealthy and harmful to the children, it is a violation of the children for the spouse to stay and raise the kids in that environment. For example, if the man is beating the piss out of his wife, but not engaging in adultery, to say that a woman has to live the rest of her life with the idiot and let their kids experience it is crazy bullshit.

So I guess it depends on what version of what scripture you are talking about. I mean, if I was a person with too many kids and no money in New Deli and you were Catholic, you might think it was an act of love for you to tell me why birth control was immoral and don't do it...but I think that you telling me that could actually be harmful to my family.

Which goes back to who's version of the Truth is it? Until the flavor thing is dispositively resolved, we can't even talk about what speech content is an act of love or not.

But I see where you are coming from. To me the part of Christ's message that he brought us that was key is that we are all forgiven, and should love one another as ourselves. If we somehow manage to love one another as ourselves, but for whatever reason do not agree that Jesus is the Son of God, that we must burn in Hell despite our Golden Rule accomplishments is not an approach that would, in my mind, comport with a loving God.

So I guess that I am more big picture than jot for jot.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Leviticus 16:29-34

29 This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do any work?whether native-born or an alien living among you-
30 because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.
31 It is a sabbath of rest, and you must deny yourselves; it is a lasting ordinance.
32 The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as high priest is to make atonement. He is to put on the sacred linen garments
33 and make atonement for the Most Holy Place, for the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and for the priests and all the people of the community.
34 "This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites."
And it was done, as the LORD commanded Moses.

If Yom Kippur is G-d's word, and is a lasting ordinance (as it says it is), why do Jews need anyone dying for their sins?



Afterall, all this Messiah talk is meaningless if we don't keep in mind he is alleged to be the man prophesied as the Jewish Messiah.... Seems to me, we should expect any Messiah to have a purpose consistent with Jewish need(s) and not with things they don't need.

 

[jwinslow]

Do you have any contribution to this debate taos? Or are you just looking to ridicule?

 

[Taosman]

"If you believe that saying a few lines in Latin over your breakfast cereal transforms your Lucky Charms into the body of Julius Ceasar, everyone will think you're crazy. But if you believe doing the same over a wafer on Sunday turns it into the body of Jesus, you're almost certainly completely sane and intelligent, but almost certainly Catholic."


Why is God used as an excuse when we don't know the answer for something?
Is God the problem? Or religion? Or man?
I don't have any answers. Just questions. I question everything.
Maybe you should, too.

 

[jwinslow]

Morgan Trent?

 

[DaytonBuck]

What's the story with reconciling the problem of evil?