Religions

[Andu]

I didn't say it was a problem, just thinking it's almost hilarious. And I had to test if you guys completly skipped reading all the atheist/agnostic stuff.

And, my god doesn't drown innocent animals 'cause people are evil...

When something bad happens to someone, is it appropriet to say 'Where is your god now?' or 'Some people are punished on the instant(by god)'. The second one is used by a few workers of a church I did belong to. Problem?:D

[gejyspa]

I didn't say it was a problem, just thinking it's almost hilarious. And I had to test if you guys completly skipped reading all the atheist/agnostic stuff.

And, my god doesn't drown innocent animals 'cause people are evil...

That's assuming they're innocent. The Talmud says they weren't, except the fish, they why they weren't killed. Of course, that's just one response to the problem of theodicy.

When something bad happens to someone, is it appropriet to say 'Where is your god now?' or 'Some people are punished on the instant(by god)'. The second one is used by a few workers of a church I did belong to. Problem?:D

That's an interesting quote -- never heard that one before. In Judaism, we either say "Baruch Dayan Emet" (Blessed is the true judge) or "Gam zu l'tovah" (This, too, is for the best).

[RedQueen.exe]

I skipped over the other part because it's not interesting. I can't imagine any discussion what an author meant in a book would be if you don't believe that author wrote it.

Then again, I've never really been into literary criticism anyway. Always seemed too subjective.

[Joshuamonkey]

And I had to test if you guys completly skipped reading all the atheist/agnostic stuff.

I skipped over a lot of the atheist/agnostic discussion here, because I'm not either of those (and I don't have much time..).

When something bad happens to someone, is it appropriet to say 'Where is your god now?' or 'Some people are punished on the instant(by god)'. The second one is used by a few workers of a church I did belong to. Problem?:D

Personally, I don't think that's appropriate, since God doesn't stop every bad action from happening, both to the unrighteous and the righteous. That wouldn't be much different then getting rid of free will.

[RedQueen.exe]

Nooo! Not the free will discussion!

[Andu]

Nooo! Not the free will discussion!

You don't like the possibility of not having free will? Or your thoughts beeing a illusion?

gejyspa, I have to say I like the way you know your scriptures. I assume you read them in the original language(Hebrew), and not translations like christians and mostly everyone else? Because you have so far, as I recall it, you have "won" the most disagreements by citing the original text, like the way you killed my joke. But doesn't the Ark myth in any way seem unlikely? Or is it simply to every question about how the animals got fed etc. are answered with "god did it"?

What do you guys think of the "young woman/virgin" mistranslation in the new testament from the torah? The virgin Mary concept is building upon some misquotation of the original prophecy when some dudes pulled the gospels together, and to make Jesus "the real one" they had to validate the things he was suppose to do by making him do(experience) them. As they moved along, the just mistranslated that the annointed one would be born out of a young woman to a virgin. Or then the guys at the 3rd ecumenical concil made it up,notsure. Anyway, doesn't contradictions in you scriptures bother you, or the concepts of all the other scriptures people hold holy?

[RedQueen.exe]

No.

I hate the free will discussions because it is typically poorly defined.

Edited to tone down my sleep-deprived pissiness.

[Wolfsong]

God or biology, either way - you're screwed.

[gejyspa]

Nooo! Not the free will discussion!

You don't like the possibility of not having free will? Or your thoughts beeing a illusion?

gejyspa, I have to say I like the way you know your scriptures. I assume you read them in the original language(Hebrew), and not translations like christians and mostly everyone else? Because you have so far, as I recall it, you have "won" the most disagreements by citing the original text, like the way you killed my joke.

Actually, I didn't cite the original text, I cited the Talmud. Because the hard questions aren't new creations. They've been thought about for thousands of years. And Judaism has never been afraid of questions (we get that from our genes -- Abraham challenging God about his plan to wipe out Sodom, Moses doing the same in re: God wiping out the Jews after the Golden Calf, etc.).

But in direct answer to your question -- Yeah, I can and do read Hebrew. But that doesn't stop me from also looking at translations, commentaries, etc. especially when the terms are technical/rare (like the names of the different types of animal species, or gemstones). I'll defer to the experts. When I did the lojban translation of the Book of Esther, I compared five different English translations, consulted two dictionaries, and the medieival commentator Rashi to get some idea of concensus. But that's an extreme case.

But I also have years of reading, studying, etc. traditional answers to stuff. It's like I told a private correspondent here, and mentioned above -- most of the issues people have, or questions they think up, occurred to people long ago. So I can give over the traditional answers that Judaism gives.

But doesn't the Ark myth in any way seem unlikely? Or is it simply to every question about how the animals got fed etc. are answered with "god did it"?

I must admit when I first read that sentence, out of context, I thought you were talking for a sec about the Ark of the Covenant. I had to mentally reframe. Only had threee hours sleep last night, cut me some slack.

There are different explanations of it, but we do know for sure that food was definitely brought on board to feed them. There are also traditional legends around that topic that I don't have time to go into right now. Remind me again, and I can go over them, but time is short -- it's Friday afternoon. More problematic is how did everything fit in a boat with those dimensions? So, yes, there is some miraculous hand-waving attached to the story. Some say the animals were shrunk, or the boat was like a TARDIS -bigger inside than out, or that there simply weren't as many species back then, and they were only progenitor types.

What do you guys think of the "young woman/virgin" mistranslation in the new testament from the torah? The virgin Mary concept is building upon some misquotation of the original prophecy when some dudes pulled the gospels together, and to make Jesus "the real one" they had to validate the things he was suppose to do by making him do(experience) them. As they moved along, the just mistranslated that the annointed one would be born out of a young woman to a virgin. Or then the guys at the 3rd ecumenical concil made it up,notsure. Anyway, doesn't contradictions in you scriptures bother you, or the concepts of all the other scriptures people hold holy?

What do you think I (/Jews) think about it? That prophecy had nothing to do with the Messiah, so it doesn't really matter. (Incidentally, the whole "virgin" thing wasn't even a problem with the Greek version of the NT, but crept in later. the Greek παρθένος doesn't necessarily imply a virgin, just a young girl See Gen. 34:3 where the Septuagint uses the word to refer to Dinah AFTER she had been raped.)

Are there seeming contradictions in the scriptures? Yes, but again, the vast majority of those have been traditional explanations.

As to other peoples' scriptures? As I said, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. Only where my own are distorted.

[Joshuamonkey]

What do you guys think of the "young woman/virgin" mistranslation in the new testament from the torah? The virgin Mary concept is building upon some misquotation of the original prophecy when some dudes pulled the gospels together, and to make Jesus "the real one" they had to validate the things he was suppose to do by making him do(experience) them. As they moved along, the just mistranslated that the annointed one would be born out of a young woman to a virgin. Or then the guys at the 3rd ecumenical concil made it up,notsure. Anyway, doesn't contradictions in you scriptures bother you, or the concepts of all the other scriptures people hold holy?

I don't understand what difference this makes.

Because you have so far, as I recall it, you have "won" the most disagreements by citing the original text

Does that mean I lost?
I like how gejyspa shows me that there really are other good explanations for things. I don't have to agree with it to understand why it makes sense to others.

[Snickie]

(Incidentally, the whole "virgin" thing wasn't even a problem with the Greek version of the NT, but crept in later. the Greek παρθένος doesn't necessarily imply a virgin, just a young girl

Wasn't Mary something around fifteen years or age when she gave birth to Jesus? Is fifteen years not young?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I heard a quotation the other day that got me thinking:

Hell is God's gift to the atheists. "Oh, you don't want to have anything to do with me? Here, you can go here and you don't have to deal with me ever again, just like you want."

Okay, so maybe it wasn't exactly like that.
Comments and thoughts?

[Comy]

Hell is God's gift to the atheists. "Oh, you don't want to have anything to do with me? Here, you can go here and you don't have to deal with me ever again, just like you want."

I generally stay away from discussions about religion and probably won't be coming back, but this just strikes me as ridiculous. Atheists don't have to deal with gods in the first place. Hell is for believers. There has to be an alternative to heaven so people will actively strive for one and against the other. This quote makes me think of people who hear "atheist" and automatically turn it into "devil-worshipper" in their minds. The person rejects both deities, not one over the other.

[RedQueen.exe]

I heard a quotation the other day that got me thinking:

Hell is God's gift to the atheists. "Oh, you don't want to have anything to do with me? Here, you can go here and you don't have to deal with me ever again, just like you want."

Okay, so maybe it wasn't exactly like that.
Comments and thoughts?

The only thing I can say is that if a god finds it fit to punish someone with an eternity of suffering for expressing an honest opinion, that god is a tyrant.

In the estimation of good orthodox Christians I am a criminal, because I am trying to take from loving mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, and lovers the consolations naturally arising from a belief in an eternity of grief and pain. I want to tear, break, and scatter to the winds the God that priests erected in the fields of innocent pleasure — a God made of sticks called creeds, and of old clothes called myths. I shall endeavor to take from the coffin its horror, from the cradle its curse, and put out the fires of revenge kindled by an infinite fiend.
Is it necessary that Heaven should borrow its light from the glare of Hell?
Infinite punishment is infinite cruelty, endless injustice, immortal meanness. To worship an eternal gaoler hardens, debases, and pollutes even the vilest soul. While there is one sad and breaking heart in the universe, no good being can be perfectly happy.

[Joshuamonkey]

Hell is God's gift to the atheists. "Oh, you don't want to have anything to do with me? Here, you can go here and you don't have to deal with me ever again, just like you want."

I don't agree. In my religion in order to go there you'd have to be pretty intent on doing so; we also believe in different kingdoms of heaven.
By the way, in the scriptures somewhere it says that people with sin wouldn't want to be in the presence of God, because of immense guilt or something like that, but that doesn't mean that they're going to the place you're referring to.

[gejyspa]

(Incidentally, the whole "virgin" thing wasn't even a problem with the Greek version of the NT, but crept in later. the Greek παρθένος doesn't necessarily imply a virgin, just a young girl

Wasn't Mary something around fifteen years or age when she gave birth to Jesus? Is fifteen years not young?

Yes, but A YOUNG WOMAN giving birth is not miraculous. Hence, it wouldn't serve the purposes of the early xtian church. (This is entirely besides the fact the verses in question refer in the present tense to a woman being pregnant, and are not a messianic prophecy at all, but a prophecy about the current political situation with King Ahaz (the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14 covers the Jewish POV in great detail, so I won't rehash it here))

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I heard a quotation the other day that got me thinking:

Hell is God's gift to the atheists. "Oh, you don't want to have anything to do with me? Here, you can go here and you don't have to deal with me ever again, just like you want."

Okay, so maybe it wasn't exactly like that.
Comments and thoughts?

Actually, the Jewish view of punishment in the afterlife (Which is almost never, never, eternal) is pretty much just that -- a simple removal of the soul for a period of time from closeness with God. That is torture enough for the soul, which longs to be with its creator. We don't have the concept of a separate district called "Hell".