What's with the Jesus skywriting?

[JennyMominRI]

We have different opinions of what is "just." I personally don't consider an omnipotent being killing babies and children out of "jealousy" or for the sins of their parents or their great^15 grandparents as "just"... again, especially when done by an allegedly Good and omnipotent being who supposedly created and "loves" them.

Slaughtering/drowning/sending-followers-to-hack up babies is never "just," IMO, no matter who or what does it. Smacks more of pure Evil to me.

I don't believe that G-d justifies killing babies...I view the Tanakh as a book inspired by G-d but written by men..Men with biases.. It is a history book. It'sThe story of Jews seeking to understand their G-d in a very primitive time and it is written from their POV .Ssometimes men seek to jutify the unjustifiable.. There are men right now who believe that G-d wants us to be in Iraq *converting the heathens* That doesn't make them right..It doesn't mean God wants us in Iraq. I know that many view the g-d of the OT/Tanakh as an angry punishing G-d , but I would remind you that from the Jewish understanding of the Tanakh/OT there is no Hell, no eternal damnation, no devil and no concept of being born a sinner.

 

[JoyG]

I have always thought it was VERY important to know completely exactly what one is worshipping and praying toward.

Everyone of course has the right to believe in whatever they want. All I ask of people is that if they are going to claim to be Christian, don't cherrypick -- read the whole book and accept it all, and know exactly what you are accepting about the "God" you worship, if you want to claim to be Christian.

I completely agree with the above. I believe the personality of God as revealed in the OT has not changed. I believe God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I do believe he is a jealous God. I also believe he is a loving God as revealed in depth in the NT. I don't think one has to exist at the expense of other. I agree that people shouldn't cherrypick and I agree that we have to read the whole book.

 

[BurkeTribe]

I don't believe that G-d justifies killing babies...I view the Tanakh as a book inspired by G-d but written by men..Men with biases.. It is a history book. It'sThe story of Jews seeking to understand their G-d in a very primitive time and it is written from their POV .Ssometimes men seek to jutify the unjustifiable.. There are men right now who believe that G-d wants us to be in Iraq *converting the heathens* That doesn't make them right..It doesn't mean God wants us in Iraq.

Okay, then you are saying you don't believe the books are absolute holy books or are the unerrant word of the "god" you worship, because said being clearly gives "his" reasons for killing babies repeatedly thoughout those books, and repeatedly tells "prophets" to have "his" followers kill babies and children, for various reasons given as justification. One would pretty much have to toss sections of Genesis, Deuteronomy, most of Joshua, Isaiah, and probably some of Leviticus, etc., to get rid of the plethora of justifications by the "god" therein (or "his prophets") for infanticide or other capricious slaughters. The question then becomes, which parts are "true"? Does each person in your sect of your religion honestly get to decide for themselves which parts they consider "true" or "unbiased" and worth following, and which they don't and won't? Is it okay to just call the parts one personally disagrees with the "biased" part?

If "men with biases" could change what is meant in one section... then it is all suspect, because one can never honestly know where the bias has changed what (and if one allows for "bias" in the authors, one must allow for "mistakes" by the re-copiers through the years-- one missed symbol changes a lot). If it reads "god says [x]," who decides if it is "biased author" or really what the "god" said?

Saying the books are "inspired by G-d" doesn't really mean much at all, if one also believes that parts could have been changed by men at their will to put forth their biased and selfish reasons as those spoken by the "god" therein.

I agree, it is pretty much a history (well, semi-history semi-racist-fantasy IMO) by ancients struggling to figure out the world (a "history" deeply biased by the survivalist cult mentality of the authors, really), so one must ask-- what is lost if one takes out the "god" and the racism, and just accepts any historical bits that may have been shown to be true?

 

[JennyMominRI]

Okay, then you are saying you don't believe the books are absolute holy books or are the unerrant word of the "god" you worship, because said being clearly gives "his" reasons for killing babies repeatedly thoughout those books, and repeatedly tells "prophets" to have "his" followers kill babies and children, for various reasons given as justification. One would pretty much have to toss sections of Genesis, Deuteronomy, most of Joshua, Isaiah, and probably Leviticus, etc., to get rid of the plethora of justifications by the "god" therein (or "his prophets") for infanticide. The question then becomes, which parts are "true"? Does each person in your sect of your religion honestly get to decide for themselves which parts they consider "true" or "unbiased" and worth following, and which they don't and won't? Is it okay to just call the parts one personally disagrees with the "biased" part?

If "men with biases" could change what is meant in one section... then it is all suspect, because one can never honestly know where the bias has changed what (and if one allows for "bias" in the authors, one must allow for "mistakes" by the re-copiers through the years-- one missed symbol changes a lot). If it reads "god says x" who decides if it is "biased author" or really what the "god" said?

Saying the books are "inspired by 'g-d'" doesn't really mean much at all, if one also believes that parts could have been changed by men at their will.

I agree, it is pretty much a history (well, semi-history semi-racist-fantasy IMO) by ancients struggling to figure out the world (a "history" deeply biased by the survivalist cult mentality of the authors, really), so one must ask-- what is lost if one takes out the "god" and the racism, and just accepts any historical bits that may have been shown to be true?

yes,I do not believe it is the inerrent word of G-d.. And as to your question about how you decide..Well Jewish men have sat around for 4000 years and debated just that.Judais evolves and changes and certainly does not view the norms of 3000 years ago as the norms of today.


This will explain the view of the 2 largest Jewish movements world wide,making up aroud 90% of all Jews worldwide

Reform Judaism does not believe that the Torah was written by God. The movement accepts the critical theory of Biblical authorship: that the Bible was written by separate sources and redacted together. Reform Jews do not believe in observance of commandments as such, but they retain much of the values and ethics of Judaism, along with some of the practices and the culture. The original, basic tenets of Reform Judaism in the USA were set down in the Pittsburgh Platform. Many non-observant, nominal, and/or agnostic Jews identify themselves as Reform simply because Reform is the most liberal movement, but that is not really a fair reflection on the movement as a whole. There are about 800 Reform synagogues in the US with approximately 2 million members. For more information about Reform Judaism, see The Union of American Hebrew Congregations .

Conservative Judaism grew out of the tension between Orthodoxy and Reform. It was formally organized as the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism by Dr. Solomon Schechter in 1913, although its roots in the Jewish Theological Seminary of America stretch back into the 1880s. Conservative Judaism generally accepts the binding nature of halakhah, but believes that the Law should change and adapt, absorbing aspects of the predominant culture while remaining true to Judaism's values. In our experience, there is a great deal of variation among Conservative synagogues. Some are indistinguishable from Reform, except that they use more Hebrew; others are practically Orthodox, except that men and women sit together. Most are very traditional in substance, if not always in form. There are an estimated 800 Conservative synagogues in the US today with approximately 1.3 million members.

 

[BurkeTribe]

yes,I do not believe it is the inerrent word of G-d.. And as to your question about how you decide..Well Jewish men have sat around for 4000 years and debated just that.Judais evolves and changes and certainly does not view the norms of 3000 years ago as the norms of today.


This will explain the view of the 2 largest Jewish movements world wide,making up aroud 90% of all Jews worldwide

Reform Judaism does not believe that the Torah was written by God. The movement accepts the critical theory of Biblical authorship: that the Bible was written by separate sources and redacted together. Reform Jews do not believe in observance of commandments as such, but they retain much of the values and ethics of Judaism, along with some of the practices and the culture. The original, basic tenets of Reform Judaism in the USA were set down in the Pittsburgh Platform. Many non-observant, nominal, and/or agnostic Jews identify themselves as Reform simply because Reform is the most liberal movement, but that is not really a fair reflection on the movement as a whole. There are about 800 Reform synagogues in the US with approximately 2 million members. For more information about Reform Judaism, see The Union of American Hebrew Congregations .

Conservative Judaism grew out of the tension between Orthodoxy and Reform. (edit)

I've always thought of Reformed as the half-brothers of Deists and the cousins of we Agnostics, but hanging on to some ancient myths (IMO) and customs for race-comfort and small-group preservation... if they could just toss away the "Abraham" mythology and supernatural stuff, while keeping the good rules for living, we'd probably be almost on the same page

Being agnostic, I honestly don't have a problem with someone believing in a god/supreme being/creatorforce/god(s)... it's when they start making up stories about them that the trouble starts

 

[JennyMominRI]

I've always thought of Reformed as the half-brothers of Deists and the cousins of we Agnostics, but hanging on to some ancient myths (IMO) and customs for race-comfort and small-group preservation... if they could just toss away the "Abraham" mythology and supernatural stuff, while keeping the good rules for living, we'd probably be almost on the same page

Being agnostic, I honestly don't have a problem with someone believing in a god/supreme being/creatorforce/god(s)... it's when they start making up stories about them that the trouble starts

Just to clarify it's Reform and not Reformed..It sounds like a small thing but what it comes down to is the idea that Judaism is still in the process of changing and will continue to change and adapt through time..It's not *done* reforming yet.
While I do believe in G-d,what I like so much about Judaism is it's focus on action over belief..One is not a good Jew because they can recite a lot of le verses from the Talmud or because they practiced 20 of the Jewish laws this week,but because spent their life seeking justice, performing works of charity, repairing the word(tikkun Olam)..I very much like one statement from the Talmud
"The first question asked at the Last Judgment is whether one has dealt justly with his neighbor"
And that sums up Judaism to me. It's all in how we treat people.

 

[BurkeTribe]

Just to clarify it's Reform and not Reformed..It sounds like a small thing but what it comes down to is the idea that Judaism is still in the process of changing and will continue to change and adapt through time..It's not *done* reforming yet.

Then someone should suggest they change the name to Reforming Judaism, as that implies a group ongoing effort (" we are Reforming Judaism"), rather than a start command ("hey you-- Reform Judaism!")

Yep, late night here, can ya tell

 

[JennyMominRI]

Then someone should suggest they change the name to Reforming Judaism, as that implies a group ongoing effort (" we are Reforming Judaism"), rather than a start command ("hey you-- Reform Judaism!")

Yep, late night here, can ya tell

I'll bring that up at the next super secret world domination meeting

 

[BurkeTribe]

I'll bring that up at the next super secret world domination meeting

The Illuminati cancelled next week's meeting... the Gnomes of Zurich can't make it, they're going to Disneyland Paris.

 

[JennyMominRI]

The Illuminati cancelled next week's meeting... the Gnomes of Zurich can't make it, they're going to Disneyland Paris.

I heard that Disneyland Paris is a fun place nowdays..I saw the video on You Tube.

 

[BurkeTribe]

I heard that Disneyland Paris is a fun place nowdays..I saw the video on You Tube.

Le Goofy was gettin'... extra goofy. I always wondered who Max's momma was. Guess she lives in Paris.

 

[Saxsoon]

I personally don't find that using Christ as a bridge to God as being narrow. If you think about it, asking for forgiveness of sins (if you believe in that wacky stuff ) and trying to change your life for him, is not really that narrow. Maybe I just have a weird opinion on the matter, but I find God's attempt to reach us as being as open as one can get.

 

[cjb71870]

Wow, I went to this thread because I've seen the skywriter lots of times. Just this July my DH and I were at the pool of our regular hotel when he started again. We couldn't leave because what we thought he was going to write next was always wrong. I went from the 1st page to the last and the subject of the thread changed completely. I'll have to read in between. But, yes, they take forever to write the words. To where by the time he was at the end, the first words were blown out.

 

[bgirldeb]

Deut. and Joshua are in the OT.

In the time period covered in the Bible, God has expanded how He deals with people. He had ways of atoning for sin in the OT and in the NT he sent Jesus which changed the way people attone for sin. We honor both portions of the Bible, but with the NT, the way followers of God were supposed to behave and conduct themselves was more clearly defined, and in some cases the "rules" of conduct changed.


ETA: I don't know if I'm explaining it clearly. Let me give you an example, followers of God in the OT had things like dietary rules that they lived by...in the NT we learned that to be a follower of God we didn't need to follow those dietary rules. That is just one of many examples.

Let me try
(This is my belief)
The Israelites were under Mosaic law in the OT, so they followed laws like dietary rules, rules for cleanliness and things were more "set in stone" as to consequences, etc. because of the time they lived in. They also had to make animal sacrifices on altars to atone for their sins. When Jesus came along and died as a propitiatory sacrifice, that means we are no longer under "law", but now observe principles.

 

[4theloveofdisney]

I don't believe that G-d justifies killing babies...I view the Tanakh as a book inspired by G-d but written by men..Men with biases.. It is a history book. It'sThe story of Jews seeking to understand their G-d in a very primitive time and it is written from their POV

Now this makes perfect sense to me.

 

[4theloveofdisney]

Just to clarify it's Reform and not Reformed..It sounds like a small thing but what it comes down to is the idea that Judaism is still in the process of changing and will continue to change and adapt through time..It's not *done* reforming yet.
While I do believe in G-d,what I like so much about Judaism is it's focus on action over belief..One is not a good Jew because they can recite a lot of le verses from the Talmud or because they practiced 20 of the Jewish laws this week,but because spent their life seeking justice, performing works of charity, repairing the word(tikkun Olam)..I very much like one statement from the Talmud
"The first question asked at the Last Judgment is whether one has dealt justly with his neighbor"
And that sums up Judaism to me. It's all in how we treat people.

I think that is beautiful.

 

[Saxsoon]

Let me try
(This is my belief)
The Israelites were under Mosaic law in the OT, so they followed laws like dietary rules, rules for cleanliness and things were more "set in stone" as to consequences, etc. because of the time they lived in. They also had to make animal sacrifices on altars to atone for their sins. When Jesus came along and died as a propitiatory sacrifice, that means we are no longer under "law", but now observe principles.

That was a great explanation of it.

 

[Buckalew11]

Originally Posted by bgirldeb
Let me try
(This is my belief)
The Israelites were under Mosaic law in the OT, so they followed laws like dietary rules, rules for cleanliness and things were more "set in stone" as to consequences, etc. because of the time they lived in. They also had to make animal sacrifices on altars to atone for their sins. When Jesus came along and died as a propitiatory sacrifice, that means we are no longer under "law", but now observe principles


This is also what I believe. However, Jenny will tell you that Jews did not make sacrifices to atone for sins. What she has shared about Jewish beliefs is not the same as the little I have studied. The belief that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice makes sense to Christians who believe this. But, if there was no need for sacrifice to atone for sin then it hardly makes sense, right? I suppose then the reason for His death wasonly because of who He claimed He was (God) and maybe fear of a movement or something.

 

[salmoneous]

But which rules are laws and which are principles? The ten commandments for instance - laws or principles? And how are we supposed to tell? Is there something in the Bible that spells out which OT rules to follow and which we can ignore?

Perhaps it isn't spelled out in the Bible itself. Maybe we get to choose for ourselves which rules we want to follow (we can call them principles) and which rules we don't (we'll call those laws).

 

[JoyG]

But which rules are laws and which are principles? The ten commandments for instance - laws or principles? And how are we supposed to tell? Is there something in the Bible that spells out which OT rules to follow and which we can ignore?

Perhaps it isn't spelled out in the Bible itself. Maybe we get to choose for ourselves which rules we want to follow (we can call them principles) and which rules we don't (we'll call those laws).

It's interesting you mention the 10 commandments. Jesus didn't do away with them...he actually expanded them.

For example he said...."You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."

He goes on to say, "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

(Matthew chap 5)

The point of this and other stories like this is Jesus was showing us there is no way we can be good enough or keep the commandments well enough to get into Heaven. We all fall short and need Him to save us.

As to you question about the principals from the OT that we don't follow now, I don't know the OT well enough to list them all for you. I do know that the 10 Commandments are things that we are still held to, but we know from what Jesus told us we won't get by without breaking any...it's impossible; that's why we need him.