Thursday, February 18, 2010

Old Habits Die Hard

It would appear that I still have a level of upsetness in me that don't go away with the flip of a switch. So, when Failed Messiah had a certain post I couldn't resist to comment. Oh well. I am doing a better job not attacking as often. XD Go ahead and call me a hypocrite. Noone's perfect. XD


OMG the argument that this guy Friend gave me to try to get me off of my new beliefs in the previous thread, was RETARDED. I mean seriously, if you wanna paint a negative on someone else, you might wanna make sure you don't have it yourself. LOL I'm soooooo happy I left behind the religion of don't cook an animal in its mother's milk = total separation of meat and dairy. No more nonsense kiruv tactics, no more super strict rules, no more semi-multipersonality disorder form meandering between secular and orthodox society.


I also found out that I still love blogging, so I am going to continue and only blog about political stuff rather than religious stuff. On the political end, things have been great, from my perspective anyways. XD The global warming agenda seems to have been defeated, and the Great Democrat Retreat in Congress continues. XD Even Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid are in trouble. XD


I am going to keep my blog name and handle since there's no point in changing it and while my belief changed I didn't formalize it and I'm not sure I'm going to, as organized religion was never really the way I rolled. By the way, my current belief has inspired me to be different in a couple of ways how I relate to certain specific people in my real life, I'm not sure I'd say better because there's no way in Hell I'd bother to let the past be the past with them if I didn't think I'd be rewarded for it.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

My view is whatever is true is true. And how can one tell what is true? Evidence, scientific evidence, mathematical proof, reason from a priori principles. Besides that I don't see any reason to make belief of anything into a religious principle. If one believes in Jesus and feels a certain attachment to God through that well fine. To me there are only very few a priori principles that I think one should base his faith on. They are basically the Ten Commandments and love your neighbor like yourself. Spiritual dimensions of things are just too confusing to me. But I do agree that belief in Jesus as a zadik (that had the light of God but was not God himself) can be one one to form a connection with God

Shalmo said...

A few questions SJ

Do you honestly believe a cosmic jewish zombie, who is his own father, committed suicide on a cross to pay himself the price for the original sin he cursed mankind with because some naked woman ate fruit from a magical tree?

How do you rationalize the scene with John the Baptist. You know where God tells God, God is happy with God?

Or the scene with Jesus in the desert, being tempted by Satan. Yup God, omnipotent and omniscient, creator of the universe tempted by his own creation.

Was Paul telling the truth about seeing Jesus in a vision, despite all three accounts contradicting in Acts? And if as a christian you now believe Paul was telling the truth about seeing Jesus in a vision,then why do you not believe the leader of the Moonies, who used a similar vision to create a cult? Thousands of people see Jesus in visions everyday, yet apparently their words do not cover 2/3rds of the NT, as Paul's letters do (half of which are proven forgeries in his name)?

And if the Pauline Jesus is true, and all that matters is faith, not works. Then don't you think Jesus spent a lot of time wasting his time, asking people to give to the poor, love those who persecute them, etc? Paul rejects works and teaches a faith only religion, Jesus' behaviour in gospels completely contradicts that. Hence why James said salvation is by both faith and works. But if Paul is a liar, most of the NT is useless.

There are many many many problems with the textual reliability of the NT that you might also cnsider: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html

Orthodox Judaism is a religion obsessed with works. But christianity is a religion obsessed with faith. Both extremes are bad.

You could just as easily get your flock with Conservative, or preferably Reform Judaism. Most reform jews don't do the organized religion thing either, but at least they remain part of the Jewish people.

And if the seemingly nice sayings of Jesus are what attract you to him, then analyze this commentary on the Sermon on the Mount first:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_mount

The sayings of Jesus tend to be very bad advice. Many Christian apologists have claimed that the high quality of Jesus' moral teachings is undisputed and is evidence of his divinity. However, Jesus' status as a moral teacher has been disputed on many occasions.

In Why I Am Not a Christian, Bertrand Russell argued that while many of Jesus' teachings were good, the Gospels clearly portray him as believing in eternal punishment, and this is unbecoming of a truly humane person.

Best of all, ancient historian Richard Carrier has argued thatt the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus was a better moral teacher than Jesus. Among other things, Carrier cites Rufus' belief in equality for slaves and his belief that "freedom of speech means not suppressing whatever one chances to think."

Jesus did not encourage slave emanicipation, on the contrary various verses show him approve of not only the institution, but even encourage beating slaves in Luke.

SJ said...

>> Do you honestly believe a cosmic jewish zombie, who is his own father, committed suicide on a cross to pay himself the price for the original sin he cursed mankind with because some naked woman ate fruit from a magical tree?

answered in previous thread.



>> How do you rationalize the scene with John the Baptist. You know where God tells God, God is happy with God?

God is happy with his arrival on Earth? O.O


>> Or the scene with Jesus in the desert, being tempted by Satan. Yup God, omnipotent and omniscient, creator of the universe tempted by his own creation.

Satan thought he can pull it off because Jesus looked like an ordinary human being? O.O



>> Was Paul telling the truth about seeing Jesus in a vision, despite all three accounts contradicting in Acts? And if as a christian you now believe Paul was telling the truth about seeing Jesus in a vision,then why do you not believe the leader of the Moonies, who used a similar vision to create a cult? Thousands of people see Jesus in visions everyday, yet apparently their words do not cover 2/3rds of the NT, as Paul's letters do (half of which are proven forgeries in his name)?


Paul was an antagonist turned Christian. :O




>> And if the Pauline Jesus is true, and all that matters is faith, not works. Then don't you think Jesus spent a lot of time wasting his time, asking people to give to the poor, love those who persecute them, etc? Paul rejects works and teaches a faith only religion, Jesus' behaviour in gospels completely contradicts that. Hence why James said salvation is by both faith and works. But if Paul is a liar, most of the NT is useless.

>> Orthodox Judaism is a religion obsessed with works. But christianity is a religion obsessed with faith. Both extremes are bad.


It would seem to me that all Paul was saying is that faith is required. Did Paul say somewhere that works aren't important? O.O In Titus 3:14, Paul says, "Let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful."

The book of James speaks very strongly about works as well as faith.



>> There are many many many problems with the textual reliability of the NT that you might also cnsider: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html


www.answering-islam.org



>> You could just as easily get your flock with Conservative, or preferably Reform Judaism. Most reform jews don't do the organized religion thing either, but at least they remain part of the Jewish people.


Too liberal for me.

SJ said...

>> And if the seemingly nice sayings of Jesus are what attract you to him, then analyze this commentary on the Sermon on the Mount first:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_mount


Looks like alot of fluff to me, reading nonexistent negatives into it. i.e. Matthew 6:25-34 just says not to worry, it does not say don't take care of your business.





>> The sayings of Jesus tend to be very bad advice. Many Christian apologists have claimed that the high quality of Jesus' moral teachings is undisputed and is evidence of his divinity. However, Jesus' status as a moral teacher has been disputed on many occasions.


If they're such bad advice, how come everyone don't see it? O.O




>> In Why I Am Not a Christian, Bertrand Russell argued that while many of Jesus' teachings were good, the Gospels clearly portray him as believing in eternal punishment, and this is unbecoming of a truly humane person.


I don't see anything wrong with religion using the profit motive to make people better.



>> Best of all, ancient historian Richard Carrier has argued thatt the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus was a better moral teacher than Jesus. Among other things, Carrier cites Rufus' belief in equality for slaves and his belief that "freedom of speech means not suppressing whatever one chances to think."


>> Jesus did not encourage slave emanicipation, on the contrary various verses show him approve of not only the institution, but even encourage beating slaves in Luke.


Do a google search for Does the bible condone slavery?. There are answers to this issue.

Shalmo said...

"answered in previous thread."

where?

"God is happy with his arrival on Earth? O.O"

The christian god has multiple personality disorder :)

"Satan thought he can pull it off because Jesus looked like an ordinary human being? O.O"

Oh NO. Satan called him God's Son, meaning Satan knew he was God the Son (seperate from God the Father, and God the Spirit). So Satan knew was God. A very fruitless polemic since Satan cannot "tempt" God/

"Paul was an antagonist turned Christian. :O"

Why? Because he says so? If Hitler all of a sudden told the jewish people after persecuting and killing them, hey I saw your god, now I am one of you; do you think anyone would believe him?

The theology of the atonement did not originate from Jesus. It originated from Paul of Tarsus! Unlike the Jerusalem Church, headed by James, Paul was not shackled by the historical Jesus; he invented Christian theology. It is in the epistles of Paul that we find the kernels of many tenets and dogmas of modern Christian theology.

"It would seem to me that all Paul was saying is that faith is required. Did Paul say somewhere that works aren't important? O.O In Titus 3:14, Paul says, "Let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful.""

The most significant difference in the teachings of these two men, lies in their attitude towards the Law of Moses. In fact one of the fundamental tenets of Pauline theology is that Jesus' death actually abrogated the law. This is expounded clearly in the passage from one of his epistles:


Galatians 2:15-16
We who are Jews by birth and not "Gentile sinners" know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one is justified.

This teaching of Paul's is, of course, familiar to Christians today. Yet tradition preserved a saying of Jesus which stated the complete opposite of what Paul taught above. Jesus:


Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses those of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Note the complete contradiction in the two passages above. Paul is saying "we are not justified by observing the law" and Jesus is saying, in contrast, that "whoever practices the law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

And you and I both know "Law" means ALL of the 613 mitzvohs you have just abadoned. Throughout our jewish scriptures, Law has always includes all the Torah (see for example Jeremiah 8:8)

"The book of James speaks very strongly about works as well as faith."


While Paul wanted to keep some ties to the Jerusalem Church, it was obvious that the latter did not share the same sentiments. Indeed the evidence from Paul's own epistles show that the Jerusalem church, headed by James, actively opposed Paul's missionary activities by sending out emissaries of their own to combat his gospel:

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/paulvpeter.html

Shalmo said...

Paul's final attempt to reconcile himself to the Jerusalem Church, by delivering the collection he promised during the "Jerusalem council", met with failure. A careful reading of the evidence shows that the Paul's collection was rejected by the Jerusalem Church and that they very probably "had a hand" in Paul's arrest!

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pauljerufinal.html

"www.answering-islam.org"

oh please. even other christians have condoned Sam Shamoun's propaganda website and certainly you know www.answering-christianity. com and www.islamic-awareness are just a small set of websites that refute them.

the reason I showed you that link is because its biblical criticism from theists, rather than atheists. Consider the argument before you just reply with links.

"Too liberal for me."

There is modern orthodox judaism, and reform allows individuals to make ethical choices on what traditions they choose to adhere to. There are plenty of conservative reform synagogues if you look for them. Plenty of humanistic ones as well.

But if it trully is spirituality you crave, then reconstructionist judaism has it all. Their Judaism is a religious, spiritual "civilization".

If you trully feel sympathy for Jews when you are defending them, then you would know that for 2000 years no religion has spilled more jewish blood than christianity. And why? Based on who's messianic ideas?

"Looks like alot of fluff to me, reading nonexistent negatives into it. i.e. Matthew 6:25-34 just says not to worry, it does not say don't take care of your business."

Matthew 5:21-26: Here Jesus establishes thought crimes and speech as equivalent to murder. While it might be good advice to suggest that people speak civily to each other, it is morally corrupt to establish that saying you hate someone is the philosophical equivalent to murdering them. Thoughts aren't crimes....actions are. While Jesus certainly didn't mean that we should put people to death for simply thinking about murder, his view here represents a naïve morality that builds a doctrine where those thought crimes should result in eternal punishment.

Matthew 5:27-30: More thought crime nonsense. Lust isn't adultery. Lust is the trigger for the vast majority of sexual relationships, healthy, holy or otherwise. You might take actions because of lust, and those actions might be crimes...but the lust itself isn't. It's doubtful that many Christian couples have met, fell in love and married without lust being a contributing factor. It may happen, but it's rarer than those who do lust after each other and build a healthy relationship.

Additionally, this verse is sexist. Which would have been normal for the time, but there's no reason for a God to be so chauvinistic. "Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully" implies that it's not a sin to lust after a man.

Shalmo said...

"If they're such bad advice, how come everyone don't see it? O.O"

But many people indeed do. I just gave you examples above as well as from Richard Carrier.

And many of the christians who do see these convert to Judaism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf1QL_jrmsc

watch his other videos.

"I don't see anything wrong with religion using the profit motive to make people better."

But it shows Jesus is significantly deficient compared to greater men like Socrates, and Plato who did not preach eternal damnation for their opponents. Indeed Socrates was far more civil with his enemies compared to Jesus who refers to the Jewish people as vipers, sons of hell, people of empty tombs, etc

"Do a google search for Does the bible condone slavery?. There are answers to this issue."

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.



Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)



Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)



In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.



The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

And since Jesus had contemporaries who already had begun anti-slavery preaching, we can see even by his own time, Jesus' teaching leave much to be desired.

And since every nice thing Jesus ever said was plagarized from Rabbi Hillel, well if anything your attraction to these sayings means all the more for you to stay with Judaism!

Shalmo said...

Regardless due to essays and other workload I don't have time right now to engage in broad theological discussions.

However I get the feeling you need to do a lot more reading on the truth claims of Christianity:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html

Whatever Christianity springs from, its certainly is not Judaism.

SJ said...

Let us both grant theoretically that God does come to Earth on a regular basis. I doubt that the human brain would have the disk space so to speak to handle the consciousness of an entire God, so God as a man would probably be different than God as himself. God's son per say means, God the son. Jesus looked like a human being.


Your argument about Hitler is a nonsequitur. What if Hitler all of a sudden did in fact become a sincere follower and observant in every visible way? O.O


Paul in fact was executed while Nero was in power. Why would he let himself be executed for being Christian if he knew it was false? O.O


Are you really trying to say that Jesus said nothing in the bible about atonement? Jesus did say stuff about atonement.


As for your link to the youtuber, there's people disenchanted with every religion all over the place and they switch over to something else. It's irrelevant to this.


As for the slavery thing the first Christians did not have the ability to abolish slavery so I'll venture on a guess and say that Jesus was telling them to be at peace and not to do anything that will get them killed or beaten or anything like that.


Why don't you beat up the Old Testament for slavery? (There are answers about slavery in the Old Testament, but I'm just sayin, you don't seem to be going after the Old Testament for slavery.)


Modern orthodox Judaism = Hareidi Judiasm with a PR spin. It's something I've ranted about in the past on the Failed Messiah blog. Politically conservative, Conservative and Reform synagogues are few and far in between.


There's no way you can prove plagiarism from Hillel.


There are counterpoints to the Jewish apologetics about Jesus, even to the Isaiah 7:14 issue.

And your last logical fallacy, Christianity never claimed to be Judaism.

leto said...

I vote for remaining part of the Jewish people. I have not really followed this blog at all but from the little I have seen you are a very sensitive and wise soul. Perhaps you could combine your new found beliefs with Torah in some rational way? Personally I have had a healthy respect for Jesus for a long time and for the Talmud also. I used to have a philosophy that all the sepherot got lost into the kelipot at the destruction of the first temple. Then slowly started being brought back. Keter went to the Far East. Wisdom to Athens. Foundation to Jesus. Malchut to the Talmud babli Etc
But in recent years I have become a bit more philosophical and basically I go with the Leibnitz Gödel (with a bit of Kant).
But still it seems to me that what ever you will find in the church will be different from the holiness of Torah. It will be a different type of holiness that will not take the place of Torah holiness
What I mean is that while Jesus relates to holiness of Foundation, but since there are aspects of holiness not contained there you will perhaps begin to miss a bit of Gemara Rashi and Tosphot and the holiness that goes with that.
Many of the problems you have seen in Torah and Talmud are not because as some thing that there is nothing there but rather because the sparks have been separated and so in any place there is real holiness the kelipot (wicked rabbis) come to fill the void.
That is not because of some problem in the Talmud but because of the original destruction of the Temple.
And it seems to me the same applies to Jesus. Even though he is a Zadik, still even the place of holiness often kelipot come in different disguises
These are just a few of my thoughts along the lines of my older system.
Nowadays I am thinking a bit more Aristotle and Kant. Perhaps I could find a better synthesis than this

SJ said...

I vote for going my own way. I always have.

Actually, I found Shalmo's comment about empathy in the previous thread to be rather strange. If I'm breaking up so to speak, I don't care if who or what I'm breaking up with approves or disapproves of where I'm going. I broke up.


The problem with your post Leto is that I don't believe in torat she'baal peh.

leto said...

Well the torah shebaal pe I would have to try to think how to defend. I think my best defense would be the Kant approach (i.e. that there is knowledge that is not perceived and not reasoned). But that whole aspect of Torah is really not what I want to get into.
I was thinking why not the Jewish messianic approach? Except for the basic protestant theology which they have (that I don’t like at all) they seem to be on a pretty wholesome track.

SJ said...

The reason why not the Jewish messianic approach is that Jesus got rid of all the Tanach laws that has nothing to do with morality.

And by the way, I never really had the paranoia for some of these right wing protestants that some liberal jews have. XD

Actually I can relate to their general idea of sola scriptura. As far as the Talmud goes, I'm sure it can contain some useful information, some interesting information; but divine information, that's a really tough sell in my opinion due to it being so far away from matan Torah.

SJ said...

and OT times for that matter.

no one said...

It is hard to read bitul hamitzvot into the words of Jesus.
However it is possible he had an approach like the Gemara at the end of Bava Metzia that mitzvoth depend on the reason for the mizvot(dorshin tam dekra) which would automatically cancel mitzvot for which the reason for their institution is absent. And according to the rambam we know the reason for the mitzvot. Even though the commentaries on the More say he gives only possible reasons that is not really what he precisely says. He says precisely that these are the reasons.
But this might work for the rambam. But as for Jesus it seems to me that he wanted to say that Love is the root of Torah but not that he wanted to nullify the mitzvoth
From what I know Thomas Aquinas established the distinction between natural law and ritual law.

SJ said...

http://www.broadcaster.org.uk/section2/transcript/lawsummary.htm

no one said...

No time to see the whole site but let me just say that I find protestant Christianity to be highly based on the idea of virtual righteousness. I.e. just because a person believes they becomes virtually righteous and saved --even though in fact they are not righteous. If you want a little bit more rational type of Christianity why not go with the greats anselm or Aquinas?

SJ said...

I am nondenominational as I said before, I am saying that I can relate to sola scriptura.

As for the faith/works thing as far as Protestantism goes, "Protestantism does not depreciate good works; but it denies their value as sources or conditions of justification, and insists on them as the necessary fruits of faith, and evidence of justification" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism#Fundamental_principles.

no one said...

I don't know but it seems to be "Only Bible" has gotten the Protestants into a quagmire of half baked theologies. I mean if you are going to do something do it right. At least anselm and Aquinas were doing some real rigorous painstaking hard core thinking and it seems to me that the orthodox Christians also did some pretty good work in that direction but i dont read russian to be able to tell for sure.

SJ said...

I think the Jews who posted in this thread and in the previous thread got themselves into a quagmire of foot-in-mouth syndrome. XD

no one said...

Well that might be the case. But really did not read their comments thoroughly because they seemed a bit silly.

no one said...

I looked at some of the comments and I thought you answered many of the objections very well. --much better than I could have done.
My general impression of those types of objections is that they are based on a lack of knowledge about Judaism that they could have raised the same objections to. This surprises me. I wonder what will happen to those people when they study the Talmud a bit more and discover the same problems that they just raised to you?
(Makot 24b. The gemara in sanhedrin about the barber that gave a haircut to sancheriv etc

SJ said...

LOL Noone they started from the premise that I haven't heard it all before.