Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 72030 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

former res

Cheshire, CT

#72443 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
sorry - there is a huge gap in numbers - nothing since Joel 9 hrs ago at #36....
for now, if you can still see it yourself, copy and paste it onto a doc or an email for safekeeping, and then try again later to repost.
Thanks for letting me.

Seeing that I could post this
shows there is something within the other post.

I took you up on your suggestion, email.

It was far too pithy and insightful to waste!

;)

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72444 Apr 25, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for letting me.
Seeing that I could post this
shows there is something within the other post.
I took you up on your suggestion, email.
It was far too pithy and insightful to waste!;)
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
second - I never like these labels of theist vs atheist anyhow, because they assume a static personality - which is inconsistent with my personal existence. In the course of a typical day, I might have leanings that are theistic, atheistic, and agnostic, depending on what I am doing. And I doubt I am alone with this.
FR: I can see how the whole experience is dynamic rather than static, like any relationship.
However one views it, a relationship with god, a relationship with one conscience, or good vs evil. A journey, not a destination.
I would think that being a theist would be an ongoing struggle. They say folks "struggle with their faith." It came out later the Mother Teresa struggled with her faith, and she's fastracked for sainthood.
But I don't think this supports the case not calling oneself a theist.
To me, the struggle is almost assumed.


Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
My own God concept is more panentheistic than theistic, and more theistic than pantheist.
However, my concept arises when I think of God as an object. But in the course of experiencing my God concept, it is not an object, it is an experience. Its no more an object than you experiencing the wind, or the rain. Sure, there is a rain, and perhaps a wind - but thinking/reflecting about it, and experiencing it are two different categories of perception.

FR: Again, agreed, it's an active process. Belief is a verb.
I think one experiences holiness, god, divinity etc.

Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
And finally, and I have mentioned this a few times before, since we are humans with a self-constructed sense of self, in order to be able to worship, we have no choice but to construct an "it" to worship "to". Thats the theistic part of my belief system- its a necessary construction on my behalf in order to worship. I invent it out of practicality, however if I was to describe my god concept more in depth, "it" would not be an "it" - i.e. we are not external to the system to grant it "it-hood". We only grant it "it-hood" out of necessity since we have already constructed our "I", and during prayer (when using language) we function on this level of creating objects and identities.

FR: And the god construct. To me it goes without saying that we constructed god.
:)) I can't read this without reiterating my favorite Voltaire quote:
“If god created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated.”

Frijoles wrote:
And finally finally, I view Torah as mans perceived idea of what God might have wanted to say rather than divine revelation - i.e. someone meditated on God and received this in the man's own words as a response (a liberal position more in line with perhaps the Reform movement), however I also view Torah as inseparable from God (a position more in line with Hasidism) and view the world as Torah as well.

FR The most interesting part for me.
You say a scribe took these words down. That god did not write this himself.
What if the scribe was having a bad day and took it down incorrectly? For thousand of years people were working off incorrect text?

"I also view Torah as inseparable from God...."
This I don't understand. If you created god as your own construct to pray to; or as an experience more than a real object - then how can a book written by another man or men, interpreting god's words....be the SAME as god.
And how can a book be the same as the world?
Or is everything just simply, everything???

see if this works
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72445 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
second - I never like these labels of theist vs atheist anyhow, because they assume a static personality - which is inconsistent with my personal existence. In the course of a typical day, I might have leanings that are theistic, atheistic, and agnostic, depending on what I am doing. And I doubt I am alone with this.
FR: I can see how the whole experience is dynamic rather than static, like any relationship.
However one views it, a relationship with god, a relationship with one conscience, or good vs evil. A journey, not a destination.
I would think that being a theist would be an ongoing struggle. They say folks "struggle with their faith." It came out later the Mother Teresa struggled with her faith, and she's fastracked for sainthood.
But I don't think this supports the case not calling oneself a theist.
To me, the struggle is almost assumed.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
My own God concept is more panentheistic than theistic, and more theistic than pantheist.
However, my concept arises when I think of God as an object. But in the course of experiencing my God concept, it is not an object, it is an experience. Its no more an object than you experiencing the wind, or the rain. Sure, there is a rain, and perhaps a wind - but thinking/reflecting about it, and experiencing it are two different categories of perception.
FR: Again, agreed, it's an active process. Belief is a verb.
I think one experiences holiness, god, divinity etc.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
And finally, and I have mentioned this a few times before, since we are humans with a self-constructed sense of self, in order to be able to worship, we have no choice but to construct an "it" to worship "to". Thats the theistic part of my belief system- its a necessary construction on my behalf in order to worship. I invent it out of practicality, however if I was to describe my god concept more in depth, "it" would not be an "it" - i.e. we are not external to the system to grant it "it-hood". We only grant it "it-hood" out of necessity since we have already constructed our "I", and during prayer (when using language) we function on this level of creating objects and identities.
FR: And the god construct. To me it goes without saying that we constructed god.
:)) I can't read this without reiterating my favorite Voltaire quote:
“If god created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated.”
Frijoles wrote:
And finally finally, I view Torah as mans perceived idea of what God might have wanted to say rather than divine revelation - i.e. someone meditated on God and received this in the man's own words as a response (a liberal position more in line with perhaps the Reform movement), however I also view Torah as inseparable from God (a position more in line with Hasidism) and view the world as Torah as well.
FR The most interesting part for me.
You say a scribe took these words down. That god did not write this himself.
What if the scribe was having a bad day and took it down incorrectly? For thousand of years people were working off incorrect text?
"I also view Torah as inseparable from God...."
This I don't understand. If you created god as your own construct to pray to; or as an experience more than a real object - then how can a book written by another man or men, interpreting god's words....be the SAME as god.
And how can a book be the same as the world?
Or is everything just simply, everything???
see if this works
I see it.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72446 Apr 25, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
second - I never like these labels of theist vs atheist anyhow, because they assume a static personality - which is inconsistent with my personal existence. In the course of a typical day, I might have leanings that are theistic, atheistic, and agnostic, depending on what I am doing. And I doubt I am alone with this.

FR: I can see how the whole experience is dynamic rather than static, like any relationship.
However one views it, a relationship with god, a relationship with one conscience, or good vs evil. A journey, not a destination.
I would think that being a theist would be an ongoing struggle. They say folks "struggle with their faith." It came out later the Mother Teresa struggled with her faith, and she's fastracked for sainthood.
But I don't think this supports the case not calling oneself a theist.
To me, the struggle is almost assumed.

;)
But if someone asks you if you believe the world is round, do you struggle to articulate that belief? From a strict epistemeological perspective, why wouldnt one require the same degree of certainty of belief? Since you already indicated that you would not require this, I think that shows more about the limits of boxing someone into a absolute position on a concept that isnt so susceptible to "belief language" and perhaps best described using other types of language that isnt so binary.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72447 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Frijoles wrote:
My own God concept is more panentheistic than theistic, and more theistic than pantheist.
However, my concept arises when I think of God as an object. But in the course of experiencing my God concept, it is not an object, it is an experience. Its no more an object than you experiencing the wind, or the rain. Sure, there is a rain, and perhaps a wind - but thinking/reflecting about it, and experiencing it are two different categories of perception.

FR: Again, agreed, it's an active process. Belief is a verb.
I think one experiences holiness, god, divinity etc.
On that note, one of the core values of Judaism is to "create holiness".

When I was in college I became intrigued by that directive, and started to research, in my own way, what that meant, from the perspective of the traditional religion (not from the perspective necessarily of me). Naively I thought I could answer that question with a few hours of books, and now 25+ years later I am still pondering this. Its a core question.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72448 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>

Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
And finally, and I have mentioned this a few times before, since we are humans with a self-constructed sense of self, in order to be able to worship, we have no choice but to construct an "it" to worship "to". Thats the theistic part of my belief system- its a necessary construction on my behalf in order to worship. I invent it out of practicality, however if I was to describe my god concept more in depth, "it" would not be an "it" - i.e. we are not external to the system to grant it "it-hood". We only grant it "it-hood" out of necessity since we have already constructed our "I", and during prayer (when using language) we function on this level of creating objects and identities.

FR: And the god construct. To me it goes without saying that we constructed god.
:)) I can't read this without reiterating my favorite Voltaire quote:
“If god created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated.”
The difference between my view and the atheists, is that I view the construction of God as a reflection of the limitation of us humans to communicate with another reality, while an atheist sees this as a limitation of God.

Fox News Is a Joke

Saugus, MA

#72449 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between my view and the atheists, is that I view the construction of God as a reflection of the limitation of us humans to communicate with another reality, while an atheist sees this as a limitation of God.
by the way,Porque te llaman frijoles?
Es porque tireas mucho pedo en las fiestas amorosas cuando comes frijoles con ocopa?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72450 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Frijoles wrote:
And finally finally, I view Torah as mans perceived idea of what God might have wanted to say rather than divine revelation - i.e. someone meditated on God and received this in the man's own words as a response (a liberal position more in line with perhaps the Reform movement), however I also view Torah as inseparable from God (a position more in line with Hasidism) and view the world as Torah as well.

FR The most interesting part for me.
You say a scribe took these words down. That god did not write this himself.
What if the scribe was having a bad day and took it down incorrectly? For thousand of years people were working off incorrect text?
Even worse, it just may have been that portions of the text was not meant for anyone other than the small group that received it. Probably a bunch of native-Palestinians were doing there best to channel God and remember enough of it to later write it down. Plus, any scholar can easily see the differences in style within the first five books due to editorial redactions.

But ultimately, the words/themes have a multiplicity of meanings, depending on who is interpretation, and where they are coming from.

I also dont believe "torah" is limited to the scripture. In the small sense, traditionally, it is of course. But the world can be torah if one uses the same interpretive approach that one uses with the text. This is not a fringe view either.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>"I also view Torah as inseparable from God...."
This I don't understand. If you created god as your own construct to pray to; or as an experience more than a real object - then how can a book written by another man or men, interpreting god's words....be the SAME as god.
And how can a book be the same as the world?
Or is everything just simply, everything???
see if this works
What is hanging you up I think is that you are thinking that, for example, book = god. And that the tree over there = god. You are bounding god in discrete packets of matter.

But if you switch your viewpoint a little, and see a book, and the tree, as part of the larger process..... nothing is without God -(In hebrew this referred to as Ayn Od - there is nothing but God).

Therefore, if you practice, you can divine Godly messages from anything as potentially everything is all part of the greater whole. That doesnt mean that the messages are necessarily biblical commandments (Former Res - this turnip is really God, and I want you to rob that bank!) but could be feelings, insights, visuals, sensations, or anything else imaginable. Nor does it mean you intuitively can recognize these or understand them. Think back to the notion of a native-American "reading" the clouds - same idea....

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72451 Apr 25, 2014
Fox News Is a Joke wrote:
<quoted text>by the way,Porque te llaman frijoles?
Es porque tireas mucho pedo en las fiestas amorosas cuando comes frijoles con ocopa?
En la tierre de Maine, esta un restaurante se llama "LL Frijoles", mismo de la tienda famosa. Me gusta el nombre. Yo no estoy hispano, estoy judio.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72452 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
But if someone asks you if you believe the world is round, do you struggle to articulate that belief? From a strict epistemeological perspective, why wouldnt one require the same degree of certainty of belief? Since you already indicated that you would not require this, I think that shows more about the limits of boxing someone into a absolute position on a concept that isnt so susceptible to "belief language" and perhaps best described using other types of language that isnt so binary.
Do you love your wife? Yes or no?

That part is binary. The day-to-day relationship however may take some work, some days way more than others.

Faith is by definition belief without evidence. The world is round, we have space pics!

And as you know it's all about actions more than simple ideas (faith, belief...). And your actions are those of a believer, one of the faithful. You walk and talk like that duck.

You know what and who your are better than anybody else, assuming at lest a minimal level objectivity.

But I just don't think a nonbeliever goes every Saturday, observes holidays, prays etc. I could be wrong, certainly have been before.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72453 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between my view and the atheists, is that I view the construction of God as a reflection of the limitation of us humans to communicate with another reality, while an atheist sees this as a limitation of God.
This atheist would simply say that god is a construct of man.

I think god was created as man's attempt to understand and make some sense of the world and his own existence. And to give meaning to all of this.

I have no evidence there is "another reality" only man's attempt to make some sense of this one.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72454 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
.......What is hanging you up I think is that you are thinking that, for example, book = god. And that the tree over there = god. You are bounding god in discrete packets of matter.
But if you switch your viewpoint a little, and see a book, and the tree, as part of the larger process..... nothing is without God -(In hebrew this referred to as Ayn Od - there is nothing but God).
Therefore, if you practice, you can divine Godly messages from anything as potentially everything is all part of the greater whole. That doesnt mean that the messages are necessarily biblical commandments (Former Res - this turnip is really God, and I want you to rob that bank!) but could be feelings, insights, visuals, sensations, or anything else imaginable. Nor does it mean you intuitively can recognize these or understand them. Think back to the notion of a native-American "reading" the clouds - same idea....
It sounds a whole lot like everything is god and god is everything.

And if one believes that, then how can one possibly NOT believe in god?

In other words, if one is willing to just keep widening his definition of god, eventually he HAS to become a believer.

My head is officially swimming in god speak.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72455 Apr 25, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you love your wife? Yes or no?.
sometimes
former res wrote:
<quoted text>That part is binary. The day-to-day relationship however may take some work, some days way more than others.
Faith is by definition belief without evidence. The world is round, we have space pics!
And as you know it's all about actions more than simple ideas (faith, belief...). And your actions are those of a believer, one of the faithful. You walk and talk like that duck.
You know what and who your are better than anybody else, assuming at lest a minimal level objectivity.
But I just don't think a nonbeliever goes every Saturday, observes holidays, prays etc. I could be wrong, certainly have been before.
Understood, but I never really said I didnt not believe in God, more like I don't believe in the same God that many other people don't believe in, and that there are God concepts out there that reflect more of my belief than the God idea that you are agnostic about. Also, faith, as you would no doubt agree, isnt a static belief per se but more the practice of an attitude.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72456 Apr 25, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
This atheist would simply say that god is a construct of man.
I think god was created as man's attempt to understand and make some sense of the world and his own existence. And to give meaning to all of this.
I have no evidence there is "another reality" only man's attempt to make some sense of this one.
But as you admitted, you dont need evidence to practice faith.
And with no sure evidence either way, and an acknowledgement of the limitations of us humans to perceive only what we are biologically wired to perceive at the moment, no reason to discount another reality. Heck - the movie the Matrix illustrated one potentiality.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72457 Apr 25, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
It sounds a whole lot like everything is god and god is everything.
And if one believes that, then how can one possibly NOT believe in god?
Exactly!

however, I would amend your comment to "everything is a PART of God".
former res wrote:
<quoted text>In other words, if one is willing to just keep widening his definition of god, eventually he HAS to become a believer.
My head is officially swimming in god speak.
Or even better, as I have been advocating from the beginning, move of the binary paradigm of believer vs nonbeliever of "the God out there" - and onto other frameworks - which are more sophisticated in their treatment of the issue.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#72458 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
En la tierre de Maine, esta un restaurante se llama "LL Frijoles", mismo de la tienda famosa. Me gusta el nombre. Yo no estoy hispano, estoy judio.
Speaking in tongues? I understood most of what was said. The flying roll, my diary, said "noticias de manana.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#72459 Apr 25, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
It sounds a whole lot like everything is god and god is everything.
And if one believes that, then how can one possibly NOT believe in god?
In other words, if one is willing to just keep widening his definition of god, eventually he HAS to become a believer.
My head is officially swimming in god speak.
Do you mean Newspeak? Or have you just immersed yourself in the scriptures?
Ronald Adler

Millsboro, DE

#72460 Apr 25, 2014
Slow Dance Chubby wrote:
That's funny, when the faithful try to get me in the Mitzvah van I say, "no thanks", and keep walking.
It's happened a few times and I'm not even Jewish.
Was I being oppressed?
Yes. You were.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#72461 Apr 25, 2014
Slow Dance Chubby wrote:

That's funny, when the faithful try to get me in the Mitzvah van I say, "no thanks", and keep walking.
It's happened a few times and I'm not even Jewish.
Was I being oppressed?

Ronald Adler wrote:
Yes. You were.

Thank you and nothing follows, i do not call that oppression.

Imagine 10 christians that have come to Jerusalem with the intent to convert Jews to their particular brand of reading the gospel.
They answered the add, followed the course:' How to not take no for an answer', did the cross-walk and are now ready and fired up.
So now imagine you are the target and can't even move.

Are you being oppressed?.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72462 Apr 26, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
sometimes .
I'd say love all the time but some days like her more than other days.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Understood, but I never really said I didnt not believe in God, more like I don't believe in the same God that many other people don't believe in, and that there are God concepts out there that reflect more of my belief than the God idea that you are agnostic about. Also, faith, as you would no doubt agree, isnt a static belief per se but more the practice of an attitude.
But how do you presume to know the nature of the god that I don't believe in?
Or that of any other nonbeliever?

My god concept is fairly wide open.

How do you know that I haven't (by chance) rejected the exact god concept that you hold?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Nos TROLL is Waxman 1,395,362
News Fight Or Flight: Taking Back Chicago's Violent ... 5 min bozo 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 24 min RACE 102,485
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 27 min RACE 1,675
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 28 min RACE 2,700
Word (Dec '08) 29 min RACE 6,419
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 30 min RACE 8,890
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 52 min Dr Guru 216,784
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages