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.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66543 Jan 29, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think I said anything bad about hillbillies/cousin fxxkers - did I?
Never heard the version of the command that you refer to. But you can probably correct me all day long anything to do with religion/ the Yiddish language/ the bible etc. Have at it. And I won't even be offended!
Murder is a legal term.
But I would think that religion (as does the law) takes into account "degree and intent."
So, sure killing in self defense or to feed ones family is different than murder. The law allows for this.
Do you believe in revenge killing? It seem Frijoles might.
;)
By the way- speaking of the kill/murder mistranslation issue - there are two other related interesting misconceptions

1) The ten commandments were not commandments - they were "sayings". Thus they were the Ten Sayings (which is how the orthodox Jews and other Hebrew speakers refer to them). Note the verse Exodus 20:1 below - it says spoke, not command....

(Exodus 20:1) And God spoke all these words, saying:......

2) If you actually count all the sayings, there are more than ten. Actually they are 12 or 13 depending if you are a lumper or a splitter.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66544 Jan 29, 2014
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
That if we attempt to lead a moral existence and follow the biblical injunctions as well as the moral imperatives, we will be rewarded with a good life..
To COR:

From the Shema - THE center piece of the liturgy - recited twice a day

"......And you shall inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates - so that your days and the days of your children may be prolonged on the land which the L-rd swore to your fathers to give to them for as long as the heavens are above the earth...."

Furthermore - Note it is in the plural - so it is not even promising extended individual life, but collective (i.e. tribal life) i.e. survival of the people as a cultural unit

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66545 Jan 29, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
But sports, arts, etc... don't claim to be the purveyors of objective morality, as many religions do, so I think your trying to compare apples with oranges.
I beg your pardon? How often are youth sports promoted as character building?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66546 Jan 29, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said earlier, if one is doing good deeds outside of any imperatives from their faith, then they are exhibiting humanistic qualities, at which point we are no longer talking about religion.
Likewise, if one is doing bad deeds outside of any imperatives from their faith, then they are exhibiting sociopathic, criminal, or some other negative human quality and again, we are no longer talking about religion.
If, however, someone who would normally behave well, is suddenly behaving badly because of some perceived imperative from their faith, then I think it is fair game to attribute that behaviour to their religious beliefs (e.g. Islamic suicide bombers).
Your humanism notion is a side issue to whether religious behavior, in Judaism, is inspired by fear of punishment. I was merely debunking that idea

But if you want to get into the merits of humanism, first you need to consider the merits of ecumenicalism, then branch into humanism. The problem I have with your broad strokes is that they tend to be black and white without appreciating the middle ground.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66547 Jan 29, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Then maybe you should refine your thesis that Christianity has a major influence, or fundamentalist versions of religion....since that is the evidence you are presenting
Last I checked, there were also Rabbis advocating against gay marriage. This is not strictly a Christian concern, though the Christians seem to hog a lot of the limelight.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66548 Jan 29, 2014
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
I see your concept of religion is tainted by Xtianity. Not surprising as you're stepped in a Xtian culture, where all unrepentant sin, even the sin of being born, is punishable by eternal damnation, especially the sin of backing the wrong messiah (just as Virgil).
The Jewish concept of sin is more elegant and subtle. There are sins against G-d and sins against man. There are degrees of sin based on motivation (deliberate, emotion-driven, or accidental) which is from where the concept of degrees of crime are derived in our own legal system. But none of those sins in punishable by eternal damnation in a lake of molten fire. In fact, scripture is completely vague on what is the consequences of a sin in the afterlife, or even what form, if any, the afterlife might take.
There are lots of biblical injunctions in Judaism (613 to be exact). Many of those cannot be followed in modern world (because our Temple was destroyed and yet to be rebuilt)but the concept of Tikkun Olam is not one of them (it is a moral obligation to make the world given to us by G-d a better place if we can). The convenent between G-d and the Jews holds us to follow as many of those as possible and we have dedicated the last 2,000 years to codifying them.
There are lots of stories in scripture about G-d using both positive and negative feedback to steer the Jews into complying with his injunctions but always in this world and not the next. If you take those stories literally then you have to belief that all bad fortune is the consequence of infraction while, inversely, all good fortune is an indication you're doing good. There is precious little evidence to support this theory and, in the scripture, the punishment of the Jews tends to be collective. The good suffer along with the bad.
However, if you look upon scripture as metaphorical, then you can see a different concept. That if we attempt to lead a moral existence and follow the biblical injunctions as well as the moral imperatives, we will be rewarded with a good life. And, for the most part, that's not untrue. Mostly, the quality of life we have is dependent on the decisions we make -- generally speaking. Accidents and bad fortune happen to everyone, good or bad, but very few will argue that those who deliberately seek to do harm to others tend to suffer more than those who don't. Of course there are cases where this isn't true, but, as I said, if we're taking the scripture as a allegory then generally speaking, it holds true.
In my last post, I moved beyond the concept of hell and was speaking strictly regarding the covenant the Jews made with their god and how that drives behavior and (earthly) punishment. If scripture is to be taken strictly as allegory/metaphor, then why is it necessary to believe in a literal God. Why can't it also be an allegory/metaphor?

So let's cut to the chase. If you somehow came to the realization that God did not exist, would you continue to attempt to live your life in the same moral manner that you do now? If so, then don't the humanistic values you subscribe to suffice? What value does a god add to the equation?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66549 Jan 29, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Your humanism notion is a side issue to whether religious behavior, in Judaism, is inspired by fear of punishment. I was merely debunking that idea
But if you want to get into the merits of humanism, first you need to consider the merits of ecumenicalism, then branch into humanism. The problem I have with your broad strokes is that they tend to be black and white without appreciating the middle ground.
What specifically is broad strokes about favoring humanism over religion as a moral decision making tool?

Ecumenicalism would be one approach to getting us to secular humanism, but not the most direct approach since it will undoubtedly carry a lot of baggage along.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66550 Jan 29, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
Last I checked, there were also Rabbis advocating against gay marriage. This is not strictly a Christian concern, though the Christians seem to hog a lot of the limelight.
So its a fundamentalist-extremist issue, which is arguably not even a religious issue.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66551 Jan 29, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
In my last post, I moved beyond the concept of hell and was speaking strictly regarding the covenant the Jews made with their god and how that drives behavior and (earthly) punishment. If scripture is to be taken strictly as allegory/metaphor, then why is it necessary to believe in a literal God. Why can't it also be an allegory/metaphor?
Almost 98% of most Jews today, those with Jewish educations that surpass 7th grade, believe or follow any of a plethora of God models that are far from the literal man in the sky that you have inherited from your Christian background. And almost NONE follow mitzvot as an response to reward/punishment. More commonly, they do it to realize spiritual connection, or as they say in Hebrew, to obtain kedushah.
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>So let's cut to the chase. If you somehow came to the realization that God did not exist, would you continue to attempt to live your life in the same moral manner that you do now? If so, then don't the humanistic values you subscribe to suffice? What value does a god add to the equation?
The path of life, for the religious, is not only to enact moral behaviors (i.e. actions between man), but to enact religious behaviors (i.e. acts of devotion, praise, yearning, and connection). Those are intangibles, and obvious not what you value. No one has posited that religion is the sole source of morals. But for those who seek a lifestyle deeper than just following moral precepts, its a viable alternative.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66552 Jan 29, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
What specifically is broad strokes about favoring humanism over religion as a moral decision making tool?
Ecumenicalism would be one approach to getting us to secular humanism, but not the most direct approach since it will undoubtedly carry a lot of baggage along.
again you are ASSUMING that evolution (in thinking) will lead us to secular humanism. Actual history, past and present, has evidenced otherwise. There are middle paths too.

Furthermore, as posted above, not everyone lives in their head, many or most people live in their hearts as well. Secular Humanism provides zippo in that direction.
MUQ

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

#66553 Jan 29, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
In my last post, I moved beyond the concept of hell and was speaking strictly regarding the covenant the Jews made with their god and how that drives behavior and (earthly) punishment. If scripture is to be taken strictly as allegory/metaphor, then why is it necessary to believe in a literal God. Why can't it also be an allegory/metaphor?
So let's cut to the chase. If you somehow came to the realization that God did not exist, would you continue to attempt to live your life in the same moral manner that you do now? If so, then don't the humanistic values you subscribe to suffice? What value does a god add to the equation?
Why should you "lead" a moral life if there are no consequences?

Existence of God is no "exercise in futility"..... it is account giving of our deeds that "leaves us no option but to lead a moral life".

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#66554 Jan 29, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
...So let's cut to the chase. If you somehow came to the realization that God did not exist, would you continue to attempt to live your life in the same moral manner that you do now? If so, then don't the humanistic values you subscribe to suffice? What value does a god add to the equation?
Griffith, Selznick, Kubrick, Spielberg were all filmmakers who make groundbreaking strides in film. But not one of them claims to have invented film making. So I find it difficult to understand why secular humanists insist on believing they invented the concept of morality.

For longer than recorded time, the human species has been divided into cultures and most of those cultures had a concept of religion. This religion provided the backbone to their moral code. Believers in the religion had an obligation to abide by that code to be considered part of the social construct of that religion. That was the impetus to abide by the moral code.

Secular humanism doesn't provide the same social construct as religion and provide no moral authority to abide by its precepts. Additionally, secular humanism deals almost exclusively in ethics (that which a culture defines at the moment as right and proper) vs morality -- that which is objectively good and bad. What moral code humanism does have comes unchanged from the religion-based moral codes that preceded it -- don't murder, don't steal, treat people fairly, etc.

Religious communities are often criticized as being slow or inflexible in adjusting to societal norms and I would submit that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Human beings have ephemeral values, we will seek any excuse to justify our actions. Secular humanism is the ideal system for those seeking to be unconstrained by a morality they consider to be personally stifling. Religions (the better ones anyway) evolve over time to accept new standards as they become socially unacceptable -- slavery, racism, colonialism, sex and gender bias,-- have all been rejected as morally acceptable by many of the major religions just in the past dozen decades or so.

It seems a travesty that religions have taken millenia to change fundamental concepts of morality and I would have to agree. But let's take a look at some of the horrendous concepts that humanism has been quick to embrace and provide justification over just the last century or so -- Nazism, communism, fascism, eugenics, the list goes on. So, maybe slow and steady has its advantages when attempting to define a moral code.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66555 Jan 30, 2014
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
Secular humanism doesn't provide the same social construct as religion and provide no moral authority to abide by its precepts. Additionally, secular humanism deals almost exclusively in ethics (that which a culture defines at the moment as right and proper) vs morality -- that which is objectively good and bad. What moral code humanism does have comes unchanged from the religion-based moral codes that preceded it -- don't murder, don't steal, treat people fairly, etc.
.
I still think (and you previously alluded to) that the major difference between religion and secular humanism is that religion provides a holistic framework for living while secular humanism provides an ethical framework for living.

Sure, one could survive on a diet of humanism alone. But its not for everyone, some want the whole deal - the head and the heart - as an integrated system of lifestyle.

Sure, religion is not the only source of ethics - but no Jew here every argued that. But it provides a emotional motivation for ethics, which is not a minor thing, relative to secular humanism which lacks in that area.

Sure religion has historically been a source of tribalism - but superficially there is nothing wrong with that. And if that alone bothers you (as it appears it might bother COR), then there are ecumenical versions of most world religions (In Judaism - the Reform and Reconstructionist denomination) that remove that value from the system if it bothers you.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66556 Jan 30, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should you "lead" a moral life if there are no consequences?
Existence of God is no "exercise in futility"..... it is account giving of our deeds that "leaves us no option but to lead a moral life".
IN other words, morality is a consequence of following your religion.

The counter argument is why then are their so many suicide bombers in the name of your religion? The answer, of course, is that they are not really muslim, but lets face it, you have a steeper slope to climb on that issue, then lets say, a Wiccan, or even a Christian.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66557 Jan 30, 2014
Thank you "judging" God

Would you like a bowl of fruit as an offering?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66558 Jan 30, 2014
Well, If you dont like fruit, what do you like?

I dont do virgins.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66559 Jan 30, 2014
ooops, that obviously did not come out right

I dont PROVIDE virgins

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#66560 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
I still think (and you previously alluded to) that the major difference between religion and secular humanism is that religion provides a holistic framework for living while secular humanism provides an ethical framework for living.
Sure, one could survive on a diet of humanism alone. But its not for everyone, some want the whole deal - the head and the heart - as an integrated system of lifestyle.
Sure, religion is not the only source of ethics - but no Jew here every argued that. But it provides a emotional motivation for ethics, which is not a minor thing, relative to secular humanism which lacks in that area.
Sure religion has historically been a source of tribalism - but superficially there is nothing wrong with that. And if that alone bothers you (as it appears it might bother COR), then there are ecumenical versions of most world religions (In Judaism - the Reform and Reconstructionist denomination) that remove that value from the system if it bothers you.
Is this for me?
former res

Cheshire, CT

#66561 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Spurious correlation. Many religious folk are not cut in the same cloth as the fundies you are familiar with. COR suffers the same error - lumps everyone in to the same group.
Me, familiar with Fundies?

How so?

Have definitely had more Jewish friends than fundies. The only I even know is a brother I rarely get to see. Though admittedly he is annoying.

My Philadelphia Jewish friend wouldn't eat a cheesesteak. But that may have been more from eating habits than religious reasons. So I can't definitely attribute this to strict compliance.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#66562 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm
12 Thou shalt not murder.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
Its the actual translation - not the pop translation you are familiar with.
.
I believe I already stood corrected on this.

Even see "Office Space" movie.

So many folks correcting me on my TPN reports!

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.

Buckhorn Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News WNMU to continue recruiting DACA students despi... Wed Susanna 7
News Their view: No clear gain in dispute over Falkl... (Mar '10) Jun 26 Tony 625
News Yes, Denny's is coming Jun 11 Tiger37 1
Grant Co.---rotten corner of NM (Sep '11) May '16 CrookedHillary 57
News Man charged with murder gets probation (Aug '08) May '16 operation greylord 45
News Murdered woman found at Mule Creek (Dec '08) Apr '16 wwwnorthfortyhomecom 7
News Silver City police search landfill for missing ... (Jun '11) Feb '16 cupcake 30

Buckhorn Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Buckhorn Mortgages