Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:12:18 -0400 From: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909031218.3912bc87.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020905174725.R91660-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020905200221.6d920659.yid@softhome.net> <20020905174725.R91660-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:20:59 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> wrote: > Hi, if you could, when you get to around column 75 or so in your email > software, if you could hit enter and start a new line, it would be > most appreciated! Thanks.. Sorry. It's hard to be able to tell if a paragraph is wrapped or not, and Sylpheed doesn't do it automatically except on the display. (Where it is sometimes deceptive.) (If someone could tell me how to get sendmail to use port 25000, I'd be much obliged - until then I'm stuck with mailers that have internal mini-MTAs.) > The reason I make the distinction is because, as Christ said, > Abraham rejoiced to see His day, and my view of the Old Testament > sufficiently differs from yours as to make the distinction > relevant. The apostle Paul regarded Christians to be the true > heirs of Abraham, a point you obviously reject. It isn't so much as "rejecting" the xtian view as it is ignoring it. I rarely think of your demigod, any more than you regularly think of the divinity of Osiris. > > > What you have failed to realize is that Christ is the true temple > > > of which the physical temple was only a shadow. This is the same > > > > Make up your mind, is he a temple, a god, or a messiah? Perhaps a > > Mithra? > > He is the temple. The true temple to which the physical temple was > only a shadow. Do you not understand the concept of symbolism and > typology? I understand the concept of symbolism, Orthodox Jews aren't pseudo-literalists. "Typology" I vaguely recall being a term used in another, more friendly, conversation with a xtian about his beliefs; but don't quite remember what it means. > He is not *a* god, he is God, the same God who spoke to > Moses in the burning bush. He made this clear in John's gospel. I don't think "I will be" in past/present/and future tenses all at once quite translates itself into a human form. > > You didn't read what I said. I said a "vehicle" for "inner > > repentance". Without that inner repentance, which can be effectuated > > in all circumstances, the Temple was indeed useless. This is another > > How is a physical temple able to bring inner repentance? Also, what The same way praying or contemplating in any other setting can bring one to repentance, except the Temple was a more intense setting as it involved a vicarous sacrifice of one's own "animal" nature. > If you reject blood atonement, even though your own > scriptures taught it, Didn't I refute the passages you used to "prove" this as meaning just the opposite? Or maybe you conveniently forgot that. > how is one right with God? Does God just wink > at your sin because you are so "righteous"? No, but higher repentance of love can turn sins into mitzvas. (Repentance of fear turns intentional errors into unintentional ones.) You seem to believe that G-d is binary, either you are completely righteous, or completely sinful. Obviously, unless one was to attribute to G-d less sense than a human being, the reality is more complicated than that. The rewards of the afterlife you so focus on are in shades of grey as well. Purgatory (gehinnom) is at different levels and intensities depending upon one's need for clensing, up to the incorrigables who get what Zacharia called being turned into "ashes under the feet of the righteous". Even in heaven, the righteous are "burned by his neighbor's canopy", all can see how much they attained and how it is lesser than their neighbor. A reason to try one's hardest, yes? > > > Since you mention Isaiah chapter 1, who is being referred to in > > > verse 4? Who is the "Holy One" of Israel that the people of > > > Israel have despised? > > > > G-d. > > I agree. It is also referring to the Messiah, and the true Temple. It doesn't seem to refer to those concepts there. > > "...they have forsaken Hashem; they have angered the Holy One of > > Israel, and have turned their back [to Him]" (Stone Edition Tanakh) > > > > That's a semicolon, not a period, and it's talking about apostacy in > > Isaiah's time (note the past tense), not a crucifiction. > > I agree that it is written in Isaiah's time, so why did you earlier > cite this passage as evidence of a future rebuilding of the temple? I didn't say that, I don't recall posting evidence of the rebuilding of the temple at any time or context. However, I believe in it and the prophets did indeed forcast its rebuilding elsewhere. > Neither did I say this passage referred to a crucifixion. The persecution by Jews claimed in the NT which culminating in the Jews killing god I assume you consider this verse refering to. > > > Why does God say in verse 11, "I have had enough of burnt > > > offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no > > > pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats"? > > > > Because blood doesn't produce repentence, inner change does. In > > verse 11, it is repudiating the very theological issue of repentance > > through the blood of the sacrifices that you are aspousing. > > You need to read the passage a little more carefully. It does not > repudiate blood atonement. It repudiates the false notion that the > blood of *animals* atones for sin. Keep on reading the chapter and you'll see Isaiah urging people to do good deeds rather than sacrifices, as I pointed out and even quoted in my original message: > better and more "complete" sacrifice of a human being, but "Learn to > do good, seek justice, vindicate the victim, render justice to the > orphan, take up the grievence of the widow." (Verse 17.) If you're going to ignore everything I say and repeat robot-like your doctrines regardless, there's no use in holding a conversation. > I know that, but please answer the question. What is the purpose of > all those bloody sacrifices in Leviticus? Inspiration, not some magical property of blood that even god must obey. > > > So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? > > > > I do not attack xtianity, it has done a lot of good in the world. If > > one is selling something to someone, however, one shouldn't be > > surprised if others offer reviews of the product. > > I must humbly point out that you in fact *did* attack the doctrine of > hell. That's not the point I was making though. If somebody wants to [...] > Your very criticism amounted to trying to get me to accept *your* > belief that hell does not even exist. If in fact the doctrine of hell Actually, no, I believe that a purgatory exists, as well as purgatory without parole for a tiny group of wicked ones. I wasn't criticising the belief in hell, I was criticising the criteria xtianity uses to determine who goes there. In xtian docterine, god will torture non-xtians for eternity. If you expect me to believe in a religion that claims this moment that my grandfather, and half my ancestors, are being tormented in hell because they are Jewish then you've got another thing coming. (Mormonism was smart in allowing baptism of one's ancestors after death. ;-) That's why they're into keeping gigantic geneological databases.) > > > Aren't you just trying to silence what you don't agree with? > > > > As usual, all evangelists view people disagreeing with them an > > offense against the first amendment. > > No, I was calling you on the carpet for engaging in an ad-hominem > attack on my character. Attributing bad motivations to someone for > believing a particular doctrine is not a sound argument. I don't attribute "bad" motivations. I find it interesting to examine the motivations of missionaries however, possibly because my religion doesn't have them. (Except outreach to other Jews, and even that is of recent vintage - because if we don't get them someone else will.) > > > engaging in a"crusade" to silence what you disagree with. > > > > No, I just view it a little amusing that someone would go on a bible > > thumping crusade because of a word in a subject line. I don't > > believe that evolution is all that great either, but I'm not going > > on an evangelical crusade because of someone using it to refer to > > phenomena concerning moderating trolls on mailing lists. > > There you go again engaging in ad-hominem attacks. Why don't you try > giving some rational arguments instead of engaging in > character-assasination? Just a personal observation, not meant to score logical debating points. It's completely honest and not meant to trick anyone, though as you point out, it doesn't *prove* anything with regard to the content of what has been presented in this little marketplace of ideas. Personally I'm not trying to prove anything, I could care less (as long as he or she's not Jewish) if you convert someone on this mailing list or not. > > > > > A particular religion's cogence must be analyzed from an > > > > > internal perspective for coherence. > > > > > > > > Tertullian was at least honest when he said "credo quia absurdum > > > > est". > > > > > > In your humble opinion. > > > > Considering that he was a church father, in orthodox xtianity's > > humble opinion about itself. Of course that opinion changed, with > > lots of hand waving in order to make the change the same. > > While I have deep respect for the church fathers, they weren't right > on everything they said. Quoting church fathers to support an > argument is certainly valid *in principle*, but they were not > infallible, and at times they said things that were in direct > contradiction to the teachings of scripture. Such is the nature of > sinful man, even the great Tertullian. Tertullian wasn't all that "great", except in his honesty concerning the logical defensibility of his religion's doctrines. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020909031218.3912bc87.yid>