Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:38:48 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net> Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020910122240.X35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20020909031218.3912bc87.yid@softhome.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote:
> > 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.
Why do you insist on misrepresenting Christian doctrine? You know very
well we don't think he is a demigod, so why represent it as such? Is
it because you don't want to deal with a fair representation?
> > 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.
If this conversation does not seem friendly to you, maybe you ought to
consider your own attitudes. The above misrepresentation is a perfect
example of your hostility. If you are going to disagree, I don't mind.
When you misrepresent, however, I have to conclude that you are trying
to set up strawmen, and that your motives are less than pure.
> > > 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.
I would like to see some scriptural support. Animals do not sin, as
such it is not accurate to describe human sinfulness as an "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.
No you didn't. Your "refutation" did not square with the fact that God
commanded sacrifices in Leviticus. If Isaiah 1:11 is a repudiation of
blood atonement, you need to answer why it is that God commanded it in
Leviticus.
> > 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.)
Scriptural support? How does repentence turn sins into mitzvas? Sin
needs atonement, not to be turned into something that it is not.
> You seem to believe that G-d is binary, either you are completely
> righteous, or completely sinful.
This statement makes no sense. God is completely righteous, but we
are tainted with sin in every respect.
> 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?
Being turned into "ashes under the feet of the righteous" is being
cleansed? That sounds like quite a stretch. Sounds more like
destruction to me.
> > > > 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.
In Psalm 110:1, who is being referred to as "my Lord"?
"The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your
enemies a footstool for Your feet." (Psalm 110:1)
Who is Nebuchadnezzar talking about in Daniel 3:25 who he refers to
as "like a son of {the} gods!"?
Or Daniel 7:13:
"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of
heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the
Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given
dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and {men
of every} language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting
dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will
not be destroyed." (Dan 7:13-14)
> > > "...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.
Where did they forecast this?
> > > 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:
You still have not reconciled your view of verse 11 with the fact that
God commanded sacrifices in Leviticus. What was the point of all those
sacrifices in Leviticus?
> > 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.
Then stop posting, if that is your wish.
> > 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.
There you go misrepresenting again. How does blood sacrifice "inspire"?
You are the one not seeing that it is typological of a more perfect
sacrifice. I don't claim that the blood sacrifices in Leviticus had
some kind of mystical power.
> Actually, no, I believe that a purgatory exists, as well as purgatory
> without parole for a tiny group of wicked ones.
Really? So where does God draw the line between "not so bad" and
really wicked? Why would God only punish "the really wicked ones"
for eternity?
> 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.
The reason God punishes *anyone* is because of their sins. God has
offered forgiveness of those sins through Christ. It isn't arbitrary.
Those who reject Christ have no atonement for their sin. Either Christ
pays the penalty for your sins or you do.
> 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.
I know nothing of your ancestors, and have no intention of indulging in
such speculation. Really, you are just offering up an emotional response.
> > 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.
Why would that concern *you*?
Neal
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?20020910122240.X35938-100000>