Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:02:21 -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: <20020905200221.6d920659.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020904232446.0b55b1d5.yid@softhome.net> <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:05:38 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:41:15 -0700 (PDT) > > "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > Moreover, not just any supernaturalism will do. It must > > > > > provide the preconditions for rationality, ethics, science, > > > > > human dignity, freedom, intellectual disagreements, etc. > > > > > > > > Exactly. Judaism. What, that wasn't the religion you had in > > > > mind?;-) > > > > > > Which is why I said that not just any supernaturalism will do. > > > Old Testament Judaism is an aborted version of Christianity. > > > > Funny, I don't think the "OT" seemed to indicate that one is > > supposed to junk it at some point in the future in favor of > > worshiping the messiah. > > Neither do I. But to reject everything that the OT pointed forward > to is just as bad. I have a higher regard for the "OT" than you > seem to assume. I don't assume you have a low regard for the "OT", though your calling "OT Judaism" (a phrase meant to deligitimize existant Judaism) an "aborted version" of your religion doesn't sound like you think too highly of Judaism. > > > Orthodox Judaism repudiates the need for blood atonement and > > > redemption, which means man can never know if he is in a right > > > relationship with God. > > > > Orthodox Judaism does not repudiate the superiority of the Temple as > > a vehicle for inner repentance; we (I am an Orthodox Jew) pray every > > day for the Temple's restoration because of that. > > 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? > error the pharisees made when they mistakenly thought that Jesus > was talking about the literal temple in John 2:19-22. How can a > temple built with human hands make atonement for sin? 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 New Testament misrepresentation of the Pharasiac position; of course this is not the only or the worst misrepresentatation of the Pharasees, of whom Orthodox Judaism is decendeded, in the New Testament. (The worst one of course is when it represents the Sanhedrin of the kind and holy Rabbis Hillel, Akiva, and Gamliel as having a secret trial to commit deicide.) > 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. "...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. > 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. The solution? Not a 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.) > What then *was* the purpose of > the temple sacrifices back in Leviticus? Were they not to teach the > Iraelites that without the shedding of blood, there can be no > remission of sins? (See Hebrews 9:22) Why does John the baptist > refer to Jesus as "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the > world"? (John 1:29) Since those books aren't in my Tanakh (Bible) I don't consider your proofs by scripture convincing. > Moreover who is being referred to in the suffering servant passages > in Isaiah 53? Israel is the servent, as is clear when you read the long servant poem (without the chapter divisions introduced by medieval xtians) in context. (Chapter 44 for example.) The servent is a personification of Israel, who has gone through so much suffering that the nations consider him cursed and will be astonished when he is restored. > Who is the seed of the woman being referred to in > Genesis 3:15 when God addresses the serpent and says, "He shall bruise > you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."? I'm afraid to ask. ;-) > > > Moreover, whether or not you agree that the particular religion I > > > propose is the One True Way, > > > > My religion is not the One True Way for non-Jews. (Hence the wink.) > > The righteous of the gentiles have a portion in the World to Come. I > > have no inepitus for forcing my beliefs down other's throats; such > > as the belief that god will torture for eternity anyone that isn't > > my religion. > > So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? Aren't you just 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. > being a little bit hypocritical? Do you think that Christians just > made up the doctrine of hell? Where do you think it came from? Did > it not come from the lips of Christ himself, who claimed to be your > Messiah? I don't care who's lips it came from, if it is not affirmed by the Oral and Written Torah of Moses and our sages we Jews don't believe in it. > 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. > Please accept my apologies for assuming you were a naturalist. But I am not insulted at all. > why is it that you find my posts so offensive in a public forum that > was expressly created for off-topic posts? And why do you deem my > views to be "militant"? You sir certainly seem to be 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. > > > 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. 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?20020905200221.6d920659.yid>