NationStates Jolt Archive

Note: This thread is to discuss why the Jewish religion is true, not if it is true. As such, there is certainly going to be some minor criticisms of Christianity and Islam. I'll try to keep these to a minimum. However, Christians, Muslims, and Atheists, this is not an invitation to prosletyze, discuss Christian or Muslim interpretations of scripture, debate whether God exists, or criticize Judaism or the Jews. Any posts about such will be immediately referred to the Moderation forum. So, don't waste my time, your time, and the moderators' time, and stay on-topic, even if this is a sensitive subject. A good rule of thumb is: If your post is less than a few sentences and\or you know almost nothing about Judaism aside from the Bible, DON'T POST. Thanks.

---------------------------------------

The following is a list of questions for any Jews here, especially Orthodox. As I said before in another post, I used to be quite interested in Judaism and even thought about converting (However, I'm not going to convert, but I just have several things I'd like someone to clear up for me). I figured it'd be in your interest too, because I don't want to spread any misinformation, as I did when mentioning lashon harah in a previous post, which someone clarified for me.

And this ISN'T an attack on your religion. Out of the religions I agree with most, Judaism ranks 3rd, behind Buddhism and Ba'hai. Even then, though.. In practice, I believe in God (so I'm not a Buddhist), and I disagree with Christianity and Islam, which somewhat disqualifies me from Ba'hai.

And from what I understand and have read about Jewish beliefs, you are far more rational, open-minded, and moderate than mainstream Christians and Muslims. One reason in particular that I'd liked Judaism, is that there was a certain saying in Hebrew, that every Jew sets their own "set-table" at the banquet of life, essentially saying, that Jews should follow fundamental commandments, but unlike Christianity, are free to choose what they believe. I've also liked Judaism a lot more than Christianity and Islam, because Christianity, in my opinion, is largely based upon misinterpretations of the Tanakh, which any knowledgeable Jew could explain (such as Sodom and Gomorrah). And Islam builds upon those misinterpretations with even more misinterpretations. I also liked Judaism because it heavily emphasized study, which I believe is important in any religion, but is usually ignored. It makes it clear that commentary (especially Rashi) is necessary and that, unlike what Christians and Muslims teach, you CAN'T just read something and know what it means. This is especially true because of how old the Tanakh is and because many read translations of it.

Oh, also to clarify, I'm not a Christian, Muslim, or Atheist, but a Deist. Meaning, I believe in God and that all religions are inherently good, but that's all. I understand that according to Judaism, that makes me a Noahide, as long as I follow the 7 Noahide laws, which I all agree with, except for sodomy, but I'm not gay and I think anal sex is gross, so that doesn't really matter.

Anyway, here is the list of questions:
#1. Why did Moses kill women and children? - Now... aaahh... :( I just said it wasn't an attack on your religion, but it's difficult to ask such a question and have it not seem like that. I have many questions like this, but it's only because I want to understand Judaism, not because I want to prove it wrong. It's unnecessary. I like Jews, as they aren't out to convert everybody.

Well anyway, this question could never be answered by Christians, other than that, "It was just the Jews--the first Covenant." I didn't think that that was a good answer, though, because I don't believe God would EVER form an immoral convenant. Essentially, they're not just saying the Jews are immoral, but that God commanded them to be immoral. And that's ridiculous.

So, can you answer this? On several occassions, Moses and even God commanded that women and children be killed.

To give you some examples:
Divrei Hayamim II 36:16-19
(Judaica Press English translation)
But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words and scoffed His prophets, until the Lord's wrath ascended upon His people beyond remedy. And He brought upon them the king of the Chaldeans, and he slew their young men by the sword in their Temple, and he had pity neither on youth nor virgin, elder nor ancient one; He delivered all into his hand. And all the vessels of the House of God, both large and small, and the treasuries of the House of the Lord, and the treasuries of the king and his officers; he brought everything to Babylon. And they burned the House of God, and they demolished the wall of Jerusalem, and all its palaces they burned with fire, and destroyed all its precious vessels.

Shmuel I 15:2-3
(Judaica Press English translation)
So said the Lord of Hosts, 'I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid (wait) for him on the way, when he came up out of Egypt. Now, go, and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.' "

Bamidbar 31:13-18
(Judaica Press English translation)
Moses, Eleazar the kohen, and all princes of the community went out to meet them, outside the camp. Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had returned from the campaign of war. Moses said to them, "Did you allow all the females to live? They were the same ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Balaam's advice to betray the Lord over the incident of Peor, resulting in a plague among the congregation of the Lord. So now kill every male child, and every woman who can lie intimately with a man you shall kill. And all the young girls who have no experience of intimate relations with a man, you may keep alive for yourselves.
That last one seems especially bad, because the soldiers themselves thought it was wrong. I'd like to think that this was just Moses's commandment, but the scripture above these show that God, himself, commanded the same thing on different occassions.

So, why is this?! How can killing women and children EVER be justified?!

I mean, I understand that if God tells you to do something, you do it. But some Muslims claim God tells THEM to kill OUR women and children!

This scripture was the main reason why I also could never believe in Christianity and also part of why I couldn't convert to Judaism---after all, to convert to Judaism, you have to agree with all of the law. I couldn't convert, while believing that God or Moses once did something evil.

#2. What's the definition of a "mamzer"? - I understand that mamzers, in other words, bastards, can't marry Jews or probably convert. I'd like to know: What's the definition of a mamzer? Is it a child who doesn't know his father, a child whose parents never married, or a child whose parents concieved them before they were married? Or is it a child that was born before their parents were married?

#3. What's with "G-d"? - Philosophically, I debated this with myself. Judaism's nice, too, because it allows you to be a bit philosophical. And, in my opinion, saying or writing, "G-d," is just as immoral as the whole word (please, explain why I'm wrong, if I am). The reason is because God says you shouldn't use his name in vain. Well, first, you need to clarify what God's name is and what "in vain," means.

God's name could either mean the words used in the Tanakh or any word translated from that. "In vain," simply means without a purpose. But obviously, it doesn't just mean any purpose, because all words that are said, are said for some sort of purpose (psychology teaches this). So, what the commandment must mean is, "Do not say God's name without a holy purpose."

This would mean, as it seems to me, that it's okay to say God's name in prayer or when discussing Torah, because obviously, learning Torah is a holy purpose. However, any word that anyone intends to mean God is God. In other words, a lot of people use words to avoid saying other words. Christians used to say, "Gee whiz!" instead of Jesus Christ or "Good golly!" instead of G. D. But all they're doing is just using another word to replace it. And that's all a translation is, too.

Let's say I invent my own language, and I make the word, "Cheese," mean God. Well.. Does that mean if anyone says cheese, that they're blaspheming? No. Therefore, typing G-d does not give a person the excuse to use the Lord's name in vain. So, I believe that this G-d thing is just tradition. I mean, it's better than non-Jewish religions which use the Lord's name in vain all the time (such as with POLITICS :rolleyes: ), but it still just isn't right, because a method designed to circumvent the mitzvah. But even then, I believe they're too strict about that mitzvah as well, which is why G-d was invented to begin with.

#4. Be fruitful and multiply - This is also something I disagree with Orthodox Jews on. They believe that you can never have enough children. And while I completely agree every child is a blessing, I do believe that it is possible for overpopulation to be a problem. Because the commandment was not just "multiply," but "be fruitful," and multiply. Can't a piece of land be filled with so many trees, that the trees are no longer fruitful?

Yes. There are times when fruitfulness and multiplying are at odds. And when faced with a conflict of those, it is arbitrary to choose "multiplying," over "fruitfulness." Although, to my knowledge, the Tanakh never states which one is of more importance, it is only when the Jews are fruitful that they can multiply, and it is only when Jews multiply that they can be fruitful. So, in times of overpopulation or if you're poor, it is sometimes sensible to have less children. But in times of prosperity, there is no excuse.

#5. What is your opinion of Zionism? - In my opinion, according to the Tanakh, the Jews do have the divine right to Israel. Because God gave them that land. Jews and the Israeli people should stick up for themselves as well. But at the same time, I don't think that it's worth killing and dying for. In the Tanakh, whenever God wanted the Jews to have something, God told the Jews what to do, they did it, and then it happened easily. The Hebrews were a VERY small army, but conquered many, many nations. So, since the Jews are having such trouble with Israel, is that not a sign that they have no support from God? I mean---yes, Israel belongs to them, but why has God made it so difficult? I don't believe it's merely a test, because when God gave the land to the Jews to begin with, he made it incredibly easy. And I don't think God would let the Muslims have Israel for thousands of years, or allow so many innocent people to die, all just for a test of faith. I also agree with previous Rabbis, that it is the Moshiach who will deliver them Israel, and that trying to take it with guns and missiles is blasphemous.

In effect, they're saying, "God is not good enough to give us Israel. Because of our lack of faith, we need these weapons to accomplish it for us." Many Zionists talk about the need for the U.S. to help Israel have military superiority---But in the Tanakh, Israel never made such alliances and they didn't HAVE or NEED military superiority. They were outnumbered and outpowered, but they crushed the enemy because God was on their side. In other words, I believe Zionists just have poor faith.

#6. Why did the Holocaust happen? - This is probably a question that has no answer, but I thought I would ask anyway. It's impossible to believe that God caused the Holocaust and I won't even say that. But why did he allow it to happen? Some Jews say that the Jews of that time were immoral, but that seems false to me. I remember in high school, I read "Night," by Elie Wiesel, a man who actually was in a concentration camp, and they seemed just like normal people, certainly not anywhere near deserving what happened to them. This explanation that they "deserved," it is what psychology calls, "Belief in a Just World," which is that whenever ANYTHING happens to someone, even if it's obviously not their fault, we have to make some justification for it, to explain it.

Calling them immoral is a horrible justification. And with the sex and violence on American and European TV today, as well as what's going on in Israel, I'd say that Jews today are not any more or less moral than in the past. So, why did this happen? I don't believe that it was because Jews didn't fight for Israel, either, (according to Zionism) for reasons stated above. After all, Jews began fighting for Israel before the Holocaust happened, not after. Besides, if the Holocaust happened because people weren't "Zionist," enough, then why didn't it happen a hundred years ago, or a thousand? If God was trying to punish the Jews, he certainly waited a long, long time to do so. In the Tanakh, God never procrastinated.

That's pretty much it for my questions. I have other questions, but heck, even Solomon didn't understand all of the mitzvot, so I shouldn't expect that from any of you. I also need to do further study on my own. Thanks.

As another Deist can I at least say, "Wow, good post/questions!" and
"I'll have to take these to my next discussion with my friend the Rabbi? ... please? :p

Nothing new about your questions, Shrub.


#1. Why did Moses kill women and children?
Simply put- because God said so. This is the natural answer you are going to get to more or less all your questions. God's direct commands must be obeyed by the rule called "naase ve-nishma"- first we will do, THEN we will ask why". Human intelligence is by definition limited and cannot understand the true complexity of the causal chains of the events around us, so you simply cannot judge God's decisions in the framework of your limited knowlege and logic.

If we do attempt to understand, it appears to me that all your quotes refer to battles between the Jews and the Amalekites. Amalek, according to the Torah, were not just another nation, but a "natural enemy" of the Jews, a people filled with unmotivated hatred. They apparently attacked the Jews immediately after the Exodus, when the refugees were most vulnerable.

Remember what Amalek did to you, on the way when you were leaving Egypt... (Deut. 25:17-19)

It was their audacity, in attacking the Jews immediately after the Exodus, which emboldened later enemies to rise against us. They attacked the Jews when no one else dared- immediately after the chain of miracles that crushed Egypt, the Ten Plagues and the splitting of the sea. The Amalekites witnessed the greatest of proofs of God's presence and power- and defied His authority.

It was therefore suggested by many scholars that the Amalekite attacked the Jews not despite, but BECAUSE the Jewish people's very existence proved the existence of God to the world, in order to defy God and destroy the knowledge that He exists. This was the kind of hatred unprecedented and not found in any other nation- even the Egyptians did not aim to completely obliterate the Jewish people. And so came the order- wipe them out, to the last one of them, before this threat to your existence spreads around the world. Wipe them out so there would be no one left to harbor this hatred and no one left to seek revenge for destroying it.


#2. What's the definition of a "mamzer"?
A mamzer, contrary to popular belief, is not a child born out of wedlock. Mamzer means a child who is a product of a forbidden union- such as incestuous relations or adultery.


#3. What's with "G-d"?
This one is difficult to answer to a non-Hebrew speaking person, as it requires understanding of the exact meaning of words usually translated as "in vain".

The problem with the commandments is that they are rarely so clear as to not require interpretation. The exact words are "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". It is not necesserily wrong to interprete it the way you did, BUT this isn't the only way to interprete it. The prohibition clearly applies to using God's name in vain, not just invoking him in general. The possible reason, suggested by some scholars, is that God's "true" name, the way it is spelled in the Torah, was one of the tools of Creation, and therefore holds a certain degree of power or at the very least draws God's attention whenever it is called. And we wouldn't want to casually distract God from keeping the world in order, would we? In the words of the Torah, " the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain". Putting it simple, don't annoy Him, he's busy. :p

Using G-d in the English language is merely a mirror image of how it is spelled in Hebrew- by the first and the last letter- when there is a need to get around the prohibition (in Hebrew there are no capital letters, so when you need to make clear you are referring to "the" God and not some polytheistic entity, you have no choice but to "name" Him). It is not obligatory to use though, as only the exact Hebrew writing that appears in the Torah. You might notice that I myself don't use it. On the other hand, some failsafe never hurts ;)


#4. Be fruitful and multiply - This is also something I disagree with Orthodox Jews on. They believe that you can never have enough children. And while I completely agree every child is a blessing, I do believe that it is possible for overpopulation to be a problem. Because the commandment was not just "multiply," but "be fruitful," and multiply. Can't a piece of land be filled with so many trees, that the trees are no longer fruitful?
I suppose it can. But there are also laws in Judaism that allow for limiting the number of children- for instance, if the birth of another child will drive the family into deep poverty bordering on starvation. However, "be fruitful and multiply" is a command given not just to humans, but also to all other living creatures, so you could be wise to start with creatures with a higher reproduction rate. I believe the "one child per family" policy could be a tremendous success among cockroaches :P


#5. What is your opinion of Zionism? - In my opinion, according to the Tanakh, the Jews do have the divine right to Israel. Because God gave them that land. Jews and the Israeli people should stick up for themselves as well. But at the same time, I don't think that it's worth killing and dying for. In the Tanakh, whenever God wanted the Jews to have something, God told the Jews what to do, they did it, and then it happened easily. The Hebrews were a VERY small army, but conquered many, many nations. So, since the Jews are having such trouble with Israel, is that not a sign that they have no support from God? I mean---yes, Israel belongs to them, but why has God made it so difficult? I don't believe it's merely a test, because when God gave the land to the Jews to begin with, he made it incredibly easy. And I don't think God would let the Muslims have Israel for thousands of years, or allow so many innocent people to die, all just for a test of faith. I also agree with previous Rabbis, that it is the Moshiach who will deliver them Israel, and that trying to take it with guns and missiles is blasphemous.

In effect, they're saying, "God is not good enough to give us Israel. Because of our lack of faith, we need these weapons to accomplish it for us.

You are making an unbelievable mess of the whole thing.

I'll tell you a story (in the best tradition of Chassidic Jews ;)). Once upon a time, a small town was caught in a flood, and one God fearing man sought safety on the roof of his house. Watching the water rise, he prayed to God for rescue.
A small boat passed by the house, and the people in it called the man to join them before the flood reaches him. "No" said the man. "Go away, God will deliver me from this danger".
Some time had passed, and the water rose to the level of his waste. Another boat came along, collecting survivors, and they, too, called on the man to join them. "Go away," said the man. "I believe in God and the power of prayer, He will not leave me to die".
More time had passed, and the water rose to the man's neck. A helicopter flew over the house, and the pilot dropped the man a rope so he could climb up and save himself. "Leave me alone" said the man. "God will not leave His faithful servant".
Predictably, in a few more minutes the man drowned. Being righteous, he was entitled to go to Heaven and have a personal audience with God. And as they talked, he asked bitterly: "Why did You forsake me, my Lord? Was I not faithful to you? Was I not praying sincere enough? Why did you leave me to die?" "You arrogant fool!" God answered. "I've sent you two boats and a helicopter. What did you expect, that the waters split and a chariot of fire descends from the sky to carry you away?"

Simply put, it is arrogant and arguably sinful to sit on your lazy bum and expect that God does all the dirty work for you. When you do something, God might help you- but if you do nothing, why should he?


Many Zionists talk about the need for the U.S. to help Israel have military superiority---But in the Tanakh, Israel never made such alliances and they didn't HAVE or NEED military superiority. They were outnumbered and outpowered, but they crushed the enemy because God was on their side.
Which is EXACTLY what happened in all of Israel's wars against the Arabs. Besides, why reject alliances? What did I just say about chariots of fire? ;)


#6. Why did the Holocaust happen?
You could as well ask why Cain murdered Abel, or why did that dirty little thief break into your car and carry away your stereo. The origin of the evil lies with humans, not with God, and no one but humans are to blame for the Holocaust. Whi God allowed this to happen is a more complicated question- but the most obvious answer lies with the concept of free will. When people want to do good, God lets them. When they want to do evil, God also lets them. It is the success of the adventure where God's hand may show itself- and the Holocaust not only failed, but backfired at its perpetrators like no other atrocity in history ever did before.

#4. Be fruitful and multiplyI think there is explanationof that law as breed one boy and one girl. as any holy book, some laws are misunderstood while the years, and that creat most of the problems.
#5. What is your opinion of Zionism? that is one of my problems with the orthodox. some of them aren't zionist at all, and they for destruction of israel. I am fully for zionism, although I don't see the wish to settle in all israel (including the palastinian territories), as undivided part of the zionism.

#6. Why did the Holocaust happen? because noone can't trust god. the zionist leader tried to establish country, exactly because the fear it may happened (although they weren't imagine such horrible thing). unfortunally, most of the jewish prefer to stay in europe, and many killed

The whole 'in vain' thing is, as is VERY common, a Christian mis-translation of the text.

The actual wording is 'in vain oath', IE: Don't make a promise before God that you know you will not keep.

Hitting your hand with a hammer and shouting 'God Damn!' is perfectly fine!

The G-d thing comes from the fact that Jews hold the true name of God as holy and will never write it down in full form except in holy texts, as a hangover this has been adopted by English language Jews even though 'God' is not the 'true name' of God. So basically they mostly don't understand why they do it.

And why did the Holocaust happen?

Because the German people democratically elected an overtly and often-stated anti-sematist leader who had written a book called 'Mein Kampf' in which he proposed killing all the Jews.

Nothing new about your questions, Shrub.


Simply put- because God said so. This is the natural answer you are going to get to more or less all your questions. God's direct commands must be obeyed by the rule called "naase ve-nishma"- first we will do, THEN we will ask why".
But at the same time, I've heard that Jews are also supposed to petition God on behalf of mankind, because merely commanding us to do something could be a test. For example, the great flood in Genesis is called Noah's Flood, because he simply did it without even begging God for another option.


Human intelligence is by definition limited and cannot understand the true complexity of the causal chains of the events around us, so you simply cannot judge God's decisions in the framework of your limited knowlege and logic.
Could we at least logically reduce it to this:

A person should only do something such as kill women and children if they, themselves, witness the direct command of God.

For example, throughout history, there have been many false Moshiachs, which I'm sure you'd agree is pure blasphemy. When it comes to interpretations of scripture, you can simply use your mind and experiences. But when it comes to direct commands of God which contradict those, there's nothing you can do. However, in order for it to be carried out, you must be certain that it IS, in fact, a direct command from God and not deception. The only way to do that is for one to witness it, personally. In Moses' time, this was unnecessary, because the Jews had already witnessed God naming Moses' and the priests as his messengers. But this isn't so clear anymore, is it? There isn't really anyone who God has established to have direct contact with. So, in the future, if anyone claims "God told me to do it," it can only be taken into account if we directly witnessed this command.

Agreed?

Otherwise, anyone could use that excuse.

If we do attempt to understand, it appears to me that all your quotes refer to battles between the Jews and the Amalekites. Amalek, according to the Torah, were not just another nation, but a "natural enemy" of the Jews, a people filled with unmotivated hatred. They apparently attacked the Jews immediately after the Exodus, when the refugees were most vulnerable.

Remember what Amalek did to you, on the way when you were leaving Egypt... (Deut. 25:17-19)

It was their audacity, in attacking the Jews immediately after the Exodus, which emboldened later enemies to rise against us. They attacked the Jews when no one else dared- immediately after the chain of miracles that crushed Egypt, the Ten Plagues and the splitting of the sea. The Amalekites witnessed the greatest of proofs of God's presence and power- and defied His authority.

It was therefore suggested by many scholars that the Amalekite attacked the Jews not despite, but BECAUSE the Jewish people's very existence proved the existence of God to the world, in order to defy God and destroy the knowledge that He exists. This was the kind of hatred unprecedented and not found in any other nation- even the Egyptians did not aim to completely obliterate the Jewish people. And so came the order- wipe them out, to the last one of them, before this threat to your existence spreads around the world. Wipe them out so there would be no one left to harbor this hatred and no one left to seek revenge for destroying it.
Also, the Canaanites, in Bamidbar, and they were killed for consorting with the enemy, the idolaters, Balaam.

What bothers me about this is not just the past, but the present and future implications. Does this mean that, if a group of people plot against the Jewish people that you should, again, kill women and children? This has to be a special exception God made, and not a commandment based on an overall principle. What makes the Canaanites and Amalekites any different than the Palestinians and many Arab groups? Idolatry? Child-sacrifice?

This one is difficult to answer to a non-Hebrew speaking person, as it requires understanding of the exact meaning of words usually translated as "in vain".

The problem with the commandments is that they are rarely so clear as to not require interpretation. The exact words are "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". It is not necesserily wrong to interprete it the way you did, BUT this isn't the only way to interprete it. The prohibition clearly applies to using God's name in vain, not just invoking him in general. The possible reason, suggested by some scholars, is that God's "true" name, the way it is spelled in the Torah, was one of the tools of Creation, and therefore holds a certain degree of power or at the very least draws God's attention whenever it is called. And we wouldn't want to casually distract God from keeping the world in order, would we? In the words of the Torah, " the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain". Putting it simple, don't annoy Him, he's busy.

Using G-d in the English language is merely a mirror image of how it is spelled in Hebrew- by the first and the last letter- when there is a need to get around the prohibition (in Hebrew there are no capital letters, so when you need to make clear you are referring to "the" God and not some polytheistic entity, you have no choice but to "name" Him). It is not obligatory to use though, as only the exact Hebrew writing that appears in the Torah. You might notice that I myself don't use it. On the other hand, some failsafe never hurts
I agree. And our interpretations aren't mutually-exclusive. One can believe God's name should be used with a holy purpose, while also believe God's Hebrew names are holy and that it's important to have a word to differentiate.

You are making an unbelievable mess of the whole thing.

I'll tell you a story (in the best tradition of Chassidic Jews ). Once upon a time, a small town was caught in a flood, and one God fearing man sought safety on the roof of his house. Watching the water rise, he prayed to God for rescue.
A small boat passed by the house, and the people in it called the man to join them before the flood reaches him. "No" said the man. "Go away, God will deliver me from this danger".
Some time had passed, and the water rose to the level of his waste. Another boat came along, collecting survivors, and they, too, called on the man to join them. "Go away," said the man. "I believe in God and the power of prayer, He will not leave me to die".
More time had passed, and the water rose to the man's neck. A helicopter flew over the house, and the pilot dropped the man a rope so he could climb up and save himself. "Leave me alone" said the man. "God will not leave His faithful servant".
Predictably, in a few more minutes the man drowned. Being righteous, he was entitled to go to Heaven and have a personal audience with God. And as they talked, he asked bitterly: "Why did You forsake me, my Lord? Was I not faithful to you? Was I not praying sincere enough? Why did you leave me to die?" "You arrogant fool!" God answered. "I've sent you two boats and a helicopter. What did you expect, that the waters split and a chariot of fire descends from the sky to carry you away?"

Simply put, it is arrogant and arguably sinful to sit on your lazy bum and expect that God does all the dirty work for you. When you do something, God might help you- but if you do nothing, why should he?
A wise story.

But, at what point does our technology become a modern Tower of Babel? For example, I'd say nuclear weapons certainly cross that line.


Which is EXACTLY what happened in all of Israel's wars against the Arabs. Besides, why reject alliances? What did I just say about chariots of fire?
Oh, come on. Please, cite the scripture where the Jews were debating over border-issues with the Canaanites and the Amalekites, with another nation involved to arbitrate. :P

Oh, also, out of curiousity... What land DID the Jews occupy in the Tanakh? I mean, I know Jerusalem, obviously, but how much of Israel and Palestine would it be?

Another thing, two more questions I forgot to ask:
#7. Why don't Jews denounce westerners using Kabbalah more often? - I completely understand and agree with the idea that, not only is studying Kabbalah before studying Torah wrong, but it's useless, like learning to run before learning to crawl. Why don't Jews denounce this more often? Because I know, if I were a Jew, I'd be seriously offended if lying thieves were taking bits of my religion and selling to make money.

#7. How much do Synagogue services usually cost? - As I said before, my father's ex-girlfriend was Jewish. And once, he told me that she told him that Synagogues charge a tooooon of money for anything. This isn't a criticism, but just curiousity. I'm also interested--what do you actually do at a Synagogue? In Christian Churches, you just walk in, kneel on the bar, and pray. If it's a Catholic Church, there's a bowl of holy water by the entrance that you dip your finger in and then press your finger towards your head, chest, and shoulders (the crucifix sign, Catholics make) before entering. And then, on Sundays, in both, they have pastors talk about scripture and recent events.

The whole 'in vain' thing is, as is VERY common, a Christian mis-translation of the text.

The actual wording is 'in vain oath', IE: Don't make a promise before God that you know you will not keep.

Hitting your hand with a hammer and shouting 'God Damn!' is perfectly fine!
It may just be because I live in America, but I disagree...

Jews agree that words have a powerful impact on society. In fact, there's a theory in Sociology that words determine how we percieve reality. In Judaism, there's the need for constant blessings and lashon harah is seen as immoral even if you hear it.

Wouldn't the same idea apply to God? If people use the term, "God," casually, even if it's not in Hebrew, they begin to think of God, casually. And once they think of God so casually, they blasphemingly treat him like a human being instead of God.

If you wouldn't mind, I'd also like to know the direct translation of that passage. I know, often, words have implications of other words, because of the way the Hebrew language is formed. So, of course, much is going to be lost in any translation.

Also, why hasn't anyone TRIED to rewrite the book of Solomon, explaining all of the mitzvot? Certainly, it would be an encouragement to Jews without faith.

But at the same time, I've heard that Jews are also supposed to petition God on behalf of mankind, because merely commanding us to do something could be a test. For example, the great flood in Genesis is called Noah's Flood, because he simply did it without even begging God for another option.
Well yes, you can question and petition- but disobey you cannot. Once the order is given, you are obliged to comply, even if it means sacrificing your own son, as was the case of Abraham.


Could we at least logically reduce it to this:

A person should only do something such as kill women and children if they, themselves, witness the direct command of God.

For example, throughout history, there have been many false Moshiachs, which I'm sure you'd agree is pure blasphemy. When it comes to interpretations of scripture, you can simply use your mind and experiences. But when it comes to direct commands of God which contradict those, there's nothing you can do. However, in order for it to be carried out, you must be certain that it IS, in fact, a direct command from God and not deception. The only way to do that is for one to witness it, personally. In Moses' time, this was unnecessary, because the Jews had already witnessed God naming Moses' and the priests as his messengers. But this isn't so clear anymore, is it? There isn't really anyone who God has established to have direct contact with. So, in the future, if anyone claims "God told me to do it," it can only be taken into account if we directly witnessed this command.

Agreed?

Otherwise, anyone could use that excuse.
Anyone who could prove beyond any doubt that he has direct communication with God.

If you read the TANACH carefully, you will see that many prophets were disobeyed and mistreated, but not a single one of them had his status of a prophet doubted. These people could PROVE that they were God's messengers in a way that would convince the entire nation (and we are, and always were, a nation of people questioning authority), and that was what gave them the authority. And only such person's word can be trusted when they say that God spoke to them.


What bothers me about this is not just the past, but the present and future implications. Does this mean that, if a group of people plot against the Jewish people that you should, again, kill women and children? This has to be a special exception God made, and not a commandment based on an overall principle. What makes the Canaanites and Amalekites any different than the Palestinians and many Arab groups? Idolatry? Child-sacrifice?
The Amalekites were the first. They were the source of the hatred, and if they were destroyed, the hatred would be eliminated. Today, the hatred is too widespread and cannot be uprooted by physical elimination of any particular group of people, but rather only by reshaping the collective consciousness of humanity.

A wise story.

But, at what point does our technology become a modern Tower of Babel? For example, I'd say nuclear weapons certainly cross that line.
Depends. No technological device is in and of itself evil, it is the way of using them that makes it so. Nuclear weapons as a guarantee of survival of a nation are hardly bad, it is only nuclear weapons in offensive capacity that are a concern.


Oh, come on. Please, cite the scripture where the Jews were debating over border-issues with the Canaanites and the Amalekites, with another nation involved to arbitrate. :P
Debating wasn't very popular back then, people were more into direct action ;)

And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, saying, let me pass through thy land: we will not turn into the fields, or into the vineyards; we will not drink of the waters of the well: but we will go along by the king's high way, until we be past thy borders. And Sihon would not suffer Israel to pass through his border: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel into the wilderness: and he came to Jahaz, and fought against Israel. And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon unto Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon: for the border of the children of Ammon was strong.


Oh, also, out of curiousity... What land DID the Jews occupy in the Tanakh? I mean, I know Jerusalem, obviously, but how much of Israel and Palestine would it be?
More or less the territory of today's Israel, the territories, most of today's Jordan, a big chunk of the Sinai peninsula and at some point Syria a little beyond Damascus.


Another thing, two more questions I forgot to ask:
#7. Why don't Jews denounce westerners using Kabbalah more often? - I completely understand and agree with the idea that, not only is studying Kabbalah before studying Torah wrong, but it's useless, like learning to run before learning to crawl. Why don't Jews denounce this more often? Because I know, if I were a Jew, I'd be seriously offended if lying thieves were taking bits of my religion and selling to make money.
Depends who you ask. The true Kabbalists do denounce these "popularizers" all the time, and it is not uncommon to read condemnations of it in the religious Israeli newspapers like ha-Modia. However, we're dealing with a phenomena that cannot be rectified by condemnations, and truly serious scholars simply can't be bothered wasting time and effort on futile tasks like that.

I have to admit I do get somewhat sick when I hear yet another piece of "news" about Madonna's Kabbalistic exersises. :rolleyes:

#7. How much do Synagogue services usually cost?
To be honest, I don't have a clue. I suppose it depends on the community in question and varies from place to place. Some services the community provides MUST be paid for because they involve professional labor- for instance, every synagogue must have a Torah scroll (writing which is a professional job that requires long trainig and which takes months). The Christians do not need this, so there's less need for "maintenance" money.


I'm also interested--what do you actually do at a Synagogue?
You pray, you study with a bunch of random people who happened to be there at the time, you celebrate bar mitzva initiation and other events, you take part in the weekly Torah reading ceremony. Stuff like that, you know.

What you won't see, though, is a rabbi preaching about scripture and everybody else looking into his mouth. We Jews can't do that, we have to talk back ;) Well, I suppose sometimes, when some renowned scholar passes by he can give a lecture, but this is by no means a regular practice. Studying the Scripture is usually done in small, but noisy groups that come up with some kind of inquisitive or provocative question about this week's Torah portion and begin to bombard each other with quotes, references, Talmudic commentary and such. It usually ends up with the voice volumes reaching their maximum level, after which the group drops the books and starts dancing around the table (by now buried under a pile of books) and singing :D

Anyone who could prove beyond any doubt that he has direct communication with God.
I can agree with that, I guess. But who would be the judge? I'd say it should be left up to the individual. You wouldn't want a Jewish version of the Catholic Church.


Depends. No technological device is in and of itself evil, it is the way of using them that makes it so. Nuclear weapons as a guarantee of survival of a nation are hardly bad, it is only nuclear weapons in offensive capacity that are a concern.
Like the United States? ;)


Debating wasn't very popular back then, people were more into direct action ;)

And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, saying, let me pass through thy land: we will not turn into the fields, or into the vineyards; we will not drink of the waters of the well: but we will go along by the king's high way, until we be past thy borders. And Sihon would not suffer Israel to pass through his border: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel into the wilderness: and he came to Jahaz, and fought against Israel. And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon unto Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon: for the border of the children of Ammon was strong.


More or less the territory of today's Israel, the territories, most of today's Jordan, a big chunk of the Sinai peninsula and at some point Syria a little beyond Damascus.


Depends who you ask. The true Kabbalists do denounce these "popularizers" all the time, and it is not uncommon to read condemnations of it in the religious Israeli newspapers like ha-Modia. However, we're dealing with a phenomena that cannot be rectified by condemnations, and truly serious scholars simply can't be bothered wasting time and effort on futile tasks like that.

I have to admit I do get somewhat sick when I hear yet another piece of "news" about Madonna's Kabbalistic exersises. :rolleyes:


To be honest, I don't have a clue. I suppose it depends on the community in question and varies from place to place. Some services the community provides MUST be paid for because they involve professional labor- for instance, every synagogue must have a Torah scroll (writing which is a professional job that requires long trainig and which takes months). The Christians do not need this, so there's less need for "maintenance" money.


You pray, you study with a bunch of random people who happened to be there at the time, you celebrate bar mitzva initiation and other events, you take part in the weekly Torah reading ceremony. Stuff like that, you know.

What you won't see, though, is a rabbi preaching about scripture and everybody else looking into his mouth. We Jews can't do that, we have to talk back ;) Well, I suppose sometimes, when some renowned scholar passes by he can give a lecture, but this is by no means a regular practice. Studying the Scripture is usually done in small, but noisy groups that come up with some kind of inquisitive or provocative question about this week's Torah portion and begin to bombard each other with quotes, references, Talmudic commentary and such. It usually ends up with the voice volumes reaching their maximum level, after which the group drops the books and starts dancing around the table (by now buried under a pile of books) and singing :D

What you won't see, though, is a rabbi preaching about scripture and everybody else looking into his mouth. We Jews can't do that, we have to talk back ;) Well, I suppose sometimes, when some renowned scholar passes by he can give a lecture, but this is by no means a regular practice. Studying the Scripture is usually done in small, but noisy groups that come up with some kind of inquisitive or provocative question about this week's Torah portion and begin to bombard each other with quotes, references, Talmudic commentary and such. It usually ends up with the voice volumes reaching their maximum level, after which the group drops the books and starts dancing around the table (by now buried under a pile of books) and singing :D
I know. I've heard about this. I've heard that, in Israel's Yeshivas, you have to be very good at concentrating under noise. Because though it's a place of study, it's incredibly loud.

Well anyway, that clarifies pretty much everything. Thanks!

EDIT: Oh, also--one question you didn't answer: Why hasn't anyone tried to rewrite the lost book of Solomon, explaining the mitzvot? It would be of great use.

I can agree with that, I guess. But who would be the judge? I'd say it should be left up to the individual. You wouldn't want a Jewish version of the Catholic Church.
Judaism has ALWAYS (or at least since the destruction of the Temple) been a decentralized faith with little to no hierarchy. The whole of Talmud is one endless string of questioning and challenging interpretations- and often the authority- of the previous commentators.


Like the United States? ;)
For that matter, yes. I see no country other than Israel in the modern world for whom having nuclear weapons would really be a matter of survival.


I know. I've heard about this. I've heard that, in Israel's Yeshivas, you have to be very good at concentrating under noise. Because though it's a place of study, it's incredibly loud.
Oh yes.


EDIT: Oh, also--one question you didn't answer: Why hasn't anyone tried to rewrite the lost book of Solomon, explaining the mitzvot? It would be of great use.
Rewrite the lost book of Solomon? I'm not sure which book you are referring to. Besides, on what basis could it possibly be recreated?

Rewrite the lost book of Solomon? I'm not sure which book you are referring to. Besides, on what basis could it possibly be recreated?
Maybe you aren't familiar with it. It's not scripture, I don't believe. Just a Jewish fable. I'll refresh your memory.

The wise, King Solomon once wrote a book, explaining all of the 613 mitzvot. And he explained all of them, except one: Animal sacrifice. When he couldn't explain that one mitzvah, he decided he didn't know the rest that well, either, so he ripped the book up, tossed it into the fire, and it was never seen again.

As for the basis--it could be written by Kabbalists. Real ones, I mean. To explain the logical, secular reason for the Jewish commandments.

I figured it was possible, because *I* understand why God commanded animal sacrifice. If you could figure out the rest of Solomon's book, it would be complete.

Maybe you aren't familiar with it. It's not scripture, I don't believe. Just a Jewish fable. I'll refresh your memory.

The wise, King Solomon once wrote a book, explaining all of the 613 mitzvot. And he explained all of them, except one: Animal sacrifice. When he couldn't explain that one mitzvah, he decided he didn't know the rest that well, either, so he ripped the book up, tossed it into the fire, and it was never seen again.
It sounds like a Midrash of some kind. The trouble with the Midrash is that its factual accuracy is secondary to the lesson it is supposed to teach. Many commentators said that some of the Midrashim may or may not be true.

It is, of course, conceivable that king Solomon would write such a book. The problem is, only Solomon himself could possibly recreate his book exactly the way it was.


As for the basis--it could be written by Kabbalists. Real ones, I mean. To explain the logical, secular reason for the Jewish commandments.
There are no "logical, secular reasons" for God's orders. There cannot possibly be. There can only be wild guesses within the limits of human intelligence as for what may be the reason behind a particular commandment. Such explanations will ALWAYS remain secondary to the fact that it is a God given order that must be obeyed whether or not you know why.

Besides, we do have a book that analyses and explains the Scripture and its laws verse by verse. It's called the Talmud.

There are no "logical, secular reasons" for God's orders. There cannot possibly be. There can only be wild guesses within the limits of human intelligence as for what may be the reason behind a particular commandment. Such explanations will ALWAYS remain secondary to the fact that it is a God given order that must be obeyed whether or not you know why.
Yes, God should always be obeyed, however, God is not beyond reason, but the embodiment of it. It is intelligence, reason, and morality which separates us from animals. Thus, that must be how we were made in his image. In other words, God is the personification of perfect intelligence, flawless reason, and supreme morality.

Besides, we do have a book that analyses and explains the Scripture and its laws verse by verse. It's called the Talmud.
I haven't read any of the Talmud, but from the interpretations of it in the other thread--I'm skeptical.

EDIT: Disregard that last statement. Keruvalia explained it beautifully.

Yes, God should always be obeyed, however, God is not beyond reason, but the embodiment of it. It is intelligence, reason, and morality which separates us from animals. Thus, that must be how we were made in his image. In other words, God is the personification of perfect intelligence, flawless reason, and supreme morality.
Exactly- but YOU are neither flawless in your reason nor supreme in your morality. You lack knowledge and intellectual ability to adequately evaluate God's actions and commandments. Moreover, you lack the authority to pass such judgement. All you can do is, like I said, is taking somewhat educated guesses within your limited capabilities- but whatever your interpretation, it can never supercede God's authority.

Exactly- but YOU are neither flawless in your reason nor supreme in your morality. You lack knowledge and intellectual ability to adequately evaluate God's actions and commandments. Moreover, you lack the authority to pass such judgement. All you can do is, like I said, is taking somewhat educated guesses within your limited capabilities- but whatever your interpretation, it can never supercede God's authority.
It isn't superceding, though, but supporting.

It isn't superceding, though, but supporting.
Not if there exists a contradiction.

Not if there exists a contradiction.
Writing arguments to support God's commandments can never create a contradiction!

Furthermore, what I'm basically saying is this: If Solomon, a man, can create a secular justification for all of the mitzvot but one, and I, a man, have a secular justification for that one mitzvot, then it must be possible to construct a book that explains all of the mitzvot.

I'm not a Jew, so I don't expect you to think much of this when I say it, and I'm probably just superstitious, but...

I was interested in Judaism about a year ago, until several tragic events happened to me and I pretty much lost my faith in everything, including religion. In the past, as I said, I'd even considered attempting to learn Hebrew and Aramaic so I could convert and I've decided to start teaching myself Hebrew again as a hobby.

Well, looking back, there are two odd events that happened to me:
When I was about 14, I found a piece of red string in our attic. I had absolutely no knowledge of what Kabbala was (back then, almost 7 years ago, Madonna and other celebrities weren't into it). Well, for whatever reason, I thought it'd make a neat bracelet. So, I tied it around my wrist. Seeing celebrity "Kabbalists," years later do the same thing seemed bizarre to me. Even though, of course, it interests me, I still haven't read any Kabbala, because as I said before, anyone, Jewish or not, should know the Torah first.
I'd originally decided to re-write the Book of Solomon for my own knowledge and justification of Judaism. I assumed that if I knew the answer Solomon didn't, then I could probably understand the other 612. I decided to write it as a book of proverbs, where each chapter would be a mitzvah, beginning with a proverb, followed by a long explanation (proverb-writing used to be a hobby of mine). Well, I later found out that proverb-writing was also a hobby of Solomon's, and that he even originally wrote the book of Proverbs.

Now, I don't expect you to think much, if anything, of that. And I fully recognize that, right now, I'm definitely not a moral enough person to convert to Judaism or to scarcely even consider such things. But regardless, I still find those coincidences bizarre.

You know, as a Catholic and a Christian, I consider the Jewish people my Brothers and Sisters in God as it is. Reading some of the answers to the questions, I found it all really interesting. The Jewish people are God's chosen people and always will be. Israel does belong to them and I will always support that belief.

I just wanted to say hello and tell you I think this is one of the more interesting and civil threads I have seen in a long time.

Take care!

Writing arguments to support God's commandments can never create a contradiction!
Yes it can.

Attempting to explain away God's commandments by practical reasons within your understanding entails a certain danger of eventually coming to dismiss them on the same "practical" grounds.

Suppose there exists a commandment to not eat pork. Suppose you explain it (like many seem to) by the fact that pork is a high cholesterol meat that is totally unhealthy. Suppose in a few years someone comes up with a method of reducing cholesterol in pork to the levels below those of chicken meat. Would that, in your opinion, nullify the original commandment?

Yes it can.

Attempting to explain away God's commandments by practical reasons within your understanding entails a certain danger of eventually coming to dismiss them on the same "practical" grounds.

Suppose there exists a commandment to not eat pork. Suppose you explain it (like many seem to) by the fact that pork is a high cholesterol meat that is totally unhealthy. Suppose in a few years someone comes up with a method of reducing cholesterol in pork to the levels below those of chicken meat. Would that, in your opinion, nullify the original commandment?
No.

But all Jews, especially Reform Jews have done what I'm talking about, although not with pork. And it isn't bad, because interpreting the meaning of certain commandments is quite necessary to make it relevant to modern times.

For example, I remember reading that on certain days, you must attend Synagogue, but may not "work," on that same day. As such, Rabbis required you to walk to synagogue. This was practical in ancient times and also in Israel, but not elsewhere, where Synagogues were so far away.

Also, one of the commandments is to not light a fire on the Shabbat. Well, obviously, very few of us keep warm with fire. But the principle was upheld to also include electricity (in Hebrew, lightning is described as "God's fire"), and so, no turning the lights on and off.

And finally, in many circumstances, the mitzvot are justified, not because of any physical benefit, but by what they metaphorically represent. The idea of not shaving with a razor, for example, is to not emulate the behaviors of the Egyptian slave-masters. To not eat pork is, arguably, because of past unhealthiness. But more than that, the pig is a dirty animal that wallows in its own filth. There is an important metaphorical and symbolic reason for not eating the animal.

Lastly, no one could use logic to write arguments to support the mitzvot and then use that same logic to overturn the mitzvot. Because nowhere in the Torah does God say that you may do that. It would be illogical to form an argument against the mitzvot from scripture in the Torah.

But rather, at worst, reason could merely further explain the mitzvot, to offer appropriate ways to follow the commandments in a modern way. This is no different than Hassidic Jews who tie items to their clothing to follow the commandment of not carrying things (work) on the Shabbat.

(Oh, and please. Forgive my bold ignorance. I fully understand that in comparison to you, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.)

No.

But all Jews, especially Reform Jews have done what I'm talking about, although not with pork. And it isn't bad, because interpreting the meaning of certain commandments is quite necessary to make it relevant to modern times.

For example, I remember reading that on certain days, you must attend Synagogue, but may not "work," on that same day. As such, Rabbis required you to walk to synagogue. This was practical in ancient times and also in Israel, but not elsewhere, where Synagogues were so far away.
See, this is why I dislike the Reformist attitude. You don't HAVE to go to synagogue even on those certain days- and when you want to, there is no reason why you shouldn't walk. If the synagogue is THAT far from you that you can't reach it in a couple of hours of walking, I suppose you could arrive there BEFORE Shabbat and find some kind of accomodation for the Shabbat itself (surely the community would provide).


Also, one of the commandments is to not light a fire on the Shabbat. Well, obviously, very few of us keep warm with fire. But the principle was upheld to also include electricity (in Hebrew, lightning is described as "God's fire"), and so, no turning the lights on and off.
And there are perfectly legal ways around it- such as turning the lights on BEFORE Shabbat.


And finally, in many circumstances, the mitzvot are justified, not because of any physical benefit, but by what they metaphorically represent. The idea of not shaving with a razor, for example, is to not emulate the behaviors of the Egyptian slave-masters. To not eat pork is, arguably, because of past unhealthiness. But more than that, the pig is a dirty animal that wallows in its own filth. There is an important metaphorical and symbolic reason for not eating the animal.
But even if you find a way around them, you are still not free to discard the commandment. Everything you are talking about is human constructs that by and large mean nothing as far as God's orders are concerned.


Lastly, no one could use logic to write arguments to support the mitzvot and then use that same logic to overturn the mitzvot. Because nowhere in the Torah does God say that you may do that. It would be illogical to form an argument against the mitzvot from scripture in the Torah.

But rather, at worst, reason could merely further explain the mitzvot, to offer appropriate ways to follow the commandments in a modern way. This is no different than Hassidic Jews who tie items to their clothing to follow the commandment of not carrying things (work) on the Shabbat.
But what for? Why is "God says so" suddenly not an appropriate reason for a believer? Just because less people believe in God today than there used to be?

And there are perfectly legal ways around it- such as turning the lights on BEFORE Shabbat.
And it is only because of human reason that you believe that is "legal."


But even if you find a way around them, you are still not free to discard the commandment. Everything you are talking about is human constructs that by and large mean nothing as far as God's orders are concerned.
Of course.

But what for? Why is "God says so" suddenly not an appropriate reason for a believer? Just because less people believe in God today than there used to be?
Because "God says so," has been used by many religions for great evil. And also, because "God says so," is not going to convince non-devout Jews to practice.

EDIT: And the reason for that is because it isn't truly "God says so," but... "The Priests say God says so."

And it is only because of human reason that you believe that is "legal."
There are limits within which interpretation is allowed. Quoting one of the great rabbis of the past, "the Torah is not in heaven", meaning that it was given for us to interprete. However, it wasn't given for us to pick and chose for reasons of convenience, such as the case with driving to the synagogue.


Because "God says so," has been used by many religions for great evil.


And also, because "God says so," is not going to convince non-devout Jews to practice.
That is an argument of convenience. People who do not observe for religious reasons definitely won't come to true observing for reasons of practicality, the most you will get is imitation of observance.


EDIT: And the reason for that is because it isn't truly "God says so," but... "The Priests say God says so."
Human interpretations of the Law can, and should, be challenged. No priest and no person who is not a proven prophet can claim ultimate authority on interpreting the law. However, like I said, there are certain limits beyond which interpretations cannot go- such as discarding the commandment altogether.

Human interpretations of the Law can, and should, be challenged. No priest and no person who is not a proven prophet can claim ultimate authority on interpreting the law. However, like I said, there are certain limits beyond which interpretations cannot go- such as discarding the commandment altogether.
I have no disagreements here.

I mean, all I can say is, "Jesus."