I'm back, though a little changed

[cnorman19]

It's been about a year since I left the forum, and I have decided to return -- with a few changed attitudes. The slight change in my screenname is intended to respect those changes (I suppose I could have called myself "cnorman18.2").

First is a personal commitment to this advice: "One is not required to attend every argument to which one is invited."

There are a LOT of common debates here for which I simply have no time or energy, starting with the "prove God exists" wild-goose chase. As I've said very often, that's an intellectual board game without even a possible resolution -- and questions that CANNOT be answered have no practical importance. Don't bother me with it. I am not sure that I "believe in God" in any conventional sense myself -- and more important, I don't think that it matters. The idea that "religion" is synonymous with "belief in God" is an intellectual error of high degree in the first place.

The same goes for the whole "evolution vs. Creation" rabbit hole. I don't bother to engage in struggling with questions that have long since been answered, either.

My primary interest, as it has been from the beginning back in 2007 or so, is to educate others about the modern Jewish religion. This is not (as those who know me will recall) in any kind of effort to proselytize; Jews don't do that, and haven't since approximately the fall of Rome. It's more to promote understanding. We Jews don't talk much about Judaism except "in-house," and though that's historically understandable, it leaves the door open to a LOT of mythology, stereotyping, and plain old misunderstandings and misconceptions. There are those here who have demonstrated that they prefer their misconceptions, and that is their right -- but those who dismiss my own opinions (which are based on 20+ years of learning from various rabbis of different branches) will find that it will be equally easy for me to dismiss theirs. I admit a certain wariness of anything I find antisemitic, and a fierce resolve to expose and correct such ideas, and I do not apologize for either. (I add that I will NOT be discussing the subject of modern Israel, the policies and practices of which are not determined by the modern Jewish religion. I support the State of Israel and its right to exist and defend itself -- but not necessarily its current Government; and that is all I have to say on THAT subject.)

I look forward to the kind of discussions and debates that I once enjoyed here; substantive, respectful and honest, with an interest on both sides in actually learning something one didn't know and perhaps gaining a new insight into things one DID know -- as opposed to scoring ego points, humiliating opponents, and doing victory dances.

Does it sound like I'm coming in with a poor attitude? Maybe I am, but it's informed by seven years or so of bitter experience. I don't expect to display any unpleasantness; if someone posts something that I don't think is worth my effort to respond, I shall post a period ( . ) and nothing more, to indicate that I read it and have nothing to say. That's not so unpleasant.

Hello to all my friends. I HOPE it will be good to be back; I am determined to make this a pleasant experience again -- but I have learned that it doesn't hurt to leave if it isn't.

Be well, all. See you around the forums.

Charles

[Goat]

Great to see you back Charles! I always found your input highly valuable as it gave us a good grounding on what the Jews believe and what the Hebrew texts were meant to portray. (No offence to Goat of course, he's a valued member too).

Of course not; Goat and I are friends off the forum, and have remained in touch throughout my absence. Thanks for the kind words! I could use a few after this rather frustrating exchange -- apparently DI doesn't agree with your assessment.

I'd say it's good to be back, but that, as you see, remains to be seen.

Just for clarity Charles. I don't have anything against you personally. It's the topic that we "discuss" that I have serious problems with.

It seems to me rather silly for the Jews to suggest that they don't really believe in the God of the Bible (or the Torah) or whatever Holy Books they use. It just seems to me that they are basically in "denial" of their very own religious heritage.

It seems to me that the issue is that you do not understand the Jewish point of view, and therefore are coming from 'Judaism is Christianity lite'. Your preconceptions are coming from a very Christian background, and Judaism is not Christianity. It's assumptions/traditions/attitudes don't match your expectations.

[Divine Insight]

It seems to me that the issue is that you do not understand the Jewish point of view, and therefore are coming from 'Judaism is Christianity lite'. Your preconceptions are coming from a very Christian background, and Judaism is not Christianity. It's assumptions/traditions/attitudes don't match your expectations.

It seems to me that my understanding of the "Modern Jewish Point of View" is basically irrelevant.

Clearly the authors who actually wrote the Bible were not casual agnostics like Charles confesses to be:

I am not sure that I "believe in God" in any conventional sense myself -- and more important, I don't think that it matters. The idea that "religion" is synonymous with "belief in God" is an intellectual error of high degree in the first place.

The people who wrote the Torah, or the first 5 books of the Christian Old Testament, were clearly not causal agnostics who don't even think it matters whether a person believes in this God or not.

So if "Modern Day Jews" are causal agnostics then they are far removed from the original content of the ancient scriptures that they profess to be the foundations of Judaism.

So please explain to me how these early demands in the scriptures that people must obey the laws of an ancient God that was clearly portrayed to be very real and very specifically demanding, have become nothing more than wishy-washy agnosticism today?

In short, it's not that I don't understand "Modern Day Jews", it's just that I don't feel their position on their very own folklore makes any rational sense.

I also feel that they are extremely confused and unsure of what they believe. If they are all doubting agnostics like Charles, then why do they take this religion so seriously and go to temples or walls to read scriptures and bob their heads in spiritual rituals?

Are they nothing more than doubting agnostics that just do this in the spirit of Pascal's Wager that the scriptures might actually be true even though they claim to no longer actually believe in them as written verbatim?

This seems to me to be the message of "Modern Day Judaism" they are basically saying, "Look we just don't take this stuff as seriously as the Christians do, but we keep going through the motions in the spirit of Pascal's Wager just in case."

Also what about their "Promised Messiah"? Are they still waiting for him to come? Or don't they take that seriously either?

I thought the Jews believed in a promised messiah and simply claimed that Jesus wasn't him. In fact, Charles had created a very specific thread to address why the Jews don't accept that Jesus was their promised messiah.

Are these agnostic modern day Jews, who don't take take anything literal from these scriptures seriously, still waiting for a "promised messiah" from a God that they don't even believe exists?

I just don't see why anyone should care what "Modern Day Jews" believe. They need to understand that to the rest of the world they just appear to be a culture who's ancient folklore and religious mythologies have simply crashed and burned to the point where the Jews themselves don't even take it seriously anymore.

[bluethread]

Welcome back, it will be good to again get feed back from someone who has actual experience in trying to live according to the traditions of the people of Adonai. There are a few others here, who rightly hold me accountable. However, often one finds oneself repeatedly going over basic principles with people who have little or no interest in understanding ones position. I look forward to your prospective on my viewpoints and hope you understand that is not my intent to invalidate your prospective or coerce you into adopting mine.

[Divine Insight]

Welcome back, it will be good to again get feed back from someone who has actual experience in trying to live according to the traditions of the people of Adonai.

Ok, for the sake of trying to gain an understanding may I ask some questions here?

Charles had posted in the OP:

I am not sure that I "believe in God" in any conventional sense myself -- and more important, I don't think that it matters. The idea that "religion" is synonymous with "belief in God" is an intellectual error of high degree in the first place.

So where does "Adonai" come into the picture with Charles?

Is this the God that Charles isn't even sure that he believes in and doesn't think it even matters?

Why would anyone consider themselves to be one of the "People of Adonai" if they don't even believe that Adonai is real or even matters?

I'm asking purely for the sake of trying to understand exactly what people actually "believe" because as it is now none of this is making any sense at all. They talk about a God that they don't really believe in, who may not even exist, and claim that it doesn't even matter whether they believe in this God or not and yet they still act like recognizing "The People of Adonai" is somehow meaningful or important in some way.

Help me understand the thinking here.

That's all I ask.

In fact, if the purpose is to "educate" then I'm waiting to be "educated" because at this point all I'm seeing is extremely contradictory claims.

[cnorman19]

After some lengthy consideration last night " and especially after reading your additional posts, where you make it clear that youre not going to let this go " I decided I WOULD reply once more to your last post directed to me, and see if my response penetrates your smug certainty about all these matters. I post also just in case anyone else reading this thread is buying into your transparently self-serving analysis.

(I'll also note that I haven't missed how you insist on responding to posts addressed to ME, perhaps in frustration that I won't respond to you myself. Very well. Here you go...)

Lets start by taking a look at YOUR position, shall we?

The central thesis of your position is simple enough: (One) You demand that I understand and believe in the Bible in a certain way, and if I dont, then my religion is " your words here " nothing more than extreme "denial" disguised as abstract ambiguity and pretending. Put another way: You have insisted, and repeatedly, that if I dont believe in the Bible in the Divinely given, supernaturally-received way which YOU DEMAND I that accept, that I must not actually believe in God at all and my religion is ipso facto mere faking and hypocrisy.

And heres the really silly part: (Two) You hand me an absolute indictment and condemnation of the tradition that has become the center of my life, which of course entails an absolute indictment of my own character and intellectual integrity " and then you tell me I shouldnt take it PERSONALLY? You are either deceiving yourself about your beliefs and are too dumb to notice, or you are consciously lying about their significance and pretending to believe in God " but dont take that personally. No offense intended. Seriously?

Okay, now leaving that aside, lets consider another FACT. YOURS is the position that is irrational and makes no sense, and heres why: (Three) YOU, YOURSELF, DONT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE IN THE WAY THAT YOU DEMAND I SHOULD. I dont see how YOU can possibly defend your own demand! Perhaps youd care to try to explain why you dictatorially command that others hold a belief that you yourself routinely mock and lampoon as ancient folklore. (I, myself, suspect that I know the reason, and well get to that presently.)

Further: While youre doing all this, (Four) you routinely misstate and distort the things Ive said and replace them with expressions more convenient to your arguments. Examples? Sure.

You said, You also claim to not even be sure if there is a God " when that is NOT what I said. My actual quote was, I am not sure that I "believe in God" in any conventional sense myself. You ripped a few words from a much more nuanced statement and rephrased it to suit your argument. Youve read my posts in the past; you KNOW that I think the conventional concept of God is far too small and too limited to hold any real value. My own ideas about God are both less rigidly defined and less arrogantly limited than the conventional view " but thats a topic for a different thread. I DO believe in God, and you unquestionably know that. Further, I said that belief doesn't matter, not that God doesn't matter; but in your last, you throw in THAT distortion, too. Once again, you put words in my mouth that suit you, and you know perfectly well that you are doing exactly that.

You also said, Who cares what they believe if [Jews] don't claim that any of it came from any God? and I never said anything remotely resembling that " which I noted in my next post, and which you ignored without comment or response, a pattern which I have seen you repeat again and again.

Yet again, you said, [Jews] have simply lost sight of reality and are looking at the words of these ancient texts as having come into existence without any will, volition, attitude, or motivation behind them. Again, I never said any such thing; you distorted and misinterpreted " I suspect quite deliberately " my remarks into something that I did not say or mean to say. And once again, I explained that very carefully and completely in my next post; and, once again, you never even acknowledged that explanation, never mind countered it. You simply repeated that same distortion and misstatement in your next post, AGAIN, as if Id said nothing.

Thats three examples, from this thread alone, and I could find as many more without much effort. (Five) Whats the point of debating someone who routinely misquotes and distorts what you say, refuses to accept correction or explanation, and presses ahead with the same distortions and misstatements? Where is there even communication, never mind debate, when that sort of manipulation and falsification of the conversation is taking place?

All that is frustrating and maddening enough, as you perfectly well know (and, I suspect, intend). But heres the PRIMARY reason why I dont think its worth my time to respond to you any further, and why any further attempt at conversation (or debate, if you like) on this subject between us is utterly futile: (Six) You have never once, not for an instant or a syllable, so much as contemplated the possibility that you might be WRONG in any of your arrogant pontifications on what constitutes authentic belief and a realistic understanding of Scripture. You have never, not once, not ever, responded to ANY of my criticisms or arguments, and you have never even attempted to answer any of MY questions. You have merely dismissed them and continued on your way, smugly certain of the accuracy and astuteness of your own analysis, as if I had never spoken at all " or had only spoken the words which you conveniently put in my mouth.

(Seven) You ADMIT that you have no clue about modern Jewish beliefs " but then you blithely present the core of [your] position on the topic of "Modern Day Abrahamic Religions " without, apparently, the least consciousness of the blatant contradiction and paradox of those statements.

The real irony and lunacy of all this is that (Eight) the literalistic and verbatim approach to understanding Scripture that you insist is the only appropriate one did not exist till a couple of hundred years ago at the latest. That is not, and never was, the real and authentic way to read the Bible. Thats a result of the growth of Christian fundamentalism, which is itself a relatively modern invention. Even the editors and redactors of the Bible themselves could not have approached it in the literalistic, verbatim manner that you demand today. I could, and have, proven all that many times " but its pointless to try to show you now. Youre clearly prepared to pooh-pooh and dismiss anything I have to say.

You sneer at the very idea of interpretation, and have the astonishing chutzpah to claim that these modern interpretations are never anything near what the Bible actually has to say. (Nine) Since you yourself admit that you have not a clue about modern interpretations of the Bible, its pretty amazing that youd have the temerity to make such an unqualified, extreme and patently false blanket claim.

And, further: If interpretation is unnecessary and such an esoteric abstraction, answer me this very simple question: You have made much " VERY much " of the COMMANDS of God, specifically the Ten Commandments, no? Very well. (Ten) Which commandments are we to follow? There are no less than THREE versions of the Ten Words in the Torah. Two of them, in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, are very similar; but the third, found in Exodus 34:12-26, is radically different " and is the only one of the three that the Bible actually calls the Ten Commandments. Take a look for yourself: its not the same list. So which ones do we follow, Mr. No-Interpretation-Is-Needed? Which one is even the correct Ten? And bear in mind that when you attempt to answer the question, when you even acknowledge that it is a QUESTION, you are doing INTERPRETATION.

You pretend that your verbatim, mechanical surface reading of the Bible is the only acceptable way to approach it, and that any other approach is camouflage for simply REJECTING the Bible and God.

Really? (Eleven) Study of the Scriptural documents in anything like a scholarly manner is unacceptable? Considering their sources in the documents of earlier civilizations and tribes? Considering the way they were edited and combined into the form we have today, and the context and relationships of the various narratives and directives within the text itself? Actually trying to make sense of the innumerable contradictions and alternate versions contained within the Bible itself (e.g., two Creation stories; three differing versions of the Ten Commandments, as noted above; narrative passages by different hands obviously interpolated into other passages, which are themselves interpolations into the greater body of text; and so on)? Actually trying to UNDERSTAND how this text was FORMED?

No, no; all of that actual work and analysis is DISMISSED by you as " again, your words here " extremely esoteric abstractions, disguised abstract ambiguity, abstract excuses and extremely absurd. Actual STUDY of the ACTUAL DOCUMENTS as they ARE is to be abandoned and ignored in favor of a lockstep, verbatim " your word again " reading of the text WITHOUT any attempted analysis or understanding of any kind beyond the surface words, as if that were the ONLY PROPER WAY to read and understand and believe in the Bible. It comes from GOD, and that MUST be the end of discussion and study An approach which, again, you, yourself, reject entirely, saying that much of what's in the actual doctrines is absolutely absurd, and even highly immoral if taken literally.

All of which leads us to one incredibly, astonishingly obvious question. You end your post with these words: As humans (for the sake of humanity) we really need to move forward and reassess our world view. Continually trying to keep ancient folklore alive forever is simply not doable. All it does in the long run is hold us BACK.

I quite agree " while noting that this ancient folklore was NEVER read as literally and mechanically verbatim as you insist. But the enormous, overwhelming question that remains is "

(Twelve)If thats how you feel, why on Earth would you insist that religion " any religion " REMAIN with the ancient worldview you CONDEMN, as the only acceptable approach? It certainly appears that you dont WANT religion to be or become anything like rational or intelligent, and cant abide the idea that that is even POSSIBLE. Why is that?

Heres my guess. Call it the core of my position on the topic of Divine Insights divine insights about the Abrahamic Religions: You have this nice, neat formula which defines ALL (Abrahamic) religions as outmoded, primitive, superstitious nonsense. The idea that ANY of these religions has EVER developed beyond that alleged primitive and superstitious state CANNOT BE PERMITTED, because that would knock your entire analysis into a cocked hat. No, no; REAL religion MUST remain primitive superstition and repressive nonsense.

What it all boils down to is the same old false dichotomy Ive been offered over and over and OVER, ever since I joined this forum: All true religion is fundamentalist literalism; if you claim to be religious, but NOT a fundamentalist/literalist, either youre LYING and really, secretly DO believe all these silly superstitions and refuse to own up to it " or youre just a closet atheist whos blowing smoke in an attempt to cover that up.

"Does that about sum it up?" I think so. And its nothing new. Its just a self-serving bit of sophistry that pretends to find authenticity and value in a literalist reading of the Bible as the only authentic approach -- while simultaneously discounting and sneering at that very thing.

Nothing new, DI.

I predict you will respond to this by " well, I predict that you will NOT respond to this, not in any meaningful way, e.g. by actually acknowledging my criticisms and points (which I have numbered in RED for your convenience) and attempting to answer or counter them. You will merely wave away anything I have to say without any substantive response whatever, and then return to your smug certainty that youre absolutely right about all these matters without so much as an attempt at proving it beyond your own, bare, unsupported and unsourced assertions -- and of course, also return to your series of when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife questions that are based on your own distortions and twisting of things that I've said.

Thats my prediction. Feel free to prove me wrong by actually acknowledging AND ADDRESSING my remarks for a change. Lets see what youve got " if anything. Show me. Show everyone. Respond to the numbered points " every single one of them " without ducking and dodging or dismissing. Talk about what I've actually SAID, and not what you WISH I'd said.

Can you do that? I guess we'll find out.

Oh, yes: one more thing. Heres a quote from the great rabbi Maimonides, who wrote in twelfth-century medieval Spain:

There is one [disease] which is widespread, and from which men rarely escape. This disease varies in degree in different men I refer to this: that every person thinks his mind more clever and more learned than it is. I have found that this disease has attacked many an intelligent person. They express themselves [not only] upon the science with which they are familiar, but upon other sciences about which they know nothing. If met with applause, so does the disease itself become aggravated.

As another well-known Jew once said, "He that hath ears, let him hear."

[bluethread]

Welcome back, it will be good to again get feed back from someone who has actual experience in trying to live according to the traditions of the people of Adonai.

Ok, for the sake of trying to gain an understanding may I ask some questions here?

Charles had posted in the OP: . . .

So, let me get this straight. You take a statement I made to Charles that points out that I appreciate the prospective of one who is trying to live according to a particular tradition and, based on that, expect me to pass judgment on what he has said to you. Then, you expect me to believe that this is just because you want gain an understanding? Really? If you wish to discuss a particular issue, I am more than willing to do that. However, if you wish to understand what Charles is saying to you, maybe you should listen to Charles.

[WinePusher]

[Replying to post 15 by cnorman19]

Full disclosure, I know nothing about your religion and I don't care at all about your religion.

That being said, this is a website meant for debate about all religions, but Christianity in particular. I've been on this site for 5 years and I've seen countless people come through with what I considered to be grossly inaccurate and unfair caricatures of my religion, which is a central part of my life. I never tried to silence or shut these people up, instead I debated them and explained why I disagreed with their assessment.

But, for whatever reason, whenever Divine Insight speaks his mind about Judaism you lash out at him as if you think that Judaism is exempt from criticism and ridicule. Guess what, Christianity is constantly criticized and ridiculed and distorted on this site and I, and other Christians, take it and debate the points instead. Please do the same.

Btw, after reading your post I came across with the impression that you don't like Divine Insight because he supposedly distorts things you said and doesn't concede any points to you. Ok? Am I supposed to feel bad because of this? I've been in countless debates where I felt my opponent was distorting things I said and where I felt like my opponent should have conceded a point when he/she did not. I dealt with it and kept on debating. Please do the same.

[Divine Insight]

I decided I WOULD reply once more to your last post directed to me, and see if my response penetrates your smug certainty about all these matters. I post also just in case anyone else reading this thread is buying into your transparently self-serving analysis.

Where does all this personal negativity come from Charles?

Where have I ever said anything negative about you on a personal level?

Do you always insist that if someone doesn't agree with your opinions on things this requires that there needs to be person degradation and mud slinging? Is this part of the "Modern Jewish Tradition"?

I think that's a fair question, because I have never suggested anything personally negative about you as an individual. I have no reason to dislike you on a personal level.

The central thesis of your position is simple enough: (One) You demand that I understand and believe in the Bible in a certain way, and if I dont, then my religion is " your words here " nothing more than extreme "denial" disguised as abstract ambiguity and pretending. Put another way: You have insisted, and repeatedly, that if I dont believe in the Bible in the Divinely given, supernaturally-received way which YOU DEMAND I that accept, that I must not actually believe in God at all and my religion is ipso facto mere faking and hypocrisy.

I agree that you understand my position.

However, I totally disagree with you that these are "MY DEMANDS". On the contrary, the literal Bible is what makes these demands. And the only way to get around that is to reject what the Bible literally has to say in favor of some abstract so-called "interpretation" that, from my perspective does nothing more than reject what the Bible literally says in favor of pretending that it could have be written differently. I also believe that many Christians use this same type of apologetic "excuses" for refusing to acknowledge what these ancient scriptures literally have to say. So I don't claim this as "My Demand". My position is that this is what the original authors of the scriptures themselves demand.

Moreover, once you reject what the scriptures literally have to say, then as far as I'm concerned you have literally rejected the scriptures.

That should be pretty obvious I think.

And heres the really silly part: (Two) You hand me an absolute indictment and condemnation of the tradition that has become the center of my life, which of course entails an absolute indictment of my own character and intellectual integrity " and then you tell me I shouldnt take it PERSONALLY? You are either deceiving yourself about your beliefs and are too dumb to notice, or you are consciously lying about their significance and pretending to believe in God " but dont take that personally. No offense intended. Seriously?

This is typical of many theists. If their beliefs are questioned they scream "Personal Foul".

You're the one who posted in your very OP that you don't even know if a God exists and you don't think it even matters.

If that's true, then why would you be offended that I question that very thing?

You state your position and then seem to be offended when someone accepts it.

Okay, now leaving that aside, lets consider another FACT. YOURS is the position that is irrational and makes no sense, and heres why: (Three) YOU, YOURSELF, DONT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE IN THE WAY THAT YOU DEMAND I SHOULD. I dont see how YOU can possibly defend your own demand!

It's not my demand that you believe in the Bible literally. It's the authors of the Bible who make those demands. I simply recognize this FACT. A fact that you have even conceded to. Even you have stated in this very thread that you acknowledge that these scriptures claim to speak on divine authority.

And that is the core of my position. I simply acknowledge this as well. I'm not making any "Demands" at all. I'm just going by what the scriptures literally say.

Perhaps youd care to try to explain why you dictatorially command that others hold a belief that you yourself routinely mock and lampoon as ancient folklore. (I, myself, suspect that I know the reason, and well get to that presently.)

I look forward to reading your suspicions. In the meantime I'm not the one who is "dictating" anything.

Further: While youre doing all this, (Four) you routinely misstate and distort the things Ive said and replace them with expressions more convenient to your arguments. Examples? Sure.

You said, You also claim to not even be sure if there is a God " when that is NOT what I said. My actual quote was, I am not sure that I "believe in God" in any conventional sense myself. You ripped a few words from a much more nuanced statement and rephrased it to suit your argument. Youve read my posts in the past; you KNOW that I think the conventional concept of God is far too small and too limited to hold any real value. My own ideas about God are both less rigidly defined and less arrogantly limited than the conventional view " but thats a topic for a different thread. I DO believe in God, and you unquestionably know that. Further, I said that belief doesn't matter, not that God doesn't matter; but in your last, you throw in THAT distortion, too. Once again, you put words in my mouth that suit you, and you know perfectly well that you are doing exactly that.

The problem with all of this still remains. If you are here to "educate" then what do you expect people to do? LISTEN to your abstract notions of a non-conventional idea of a "God" that clearly then wouldn't even be remotely related to the personified Jealous God described in the Bible?

Clearly your modern day abstract ideas of a "God" are not the same as the idea that the original authors of these scriptures literally wrote about.

As far as I can see you're pulling the same "stunt" as modern day Progressive Christians, and I don't buy into their paradigms either for the very same reason. They simply aren't consistent and cannot be supported by the original scriptures.

But that won't stop them from continually complaining that they simply believe in "God" in a totally different way from how these ancient scriptures described God.

You also said, Who cares what they believe if [Jews] don't claim that any of it came from any God? and I never said anything remotely resembling that " which I noted in my next post, and which you ignored without comment or response, a pattern which I have seen you repeat again and again.

I don't see where this view has any merit.

And I do believe that I have already expressed this.

Here is my bottom line Charles.

If the Jews believe as you describe then it's not that I'm ignorant of how the Jews believe and need to be educated, but the real truth is that I DO indeed understand where they are coming from and I simply don't accept that their views have any merit.

So in this case it's not about misunderstanding them or being ignorant of their views. It's more correct to simply recognize and acknowledge that I simply don't see any value in their highly contradictory and self-inconsistent position.

Many Christian apologists have described very similar views on Christianity, but the scriptures simply don't support those views. And that's truly the bottom line right there as far as I'm concerned.

Yet again, you said, [Jews] have simply lost sight of reality and are looking at the words of these ancient texts as having come into existence without any will, volition, attitude, or motivation behind them. Again, I never said any such thing; you distorted and misinterpreted " I suspect quite deliberately " my remarks into something that I did not say or mean to say. And once again, I explained that very carefully and completely in my next post; and, once again, you never even acknowledged that explanation, never mind countered it. You simply repeated that same distortion and misstatement in your next post, AGAIN, as if Id said nothing.

The problem is that this doesn't help. In fact, I have argued these same apologies with Christians countless times because they use the same type of apologetic excuses.

You say:

"What I'm saying is precisely that Jews, myself included, are trying to look at those words and UNDERSTAND the will, volition, attitudes and motivation behind them, that is, those of the PEOPLE who WROTE them."

But that shouldn't be the slightest bit difficult at all. You should be able to figure that out in less than 5 minutes.

Either some God actually inspired these writings, and therefore the will, volition, attitude, and motivation all belong to this God, and also the words should indeed be accepted verbatim literally. Surely a God who is making these demands isn't going to get it screwed up.

OR, there is no God behind them and the will, volition, attitudes, and motivation are purely those of moral men who are claiming to speak for a God when in truth there is no God directing them to say these things.

So I don't see why people should be studying these things for generation after generation trying to figure out something so SIMPLE.

Either these scriptures came from a God and should indeed be very clear and correct verbatim as written, or there's no point even even bothering wasting time on them since the only other alternative is that they are just the ramblings of mortal men who never spoke for any God from the get go.

I don't see why religious people think this is so difficult to figure out.

I suspect that they cling to these religions for totally other reasons. Perhaps an uncontrollable hope and dream that their might actually be some sort of God and these scriptures seem to be the only thing around that claim to describe or speak for God?

Or maybe it's just because they were brought up to believe in these religions and feel that they must 'Defend" them to death for the sake of family pride or something?

I don't why people are so bent on clinging to these religions, but I think it's crystal clear that they have no rational reason to cling.

As far as I'm concerned Charles, if your purpose is to "educate" then we are indeed done, because as far as I can see the Jews are doing precisely as I have always suspected.

I need to go out now so I can't address every point you brought up at the moment.

But I just don't see where Judaism is anymore rational than Christianity or Islam.

I will grant that Judaism is less "obnoxious" in general, at least in terms of proselytizing, etc. But as far as having anymore merit? No. I just don't see it.

All I see are very WEAK apologetic arguments no different from what many Christians have been arguing for years.

But there's no reason for you to make this into a personal war between Charles and DI.

In fact, as far as I'm concerned that's just yet another diversionary tactic that is used when apologetics fail.

[cnorman19]

[Replying to post 15 by cnorman19]

Full disclosure, I know nothing about your religion and I don't care at all about your religion.

That being said, this is a website meant for debate about all religions, but Christianity in particular. I've been on this site for 5 years and I've seen countless people come through with what I considered to be grossly inaccurate and unfair caricatures of my religion, which is a central part of my life. I never tried to silence or shut these people up, instead I debated them and explained why I disagreed with their assessment.

Excuse me; but that is exactly what I am doing in response to Divine Insight's posts.

But, for whatever reason, whenever Divine Insight speaks his mind about Judaism you lash out at him as if you think that Judaism is exempt from criticism and ridicule.

Please quote an example of my having done that. I have objected and pointed out specific ways in which Divine Insight has misrepresented my ideas. Period.

Guess what, Christianity is constantly criticized and ridiculed and distorted on this site and I, and other Christians, take it and debate the points instead. Please do the same.

Thanks for your advice.

Btw, after reading your post I came across with the impression that you don't like Divine Insight because he supposedly distorts things you said and doesn't concede any points to you. Ok?

Apparently you are no better at understanding plain English than he. There is rather more to it than that, and I would think that most readers would find that obvious.

Am I supposed to feel bad because of this?

Have I given some indication that I think you should feel bad?

Have I addressed any remarks, of any kind whatever, to you at all?

I've been in countless debates where I felt my opponent was distorting things I said and where I felt like my opponent should have conceded a point when he/she did not. I dealt with it and kept on debating. Please do the same.

Again, thanks for the advice. I'll take it under advisement -- along with advice from others who believe that they have a right to tell me what to think, how to think, and what to post.

[WinePusher]

But, for whatever reason, whenever Divine Insight speaks his mind about Judaism you lash out at him as if you think that Judaism is exempt from criticism and ridicule.

Please quote an example of my having done that. I have objected and pointed out specific ways in which Divine Insight has misrepresented my ideas. Period.

Let's see, you called him smug, you say that it's not worth your time to respond to him, you tell him that he won't respond to you in any meaningful way, you condescending ask him if he knows how to listen, etc etc. What exactly has he done other than try to debate this issue with you that merits such a hostile response? As a reader of this thread, his posts are coming across as much more persuasive.