Free Republic

A pleasure. Hope you enjoy it.

The traditional Jewish interpretation is that Moshe wrote of his own death with tears in his eyes. Prophecy is not always pleasant.

An excellent post!

You might be interested in "Surpassing Wonder" by Donald Harman Akenson on the subject of P, J and all the rest. FWIW, I don't find the textual evidence re "G-d" and "the Lord" any more convincing than the traditional Jewish explanation, that the two names are used to signify different aspects of the Holy One, blessed be He.

BBC news also reporting this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1695000/1695336.stm

What are you trying to prove here? My relatives who died in concentration camps didn't get to send letters with the Red Cross either, while Nazi soldiers did. It's the way the charity works. No-one is (so far as I know) obliged to pay for it.

Hey, calm down! I nowhere implied that I could stop you or would even want to. I just used the word "you" because I thought "one" sounded pretentious ;^)

I was only pointing out that the Red Cross has a mission of providing help to all ... traitorous scum included

How could you shatter my illusions like that?! Just finding that on the web and letting FR know about it was worth at least two bumps, IMHO...

Your link leads to an article about co-operation between the Red Cross and the Red Crescent in the Middle East. I don't understand the relevance to your point. I also think that your post is at odds with the stated aim of the Red Cross, found on its website, which are as follows:

What are the fundamental principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement?

Humanity: The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, born of a desire to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battlefield, endeavours, in its international and national capacity, to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found. Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being. It promotes mutual understanding, friendship, cooperation and lasting peace amongst all peoples.

Impartiality: It makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.

Neutrality: In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.

Independence: The Movement is independent. The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their governments and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the principles of the Movement.

Voluntary Service: It is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner by desire for gain.

Unity: There can be only one Red Cross or one Red Crescent Society in any one country. It must be open to all. It must carry on its humanitarian work throughout its territory.

Universality: The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in which all Societies have equal status and share equal responsibilities and duties in helping each other, is worldwide.

The International Red Cross has helped millions of people whom we find repugnant, including Nazis, traitors and communists--it is mandated to do so through its mission. As a result, it is able to operate and provide succour to people we find heroic, such as special forces soldiers in Iraq, Allied soldiers in WWII and American soldiers in Viet Nam. There are plenty of charities that provide relief which do not attempt to remain impartial and you can always support the victims of 9/11 through one of those instead.

That was great! LOL!

Thank you!

Well, yes, Zimbabwe is kicking out whites. But what tends not to get mentioned in the outrage that this causes is that Mugabe has killed and persecuted far far more blacks than whites. He has no compunctions about fanning the flames of racism under the guise of "anti-colonialism" but fundamentally it's about holding on to power and his inability to see a difference between state and party.

Regardless, law should be applied equally no matter what one's religion is.

On that, if not religion, we can agree. Thank you for a courteous and interesting interchange, and happy holidays!

It's very difficult to read the article when you highlight so much of the text.

Thanks for your assurance that my statements haven't been offensive. I feel more than a little bit nervous about expressing religious views in public. Regarding your questions: all I can say is that Christians tell me that Jesus did all these things, but Jews tell me something different. It must, in the end, be a matter of faith whom I believe, as we are impossibly far away from the events to know what happened from a historical or physical record. You can't even prove to me that Jesus existed; you can only demonstrate that it is difficult to see how he could not have done, given the historical record. I certainly can't base my experience on the fact that you and many like you feel you have had a personal experience of Jesus; many others feel they have had a personal experience of Allah; others still that they have personal experience of the absence of G-d. My faith is a matter of my own making.

Now for something really radical: Hasidic thought teaches that G-d is not really omnipotent, at least not in the Western meaning of the word. It even teaches that there was a problem that occurred during the process of creation. That is, in some ways, the starting point for the concept of tikkun olam, repairing the world (you may have heard the term "klipot", shells, bandied about by dabbling Kabbalists). I say this by way of demonstrating that we are a very long way apart in terms of our basic assumptions about theology and how the world works.

Thank you very much, that's very kind. I would like to apologise to all those believing Christians besides "classy"greeneyedblonde whom I may have offended by such a blunt public statement of my beliefs. It happened under provocation and I have no real wish to debate with anyone--other than her--whose religion is correct.

The short answer to your question, Eric, is that Jews believe that the name of G-d should not be written down in full, even in languages other than Hebrew, except in the context of praying. Where it is written in full, the paper on which it is written is treated with extraordinary respect, and damaged or old prayerbooks are never thrown away but actually interred. This all stems from a belief that words and language are extremely important, and none more so than G-d's name. Incidentally, many Jews will also not pronounce G-d's name, including in English, but will use one of a series of nom-de-plumes instead, including "HaShem" (the Name), "haKadosh barukh Hu" (the Holy One, blessed be He), "Ribono shel Olam" (Master of the Universe) and many others. Judaism uses a lot of abbreviations, and this is sometimes done for the English version of these names when they're written, eg HKBH for haKadosh barukh Hu.

For a more in-depth look at the issue, you could try here. A more in-depth look? Judaism *always* has more to say on a subject, no matter what it is. We don't call ourselves the People of the Book for nothing...

No, no, no. You got only one of your assertions right and the other two wrong. And the one you got right, you got right for the wrong reasons. Let's take them one by one. I refuse to copy your font antics. How about writing some posts with a bit more body to them than a single line of many colours?

1) "There is only one G-d". Correct. That's why Jesus isn't divine. To say otherwise is to deny "HaShem Elokeynu, HaShem ekhad", which means "The Lord our G-d, the Lord is One".

2) Christians like you say "Jesus was king of the Jews". No-one else does, not the Jews, not contemporary records, no-one. Jews didn't have a king at that time other than HaKadosh barukh Hu, the Holy One, blessed be He, and hadn't done for many hundreds of years. Jesus was just one of the itinerant teachers with radical ideas who were running around Eretz Yisrael at the time.

3) "[Y]ou can follow man's law but in the end you will answer to God". Jews are bound to keep both sets of laws; we have a complex set of responsa to help us understand what to do where there are conflicts between the two. But we know what the law of G-d is: it is Torah min HaShamayim and Torah sheh'b'al'peh, which we have learnt and studied carefully for thousands of years. If you think we're going to rip it up and start eating pork because you say that Jesus says it's alright now, you've got another think coming. By the way, conflicts frequently arise when some murderous persecuting little sh*ts come along and try to prevent us being true to our faith. Astonishingly enough, the people that have done that the most in the last couple of thousand years have been ... Christians (at least in name). You know, Torquemada, York, etc etc. Where, while your co-religionists burnt us at the stake for refusing to convert and for "killing Jesus", they told us we were going to Hell. So if you can rein in your murderous instincts for just a little while, we can get on with both worshipping G-d as we are supposed to, and (mostly) living useful, productive and law-abiding lives in the countries in which we reside.

I want to make something clear: you are perfectly entitled to believe that you are right and I am wrong and that People Like You are saved while People Like Me will Burn In Hell for rejecting Jesus. But if you tell me any of that in public, I will publicly respond by telling you my beliefs. And you won't like them.

Let's finish with a question: why do you think the US government should be enforcing the laws of your religion? The name for a government that does this is "theocracy". It is not "free republic".

No, I'm a Jew. I don't believe in Jesus and I reject the fundamental tenets of your faith. There's lots of my co-religionists in your country and they feel the same way. Sounds like you want to kick them all out for "breaking God's law". God's law is not the same as the law of the land and thank God for that, because your God is not the same as my God. Not in my eyes.

No, I'm a Jew. I don't believe in Jesus and I reject the fundamental tenets of your faith. There's lots of my co-religionists in your country and they feel the same way. God's law is not the same as the law of the land and thank God for that, because your God is not the same as my God. Not in my eyes.

Thanks! Glad to find out that my worst suspicions about lazy journalists weren't confirmed ;^)