Free thinking on Judaism...

[kkawohl]

Banana,

I hope that you will forgive my nosiness before I respond to your last posting. I am curious, your literary ability is like poetry in motion, are you an author? The reason I’m asking is, a little over two years ago, at age 60, I was subjected to 2 spiritual experiences that dumped a task unto me for which I was not academically prepared for. I wrote a very mediocre book called “Transcendentalism - A New Revelation”. I would love to have someone rewrite it in their name. I would naturally pay for the publishing costs. I hope that I'm not being too presumptuous.

Kurt Kawohl

P.S. Brian, any ideas?

 

[kkawohl]

Banana,

After perusing your assessment of Karen’s viewpoint, I do agree with you.

Enlighten me please.

1. Are you saying that Judaism actually sees history as God not meddling in the affairs of mankind?

2. When you say G!d is like trying, however inadequately, to indicate a concept beyond language or indeed human perception, I completely agree, but does that mean you are not allowed to seek answers as to where the god of Judaism came from & how “He” (?) got his powers? If someone gave you a rational answer thereto, would you be open to suggestion or would you stick to your conditioning?

3. Did not Judaism create their present perception of this god & was Christianity & Islam not an offshoot of this monotheistic god?

4. Why would you not be in the least interested in constituting a "rational, logical god"? Would Judaism not benefit by a possible cessation of terrorism & killings if radical Muslims realized that their efforts would not be rewarded by God/Allah. One can of course find a million reasons why this wouldn’t work, but consider this:

A. Judaism announces that their prophets were misinterpreted & that their god spiritually communed with them rather than physically.

B. The god of Judaism is as you described & not a ruler or a dictator but a spiritual unity of pure logic & rationality without any needs; one that needs nothing from mankind.

Radical religious fundamentalists abiding by the antiquated concept of a human-like man God who desires servitude from man would eventually (in 100 years?) be considered mentally deficient and would eventually disappear. I know, the present system has existed for several thousand years & will not change easily, but every new development began with the first step.

After perusing your assessment of Karen’s viewpoint, I do agree with you.
-------------
Who/what is God?
IMHO, Abraham, Moses, Noah, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna, Bahá'u'lláh, Zoroaster, Ahmad, Nanak and many others of various faiths are believed to have achieved spiritual enlightenment by mastering the art of spiritual transcendence. Is this spiritual transcendence a possibility? My assessment thereof is in the affirmative as a result of my own personal spiritual experiences.


Would God, who is like a father, be masochistic and derive pleasure from his child’s pain?
Nay, I say. God is the supreme love and ultimate purity.

Would God or any father allow his Son to suffer and die if he had the power to stop the pain?
Nay, I say. God is the supreme love and ultimate purity.

Would God or any father want his children to worship him, bow down to him, pray to him or tell the world how magnificent he is?
Nay, I say. God is the supreme love and ultimate purity.


God Proclaims:

I am God, the God from the beginning of God. I did not come from nowhere. I play no magic tricks on man. I did not create the earth by casting spells.

I had a humble beginning the same as man, yet my beginning was at the dawn of spirituality.

My wisdom grows as more spirits unite after the cessation of life after much physical strife.

Throughout time I have been named God, Allah, Jehovah, The Great Spirit, and many more.

I do not judge man for his vanity or naivety to be the one who claims to please me the most.

I am easy to please. I require very little. I only want you to do what is best for mankind.

I will bless you and wish you well. I will inspire your mind and you will accomplish the unfathomable.

I require no worship. I need nothing from man. I am self sufficient. I am spirit.

Develop your spirit wisely, the best that you can. Live your life for the betterment of man.

Your spirit will soon be with me and then together we will:

See and traverse the universe. There are many wonders to behold.

Your spirit will soar. You will partake in all the wisdom that been gathered from the beginning of time. The stars will be your playground.

You can play with the animals, be with your loved ones, listen to the greatest opera, stage or musical performances, or simply relax next to a bubbling brook and enjoy the scenery.

You feel no pain, despair, heartache, or negative emotions.

You are now One with me, you are with God my child.

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

My spirit has interacted with the Spirit of God and thereof I write.

Namaste,
Kurt

 

[bananabrain]

your literary ability is like poetry in motion

ah, stoppit, you're making me blush. bowels in motion, more like. as it happens, i am writing a book, but it's one about the mystical tradition. can't say too much about it at present. it certainly keeps me busy, too.

1. Are you saying that Judaism actually sees history as God not meddling in the affairs of mankind?

yes and no - as far as we are concerned, G!D has been intervening in a visible manner less and less as the millennia have passed. there is a tradition known as the "hiding of the Divine Countenance", or "hester ha-Panim" which is one of the main ideas that comes out of the book of esther - in which G!D is not even mentioned. what i mean to say is that we no longer have prophecy or even batei qol, although some say there are those who still have ruakh ha'qodesh, like the great kabbalists. there are also various points of view which consider/ed historical events, such as the destruction of the Temples, the expulsion from spain, the Shoah (holocaust) and the establishment of the state of israel to be evidence of the Divine acting within history. the difference is we don't have prophets any more to confirm this or a sanhedrin to validate them, so we pretty much have to make up our own minds at present. for my own part, my understanding of the academic discipline of history would suggest that the survival of the jewish people in a recognisable form over the last 2000 years is kind of a historical impossibility. it certainly seems to annoy the sort of people who make the "historical laws".

does that mean you are not allowed to seek answers as to where the god of Judaism came from & how “He” (?) got his powers? If someone gave you a rational answer thereto, would you be open to suggestion or would you stick to your conditioning?

our conception of G!D is that by definition the Divine Is Eternal and One, so there's nowhere for the Divine to come *from*. the idea of a gendered pronoun is meaningless (even though we use them) and merely an indication of the difficulty humans have with talking about the Divine. as for "powers", there are no such things, because by definition anything G!D wishes to Be, comes into Being. this isn't really a "rational" area, as rationality requires an objective, universal standard by which things can be judged. A cannot be not-A in logic, but Infinity must include both. all "rationality" really is is a set of heuristics which explain a *subset* of possibility. admittedly it's a bloody big subset, but it's not absolutely all-embracing.

3. Did not Judaism create their present perception of this god & was Christianity & Islam not an offshoot of this monotheistic god?

of course, but it's a bit difficult to enforce ownership of an idea. they took the basic idea and went off to create their own visions based on it. we didn't (nor could we) control what they created. it's not like a burger franchise.

4. Why would you not be in the least interested in constituting a "rational, logical god"? Would Judaism not benefit by a possible cessation of terrorism & killings if radical Muslims realized that their efforts would not be rewarded by God/Allah.

because there's no evidence that a "rational, logical god" would result in the best outcome - you're just assuming it. you need to read up on jeremy bentham and utilitarianism. don't forget that it is entirely rational and logical to exterminate your enemies if you believe that they are the enemies of G!D; i mean, why wouldn't you. what i am saying is that there is a difference between rational and logical *methods* and rational and logical *assumptions*. when you get insane assumptions and rational and logical methods that are grafted onto them, you get genocide. bin laden has his own logic and it's perfectly consistent - it's his basic assumptions that are insane.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[kkawohl]

ah, stoppit, you're making me blush. bowels in motion, more like. as it happens, i am writing a book, but it's one about the mystical tradition. can't say too much about it at present. it certainly keeps me busy, too.

It’s the bowels in motion that keeps the poetry flowing. A thought that can be discarded to the same place as the bowel movement. On your book… IMHO, all mystical traditions were the results of superstitions…but if you incorporate this with your present discerning religious logic…then categorize your philosophy and title with a historical movement such as Transcendentalism…it could possibly be masterpiece that never destructs. Writers in various religions have indicated an interest to create the logical interpretation of their community…then classify it, as an example “Transcendentalism - A New Revelation, Judaism Edition Volume One by Bananabrain”.

yes and no - as far as we are concerned, G!D has been intervening in a visible manner less and less as the millennia have passed… what i mean to say is that we no longer have prophecy…the difference is we don't have prophets any more to confirm this or a sanhedrin to validate them, so we pretty much have to make up our own minds at present. for my own part, my understanding of the academic discipline of history would suggest that the survival of the jewish people in a recognizable form over the last 2000 years is kind of a historical impossibility. it certainly seems to annoy the sort of people who make the "historical laws"...

Maybe prophets, Sanhedrins and supernatural miracles have disappeared as superstitions disappear? IMHO, the survival of the Jewish people is in part the result of Christianity’s recognition of Jews as being the “God’s chosen people to lead spirituality”, with which I agree.

our conception of G!D is that by definition the Divine Is Eternal and One, so there's nowhere for the Divine to come *from*… as for "powers", there are no such things, because by definition anything G!D wishes to Be, comes into Being. this isn't really a "rational" area, as rationality requires an objective, universal standard by which things can be judged. A cannot be not-A in logic, but Infinity must include both. all "rationality" really is is a set of heuristics which explain a *subset* of possibility. admittedly it's a bloody big subset, but it's not absolutely all-embracing...

Rationality dictates that the powers of G!d are feasible the spiritual dimension and includes the spiritual guidance of mankind. Rationality dictates that only time is infinite and G!d is eternal; had a beginning and will last forever.

because there's no evidence that a "rational, logical god" would result in the best outcome - you're just assuming it.

Contraeo, dear sir, if one admits to the existence of G!d, this god has to be logical. An illogical G!d is illogical.

Namaste,

Kurt

 

[iBrian]

Actually, Kurt, a particular point of not jumping to conclusions too quickly - is that if you've read a lot of posts by bananabrain, you'll find that there is a rather surprisingly deep perception of God communicated through Judaism (or, at least, BB's perception of it) - than a too literal reading of the OT would give credit to.

I think you'll find - once you become accustomed to the idea of the wealth of commentary and philosophy outlook behind Judaic belief, you may indeed find that there is far far more "rational" about it than perhaps you might expect.

 

[bananabrain]

IMHO, all mystical traditions were the results of superstitions

look, by using terms such as "superstition" you are really making this a pointless discussion. you don't get to decide for other people what is or isn't "superstitious" - and by framing the argument in such value-laden terms, you simply alienate people. in such a way, the european empires arrived in far older cultures, dismissed their traditions as "superstitious" and set about replacing them with their own "superior", "rational" ones. in any case your own experience and beliefs are not exactly founded upon strict rationalism. your perspective is, in effect, based on your opinion - in fact, *belief* about what exactly occurred during your transcendental experiences. i don't believe you're a prophet and i don't see why i should - but it is even more illogical to dismiss mystical experiences as superstitious if your own positions are founded upon one!

Writers in various religions have indicated an interest to create the logical interpretation of their community

and, as i have already said, many of the mediaeval sages such as maimonides and yehuda ha-levi (author of the "kuzari") tried to reconcile logic and judaism, ultimately unsuccessfully - at any rate their proofs would not satisfy a modern logician. similarly, the haskalah (enlightenment) was an attempt to strip judaism of "superstition", the result being the modern non-orthodox denominations; without wishing to take an opinion on their rightness or wrongness, their success, if success it has been has not been without a demographic and communal cost - like the 50% intermarriage rate in the US.

Maybe prophets, Sanhedrins and supernatural miracles have disappeared as superstitions disappear?

there was nothing superstitious about the sanhedrin; it was a supreme court of 70 sages, ruling on all matters of jewish law.

Rationality dictates that the powers of G!d are feasible the spiritual dimension and includes the spiritual guidance of mankind.

it does nothing of the sort. read richard dawkins, why don't you - he is a rationalist and sees spirituality, particularly organised religion, as the enemy.

Rationality dictates that only time is infinite and G!D is eternal; had a beginning and will last forever.

absolute balderdash. rationality can have nothing whatsoever to assert about the meta-rational.

if one admits to the existence of G!D, this god has to be logical. An illogical G!D is illogical.

*rolls eyes*. if people can be illogical, why can't G!D? Who do you think Creates the laws of logic? you seem to be exhibiting a level of blind faith in some kind of rationalism which rationalism wouldn't even claim was rational. of course, yes, if G!D=rational it is logical to worship rationality. but G!D Is not rationality alone. the most you can say is that there is a higher order of Divine rationality that cannot be approached by human rationalism; we have plenty of sources that say that. the Talmud depicts moses' vision of the torture and death of rabbi aqiba (Menahot 29b). when moses protests, "Master of the universe, is this the Torah and this its reward?" G!D answers simply, "be silent, for this is the way I have determined it."

otherwise, sorry, mate, you're really not making your point very convincingly here.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[kkawohl]

look, by using terms such as "superstition" you are really making this a pointless discussion. you don't get to decide for other people what is or isn't "superstitious"… in any case your own experience and beliefs are not exactly founded upon strict rationalism. your perspective is, in effect, based on your opinion - in fact, *belief* about what exactly occurred during your transcendental experiences. i don't believe you're a prophet and i don't see why i should - but it is even more illogical to dismiss mystical experiences as superstitious if your own positions are founded upon one!

O.K. BB, let’s look at the definition of superstition; a belief that is not based on fact, a practice for which there appears to be no rational substance; religious credulity; a practice stemming from such belief.

In my own case, I claim to have had my “spirit” interact with the spiritual dimension; a strictly spiritual interaction which was translated by the brain. “I” did not have a “mystical”, supernatural (not conforming to natural laws) experience. Via this interaction, I “know” what my spirit has experienced. I definitely am not a prophet (predictor, seer) & have never claimed to be one. Man’s spirit is substantiated & like space, has the properties of unity, matter, continuity & infinity.

and, as i have already said, many of the mediaeval sages such as maimonides and yehuda ha-levi (author of the "kuzari") tried to reconcile logic and judaism, ultimately unsuccessfully - at any rate their proofs would not satisfy a modern logician. similarly, the haskalah (enlightenment) was an attempt to strip judaism of "superstition", the result being the modern non-orthodox denominations; without wishing to take an opinion on their rightness or wrongness, their success, if success it has been has not been without a demographic and communal cost - like the 50% intermarriage rate in the US.

there was nothing superstitious about the sanhedrin; it was a supreme court of 70 sages, ruling on all matters of jewish law.

Sanhedrin ruling on religious as well as judicial and administrative issues was the main cause of its demise. If Judaism eliminates superstitions and “properly” replaces them with logic, it will reinforce their spiritual leadership and help to reconcile others.

absolute balderdash. rationality can have nothing whatsoever to assert about the meta-rational.

*rolls eyes*. if people can be illogical, why can't G!D? Who do you think Creates the laws of logic? you seem to be exhibiting a level of blind faith in some kind of rationalism which rationalism wouldn't even claim was rational. of course, yes, if G!D=rational it is logical to worship rationality. but G!D Is not rationality alone. the most you can say is that there is a higher order of Divine rationality that cannot be approached by human rationalism; we have plenty of sources that say that. the Talmud depicts moses' vision of the torture and death of rabbi aqiba (Menahot 29b). when moses protests, "Master of the universe, is this the Torah and this its reward?" G!D answers simply, "be silent, for this is the way I have determined it."

I hope that your “balderdash” and *rolls eyes* is not the result of your frustration and an attempt to demean, I have been crediting you with being intelligent. Do you maybe wish to reevaluate your position above? IMHO, most of “it”, in your words, is balderdash.
Namaste,

Kurt

 

[kkawohl]

Actually, Kurt, a particular point of not jumping to conclusions too quickly - is that if you've read a lot of posts by bananabrain, you'll find that there is a rather surprisingly deep perception of God communicated through Judaism (or, at least, BB's perception of it) - than a too literal reading of the OT would give credit to.

I think you'll find - once you become accustomed to the idea of the wealth of commentary and philosophy outlook behind Judaic belief, you may indeed find that there is far far more "rational" about it than perhaps you might expect.

I do not dispute that, but IMHO, if Judaism would eliminate superstitions and “properly” replaces them with logic, it will reinforce their spiritual leadership and help to reconcile other religions.

 

[bananabrain]

let’s look at the definition of superstition; a belief that is not based on fact

if beliefs were based on facts, they wouldn't be beliefs. i don't "believe in" the postman. i don't have to, because i get letters in the morning (if i'm lucky, the royal mail being in the state it's in) - there is indisputable evidence for the existence of the postman and, furthermore, i can go and see the post office and postboxes and so on, or even wait around and try and catch one of the furtive buggers actually doing his job. the only real evidence for the existence of G!D is the indisputable existence of religion - but even so, that doesn't PROVE G!D Exists beyond all reasonable doubt - to maintain that G!D Is Real requires *faith*. even so, this is subject to the same accusation of "superstition" or the sneer of "religious credulity". to the categories of logic and/or rationalism there is NO SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE between the existence of G!D and the existence of the tooth fairy.

a practice for which there appears to be no rational substance

there is an entire category of Torah laws, called "HOQ", which are specifically designed so that we cannot claim that they have a "logical" or "rational" basis, such as the prohibition from wearing sha'atnez (linsey-woolsey). this prevents us from falling into the reductionist error of believing that judaism is merely a logical code of ethics. the point is that Torah DOES NOT REQUIRE THE SUBSTANTIATION OF RATIONALITY. it was given in a different cultural context from the development of greek logic. the commandments are not ranked in any order of importance (save for three) - sha'atnez has, at least technically, an equivalent value to keeping the sabbath. your imposition of a logical straitjacket would result in an identikit, one-size-fits-all ethical code with no flexibility and the disappearance of judaism's particularist mission in favour of its universalist aspirations - and that i (and, i believe, most jews) would resist. with your attitude, you should really be working at the european commission!

In my own case, I claim to have had my “spirit” interact with the spiritual dimension; a strictly spiritual interaction which was translated by the brain. “I” did not have a “mystical”, supernatural (not conforming to natural laws) experience.

wiht all due respect, i don't see any practical difference - especially given that you see it as your mission to propagate this "insight" at the expense of the millenia-old tradition of my ancestors.

Man’s spirit is substantiated & like space, has the properties of unity, matter, continuity & infinity.

again, show richard dawkins how you can prove this in a laboratory and then come back and show me. you know, we have a tradition which says that all miracles must have a plausible natural explanation, (such as the strong wind that blew all night before the red sea parted) otherwise all doubt is removed - and we are currently under threat of our lives from this sort of certainty. the only miracle without this explanation is the revelation of Torah - therefore this is the only one that requires belief - or, as you would have it, superstitious credulity. and, personally, i can believe in that far better than any of the other explanation of this miraculous Text that i have so far been party to.

and no, i'm not "attempting to demean you", but you seem to be reluctant to grasp that i'm not convinced by your reasoning.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[kkawohl]

if beliefs were based on facts, they wouldn't be beliefs. the only real evidence for the existence of G!D is the indisputable existence of religion - but even so, that doesn't PROVE G!D Exists beyond all reasonable doubt - to maintain that G!D Is Real requires *faith*. even so, this is subject to the same accusation of "superstition" or the sneer of "religious credulity". to the categories of logic and/or rationalism there is NO SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE between the existence of G!D and the existence of the tooth fairy.

God is spirit, not a tangible substance. Evidence is proof, something that shows what is true. Truth is established by testifying, bearing witness, attesting, declaring under oath that what is testified to, is actuality. In a court of law, as in civil action, evidence is presented and the validity of this evidence is assessed by a judge or jury who rule on it; their decision is accepted and it is determined that proof has been established by a preponderance of the evidence. As we look at the complex composition of a single cell to the compilations and complexities of everything in existence, the makeup of the entire universe, can we really conscientiously deny the possible existence of a structured guidance? The power of the wind is a small comparison to the power of God's Spirit. To refute all this evidence of a spiritual existence by saying that all is possible without supreme guidance is to ignore proof. I KNOW that a spiritual existence is a reality.

One of your apparent reasons for being here is, in order to justify our beliefs even to ourselves, that we apply logic to our beliefs rather than blindly accept everything that we have read and been told.

there is an entire category of Torah laws, called "HOQ", which are specifically designed so that we cannot claim that they have a "logical" or "rational" basis,.... - and that i (and, i believe, most jews) would resist. with your attitude, you should really be working at the european commission!...with all due respect, i don't see any practical difference - especially given that you see it as your mission to propagate this "insight" at the expense of the millenia-old tradition of my ancestors.

Matter of fact, Jews have been most supportive. My Jewish neighbor (next block) Lt. Colonel - US Air Force (retired) Melvin J. Beitscher wrote in his email to me:
Kurt, "As I near the end of your book and turn each page, I marvel
at the insight, research and reading you have done to come to this point in
your life and how you now affect so many more lives. Sometimes I lose a
little hope for mankind but with you, and I know there are many like you, I
realize that there is hope that we may transcend that which separates us.
You have started that vital journey with a remarkable thesis in your book
"Transcendentalism -A New Revelation". Your courage to fly in the face of
organized religion and see the truth behind the basics of all religion
deserves a Nobel Prize. The courage you display in listing the
correspondence with other learned people even though it may be at odds with
your statements is to be commended. Christopher Phillips writes "It is not
enough to have the courage of your convictions, you must also have the
courage to have your convictions challenged". You have that courage and
wisdom. Congratulations on a work long needed".

At Beliefnet - Judaism Challenges & Critiques I received very favourable responses which are detailed in my book.
(example) Your above posts make perfect sense to me. This is also, in essence, what we believe. "The righteous of all faiths (or no faith) have a share in the world to come". The Talmud

you seem to be reluctant to grasp that i'm not convinced by your reasoning..

The purpose is not to change anyone's belief but to have people ponder that ALL roads that lead to God will bring the soul to its destination. God is a God for ALL & too large to fit into any one religion.

As time passes and when people eventually transcend their religious prejudices they will no longer say, “I am a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian”; then they will say “I am a Jewish Transcendentalist, a Muslim Transcendentalist, a Christian Transcendentalist”; and thereafter they will say “I am a Transcendentalist”.

Namaste,
Kurt

 

[bananabrain]

Evidence is proof, something that shows what is true.

kurt, that's not how it works. firstly, there are philosophical problems with the idea of objective truth. secondly, scientific method only admits of *hypothesis", not truth. truth is merely a hypothesis that has not yet been *disproved*. how this works in the case of G!D is that it is not possible to conclusively disprove the existence of the metanatural using only empirical methods. all evidence can ever do is *support* or *disprove* a hypothesis, not "prove" it is "true".

Truth is established by testifying, bearing witness, attesting, declaring under oath that what is testified to, is actuality. In a court of law, as in civil action, evidence is presented and the validity of this evidence is assessed by a judge or jury who rule on it; their decision is accepted and it is determined that proof has been established by a preponderance of the evidence.

but the standard of proof, at least in criminal cases, is "beyond reasonable doubt" - and it is quite impossible to reach this standard using only the tools of rationalism in the case of the metanatural! it is interesting, however, that you use an example of a court of law - this is precisely the way judaism works - our "court transcript" is the Torah, in which 600,000 people testify their witnessing of the revelation at Sinai - and that has been accepted as the standard of proof that we reached - once in human history. even so - and even if i accept it, which i do - this is clearly neither adequate nor sufficent to convince a sceptic or rationalist. and i am perfectly happy with that. all religious people should be satisfied with that - otherwise complacency and corruption set in. either way, in this scenario, the description of your experience is the "evidence" and i, as the "jury", am so far of the opinion that proof of your case has not been established - which is what i was saying in the first case.

As we look at the complex composition of a single cell to the compilations and complexities of everything in existence, the makeup of the entire universe, can we really conscientiously deny the possible existence of a structured guidance?

this is called the "argument from design", which is robustly rebutted by richard dawkins and his supporters in books such as "the selfish gene". i personally see no need for this argument, because i admit that belief is not completely subject to rational influence - and, again, i am perfectly happy with that.

One of your apparent reasons for being here is, in order to justify our beliefs even to ourselves, that we apply logic to our beliefs rather than blindly accept everything that we have read and been told.

i see what you mean but, for me, my beliefs are not entirely justified by logic. obviously it is possible to deduce a need for ethics and morals by logical means, but to rule out the "illogical" as superfluous is as counterproductive as the oft-repeated error "let's get rid of ritual and/or all the accretions of time and get back to basics" - otherwise known as fundamentalism. i respect *consistency*, *integrity* and *context*. in other words, i may not be able to find "logical" or "rational" reasons for my belief, but i can still find *compelling* reasons which are derived from the categories of judaism itself. a logic has no inherent right to censor Torah.

Matter of fact, Jews have been most supportive.

with all due respect, that doesn't mean that a) they know anything about judaism or b) they are familiar with the historical precedents and results of this idea.

"The righteous of all faiths (or no faith) have a share in the world to come".

exactly! which *also* means that we have not only the right to preserve what rabbi jonathan sacks describes as the "dignity of difference", but we are entitled to go about our business without you or anyone else effectively trying to convert us. therein lies the problem with your agenda:

As time passes and when people eventually transcend their religious prejudices they will no longer say, “I am a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian”; then they will say “I am a Jewish Transcendentalist, a Muslim Transcendentalist, a Christian Transcendentalist”; and thereafter they will say “I am a Transcendentalist”.

which is exactly the problem! this says that you want to abolish the distinctive differences between judaism, christianity and islam in favour of some anodyne, consensus-based and ultimately procrustean solution. look, you're not the first person to try this. in fact, it seems to me that both baha'ullah and guru nanak had the same idea, not to mention martin luther, jesus and muhammad. if you think established religions are going to abandon their distinctiveness and all become "transcendentalists" then not only are you following a well-trodden path, but a seriously deluded one. you may deny being a prophet but that is essentially how you are asking your experience to be treated and, again, i say it with all due respect, because you seem like a nice chap who is trying to do something positive and i respect you for that, you are one of many thousands, including people like "maitreya buddha", l. ron hubbard "rav" berg of the kabbalah centre and that maharishi guy.

"for you are a stiff-necked people...." (deut. 9:6)

we think this is an issue that can only be resolved with the coming of Moshiach. and unless you're him (which i don't think you are, nor are you claiming to be) i really think you should leave the theology of established religions alone and concentrate on criticising people who don't behave according to the beliefs they purport to possess - in which endeavour you have my wholehearted cooperation.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[kkawohl]

"for you are a stiff-necked people...." (deut. 9:6)
we think this is an issue that can only be resolved with the coming of Moshiach.

Yes we are a stiff-necked people who will pursue a designated cause until our demise.

The Moshiach will be a descendant of the Davidic line (like yourself?) who will deliver Israel from foreign bondage.

Ask yourself what position Israel is in now & what can you do to change that? The answer is in your grasp. Via God’s inspiration of our spirit the seemingly impossible can be accomplished. Sometimes it takes our whole lifetime to realize that our life could have been more productive.

Namaste,

Kurt

 

[kkawohl]

"for you are a stiff-necked people...." (deut. 9:6)

Absolutely. "Google" - Transcendentalism Today, Kurt Kawohl, Kawohl & kkawohl an you will see the results of 2 years. Also in my writings at http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Culture/Showcase/Stories2/kawohl1_transcendentalism1_novel.html
notice my lenghty communication with Jonathan at the Judaism site.

 

[bananabrain]

Yes we are a stiff-necked people who will pursue a designated cause until our demise.

what's that supposed to mean? if we don't change our mind and do as you say we're going to die out? do you have any idea how many people have said this to us over thousands of years? what on earth makes you think this is even some kind of groundbreaking new idea? sheesh.

The Moshiach will be a descendant of the Davidic line (like yourself?) who will deliver Israel from foreign bondage.

listen, why don't you give the assumptions a rest. messianic thought in judaism is extremely complicated and often contradictory, but this quote is dangerously simplistic. and, no, for your information, i have no idea about whether i am descended from the davidic line (or indeed the yosefic one, but never mind if you've never heard of Moshiach ben yosef) nor do i seek public approval, if that's what you're implying.

Ask yourself what position Israel is in now & what can you do to change that?

i do things about that every day, thank you very much. and i don't need to be a "transcendentalist" to feel the need. indeed, i very much doubt that you understand precisely what the land (as opposed to the state) of israel means to us in religious terms.

The answer is in your grasp. Via God’s inspiration of our spirit the seemingly impossible can be accomplished. Sometimes it takes our whole lifetime to realize that our life could have been more productive.

OK, but with my sceptic's hat on, that's a bunch of fluffy-bunny feelgood new age waffle. you're not saying anything original, let alone insightful. all i seem to be doing is pointing out that the judaism you're so helpfully de-superstitionising for us already possesses the insights you are seeking to show, even if a lot of jews are ignorant of them. as much as i appreciate your good intentions, i am not your audience. i'm happy to help you understand how judaism approaches these issues from a traditional standpoint, but i do not - and will not - concede that the traditional, millennia-old standpoint should give way before your personal, private experience which you seem determined to share whether people like it or not.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[iBrian]

i'm happy to help you understand how judaism approaches these issues from a traditional standpoint,

That always seemed like a great remit.

 

[kkawohl]

what's that supposed to mean?…what on earth makes you think this is even some kind of groundbreaking new idea? sheesh.

A misunderstanding. I assumed the term, "for you are a stiff-necked people” was applicable to Transcendentalists…it may not be a groundbreaking new idea now, but religious rationality will be a reality as soon as man eliminates superstitions…sheesh? How about mensch?

… i have no idea about whether i am descended from the davidic line (or indeed the yosefic one, but never mind if you've never heard of Moshiach ben yosef.

Aren’t all Jews descendants of Abraham and thereby within the Yosefic or Davidic line?

Let’s look at Jewish tradition which speaks of two redeemers, each one called Moshiach. Both are involved in ushering in the Messianic era. They are Moshiach ben David and Moshiach ben Yossef.[1] The term Moshiach unqualified always refers to Moshiach ben David (Moshiach the descendant of David) of the tribe of Judah. He is the actual (final) redeemer who shall rule in the Messianic age. Moshiach ben Yossef (Moshiach the descendant of Joseph) of the tribe of Ephraim (son of Joseph), is also referred to as Moshiach ben Ephrayim, Moshiach the descendant of Ephraim.[2] He will come first, before the final redeemer, and later will serve as his viceroy.[3]

The essential task of Moshiach ben Yossef is to act as precursor to Moshiach ben David: he will prepare the world for the coming of the final redeemer. Different sources attribute to him different functions, some even charging him with tasks traditionally associated with Moshiach ben David (such as the ingathering of the exiles, the rebuilding of the Bet Hamikdash, and so forth).[4]

The principal and final function ascribed to Moshiach ben Yossef is of political and military nature. He shall wage war against the forces of evil that oppress Israel. More specifically, he will do battle against Edom, the descendants of Esau.[5] Edom is the comprehensive designation of the enemies of Israel,[6] and it will be crushed through the progeny of Joseph. Thus it was prophesied of old, “The House of Jacob will be a fire and the House of Joseph a flame, and the House of Esau for stubble..” (Obadiah 1:18): “the progeny of Esau shall be delivered only into the hands of the progeny of Joseph.”[7]

This ultimate confrontation between Joseph and Esau is alluded already in the very birth of Joseph when his mother Rachel exclaimed, “G-d has taken away my disgrace” (Genesis 30:23): with prophetic vision she foresaw that an “anointed savior” will descend from Joseph and that he will remove the disgrace of Israel.[8] In this context she called his name “Yossef, saying ‘yossef Hashem — may G-d add to me ben acher (lit., another son), i.e., ben acharono shel olam — one who will be at the end of the world’s time,’[9] from which it follows that ‘meshu’ach milchamah — one anointed for battle’ will descend from Joseph.”[10]

The immediate results of this war[11] will be disastrous: Moshiach ben Yossef will be killed. This is described in the prophecy of Zechariah, who says of this tragedy that “they shall mourn him as one mourns for an only child.” (Zechariah 12:10).[12] His death will be followed by a period of great calamities. These new tribulations shall be the final test for Israel, and shortly thereafter Moshiach ben David shall come, avenge his death, resurrect him, and inaugurate the Messianic era of everlasting peace and bliss.[13]

----------

Most prophecies today are regarded as the imaginative ramblings of superstitious people. Do sensible Jews realistically believe that Moshiach ben David shall come, avenge the death of Moshiach ben Yossef, resurrect him, and inaugurate the Messianic era of everlasting peace and bliss? Christians also incorrectly believed Jesus to be the Moshiach.

i don't need to be a "transcendentalist" to feel the need. indeed, i very much doubt that you understand precisely what the land (as opposed to the state) of israel means to us in religious terms.

OK, but with my sceptic's hat on, that's a bunch of fluffy-bunny feelgood new age waffle. you're not saying anything original, let alone insightful. all i seem to be doing is pointing out that the judaism you're so helpfully de-superstitionising for us already possesses the insights you are seeking to show, even if a lot of jews are ignorant of them.

People still relate to superficial possessions and memories and attempt to integrate these with the spiritual. The biggest problem is that not only are many Jews still ignorantly clinging to superstitions, it now is the major cause of escalation into a seemingly never-ending conflict between Muslims, Jews and Christians. The Crusades lasted 300 years with each side claiming God’s support. Now thousand years later the conflict is still continuing. De-superstitionizing religions must begin with Judaism if Jews, Muslims and Christians are ever to subdue religious strife.

Namaste,

Kurt

 

[bananabrain]

Aren’t all Jews descendants of Abraham and thereby within the Yosefic or Davidic line?

no, because it is obviously possible to be a descendant of abraham without being in either. david was of the tribe of judah. as for joseph, we have no idea.

i don't know where you're quoting all the messianic stuff you're quoting from, but the point is that there is no set belief about the exact whys and wherefores of Moshiach. it is possible - and indeed always has been - to hold wildly differing opinions about what is going to happen when and to whom in this area, as it is not a matter that has been circumscribed by the halacha. consequently this is just an opinion with no binding force.

Most prophecies today are regarded as the imaginative ramblings of superstitious people.

by smug european rationalists, perhaps. however, i was never particularly impressed by people who dismiss things they obviously don't understand and haven't taken the trouble to decipher. anyway, "sez you", if i may be so bold.

Do sensible Jews realistically believe that Moshiach ben David shall come, avenge the death of Moshiach ben Yossef, resurrect him, and inaugurate the Messianic era of everlasting peace and bliss?

jews are required believe "with perfect faith in the coming of Moshiach, though he seems to be taking his time about it." that's the 12th of [the arch-rationalist] maimonides' 13 principles of faith, which we all agree on. in fact, no more exactitude is required on this point, which leaves us free to hold our own opinions of what precisely is meant.

The biggest problem is that not only are many Jews still ignorantly clinging to superstitions

give me a "for instance" instead of making inaccurate generalisations, please. and, while you're at it, we weren't involved in the crusades except as target practice.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[kkawohl]

by smug european rationalists, perhaps. however, i was never particularly impressed by people who dismiss things they obviously don't understand and haven't taken the trouble to decipher. anyway, "sez you", if i may be so bold.

give me a "for instance" instead of making inaccurate generalisations, please.
b'shalom

bananabrain

BB,

I have had similar discussions at the Islam site http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10569#post10569

Please see my last posting to Brian there.

Namaste,
Kurt

 

[Pet Zepi]

How prominent or nonprominent is the belief that if you see two people in peril, and you're a Jew, that you must prefer the Jew? Or that "bloodline" is at all important? What about helping/not helping/hurting idol worshippers who aren't bothering anyone else? I have no big agenda here. I just would like to know.

Thanks...

Yeah, what ever happened to Mannasehism or.......Benjaminism.......or

.....Zebulunism.




(You're welcome.)

 

[bananabrain]

eh? what on earth are you on about?

b'shalom

bananabrain