As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Judaism and Christianity

1567810

Posts

  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Do you really think that if you keep ignoring the Talmud it will just go away?

    Evander on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Evander, what from the Talmud would you like to discuss?

    You asked for an example of capital punishment. I gave you one. A man is stoned to death for gathering sticks on the sabbath—he broke the fourth commandment. It doesn't get much clearer than this.

    Do you deny that the man was stoned to death for breaking a commandment, Evander?

    I'll ask again, how does saying the word "Talmud" somehow count as an argument, Evander?

    Qingu on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    Do you really think that if you keep ignoring the Talmud it will just go away?

    So you're saying that the Talmud is in the same position as the rest of the Torah?

    As in, equal in authority?

    --

    Also, that Jewish guilt shit was funny as hell. Especially as a Native American. Our sob story is better.

    Incenjucar on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Do you really think that if you keep ignoring the Talmud it will just go away?

    So you're saying that the Talmud is in the same position as the rest of the Torah?

    As in, equal in authority?

    I think he is claiming that the Talmud's interpretation is valid so he has to disprove that. That doesn't really make sense because how else are you supposed to interpret a stoning?

    Couscous on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Do you really think that if you keep ignoring the Talmud it will just go away?

    So you're saying that the Talmud is in the same position as the rest of the Torah?

    As in, equal in authority?

    I think he is claiming that the Talmud's interpretation is valid so he has to disprove that. That doesn't really make sense because how else are you supposed to interpret a stoning?

    He's basically taking the position that the Talmud is his NT.

    Incenjucar on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Do you really think that if you keep ignoring the Talmud it will just go away?

    So you're saying that the Talmud is in the same position as the rest of the Torah?

    As in, equal in authority?

    I think he is claiming that the Talmud's interpretation is valid so he has to disprove that. That doesn't really make sense because how else are you supposed to interpret a stoning?

    He's basically taking the position that the Talmud is his NT.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud#Critical_method
    Orthodox Judaism maintains that the oral law was revealed together with the written law. As such, most of Orthodox Judaism has resisted any effort to apply the historical method to the Talmud. It also resists imputing motives to the authors of the Talmud.
    Belief that there is also an oral law in Judaism, the authoritative interpretation of the written Torah, which is also Divine, having been transmitted by God to Moses along with the Pentateuch, passed down to various authorities from Moses to the Talmudic period, and which is embodied in the Talmud, Midrash, and innumerable related texts, all intrinsically and inherently entwined with the written law of the Torah;
    Orthodox Judaism is nuts.

    Couscous on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Orthodox Judaism is nuts.

    Eh. They're a backwater cult that has its own nation on other peoples' land.

    They're doing something right.

    Incenjucar on
  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    Not all religions ignore science, by the way. I take particular offense at you implying that. You don't see Jews arguing for intelligent design. Jews either reconcile their beliefs with reality, or else choose to ignore reality personally, and let the rest of the world do what it likes.

    I personally have seen and heard Jews argue for intelligent design, albeit not by that name. (I know, anecdotal evidence lol.) I've seen articles in newsmagazines in which Jews do in fact support ID by name. I know that it's not even close to a mainstream position among Jews, but there is a small fringe element that does support the philosophy. You don't help your argument by saying "no Jews argue this" instead of (for example) "few Jews argue this, none of whom are very credible". It's a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

    I'm not sure what your "Jews either reconcile their beliefs with reality, or they don't" comment has to do with your argument, unless you're trying to argue that Jews never let their personal beliefs influence their scientific work.
    Evander wrote: »
    Honestly, what gets to me, is that you insist people need to prove God, and yet you can't prove a lack of God. Sure, you can pull out Occam's razor, and say that "probably" there is no God, and I'd agree, but you still can't prove that there is truely no God that exists.

    If someone tells me that he thinks that life might possibly exist on other planets that we haven't yet discovered or fully examined, I'll concede that the possibility does exist, even if there is no evidence whatsoever to support (or contradict) that hypothesis and thus no reason to assume that the hypothesis is correct. The same holds true for the person who thinks that life might not exist at all on any other planets.

    If someone tells me that he knows for a fact that there is life on other planets, I would demand some truly compelling evidence. If he tells me that he knows the name and temperament of that lifeform, and that the lifeform in question possesses traits and abilities not known to be possible for any other forms of life, I would demand an extraordinary degree of proof that he would ultimately be unable and/or unwilling to provide.

    If someone tells me that he knows for a fact that there is no life on any other planets, I would point out that that degree of knowledge is effectively impossible given our current level of exploration and understanding of the universe.

    (Of course, the above doesn't perfectly translate to the profession of the existence or non-existence of God, since we can already prove that life exists, if only on our own planet. Eh, close enough.)

    The 'agnostic atheist' position is really the only rational position. When you get down to it, "I don't believe in God" and "I believe that there is no God" are both, on a basic level, atheistic positions, even if you qualify the former with "but I don't disbelieve in God, either".

    Is it the self-professed agnostics who are the Shi'a and the self-professed atheists who are the Sunnis, or is it the other way around? I forget.

    gtrmp on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Do you really think that if you keep ignoring the Talmud it will just go away?

    So you're saying that the Talmud is in the same position as the rest of the Torah?

    As in, equal in authority?

    --

    Also, that Jewish guilt shit was funny as hell. Especially as a Native American. Our sob story is better.

    jewish guilt has othing to do with jewish sufering

    and Talmud is theoretically a higher authority than Torah, because when the two contradict, you follow Talmud.

    Like if a traffic cop waves you through a red light.

    Evander on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    You're not supposed to get anywhere near menstrual blood, on account o things having to do with the death of a potential life (the whole unfertalized egg thing)

    of course, like any other Jewish law, failure to comply doesn't carry any real consequence.
    Next time there's a big flood, I'm blaming your period sex, Evan.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    Except you aren't merely telling people to question, because you both seem particularly bothered by an Agnostic like myself who does nothing BUT question dogma, including atheist dogma.

    No. Technically, you could refer to me as an agnostic as well. I prefer "atheist" as I don't actually believe in god, but I'm not opposed to the concept as being a possibility. The only way I am bothered by agnostics is if they give undue credence to religious claims, or compare people such as myself to militants or fundamentalists or similar ideologies and faiths.
    Not all religions ignore science, by the way. I take particular offense at you implying that. You don't see Jews arguing for intelligent design. Jews either reconcile their beliefs with reality, or else choose to ignore reality personally, and let the rest of the world do what it likes.

    No, you can rather easily find some orthodox Jews that beleive some crazy shit about the world. I don't have a problem with Jews in the cultural identity sense, as I suspect you would identify yourself.

    In the religious sense, I only take issue so far as beliefs are actually held (or cover is given to other believers). I celebrate Christmas. Neither I nor my parents are Christian or believe in any form of god(s). I don't take any issue with observing traditions, so long as they aren't held in the face of reality, and so far as they aren't held above critical examination.
    Honestly, what gets to me, is that you insist people need to prove God, and yet you can't prove a lack of God. Sure, you can pull out Occam's razor, and say that "probably" there is no God, and I'd agree, but you still can't prove that there is truely no God that exists. I would like people like you SO MUCH MORE if you just stopped pretending to be the holders of ultimate truth, which is EXCATLY where you are the same as militant Christians.

    I don't need to prove that no god exists. I never sought anything of the sort, or claimed anything of the sort. Frankly, this is the oldest and most retarded of arguments for the defensibility of faith, or attacks on atheism. Arguments like yours are why the counterpoint of the flying spaghetti monster has quickly become so clichéd.

    I'm not claiming to be the holder of any intellectual truth. I'm asking for intellectual honesty so that we might try in earnest to discern the truth as best we can. Your litany of strawmen and mischaracterizations and excuses is not conducive to such a goal, and your attacks on myself and Qingu earn you a big fuck you, asshole.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • DynagripDynagrip Break me a million hearts HoustonRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Loren, you are a militant atheist. Seriously. Have you ever stayed out of one of these threads or not been a dick in them?

    Dynagrip on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Dynagrip wrote: »
    Loren, you are a militant atheist. Seriously. Have you ever stayed out of one of these threads or not been a dick in them?
    Doesn't "militant" imply, you know, militancy? As in violence?

    Being a "dick" on a message board doesn't qualify as militant in my eyes. Blowing up shit would though.

    Loren and myself have strong views on religion and (speaking for myself at least) I certainly admit to going on attack mode whenever the Bible comes up. I don't see how this is different from being critical and outspoken about any other issue, though. Look at how many democrats on this forum jump at neocons and Republicans whenever they post anything—you wouldn't call those people "militant democrats."

    Qingu on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    It's cool Qingu, he's like my biggest fan, except he has tourettes. He literally only has dialog with me to tell me how much of a dick I am.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    Honestly, what gets to me, is that you insist people need to prove God, and yet you can't prove a lack of God.

    The Burden of Proof is on the claimant, not on the one who doubts the claim. Thus, it is not up to myself and other non-theists to disprove the existance of a god, rather, it is up to those who claim that a god exists to back up their claim with evidence. If they either can't or won't do this, then we non-theists are under no obligation to take their claims seriously. That is all there is to it. If you can't understand that, Evander, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

    FCD on
    Gridman! Baby DAN DAN! Baby DAN DAN!
  • Bliss 101Bliss 101 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Dynagrip wrote: »
    Loren, you are a militant atheist. Seriously. Have you ever stayed out of one of these threads or not been a dick in them?

    That right there is why we need "militant" atheists, if that's your word for "outspoken". Religious ideas are given an undue amount of credit in society without being subjected to even a minimal amount of critical scrutiny, because attacking religion is widely seen as inappropriate or offensive. Even on a Debate forum that says "Any topic matter welcome" in its description, arguing against religious ideas immediately qualifies you as a dick.

    Bliss 101 on
    MSL59.jpg
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hey, don't we lock religious threads at ten pages anymore? Because as soon as people start talking about proving/disproving God the thread is effectively over.

    Salvation122 on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 2007
    Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Try to drag it back into discussing Judaism-Christianity parallels or it's locksville.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Because as soon as people start talking about proving/disproving God the thread is effectively over.

    There's really nothing else to talk about?

    Shit, man.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 2007
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    I'm not trying to thread-assassinate here, but aren't these things supposed to be locked after ten pages anyway?
    I suspect Jeff decided to give it a chance because it hadn't devolved into the same old "prove god nuh uh you prove no god" back-and-forth that these things tend to.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • DynagripDynagrip Break me a million hearts HoustonRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    It's cool Qingu, he's like my biggest fan, except he has tourettes. He literally only has dialog with me to tell me how much of a dick I am.
    Hello Loren, how was your evening?

    Dynagrip on
  • LightsOutLightsOut Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    FCD wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Honestly, what gets to me, is that you insist people need to prove God, and yet you can't prove a lack of God.

    The Burden of Proof is on the claimant, not on the one who doubts the claim. Thus, it is not up to myself and other non-theists to disprove the existance of a god, rather, it is up to those who claim that a god exists to back up their claim with evidence. If they either can't or won't do this, then we non-theists are under no obligation to take their claims seriously. That is all there is to it. If you can't understand that, Evander, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

    If you are talking in debate terms, it can go both ways. You may have the Burden of Proof claiming something doesn't exist. However, that isn't the case here, just wanted to point it out.

    LightsOut on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Dynagrip wrote: »
    It's cool Qingu, he's like my biggest fan, except he has tourettes. He literally only has dialog with me to tell me how much of a dick I am.
    Hello Loren, how was your evening?

    bastard

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    LightsOut wrote: »
    FCD wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Honestly, what gets to me, is that you insist people need to prove God, and yet you can't prove a lack of God.

    The Burden of Proof is on the claimant, not on the one who doubts the claim. Thus, it is not up to myself and other non-theists to disprove the existance of a god, rather, it is up to those who claim that a god exists to back up their claim with evidence. If they either can't or won't do this, then we non-theists are under no obligation to take their claims seriously. That is all there is to it. If you can't understand that, Evander, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

    If you are talking in debate terms, it can go both ways. You may have the Burden of Proof claiming something doesn't exist. However, that isn't the case here, just wanted to point it out.

    The thing is, both sides have a burden to prove that a thing does/doesn't exist. As proving God is basically impossible, and you can't prove a universal negative with any reasonable success, it is not really a win for either side.

    Fencingsax on
  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    LightsOut wrote: »
    FCD wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Honestly, what gets to me, is that you insist people need to prove God, and yet you can't prove a lack of God.

    The Burden of Proof is on the claimant, not on the one who doubts the claim. Thus, it is not up to myself and other non-theists to disprove the existance of a god, rather, it is up to those who claim that a god exists to back up their claim with evidence. If they either can't or won't do this, then we non-theists are under no obligation to take their claims seriously. That is all there is to it. If you can't understand that, Evander, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

    If you are talking in debate terms, it can go both ways. You may have the Burden of Proof claiming something doesn't exist. However, that isn't the case here, just wanted to point it out.

    The thing is, both sides have a burden to prove that a thing does/doesn't exist. As proving God is basically impossible, and you can't prove a universal negative with any reasonable success, it is not really a win for either side.

    There are some strong atheists who attempt to make the claim that god doesn't exist, that is true. But most atheists, like myself, are simply weak atheists. We make no claims that god doesn't exist, we just lack belief in the god claims made by those who believe in it. In other words, we weak atheists have no more burden to prove the non-existance of god(s) than those who lack belief in pixies have to prove the non-existance of pixies.

    FCD on
    Gridman! Baby DAN DAN! Baby DAN DAN!
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    You can't prove for 100% certain that fairies don't exist (they are good at hiding).

    I don't believe in God in the same way I don't believe in fairies.

    Atheist or agnostic? The question is semantic, and has more to do with "what is the nature of belief" than it does with the specific question of God's existence.

    I prefer the word "atheist" to describe myself because practically speaking, I live my life as though there is no God—just like you live your life as though you aren't stepping on invisible fairies which might exist. I certainly admit the possibility that God or fairies exist, but that is because of the conditional/falsifiable nature of my beliefs. I see "agnostic" as someone who is genuinely on the fence about God's existence and maybe goes to church once in a while, just in case.

    So if we can all agree that "atheist" is a better descriptive word than "agnostic" for people like me, Loren, and many others on this forum, maybe we can shelve this atheist/agnostic tangent once and for all?

    Qingu on
  • Rolly RizlaRolly Rizla __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    If Jesus was Jewish, and the Jewish faith had strict rules regarding creating schizms in the Church...

    Does that mean Jesus went to hell?

    Rolly Rizla on
  • CangoFettCangoFett Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    K, I'll bite.

    1) Im not saying it doesnt exist, but Ive never heard that, and thinking it may be someone not interpereting it right, or taking it too far

    2)The Jews had a ton of rules that Jesus broke. The Pharisees didnt say, "Oh, that Jesus feller, he does everything we tell people too, and doesnt change anything. Lets kill him"


    No, Jesus showed up and is all, "Happy Sabbath everyone, I'm gonna heal these dudes" and The Pharisees are all, "No, you cant do that. Its the Sabbath"
    And Jesus is all, "No, you're wrong, heres why"

    A lot of the jewish law had been muddied up from what God meant of it, to what they wanted of it.

    So, to answer your question, I seriously doubt Jesus is spending in eternity in hell.

    CangoFett on
  • Rolly RizlaRolly Rizla __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    My general understanding is that Jesus' sect was based around the idea that, INSTEAD of HAVING to follow the OT laws, which were a pain in the ass, you throw some of your worship towards Jesus (more or less, an avatar), instead of the deity itself.

    Basically, Jesus is the cop who you can flash your boobs at to get out of your speeding ticket.

    Isn't that like idol worship, though?

    Like... Moses never said he was God himself. He was just bringing the message.

    I always thought that Jesus was saying something similar to Michael Valentine Smith's message in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land:

    "Thou Art God."

    Rolly Rizla on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Jews were perfectly justified to have Jesus killed, Biblically speaking. He worked on the Sabbath, and he was a blasphemer. Both crimes are punishable by death.

    Qingu on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    If Jesus was Jewish, and the Jewish faith had strict rules regarding creating schizms in the Church...

    Does that mean Jesus went to hell?

    Depends if he was actually what he claimed to be or not. :P I'm pretty sure being a false prophet is a Bad Thing, let alone a false messiah.

    Phoenix-D on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    If Jesus was Jewish, and the Jewish faith had strict rules regarding creating schizms in the Church...

    Does that mean Jesus went to hell?

    Depends if he was actually what he claimed to be or not. :P I'm pretty sure being a false prophet is a Bad Thing, let alone a false messiah.
    Which is probably one of the reasons why his followers later invented the idea that he was actually 100% God, thus had the authority to contradict God's commandments.

    Qingu on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    My general understanding is that Jesus' sect was based around the idea that, INSTEAD of HAVING to follow the OT laws, which were a pain in the ass, you throw some of your worship towards Jesus (more or less, an avatar), instead of the deity itself.

    Basically, Jesus is the cop who you can flash your boobs at to get out of your speeding ticket.

    Isn't that like idol worship, though?

    Like... Moses never said he was God himself. He was just bringing the message.

    I always thought that Jesus was saying something similar to Michael Valentine Smith's message in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land:

    "Thou Art God."

    Any directed worship could be argued to be idol worship.

    Including directly at a deity's feet.

    Incenjucar on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    and Talmud is theoretically a higher authority than Torah, because when the two contradict, you follow Talmud.

    Okay. So the Talmud is exactly your "NT."

    Incenjucar on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    and Talmud is theoretically a higher authority than Torah, because when the two contradict, you follow Talmud.

    Okay. So the Talmud is exactly your "NT."
    The problem is that much of the Talmud is simply interpretation of Old Testament text. There are some new tales (like the Golem, for example), however much of it is rabbis doing what anyone on earth is capable of doing: reading the Bible critically and commenting on it.

    The idea that an interpretation of a religious text can supersede the words of the text itself is a little weird. I'm trying to imagine an analog. Is it logical to say that, for example, my professor's interpretation of the works of Plato is a higher authority than Plato himself? I suppose this would mean that any interpretation we might have of Plato, if it does not line up with our professor's opinion, is wrong.

    It's just absurd and question begging. Jews presumably would claim to have rational capacity. They can clearly judge and interpret the Bible on their own, and they can evaluate the rabbis' interpretations in the Talmud.

    In Evander's case, whenever I bring up a Bible verse, he keeps on claiming that the Talmud somehow mitigates or contradicts it but he has noticeably failed to provide any cites from the Talmud to support his point. I'd love to hear how the Talmud informs his opinion on whether or not to stone atheists or newlywed brides who don't bleed on their honeymoon. Instead of providing something from the Talmud to interact with my interpretation of these verses, he's simply asserted "The Talmud means Jews don't have to take these laws seriously!"

    Qingu on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    It basically just means that the Talmud is more divinely inspired than the OT itself.

    So the collection of Rabbis are basically the final authority on the religion next to the deity itself.

    So Talmud Rabbi==Pope on Chair

    Incenjucar on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    It basically just means that the Talmud is more divinely inspired than the OT itself.

    So the collection of Rabbis are basically the final authority on the religion next to the deity itself.

    So Talmud Rabbi==Pope on Chair
    I've never thought about it that way. That's a really good way of putting it, actually.

    Qingu on
  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I have to admit that the idea of a commentary on a religious text having more weight than the religious text itself seems extremely counterintuitive. Certainly, the Talmud has historical and cultural signifigance to Judaism, but I honestly can't see why it would be more important than the actual OT.

    FCD on
    Gridman! Baby DAN DAN! Baby DAN DAN!
  • CangoFettCangoFett Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    The Jews were perfectly justified to have Jesus killed, Biblically speaking. He worked on the Sabbath, and he was a blasphemer. Both crimes are punishable by death.


    Jesus gave perfectly solid reason as to why working on the Sabbath was okay. The Sabbath was made by God for man to rest. God does not stop the Universe from existing from the Sabbath, he still does his work, he still answers our prayers, he still helps us. Why should we stop helping fellow man on the Sabbath? If our neighbor is sick, or injured on the Sabbath, and comes to us for help, do we sit by and watch him die, and say, "Sorry, you should've been mortally wounded yesterday?"


    His "blasphemy" was claiming to be God's Son, but thats not really blasphemy if its true.


    As far as idol worship goes:
    Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this: 'You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven: 23 Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.
    "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

    God tells us not to worship false idols, such as ones we made ourselves. He got rather annoyed when he did awesome things for his people, then they made gold cows to worship.

    CangoFett on
  • Eela6Eela6 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    FCD wrote:
    I have to admit that the idea of a commentary on a religious text having more weight than the religious text itself seems extremely counterintuitive. Certainly, the Talmud has historical and cultural signifigance to Judaism, but I honestly can't see why it would be more important than the actual OT.

    It's mostly on practical grounds. The Torah happened to be written (in parts, at least) before people had figured out how to use Iron. Well, the Talmud did too (at least, before Iron came to Europe), but I digress.

    By the time the Talmud was going to be codified, the Jews had evolved from being primarily a tribe with a really cool religion (and as such, concerned with dominance over other tribes) to a bona-fide religious group that needed to interact peacefully with it's neighbors (especially ones that had lots of cool and powerful weaponry, like Rome, etc).

    They developed an oral tradition to modify laws that were a little too stringent for Jewish life, and created new ones for Jews in situations that the Torah didn't cover (like being somewhere else besides Israel). After all, if it's time for the passover sacrament and you're in Babylon, do you hike all the way to Israel and sacrafice a lamb on the broken altar, or do you... check the Talmud and conduct a decent alternative?

    Choice seems pretty simple to me.

    On another note:
    Cangofett wrote:
    God tells us not to worship false idols, such as ones we made ourselves. He got rather annoyed when he did awesome things for his people, then they made gold cows to worship.
    Well, yeah. This is exactly why Orthodox Jews don't get Christianity - when god says "I am the one and only god, put no others before me, etc.", and you throw in "I love Jesus, who will personally save me from Hell, and there's this cool Holy Ghost guy around too", it seems pretty clear (to them) that someone isn't listening to god.

    Eela6 on
    I took three ranks in Craft - Technobabble last level.

    DP Code - 3050 4223 5906
Sign In or Register to comment.