Pete

I personally agree. For me God is both female and male and neither and I like you do not think that ever changes. I guess the thesis emphasizes the female because it seems so sadly lacking in the perception of God both today and in the past (IMO). The Beloved One is a nice title. I like that.

Yes it was a little unpleasant. I have sent a PM to Rabbio.

I would like to hear from Rabbio on the topic of Judaism influence on some of these Gnostic and other books. I think we always have just one side of the coin when we discuss things from just a Christian perspective. I know a number of Jews who read the NT and saw it as very Jewish, but do not come to the same conclusions of the mainstream Christianity.

The other issue with the Catholic Church despite saying God is neither man nor woman they have in a latest report on bad behaviour of Priests ranked the ordaining of women among that of crimes like child abuse. http://news.aol.co.u...506580698256377 The quote was it was a "grave crime" to ordain women. Its an odd world.

It would of been great to have you turn up earlier, but since we did not have you, we used websites like:- http://www.religionf...s/afterlife.htm Which says things like :- "The Torah and Talmud alike focus on the purpose of earthly life, which is to fulfill one's duties to God and one's fellow man. Succeeding at this brings reward, failing at it brings punishment. Whether rewards and punishments continue after death, or whether anything at all happens after death, is not as important. Despite the subject's general exclusion from the Jewish sacred texts, however, Judaism does incorporate views on the afterlife. Yet unlike the other monotheistic religions, no one view has ever been officially agreed upon, and there is much room for speculation." My point was that Islam and Christianity have definite views on what will happen in the after life but Judaism does not and it was interesting (IMO) to consider that they both boast their origins within Judaism. When I read the links on Judaism's approach of letting God decide on the after life and not prescribing things ourselves it was something that I personally found an admiration for. However, this comment raised a lot debate which I do not wish to return to and also included whether Most of Judaism believe Messianic Jews are part of Judaism. I know they do but I could not find evidence that others do. Things got hot after that. "Yesterday is history Tomorrow is a mystery Today is a gift. " - Alice Morse Earle Other sites I used were :- http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm http://messiahtruth....ewtopic/id/1261 http://www.religious...rg/mess_jud.htm http://en.wikipedia....ssianic_Judaism http://www.wordiq.co...ssianic_Judaism Maybe you could email me with your thoughts? I would be interested. Sorry for the doubling up but I got timed out.

It would of been great to have you turn up earlier, but since we did not have you, we used websites like:- http://www.religionf...s/afterlife.htm Which says things like :- "The Torah and Talmud alike focus on the purpose of earthly life, which is to fulfill one's duties to God and one's fellow man. Succeeding at this brings reward, failing at it brings punishment. Whether rewards and punishments continue after death, or whether anything at all happens after death, is not as important. Despite the subject's general exclusion from the Jewish sacred texts, however, Judaism does incorporate views on the afterlife. Yet unlike the other monotheistic religions, no one view has ever been officially agreed upon, and there is much room for speculation." My point was that Islam and Christianity have definite views on what will happen in the after life but Judaism does not and it was interesting (IMO) to consider that they both boast their origins within Judaism. When I read the links on Judaism's approach of letting God decide on the after life and not prescribing things ourselves it was something that I personally found an admiration for. However, this comment raised a lot debate which I do not wish to return to. "Yesterday is history Tomorrow is a mystery Today is a gift. " - Alice Morse Earle Maybe you could email me with your thoughts?

I agree that much of the parables are on the theme of the Kingdom of God and sometimes are led into with words the Kingdom of God is like.... I also think there are some parables that have universal theme such as the Good Samaritan which depicts the religious elite passing by and the presumed enemy going to his aid. I see it as saying that the love a persons is of greater value than all religious titles. Another is that has meaning on a universal theme is the mustard seed. That which a person may view as small, may also have the power to grow to greatness whether it be in faith or acts of love. For some that which you feed, although small, will grow and has the power to grow greater. It reminds me of the acorn and the Oak tree. This can also be reversed and one can say a small evil also has the power to grow to greater evil and therefore one should take care of what you build on both within and in one relations with others and God.

http://www.pbs.org/w...utm_source=grid see Part 2 of from Jesus to Christ:- 27:31 - 32:00/ 1:53:14 Yet, despite the reference of who it is said to, I think most see it nowadays from a personal meaning rather than an historic reference.

It is also interesting that the Gospel says in the same Chapter that this was the result of a rebuff with the Pharisees. (Luke 15:2) Yet, Pharisees were not seen as a significant sect at the time of Jesus but grew more influential towards the later days of the Temple in Jerusalem and were very significant after the Roman destruction. It seems that Pharisees were given bad press from the Gospels during the time of Jesus. Although it is said that their views changed - " In general, whereas the Sadducees were conservative, aristocratic monarchists, the Pharisees were eclectic, popular and more democratic. (Roth 1970: 84)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees In the New Testament the Pharisees appear as Jesus' most vocal critics. Their insistence on ritual observance of the letter rather than the spirit of the law evoked strong denunciation by Jesus; he called them "white washed tombs" (Matt. 23:27) and self - righteous lovers of display (Matt. 6:1 - 6, 16 - 18). The Pharisees are portrayed as plotting to destroy Jesus (Matt. 12:14), although they do not figure in the accounts of his arrest and trial. Despite Jesus' attacks on the Pharisees - which were possibly on unrepresentative members of the sect - he shared many beliefs with them, including the resurrection of the dead. http://mb-soft.com/b...xc/pharisee.htm "Jews maintain that the Pharisees were unfairly maligned in the Gospels, which accuse them of rigid formalism, self-righteousness, hypocrisy, and externalism. In truth, the Pharisees ... stressed devotion of the heart, worship of God for its own sake, and the obligation to go beyond the letter of the law."7 http://www.pfo.org/pharisee.htm The article suggests that if the criticism did occur it maybe towards a small group of Pharisees rather than all Pharisees as the Gospels suggest. --------- -------------------- ------------------------------- It is thought by many liberals and others that the Gospel included the disputes with Pharisees because that is the group the early Christians met (rather than Jesus) most opposition from and they were opponents fighting for the future of Judaism. http://www.pbs.org/w...utm_source=grid ( see:- 27:31 - 32:00/ 1:53:14)

Ignoring previous comments which would only lead to further disagreement (IMO) and following the now topic. If Jesus did say these things and I am not saying he definitely did, then they do follow a theme which also includes the lost sheep and the lost coin. These all show a person (referring to God) actively seeking the return and a welcoming nature to that return. That theme is one of a God ever open and welcoming to those who return or come to God. Liberals and Fundamentalists both argue that God welcomes all, even if the terms of that welcome may differing in some church denominations.

The conversation on Judaism started with your debate on my comment in #371 The new angles your now continuing are yours and I feel they they are as much a part of the confusion that existed on the topic. If you read the posts then you will see it. Fawzo, the difficulty with counting liberals is based on the fact that we allow each individual to make what make sense of their personal relationship with God and therefore unlike denominations we can always be seen as a minority body of one, but collectively I believe we are much bigger than that. If we were so small then why would so much effort be employed to separate fundamentalism from us. The demand that everyone accept the tenants of fundamentalism did not come from liberal theology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2006/10/fundamentalist_.html http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/222234/Christian-fundamentalism

However, I thought it did have deeper point and I thank you for giving me that thought.

Cool, You obviously have not followed the posts (IMO). My premise still stands despite the confusion being spread. Messianic Jews are not seen as part of Judaism by the vast majority of those in Judaism. Its not just my understanding only, as the quotes stated. Dan, thanks for your post.

I think most major faiths denominations were sects at one time. It is hard when you are saying something different to what others expect you too (IMO). Yet, because a thing is different that does not mean that it is without foundation or has not truths within it. For some it is the perception of odd and differing beliefs and to others it is seen as pointing out that the King may have no clothes or at least is missing some. Christianity itself was a sect of Judaism at one time (the new way). Life is never without interest and we learn more each day (IMO). Some of that is comfortable and some of that is not, but life goes on regardless.

This topic has taken many twists and turns and has gone a long way (IMO) from the liberal Christianity it started with. I have re-read the articles again and I think you do have a point. The conversation did lead with the comment of "not knowing a Jew" and did not qualify one of Judaism who believed in the afterlife and therefore Cools reply is valid. However, the topic that led to that comment was on the subject of fundamentalist Christians believing something that Judaism does not and yet they claim a root with it. See :- #375 This was brought about by my having to justify myself and others for claiming our right to have A differing view of the afterlife and still claiming to be of Christianity. I think the problem here is the confusion between the word "Jew" and that of a follower of "Judaism". A Jew does not necessarily follow any religion, but followers of Judaism have a differing view on the afterlife and Jesus to that fundamental Christians. I apologize for my part in that confusion and thank you Rev Rainbow for getting me to look again, but I do not think I was the only one confused or the only one responsible for that confusion.

As the article I quoted says:- "All mainstream Jewish denominations and organizations hold that Messianic Jews are not practicing Judaism, but Protestant Christianity. Messianic Judaism is condemned as heretical and non-Jewish by Reform, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Judaism." http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Messianic_Judaism

It is one thing I have become aware of in liberal views and that is how close all the major faiths can become.

Why is it antisemitic? Being Jewish and part of Judaism are two very different things. Anyways don't take my word on it see:- Messianic Judaism is a Christian religious movement. It differs from mainstream Christianity in that it combines Christian theology (the centrality of Jesus as Messiah, savior, and God) with selected elements of Jewish ritual and terminology..... Judaism Jewish theology rejects the idea that the messiah (or any other person) is a divinity,[13] and such an idea has often been regarded as idolatrous. Nor does Judaism view the role of the messiah to be the salvation of the world from its sins (an idea widely accepted by Christians and messianic Jews). Judaism does not accept Jesus as the biblical messiah, nor does it assign him any religious role at all. Contrary to Messianic Jew or Christian thoughts, Jewish theological beliefs concerning Jesus center around the following points, all of which serve to invalidate Jesus (Yeshua) as the Messiah, according to Jewish theology. What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish?[13] The Tanakh says that he will: A.) Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). B.) Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6). C.) Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4) D.) Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). Jesus (Yeshua) did not accomplish any of these prophecies to be considered the Messiah in Jewish eyes. http://en.wikipedia....ssianic_Judaism If one defines a religion according to the deity that they worship, then Messianic Jews are actually Christians because they recognize the existence of the Christian Trinity and the divinity of Yeshua. http://www.religious...rg/mess_jud.htm Messianic Judaism is not seen as a legitimate form of Judaism by any recognized Jewish organization or leaders, apart from a handful of dissenting voices among the Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish movements. http://www.wordiq.co...ssianic_Judaism

Interesting when the original Gospel that the synoptic Gospels were based on missed out the resurrection completely.. That was Marks. It is thought that the addition and the rest including acts were very much influenced by Paul's view of things. When we are talking Matthew and John we are talking 80 to 120 years after the events that they are reporting on. I do not know if you know but room 101 in the UK is known as somewhere you junk things, i.e. the waste paper bin. However, that aside, the so called 5 fundamental tenants of the faith do not have a history longer than those who debate them. Hence saying that we are of a differing faith because the we challenge them is as bad as the Catholic church calling Protestants churches as being a differing religion. I would not defend that view and I see no reason to support your view only on the matter. We could say that is why we bother to debate with you too but its more like debating to enlighten rather than correct.. However, your right in that I and others would be right behind you if anyone started saying that Fundamentalists have no place in the ULC or have no right to believe as they do or started saying that fundamentalists were not Christians and only liberals were. . I wonder if we would get the same?

Messianic Jews are a Christian movement and most Jews do not recognise them as part of Judaism and there are so few of them that describing them as average or typical Jews is hardly fitting (IMO). See:- http://www.religious...rg/mess_jud.htm Asking Messianic Jews about Judaism and its connection to Christian beliefs is a bit like asking the pope for an unbiased view on Catholicism.

I think the issue is Dan that you are now heaping on more threats but avoiding the discussions that Hex, Tsukino Rei, and myself have given you about those threats. See:- #370 #371 #373 #375 #376 Throwing more scriptural threats into the discussion does not prove that they are any the more true. Who is average anybody. We may have facets that are shared but that does make the totality of any person average (IMO). Yet, it is those shared facets that I believe Hex has referred to and not any single person in particular.

Olam Ha-Ba: The World to Come The spiritual afterlife is referred to in Hebrew as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come, although this term is also used to refer to the messianic age. The Olam Ha-Ba is another, higher state of being. In the Mishnah, one rabbi says, "This world is like a lobby before the Olam Ha-Ba. Prepare yourself in the lobby so that you may enter the banquet hall." Similarly, the Talmud says, "This world is like the eve of Shabbat, and the Olam Ha-Ba is like Shabbat. He who prepares on the eve of Shabbat will have food to eat on Shabbat." We prepare ourselves for the Olam Ha-Ba through Torah study and good deeds. The Talmud states that all Israel has a share in the Olam Ha-Ba. However, not all "shares" are equal. A particularly righteous person will have a greater share in the Olam Ha-Ba than the average person. In addition, a person can lose his share through wicked actions. There are many statements in the Talmud that a particular mitzvah will guarantee a person a place in the Olam Ha-Ba, or that a particular sin will lose a person's share in the Olam Ha-Ba, but these are generally regarded as hyperbole, excessive expressions of approval or disapproval. Some people look at these teachings and deduce that Jews try to "earn our way into Heaven" by performing the mitzvot. This is a gross mischaracterization of our religion. It is important to remember that unlike some religions, Judaism is not focused on the question of how to get into heaven. Judaism is focused on life and how to live it. Non-Jews frequently ask me, "do you really think you're going to go to Hell if you don't do such-and-such?" It always catches me a bit off balance, because the question of where I am going after death simply doesn't enter into the equation when I think about the mitzvot. We perform the mitzvot because it is our privilege and our sacred obligation to do so. We perform them out of a sense of love and duty, not out of a desire to get something in return. In fact, one of the first bits of ethical advice in Pirkei Avot (a book of the Mishnah) is: "Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward; instead, be like servants who serve their master not for the sake of receiving a reward, and let the awe of Heaven [meaning G-d, not the afterlife] be upon you." Nevertheless, we definitely believe that your place in the Olam Ha-Ba is determined by a merit system based on your actions, not by who you are or what religion you profess. In addition, we definitely believe that humanity is capable of being considered righteous in G-d's eyes, or at least good enough to merit paradise after a suitable period of purification. Do non-Jews have a place in Olam Ha-Ba? Although there are a few statements to the contrary in the Talmud, the predominant view of Judaism is that the righteous of all nations have a share in the Olam Ha-Ba. Statements to the contrary were not based on the notion that membership in Judaism was required to get into Olam Ha-Ba, but were grounded in the observation that non-Jews were not righteous people. If you consider the behavior of the surrounding peoples at the time that the Talmud was written, you can understand the rabbis' attitudes. By the time of Rambam, the belief was firmly entrenched that the righteous of all nations have a share in the Olam Ha-Ba. Gan Eden and Gehinnom The place of spiritual reward for the righteous is often referred to in Hebrew as Gan Eden (GAHN ehy-DEHN) (the Garden of Eden). This is not the same place where Adam and Eve were; it is a place of spiritual perfection. Specific descriptions of it vary widely from one source to another. One source says that the peace that one feels when one experiences Shabbat properly is merely one-sixtieth of the pleasure of the afterlife. Other sources compare the bliss of the afterlife to the joy of sex or the warmth of a sunny day. Ultimately, though, the living can no more understand the nature of this place than the blind can understand color. Only the very righteous go directly to Gan Eden. The average person descends to a place of punishment and/or purification, generally referred to as Gehinnom (guh-hee-NOHM) (in Yiddish, Gehenna), but sometimes as She'ol or by other names. According to one mystical view, every sin we commit creates an angel of destruction (a demon), and after we die we are punished by the very demons that we created. Some views see Gehinnom as one of severe punishment, a bit like the Christian Hell of fire and brimstone. Other sources merely see it as a time when we can see the actions of our lives objectively, see the harm that we have done and the opportunities we missed, and experience remorse for our actions. The period of time in Gehinnom does not exceed 12 months, and then ascends to take his place on Olam Ha-Ba. Only the utterly wicked do not ascend at the end of this period; their souls are punished for the entire 12 months. Sources differ on what happens at the end of those 12 months: some say that the wicked soul is utterly destroyed and ceases to exist while others say that the soul continues to exist in a state of consciousness of remorse. This 12-month limit is repeated in many places in the Talmud, and it is connected to the mourning cycles and the recitation of Kaddish. See Life, Death and Mourning. http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm An interesting conversation is also taking place with a Jewish Rabbi on the topic of Daniel which appears to say that the term everlasting is referring to the summing up of this world and not the afterlife. http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/1261

Other notes on Hell:- The threat of eternal heaven or eternal hell? The threat of eternal hell is one of vengeance and serves no part in justice which seeks to reform a person by punishment. The threat of hell is not justifiable proof in God. If one does not believe in hell that the threat holds no threat to the non-believer and serves no purpose. If hell is used to separate evil from good then what would be the point because people are already dead before they get there and there is little point in reviving someone just separate them from others. Hell is revenge without rehabilitation and therefore serves no purpose that can be described as good and its threat does not serve to justify a belief in a God who said to be good. To eternally punish someone is not justice and would say more about the sadistic nature of the person inflicting it rather than the good of them. If we argue that God is all powerful then we have to say that evil exists because God has allowed it or there would not be evil. It therefore follows that God who would have us believe he is only good should be seen to hold some of responsibility for the existence of evil and therefore if punishment for exists for evil then God is also guilty. If we are to believe that the way is narrow then we are also to believe that most will not make it and therefore we are met with a God who punishes many and gives pleasure for the very few. If that is so then justice is imbalanced against humanity and the very creation of God and which is said to have been created in God's prior knowledge. How does that make God good. Religions that believe in some sort of punishment for not believing are mainly from Fundamental Christianity or Fundamental Islam. Judaism from which they both declare they grow from. interestingly does not. see:- http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/215,164/Does-Judaism-believe-in-Heaven-and-Hell.html Hell in the Bible see:- http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.html

Firstly in response to Cool's essay, I have never read Friedrich Schleiermache and I have come to my conclusions over a period of time. The argumentl stands in that your saying God allows evil so that people will realize a need of him. The debate although bible based also has to stand in relation to the world we live in which is said to be God's creation. How do you explain the New years tidal wave that killed whole families. How would you explain the world wars and others that killed so many and not to mention the world wide plagues that existed in the past that also had no discrimination as to its victims child and adult alike. How do you rationalize that those who fell from such events would now feel a greater reliance upon God and come to know him as loving . How is that so many die in when so young without reaching the concept of self, let alone God. The other issue for me is with using the bible to justify things and boldly stating that Jesus said this and that when there is so little evidence that many things were actually said. I point to the Jesus seminar that did a study into these assertions and found that they could not support much as genuine http://en.wikipedia....i/Jesus_Seminar . I also point out the problem that existed with the authorship of the NT and the dating of Gospels that were written after the disciples, the supposed as the originators of the works, had died and the fact that they were edited and not seen as Gospel (as the word of God) until the Eight Council (at Carthage) in 397AD. Its a nice bit of work for an essay Cool but one has to swallow first that the bible is infallible or inerrant on these matters. Something I cannot do with the evidence of suffering that I work with and contradictions that appear to me and others but it has to be said not fundamentalists. Dan, here you go again with the devil symbol. The thing that fundamentalist are most associated with, accept that God is loving and if you do not obey him you will fry. For many that outlook does not make sense and contradicts the relationship that they personally have with God.