Seasons

Lady,

I'm not trying to be funny or anything, but your posts are completely unreadable when you don't break up those gigantic paragraphs. I just tune out anything that dense, and I'm sure others do too.

Even James Joyce inserted a line break now and then.

As to the universe and life coming to an end, you may be right, and it doesn't change my mind a bit philosophically, but you may find some hope in omega-point theory, if you're interested.

It's not my intention to stage a contest between Chrstianity and Judaism or any other religion. However, I don't think you're right in saying that the Torah is the biblical source of heaven, hell, and damnation -- also, the reading you offer of the Temple sacrifices, while interesting, is much more in line with Christian notions of sin and redemption than Jewish ones. Christianity gets its identity (certainly its early identity) in many ways from generating *differences* from Judaism. Of course Jesus was Jewish, but that doesn't change Judaism any more than the Hellenic Jews did. The very early Christians tried to assert that Christianity was in fact Judaism, but to try to say that by way of recalling roots does not have much more explanatory power than saying American Democracy is the same as the British Monarchy it blossomed in defiance of.

For instance, it's been many centries since recruitment by way of conversion was an acceptable practice in Judaism -- and indeed, it was never (with the exception of a few politcal-mystical movements at various times) the stated intention that the whole world should be Jewish.

Skysaw got a point, lady.

Well said, Sky.

If the Father and Son are the same entity, that pokes gargantuan holes in the idea of the Son coming to save us and make us free. Look at all the needless oppression, suffering, and death in the Old Testament, so much of it a direct result of the Law or the Father's temper tantrums. If it's the same entity coming back in a different form, that's not heroism, that's restitution.

Mr. Crab,

The fact that I could not become righteous without God does not mean that I do not participate in the process.

I probably will regret asking this, but what is omega point theory? I know what an omega point is in hyperbolic geometry.

Concerning the Law, Jesus himself said that his purpose was not to abolish the Law but to fulfull it. Yes, Christianity is different from Judaism. But Judaism should have changed, because Jesus is the Messiah. He fulfilled every Messianic prophesy in the Hebrew Bible, except for those that will be fulfilled when He returns. He is the Seed of the woman, the Son of David, the Holy One of Israel.

Butterfly Dream,

The Covenant of Grace was part of God's original plan. He always intended to redeem us.

Yes, I was obviously way too tired when I wrote that. Obviously Judaism has hardly stayed static over any significant period of time, or even unanimous at any moment in time. The fact that in some ways Christianity turns Judaism on its head is all I was really trying to get at. What I don't like is when you (or others) assert the tenets of your religion over mine. When talking with someone of a different religion than I am, I would always be clear that I present a perspective, not invalidate their perspective. I'm certainly not going to get into a spitting argument "no, God did this, no, God did that". Ridiculous.

Now, you may or may not be interested in a short history of Messianism, but for now suffice it to say that it is not to be found in the Torah. It is, of course, possible to retroactively find prophecies of just about anything in the Torah, provided you are willing to fly fast and loose with the text. While the word "Moshiach" (which means "annointed") is not really used in the Torah to refer to people, it can be found in some post-Toraic parts of the Jewish canon, limited however to a couple of mentions of kings David and Cyrus, for example. Very subsequently the notion of a person-Moshiach-"redeemer" who would rescue them from oppression blossomed in the society of Jews living under Roman occupation, and perhaps reached its height around the time of Jesus. Judaism as a movement has retained the notion of a Moshiach being the person or event to usher in the World-to-Come. But recognizing the Moshiach in this tradition is beside the point -- it is only the trumpet heralding the arrival of the World-to-Come. His arrival to Jews would have no significance if it were not accompanied by this change. One of the most esteemed commentators upon the bible, the Rambam, stated the generally accepted principle that at any time in every age, there is always at least one person who could serve as the Moshiach, should God deem the time right. But again, you have to see this, historically, as an outgrowth of a desire for supernatural rescue from the woes of the Jewish nation.

Ladydyke got me thinking, so I did some research into the korbanot (sacrifices). Two kinds of sacrifices touched on the theme of sin (the Hebrew word, "cheyt", actually does not mean transgression or defiling, as I think are implied by the word "sin", but is translated as "missing", as in "missing the mark".) The "chatat" offering, which can only be made for "unintentional sins committed through carelessness", symbolized or effected reconciliation for such errors. The "asham" (guilt) offering was prescribed when it was unclear whether a sin had been committed (and therefore no legal punishment was associated with it). Interestingly the "asham" also was the perscribed sacrifice for stealing from the altar or committing a breach of trust. I don't know why. There are no sacrifices that can be made to atone for intentional sin, because in Judaism one is judged by one's actions. For transgressions against one's fellow man, one can only receive forgiveness from the wronged person, and as for sins against God, these are supposed to be weighed in judgement (by God) on Yom Kippur against the good one has done and forgiven or not at that time. I'm not asserting anything about Christian concepts of sin and forgiveness, but I think there are some differences.

But I thought we were s'posed to be talking about morality???

Anyway, omega-point theory has to do with what happens at "the end of the universe". A main question that has preoccupied people studying this otherwise fairly uninteresting event is the question of whether life can survive to the end of the universe and what form it would have to take. Just as there are two theories of how the universe will end (expansion and contraction), there are two totally different directions of omega point theory. And, as usual, there's a "strong" version and other less bizarre versions (you may disagree, I tend to find the "strong" versions of these theories suspect, because they are nearly always very self-serving and psychologically motivated, such as the "strong" anthropic principle). So some people are concerned with how life can survive in an increasingly cold universe (surprise! it probably can). More interesting to me is the question of how life can sustain itself in a collapsing universe, where things get increasingly hot, heavy, and fast until they collapse to nothingness or somethingness nothing could have structure in. Next paragraph:

The question here is not so much "can life survive" (who cares?) but can *intelligence* survive, and if we conceive of the potential for intelligence being the ability to move information around a structure (like a nervous system), some theoretical physicists and computational scientists agree that such systems can occur as the universe contracts, under certain conditions (which conditions may be create-able if we know what they are). What's really interesting is what happens to time as the universe contracts, and that according to relativity, in the instant before final collapse, time will stretch to infinity (the *real* omega point). Beside the point if there's no intelligence, excellent news if there is.

The founder of this theory (whom it has outgrown) believed that any intelligent being(s) with an infinity of time on their hands would eventually develop the science to trace the history of the world backwards, and would "resurrect" past beings accordingly. This is not as crazy as it might sound, though it certainly assumes that the omega-point intelligences are also moral or benevolent enough to value the hopes of the trillennial deceased. Anyway, the founder goes on with a rather shrill but also sadly feeble attempt to demonstrate this is the fulfillment of the promises of various religions. It matters not -- the math is sound.

So I thought you might find that interesting, especially ladydyke. You can read about it if you want, there's a few books and any number of scientific papers. There's probably also some online discussion of it.

Uh Crab, take Skysaw's advice.

I'm not an expert on religions, I only know that regardless of which religion it is, if someone tries to shove it down my throat, I'll be more likely to rebel against it, regardless of its merits. My beliefs are taken from various bits & pieces of religions I know a little bit about, but I DO believe in God. It may not be the same God you believe in, but it's my soul and my choice.

As for morality, who of us, regardless of our relgious beliefs and how dedicated we are to them, can say that we can always make the most moral choices, even knowing what our God of choice stands for? As I believe it says somewhere in the Bible, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone." I believe that regardless of our religion, when we intentionally act immorally, that we defile not necessarily our God so much as ourselves. We are all perfectly capable of damning ourselves or saving ourselves, depending on our actions. No, maybe we can't be moral all the time, but we can do the best damn job we can, and hope that when we're old and gray we'll be proud enough of how we've lived our lives to tell our grandchildren about them. Maybe we'll still go to hell, but we'll have done the best damn job we could do, and that's all anyone can really ask of you.

And I don't think we need strong religious beliefs in order to act in a manner we know we can be proud of when we're old. I think all we really need is a perception of how our actions affect ourselves and our fellow man, and the ability to care about what our friends, neighbors, and even total strangers think and feel. The hard part is the balance between giving to others and keeping something for yourself. Some people can be perfectly happy taking care of others and letting themselves go to rot, some can't.

And just think: What would the world be like if we all belonged to the same religion and believed in exactly the same things? We wouldn't be able to have a discussion like this at all, and it'd get pretty damn boring. So cheers to diversity, and the ability to state your own beliefs without condemning someone else's. There is good and bad in all of us, and that's the way it should be.

actually that paticular viewpoint is interesting mr.crab. I shall have to do some research on it. OnyxFlame I found it interesting that you echoed some of my points."As for morality, who of us, regardless of our relgious beliefs and how dedicated we are to them, can say that we can always make the most moral choices, even knowing what our God of choice stands for? As I believe it says somewhere in the Bible, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone." I believe that regardless of our religion, when we intentionally act immorally, that we defile not necessarily our God so much as ourselves. We are all perfectly capable of damning ourselves or saving ourselves, depending on our actions" there is a lot of truth to what you said. No one is perfect and therefore no one can earn brownie points to heaven according to my belief system. And recent studies in the mental health field have found out that doing things like forgiving someone or not giving in to your anger actually is very healing for ourselves. But actually doing these things which is actually better for us and others seems to be almost impossible to do on our own. AA twelve steps also seems to point out how doing certain things is hard if not impossible to do with out a higher power. In my opinion if you put all the facts together it all leads to the same thing... that we need God (higher power, allah etc.) If I were a skeptic I would study all the various religions and compare their beliefs and writings to proven modern day sciences, like archalogy, astromy etc. and the one that was the most accurate would be the winner. I dare say that you would find out that the christain bible withstands most of all the tests and is historically the most accurate book in the world. I think that all this lends itself to giving the bible the proof it needs "to clear its name so to speak."

AA has a very low success rate, but a therapy for overcoming alcoholism and addiction with a much higher success rate (LSD therapy) is illegal.

However ladydyke that extreme obsession with being cleared of sin is totally perverse unless you believe, as I think many Christians do, that being "pure from sin" places you in a Heaven while failing to do so puts you in a Hell. Without those articles (of faith), one's location on the scale of sin-free-ness is unimportant -- only one's behavior and its consequences in life are important, not the after-death ramifications Christian doctrine declares.