Customer Discussions > Judaism forum

Did God Have A Wife

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 4251-4275 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 11:45:12 PM PDT
Linda Sang says:
HANALAH: My point was that we do not worship the divine within each other. Those are all little pieces of Gd.

We only worship GD as Gd, rather than little pieces here and there.

I do not understand why you are picking on separate words. This is an overarching biblical concept.
Worshipping little snippets of the divine, such as the Divine in you or me, is idolatry.

LINDA: Really? Personally, I love the salutation "Namaste" and sometimes sign my emails that way. It never occurred to me that recognizing the divinity within the other person was the same thing as "worshipping" it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 11:49:22 PM PDT
Omnireader says:
You can't prove that Hinduism is older than Judaism.
It is more likely that Judaism is older than Hinduism.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 11:53:22 PM PDT
Big Shmooz says:
Allan says: The sole issue you have with me is that you have no evidence at all which could even come close to countering the scientific, supported, sourced, tested, evidence I keep quoting which proves you wrong on so many points.

Me: Supported? By whom? I too have supported.
Testing is a relative term. It in fact is not properly nor sufficiently tested.
Evidence is a relative term as well. I have contradictory evidence. What makes your evidence more true than mine? Therein lies the problem.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:14:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 5, 2012 2:46:26 AM PDT
Amit kumar says:
To Hannah ji and Linda ji,
Vedanta : VEDA + ANTA which means VEDA and ANTA means end .other words ,summary of Upanishads and Vedas .It never forces anyone to do what it says.Hinduism has a monastic tradition which accepts people from all faiths and this is what they teach to people those who are interested in liberation and nirvana.Please read about life of Sri Ramakrishna or Guru Nanak or Kabir or Shirdi Sai Baba (not sai baba) , to understand how egoless they were living practitioners of vedanta and yes the destination of Vedanta is liberation and merging with divine.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:14:43 AM PDT
Big Shmooz says:
yba says: that we have become as He in that we have gained the knowledge of the difference between good and evil.

Me: I am not sure what you are saying here. Adam always knew the difference between good and evil, even before eating of the tree. I have explained many times that what you are interepreting those words to mean is in fact not correct. It is the blurring of good and evil that occured after man ate of the tree of knowledge of good AND evil. The two became combined and mixed. It was not the tree of knowledge of good FROM evil.

yba says: This is why many deem it necessary to study the laws and make intellectual decisions to adhere to them. Remember there is not word for "obey." The vast majority of the translations of obedience are from the root of shema. We are to hear these laws, study them, understand them and do them. One does not do something one has not first heard. To hear without intellectual understanding is only proper an enslaved people and we have been set free.

Me: As you are describing things, one is to obey based on their own understanding of it's rightness. I am sorry to say but what you describe here is the very antithesis of Judaism. It is an abrogation of the covenant at Seenai. When Israel stood at Seenai Israel said "naaseh vihnishmah" First we will obey. Only afterwards will we seek out the reasonings. But not knowing does not in any way abrogate our responsibility to obey.

We are not free. Nobody is free. One is either a slave of God or a slave to his evil inclination. As God said to Moses and Aharon to tell Paroh... "let my people go so that they may serve Me". As God said of Moses... (Deut chapter 34) 5. And Moses, the slave of the Lord, died there, in the land of Moav, by the mouth of the Lord.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:19:26 AM PDT
Big Shmooz says:
yba says: Without Allan, Shmooz, who would you use to fill the role of Reish Lakish to your R. Yochanan?

Me: Unlike Raish Lakish, Allan's points are refuted before they even begin.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:30:11 AM PDT
Bryan Borich says:
Actually, another interpretation was 'I salute the light in you' or 'I honor the light in you'.

Neither of which would in and of itself be idolatry, whereas some other things done here are forms of idolatry.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:31:09 AM PDT
Bryan Borich says:
Hinduiasm is older in this world, revelation-wise.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:36:43 AM PDT
Big Shmooz says:
yba says: That does not mean that power struggles did not go on, they did.

Me: Actually that is not really so. You are in fact trivilaizing a struggle that two sides had in deciding what the proper path to follow was viz a viz the laws of the Torah. It was not something personal as you seem to be describing it as.

Note how Rabbi Yihoshua obeys Rabban Gamliel's command to come to him with his stick & money purse on the day that Rabbi Yihoshua had calculated to be Yom Kippur. When he asked advice of Rabbi Akiva on what to do, Rabbi Akiva told him he must obey Rabban Gamliel's command for he is the authority.

yba says: Rules were made to ensure their authority.

Me: Rules were made to ensure the Torah would be kept properly.

yba says: The rule decided on by the sages was "majority rules."

Me: God decided this rule.

yba says: Things changed. Nowadays, it is the Reform that hold the majority. If we want to abide by the ruling of the sages, we must knuckle under their rules.

Me: Majority of what? This is the point. It does not mean majority of Jews. Nor does it mean majority of people. (who are in fact the Gentiles) It means majority of people who qualify as Sages of Israel in all that this entails. Here the Reform are not only not even a minority, they are in fact non existent.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:39:19 AM PDT
Big Shmooz says:
anne says: What does it mean to be 'The Lubavitcher Rebbe'?

Me: It means that he is considered by his Chassidim to be the Torah authority of today.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:44:43 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 5, 2012 2:54:24 AM PDT
Amit kumar says:
To Ms Hannaleh,
Aryan invasion theory has been discarded.Excavations at Dwarka and hidden city of Krishna has but Hinduism at 10,000 -20,000 BC atleast with archaeological evidence .Ramayana is even older .
Checkout History channel and search by Archaeologists.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeDMSXOhDbY

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/aryan-invasion-history.html

http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/en/indology_en.asp

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html

Abraham was 10th descendant of NOAH <<Terah, the tenth in descent from Noah, fathered Abram, Nahor and Haran, and Haran fathered Lot. >>>.

Noah in Hinduism is known as MANU.You can see Hindu Manu here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_%28Hinduism%29

Sage kashyapa was one of the seven sages who were saved by Manu in flood.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashyap. The Caspian Sea name comes from the sage kashyap and kashmir .

The fish story in torah and Matsaya avatara ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsya_Purana.
Having said that,I will repeat His Holiness Abraham was a great sage as was Sri Moses who was messenger.I have utmost respect for them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:45:05 AM PDT
Big Shmooz says:
Lev (quoting a source): To cite an example: Before the Flood, "G-d saw that... every impulse of the thoughts of [man's] heart was only for evil... And G-d said, 'I will obliterate mankind.' " After the Flood, when Noach offered sacrifices, G-d said: "I will not continue to curse the earth, because of man, for the impulse of man's heart is evil." One factor, the yetzer hara's constant temptation of man, serves as the rationale calling for both the Flood, and for G-d's promise never to repeat such disasters.

Me: That is amazing.
I had never thought of this before. (that's not the amazing part) :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:52:59 AM PDT
Big Shmooz says:
Gershom says: He didn't give it to Moshe if Moshe had already passed away. How could Moshe receive it then...?

Me: We have a general rule, one's praise is lessened in front of the person, but all his praise is said when the person is not there.
Yes, your point is noted. However it is still given to him. It doesn't matter that he passed away.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 1:00:50 AM PDT
Big Shmooz says:
Hanalah says: We will have to agree to disagree on that, then.

Me: Ok, if you feel otherwise please show why you feel this way. What has she said that in your mind holds up Torah?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 1:04:21 AM PDT
Big Shmooz says:
Hanalah says: So when you are blaming her, you are blaming her for failing to read the minds of people whose thinking is unimaginable to her.

Me: That's nonsense. Anybody with common sense knows that this is not so. So she is either very very stupid, or she does know.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 1:05:37 AM PDT
Omnireader says:
I'm not Sarah. Here is info.

An (Babylonian: Anu) god of heaven; may have been the main god before 2500 B.C.
Ninhursag (Babylonian: Aruru, Mammi) mother goddess; progenitor with An of the gods; assists in creation of man.
Enlil (Babylonian: Ellil) god or air; pantheon leader from 2500 B.C.; father of the gods; king of heaven & earth.
Enki (Babylonian: Ea) lord of the abyss, semen & wisdom; god of water, creation, fertility.
Nanna (Babylonian: Sin) moon god.
Inanna (Babylonian: Ishtar) love and war.
Utu (Babylonian: Shamash) god of the sun and justice.
Ninlil (Babylonian: Mullitu, Mylitta) bride of Enlil .

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/godsmyth/g/sumeriandeities.htm

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 1:07:46 AM PDT
Big Shmooz says:
Hanalah says: I have heard of this with respect to the Alenu.

Me: It was censored in part, but thanks God not the whole thing. (Some siddurim carry the censored part in parenthesis) (Sephardic siddurim carry it without parenthesis, because it was of course not censored in those areas they lived)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 1:09:23 AM PDT
Omnireader says:
Have you heard this song?

[Hey I'm just an old chunk of coal
But I'm gonna be a diamond some day
I'm gonna grow and glow till I'm so blue pure perfect
I'm gonna put a smile on everybody's face
I'm gonna kneel and pray every day
Lest I should become vain along the way
I'm just an old chunk of coal now Lord
But I'm gonna be a diamond some day

I'm gonna learn the best way to walk
Gonna search and find a better way to talk
I'm gonna spit and polish my old rough edged self
Till I get rid of every single flaw
I'm gonna be the world's best friend
Gonna go round shaking everybody's hand
I'm gonna be the cotton pickin' rage of the age
I'm gonna be a diamond some day

I'm just an old chunk of coal
But I'm gonna be a diamond some day

http://youtu.be/W8OdhP0jxUY

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 1:12:00 AM PDT
Big Shmooz says:
Hanalah, your point has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. You are differentiating how a person refers to God. My point had to do with the reason one was obeying the laws.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 1:19:30 AM PDT
Omnireader says:
I lack your tact

Sometimes that is a bad thing, sometimes (as in this case) it may be a good thing.
It makes it crystal clear where the problem begins and ends.

People are responsible for how they view others. If a man cannot control his thoughts he should seek help.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 1:20:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 5, 2012 2:57:41 AM PDT
Amit kumar says:
To HannahLeh,
There are now theories that Harrapan civillization and Mohenjadaro was actually Dravidian.
http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/00133/_A_Dravidian_Soluti_133901a.pdf

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/India_and_Egypt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agastya
So Hannaleh ji,It is all conjectures right now.:).Thanks for reading.
I do admire Linda and Hannaleh having such deep interest in history and spirituality and comparative religion.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 1:20:50 AM PDT
Omnireader says:
Thank you!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 1:22:17 AM PDT
Omnireader says:
define your terms and prove them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 1:23:03 AM PDT
Big Shmooz says:
Hanalah says: Similarly, his disrespect fo such evidence means that every time you use it to prove him "wrong," he regards you as having failed to prove anything, since to him your evidence lacks all validlity.

In order to prove anything to him, you would have to prove it from the Torah and the Oral Torah. This you have utterly failed to do. Thus, in his mind, you have lost every encounter. He is without any concern for the fact that you believe the opposite.

He knows he is right. He knows he has bested you every time, since you have consistently failed to prove anything via the Torah. He knows that your failure to seek evidence there demonstrates your wrongheadedness and ignorance.

I invite him to correct me if anything I have said here is a mistaken presentation of his attitude towards you.

Me: Nothing to correct. You hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

Hanalah says: However, what I fail to guess is why he would have more disregard for YOU than for others who disagree with him.

Me: The problem is that he does not acknowledge the idea that Torah and all It entails has a valid viewpoint. (other than to claim some mythological teaching, which in itself is to denigrate Torah) His viewpoint is to denigrate Torah.
I have issues with Mens Sana because he takes an almost identical view. What is different though is Mens Sana tries to twist the Torah into a historical document & validates It only as such. This is of course why he rejects the concept of Oral Torah. Anyway, that's it in a nutshell.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 1:23:22 AM PDT
Omnireader says:
Oh, that's OK, we don't believe in you either.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Judaism forum (918 discussions)

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Judaism forum
Participants:  54
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  May 16, 2012
Latest post:  Sep 2, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions