Still I look to find a reason to believe.
from the song Reason to Believe (1965)
Tim Hardin
I've had a number of challenges at work this week (actually, they began last week but I was hoping they'd be solved by now). This naturally has made me feel somewhat frustrated, but work problems come and work problems go. That's life.
What's somewhat more disturbing is what I blogged earlier today and particularly the responses I received on that blog post. No, everyone was polite, kind, and helpful...but I'd just never thought in this direction before:
There are many variations among various manuscripts of NT, some altering the meaning of certain passages significantly. In my early days as a believer I expected nothing but perfection from the word of G-d, so that all the footnotes in my NT used to bother me to no end and even make me question my faith at time. I don't think that NT was meant to be a second Torah where each letter is perfectly preserved by the scribes. It was simply a retelling/announcement of the Good News of Messiah, parts of it passed from person to person, then written down to pass it along.Coincidentally (but then, I don't believe in coincidence), I found another source of information that was operating along the same lines.
Gene Shlomovich from his comment on my blog post
This form of higher criticism suggests the the Torah didn’t reach it’s final form until about 450 BCE.On the one hand, you could say that these revelations are part of a developmental process in my education on Christian and Jewish texts and after all, learning is good. On the other hand, it comes as quite a shock that I was so naive and...well, ignorant in my understanding of the document on which my faith is founded.
This idea can be shocking to a lot of believers. Most conservative bible scholars categorically reject this idea, seeing as how it undermines the reliability of Scripture.
By claiming some books have been heavily edited and are therefore less reliable. “Oh, Leviticus should be taken with a grain of salt, seeing how it wasn’t formed until long after Genesis, having undergone many redactions to harmonize it with the other books!”
from Judah Himango's blog post
Set Your Hope On Moses
I still haven't made up my mind how to respond to all of this yet. I'm a little too "emotional" to plan out a reasoned response.
In the meantime, and hopefully only temporarily, I've lost sight of the road I'm on. The path has disappeared into the fog somewhere up ahead and I'm not sure if it even continues or not. It's like driving on a freeway in the middle of a desert at night. Going 75 mph or faster, you almost assuredly overshoot your headlights, so you can't be absolutely sure what lies ahead in the darkness. You could even hit something that exists out there and not see it until you are right on top of it.
Or the road could simply fall off the end of the earth.
I know there's something Paul said that fits an occasion such as this. I thought of it earlier today, but I can't recall it now. I know there are any number of platitudes that might cover a circumstance such as mine, but I really don't think platitudes will help. Like a man lost on a road at night, I'll have to slow down to a crawl and almost feel my way through the obsidian shroud, hoping and praying that God will provide a street lamp and a sign post.
On that Rod Stewart album there's another song that applies to how I'm feeling or at least how I want to feel (though Stewart admits that he plagerized Bob Dylan when he wrote it):
May the good Lord be with you
Down every road you roam
And may sunshine and happiness
surround you when you're far from home
And may you grow to be proud
Dignified and true
And do unto others
As you'd have done to you
Be courageous and be brave
And in my heart you'll always stay
Forever Young, Forever Young
Forever Young, Forever Young
from Forever Young (1988)
by Stewart, Cregan, Savigar, (and Dylan 1974)
Addendum: This video of Greg Boyd describing his own crisis of faith as a "house of cards" seems particularly valuable. Thanks to Yahnatan for posting it in the comments of my previous blog post.
The road is long and often, we get lost in the dark...
49 comments:
Did you ever hear of FAITH?
None of you guys ever put faith into the equation, why?
Even faith has to have a basis, Dan. That basis has come under question, hence the continued questioning.
"None of you guys ever put faith into the equation, why?"
Dan, you must have missed my comment in the previous post:
1 Corinthians 8:3, says:
"But the man who loves G-d is known by G-d."
I think that's why Yeshua emphasized faith so much and the highest commandment: to love G-d. Ultimately, when we start delving deeper and deeper into mysteries of G-d, we'll realize that the more answers we get simply raise more questions. It's "vicious" cycle. I think we'll have eternity to figure G-d out.
If we could know G-d simply by scientifically analyzing our theology, we would not need faith in Him. But he made it so that we absolutely require faith. That's why He hides His face from us, to make us seek his presence.
Remember the words of Paul:
"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)
The above applies to our understanding of scripture as well, since it's the primary vehicle of transmission of G-d's revelation. May be especially to scripture.
It's clear that I have must to consider in re-evaluating the basis of my faith. Just finished watching a Christian pastor's sermon on some of the very issues I've been writing on (I inserted an addendum at the bottom of this blog post with the link), so it's nice to know that I'm not alone in asking the questions that I'm asking.
Good comment Gene.
I guess I mossed James last post.
The one thing that sticks in my head from watching the Boyd video last night is why Christianity seems to focus with laser-like precision on Jesus but completely ignore God the father?
I know this may seem like nit-picking on my part given the larger issues involved, but Boyd's "solution" to a "house of cards" kind of faith is to focus on the Messiah as the one essential ingredient of our faith and to allow all other considerations (presumably including God the Father) to have lesser importance.
"I know this may seem like nit-picking on my part given the larger issues involved, but Boyd's "solution" to a "house of cards" kind of faith is to focus on the Messiah as the one essential ingredient of our faith and to allow all other considerations (presumably including God the Father) to have lesser importance."
James, Boyd is still very much an Evangelical, with just about everything that entails and everything you may have experienced yourself in the times past regarding that particular faith system. He is just no longer a "fundamentalist".
He's made many good points. I've checked his site, there's a FAQ question there. He doesn't speak much about Torah or Israel, but he does make a point about Gentiles (specifically) not being obligated to certain Torah commandments. He cites "tithing" as one such example that churches abuse by trying to hoist select Torah laws that would benefit the church financially or those that fit a certain agenda on their parishioners. He mentioned that Gentiles are not obligated because they are not Jews, while at the same time he never spoke of Torah/Law as being done away with.
NOVA PBS did a video related to this called 'The Bible's Buried Secrets'. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html
Its quite critical but presents an overview of some of the issues at stake. The first time I saw it I found it not so easy but at the same time the evidence or absence thereof needs to be taken serious and cant just be pushed off by citing verses, or by acting like this is just a theory, at least not for me.
I think this type of material is however mainly a challenge when a person tries to reconcile all issues in all domains and end up with a totalistic explanation. This evidently does not work, there are simply different spheres of intellectual inquiry that cannot all be reconciled in their details.
In connection to this a friend once said to me: "when one tries to reconcile history with theology
and does not allow theology to retain some independence, you get stagnation in theology (or dishonesty in history)". And the more I study both domains I realize the truth of this observation.
I think you will see this when reading Casey on the one hand and Bowman on the other hand on Christology. Casey's case is historically much sounder than that of Bowman but it is really quite problematic for a theological perspective, the opposite holds true for Bowman, historically problematic, but theologically compelling (depending on your preference, of course).
This is not to say that these domains should remain totally separate and one should not inform the other, but both should retain some independence and one shouldnt expect to reconcile them in all their details.
Its become a long comment so Ill close with this: if you are looking for a historical explanation on Christology or the composition of the Torah, look up a historical work, if you are looking for a theological explanation, look up a theological work. This will save you alot of trouble in finding solutions to problems that are essentially unsolvable and guard against people that portray to have these solutions. It may lead to some difficulty on your part but perhaps you could consider this as part of maturing, at least thats what a professor told me when I told her my frustrations with these issues.
That still leaves me with the "mystery" of what happened to "God the Father" from the church's point of view.
I see a sort of hierarchy as far as the church's view of the Trinity goes:
Jesus is the most important person in the universe, bar none. Churches are "Christ-centered".
The Holy Spirit is a source of strength and a "communications conduit" in the church. Churches are "Spirit-led".
God the Father (remember Him?) is never mentioned. It's like God retired from the "family business" and is working on His tan on a beach somewhere in Florida (seen Him there lately, Gene?) while His Son took over as CEO.
We talk about the church being supersessionist in that they believe Christianity replaced the Jews, but it's almost like they also believe that Jesus the Son replaced God the Father. That's why I like to make a differentiation between the Jewish Messiah and God, the Almighty Creator of the Universe. It separates form and function and makes it easier for me to keep track of the role of God vs. Messiah.
Oh, and I went to the library and checked out Jesus, Interrupted last night. Gave the book a brief scan and it looks like the author was a Christian and NT expert but is now an agnostic who still writes on NT issues. This is going to be interesting, trying to find a path of faith in a book about the deity of Jesus written by a man who left the faith.
It may lead to some difficulty on your part but perhaps you could consider this as part of maturing, at least thats what a professor told me when I told her my frustrations with these issues.
That's how I've chosen to view my current situation, Daniel. I still believe certain things happen for a reason and maybe, at this stage of my development, it's time for me to go a little deeper into questioning my long-held assumptions about things. This isn't what I would have chosen for myself, so I hope I may be excused for attributing some of these recent events to God's plan for my life.
James, I think most of us here are being challenged to review long-held beliefs, whether major or minor. There this pervasive taboo that one is not suppose to talk about these things. We truly live in a house of cards if just one card out of place brings everything tumbling down. We should, instead, build on a solid foundation of G-d and our faith in Him that HE knows what's He's doing and that he has provided us with ENOUGH information/revelation to serve Him and live for Him, even if we just have to trust Him when things do not make much sense.
I'm not against Evangelical preachers and lately I've been re-evaluating some of the unseen aspects of why evangelicals are led to believe what they believe.
There are certain laws that evangelicals follow very strictly which were supposedly laws given to Israel. Probably one of the most interesting is the tattoos dilemma (to me at least). By evangelical understanding it's a law for Israel to follow yet it's a law that is very strictly kept in most evangelical circles. I remember my parents telling me as a small child that the reason we don't get tattoos is because our bodies are a temple that the Holy Spirit dwells in. Why is that this makes more sense than ever even after studying Hebrew roots? I keep hearing people (both Jews and gentiles) say that not all the laws are for gentiles, yet when I think of the tattoo law in this light all of that "only for the Jews" debate seems to fade away and I'm left once again believing that G-d's laws still ought be kept regardless if one is gentile or Jew. So lately I've been re-evaluating the law on the heart. Perhaps there are many aspects of the bible that evangelicals have correctly but they simply don't recognize. Perhaps the Hebrew roots movement is a bridge for evangelicals to discover why all these seemingly contrived traditions that are contrary to doctrine are really G-d's law written on the heart, and they're not aware.
The other day I saw a soup line from a church giving food to all the homeless after a major snow storm and cold front. They do it because they believe it's the right thing to do.
"For the foolishness of G-d is wiser than men, and the weakness of G-d is stronger than men." - 1.Cor.1:25
1 Corinthians 1:21 For since in the Wisdom of G-d the world through its wisdom did not know Him, G-d was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our G-d will stand forever." - Isaiah 40:8
Matthew 5:18 "for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the Torah, till that all may come to pass."
"for “All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the Word of the Lord remains forever.” And this Word is the good news that was preached to you." - 1.Pet.1:24,25
Psalm 119:89 Your Word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.
The other day I saw a soup line from a church giving food to all the homeless after a major snow storm and cold front. They do it because they believe it's the right thing to do.
Whether you call it "the weightier matters of the Torah" or "the fruits of the Spirit", I believe that this is part of what God wants us to do with our lives.
benicho,
I agree with you! Without knowing it Christians are following much of Torah! But there is still much more ground to make up.
The Scriptures above (Anonymous post) are really good for the validity of Scripture! We must be careful not to be to wise for our own good.
Rabbi Anchelle Perl posted a link to an interesting article on twitter this morning. It reminds us that even if we enjoy a life of freedom, redemption, and truth, we are not truly free as long as there is even one other person who is not. This tells me that we need to share our understanding of faith with those who (like me) are less sophisticated in their knowledge and needing to hear more about matters of faith of the heart.
All or No One
Link doesn't work.
Sorry. Thought I had the link sorted. You can copy and paste the following into your browser's address field:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/147361/jewish/All-or-No-One.htm
I would like to coin a new theological term that would describe belief systems of folks like Pastor Greg Boyd:
"imperfect relativism"
It is "relativism", because it basically holds that there are no absolute truths since most things can't be proven with certainty or can be doubted. It's "imperfect" because it still clings to some truths as absolute (almost in a "fundamentalist" way), even though they are just as unprovable and can be just as easily doubted.
In other words, when all said and done, it still comes down to simple faith.
It is "relativism", because it basically holds that there are no absolute truths since most things can't be proven with certainty or can be doubted. It's "imperfect" because it still clings to some truths as absolute (almost in a "fundamentalist" way), even though they are just as unprovable and can be just as easily doubted.
In other words, when all said and done, it still comes down to simple faith.
Doesn't that pretty much describe us though, or at least the direction we're facing? If we accept the fact that the Bible is an imperfect (but still authoritative ) document, but have an unswerving faith in the God of Israel ("I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the Land of Egypt to be a God to you") and Messiah, Son of David, it seems as if we are defining our position as "imperfect relativism".
True?
some people focus on the moral of the story and some focus on the grammar.
"Doesn't that pretty much describe us though, or at least the direction we're facing? If we accept the fact that the Bible is an imperfect (but still authoritative ) document, but have an unswerving faith in the God of Israel ("I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the Land of Egypt to be a God to you") and Messiah, Son of David, it seems as if we are defining our position as "imperfect relativism"."
It doesn't describe my position. My view is what we have today (as far as scripture is concerned) is here by the plan of G-d (yes, that takes faith). The Bible and NT are two of the most copied collections of documents that the mankind has ever produced. The advantage of this is that we can actually trace the differences. Not everything in Bible and NT is literally the words of G-d (for example, Paul writing to Timothy to take some wine for his stomach problems doesn't sounds "inspired"). Also, the scripture is said to be "inspired" not "dictated" by G-d. This means that the Word of G-d has the markings of the human hands which wrote it down. It would be the same as G-d telling Moses to tell the people of Israel something, and Moses relays what he heard from G-d in "Moses' way".
We have evidence of this in the Gospel when it comes to relaying the words of Yeshua himself (who is considered divine) - some of the sayings one would expect to be repeated verbatim from gospel to gospel do in fact differ between the gospels (easily verifiable even by a casual reader). To me that means that Yeshua's words are obviously a paraphrase (which I believe is very close to his original words - again, by faith) as relayed by witnesses themselves or by the transmitters of what once was only an oral gospel.
I find the following from Romans 14 relevant when it comes to the possibility of people destroying the faith of others through acting out on our beliefs or even insisting on differing opinions on certain matters in the presence of those who are "weak in faith":
"What is important is for each to be fully convinced in his own mind....... Don't tear down G-d's work for the sake of food. True enough, all things are clean; but it is wrong for anybody by his eating to cause someone to fall away. What is good is not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The belief you hold about such things, keep between yourself and G-d. Happy the person who is free of self-condemnation when he approves of something! But the doubter comes under condemnation if he eats, because his action is not based on trust. And anything not based on trust is a sin."
This tells me that our actions toward others are more important than our beliefs about the many things we find so paramount and "irrefutable". Which is of course a very Jewish thing in itself.
Gene, if the Gospels and even the Torah is "inspired but not dictated", then by definition, human viewpoints and even human biases are introduced into the Biblical record and therefore, human discrepancies. The Bible becomes a fusion of God's inspiration and man's interpretation. We can see this, for example, in the difference between Moses in Deuteronomy describing the various events that occurred during the 40 years in the desert, and earlier portions of the Torah (even assuming that Moses wrote most of the other Torah books, which as we've seen, may not be the case).
This tells me that our actions toward others are more important than our beliefs about the many things we find so paramount and "irrefutable". Which is of course a very Jewish thing in itself.
The Romans 14 statement is difficult to uphold now that we have the Internet and blogging. As we can easily see in the Messianic blogosphere, there isn't a lot of respect for the sensitivities of those who are "weak in the faith". Even a casual reading of some of our blogs and blog comments show us that some writers among the faithful regularly "go for the jugular" when a much gentler (and Biblical) approach is called for.
Nope, i don't believe that. The Bible is copies of copies and it's unreliable. No one knows what was written for sure. Any other faith is as real as another so there is no absolute truth.
No need to be looking over these issues since nobody really knows, just live your life...then once we cross over to the next we see for sure?
"Nope, i don't believe that. The Bible is copies of copies and it's unreliable. No one knows what was written for sure. Any other faith is as real as another so there is no absolute truth."
Anonymous, in that case, keep this kinds of "faith" to yourself:)
Nope, i don't believe that. The Bible is copies of copies and it's unreliable. No one knows what was written for sure. Any other faith is as real as another so there is no absolute truth.
No need to be looking over these issues since nobody really knows, just live your life...then once we cross over to the next we see for sure?
This reminds me of something I discovered when I was a young man of about 19 (many years ago).
I was working with a woman who had one Caucasian parent and one African-American parent. I forget how we got on topic, but I asked her something about being "half-black and half-white".
She told me that you can't be "half" of anything, because it's not just about race or color but about affiliation, lifestyle, and cultural values. She said she had to make a conscious decision to self identify as either "black" or "white" (and in her case, she self-identified as black).
In terms of our place in the universe, the meaning of life, and other existential questions, human beings make decisions self-identifying themselves. There is no one who is "half" of anything or who exists without an "affiliation of faith", so to speak. People pretend they don't make decisions because they reject adherence to a religion, but even a self-avowed agnostic or atheist has made a decision of "faith". They have faith that there *isn't* a God or Creator or Supreme Being or they have faith that, if one exists, the Being doesn't hold humanity accountable to any sort of behavioral or moral code.
True, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but if you wait until you can take the first bite, it's too late. The pudding may be sweet or it may be bitter, all because of the decision you originally made to adhere to this way of life or that.
"Even a casual reading of some of our blogs and blog comments show us that some writers among the faithful regularly "go for the jugular" when a much gentler (and Biblical) approach is called for."
On the other hand, there my post about likely reactions to Paul's not-so-gentle (some may say "non-Biblical"?) slam on Galatians titled "If the Apostle Paul was a Messianic Jewish blogger".... http://dailyminyan.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/if-the-apostle-paul-was-a-messianic-jewish-blogger/
Gene, how would you reconcile your comments about Romans 14 vs. "Paul the Messianic Blogger"? I'm willing to believe that Paul had a tempter and could be sarcastic, but is that *always* the way to proceed? Could Paul have been using his sarcasm as a tool to elicit the desired effect on a congregation he could only reach via letter (as opposed to visiting with them and engaging them face-to-face)?
"Even a casual reading of some of our blogs and blog comments show us that some writers among the faithful regularly "go for the jugular" when a much gentler (and Biblical) approach is called for."
I guess it won't be very pleasant on the Judgment Day for many of us. Wouldn't it be a shock if we'll hear the Messiah (after we defend ourselves with how wonderful our doctrines and religious deeds have been, all done in His Name, no less) tell us "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!".
Wouldn't it be a shock if we'll hear the Messiah (after we defend ourselves with how wonderful our doctrines and religious deeds have been, all done in His Name, no less) tell us "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!".
That's one thing I'm concerned about.
Gene,
"Anonymous, in that case, keep this kinds of "faith" to yourself:)"
your a pretty funny guy...like any of your comments are any better than what i have said. Your comments are similar to mine but just covered with more icing!:) You don't believe the Bible/Word of G-d to be inerrant so how off am i really?
How can an Almighty G-d not be able to preserve His words through time and in any circumstance? If He is ALMIGHTY those words could go through a million hands and through a billion years and still be inerrant!
"How can an Almighty G-d not be able to preserve His words through time and in any circumstance? If He is ALMIGHTY those words could go through a million hands and through a billion years and still be inerrant!"
Of course He CAN. But G-d is the one who is perfect - man is not. You, Anonymous... I must say that you seem to have a very naive view of the world and faith. You must be a "King James-only" fella (look the term up to see what happens when inerrancy is transmitted even to translations).
Open any modern New Testament - look at the footnotes telling you the differences in manuscripts. True, most differences/additions/omissions are minor and do not detract from the overall message (and many more are not even listed), but according to you, NONE should exist! That's not G-d who's made mistakes - it's people.
How can an Almighty G-d not be able to preserve His words through time and in any circumstance? If He is ALMIGHTY those words could go through a million hands and through a billion years and still be inerrant!
One of the things I thought I knew and accepted but have recently re-visited, is that God doesn't have to serve up the universe, or any part of it (including the Bible), just to suit us. Another way of saying it is, "He who creates the universe makes the rules."
As Gene says, God can do anything, but what He chooses to do is within His Divine Will. Why does God allow pain and suffering? Why doesn't God answer the prayers of His faithful immediately and with consistently positive results? Why does the phone always ring when I'm in the shower?
I don't know.
I do know that accepting a life of faith, which can be a difficult life, includes learning to accept God as God and not as we want Him to be. The ancient Romans and Greeks created their gods in their own image, which is why those gods behaved in a humanly predictable manner. God isn't human and that limits our ability to comprehend His motives and purposes.
Mr/Ms Anonymous, no one is asking you to accept a life of religious faith (keeping in mind that being an atheist requires "faith" too). Are you here just to tell the rest of us that you think we're wrong? As you can see, I'm willing to question my own faith and put it on the line, so to speak. What are you looking for in this conversation?
Gene,
Actually Gene I do have a King James but i use a Stone edition Tanakh and i have basically any translation of the New Covenant out there.
"Open any modern New Testament - look at the footnotes telling you the differences in manuscripts. True, most differences/additions/omissions are minor and do not detract from the overall message (and many more are not even listed), but according to you, NONE should exist! That's not G-d who's made mistakes - it's people."
I agree with you! :)
"You, Anonymous... I must say that you seem to have a very naive view of the world and faith."
If you mean I'm naive because i believe what G-d's Word says then i guess i am. I believe that what has been preserved is what G-d wants us to have (His Word), and it's able to make you wise unto salvation!
"and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings (Tanakh), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." - 2.Tim.3:15
I must say anonymous, telling people like us to simply forget about an overarching authority and just live life has about the same effect as if we were tell you to simply believe the bible and everything written in it.
Listen, Gene is crazy, the man is constantly reading the bible and picking apart scripture, well know that, it's best if he's just left to do his thing.
James,
"One of the things I thought I knew and accepted but have recently re-visited, is that God doesn't have to serve up the universe, or any part of it (including the Bible), just to suit us. Another way of saying it is, "He who creates the universe makes the rules."
True, but then how can G-d blame us for not doing what He says if we don't have the exact instructions? You see then my opinion is as good as anybodies towards eternal life. Do you believe there is absolute truth for us?
would you ever wanted to be murdered anonymous? stolen from? lied about?
benicho,
"I must say anonymous, telling people like us to simply forget about an overarching authority and just live life has about the same effect as if we were tell you to simply believe the bible and everything written in it."
I think you guys think that I'm an atheist? I'm not.:) I believe in the G-d of Israel, who happens to be the G-d described to us in Scripture.
Has HaShem appeared to any of you or has any of you heard His audible voice?
Scripture is very important and very dear to me!
Anonymous: True, but then how can G-d blame us for not doing what He says if we don't have the exact instructions? You see then my opinion is as good as anybodies towards eternal life. Do you believe there is absolute truth for us?
ME: Mr/Ms Anonymous, no one is asking you to accept a life of religious faith (keeping in mind that being an atheist requires "faith" too). Are you here just to tell the rest of us that you think we're wrong? As you can see, I'm willing to question my own faith and put it on the line, so to speak. What are you looking for in this conversation?
How about you answer my question first?
I think you guys think that I'm an atheist? I'm not.:) I believe in the G-d of Israel, who happens to be the G-d described to us in Scripture.
Has HaShem appeared to any of you or has any of you heard His audible voice?
Scripture is very important and very dear to me!
OK, that clarifies things a bit. Text-only blog comments aren't a very good way to interact, but it's the best we've got at the moment. I still don't know if you are here to ridicule others for having faith or if you're looking to find help with yours.
benicho,
"would you ever wanted to be murdered anonymous? stolen from? lied about?"
That would be breaking the Commandments, and no i wouldn't.
"A man shall reap everything he sows"
James,
"OK, that clarifies things a bit. Text-only blog comments aren't a very good way to interact, but it's the best we've got at the moment. I still don't know if you are here to ridicule others for having faith or if you're looking to find help with yours."
Yes blogs arent very good at interacting but it is the best we got. No i'm not here to ridicule anyone and i'm not necessarily looking help with my faith...but i'm open to continue to learn and grow.
James, do you think im ridiculing you?
@anonymous
of course you wouldn't, and neither would any of us, therefore loving your neighbor still stands. it was a reply to what you said:
"True, but then how can G-d blame us for not doing what He says if we don't have the exact instructions?"
G-d can find fault in us for not obeying His commands, furthermore if you do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself then it's a universal morality issue and blame is found.
This is part of the reason why so much emphasis was put on the 2 greatest commandments.
benicho,
I agree.
Torah that is not a living framework for action is no longer Torah. Therefore, the giving and the receiving of Torah is more than just the transmission of a certain body of information. It is the communication of a message that causes a profound change in the thought and behavior of those who receive it.
It is clear, too, that Torah constitutes a bridge between the Divine essence and man.
Yes blogs arent very good at interacting but it is the best we got. No i'm not here to ridicule anyone and i'm not necessarily looking help with my faith...but i'm open to continue to learn and grow.
James, do you think im ridiculing you?
It's not always easy to tell, so I thought I'd ask. If you are here to learn and grow, then you are welcome. I'm trying to learn and grow all the time. :-)
Woke up to Daniel's blog post called Belief in Belief which seems related to the current conversation (which seems to be winding down).
Another blog post coming up today.
Post a Comment