Abigail

A recent study conducted by UCLA's Department of Psychiatry has revealed that the kind of face a woman finds attractive on a man can differ depending on where she is in her menstrual cycle. For example, if she is ovulating, she is attracted to men with rugged and masculine features. However, if she is menstruating or menopausal, she tends to prefer a man with scissors lodged in his temple and a bat jammed up his foot while he is on fire. :blink:

You are correct, Garth. Historically and presently. But it has been fascinating to read about how the changes within Judaism have occured and are still occuring today. Most have them have come about out of adversity and a need to adapt, as the Jews scattered throughout the world. Most of those changes have faced resistance from within in addition to the conflicts they were facing from without. Yet ironically, even those who were resistent unknowingly eventually adopted many of the changes as well - it just took them longer. I would also say, I think many of the changes have been an improvement.

There was a time, when the different sects within Judaism fought with and killed each other. There are still those (albeit they are increasingly few in number) who will shun those from a different sect - tell them they are not really Jewish. I see this same thing occuring within the Muslim community. The Sunni's v the Shihites (SP), for example. It has also occured within Christianity. But it seems the Jews, for the most part, have grown past the desire to kill other Jews who have slightly differing beliefs. I think the Christians, for the most part, have as well. So I am hopeful that someday the Muslims will l also evolve past this. And perhaps one day, we will all grow to the point where we can agree to disagree, or accept each other regardless of our differences. Interfaith dialogue could go a long way toward moving this along.

The book I am reading, which I shared a bit about in a previous thread, covers a great deal of the history of Judaism and how it has evolved and changed over time. I am finding it very fascinating. Here's a simplified summary. According to the author, the Torah (O.T.) was originally written after the destruction of the first Temple during the invasion of Babylon. The reason it was put into writing was because the Jewish people wanted to preserve their laws and legends. - they were afraid it would be lost as the Jews were scattered. Hence the notion that the books weren't actually written by Moses and an explanation for some of the contradictions. The Mishna (Oral Traditions/laws) were then put into writing shortly after the destruction of the second temple (which historically may actually have been a third) after the Romans invaded, for the same reason. The author views the Mishna as an incredibly inventive and valuable evolution of Judaism. The Rabbi's who wrote it, were finding a way to adapt to a world that would not tolerate the strict orthodox interpretation and practice of the laws. As they also recorded their debates over the meaning of these laws and traditions, and how they were to be applied. The Mishna and the Gemarah (debates) are what make up the Talmud. In the process, the Jews evolved from "fighting religion" to one that became increasingly more interested in peace and more focused on study, rather than war. Even today, the Rabbi's debate what it all means and how it is to be practiced. Now, look at Christianity, or Muslim, or almost any older religion and it seems that those religions also evolve. Do you think, at some point in the future, we will evolve spiritually to the place where we all agree? Or at least to a place where we can all live together peaceably?

Oh the stories I could tell, Stayed too Long. Some I have, some I never will in a public forum. Sufficient to say the advice I was given and the pressure that was placed on me and my children's father made our experience very very different from yours. However, I am thankful that I got out while my kids were very very young. I am also thankful that my heart would not be ignored, but SCREAMED at me that what I was being told to do was WRONG.

What, she didn't mention the rod of correction? She didn't tell them that if they beat their kids into submission with a wooden spoon their mornings would be more peaceful?

Their both sick and I hate that our tax dollars will support them for the net 10 - 20 years at least.

Also on intermarriages it is pointed out that despite the law forbidding them: Ruth who is not Jewish, marries Boaz and their child is also an ancestor of Daivd. Then there is David and Bathseba, who have Solomon. But most ironically of all, the very man who decreed that intermarriages were forbidden, Moses, is married to the daghter of a high priest of Midian - a pagan! Very interesting stuff, I think. In a sense, I think this could relate back to the interfaith dialogue discussion.

HAHAHAHA and Sarah laughed! I am now into another section of the book, on goddess worship and women in the Bible. The premise the author is trying to prove is that there were women who wrote certain sections of the Bible, though the credit is given to men. I am not sure if his premise is correct or not, nor am I sure whether or not it makes much difference to me. However, I have found two sections particularly amusing and thought I would share them. One is the story of Rachel and the idol she took from her father. Laban finally catches up with her and starts searching her tent. She is sitting on a saddle and the idol is hidden underneath. When her father approaches her to search there, she warns him away because she is menstruating and is therefor (by Jewish custom) unclean. The author writes, "The joke, of course, is on Laban . . . . . . Laban sees his daughter as unclean and untouchabel during her period. Rachel knows it, counts on it, and subtly ridicules her father for it. . .. and thus does J [the purported female author of this section of scripture] make light of the sternest traditions of ancient Israel: she invites us to join her in laughing out loud at how men chase after idols but run away from menstruating women." The other section is in regard to Tamar and Judah. You may recall that Tamar was a Canaanite woman who married one of Judah's sons. The son died without any children, so by Jewish law one of Judah's other sons was to impregnate her and raise up an heir. The son instead "spills his seed on the ground" and ultimately dies as a result. Judah does not wish to give her to his remaining son, for fear he too will die. Instead he claims his son is too young and tells Tamar to go back her her father's home until this son is old enough. Under Jewish law, as a childless widow, Tamar has no place in the Jewish society. She also has no inheritence from her husband. And as a double whammy, she is a Canaaite woman to boot. Fearing that Judah will never send for her, she plays a harlot and becomes impregnated by Judah. When Judah finally finds out who the harlot was, he says "She is more righteous than I". Why? Because she claimed the right to which she was entitled by the laws and customs of her time. The author then points out that one of the twin sons born as a result of her union with Judah ends up being a direct ancestor of King David, who is (or will be, depending on what you believe) the direct ancestor of the Messiah. And isn't that an interesting couple of contradictions. First, because the Jews were forbidden from marrying Canaanite women. But even moreso, because at least in modern Jewish tradition - if a Jew and a non-Jew have children together, the children are ONLY considered to be Jewish if the MOTHER is Jewish. If the father is Jewish and the mother is not, then the children are not Jewish unless they go through a converstion.

Y, perhaps the reason no one gave instructions on "how to" is because Noni didn't ask "how to". She asked what it meant, that is all. My strong suspcion, having conversed with Noni, is that she hasn't come to the cafe to be "saved" and isn't looking for any of us to "teach her Da Verd". She is simply trying to understand the similarities and differences between what she was taught and what we were taught.

I am reading the above titled book, by Jonathan Kirsch. It's an interesting read, I don't agree with all of the conclusions and I think the author is forgetful of some important biblical pieces of the biblical stories when he is drawing his conclusions. However, I also find some of it very interesting. So, I thought I would ramble on here and share some of what strikes me. First, Israel, literally transled, means "one who struggles with God". In a very real sense, that is the premise of the book so far (or at least seems to be to me). The struggle is very much on the human side, our understanding of who God is, our understanding of what God wants from us, our understanding of how to worship Him. The author points out that often, God is portrayed as jealous, vengeful, someone to be feared. Yet Abraham and Moses both argue with God, and even persuade Him to change his mind. And Sarah is so bold as to not only laugh at Him, but lie to Him and his response is to respond simply by asking her why she laughed. The point is how varied the different beliefs and practices have always been. He writes "If the Bible is a work of history at all, then it is the history of how the fundamentalists of ancient Israel tried - and failed - to enforce a strict orthodoxy on the rest of the Israelites." He then goes on to write about the various authors of the Bible, and the notion that there were "unknown" authors and editors who inserted bits and pieces into the text and those who removed sections. One instance where he documents inserted text is in Genesis 36, the author states that the Edomite kings who are listed there actually lived and reigned long after the death of Moses. Another example the author points out is in a prayer that is still recited in synagogues today, and comes from the book of Exodus. "Mee Khah-mohkha b'elim Adonai" or in English it is said as "Who is like You among the heavenly powers, Hashem" (or Adoni, depending on what sect you are with). The word b'elim is translated as "heavenly powers", but the author says elim in the Hebrew literally means Gods. So, in other words, Moses was acknowedging that there were other God's, but that Adoni is superior to them all. A similar concept is found in Jeremiah chapters 2 and 5. The author writes about King Josiah and how he was one of the very few who managed to enforce for a time, the strict legalism of Deuterotomy. He points out how even Moses broke one of the ten commandmants in making the brazen serpent, and how a number of people, including Rachel, kept idols with them. It was Josiah who had the brazen serpent destroyed, and all other idols. It was Josiah who decreed (despite the fact that it had been done otherwise for generations before him) that only in Jerusalem would offerings to God be accepted. The author also suggests that Josiah's motives for doing so, was to ensure that Jerusalem would not only be viewed as the royal capital, but also as the holiest place in all of Israel. Josiah is credited by some as having dramatically changed what it meant to be an Israelite by defining the faith of Israel via practice, in a way it had not been done before. In one section the author concludes "Indeed, the effot to censor the Bible - an effort that begins within the pages of the Bible itself and continued long after the biblical canon was closed - has been a failure. Crucially, the works of both the Court Historian and the Chronicler are preserved, and we can see for ourselves much of what we are not supposed to see at all." Any thoughts? I will share more as I continue to read.

Well I'm still young enough in dog years to chase cats! After you calculate your birthday, you should check out what's in a name at the bottom of the page. I found that one to be more accurate for me.

I did my own research - but then that is my nature. Hello, my name is Abigail and I am a geek. I came across a number of things that contradicted what I was taught in TWI. And there were other things that TWI taught that just plain didn't sit right in my heart. Where I blew it, was that I thought I was stupid. I didn't trust myself or believe in myself. So, when I came across things that contradicted what was taught, I assumed it was somehow an "error in my own understanding" and that those in TWI were correct. It wasn't after I discovered that LCM's one time affair wasn't a one time affair that I began questioning and doubting what I had been taught and began trusting what I was seeing for myself.

(((((((Anamchara))))))))))

Thanks for being willing to consider other sources. I have likewise learned a lot from many of you!

I did it!!!!! Yesterday my younger son (Jacob) and I headed off to the synagogue for Shabbat service. Aaron didn't want to go, and I saw no benefit in forcing him, especially given my own uncertanties. So, it was just the two of us. I have to say, I really enjoyed it. They had services outside, which had its ups and downs. It was beautiful out, but about 20 minutes before service was over the sprinklers came on and drew out all the mosquitos. However, the service itself was very pleasant and peaceful. It was a reform service. The songs were all in Hebrew, so I didn't understand what was being said, but I very much enjoyed listening nonetheless. The prayers were in Hebrew and then translated into English, which was very helpful for me. I can't say it was a deeply moving, but it was very pleasant and I will go again.

yeah, but they phased that ritual out in the late 90's Oldies. Seems they were concerned that we were sitting through those hour long, repititious teachings merely for the free food. In fact, by the late 90's we were only allowed to discuss the teaching, and nothing else, as we were quickly pushed - er I mean ushered, out the door of the fellowship coordinator's home.

"GROUP MALL WITNESSING! now that's a whole other horror story begging to be told" HA! I never did the mall thing, though we did try grocery store parking lots and bookstores. I HATED both. The idea in the parking lot was to try to help people getting their groceries to their cars and witness to them in the process. To show them that the good little Wafers were all about giving. But were we really? A decent number of people refused our help even before we got to witnessing. Imagine having two (yes we did it 2 by 2) complete strangers approaching you in a parking lot and wanting to "help you with your groceries" by escorting you to your car? (Remember this was in the 90's - I know I wouldn't want to complete strangers escorting me to my car in a parking lot!!!!!!) Bookstores came later. I actually love browsing bookstores, and was not afraid to approach someone and strike up a converstation. However, by this point in time I was so fed up and discouraged with TWI that I really had no desire to witness at all. I don't think anyone in our fellowship did. We went to the bookstore faithfully, but I don't think any of us, including or coordinators, ever actually witnessed to anyone.

You will find answers to some of your questions will vary, depending on what time-frame the person was involved and who their direct leadership was. For instance, Oldies refers to witnessing door to door as mainly a WOW duty. However, it was in and out of TWI long before I was ever in. During my tenure (91 - 2000) it was different. During my early years in TWI it was not something we did, but by the late 90s it was an almost weekly outing as part of our "fellowship meetings". We were not required to turn in a written report, but we were to write down the name and address of anyone we though we might want to follow-up with. We were also required to give a verbal report to our direct leadership, who in turn gave a written report to their direct leadership, and on up the tree it went.

"Another way to make ritual meaningless is to put the form over the substance -- to lose the meaning of the gestures in preference to repeating the gestures exactly." Amen. And when you think about it that way, by the late 90's, nearly ever "household fellowship meeting" was a ritual.

It was a pleasure meeting you in Chat. Welcome to the cafe.

(((ExC)))) I know the "not nice house" thing had to sting! But your son is better off with friends who don't care so much about what his house looks like and are far more interested in what his heart does look like.

Sorry Roy, but I can't make sense of it. It is to me, like reading a foreign language - only weirder because I understand the words, but not the meaning. But then, I have always struggled with the Old English in King James and there are many writings within the OT that I still do not understand either.

No problem, Tom. Just one of those hazards of communicating in this fashion. I probably would have got you loud and clear if I had heard you say it, instead of reading it. :)

"It was taught in Believers Family Class. He also taught that it was okay to grope your spouse whenever you wanted to, regardless of whether your spouse wanted you to or not, or felt it was an appropriate time to or not. Afterall, that's just they way men are built and your body is no longer your own once you are married. No, your don't have power over your body to satisfy yourself sexually. Doesn't that sort of mean that men (& women) should be unselfishly looking to satisfy their mate instead of themselves?" Tom, that was not what I was referring to and that was not what was taught. What was taught was that one could not refuse sex, could not say no to a spouse. Or, as some took it - you couldn't rape a spouse because their body wasn't their own. Beyond that, in principal I agree with what you are saying regarding sex between a married couple. If a relationship is a good one, it will work that way. However, if the relationship is bad, the sex life will usually be bad also. The best way to fix the sex life is to repair the relationship, not force yourself upon an unwilling partner. And, BTW, I cannot imagine forcing or even coericing someone into sex by saying "thus saith the Lord" if that person does not wish to have sex with you.