Abigail

Here is another article I found interesting on several levels. First, I found the parallel between Moses and Jesus interesting. While here on earth, Jesus taught and reproved the spiritual leaders, as well as individuals. But it is my understanding that spritually, Jesus is our "public defender" before God. Also, I found the encouragement regarding giving others the benefit of a doubt and seeing the positives in them refreshing.

I'm glad you enjoyed the article T. I don't understand everything I read within the articles of Chabad either, but I usually find something I can pull out and learn from. I really enjoyed your comments on the article as well. A good summary of sorts, IMO. I agree, life is a journey we are all on together, even if we follow different paths. Lables such as Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc are man made things, not God made. We use them to help process information and to understand each other - world views, perspectives, etc. Unforutnately, we also use them to justify hate, war, and murder as well. I look forward to the day when we no longer have to label ourselves and each other, or at the very least, when we no longer use those labels to justify doing harmful things to each other in God's name.

Thanks for the link, Goey!

From here DETROIT - A homeless man searching for returnable bottles in a trash bin found 31 U.S. savings bonds worth nearly $21,000 in a bag of clothes. . . . . .

Hi Roy. :) Sure we are under laws. No matter what religion, or even if you are of no religion, there are laws. Laws of physics, laws of relativity, laws of man, and even laws of God. What laws one chooses to follow is between the individual and God. If you break a law that God wants you to follow, He will gently (and sometimes not so gently - if you fall from a 2 story building, it will HURT) let you know. Carl, What you said about the 7th Day Adventists is interesting. There are Jews who hold similar beliefs about the Sabbath. Who are the Reconstructionists? You make reference to them being Christian - there are Jewish Reconstructionists as well, though obviously they are striving for the first coming and not the second. Again, more overlap in religion, which I always think is cool. As for me, I figure (as Roy so aptly put it on another thread) what will be will be. I don't worry about the Messianic era or the 2nd coming, nor do I do anything in particular to strive to bring it about. I have enough on my plate just taking care of what I need to do each day.

Having read quite a bit on Kaballah, prior to my studies via Chassidism (which are by no means even close to complete), I understand how the author came to his conclusions and I think there is accuracy within them, though I am not sure the specific terminology with refrence to Ayin is correct. However, I also think arguing over terminology is what has caused so many wars between religions throughout history. I believe God made us in His image. I also agree that we as humans make God on our own image, as it is the only way we can begin to understand God. It is our point of reference. The 10 seifrot (again man making God in our image) is used to try to help us understand God and to understand how ascend and decend (how to ascend toward Godliness and how to bring that Godliness down to earth). And yes, I agree that our actions affect the universe and the universe ours. The man as a microcosim point, I am unsure of, as I am not sure I understand the point being made there. Again, could simply be an issue of terminology. What I have come to understand through my studies, and it is also a conclusion I had drawn BEFORE I started my studies, is that our souls are placed in these bodies as part of a learning process. We are born and born again until we have obtained the level of wisdom we have been sent to gain.

"Abigail, I see the value in that point of yours. Unfortunately, if we're talking about a real incident as depicted in the scriptures (as I have no reason to interpret that figuratively), and since there are those who portray that real incident as just and Godly, that puts a whole different angle on things. Enough of an angle that has inspired folks like me to re-evaluate what we have learned about God, scriptures, and the like. Maybe Sushi can tell you more of what I'm talking about in this respect." Garth, how one chooses to interpret the scriptures is up to the individual. How much is literal, how much is figurative is likewise up to the individual. I wsa simply offering another POV of how some Jewish people interpret what is written - an interpretation I happen to derive benefit from. I have a pretty clear understanding of Sushi's opinions on God and the Bible. Another one of the beautiful things about being free from a high demand organization like TWI is that I am free to love and respect him for his beliefs, as he is me, even if we do not believe the same thing. Regardless of our differences of opinion regarding religion, our moral values are basically the same. Just as I am free to think you are a decent human being with decent values even if you have a different opinion on these issues. However, I do struggle with holding out respect for people who use God and religion to justify killing people or otherwise hurting them, which was why I felt it was important to offer another perspective in the first place.

Galen, you are not very good at playing "dumb" and "innocent". You tell others to take your mind out of the gutter, and yet it is you who is fighting for the position that the God you worship condoned raping women. Unless you believe the God of the Old Testament is not the same God as the one in the New Testament? I have done my best to lay out context as well as commentary on the topic you originally posted, as well as on the topic this thread moved to. I am now very sorry I attempted to share anything to offer perspective and understanding on this thread. Not because you disagree with me, but because your "I'm innocent" act strikes me as totally lacking in honesty. Garth, what literally took place and why in the O.T., I suspect no one may no except those who lived in those times. If you are truly interested, I did offer some insight into how we can take what is written, internalize it, and use it in a way that may be positive for our lives. Beyond that, I have already expressed my thoughts on the article that was originally posted in this thread, and that too I stand by. Using God or Relgion to justify a war, is in my opinion, a dangerous and immoral thing. In regard to what is occuring in Lebanon, there isn't even a need for it, as most people would agree that one has a right to defend self and country when attacked by terrorists. But that too has been covered in the political forums.

Yeah, Clay, TWI has left me skittish of anything organized. But it is more than that for me too. I have been to a couple of temples a couple of times. One was a reconstructionist group and I just never got comfortable there. Part if it is because it is very small and intimate and part of it was because I simply didn't understand some of the rituals. There is a Reform temple I went to twice and liked, but back then the kids were little and the Friday night service was too late at night. That is the temple I am most likely going to return to, sometime soon. The boys have had a couple years to grow and it seems they have moved their service time to an earlier time. Kathy, now that you mention it, I do vaguely remember the articles on Goddess worship. I also remember that it peaked my interest too. I left TWI in September of 2000.

No, Galen, it was not I that brought up rape but Greasey and you. I simply refuted the notion that Mosaic law condoned rape. Personally, I do not at all see plainly that the Bible condones it. In addition, Judaism is based on more than just the Torah, so I attempted to share some of that with youas well. However, you choose to continue to belive Mosaic law condones rape. I fail to understand why you woud do so, but certainly you have the free will to make that decision.

Carl, the ayin is the sixteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet and its numerical value is 70. 70 represents a person who is in total control of his emotional attributes - one who has mastered himself. It also represents the Torah enshrouded in humility and it represents salvation. Ayin also refers to the midpoint of your head, between your eyes. In Kabbalah ayin is the source of creation which clothes itself within the created being. Did you come across Ayin in your Hindu studies? I would be interested in what you have learned about it. With respect to the history of Kaballah, this is how I recall it. Like many religions, those who follow Kabbalah believe it dates back to "in the beginning". It is believed to be part of the oral tradition that was handed down through the generations, starting with Adam. (As an interesting tidbit - you may recall being taught in TWI that the difference between a Saduccee and a Pharasee was that the Saduccees did not believe in life after death. However, in my studies today I discovered that is not correct. The difference is that the Pharasees (such as Paul) believed in the Oral Traditions and the Saduccees did not, they only followed the written Torah and were rigidly adherent to a very literal interpretation of the Torah.) Initially, Kabbalah was taught only to the wisest and most educated Rabbi's. Then, if my memory of history is correct, it became more public and somewhat popular in the 1400 - 1500 A.D. time frame. During a time of persecution in Europe (Spain? Russia?) a Rabbi began teaching Kaballah to all men over the age of 40 and well schooled in Talmud and Torah who wanted to learn. It is only recently, through the Chassidic movement and the advent of the www that anyone who wanted to learn could access these teachings. Todd, it is wonderful to see you again. I will check out your links a bit later when I have more time.

Dancing, I have never attended one, I have simply read about them in the paper. Perhaps in time, as I move away from my computer and step more out into the real world I will.

And now it is my turn to ask the two of you a question. (or several) Why is it that you work so hard to prove that the Torah approves of raping ANY woman, Jew or not? Or perhaps more fairly would be to ask why is it that the two of you work so hard to disprove that the Torah does not condemn such an act? I would assume that neither of you condones the act of rape. I assume neither of you have spent much time studying Torah from anything other than a secular or Christian perspective. So it honestly leaves me wondering why you both seem to wish to propound the incorrect theory that the Torah condones rape.

Perhaps this article will shed further light for the two of you. I will post exerpts...... Torah knows sexuality to be incredibly powerful. Torah does not see these truths as negative, but as intrinsically positive forces. . . . . Our first commandment in the Torah is to be fruitful and multiply. Our very first mitzvah is about having physical relations. And yet, because of its capability to be so holy, it has the ability to be the most unholy act as well. . . .When physicality is misused or abused, the results are unbelievably powerful in the most negative of ways . . .If the goal of the physicality is not to create an everlasting bond and representation of the love that is shared between the man and the woman, if it isn't love expressed through physicality but rather love that is motivated by physicality, then it is a debasement, rather that a fulfillment, of our most G-dly power. . . .When we act G-dly, we are a nefesh chayah, a "living soul"; and when we do not, so we are only a chayah, a beast.

Point taken, Galen. It might be educational some day to try to trace back the history of "interest" and where the concept originated, but it is not something I care to do today. I do not deny there is an "us" v "them" in sects of Judaism, nor do I deny it is in the O.T. I think you would agree that, unfortunately, the "us" v "them" mentality is prevalent in most religions. I do not like it, I do not subscribe to it and I therefore try to ignore it. But regardless of the "interest" issue - having studied Judaism for the past few years, I still stand by my initial statement that rape would not be condoned and was in fact condemned under Mosaic law, regardless of whether the victim was a Jew or not. I stand by this because I understand the Jewish perspective on sex and marriage. You can pick apart the few verses I post here all you want, but there is a much larger context that cannot be shared in a verse or two. I was foolish of me to try. It is like trying to teach someone a foreign language in under an hour.

Actually, they weren't to charge each other any interest at all. But in dealing with cultures that differ from your own, you have to adapt some - as the Jews have done and continue to do even today. Let me ask you this Galen, if we are doing business with Mexico or Canada and they are placing tarrifs on our goods, would it not be in our own best interest to likewise place tarrifs on theirs? In fact, is it not the very concept of "free trade" verses "fair trade" that has played such a huge role in our current economic difficulties?

Greasey Tech, The woman was given time to grieve for the loss of her family and the man was very much discouraged from marrying her - both work to her benefit. Rashi's commentaries by and large are based on a literal interpretation of the O.T., which is why in my initial response to Bramble's post, I shared the Chassidic view on it and why I prefer the Chassidic view. However, I think Rashi's commentaries to offer further understanding of the text. Remember too, that from Eve to Sarah, women were in subjection to man - a state we are still working towards overcoming even in this society and in this age. Therefore, almost any concession given to a women in Moses time was a move forward. Finally, please see my response to Galen, which briefly outlines the Jewish view of sex. Sex was not intended merely for animalistic pleasure - such as might be gained from raping a captive. In fact, it is because of the binding of the souls that a man was discouraged from marrying a captive, who would have likely had very different religious views and a very different world view, thus decreasing the odds of a happy marriage and increasing the odds that she may persuade him toward a different faith (no big deal in our society now, but a HUGE deal in those days). Yes, to some degree the Israelites viewed non-Israelites differently - as is still true in some Jewish sects today, and as is true in sects of almost any religion. However, most of the other nations were still viewed as "neighbors" even following a war. There were specific commandments requiring a waiting period of a certain number of generations (and the number varied depending on the country and war) before intermarriage could take place again. The point being, Israel was still to come to view even their enemies as their neighbors once again.

Galen, you really should read it with Rashi's commentary. And you misunderstand in part because you do not understand the basic culture and beliefs. If rape was okay, why should the man then have to pay a dowery and marry her? Why couldn't he just be done and walk away? A couple of paragraphs up, where it is dealing with the betrothed woman, it also deals with the concept of coersion in relation to sex and equates it with murder. In addition, you may recall the laws regarding "spilling your seed on the ground'. Judaism views sex as a very spiritual event, not just for procreation but for the binding together of two souls. It was not intended beetween man and woman simply to be an animalistic act. Finally, you may not be aware of the honor and esteem a Jewish man is to give to his wife. The man who "seizes" a girl and rapes her, must now marry her and give her the honor and esteem of a wife. So, there is a debt to be paid for the act. And again, as I stated earlier - what man wants to be raped? (and I am asking that in a serious way). Because if men do not wish to be raped, than Mosaic law would forbid men from raping women.

My mistake, it is Deut 21. On the chabad website it uses the Hebrew words for the names of the books and I got them mixed up.

That is exactly the point Galen. The context is that if you married a captive and then later came to despise her, you could not treat her as a slave. You either had to free her and send her to wherever she wished to go (and by the wording it would appear it would have been the man's responsibility to pay for and see to her transportation), or you must continue to treat her with the respect and courtesy she deserved as a wife.

Numbers 21 deals with marrying a captive and the issue of rape is dealt with a few chapters later. If you want to read it with Rashi's commentary (which helps make sense of some of the "customs" surrounding the marriage of a captive) you can find it Here In addition, one tenant of the Mosaic law is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I am assuming most men would not want to be raped and therefore it would be wrong for them to rape someone else.

Actually, Mosaic law forbid the raping of women. It was permissible to marry a captive, but that too was highly frowned upon, and if one did marry a captive he was not allowed to use her as a slave.

Welcome back, CC - good to see you

Bramble, it could be very interesting. We only have two temples here as well, a reconstructionist and reform. Both temples also offer services to accomodate the conservative and orthodox community too. They also participate in interfaith diologue with Christians and Muslims, I have not read of any with pagans, but I am not sure how much of a pagan community exists in these parts. Kathy, I hope your day is a peaceful one.

And for you Bramble, the "internal" or spiritual view of what occured in Numbers 31 . . The word Midian is related to the Hebrew word for strife and in this particular instance it is a strife resulting from our own selfishness or our rejection of others. Moses, on the other hand, represents the exact opposite - selflessness. The only people from Midian who were to be kept alive were basically those who were considered to be harmless. It represents our internal battle to overcome our selfishness with selflessness - and yet we are to retain that selfish aspect that is necessary for our surivive - for our healthy boundaries, etc.