Abigail

Well what I have found so far, reaffirms my belief that war backed by religous doctrine is a bad bad thing. It also reminds me of why I prefer the Chassidic view as opposed to the more traditional ones. Here is what I found on Amalek so far: "What is the incident (of Amalek) comparable to? To a boiling tub of water which no creature was able to enter. Along came one evil-doer and jumped into it. Although he was burned, he cooled it for the others. So, too, when Israel came out of Egypt, and G-d rent the sea before them and drowned the Egyptians within it, the fear of them fell upon all the nations. But when Amalek came and challenged them, although he received his due from them, he cooled* the awe of them for the nations of the world (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 9)." Amalek represents irrational indifference of doubt. The people had just been freed from Egypt. They had witnessed the 10 plagues and the parting of the sea. Yet already they were doubting as to whether they made the right choice, doubting as to whether or not God would provide for them. It is said that it is this doubt that left them suseptible (sp) to Amalek's attack. Or, in another sense, this doubt WAS Amalek's attack. The reason Amalek is to be remembered is because as humans capable of reason, we can work our way through rational problems and doubts. However, it is MUCH more difficult to work your way through an irrational problem or doubt - ESPECIALLY if you aren't aware that it is irrational. Likewise, if you are indifferent, you will not even care to work your way through it. "Amalek does not challenge the truth with arguments, or even with selfish motivations -- he just disregards it." - by Yanki Tauber

The difference is whether it is US doing it or THEM - ;) Sorry, I couldn't resist. Well seen as how there is very little happening here at work today, but I am stuck here on the off chance that the phone may ring once or twice - perhaps I will do a little digging on the verses the two of you posted and see what/if anything Rashi or the other sages of old say about them.

Kathy, part of the reason I went into the explanation I did is because, in the past, I had a couple of posters who wrote me with concerns about the ability to discern between the Kabbalah of Judaism and the Kabbalah of the new age movement. It took a while for your Lilith remark to make its way through the cobwebs of my memory - I think you are referring in part, to LCM's teaching on "original sin", yes? Funny, with all the information on the www about Lilith, you would think he could have come up with better supporting documentation for his theory than a couple of old oil paintings. lol Bramble, I think you and I have talked before about "The Mists of Avalon". If I am wrong and you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. It was that book that peaked my interest in Wiccan beliefs and Goddesses. It is still my all time favorite book and I still have an interest in those subjects. Again, I think many of the core beliefs are similar, it is the terminology and rituals that differ. I think part of the reason Jusaism appealed to me is because it is my heritage - and it is a heritage that I literally knew almost nothing about until these past couple of years of research. As one who has often felt like an outsider in this world, Judaism has allowed me to feel a sense of connectedness at least on some level, to a culture, a history, and a people. Hmmmm, I wonder if that sense of disconnectedness is in part due to our melting pot society and the fact that so may of us 3rd generation and beyond people have so little culture that we can call our own?

I'm chewing on it Galen. I have great concerns about religion and politics mixing and they are very very mixed in the current events taking place. I worry about how far it will escalate and I worry that the side that is right will cross the line and become wrong. So yeah, I think there is a very valid point to the article. However, I think the point could have been made without bringing religion into it. To me, fighting terrorism doesn't need some spiritual or religious context to support it because logic says you have to stand up and fight or lay down and die. So that is my initial gut reaction, but I'll chew it over some more.

Bramble, quite some time ago I did a small amount of study into the pagan/wiccan beliefs. I have no issue against them, they simply didn't suit me. But I guess, I didn't see the pagan/wiccan thing as being quite the same as the new age stuff, in that the roots of the wiccan practice go back a long ways. I see the new age trend as the new "in" thing, that will eventually pass out of vogue. "But then, if Sarah had used Brigit or Diana or Freya, also good 'symbols' of feminine power, she might have p.o.ed a large number of her fans..." I have come across materials that indicate Rachel, if not Sarah, did worship a goddess - but how accurate that information is, I do not know. Kabbalah sees God has one, but uses various terms to describe characteristics of God for our understanding, and ascribes to them a gender. So perhaps, in some fashion or form, as humans, we tend to want to worship or focus on those characteristics that align with our own gender traits. "I think that the Kaballah connection to the New Age movement came through older occult sources, like ceremonial magic, and writings, like the Key of Solomen. Traditional tarot cards have occult Kabballah symbology." I have read of this connection as well, particularly in the mediterranian region. I suspect it was a melding of religious beliefs that took place, but that is only a semi-educated guess. To the best of my knowledge the Chassidics do not use Tarot cards and the such. In my youth I did experiement with such things, but I really don't put any stock in them these days. "And isn't the word lullaby a derivation of a Jewish banishing prayer, to banish Lilith from male infants? I think I read that somewhere." this I don't know, but it wouldn't necessarily suprise me. Every culture has its folk lore. "The New Age Kabbalah connection is probably why much of what you've been posting, Abigail, sounds quite familiiar to me." I always find it interesting, and think it is really cool, when different religions merge into shared beliefs. I wish human nature was such that we could focus more on what we have in common and less on our differences.

T - thanks for sharing that excerpt! Yet another reminder that though the terminology may be different, there are many many areas of agreement among various religions. Clay - I think there are many layers to what is written, literal and spiritual. But, to some extent, I put my focus where I did in this thread because of what we were taught in TWI about women being submissive. I feel very strongly that the way TWI taught and practiced the submissive stuff was damaging to the couple, as well as to the individual partners. In terms of the spiritual significance behind those statements, I am sure there are many more than what I have touched on. I agree that the female aspect often represents the spirit - and Israel is also refered to as the Bride. I would be interested in your take on other meanings for the word Husband. Galen - having read many of your posts, I strongly suspect that the agreement you have with Bonnie is far different than what I was expected to practice while in TWI. Likewise, I suspect you offer her a great deal of respect and give genuine consideration to her input. IF the man "loves his wife as Christ loved the church" THEN a woman offering submission is not necessarily a bad thing. An analogy . . . . if one likens Moses to "the church" and therefore the wife(as the church is the bride, yes?), and one likens Christ with God and therefore the husband (as Jesus is referred to, yes?) and then reads the O.T., which is "for our learning" - one will realize that even the great man Moses (the wife) argued with God (the husband) and at times even won the arguments or at least convinced the husband to compromise. :)

Kathy, I am very aware of the New Age/Kabbalah/Goddess stuff that is out there and I did study it for a time. I first came across the term Kabbalah a number of years ago in a fictional book I read about Rachel called "The Red Tent" (a very good read, btw). It peaked my interest and thus began my journey. However, I found the new age version as unsatisfactory as I did TWI's version of Christianity, in that it seemed to be lacking in a number of ways, most especially in balance. I was left, once again, feeling frustrated and walked away from it. In addition, it seemed that many of the books I was reading made it clear that in order to get to true Kabbalah teachings one must be male, over 30, and very well versed in Torah, Talmud, and Midsrash. That really angered me, in that I do not like being denied an opportunity at knowledge - most especially simply because I am female. When I came back to it, I decided to limit my studies to those that seemed (to the best of my ability to discern) more "authenticly" Jewish and I limited my focus to the traditions and laws. Again, I was left feeling less than satisfied with what I was learning. In the process I found a website called Judaism101.com. That particluar site focuses on the more mainstream aspect of Judaism, in that it deals largely with Torah, Talmud and Midrash and is geared most specifically toward Orthodox and Conservative Jews. However, because the designers seem to wish to cover all aspects of Judaism, it also touches on Reform, Reconstructionist, and Chassidic beliefs also. There I found a link to Chabad.org, which is Chassidic (and Chabad likewise has a link to Judaism101). The Chassidics place far more focus on Kabbalah. In addition, the Chassidics are the only group of Jews who "proselytise" (sp). Whereas your more conservative Jews do not try to convert people, and some in fact don't view converts as being really Jewish, Chassidics view being Jewish not strictly as a genetic thing, but as a matter of the soul - if it is in your heart, if you believe it, then you are. In addition, the Chassidics place a larger focus on the mystical side of Judaism, and thus Kabbalah. There are those in any religion who can follow the doctrine, laws, rituals, and be satisfied with the idea that "God said it, so I will do it", and perform those things cheerfully. I am not one of those people - it is simply not my nature. I want to know WHY God said to do something. I want to know WHY things are the way they are. It must be genetic, because my kids are the same way - lol. So far, the Chassidic teachings on mysticism and Kabbalah provide the most satisfactory answers I have found. And, there I find something closer to the balance I have been looking for as well. I cannot imagine that I will ever be disciplined enough to follow in the the strict fashion that they do. I can just picture the reaction I would get at home and at work if I took to wearing a veil - lol. However, I enjoy their teachings, basic philosophies, and ethics. There are areas where I disagree as well, but I suspect I may never find a religion that is completely satisfactory to me anyway, so I keep what I can and toss the rest. So anyway, I am not going the way of Goddess Worship, but neither am I going the way of a male God either. I believe God has no gender and both genders - aspects. "I still feel the male's words are important and I'd not consider making important decisions that affect us without covering it with him, so I retain some of that submission by agreement. " Of course the male's words are important! I was never trying to imply that they were not. But in TWI, the male dominated - his word was final. I prefer to view a marriage relationship as a partnership where the input of both partners is equally important. Then, when the views are drastically different, a compromise should be sought - and odds are really good in the compromise a proper balance will be found.

Pawnbroker, for you, but from a different site I frequent here "Lilith is a character who appears in passing in the Talmud and in rabbinical folklore. She is a figure of evil, a female demon who seduces men and threatens babies and women in childbirth . . . . Her name probably comes from the Hebrew word for night (laila). She is similar to and probably based on a pagan demon named Lulu or Lilu that appears in Gilgamesh and other Sumerian and Babylonian folklore. " "In recent years, some women have tried to reinvent Lilith, turning her into a role model for women who do not accept male domination or a rival goddess . . . . This revisionist view of Lilith is based primarily on a medieval work called the Alphabet of Ben Sira, the significance of which has been widely misinterpreted and overrated . . . . . .Many modern commentators have pounced on this story, claiming that it comes from the Talmud and reflects the traditional rabbinical understanding of the roles of men and women. . . . .However, it is important to note that the Alphabet of Ben Sira is not a traditional rabbinical Jewish source. It is not part of the Talmud, nor is it considered to be a midrash. It is not entirely certain what Ben Sira is, but it appears to be a satire or parody, possibly even an antisemitic one"

hiya Pawn, nice to see you here. :) I have come across the Lilith story too, but found nothing particularly useful in it, so left it be. In fact, if you search the Chassidic site where I do much of my learning, you aren't likely to find her mentioned at all, at least I haven't. I am not studying the "trendy" stuff, nor am I particularly interested in it. That is one of the reasons why I stick so closely with this Chassidic website - because I believe it truly is the Jewish teachings of Torah, Midrash, and Kabbalah as have been passed down historically and is not in any way affiliated with the trendy new age Kabbalah stuff. But I appreciate the heads up.

they stole it from us! It is really all Jewish food Okay, back to Eve for a bit. I came across something that I thought would be interesting, at least to the women, given what we were taught in TWI about a "woman's place". "eizer knegdo" can be translated as either a helpmate TO him, or a helpmate AGAINST him. According to the commentaries, there are times that one is most helpful by being supportive of one's spouse, and there are times when what is needed means going against the will of one’s spouse. This, again goes back to the notion that woman was not initially created to be submissive to man. In addition, while men were commanded to marry and have children, women were not. This means, a man has to convince the woman of why it is she should want to marry him and help him. Yup, I'm really enjoying my studies today. :D

well I guess you'll have to come up for some bagels and lox then, Belle! And I would love it if you could post a bit about what you learned from the Gospel of Mary! This is an Interfaith dialogue discussion, afterall. :) I've been really enjoying my studies and the questions I am asked here help give me a focus, which is nice. I have been toying with the idea of visiting a Chassidic temple in Flint some day, but I am sort of nervous about it too. I love the teachings, but I will never be disciplined enough to do what they do. However, one of my aunts went to a festival at one in Novi and had a great time, so I may ask her to join me for a service.

Belle, I would be very interested in the parenting article, should you have time. :)

lol - well I sure feel better now. Cause I keep thinking that a strange man who comments on my appearance has boundary issues and is not someone I would want to get involved with.

I don't see why not, Oldies. Course, I'm not expert. But if you wrote the letters, or if the letters were written to you - it seems to me you are free to do with them as you wish.

FreeAtLast, I don't know whether to smack you upside the head or hug you! lol First of all - your employer is LEGALLY obligated to get that money to you asap - not on your next paycheck. They are also obligated to cover any extra expenses you end up with due to their failure to pay you on time. I would be demanding my money or I would be calling my state labor department! Do you realize you are more concerned about the cute guy who got away than about the fact that you cannot get to work without subjecting yourself to humiliation by your ex, because your employer has failed to pay you? I'm sorry, I think I sound harsh and I don't mean to. But I see who I once was written all over your post and I wish like hell someone would have slapped me back then! As for your gorgeous trucker and sealing the deal - was he a local driver or an over the road driver? What do you mean by sealing the deal? Did you want a want night stand or a long term relationship? I would have been very uncomfortable and probably a little frightened had I been in your situation. I too would have been at a loss for words. But I probably also would have run for cover inside the gas station. So I'm not sure I can help you with your actual question anyway.

Okay, I'm going to pick some more The author states that the "him that needeth" of Ephesians 4:28 is "the ministry that stands for the most high God and is endeavoring to get his Word to His people". Pure private interpretation. If God intented "him that needeth" to be understood as "the ministry that stands for the most high God" why didn't God simply say that? And how completely arrogant to assume that TWI is THE ministry that stands for God. Especially in light of what we now know about what leadership was doing. Then there is Acts 4:33-35, from which the author concludes "Biblically. People need to hear the Word you have so they can make up their own minds. This is why the believers laid their abundance at the feet of the apostles at Jerusalem " What a bunch of bull! There is a reason why the author didn't actually quote what is written in those verses there. Because those verses clearly state that the people did not consider their possessions their own "but had all things common" and "neither was there any among them that lacked" and "laid them down at the apostles feet and distribution was made unto everyman according as he had need." When did TWI EVER make distribution according to every man's need? So VPW and LCM needed fancy cars, expensive clothes, beautiful homes - but those of us peons were just fine with beat up cars that barely ran, second hand clothing, and small rented apartments or homes in horrid neighborhoods?

I don't have time to pick this apart completely right now, but I will point out something very obvious to me (NOW, anyway - lol) : "I Corinthians 16:1-3: Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first [!] day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be not gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality [gift--abundant sharing] unto Jerusalem [Headquarters]. Believers were instructed to give first to the ministry that was moving the Word." Notice the things that have been "added to The Word" here. . . . that the collection for the saints, which was supposed to have been as God hath prospered him, has become "abudnant sharing" and that Jersualem has become Headquarters. After making those additions to Paul's writings, the author concludes that the believers were instructed to give first to the ministry that was moving the Word. However, if you read Corinthians while keeping in mind the historical context that is set forth in Acts, you will come to realize that there was a famine going on in Jerusallem and Paul was collecting offerings to help those who were suffering because of the famine. If you continue to read Paul's writings, you will see that although Paul acknowledges that perhaps he has a right to collect money from the "church" for himself, he does no such thing. Instead he continues to work and earn his own keep.

"Yes that's right. There was some fear motivation associated with it." and "Bottom line, it was/is up to the individual whether they wanted to tithe in twi, or not" Oldies, on the one hand, I really do see your point. But on the other hand - if someone held a loaded gun to your head and said they would pull the trigger if you did not hand over your cash - would you say the bottom line was that it was still up to you whether you wanted to hand it over or not? Yeah - there is some fear motivation, but . . .

"You really can't say it was required. Paying the mortgage is required, or you lose the house. Paying the car payment is required, or you lose the car. Paying the grocery bills is required, or you don't eat. Paying the tithe was not required... because folks still got to participate if they didn't do it." Yes, but according to the doctrine that was taught in the 90's, (if not pre 1990's), God wouldn't even spit in your direction if you were not at LEAST tithing.

Exactly, Sharon. :) It is good to see you hear- I hope you will contribute more. Carl, I found the quote, it is from Isaiah 54:1 One commentary I found on this section discusses how Isaiah is trying to comfort the people by showing them that the "The wife forsaken and forlorn is now embraced with great compassion" - Andrea L. Weiss Assistant Professor of Bible Hebrew Union College. Another commentary I found explains that this section was written during the Babylonian exile after the destruction of the first temple. The people feel forsaken and barren because their homes have been destroyed and their children exiled. Therefore, Isaiah is offering them comfort and encouragement. The forlorn wife represents Israel. Another version or reading of this verse from the Midrash states: "'When the Temple was standing, it brought forth for Me (God) wicked men, like Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon (wicked kings), yet when it was destroyed, it raised up for Me righteous men, like Daniel and his friends, Mordechai and his friends, Ezra and his friends" In other words, in destroying the physical temple, many more cried out to God and yearned for God, than during the days when the temple stood because in times of prosperity we often become overly satisfied and arrogant which leads to destructive behavior, while in times of adversity a person tends to work on spiritual and moral growth. So Sarah, who was barren and desolate ultimately had many more children than Hagar, who was not barren. In that we rejoice. The other parallel is that while Jesus was alive, few understood or believed in what he was teaching. Yet, after he was killed (made desolate) look how many now desire to understand and follow what he taught.

I am still working on your question, but I have yet to find the document Paul was quoting. One thing which did occur to me, that might be of interest to you. In Romans Paul likens Jesus to Adam, refers to him as the second Adam. Well, Sarah is likened to Eve in the same way. I explained this in another thread, but I will cut and paste it here as well . . . Shechina is the Divine spirit that dwells within us. What drove Eve to eat of the Tree was the desire to immerse herself in all the beauty of the world - her desire to experience everything. This is attributed to the Shechina within her and the Shechina's desire to permeate all. However, because Eve ate the fruit at the improper time, she imprisoned the Sechina and made her subject to the male aspect and man. It was Sarah who first began the process of freeing the Sechina. Abraham himself could not do it, in that he is male - but he empowered Sarah to do it when he sent her to Pharoah. Sarah went to Pharoh (descended into the lair of the snake) and resisted the lure. She decended into darkness, but maintained her connection to the light (Abraham). So it is Sarah who is in a sense spiritually considered to be the mother of us all. So she who was barren had not one child, but many.

I hope you know, Carl, that I am missing "House" to respond to this - and it is the only TV show I even watch (well other than Scrubs, but I have to wait til fall to see the next season of that) - lol. It is funny that you bring this up, because earlier I was thinking Paul must have been very skilled at interfaith dialogue, given that his background was in Judaism, and he was preaching Christ to the gentiles. I was actually reading some of Paul's writings earlier and saw this too, and wondered about it. I will start by saying that I think that in the Torah, as well as the Gospels and Epistles, there are many layers and many meanings to much of what is written. I think that it, like many scriptures, speaks to the duality of our nature and the choices we must make because of it. Hagar and Sarah, bond and free. Ishmael and Isaac, earthy and spiritual, Esau and Jacob, also worldly and Godly and again with Rachel and Leah. The theme is repeated over and over. When we do anything, simply because it is law and with no other understanding (be it the O.T. laws, the tithe or abundant sharing, whatever), and especially when we derive our sense or feeling of righteousness from it, we accomplish nothing spiritual. We aren't growing in God, we aren't drawing down the Shechina, we aren't walking by the spirit. In addition, we are then placing ourselves in bondange to the law, for when we break that law, we lose that sense or feeling of righteousness. As it says: "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children" In contrast, when we do things with an understanding of why we do them, then they are no longer laws to us, because we do them cheerfully. Even within Christianity there are "rules", boundaries, guidelines that are to be followed, yes? So I think in some sense you can undestand this. When we do things cheerfully, we do not do them to gain righteousness because we already know God has a dwelling place within us. We are then doing them for spiritual reasons and we are drawing down the shechina. This is also what Jesus taught, is it not? Part of the reason why he reproved the Pharisees? For imposing laws with no understanding, for placing people in bondange instead of giving them understanding? I will work on finding an answer to your question, but I cannot find the quote in the Old Testament, so it may take me some time.

"If there was a requirement to keep on tithing in order to take some classes in the '90's, then let's use that qualifier and be accurate." I left in the fall of 2000. At that time, in order to take the FOUNDATIONAL class, a person had to be faithfully attending fellowship and had to be faithfully abundantly sharing. Of course by then, we were no longer witnessing to pretty much anyone and everyone either - people had to at least appear to meet up to certain (not entirely specified) standards, before we witnessed to them. I remember once thinking perhaps we should check a person's teeth before we witnessed - course by that point I didn't really want to witness or bring anyone to that vipers nest anyway.

Yes the parallels are there Carl, though the words are different. Christians refer to Christ, Jews refer to Shechina. Christians refer to "walking by the spirit", Jews often call it intuition. Even the dying and rising is there, but again, the words are different. I have been covering quite a bit of this in my thread about Eve, if you care to check it out. I There are also a lot of links in there, which you may or may not find interesting - depending on how interested you are in seeing the comparison and how willing and able you are to put aside the "language barriers" and see the concepts instead of the specific terminology. You may also find some of the stuff in the "in light of Interfaith Dialogue" thread interesting. I would add, for your consideration . . . When you were a child you viewed the world from the perspective of a child. When you were in TWI, you viewed the world through the eyes of their doctrine - at least to some degree. The person you are now, views the world through the lense of your current belief system. So it would have been with Paul and Jesus, both of whom were Jews. They would have seen the world through that lense and even after converting, Paul still would likely have retained and applied much of the knowledge he gained through his studies of Judaism. The mystical side of Judaism would have fit well with the mystical side of Christianity, just as the moral side of Judaism does. People think of Judaism as simply being about living under Old Testament laws - there is so much more to it than that.

Because I am studying the oral traditions and Kabbalitic teachings of Judaism and I see a lot of parallels between what I am learning and what is written by Paul and what was taught by Jesus. Somewhat different words and parables, but the same meanings.