Christian BDSM

[dr_mabeuse]

Dear Dr M,
You deserve a ... hand for that.

>>>What's the sound of one hand slapping?
For the curious, I had the pleasure of contributing to MG's heroic epic poem on the Sons of Onan. You should post a link, MG.

Weren't those people who sort of came out of nowhere to conquer Egypt the Hyksos? I don't believe much is known about them.
MG

Yeah. Some people think that the Hyksos were the source of the Hebrews. The Hyksos seem to have come from Asia minor and just kind of wandered into Egypt over the course of some centuries and settled around the delta. Then all of a sudden they started feeling their oats--or millet or whatever--and just took over the place. They ran most of Egypt for what? a couple hundred years or so until they were kicked out or defeated or something by a Pharaoh named Ahmose.

Ah-mose..Moses.. Get it? There's no doubt that Moses is an Egyptian, not Hebrew, name, but considering Moses was supposedly raised by Pharoah's daughter, that's not surprising.

When I said that the idea of a single God only occurred once in history I was wrong. Akhenaton the "heretic Pharaoh" also had the same idea and tried to make Egypt monotheistic during his reign, but no one bought it, and after he died the priests and people tried to erase all mention of his name and his heretical religion.

Good old Sigmund Freud thought that Moses might be one of Akhenaton's monotheistic priests who saw the polytheistic writing on the wall and decided to scram into the desert with a bnunch of his followers before the mobs could catch up with him. I don;t think that idea carries much weight with scholars anymore but it's still kind of an intriguing idea.

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

Hi Mabeuse,

you said,

//Contrary to the story in the OT, the archeological record suggests that the Hebrews were a fairly proimitive collection of new-stone age/bronze-age clans who infiltrated Palestine and finally overthrew the dominant Philistine culture over several centuries of on-and-off warfare. The early proto-Hebews' reaction upon encountering the much more worldly and sophisticated Philistine culture is pretty much what you'd expect of a--pardon me--bunch of bronze-age country hicks coming to the Big City of Philistine/Egyptian culture. They were shocked and appalled at the liscentiousness and general wild living they found there, and the OT does everything it can to portray the Philistines as evil and decadent and the Hebrews as righteous and god-fearing.//

OK, you mean Canaanites, as you said. But you're still thinking of Philistine cities (iron age), bustling ports etc.

Last time I checked the archaeology, and saw some non-conformist Jewish writing about it, the idea of 'overthrow' through 'on-and-off warfare' is without evidential support. The cities that the Israelies were alleged to have conquered, like Jericho, show no evidence of that; Jericho's ruins show it continued quite happily after the fictitios date later said to be its downfall.

So... The evidence supports the 'peaceful infiltration' process (over generations), over the 1500-1000 BCE period in question. What about the 'pagan' hordes and the mono/poly debate? A good hypothesis is that that view and emphasis is after the fact, after the Israelites have become ascendent and their monotheist purist priests are in charge. Further, just as the 'conquest' is mythic, so is the conflict; in fact Israelities did probably intermingle, intermarry and even adopt some Cananitish customs and gods.

The later purists want to say the Israelites were always solid monotheists and the Canaanites were lewd polytheistic pagan, Baal worshippers. In fact, it's not been mentioned here, but the alleged 'calf' is simply a cow, a sacred cow, symbol of fertility; it's a perfectly good and harmless earth/fertility oriented religion--compared to others around; maybe they were LESS inclined than the Israelites eventually became, to slaughter rival tribes and tribal grouping.

J.

 

[MathGirl]

Originally posted by Pure The cities that the Israelies were alleged to have conquered, like Jericho, show no evidence of that; Jericho's ruins show it continued quite happily after the fictitios date later said to be its downfall.

Sounds a lot better than, "Josha fit de battle of Fresno........"
MG

 

[sweet T]

While I can see the humorous side of your query, I have a serious answer, if I may.

Unfortunately...the most common aspect related to D/s (grouped into BDSM), is sexual.

While sexuality is indeed a large part of D/s, it is not encompass the depth of D/s.

I happen to be a very spiritual person, where christianity is concerned. I also happen to be very submissive.

So..my point being, D/s does not offer any more conflict with my Christianity, than were I vanilla. In fact, and I realize this is stretching it...the Bible does instruct.."Wives, submit to your husbands"..so perhaps, the fact that I have submitted to those not my husband is the bigger problem.

Just my 2 cents worth...thanks for letting me share it



American Wench

I agree with you American Wench! Very well put indeed. I lurked around in a thread Christian BDSM and found it very interesting! I also understand their erotic and religious beliefs.

 

[OldnotDead]

Dangerously posting . . .

but I'm getting off the subject. No I don't feel that bdsm is against religion nor sodomy even the story of sodom and gommorrah was about the people having forgotten god not the sin which caused them to do so.

First, I apologize in advance for jumping in before reading to the last post. But time is against me today, and having read this far, there are a number of comments I would like to make. But in her comment above, Destinie captured an essence of religion and spirituality that is often missing when we get on the subject of religion.

It is interesting that so many words have been spent on Paul and at the same time one of the first comments was about "Judeo-Christian" heritage. Paul divorced the early Christian church from the Jewish faith in a dramatic fashion. Peter wanted all Christians to be Jews first. Paul said this was not necessary.

One of his primary theses was that the Rule of Law made salvation all but impossible. That following all the commandments, worrying about each rule and regulation of health and worship enslaved men to concern themselves too much with acts and not with faith. So the gospel, as he preached it, was one of belief first and then acting accordingly, but not to have each individual argue with another over what was 'right and wrong'.

Particularly among the 'Greeks' (another word for Gentiles) this message could be grossly misinterpreted. There was a popular philosophy of the time that can best be summed up as 'live today for tomorrow we may die, but don't hurt anyone in the process.' Paul's message of not being enslaved to 'God's Laws' could be twisted rather violently by such thinkers. A significant portion of the letters we have represent his attempts to correct misinterpretations of his message and try to get people back on track.

And Destinie has hit to a core of that effort - it is not the ACT, but the ACTOR. Paul brings great messages to those of us that accept him as a messenger from God through Jesus. We also have Jesus' own preachings as documented elesewhere. It is not hard to see that he also had a lot of issues with the ruling elite that were more worried about actions and not spirit. If you get anything out of reading the Gospels, it should be that motivation and attitude is as an important ingredient as action in how you may be judged by God.

And, last, for now, the fact that there is not ONE church any longer. Again, Destinie's documentation of the split in England and some of the derivatives here in the US show how much there are differences in both interpretation and execution.

Jenny points out that without understanding historic context, many writings are meaningless. Today when we here about separation of church and state, how many know that of the 13 original colonies that adopted the Constitution, there were at least five that had State Established religions? Read the Bill of Rights carefully and you find that it is only against the Constitution for the Federal Government to establish a religion. Further, at the time of writing, it was the English government that has established Anglicanism and the concept of 'Establishment' did not mean that you were required to join as much as it meant that it was part of the government, supported by taxes. It is only in later interpretations by our judicial system that the concept of "Separation of Church and State" become the interpretation of this ammendment.

So I think that the irony to much of this discussion is that as we try to make our own points to support our interpretations and understandings and beliefs, we are only partially equipped because we are viewing the words through the further interpretations of years of history and heritage.

Which in no way diminishes the excitement, intellectual challenge, and dare I mention it, FUN of such arguments. We have in the portion that I have already read, Domination, Submission, Castigation (that's NOT castration <G>) and Seduction, much of it inspired by Holy Scripture. So my question, back to the good Doctor, is how could a Christian NOT support those that wish to voluntarily involve themselves in BDSM practices?

OldnotDead, PK.

 

[Pure]

//Paul divorced the early Christian church from the Jewish faith in a dramatic fashion. Peter wanted all Christians to be Jews first. Paul said this was not necessary.//

OTC Paul, his whole life was a practicing Jew, presumably including its dietary laws also. His visits to synagogues, and doing what was required there are recording{added: "recorded"}. Paul's message, of course, was mainly for Gentiles; these were treated, by Paul, in the standard way Jews treated them; they did not have to observe lots of the regulations, but mainly the Noahide commandments. The Jewish Christian split, iirc correctly shapes up in the 70s and 80s, after the fall of Jerusalem (70 CE). Paul probably died in the early 60s CE.

J.

 

[Guest]

 

[destinie21]

Hey rhino who needs a bible? why don't you just make it up. That seems to be going pretty well for some of the others.
Just take a modicum of info from the bible and use supposition and outright lies to make it fit.



D21
who shouldn't have even looked at this thread again.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Last time I checked the archaeology, and saw some non-conformist Jewish writing about it, the idea of 'overthrow' through 'on-and-off warfare' is without evidential support. The cities that the Israelies were alleged to have conquered, like Jericho, show no evidence of that; Jericho's ruins show it continued quite happily after the fictitios date later said to be its downfall.

J.

Well, I'm getting pretty tired of being corrected by Pure, especially when he's almost always right

I just didn't want to go that far in denouncing the OT histories. I think for most people who care, the idea of there never having been an Exodus is sufficiently revolutionary in itself, but you're right. The best archeological evidence so far supports neither the Exodus from Egypt nor the successful military conquest of Canaan by the "nation of Israel".

There is a new school of biblical intpretation known as Minimalism that goes so far as to say that even David and Solomon were either entirely fictitious or no more than local warlords. Minimalists deny that there ever were "kingdoms" of Israel and Judah. According to this view, Israel was never more than a kind of collection of highwaymen and barbarians living on the outskirts of Mediterranean society, and this is in fact the context they're presented in in the few references to the Habiru we have from ancient Egyptian texts: basically a gang of thieves living up in the hills and raiding the main Canaanite trade route.

As I said earlier, the OT was probably compiled between 600 and 400 BC while the 'nation' of Israel was held captive in Babylon, and it was intended to serve as a nationalistic text, to give these defeated people a sense of history and specialness in a world where they were apparently pretty small potatoes. It was during this time that monotheism became such a big deal, and even then you can see some conflict as to the nature of God depending on whether the biblical text was written by the "Jahwist" author or the "Elohist". The early books of the OT use two common appelations for God, either "Yahweh" or "Elohim". Yahweh appears to have been an ancient tribal war god, while Elohim was more "theological". It further confuses things that Elohim is itself the plural form of "Lord". Some monotheism.


As to OldnotDead,

So my question, back to the good Doctor, is how could a Christian NOT support those that wish to voluntarily involve themselves in BDSM practices?

That's just what I was asking about originally. What is it that would make a "Christian BDSM" different from any other sort of BDSM?

My understanding of early Christianity is pretty much in accord with your own. It was reacting in large part to the kind of excessive legal hairsplitting of the Pharisees that but submission to the letter of the law ahead of simple decency and Godliness. My understanding was that one aspect of Christ's message was to forget all that legalistic mumbo-jumbo and get down to what really mattered: goodness of spirit and Godliness.

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I just found this word, and I think it might apply here:

adiaphoron tenet or belief on which a theological system is indifferent

So to Christianity, BDSM is an adiaphoron?


---dr.M.

 

[~*sunkyssed_kym*~]

not JUST "goodness"..but BELIEF...in Christ....putting God before ourselves. If we do so sincerely then goodness will follow. I THINK that the difference in "Christian BDSM" (from "secular" BDSM) would then be....that there is always one "Master" above the "play" master...and acknowledging that.


rhino-I'm not the boss of me

Rhino- I'm not the boss of me (love that idea!) ; I agree with your post. It is acknowledging God before all others that makes my belief system what it is. Whether I am on my knees before MY-Sir or doing my job in R/L. I've reconciled that I can indeed serve two Masters, with God being the greater. Whilst MY-Sir isn't particularly religous; He respects my beliefs and accepts them. Its not as if I am placing another man before Him or anything.

-kym- Able to serve both God and MY-Sir

 

[Pure]

dr mabeuse:

I just found this word, and I think it might apply here:

adiaphoron tenet or belief on which a theological system is indifferent

So to Christianity, BDSM is an adiaphoron?

As a result of this and other discussions, and not to impose my conclusions, just state them.

Fundamentalist Christianity, following the exact words of the Bible in their opinion. No acceptance of bdsm. (following alleged commandments on fornication, same sex stuff, animal stuff, incest)

Traditional Christianity per basic directions of NT, -- Maybe can live with bdsm in those varieties where gender roles and 'purpose of sex' and 'family' are respected. (i.e, NOT the variety in my example--which no traditional Xtian has dared to touch, here.) (This Xtianity has beliefs roughly as in the Nicene Creed.)

Essential Christianity, i.e, reduced to a couple principles: follow in the way of Jesus to love God and your neighbor, and do not take revenge for evil.---could accept most BDSM, but maybe not extremes involving injury.

There are many in betweens-- and also further dilutions (purifications?), e.g., Unitarian church: be kind to others, socially responsible and respectful of nature and believe anything or nothing about God/gods/purpose of universe/human-existence, as you please. These 'dilute' (theologically) or ethical forms can probably live with any kinks, premarital sex, etc. except really antisocial stuff.
===

Note to Rhino-plasty: Most Christians aren't aware that their emphasis, or even definition in terms of correct beliefs (ortho- doxy) is NOT typical of many religions who stress practice (ortho-praxis). It's certain minority sects of Christianity (some represented here), like mennonites, that have 'orthopraxis' (practical) as dominant emphasis.

Anyway, above are my opinions and I'd welcome others' responses.

J.

 

[destinie21]

After thinking about this subject a bit, I don't find it all that surpirsing that christians especially would form a BDSM group.
Look at the setup of our religion, God is both loving and Jealous(possesive as well) Quick to love once in his graces and just as quick to smite those who would willfully oppose him. Also keeping us ever mindful it is just by his grace that we live, and since we live we must serve him and by serving him, really seeking to please him we might gain greater rewards.


regards
D21









PS> The word orthodox is actually a word frowned upon by many religions. What most term their service as is Observant. This is the Case in the Islamic,Christian, and most especially the Jewish faith. Many tend to think you minimilize the service to god in terming it orthodox.

 

[Pure]

D 21: //Look at the setup of our religion, God is both loving and Jealous(possesive as well) Quick to love once in his graces and just as quick to smite those who would willfully oppose him. Also keeping us ever mindful it is just by his grace that we live, and since we live we must serve him and by serving him, really seeking to please him we might gain greater rewards.//

Seems essentially the same as Yahweh and Allah, though I don't know much about the latter.

Interesting that, here in this posting, at least, God's forgiveness is not mentioned; perhaps that's taken for granted or perhaps it's not a key characteristic in your view. (I find brief summaries very revealing.)

Since as you say the Christian God is a Master, I wonder again, how sex roles figure in: would this God approve of a woman "mastering" or dominating a man--or even heading a family in which there is a man/husband. My suspicion is that traditional forms of Christianity would have a problem with this. (Not unlike the problem of male priests only, in the RC sector of Xendom).

J.

 

[Guest]

 

[destinie21]

D 21: //Look at the setup of our religion, God is both loving and Jealous(possesive as well) Quick to love once in his graces and just as quick to smite those who would willfully oppose him. Also keeping us ever mindful it is just by his grace that we live, and since we live we must serve him and by serving him, really seeking to please him we might gain greater rewards.//

Seems essentially the same as Yahweh and Allah, though I don't know much about the latter.

Interesting that, here in this posting, at least, God's forgiveness is not mentioned; perhaps that's taken for granted or perhaps it's not a key characteristic in your view. (I find brief summaries very revealing.)

Since as you say the Christian God is a Master, I wonder again, how sex roles figure in: would this God approve of a woman "mastering" or dominating a man--or even heading a family in which there is a man/husband. My suspicion is that traditional forms of Christianity would have a problem with this. (Not unlike the problem of male priests only, in the RC sector of Xendom).

J.

If I'm not mistaking allah yewah and God are one in the same. It's the belief systems that differ. In anycase I did mention forgiveness though I worde it as grace. Ie although we sin we are only by grace/forgivness spared. In anycase I wasn't casting people into roles I was just advising that I am not surprised. Traditional religion would no doubt have a problem with dominant woman because they have made themselves into a boys club so to speak. Yet in the bible the Judge Deborah was allowed to sit under the tree and judge the men and therefore had power over them... So the question that arises is the difference between god's will and man's interpretation.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Hitting the nail on the head.

So the question that arises is the difference between god's will and man's interpretation.

Ah... there's the crux of it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

If I'm not mistaking allah yewah and God are one in the same. It's the belief systems that differ.

This is something that we're told all the time, but I would beg to differ on this. Just because Judaism, Christianity,and Islam are all monotheistic doesn't necessarily mean they worship the same god. If you look at the Bible historically I think you'd have to admit that there's a huge difference between the god of the OT and the NT, that is, between the Jewish conception and the Christian conception of god. (I don't think I'm qualified to comment on the Muslim conception of Allah.)

The god of the OT admits himself that he is a jealous god, a god of vengence and retribution who actually makes more trouble for his Chosen People than he does for their enemies and non-believers. (It makes you wonder just what the Jews got out of that Covenant.) His main concern is the way He's worshipped and the ethics of his people as he establishes them as a nation. It's worth noting that in the OT there is no mention of an afterlife or heaven or hell. When you're dead, you're dead.

The Christian god, however, is a god of compassion and love and seems to be mainly concerned with man's redemption. Christianity is very concerned with an afterlife and the fate of the soul after death.

Either God's personality is changing, or we're dealing with two very different concepts of what God is.

It's always tempting to say that all religions are essentialy the same, and it's true that they're all very much alike in their ethics, but when it comes to their conception of God and His relation to mankind, they're really quite different.


---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

hi dr.
interesting. it's a nice day so I'm not going to give you any grief, as usual. consider this, though. Paul remained a Jew. he revered and quoted from the OT, and argued in the manner of the Pharisees, almost rabbinically. The year is 50 AD, and nothing like a separate Christian church exists; Christ-following Jews have not been declared unwelcome in the synagogues.

So how likely is it that Paul's God (or his conception thereof**) differed from (other) Jews' G*d? (Apart from a fresh redemptive effort, but by no means the first.)


J.

**Added: as conveyed in his letters, several of which now are considered 'scripture' by Christians.

 

[OldnotDead]

Tripping along

Good afternoon, all,

Well, in 50 AD we had very little of the New Testament extant and certainly no where near to the form it became. Paul's letters (we assume) were voluminous, but not yet a core part of a Roman Church. There was much to be evolved.

And this is what makes some of this interesting, is that I believe that Dr. M is exactly right for today's many different branches of Christianity. One commentator summarised it that Judaism is more concerned with man's relationship with man as it reflects his relationship with God. while Christianity wants us to embrace God's forgiving relationship with us all and reflect that in our relationship with each other. Overly simple. Subtle differences, but not totally off base either. I liked it.

Since the time of Paul (and before) scholars have wrestled with rationalizing the secular world with the spiritual. BDSM, while possibly a 'religion' for some, is more readily considered something from the secular world. Yet, as God gave us free will, it must not be totally dismissed as a Gift. But how each religion would rationalize and deal with it, would be entirely different.

At some point, however, every religion deals with setting boundaries. Then other men deal with those boundaries and discuss whether or not the limits are absolute or relative . . . and so it goes.

As I read this and think about it, I am reminded a child's first comments about the Bible and Religion. "Do you think if Adam and Eve had taken one of the apples that had already fallen on the ground, God would have let them stay?"

OnD

 

[Pure]

Hi Old

you said, in part


One commentator summarised it that Judaism is more concerned with man's relationship with man as it reflects his relationship with God. while Christianity wants us to embrace God's forgiving relationship with us all and reflect that in our relationship with each other. Overly simple. Subtle differences, but not totally off base either. I liked it.

Yes, almost totally off base. Among the points in hundreds of books on this topic, here's a couple.

Odd, on this account, why the first commandment is such for Jews.

Odd, on this account is the fact that Jesus summary of the law in two points: love god and your nieghbor, is taken from the Tanakh/OT.

The 'forgiveness' thing is especially insulting to Jews, esp. given most Christians' pre-occupation with Hell, and such classics as Edwards sermon "Sinners in the hands of an angry God."

There are dozens of OT/Tanakh references on this topic, but for a start you might read the OT book "Hosea", which I don't think you have, and could be done in under an hour.

Best,
J.

PS. Bonus question: In which of the two religions is the concept of 'the unforgivable sin' found talked about a good deal? why?

 

[Pure]

Hey mabeuse and "old" .

M, I have a response for you.

Old: I did not want to be mean, just do not like these Christianity/Judaism comparisions where the former comes out obviously better. I ran your statement by a hasidic Jewish friend and this is what he said [labeled 'friend']

========
First, Mabeuse


> The god of the OT admits himself that he is a jealous god, a god of vengence and retribution

friend:
Moses himself calls him "long suffering", and this is what is emphasised in the Jewish religion. In Tomer Devorah for example, often studied in the month of Ellul before Rosh Hashanna and during the Ten Days of Repentance, it has, among other things about G-d's mercy, a treatment of the 13 attributes of mercy, said by Moses and Micha. For example it explains how a sinner's every movement is given strength to do so by G-d, even though
rightfully he would destroy him then and there.

Mabeuse:
> who actually makes more trouble for his Chosen People than he
> does for their enemies and non-believers. (It makes you wonder just what the Jews got out of that Covenant.)

A covenant isn't what you "get out of it", that sounds rather selfish. Even in Torah study it is always to be done "lishma", for its own sake. There *is* a _simchah shel mitzvah_ (happiness in doing good deeds), and this is the greatest happiness of all, and there indeed is reward in the World to Come. But in Pirkei Avos it says that one should not be like servants that work for the sake of a reward.

Mabeuse:
> noting that in the OT there is no mention of an afterlife or heaven or hell. When you're dead, you're dead.

Friend:
That's not the Jewish belief. The main reason why it is talked about so little is that it is not where the focus should be. Actually, the gospel doesn't talk about heaven and hell all that much, except that the latter is where all of the Pharisees are supposedly going to go. ;-)

Mabeuse:
> The Christian god, however, is a god of compassion and love and seems to be mainly concerned with man's redemption. Christianity is very concerned with an afterlife and the fate of the soul after death.

Friend:
That is a difference. Judaism is concerned with doing good deeds. However, it does have a world to come, but that is given proportional with one's good deeds. "The tzaddikim (saints) each will be burnt [from jealousy - even jealousy is not a bad trait if appropriate] by his neighbor's canopy"

(The canopy from leviyasan that is the reward of tzaddikim - this is very symbolic of course.)

The major difference is that the reward is not entirely according to religious choice, beyond the parameters of the 7 catagories of mitzvos of Bnai Noach. "The righteous of the gentiles inherit a portion in the World to Come."


> Either God's personality is changing, or we're dealing with two very different concepts of what God is.

Different, but not in the way you think.

===
Turning to "Old", his commentator; Pure's remarks.

[...]Old summarizing a commentator:


> [one] commentator summarised it that Judaism is more concerned with man's relationship with man as it reflects his relationship with God. while Christianitywants us to embrace God's forgiving relationship with us all and reflect that in
our relationship with each other.

Friend:
I would take issue with that. Judaism is concerned a great deal with a Jew's relationship with G-d. For a Jew, even what goes into his refrigerator is part of his relationship with G-d, as well as the many times he prays, both obligatory and non-obligatory. (I consider myself to be a bit of a Breslover, who emphasise the latter form of prayer.) Judaism is not a one hour a week thing, or something someone only turns to in moments of crisis. Being an observant Jew is something that one does constantly.

Old:
> At some point, however, every religion deals with setting boundaries. Then other men deal with those boundaries and discuss whether or not the limits are absolute or relative . . . and so it goes.

Friend:
Orthodox Judaism definitely does this, I agree. (Perhaps my only agreement.)

Pure said,
> Odd, on this account, why the first commandment is such for Jews.

Friend:
Actually, J , we count differently. Our first of the aseiras hadibros
(ten words - there are 613 commandments for Jews, 7 for non-Jews) is thestatement "I am the L-rd thy G-d". Even though it doesn't look like a commandment. (Of course, this points towards the concept you were explaining the primacy of.)

Pure:
> Odd, on this account is the fact that Jesus summary of the law in two points: love god and your neighbor, is taken from the Tanakh/OT.

Friend:
Rabbi Hilel said that a generation before Yoshke, and Rabbi Akiva
considered that to be the most important verse in the Torah a generation after. The Ba'al Shem Tov, founder of Chasidism, said that if you do this command, then asceticism (performed much by medieval mystics before him) is unnecessary.

This is a principle that is long familiar to Jews, it iseven a verse in a "central" chapter of Leviticus. I know that xtians don't read Leviticus simply because so many of them think it was first written
in the NT. ;-)

Pure said:
> The 'forgiveness' thing is especially insulting to Jews, esp. given most Christians' pre-occupation with Hell, and such classics as Edwards' sermon "Sinners in the hands of an angry God."

Friend:
Basically even an extremly evil sinner (all reward and punishment is in proportional amounts) has 12 months in gehinniom before becoming "ashes under the feet of the tzaddikim". (We're talking about, as the Ramchal said, "the minutest of a minute fraction", the amount of sinners that are eligable for this punishment.)

Pure:
> PS. Bonus question: In which of the two religions is the concept of 'the unforgivable sin' found talked about a good deal? why?

Friend:
Very good [question]

===
Just in case anyone is interested and no hard feelings, Old.

 

[OldnotDead]

Wayyyyyy off topic, but deserves a response

Hey mabeuse and "old" .

Old: I did not want to be mean, just do not like these Christianity/Judaism comparisions where the former comes out obviously better. I ran your statement by a hasidic Jewish friend and this is what he said [labeled 'friend']

. . .
Just in case anyone is interested and no hard feelings, Old.

Whew!!!! Very well thought out and presented response, Pure.

My father, a clergyman, said that in a good sermon, you have to state your main point three times, just in case anyone is not paying attention. Tell the folks what you are going to tell them. Tell them. Then tell them what you told them. In that tradition . . .

In NONE of my comments was there an underlying premise on my part that one religion is better than another because of it's fundamental beliefs, nor it's leadership's interpretation of the same. Put another way, I have the utmost respect for the tennets of Judaism.

Saying the same thing, about some of my comments. When I talk about the fact that Paul 'divorced' Judaism and Christianity, it is NOT in any way an implication, not should anyone infer, that I believe this was done because of some defect of Judaism and a superiority of Christian belief. Rather it is a statement of the way in which Paul resolved what he saw as a conflict between the imperfection of man and the perfection demanded in good works to achieve what we think of as salvation.

Your friend's statements are eloquent and consise and only increase my admiration for both his religion and the knowledgeable participants. One of the things that I have always admired from the time I started understanding some of the differences, was the thoughtful scholarship that is such a long tradition within Judaism. Many times people make comments about the reason behind various laws and traditions as having come from practicality and secular needs. I think such statements ignore the tremendous historical tradition of debate, thought and genuine personal agony over how to better understand The Law.

I thing I have met the 'three times' rule, but just in case some words of mine pushed your thinking in a different direction.

While I am completely comfortable in the faith that was chosen for me and I have chosen to confirm, I would not like to think that I have the hubris of believing that it is superior in any way to anyone else'. It works for me and my family and gives us the strength and guidance to deal with life and support us.

and look . . . I never once said that some of my best friend's are Jewish

OnD

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Pure,

I don't intend to get into a theological debate with your friend. I merely state that when I read the OT, I see the Chosen People getting the dirty end of the stick time and time again. I se a God quicker to chastise and punish than He is to bless, and I also see no mention of an afterlife.

Whether this is what modern day Hassidim believe or not is not the point.

---dr.M.