I’m sure he does. He just found your analogy to be lacking. Analogies are employed to provide insight to a situation where direct expression has failed. While I can see the point you were making, I think that, as an analogy, it falls short in providing clarification.
If anyone else finds that it clarifies their thoughts, more power to you and them, but I don’t think that pursuing this line of discussion will be very profitable.
One point of difference that I suppose causes some confusion to those more used to Christianity is that there is very little emphasis on beliefs in Judaism. Judaism is much more, if you will, about how one lives one’s life in a day to day manner. Jews have a problem with people claiming to be Jews who are actually Christians, not so much because of what they believe (after all, Jews have no such problem with atheists being “Jewish”) but rather because they have given their alligance to another, non-Jewish group, and in particular a group which has throughout much of its history attempted to absorb Judaism.
Christianity, in contrast, is very much “about” beliefs - at least, much more so than Judaism. Few Christian groups have the same cultural mix of tribal identity and religion as Judaism.
And a standoff is a victory in your book? :dubious:
It is if you’re talking about a religious proselytite.
I never did make that claim. I’m not trying to stop Christians from being Christians. The debate is an impossible one to win since the divinity of Jesus can’t be proved or disproved. My point was that I know my stuff well enough that I can counter any one of their arguments.
My preferred outcome is a walkoff, as in I walk off or (if they’re bugging me at home) I get them to walk off.
I recall some fundamentalist Christian pamphlets that used to imply that the Gog and the Magog were Russia and…Iran? and that the final battle at Megiddo would be fought by Israel/USA versus them, many get killed, Jesus returns with his holy army (possibly riding a winged white stallion) and defeats the Beast and his armies and…well, you get the idea.
It seemed so fantastical to ever be possible.
On the other hand, that sounds like a really cool movie.
I am still trying to wrap my head around the holy trinity idea.
I was raised Catholic, and I recall a hymn to the effect of “God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity” or somesuch.
I understand it to be God, The Holy Spirit, and Jesus.
But to me, it’s not a trinity, because there are only two: God and his incarnate self in the form of a man, Jesus. Why is the Holy Spirit brought into this? Isn’t the Holy Spirit the same thing as God?
I still like to mentally cling to the notion that God manifested himself as a man not only to redeem man, but to better understand them and their suffering.
We just got a brochure in our mailbox about a revival in which we’d learn about Revelations. The cover had a picture of angels fighting, a woman holding a cup of blood, black helicopters, and a soldier wearing some sort of goggles that let him shoot laser beams from his eyes (no shit). I showed it to my wife: “I think I’ve played every one of those games! Heroes of Might and Magic, Vampire, World in Conflict, Command and Conquer…”
Only because I failed to express myself clearly. My point is that there is: religious identity; cultural identity; ethnic identity; and legal (Halachic) identity. Once upon a time perhaps someone who was one was all - those were the days when Jews as a people really did function as a tribe. Now that is not the case, even if there is some overlap. The identities have diverged. And what you need to hit tribal identity is even less clear.
Some one could acceptably have an ethnic Jewish identity, a cultural Jewish identity (in the sense that Americans think of it anyway), and still not be accepted as having a religious Jewish identity. In this sense one can easily accept Christ as Savior and still be Jewish ethnically or culturally … just not religiously. And that degree of being outside the religious identity is enough to make most feel that that person is outside the overall tribal identity … even if they are ethnically and culturally still accepted as “Jewish.” Yes, maddening, I know.
As to
Not quite so. And this is where some subsequent comments already made come in. Judaism really isn’t so much about beliefs but about what one does - whether that is the Orthodox version with all the Mitzvot, or the Reform version of living a life committed to trying to perfect the world. In religious school I was the class atheist but a Rabbi’s favorite - he liked the fact that I cared enough to think about it and come to a conclusion and was willing to debate the points (I’ve since become a very soft Spinoza pantheist but that’s a different discussion). Taking on a different belief is a different story. Even if the behaviors do not otherwise change. To follow on Tom’s analogy: if your spouse doesn’t have sex with you that is one thing - vows have not been broken anyway; not having sex with you and having sex with someone else is another thing.
Does that help at all?
I always thought the holy trinity was Din, Nayru, and Farore.
It is my interpretation that the Holy Spirit — and in fairness, I should forewarn you that I have often been called renegade (or worse) for my interpretations of scripture — is the sort of Quaker-ish “inner light” or God within you, Who counsels you and teaches you. It is your direct link to the inside of the Godhead: God’s spirit dwelling within you (and thus your body is Its temple).
“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
Jesus - John 14:26
I get that, but what I fail to understand is…how is that different from God exactly?
According to the idea of the trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all are God.
Maddening, yes. But comprehensible at least. I must honestly say that I cannot understand the reasoning behind such thinking, but not all things human are based on reason. Some things are emotional. Some are instinctive. Some are just plain traditional, and the Jewish view of this particular matter strikes me as being just that. Traditional.
It helps very much that you gave me the underlying theory (if only by implication).
Sometimes, I know that I seem hard-headed (or even dull-witted). But it’s just that I think so differently about so many things than other people do that what seems obvious to one person might be a complete brick wall to me. Like the spouse thing, for instance. Apparently, the most common reaction to abandonment versus realignment is that abandonment is to be preferred. I don’t think that way about it, and so it’s hard for me to grasp until someone with your patience comes along and explains it to me. For me, I value my wife so much that, were she simply to leave me, I would be devastated. But were she to find some other man that makes her happier than do I, then I would be happy for her (and for him).
I guess I’m pretty much off the charts in terms of personality disorder (especially in the matter of social dealings). I have heard people say that solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment, and yet for me, solitary confinement would be a wonderful blessing. I always feel alone. Even in a crowded room.
Now, don’t take all that the wrong way. I’m NOT suicidal or depressed or any of that. I just have a melancholy temperament. And I am severely OCD. An interesting story, if you’ll indulge me…
Upon my first visit to a reputable psychiatrist (after being referred by a reputable Internist — a Duke grad), it was after a fairly brief greeting and a minute of smalltalk that he remarked, “Lib, you ARE obsessive-compulsive.” To my inquisitive blinks, he responded. “Your fingers.” He noted that when I, say, touch my right thumb to my right ring finger, then I immediately “balance” it by touching my left thumb to my left ring finger. If I tap my right pinky twice on the right armrest, and then tap my left pinky three times on the left armrest, I then immediately tap once more with the right in order to even things up.
I was caught a bit off guard because I had expected questions about my childhood and that kind of stuff. Instead, he started asking me about how my memory works. “Describe the room you were just in,” he said.
“You mean the waiting room? Well, there were three plush chairs, one semi-comfortable chair, three folding chairs, and a love seat. One one end of the love seat was a glass-top table with a plastic box, a wooden box, a stack of magazines, a lamp, and two white pens with black caps. On the other end was a matching table, a matching lamp, a box of kleenex, a set of fake ceramic books, and a live plant. Across the room was a half-round table with a brass urn, two framed pieces of glurge, and a…”
He stopped me.
“Did you take a foreign language in High School or College?”
“Yes,” I said. “In high school. I only spent a semester in college.”
“Do you remember your lessons? Any conversational stuff you had to memorize?”
“Oh, sure,” I said. “I remember them all.” I then began reciting my French lessons to him. He stopped me. “The Canterbury tales?” “Whan that Aprille…” And so it went, until he said, “Let me give you a memory test. I will give you a list of ten items, and each time I give you a new item, I will recite all of them, and I want you to repeat after me, okay?” So, okay.
“One hen,” he said.
“One hen.”
“One hen. Two ducks.”
“One hen Two ducks.”
“Okay,” he said, “One hen. Two ducks. Three squawking geese.”
“One hen,” I said, “Two ducks. Three squawking geese. Four limerick oysters. Five corpulent porpoises. Six pairs of Don Alvarez’s tweezers. Seven thousand Macedonians in full battle array. Eight brass monkeys from the sacred crypts of ancient Egypt. Nine apathetic, sympathetic, diabetic old men on roller skates with a marked propensity for procrastination and sloth. And ten lyrical, spherical, diabolical denizens of the deep, who haul and stall around the corner of the quibby of the quo of the quay while holding hands and singing, ‘Mary Had a Little Lamb’ all at the same time. I heard that in college.”
Then he asked me if I recalled the name of his nurse. (She had introduced herself, as a matter of courtesy and of policy.) And I said no. He asked me if I remember the last person I met at a party. I said no. He asked me if I could remember any of the people in the waiting room, none of whom I had mentioned when I described it. My memory of them was only vague, and frankly useless. The more I tried to recall from those sorts of questions, the more nervous and rattled I became.
It turns out (to shorten the story) that my central nervous system was sort of “hyper”. He prescribed a drug called Tranxene, which calms the nervous system. It is a sort of tranquilizer. It has helped me in real life, and on the board. I no longer obsess over as many things. I no longer demand, for example, that all the cup handles in the cupboard be turned at 30 degree angles toward the right. If I see my wife doing something in a way that I would do differently, I no longer spout out the blunt, “That’s wrong, honey. Let me show you a better way.” I just tell her what a good job she has done. Even my marriage has improved, thanks to a competent professional who prescribed the right treatment.
But I know that I’m very different from other people. And I know that that difference can come across in a variety of negative ways. I used to get very flustered by all of it, but if you notice carefully, you’ll see that a LOT more stuff just rolls off me now. Not everything, but it’s a big improvement. Enough that I notice it. And enough that I know his nurse’s name is Nancy. I’ll probably never become a completely social being (I also take Cloniprin for panic attacks). But I really really do appreciate people like you who don’t treat me like a smartass, an idiot, or a stubborn asshole who is intentionally incorrigible. It was your “trust me” thing that did it. It was sincere, and it wasn’t shouted or snarked or any of that. I can meet people about a tenth of the way now. But the nine-tenths frightens me.
In that instance---- particularly with an informed proselyte----- I would consider a stand off to be a victory for the proselyte.
And what type of arguments were there, pray tell?
Chiefly, the difference has to do with locality. The Father is characterized by His ubiquity; the Holy Spirit by Its ubiety. (God dwelling within you, as opposed to God spanning all of timeless existence.)
The Holy Spirit is generally characterized as that aspect of God which is active within human beings. It’s the perceived divine force – or aspect of the Godhead – which motivates the individual towards good. It has often been understood as the thing which causes ecstatic religious states. Pentecostals who handle snakes and speak in tongues do so in heightened, ecstatic states of consciousness which they attribute to being “filled with the Spirit.” Feeling and facilitating that “spirit” is seen as direct communion with God.