https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ecSn9WQJf9NwYw83oYrN-WSJNewsPaper-3-23-2...

"'As one of the most frequently cited Talmudic teachings has it, “The Blessed Holy One desires the heart."

"Juddaism is not naive or Pollyannaish about human beings; it knows how often we go astray, embracing the expedient and the self-serving instead of the right and the good, choosing hate or indifference over blove. As the philosopher David Hume memorably put it, we have “some particle of the dove, kneaded into our frame, along with the elements of the wolf and serpent.” The deeply held conviction of Jewish tradition is not that we will choose the good but that we can do so—and the height of the good is love. A traditional rabbinic story imagines that when God was about to create Adam, the angels split into factions and began to argue. “Kindness said, ‘Let him be created, since he will perform acts of lovingkindness’; Truth said, ‘Let him not be created, since he is all lies.’” How does God respond to the debate? “God took truth and cast it to the earth.” Faced with a choice between love and other competing values, God embraces the former and rebuffs the latter. God risks a lot, and puts up with a lot, all in the name of love—both the love God has for us and the love God hopes that we will embody and bring into the world."

Rabbi Shai Held is president of the Hadar Institute. This essay is adapted from his new book, “Judaism Is About Love: Recovering the Heart of Jewish Life,” which will be published
on March 26 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Comment: this should put to rest dhw's terror of the original OT God he learned about as a child long ago. Ancient primitive Jews perhaps needed such a tough God to keep them in line. That guy is not necessary now. The God of the Talmud is today's Jewish God.

MATT: The second reason, and ...-I'm Tony, but no worries :)
 
 
> a)	In all honesty, I can't summon up much enthusiasm over whose laws are whose; my main concern is the biblical picture of God as a fearsome disciplinarian whose sense of justice appals me. A subjective view, of course, and that's why I'm so interested in your personal criteria for right and wrong (my post of 30 September).-I think part of any good study or research is sifting through and finding what was said or done by whom. It makes it a little easier to keep track of things, and gives us a little more insight into individual or group personalities.-> 
> b)	If the Gnostic Gospels pooh-pooh the concept of a virgin birth, good for them. Both genealogies end (Matthew) or begin (Luke) with Joseph as Jesus' father, so I don't see how it can be argued that one of them is Mary's.
> 
> ... I don't know how all this links up with the question of God's existence, but it certainly suggests that we should be wary of accepting current views of human history. It only needs one sensational discovery to turn received wisdom on its head. -It is not a direct link to the existence of God, and I don't *think* I gave the impression that it did, or at least I didn't mean to. That discussion was more in the spirit of re-framing current historical and scientific paradigms to account for the ALL of the data, not just what they want to see. Part in parcel with that, is admitting that in ancient literature, there are things that can not be easily dismissed as fantasy because they *should* have lacked the frame of reference to even dream it up. -> ... I share your scepticism towards materialism, and also towards the established religions (I suppose that's why I've kept badgering you about your devotion to the Bible). If I actually believed in God, it would have to be my own concept of him, but that would be hugely influenced by the randomness of joy and pain in the world I see around me. As I've already mentioned, the simplest explanation for that would be the deist God or no God at all.-God should always be personal. However, just like three children can each have a different relationship with the same parent and take note of different aspects of that parent, various forms of spirituality will understand and acknowledge different aspects of God. I don't think that any one mind can comprehend God. As I note when talking about ancient writers, we simply have no frame of reference to even begin. Try visualizing nothing. No luck? Try visualizing everything.-> 
> The "push to learn more" is what binds all of us on this forum. Maybe we're all nutcases together!-It is always nice to be in good company, even when walking to the asylum.


> As for Jesus' genealogy, that was something else expressed in no uncertain terms. In a nutshell, it said that Mary could not conceive from the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is feminine. Elsewhere it says that the holy spirit is the feminine aspect of Jesus' spiritual form, since his spirit was considered to be androgynous in its original state. This would mean that Joseph was his blood father. I am particularly curious on this point myself. Some time back, and I forget where, I heard something about the early church altering documents to support the virgin birth etc.-Let me drop in to review the Jewish scholar point of view about Joshua ben Joseph, Jesus in Greek. His name was Joshua. In Matthew his Mother is referred to four times as a 'young woman' and once as a virgin. All itinerent preachers in Palestine at the time referred to themselves as 'sons of God'. All the Gospels, starting with Matthew, were written at least 40-80 years after Jesus death, all, therefore, hearsay. The passage in Josephus confirming that Jesus was 'one' true person and not a conglomerate story, is thought to be a forgery, because the style of writing does not match Josephus. And Josephus was born about the time of Jesus death, so his history of that period is from events told to him by others. The NT makes it quite clear that Jesus never asked to start a new church. Paul and others created a new theology around him and created a church of Jesus. The Golden Rule, do unto others, etc. was preached by Rabbi Hillel 100 years before Jesus.-Roman cruxifictions were their standard way to make an example and execute. The persons were put on a cross, head down, not as currently pictured.

Wow.. Ok.No.
> 
> The act of homosexuality (male male) caries a intrinsic greater health risk because of tissue damage during the act itself. The breakages in the skin expose the pair to direct blood/blood transfer, and any blood born pathogens by extent.
> -Your assertion of these things being unhealthy comes directly from a moral perspective. -I say this because all things people do carries some kind of risk. Football players will suffer weekly bruises and strains; yet we don't say they're unhealthy. And in the grand scheme of things, if you choose to engage in the kind of behavior we're talking about, we're talking about a generally calculated risk that an adult takes on themselves for pleasure--just like hiking, swimming with sharks, or any other downright crazy things we do as humans. -> 
> The same could be said for bestiality, not to mention that in this case some animals could carry blood borne pathogens that humans have no immunity to. 
> -Generally speaking, aside from the fact that I have a distaste for the act, I view this similarly to what I discussed above. But you present no real evidence for pathogens; unstudied is unstudied. We have suppositions and anecdotes here.-> 
> 
> Promiscuity/Adultery in any society, particularly where there was no contraception has inevitably lead to an increase in STD's, unwanted pregnancies, (and normally abortions which carry their own health risks), and often, but admittedly not always, broken families.
> -You need to chuck the broken families out of there. That perfect "nuclear family" you refer to has never really existed. Your case on adultery is much harder to prove, however. Hispanic culture has a strong tradition of men (especially affluent) seeking women outside of the marriage. Yet having spent time in Mexico, there's few things Mexicans love more than their children. There's also a tribe in South America where sex is freely given and no one "possesses" anyone.-> These things are statistical and medical fact and have no bearing on morality at all. (except perhaps the broken family bit.)
> -Wrong. Or are football players unhealthy? -> What I was trying to point out is that many of the laws set out at the time were practical for the time. However, from a less Christian and more Esoteric standpoint, there is another reason. The relationship between man and woman is significant in two unique ways. First is that they comprise two sides of the same coin, complete each other, if you will. The other is that it is supposed to reflect the spiritual union, the vow between man and god.
> -And the people I mentioned above began that policy in reaction to their own mystics; just as valid. -However if you had studied the "Left Hand" version of those same religions, you would see alot more of "all of the above," promiscuity, homosexuality, and even bestiality. If you go back to Rome, the legendary parties of Bacchus hadn't resulted in any massive "decline," only pointed to a culture that had so much excess that they could indulge in mass hedonism. Watch the full episode. -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npB4XfBTICA-Different strokes, for different folks.

DHW, 
> 
> Have you by chance read the Gnostic Gospels?-I'm all ears on this one...-Many of those assert "Secret Teachings" of Christ...

You seem to forget that this is the tale of two cities, as it were.
> 
> "The destruction of Tyre could have been plausible. However, the prophecy that Tyre would be thrown into the midst of the sea, and its former location be scraped like the top of a rock seemed more than implausible. Yet both these prophecies were fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon besieged the city and conquered it. The inhabitants of Tyre, however, escaped to a nearby island. Nebuchadnezzar then rendered the city to ruins. For two and-a-half centuries, these ruins were a mute contradiction of the Bible.
> 
> When Alexander the Great conquered the Medo-Persian empire, long after Nebuchadnezzar's siege, the new island city of Tyre resisted his advances. Frustrated by their efforts, Alexander ordered his troops to build a causeway to the island by throwing the ancient ruins of mainland Tyre into the midst of the sea, and using the dust to create a way for his troops, thus fulfilling the prophecy that Tyre would be thrown into the midst of the sea."
> 
> The map.
> 
> 
> So what you are seeing is that BOTH accounts are correct. The original city was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, the second city by Alexander. So Nebuchadnezzar would never have entered the second city(the island city version of Tyre.)-Again shows that every verse of the Bible is potentially loaded with misdirection; how else am I supposed to interpret that he was "unable to earn his wages" from Tyre? And the suggestion that the old city was tossed into the sea is first-rate sophistry... that the causeway was built from the old city serves to Alexander's feat of engineering, but is only worth a chuckle in terms of biblical apology. Either we're supposed to take it literally or not; if not--great! Than we can engage in any post-modern reconstruction to fit events with the good book, but if we are to take it literally--sorry, you lose!-It's a very weak defense. Tyre is Tyre--if you conquer half of a city, you don't conquer it. Tyre never fell. Ezekiel's prophecy is pretty clear that it is Nebuchadnezzar that destroys it; yet in history it was long past Ezekiel and fell to Alexander. Ezekiel didn't say it would fall to Alexander, but Nebuchadnezzar. -In modern terms, if an invading army captured Manhattan, we wouldn't say that New York City fell, only Manhattan. The bible didn't say that PART of Tyre would fall, it said ALL of Tyre would fall. In those times, for a city to have "fallen" it would either have to be paying you tribute, or be entirely and completely destroyed. Neither of these things happened. -
Your play on words though--was absolutely fantastic!!!! I actually chuckled when reading that site, thank you!-[EDITED]
And by "play on words" I was referencing your "two cities" comment. Brilliant!

As to my comment in the last post about custom fit religions and preconceived notions:
> 
> 
> For a few moments, suspend everything you know about right and wrong, good and bad, human rights, and any other form of preconceived morality. Focus instead on known physical and mental health issues, community unity and moral, victims both intentional and unintentional.
> 
> Now, ask yourself a few questions:
> 
> Is homosexuality healthy? (from a purely physical standpoint)
What's my operational definition of healthy? To me this is an act that carries a risk and isn't in itself "unhealthy," when "good health" is defined as my human body being fit. If however, unhealthy is described as "taking uncalculated health risks" than no it isn't. -> Is it more or less healthy in a world without prophylactics?
What's my operational definition of healthy? Here you seem to be directly equating the taking of a risk as "unhealthy." I don't find risk-taking unhealthy. -> Is bestiality healthy?
What's my operational definition of healthy? 
Bestiality is again, an act that carries no intrinsic issues on health. I think in documented literature I haven't heard of any cases where human partners in these couplings suffer long-term illness or diseases caught from the animals. -> Is promiscuous unprotected sex healthy?
What's my operational definition of healthy? Again, I don't read "Risk taking" as "unhealthy."-> Is promiscuous sex mentally healthy? (Considering all psychology we currently know)
Hard for me to answer; it depends so much on what the parties have in mind when they engage in it. Depends on the self-confidence of the participants; there is no cookbook solution to this. -> Is adultery healthy to either the individuals involved, the family unit, or the community?
> 
Here you're using healthy in terms of psychology; this relies upon social norms in order to decide; you're asking me to make a moral claim based on health issues. We need clear definitions here if we're going to get concise answers. It's unhealthy if society's morals decree it unhealthy, and it is enforced implicitly or explicitly by members of the society. -Have you looked into open couples who are also open about what they do with their children? Penn and Teller have an episode of Bullshit where they tackle this exact issue. -> Is the life of the individual worth more than the life of the tribe?(again, no preconceived morals)
> -Depends on the circumstance. -> Is it conducive to a well functioning society to lie, steal, or sleep with another persons spouse?
> -Loaded question; Balance, you tell us NOT to bring in preconceived ideas of morals, but all of these issues you bring up are going to be shaded by what we think about morals.-1. What are the circumstances that the society is lying in? Sometimes lying is good. -2. Stealing can also be good, depending on the circumstances. -3. Sleeping with another person's wife is absolutely fine if that person and his wife are fine with the arrangement. -There is no cookbook answer for these questions. -> If there are two people in a group, can two people lead that group, or should one follow the others lead, and the leader take the followers thoughts and feelings into account for any decision that is made, and bear the responsibility for those decisions?
> -Depends on the individuals; again no cookbook answer here. -> Considering the following statement:"68% percent of males and 58% of females are rearrested, and 53% and 39% respectively are re-incarcerated"
> 
> And considering: $68,747,203,000 was the amount spent on incarceration costs in 2006 alone in the U.S.
> 
> Does it make sense for a society to rehabilitate people who violate their laws, when nearly 70% are not going to change?-It makes more sense to advocate agnosticism and atheism if we're going to talk society, culture, and law. 85% of the United States professes Christianity. 2% atheist/agnostic. Our prisons contain a religious demographic of 85% Christian, 0.5% Atheist/Agnostic. Extrapolate the math and there is a 3:1 ratio of atheists/agnostics that don't go to prison for every Christian who goes to prison.-[EDITED]-Balance, ethics and morals are designed to guide us in making decisions when there is no clear-cut answer. In other words; they are pre-conceived by design. You need to separate healthy from moral. Nearly all of the issues you've raised here are moral issues and not health issues.


> I'm aware that for someone who clearly holds the Bible to be sacred, my comments may seem offensive. Please don't take them personally!-I'm most certainly not offended, nor will I ever be in a debate unless it is reduced to personal insults, which I have not noticed out of anyone on this forum, which is truly incredible and I wish to thank and commend all of you for. I'm not sure sacred is the right word to describe my view of the bible, but in a way I suppose I do. The one thing I notice most when people attempt to pick it apart, is that generally are unable to do one very fundamental thing, which is, to let go of their preconceived notions of right/wrong and good/bad. I think the average person hunts for a religion or belief system that fits their idea of what a belief system should be, and it doesn't really work that way. I will detail that thought in a subsequent post, but for now, let me answer a few of your remarks. -
>1) that these laws were in force for approx. 1500 years, and that doesn't seem to me to reflect too well on Moses/God, and 2) the communal stoning of the unfaithful proves that organized religion was not only intended but also integral to Jewish society.-One of the things I have always striven for when considering God, is to first and foremost not try to impose my standards on him, and secondly to try and understand him by the universe around me as, it being his work, it should reflect in someway his mind. -So, to say that His law only held for 1500 years or so and that his law didn't reflect well on him I think is a double foul, not because you question it, but because it seems you question from the wrong perspective and with preconceived notions of what's right and wrong. -To the second statement, I admit to finding that flat wrong. Making it a law that the community must perform its own executions does not specify an organised religion as a necessity. IF you mean by organised religion that there should only be one religion, then sure it suggest that. If by organised religion you mean that there should be a human head of the Church and a categorized hierarchal structure beneath it, then I think you out in left field a bit on this. -Now some have taken parts of the new testament to mean that there should be a Church, because it uses the word assembly a lot, and there is a line that says 'do not forsake the gathering of yourselves together..' or some such. But even today we say things like, "Surround yourselves with people you wish to be like." This does not mean to form an organised cult, but to keep people around you whose attributes you admire, who share the same values, and who you can count on to help you should begin to lose your way. The early christians were surrounded by Greeks and Romans, whom we well know had a long history of Polytheistic beliefs. It is understandable that they be admonished to gather together with people of like faith so that they did not get sidetracked from what they believed they should be doing. That does not mean that they should form a Church and have rank and file member ship and leadership structure. ->..those who don't believe in Christ are damned-16:15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.-Here is an example of how easy it is to mine a quote without meaning to. Notice that prior to being condemned the creature must be taught, and reject the teachings. -
As a side note, I found this when I was researching the 'damned' comment: -Mat 23:15	
"Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You cross land and sea to make one convert, and when you get one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves! (child of hell here literally means 'child of Gehenna'