Yeah, I'm being pretty charitable about Islam. The underbelly is not very pretty, and a lot of it does match the less kind description of Ishmael in the Torah: "His hand will be against every man, and every man's hand will be against him."
Further... he is described as "Wild man." From my understanding of the concept though, in Biblical Hebrew, the adjective follows the noun. In English, usually the noun follows the adjective. "It was a green house." In Spanish, you would reverse this. "Es Casa Verde." Or "House Green." Hebrew is more like Spanish in this regard of adjective following the noun... but in Ishmael, it remains "wild man" in that order. That is, not a man who is wild. But Wild who is man-like. Wild is the noun, not man. Man is just the adjective.
But... if nothing else, Islam spread monotheism. Maimonides himself wrote that although the Muslims spread monotheism "They commit other errors" that he feared to write down on paper. He knew the dangers, even 900 years ago.
Jewish understanding of the messiah is that he restores the Jews to the land of Israel, rebuilds the temple, brings universal knowledge of G-d, and world peace. Jesus did not exist in the proper time to fulfill these prophecies: The Second Temple still stood, and it was prior to the second diaspora at the hands of the Romans. Nor have we achieved the universal peace or knowledge of G-d.
Deuteronomy 4 warns against serving gods of wood and stone. Wood is the cross. Stone is the Kaaba. Reference to Christianity and Islam, right there.
Okay, so kudos on your research into islamic etymology, though it's wholly unnecessary - you can see which group favours our side or yours based on actions, don't need to understand dead languages.
Israel is not a land. the children of Israel are not jews, they're the spiritual descendants of Israel the person. Israel was close to your god and there was a covenant made then - updated with noah and then mosses and then jesus.
The covenant was that your god would save you at the last minute, and bring glory to his followers - this obviously includes non-religious people, 'pagans'. buddhists etc. who follow him in action if not word. He would be unjust and unrighteous otherwise.
Deuteronomy 4 warns against serving faiths built on materialism, like mine - that's it. gods built of wood and stone serve this earth (and because wood and stone are the main building materials), your god is said to reside in heaven, so any religion built-off of earthly success instead of spiritual success would be apostate, including yours.
There is no 'right religion', there is lucifer vs god and the judgement of souls. If lucifer wins you need a dark soul to gain his blessings, and if god it's the opposite. do you really think a benevolent god would sanctify materialistic jews above SRA victims or children with aids or whatever?
Read the beatitudes, he clearly values and gives a ticket to those who suffer - while our guy values those who inflict suffering.
Nuts. Wrote a long response and lost it. I will summarize but gonna cut some out.
You read a line of Shakespeare. You realize the line can be interpreted in two ways. Both make sense in the context of the play. You say to yourself: "Which did Shakespeare intend? Which did he overlook?"
Answer: Shakespeare was a genius. He was aware of both, and included both.
Same with Torah.
(I inserted example from book of Esther. Gonna skip that now)
As for you:
Judgments involve everything about you, including where you came from, who your parents were. G-d takes everything into account.
Two men.
Man one: A thug. He makes his living stealing purses from old women. One day, he sees an old woman. On the ground is a brick. He can hit her in the head with a brick and steal her purse. She wouldn't be able to call the cops. He decides to just shove her and grab the purse, and accept that she'll yell for the cops and maybe he'll get caught.
In his judgement, can he get credit for not hitting her with a brick? At his low moral level, yes he can.
Man two: A tzaddik. Righteous man. On his way to shul, his wife asks him to buy her some milk from the store. He starts to get annoyed. But then he realizes he should not be annoyed to do his wife a favor. He controls that emotion, and buys her the milk before going to shul.
In his judgment, he gets credit for controlling his emotions and not letting himself get annoyed with his wife.
Does the tzaddik get credit for not hitting an old woman in the head with a brick? No, he does not. That action is so far beneath him it would not be considered a credit.
Does the thug get punished for failing to control his emotions around his girlfriend? No. That virtue is too far above him. He'd judged on things that were at his level. Under his control. Like whether or not he put his cigarettes out on his girlfriend's arm.
Even if you're at the level of the Thug... or even at a level beneath that of the thug, that doesn't mean you are powerless to greatly improve your judgment at the end. G-d will take into account your history, your background, your parents, your influences. And say: "Yes, I gave you a very difficult hand to play with your moral development. So tell me.... what did you do with what I gave you?"
He'll expect different answers from me.
And different answers from my Rabbi. My starting hand may have been moral than yours. My Rabbi's starting hand was more moral than mine. And if you decide: "I've had enough of Satanism, I want to live in a moral life from here on out!" That might be a tremendous virtue, a gigantic mitzvah, one that even I don't have access to. I couldn't do that if I wanted to. I can't tell G-d that I was born into a religion that worshipped evil, but found the moral courage to turn my back on it and walk away. You have the opportunity for this giant good deed. I don't.
You have the opportunity for a righteous deed beyond anything available to me.
Yes, though I'm not a Christian, that doesn't mean Jesus didn't say certain things that are true. Among them: Judge the tree by its fruits.
"Israel" was the name granted to Jacob, the third of the patriarchs, upon wrestling with the stranger prior to his final meeting with his brother, Esau. Definition of Israel: He who struggles with G-d. Which is partly of how Judaism and Islam are antithetical in certain manners, as Islam means: "He who submits to G-d."
(Noah came prior to Jacob, btw, not later).
"Jews" refers, generally, to those of the tribe of Judah. After the Assyrians captured the other tribes, there were few left except for the tribe of Judah, Levi, and some of the Benjaminites (and not many of them). Judah was easily the largest of the tribes, though, which is likely where the name came from.
Non Jews can be considering among the righteous if they follow the seven laws of Noah. That includes Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, etc.
Deuteronomy 4 -- passages in the Torah can be read on multiple levels. There's the base meaning, the numerical meaning, the spiritual meaning, etc. Yes, it is a warning of worshipping materialism, but can also be extended to other faiths I described.
And yes, materialistic Jews, Christians, etc who talk the talk but don't walk the walk are not going to get the nicest of judgments in the end. The fourth commandment (third to Christians) "Thou shalt not carry the name of the Lord thy G-d in vain." This doesn't mean not yelling "G-d damn it!" when you stub your toe. But the actual meaning is not to use G-d as a justification for evil. A priest who seduces an altar boy by telling him that G-d would encourage the seduction has violated this commandment. Also, the aftermath of the description of the commandment is that G-d will not hold anyone who violates it blameless. Even if the Christian appeals to Jesus to clean his sin, or if the Jew performs Teshuvah and fasts for it on Yom Kippur, that sin of justifying evil with the name of G-d cannot be erased.
I must admit, it's hard for me to understand the mindset of someone in a religion that rewards the infliction of suffering. I can understand, on some level, that it gives pleasure on Earth at the price of suffering in the hereafter. But to imagine a reward for cruelty being pleasure on Earth with the hopes of pleasure in the hereafter -- having the cake and eating it too -- hard to accept a deity like that. I can't imagine that's one that's good for the cosmos.
I don't care to discuss theology in-depth but if you apply occam's razor and take the epistles at face value, scripture like 'we are the temple of god' obviously completes prophecies about restoring the temple, there are many such examples.
I your god exists then the sacred texts are full of red herrings designed to misdirect and mislead 'narrow is the path' - I think to get into heaven you'd have to be such a suckup and morally-upright person, I'd probably not get in even if I 'repented' and tried my best. for satan the criteria is much easier to meet.
I can't imagine that's one that's good for the cosmos.
Maybe 10,000 years from now we will rebel and overthrow satan, going back to your god. Would be cool and very battlestar galactica of us.
Yeah, I'm being pretty charitable about Islam. The underbelly is not very pretty, and a lot of it does match the less kind description of Ishmael in the Torah: "His hand will be against every man, and every man's hand will be against him."
Further... he is described as "Wild man." From my understanding of the concept though, in Biblical Hebrew, the adjective follows the noun. In English, usually the noun follows the adjective. "It was a green house." In Spanish, you would reverse this. "Es Casa Verde." Or "House Green." Hebrew is more like Spanish in this regard of adjective following the noun... but in Ishmael, it remains "wild man" in that order. That is, not a man who is wild. But Wild who is man-like. Wild is the noun, not man. Man is just the adjective.
But... if nothing else, Islam spread monotheism. Maimonides himself wrote that although the Muslims spread monotheism "They commit other errors" that he feared to write down on paper. He knew the dangers, even 900 years ago.
Jewish understanding of the messiah is that he restores the Jews to the land of Israel, rebuilds the temple, brings universal knowledge of G-d, and world peace. Jesus did not exist in the proper time to fulfill these prophecies: The Second Temple still stood, and it was prior to the second diaspora at the hands of the Romans. Nor have we achieved the universal peace or knowledge of G-d.
Deuteronomy 4 warns against serving gods of wood and stone. Wood is the cross. Stone is the Kaaba. Reference to Christianity and Islam, right there.
Okay, so kudos on your research into islamic etymology, though it's wholly unnecessary - you can see which group favours our side or yours based on actions, don't need to understand dead languages.
Israel is not a land. the children of Israel are not jews, they're the spiritual descendants of Israel the person. Israel was close to your god and there was a covenant made then - updated with noah and then mosses and then jesus.
The covenant was that your god would save you at the last minute, and bring glory to his followers - this obviously includes non-religious people, 'pagans'. buddhists etc. who follow him in action if not word. He would be unjust and unrighteous otherwise.
Deuteronomy 4 warns against serving faiths built on materialism, like mine - that's it. gods built of wood and stone serve this earth (and because wood and stone are the main building materials), your god is said to reside in heaven, so any religion built-off of earthly success instead of spiritual success would be apostate, including yours.
There is no 'right religion', there is lucifer vs god and the judgement of souls. If lucifer wins you need a dark soul to gain his blessings, and if god it's the opposite. do you really think a benevolent god would sanctify materialistic jews above SRA victims or children with aids or whatever?
Read the beatitudes, he clearly values and gives a ticket to those who suffer - while our guy values those who inflict suffering.
Nuts. Wrote a long response and lost it. I will summarize but gonna cut some out.
You read a line of Shakespeare. You realize the line can be interpreted in two ways. Both make sense in the context of the play. You say to yourself: "Which did Shakespeare intend? Which did he overlook?"
Answer: Shakespeare was a genius. He was aware of both, and included both.
Same with Torah.
(I inserted example from book of Esther. Gonna skip that now)
As for you:
Judgments involve everything about you, including where you came from, who your parents were. G-d takes everything into account.
Two men.
Man one: A thug. He makes his living stealing purses from old women. One day, he sees an old woman. On the ground is a brick. He can hit her in the head with a brick and steal her purse. She wouldn't be able to call the cops. He decides to just shove her and grab the purse, and accept that she'll yell for the cops and maybe he'll get caught.
In his judgement, can he get credit for not hitting her with a brick? At his low moral level, yes he can.
Man two: A tzaddik. Righteous man. On his way to shul, his wife asks him to buy her some milk from the store. He starts to get annoyed. But then he realizes he should not be annoyed to do his wife a favor. He controls that emotion, and buys her the milk before going to shul.
In his judgment, he gets credit for controlling his emotions and not letting himself get annoyed with his wife.
Does the tzaddik get credit for not hitting an old woman in the head with a brick? No, he does not. That action is so far beneath him it would not be considered a credit.
Does the thug get punished for failing to control his emotions around his girlfriend? No. That virtue is too far above him. He'd judged on things that were at his level. Under his control. Like whether or not he put his cigarettes out on his girlfriend's arm.
Even if you're at the level of the Thug... or even at a level beneath that of the thug, that doesn't mean you are powerless to greatly improve your judgment at the end. G-d will take into account your history, your background, your parents, your influences. And say: "Yes, I gave you a very difficult hand to play with your moral development. So tell me.... what did you do with what I gave you?"
He'll expect different answers from me.
And different answers from my Rabbi. My starting hand may have been moral than yours. My Rabbi's starting hand was more moral than mine. And if you decide: "I've had enough of Satanism, I want to live in a moral life from here on out!" That might be a tremendous virtue, a gigantic mitzvah, one that even I don't have access to. I couldn't do that if I wanted to. I can't tell G-d that I was born into a religion that worshipped evil, but found the moral courage to turn my back on it and walk away. You have the opportunity for this giant good deed. I don't.
You have the opportunity for a righteous deed beyond anything available to me.
you don't need metaphors or links to scripture. it's primarily a battle of 'good' vs 'evil.'
If a benevolent omniscient god exists obviously they will judge everybody perfectly, as they would literally know every fact in existence.
Yes, though I'm not a Christian, that doesn't mean Jesus didn't say certain things that are true. Among them: Judge the tree by its fruits.
"Israel" was the name granted to Jacob, the third of the patriarchs, upon wrestling with the stranger prior to his final meeting with his brother, Esau. Definition of Israel: He who struggles with G-d. Which is partly of how Judaism and Islam are antithetical in certain manners, as Islam means: "He who submits to G-d."
(Noah came prior to Jacob, btw, not later).
"Jews" refers, generally, to those of the tribe of Judah. After the Assyrians captured the other tribes, there were few left except for the tribe of Judah, Levi, and some of the Benjaminites (and not many of them). Judah was easily the largest of the tribes, though, which is likely where the name came from.
Non Jews can be considering among the righteous if they follow the seven laws of Noah. That includes Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, etc.
Deuteronomy 4 -- passages in the Torah can be read on multiple levels. There's the base meaning, the numerical meaning, the spiritual meaning, etc. Yes, it is a warning of worshipping materialism, but can also be extended to other faiths I described.
And yes, materialistic Jews, Christians, etc who talk the talk but don't walk the walk are not going to get the nicest of judgments in the end. The fourth commandment (third to Christians) "Thou shalt not carry the name of the Lord thy G-d in vain." This doesn't mean not yelling "G-d damn it!" when you stub your toe. But the actual meaning is not to use G-d as a justification for evil. A priest who seduces an altar boy by telling him that G-d would encourage the seduction has violated this commandment. Also, the aftermath of the description of the commandment is that G-d will not hold anyone who violates it blameless. Even if the Christian appeals to Jesus to clean his sin, or if the Jew performs Teshuvah and fasts for it on Yom Kippur, that sin of justifying evil with the name of G-d cannot be erased.
I must admit, it's hard for me to understand the mindset of someone in a religion that rewards the infliction of suffering. I can understand, on some level, that it gives pleasure on Earth at the price of suffering in the hereafter. But to imagine a reward for cruelty being pleasure on Earth with the hopes of pleasure in the hereafter -- having the cake and eating it too -- hard to accept a deity like that. I can't imagine that's one that's good for the cosmos.
I don't care to discuss theology in-depth but if you apply occam's razor and take the epistles at face value, scripture like 'we are the temple of god' obviously completes prophecies about restoring the temple, there are many such examples.
I your god exists then the sacred texts are full of red herrings designed to misdirect and mislead 'narrow is the path' - I think to get into heaven you'd have to be such a suckup and morally-upright person, I'd probably not get in even if I 'repented' and tried my best. for satan the criteria is much easier to meet.
Maybe 10,000 years from now we will rebel and overthrow satan, going back to your god. Would be cool and very battlestar galactica of us.