i need your help

i am additcted to pornography and masturbation

i find it difficult to talk about it in my real life so i ask you guys here if you could help me out a little

i can't fall asleep without masturbation and i feel guilty after doing it,it is causing me many problems in my life and i try to resist to it but i can't,it just seems stronger than me

could you guys give me some adivice about this?

thnx a lot,greg

-- gregory pisahov (greg_pisahov@hotmail.com), January 03, 2005

Answers

Your torment is all in your head.

The Scriptures do not speak to this issue of mastubation at all.

Maybe you ought to give up the pornography, however--for it is a poor replacement for the real thing.

How about checking into *what it is* that makes you so afraid of real life relationships?

I think you could use some therapy.

This is not the place for the kind of help you obviously need--if you aren't a troll--that is.

-- (realwomen@realrelationships.com), January 03, 2005.

Try the Catholic forum. This is one of their favorite subjects.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 03, 2005.

He already did. He came here when his attempts were deleted there. Moderator, check and see if the original post in this thread and the response to it were both posted by the same person.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 03, 2005.

Nope, both different IP addys.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 03, 2005.

The Scriptures do not speak to this issue of mastubation at all.

but the catholics said they do:s?

i'm really confused now

-- greg pisahov (greg_pisahov@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

i'm really confused now

1. Stop touching yourself.
2. Unplug your computer and throw it in the garbage.
3. Become a Roman Catholic, and then
4. Receive the Sacraments often.

Do these things, all of them, and your cluods of confusion will dissipate. Promise.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 04, 2005.

The Catholics are confused : )

The verse they would provide to prove masturabation is a sin, is really a passage speaking about disobedience, because the man in question was unwilling to honor his brother by providing his brother's wife with the offspring to be the heirs of his late brother.

The spilling of the semon itself was not the sin--but disobeying the law of that time, and not honoring his brother's name- was the sin.

-- (realwomen@realrelationships.com), January 04, 2005.

Well, there ya go, Protestants. Enjoy!

-- jake (j@k.e), January 04, 2005.

You can use these scare tactics if you choose, jake.

Make sure when you walk in on one of your small and innocent children who has discovered themselves (a completely natural and normal thing)- -that you tell them that God is gonna cut-off their hand or something sick like that.

In the meanwhile, I'll teach my children about the ill-effects of perversion, about cheating themselves or their loved one when they rely on masturbation instead, and about what Jesus did address such as an adulterous eye. And then hopefully my children will grow up with healthy attitudes towards their bodies and their sexual beliefs.

-- (realwoman@realrelationships.com), January 04, 2005.

If you google up Protestant commentary on the sin of Onan prior to 1930, you'll see that Protestants were almost unanimous in their condemnation of not only masturbation but also artiuficial contraception based on Genesis 38:9-10. Most agreed with the Catholic position.

Gen 38:9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. Gen 38:10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing:

We see in Deuteronomy that the punishment for breaking the law was not death, but humiliation.

Deuteronomy 25:5-10

Deuteronomy, chapter 25 5: If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. 6: And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. 7: And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. 8: Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; 9: Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. 10: And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

God slew Onan because he did a detestable thing (spilling his semen), not just because he broke a Levitical law. Onan got the pleasure of sexual intercourse without the natural consequences of creating new life.

Here are some non-catholic perspectives of Onan's sin from commentators who are highly respected among Protestants.

From John Wesley's Notes on the Bible regarding Genesis 38:7- 10

Verse 7. And Er was wicked in the sight of the Lord - That is, in defiance of God and his law. And what came of it? Why God cut him off presently, The Lord slew him. The next brother Onan was, according to the ancient usage, married to the widow, to preserve the name of his deceased brother that died childless. This custom of marrying the brother's widow was afterward made one of the laws of Moses, Deut. xxv, 5. Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married, and the memory of his brother that was gone, he refused to raise up seed unto his brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile actions. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displeased the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

source: http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/genesis/wesley/genesis38.htm

From John Calvin's Commentary on Genesis 38

10. "And the thing which he did displeased the LORD." Less neatly the Jews speak about this matter. I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor.

source: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-02/cvgn2- 16.txt

Ask youself why the understanding of Onan's sin has changed among many Christians. Is it because God's law changed, or have some been seduced by the teachings of the world?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 04, 2005.

Spilling the semon was not the destestable thing.

It was that he was not honoring his brother and he was disobedient to God's law.

Spilling his semon was destestable in that he wasted what was meant for his brother's honor.

It had nothing to do with *masterbation* in particular. If this were such a big sin, shouldn't we see it clearly admonished in the Leviticus laws?

The Scriptures are silent about this......

-- (realwomen@realrelationships.com), January 04, 2005.

I hear you Realwomen, but respectfully disagree. My previous post shows why. The idea that masturbating in order to receive sexual gratification is not sinful (such as fornication) is a relatively recent development among Christians. That idea is secular, not Christian.

Besides, the punishment for the Mosaic law Onan broke was not death. Why would God kill Onan for breaking a Mosaic law when the law itself didn't call for death?

When in Scripture does God take a person's life? This will help us understand why God took Onan's life.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 04, 2005.

You would think that it woul;d be clearly spelled out that masturbation was deserving of death.

The articles you posted from the protestant sites basically affirm what I said.

The destable thing was the dishonoring the law and the brother's honor. Even perhaps avoiding procreation is the point. Certainly if everyone did this, rather than having intercourse-man would become extinct? Right?

But surely in everyday circumstances, not every ejaculation is meant to create a life. Not every ovulation is bound to become a baby.

We need to use our common sense and try to understand what was really the point in these things.

If you read many of the Leviticus Laws, you can't help but think, *What???*

-- (realwomen@realrelationships.com), January 04, 2005.

Yes, every ejaculation IS meant to make a baby! That's why semen comes out instead of just getting an orgasm. Think about it. With the gift of semen, you can get children and mulitiply according to God's command in Genesis (Gen. 1:22, Gen 1:28, Gen. 8:17, Gen. 9:1, Gen. 9:7, Gen. 35:11) What is so important that God needs to repeat himself? To not waste the seed that was given to man in order to multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it! Why would God kill someone for disobeying a civil law?

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

If you are serious Greg, I can give you some advice. It IS possible to be addicted to masturbation because pleasure hormones similar to that of heroine are released when someone has an orgasm. The BEST way to stop is to avoid temptation. It's embarassing, but I also struggle with "impure thoughts" that lead to "impure actions". But when you take away the temptation, it is a lot easier. That even includes lustful thoughts. Just cut them off right when they start. Also, I don't know if you'd have anything against this, but pray to Mary. She is our spiritual mother, much more full of love than our own mothers. Whenever I think about how much she loves me, and how she is always looking down on me from heaven, it switches my train of thought. I can't possibly do anything like that in her presence. I especially am starting to pray the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It's long, but I like it.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

Baloney.,

Does that mean every seed in a woman is meant to be a baby also?

Think about that.

-- (realwomen@realrelationships.com), January 04, 2005.

"Does that mean every seed in a woman is meant to be a baby also? "--"realwoman";)

So, which are meant to be and which are not?

Why are there so many butterflies? Because they are meant to be. The large number guarantee their survival, much like our every seed. So, yes! every seed is meant to be a baby. Think about it.

Hmmm......I sense a change in the force..........who is that poster??

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 04, 2005.

Yikes! but I don't think women have "seeds". They have eggs. Men have those little guys--seeds.

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 04, 2005.

Actually, to be technical, the *egg* is called a seed after it becomes fertilized by the sperm.

-- (realwoman@realrelationships.com), January 04, 2005.

The articles you posted from the protestant sites basically affirm what I said. -realwomen

I'm not sure what parts of the articles I posted agreed with what you said. These parts cetainly disagree with your assertions.

...yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married, and the memory of his brother that was gone, he refused to raise up seed unto his brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile actions. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displeased the Lord, and destroy their own souls. - John Wesley

It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. - John Calvin

The point is, Christians agreed that masturbation was a sin up until the 20th century. These are Christians who use the Bible as their sole rule of faith. Why has masturbation now become something that God is neutral about?

We're discussing masturbation right now, but the basic premise, the purpose of sexual intercourse within the marriage covenant, is closely related to the reasons why artificial contraception, fornication, and homosexuality are all sinful. I know it's hard to believe, but look up what all Christians were saying about these things before the 1920's. Don't even use Catholic sources. If God's truth doesn't change, why would Bible believing Christians change their interpretation of God's Word so that something they once thought was sinful is now normal?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 04, 2005.

Your comment agrees with our argument:

"Actually, to be technical, the *egg* is called a seed after it becomes fertilized by the sperm. "

When you say that the woman's seed is meant to be a "baby", yes that is true. You have said it yourself, technically. By your own definition of "seed", you assert that the fertilized egg is meant to be a baby. Or, are you saying that it isn't meant to be in view of it being "fertilized"?

So, of what purpose would the "egg", the sperm, and the "seed" have if it is not meant to be a "baby"??? Why the interaction of those specimens?

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 04, 2005.

So,

before you start accusing me of going off topic...

Once we understand the purpose of the specimens and the "act" that brings those specimens to fertilization or to the floor, we will understand the significance of masturbation, fornication, and true sexual intercourse within God's purpose for us.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 04, 2005.

No, realwoman is right. During menstruation, a egg leaves the ovaries (ovulation) to make pregnancy easier. If an egg is not fertilized, it is either dissolved or absorbed into the body. A woman is born with the total amount of eggs she will carry. Her body doesn't produce more eggs as the man's produces semen.

While God designed this entire process for the purpose of procreation, it is obvious that not every egg will be fertalized.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

While that's very true Luke, I think what Rod is getting at is the purpose of sexual intercourse and marriage in God's plan. God's plan may not include having every single egg fertilized by a sperm, but there is a very important purpose for the marriage act in His plan.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 05, 2005.

That's true, Luke, but the woman can't help that. The man, however, can help what happens to his seed.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), January 05, 2005.

Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother's wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing. (Genisis 38: 8-10)

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), January 05, 2005.

Hmmmm......I'll give you each a specific number of eggs and sperm so that you may reproduce.....Ah! better yet, let me give you a life's worth of eggs and sperm just to make sure you don't run out. Of course, by a certain age, it would be wise not to have children; you won't be around to take proper care of them. That's about the time that your body will begin to deplete itself of many things: eggs, sperm, sex drive, harmones, estrogen, prostate health, etc.

Does that sound familiar?

I think that there are 3 major reasons for those specimens:

1. reproduction.

2. reproduction.

3. reproduction.

It just so happens that recreation and reproduction make for a joyful and meaningful life.

............... .............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

But,

I really do sense that recreation and reproduction are meant to go together, not indepedent of each other. That puts free sex and cloning outside our natural desire to engage in sexual reproduction. And, I believe that God has provided us with that natural desire.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

I mis-spoke when I refered to the woman's unfertilized eggs as seeds.

Think of all those unfertilized *eggs*--are they all meant to be a baby?

If not--then logically we can see that all those sperm are not meant to be babies either.

In fact, unless the egg and sperm meet, there is no baby at all.

Technically, by-the-way, the woman's eggs are not true eggs either!

-- (realwomen@realrelationships.com), January 05, 2005.

Also,

Does evhere actually believe that God did not have in mind, pleasure?

Do you really think that His only purpose was to pro-create?

Should we check our brains at the door and not practice birth-control?

I'd probably have 25 children by now if I wasn't dead first from it!

-- (realwomen@realrelationships.com), January 05, 2005.

That should read:

Does everyone here actually believe that God did not have in mind, pleasure?

-- (realwomen@realrelationships.com), January 05, 2005.

Uh, no one is saying that sexual pleasure is not part of God's plan. But, to say that sexual pleasure is the sole reason for the act would be wrong.

Are you saying that humans decide the purpose of those unfertilized eggs? So, what is the purpose of those unfertilized eggs? And, what of those fertilized eggs that were not intended (by humans) to become fertilized?

If the egg and sperm have a purpose, we can decide whether masturbation is permitted by God in certain situations.

If that egg and sperm are merely of arbitrary concern, I can see how one would justify any sexual act not leading to procreation. You may check your brain back in, if you wish.

BTW, to imply that one isn't using their brains in relation to your interpretations is an insult. You may wish to rephrase your remarks.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

The man has control, yes, while he is awake. Starting in early puberty, boys will ejaculate during sleep. These are called "wet dreams." They can frequently continue into late adulthood. "Wet dreams" are just as natural as a woman's menstruation cycle.

As it happens, Leviticus 15 addresses the issue of discharge. A man becomes unclean from the semen, whether it is blocked, continues flowing, clings to clothing, or enters the woman. The purification involved washing, and sometimes a burnt offering. But these things are not deserving of death either.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

"I'd probably have 25 children by now if I wasn't dead first from it! "

Hmmmmm.......not 25, maybe 19. Dead? hmm.....perhaps, but some have died with significantly fewer births. I think nature has a way of taking care of birth issues. Economics and health issue do. I think Catholicism has a way of birth control, too. I think that Scriptures spells it out.

But,

so what if our family size exceeds 2.5 kids?

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

If we can prove that Adam had "wet dreams" and Eve had "mentruation", I'll agree that that is a natural thing. It may be pravelant in a culture, but it can also not exist in some groups of individuals. Anyway, it was believed that Lilith was responsible for those "evil" wet dreams.

"I'd probably have 25 children by now if I wasn't dead first from it! "

Hmmmmm.......not 25, maybe 19. Dead? hmm.....perhaps, but some have died with significantly fewer births. I think nature has a way of taking care of birth issues. Economics and health issue do. I think Catholicism has a way of birth control, too. I think that Scriptures spells it out.

But,

so what if our family size exceeds 2.5 kids?

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

Ok, who is censoring my posts?

If we can prove that Adam had "wet dreams" and Eve had "mentruation", I'll agree that that is a natural thing. It may be pravelant in a culture, but it can also not exist in some groups of individuals.

"I'd probably have 25 children by now if I wasn't dead first from it! "

Hmmmmm.......not 25, maybe 19. Dead? hmm.....perhaps, but some have died with significantly fewer births. I think nature has a way of taking care of birth issues. Economics and health issue do. I think Catholicism has a way of birth control, too. I think that Scriptures spells it out.

But,

so what if our family size exceeds 2.5 kids?

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

No one is censoring your posts rod, you just added a "." on an html tag when it should have been a ">". You forgot to press the shift key, is my guess ;)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 05, 2005.

I don't think we could prove that Rod, in fact more likely the opposite. No one knows how old God created Adam or Eve to be. It is possible that Adam was created as a full grown adult male. Maybe he did not experience puberty as we think of it.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

I entered it three times. My email link shows evidence of censoring. Anyways, we can us multiple usernames? (In my best Yiddish accent).

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

Luke,

are you saying that wet dreams are normal or natural? Also,it has been documented that young girls in 3rd grade have experienced menstruation cycles. So, what is normal or natural and what isn't? Let's not forget those women atheletes who have lost their mentrual cycles prematurely.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

I think that God has it all figured out for us. If we are intending to have a family, God's nature provides. When we go and try to take control of that nature, things go eventually wrong. If it is in God's will to have 17 kids (Bach's second wife), it will happen.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

Hi realwomen,

Should we check our brains at the door and not practice birth- control? -realwomen

Rod is doing a great job of addressing your concerns, but I just wanted to clarify something. No one is saying that we need to check our brains at the door. We are trying to discern and follow God's will. It may seem foolish not to practice artifical methods of birth-control, but "foolish" by whose standards? God's or the world's? How much do we trust Him and live for Him and not ourselves? Is He really the King of our entire lives?

With a little research, you can find where the idea for artifical birth control came from. It did not originate with Christianity. It has been around since pagan times (when pagans drank potions to destroy unwanted pregnancies) and the relatively recent acceptance of artifical birth control in the West has its origin in secular sources. Christians stood united against it until the early 20th century.

The reason Christians stood firm against artificial birth control, masturbation, and homosexuality, was based on a Christian understanding of the sanctity of the marriage covenant and God's purpose (both procreative and unitive) for sexual intercourse (a.k.a., the marriage act). I fear our society and Christians in general, are starting to lose that same understanding that our Christian forbears had. Many Christians give as much thought to using artifical birth control as they do to choosing new clothes.

The number of denominations that accept homosexuality and homosexual unions has increased in the 20th and 21st centuries. We see web sites preaching the "good news" among Christians that masturbation is not a sin, that God is neutral when it somes to spilling semen outside the marriage act. Things have changed for the worse, and many Christians are blind to the root causes of these changes.

Even if you disagree with my analysis, at least consider this. One of the most widely used means of artifical birth control in the West is the Pill. The Pill is an abortificent. It not only works to prevent ovulation, but also makes the uterine lining inhospitable for a fertilized egg. That means a Christian couple on the Pill could be causing the destruction of any number of fertilized eggs resulting from their sexual union, and not even know it. This may seem "cleaner" than most abortions, but it's abortion just the same.

It's at least worth looking into. The truth is out there and many Christians are not aware of it.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 05, 2005.

I wasn't really trying to discuss birth-control.

My point is that what was detestable about what this man did, had nothing to do with masterbation.

It had everything to do with dishonor and disobedience and wasting life that was meant for the widow.

But not all sperm has that destination and I don't think God was addressing masterbation at all. I think he was addressing the sinful and deliberate waste during a time when a child was suppose to be conceived.

-- (realwoman@realrelationships.com), January 05, 2005.

But, we are understanding why certain sexual practices are acceptible based on the original purpose of the egg and the seed. Masturbation is also a form of anti-reproduction when it is out of context to our true purpose of sexual intercourse. If we wish to fully understand what masturbation involves, we need to compare it to what should be and is acceptible to God, not to man.

Is it ok to deliberately and knowingly purge our reproductive specimens into waste? I sense that we should not. The key words are "deliberately" and "knowlingly".

............. ..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

I do apologize for turning this discussion from masturbation to birth control, but it's difficult to explain why masturbation is sinful without also discussing the purpose of sexual intercourse. This eventually leads to a discussion of artifical birth control and the reason why homosexuality is a sin.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 05, 2005.

Oops. I'm repeating Rod's points. He posted as I typed that last post. He's faster to the "Submit" button than me.

-- Andy S ("ask332004@yahoo.com"), January 05, 2005.

We cannot control the number of specimens. That doesn't mean that they are free for folly.

Yes, Andy. Did you just call me "submissive"?? Just joking.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

Oh please!

This is ridiculous.

Small boys masturbate naturally. What do you do?

Tell them they're going to hell?

That will cause more psycological problems in the end.

The Scriptures say, "Let us reason together."

And the Scriptures do not deal with masturbation. If that one elusive verse is all you have, I am afraid that I stand by the point that the Scriptures do not speak to the issue of masturbation in particular, but perhaps we can derive some guidelines.

For example, I think the Scriptures are clear about lusting.

-- (realwoman@realrelationships.com), January 05, 2005.

Oh please!

Masturbation has a variety of purposes. Lust may very well be the driving force behind some reason for such activity.

Fornication is also a natural activity for teenage kids. So, I suppose that if it is natural, it is ok? We do need to use the brain in order to figure out things. Oh please!

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

"That will cause more psycological problems in the end."

I have yet to understand sin to have positive results . Also, correction is the better path.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

Fornication is a natural activity for teens?

Eeks!

-- (realwomen@realrelationships.com), January 05, 2005.

Actually, sin is a natural activity for all humans. Does that make it right?

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

You start out with the premise that masturbation is the sin. I think the *sin* was something else altogether.

-- (realwomen@realrelationships.com), January 05, 2005.

For a little child who is too young to know, masturbation isn't a sin. For a little child who is too young to know, taking away another child's toy isn't a sin. Both behaviors, if left uncorrected can lead to sin later in life. Since the fall, humans do many things we call "natural" that are actually self destructive. As we grow, we come to understand these things to be against God's law and avoid them. If we continue to do so, despite knowing them to be against God's law, then we sin.

I don't think anyone here is advocating that small children who masturbate are committing sin. But I don't think anyone here is advocating that we encourage small children to masturbate, either.

And the Scriptures do not deal with masturbation. If that one elusive verse is all you have, I am afraid that I stand by the point that the Scriptures do not speak to the issue of masturbation in particular, but perhaps we can derive some guidelines.

One verse is all we need to know what God thinks of something. I think it's clear. The punishment for breaking the law was not death. God punished Onan for perverting sexual intercourse. He obtained the pleasure of sexual intercourse, but sought to pervert God's plan. I'll agree to disagree with you on this verse, but the message for us regarding Onan's sin is deeper than just masturbation or breaking a Mosaic Law. There is more to it, as you already intimated.

For example, I think the Scriptures are clear about lusting.

Absolutely! Now, what kind of pleasure and for what reason do most adults perform masturbation? I'm not talking about small children. Lust is clearly sinful, and masturbation is usually performed acting out that lust. At least that's what I consider as sinful masturbation. That's the difference between small children masturbating because it feels good and not knowing any better, and adults who masturbate with a Playboy.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 05, 2005.

It just occurred to me that I may be misunderstanding you, realwomen.

I think he was addressing the sinful and deliberate waste during a time when a child was suppose to be conceived. -realwomen

I think the *sin* was something else altogether. - realwomen

Would you elaborate a bit so I can make sure I'm not misreading what you're saying?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 05, 2005.

Gladly,

I think the sin was disobedience to God's command that he father a child with his brother's widow. He deliberately wasted the sperm that in particular God wanted him to create an heir with. Onan refused to honor his brother as was required of him by law.

-- (realwomen@realrelationships.com), January 05, 2005.

real wome is faith.

-- Assistant Moderator (egonval@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.

See? Faith. I told you.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 12, 2005.

Lol!!

Whose Faith?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 12, 2005.

Wow! There are a lot of misled people here on this thread.

First all of your answers to this poor guys problem are not answers at all. To give somebody religious dogma about sin in response to somebody reaching out for help is seriously deranged. This person is asking for a solution to a problem that he can't control. If it were so easy for him to stop by simply telling him it's a sin, then nobody would sin. Furthermore your mistranslations and misinterpretations of what the bible says are so misguided and simply wrong that it is difficult to even know where to begin.

But...I'll give you some examples. I am a religious Jew. I happen to study the, as you call it, "old testament"(I will refer to the five books of moses as the torah from now on), regularly. I study it in Hebrew as well as the Talmud in Aramaic. I can tell you that your interpretations are flat out wrong and are not even close to the actual meaning of the passages.

The meanings of most of the passages have been laid out for us a long time ago, well before the advent of jesus and christianity. I can tell you for example that the mitzvah(commandment) of yebum (taking your brothers wife) has absolutely nothing to do with masturbation. It simply has to do with the fact that everyone should have offspring to carry their name. If they pass away before the ability to have offspring the brother has the mitzvah of helping his brother continue his name. We learn about yebum way before the commandment is given. We learn about it in genesis, in the story of Judah and Tamar. Judah's first son takes tamar as a wife, he dies. Then Judahs second son takes her for a wife(see we have a precedent already in genesis before deutoronomy), then he dies. Then the torah says that Judah didn't want to give his third son because he was afraid he would die as well. This proves that Judah already knew of the commandment of yebum and that his sons have an obligation to take the brothers wife. In addition as a widow it is harder to find a husband therefore the wife also gains a benefit from it. Now remember that this was at a time when men could have more than one wife so it wasn't socially unacceptable and therefore having another wife didn't burden the brother. If the wife doesn't want him she can do a ceremony called Chalitzah(divorce sort of in the situation of yebum) also specified in the torah where she takes a shoe off and spits. This gives her a way out of the yebum process if she doesn't want the brother for a husband. So it's really a win win for everybody involved. There is mention in other writings that the husband who died is reincarnated as the son of this marriage for another opportunity at life to fulfill anything that he needed to and didn't get the opportunity to. This is a very abridged version of yebum and chalitzah and is wanting at best. However it illustrates how complex the verses in the torah are and that placing some underlying meaning from the top of your head or putting a bunch of verses together to try and make an argument without first knowing all of the torah, tanach, and talmud is a very irresponsible and innacurate method of trying to preach morality to somebody. All of this information I have given you way predates christianity and would have to be dealt with first before you start quoting guys from a hundred or even a thousand years ago to try and figure out what the torah is saying in a given area or what it means.

I can tell you that according to Judaism(orthodox) masterbation is a bad thing. And I can give you all kinds of sources especially kabbalic that would support the idea of spilling the see of Abraham (which is really what most of you should have been quoting) and what happens when you do it. But again that is not what greg is asking for.

Greg, I can tell you that this is a difficult issue and there are many more people that struggle with it then you think. I for one am one of them and have gone through many levels of dealing with it. What I can tell you is that honesty with everyone including yourself is the key. Admitting it here is a good step in admitting to yourself that there is a problem. But you still need the tools.

Remember god doesn't give you anything you can't handle. Remember that everything you do is a choice. You make the choice. You do have control no matter what anybody tells you. If you want to discuss it further then e-mail me. But don't listen to this contrived garbage you are hearing here. What you need is empowerment not to be beaten up.

Hope this helped.

John

-- John B (bobchen5309@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.

I didn't fully read the threads before and still haven't but feel I need to address a couple of other issues.

Spilling the seed on the ground was not about masturbation in onans case. It was simply not performing the mitzvah of yebum as I mentioned in the last post. It wasn't only onan who was supposed to marry tamar, it was also the youngest child. Judah took her for himself in the end as a wife since the name had to be carried on. We know later that from Judah and Tamar comes King David. And it was necessary for Tamar to have a child. Again the spilling of the seed was not masturbation. It doesn't say that onan masturbated the hebrew says, "v'hayu em bah el ashets achev, vshechats artzah..." literally, "and when it was when he came to his brothers wife he wasted it on the ground..." Meaning that he only wasted the seed when he was with tamar, not by himself. It simply means that he had relations with her and pulled out. He was not masturbating. The thing he did wrong was to not want to carry on his brothers name which is mentioned several times in the parek(paragraph). "Bo el ashets achecha v'yaban(the verb of yebum) otsah vhakam zerah lahcecha" Literally, "come to the wife of your brother and marry her (yebum) and bring up offspring to your brother" Clearly the torah is talking about the idea of creating offspring for a brother to continue his name, this has absolutely nothing to do with masturbation. "lvelti nasan zerah lachev", literally "to prevent giving offspring to his brother" "vyadah onan ki lo lo yeheah hazerah", literally, "and onan knew that these would not be his offspring", clearly Onan was not a chronic masturbator he was selfish and wanted the children to be in his name which is exactly what is stated here. This was his only concern(it is the only one mentioned). I am not going to quote any more hebrew I just wanted you to understand that I know hebrew and it is the only correct method of studying these texts. Judah doesn't give her to the last son which clearly he knows he has an obligation to as it is stated that he thought his last son would die. In the end he doesn't have relations with her again as none of this has to with relations or seed other then to have offspring, which was accomplished. A more interesting question is why did Judah want her killed? Why burning? She wasn't married so it isn't really adultery as both her husbands were dead. Hmmm...have an answer? Well the answer is that she was engaged to the third son Shelah. As it said earlier that Judah told Tamar to wait until Shelah was of age to Marry her. So technically they were engaged and so she had no right to have relations since relations during engagement counts as adultery. So why not give her the death penalty anyway? She did afterall have relations outside the engagement even if it was with Judah? Well I referenced in the hebrew that the word used here was "yebum" or specifically the marriage to continue a family name. Not the normal words for marriage, "neesui" "kedushin" etc. Meaning that since it was Judah and he was the father of the original husbands that he at that time could continue the family line for his sons since it wasn't normal marriage and is not refered to that way. So you see that it's much more in depth than you think and I haven't even brought the many pages brought in the gemara(talmud) that deal with this issue. All I am bringing is simple translation issues and knowing the meaning and differences between the words in hebrew. If you don't know that yebum is a different kind of marriage than regular marriage and that the difference is apparent from the hebrew and only mentioned in very specific places in the torah you don't understand any of what is going on. A simple "marriage" translation will not suffice. And this holds true with much of the torah and the tanach. If you want to study, quote, and preach you have to learn hebrew, clear and simple.

I hope this enlightened some of you about the torah and maybe, just maybe, will help you to stop preaching about things you(and most of your ministers/preists know very little about).

John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.

"To give somebody religious dogma about sin in response to somebody reaching out for help is seriously deranged. "--John B.

Well, I don't believe that we are saying that masturbation is a sin. I think that it could become a sin in specifc circumstances. Anyway, it is important to determine if masturbation is a sin or not. We don't want to intentionally sin, do we?

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.

John B.

Did you just present us with Jewish dogma in order to cure the masturbation problem?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.

Great post John B.

I knew the verse was not about masturbation and in fact it is the only verse that the Catholic Church can use to support their position that masturbation is a sin.

You are absolutely correct, he pulled out. It isn't about masturbation at all! I didn't focus on that less obvious but very important detail.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.

Also, John B.

For what its worth--the initial poster with the supposed problem is likely a troll.

In other words--he is putting us on.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.

The troll is of no importance. The issues are.

BTW, it is "who's", not "whose".

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.

Well I do appreciate that at least some of you took the time to read my post.

As far as the Jewish Dogma goes. I am not trying to convert anybody or cure anybody, to the contrary, do what you want. You were the ones who quoted the Torah. The Torah happens to be my realm. I felt the need to correct the innacuracies being displayed here.

I am glad that at least someone here does understand that what people say about the torah is most often times wrong and could understand it from my(a Jewish) viewpoint. The small detail about him being with Tamar and pulling out is huge to a Jew. This is how we study, let no rock go unturned. We look at why each word and each letter are used let alone the subjects of the sentences. One of the problems with how christians view the torah or sentences within is that they always fail to look at the preceding and following sentence. Try it some time it may shock you.

For example an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc. DON'T STOP THERE, READ ON! You'll be very surprised to learn that it is not talking about literally poking a persons eye out as a good christian clergyman would have you think. Read the stuff after it. It goes on to tell you specifically what you should and should not do and what the punishments are, if there are any.

And another question for rod the dogma guy. If you're going to quote the torah then you got to talk about all the torah. What about leviticus 11. If you're going to try to infer or extrapolate from a vague reference to spilling the seed means masturbation is a sin(punishable by death no less at least according to your understanding) then for sure Leviticus 11 which specifically states not vague or an inference, do not eat the meat of a pig should be followed. Do you eat pig? Are you only going to use the parts you like and throw the rest out. Those are gods pigs Rod not yours and he doesn't want you eating them. You're stealing from god every time you do it, especially if you believe in the torah. Leviticus 11, check it out.

And if Greg is a phony then so be it, it's not my job to research every person who asks for help to see whether they are sincere or not. It's just my job to be ready to give it. It says in the Gemara that if a person asks you for money you have to give it to them. So the question is asked in the gemara what if the person does bad things with the money. It answers that it's not your job to figure out how the poor person is going to spend the money it's just your job to give it, hashem(god) takes care of the rest.

Well that's it. Just thought I'd check for responses before bedtime. Maybe I'll delve a little more into what the problems with masturbation are tomorrow.

John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.

'Deuteronomy, chapter 25 5: If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. 6: And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. 7: And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. 8: Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; 9: Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. 10: And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.'

i think certain things only fit in the frame of a certain society and time,today brothers don't marry their brother's wife if he dies so the same thing with masturbation i guess

but however addiction is almost always harmfull,but if someone doesn't exagurate with masturbating,i don't see what is wrong with it,but if someone does it every day and can't stop doing it then i think he really has a problem

i think greg was looking more for practical advice how to solve his problem instead of religious advice and references to the bible...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 27, 2005.

To John B., the jewish guy.

Why do you proceed to interpret my understandings the way you do?

I have read your posts, but have you understood mine? Evidently not. We quoted the Torah as perceived by you, so? You are obviously doing the same as the Christians. You present dogma just the same. You also admit to not being able to cure the problem. Your mission is to defend your Jewish faith, not to help the victim's problems.

We can't read?

I suppose that you are correct. We can't read. We are merely Christians with a strong will and faith in Christ. So, before you continue to indoctrinate us in the Jewish system, let's not forget that we are Christians, not Jewish. We live under the New Covenant. Surely, you do not expect us to convert, yes? Our understandings of the Old Testament--that's the Torah--are even more relevant when joined together with the New Testament. Perhaps you would like to have a read of the New Testament?

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

You're kidding....

"i think greg was looking more for practical advice how to solve his problem instead of religious advice and references to the bible... "-- SDQA

So, greg posts in a Christian forum, but doesn't want Christian values? Hmmmm.....interesting.

Ok, here is some practical advice:

Get a new hobby.

Wear steel wool mittens.

Get rid of the media players and porn.

Lobotomy??

Salt Peter therapy.

Chastidy Belt.

Dopamine therapy.

Real relationship with a real loving woman that leads to Holy Matrimony.

More busy work.

But, really, I don't believe that anything will work for greg until he subcribes to some form of purposeful behavior. Remember, greg has admitted that this behavior is a problem for him.

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

John B.

Why would you quote the Torah and then say that you are not here to find a solution for greg, but at the same time accuse the Christians for posting dogma, much like you have, too?

BTW, I once posted in a Jewish forum. I lasted only one posting before they banned me. I emailed the moderator in defense of my posts and in the attempts to correct their actions against me. I lost. It seems like the forum was a very closely knit family who don't exactly like outsiders. Well, this forum is quite the opposite. There are no outsiders and we all have a voice.

Are you familiar with any books by Johnathan Kirsch?

The Woman Who Laughed At God: The Untold Story of The Jewish People. (I hope I got the title right) Do you think that Kirsch's book is accurate in the depiction of and history of Judaism?

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

'And another question for rod the dogma guy. If you're going to quote the torah then you got to talk about all the torah. What about leviticus 11. If you're going to try to infer or extrapolate from a vague reference to spilling the seed means masturbation is a sin(punishable by death no less at least according to your understanding) then for sure Leviticus 11 which specifically states not vague or an inference, do not eat the meat of a pig should be followed. Do you eat pig? Are you only going to use the parts you like and throw the rest out. Those are gods pigs Rod not yours and he doesn't want you eating them. You're stealing from god every time you do it, especially if you believe in the torah. Leviticus 11, check it out.'

well you are right about this,the christians only accept the things from the OT which they like...

jesus said he didn't come here to annul the laws but to make them complete

he also said that it's not important what comes in the mouth but what goes out of it(about the pig issue...)

isn't this annuling the law of the torah? isn't this complete contradictory to the torah?...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 27, 2005.

Interesting, John B.

"Those are gods pigs Rod not yours and he doesn't want you eating them. "--John B.

So, whose kosher lambs, goats, bovine, and rabbits are they?

There are health issues with particular livestock. Swine tend to be hard on the human body. It does tend to pollute the system. I can understand why we should avoid pork. I try to. And, if I sat with you at a meal, I would not eat pork in respect of your traditions. But, hey, God provided us with the animals and vegetation for living. If one chooses to be a vegetarian, fine.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

"Those are gods pigs Rod not yours and he doesn't want you eating them. "

yeah man leave those animals alone

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 27, 2005.

SDQA

I would recommend that you do a little research on Judaism before you go boating with doctrines and idealisms you know little about. Pick and choose? Uh.......there is a plethora of Judaism still splintered and roaming this world. Which form of Jewish system did you have in mind for us to pick and choose from? SDQA and John B. are you thinking that there is a one and only unified Jewish Religion out there?

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

All foods are good and provided by God. I didn't write that one.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

Oh, and SDQA. May I remind you of your Anarchism? The Jewish Law is in conflict with your idealism, SDQA. Or, did you forget?

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

well you are right about this,the christians only accept the things from the OT which they like...

Well, some do and some don't.

jesus said he didn't come here to annul the laws but to make them complete

Jesus was accepted as a trouble maker by some Jewish people. Others accepted Him as the Messiah. Please remember that.

he also said that it's not important what comes in the mouth but what goes out of it(about the pig issue...)

Grasp the meaning. Our words have the power to destroy or edify. We choose to edity His name--Jesus Christ, The Messiah.

isn't this annuling the law of the torah? isn't this complete contradictory to the torah?...

Not if we understand Christ's mission. He gave meaning to the Torah and the Law. He gave the world Salvation.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

"jesus said he didn't come here to annul the laws but to make them complete

Jesus was accepted as a trouble maker by some Jewish people. Others accepted Him as the Messiah. Please remember that.

he also said that it's not important what comes in the mouth but what goes out of it(about the pig issue...)

Grasp the meaning. Our words have the power to destroy or edify. We choose to edity His name--Jesus Christ, The Messiah."

those aren't answers to the things i posted rod

the torah forbids to eat pigs and says that the foreskin of the penis should be removed

jesus comes and says that these things are ok

and then he says he didn't come to annul the laws

but didn't he just annuled those 2 laws?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 27, 2005.

No. He gave understanding. Circumcision was replaced with Baptism, in a sense. The Gentiles were included in the Salvation Plan. The Law was not followed in the light of Truth and became a distortion of God's will. The Law was given by God, but it was confused by man.

So, SDQA are you Jewish by faith?

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

You alluded to it yourself when you questioned the issue of being "good" to get into Heaven. The Law became a self-serving practice in vanity. It was the letter of the Law and not the meaning of the Law that became the rule. It became a "work" based doctrine with the neglect of faith. The most drastic evidence was the rejection of Christ by some Jews, back then and still today. So, the Law was not bad; the Law was good. It was the interpretations and erroneous practice of the Law that needed correction and understanding. Man just wasn't getting it, so God stepped in again by sacrificing His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

Circumcision does seem to allude to the arrival of the Messiah. The shedding of blood is a recurring theme in theology. But, the shedding of blood is the Salvation God has provided. It is not the shedding of blood that man has provided. Circumcision in this case is merely a sign or gesture or practice prior to Christ's Sacrifice on the cross. The message was there the whole time.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

So, of what purpose would Circumcision have today in the New Covenant? Christ has died, has risen, and will come again to judge the living and the dead.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

Is it also coincidental that male health issues find remedy in circumcision? Also, dietary restrictions....

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

BTW, for those of you out there suffering with primosis...

Before you accept your doctor's recommendations of having a circumcision, you might want to consider other options that will leave you intact: diet, hygiene, medicated cremes, etc.

I hate having people suffer needlessly. Or, even with need come to think of it.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

I agree on this one, Rod.

I also discourage circumcision. They almost circumcised my olddest one. My wife had agreed, but I didn't.

Thomas saying 53-On circumcision. http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas53.html

Jesus on circumcision from the Gospel of Thomas saying 53. BLATZ (53) His disciples said to him: Is circumcision useful or not? He said to them: If it were useful, their father would beget him from their mothers (already) circumcised. But the true circumcision in the Spirit has proved useful in every way.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

A urologist (I wish I could post his name!) said that circumcision was the only remedy. Ha! it's been over 3 years. That urologist has been proven wrong. Fore!

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

WOW!

I've never seen so many misguided and incorrect views before. I don't know if I have the time to address them all now. I would like to refer all of you to a brilliant website.

www.messiahtruth.com

Go through this site if you are interested in all of the issues dealing with prophecy about the messiah. You can look up any passage that relates to christian beliefs on the prophecy of the messiah and find out the real truths behind their meanings with the hebrew and correct translations. If you truly have an open mind you'll check it out, especially if you're trying to find out the truth, which you should be.

I'll try to address some of these. As far as the poster who had a bad experience on a Jewish website, I don't really know what to say or how that is relevant to this conversation other than to try to make the point that jews are bad in some way. That sounds a little anti-semitic to me and maybe you have issues that need to be addressed internally. I don't believe that any one experience that a person has translates into a broad sweeping commentary on a whole group of people but alas that's why Jews and others are so descriminated against. I'll leave it at that.

As far as my view on the torah. It is the correct view. I don't mean this to be an arrogant comment. I actually study it in hebrew. I actually have read the entire thing. I have studied it for years with rabbis and alone. I also know when something is commentary or story and not necessarily proveable or authoritative. However the issues I brought up were simply a matter of straight translation. I didn't bring outside sources or give you my view on the world. I simply translated the actual text and brought a pretty simple logical argument based on it, which has not been refuted or even dealt with by anyone on this thread other than the people who agreed with me.

As far as reading the new testament, done it. I read all the books cover to cover. I can also tell you that Josephus who is one of the greatest historians of all time makes no mention of jesus. I can also tell you that the gospels have many contraditictions in them. I can also tell you the the talmud does make references and they were edited out because of anti-semitism. Very old copies of these texts were recently discovered and I have read them(in aramaic). I can tell you that these texts are probably the only real viable texts that make any mention of him. The gospels were written much later and even the catholic church admits that there were no actual witnesses to any of the events that are mentioned in the christian bible. The books were written hundreds of years later. The giving of the Torah at mount sinai however was witnessed by over a million people, read the text. God actually spoke the first two of the ten commandments out loud to all the witnesses present. I did not come here to disprove christianity only to stop misquotation of the torah and to help greg, but I sort of got dragged into this.

As far as helping greg goes...if you read what I posted I think I was the only one who made suggestions and offered to help him further if he wished to e-mail me. The "help" you offered was simply that it's bad. He already knows it's bad and wants to stop. If you read what he wrote you'll know that. So restating what he already knows seems a bit useless and self-serving. The help he is looking for was not a "it's a sin" but rather how do I stop this behavior. Is there a christian way? The only responses I saw that were in any way positive said to pray. I believe prayer is powerful and can help many things, but...this is a 50/50 deal. There is our part and there is gods part we have to do our part and that is what greg is asking for, how does he do his part.

As far as converting to Judaism. I am forbidden to suggest to somebody to convert and I wouldn't anyway. It's a very difficult path and requires a lot of dedication aside from the enemies you face in every day life. I pray three times a day almost two hours a day. I put tfillin on in the morning. I rest on the sabbath, rest as defined by god. No electricity, no cars, etc. I keep strict kosher(it's a lot more than not eating pig). I don't think the average person wants the burden of following all of the commandments as we do. It's a huge committment. As jews we don't believe that Gentiles have to follow all of our commandments, only the seven laws of noah, which are pretty basic. If you do you go to heaven.

I'm not sure Jesus believed what I just said though. You know that Jesus was a religious Jew. In one part of the new testament a gentile adultress comes in and asks if she can become part of the kingdom. Jesus responds by saying we don't let dogs eat before people. The reference here is to gentiles as being dogs. Jews don't believe that at all and have much more respect and love for gentiles than jesus did.

Did you know that in Judaism it's worse to steal from a gentile then from a jew. There are many reasons for this but the main one is that it is a "chilul hashem" it is a disgrace in the name of god. We are god's chosen people and are supposed to be a light unto the nations. If I steal from a jew that's an internal thing. If I steal from a gentile it represents the entire jewish people in a bad way as you can see from the post referencing the bad experience on the jewish website. So you see we unlike jesus(and christians who tell me I'm going to hell) have a deep respect for all people and try to set a good example.

Oh and as for "THE LAW" as you put it. Why is everything to a christian mutually exclusive? Can't you speak well of others and not eat pig? God says in the torah to love one another. Isn't one of the ten commandments not bearing false witness against your neighbor? You think that how you speak about or to others is a christian concept? You think that any of the modern day moral precepts come from christianity? It all came from Judaism, ie read the torah. But god also doesn't want you to eat pig. He never mentions anything about diet, just simply don't eat it. If god tells you to do something it's not your job to figure out how to not do it.

The difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Christians believe that man wrote a book to talk about god. Jews believe that God wrote a book to talk about man. We know very little about god. It would be impossible to know, he's an infinite being and we are finite. However, we do know what he expects from us and...in addition to how we speak about each other...we don't eat pig. Afterall, they're gods pigs and he doesn't want us to eat them.

John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

Oh, John B., the jewish guy. This is rod, the dogma guy posting.

Hey, if you spend more time around this place, you will learn that anti-Semitism is not tolerated here. We have actually banned people with such hatred. You won't see their posts; the posts have been deleted. Also, you really aren't saying things about Judaism that most of us don't already know. Also, you are presuming many things that are not true about most of us here. You are projecting.

"Oh and as for "THE LAW" as you put it. Why is everything to a christian mutually exclusive? Can't you speak well of others and not eat pig? God says in the torah to love one another. Isn't one of the ten commandments not bearing false witness against your neighbor? You think that how you speak about or to others is a christian concept? You think that any of the modern day moral precepts come from christianity? It all came from Judaism, ie read the torah. But god also doesn't want you to eat pig. He never mentions anything about diet, just simply don't eat it. If god tells you to do something it's not your job to figure out how to not do it. "--John B.

Uh, I have no disagreement with that, John B. I do believe that our faith is derived from the Judeo-Christian religion. But, God did tell us to have faith in Christ for our Salvation. That isn't an exclusive order. Everyone has that offer of Salvation. Also, I never said that the Law was bad. I did say that the Law was given by God. Did you miss that part of my "sermon", John B.? I have noticed your lack of consideration when you spell it "christian" and "god". Yes, I know why you do that. So, you won't mind if I spell it "jewish", yes?

I believe in two-way streets. People get around much easier.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

John B.

So, you've read the New Testament? And this man called "Jesus"? You don't believe in Him or what?

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

This is getting kind of dull.

I write very detailed specific responses to every issue you have. I write out well thought out laid down logical arguments with supporting facts. I address every issue of yours, you have not addressed any of mine. You haven't provided one counter argument to any of it. You simply throw out innacuracies and lies and when I catch you in them or disprove what you're saying you spit out some other form of rhetoric.

You address one thing I stated about anti-semitism, and all that I said was that I didn't see any reason for someone to mention that he wasn't treated nicely by some Jewish website. And you have not addressed why he put the post up there, just that anti-semitism is not tolerated here. I didn't say that he is an anti-semite just that his post had leanings that way and that I wasn't sure what other way to take it. Nobody has offered me a counter to that or an alternative reason(meaning you rod since you stated it). To simply say "anti-Semitism is not tolerated here" is self serving and irresponsible. Just answer the question, offer me a counter, or admit to it. It's that simple.

If I am projecting you have not mentioned any specifics. That's the problem with these sorts of arguments and in general my experience when arguing with Christians. They love to start talking about specifics, but once every one is thrown out or they lose the argument they go back to generalities like,

Rod - "Also, you really aren't saying things about Judaism that most of us don't already know. Also, you are presuming many things that are not true about most of us here. You are projecting. "

It sounds nice but you haven't addressed even one issue or counter argument I brought on this site. Not one. You simply go back to general rhetoric which is exactly what that is. How did I project? where was I presumptious? What untruths did I mention? Which things about Judaism do you know? Does that mean that you are agreeing with everything I said since you know these things about Judaism? Boy would that be refreshing. Don't make simple blanket statements without arguments, proofs, or evidence.

I do want to address the point of ritual emersion or baptism as you call it. The idea of ritual bathing or going into a mikvah(hebrew) predates christianity by thousands of years. I can bring the some of the passages from the torah if you are interested. There is even physical evidence as they found on masada which predates jesus and is written about in josephus. They found a completely kosher mikvah that is over 2000 years old. So you see that baptism is nothing new and ritual emersions existed long before chirstianity, which means that they wouldn't be a substitute for a circumcision as it existed before John The Baptist(Happy I capitalized it?).

As far as your point about my capitalization or lack there of is completely irrelevant and bringing the level of the conversation down to the level of field mice. If you read my posts you'll see that I sometimes did not capitalize Judaism and sometimes I did capitalize Christianity and sometimes God. I type over 80 WPM and therefore I sometimes get lazy in my typing. If it means so much to you as to excuse all of what I am saying because of my laziness in capitalizing words I'l be happy to be more Conscientious of it. I was capitalizing the law to emphasize that that was the operative word of the sentence. I meant no other inference except to give it extra emphasis within the sentence. I don't understand why that would be a problem for you.

As far as Judeo-Christian as a term. It's fine to use in some instances when speaking of distribution, but in terms of origin it is not. The values that are laid down in the new testament are simply taken from the old and strip away the parts that are inconvenient for people. It's that simple. Name me a value that comes exclusively from the new testament and wasn't already brought down in the old testament already.

The last pargaraph aside from what I've written is somewhat confusing. Are you simply stating that you've given up on any argument you have given and simply taking the line of, "Uh, I have no disagreement with that, John B. I do believe that our faith is derived from the Judeo-Christian religion. But, God did tell us to have faith in Christ for our Salvation. That isn't an exclusive order. Everyone has that offer of Salvation. Also, I never said that the Law was bad. I did say that the Law was given by God. Did you miss that part of my "sermon", John B.? "

I mean, come on. No there is no offer of salvation. No we did not need it. Yes there is plenty of ways to get attonement in the old testament, read it. There is a day called Yom Kippur, there are so many ways to attone for all the sins that it's useless for me to name all of them. There is no need for an offer of salvation as it already exists. Some made up easy way out won't work. I actually do have to do what god requires of me, it's that simple. There is no way of skirting this issue. God said it. You admit he wrote the law, none of us(with even small intellect) admit that he wrote the new testament. There is a document clearly written by god telling you to do something and a document written by men about something that might or might not have happened many centuries before but that we have no proof or evidence of it. No other sources. No witnesses. No testimony. No document written by a person who was there. No cross referencing. Nothing. So as you see there is no need for it and there is no proof of it being legitimate.

Rod you actually say very little. Thus far I have taken the time to address every issue you have brought in detail with specifics. You on the other hand have not. I have brought arguments with evidence and facts. You have not. Read through the posts again.

"I have noticed your lack of consideration when you spell it "christian" and "god". Yes, I know why you do that. So, you won't mind if I spell it "jewish", yes?" - Rod

Talk about projecting, "I know why you do that." Come on man, read through the posts. You'll see the reason is that sometimes I do and sometimes I don't for all these terms. Spelling "jewish" is really of no concern to me. However your attitude is. If you want to continue to have a dialogue, you will have to bring arguments supported by fact, clearly thought out and not skirt the issues. Admit defeat or prove success. But don't resort to childish games.

Do I believe in Jesus? It depends what you mean by believe. Do I believe he walked the face of the earth? Probably cause it is mentioned in the talmud. Do I believe he did things that would appear to be miraculous? It is unclear what he did as there is very little credible information about him. The talmud doesn't paint a very pretty picture of him and I'd probably lean towards what it says if I had to state an opinion. He was basically a guy who led people off the path of judaism. That is he led them astray. I believe that if you look at the time there were many reasons why christianity came about. You can look at why the greeks had the old testament translated to greek. You can look at why the romans were falling apart and constantine needed something to unify them. His creation of the roman catholic church hundreds of years after the supposed time for jesus. It's interesting that circumcision was brought up earlier in the thread. I think that it was one of the primary reasons that constantine went for christianity, since it would be very difficult to convince tens of millions of people to circumcise themselves especially once they are adults. You are asking me to answer a complicated question when you ask, "You don't believe in Him or what?" I definately don't believe the new testament or that God becomes a man. That god has to be a man to undestand mans pain. All of that seems a little bit contrived and completely illogical aside from contradicting the beliefs laid down in the torah.

But Rod although I've gone to pain staken lengths to answer all of your questions thoroughly, why haven't you answered any of mine? Why havent you addressed my counter points? Are you simply saying I am right in all of those cases? I am a bit confused by your posts.

John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

This is getting kind of dull.

I find it very interesting, not dull.

I write very detailed specific responses to every issue you have. I write out well thought out laid down logical arguments with supporting facts.

That is a relative conclusion. They may very well be logical to you in relation to your religious upbringing. But, to a Christian, it doesn't quite jive.

I address every issue of yours, you have not addressed any of mine. You haven't provided one counter argument to any of it. You simply throw out innacuracies and lies and when I catch you in them or disprove what you're saying you spit out some other form of rhetoric.

Again, innacuracies and lies may not be to another. Also, one man's rhetoric is another man's Gospel. What? I should be sorry I'm not jewish?? Should I argue that you are wrong in your faith? Why?

You address one thing I stated about anti-semitism, and all that I said was that I didn't see any reason for someone to mention that he wasn't treated nicely by some Jewish website. And you have not addressed why he put the post up there, just that anti-semitism is not tolerated here. I didn't say that he is an anti-semite just that his post had leanings that way and that I wasn't sure what other way to take it. Nobody has offered me a counter to that or an alternative reason(meaning you rod since you stated it). To simply say "anti-Semitism is not tolerated here" is self serving and irresponsible. Just answer the question, offer me a counter, or admit to it. It's that simple.

I guess I've read too much about the jewish culture and their tenacity to remain Judaic in the seas of persecution and assimilation into non-Judaic cultures. Besides, you've already considered Christianity as a product of inacuracies and lies. You have pegged the New Testament as invalid. Your verdict is practically written in stone. Should I still make an attempt to make a stand with you? Why?

If I am projecting you have not mentioned any specifics. That's the problem with these sorts of arguments and in general my experience when arguing with Christians. They love to start talking about specifics, but once every one is thrown out or they lose the argument they go back to generalities like,

You assume that we know nothing about pre-Judaism , Judaism, as the precursor to Christianity. You correct us with "Torah" for "Old Testament".

Rod - "Also, you really aren't saying things about Judaism that most of us don't already know. Also, you are presuming many things that are not true about most of us here. You are projecting. " It sounds nice but you haven't addressed even one issue or counter argument I brought on this site. Not one. You simply go back to general rhetoric which is exactly what that is. How did I project? where was I presumptious? What untruths did I mention? Which things about Judaism do you know? Does that mean that you are agreeing with everything I said since you know these things about Judaism? Boy would that be refreshing. Don't make simple blanket statements without arguments, proofs, or evidence.

I can observe the Catholic Mass and see those rituals handed down from Judaism: the altar, the vestments, the Sacraments, the Old Testament, and so on. The Paschal Supper. I do know that baptism and the weighing of the soul has its roots since before Christianity and Judaism. But, I am also familiar with the change in Judaism throughout its history. Of course, the most important point of that history deals with that rehtoric I seem to be bugging you with.

I do want to address the point of ritual emersion or baptism as you call it. The idea of ritual bathing or going into a mikvah(hebrew) predates christianity by thousands of years. I can bring the some of the passages from the torah if you are interested. There is even physical evidence as they found on masada which predates jesus and is written about in josephus. They found a completely kosher mikvah that is over 2000 years old. So you see that baptism is nothing new and ritual emersions existed long before chirstianity, which means that they wouldn't be a substitute for a circumcision as it existed before John The Baptist(Happy I capitalized it?).

Well, of course, you would understand it from that point of view. But, I gather that you reject the New Testament. So, in order for the Jews to convert, circumcision became invalid and Baptism was required. I personally do not have any faith in Baptism, but since when does obedience require a smile?

As far as your point about my capitalization or lack there of is completely irrelevant and bringing the level of the conversation down to the level of field mice.

Well, not to you, obviously. But, it will become an issue around these parts. Oh, I would prefer the "church" mice analogy instead of "field".

If you read my posts you'll see that I sometimes did not capitalize Judaism and sometimes I did capitalize Christianity and sometimes God. I type over 80 WPM and therefore I sometimes get lazy in my typing. If it means so much to you as to excuse all of what I am saying because of my laziness in capitalizing words I'l be happy to be more Conscientious of it. I was capitalizing the law to emphasize that that was the operative word of the sentence. I meant no other inference except to give it extra emphasis within the sentence. I don't understand why that would be a problem for you.

For the same reason that you use emphasis on the word "Law", we bring emphasis on God. It has to do with our God fearing senses. I type 90 wpm. So, I can misspell words much faster than you. Ha!

As far as Judeo-Christian as a term. It's fine to use in some instances when speaking of distribution, but in terms of origin it is not. The values that are laid down in the new testament are simply taken from the old and strip away the parts that are inconvenient for people. It's that simple. Name me a value that comes exclusively from the new testament and wasn't already brought down in the old testament already.

Hmmm....Matthew 5:38-39
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, tuirn to him the other also."
Well, this value was brought down from the Old Testament, but given a new meaning.

The last pargaraph aside from what I've written is somewhat confusing. Are you simply stating that you've given up on any argument you have given and simply taking the line of, "Uh, I have no disagreement with that, John B. I do believe that our faith is derived from the Judeo-Christian religion. But, God did tell us to have faith in Christ for our Salvation. That isn't an exclusive order. Everyone has that offer of Salvation. Also, I never said that the Law was bad. I did say that the Law was given by God. Did you miss that part of my "sermon", John B.? "

Me, give up? I really never started.

I mean, come on. No there is no offer of salvation. No we did not need it. Yes there is plenty of ways to get attonement in the old testament, read it. There is a day called Yom Kippur, there are so many ways to attone for all the sins that it's useless for me to name all of them. There is no need for an offer of salvation as it already exists. Some made up easy way out won't work. I actually do have to do what god requires of me, it's that simple. There is no way of skirting this issue. God said it. You admit he wrote the law, none of us(with even small intellect) admit that he wrote the new testament.

That is your view and understanding of a needless Salvation. Mine is different.

There is a document clearly written by god telling you to do something and a document written by men about something that might or might not have happened many centuries before but that we have no proof or evidence of it.

We could say the same about Moses, but we both trust that it was Moses with whom God directed. We are just gonna have to trust the Gospel writers right along with Moses and Abraham, yes? Ok, You will not.

No other sources. No witnesses. No testimony. No document written by a person who was there. No cross referencing. Nothing. So as you see there is no need for it and there is no proof of it being legitimate.

Interesting. You too subcribe to "Sola Scriptura". I do not. Judaism, coincidently, was established through Traditions. Where is your supporting text for the justifications of Judaism during its infancy?

Rod you actually say very little. Thus far I have taken the time to address every issue you have brought in detail with specifics. You on the other hand have not. I have brought arguments with evidence and facts. You have not. Read through the posts again.

Yup.

"I have noticed your lack of consideration when you spell it "christian" and "god". Yes, I know why you do that. So, you won't mind if I spell it "jewish", yes?" - Rod Talk about projecting, "I know why you do that." Come on man, read through the posts. You'll see the reason is that sometimes I do and sometimes I don't for all these terms. Spelling "jewish" is really of no concern to me.

Whew! that's a relief. I thought for sure you'd hold that against me.

However your attitude is. If you want to continue to have a dialogue, you will have to bring arguments supported by fact, clearly thought out and not skirt the issues. Admit defeat or prove success. But don't resort to childish games.

Defeat? Ok. I'm not jewish; I lose. Success? Gosh. I hope so. I have faith in Christ. Is it that important that one of us loses? Does our dialogue pivot on the outcome of victory or defeat? Our theologies are at opposite sides of the arena. The distance is to great to even consider a contest. You have your faith; I have mine. Neither of us will convert. That isn't the purpose. Mine is to observe and learn, not necessarily to accept. I hope that my game is acceptible to you, even if it seems like child's play.

Do I believe in Jesus? It depends what you mean by believe. Do I believe he walked the face of the earth? Probably cause it is mentioned in the talmud. Do I believe he did things that would appear to be miraculous? It is unclear what he did as there is very little credible information about him. The talmud doesn't paint a very pretty picture of him and I'd probably lean towards what it says if I had to state an opinion. He was basically a guy who led people off the path of judaism. That is he led them astray. I believe that if you look at the time there were many reasons why christianity came about. You can look at why the greeks had the old testament translated to greek. You can look at why the romans were falling apart and constantine needed something to unify them.

I have considered such circumstances for His popularity. I have read the jewish accounts and critiques for His mission. Yes, there is the negative view of Jesus. Basically, those writings describe Jesus as a failure. But, of course, He was changing the face of Judaism.

His creation of the roman catholic church hundreds of years after the supposed time for jesus.

Tell this to our poster Faith.

It's interesting that circumcision was brought up earlier in the thread. I think that it was one of the primary reasons that constantine went for christianity, since it would be very difficult to convince tens of millions of people to circumcise themselves especially once they are adults. You are asking me to answer a complicated question when you ask, "You don't believe in Him or what?" I definately don't believe the new testament or that God becomes a man. That god has to be a man to undestand mans pain. All of that seems a little bit contrived and completely illogical aside from contradicting the beliefs laid down in the torah.

That's what I needed to hear from you, John B.

But Rod although I've gone to pain staken lengths to answer all of your questions thoroughly, why haven't you answered any of mine? Why havent you addressed my counter points? Are you simply saying I am right in all of those cases? I am a bit confused by your posts.

My answers are lies, inaccuracies, or wrong by your estimation. You do not believe in the truths found in the New Testament. You do not view Jesus as God. You do not view Christ as the Messiah. You do not accept Christ as our Saviour. So, what do I have to argue about with you? Unless, you wish for me to aid you in your conversion to Christianity, I much prefer to observe your post and to learn more about your Judaism. If that's ok with you, that is.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

I thought this comment was very thought provoking, John B.:

"That god has to be a man to undestand mans pain. "--John B.

Why would God need to understand man's pain?

Why would God need to become a man in order to understand anything, much less man?

I think that if things were converse, we can understand why God walked as Jesus. It was so that man could understand God's will. It seems that the "Law" didn't quite do the job. Well, at least from my Christian point of view, the "Law" didn't quite "work" in the hands of man.

Has the "Law" worked?

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

First, I want to say that this is a very interesting website that has opened my eyes. Greg, at this time in my life I can not give you an answer that is supported by any religous text, but from my own experiences and beliefs, I understand how you feel and I give you a lot of credit for having the courage to ask that question. You have nothing to be ashamed of. I can tell you that anything in excess, such as food, sleep, smoking, drugs, alcohol, porn and even excercise, can harm an individual mentally and/or physically. THere is one question that I do have for you, Was there anything from your past that has caused this type of behavior? Before I end this, I would like to say that John has made some very interesting points that no one has addressed. From my eyes, John is just trying to have an intellectual conversation.

-- Elise Eden (love4life@elise.com), January 27, 2005.

Yes, but poor greg has not found a solution to his problems. The answers, as of yet, cannot be found in the Torah nor the Holy Bible, by some assessments. My point is that moral behaviors will produce a lifestyle with few unwanted or bad consequences. And, where can we find the model for moral values??? Humanism, Anarchism, Judaism, or Catholicism?

Where did you get that from--"everyting in moderation"--Elise? What is your source? Do you see what I'm getting at? Yet, If we provide a Christian/ Biblical method of rememdy for greg's problem, we are accused of being dogmatic or "preaching". Well, would we get criticized for preaching the 12 Step Program? Sure, we'd be called Agnostic or Humanists by our Christian folks.

Greg came to this "Christian" forum for help, but the "Christian" answers were not acceptible.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

""I mean, come on. No there is no offer of salvation. No we did not need it. Yes there is plenty of ways to get attonement in the old testament, read it. There is a day called Yom Kippur, there are so many ways to attone for all the sins that it's useless for me to name all of them. There is no need for an offer of salvation as it already exists. Some made up easy way out won't work. I actually do have to do what god requires of me, it's that simple. There is no way of skirting this issue. God said it.""

i agree with this...

if you need jesus for salvation,what about all the people that lived before he came on the earth surface and for whom it was impossible to believe in him?

if god already gave all the laws and if you keep then that you will go to heaven,why is there need then for a savior? if keeping the laws is already salvation

why didn't god bring up then a savior earlier instead of the laws?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 28, 2005.

God did "save" His children. Do you remember the Great Flood? Do you remember animal sacrifice? Do you remember Moses and the Ten Commandments? How about the "Law"? Do you appreciate Rabbinic Teaching? Do you understand the O.T. prophecies? Do you understand the New Covenant?

When was the last time you sacrificed a dove for your sins, SDQA? Is that the kind of atonement that you accept?

What kind of "work" must you do to have Salvation, if Christ is not needed?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

"God did "save" His children. Do you remember the Great Flood? Do you remember animal sacrifice? Do you remember Moses and the Ten Commandments? How about the "Law"? Do you appreciate Rabbinic Teaching? Do you understand the O.T. prophecies? Do you understand the New Covenant?"

[dude i was talking about the salvation that you are saying that christ offers,the salvation from hell and evil etc...

you didn't answer my question rod

i repeat once again,if living by the laws grants salvation=eternal life in the kingdom of god,the salvation of jesus is completely in vain]-sdqa

"When was the last time you sacrificed a dove for your sins, SDQA? Is that the kind of atonement that you accept?

What kind of "work" must you do to have Salvation, if Christ is not needed?"

[true repentance maybe?...and not doing the bad thing again]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 28, 2005.

Dude!

You have dissed Christ as being our Saviour. So, I'm trying to figure out your method of Salvation. You seem to have a doppleganger effect going on here. On one side, you claim that Salvation isn't needed; on the other, you are confused about what saves.

1. "[true repentance maybe?...and not doing the bad thing again]"- sdqa

So, you do recognize that humans are involved with good and evil. But, an Atheist can also repent from evil. Yet, he does not have faith in his Creator. We could call it "true" faith. What is "true repentance"? That truly sounds like a vain deal if God is not in the repentant's foundation.

2. "i repeat once again,if living by the laws grants salvation=eternal life in the kingdom of god,the salvation of jesus is completely in vain]"-sdqa

"If" is the key to your point. The "Law", as it turns out, does not save. The New Testament teaches that the "Law" lost its true meaning because man was just too head strong. Yes, I would agree with you that Salvation is in the "Law". "If" that were true. John B. would be the fine teacher in that regard.

3. "i repeat once again,if living by the laws grants salvation=eternal life in the kingdom of god,the salvation of jesus is completely in vain]"-sdqa

What makes you think that I was not speaking of that Salvation? What other Salvation is there? Jesus brought the "Law" into perspective--it doesn't save. The ultimate and final atonement was in Christ.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

"So, you do recognize that humans are involved with good and evil. But, an Atheist can also repent from evil. Yet, he does not have faith in his Creator. We could call it "true" faith. What is "true repentance"? That truly sounds like a vain deal if God is not in the repentant's foundation."

[well i don't see why an atheist should go to hell if he really is sorry for his bad deeds...]-sdqa

""If" is the key to your point. The "Law", as it turns out, does not save. The New Testament teaches that the "Law" lost its true meaning because man was just too head strong. Yes, I would agree with you that Salvation is in the "Law". "If" that were true. John B. would be the fine teacher in that regard."

[but in the OT it isn't teached this way...another contradiction between the OT and the NT,the NT can't continue on the OT while teaching the opposite of it]-sdqa

"What makes you think that I was not speaking of that Salvation? What other Salvation is there? Jesus brought the "Law" into perspective--it doesn't save. The ultimate and final atonement was in Christ."

[that's what jesus says,but that's not what the OT says...how can you ever expect of the jews to accept jesus as their saviour if he is neglecting their teachings and laws? if you really believe in the OT ,then you can't really believe in the NT and opposite...]-sdqa

my question now is rod,that you show me references to the OT where it speak about the messiah and where it says that he would have to die for our sins and save us this way...i want to see you bring up the proof why jesus is the long expected messiah

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 28, 2005.

"my question now is rod,that you show me references to the OT where it speak about the messiah and where it says that he would have to die for our sins and save us this way...i want to see you bring up the proof why jesus is the long expected messiah "--SDQA

All of the Old Testament points to Christ the Messiah. Every Jewish ritual/traditions is the precursor of Christ's Sacrifice. Every prophecy is pointing to Christ. Noah and the Ark, The Passover, The Paschal Supper, Moses and the Serpent, The Manna, Abrahams test, you name it, it is all there. You must not only observe the events, but you must also grasp the message from those stories. Jesus made references to the O.T. . You can read it with a new understanding if you choose to. Why do you think that some Jews converted now in our modern times?

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

It is important to understand man's behavior when it comes to the offer of Salvation. Look at Adam and Eve. Their disobedience cost them their seperation from Paradise. Look at Caine and Abel. The issue with their fate dealt with Propriation. Caine's way didn't work. Look at the reason God destroyed the world in order to rid evil from the earth. Man could not conform to God's will. Look at Moses and the disobedience of his people. The digressed back to paganism for lack of faith. Look at the "Law". The Pharisees and Saduccees became self-righteous hypocrits in the eyes of the people and God. Look at the splintering of Protestant denominations with their conflicting doctrines. Now, look at how God has always given us a way for Salvation. God doesn't change. Man changes, conditions in society change, but God is there to lead us into Salvation. The reasons a conflict is asserted by anyone is because they blame the wrong Source. It isn't God to blame; it is man to blame for his disobedience and confusion.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

Rod, Rod, Rod...

Wow you still won't deal with the issues.

There is nothing in the old testament that even hints at something like Jesus's story in the old testament. FYI I am going to refer to the old testament as the tanach from now on, since I don't believe that there are two testaments only one. I will refer to the new testament as the christian bible. I also decided not to capitalize any of the religious terms for simplicities sake and not to offend anyone.

The tanach clearly states what the messian will do and what messianic times will be like. There is no mention of two comings, there is no mention of anything like the stories in the christian bible. Quite to the contrary there is a commandment in the torah (five books of moses) that states to watch out for false prophets who will perform magical and miraculous type deeds. These false prophets will steer us away. Sounds a lot like jesus's story. It also says that you should not stray from the law one letter to the left or two the right. Christianity sounds a lot like that as well.

As far as jews converting to christianity it is a very small number and it is miniscule compared to the amount of christians converting to judaism. The interesting thing about this is that if you take a cross section of the jews who converted to christianity there are very few that were religious jews before. Meaning that jews for jesus and other groups pick on the secular jews who had no formal training or education in judaism, easy prey. Christians however who convert to judaism have to take on a huge responsibility and change their whole lives. To become a jew is not an easy thing it takes years of studying and a lengthy process. For example a male has to be circumcized even if he already is, they have to draw blood. A convert has to go in front of a jewish court and make his case why he wants to be jewish and that he will take the obligation of all the mitzvahs in the torah. Find me exaples of orthodox religious jews voluntarily converting to christianity, it'll be tough to find. Christianity simply doesn't offer all that much. It just says you don't have to follow any rules except believe in jesus. Jews believe that we are responsible for what we do and that we are judge based on our merits. We welcome that responsibility with open arms and do our best to better ourselves everyday. There is no way around it for us.

The number of people leaving christianity are much greater then the number converting to it. People are constantly leaving to far east religions as well as muslem. There is even a new noahide religion that has started up and is spreading all across the country of christians who believe in the tanach but find the christian bible to be lacking. They believe that they have to follow the 7 noahide laws in the bible and go to rabbis for clarification of them. It's an unbelievable movement, very spiritual.

If you want to know the true meanings of the passages in the tanach that point to christianity go to www.messiahtruth.com. If you are interested in the truth rod why don't you check it out? What do you have to lose. Take 10 minutes pick a passage or two that you think clearly is talking about jesus and see what the site says about it. You might not agree for emotional reasons with the site but the logic is sound.

When did the jews go to paganism after moses. If you are refering to the golden calf please read it again(hebrew preferably) It was not pagan. Just think about this when you read it. Why does it say god killed a couple thousand people who did this act when it says that there were 600,000 men there(the same amount of women and with children it's close to 2,000,000). Why only 10,000 as I recall? Why did Aaron say let us fashion this calf and make sacrafices to god (the yhvh spelling). It did not say to worship it or false gods. Read it again. If you are not refering to this then you might be refering to some of the wicked kings of Israel. Look people are not perfect, if we were we wouldn't need a torah or any books to tell us what to do. That is the purpose of the torah so that we know our part in this world.

As far as salvation goes. Yom Kippur is an example you didn't address. Animal Sacrafices? What happened between the first and second temples when they didn't have animal sacrafices? Everyone went to hell? There was no jesus then. I hate to break it to you but during jesus's time there was a temply so you could bring a sacrafice, so he surely wasn't needed at that time. And remember it doesn't say bring a sacrafice it says that the person must confess what he did and bring a sacrafice. That confessions is the amends process. But for most crimes against men restitution must be paid not sacrafices. I don't see what the problem is. This in no way says that we need jesus and if you want to argue that it still does, why not muhammed, buddha, etc. This in no way proves that god is a man or that somebody died on the cross for my sins. I am responsible for my sins and I must do the right thing while I'm here.

You said a very important thing, "God doesn't change" Wow! I'm glad you admit it. But I guess he changed his mind, huh? Either you can eat pig or you can't. Either you keep the sabbath or you don't. Either you celebrate the holidays as laid out in the torah or you don't. God said these things. God doesn't change. Did he change his mind? Did God not have the forethought to know the law wouldn't work? Wow! I think god knows everything and doesn't change his mind.

One last point you asked the question, "has the law ever worked?" First of all you are questioning gods law which is dangerous at best for a religious person. But what I would like to ask you is, Have you ever tried it?

John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

"It just says you don't have to follow any rules except believe in jesus. "--John B.

That is a false doctrine. Catholicism involves a complete doctrine of "works" and "faith". But, there isn't a "merit" system. God provides the Grace needed for Salvation.

"You might not agree for emotional reasons with the site but the logic is sound. "--John B.

I have considered owning my own copies of the Torah and other Jewish books. I am open to the Jewish view. I do not necessarily have to accept it, of course.

"This in no way says that we need jesus and if you want to argue that it still does, why not muhammed, buddha, etc. "--John B.

I am not arguing my view. I am simply stating my belief.

"Wow! I think god knows everything and doesn't change his mind. "--John B.

I do understand the original Covenant that God provided for His Chosen People. I also understand the New Covenant that included the Gentiles. I am not Jewish. So, where do I fit in? Obviously, I will have to submit to the New Covenant.

"One last point you asked the question, "has the law ever worked?" First of all you are questioning gods law which is dangerous at best for a religious person. But what I would like to ask you is, Have you ever tried it? "--John B.

Well, obviously, my wording is flawed. It isn't the "Law", it is man's fallibility to obey God. This would also explain Rabbinic teaching, yes?

Have I tried it? No. I tend to understand St. Paul's take on the "Law".

......... ...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

Oops! I meant:

This would also explain [the purpose for] Rabbinic teaching, yes?

.....

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

The problem John B.,

... is that with only the Hebrew Scriptures--you are left still waiting for your Messiah. Hasn't the window of opportunity already passed, even according to your Bible--for Him to come? Where is He then?

Is it true that the Jewish people have resolved themselves to waiting for a Messianic age instead?

I just hope that when Antichrist comes to deceive everyone as a peacemaker., when he seems like an angel of light, performing all sorts of miracles and whatnot--that you don't mistake Him for your long awaited Messiah....

Surely you recognize that Isaiah 53 describes the death and resurrection of Messiah---and Jesus just happens to fit that scenario perfectly--of course. But if you don't believe--will you believe it when Antichrist seems to fulfill it?

Rev. 13:1-8

And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?” The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for fortytwo months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast–all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. see Daniel chapter 7

Rev 13:11-18

Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666. again...see Daniel chapter 7

These are the end times in which many will be deceived by Satan. Watch for the signs...

Matt. 24:22-25

If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect–if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 28, 2005.

Shabbos(Sabbath) is starting soon so I got to get ready. I'll be out of commission until sundown tomorrow night.

That is a false doctrine. Catholicism involves a complete doctrine of "works" and "faith". But, there isn't a "merit" system. God provides the Grace needed for Salvation. - Rod

If there is no merit system then there is no point in following the rules. The merit system is all through the torah is clearly lists the rewards and punishments for various acts. Clearly if god felt a need to make a merit system then the merit system is the best, most moral, and correct way.

I have considered owning my own copies of the Torah and other Jewish books. I am open to the Jewish view. I do not necessarily have to accept it, of course. - Rod

If you are truly open then go to messiahtruth.com. You don't have to read the entire torah right now. Just have a look, it's just a few clicks away. It'll be a good start. you should accept the truth whatever it is. Faith and Belief are nice but it's what you believe in that matters. If you believe in what is true and correct then you're doing right but if you believe in something that is false or incorrect...you understand.

I am not arguing my view. I am simply stating my belief. - Rod

I do understand the original Covenant that God provided for His Chosen People. I also understand the New Covenant that included the Gentiles. I am not Jewish. So, where do I fit in? Obviously, I will have to submit to the New Covenant. - Rod

Well just cause your not a "chosen" person(which is really a misunderstood term) doesn't mean you just randomly select something and go for it. You still need to inverstigate and find the truth. What about a noahide?

Well, obviously, my wording is flawed. It isn't the "Law", it is man's fallibility to obey God. This would also explain Rabbinic teaching, yes? Have I tried it? No. I tend to understand St. Paul's take on the "Law". - Rod

I'm glad that you are retracting your "wording". god would not have given us a law we could not handle. It is completely illogical to make a statement like that. If god commands us to do it we have the ability to do it. God created us. Therefore god made our abilities. God makes the law. Therefore god gave us the ability to practice his laws. This is logic 101 or not even. St. Paul is irrelelvant to this conversation. Let's talk about what god says not what man says.

I'll give you an explanation on rabbinic teaching, where it comes from, and why we have it, if you're interested. I don't have time now.

Good Shabbos(to anyone keeping it out there)

John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

The problem with your post-- (faith01@myway.com) is just about everything.

First quoting passages out of the new testament to prove itself to be truth is illogical and not appropriate. If you are going to use something prior to prove it along with history and testimony then you might have something but simply talking about a messiah and how some story fills your need for one is not worthy of response. I will tell you that we dealt with these issues earlier in the thread so read it.

Now Isaiah 53 is an interesting point. However you did not make a case for what it's possible meanings and why it is there. Also you didn't mention anything other than well it is talking about the messiah. It may or may not be, but you haven't stated anything to show that it is. And if you did prove that it is you have another hurdle of how it's specifically talking about jesus and not some other person in history or in the future. However I will not post what isaiah 53 means, instead I'll give you a link so you can understand it better.

If you read it and then want to argue it out. I'll be happy too.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isai53a.html (there are three pages, go through all three, that is my response)

(see rod I told you to check out messiahtruth.com)

Again a good shabbos to all,

John

-- John B (bobcohen5309@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

The Judaism discussion with John B. and rod has been moved

Here.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CjDy

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 28, 2005.

john,what kind of messiah the jews actually are expecting?

[This question has been reposted HERE.]

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 29, 2005.

John B.,

I don't know why my link to Daniel 7 didn't work--but I certainly was not using just New Testament Scripture to affirm what I believe. I was showing you the correlation in your own Scripture. Anyone with an honest intent to know the truth cannot miss the relevency of these passages with the endtimes to come. The New Testament Scriptures complete the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus is the fulfillment of all that was written. This is a great joy to those of us who are not working with unfulfilled and incomplete prophecy....such as you are with only half the picture at hand in the Hebrew Bible.

Daniel 7 Daniel's Dream of Four Beasts 1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying on his bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream. 2 Daniel said: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. 3 Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.

4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it.

5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, 'Get up and eat your fill of flesh!'

6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

7 "After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast-terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.

8 "While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.

9 "As I looked,

"thrones were set in place,

and the Ancient of Days took his seat.

His clothing was as white as snow;

the hair of his head was white like wool.

His throne was flaming with fire,

and its wheels were all ablaze.

10 A river of fire was flowing,

coming out from before him.

Thousands upon thousands attended him;

ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.

The court was seated,

and the books were opened.

11 "Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

The Interpretation of the Dream 15 "I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this. "So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever-yes, for ever and ever.'

19 "Then I wanted to know the true meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws-the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell-the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

23 "He gave me this explanation: 'The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. [a]

26 " 'But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.'

28 "This is the end of the matter. I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself."

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.

Faith?!

Why did you post here? I provided a new thread for further discussions about Judaism.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 29, 2005.

Thanks, Elpidio.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 29, 2005.

i really like the book of daniel

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 29, 2005.

Sorry rod, hadn't noticed what you did.

I like to keep my responses in the same thread with the post I am responding to.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.

Sorry for jumping in or the thread.

To quote "The Chatechism of the Catholic Church" paragraph 2351 "Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative andunitive purpouses" Paragraph 2352 "Masturbation is to be understood as stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. 'both the Magesterium of the Church,in the course of traditon, and the moral sense of the faithfulhave been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and disordered action'" The new testament on multiple occasions calls for christains to maintain traditon. And you all agreed that most forms of Christianity were againsed masturbation earlier in history. Scriptures related to keeping traditions: 1cor-11:2 2thess-2:15 2thess-3:6

Finally for some help with your problem go to http://www.ldolphin.org/mormon.html It was set up by Mormons (mean this to you what it may)and/but has some good ideas. although I disregarded the bit about not praying for help.

Thanks for reading and I will be praying for you, God Bless

-- Brandon T W (Got3geckos@aol.com), February 01, 2005.

Man this thread is long. Zarove, why haven't you started a new one?

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 01, 2005.

lol

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 01, 2005.

but masturbation isn't sinfull,john proved it earlier on this thread

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 01, 2005.

Wow! There are a lot of misled people here on this thread.

First all of your answers to this poor guys problem are not answers at all. To give somebody religious dogma about sin in response to somebody reaching out for help is seriously deranged. This person is asking for a solution to a problem that he can't control. If it were so easy for him to stop by simply telling him it's a sin, then nobody would sin. Furthermore your mistranslations and misinterpretations of what the bible says are so misguided and simply wrong that it is difficult to even know where to begin.

But...I'll give you some examples. I am a religious Jew. I happen to study the, as you call it, "old testament"(I will refer to the five books of moses as the torah from now on), regularly. I study it in Hebrew as well as the Talmud in Aramaic. I can tell you that your interpretations are flat out wrong and are not even close to the actual meaning of the passages.

The meanings of most of the passages have been laid out for us a long time ago, well before the advent of jesus and christianity. I can tell you for example that the mitzvah(commandment) of yebum (taking your brothers wife) has absolutely nothing to do with masturbation. It simply has to do with the fact that everyone should have offspring to carry their name. If they pass away before the ability to have offspring the brother has the mitzvah of helping his brother continue his name. We learn about yebum way before the commandment is given. We learn about it in genesis, in the story of Judah and Tamar. Judah's first son takes tamar as a wife, he dies. Then Judahs second son takes her for a wife(see we have a precedent already in genesis before deutoronomy), then he dies. Then the torah says that Judah didn't want to give his third son because he was afraid he would die as well. This proves that Judah already knew of the commandment of yebum and that his sons have an obligation to take the brothers wife. In addition as a widow it is harder to find a husband therefore the wife also gains a benefit from it. Now remember that this was at a time when men could have more than one wife so it wasn't socially unacceptable and therefore having another wife didn't burden the brother. If the wife doesn't want him she can do a ceremony called Chalitzah(divorce sort of in the situation of yebum) also specified in the torah where she takes a shoe off and spits. This gives her a way out of the yebum process if she doesn't want the brother for a husband. So it's really a win win for everybody involved. There is mention in other writings that the husband who died is reincarnated as the son of this marriage for another opportunity at life to fulfill anything that he needed to and didn't get the opportunity to. This is a very abridged version of yebum and chalitzah and is wanting at best. However it illustrates how complex the verses in the torah are and that placing some underlying meaning from the top of your head or putting a bunch of verses together to try and make an argument without first knowing all of the torah, tanach, and talmud is a very irresponsible and innacurate method of trying to preach morality to somebody. All of this information I have given you way predates christianity and would have to be dealt with first before you start quoting guys from a hundred or even a thousand years ago to try and figure out what the torah is saying in a given area or what it means.

I can tell you that according to Judaism(orthodox) masterbation is a bad thing. And I can give you all kinds of sources especially kabbalic that would support the idea of spilling the see of Abraham (which is really what most of you should have been quoting) and what happens when you do it. But again that is not what greg is asking for.

Greg, I can tell you that this is a difficult issue and there are many more people that struggle with it then you think. I for one am one of them and have gone through many levels of dealing with it. What I can tell you is that honesty with everyone including yourself is the key. Admitting it here is a good step in admitting to yourself that there is a problem. But you still need the tools.

Remember god doesn't give you anything you can't handle. Remember that everything you do is a choice. You make the choice. You do have control no matter what anybody tells you. If you want to discuss it further then e-mail me. But don't listen to this contrived garbage you are hearing here. What you need is empowerment not to be beaten up.

Hope this helped.

John

-- John B (bobchen5309@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 01, 2005.