My Mom Jokes That I Ought To Become Catholic...

Yeah; I've been down that road before. I was baptized Roman Catholic, raised English Catholic (Episcopalian), went to a Roman Catholic college that.... I'd better stop before I talk about a certain church to which it could be paralleled. I also still have Anusi Catholic and Non-Catholic (and openly-Jewish and Non-Jewish Catholic) family members. So, I get the gist of being Catholic, and I'm far from becoming Catholic any time soon.


That doesn't mean that I don't think that there are Evangelical Catholics, though-- my cousin Sue is an Evangelical Catholic. My maternal grandma, as far as I know, is an Evangelical Catholic. My late, seminary-educated granddad was an Evangelical Catholic and actually getting ready to leave the Roman Catholic Church before he died; and his sister Margaret studied the Bible quite a bit if not every day (Her GNT version has markings in it, bookmarks and other placeholders, etc.). There are other Evangelical Catholics; but being Catholic, even an Evangelical Catholic, is not for me. In order to be considered a good Catholic and not a "fundamentalist", one has to:

• Disbelieve the inerrancy of the Word of G-d. I keep coming back to Reform Judaism and Amy Scheinerman on this because Reform Judaism is the Catholicism of Judaism in many senses:

"Reform Jews, however, understand the texts to have been written by human beings -- our ancestors. In my personal opinion, the texts are certainly divinely inspired and reflect our ancestors' best understanding of God and their covenant with God, as well as their view of God's will, but that is not the same as being divinely-authored. Hence, Reform Jews read the texts through the spectacles not only of a religious person, but those of the scholar as well. Some institutions are considered to be a product of the cultural milieu and societal norms of the ancient Near East when the Hebrew Scriptures were written down, and do not speak to our lives today." 

Take those words and Catholicize them, and you'll have stolen them right from the mouths of "Doctor" Lyle Weiss, Marcus J. Borg, Sisters Sharon Kanis and Eileen Eppig, etc.. "Dr." Weiss once said that the Bible is (or at least he said something like) "Man's experiencing G-d... with some nuances." 

A good Catholic also has to:

• Be Anti Death Penalty.
• Be Democrat or Socialist (Look at how Speaker John Boehener was excoriated for being a Republican by Catholic universities.).
• Believe in transubstantiation.
• Allow that priests, nuns, and other clergy not marry.
• Believe in Miryam bat-Eli as the daughter of a Joachim and Anna who stayed a Virgin after Jesus was born, and that Miryam is the Queen of Heaven who can intercede for us just because she gave birth to Yeshua; regardless of what Scripture says.
• At least observe Christmas and Easter if not also the Feast Days, Days of Solemnity, Sunday mass, etc.
• Go through baptism, confirmation, etc. if he or she can.
• Go to Pre Confirmation and Confirmation Preparation classes.
• Go to Sunday school and even Catholic school if he or she can.
• Pray the rosary at least once in his or her lifetime.
• Believe that he or she can lose his or her salvation by doing a bad work and has to get it back by confession and penance.

The list goes on, but the point is that being a Non-Evangelical (Non-"Fundamentalist"), good-enough Catholic entails being a "good enough" person and doing works that are good within the context of Catholic thinking. Catholicism isn't about faith through grace alone, salvation through mercy alone, etc..

So no matter how much I joke or say that I'm going to Hell for doing something bad or seemingly bad, I won't be a Catholic.

Reform Judaism and Babylon: Why Moving the Capital to Baghdad Would Not Impossible For the URJ (UHAC)

"Here's the big problem that I see: To rebuild Babylon into the economic world center, as described in the bible, it will take much money and time. Money will not be a problem when the Arab nations consolidate, but economic empires (cities) are not physically built overnight (e.g. Hong Kong). And until this is completed along with the temple for the world's religious center (see: Zech. 5:5-11; note: "in the land of Shinar" = Babylon = Iraq), then the prophecies can not be fulfilled. This is of concern, because it appears that this "problem" area will take some time to complete, thereby possibly moving the future, yet unfulfilled prophetic events well into the next century (and millennium). The only consolation is the proposition that with the "New World Order" (NWO), all nations cooperating together as with Babel (Gen. 11:1-9), this could then speed up the progress of rebuilding Babylon. After the flood mankind built Babel with one united purpose. God confused the language (with many languages) and further inhibited this "world order" by also separating the continents in Peleg's time (Gen. 10:25; 1 Chron. 1:19). Since then the world, with it's technology, has now overcome these two major obstacles placed by God. Thus, the way is clear for the NWO and the building of the great city Babylon (Rev. 18:9-21). Nevertheless, as I've said, considering these realities, it could still take some time to built such a great city that's the world's economic and religious center according to the biblical prophecies."


This was written before Saddam Hussein was caught and executed in Tikrit. "Nevertheless, as I've said, considering these realities, it could still take some time to built such a great city that's the world's economic and religious center according to the biblical prophecies." Enter the Union of Reform Judaism (formerly the Union of Hebrew American Congregations), who had no problem moving the capital of Israel to Berlin, the "Yerushalayim Chadash":


"Berlin and Jerusalem have an interesting relationship. Ever since the 19th Century, when there was widespread sentiment that "Berlin is the New Jerusalem", the cities been, in a sense, antipodal. We all know about the prescient words of the Meshekh Chokhma, and we know about the fortunes of the two cities since then."

The Union of Reform Judaism, since they don't take Tanakh or Zionism seriously (and I already blogged about the URJ's belief in Tanakh as "not divinely-authored") would more than be willing to declare Bavel as Ha'Yerushalayim Chadasha. Even one (so to speak) flip little bird stated, "And yet I do not believe that the Torah was dictated by God to Moses on Mount Sinai." Another commented, "Shavuot is not even understood by most Reform Jews, and since most don't believe that the Torah was given at Sinai as the word of God, how is this relevant to us? The same can be said of Sukkot--who wants to live in a shack for eight days?"

If even Shav'uot is not taken seriously, why would Yerushalayim l'Yerushalayim be? Besides, Reform Judaism believes in a Yom Meshichi (Messianic Age) rather than a Mashiach. So, in order to use tikun ha'olam to bring about HaYom Meshichi, the URJ would be willing to do as they did as UHAC-- expect that they would substitute Bavel for Berlin.  

David Mamet vs. The Anonymous Reform Jew: Who's Right?

David Mamet asserts:


"Any conflict may be stilled by surrender. Reform Judaism, for reasons good or bad, but which, I am sure, seemed good to its various practitioners at the time of implementation, abandoned Yiddish, Hebrew, the Talmud, kashrut, ritual, the Eastern European Jews and currently toys with condemnation of its co-religionaries in Israel. In order to defend what?


"After all the compromises have been made, and the conflict persists, and the will of the people has been broken by a lazy reversion to “the truth must lie somewhere in between,” what remains but the destruction of the Jews?"


The anonymous Reform Jew responds:


"David Mamet’s recent, meandering tirade demands a response, even if cogency permits only a partial rejoinder. So, I will limit myself to where he begins and I where I “live,” with the Reform Movement.


"He accuses Reform Judaism of categorically surrendering “Hebrew, the Talmud, kashrut, ritual, the Eastern European Jews, and currently toys with condemnation of its co-religionaries in Israel.” Thence, Mr. Mamet connects the Reform Movement to anti-Israel sentiment located on a spectrum that spans naïveté and, implicitly, self-hatred.


"In the end, his condemnation avoids facts and invokes, in their stead, inapposite truisms. If “Napoleon taught us the logical end of purely defensive warfare is surrender,” Mamet has yet to demonstrate that Reform Judaism does indeed surrender. He omits the evidence, because it contradicts his argument."


Who's right? The answer is: David Mamet. The anonymous Reform Jew concedes:


"In ritual and halakhic terms, Mr. Mamet offers nothing more than an anachronistic caricature, and in so doing, debases the Jewish communal conversation. Hebrew is a staple in Reform services, as is the millennial tradition of mutual aid. In theory, we are more flexible on matters of halakha than other non-Orthodox movements, but it’s not clear to me that our practice differs all that much. Shabbat services in Reform synagogues are lively affairs. Torah study for adults and religious schools for children flourish, and Reform Jews’ connectedness to Judaism—traditional and progressive—thickens day by day.

"As for our condemnation of fellow Jews in Israel: It is true that we will condemn someone for gratuitous violence, as we did in response to the recent arson attack on an Israeli mosque. And it is true that we will argue with fellow Jews for much less. But Mr. Mamet chooses to overlook the crucial fact that we argue with our coreligionists and, I trust, they requite le-shem shamayim, for the sake of heaven. We struggle with God Himself for the same purpose, namely, to work out the relationship between the sanctity of our Covenant, on the one hand, and the messy frailty of our worldly experience, on the other. Reform Judaism will not apologize for willingly, zealously engaging in that struggle, including both its traditional and modern aspects.

"For the sake of that argument, allow me to concede that it is true that in the nineteenth century, the Reform Movement did begin to take major steps in distancing itself from traditional forms of Judaism. It is also true that a large part of the American Reform Movement was non- or anti-Zionist leading up to 1948. For that very reason, Stephen S. Wise created a Reform alternative, known as the Jewish Institute of Religion, an avowedly Zionist academy. Following Israeli independence, the Hebrew Union College merged with the Jewish Institute of Religion, embracing its Zionism."

In conclusion, David Mamet pegged Reform Judaism well. David Mamet well concludes:

"We are enjoined, “Justice, justice shall you pursue.”

"The question, “What is justice,” is the eternal question of the Jew. The answer, “It is what my group tells me,” is not the Jewish answer."

Reform Judaism goes with URJ, CCAR, and other helping-to-serve-self thinking instead of with Tanakh. Tanakh gives three options-- all 613 mitzvot, Yeshua, or a whole host of tsuris. And Reform Judaism, being Non Messianic, does not have the option to skip any of the 613 mitzvot -- including supporting Yisra'el.

More URJ Arrogance: A Real Reform BA'AL Teshuvah Alright...

Richard Furman has hutzpah to be saying the following. Why did Moshe address the men, by the way? Moshe addressed primarily the men with He said to the people "'Be ready for three days, don’t go near a woman.'" The Ivri men and women understood this as that the men were not to have sexual relations with the women (and vice versa) during Hayamim L'Kiddush. And the ishim, being the roshim l'ishot, had to be addressed. Moshe was not being chauvinistic or "not do[ing] all of what he was told".




The moment of the revelation at Sinai is a curious moment; It begins with our text telling us how God tells Moses to prepare the Israelites:

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָֹה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵךְ אֶל־הָעָם וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר וְכִבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָֽם: וְהָיוּ נְכֹנִים לַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי כִּי | בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִשִׁי יֵרֵד יְהוָֹה לְעֵינֵי כָל־הָעָם עַל־הַר סִינָֽי:(שמות י"ט: י"-י"א)

God said to Moses “Go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow; they shall wash their clothes. They shall be ready on the third day, for on the third day Adonai will descend before the eyes of all the whole nation upon Mount Sinai.”(Ex. 19:10-11)

The actual delivery of this message is rather different:

וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה מִן־הָהָר אֶל־הָעָם וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת־הָעָם וַֽיְכַבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָֽם: וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־הָעָם הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים לִשְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים אַֽל־תִּגְּשׁוּ אֶל־אִשָּֽׁה:(שם, י"ד-ט"ו)

Moses descended from the mountain to the people. He sanctified the people and they washed their clothing. He said to the people “Be ready for three days, don’t go near a woman.”(Ibid, 14-19)

That Moses here is injecting a misogyny into the moment that God did not command is noted by Ellen Frankel in the Five Books of Miriam (117-118). Indeed, even the קול סתם, the narrative voice of Torah, tells us that Moses addresses “העם” whereas God told him to address "כל־העם", thus suggesting that Moses did not do all of what he was told. The injection of that misogyny, however, is not the main problem with this disparity, but rather that the change took place at all. This introduces the fundamental problem of mediated experience: the mediator necessarily changes the message.

Just a Few Examples: You Might Be Antimissionary If...

1. You don't believe in Jesus.
2. You not only don't believe in Jesus, but you don't tolerate that anyone else does.
3. You've sat or you'd sit shiva even for your Anusi loved ones, or who you now consider ex-loved ones.
4. You like to pretend that Jews for Jesus (Hebrew Christians, etc.) aren't Jewish and are nothing but Pseudo-Jewish Anti Semites who know nothing about or of Jewish culture (as someone accused me of).
5. You allow anyone to believe in anyone or anything but Jesus; or if you're more extreme, only Judaism and especially not in Jesus.
6. You support groups such as Yad L'Achim, the Jewish Internet Defense Force, the Jewish Defense League, and Jews for Judaism; or on the other extreme, the Union of Reform Judaism and Central Conference of American "Rabbi"s, and the Anti Defamation League. You also support Antimissionary and other haredi and Likud, or URJ and CCAR policy.
7. You devote whole websites or sections of websites to Antimissionarism.
8. You link to Antimissionary websites.
9. You go to Messianic Jewish websites (e.g., Jews for Jesus' website) just to attack and persecute Messianic Jews.
10. Most or all of your life is devoted to being an Antimissionary.
11. You don't allow Messianic Jews and those tolerant of Messianic Jews to have freedom of speech, religion, the press, or other freedoms.
12. Your favorite sexual position is either "Missionary" by a different name or not "Missionary". (I'm sure that there are Antmissionarys like that.)
13. You sit in a yeshiva and are a haredi talmid l'talmud-Talmud Bavli, yom l'yom v'laila l'laila; and read Tanakh only in an Antimissionary way.
14. You support terrorism against those such as Ami Ortiz.
15. You burn or otherwise destroy sefirot such as full copies of Tanakh-- Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, Brit Chadashah; and you complain about Jewish and other Christian sefirot, websites, etc. when nobody's forcing you to engage or utilize them.
16. You constantly twist out of context or have never even read-- and still twist out of context-- Brit Chadashah.
17. You blame Paul for saying that Yeshua ze Mashiach when Paul just affirmed what Yeshua said.
18. You're Abraham Foxman, Skylar Curtis, Noah David Simon, David Appletree, or any person or organization who supports them.
19. You compare every Jewish Christian to or stereotype every Jewish Christian as Pablo Christiani and Nicolas Donin; or you even you compare Jews for Jesus to the Nazis who tried to destroy all Jews, including Messianic Jews.
20. You consider Messianic Jewish websites and organizations as hate, impostor, or similar types of websites and organizations.
21.  You spit, plug your ears, usr hand sanitizer, or whatever else every time you hear the name "Jesus", see a picture of Jesus, etc.

Geraldo's Become More Religious; Let's Just Hope That It's For the Good

By the way, I got Anti-Semitically attacked for explaining this:

My explanation to Anti Semite Jackie White Snow, who subsequently had her comment removed. And Facebook just removed Carole Lynn's Anti-Semitic, personal attack against me (That was quick.).

Meanwhile, what I don't know is how good Geraldo becoming more religiously Jewish is. So, writing "God" as "G#d" on Geraldo's part may well reflect a further gravitation towards Far-Left, Self-Hating-Jewish (e.g., Eric Yoffe and Richard Jacobs), Union-of-Reform-Judaism Judaism. (And I give Masada2000.org this-- they show the damage of not believing that Tanakh is G-d's Word):

So, is that Geraldo is committed to Reform Judaism more necessarily a good thing considering this?

The Reform position is much more complicated. First, how do we know what God wants? Reform asserts that every knowledgeable Jew has an equal claim to a personal understanding of what God wants. Therefore, Movement-wide agreement is, in principle, not necessary nor desirable, nor probably even possible. We each (if we are knowledgeable about the tradition, if we confront it seriously and take its claims and its wisdom seriously) have the ability, the freedom, indeed the responsibility to come to a [potentially differing] personal understanding of what God wants us to do.
But if we are free to choose, what, then, is the point of Torah (and halacha)? For me, and I think for many other Reform Jews as well (though in principle it doesn't matter), it is a record of how our people, in widely differing times, places and societal circumstances, experienced God's presence in their lives, and responded. Each aspect of halacha is a possible gateway to experience of the holy, the spiritual. Each aspect worked for some Jews, once upon a time, somewhere in our history. Each, therefore, has the potential to open up holiness for people in our time as well, and for me personally.
However, each does not have equal claim on us, on me. Much of the halacha arose in societal settings where distance from the peoples in whose midst we lived was desirable. The "outside" world was dark, dangerous and threatening. That is no longer our situation. We welcome, applaud and are uplifted by much of Western culture. Portions of the halacha whose main purpose seems to be to distance us from our surroundings no longer seem functional.

This is also does become problematic especially when one considers, "Some (the agricultural laws, for instance) are no longer possible to observe. Others (the sacrificial laws, for instance) come from a social context so foreign to our own that it would be impossible to conceive modern people finding holiness in their revival."

Yet, if one is lo b'Yeshua, he or she must keep all 613 mitzvot. One either has to follow Torah-Moshe or the Brit Chadashah, which Torah-Moshe pointed to and-- where Torah Moshe does not deliberately contradict Brit Chadashah-- can be followed within the context thereof   (cf. Acts 15, Romans 7:4-25, 14; Galatians 1:6-12, 5:7-12): yeshuat cannot be found in both. The deliberate contradictions, by the way, are explained by Romans 7:4-25 and are exemplified in-- for instance-- D'varim 23:1-8; in where ahavah, rachamim, and other attributes are not shown. e.g. (Emphasis mine):

• ¹¹ For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. ¹² Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.¹³ Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. ¹⁴ For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. ¹⁵ For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. ¹⁶ If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. ¹⁷ But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. ¹⁸ For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. ¹⁹ For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. ²⁰ Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

• ¹ “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.
  ² “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.
  ³ “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD forever, ⁴ because they did not meet you with bread and water on the road when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia,^[a] to curse you. ⁵ Nevertheless the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loves you. ⁶ You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever.
  ⁷ “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land. ⁸ The children of the third generation born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.

Yezhekel 18:1-9 helps explain Romans 7:4-25 in light of D'varim 23:1-8:

 
 ¹ The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, ² “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:

      ‘ The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
      And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

³ “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
       ⁴ “ Behold, all souls are Mine;
      The soul of the father
      As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
      The soul who sins shall die.
       ⁵ But if a man is just
      And does what is lawful and right;
       ⁶ If he has not eaten on the mountains,
      Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
      Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife,
      Nor approached a woman during her impurity;
       ⁷ If he has not oppressed anyone,
      But has restored to the debtor his pledge;
      Has robbed no one by violence,
      But has given his bread to the hungry
      And covered the naked with clothing;
       ⁸ If he has not exacted usury
      Nor taken any increase,
      But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity
      And executed true judgment between man and man;
       ⁹ If he has walked in My statutes
      And kept My judgments faithfully—
      He is just;
      He shall surely live!”
      Says the Lord GOD.
   

Given  Yezhekel 18:1-9, then, D'varim 23:1-8 points to that "sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful." So, since Geraldo is lo b'Yeshua  and has to keep deliberately-hateful mitzvot such as D'varim 23:1-8-- regardless of the Union of Reform Judaism says--, Geraldo is becoming more religious in a bad way by gravitating more toward Reform Judaism (which, as I said, his writing "God" as "G#d" may well reflect).