[pj]

I have no idea what you just said, it was so illogical, but for the
purposes of future debate, do you accept the Steinsaltz Talmud in its
English translation?

If you have no idea what I just said,
how can you state that it was illogical?
You can't have any opinion on it, because you don't understand it
QED.

1. =A0The Talmud is a compilation compiled by Ravina and Rav Ashi in
about 500 CE
2. =A0Steinsaltz did not write it.
3. =A0The Gedolim of Israel have rejected his work, and I follow the
Gedolim (see Deut 17:8-11)
4. =A0Everyone agrees that the Talmud, like most things in Judaism
cannot be translated into any language This is fact. =A0In order to
understand the Talmud, you have to sift through the multiple layers of
meaning on each point. =A0To translate the Talmud like that would simply
cover a set of volumes that would stretch from one end of the earth to
the other. =A0with each volume the same length of pages. =A0There is no
one way of reading it. =A0Therefore, a translation both does not do
justice to the text, but also misrepresents it.
5. =A0 You can translate the words, but this doesn't make any sense.
You can't understand the Talmud with a simple translation - it makes
little sense.
6. =A0 I don't therefore accept translations of anything, I prefer the
original language - you get more out of the text,
and you understand it much clearer.
7. =A0So I guess the answer is no.
8. =A0Nevertheless, why do you, or anyone else care what I do, or not
do, or accept or not accept?

Danny.

[Mordecai]

1) The concept "G_d" is not in our thoughts. hebrew is a concise language in this
specific area and has many and varied names for the most high. The nearest equivalent
to the word god is Hashem "or "names" indicating all the names of the most high ..
There are other names of the most high with similar meanings ... adanoai or lord is
another obvious one.

[Danny]
The Word Hashem translates as "The Name" referring to the one and only
name that is not pronounced.
yud-kei-vav-kei.

[Mordecai]

2) grammatical ... in hebrew, there are no vowels, instead there are inflections above
and below words to indicate how the word is to sound.

[Danny]
It is a misnomer to say there are no vowels in Hebrew. Hebrew like
any language has to be pronounced.
Without vowels, you don't get pronunciation. What you mean is that
the vowel-letters in Hebrew are not there.
The vowels are obvious to someone who can speak the language. To
someone not well versed, there are vowel-pointers. The vowel pointers
are little dots and lines that tell someone who is not well-versed in
pronouncing
without them, how to pronounce the word correctly. Someone who is
well-versed does not NEED them, but nevertheless, still USES them, to
PRONOUNCE the word.

What you probably mean is that Hebrew does not have *vowel-letters*
like Greek and English, the alphabet, and word structure are comprised
of consonants and vowel-letters. The Hebrew alphabet has only
consonants as part of its word-structure. However, in order to
understand, pronounce and engage with Hebrew, you need vowels. These
are indicated in the text with pointers. These can affect meaning,
depending on the way it is pronounced.

[RaaN]

Forgive the top post for this brief question.
Why do you and other people spell it G_d?
"God" is not His name after all but His title.
Just curious.

[Danny]
In Judaism, the names for G-d are sacrosanct. They are used only in
holiness, purity, and
are treated with the utmost respect and awe. This is articulated and
practiced in a variety of ways.
The classic form of this is in the 10 Commandments, where there is a
restriction on swearing falsely.
This is somewhat related to the concept of awe and respect. In
Judaism, the classic 'oath' involves
using the divine name, and is considered a very serious affair.
People in general do not make these
oaths at all, precisely because they involve serious transgressions if
used inappropriately.

By extension, there are other laws that are related. In Jewish law it
is forbidden to write the names of G-d,
even for holy purposes, if there is even a chance that it will be
degraded in anyway.
Any holy parchment that has become disused has to be disposed of in an
appropriate manner - which usually
means burial.

By extension then, holy books, also have the same status.

With regard to the Holy Names of G-d, since these have a special,
elevated status, anything with that name
upon it, is to be treated with the same degree of holiness and
sanctity. In Jewish law, the same is true for any
attribution as well - in any language. Which means the Anglo-Saxon
translation of the M-ster of the Un-verse - G-o-d, also has
significance (since this is the common way English people refer to
Him), and hence, any text with it has the same status. This means
that any text that is disposed of inappropriately, can be considered a
serious sin. Jews therefore avoid this problem, by removing a letter
and replacing it or, changing the text, so that this can be avoided.
Meaning, if someone happens to print this text out, and then throws it
away, the transgression is minimized.

Hence, when Jews write the name(s) of G-d, they do not write it fully,
precisely to avoid making the text on which it is written sacrosanct,
and therefore require burial.

Danny.

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:40:50 -0600, Keynes
<Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> spake thusly:

Eternity with God is even better. :)

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:40:50 -0600, Keynes
<Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> spake thusly:

Most christians believe that 'salvation' is resurrection
of the dead (for sinners and others) followed by eternity
either in pleasure or in pain, according to one's own
opinion of who is G-d and who isn't.

My opinion is that the kingdom of heaven is salvation,
and it is right here and now, not in any other future 'time'.
The Way to enter the kingdom as described by Jesus is to
accept the goodness of G-d, and not to quarrel with Him.
To be as loving as our Maker who gives all things even
to the undeserving.

Everyone, the good and the bad, dies (whatever death may be).
But what salvation in what future life is more real and better
than the one life we are experiencing now? Looking to the
invisible unreachable future shows a lack of appreciation
of the gifts of G-d, at the very least. If one can't accept
his inheritance now, how can he ever be satisfied in any
future time?

Eternity with God is even better. :)

On Feb 3, 5:52 am, RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 3, 7:31 am,

On Feb 3, 4:02 am, RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 2, 11:19 pm,

On Feb 2, 8:03 pm, RaaN <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 2, 10:55 pm,

Hey, that's nothing. Watch me get both feet in YOUR mouth at once.
Slam bam, thank you, mam.

Silly person to mistake your 2 inches for 2 feet and my mouth for your
own and this for a confessional.
--
RaaN

Very impressive. This is the level of your discourse. And you asked
me to explain the Kingdom of God to you? Do you see now why I
refused. You are infantile to the n^th degree, an intellectual
midget, a village idiot, a complete and utter bore.

I was simply answering in kind is all.
You really do have a problem though.
--
RaaN

There is a difference. I have contributed hundreds of original and
well thought out ideas to this newsgroup. You have contributed none.
ALL of your posts are ad hominem. You really have nothing at all to
say, because you are nothing but a hateful yenta.

So prove you are the better person and be an adult and stop posting
your off topic ideas and vindictive attacks on alt.philosophy.zen why
don't you?
--
RaaN- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Because what I am saying is more relevant to zen philosophy than
anything you are saying, you dumb worthless *****.