|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 13, 2024 11:53:18 GMT -8
That doesn't particularly surprise me. I can imagine that her ex-manager was a little irritated at her firing him, thus might have been more negative than called for. On the other hand, as I recall, when we spoke she was not much heard from and Madonna was going gangbusters. So maybe that had something to do with the mood of our conversations.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 13, 2024 18:23:34 GMT -8
I was just reading some excerpts from Prager's book, Why the Jews?, and this quote seems appropriate: Prager is the long-time Jewish scholar, not me. So I'm not going to try to defend his statements. But he does seems to also have a rather practical and eyes-wide-open view of things. As you noted earlier: Maybe the best of a bad bunch. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 13, 2024 18:27:41 GMT -8
I wouldn't parse it too deeply. As far as I can see, the only two people in entertainment (whether managers or performers) who aren't/weren't complete assholes is John Wayne and Doris Day. I'm sure there were others.
So, I mean, just dealing with someone in entertainment at random means not to expect too much. But, sure, there must even be good and honest managers here and there. But I wouldn't begin to tell anyone how to know which is which.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 13, 2024 18:44:51 GMT -8
Kavanagh QC (John Thaw) is a very liberal-oriented program. You know that type. But there are some good episodes here and there. Right now I'm watching Bearing Witness (Season 4, Episode 4). I may have seen this years ago. It looks familiar. But I'm sort of working my way through them on Amazon Prime. They may be available elsewhere. Long story short: A kid (a minor) needs a blood transfusion. He's a Jehovah's Witness, as is his mother. They believe they can't have blood transfusions. I've read all the official passages concerning that from the JW website. All the passages refer to eating blood. There is no mention of blood in regards to medical procedures. So, to me, it's all bullshit, just an attempt to set themselves apart. I realize there are umpteen Jewish dietary laws against eating blood. But, let's face it, unless you hold to a strict vegetarian menu, I would think it impossible not to eat any sort of meat and not have at least a little blood in it. And that's really the question: When is religious belief "good" and when it is the bad kind we call "religious fundamentalism"? And it can't (can it?) just be a matter of a Goldilocks-like "just right" middle ground, for the Bible itself preachers against being lukewarm. However, having lived through the KFF and all the Nazi-like authoritarianism combined with countless falsehoods, I'm a very strong believer that each individual should have the right to abstain from government-mandated treatments. And (going by the JW site), apparently blood transfusions are no longer technically necessary and there are, of course, many advantages to avoiding what we know is often a tainted blood supply. So maybe the JWs were right for the wrong reasons...at least in the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 13, 2024 18:47:18 GMT -8
Prager's quote would seem to comport with my findings. As I previously mentioned,
I have been commenting on what I have read so far and nowhere is there a hint of the Jews being "a light to the nations" in the books up to Samuel. I believe the concept developed over centuries and was finally expressed in Isaiah. I will continue reading and see where the journey takes me.
I can only say that if what I have read so far is accurate, the Israelites were about as sorry a group of people as ever walked the earth. Normally, such records as the Bible deal mainly with leaders and the influential. As such, one might claim that only the leaders were rotten and not the common folk. But the Bible makes clear that the whole bunch were horrible, not just leaders such as Saul or the various other infamous people mentioned. A notable exception is Ruth. It is clear why she has been held in high esteem for centuries.
How this group changed into the Jews will be interesting to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 13, 2024 19:07:33 GMT -8
I have watched a couple of episodes on FilmRise British TV. This is free TV, but has lots of commercials. Even though I like John Thaw, I stopped watching after two or three stories. Maybe I'll give it another go.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 13, 2024 19:11:10 GMT -8
Well, in the NIV version, Isaiah 49:6 says: That sounds pretty universal to me. In an interview about his Rational Bible series, Prager says: He's got a point. |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 13, 2024 19:15:13 GMT -8
Sorry, I mis-wrote. I meant to say "was mentioned specifically by Isaiah not before." Of course, it is universal as I previously mentioned that many believe this was a hint at the coming of Christ who is completely universal.
Absolutely. Thoughts roll around in my my head as to why the Israelites are so portrayed. Is it to show some progression, albeit slow, in a people who believe in and follow the LORD? Is it to show that all in the human race are irredeemable regardless being "Chosen" or not, thus building to the need for a universal redeemer i.e. Christ? I think Christians might tend to this interpretation. Is there some other reason? I have not finished the Old Testament yet, so I will continue to let the thoughts continue to roll around in my head.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 13, 2024 19:16:43 GMT -8
The episodes are spotty, I can definitely see running into two or three in a row that are so-so, But I can recommend: Season 4, Episodes 2, 3. I've seen them recently.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 13, 2024 19:31:19 GMT -8
I've read two of Prager's Rational Bible series. I have the Kindle sample of his third centered on Deuteronomy. I just haven't yet got around to purchasing it. Here's a quote from the introduction:
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 13, 2024 20:02:31 GMT -8
I don't disagree. But having reached 2 Samuel, I have yet to see God's weapon have a huge influence, consistent influence, much less victory. And I mean among his chosen people. I understand that life is a struggle and perhaps God's struggle was to try and improve man, letting man act as a conscious participant in his own improvement, instead of making us all robots who do exactly what we are programed to do.
Without getting into theology, I will say that the Code of Hammurabi, which predated the Torah by some 500 years according to modern scholars, also had laws dealing with thief, murder and such. I would need to look into these more closely to comment further on them.
As to the greatest importance of Judaism, I think this might be its monotheism. All moral knowledge/power is vested into one supreme being. This reduces the confusion and contradiction which arise from polytheism. In Judaism, everything stops at the LORD's seat.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 14, 2024 7:21:49 GMT -8
Well, we don't sacrifice children anymore...except for abortion, of course.
We no long throw virgins into volcanoes, although that probably was a rare event.
Other than that, given the recent history of the Holocaust, WWI, WWII, etc., victory by God has yet to be achieved, must less hinted at.
By the way, in Prager's writing he does not hold to the convention of needing to write it as G-d. I'll respect that convention, but it does seem gratuitous. But then Prager is, by his own admission, not an orthodox Jew by any means.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 14, 2024 8:26:00 GMT -8
Well, we can see how easily both Judaism and Christianity are adopting the new PPW (pagan/progressive wokeness). However, I don't doubt that Christianity is more marketable to the wider world because it dispensed with all those (to my mind) obsessive/compulsive Jewish laws.
Going by the KBR commentary (Kungian Biblical Review), the Jews may have needed all those laws (and still do) because they were a particularly rebellious bunch of blighters, as seen in recent history by how so many of them supported Marxism/Communism. Given the cesspool that probably most people were living in several thousand years ago, mayby all those fine-grained laws were needed to pull them up and make them presentable to God, particularly as a vehicle for spreading the Torah.
Where I think a modern mind has some trouble with all this (religion, generally speaking) is that via our apps and our phones we haven near instant communication with anyone in the world. And yet God, for some reason, refuses to have even a Twitter account or web site. I mean, it's a reasonable supposition that the most important Being in existence should perhaps communicate better. We are left with "revealed" texts that we suppose were written by people inspired by God Almighty. But all this is very very fuzzy.
So, one reads these old texts, and one rightly might wonder about their relevance, even apart from the pre-programming most people have had these days that equates "old" with "outdated and useless." These are old questions and doubts that solve nothing. Still, you have to wonder why the obscurity when supposedly the questions at hand are so direly important.
And I don't buy into the atheist/Progressive smear that sneers at the idea of God because we are not presented by an Earthly utopia. "If God is real, why are there flat tires and hurricanes?" It seems common-sense enough that most of the problems are ones we create ourselves and the Bible is at least someone's attempt to provide a guide for right conduct.
But the modern mind is spoiled, egotistical, and entitlement-minded. As I've said often, most people have the expectations of the Princess in The Princess and the Pea. We've gotten soft, pampered, spoiled, and thus morally rotten. A *little* suffering is probably indeed good for the soul.
Perhaps then this is why religion is running full-sprint toward getting rid of standards of right-and-wrong and embarrassing the therapeutic/feel-good content of woke progressive culture which asks only that we accept everyone's sins equally.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 14, 2024 11:21:24 GMT -8
So far, I have been reserving my comments for the Israelites. I will again stress that there were no Jews. Nary a mention of them or Judaism up through 1 Samuel.
Interestingly, small hints start to appear in 2 Samuel. David conquers Jerusalem which has another name and was held by the Jebusites. From this time forward it is called the City of David. Prior to this, it was not particularly important.
There is also some slight differentiation between "Israel" and Judah. David was from Judah.
For all the great things we have heard of David, I must say, he was a savage, self-willed, vicious man. He seems to have started out well enough, but once he became King....well, I can only say, what a bum. Like many of the Israelites mentioned in the Bible, he seems to have the maturity and self control of an adolescent. He was certainly a good killer, and that was clearly necessary if one wished to survive. But he disobeyed God profoundly. I am not saying I am perfect, but I wonder if I would be so disobedient if God had been talking to me personally.
That said, David means "Beloved." Beloved of whom? God. So maybe David was taking advantage of his special place in God's heart.
Perhaps there is some hint at God's way of thinking in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
Maybe he saw the futility of communicating directly with even his favorites and finally decided to give a road may and let those, who truly desire to, find the way to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 14, 2024 11:39:10 GMT -8
Of course, I have something like 500-550 pages to go to finish the Old Testament, but I am moving to the conclusion that the message is that God will stick with us even though we don't stick with him. That he is giving man a choice in the hope that man learns, but so far, man constantly lets God down.
God lets man continue in failure because God has given man agency. This leads me to the logical step of Christianity. While wishing to give man agency i.e. free will, he has seen that man is neither strong enough, nor good enough to grasp and follow God's laws. Thus God sends his Son to earth in order to atone for the sins of mankind. He wipes the sin slate clean, but still leave man agency in the choice of accepting Christ or not. God does not want robots to worship him.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 14, 2024 11:48:26 GMT -8
I sometimes find Prager to be a bit disingenuous. Of course Christianity was more accessible to the pagan world. The Jews, and by the time Christianity appeared they were Jews, were not much interested in others coming into the fold. (To put it mildly)
As to the good news that the Messiah had come, I cannot recall any such tradition in pagan religion. The expectation of the Messiah was very Jewish, not pagan. Prager's comparison is, I believe, somewhat misleading.
I suspect I will have more to say on this subject as I plow through the Book.
As to Prager's remarks in general, I should acknowledge that Prager's will likely have been formulated using the Old Testament, but also the Talmud and various Jewish commentaries. I am a person who likes to go to the source document and see what it says, before I move to commentaries made by numerous people centuries after the source document was written. Thus my observations are formulated from reading the Old Testament. Nothing else.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 15, 2024 7:12:52 GMT -8
That makes perfect sense. In this case, I'm okay with Prager doing a bit of my thinking. There's about zero chance that I will ever study these texts in Hebrew as he has. Arguably, that is getting closer to the source document than I will ever get. Generally speaking, his The Rational Bible series works as arguments against the general irreligiousness of the West and its hostility toward Christianity, in particular. Atheists and other angry people don't split hairs between the Old and New Testaments. Prager's defense of the Torah is thus (and as he frames it) a defense of all the Bible as Christians know it. No, he's not an overt proponent of Christianity, of course. But nor is he simply trying to convert anyone into becoming a Jew. As he remarks, there is no commandment in the Torah to try to convert anyone to become a Jew. But there is an admonition to bring people to the Torah. As Prager reminds his Christian readers, Prager is my CliffsNotes.  |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 15, 2024 9:58:33 GMT -8
I understand perfectly. I am using The Revised English Bible published in 1989 by the Oxford University Press as my primary text. From time to time I will compare the text of that translation with the World Publishing Company's Holy Bible based on the King James Bible. I will also occasionally compare it to The Amplified Bible, published in 1965 by the Zondervan Publishing Company. It may no be the original ancient Hebrew, but I figure this is about as close as a non-scholar can get. One thing I like about the World Publishing Company's Bible is that it has the words of Jesus printed in red. It was a Christmas present from my parents to me in 1962.
I think Prager falls into the apologetics category. As such he wants to present his overall subject in the best possible light. I would use the metaphor of old shoes. All religious traditions have more and less positive sides. They have been around a long time like a pair of old shoes. When we want to convince others of the value of our old shoes, which are dusty and scruffy, we first take the shoes out, clean them up and polish them to a high-gloss shine. We want to put our best foot forward. I think this is quite normal, but perhaps I am a bit perverse. I want to see the shoes before they have been shined.
Don't I know it. That is the position of the majority of Protestant denominations. You will recall that I wrote:
That said, it is the New Testament, the New Covenant, that is to be followed. The Old Testament is no longer law. It is history which needs to be understood in order to know Christianity's roots, and may help in interpreting how Christians need to act in certain cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 15, 2024 10:29:40 GMT -8
Funny you should mention this. I was thinking about Cliff Notes the other day. My older brothers did, but I never used them.
There were a number of reasons for this. I thought it a bit unfair to simply copy what others wrote. Perhaps my thinking was strange, but I felt that if something was important enough to read then I should actually read it and try to understand it on my own, not borrow from others. If it wasn't important enough to read, i.e. it didn't interest me, I couldn't be bothered to try and snow a teacher by using Cliff Notes. You can imagine how my results would look on a graph.
I will say that these are memories from about 60 years back so I could also just be putting a gloss on things. Sort of like the polished shoe analogy I just wrote about. Maybe I was just lazy and dumb.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Aug 15, 2024 12:08:14 GMT -8
One of the funniest Seinfeld episodes is where George is supposed to read Breakfast at Tiffany's as part of a book club that he belongs to. But, of course, he puts it off and runs out of time. But then he learns there is a movie. So he rents the movie...or tries to. I'm sure you've seen that one.
|
|
