Pointless

Maybe it won't be so hard to shred you after all

Then reason is good at explaining things, but when describing people it becomes very ambiguous.

So maybe religion, like people isn't as open to 'reason' as your occidentally conditioned mind would desire.

theres nothing hebrew about hebrews

We shall see

"The audience likely consisted of Hebrew Christians, and this letter written to warn them of the dangers of abandoning Christ and returning to Judaism. This letter may also have been written to encourage Jews to move forward and make a decision for Christ."

Random commentary

in the sense that everyone has a Jewish soul, and the people who are 'Jews by Choice' are simply returning to their natural state?

or do you mean simply free from familial influence?

If the latter, how do you know this, as I dont agree, although I can find no source to back this up - it is just my assumption.

sunshine i feel aout 3 foot high


people look at me and thing controvercy!


among other things

il back u up

ah ha


How Many Jews Are There in America?

According to the NJPS 2000, 5.2 million people in America today constitute the core Jewish population. Of these, approximately one million persons classified themselves as having been born Jewish, but having no identification with any religious group; 185,000 identified themselves as Jews by Choice, i.e., converts. (For the purpose of this article, all Jews by Choice have been considered Jewish, regardless of the denomination recognizing the conversion.) Thus, affiliated Jews numbered approximately 4.2 million in 2000, and constituted about four-fifths of all identified Jews.

i agree i mean hav u seen teh start of snatch?

full ov em and america is vast

isn't this strange?

See List of British Jewish scientists

* Sir Alfred Ayer, philosopher, major figure in logical positivism, (Jewish mother)
* Lord Peter Bauer, international development economist (Catholic by religion)
* Sir Isaiah Berlin, political philosopher, historian of ideas
* Sir Hermann Bondi, cosmologist, co-developer of steady-state theory
* Sydney Brenner, molecular biologist, Nobel Prize (2002)
* Sir Ernst Chain, biochemist, penicillin co-developer, Nobel Prize (1945)
* Sir Michael Epstein, biologist
* Rosalind Franklin, molecular biologist, DNA pioneer
* Brian David Josephson, Nobel Prize
* Sir Hans Adolf Krebs, biochemist, Krebs cycle, Nobel Prize (1953)
* Harold Kroto, biologist Nobel Prize (Jewish father)
* Max Newman, mathematician and computer pioneer, Colossus (Jewish father)
* Leslie Orgel, chemist
* Sir Rudolf Peierls, physicist, theory of hole carriers in semiconductors, Enrico Fermi Award (1980) (possible Roman Catholic mother)[1]
* Sir Max Perutz, chemist and molecular biologist, Nobel Prize (1962)
* Sir Karl Popper, leading twentieth century philosopher of science
* David Ricardo, greatest classical economist after Adam Smith (converted to Unitarianism)
* James Joseph Sylvester, mathematician, major contributor to matrix theory

Surely this is extremely conflicting?

for a smart jewish man he has a BRAVE NAME


Sir Hans Adolf Krebs, biochemist, Krebs cycle, Nobel Prize (1953

Can you show me the 'reason' behind supporting big bang theory?

Can you explain the 'reason' behind something from nothing or at the very least infinite from miniscule?

If someone told you that everything you experience in your life was an illusion and that you were the only thing that were true… Could you disprove them?

I probably would question them, but I'd respect their beliefs and I certainly wouldn't force my perspective upon them... If they then offered a compelling and comprehensive rationale to backup their claims then I'd pay attention to what they were saying.

I’m so tired of explaining my beliefs that I will compile one final post on the matter; in this post I will attempt to explain my relationship with Judaism (today, by tomorrow my relationship will of evolved).

Within this space-time-continuum anything with mass retains a profusion of energy that has been in existence since the conception of the universe, and while the matter it creates goes through cyclic transformations, the energy remains and shall remain until the end of time. It is the eternal nature of energy that nudges my beliefs towards a spiritual dimension… Ein Sof is a Kabalic term that is used to loosely describe g-d, in laymans terms it means "without end”, this description correlates with our understanding of energy.

If we were to think in an analytic manner while ignoring individual religious persuasions, we could deduce that this energy is not just the pabulum of life/matter, but the essence itself and it is within this domain that one can connect existence with the Jewish interpretation of G-d… G-d is not a supreme being zapping people from heaven every time they utter a chillul hashem: He is the chillul hashem, he is the person uttering the chillul hashem, he is the ground the man walks on, the tree sprouting out of the ground… He is without end.

In my opinion energy and existence are one and the same, now I do not know if my g-d is a conscious g-d that created the universe or if my g-d is post conscious and exists so that we exist.

However, I also realise the knowledge that I draw my beliefs from comes from scripts written over the course of 3000 years, scripts which modern science continually confirms – if the Tanakh is not true, then there existed an intellectual community in the ancient world which possessed knowledge which excels that of the modern world… This is too large a concept for me to grasp… How could Moses know that a snake tastes dust particles to hunt pray? How could they know that of all the earths animals only four of the worlds species would either have split their hoofs or chew their cud; but not both? Then we compare the chronology of the bible with archaeological discoveries and they begin to match up with tremendous accuracy (from floods too the revelation of g-d, from the tower of Babel to geographical regions)… If the Torah isn’t the word of g-d then these men were scholars of the highest magnitude.

What truly fascinated me was the discovery of modern theories like anthropic principle which fuse perfectly with ancient Jewish teachings, the fine tuning of the universe cannot be chance and no cosmologist has been able to explain these odds with ‘reason’… I’m sure you’re well versed on the probabilities of the universe’s sequence of events occurring naturally… There’d be more chance of a monkey typing out “a midsummer’s night dream” than the sequence of events which gave birth to the universe occurring without external influences.

My faith isn’t blind and is with reason, but my idea of reason differs from yours…

Einstein was a GREAT Jewish scientist, but he didn't believe G-d, or indeed any personal God existed. He called the idea naive.

Very few scientists indeed believe in a personal god

Jews by choice simply means we're no longer forced (by the goyim) to be Jewish.... Historically Jewish by choice meant you were a convert.

In medieval times if you were born Jewish you were forced to live in a ghetto/shtetl, denied the same priviliges as gentiles (university, property, etc.)... So in essence you were condemned to jewry before you were concieved.

When the ghetto walls were torn down, Jews were free to leave the ghetto and engage in gentile society... Thus anyone who remained Jewish - was Jewish by choice.

Why is it strange? Proportionatly Jews have won more nobel prizes than any other religious/racial demographic.

Einstein believed in a g-d, he just didn't believe in the conventional hebrew g-d... He never disclosed whether his g-d was a conscious being or merely the course of nature.

As for very few scientists are religious... what an uttterly idiotic statement thats based on nothing but your subjective guess work... For every g-dless scientist you name and can provide you with a religious one.

He called the structue of nature vaguely religion, I can't link this with the conventional descriptions of a being that has not evolved and created the universe.

Your next point:

Thank you, but I'll be the judge of what my statements are based on. It is not 'guess work' as you naively hoped, rather, it is from the very respected journal Nature in 1998. Here is the reference if you wish to check it:

"Leading Scientists Still Reject God"
Nature, 1998; 394, 313

I can e-mail you the pdf if you would like.

Just 7% of scientists believe in a personal god, and if the trend continues then that number will be even smaller today. Mind you, 7.9% believed in personal immortality in the same survey, so the quality of scientists they were asking is perhaps dubious.

Your other post is far far better though, and I shall be dissecting it after I have been to the supermarket and verified that there's nothing on TV tonight

the first part of that seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. Since pure energy is the essence of the observable universe, to say that everything is energy, and energy is everything, and that includes all matter and all life. well that is nothing more than a statement of scientific fact as we presently understand it. wether you call that energy 'god' or bits of string makes no difference.
wether that energy has 'meaning' or 'purpose' or cares two jots about me or even the whole of mankind is where I think things go a bit tong. That is what seems unlikely to me.

But there is no way to ever prove or disprove it since in order to do so you would have to stand outside our universe and observe it which can't be done by definition.

I can't agree with you about that but I think you have every right not only to believe it but also to try to convince others it's true if you want.

The second part may well be true, perhaps the ancient jewish scholars knew all about atomic theory, space time, and so on and just didn't have the scientific proofs to back it up, I don't have the benefit of your scholarship on this matter but I have heard enough justification along the lines of 'oh well what they meant was( but they said it in a poetic/metaphysical/hard to understand way)........ or they never said that, they said this (insert selective quote of your choice) or modern scholars agree that................ to have severe doubts about it.

the belief that the eternal energy of the universe is or is not a 'god' is purely a matter of semantics.
where it starts to get weird is when people start to beleive in the tenets of organised religion, which seem to me to be the work of man, and use this to justify their actions, the results of which can be seen in the middle east today.
if you don't believe in a personal god then why argue? it's just a matter of conjecture.

and the' fine tuning of the universe' is such an easily disproved falacy I'm surprised you could be taken in by it. the universe as we see it is exactly right and 'fine tuned' to exist as it does because it exists. The only possible universe for us to exist in is this one. if it was different we wouldn't be here to marvel at it. It seems amazing but so would a digital watch to a caveman.