Pointless

so what have modern Torah scholars concluded that the old ones didn't believe? and on what basis?

You've never read the torah and your only contact with interpretation has been a baal tshuvah.

Are you kidding me?

It would be easier for me to find a part on the Torah that jews have agreed on, we haven't even decided on the opening words of the scroll

Jerry springer has nothing on you brid very conclusive post

can't pick a fault with anything you said

lol yet another example of you commenting on something you know fuck all about.

There are several factors as to why Jews disagree on interpretation - an example which would be easy for a rabid athiest like yourself to understand would be the translation of the words.

In hebrew we don't write vowels, so to know what the word says you must know how its pronounced; you get the pronunciation from the context of the word... As hebrew is a very logical language this is easier than it sounds.

However over 3500 you can understand that there would be variations - a slight difference in vowels could change a word from wounded to pierced (as christian translators discovered).

A poem can be open to interpretation without being vague, the Tanakh is no different.

But the Bible isn't a scientific paper?!?!?

The Tanakh was written in a style that could be understood by man 3500 years ago - there isn't a religious/athiest scholar that would suggest otherwise...

If the g-d of Avraham spoke of quantum physics to a people who hadn't even grasped time it would be too vast a gap for them to bridge... instead jewish scholars believe the Torah was wrote in a style in which the meaning behind the words would grow as mans conscious grew.

Because the Torah isn't a scientific paper!!!

The Torah is designed for personal interpretation; my relationship with hashem is unique and shared by no other man - just as my relationship with my friends are unique.

If the Torah was a factual precise document with only one interpretation it would allow no room for individuality - which is at the heart of every faith.

the laws of nature only exist within this spacetime continuum - we have no indiciation as to whether they would remain the same outside of this universe... quite a retarded comment for a physicist

Because I am not attempting to force my views upon you, your fanatical rantings create an air of anti-religious aggression... I've only ever justified my religion I've never tried to disprove your views or patronise your beliefs.

You're fanatical.

one set of rules for you and an entirely different set for those religious fanatics....

Why does it matter if you're right? surely every individual has the right to determine their own beliefs?!?!?

(and for the record you haven't presented one credible argument; you know neither the origins of the universe or whether there is a higher force.... The difference is I haven't tried to shit on your beliefs as I respect your right to self-determination)

ok stalin.

who the fuck made you g-d, its not your place to dictate how man should think you arrogant cock.

Andy millions more people have died for secularism than from scientific ignorance... you're dealing with small pockets of undereducated demographics in the THIRD WORLD - this has nothing to do with whether man has the right to faith or not!

You talk of religion and science as if they cannot exist together? Modern science comes from religion.

lol which theory have you presented that has observed that there is no higher power?

what probabilities?

a good master debate

Thats quite a primitive analogy of g-d.

A more complete interpretation would be the eternal nature of energy within this universe which nudges the conversation into a spiritual dimension, this energy brings life and substance to existence.

This is closer to my interpretation of the g-d of my ancestors and this was the jewish interpretation long before phsyics taught us of energy and other such invisible forces.

Science is only just beginning to confirm ancient hebrew beliefs, now I cant prove g-d exist - which is why it's a faith based religion.

But you speak of probabilities - yet provide none.

My parents don't believe in g-d, they're ex communists and vociferously opposed to organised religion.

I could understand your vociferous opposition to religion if you could provide conclusive evidence that it is "bullshit", but you have nothing to base your claims on - its speculative opinion.

As you say science is based on observation, until you observe soemthing that can disprove my beliefs it's bad science to dismiss it.

This doesn't mean you should subscribe to a faith, it simply means you shouldn't pass judgement on others.

andy I don't think you understand what faith is, until you understand this its hard to discuss this matter with you.

i just find it depressing that people like you feel its there duty to enforce their perception of the world onto others... you're like an evangelical athiest

andy i thought u would hav learned by now JOE KNOWS ALL THERE IS 2 KNOW ABOUT EVERYTHING, DONT DISAGREE WITH A WORD HE SAYS COZ HE CAN FIND STUFF ON GOOGLE 2 SHUT U UP FOR MINUTES

he'll quote summit from sumwhere just u wait and see

hang on massacre at jericho them walls came down by a blast of sum dudes trumpet

Very few religions present their theories as fact, most religions have learnt that presenting something as fact if theres the chance it could be disproved at later will result in people losing faith.

Most religions present there texts as poetic scripture which is open to personal interpretation... could you name me a religion that doesn't do this please.

they have been seperate sects since the prophet died?!?!? its nothing to do with interpretation - its warring nations.

While nestle tell african mothers that powder milk is a healthier option than breast milk and the tobacco companies fund the education system

We all have the right to raise our children however we feel fitting Andy, this is something you need to learn to accept... You cant force your beliefs down the throat of someone else.

What is the cure for cancer andy?

who is the one calling who inferior in this discourse andy?

are you seriously suggesting that France objection was because they're secular (and not because they had invested interest in Iraq) and that the coalition went to war because g-d told them (and not the oil companies)?

Yeah we've really accepted it, the west never criticises or goes to war with Islam

Are we living on the same fucking planet?!?!?!

you've never read the Torah, how can you comment on its morality - but anyway:

Hashem destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah because they deprayved & greedy. If a child misbehaves, he is punished - its how children learn about morality... Man is no different.

Hashem asked for the sacrifice of Isaac to test Abraham, there was never the intention of an actual sacrifice.

The seige of Jericho was again rooted in morality, an immoral people was occupying a land that wasn't there's they were asked to leave and when they didn't Israel went to war.

You're such an arrogant and disrespectful little cunt, I find your arrogance 'repulsive' - you have taken 3 of the most extreme cases of the bible out of context to support your jumped up ideas.

where does g-d say thou shalt not kill?