Displaying 571 To 600 Of 10,917 Comments KT, it’s deliberately very vague, and I say this as someone who has studied Judaism formally for years. There is a tenet about resurrection of the dead, after the Messiah comes. To Jews, he hasn’t yet. (Unlike the idea of Armageddon, the Messiah will only come when there is peace on Earth–so like that’s gonna happen!) We do pray for the Messiah to come every day. Until then, the dead are dead. The main thing in Judaism is an emphasis on life–on living in the here and now and doing good deeds. There is never any talk of Heaven, even while there is a belief in a soul. Any talk about it is pretty much discouraged. However–and this is really esoteric and unknown to about 99% of Jews–there is a prayer that all practicing Jews say at bedtime that mentions rebirth (as in Buddhism.) But no mainstream rabbi ever, ever talks about it. It was stamped out in the 18th Century, even while the prayer is said today. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 16, 2012 @ 9:54 am Kq, that’s really interesting. Also, it kind of exemplifies what I was talking about. That’s one of the things I hate–the gospel of wealth. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 16, 2012 @ 12:18 am C’lady, that’s wonderful!! Apropos of that, I just got this email from my rabbi about a snippet of prayer. It speaks to the holy metaphor I spoke of to KQ: Sanctuary (from the morning and afternoon prayers) I have heard your Voice echoed, H’, as it speaks through children’s laughter and the veils of pain and suffering. I have known your Reality sanctified, H’; it fills all worlds, it encompasses all, it vivifies all, it is everywhere, it is always, it is everything. But where is your House? Is there not a single shrine in which, day or night, I may encounter you? Is there not one place in which you are forever before me? “In my heart I shall build a sanctuary.*” בתוך לבי משכן אבנה לזיוו (* By Elazar Azikri, a 16th century rabbi who also composed the hymn “Yedid Nefesh” » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 15, 2012 @ 10:18 pm So wait. Was hell once a part of Protestant dogma, and no more? And has Protestant dogma changed about non-believers? I mean, my mind is kinda blown! » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 15, 2012 @ 9:44 pm KQ, well, as you know many religious rites look insane. Mormonism has always struck me as particularly ridiculous, but then I remind myself of all the world religions I’ve studied and they all look pretty crazy from the outside. I was taught to think of the bible–as ALL religious books–as holy metaphor, and that if one understands the underlying truth they are addressing, and if one thinks of the rituals in that light, they make more sense. So I try to be tolerant. HOWEVER. The sense I get about some religions–and Mormonism is definitely one of those–is that their inner teachings are NOT metaphor–they are simplistic and what you see is what you get–no mysticism or poetry or insight into greater truths. I may be completely wrong as I have never studied the Book of Mormon. Scientology is another one like that. In fact all fundamentalism is–it certainly does not accept metaphor! » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 15, 2012 @ 9:39 pm C’Lady, I’m not doubting you for a minute, but seriously, when you say you gave it up for Lent–for real? Because I thought that was the justification for missionaries converting heathens. If that practice was disavowed by Protestantism, bravo! That is news to me–and I like that news. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 15, 2012 @ 9:29 pm AdLib, I like it!! 😀 » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 15, 2012 @ 9:26 pm It’s the Bain way! It looks good on the books, even if the person was never converted. Offshore baptisms! » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 15, 2012 @ 9:09 pm Sally, HOORAY!! Listen, as any parent will agree, there is nothing–NOTHING–that gives us more anguish than when our kid is suffering. I’ve been there with my son, who has been working steadily for over a year now, but had a long patch of temp jobs. I still worry every day that the company he works for will go under or something. When he occasionally complains about an annoyance at work, I have to bite my tongue to not tell him to take it gladly. How sad is that? To be of the mindset that no matter what happens at work now, we have to grin and bear it. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 15, 2012 @ 9:07 pm Sally, that would be awesome! BTW, Jews believe that good people of any or no religion are good to go too. But since we have no real concept of Heaven, it’s hard to say if we’re going there. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 15, 2012 @ 8:59 pm Wow, AdLib, that’s perfect! It goes a bit with what Sally said below which resonated with me, and you rounded it out completely. As I replied to her, it’s a kind of desecration of the dead. And I LOVE what you wrote: “dead means no.” Man, if I was going to be buried instead of cremated, I’d put that on my tombstone! Also, it’s a sort of desperation by Mormons: they didn’t succeed in converting the living so now they hector the dead. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 15, 2012 @ 8:55 pm Hey, kes–I did not know that! Thank you. I didn’t need any consolation, since it never bothered me, but it is important to know. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 15, 2012 @ 8:49 pm Sally, you may have a point there. I really think that is what–illogically–is so reprehensible! I mean, it’s about desecrating the dead. But then, I don’t believe in that possibility either, but I guess old teaching dies hard on me. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 15, 2012 @ 8:47 pm It’s really odd that I am offended (or that any Jew would be) because of course we don’t believe for a second that their “baptism” has any validity–that it changes anything for us in the afterlife. I mean, since we certainly don’t believe in their dogma, how could it have any effect? I find myself angry but it doesn’t make any sense. It’s like some random person declaring, “You, Cher, are not really Jewish!” If that actually happened to me, I’d just laugh–it wouldn’t even upset me. I suppose the difference is that this is being done by a recognized religion, not some schizophrenic on the street. On the other hand, all Christian faiths teach that Jews are going to Hell, and it doesn’t bother me. Weird that this does. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 15, 2012 @ 8:23 pm C’Lady, as I’ve been thinking about it, I’m wary. I mean, yes, they did fold on the payroll tax–if they keep their word. They renege on everything like they did on the sequestration rules from the Super Committee. I wouldn’t put anything past them; they are totally dishonorable. Also, I realized that this is part of bigger legislation that has an extension of UI and the Medicare payments to doctor reimbursements–at least I think so. So I expect the Rethugs to go to the mat over those items. Nonetheless–they freaking caved on this!! They don’t want to raise taxes in an election year. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 13, 2012 @ 12:36 pm Definitely. They can read polls too, when they want to. Obama now has sizable leads over all the Goopers: » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 13, 2012 @ 11:43 am I know, right? So SWEET! » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 13, 2012 @ 11:39 am I sure didn’t see THIS coming: House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said in a statement Monday that they’ll introduce a bill extending the payroll tax cut for the rest of the year without pay-fors. The statement in full: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/breaking-house-gop-to-extend-payroll-tax-cut Now that’s what I call a cave! » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 13, 2012 @ 11:06 am I know I’m repeating myself, but that is a fight I’m looking forward to! I really want this issue widely discussed. I have been as guilty as most people in pushing feminism to the back burner, thinking it was essentially decided and over. It is not, and if this arouses women to become active about feminism again, that’s a bonus. This is just what I needed to wake the fuck up. I am so furious about it that I want this issue of women’s health irrevocably decided and then finally dead and buried forever. By the end of the national discussion about birth control–and abortion–I want to see any politician who speaks out against either to be universally shamed and seen as a threat no different than the Taliban. I want it to become as unacceptable as using the “N” word during prime-time family hour. The Right obviously thinks they have the voters behind them but I have never been as confident about anything that they don’t. This will transcend Party lines. And by that I mean for me too: if any Dem is opposed to low-cost contraception, I would vote for the Repub who is not opposed. It is that fundamental. And if I–the bluest, most rabid of Dems–feels this way, I guarantee there are plenty of Repub women who feel as I do. Even voters who don’t much care about contraception will see this as the Goopers pivoting AWAY from jobs. Wow, I can’t believe they have become so blinded by hate and delusion that they can’t see how suicidal this issue is. GOOD!!! » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 12, 2012 @ 1:10 pm Thanks for posting that, kes. I have saved some other statements from various Catholic groups like yours stating similar feelings. The Church is no more monolithic than is Judaism. (Ok I exaggerated there a bit–but it really isn’t.) » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 10, 2012 @ 2:45 pm Bingo! I think the conservative wing of the Church is the same as the GOP. Further, isn’t it interesting that the GOp ONLY agrees with the Church on matters of sex? For example, the Church has also come out in favor of extending unemployment benefits, against capital punishment, and for more foreign aid to poor countries. The Goopers sure aren’t defending the Church about those issues! » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 10, 2012 @ 2:41 pm Sally, I could not agree with you more! That’s how I feel too. I just think that this is a huge and long-standing issue, and NOT one I want to have a controversy about during a crucial election year. I don’t know if you saw it, but I posted an article showing that the Bishops are still not happy with the accommodation, so even if Obama had put that in originally they would have objected from the get-go. IMO, from a negotiating aspect, Obama started at the most rigid place and moved only slightly–just what we’ve been saying he should do. Now, he looks like the only adult and the church looks extreme–as they are. But the bottom line is, I do see what you are saying. Our only disagreement is about having this controversy now–which in any case could not have been avoided. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 10, 2012 @ 2:35 pm Kes, you get about a million points for using the word “Jesuitical.” That’s a new one for me! I was thinking more Old Testament–as in Solomonical. And kinda apt in this context–with a baby and all? » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 10, 2012 @ 2:16 pm To add to that great news– Whether you’re a teacher, or a small businesswoman, or a nurse, or a janitor, no woman’s health should depend on who she is or where she works or how much money she makes. Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health. Period. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/fran65 » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 10, 2012 @ 2:03 pm I got it that wrong? Oops. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 10, 2012 @ 1:54 pm Besides, even with this “accommodation” the Church is STILL unhappy, so it makes them look even more extreme and bullying. It would be one thing if the Bishops had said, “thank you Mr. President,” but they’re pushing for more. Therefore, saying that Obama should have done this at the roll-out is moot. It wouldn’t have mattered. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 10, 2012 @ 1:53 pm Sally, let me see if I understand– Your problem with this is that Obama DID accommodate the Church? And you are glad that women get coverage, just not the way the Administration handled it by not drawing a line in the sand about the separation of Church and state? I just want to be sure before I reply to a mistaken discussion. 🙂 » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 10, 2012 @ 1:36 pm Khirad, it is absolutely shocking that they can’t see the hypocrisy. I mean, can they (true believers) really be thatincredibly dense?! Is it even possible to be able to function, to brush one’s teeth, being that stupid? In that sense, I too prefer cynicism over that kind of intense stupidity. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 10, 2012 @ 1:22 pm Pretty much what I meant. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 10, 2012 @ 1:16 pm Oh I totally agree! I wrote that unclearly. What I am seeing is people objecting to the stance of the Catholic Church about this. Therefore, they are angry that an accommodation was made to them. My point it that this is a separate issue, i.e., the Church’s stance. I don’t see why Church law should be considered in the workplace any more than a Seventh Day Adventist’s should. Or why a Quaker shouldn’t pay taxes that go in part to the military. But I see this as a separate (albeit related) issue for contraceptive coverage. For women, this is a win. For separation of Church and state, not so much. » Posted By Chernynkaya On February 10, 2012 @ 1:03 pmComments Posted By Chernynkaya
There is no Hell and absolutely no devil.
“Happy are those who dwell in your House”
I have seen your Glory reflected, H’, often in silence but also in song, in moments of prayer and in hours of study, in tender love and in tearful loneliness, in the good times of peace and in those long years of war.
In my studies, I learned that there are always two of every religion in the world though: The real, deep teaching, and the one most followers mistakenly believe. They bear no resemblance to each other.
Obama/Romney= 52/44
Obama/ Santo= 53/43
Obama/ Newt= 57/39
http://www.people-press.org/2012/02/13/santorum-catches-romney-in-gop-race/?src=prc-twitter
Breaking: House GOP To Extend Payroll Tax Cut Without Offsets
Here’s the WH transcript of Pres Obama’s statement on contraceptive services plan:
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats