The Good News Jews

This is not a defense of any militaristic-nationalistic aggressor government, so those looking for such a fight, you'd be crappin' on the wrong lawn.

Besides Buddhism, the only religion I'd like to outright like is Judaism, if I could get past the whole psycho mafioso "Yahweh" creature part. Forgetting about the malevolent (enough) ET tale, Judaism is really about the religion the people themselves have created, the true soul. There are 3 main truths I've learned about Judaism that I find VERY attractive, downright lovely, but don't know if all 3 apply to all Jews. Hopefully a Jew or more than one will educate me further. The truths are:

1. The term "Messiah of the Jews" is a misnomer, falsehood, since Jews don't believe the Messiah to be anyone other than the Messiah, who is completely unassociated with anything named or established by Earth humans, including and especially religions. That is, of course, if such a superhero is ever to be real.

2. Jews don't proselytize, no knocking on your door or creating awkward moments in WalMart parking lots.

3. Most importantly, Judaism simply doesn't believe itself to be the ONLY path to Heaven or a good afterlife and/or reincarnation. (Yes, only Orthodox Jews believe in reincarnation). What a concept! *facepalm*

And how many Jews truly believe in an afterlife Hell/Satan?

This is my formal statement of separation from all predictably Jew-hating remarks, if applicable, that are too common on this site. I don 't need any education on Zionism versus Judaism.

reply to post by Lightworth


I definitely agree with you. I would also add that I like their emphasis on God being infinite - in regards to time, space and strength. He is eternal, He is everywhere and He does everything. He has no physical form and His nature is entirely beyond our comprehension and explanation. I've more than once considered becoming a conservtive or reform Jew by choice. As an agnostic theist I sometimes get lonely and want some fellowship and tradition...lol... The Jewish concept of G-d seems to fit my own personal belief best. Sometimes I feel like Christians think they know way too much about what God is and what his plan is. I guess Jews have been a little more humbled by time...

reply to post by Lightworth


Hi. Some interesting reflections there.

One thing that struck me about your approach to the whole issue is the degree to which it appears to be based on what you like or prefer. ("The only religion I'd like to outright like is Judaism..."; "There are 3 main truths I've learned about Judaism that I find VERY attractive, downright lovely..."; reference to the absence of proselytization; preference for a syncretistic approach to a peaceful afterlife, and so forth.) Can truth be determined by preference?

Just something to mull over.

reply to post by pause4thought


Interesting question. How else would truth be determined besides one's personal preference to the various "truths" they study? Birth, force, fear...?

reply to post by pause4thought


True that preference doesn't matter when there's no PROOF one way or the other. All one can do is apply the most objective possible standards of morality, logic, non-alienation (inclusiveness) etc. I'll never see how anyone in their truly right enough mind, or is otherwise moral enough, would want any kind of (alleged) Supreme Being to be anything like the "Yahweh" thing.

reply to post by wearewatchingyouman


Surely the only solid pathway to truth is evidence. Beliefs based on any of the factors you mention, as you rightly imply, would inevitably prove shallow (—though the object of the belief might just happen to be true in such cases, by mere coincidence!)

I grew up with no concept of God or spirituality. I was awoken to the bigger issues of life largely through protracted study of the Old Testament Scriptures which led me to question the validity of claims that the prophetic descriptions of a single individual who would reveal God on earth were fulfilled in the Gospels. Seeing as the ancient writings were given over a period of thousands of years, the chances of them being fulfilled in reality, in every detail, including the miraculous elements, would be close to zero, save for something truly supernatural occurring at some point in history. The question of whether the events portrayed in the Gospels constitute that very occurrence can only be decided by studying what they relate, and coming to a conclusion as regards their veracity. If such events have been foretold in history, then fulfilled in history, they can serve to validate the claims of the writers to have been bearers of messages revealed from the Creator, as they claim.

The personal integrity and depth of spirituality of the primary protagonist of any teaching would also constitute important evidence of its veracity. And returning to the question more directly, the teaching may well go against the grain of what one likes; but if the evidence for its veracity proves solid and convincing, the one who (perhaps unexpectedly) accepts it may even find it uncomfortable — yet have peace of mind from knowing there is an objectivity in its truth.

To cite a well-known example of this, CS Lewis relates how he went through this very experience in his highly autobiographical Surprised by Joy

Sometimes other types of evidence emerge, such as were discussed in these threads:

Near-death experiences are real and we have the proof, say scientists

Blind people see during NDEs

...but ultimately ultimate truth can only be discovered if the reality behind what we perceive deigns to reveal itself. If this has indeed occurred, whether we like what is revealed makes no difference to its truthfulness.