Thank you for your time and patience in answering my questions Tumah.
I'm not really sure. but you've spent a very long time arguing that not calling G-d by His Name somehow diminishes the strength of the loving relationship we can have with Him, So I understood from there that you also don't call your own parents by their names, otherwise you'd fall to the same problem.
I don't view my parents as gods but I have great respect for the wisdom that comes with years of life experience. In this day and age, it is difficult to know where to draw the line in this. My aged mother is appalled that young children are told to call her by her first name. It was never done in her day. Respect meant being addressed as "Mr" or "Mrs".....but now even those "gender specific" terms are viewed as antiquated. Its a sad state of reality that respect for older ones has all but disappeared. Respect for God has disappeared with it.
In our congregations young ones are encouraged to address older ones by saying "brother" or "sister" (first or last name depending on the degree of familiarity) This we believe instills some respect.
So I guess this goes back to the difference between JW's and Jews. When we introduce our parents, we say "this is my dad/mom", while I assume you actually say their names. Actually according to Jewish Law, we never say our parents' names in fulfillment of Lev. 19:3. Even more so for G-d Himself.
When I introduce my mother to new people (she does not share my faith) I introduce her as my mother along with her first name to adults. I leave the parents to introduce their children.
it is Biblically forbidden per Deut. 12:4 to erase (or cause to be erased) G-d's Name. When writing mundane texts that don't require special handling, its very likely that they'll be thrown out or otherwise mishandled. So the imperative is to not write G-d's Name on any mundane text or any text that is likely to be mishandled to avoid transgressing the prohibition. In practice, the way we accomplish this, is by either writing a substitute for G-d's Name, by changing the letters, etc. so that if the page is ruined, G-d's Name won't have become ruined as well. That's in Hebrew. When some Jewish people write in English, we adopted the concept of not dishonoring G-d's Name by not writing translations of these Names as well. It is another way of honoring G-d and His Name.
I understand. But in a world where people are dying of hunger, wars are killing people by the hundreds of thousands, refugees are displaced by the millions....it seems a little strange to worry over words on a piece of paper. There are much more important things to stress about....don't you think?
I don't think God wants us to go to those sorts of extremes. I would go mad! If we are not concerning ourselves over the more important issues, it seems useless to unduly stress about something relatively inconsequential. Do Jews see all these things on the same level?
What happens if you fail to perform your daily rituals?
No, we have Oral traditions for that.
So you trust that the oral traditions have God's approval then? When God appointed leaders in Israel, if they led the people as God directed according to his explicit instructions, they were blessed and prospered, but when those leaders decided for themselves to add their own views, they were penalized as a nation for what those errant leaders did. Isn't God the one who tells us when we are doing things right? Doesn't his blessing naturally follow? Can I ask where the evidence of God's blessing is upon his people today?
That interpretation doesn't fit the context. The verses there are talking about destroying the physical structures that were used for idolatry (and subsequently, building a physical structure for serving G-d). The context is destroying tangible items. Also, the Philistine Baal wasn't defeated, it still continued to exist for hundreds of years after David was buried.
As with Elijah and the Baal prophets at Mt Carmel.....Baal was humiliated before all the people....Israel had been led to incorporate Baal worship into God's worship. Elijah demanded a test.
1 Kings 18:21....
"And Elijah drew near to all the people and said, "Until when are you hopping between two ideas? If the Lord is God, go after Him, and if the Baal, go after him."
After the test was finished, the people were left in no doubt who was the true God. What test do we have today to determine who worships the true God?
I notice that you keep referring to it as a superstition because it isn't in line with your own beliefs and you have trouble drawing logical conclusions. But calling it what it isn't, doesn't change what it actually is.
I'm sorry but it seems that way to me. I cannot see anything in scripture that prevents us using God's name in a reverential way, nor do I see anything written on a piece of paper to be sacred when it can be destroyed in any number of ways. I believe life is sacred but people die every day.
Jesus likened our words of spiritual wisdom to 'pearls cast before swine'....they would be 'trampled underfoot by unreasoning animals'. It doesn't mean that the words themselves should not be uttered but just not wasted on people who do not value them.
Why can't every Law of G-d's Word have infinite degrees of application?
I guess they can, but we only have God's word itself...the interpretation is something else entirely.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.
I'm not sure what "extent" of transgression you're referring to.
Some have pointed to those incidents as petty on God's part. The actions of the men concerned seem to be small in comparison to the penalty carried out, making God out to be a petty tyrant. But these incidents demonstrate that God's law was law. It left no room for those who wanted to push the boundaries, regardless of their motive.
The man gathering firewood on the Sabbath should have gathered it the day before. Was it going to be used to cook food? Only God knows. King David knew the law regarding the transportation of the sacred ark. But he had it carried on a wagon and almost cause it to fall to the ground. That transgression of God's law, cost a man his life. Regardless of what motive the man had, no human was allowed to touch the ark for any reason. His actions resulted in his death. Both transgressed a clearly stated law.
If there was no clearly stated laws then perhaps the actions of those men might have been viewed very differently?
Can you explain the rationale behind using specifically a red heifer's ashes to purify a person of impurity from contact with a dead body - but not any other type of impurity?
Can you explain the logic of taking four species of - three unedible branches and one fruit, on the holiday when produce is gathered as a rememberance of G-d taking us out of Egypt?
Can you explain why there needs to be so many different forms of sacrifices instead of just one or two? And why so many on some holidays? While you're at it, I'd like to know why some sacrifices are either from sheep or goats, some are from bulls but not sheep or goats, some are from sheep but not goats, some are from goats but not sheep? What's up with the pigeons? Also, I get the blood is the life thing, for sacrifices, but if that's what it's all about, then why are there grain sacrifices? And if G-d is willing to forego the blood, then why not all the time?
Why do I need to add a blue string to my fringe garment? Why fringes altogether instead of a badge or special hat?
Why do I need to leave the corners of my field specifically and not just a single side?
Why can't I eat fruit during the first three years of a trees life?
Why can I eat a moose, but not camel? Also, why can I eat a bull, but not a donkey? Why can I eat trout, but not catfish?
Since it was specifically stated in the law that these things be carried out, unless God specified his reasons, then we can only guess.
In the 10 Commandments, all the laws were to do with being accountable to God for the bigger issues, which is why they were issued first I guess. The specifics of the other laws, particularly related to sacrifices came later.
It is interesting that after the golden calf incident, God never allowed his people to organize their own festivals. All of Israel's festivals were held according to very specific instructions. Often humans are not very good judges of what is acceptable to God, and what isn't.
Just as a thought on some of the things you mentioned.....
The pigeons or turtle doves were an offering for the poor. weren't they? That is understandable.
Grain offering like many others was the act of giving the best of the bounty given to them by God, back to him.
Everything offered to God had to be the best, which was a divider of people...a test...since God knows when one is holding the best back for himself. It tested people's love and appreciation for the generosity of God to be generous in return.
"the corners" of a field....I actually understood that it was the perimeter of the field.
According to one Hebrew dictionary, the English words for the Hebrew word פֵּאָה can mean border, edge or side. So perhaps not just corners. It was an act of generosity on the part of the farmer to give gleaning to the poor, dignified by working for their food rather than just being given charity.
The reason for the fringe and not a badge or hat, could be because headgear designated certain ones with spiritual responsibilities in Israel and badges may have been too easily mislaid. The blue thread along with the fringe was distinctive and identified a Jew right away.
Not cutting the sidelocks could also serve as an identifier since it was customary for men of the nations to wear their beards in a decorative fashion or to shave them off altogether.
It would certainly make Jews stand out.