Why Did God Make Moses

[thebigpicture]

We don't claim that there is only one right and correct way to understand or relate to God for everyone on earth. We only claim that Jews should follow Judaism.

We’ve already covered this. And to reiterate, it doesn’t make sense for there to be different rules for different people. It causes chaos.

First of all, I suppose that depends on how you interpret the Torah. Second of all, that depends on whether by "Torah" you include on the Written Torah, or the Oral Torah as well...since the two are really not supposed to be read as separate.

The Torah I’m referring to is the “original scriptures” given to the Hebrews (otherwise known as “the children of Israel”) via Moses; hence, “the Five Books of Moses”. Anything beyond that could easily be seen as an appendage; pretty much like the New Testament is to the Old Testament. Either it was supposedly hidden all that time, or they just chose to leave it out for whatever reason, but whatever the excuse is it’s not included with the original scriptures we see in the bible. Therefore, when I said that what you described is not how “god” is depicted in the Torah, I'm referring to the five books of Moses. And yes, I know that the Torah also comes as a separate book from the bible. But it’s basically the same description of god as it is in the bible. And although all of it does leave room for different interpretations, the basic idea of how god is or should I say how he is described as being is pretty clear. And what you wrote doesn't fit that description.

Which would seem to argue for things being as they are, and not molded into uniform unanimity, since the former is what God has put into effect by creating us and interacting with us as He has done.

No, what I wrote reflects the complete opposite. The point I was making is that god would not be bored if everything were uniform.

The reason this world is so diverse in belief is not because god instructed it to be that way because he would be bored otherwise. Rather, it is that way because people have gone haywire with selling whatever they want to be the truth as being the truth. Everybody believes differently and goes by their own set of rules even within the same religion.

That depends on how one defines "on the same page." There are many traditional Jewish understandings of the perfected world or The World To Come that preserve elements of diversity and different understandings and differing opinions-- since those things are traditionally valued in our worldview and teachings.

When I say “On the same page” it means that everyone will exist according to the vision that the Creator sets forth and without any disagreements about that vision. There will be peace and harmony. One accord.

Judaism makes sense to me. And for the record Judaism tends to believe in "truths" not "Truth."

Truth, "truths"...either way, it needs to make sense. I don't doubt that Judaism makes sense to you. I just don't understand how it makes sense to you because there are so many things that don’t make sense I could write an entire book about it. But, I’ll just give a couple of examples starting with one of the foundations upon which the bible is based by asking you this: If you owned a company, would you hire your worst enemy to be the president of your company? And this is not just any enemy, this is an enemy that hates you the point of wanting to destroy you in every way. Would you hire that person to be the president of your company? Would that make sense? So why then would god (as he is stated in the bible) have his worst enemy (the devil) be his right hand, then kick him out only so he (the devil) could then, in turn, cause nothing but hell, destruction and damnation for the people of god whom god love so much?

Example 2... A High Priest is designated to make a sin offering and a sin atonement for the Israelites. How is he told to do it? He takes two goats. One goat he kills and sprinkles the blood all over a seat that is designated to be the seat of god, himself. Blood. Sprinkled...all over! The other goat, the high priest places his hands upon its head and proceeds to confess all the sins for all of the Israelites then sends that goat off (escorted by someone else) into the wilderness so that that goat effectively serves as the “scapegoat” for all of the sinners. So that story -- the story of Aaron sacrificing those goats -- somehow, this makes sense to you? That's what I don't understand. I just don't understand how things like this makes sense to you. There are just so many obvious fairy tales and contradictions, it's ridiculous. How do you look past all that as if it's not apparent? The irony of it all is that it is always emphasized that Judaism is so different from Christianity. But, I gotta say...those two goats are reminding me a lot of Jesus. Just saying.

Oh, one more question I have for you -- Do you believe that god created both good and evil?

 

[Levite]

We’ve already covered this. And to reiterate, it doesn’t make sense for there to be different rules for different people. It causes chaos....The Torah I’m referring to is the “original scriptures” given to the Hebrews (otherwise known as “the children of Israel”) via Moses; hence, “the Five Books of Moses”. Anything beyond that could easily be seen as an appendage...Either it was supposedly hidden all that time, or they just chose to leave it out for whatever reason...it’s basically the same description of god as it is in the bible. And although all of it does leave room for different interpretations, the basic idea of how god is or should I say how he is described as being is pretty clear.....

OK, fine. Except that is not how we Jews have ever understood Torah. Oral Torah and Written Torah are just not divisible from one another. And Oral Torah is not an "appendage" to Written Torah, it is an inextricable, evolving, part of it. It seems to me that the predisposition to presume that Torah is the "original" Five Books of Moses as Written and nothing else is simply a non-Jewish concept.

And there is not even a single consistent theology in the Five Books, let alone in the rest of the Tanakh, let alone in all the Oral Torah. There have been different understandings of God by different authors, at different times.

It seems from your language that you are attempting to read the Bible far too literally, and far too statically. It is a much more layered, nuanced, complex, and evolving document than that. Not everything always has to literally cohere perfectly in every way. It is designed to be more flexible than that.

The reason this world is so diverse in belief is not because god instructed it to be that way because he would be bored otherwise. Rather, it is that way because people have gone haywire with selling whatever they want to be the truth as being the truth. Everybody believes differently and goes by their own set of rules even within the same religion.....When I say “On the same page” it means that everyone will exist according to the vision that the Creator sets forth and without any disagreements about that vision. There will be peace and harmony. One accord.

I have to admit, I just don't understand this issue with problematizing diversity, and supposing that God ought to impose some sort of uniformity. It makes no sense to me, and I think maybe there must be some sort of cultural gap that is at work here. And the theological supposition that the World To Come, or the perfect world, will involve monolithic uniformity and a corresponding absence of diversity of opinion is a minority opinion, historically speaking, in Jewish Tradition. I'm afraid it just seems all somewhat pointless to me.

Truth, "truths"...either way, it needs to make sense. I don't doubt that Judaism makes sense to you. ...So why then would god (as he is stated in the bible) have his worst enemy (the devil) be his right hand, then kick him out only so he (the devil) could then, in turn, cause nothing but hell, destruction and damnation for the people of god whom god love so much?

We don't believe in the devil. We don't believe in fallen angels, Lucifer, or the casting out from Heaven. We don't believe in Hell. All of those ideas are Christian.

Example 2... A High Priest is designated to make a sin offering and a sin atonement for the Israelites...So that story -- the story of Aaron sacrificing those goats -- somehow, this makes sense to you? That's what I don't understand. I just don't understand how things like this makes sense to you. There are just so many obvious fairy tales and contradictions, it's ridiculous. How do you look past all that as if it's not apparent?

It makes sense in its context. As a matter of fact, there are several different ways to read that narrative in which it makes sense. But, again, the point is that it appears confusing because you're not reading it along with the rest of the material that tells you how to interpret it, and in what some of the core options are for how to understand it. That is what Oral Torah is for; and frankly, a little critical Biblical scholarship also can contribute some helpful hints as well. But in neither case should the material simply be read in a vacuum, out of context, and at the simplest possible level.

Sacred texts are where human spiritual, philosophical, social, and moral searching comes together with revelation. It's not supposed to be Doctor Seuss. It's supposed to be challenging, it's supposed to demand thought, to demand that one wrestle with oneself, one's beliefs, one's perceptions of the universe. Because God isn't simplistic, and it's unreasonable to suppose that we also ought to be, or that religion ought to be. Simplistic notions of religion are inherently counterproductive.

The irony of it all is that it is always emphasized that Judaism is so different from Christianity. But, I gotta say...those two goats are reminding me a lot of Jesus. Just saying.

If one chooses to read the passage Christologically, sure. But that's an eisegetic reading, not an exegetical reading.

Oh, one more question I have for you -- Do you believe that god created both good and evil?

Sure. Isaiah 45:7 yotzer ohr u'vorei choshech oseh shalom u'vorei et ha-ra, ani YHVH oseh et kol eileh. "I make light and I create darkness, I make peace and create evil: I YHVH do all these things."

But besides, we shouldn't even need Isaiah to tell us that: if God is the One Source, the only God, the Creator of all things, then that has to include evil, in some way or form, also.

 

[thebigpicture]

OK, fine. Except that is not how we Jews have ever understood Torah. Oral Torah and Written Torah are just not divisible from one another. And Oral Torah is not an "appendage" to Written Torah, it is an inextricable, evolving, part of it. It seems to me that the predisposition to presume that Torah is the "original" Five Books of Moses as Written and nothing else is simply a non-Jewish concept.

And there is not even a single consistent theology in the Five Books, let alone in the rest of the Tanakh, let alone in all the Oral Torah. There have been different understandings of God by different authors, at different times.

I would imagine that god is consistent; not inconsistent. So the fact that there is not a consistency in your interpretations says a lot about your religion.

I’m sorry but from what I’m getting from you, Judaism seems to infer that jews follow what they want based upon loose interpretations of the foundation of Judaism in its entirety. Kind of like, “Okay, these are the rules for now, but don’t get too comfortable because they may change again based upon the next interpreter’s interpretations or ‘understandings’ of the Torah.” Kind of a “the rules are subject to change” way of thinking. It sounds to me almost like you’re basically combining all the similarities between the different authors and defining that as the main foundation, and the differences in interpretations you define that as being the evolution part of it. But it is all “truths” and should be followed by you, the Jews. I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t make sense to me. It, frankly, sounds to me like Jews aren’t really sure what the original truth is and so you kind of make it up as you go along and justify it by saying that everything is supposed to be complex and continually evolving into another form of truths. You’re basically doing what every other religion does and that’s going by what some other human being is saying the rules are and which should be followed. But, you really don’t know if it all really came from “god”. And to say that the “Oral Torah” is an evolving part of the Torah is the same as saying the New Testament is an evolution of the Old Testament.

It seems from your language that you are attempting to read the Bible far too literally, and far too statically. It is a much more layered, nuanced, complex, and evolving document than that. Not everything always has to literally cohere perfectly in every way. It is designed to be more flexible than that.

It’s not that I’m taking the bible too literally. Personally, I see it vastly as a book of fairy tales, parables, and fables. The problem is that a lot of Jews speak of it on a literal basis. I’ve heard Jews read from the scriptures and speak of it in a literal form. Meaning they were saying that what they were reading was meant to be taken literally. I think Jews tend to fall back on “Well, just don’t take that literally” when they can't justify why scriptures don't make sense.

I have to admit, I just don't understand this issue with problematizing diversity, and supposing that God ought to impose some sort of uniformity. It makes no sense to me, and I think maybe there must be some sort of cultural gap that is at work here. And the theological supposition that the World To Come, or the perfect world, will involve monolithic uniformity and a corresponding absence of diversity of opinion is a minority opinion, historically speaking, in Jewish Tradition. I'm afraid it just seems all somewhat pointless to me.

It's clear you don't understand. Which is why I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on it because uniformity makes perfect sense to me.

It makes sense in its context. As a matter of fact, there are several different ways to read that narrative in which it makes sense. But, again, the point is that it appears confusing because you're not reading it along with the rest of the material that tells you how to interpret it, and in what some of the core options are for how to understand it. That is what Oral Torah is for; and frankly, a little critical Biblical scholarship also can contribute some helpful hints as well. But in neither case should the material simply be read in a vacuum, out of context, and at the simplest possible level.

No, it doesn’t make sense in any context, just like so much of the bible doesn’t.

Sacred texts are where human spiritual, philosophical, social, and moral searching comes together with revelation. It's not supposed to be Doctor Seuss. It's supposed to be challenging, it's supposed to demand thought, to demand that one wrestle with oneself, one's beliefs, one's perceptions of the universe. Because God isn't simplistic, and it's unreasonable to suppose that we also ought to be, or that religion ought to be. Simplistic notions of religion are inherently counterproductive.

No, it doesn’t have to be Dr. Seuss, but it certainly shouldn’t take a rocket scientist and a decoder to try to get a clear picture of what exactly the rules are. I find it difficult to believe that god would want anyone to be confused about what he sets as rules especially with him being adamant about the rules being followed. I’m sure you’ve come across instructions or explanations of a topic that made you go “Why couldn’t they just write that in a way everyone can understand it more clearly.” Why? Because nobody wants to be confused about what they consider to be essential. And I would think that god would be the least to want anyone to be confused about anything he says is essential.

If one chooses to read the passage Christologically, sure. But that's an eisegetic reading, not an exegetical reading.

It’s not about reading it “Christologically” or it being altogether misinterpreted. It's simply how it comes off. The story of those goats are similar to Jesus in that they were used in a sacrificial way for sins. You may take a route in which you try to explain it off as it meaning something other than what it is, but the truth of the matter is, it is, indeed, what it is. And, again, it doesn’t make sense.

Sure. Isaiah 45:7 yotzer ohr u'vorei choshech oseh shalom u'vorei et ha-ra, ani YHVH oseh et kol eileh. "I make light and I create darkness, I make peace and create evil: I YHVH do all these things."

But besides, we shouldn't even need Isaiah to tell us that: if God is the One Source, the only God, the Creator of all things, then that has to include evil, in some way or form, also.

I asked if you felt god created evil simply to see where you stood on the subject of evil. After all, there are differences of opinion about god and evil. And seeing as to how there are clear variations of beliefs in Judaism, as there are in many other religions, it would make sense for me to get a distinct view of what you feel about evil, don’t you agree?

We don't believe in the devil. We don't believe in fallen angels, Lucifer, or the casting out from Heaven. We don't believe in Hell. All of those ideas are Christian.

This makes no sense to me because it is an enormous part of the Torah. The New Testament came after the Old Testament, not before. So how can it be purely a concept of Christianity. Fallen angels were mentioned in the Old Testament several times. How you can be Jewish and not believe in fallen angels is beyond me. So I’m really curious...what is your concept of fallen angels and/or evil.

 

[gnostic]

I think the thread's subject should have been titled: Why did Moses make God?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think the thread's subject should have been titled: Why did Moses make God?

Yes. Thanks.

 

[Levite]

I’m sorry but from what I’m getting from you, Judaism seems to infer that jews follow what they want based upon loose interpretations of the foundation of Judaism in its entirety. Kind of like, “Okay, these are the rules for now, but don’t get too comfortable because they may change again based upon the next interpreter’s interpretations or ‘understandings’ of the Torah.” Kind of a “the rules are subject to change” way of thinking. It sounds to me almost like you’re basically combining all the similarities between the different authors and defining that as the main foundation, and the differences in interpretations you define that as being the evolution part of it. But it is all “truths” and should be followed by you, the Jews. I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t make sense to me. It, frankly, sounds to me like Jews aren’t really sure what the original truth is and so you kind of make it up as you go along and justify it by saying that everything is supposed to be complex and continually evolving into another form of truths. You’re basically doing what every other religion does and that’s going by what some other human being is saying the rules are and which should be followed. But, you really don’t know if it all really came from “god”. And to say that the “Oral Torah” is an evolving part of the Torah is the same as saying the New Testament is an evolution of the Old Testament.

Not at all. The "New Testament" has nothing to do with the Hebrew Scriptures. It's the creation of another religion, some of whose founders were heretical and apostatic Jews, who imported some Jewish ideas into their new context's foundations. That's-- at best-- like saying the United States is the natural evolution of England: it's not, it's a new country, partially founded by Britons who rejected English sovereignty, who nonetheless imported some British ideas into their new country's social and legal foundations.

You' still seem to be supposing that there was originally a definitive and comprehensive Written Torah which required no further interpretation, but the understanding of which faded, requiring the invention of Oral Torah and the notion of an evolving text. And what I am saying is that there never was such a thing. That Torah has always been this way. That Oral Torah, the notion of expansion, evolution, and reinterpretation, has always been a part of the paradigm. And, by the way, you make it sound like evolution and reinterpretation of Torah is utterly random and whimsical. It isn't. There are strict and complex rules concerning how Torah is and is not to be reinterpreted and re-understood, what ways are and are not licit and legitimate for doing so, and a precise range of tools for such efforts. Not all Jews are trained in using those tools and doing such work: it takes considerable excess education, over and above the already considerable education any observant Jew will have had in Jewish thought and Torah. Those people who do receive such excess education and training are called rabbis.

And in any case, Torah is not supposed to be a black-and-white affair of either "it's all from God's mouth" or "people made it up." Torah is a joint effort between God and the Jewish people. That's why it is the actualization of the covenant. The idea that "real" religion equals "God said X, now go do X" is not a Jewish notion. We understand it more as "God began by saying X, and then told us to take it from there."

But if none of the above made things any clearer for you, then I have to throw in the towel. Maybe I am not explaining well enough, because so far, you're not getting it, and I don't know how to explain it better.

No, it doesn’t make sense in any context, just like so much of the bible doesn’t.

And again, my problem with that statement is that you haven't learned the rest of the context. You don't have the information necessary to definitively say that this text (or, for that matter, anything else in the Hebrew Scriptures) doesn't make sense in any context. You haven't studied what goes along with that text, or even read the text and surrounding material in the original language. You can say fairly that the text doesn't make sense to you. But you cannot fairly say that it makes no sense in any context.

It’s not about reading it “Christologically” or it being altogether misinterpreted. It's simply how it comes off. The story of those goats are similar to Jesus in that they were used in a sacrificial way for sins. You may take a route in which you try to explain it off as it meaning something other than what it is, but the truth of the matter is, it is, indeed, what it is. And, again, it doesn’t make sense.

You read a similarity to Jesus into that text because you are used to "Biblical" things being about Jesus. However, Jesus is irrelevant to Judaism. That text was written down somewhere between eight to fourteen hundred years before Jesus was born (and likely originally composed even earlier as oral tradition). It was written, for that matter, before messianism was even a concept in Judaism. Whether you want to label it as a Christological reading or not, it is one. It is eisegetic: it reads something into a text not intended by the author of the text, and foreign to the tradition out of which the text arose. The fact that you find it similar in character is, from a theological and textual viewpoint, immaterial.

This makes no sense to me because it is an enormous part of the Torah. The New Testament came after the Old Testament, not before. So how can it be purely a concept of Christianity. Fallen angels were mentioned in the Old Testament several times. How you can be Jewish and not believe in fallen angels is beyond me. So I’m really curious...what is your concept of fallen angels and/or evil.

It's not an enormous part of the Torah. Fallen angels are not mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In Jewish conceptions of angels, they do not have free will. Thus, they cannot rebel against God and "fall." They are incapable of such actions entirely. We just don't believe in the idea of fallen angels. And that includes me, personally-- I don't believe in such a concept, either.

I think evil is the result of human abuses of free will. God created evil by giving us free will. There is no evil except what human beings do to one another.

 

[thebigpicture]

I’m not saying that Jews see the New Testament as an appendage. I know you don't. But, that doesn't change the fact that it is considered by others to be related to the Old Testament whether you accept that or not. That's why both old and new are taught in churches. They just teach it as "Out with the old and in with the new. Those are the old rules, now these are the new, evolved rules, but we'll still keep the basic foundation."

But if none of the above made things any clearer for you, then I have to throw in the towel. Maybe I am not explaining well enough, because so far, you're not getting it, and I don't know how to explain it better.

I understand clearly what you are saying. You actually explain yourself very well so I get what you're saying. I just don't agree that it makes sense. There's just no making sense out of some things.

You can say fairly that the text doesn't make sense to you. But you cannot fairly say that it makes no sense in any context.

I agree with you on this one. I cannot fairly say it because I have not seen exactly in detail the context in which you speak of. But, the point I was making is that it doesn’t make any sense to me that something or someone would be used to atone for anyone’s sins other than their own no matter what the situation is(was). Hence, I said, “in any context.”

You read a similarity to Jesus into that text because you are used to "Biblical" things being about Jesus. However, Jesus is irrelevant to Judaism.

Whether you want to label it as a Christological reading or not, it is one. It is eisegetic: it reads something into a text not intended by the author of the text, and foreign to the tradition out of which the text arose. The fact that you find it similar in character is, from a theological and textual viewpoint, immaterial.

Again, this is a matter of your opinion, but you couldn’t be farther from the truth. I don’t see the similarity because I’m “used to ‘biblical’ things being about Jesus.” I see the similarities because I’m aware of both stories and the similarities are as clear as day. It’s an analogy -- intentional or not. Something doesn’t have to be an intricate part of something else in order for the two to be seen as comparable and/or similar on some level.

I know we are not ever going to agree on the above and so I agree, there's no use in going on any further about it. We'd just be going in circles. I understand your position on it and I think you understand mine. So moving along to:

It's not an enormous part of the Torah. Fallen angels are not mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures.

You’re right. They're not specifically mentioned in the Torah per se. But, it is implied that it was a fallen angel that was "the serpent" in the story of Adam and Eve. And fallen angels most certainly do play keys roles in stories throughout the Old Testament. But, from your statement about evil and fallen angels, I’m taking it you don’t believe a fallen angel was the serpent or had anything to do with what happened in the “Garden of Eden.” So that’s a whole other topic. But, I will say that for fallen angels to be a part of the Old Testament, yet not be believed in by Jews seems like an example of picking and choosing what to believe and not to believe, like so many other religions do.

In Jewish conceptions of angels, they do not have free will. Thus, they cannot rebel against God and "fall." They are incapable of such actions entirely. We just don't believe in the idea of fallen angels. And that includes me, personally-- I don't believe in such a concept, either.

For the record, I don’t believe in the concept of fallen angels either. That whole story of god creating angels with a perfect heart to follow him and be devoted to his will and then for some reason it just didn’t take for some of the them makes no sense at all. Not to mention the fact that it would not make any sense for god to be omnipotent and omnispective, see that betrayal coming and still keep the fallen angels around with one of them being his right-hand. As a matter of fact, I compared (in a post on another thread) the ridiculousness of that concept to someone hiring their worst enemy to be the president of their company.

I think evil is the result of human abuses of free will. God created evil by giving us free will. There is no evil except what human beings do to one another.

From the way this sounds, you’re basically saying that god created evil and then punishes people for there being evil within them and/or being influenced by the evil he(god), himself, created. That just doesn't sound right to me.

The idea that "real" religion equals "God said X, now go do X" is not a Jewish notion. We understand it more as "God began by saying X, and then told us to take it from there."

This one statement out of everything you wrote in your response is the thing that stood out to me because it clearly reflects exactly what I’ve stated before. It’s what I was saying when I wrote this:

The reason there are so many different beliefs on how to “get into Heaven” is because people have come up with their own set of rules. Their rules could very well be based on a foundation of true original rules, but it’s their own rules all the same. That’s why there are so many different sects within one religion; it’s because they keep changing the rules and different people go along with the set of rules that best suits them.

When I wrote the above quote, what I was saying is that people might very well have been given a foundation of rules. Then they took those rules and “went to town” with them, adding and taking away freely. For example, god might’ve said, “Remember me daily.” Then some designated leader or group of leaders decided to say, “You know what? We should devote an entire day to god and to worshipping him. And since that day is to be all about god, all other worldly things need to be forbidden that day. Work should be forbidden as well because it will interfere with devoting time, thought, energy and celebration towards god. This day shall be a celebration of god and thereby shall be considered a sacred and holy day to be kept for all generations. We will call it Sabbath(Shabbath) because we will break from worldly needs and activities and celebrate god. And if someone does not want to go along with this, then they are shortcoming in their love for and devotion to god; therefore, they shall be ex-communicated. It shall be a sin not to keep this day from this day forth.” Now all god initially asked for was that you remember him daily. But, man turned it into this whole other thing, then declared that it was god who said to do it. And then they threaten doom to those who don’t listen in order to get people to follow and obey. This can be said about other days as well (i.e. Atonement Day and Passover in Judaism; Lent, taking sacraments and baptism in Christianity). What’s really odd and further reflects how contradictory the bible is is that there are scriptures that state that god demanded that people make all these various sacrifices and keep all these particular days holy and then another scripture reflects god saying the complete opposite. That he doesn’t want all these sacrificial killings of animals and people fasting just to pray to him and ask for forgiveness.

All in all, I have to say that after conversing with you (which I have enjoyed, by the way), it confirms my feelings more than ever that Judaism is just like so many of the other religions. There is a basic foundation of rules and the rest are rules that people imposed upon themselves and then constantly change time and time again. Then they say that it is essential to follow these self-imposed rules in order to receive the rewards that await post-judgement.

The truth of the matter is that none of us were there at the beginning. Any kind of text we have now came from another human being that wrote it. And as you know yourself, humans do evil to each other all the time, including deceiving one another by different means. The bible is one of those means by which to deceive. The bible (both Old and New Testaments) is vastly lies and deception.

With that stated, there are some truths in it. I will use something from it. It is said in the bible that man’s only duty is to fear “god” and to keep his commandments. Now I will say this... “God” can be anyone that can be designated as a god; one seen as being on a higher level. But there is only one being that created us and the universe and that’s the Creator. I don’t refer to the Creator as “god”. Having said that... The Creator wants respect and love (instead of the word fear) and He wants us to do good and live right in life (instead of the phrase “keep his commandments”). I feel that that is what is truly important to the Creator. In other words, if a Jew doesn’t keep the Sabbath or the Atonement Day, etc. or a Christian doesn’t get baptized, and so on and so forth for different religions, I truly don’t believe that’s going to make or break a person within the eyesight of the Creator. Respect and love the Creator. Do good and live right. That is what I believe truly matters to the Creator. He, after all, can see into the hearts of everyone. You don’t have to fast and pray for a day in order for Him to know you are truly remorseful for your sin(s) and forgive you for it. Nor do you need to get all wet and take a dip in water in order for the Creator to decide whether or not He will allow you to be in His Kingdom for all of eternity. Respect and love Him; do good and live right. That’s what really truly matters.