Genuine Question To Theists Part 2 :)

It's not to do with right or wrong. You said:

Enlightenment said:
Orthodox Jews believe that the state of Israel is actually forbidden in the Torah.

Is that true or false?
Click to expand...

Unless you qualify "Orthodox Jews" with "some" then it's false.
 
wil said:
Again, maybe you can assist us in understanding why atheists tend to circulate the radical, fringe, thought and think it normal?
Click to expand...
aren't we in the middle of a discussion which involves all monotheists from john shelby spong to osama bin laden being lumped into the same unpleasant mass? in such a context, it is hardly surprising that someone apparently jewish (ooh, look, beard, black hat, sidelocks, must be representative, certainly looks it) is being taken as such, if you don't know any better? the problem occurs if you *do* know better and then persist in propagandising as a result.

enlightenment said:
Does it say that, in the Torah? That the internet is forbidden?
Click to expand...
the position is based on that of the "chatam sofer", the famous hungarian ultra-orthodox authority of the C19th, that "kol hadash issur min ha-Torah", "everything new is forbidden by the Torah", based apparently (and somewhat speciously in the view of almost everyone apart from the ultra-orthodox world) on leviticus 23:14, that new grains are forbidden to be used before pessah(passover)!

Minorities aren't always wrong though.
Click to expand...
true. but then again, in the Torah, (exodus 23:2) rather more explicitly than the rule about the internet, it says "you shall decide by following the majority". i will leave you to determine whether the neturei karta and satmar tend to mention that in this particular context.

1) A Jewish friend who is disgusted by the actions of Israel
Click to expand...
and is this jewish friend haredi (ultra-orthodox), then? and are they disgusted by *israel*, or the policies of its current government, or the conduct of the campaign? there are valid criticisms to be made of all three, but to do so without provoking the most extreme polarisation is quite difficult unless all parties to the discussion have invested a substantial amount of social capital in the discussion already and know that everyone is speaking honestly, without prejudice and in good faith, rather than to defend the "goodies" and bash the "baddies", on whichever side they happen to be. i simply don't know you that well.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
bananabrain said:
and is this jewish friend haredi (ultra-orthodox), then? and are they disgusted by *israel*, or the policies of its current government, or the conduct of the campaign? there are valid criticisms to be made of all three, but to do so without provoking the most extreme polarisation is quite difficult unless all parties to the discussion have invested a substantial amount of social capital in the discussion already and know that everyone is speaking honestly, without prejudice and in good faith, rather than to defend the "goodies" and bash the "baddies", on whichever side they happen to be. i simply don't know you that well.

b'shalom

bananabrain
Click to expand...


Being honest mate, I have no idea what 'sect' of Judaism he is, I will be even more honest, until a few months ago, I didn't even know there were different sects of Judaism. Now I do.

I think, from memory, he was speaking about the Israel Government, and their latest attacks on Palestine.

Take care

Steve
 
ok, steve, if you're interested in learning about it - and think it's worth knowing about, more to the point - then this is the place to be. but we can't do it in this "have you quit beating your wife?" kind of way. more to the point, we do not, ever, start by jumping feet first into the i/p issue, let alone in the current superheated climate.

i'm not here to apologise for israel, or the israeli government. neither will i stand by and let them be demonised, as some here would seek to do. i am quite prepared to have the discussion in a civilised and non-tendentious way, but i/p has a way of attracting the drive-by trolls like no other issue.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
bananabrain said:
ok, steve, if you're interested in learning about it - and think it's worth knowing about, more to the point - then this is the place to be. but we can't do it in this "have you quit beating your wife?" kind of way. more to the point, we do not, ever, start by jumping feet first into the i/p issue, let alone in the current superheated climate.

i'm not here to apologise for israel, or the israeli government. neither will i stand by and let them be demonised, as some here would seek to do. i am quite prepared to have the discussion in a civilised and non-tendentious way, but i/p has a way of attracting the drive-by trolls like no other issue.

b'shalom

bananabrain
Click to expand...

Fair enough, fella.

Can I this, sorry if it sounds a little naive.

Are Jews considered to be a race or a religion, or both (which is what I am going to guess at)

Thanks
 
bb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick_"Simone Says"_A
If you did live your religion consciously you would not get the satisfactions you do from all your negative expressions and attitudes. You use words without understanding their meaning.

what, you mean like "secularism", where the only one who agrees with your meaning is you? don't make me laugh. for someone who seems at pains to point out how transcendent their concerns are, you are curiously concerned with preaching to me about how i ought to perceive and act without demonstrating any evidence that you actually know anything about me at all, inner or outer world. still, it's encouraging that you can at least recognise that when you are arrogant to other people you get it reflected right back at you.
Click to expand...



You simply do not understand.

If people don't agree with my definition of secularism, I cannot help it. I still accept this typical definition:

secularism: Definition from Answers.com

Secularism was the word adopted by George Jacob Holyoake in the early 1850s to describe a system of morals and social action shaped exclusively by this-worldly considerations, irrespective of religious beliefs. The word was derived from the secular education movement for the complete separation of religious teaching from other forms of education.
Click to expand...

This "Judaism" that you profess is guided by pragmatism. So the idea of an eye for an eye makes perfect sense. You see my independent thought as arrogance since it doesn't follow blindly but like Simone, questions the dictates of the "Great Beast." Naturally then, you see me as attacking so in the spirit of the "eye for an eye" attack back.


This is one reason why even superficially I prefer Christianity. Rather then this eye for an eye philosophy it advises to turn the other cheek. Rather then learn from fighting I try to learn from experience even at the expense of the growls of the "Great Beast."

Pragmatic concerns are necessary and in Christianity they are part of the world of Caesar which is dominated by societal pragmatism. Jesus asserts that it is necessary to find the proper balance between the God's domain and the secular pragmatic world so that a person may become able to allow for "thy will to be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Man in the evolved meaning of the term then serves as a connection between two worlds - able to receive from above and transmit into the secular world. Fallen man has lost this connection so is caught up in secularism including the dominant secular conceptions of religious value.

From this perspective it makes no sense to argue from the point of view of an eye for an eye but rather to become consciously present in order to become able to turn the other cheek not from suppression but from becoming open to appreciating the human condition. The Christian prefers to retain a conscious connection between the above and below we always lose to arguing and righteous indignation.

All I've witnessed expressed by you is your obsession with claiming an eye for an eye in the context of the pragmatism of secularism.

Your way - not mine.
 
Nick_A said:
You see my independent thought as arrogance since it doesn't follow blindly but like Simone, questions the dictates of the "Great Beast." .
Click to expand...


What 'independent thought' are you referring to Nick?
Most of your thoughts contain the name "Simone"...

Interestingly enough, even this very sentence in which you
claim independence of thought contains her name.

And when its not her, its Needleman, or Plato, or Socrates.
How is your thought any more independent then the ones
who cite other names and sources for their beliefs?
 
Enlightenment said:
Are Jews considered to be a race or a religion, or both (which is what I am going to guess at)
Click to expand...

It's a tribal religion. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. It's not a race.

Nick said:
So the idea of an eye for an eye makes perfect sense
Click to expand...


You're applying a Christian interpretation of that phrase that's not to be found in Judaism. Ayin tachat ayin in Judaism refers to a standard for determining the monetary compensation for injury.
 
dauer said:
It's a tribal religion. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. It's not a race.
Click to expand...

Well, that is what I originally thought, then I had some conflicting info given to me elsewhere, which suggested that it might be a race, or a religion and a race.

I once heard a chap describe himself as an 'atheist Jew'.

Huh?

Can that be so?

Isn't that an oxymoron, mate, a bit like my mother calling herself an atheist Catholic?

:confused:
 
Daeur, in the Jewish holy books, are there are a lot of negative ref's to 'gentiles'?

Genuine question...
 
I once heard a chap describe himself as an 'atheist Jew'.

Huh?

Can that be so?

Isn't that an oxymoron, mate, a bit like my mother calling herself an atheist Catholic?
Click to expand...

He might have been a Jewish Humanist (Society for Humanistic Judaism - Home Page) or simply a Jew (a member of the Jewish people, born to a Jewish mother) who was an atheist. In that case he probably identified with the people and the culture but not with the religion.

Daeur, in the Jewish holy books, are there are a lot of negative ref's to 'gentiles'?
Click to expand...

There are Jewish texts that say negative things about non-Jews though generally that's not the case. Hasidism is known for having a less than flattering perspective of non-Jews.
 
enlightenment said:
Daeur, in the Jewish holy books, are there are a lot of negative ref's to 'gentiles'?

Genuine question...
Click to expand...
Easier for him to respond to specifics. Personally I sort of see it as a club/membership deal. One group is a member, pays dues, follows a strict set of guidelines, has standing...the other group is those that don't.

Each group has its bennies...one doesn't have to follow the rules, so is treated accordingly.

Just as if you were a member at a club...nonmembers pay more and don't have all the priviliges...

This is my non jewish interpretation
 
Wil,

I am not sure exactly what you mean. Jewish theologies tend to see Judaism as a unique relationship with G!d (potentially among other unique relationships), as a responsibility rather than a privilege or further to the left something along the lines of the unique type of religious expression that evolved among the Jewish people. There are other ideas but generally they fall along those lines.

There are some exceptions like Yehuda Halevi for whom Jews were uniquely endowed with the potential for prophecy and a convert could not gain that potential because he saw it as something inherited, almost genetic though he didn't have access to that vocabulary.

edit: Did you mean in terms of community involvement (e.g. being called up to the Torah?)
 
dauer said:
Wil,

I am not sure exactly what you mean. Jewish theologies tend to see Judaism as a unique relationship with G!d (potentially among other unique relationships), as a responsibility rather than a privilege or further to the left something along the lines of the unique type of religious expression that evolved among the Jewish people. There are other ideas but generally they fall along those lines.

There are some exceptions like Yehuda Halevi for whom Jews were uniquely endowed with the potential for prophecy and a convert could not gain that potential because he saw it as something inherited, almost genetic though he didn't have access to that vocabulary.

edit: Did you mean in terms of community involvement (e.g. being called up to the Torah?)
Click to expand...
It was an analogy, I see sometimes where there exists this rule for gentile and this for a jew...the difference I see is one is paying the piper, ie following the law, a member of the tribe.
 
c0de said:
What 'independent thought' are you referring to Nick?
Most of your thoughts contain the name "Simone"...

Interestingly enough, even this very sentence in which you
claim independence of thought contains her name.

And when its not her, its Needleman, or Plato, or Socrates.
How is your thought any more independent then the ones
who cite other names and sources for their beliefs?
Click to expand...

Independent thought doesn't mean exclusive. It simply means not to swallow something whole hook, line, and sinker just because one is conditioned as part of a group to do so.

I don't even mention my closer sources so as not to draw negative associations with something that could at some point be valuable for another. Simone will always draw them as she should and Prof. Needleman is active now and appreciates answering sincere questions including those spawned by righteous indignation.

Independent thought, as it pertains to the deeper religious truths, requires being first being willing and able to be psychologically open. This is far more difficult then you would imagine.
 
dauer said:
It's a tribal religion. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. It's not a race.



You're applying[/color][/size][/font] a Christian interpretation of that phrase that's not to be found in Judaism. Ayin tachat ayin in Judaism refers to a standard for determining the monetary compensation for injury.
[/color][/size]
Click to expand...

Nothing like interpretations.:D

However, the biblical excerpts are obvious enough and explains what an eye is worth:

Exodus 21:23-25
23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Leviticus 24:19-21
19 "If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. 21 "Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death.

The advantage of Christianity for me is that it puts all this into a larger context that invites the inner experience that we are potentially more than just these opposing expressions of duality that have captivated fallen Man.

How much is an eye worth? I guess it depends upon the skill of your lawyer. :)
 
Wil,

if we're going by the 7 Noachide Laws then non-Jews are also paying the Piper, as it were. They've just got a cheaper price of admission.
 
Nick,

You just presented an interpretation. That is the nature of translation. This is an explanation of the Hebrew that also examines the context in which "eye for an eye" is mentioned:

Torat Emet - Mishpatim - An Eye for an Eye

In any case, I point that out because it makes no sense for you to associate Judaism with the Christian interpretation of "eye for an eye." That amounts to a straw man polemic.
 
dauer said:
There are Jewish texts that say negative things about non-Jews though generally that's not the case. Hasidism is known for having a less than flattering perspective of non-Jews.
Click to expand...

But these texts. I assume you would reject them? There are ref's I think over comparing gentiles to cattle, and some others. If you do, as I suspect you do, distance yourself from those words, are you not merely cherry picking the parts of your holy writings, according to what you can stomach?

By the same token, I believe there to be many passages in the Koran that are threatening, even death, to those who are infidels and non believers.

I believe such passages to exist within their holy books.

If they do, is it any wonder that a small % of their followers take that on literally, believing it to make them more 'true' Muslims?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top