i'm saying that the traditional position is that our revelation is unique in being a collective one as opposed to coming via one prophet. now, this traditional position may have been very useful in mediaeval apologetics like the kuzari
but it's hardly going to lay the modern sceptic in the aisles. my own position is indeed in agreement with you that "the fact of the events covering revelations and the revelations themselves as contents are matters of religious beliefs, so let's not argue about them?" it's not actually a commandment to hold this PoV, but it's the one that works for me and enables me to avoid embarrassment in front of people that disagree with me!
Judaism does create otherness. Have you ever heard of the gentile or the goyim? Let us look at the old testament and how the goyim were treated as "others." Jews were forbidden to charge interest on loans to other Jews, but not to the goyim! You probably overlooked this accidently, no?
great sarcasm there. look, pilgram, you obviously don't know anything about how this text works in practice via the oral tradition. quote me a verse and i'll explain it to you, but i'm not going to address inaccurate generalisations based on your ignorance of what you're criticising.
Universalism says no such thing. There is no mandate to join.
er. surely if something is "universal" then it applies to everyone? or are you referring to a specific group like the perfectly inoffensive unitarian universalists?
(or should I take your word "may" and run with it as it applies to Judaism as well, hmmm?)
i think you ought to explain this.
Our way or the hell way. But the Jews don't get any stars here either.
another generalised accusation. show me the textual evidence, please.
Please leave me out of your analysis of how YOU are the problem and how YOU need to grow up. Speak for yourself. Your simplistic "grow up ... and stop whining" solves nothing since no one is making any moves in that direction. Least of all YOU. (Perhaps you weren't whining?)
i am simply saying we all bear responsibility for our own actions and should grow out of blaming other people. i didn't start this by blaming your belief system for all the wrong in the world. you made the first accusation. and your tone is hardly conducive to spreading tolerance. you seem to have arrived at this site expecting everyone to be so impressed by your insight that we all buy your book or something. so far, i've seen very little sign of your convincing anyone of anything they didn't already believe - and your reaction to this seems to be to throw your toys out of the pram! don't be so petulant. after all, you *do* want us to buy your book, don't you? *grin*
You are very wrong about revelations and those who claim them as true. The person making any assertion BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. I, as the one hearing it, have no burden at all.
discussion about the rules of argument is one thing, but you're kind of assuming our format here is one of traditional debate, where we have a "motion", people "for" and people "against", where, as you point out, the assertor probably has the burden of truth. what we are doing here IMHO is *dialogue*. this is not about proving points. it is about understanding the other person's point of view, not gaining disciples. i'm not trying to prove anything to you, as a careful reading of what i wrote would have revealed (susma seems to have understood it, for example) i'm just saying - for interest and information - that that's what *we* believe. i'm not out to convince anyone to agree with me, just to improve knowledge of judaism. by the sounds of some of the things you're saying, it's about time somebody did!
from our point of view, this is a "one size fits all" approach and would not be something that we'd endorse.
quite. elegant solutions are inevitably procrustean.
this is specifically why the Buddha proclaimed that there are 84,000 entry ways into the Dharma.
and this is why we say that "the Torah has 70 faces".
So the development of finance and Banking in Europe before say the seventeenth century or so largely grew out of excluding the Jews from all other occupations...at least that is the impression I've had.
i think i'll take my discussion of this over to the "G!D or money" thread, where it belongs.
That today we think in terms of "the planet" and such concepts as inter dependence, ecology, etc. is really very recent...
at least as far as the general public are concerned. mystics have been thinking in these terms for centuries.
There seems to be an assumption by some people (and not just on this forum) that because my myths are different from other's myths, I must think I am right and they are wrong. This is not the case. I simply accept that they see things differently. I like it that way. I like diversity.
quite right. the beginning of dialogue is the idea that "there are many paths up the mountain" and that "because i am right does not mean you are wrong". philosophically this can be based on the principle that human perception is by definition limited and therefore objectivity is impossible. this realisation frees us to recognise our own subjectivity and understand the subjectivity of others. in effect, it is this which enables the growth of compassion for every human being.
But trying to eliminate differences in belief and mythology in the name of unity is just as bad as trying to convert someone because you think your particular religion is the only right one.
that's what i meant by universality creating otherness, but you've put it much better than i did.
God is not the problem. All the myth, arbitrary rules of what to eat, how to have sex, with whom you're allowed to have it with, blah, blah, blah, is the problem. Deists simply said: yeah, there's a god, great. Now let's get some good work done.
i agree. the subsidiarity of human freewill means that the only valid rules are those that you accept and take upon yourself rather than trying to force upon others. this is what judaism teaches and is, incidentally, incompatible with missionary work, which we realised 2000 years ago - we're not saying that everyone should do what we do! the Torah is a set of laws for the jewish people, not for general use. they only become arbitrary when misapplied and i think it is this that causes the problem.
one size fits all works just honky dorey with the overwhelming majority of things pertaining to humans as I've said before in so many ways. What is one more time?
you can say it as many times as you like, but it doesn't sound any more convincing to me. sorry.
The god/gods that humans choose to place their faith in is a lot less important to them than their necessity to eat, drink, sleep, have adequate medical care, have a job that affords them a livable wage and have a government that affords them real justice and protection rather than simply holy words
what about religions that tell them that these things are important? judaism certainly says all these things, but you won't pick that up from reading english translations of the "old testament". that bears the same relationship to practical rabbinic judaism as copied out shorthand notes do to hearing the original lecture.
Just don't go spouting off all the things that other people "shouldn't" do. (Real saints don't do this, only the fakes do)
surely a "one size fits all" religion would not be able to avoid doing this either?
When two thousand denominations of the same "religion" create two thousand different ways to be "right", wars happen.
and a religion which says "no denominations" will do the same thing. that's how the inquisition got going.
Religionists: keep your dogma, your rituals, your special decoder rings. All it costs is human suffering and death.
yeah, because "non-religionists" don't suffer and die.
Jews were forbidden by Jehovah to charge interest to Jews but they were allowed to charge it to the goyim (non-jews). But if you wrote it in response let me point out that this practice predated the Renaissance by at least one or two thousand or years!
again, quote me the verse and i'll explain it. if you think it means we're supposed to swindle people who aren't jewish, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
The goyim, btw, is still a term used by many Jews about non-Jews. But it's "just a joke", like calling a black person a ... ?
oh, there are jewish arseholes????? my goodness me, what a surprise!!!!
They restricted the number of occupations that Jews were allowed to perform (for example they were forbidden to be chemists, brewers or flour-millers)
this is because they wished to prevent us poisoning the wells and and using the blood of christian babies to make bread. so it had a kind of logic, even if it was based on lies.
You and I, do we abolish that human right of religious liberty now universally propounded in democratic societies, and put in its place the obligation of doing with only one religion that has the best of all religions of all times?
it's working extremely well in france at the moment, isn't it?
no matter how you craft it, there will be some that don't choose to join the club, not matter how "inclusive" it claims to be.
perhaps they simply said they were deists and were, in reality, part of the Illuminati?
of course, if everyone's lying about everything, it makes for an interesting world, don't it?
fortunately, Buddhism doesn't pin itself into a corner with some sappy morality play that isn't in touch with reality.
i agree. nor does judaism in my experience.
are you so convinced that you have the only correct understanding of the Buddhist tradition or the Jewish tradition for that matter?
quite. if you want to know how a car works, ask a mechanic. similarly, if you want to know about buddhism, a [knowledgeable] buddhist should be the first person you ask. ignorance doesn't make you more of an expert than someone who knows more than you.
Problem is Susma...someone's going to write those text books and decide what are the evils and good things about religion and this smacks of maybe a Soviet type education.... also an attempt to regiment peoples' spiritual life.
and my point from the beginning was that this has been tried many times and has never, ever, ever worked. people aren't like that.
The problem (the very large problem) is that so many people cannot recognize the difference between opinion and fact.
you, of course, have every right to say that we worship Buddha as a god, we worship idols, we eat babies... really, whatever you'd like. none of it would be correct but if that's not important to you, then it really shouldn't matter that we protest.
and we sure as hell have exactly the same problem with people telling us that judaism says all sorts of things when in fact they are talking complete bollocks.
if you cannot find it in you to accept the explanations of myself and other Buddhists that post on this site, or others, then i would heartily encourage you to do the work yourself and try to come to a well reasoned opinion.