NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, we've discussed Paganism, Islam, and Christianity a gajillion times. Now, it is time for my own faith to be dissected, defamed, and defended.

The cutting off bits of penises sounds dubious. Apart from that I don't know much about it.

I'm quater Jewish myself. Go Jews!

The cutting off bits of penises sounds dubious. Apart from that I don't know much about it.

This is a practise not restricted to Jews but found in other cultures as well. originally it was done as a measure to improve hygene (I think)

Actually, the stated purpose in the Torah is to identify Jews (and make sure that Abraham was serious about it). No hygiene mentioned. It's one of the many "Jews are different" laws.

Well, the reason why it's not common to be criticising Judaism is because there are alot of less enlightened people out there who think if you say anything wrong about Judaism you're a Nazi.

Otherwise we'd have ALOT more threads about what's happening in Israel.

They're nice, but they're wrong on... circumcision. Well I don't know much about the Torah really but there are probably things I disagree with.

My opinion of the Jewish people is positive. Throughout history they have tended to make a disproportionately high contribution to the societies in which they lived, in terms of culture, science, economy and philosophy. Good bunch of people.

I am hereby allowing criticism of Judaism on this thread. In fact, I invite it... so I can destroy it.

Please, post any criticism you choose.

In fact, I invite it... so I can destroy it.

*Activates typical response*
You filthy Nazi.

I am merely stating that I believe my position to be correct. In order to validate this belief, I hereby challenge anyone who disagrees with me to step forward and make their case.

Francis Street, how about I post a few of the things Judaism bans:
Tattoos*
Homosexual relations (NOT being homosexual, but acting on it)
Extramarital sex
Leaving your fields fallow every seventh year* (G-d will provide a bumper crop in the sixth year)
Forced conversion

And a few things which Judaism requires:
The destruction of the seven Caananite nations* (no longer applies, since it has been fulfilled)
The destruction of the nation of Amalek* (the political nation of Amalek was destroyed. We do not know who the Amalekites are now, though many say that anyone who advocates the extermination of Jews is an Amalekite)

*- does not apply to non-Jews

They are too much overrepresented in their media company ownership/CEOship, especially in USA. Other than that I'm ok with them...And I like some of them...

They play the victim/holocaust way too much. Also Israel is the worst nation on the planet and it is slightly evil. Im not sure if Israel reflects all jews or not.

Not surprised, given how Jews were a major part in the establishment of mass media. Jews like to talk and debate. I offer as exhibit A the Gemara, exhibit B the joke about the three rabbis with seven opinions, and exhibit C this thread.

Oh, and I will now declare that Israel is NOT the worst nation on the planet. Compare to, for example, North Korea. North Korea squelches any and all dissent, brainwashes its people into believing its leaders are gods, and has brainwashed itself into thinking it can defeat the United States.

As for the Holocaust thing, yes, we probably HAVE abused it a little too much.

Just so long as they don't happen to be a pedophile, racist,asshole named Ian Young, then I'm fine with Jews.

Why do jews not include the o in god when writing it.

Speaking as someone who came very close to converting to Judaism...I have issues with the whole "chosen people" thing. I've heard various explanations of how it's not really meant to be a "God thinks I'm more special than you because my name is Finklesteinowitz, neener neener" thing, but at least so far, 100% of the Jews I've discussed the issue with seem firmly to believe that God thinks they're more special than me because their name is Finklesteinowitz, neener neener. (Well, okay, none of them have actually been named Finklesteinowitz. And only one actually said "neener neener," and I'm pretty sure he was kidding. But you get the idea.)

Oh, and I also can't stand Nice Jewish Boys. Not guys who happen to be Jewish, mind you, just the Nice Jewish Boys - the kind with the Nice Jewish Mothers who remind them of how much they would prefer to see them dating a Nice Jewish Girl at every opportunity, despite the fact that the Perfectly F-ing Nice Shikseh Girlfriend is sitting right there. Grr.

There is a prohibition against erasing G-d's name. Since many forms of writing (and typing) are often destroyed, Jews do not actually write G-d's name outside of Scripture, using other representations. Some Jews carry this over into English, by dropping the "o". So, if I have to delete my post for some reason, G-d's name does not get erased, because I never actually wrote His name - I used a substitute.

As for the "chosen people" thing, that has its advantages - and drawbacks. We have 613 laws. You only have 7. We have a job, and while it is nice to be the Chosen People, sometimes we wish, like Tevye did, that He could choose someone else.

As for the "chosen people" thing, that has its advantages - and drawbacks. We have 613 laws. You only have 7. We have a job, and while it is nice to be the Chosen People, sometimes we wish, like Tevye did, that He could choose someone else.

I do understand that being "chosen" is supposed to involve responsibilities as much as priveleges, and that it's not intended to be some sort of cosmic get-out-of-jail-free card. I just have problems with a God that's...well, a racist, frankly. I'd think any God worth worshipping wouldn't care one way or the other who your parents were, but only who you are.

(Also, Fiddler on the Roof = excellent musical. But I still don't agree with Tevye on the whole "no marrying evil goyim!" thing. :p )

They play the victim/holocaust way too much. Also Israel is the worst nation on the planet and it is slightly evil. Im not sure if Israel reflects all jews or not.

well, 6 million jews did die, and it was sort of a genocide intended to wipe out the jews. it makes sense that we're still a little touchy about that subject. and while i don't think that the misfortunes of the holocaust should be used to promote any political agenda, i do think that the memory of all who suffered in this tragedy should be respected. moving on. if you think israel is the worst nation on the planet and slightly evil, you need to open your eyes. what about the sudan, where right now there is a genocide going on against native inhabitants? or chad, a country that refuses to house these refugees, and instead lets the janjaweed militia over the border to finish the job? israel doesn't have the luxury to be the utopian democracy it wants to be, but its doing what it can

as with any religious group, they're fine by me til they start getting all fundamentalist and shitting on everyone elses lives.

Trouble is, intermarriage often leads to the kids not growing up Jewish. Not always - my dad is Catholic - but it happens a lot.

And you CAN convert to Judaism if you want. Not that you need to. Just accept and follow the 7 Noachide Laws, and you'll be fine.

The Seven Noachide Laws are:
No stealing
No murder (that's murder not killing)
No blasphemy
No idolatry
No eating something taken from a live animal
No sexual immorality (no adultery, homosexuality, incest, bestiality, or rape)
Must establish court systems

Oh, and a Noachide may violate any of these laws to save a life (including his own).

This poll seems a bit tactless.

I have no problem with them...just that a lot of them are leftist. That irritates me. A chacun son gout, though.

if i was to believe in one or any gods, which i may or may not, then id definitely side with the christians i have to say. seems more believable than: we are STIIILLLLL waiting, but the saviour will come SOOOMMMEETIMME, even if the old testament was written tens of hundreds of years ago..

well, 6 million jews did die, and it was sort of a genocide intended to wipe out the jews. it makes sense that we're still a little touchy about that subject. and while i don't think that the misfortunes of the holocaust should be used to promote any political agenda, i do think that the memory of all who suffered in this tragedy should be respected

I don't think anyone (well, anyone sane, anyway) would dispute that the Holocaust was an enormous tragedy, and that it should be remembered and the suffering it caused respected. At the same time, I know I've had conversations like this:

Wealthy Upper-Class American Jew: I'm discriminated against because I'm Jewish!
Me: Huh, really? How?
WUCAJ: Six million Jews died in the Holocaust!
Me: Yeah, and that's really, deeply horrible....but I was asking how you, personally, were being discriminated against.
WUCAJ: You fucking anti-semitic Nazi! How dare you pretend Jews haven't been persecuted!
Me: But...I didn't. The Holocaust was a really, deeply awful thing. I'm totally in agreement with you on that. The Nazis were evil, evil people. But I was actually just wondering how you believe you've been discrim-
WUCAJ: SIX MILLION JEWS DIED! HOW DARE YOU! NAZI NAZI NAZI!

That sort of behavior on the part of a small subset of modern Jews, to me, is extraordinarily disrespectful of the significance of the Holocaust, and the real suffering of its victims. I believe that most Jews are sane enough not to pull this sort of crap, but, unfortunately, a few continue to do so, and give the sane people a bad reputation (much like Fred Phelps does for Christians, or Al Qaeda does for Muslims). I think those idiots are the ones most people are thinking of when they talk about "playing the Holocaust card" and the like.

Trouble is, intermarriage often leads to the kids not growing up Jewish. Not always - my dad is Catholic - but it happens a lot.


Oh, I don't see anything at all wrong with wanting Jewish children or grandchildren. I've just seen or heard of many cases (my own experience included, as you might have guessed) where that has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and it's purely a racial thing. As, for example, when Teh Evil Shikseh has repeatedly stated that she would convert to Judaism and raise any potential kiddies Jewish if she and the Nice Jewish Boy got married, but she somehow still remains Teh Evil Shikseh. ;)

Mirkana seems really nice. What about the reconstruction of the Temple of Jersusalem. Should it be done? Israel should have full control of all Torah mandated lands. Should that be the case? Are you Ashkenazi or Sephardi?

i found the explanation of why jews do not write the o in G-d very interesting, thank you. i feel less ignorant now! :)

Where's Mirkana. Mirkana, say I'm a doctor and a heal someone on Saturday morning. Is this against God's Law?

Where's Mirkana. Mirkana, say I'm a doctor and a heal someone on Saturday morning. Is this against God's Law?

Traditionally, it was.

Trouble is, intermarriage often leads to the kids not growing up Jewish. Not always...

Judaism is passed on through the mother, not the father. For you to be born Jewish, you had to have a Jewish mother.

Your question is about Judaism yet the poll options are all about Jews. Are you an idiot or is there some hidden meaning/reason for this?

Well, we've discussed Paganism, Islam, and Christianity a gajillion times. Now, it is time for my own faith to be dissected, defamed, and defended.
Meh. Just leave it at the "dissected" part. Take Judaism apart, and it is no more or less silly than any of the other superstitions you mention.

I wish I was one of the Chosen.

Yesterday, was forced to go to a bat mitzvah for a sister's friend. I'm pretty sure the cantor was high on the opiate of the masses :D

Ok seriously - they're fine by me.

i have a strong opion, so just this once, i will use caps lock:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS, TO BE "BORN" JEWISH. OR TO BE BORN INTO ANY MATTER OF FAITH.

the day some1 says i am a christian because my mother is, or an atheist because my father is, i'll punch them, and anyone who inherits their religion from a parent is stupid. EXPLORE FOR YOURSELF! investigate EVERY matter of belief!

and stop writing christian on the sensus when u dont actually follow christ.. god.. christians think there is about a billion of them! its more like 500 million! being optimisitic for them!

*huge sigh* back to being a nice person lol

You have to accept Christianity on faith, not on bloodline.

Christianity is a religion for those who are meek, not those who are proud.

You have to accept Christianity on faith, not on bloodline.

Christianity is a religion for those who are meek, not those who are proud.

This is Judaism. The religion Christianity ripped off.

Almighty God, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe, used the Jewish people, as his own Chosen, to show to all of us that you cannot merit your way into redemption. The idea that we can follow all 613 laws of the covenant with the Jewish people with perfection is an error. Rather, we are in need of a Redeemer. We are restored to God through grace. He calls us to live holy lives following in his commandments.

Christ, the most perfect Lawgiver, offers us this grace through faith. Christ gives us the basic relationship between God and man: we are to love God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our might. He gives us the relationship between man and man: we are to love our neighbor as ourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

This is Judaism. The religion Christianity ripped off.

Now you are just being anti-semetic yourself. The reason they are so alike, is that Christianity is just Jewish people who believe that Jesus was the messiah. Thus resulting in the seperation after the events of the Old Testament *Torah*. The new testament is just what happened after that split.

Also, even in the eyes of the jewish and the muslims *i've asked a preist and rabbi*, Jesus may not have been the chosen one, but he is still honored by both as a great prophet of the lords wisdom. So I believe you should keep your mouth shut.

i have a strong opion, so just this once, i will use caps lock:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS, TO BE "BORN" JEWISH. OR TO BE BORN INTO ANY MATTER OF FAITH.

the day some1 says i am a christian because my mother is, or an atheist because my father is, i'll punch them, and anyone who inherits their religion from a parent is stupid. EXPLORE FOR YOURSELF! investigate EVERY matter of belief!

and stop writing christian on the sensus when u dont actually follow christ.. god.. christians think there is about a billion of them! its more like 500 million! being optimisitic for them!

*huge sigh* back to being a nice person lol

That is true for Christians... and Athiests... but Judaism is as much an ethnicity as a religion.

Another thing is that Jews inherit their "chosen" (for lack of a better word) status through the line of the mother. Thus, a Jew is defined as someone that either A. had a Jewish mother, maternal grandmother, etc. or B. someone that has converted (which, compared to christianity, is relatively complicated)

This is Judaism as defined by pretty much every Rabbinical authority around (and the state of Israel for that matter), though some of them debate a few specific points such as whether or not children of Jewish woman that converted to another religion are automatically Jews or not.


Now you are just being anti-semetic yourself. The reason they are so alike, is that Christianity is just Jewish people who believe that Jesus was the messiah. Thus resulting in the seperation after the events of the Old Testament *Torah*. The new testament is just what happened after that split.

Also, even in the eyes of the jewish and the muslims *i've asked a preist and rabbi*, Jesus may not have been the chosen one, but he is still honored by both as a great prophet of the lords wisdom. So I believe you should keep your mouth shut.



In the eyes of many Rabbis Jesus is no more a great prophet of the Lord's Wisdom than the other couple dozen false messiahs running around when Jews were looking for a leader to liberate them from the Romans. (Trust me, there were *many* people claiming to be the Messiah, most of which fulfilled the requirements as well as or better than Jesus himself)

You have to accept Christianity on faith, not on bloodline.

Christianity is a religion for those who are meek, not those who are proud.
Typical anti-Christianity rants. Christianity advocates tolerance and keeping arrogance in check; hardly something that renders one meek. And, as for the turn your cheek thing, well it means if one strikes you with disrespect, have them treat you as an equal (when put in the context of the time that the phrase was said, this its meaning...not just passively allowing people to trample over you).

Almighty God, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe, used the Jewish people, as his own Chosen, to show to all of us that you cannot merit your way into redemption. The idea that we can follow all 613 laws of the covenant with the Jewish people with perfection is an error. Rather, we are in need of a Redeemer. We are restored to God through grace. He calls us to live holy lives following in his commandments.

Christ, the most perfect Lawgiver, offers us this grace through faith. Christ gives us the basic relationship between God and man: we are to love God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our might. He gives us the relationship between man and man: we are to love our neighbor as ourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

The thought just struck me that this "Jews for Jesus" rhetoric is a perfect example of how one can be of a Jewish heritage and not religiously a Jew. Conscience and Truth strikes me as someone that was born Jewish and then converted.

Judaism?

I didn't know there were enough people in the world named Judy to start their own religion.

They play the victim/holocaust way too much. Also Israel is the worst nation on the planet and it is slightly evil.

You win the prize for squeezing the most boneheaded statements into one post.

You win the prize for squeezing the most boneheaded statements into one post.
You win the prize for bothering me. Congrats.

They are too much overrepresented in their media company ownership/CEOship, especially in USA. Other than that I'm ok with them...And I like some of them...


Limiting the representation of someone is racist in and of itself. If the Jews happen to have a large percentage of successful people in he media and the corporate world i would attribute it to hard work and a good work ethic. what's wrong with that?

Speaking as someone who came very close to converting to Judaism...I have issues with the whole "chosen people" thing. I've heard various explanations of how it's not really meant to be a "God thinks I'm more special than you because my name is Finklesteinowitz, neener neener" thing, but at least so far, 100% of the Jews I've discussed the issue with seem firmly to believe that God thinks they're more special than me because their name is Finklesteinowitz, neener neener. (Well, okay, none of them have actually been named Finklesteinowitz. And only one actually said "neener neener," and I'm pretty sure he was kidding. But you get the idea.)

Oh, and I also can't stand Nice Jewish Boys. Not guys who happen to be Jewish, mind you, just the Nice Jewish Boys - the kind with the Nice Jewish Mothers who remind them of how much they would prefer to see them dating a Nice Jewish Girl at every opportunity, despite the fact that the Perfectly F-ing Nice Shikseh Girlfriend is sitting right there. Grr.

Jews call themselves the chosen people because we were chosen by G-d to recieve the Torah; his law. We are chosen in the sense that we are supposed to be a light unto the nations. A good example to the world in bringing G-dliness and holiness into the physical world.

And Jewish mothers don't like their nice jewish sons talking to shiksah girls because intermarriage causes a lot of problems in married life, such as what the children will be raised, etc.

And Jewish mothers don't like their nice jewish sons talking to shiksah girls because intermarriage causes a lot of problems in married life, such as what the children will be raised, etc.
Thats racist.

Thats racist.


It's not racist. If Jewish people continued to inter-marry and not raise their children Jewish, there won't be any Jews left. If you didn't know, there aren't that many Jews out there. Anywhere from 1-2% of the worlds population.

Jews don't inter-marry not because they look at non-Jews as lesser peopple but that with inter-marriage comes the eventual non-existence of the Jewish people.

Thats racist.

Not racist.

That is a cultural concern, how the children are raised, etc.

It's not racist. If Jewish people continued to inter-marry and not raise their children Jewish, there won't be any Jews left. If you didn't know, there aren't that many Jews out there. Anywhere from 1-2% of the worlds population.

Jews don't inter-marry not because they look at non-Jews as lesser peopple but that with inter-marriage comes the eventual non-existence of the Jewish people.
then you cant claim that pointing out jews are over represented is racist. Both dont really make any sense now do they.

then you cant claim that pointing out jews are over represented is racist. Both dont really make any sense now do they.


The way the previous poster phrased his thoughts on Jewish representation in the media, and CEOs of corporate America in my opinion had a negative tone to it, therefore it seemed to me that it bothered him that Jews are highly represented in those areas.

Where's Mirkana. Mirkana, say I'm a doctor and a heal someone on Saturday morning. Is this against God's Law?

Halacha explictly permits any act on the Sabbath used to heal or save a life. Doctors can, and always have been able to, heal someone on a Saturday morning. It isn't a violation of the Law.

This is explained, among other places, in Yoma 86a where it states "Desecrate on Sabbath so that he may live to fulfill many Sabbaths."

I love the jews..in fact right now, my nation name is "the jew loving kingdom of Zilam. I like jews for many reasons, none that i want to go into full detail though.

Also, even in the eyes of the jewish and the muslims *i've asked a preist and rabbi*, Jesus may not have been the chosen one, but he is still honored by both as a great prophet of the lords wisdom. So I believe you should keep your mouth shut.

You're not entirely wrong here, but to clarify a bit:

You're right to say that Islam views Jesus as a prophet. That occurs in the Koran. Judaism does not. Nowhere in any Jewish text is Jesus revered as a prophet. No major sect of Judaism views Jesus as a prophet. Some Jews may claim this - but in doing so they are working outside of the bounds of all forms of Orthodoxy, Conservative, or Reform Judaism. None of the major sects view Jesus as a prophet.

Rather, there has been serious polemic against Jesus in Judaism. The majority views in these major sects on Jesus is mostly negative. In fact, according to Halacha, a Jew that converts to Christianity is no longer a Jew. That should tell you how we, as Jews, regard Jesus.

However, as there is no offical Jewish stance on Jesus himself, the degree to which individual Jews view Jesus varies. Many Jews (including many famous rabbis throughout history, like Rambam and Rashi) were very hostile toward Jesus, while some ignored the issue, and some were polite. The few Jews who view Jesus in a positive light, however, do not speak for Judaism as a whole. Rather, if you're interested in Jewish views on Jesus, it might be wise to gather the implications of the fact that a Jew who coverts to Christianity is no longer a Jew, according to Halacha.

Judaism?

I didn't know there were enough people in the world named Judy to start their own religion.
That might be the dumbest thing I've heard today...

...but I can't help smiling.

Keep up the good work.

then you cant claim that pointing out jews are over represented is racist. Both dont really make any sense now do they.

The issue addressed when protesting the "too many Jews are involved in XXXX" is racism related...._because_ the fundamental assumption of the speaker in that case is that there is something _wrong_ with Jews, or that they are so broadly represented because of some sort of nefarious plotting and conspiracy.

The ethnic composition of any social grouping is not a valid concern for any observer. Discuss the behaviours that you take exception to, and the proposed remedies.

Rather than (as this sort of statement implies) if we just forbid ethnicity members X to be in the profession, then the world will be a better place.

Plus, groupings like high level media executives are not very _large_. You can have a huge predominance of Jewish people working in a small area, and it does not contribute _at all_ to the overall population of Jews.

It is perfectly reconcilable to state that
(a) there are not many Jews and long term demographic survival must remain a high priority and still state that
with
(b) Jews can be relatively abundant within a subgrouping of society

whats the big deal about it?

there is nothing wrong with it. i think some christians need to take lessons form judaism and study the old testament as well as the new one. too many christians "know" about the new testament and "know" about jesus and it seems like so many of them forget about God.

Jews and Judaism itself are fine.

Them having the state of Isreal is not.

This is a practise not restricted to Jews but found in other cultures as well. originally it was done as a measure to improve hygene (I think)

I've never heard of anyone except the Jewish doing it, but I'm no expert on the subject so I guess I really don't know. It still sounds a bit bizarre to me. But each to his own, I suppose.

People are people. Nationality & religion only matters when people become fanatical about it. Religious orthodoxy is insane, regardless of the religion.

People are people. Nationality & religion only matters when people become fanatical about it. Religious orthodoxy is insane, regardless of the religion.

And what's wrong with me being proud of my country, my religion and my heritage?

I'm a proud White American Christian!

The thought just struck me that this "Jews for Jesus" rhetoric is a perfect example of how one can be of a Jewish heritage and not religiously a Jew. Conscience and Truth strikes me as someone that was born Jewish and then converted.

Er, he's not Jewish. Jews don't exhalt Jesus in the lyrical and flowing language of that post. In point of fact, if you read closely he's saying Jews were just an experiment G*d did to show Christians later on that you can't earn your way into heaven and the rest of the post is wrapped around this assertation.

Jews don't regard themselves as a failed experiment.

And what's wrong with me being proud of my country, my religion and my heritage?Let's see, shall we?

I'm a proud White American Christian!Why would you be proud of your skincolour?
Why would you be proud of your place of birth?
Why would your religion be a source of pride to you?

Still, I didn't sat there's anything wrong with pride. I take great pride in my accomplishments & the culture I'm a part of and help shape (and by culture, I mean the free, independent grassroot culture I'm a part of).

The things you're proud of are all things independent of yourself. How can you be proud of something you have nothing to do with?

And what's wrong with me being proud of my country, my religion and my heritage?

I'm a proud White American Christian!

You poor thing, sorry you've been victimized so much. White power dude!

Let's see, shall we?

Why would you be proud of your skincolour?
Why would you be proud of your place of birth?
Why would your religion be a source of pride to you?

...

The things you're proud of are all things independent of yourself. How can you be proud of something you have nothing to do with?
It's true that your skin color and place of birth are beyond your control, but your religious beliefs are as much under your control as other choice you make. I'd say that, of those three features, the one that would be most reasonable to "take pride in" would be one's religious belief, since it's the only one that the individual has the power to consciously change.

Of course, I don't particularly see why people think that being superstitious is something to be proud of, but that comes down to personal opinion. :)

I have nothing against Jewish folks at all. I think they missed the coming of the Lord, but other than that they're great. My Jewish pals are just as cool as any others.

And what's wrong with me being proud of my country, my religion and my heritage?

I'm a proud White American Christian!


Pride in these things is dangerous (and I'm not saying Jews are immune to this pitfall, either). Because none of them are an individual accomplishment. They are collective. For example, a person can be part of a reasonably (by some reliabel and objective metric) just community, and yet be personally deficient in their ability to tell right and wrong apart, but justify their ineptitude saying "I am one person of many of a just community, so what I say is just as well!"

And heritage is the most dangerous thing of all to be proud of, and one of the many examples of Jewish pragmaticism in confronting human failings. Because once your pass beyond the people whom someone alive still has memory of....without rigorous attention to truth and detail, you don't know what your more distant ancestors truly did or what value their actions had.

(You won't even be really sure about the stuff which only the oldest living people can relate, either, between phsyical deterioration of memory, "Chinese Whisper" effect in passing on second and third hand information, and "the generation gap" drift in language and meaning between the older and younger.)

Thus, you will tend to project your current failings and strengths uniformly throughout the past. You will have an entity of "in group" (the people bred and raised like myself) which you do not really _know_ the nature of. Yet you can feel justified in saying of anything good about your heritage "it's really good, see how many hundreds or thousands of years it goes back!" And of anything bad you can say "see, it can't be that bad, or how would we still be around hundreds or thousands of years later!"

That is, you make yourself very vulnerable to over-rating what proficiencies your "in group" does have...and understating the deficiencies. And thus blinding yourself to how to deal with the day to day issues confronting your generation.

The Jews understood this and have insisted since the start of the Diaspora upon a strict tradition of scholarship in history and theology. They have tried hard to pass on a pride in their keeping of the law, but to have small ritual upon small ritual to try and keep people reminded that what you do now is what matters. They have dedicated their society to fighting this complacency of pride in heritage.

Perhaps not entirely successfully, but tell me of how many "upstanding WASPS" know history beyond geneology, or ethical issues beyond whatever the most charismatic pastor in the area rides as his hobby horse ? I grew up in such a community and it fails to impress me in these regards. The WASP communities I have brushed shoulders with other the years have likewise done so, and this was long long before I started converting to Judaism (however stalled this process has been by my own flaws.)

Pride is a good thing...but only in moderation, and only with unflinching awareness of your errors and rigorous self honesty. This is why the Jews work so hard on historical and ethical awareness.

The issue addressed when protesting the "too many Jews are involved in XXXX" is racism related...._because_ the fundamental assumption of the speaker in that case is that there is something _wrong_ with Jews
And when you say jews shouldnt marry non-jews your saying theres something wrong with non-Jews. Jews can be as racist as anyone else. They are not the least bit special. Isnt there something in your holy book about how your allowed to have non-jews as slaves?

I've never heard of anyone except the Jewish doing it, but I'm no expert on the subject so I guess I really don't know. It still sounds a bit bizarre to me. But each to his own, I suppose.

Im not jewish

:checks:

OMG MY FORESKIN IS GONE

Jews are cool with me.
That said, let me add one chip on my shoulder.
You see, I belong to the Romany people (what the rest of the world calls the gypsies). Our people died in the holocaust along with the jew. Granted, not as many... but are we really going to compare death tolls? Anyway, the Jews got Israel after the war thanks to their American benefactors and the sympathy brought on by the holocaust. My people got kicked back into the streets and have remained the oppressed pariahs of European society to this day. So, where's my homeland? Aren't we just as deserving?
Do I like Jews, yeah, sure. And on this one count, I'm also a little jealous.

Where's Mirkana. Mirkana, say I'm a doctor and a heal someone on Saturday morning. Is this against God's Law?


One the most important principles in Judaism is that of "pikuach nefesh," or saving a life. This principle can generally be held to override any religious law such as those of kashrut (keeping kosher) and observing the sabbath.

There are several verses that support this interpretation, but the one that I have heard most is that we are told in the Torah that we are to LIVE by the laws of G-d, which by implication means "not DIE by the laws."

Following the principle of pikuach nefesh, if the patient's life is in danger, then the doctor must take whatever action is necessary to save him.

I used to have this overzealous Jewish kid in my class when I went to school. He always tried to flaunt of how Judaism was superior in every way to christianity and how Israel was so much better than the US. To say the least after a couple of years it got more than annoying.

So one day one of the more religious girls in my class, had to make a report and just to stick it to the guy she made a report that had everyone grinning and the kid seething. She talked of how according to christian revelation and prophecy, the Jewish people would all be destroyed by the second coming. And that the creation of Israel was one of the first complete parts of the prophecy, hence why extreme christians are so pro-Israel. Inorder for all the Jews who had been scattered, had to return to their promised land, and there meet the redemption of the Lord Jesus Christ in his second coming and either convert or be banished.

Needless to say it might have been a bit extreme, but everyone was tired of Mr. Zionist trying to tell us how superior he was in every conversation. Well most of us were smiling at how red his face got, we knew he would have burst in a fit of rage and went screaming all sorts of stuff if that would not have gotten him an immediate F and a kick from the room so he stayed put and it was funny seeing him put his rage down.

Looking back it might have been a bit cruel. But except for jews like him, overall I have no problem whatsoever with Jews, wouldn't mind dating a jewish girl, eating kosher out of respect to a friend at a dinner, etc..

One the most important principles in Judaism is that of "pikuach nefesh," or saving a life. This principle can generally be held to override any religious law such as those of kashrut (keeping kosher) and observing the sabbath.

There are several verses that support this interpretation, but the one that I have heard most is that we are told in the Torah that we are to LIVE by the laws of G-d, which by implication means "not DIE by the laws."

Following the principle of pikuach nefesh, if the patient's life is in danger, then the doctor must take whatever action is necessary to save him.

What if the doctor could save the life the following day, but still decided to save the life on the Sabbath Day, would he still qualify under pikauch nefesh?

Doesn't pikauch nefesh allow for abortion. If so, it seems inconsistent.

I used to have this overzealous Jewish kid in my class when I went to school. He always tried to flaunt of how Judaism was superior in every way to christianity and how Israel was so much better than the US.

He was a nice kid. Don't attack him for his faith. I am a Jew.

What if the doctor could save the life the following day, but still decided to save the life on the Sabbath Day, would he still qualify under pikauch nefesh?

Doesn't pikauch nefesh allow for abortion. If so, it seems inconsistent.

If someones life is truly in acute danger, then the doctor is required to do what is necessary to save it, even if he could wait 10 minutes for the sun to go down and the sabbath to be over. Now, if someones life is in danger from say cancer, and he needs weekly chemotherapy to stay alive, they can schedule the chemotherapy to occur some other day, as it is a chronic rather than acute need.

As for abortion, it is not only allowable to *save a life* but by traditional law is required. Thats just to save the life of the mother though, other circumstances can be argued. (Saving the mother from "psychological trauma" is one of those nifty exceptions that are hard to agree upon)

Aborting a child with a (potentially lethal) birth defect is another argued point, but because of the unfortunate diseases the Ashkenazi community picked up through interbreeding the past few millenia (Tay-Sachs and others), it is done, but most of the time they do pre-marital screening (lots of Jewish organizations around to screen potential couples for such genetic defects).

I believe that all people have the potential to be perfectly nice individuals, but 'it takes religion to make a good man commit evil'.

My main problem with the Jewish religion is the malevolent nature of the Jewish God, who could easily be said to be one of the most unpleasant characters ever featured in a work of literature, He's murderous, pety, jealous, racist and uncaring.

Judaism, more so than many other religions, evolved out of the need for social control. Once upon a time the Jews were pagans like everyone else on Earth, but then the Jews started to worship foreign gods and idols, and the priestly class began to impose upon them rules, rules that would secure employment for the priestly class. These rules were then justified by the racist myth that Jews were 'chosen', and that the inconvenience of being bound by the Law was acceptably offset by their superiority to other peoples, for example, this same attitude resulted in the genocide of the Phoenicians/Canaanites (an act that is still today, somewhat hypocritically, celebrated within Judaism).

If this sounds like I am picking on Judaism, I am not. I am just stating that it is a Lie, like all religions. What matters is whether the Lie has positive effects on the World, and mostly Judaism does. Jews have served as conscientious and benevolent actors in all societies that they have settled within (including Palastine, where Israel acts as a beacon of democracy and a springboard for investment into the wider Middle East).

[QUOTE=Greyenivol Colony]Judaism, more so than many other religions, evolved out of the need for social control. Once upon a time the Jews were pagans like everyone else on Earth, but then the Jews started to worship foreign gods and idols, and the priestly class began to impose upon them rules, rules that would secure employment for the priestly class. These rules were then justified by the racist myth that Jews were 'chosen', and that the inconvenience of being bound by the Law was acceptably offset by their superiority to other peoples, for example, this same attitude resulted in the genocide of the Phoenicians/Canaanites (an act that is still today, somewhat hypocritically, celebrated within Judaism).[QUOTE]

My anthropology teacher taught me the same exact thing as yours did.

Judaism makes a great musical. Drink L'chiam, to life!

First of all, the genital mutilaton is sick. Jews need to stop doing that.

Mainstean western society complains when Africans do that to girls - why are Jews allowed to do it to boys? I'd also like to point out that infantile circumcision violates all 7 ethical guidelines of the American Medical Association.

I'm quater Jewish myself. Go Jews!

How? It's a religion, not a race. Either you're a Jew or you're not.

That is true for Christians... and Athiests... but Judaism is as much an ethnicity as a religion.

If I can convert, it's a religion. It can't be both. Racially, Jews would be semitic, but so are Arabs.

Jews and Judaism itself are fine.

Them having the state of Isreal is not.

I somewhere read or heard a man comment on the irony of the fact that during the Nazi era, the rallying cry was "Juden Raus! Auf nach Palastina!" ("Jews get out to Palestine!") while now the Germans (along with the rest of Europe) cries "Jews out of Palestine!"

The fact is this: when Jews were being hunted like animals in Europe, nobody in the world did enough to save nearly 6,000,000 lives. Those Jews who survived came away with one valuable lesson: our survival as a people demands nothing more or less than self-sufficiency.

Though the descendants of those who gave not a fig about the continued survival of the Jewish people might see fit to criticize Israel, I'll let you in on a secret: while you're welcome to your opinions, as far as most of us are concerned, they are of no consequence.

Additionally, if you are at all familiar with international law, the League of Nations, the United Nations, etc., you will know that Israel is a legally-constituted nation which has the legal right to exist. Maybe you need to read up on this.

How? It's a religion, not a race. Either you're a Jew or you're not.

If I can convert, it's a religion. It can't be both. Racially, Jews would be semitic, but so are Arabs.

A cultural heritage 3000 years in the making complete with language, food, clothing, and a rich body of literature is something you can be born in to. Quite a few people I know might have not stepped foot near a synagogue in a dozen years, but they know how to make matzoball soup and you can hear the odd yiddish phrase. The Soviet Union might have discouraged their religious expression, but they are still Jewish.

It is also an ethnic heritage in that if you examin the basic DNA of your average German Jew, it can be differentiated from your average German. Jews as a people have been in their own communities the entire time of their history, with less interbreeding with their neighbors than many other distinct ethnic groups (which is both a good and a bad thing... you "inherit" distinct cultural heritage and a greater chance for a bunch of various diseases).

Also, one of the basic tenets of the Jewish faith is the "chosen people" status, which brings with it the requirements to follow (more of) God's laws. Such status is inherited, and I would think the Rabbinic authorities (and the state of Israel) would be more believable about whether you could be born Jewish. I've never heard any Christian authority say that you could be "born" Christian, as that is a status that is conveyed through baptism, confirmation, and whatever else your denomination wants, but every single Jewish authority says that you can be born Jewish.

P.S. The state of Jesus in Jewish faith is complicated, but one of the various Jewish writings (I'd have to look it up to know for sure) states quite clearly that a prophet is definately false if he states that God has suddenly changed his mind about one or another of his laws. The New Testament says this on many occasions, specifically God suddenly declaring that the rules about food no longer apply in (Paul's?) dream.

First of all, the genital mutilaton is sick. Jews need to stop doing that.

Mainstean western society complains when Africans do that to girls - why are Jews allowed to do it to boys? I'd also like to point out that infantile circumcision violates all 7 ethical guidelines of the American Medical Association.

It's not that simple, the nerves in the infant's penis are not yet fully developed at the time of circumcision. It hardly hurts at all, and even if it did, it is done at such a time that the child will be unable to remember the pain, furthermore it aides the individual hygenically. Female circumcision is a different matter, it is excruciating at any age and will permenantly devoid the woman of the ability to orgasm. No mainstream branch of Judaism comends it, and the International Community condemns its practice globally.

How? It's a religion, not a race. Either you're a Jew or you're not.

If I can convert, it's a religion. It can't be both. Racially, Jews would be semitic, but so are Arabs.

We in the West often make the mistake of thinking that 'Religion' is a universal concept, it is not. Most religions come from different backgrounds, and as such have different values attached.

The best way to view Judaism, apart from a religion, as more as a 'bloodline'. Unlike a Race, which can be dilluted through interbreeding, Judaism, or rather, Jewishness, exists through a matrilineal bloodline descending from the first Jews.

The use of the word 'semite' to describe Jews is an etymological oddity. It more accurately describes a theoretical primitive ethnicity focussed around the Arab Peninsula. Jews, despite being a united bloodline, are not racially homogenous, there are White Jews, Black Jews, Brown Jews and Orange Jews (pun intended).

You could convert to Judaism, but you would never be a Jew in the sense that a Jew of descent is. Culturally, a lot of emphasis is put onto the concept of the bloodline.

JEWS ROCK! I wish I was Jewish...:(

Junk Siam, I sympathize with you.

As for Greyenivol Colony's comments, this is what I have been waiting for. Time to unleash...
THE PROOF OF HAR SINAI!

Basically, WHEN could the Torah have been given to the Jewish people apart from Mt. Sinai and given by G-d?

The Torah states that G-d Himself gave the first two commandments - He spoke directly to the people. Then Moses took over.
There is NO WAY that Moses could have faked it, and if he had come down and given them the Torah which states that G-d gave the first two commandments, they would have laughed, then killed him.

Also, the Torah states that the Torah shall never be forgotten. So it could never have been introduced later.

Junk Siam, I sympathize with you.

As for Greyenivol Colony's comments, this is what I have been waiting for. Time to unleash...
THE PROOF OF HAR SINAI!

Basically, WHEN could the Torah have been given to the Jewish people apart from Mt. Sinai and given by G-d?

The Torah states that G-d Himself gave the first two commandments - He spoke directly to the people. Then Moses took over.
There is NO WAY that Moses could have faked it, and if he had come down and given them the Torah which states that G-d gave the first two commandments, they would have laughed, then killed him.

Also, the Torah states that the Torah shall never be forgotten. So it could never have been introduced later.

Jewish religious maniacs arent any better than other religious maniacs.

Other than that, nothing wrong with the jews. Sacha Baron Cohen is a jew.

New Granada, I agree with you completely. If a Jewish terrorist organization showed up, I would pray for their destruction. Because, in my book, Jewish terrorist=heretic & blasphemer.

However, what is the point of quoting my previous post. Any comments on the proof?

It's not that simple, the nerves in the infant's penis are not yet fully developed at the time of circumcision. It hardly hurts at all, and even if it did, it is done at such a time that the child will be unable to remember the pain, furthermore it aides the individual hygenically.

So it's okay to mutilate babies if they don't know we're doing it?

And there's no scientific evidence of that hygiene angle. I think the wiki covers the issue quite well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_aspects

They play the victim/holocaust way too much. Also Israel is the worst nation on the planet and it is slightly evil. Im not sure if Israel reflects all jews or not.
Stupid boy. There are nations worse than Israel, take Myanmar and North Korea for just two.

Israel doesn't represent most Jews, who are actually quite left-wing.

So it's okay to mutilate babies if they don't know we're doing it?

And there's no scientific evidence of that hygiene angle. I think the wiki covers the issue quite well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_aspects

Its actually the norm to be cut when your American, Christian or Jewish.

Its mostly blacks, I've noticed, who dont seem to get it done.

New Granada, I agree with you completely. If a Jewish terrorist organization showed up, I would pray for their destruction. Because, in my book, Jewish terrorist=heretic & blasphemer.

However, what is the point of quoting my previous post. Any comments on the proof?


Proof? It was a restatement of "the torah/quran/bible/&c is true because the torah/quran/bible/&c says so."

First of all, the genital mutilaton is sick. Jews need to stop doing that.
Female genital mutilation is a much more invasive and destructive procedure than male circumcision. They are not comparable.

I am saying that there is no way that the Torah could have been given at any other time without contradicting the Torah, thereby proving it to be false!

JEWS ROCK! I wish I was Jewish...:(

I find Jew-envy to be one of the strangest phenomena about in today's society, and I don't understand it. Is it part of an adolescent urge to be 'chosen' by somebody, even if that somebody is Jehovah. Or the urge to have a decent starting point to host a persecution complex?

The Jewish Law is incredibly restrictive. You are better off a Goy.

I find Jew-envy to be one of the strangest phenomena about in today's society, and I don't understand it. Is it part of an adolescent urge to be 'chosen' by somebody, even if that somebody is Jehovah. Or the urge to have a decent starting point to host a persecution complex?

The Jewish Law is incredibly restrictive. You are better off a Goy.


Clearly part of their trick to make you ask three times.

Junk Siam, I sympathize with you.

As for Greyenivol Colony's comments, this is what I have been waiting for. Time to unleash...
THE PROOF OF HAR SINAI!

Basically, WHEN could the Torah have been given to the Jewish people apart from Mt. Sinai and given by G-d?

The Torah states that G-d Himself gave the first two commandments - He spoke directly to the people. Then Moses took over.
There is NO WAY that Moses could have faked it, and if he had come down and given them the Torah which states that G-d gave the first two commandments, they would have laughed, then killed him.

Also, the Torah states that the Torah shall never be forgotten. So it could never have been introduced later.

Or perhaps the story of how the Commandments were delivered is just that, a story.

If the Ten Comandments came to be through convention and over time, as is the most likely explanation, their exact origin would be lost to time. So eventually, a dissenting voice asks their Rabbi, 'where did these Ten Commandments come from then?'

Well then the obvious response would be to create a convenient story whereby they were delivered by God himself, in fact, tie it in with another story about the Exodus and you have a mythos growing up.

Wait, so they just added stuff to the Torah? And NOBODY NOTICED?

And when you say jews shouldnt marry non-jews your saying theres something wrong with non-Jews. Jews can be as racist as anyone else. They are not the least bit special. Isnt there something in your holy book about how your allowed to have non-jews as slaves?

The two situations are NOT parallel.

In one, people are working in public life, expecting to fulfill the same responsibilities and duties for the same rewards and priveleges. An observer is saying their right to hold these positions is somehow less than other Americans.

In the other case, private citizens are opting to uphold their values. Marriage has a large child rearing component to it, and Jews have a right to want to raise their children as Jews. If a Jew marries outside the faith, experience has proven that quite often, the children will not be raised as Jewish. So, those related to the person contemplating this and whom are interested in seeing the societal values maintained have the right to apply persuasion, arguments, and incentives/disincentives to an exogamously leaning peer...and that peer has the right to listen to and marshall people who disagree, and has an an absolute right to tell them to shut up, or to go to hell.

In both cases, the Jews involved are just pursuing their rights. Substitute in "Latino/latina" for "Jew" "police force" for "the media" and otherwise they would have the same rights that I would fight to uphold.

Saying that a minority must conform to the wishes of the majority is very very un-American, if anything is.

Actually, the stated purpose in the Torah is to identify Jews (and make sure that Abraham was serious about it). No hygiene mentioned. It's one of the many "Jews are different" laws.

Whatever the Biblical justification, the idea that circumcision made Jews unique is not accurate; it was practiced by other Canaanite groupings as well, and throughout much of the Middle East, if I recall correctly. A notable exception was the Philistines, being non-indigenous to the region.

Wait, so they just added stuff to the Torah? And NOBODY NOTICED?

That's been quite routine, actually. "Nobody noticed" because there was no canonized scripture for a very long time; as it is, it is a rough combination of a variety of writings from a wide range of religious and political perspectives.

Mandatory Altruism, isn't Judaism about teaching the rest of the world how to have full equality?

My main problem with the Jewish religion is the malevolent nature of the Jewish G*d, who could easily be said to be one of the most unpleasant characters ever featured in a work of literature, He's murderous, pety, jealous, racist and uncaring.


You are showing ignorance of many things in holding this belief.

First, the Old Testament is not read by Jews as an instruction manual for G*d's wishes of humanity. That's how Christians read it. Not surprisingly, they come to radically different conclusions on what it means for their behaviour.

The Old Testament is an historical document and account of the rulers and prophets of the Jewish people. Even during the period covered between the writing of the oldest books within it and the most recent, the Jews disagreed over what the meaning of the written events in deciding how to live their lives.

There was however, a guide to resolving the ambiguities and conflicts which was there from the first book to the last. It's called (overall) the Oral Torah, the tradition of Biblical interpretation that was part and parcel of the Mosaic Covenant. (See Tropical Sand's webpage on refutations of common claims that it was not mandatory.) (Perhaps nonintuitively, the Oral Torah was written down. But it is called Oral because it started in the verbal debates between learned priests (and later Rabbis and even (I think?) pious laypeople) Why were things this way?

First, consider that only a few people had the stature to make prophetic writings. They had to be respected as truly pious; what they predicted had to come true by the times prophesied; they could not have prophecies that had been proven false. Many people _aspired_ to the mantle, few met it. And these people were not all alike, did not think alike, and had their own biases that they brought to communicating what they were inspired to write.

The Prophets were not celestial dictation machines. (Mohammed never forgave the Jews for refusing to convert to his religion. I believe the title "Recitation" for G*d's alleged word to him was a dig at the Jews for following words that clearly were NOT recitations from G*d, implying that ONLY a recitation could be valid.) It is understood when a prophet says "Thus Sayeth the Lord" in anything but a prophecy, that it was more like "I think this is what G*d wants us to do, and you should listen to me because I have a better idea than you since I know part of the future by G*d's intervention." (and it is unclear even _within_ a prophecy precisely how they came to acquire their knowledge.)

There is only ONE and _exactly_ one case of an _exact_ "recitation". It's the Mosaic Covenenant. And that is verified by the fact it was to the ENTIRE Jewish people of the time. It wasn't "G*d told Moses to tell them" it was "G*d sent Moses to be ready to help them after He told them Himself".

Put another way, if the Old Testament was literally God's dictation to the Jews...wouldn't it have been a little clearer ? Between linguistic analysis which reveals "editing", straight out ambiguities, lyrical metaphors that abound, and even contradictions, this CANNOT be a stand alone instruction manual.

The reasons are obscure (and frankly, I'm not very familiar with them, Tropical Sands or someone help me out here ?)... But the significance of making the Oral Torah a corequisite with the Old Testament for determining the Law of G*d is profound. By this condition, it is clear that G*d expected the Law to not be blind subservience to a written word, but rather a quest of unending exploration and probing to discern where the spirit of the Law lies at any time.

So, if you read the Old Testament to find out about the Jews WITHOUT consulting the recorded arguments and interpretations that the Jews (The people who were _using_ the two parts together to determine how to obey G*d's law)...you are going to be oblivious to so many things.

For example, originally, the Old Testament law allowed that _only_ a man could pronounce the end of a marriage. Then after carrying out this law, people started to wonder "this is kinda harsh. What if the man abandons a woman and puts her aside in favor of a new wife ? She's still technically married to him, and is in a really bad position since he's not fulfilling his duties to her." So the first change (through the Oral Torah alone) was to say "the Priest(s) of the community can pressure him to divorce her".

Then after seeing perhaps some collusions between a wealthy man and a venal priest, the provision came about that the whole _community_ could petition the husband to present this demand. Finally, sometime during the Rabbinate, they decided "This is silly. To insist there is a marriage after one party has said they will have no part of the other person is a denial of reality. The woman has the right to pronounce divorce upon the man, too."

This sort of evolutionary progression happened to much of the Old Testament, particularly to the dramatic, lurid parts that called for "Stupid Execution Tricks" (sewing people in bags with wild animals and throwing them in the river is just plain sadistic and obviously reflected the feelings of the Prophet rather than any G*d who claims to be just). Non Jews remained oblivious to this, their only source of information _otherwise_ being the New Testament which is (in many, many matters where it talks about Jews) a bloody lie. (Jesus is an example of the fringes of the Pharisee movement..!)

And if you stop and reflect on it, this fusion of written history and scholarly interpretation makes way more sense than the "law written in stone for all time to come".

G*d, for whatever reasons, obviously does not want to keep talking to humans. There have been acrimonious and bloody debates over G*d's Will in the histories of ALL the "Peoples of the Book". How could a G*d of justice refuse to set the record straight ?

The only answer is that for whatever reason, there was a window (or maybe just a single point) when G*d was talking to humanity, and that came to an end. So suppose you're G*d, trying to give instructions to these ornery humans. You want to give them divine guidance as soon as possible because iiick, they're NASTY to each other.

Though this nastiness _is_ after all exactly what you expected. You designed humans. You know their weaknesses. You know that they _can't_ learn things quickly. In fact, for them to truly learn to go against their urge to do the wrong thing....that takes a great deal of doing.

So, instead of trying to make them ALL do what you say, you set it up so you're going to tutor one lot of them. It's going to be like an experiment. The experimental group is going to get an intervention that will make them better off. Eventually, observers will realize "hey, the control group (everyone else) is definitely worse off. There's something important at work on the experimental group!" and people will start to either convert to Judaism or adopt its core tenents....

And they will do so because they see the results and want them. Rather than because "I told them so". You are leaving _no doubt_ to the observers. It's like making someone do a math story problem by small steps of logic rather than just giving them a formula. They don't really understand what they're doing, often, in the latter case. In the former, once they put the pieces together, the fact is _solid_ within their mind.

This process could take a very long time. You'r in no hurry. But what's important thus is that the laws you've laid down...have to change with time. Because as people develop new technology, they change the world they live in, and thus the nature of the choices they make. Some moral elements will be the same, but some will not.

For example, in a pre-modern society, reproduction is job #1. If you don't keep that birthrate to the maximum, you could well die out, or become sufficiently sparsely populated as to be conquered by outsiders. It's rough. There's bad marriages, there's the poor queerfolk who get to be frustrated....other shortcomings as well, but its a fact. Such a big fact it's one of the EXPLICIT parts of the Mosaic Covenant.

But now that day to day survival has been conquered in the modern age, it's not the same world anymore. You can get by with "less than the maximum humanly possible". Becuase now, so much more is possible. So queerfolk can contribute to society's survival by helping to safeguard and substain it in other ways. Their lack of reproduction (even if you are of the opinon they are required to be celibate as with the thread founder) is no longer taken as a breech of the Mosaic Covenant. Divorces are more freely countenanced because the _quality_ of family life matters more than the economic optimization for reproduction of the family unit.

The world will change...you want them to learn how to do everything themselves, absolutely solid, no rote learning. So, hey! Make one of the rules that they have to keep the rules updated _for themselves_. Remind them that they are up to the job "In _my_ image you are made...." The initial plan and explanation will be VERY simple, and be tailored for the peculiarities of the Jews at the time.

For example, the early books are written when the Jews are a bloody minded, martial folk given freely to fire and sword. They aren't "given" the Holy Land, they get their attention drawn to it so they can _conquer_ it. (Albeit, with your sanction, because you can see this is the _ideal_ place for them to be, for reasons that will become clear with time.)

For anther example, They are surrounded by slick, urban polytheists, whose gods are celestial extortion racketeers. "Give me STUFF, or I will make something bad happen to you!" But you don't want to be bought off. But in the beginning, demanding people NOT make animal sacrifices or have a standard extortionate priesthood....wouldn't make sense to them.

The polythesists have roots in precivilized times, the times the Jews are just barely emerging from. You can't tell them at first "no no, I'm serious about following the law, but you don't have to give me stuff".

Like abused spouses, humans at that time expected a strong god to demand things from them. Draconically and absolutely. After all, it is by the god's graces that you prosper. Do you want to be stingy and maybe have your services from god cut off at a bad time ? The Jews would need _time_ and experience to learn that the material offerings weren't the essential part (and to learn ALL their lessons, in fact). But they would be fighting to transcend the same mentality that had their peers mired in the celestial exortion rackets.

So, they have the basics, you tell them how to teach themselves, and you lay the charge upon them to do it unto eternity. Now, sit back....it will take +quite+ a while for them to reach as far as they can go in teaching themselves....

Isn't that a better algorithm then "hand them a code and tell them to follow it to the letter" ?

And the seeds of change that the Testaments planted sprouted, Grey. Talk to a Rabbi. I'll bet you _every_ one of the laws you consider to show an "evil G*d" are in fact laws that the Jews enforce as humanly or more humanely than anyone else.


Judaism, more so than many other religions, evolved out of the need for social control.


All societies have mechanisms for social control. To live in peace, humans need the expectation the laws will be followed. That expectation requires people with the power to break the law for their own gain be pre-empted or prevented. You can't just use the iron fist of the state, because who watches the watchmen ? To say "well, you're corrupt because your faith has strong ties to "social control" is unreasonable.


Once upon a time the Jews were pagans like everyone else on Earth, but then the Jews started to worship foreign gods and idols, and the priestly class began to impose upon them rules, rules that would secure employment for the priestly class.


Yes, there was a time before G*d met with the Jews. What a surprise. Unless you believe in a literal Adam and Eve (and the Jews don't waste time on such irrational literalism), there is a time in human history before G*d starts talking to people (by the accounts of the "Peoples of the Book") just as surely as there is a time _after_ G*d is _finished_ speaking to them.

And yes, there was a material incentive for their priesthood to develop. Weird, you have to pay your police, and you have to give your law givers some compensation for doing their job.

Did they enrich themselves disproportionately ? Perhaps. But compare them to the Babylonians and the Egyptians and the Persians. There, the gods _owned_ the state, lock stock and barrel. And everyone within it was a possession of god, administered by the _living_ god (not god's representitive but a LIVING god), the king.

Did any Jewish King prolcaim himself a living god ? That was a RADICAL break with the past. Did the priesthood administer (ultimately) the gathering of _all_ the "surplus wealth" of the peoples ? No! There was a difference between they and their neighbours and it was significant because in the SAME circumstances, _no one else_ was doing _any_ differently.


These rules were then justified by the racist myth that Jews were 'chosen', and that the inconvenience of being bound by the Law was acceptably offset by their superiority to other peoples, for example, this same attitude resulted in the genocide of the Phoenicians/Canaanites (an act that is still today, somewhat hypocritically, celebrated within Judaism).


First, _EVERY_ primitive bronze age culture (and almost every hunter gatherer culture) calls themselves "the true human beings" or considers themselves to be better than everyone else. I can't find the citation offhand, but scholars of the study of ethics have done rigorous cross cultural comparisons and it turns out : every society starts out thinking it is special. The Americans managed to resist the urge for about 100 years until "manifest destiny" became part of the unofficial state religion. And they were founded by the best minds of the Enlightenment!

Second, Judaism is not a racial religious belief. The Parsees (survivors of ancient Zoroastorism) _are_ hereditary. You have to be born one in order to practice the religion. There's about 13,000 of them left, last I looked in 1981. Judaism moreover even in the early years (like, around the time of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt) considered converts to be _equal_ to Jews born to the faith.

This is late bronze age Mediterranean civilization. EVERYWHERE that humans can live with any sort of certainty and substainability is _taken_. If a bunch of nomads want to settle down and become a regular agricultural civilization, they are going to have to conquer someone.

Yes, you can argue "well, they didn't have to massacare people". First, it may well be that without that extermination they would not have had a chance to maintain ideological purity of their religion. As it was, Judaism was nearly assimilated by the neighbouring urban polytheisms. In point of fact, the kingdom of Judah (the "lost tribes of Israel") _was_ absorbed and became just like their neighbours. The struggle of ideas for the Jews to keep their faith was won by a very slender margin.

Ugly as it is to say, maybe there was no reasonable choice from a god's eye view.

And even if G*d _didn't_ want the Canaanite's to die, the Jews were not receiving dictation from G*d. Who's to say what happened on the campaign ? It might have been an immoral act, but the Old Testament is FILLED with immoral acts by the Jews. It's a history. The point is, look at the lessons Judaism drew from these events in the _long_ run. (I leave it to someone who knows more about Judaism (I'm still in the process of converting) to spell out the full significance of whatever ritual it is that you're talking about.)

Remember, genocide was something that happened in the ancient world. The Romans chronicle their own share of attrocities, and they're _proud of them_. The basic human mindset of the time was not something that a G*d who was going to work in a "hands off" fashion was going to be able to change overnight.


If this sounds like I am picking on Judaism, I am not. I am just stating that it is a Lie, like all religions. What matters is whether the Lie has positive effects on the World, and mostly Judaism does. Jews have served as conscientious and benevolent actors in all societies that they have settled within (including Palastine, where Israel acts as a beacon of democracy and a springboard for investment into the wider Middle East).

(Shakes her head softly) You are refusing to weigh all the facts and taking an eclectic synthesis of incomplete data. It is quite possible that there is no G*d. But the beauty of Judaism is that if there isn't one and G*d is just a dream...then it is the dream that has spoken most of the best part of the human psyche. And it's a dream I'm prepared to live for.

Judaism is not a recipe for sainthood. Despite probable contact with an actual and authentic divinity, human nature remained _unchanged_. Thus, the evolutionary learning required to "learn in our guts" how to behave was slow, inefficient and very very bloody. But at least there is something to show for it.

If Jewish society is currently in a trough, that's not surprising. This has been a huge era of change, plus there is the whole trauma of the Holocaust on people's belief in G*d. But Judaism has been in troughs again, and, with hard work and diligent referal to G*d's law, the trough will pass.

I know way to many Jewish people to insult them. Including my GF. So, they're cool by me.

Mandatory Altruism, isn't Judaism about teaching the rest of the world how to have full equality?

In a fashion. Judaism's mission is to provide an example to the world of its virtues. However, the underlying virtue in this regard that Jews are called to be exemplars of is _equity_.

Equity means -fairness- in light of all the facts. Egalitarianism is another concept entirely. It is actually mostly a good one, and the Jews are debating even as we speak to what degree to endorse it. For example, Orthodox Jews do not allow female Rabbis; the other three sects _do_.

The lack of consensus results because there are two opposed impulses to be weighed.

One is that some unjust attitudes and behaviours are SO strong, you cannot argue with them. You cannot leave people to debate them. You must show zero tolerance for sanctions and restrictions placed arbitrarily without a shadow of a right upon a person's freedom of action. One type of unjust attitude that egalitarianism is the antidote to is racism, another is sexism, another (debatably in some circles) is homophobia, etc.

The impulse in opposition to this is that freedom to act always has boundaries upon it. Sometimes, people will demand that their wishes be met when those wishes are not for the good of those around them. If egalitarianism is too strong, it can be abused.

For example, one of my gay friends is a manager at the collections department at a call center. He has a new worker who acused him of homophobic treatment because the new worker is gay and was asked to follow rules that he resented and did not want to follow. He felt being ordered to follow the rules was harassment.

This is an extreme end of the spectrum. But the value of egalitarianism is for a member of a minority group to claim that they are being treated unequitably and to demand an interpretations of the situation that gives them some degree of (a) benefit of the doubt and (b) the right to use force against the liberty of others.

This is a tricky mechanism to use correctly. Used poorly, it can lead to cultural balkanization, and actually undermine the judiciary which the minorities call upon to protect them. So this is why Jews are still mulling over if egalitarianism is a tactical tool of the times, or if it is a permanent feature of a true dedication to equity.

Is it unfair for a Jew to want to raise their children to believe as they do ?
Can a non Jew be truly neutral to a Jew's belief, and not act as a passive disincentive to keeping the faith ?

Yes, the Jew in question has free choice. They can chose to discard their faith. So it is not like their attraction to a non Jew is a bad thing per se. But a wise person decides not to set themselves challenges to their ethics, especially changing their environment so that they are subjected to constant temptation to break the rules they intend to live by.

It is a defensible custom to prefer marriage within the faith. Some people can keep the faith and marry non believers. Far more commonly is a drift to (in practice) agnosticism or Christianity, concerning what values the children are taught.

Even where children are not an issue....some people have weaknesses. It is easier to keep doing exercise when you have a workout partner. Staying committed to your faith in adult life is easier if your spouse is of the same mind religiously. People have the right to take whatever non coercive and legal measures they can to live up to their life goals.

That's what you're contesting if you're saying that the scenario posed is one where "inequality" in the sense of racism is operative.

The original meaning of the word "discriminate" is "to tell between what is good and what is not". Racial, sexual, religious discrimination all imply that a decision of "bad" has been reached _without any reference to the facts_.

But in this case, "bad" is not some noxious stigma being applied to non Jews. It is a statement of fact: for the purposes of maximizing the number of religiously observant Jews, exogamy is more likely than not to have a poor outcome, and thus be worth discouraging outright.

I know way to many Jewish people to insult them. Including my GF. So, they're cool by me.

Do you know any fundies? I don't mean like Westboro Baptist, but regular fundies.

Jewish religious maniacs arent any better than other religious maniacs.

Other than that, nothing wrong with the jews. Sacha Baron Cohen is a jew.

Did you read the forgoing comments about the nature of the Mosaic Covenant's revelation proving the existence to the G*d of the Jews ?

it is logically a pretty neat case. You have to actually show you're parsing it and then explain the way out you find, before you can just write it off.

Hint: there is at least one way out. But it doesn't get you entirely clear of the woods because it proves that the Jews were better amateur sociologists than anyone in history, which implies their customs and norms are probably more likely to achieve good human results than those of the competition :)

In fact, according to Halacha, a Jew that converts to Christianity is no longer a Jew. That should tell you how we, as Jews, regard Jesus.

Where is this found? I've never heard it before.

[stuff about Judaism is a lie from Greyenivol Colony snip]
[QUOTE=Conscience and Truth]
My anthropology teacher taught me the same exact thing as yours did.

I'll note that Max Weber was an absolutely eminent authority in his day in sociology. He was also indubitably a racist's racist. He was untrue to the mission of academic fidelity to facts. He gathered them eclectically, he pursued false objectivity by making straw men opposed to his arguments to knock down, etc. The discipline is STILL trying to unravel the bad ideas he planted in it as one of the founding thinkers.

An appeal to authority is a poor component in debate.

The whole _study_ of phrenology (the shape of human skulls) for example has been predominantly an exercise in racism from start to finish.

I'm a little testy here because unlike the other monotheisms, Judaism actually could explain a model for how there could be a G*d involved in a world this messed up. I have not seen the Christian or Moslem model hold as much water under the same level of prodding.

I'll grant it's not conclusive, but to lump it in as "one religion, no different from others" is both historically ignorant and sociologically a distortion.

I'm a little testy here because unlike the other monotheisms, Judaism actually could explain a model for how there could be a G*d involved in a world this messed up. I have not seen the Christian or Moslem model hold as much water under the same level of prodding.

Explain the logic behind this, please.

[stuff about Judaism is a lie from Greyenivol Colony snip] [QUOTE]


I'll note that Max Weber was an absolutely eminent authority in his day in sociology. He was also indubitably a racist's racist. He was untrue to the mission of academic fidelity to facts. He gathered them eclectically, he pursued false objectivity by making straw men opposed to his arguments to knock down, etc. The discipline is STILL trying to unravel the bad ideas he planted in it as one of the founding thinkers.

An appeal to authority is a poor component in debate.

The whole _study_ of phrenology (the shape of human skulls) for example has been predominantly an exercise in racism from start to finish.

I'm a little testy here because unlike the other monotheisms, Judaism actually could explain a model for how there could be a G*d involved in a world this messed up. I have not seen the Christian or Moslem model hold as much water under the same level of prodding.

I'll grant it's not conclusive, but to lump it in as "one religion, no different from others" is both historically ignorant and sociologically a distortion.

I wish I knew more about Mandatory Altruism. One thing I notice right away the difference between Christianity and Judaism is right in your name. Should altruism be mandatory? I think most Christians would say that altruism should be voluntary or out of conscience.

It is not in God's nature to grant mankind free will, and then have us tyrannized by a government that makes "altruism" mandatory. This seems to violate the commandment against stealing.

Do you support mandatory government-coerced altruism, vis-a-vis the teachings of the Talmud as secularized by Karl Marx?

Do you support mandatory government-coerced altruism, vis-a-vis the teachings of the Talmud as secularized by Karl Marx?

Do you believe in the morality of the Old Testament?

Do you believe in the morality of the Old Testament?

Me? I believe in Gaia, but Mandatory Altruism seems really smart. So I'd rather him answer it.

Proof? It was a restatement of "the torah/quran/bible/&c is true because the torah/quran/bible/&c says so."

No it was not. Parse it through.

There is a document purporting itself to be a history, the book of Exodus (among the books of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament). It is indisputable by archaeology (as far as I know) that they share a common author).

There is another document bundled with the Pentateuch which is the first part of what will become the Oral Torah's written record. (Called Oral because the actual arguments were hashed out in verbal debate because it was easier than editing on paper). It has instructions for how to read the Pentateuch.

One of those instructions is "write down all the debates you have about questions arising from what is written in the Pentateuch". That this instruction was widely read is shown by the archeologically confirmed spread of commentaries written about the Pentateuch as copies of it circulated in Jewish lands.

So we have independent validation that part of a set of documents was widely read by Jews contemporary to it and taken seriously.

The claim is simple. The author of the Pentateuch claims that at Mt. Sinai, G*d _talked directly_ to every Jew living at the time to secure their agreement to the covenant.

If this claim were not true, surely the contemporaries would have included an argument about this among the debates they were recording about the Pentateuch's comments.

If the claim is true, then there would have been dead silence about the claim.

There was silence in the immediate contemporary debate, thus, no one writing in the debates felt it was questionable that G*d had talked to everyone in the Jewish nation.

Now, there are some holes to poke at here, but they don't exactly tear the case for the existence of G*d wide open, as I said above.

Me? I believe in Gaia, but Mandatory Altruism seems really smart. So I'd rather him answer it.

Well, see, if you want to talk about the commandment against stealing being applicable against taxation, you have to justify, in that context, tithing to support unproductive Levites, land reform every fifty years, and a variety of measures for agricultural social welfare. All straight from the Bible.

I'll leave the rest to Mandatory Altruism, but I just wanted to make that point. I'm pretty convinced that most Christians and Jews who talk about religious justice being voluntary haven't ever read the Bible.

Well, see, if you want to talk about the commandment against stealing being applicable against taxation, you have to justify, in that context, tithing to support unproductive Levites, land reform every fifty years, and a variety of measures for agricultural social welfare. All straight from the Bible.

I'll leave the rest to Mandatory Altruism, but I just wanted to make that point. I'm pretty convinced that most Christians and Jews who talk about religious justice being voluntary haven't ever read the Bible.

Not that I want them to join our party, but why aren't the Fundies Democratic then?

No it was not. Parse it through.

There is a document purporting itself to be a history, the book of Exodus (among the books of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament). It is indisputable by archaeology (as far as I know) that they share a common author).

That the Pentateuch shares a common author? Absolutely not.

There is another document bundled with the Pentateuch which is the first part of what will become the Oral Torah's written record. (Called Oral because the actual arguments were hashed out in verbal debate because it was easier than editing on paper). It has instructions for how to read the Pentateuch.

Wait... you say "will become." What time period are you talking about? The Talmud has only existed in a form approximating its present form for about a millenium and a half; the Mishnah for a little less than two millenia.

One of those instructions is "write down all the debates you have about questions arising from what is written in the Pentateuch". That this instruction was widely read is shown by the archeologically confirmed spread of commentaries written about the Pentateuch as copies of it circulated in Jewish lands.

Except the written Oral Law has its origins long after the Pentateuch was supposed to have been given, and some centuries after it was compiled into its present form.

There were almost unquestionably oral traditions that were never written down, and those that were written down were written down eventually, so that they would be preserved, not in accordance with a tradition.

The claim is simple. The author of the Pentateuch claims that at Mt. Sinai, G*d _talked directly_ to every Jew living at the time to secure their agreement to the covenant.

And, supposedly, to those who would live, too.

If this claim were not true, surely the contemporaries would have included an argument about this among the debates they were recording about the Pentateuch's comments.

About whether the Pentateuch was really given to the Jews at Mt. Sinai? Of course they believed that, because they believed that the whole thing was divine revelation. To believe otherwise was heresy, it would not have been discussed and recorded openly.

There was silence in the immediate contemporary debate, thus, no one writing in the debates felt it was questionable that G*d had talked to everyone in the Jewish nation.

Because they believed it was unquestionable. Not because it was true (necessarily).

Not that I want them to join our party, but why aren't the Fundies Democratic then?

Who says the Fundies read the Bible?

Where's Mirkana. Mirkana, say I'm a doctor and a heal someone on Saturday morning. Is this against God's Law?
Pikuah nefesh doche shabbath. mean that "saving lives-delay the saturday" . it is fine with god.

Pikuah nefesh doche shabbath. mean that "saving lives-delay the saturday" . it is fine with god.

Mandatory Altruism already explained, but thanks anyway. lolz

I'm not sure that is Torah based though.

G. is an asshole.

How to convert from your animality to the choosen klub?
That's nonsense. Your are chosen DO NOT convert gentile animal.

25% jewixh said another... is it enough to be member of that specie?
How could you be only 25% jewixh? I see here a bad jewish joke...

nay G. is a con G. not able to manage it's on chosen people in a godish manner, not serious enough, not american... No future...



The High P.
- High Priest when out of here -

G. is an asshole.

How to convert from your animality to the choosen klub?
That's nonsense. Your are chosen DO NOT convert gentile animal.

25% jewixh said another... is it enough to be member of that specie?
How could you be only 25% jewixh? I see here a bad jewish joke...

nay G. is a con G. not able to manage it's on chosen people in a godish manner, not serious enough, not american... No future...



The High P.
- High Priest when out of here -

I'm not sure exactly what you said, but it sounds like your being anti-Semitic.

Mandatory Altruism already explained, but thanks anyway. lolz

I'm not sure that is Torah based though.

Nor are most of the Sabbath laws (they are referred to as "mountains hanging from threads," actually, because the Biblical verses are few and the derived laws are many.) But both were derived from Biblical verses by the Rabbis.

Mandatory Altruism already explained, but thanks anyway. lolz

I'm not sure that is Torah based though.
well, most of the torah is sex and crime stories of the forefathers and the ancient kings, and than wisemen trying to tell why it is actually Good things. still it had some good parts which are the base of the social-humanic society and that seem more important to me.

Not true. Jews have gone through terrible ordeals over the years, and they survived all of them. Thats something to be admired.
((My Empire has just executed all nazis. Pwned!)) :mp5: :sniper:

Nor are most of the Sabbath laws (they are referred to as "mountains hanging from threads," actually, because the Biblical verses are few and the derived laws are many.) But both were derived from Biblical verses by the Rabbis.
that is the problem. the bible had any law and its opposite, and you can find in this long text almost everything. when this get along with the fact that every rabbi understand it different you get catastrophy and versions that has no connection with the biblical versions.
still, it isn't different than what happened in other religions.

Not true. Jews have gone through terrible ordeals over the years, and they survived all of them. Thats something to be admired.
((My Empire has just executed all nazis. Pwned!)) :mp5: :sniper:
it quite funny that most of our holidays tell: "woo-hoo. you tried to kill us all and failed. god rules."

that is the problem.

I don't think it's a problem. The oral tradition makes the highly flawed written text into a guide that's rather worthwhile (with a number of exceptions). The Rabbis, and their predecessors, knew what they were doing.

Which is not to say I don't have my disagreements with them. Some very severe.

the bible had any law and its opposite, and you can find in this long text almost everything.

I think the Bible, if you want to understand it from a religious perspective (which I once tried to do but have mostly abandoned) needs to be read in a way that most people don't read it.

when this get along with the fact that every rabbi understand it different you get catastrophy and versions that has no connection with the biblical versions.

Except, even with all that fragmentation and dissent, there have been enough consolidations (the Mishnah, the Gemara, the Mishneh Torah, the Shulchan Aruch) that you can still get a coherent code from it all.

Explain the logic behind this, please.

It was in the big ass long post I just did, the largest chunk of it.

That plus the proof about

"Moses wrote for everyone to write commentaries on his Testament; he wrote in the testament that G*d talked to everyone; since everyone started writing these commentaries within living memory of him writing his Testament, and no one commented on "G*d didnt' talk to everyone" then G*d _must_ have talked to everyone."

made above.

However, I'll elaborate a bit more in part, but this will take a while to not repeat myself.

The first part of this explanation:

(1) Judaism used a different approach than any religion before or discrete from it in trying to promote optimal behaviour (for order, harmony, peace and happiness) and the religions that split from it (Islam, Christianity) repudiated key parts of this approach
(A) The belief that humans are messed up but that there is a divine agency willing to work sympathetically with them to overcome the worst of this dysfunction.

compared to:
--->Buddhist precepts are that we have to escape the Illusion of the material word; the world sucks as the hint that we're supposed to be trying to escape;

---> Hindu precepts are that everything humans do has a place and role, and that the System Works as long as everyone does what they've always done.

---> Christians believe that humans are messed up and the Divine Agency is on a hair trigger to destroy them for their flaws. (I dont' care that it only takes (for much of that faith) the statement "I believe in God" to earn salvation, there are enough cases where someone would reasonably say no even after being exposed to the full argument and yet not merit destruction for their God to not thus be manifestly unfair to a level that boggles the imagination)

(And in the case of the sects that justify salvation by more than faith, the picture is uglier because the rules for the behaviour needed for salvation are based on the words of Paul. He essentially wrote Christianity from the ground up based on some popular folklore about this Jesus person...and Paul's system has some deep flaws in it that still make me shudder, as a survivor of them,

These flaws including but are not limited to:
a deep ambivalence towards the human body and a significant misogyny

morbid obsession with the sacrifice of Jesus (and attitudes like "dying for Jesus is a good thing" Bullsh*t. Death (however painful) is easy. Living for an idea is hard.);

a fixation on authority, with Apostolic succession as his choice for power delegation because it allowed a stronger central authority, one of many cases of him favoring a suspiciously expedient approach (unlike the wisely decentralized Rabbinate which ponders big questions in parallel processing)

---> Moslems believe that humans are messed up but that the Divine Agency gave them a perfect example and perfect set of instructions and as long as they stick to that, they'll be fine.

The key divergence throughout is that Judaism stresses
(i) the reconciliation of the flaws of humanity with the potential humans have for optimal behaviour

(ii) recognizes that only a dynamic system based on unflagging vigilance to the _spirit of the law_ alone can secure the path to achieveing this potential

(iii) features a G*d who is compassionate, nurturing and _consistent_.

(Unlike the Christian God with the "I made you flawed, but I'm going to destroy you in a heartbeat if your flaw makes you not bow down and recognize me the _moment you have all the facts about me_."(should you die without acknowledging my name)


(Islam hobbles itself by refusing to analyze the historical document of its two holy books, and by shackling itself to a literal interpretation of everything there with _some_ room for interpretation, but always drawn back to "what would Mohammed do?" which to me is a form of idiolatry. The Jews on the other hand have declared nothing is beyond questioning and all contemporary theology embraces rather than flees from historical evidence.)

(B) The belief that there are two dimensions to religious practice: civil and private, and using civil practice as the teaching tool and maintenance mechanism for the private religious conduct.

Which has a practical benefit of the civil religion engaging:
---> concrete, practical folks who don't want to ponder much, and gives them the pure repitition to teach them how to act

and the benefit of the private religion engaging:
---> abstract, idealistic folk who can be leaders of opinion (partly by their ability to see the bigger picture), and yet by keeping them from getting lost in the own space by dragging them into regular contact with their fellows.

(note:civil religion: the part that is about public rituals, some held in church, others not, such as the State Religion of the Romans, which was purely a civil religion.)

---> Buddhism precepts are that the essential activity is all private; there may be thinkgs you should do "to be nice to others" but this is spiritual calisthenics for you and compassionate assistance to them in escaping the Illlusion.

There is no need for a structure civil observance because everyone is learning at a different stage and not everyone is on the same step of leaving the Wheel. No one can know what step people are each on, and thus no rational choices can be made for their spiritual betterment.

(Never mind that it essentially washes its hands of any hope of making the world a better place, save insofar as hoping that by people believing in it, they will make the waiting time for universal escape from the Illusion more tolerable.)

---> Hinduism precepts are that the majority of the religious activity is civil and that while there can be a private aspect (i) that aspect is mostly limited to those with wealth who delve into it "on their own time" or for the precocious lower class mystics. There is not an attempt to inculcate it across the whole population without except, as what Hindu society wants is obedience, not improvement (ii) is heavily trammeled by the Mystic worldview and is mostly about types of magick to use your will to make reality give you what you want.

(Jewish prayer is NOT an attempt to beg G*d for treats or divine intervention. It is at best a statement "I am attached to an outcome and I am leaning on you to either help me bear my pain if I am frustrated, or to share my joy if events grant my desires.")

---> Christianity alleges to have a civil aspect, but their rituals are relatively limited in number and are as a rule not about dwelling upon moral lessons or ethical goals but purely study aids for theology or history of the Church. (not unworthy goals, but insufficient for moral education by themselves)

Also their rituals are not as well throught out. For example, in the sacrement of reconciliation, the penitent asks _God_ for forgiveness. And the _priest_ assesses amends.

With the Day of Atonement in Judaism, you are enjoined to ask _the forgiveness of each person whom you have significantly wronged_ (and I think, but not sure, to bring to the attention of those who wronged you that this occured)...and to decide based on what they tell you what amends to make. The Jewish model seems to me far better thought out for trying to make people think about the consequences of their actions.

Many Jewish rituals are really quick and minor, but small frequent reminders are a better study method than infrequent "cram sessions". But the thread of "remember what you're supposed to be doing" rather than "remember how Great God is" or "remember how awful you are" seems absolutely clear to me.

---> Islam actually has a very large civil aspect, but by preaching a blind adherence to the _unconditional_ moral model of Mohammed ( a character discovered in unambiguous and uncontestable historical terms to NOT be the epitome of human perfection)...with the contradiction between truth and reality at it's heart, the personal morality is partly based on compulsory delusion.

Jewish figures have many flaws. But none of them are held up as the pattern that a person should be molded in the shape of , without question.


I have more to say of course :) But I hope you can at least entertain the possibility that I am not making spurious claims here. You may ultimately disagree to some degree, but I'm hoping to prove that Judaism is (a) exceptional and (b) has far more going on within it than outsiders are generally aware of. ( and (c) helping to generate some enthusiasm to overcome the inertia of my depression in getting over the four year stall in converting but that's a purely personal goal :) )

I don't think it's a problem. The oral tradition makes the highly flawed written text into a guide that's rather worthwhile (with a number of exceptions). The Rabbis, and their predecessors, knew what they were doing.

Which is not to say I don't have my disagreements with them. Some very severe.it does problem while "don't eat lemp in his mother milk" which is very nature-empathic statement become to complicated set of laws about when can you or can't you eat meat, and things like it.
the bible is mostly understoodable text. people who make every mice to a mountain and make regular statement to the most important part while they forget other important laws, are problem (especially if they had power stand).

Except, even with all that fragmentation and dissent, there have been enough consolidations (the Mishnah, the Gemara, the Mishneh Torah, the Shulchan Aruch) that you can still get a coherent code from it all.
they still had inner paradoxes.

snip

That was an interesting post, but I don't think it justifies your statement.

It is true, in my view, that Judaism makes two important insights into human nature:

1. The importance of ritual, and especially community ritual, in reinforcing moral behavior.
2. The recognition that human beings are indeed flawed, and in accordance with this a less puritanical and strict interpretation of the rules than there could be.

But neither of those explains why there can be a God in a world this messed up.

it does problem while "don't eat lemp in his mother milk" which is very nature-empathic statement become to complicated set of laws about when can you or can't you eat meat, and things like it.
the bible is mostly understoodable text. people who make every mice to a mountain and make regular statement to the most important part while they forget other important laws, are problem (especially if they had power stand).

There are two big problems with your argument.

Firstly, no, the Bible isn't understandable if it's read literally. The language is easy enough, but the problem is that, as you pointed out, there are contradictions. How do you resolve them?

And secondly, the Rabbis didn't make it up. They wrote down a set of teachings that had been passed to them; they did not invent it from nothing. If they had, they would have certainly been more unanimous.

they still had inner paradoxes.

Please clarify what you mean here.

I have more to say of course :) But I hope you can at least entertain the possibility that I am not making spurious claims here. You may ultimately disagree to some degree, but I'm hoping to prove that Judaism is (a) exceptional and (b) has far more going on within it than outsiders are generally aware of. ( and (c) helping to generate some enthusiasm to overcome the inertia of my depression in getting over the four year stall in converting but that's a purely personal goal :) )

After careful consideration of all the moral truths in each person's individual conscience, it's still amazing how virtually everyone arrives at identical conclusions. I think in many cases this is just groupthink couched in the notion that each individual arrived at these ideas with lots of deep thought.

Based on your description, it seems like Judaism doesn't require much from its adherents other than whatever each individual feels like. In that sense, it seems to require about the same level of moral committment as those who reject God outright. There is an old saying that says there are those who think Judaism is social justice, and then there are those who know Hebrew.

Based on your description, it seems like Judaism doesn't require much from its adherents other than whatever each individual feels like. In that sense, it seems to require about the same level of moral committment as those who reject God outright.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of Mandatory Altruism's argument, nor is it an accurate description of Judaism.

There is an old saying that says there are those who think Judaism is social justice, and then there are those who know Hebrew.

Yet there are those who fall into both categories. Judaism doesn't have to be fundamentalist.

I wish I knew more about Mandatory Altruism. One thing I notice right away the difference between Christianity and Judaism is right in your name. Should altruism be mandatory? I think most Christians would say that altruism should be voluntary or out of conscience.


(laughs)

You're barking up the wrong tree here hon.

My nation state's name is taken in inspiration from the writings of LE Modesitt Jr. particularly his novel "Adiamante" (or something like that the name's spelling is a bit eccentric). Over all of his novels he does some penetrating inquiry as to "what should the ideal society be like". And like another popular author, Mercedes Lackey, he essentially (though piecemeal) gives us _his_ version of Plato's "The Republic" as a description of the idea state.

Sadly, both Misty and Modesitt have to lean on one common prop to make their models work:

magic. or science indistinguishable from it.

Basically, they look at human fuckedupedness and say "it would take some really organized thinking and the judicious application of magic to make anything good out of this".

I admit, I tend to agree when I'm in a bad mood :) My optimism is a very very labored effort.

The name itself was mostly an exercise in conscious irony. Modesitt constantly wrestles with what to do with people who simply are not good to other humans or responsible with their power. He concludes reluctantly, there must be the use of force to contain such folks. Yet at the same time, he doesn't want all this self discipline to be for the benefit of a single party or organization, he wants ALL of society to benefit.

So it seemed "mandatory altruism" was as good a summation of his musings on the best society as I could get, and captured the clinical feel of the society in Adiamante. And yet, it admits the inadequacy of it's mandate because his mandatory altruism needs magic to enforce.

Now, as to your musings...

Judaism is about many things being "mandatory"....but you are misapprehending the whole structure if you think of it as a hierarchy of "one damned rule after another".

No rule in Judaism is without purpose; most rules support and relate to other rules; and EVERY rule is supposed to be applied with attention to CONTEXT.

Adherence to it is not the negation of personal responsibility and judgement, but the very EMBRACE of it.

Judaism is intended to be a very prominent string tied to your metaphorical finger for your whole life to remind you of what you said was important to you. Ultimately, this is not compulsion. This is seeking help to be better than you will be left alone, and finding it.

And I would question if pure altruism is all it's cracked up to be. The Christians are big about "unconditional love of God"....ultimately, self interest is the root of all behaviour, and to willfully refuse to own up to this is a species of self deception. The Jews confess straight up their main self interests:
--> not wanting to struggle against their failings alone
--> wanting to live in a world with people who aren't quite as abysmally bad as they might otherwise be
--> Wanting there to be something totally good and worthy of respect in the universe but knowing that it cannot be in this material plane because there's certainly no sign of it right down here with us. And yet managing the neat logical gymnastics of not hating the material world!

Feeling you are parted from something you love is much easier to bear than having nothing to love at all.



It is not in God's nature to grant mankind free will, and then have us tyrannized by a government that makes "altruism" mandatory. This seems to violate the commandment against stealing.

Do you support mandatory government-coerced altruism, vis-a-vis the teachings of the Talmud as secularized by Karl Marx?

Oh, there's a reason my nation state is a libertarian police state :) It has NOTHING to do with my religious convictions. I still have dirty fetish for authority, even though I've repudiated it. it's like an ex smoker still sneaking the odd cigarette. And this is despite knowing how bad absolute and unanswerable authority is for humans to possess :)

Also, I'm curious about the model. Orthodox economics and political science say that a dictatorship must be less efficient than a democracy in industrial society. I'm curious if I tweak hard at marginal factors if I can outdo the typical democracy/corporate state. (and whoo hoo, I'm at the 88th percentile for nicest citizens in all the nation-states) )

I'm not 100% clear on your closing statement, but I find socialism (non authoritarian) to be the best form of government for our times (when it follows benevolent paternalism, that is, gives you incentives to do the right thing and stacks the deck so you want to, but still gives you the freedom to do as you will if you're determined) and not incompatible with Judaism.

Because much as I hate Res Publica (The State) I recognize that only The State can stand between me and mine and "the daring raspaciousness of the times" (the megacorporations who concentrate and reward the worst elements in human behaviour) (we have created notional entities with far more power than any individual and far far less responsibility. And we wonder why things are a big messed up....)

And frankly, government in my province (British Columbia) has proven conclusively to my satisfaction that _some_ things government _can_ do the best, or at least tolerably well. (And that all things being equal I want fewer corporate entities than more.) And that regarding many things efficiency should matter less than fairness and _that_ is government's strong point and we should be reluctant to abandon it unnecessarily.

Yet still, I do NOT place my faith in government as doctrinaire Marxists do. Government can only organize what is already there. If your society does not have a firm moral foundation, then government is limited by that shortfall. And the effort to make better people will consume as much of society's efforts as it can muster. There is no point in working _too_ hard to reform _government_ when the bottleneck in quality of adminstration is quality of _people_.

(Though I do love Marxism as a sociological perspective; I just admit Marx only wrote a very rough pilot project overall. And I feel that his conclusions about politics and economics were made in absolute ignorance of the material facts he claimed to venerate and seek an unfaltering tie to.)

[scholarly point by point dispuation of key aspects of the "G*d talked to everyone and Moses wrote down that He talked to everyone and no one argued that this was fact" contention by Soheran]

Well darned, hon, I admit you've got me stumped there.

I read this like three years ago. I thought that's what it meant, but you seem to know more.

You folk around here who are actually well informed _practicing Jews_ rather than half assed converts-in-process wanna field this one ?

In any event, while this was relevant to my enthusiasm for Judaism, it's not the most important part.

As I put it to a friend "if they lied about G*d like everyone else, at least this was a lie that was less insulting to my intelligence"

On my nation in Nation States , there is a Jewish minority in a Muslim majority nation. They are mostly physicians and really nice people. Our constitution says each adherent of faith has to protect another adherent in order to retain religious harmony.

OOC: As a Muslim I'd say what I liked about Judaism is it's strict discipline for a higher being, though I believe their covenant to be now dated I still view Judaism as a good religion.

My only negative view would be Israeli foreign policy, there are some that because of their faith they have to stay loyal to Israel no matter how Israel goes against international law and human rights. I think if Israel goes against the faith of Judaism there should be a love for God greater than that for Israel.

Anyone who thinks God has any expectations for them is a fundamentalist, I guess. It seems that the Old Testament, as interpreted by Altruism, is about the Jewish people telling the unchosen how to live. This is not a virtue.

The reality is that Christianity doesn't only require faith and you're all set. If you truly believe in Christ, you will follow his commandments out of this faith (assisted by the guidance of the Holy Spirit), without need for "requirements" above and beyond this. This is because if you truly believe in God, why would you then defy his Word. If you do, you never really believed in Him in the first place.

Christianity is stronger than Judaism in the morals department, with the higher standard demanded by Christ. He calls people to act righteously in everything they do. That doesn't mean all people who claim to be Christian are models of virtue. A true Christian will follow the commandments of God out of love and duty.

My nation state's name is taken in inspiration from the writings of LE Modesitt Jr. particularly his novel "Adiamante" (or something like that the name's spelling is a bit eccentric). Over all of his novels he does some penetrating inquiry as to "what should the ideal society be like". And like another popular author, Mercedes Lackey, he essentially (though piecemeal) gives us _his_ version of Plato's "The Republic" as a description of the idea state.

Sadly, both Misty and Modesitt have to lean on one common prop to make their models work:

magic. or science indistinguishable from it.

Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar?

I'm not 100% clear on your closing statement, but I find socialism (non authoritarian) to be the best form of government for our times (when it follows benevolent paternalism, that is, gives you incentives to do the right thing and stacks the deck so you want to, but still gives you the freedom to do as you will if you're determined) and not incompatible with Judaism.

"Benevolent paternalism" is a very Jewish concept. It is, after all, the approach God is supposed to have towards us.

I totally reject it as a political model, though, which was a very large part of my break with (religious) Judaism.

Anyone who thinks God has any expectations for them is a fundamentalist, I guess. It seems that the Old Testament, as interpreted by Altruism, is about the Jewish people telling the unchosen how to live. This is not a virtue.

No, not at all. Anyone with a slavish insistence upon outrightly unjust laws (against homosexuality, against sexual egalitarianism, etc.) totally inappropriate in today's cultural setting because "it's God's will" is a fundamentalist.

And according to Judaism only those within the Covenant have to follow all the laws of the Old Testament.

The reality is that Christianity doesn't only require faith and you're all set. If you truly believe in Christ, you will follow his commandments out of this faith (assisted by the guidance of the Holy Spirit), without need for "requirements" above and beyond this. This is because if you truly believe in God, why would you then defy his Word. If you do, you never really believed in Him in the first place.

Christianity is stronger than Judaism in the morals department, with the higher standard demanded by Christ. He calls people to act righteously in everything they do. That doesn't mean all people who claim to be Christian are models of virtue. A true Christian will follow the commandments of God out of love and duty.

And so will a true Jew. I don't see the distinction you're drawing.

Me? I believe in Gaia, but Mandatory Altruism seems really smart. So I'd rather him answer it.

AHEM

HER

And yes, I am smart, and yes I can be arrogant about it at times.

But the psychologist who did my psycho/vocational assessment last fortnight said to my job coach "she has the broadest and deepest aptitudes of anyone we've tested since you started sending me cases [at the rate of about 10-20 a month for the last six months] and in fact is smarter than I am".

I'm not saying that out of pride. If anything, I am deeply ashamed of my wasted talents.

But if I act like I think I have more value as a human being because of my talents, that's incorrect. I know that actions and deeds are what matters and I have almost none to my credit save survival.

And if sound like I'm "talking fancy to show off my big words" actually that's a brain disorder.

I'm smart enough to know talking with words more complex than necessary is DUMB. People think you're being condescending at worst or are missing a lot of what you're saying at best if you talk with a vocabulary selection from the 99th percentil of language skills.

And yet, stupid brain itches and makes me use HORDES of words and VERY complex ones at that.

I can control it, but it feels like "sitting on my hands" and eventually I have to let go.

These days, I have better things to do to with my energy since I'm mostly here to preach to the choir, at the bottom of it. I don't expect to convince anyone of anything because most people don't decide their beliefs based on facts, and facts are most of what I bring to the discussion (and not entirely accurate ones at that, I 'll freely admit. I just hope people will correct me if I 'm wrong, if there is silence, I assume my understanding stands).


As to the answer, I think I see better what you question was in the first place :)

No, I think the ancient Levite priesthood was necessary for it's time, but we're well rid of it. And equally well rid of it's modern cousin, authoritarian socialism. (Or So-bureaucratically-schlerotic-it-might-as-well-be-authoritarian Socialism)

You may notice a common thread :

Judaism ---> I praise it for trying to give people _help_ to do what _they agree is right_. If someone is trying to be a religiously observant Jew and they don't really know why they're doing what they're doing...._someone_ has FUCKED up big time in their education. And hopefully, someone will notice and quietly help them learn the why's of what they're doing.

One of the people I brushed shoulders with who most made me shake my head was a Christian acquaintance who didn't do a variety of "sinful" behaviours....because he wanted his parents to like him.

His heart was in the right place, but what a waste of a good heart.

Benevolently Paternalistic Socialism ---> I praise it for trying to lead people to make decisions that they would agree with in principle but need to to cajoled or even tricked into. I _only_ agree with it insofar as it uses _very_ good research to decide what people need to be led into doing. Other than that I just want it to provide a fair social safety net, health care, and protection against corporations.

I think that may answer your question ? If not, please ask again....

Christianity is stronger than Judaism in the morals department, with the higher standard demanded by Christ. He calls people to act righteously in everything they do. That doesn't mean all people who claim to be Christian are models of virtue. A true Christian will follow the commandments of God out of love and duty.

In the morals department Christianity is NOT stronger than Judaism. First and foremost Christianity eradicates laws set in the Old Testament/Torah. Secondly Christianity is not altruistic to the same extent as Judaism because Christianity believes in a limited path, Judaism does not believe in the limited path to the same extent as Christians.

And may I remind you Moses said "Love your neighbor as yourself" way before Jesus did.

Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar?

Indeed. Not "deep" writing, but the most excellent food is not that which sits most heavily in the stomach and comes out in the most densely packed waste :) (much to the mortification of the dwarves....)


"Benevolent paternalism" is a very Jewish concept. It is, after all, the approach God is supposed to have towards us.

I totally reject it as a political model, though, which was a very large part of my break with (religious) Judaism.

(nods) I think I follow you here; as a religion with a strong civil element, it effectively imposes it's own layer of government: Federal, provincial, municipal, and Jewish :) If you disagree with benevolent paternalism as the the basis for secular government, you surely disagree with it for the Jewish level, and you cannot extricate the civil from the private practice of religion in Judaism and still be within that faith.

So I'll bite, why _do_ you reject it thus ?

(and no, I won't try to convince you of the opposite if I disagree, you seem to have at least as many of the relevant facts as I do, and perhaps a few (many?) more besides.(ex Rabbi or aspiring one?) Ultimately, too, a lot of this comes down to personal emotional needs...for me, while I am _absurdly_ overly rational, I pursue that motif of reacting to the world from _emotional_ needs....)

(and I think I reacted to your 'where is G*d" post in the wrong vein since I thought you were saying "there's nothing different in Judaism from any other religion" and that's where I started that response from. It's still a VERY long answer, but I'll retrench and start from the right end.

Later though. It is late and I need sleep :) )

Well, we've discussed Paganism, Islam, and Christianity a gajillion times. Now, it is time for my own faith to be dissected, defamed, and defended.
They're nice, but they're wrong on the whole God existing thing, like all other religions.

Next best thing after Christianity.

Baruch HaShem!

I believe that all people have the potential to be perfectly nice individuals, but 'it takes religion to make a good man commit evil'.

My main problem with the Jewish religion is the malevolent nature of the Jewish God, who could easily be said to be one of the most unpleasant characters ever featured in a work of literature, He's murderous, pety, jealous, racist and uncaring.

Judaism, more so than many other religions, evolved out of the need for social control. Once upon a time the Jews were pagans like everyone else on Earth, but then the Jews started to worship foreign gods and idols, and the priestly class began to impose upon them rules, rules that would secure employment for the priestly class. These rules were then justified by the racist myth that Jews were 'chosen', and that the inconvenience of being bound by the Law was acceptably offset by their superiority to other peoples, for example, this same attitude resulted in the genocide of the Phoenicians/Canaanites (an act that is still today, somewhat hypocritically, celebrated within Judaism).

If this sounds like I am picking on Judaism, I am not. I am just stating that it is a Lie, like all religions. What matters is whether the Lie has positive effects on the World, and mostly Judaism does. Jews have served as conscientious and benevolent actors in all societies that they have settled within (including Palastine, where Israel acts as a beacon of democracy and a springboard for investment into the wider Middle East).

I agree almost completely with you but in the palestina item. Israel has become in one of the strongest obstacles for the arabs to evolve. It shouldn't be, shure, and it's from far not the only one, but it allows the arab govs to control better their people and keep them amused hating the jews and not their own dictators.

1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

4. Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."

5. Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."

6. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

7. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

8. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

9. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

10. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

11. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

12. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

13. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

14. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

15. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

16. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

17. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

20. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

21. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

22. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all
nations."

23. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches,
another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that
the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to
no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."

24. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine
which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

25. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let
him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the
future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."

Happy goys... as I said you can not convert...

1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

4. Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."

5. Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."

6. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

7. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

8. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

9. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

10. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

11. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

12. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

13. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

14. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

15. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

16. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

17. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

20. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

21. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

22. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all
nations."

23. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches,
another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that
the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to
no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."

24. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine
which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

25. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let
him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the
future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."

Happy goys... as I said you can not convert...

I cannot tell you how offended I am by this post. These are lies and fabrications made to make Jews look like murderous conspirators. None of these claims are true and all NSers should ignore them as blatant lies and outspoken anti-semetism. These are all common lies used by anti-Semites to draw hate towards the Jews.

Here are a series of websites that deal with these lies. Most of the chapter names and headings given in the prior post are fabricated and can't even be found in the Talmud. Jesuits, you are despicable.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/media.html

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/van_hyning.html

Female genital mutilation is a much more invasive and destructive procedure than male circumcision. They are not comparable.

So the assault and mutilation of infants is acceptable if you only do it a little bit?

That's absurd. This is an all-or-nothing act. Either you've mutilated an infant or you haven't.

After careful consideration of all the moral truths in each person's individual conscience, it's still amazing how virtually everyone arrives at identical conclusions. I think in many cases this is just groupthink couched in the notion that each individual arrived at these ideas with lots of deep thought.

Based on your description, it seems like Judaism doesn't require much from its adherents other than whatever each individual feels like. In that sense, it seems to require about the same level of moral committment as those who reject God outright. There is an old saying that says there are those who think Judaism is social justice, and then there are those who know Hebrew.

Thats the basic difference between all the various Jewish "denominations"

Nowadays they all agree about pretty much everything except how faithfully Jews should follow the laws. Orthodox Jews follow as many mitzvot as they can, while the rest have varying details of compliance as they live more and more modern lives. Illustration


At an Orthodox wedding, the bride's mother is pregnant. At a Conservative wedding, the bride is pregnant. At a Reform wedding, the rabbi is pregnant. At a Reconstructionist wedding, the rabbi and her wife are both pregnant.

They shall inherite the earth :D the Jews are Good a christian said to me once, this his his own belief not a church or Denomination but he said before Judgement Day Lots of Jews will be converted to Christ. but Jews are good.

(nods) I think I follow you here; as a religion with a strong civil element, it effectively imposes it's own layer of government: Federal, provincial, municipal, and Jewish :) If you disagree with benevolent paternalism as the the basis for secular government, you surely disagree with it for the Jewish level, and you cannot extricate the civil from the private practice of religion in Judaism and still be within that faith.

Right, that's more or less my logic. Furthermore, Judaism's preferred political model is monarchy by divine appointment, which is also an example of "benevolent paternalism" (at least for the king's subjects).

So I'll bite, why _do_ you reject it thus ?

Because I reject paternalism, benevolent or tyrannical. Human beings have the right to rule themselves, and not to be subject to any kind of authority - human, divine, whatever - unless they themselves create it on a democratic and egalitarian basis, and then only to the degree that it protects freedom and equality.

I could elaborate some more, but this is not the place. Let me just say that I do not like the notion of some kind of authority, however benevolent, making decisions that rightfully should be made directly by those affected by them. Nor do I like the idea that anyone, even a deity, has the right to dictate to me how I should live my life (beyond basic altruism, at least.)

(and no, I won't try to convince you of the opposite if I disagree, you seem to have at least as many of the relevant facts as I do, and perhaps a few (many?) more besides.(ex Rabbi or aspiring one?)

Neither. I just listened to what I was taught, even if I didn't believe it, and read voraciously.

I was circumcised medically, it's great. No mess. Clean. More attractive to women/ men, heck, a report once concluded bleeding foreskin accounted foorr HIV/AIDS infection and ergo circumcision can help prevent HIV prior to it happening (of no differance if a reliable condom is used though). Whats the problem? Sure, theres the matter of, 'Thee kids have no choice!' but once its happened whats so bad?


(Don't many Americans get circumcised at birth anyway?)

(Don't many Americans get circumcised at birth anyway?)

Sure they do. Doesn't make it any less barbaric.

Sure they do. Doesn't make it any less barbaric.


Sure, it aint nice. But you're young and once its done it has plenty of benefits.

So the assault and mutilation of infants is acceptable if you only do it a little bit?

That's absurd. This is an all-or-nothing act. Either you've mutilated an infant or you haven't.

What harm does it cause?

This is a practise not restricted to Jews but found in other cultures as well. originally it was done as a measure to improve hygene (I think)

hygiene and religion and tradition are ridiculous excuses for GENITAL MUTILATION. Think about the reasoning for not applying it to a girl (in the jewish religion). Then there is no way, logically, without being completely hypocritical, that you can say it's O.K. to do it to boys but not girls.

if it's for hygiene, then shouldn't hands be chopped off because they will get dirty? or anuses removed because they may retain poop? see? ridiculous

if it's for religion, the same religion also claims that people with bad eyesight won't get into heaven. the jewish, and the christians, conveniently ignore this because they know it's a bit daft not to in today's society. so religion is a ridiculous excuse for not allowing people with bad eyesight to go to heaven or/and become jewish. just as it's a ridiculous excuse to chop off bits of children

if it's for tradition, then that's ridiculous too. black people were previously not allowed to play cricket for England DURING MY LIFETIME because of the tradition of English cricket players being white. Some traditions are stupid. It used to be traditional to hit kids with belts in England. Or to force people into slavery. Or to rape wives. Just because something is tradition, that's no reason for it to continue if it is harmful...

...some kids may grow up not giving a toss that their bits have been chopped off. others won't. no-one has the right to decide what part of another person should be removed for non-medical reasons (and don't give me stuff about supposed infections etc. - legs, hands, feet, ears, etc, all have a chance of being infected during a person's lifetime, but nobody goes around chopping those off. why? because it's stupid and harmful. just as GENITAL MUTILATION is (I'm not going to give it pretty names). You have no idea whether a child will be harmed by genital mutilation. You also can not justify it without also advocating the same to happen to girls, or being hypocritical. Strike that - you can NOT, EVER, justify HARMING a child, for ANY reason. Whilst there are different reactions from those who have been genitally mutilated, I know of too many people who have felt seriously traumatised by it, wondering why the heck their parents would want to remove a part of their body that GOD GAVE THEM.

Argue all you want. I'm gonna ignore you. You know I'm right.

f it's for tradition, then that's ridiculous too. black people will not allowed to play cricket for England DURING MY LIFETIME because of the tradition of English cricket players being white. Some traditions are stupid. It used to be traditional to hit kids with belts in England. Or to force people into slavery. Or to rape wives. Just because something is tradition, that's no reason for it to continue if it is harmful...

Ive seen a Black England Cricket Player? and an Asian and Plus a Sikh play for England?

f it's for tradition, then that's ridiculous too. black people will not allowed to play cricket for England DURING MY LIFETIME because of the tradition of English cricket players being white. Some traditions are stupid. It used to be traditional to hit kids with belts in England. Or to force people into slavery. Or to rape wives. Just because something is tradition, that's no reason for it to continue if it is harmful...

Ive seen a Black England Cricket Player? and an Asian and Plus a Sikh play for England?

I meant "were previously not allowed to". I've changed it.

What harm does it cause?

You don't use your little toe for anything. Mind if I harvest that from your children?

It's the principle of the thing. You can't allow the ritual mutilation of children.

And there aren't any medically agreed upon benefits to circumcision.

I meant "were previously not allowed to". I've changed it.

sorry dude hehehe Jews used Circumstion because God told them too in the Old Teastement i think dont quote me on it tell me im wrong but i think thats some form of the reason they do. but the New Teastement Disbands circumsition but some jews ignore the NT

sorry dude hehehe Jews used Circumstion because God told them too in the Old Teastement i think dont quote me on it tell me im wrong but i think thats some form of the reason they do. but the New Teastement Disbands circumsition but some jews ignore the NT

All Jews who accept the tenets of the religion deny the legitimacy of the New Testament.

Circumcision is indeed commanded in the Old Testament.

All Jews who accept the tenets of the religion deny the legitimacy of the New Testament.

Circumcision is indeed commanded in the Old Testament.

mmmm so they are allowed to Circumcise any one who is born into Judiasm?

And Jewish mothers don't like their nice jewish sons talking to shiksah girls because intermarriage causes a lot of problems in married life, such as what the children will be raised, etc.

Ah, but see, I've met Jewish mothers (and came fairly close to marrying the son of one of them) for whom the issue was decidedly not "what religion the children will be raised." When you still have problems with the shikseh when she (a) has completely abandoned her religion of birth years ago, (b) has promised to fully convert to Judaism upon marriage, (c) has promised to raise any future children Jewish, and even (d) is not only already keeping kosher, but is, in fact, keeping more kosher than YOU, it's hard to pretend it's a question of her insisting on making your future grandkids pray to baby Jesus.

Besides, even with the best of motives, I was under the impression that the Judeochristian God likes people to be courteous to guests, and the sort of behavior described in the post you responded to certainly doesn't seem courteous to me.

(As I said before, though, it's quite important to distinguish between the stereotypical "Nice Jewish Boys" and "Jewish Mothers" and plain ol' Jewish guys and Jewish mothers; I'm fairly certain Jews-in-general are not racist idiots with Oedipal issues. :p )

mmmm so they are allowed to Circumcise any one who is born into Judiasm?
Commanded, in fact.

And Jews won't stop it, because for us, it is the law. I quote "On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised" (Leviticus 12:3).

And before you ask "Why don't we do animal sacrifices?", the answer is, "We don't have a Temple to do them in. When we build the Third Temple, animal sacrifices shall resume."

I now will add another element of Judaism to our debate - my interpretation of the Jewish End of Days

Sometime after the construction of the Third Temple and the Return of the Ten Tribes, the Messiah will come, accompanied by the Prophet Elijah (who was carried bodily to Heaven, and never died). At this time, the dead will roll towards Jerusalem (except me - my tomb will be built like a missile silo, so I will fly towards Jerusalem). At this point, everyone will realize that the Jews have been right all along, and then we all go to Olam Haba, which is basically heaven.

Note: this is an account I have assembled over time from what I have learned. Focusing on the End of Days is discouraged in Judaism.

Commanded, in fact.

And Jews won't stop it, because for us, it is the law. I quote "On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised" (Leviticus 12:3).

And before you ask "Why don't we do animal sacrifices?", the answer is, "We don't have a Temple to do them in. When we build the Third Temple, animal sacrifices shall resume."

I now will add another element of Judaism to our debate - my interpretation of the Jewish End of Days

Sometime after the construction of the Third Temple and the Return of the Ten Tribes, the Messiah will come, accompanied by the Prophet Elijah (who was carried bodily to Heaven, and never died). At this time, the dead will roll towards Jerusalem (except me - my tomb will be built like a missile silo, so I will fly towards Jerusalem). At this point, everyone will realize that the Jews have been right all along, and then we all go to Olam Haba, which is basically heaven.

Note: this is an account I have assembled over time from what I have learned. Focusing on the End of Days is discouraged in Judaism.


At what point in this festival of hobgoblins does Menachem Mendel Schneersohn come back?

As far as I know, he gets ressurected with everyone else.

*For reference, I AM Jewish myself*

Mirkana, I think you're mistaken about the Messiah part - The Messiah is going to come AND THEN the entire world will join up in some big Kumbayah and build the third temple, the ten tribes will be identified, peace and prosperity will rule, and then EVERYONE goes up to heaven, not just the jews.

You're right about not focusing about Olam Haba, but it's ironic how it's the Amorite rabbis disscuss what to do in this world in relation to the next, over, and over and over again.

[Olam Haba, translated from Hebrew, means "The world to come.]

And by the way, I just wanted to mention this to other Judaism based religions, sinced christianity started out as a sect of Judaism, according to the New Testament that when Jesus comes and the apocolypse rains hell, and blah blah blah, everyone who is not christian goes to hell EXCEPT the other Judaism based religions (it doesn't say this specifically, it says something like it which implies it).

Also, I don't know why but when Muslims are supposed to wage Jihad against the infidels, they are supposed to kill everyone who is not Muslim and not an Abrahamic tribe, and rule their countries, but if the people are not Muslim but are an Abrahamic tribe, the Muslims cannot kill them, but just rule over their country instead.

We Jews have alot of insurance. (Pun intended)

Ah, but see, I've met Jewish mothers (and came fairly close to marrying the son of one of them) for whom the issue was decidedly not "what religion the children will be raised." When you still have problems with the shikseh when she (a) has completely abandoned her religion of birth years ago, (b) has promised to fully convert to Judaism upon marriage, (c) has promised to raise any future children Jewish, and even (d) is not only already keeping kosher, but is, in fact, keeping more kosher than YOU, it's hard to pretend it's a question of her insisting on making your future grandkids pray to baby Jesus.


Well, that's pretty awful to say the least. Jews can be racists and that sounds like what it's about here. I have not met enough to know what type of communities are more predisposed to this than others.

I will probably end up finding out. I'm a freak. That's not a negative self image (though I have plenty of that going on) it's just a recognition of fact that I do not make people comfortable or happy to be around me. I try my best to be a good person, but I recognize that for humans, style matters as much or more than substance in some cases. (Plus I don't always succeed, of course).

So I can see I may end up migrating just to try and find a Jewish community where I will feel that I am on the same page with the rest of them. I'm not looking forward to the struggle, but I appreciate your reminder that just because you come from good soil doesn't mean you grow up straight.

(and to stretch the metaphor, some local ecosystems are just messed up even if they keep growing crops reliably)

I regret hearing you had to put up with that and you don't sound nearly as bitter as I would be in your shoes. I might have also moved on, but I would be bitter (wry look).


Besides, even with the best of motives, I was under the impression that the Judeochristian God likes people to be courteous to guests, and the sort of behavior described in the post you responded to certainly doesn't seem courteous to me.


I'm not sure about Judaism, but I can say with some confidence Christians have no explicit commandments about hospitiality or courtesy. While that sort of good behaviour would logically spring from the things they are commanded to in the Beatitudes and the Sermon on The Mount, most Christians I've met don't know these charges were laid upon them or don't take them seriously at any rate.

To be fair, as the Deep South proves (according to my friend from there) courtesy <> amity or goodwill. But still, a pretense of civility is both more useful and pleasant, even if you may be aware it is a pretense.


(As I said before, though, it's quite important to distinguish between the stereotypical "Nice Jewish Boys" and "Jewish Mothers" and plain ol' Jewish guys and Jewish mothers; I'm fairly certain Jews-in-general are not racist idiots with Oedipal issues. :p )

Ah, so it sounds like he didn't stand up to his mother on this. That's disappointing. Even if you can rationalize "well then he wasn't committed to me" it's still painful to discover that the person you've become that attached to is fundamentally flawed. Extra awful.

No, your original statement is totally justified in substance even if I'm not sure how you would describe the essential traits that would predict that a given Jew is highly likely to be racist rather than not....and I certainly have no information to base any speculation upon.

everyone who is not christian goes to hell EXCEPT the other Judaism based religions (it doesn't say this specifically, it says something like it which implies it).

... they [Moslems] are supposed to kill everyone who is not Muslim and not an Abrahamic tribe, and rule their countries, but if the people are not Muslim but are an Abrahamic tribe, the Muslims cannot kill them, but just rule over their country instead.

We Jews have alot of insurance. (Pun intended)

Well, actually, immo what you're seeing at work here is how these offshot sects were hoping to get some ongoing trickle of converts from their roots.

I think it is still truly a matter of sincere incomprehension on the parts of Christians and Moslems why the Jews have not closed up shop and assimilated into their communities.

Of course, the basis of this incomprehension is the systematic lies told about the Jews in the key Holy Books of these religions....

I still shake my head at the Moslems who see how Allah _changed the Sabbath_ from Saturday to Friday after the Jews failed to convert in sufficient numbers....and insist this was the hand of god and not the hand of Mohammed. (Of course, to them, while he's technically human, they give him as much reverence as a fully divine being, it seems to me.)

[thumbnail sketch of a study of the End of the World]

Note: this is an account I have assembled over time from what I have learned. Focusing on the End of Days is discouraged in Judaism.

Yes, and there's a damned good reason it's discouraged.

Let's look at three events of abysmal consequences for Judaism:

First, the formation of Christianity, which would have gone nowhere if people weren't so eager to seek refuge from the stresses of the contmporary times in the promise that Jesus would come back and the world would end within the lifetime of those hearing it.

(Admitedly, those stresses would have been demoralizing. An astute and well informed contemporary would probably have been struck by the parallels between Roman-hegemony era Judea and the Maccabee Revolt period....except in this case people weren't fighting....which would have been deeply troubling)

Second, was the revolt of Simon Bar Kokhba which reduced the Jews to a tiny minority within their historical domain and began the Diaspora. While the Diaspora ultimately was a good thing, this still does not remove the culpability of the apocalypse cultists and their sycophants (like the Sanhedrin!) who went along with this insanity.

Third was Shabbetai Tzvi in the early 17th century who claimed to be the Messiah. There was tremendous economic dislocation (people sold their houses and goods anticipating the end of the world was nigh) and social upheval (recriminations and persecutions between Messianic adherents and the orthodox) which, while not as disastrous as the first two events...did see a significant number of Jews convert to Islam. (and not because they believed it was a good religion but because they believed that Tzvi's apostasy to Islam was a punishment to them for their lack of faith...which they were obliged to accept by joining him!)

The majority of Jews at the peak of his influence believed he was the Messiah and rearranged their lives around him. The fact that he was merely a deluded firebrand did teach the community a lesson. One that should not be forgotten: pay attention to your duties now, if there is a Final Judgement coming, an omniscient G*d is NOT going to be swayed by "eleventh hour piety".

Frankly, there has to be some carrot to help most people with their fear of death. Some incentive to believe that somehow, somewhere, it will all work out ok. So I'm not going to rant about denying people some succor here.

But I would be really careful about the possibility that your bulwark against the fear of death turn into the reason that you are keeping the law. Maybe it won't. I don't know if this familiar territory to you. But...it's a very real danger, in general terms.

We live for the experience of making as much order, justice, peace, harmony, an happiness as we can. Because G*d gave us this model and example, and because it has proven itself by its rewards. Following the model must be the first labor and the final labor. Everything else is secondary.

(And I'm not saying I'm a better person for not needing that bulwark; quite the opposite; but it's like many things: in moderation a good idea, but easily overdone.)

...I reject paternalism, benevolent or tyrannical. Human beings have the right to rule themselves, and not to be subject to any kind of authority - human, divine, whatever - unless they themselves create it on a democratic and egalitarian basis, and then only to the degree that it protects freedom and equality.


I used to think the same thing, and if I understand the roots of your sentiment (the burning desire that everyone have the maximum chance to be all they can be, a passionate hatred of cliques and institutions suffering the dry rot of being unanswerable in the exercise of their power, a hope that all humans can be decent to each other without the muddled autopilot of tradition surpressing their spirit and their free thought)....then I salute your spirit. Perhaps I don't understand but you do remind me of things I should not forget.


Let me just say that I do not like the notion of some kind of authority, however benevolent, making decisions that rightfully should be made directly by those affected by them. Nor do I like the idea that anyone, even a deity, has the right to dictate to me how I should live my life (beyond basic altruism, at least.)


I hope you always maintain the strength of character to prosper by this freedom, and that as many people who can follow your example.

Sadly, I do not expect that to be a significant number. But I praise the values you hold even as I disagree that they should be paramount.

Well, I'm not even a Jew (yet)...but there's a few things I want to share of my thoughts on circumcision.

Sadly, the practice endorses sexism. For much of history, sexism was inevitable or as near to it as to make no difference (and that is why I maintain that G*d told us _almost nothing_....if sexism were G*d's will, G*d would be inequitable, a contradiction in fundamental nature. Thus, it was a stage we were given the principles to work through and transcend as we will hopefully transcend the other nasty habits of humanity, with perseverance, dilligence, and cleverness.)....and this _as a minimum_ is why a reform is needed...because if we do embrace equity....if we do believe that man and woman are of equal worth and equal respect...then either both should be marked or neither.

I chuckle a little since the absence of female genital mutiliation in Judaism is a sign that from the start the influence of G*d was a good one. The Moslems certainly had no reservations about violating the bodies of their women in ways far beyond the justifications of the text. (Which itself, remember is not G*d's word but the words _inspired by the vision of G*d_)

But we can infer that the Jews recognized that given hygene/infection issues, comparably small alterations in that area would have an atrocious death rate....and that totally removing things was simply a crime against G*d's design of the human body. "The flesh shall be _marked_" does not in any way imply that the basic function shall be seriously impeded.

And yes, I know, uncircumcised men have _more_ sexual pleasure. The point is circumcised men have enough to function, and the number of cases where it is truly the crux of erectile dysfunction (rather than stress, diet, physical condition, interpersonal issues) cannot be that large.

For the time, it was a dramatic statement on the bodies of the worshippers with the most power and institutional stature "We are not like the rest of you." Caucasian skin doesn't scar very well at all (and Jews would have no reason to think that Caucasians would ever _not_ be a major part of their faith, demographically), and branding like animals would have carried connotations that would have been disturbing to contemporaries. (And I imagine still are.)

A great deal of Judaism is about this statement of difference. By asking people to sacrifice time, energy, or (in this case) pleasure to be part of the religion is a litmus of conviction.

Yes, if humans weren't so messed up we wouldn't need to try and exploit the "well, I've invested this much, I have to stay committed" thinking. It wouldn't be necessary to try and sort those who were serious about the Commandments from those who were not.

But humans are this way. It is a reasonable practice in creating and maintaining an ideology and set of behavioural norms. Maybe circumcision wasn't the best decision in an "apartness badge" but its adoption does not mark some basic moral flaw in Judaism.

And regarding the argument "they're not the ONLY people to perform circumcision" ...yes, but I'm _pretty_ sure they're the only people who elected to live in _cities_ who did this. And it would have been obvious to ex nomads that in the long run, the situation was biased against them. They didn't have a cakewalk taking over the Holy Land. They needed by their own account divine intervention.

And with each passing year, it would have been more and more obvious that the balance of power was shifting towards city dwellers against nomads. Yes, later on the Golden Horde would be a dramatic example that nomadic or other non-city based societies are not automatically powerless...but they were the exception, not the rule. And even they did pass away fairly quickly.

So whatever non-city dwelling cultural relatives the Jews had who still did it, the Jews could see that with time they would be the only ones doing this +in the long run+. And would generally be the only ones that their neighbours had regular contact with who did this. So it's value as a mark of apartness was justified.

Still, it seems obvious to me that "marking the flesh" has much leeway even if you are of the mind that it has to be something along those lines and not something else which accomplishes the same function by different means.

I'm not sure offhand what would be best. I'm all for ritual scarification because with pain endured is another litmus of sincerity in dedication. (We should now have the medical tools to make relaitvely indeliable marks, or to reapply them safely at intervals; in the past you only did this once because this sort of thing did create a small nudge upwards in the death rates.) But it should be to both sexes. And it should be upon coming of age as Jew, not upon birth.

If it's done at birth, it's a _hope_. Yes, in the past, it was important as one more coercive influence, but I think we can reduce the degree of coercion in our mix of forces to preserve the faith.

Because the _goals_ a G*dly society should require the _minimum_ amount of force to implement reliably. The value of the methods and these goals should be made so manifestly evident in the education of the young that they _agree willingly_. People do have that laziness and lack of commitment I talked about. But if you have too much force applied, you cut into people's "ownership" of their faith. And their obedience becomes not of a poor student attempting to learn difficult lessons, but of a slave trying to avoid the lash.

However, I think we still need an apartness badge because humans are not beyond needing one yet, or in the forseeable future.

Ah, but see, I've met Jewish mothers (and came fairly close to marrying the son of one of them) for whom the issue was decidedly not "what religion the children will be raised." When you still have problems with the shikseh when she (a) has completely abandoned her religion of birth years ago, (b) has promised to fully convert to Judaism upon marriage, (c) has promised to raise any future children Jewish, and even (d) is not only already keeping kosher, but is, in fact, keeping more kosher than YOU, it's hard to pretend it's a question of her insisting on making your future grandkids pray to baby Jesus.


If anyone knows about shiksa/Jewish relations, it's me. My mother is a former shiksa and converted to Judaism in an Orthdodox fashion. My grand parents came to America after the war and have maintained being religious since they've been here. My mother was treated with the utmost respect before she coverted and still is. Perhaps this woman admired the fact that the girl in particular kept up with these laws, but the fact is, you can follow as many Jewish customs as you want, but until you convert and accept G-d's covenant with Abraham and the Jews, you aren't Jewish which would cause a problem since the Jewish peoples survival is predicated upon marrying within the faith. This woman coulda just been nasty though, who knows.


Besides, even with the best of motives, I was under the impression that the Judeochristian God likes people to be courteous to guests, and the sort of behavior described in the post you responded to certainly doesn't seem courteous to me.

G-d does want our people, and all people to be courteous. Three angels disguised as men visited Abraham and Abraham invited them into his tent without even asking who they were, just to be hospitable. (They eventually told him his wife Sarah would give birth to a child and she then laughed because of her age and the fact that she was barren. (Sarah and Abraham named their son Yitzcak, from the hebrew word Tzachak which means laugh).

Being rude to people is wrong, and i feel bad that this woman in particular was rude to a non-Jewish girl, however I do believe the issue of marrying Jewish is of great importance and should have been addressed, but in a private way as to not offend the girl.

Also, I don't know why but when Muslims are supposed to wage Jihad against the infidels, they are supposed to kill everyone who is not Muslim and not an Abrahamic tribe, and rule their countries, but if the people are not Muslim but are an Abrahamic tribe, the Muslims cannot kill them, but just rule over their country instead.

We Jews have alot of insurance. (Pun intended)



Well I'm not too sure where you got this whole Muslims aren't allowed to kill members of Abrahamic tribes...Muslims kill Jews all the time. (cough Palestinians, cough)

As for the circumcision thing..G-d commanded Abraham to do it to make a covenant with him so that it will forever be a sign of this covenant. There is no mention of it being a restriction on sexual pleasure.

As for the benevolent dictator argument; When Moshiach comes (messiah) we will all know it. And I for one won't have any problems taking orders from him.

Women-women are treated differently in Judaism not because they are of any less value or not as good as men, but that men and women are on different levels of holiness (women are actually considered on a higher level and therefore are not obliged to follow certain commandements) and only have specific commandments that they have to fulfill. For example, women aren't circumsized because G-d did not command them to be. Women don't need to follow commandements that were not specified for them. Just as Jews don't need to follow the commandments that deal with the Holy Temple because we are currently without one.

Also, women are seated separately than men in an Orthodox synagogue not for any discriminatory reason but that there was a separate womans section in the Holy Temple, which was and is still the holiest spot to the Jewish people and the spot designated to be the holiest spot by G-d.

Anyone who thinks God has any expectations for them is a fundamentalist, I guess. It seems that the Old Testament, as interpreted by Altruism, is about the Jewish people telling the unchosen how to live. This is not a virtue.


If you're refering to me, that's NOT my interpretation. It's about the Old Testament _taken together with the process of endless interpretation, assessment and reassessment of the text_ is the guide for how _the Jews_ shall live. They are an example. They are not supposed to seek converts. (This is _definitely_ part of doctrine now.) The example is a PASSIVE one. There is nothing unvirtuous in that.

And your definition of fundemantalist is quite novel. Talk to worshippers in liberal churches or in the small, less populous sects (like the Swendeborgians) who are not oriented on huge reams of rules and traditions. They still think G*d has intentions for them.




The reality is that Christianity doesn't only require faith and you're all set. If you truly believe in Christ, you will follow his commandments out of this faith (assisted by the guidance of the Holy Spirit), without need for "requirements" above and beyond this. This is because if you truly believe in God, why would you then defy his Word. If you do, you never really believed in Him in the first place.


Theologically, there are two branches of Christianity.

One says that faith alone determines your salvation. If you believe in it, you're saved, if you know about it and you don't, you're not. (or some sects omit the "if you know about it" clause)

The other branch says that faith is the precondition of salvation but you can lose salvation by violating the laws of G*d with sufficient consistency and degree.

You are obviously in a sect (or sympathetic to one) that is in the second branch. And yes, in my opinion that is the more virtuous of the two. _However_...by the deed, this branch _still_ doesn't take righteous behaviour seriously enough. And this is a key failing: saying you want to be a good person is absolutely indispensible to minimizing being part of human vileness.

But...it's only a start. The theology relating to behavioural norms is
(a) edited by only a tiny portion of the learned in the faith of the Church
(b) only has "all or nothing" changes from the very top, not by emerging concensus (and thus impairs the efficiency of the learning curve)
(c) does not teach the faithful to think about how to not do the wrong thing over and over again. It teaches them to regret the wrong doing; it teaches them to wish they won't do it again; but it lacks the practical grounding in ritual or theory to actually teach them how to not do it again.
(d) they use the literal text of the Old Testament (which without the Oral Torah is NOT a guide for moral behaviour) or the New Testament (which they justify following by being the "story of God's son" yet historical studies show that almost NOTHING about Jesus' sayings or nature survived except in the sketchiest details.)

And that in practice they follow the writings of _Paul_ who wasn't the Messiah and didn't even know Jesus. Paul had a few things he cared about from the story of Jesus and everythign else was _junk_ to him. Is that treatment respectful of the son of G*d ?

Maybe the Old Testament Prophets were not able to tell the future. Perhaps making predictions that came true was just a really difficult mental perception test that established "ok, you can say something that people don't count obvious which does eventually happen...repeatedly....you are now proven adequately smart to get to talk about what the best ways to be a G*dly society are.

_This interpretations of the facts does not invalidate Judaism_....but removing divine contact from _Christianity_ sets it totally adrift. Because ultimately, everything they do comes back to "cause G*d (or Jesus or the Holy Ghost) said so". with the Jews it's "because we know the spirit of G*d's law and _after LOTS of work_, this is our best idea of how to uphold it"

Basically, I find the fact that Christians cannot derive a set of rules that stands on its own merits to be the proof G*d _didn't_ talk to them. Because no sane G*d would do that, since G*d would know how they would take what was allegedly said. This consequence here, that authority woudl be venerated but only secondary attention would be paid to _reason_ and _the spirit of the Law_...that cannot be a consequence G*d would want.


Judaism, by contrast _always_ referes to the spirit of the law...by ritual and by norms that emphasize _thinking about the significance of what you're doing!_ There is room for improvement, but it is at least an area that they have developed and are committed to improving.

Securing the best day to day human behaviour has to be the priority because the fight against human failing is not one you can be complacent about in any manner for any duration. See how the State of Israel for example has lost its way morally....


Christianity is stronger than Judaism in the morals department, with the higher standard demanded by Christ. He calls people to act righteously in everything they do. That doesn't mean all people who claim to be Christian are models of virtue. A true Christian will follow the commandments of God out of love and duty.

On what grounds do you say this ?

I _was_ a Catholic and according to my priest one who was more concerned about my faith than much of the congregation (he was trying to encourage me to feel some self respect because the theology had destroyed it and he wasn't sure how to repair the damage. He was a good man, but he was working with bad tools).

(That self respect was destroyed simply by this: we were told our sins could only be negated by contrition; but logically, contrition cannot be sincere if you are professing it while being aware that the consequence of NOT professing it is damnation.

This happened by age thirteen. My adolescence was subjectively a very long time. By the end of it I was praying I would die in a car crash before the weight of my sins would automatically damn me to Hell.

I could see that I was in a no win scenario. The cosmology had deprived me of the means of salvation. It took me years to get the courage to say "any G*d who imposes this on me does not deserve my obedience". It took many more years to get over my trauma and realize that there is a space in my life that needs a G*d to fill, illusionary as I expect this entity is.)

Here's what I saw:
(a) the statement of sweeping statements and injunctions which no one paid any attention to in day to day life.
(b) Daily prayer was described (for the set formats) as just a way to please G*d or (for free form prayer) a way to try and demonstrate that you were sincere in your faith.
(c) The theology emphasized the majesty of G*d and the wretchedness of humanity despite the logical inequity involved.

If G*d designed Adam so that he was capable of making the wrong decision in the Garden, and then _sticks him there_ for an indefinite time....he was _destined to fail_. And G*d not only cursed Adam _but all his children_ for manifesting this flaw that G*d built in his creation.
(d) Definitions of what was good and desireable without _any_ practical teaching on "what is enough".
(e) a view that the afterlife was the most important part of the human experience and that all of life was like one long test to get entry in to the "institution of higher existence"

I compare this to what I believe (based on my investigations) to be so far true of Judaism.
(a) filled with rituals that have meticulous attention to details of what they are supposed to help you with and have been tested by time as _providing_ that help
(b) Prayer based on either _content filled_ ritual or an exercise in asking G*d to help bear your pain or share your joy. Rather than what amounts to regimented begging.
(c) A theology which admits the flaws of humanity but also admits that G*d wanted it this way for whatever reason and that G*d's law is here to help us live with those flaws (_without_ there being special stigma or shame upon humans for being humans).
(d) The teaching that if you have fulfilled the essential points of the law, upheld it's spirit, and no one is bugging you on each day of Atonement, you can tenatively pat yourself on the back...and that if you find out you've done wrong, if everyone agrees you did your best to fix it, you still have that right.
(e) a view of life that the afterlife is significant but that the achievement of a reasonably orderly, peaceful and happy community is what it's mainly about.

Because that has been possible with G*d inspired law, we can have some hope that it's not all some sort of put on and that something good will happen when we die.

Essentially, Christians are charged to follow sweeping, extreme injunctions with no guidance how to fulfill them or how to judge how well they're doing. The relative paucity of the function of assessment and editing of behaviour is a critical failing in their behavioural norms.

I cannot tell you how offended I am by this post. These are lies and fabrications made to make Jews look like murderous conspirators. None of these claims are true and all NSers should ignore them as blatant lies and outspoken anti-semetism. These are all common lies used by anti-Semites to draw hate towards the Jews.

Here are a series of websites that deal with these lies. Most of the chapter names and headings given in the prior post are fabricated and can't even be found in the Talmud. Jesuits, you are despicable.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/media.html

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/van_hyning.html
I know I'm despicable.
I was not talking about people, I was referring to texts I found in many books.
I shall look at the 2 sites you gave me.
And I will see more.
Valinor, why should I believe a site and not another?
The masonic site seems a bit more serious...
Anyway, with more data I should make an opinion on the subject.
I know of so many lies from the roman catholic church I would understand one from a jewish source.
I am despicable for the catholics too (mabe a despicable vocation). :gundge:

Can you explain how the Jewish people (Ashkenazi) switched from Middle Eastern to Eastern European heritage without intermarriage?

They're nice, but wrong on... religion. There isn't a god, damnit! Other than that, a fine bunch of in:sniper:telligent monkeys, just like the rest of us.

Can you explain how the Jewish people (Ashkenazi) switched from Middle Eastern to Eastern European heritage without intermarriage?

(Just about) 2000 years of very little intermarriage and conversion doesnt mean 2000 years of 0 intermarriage and conversion.

One can still trace Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA (the easiest to check ancestry from) on the majority of Ashkenazim to come from the same source as Sephardic, mizrahi, and other Jews, as well as (further back) coming from the same people as your average Arab.

Finally, there are physical differences between your average German, Pole, Russian, etc and your average European Jew, just as there are differences between your average Spaniard and your average Sephardic Jew. Now I'm not saying your average Ashkenazi is indistinguishable from your average Syrian, but there *are* similarities, enough so that even the Nazis could tell (some) Jews by their faces.

I don't like their "greater than thou" attitude and the harsh member restriction

I know I'm despicable.
I was not talking about people, I was referring to texts I found in many books.
I shall look at the 2 sites you gave me.
And I will see more.
Valinor, why should I believe a site and not another?
The masonic site seems a bit more serious...
Anyway, with more data I should make an opinion on the subject.
I know of so many lies from the roman catholic church I would understand one from a jewish source.
I am despicable for the catholics too (mabe a despicable vocation). :gundge:

It's not about believing one site over another. You can go anywhere on the internet and find malicious lies made up by people to attack anyone and everything. I simply know for a fact that none of those tractates exist because I've studied Talmud, and those websites were simply refuting the false claims.

If you really wanna know what the Talmud is about, go pick one up and start reading. But please, next time don't post something that offensive without researching it.

I don't consider Judaism to be more accurate or true than any other religion. I do have some specific problems with it, as well.

1. The calls for slavery and genocide in the past. I understand now that those things don't really apply, but I have to wonder about a religion where it was once commanded to wipe out entire nations down to infants and even livestock.

2. The notion of the "chosen people" and the demands for racial purity are simply not acceptable. Yes, conversion is possible, but it happens so rarely that ancestry is the main factor, like it is in determining any race.

3. Imagine Christian fundamentalists founded a belligerent white Christian state armed with nuclear weapons in Africa, displacing the local people. Would you be surprised if they ended up despised? Of course not. Why should we have a Jewish state when no one would accept an "Aryan" state?

I don't consider Judaism to be more accurate or true than any other religion. I do have some specific problems with it, as well.

1. The calls for slavery and genocide in the past. I understand now that those things don't really apply, but I have to wonder about a religion where it was once commanded to wipe out entire nations down to infants and even livestock.


Let's put it this way: every contemporary bronze/iron age society of the Jews at the times of the events you cite (3000 to 2800 years ago) _all_ practiced slavery. The "harvesting of humans" was one of the economic cornerstones of those societies. Slavery only became a less prominent institution as the supply of fresh potential slaves declined.

The same contemporaries had no particular moral position on genocide. The Aechean Greeks committed genocide in Troy, and the Romans committed genocide on Carthage. _No_ contmporary society wrote of this "oh how evil, the Romans or the Greeks are wicked" (at least no writings survived, and what we know of their ethics gives us no reason to think anything like that was ever written).

Moreover, even in more recent times, most human societies and religions possess the same taint of slavery and genocide in their histories. The Christians committed genocide in the Crusades. The Moslems it in several steps on their war of expansion. The Spanish and Americans wiped out the indigenous peoples who opposed them in the New World. This is just the list of more _prominent_ examples. Many societies were small in area occupied or population of both and many have been eliminated without leaving any popular historical records.

No one had any ethical qualms about slavery. Shall we talk about the Americans who endorsed slavery in the founding of their Republic, or the Europeans who provided the merchants who built the Africa-to-Americas slave trade or the ogilarchs who founded the slave-labor sugar plantations of the West Indes? Shall we talk serfdom, which was slavery in all but name in many jurisdictions ?

Recall that slavery was only abolished _when we developed technology to make it obslete_....in the 19th century, less than 200 years ago! And even today it is still practiced in the margins of less "developed" countries. (or within them...what would you call some of the more coercive sweatshops worked by illegal immigrants in the United States?)

No one is free from this taint. All have either been part of it within the history of their society or are free of it only by virtue of their society not being old enough_ to stretch back to when it was more common. The entirety of humanity has this shadow of these wrongs over its past and saying that Judaism as a religion is suspect because of being _like everyone else_ in this regard is hypocrisy.


2. The notion of the "chosen people" and the demands for racial purity are simply not acceptable.



I don't like their "greater than thou" attitude and the harsh member restriction


First, religious based dictates to marry only within your own faith (endogamy) are not "racial purity directives". "Race" is the idea that there are inborn physical differences that are the dominant factor in the relations between sufficiently physically differentiated groups of humans. And that some groups are innately superior by their physical heritage.

Please tell me where the Old Testament says _anything_ like this. The Old Testament _does_ justify the acts of the Jewish people. It does this through the assumption that the Jews can do what they want _because of their religious fidelity to G*d_. All societies at the time possessed a similar "we can do no wrong" attitude. Most still do. There is again nothing particular to the Jews here.

Secondly, Jewish theologians since the period roughly from the apogee of classic Greek civilization to the start of their Diaspora have _explicitly endorsed_ that _all converts_ are as good as Jews born into the faith. While some writers tried to say there was some measure of "extra goodness" to being born Jewish, by the Renaissance this position had been totally squelched.

Judaism is found so far and wide _because it made so many converts from many different ethnic groups. There is no "Jewish Race"!

So how does the notion of "the chosen people" substantially differ from the Christians, who regard themselves in their own theology as the only "right thinking people" ? Or the Moslems who believe they should be ruling the world for its own good, because if you're not a Moslem, you're going to hell so your life as a non Moslem is a waste anyway ? Or the Japanese who believe they are the children of the gods ? Or the Hindus, who in India belong in large numbers to a party based on religious chauvinism ?

Only the Buddhists think differently, and I'll talk about them in another post, but their lack of such sentiment is NOT tied to an ethical virtue.

Every religion has egocentricism (except maybe the Buddhists). How could it have formed otherwise ? Why would people observe laws and keep customs if there was nothing that was better about the people who were following them?

If you tell them that they are special, any group of humans will have members who are full of themselves in comparing themselves to other humans not in their group. Sanctimanity is an endemic human trait. The institutions of the Jewish religion do not endorse santimanity.

If there is a degree that there are more sanctimonious Jews than Moslems or Hindus or Christians...it rests in the fact that Judaism asks more of it's members. More adherence to rituals, more thinking about those rituals, more analysis of their own lives and the value of their deeds. Make people work harder, and a higher number of them will be overly proud of their labors.

Again, the Jews are not acting in a way that is distinct from the rest of humanity.

Their membership restrictions reflect their commitment. They ask nothing of a convert which they do not ask of a born worshipper. If the religion did not have traits that inspired them to devote more energy from their lives to ensuring compliance with their philosophical and moral goals....then why would generation after generation make that investment of energy ?

Moreover, their rules are all grounded in well thought out purposes. Yes, there is a kernel of historical custom and decree at the core of each law. A LARGE kernel. But their laws are _not_ enforced "because G*d said so". Their laws are enforced because those laws demonstrably help them live lives in conformance wiht their values. And if you think otherwise, you have not studied the Rabbinical debates on each and every moral question about G*d's law.

To say "they have too many rules" or "following their rules is too hard" or "they don't make converting easy enough"....the underlying idea of these sentiments is that the Jews don't have the right to live by the system they choose. Presumably, because you don't understand why they are opting to follow that system. Maybe you don't agree with the priorities and values that are common among them and which bind them to adhering to those puzzling, oh-so-numerous rules. But to attack their right to derive and adhere to those rules is totally against the spirit of individual liberty that modern societies live by in all _other_ regards.

Note that the fact they do work harder does not entirely succeed in making them better in an objectively measureable sense. They strive for the best that humans are capable of but recognize they are as flawed as anyone else. On a philosophical level, they are quite humble. Humility is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn; to neither refuse it nor to overdo it is very difficult.

Typically, humans regard their own pride in their own achievements as justifiable self respect, and the pride of others in their achievements as arrogance.


Yes, conversion is possible, but it happens so rarely that ancestry is the main factor, like it is in determining any race.


It happens so rarely because the Jews stopped seeking coverts. For a while, it was forbidden to accept them. During the one stretch of the Middle Ages most "converts" would follow a pattern of behaviour. They would watch and live with the Jews for a while. They would imitate the Jews in worship without understanding the religion. Then the "converts" woudl "unconvert" to return to the Christians with reports of the "strange and ungodly customs of those Jewish infidels". Usually an outbreak of persecution followed.

Observing that the non Jews were already prone enough to making life hard for the Jews, the Rabbinate decreed that the risk of adding fuel to the fires of persecution did not justify taking in new converts.

And the two major religions which talk about Jews, Christianity and Islam -lie far more than they tell the truth-. So Christians believe that Jews are borderline idolators who worship a distant and heartless god and follow meaningless rules instead of seeking the essential heart of ethical behaviour. I admit that I don't know _exactly_ what Moslems teach of the Jews... but it must be at best condescending and at worst quite hostile. That is evident in the erratic nation of their toleration for Jews historically (even before the last sixty years) and the spirit of what fragmentary pronouncements I have read.

So Judaism mostly continued once it reached it's maximum extent through conversion _because it insisted on marrying with the faith_. If they had not done so, would they even make up half a percent of the world's population today ? They followed the polcy they had to given they refused to seek converts.

They imposed a substantial handicap on their survival in order to be true to their ideas. Because they recognized that converts are always more enthusiastic and pious about the Law. The litmus of the value of a society's laws are how well those born to them volunteer to uphold them.

Here's a point you've missed: they don't stay Jews because something genetic makes them keep the Commandments. They don't follow the laws and customs because they believe that this is the way to be part of the bandwagon on some trip to greatness. The Jews keep their laws because unlike other theologies....their laws explain themselves thoroughly to the faithful and provide practical guidelines to how to _keep_ those laws.

And yes, many contemporary Jews have abandoned their theology and abandoned their customs and observances. As have most religious folk in all wealthy industrial societies. The fact that about 1/4 of Jews are still Orthodox or highly religioulsy observant Conservatives speaks of tremendous resilience against the insidious temptations of hedonism and moral relativism taken too far.

That's the main reason I'm looking most strongly at the Conservative sect: because in principle they have not abandoned these things, and in practice, they're trying hard to get back to them. (Though I have hopes of finding that the Reconstructionists are as good in practice as they should be in theory, but there are none anywhere near me.)


3. Imagine Christian fundamentalists founded a belligerent white Christian state armed with nuclear weapons in Africa, displacing the local people. Would you be surprised if they ended up despised? Of course not. Why should we have a Jewish state when no one would accept an "Aryan" state?

Really, this belongs in a thread about the State of Israel. But I'll respond a bit anyway.

First, "Aryan identity" is a myth. There is no body of comparable law, custom and observance even FAINTLY resembling that of the Jews. Point in fact, the Aryan Supremicists are a bunch of maladapted nutbags who follow this amazingly eccentric and unthinking hodge podge of superstitions and customs...BLINDLY. Unlike the Jews, whose every law stems from endless contemplation and reference to real-life events to help that law be just, equitable and effective.

Secondly, the Israelis are not the only "bad guys" here. Every neighbouring state to Israel, when it was created by the only human body with the authority to, the United Nations....declared war upon it when it was created. They told the natives living there at the time "leave their lands, we will be conquering them and killing the Jews and if you give us space to move in with fire and sword, we will take care of that Holy Task.

The nations of the world looked on and said "let them sink or swim". The Jews did not sink. Consider now the Palestinians who had cleared out in anticipation of a land free of Jews and some free land plundered from the dead Jewish settlers (a significant minority of whom owned the land fair and square by purchase from absentee Arab landlords)...the Jews looked at them and said "You f*cking tried to murder us all, you're NOT getting back in. Lie in the bed you made".

And the Moslems, in violation of their own laws on Community and charity, left the Palestinians they had temped to leave their homes...to rot.

Now, I admit, this was probably for the best. Lebanon showed that Moslems being less wealthy breed more. That's their right. But democracy is a disaster in any state that does not have the support structures required to it. In states unprepared for it, all democracy does is divide people into teams for a civil war. Which we are seeing again in contemporary Iraq. Palestine in 1948 was not ready for democracy.

For there to be a Jewish state, the Palestinians have to be held down because they cannot be assimilated. This is unjust. This is unfair. This casts strong doubts on the whole point of setting up a state of Israel. It has been corrupted by the long struggle for self preservation. The only tactics which can preserve it are the ones that transform it from a "Light to the Nations" into "an armed camp substained by foreign money". (And that is not meant disrespectfully to the minority of religious Jews living there. I would think they would admit that the Law of G*d is no longer the law of the land, if it ever was there.)

Maybe they can make amends and purge the corruption in time. I'm less than optimistic.

But the point I'm making is that Zionism was a major ideological movement in Judaism. It had to be allowed to grow, it had to be allowed to succeed...because some lessons can only be learned the hard way. If the UN had not thus ruled, the Jews would have waged a generations long "silent war" to buy land there. The would have had to keep it under armed guard until whatever nation ruled it could be voted out of existence or forced to detach Israel from within. (And no matter how the Arabs hated them, each generation, someone would give in and transfer title if paid enough.)

This way, while nastier in some respects, will at least be shorter.

If anything good does come of the State of Israel it will sadly be over a large pile of bodies and a lot of human suffering. There are some parallels here to the original conquest of the Canaanites, if they do succeed in making Israel a stable and enduring state. Once again, all the land is taken. if the Jews insist on having an earthly kingdom, it will have to be purchased in blood.

I'm far from convinced Zionism _can_ do anything worthwhile. But nothing but carrying the experiment to its end will resolve the issue, one way or the other.

What I'm trying to say is that while some of what the Israelis have done is despicable, once they resolved upon creating and keeping their Nation, it was to a large degree inevitable. And most of the hate involved was there before Israel was founded. Many of the things that the Israelis are hated for since...were often the acts demanded by choices imposed upon them by the pre-existing unconditional hatred of their neighbours for them or the hatred stoked by the measures the Jews took to protect themselves from that hatred at the start.

So just saying "The Jews formed Israel, it's a bad thing, so they are bad" is more than a little simplistic. The Christians and Moslems when they have ventured into secular matters in modern times have made just as many misteps, if not more.

I do hope that this bloody, dreary matter comes to a resolution within the next century though.

Well I'm not too sure where you got this whole Muslims aren't allowed to kill members of Abrahamic tribes...Muslims kill Jews all the time. (cough Palestinians, cough)

Read the Koran.

And of course Muslims kill Jews all the time, because some just don't listen to their religions perfectly.

Look at Jews; almost a sixth of the remaining Jewish population in the world does not keep Kosher.:rolleyes:

And of course Muslims kill Jews all the time, because some just don't listen to their religions perfectly.

And of course because said Jews kill said Muslims all the time as well.

I don't consider Judaism to be more accurate or true than any other religion. I do have some specific problems with it, as well.

1. The calls for slavery and genocide in the past. I understand now that those things don't really apply, but I have to wonder about a religion where it was once commanded to wipe out entire nations down to infants and even livestock.

2. The notion of the "chosen people" and the demands for racial purity are simply not acceptable. Yes, conversion is possible, but it happens so rarely that ancestry is the main factor, like it is in determining any race.

3. Imagine Christian fundamentalists founded a belligerent white Christian state armed with nuclear weapons in Africa, displacing the local people. Would you be surprised if they ended up despised? Of course not. Why should we have a Jewish state when no one would accept an "Aryan" state?


1. I agree with the above post about slavery, and the fact is that if God told us to do it, then we did it, but at least for us there are restrictions on slavery; after 7 years you are to give your slave the option of freedom, but he can stay if you both agree to it. Also, if you've read the old testatment it tells the story of Amalek. I'll summarize it for you.

So the Jews have JUST left Egypt and are weary and tired and beginning to complain about no food and whatever. God makes us take the long way out of Egypt so we wouldn't run into any nomadic hostile nations along the way, and here comes Amalek, they sneak around the Israelites, and they kill the women and children in back.

When reading the new testament, you have to realize that the Torah forces us to infer on everything, and it ALWAYS understresses EVERYTHING. So when it says that an entire army went around behind another and "killed" the women and children, they were essentially commiting genocide.

So why can we commit genocide on Amalek? They started it.

2. I agree with the post above that there is no "Jewish race." If you want to be a child of Israel, you are welcomed with open arms. If you become Jewish, you will be just as superior to everybody else as all Jews are. Again agreeing with the above post, the racial purity is just for marrying and breeding within our own nation, as Judaism is a tribal religion, and the point to keep us pure is that we don't forget our ancestors, who we are, who are like us, and one of the ideals that's most stressed about Judaism is to remember the liberation of Egypt as if you were there. This is so we will remember that God was there for us when we needed Him, and he did all of those glorious miracles when it was nesessary. If we inter-breed, we will forget all of us.

3. The fact is that there ARE countries like you are talking about, and there WAS NOT a country for the Jews, even though this isn't really about Judaism but more about Israel. And the Jews expected to be despised about Israel, but it was OUR COUNTRY FIRST GIVEN TO US BY GOD. Those white fundamentalist christians you are talking about have no right to that land, and so they don't deserve it. Also refering back to "No Jewish Race", the fact that the're Aryan is irrelavent.



HOWEVER, I completely agree why you would have these opinions against Judaism, and I hope I could help.

Well...

And of course because said Jews kill said Muslims all the time as well.


They started it.

If you hate the Jews then f you

If you hate the Jews then f you

THAT wasn't nessesary...

Oh, and Soheran :)

I meant to make that reply about "where I see G*d" a ways back. However, I realize now perhaps I mispoke.

I don't see an indisputable and definitive sign of G*d anywhere in the world.

But what gave me pause was this:

Of all the other religions, they either say one of two things. One model is that their divine forces are here right now, punishing the wicked, rewarding the righteous and steering humans towards a better tomorrow. (with of course different mixes of emphasis on these elements.)

I try to fit the ups and downs of history into _any_ pattern assuming "someone is looking out for humanity" and I get very angry at the palpable lie here. "The Lord moves in Mysterious ways" and it's various equivalent phrases is one of the most obscene expressions in the world to me. It is an abdication of reason and the right to demand a correlation between cause and effects for an implausible statement to secure belief.

Moreover, of two hypotheses
(a) there is a divine agency intervening without any pattern we can discern and no discernable effects

and

(b) this is no divine agency

(B) seems more credible.

The second type is the scenario where there is a divine creative force, but at some point "creation" is a finished process, and there is no more intervention or contact. Any divine purpose is maintained by invisible, built in mechanisms

This scenario has a similar duality:
(a) everything we know was designed or
(b) everything we know has its properties as intrinsic consequence of existence. ("The great question is not why is something as it is, but rather why is there something instead of nothing?")

B is more credible....but the margin is much less overwhelming that in the first case.

Then Judaism comes along with an interesting variant on this alternative...the distinct part of the Jewish scenario was "the creation of a setting _followed_ by presumably ongoing very brief, sharp, extremely infrequent interventions by the creator"

The edge of the wedge is the bit about "God made the covenant with all the Jews and no one later disputed this claim". You poked holes in the edges of that "proof". But while perhaps it is not a proof, it as at least a possibility that resists being disproven. No other possibility raised by other religions as their "proof" of gods managed to do the same for me. If you know of any which seemed plausible but unproveable, do share :) (But I'll admit I'd be shocked if they set off within me something like the following chain of reasoning...)

So with that sort of "smoke", I looked for "fire"....

I addressed in one of my earlier posts the idea that G*d used the Mosaic covenant as the sole contact point with humanity, grafting divine influence into the atypical culture Abraham had created. The humans were told (admitedly, all of them within the society who were alive at one time) to "be good" and to "seek the spirit of the law and make law the pursuit of that spirit" and from this rather terse contact left the Jews to sort out how to be good.

This idea just fell into place with a palpable clicking of mental referents in my mind.

Assume a divine force did NOT want to regularly contact humanity. Then consider the above as the impartment of a "seed" of the desired final product and the change of a single environmental variable of the "seed's". This would be a remarkably plausible way for a divine agencyto have a meaningful impact and yet not destroy the ethical capacity of the society in which the intervention took place.

I cross examined. I looked at the pattern of world history. I homed in on the role of the history of Judaism within that history. Then I also referred to the development of Judaism. Then I correlated the above theory about G*d's intervention and intention...and I was shocked.

In other posts, I have outlined or touched upon the incremental growth of Jewish society. And made my case that the institutions that arose from these modest beginnings are distinctly good at developing human morality and distinctly effective at encouraging compliance with that morality.

Remember how this is consistent with the "seed" and "influence"....

Looking at the success story (however imperfect and modest)....

Maybe there was a G*d.

I'm not saying I proved it beyond the shadow of a doubt. Hardly.

But it was the first time in my life that I had ever fit religious ideas alongside history and natural science and my knowledge of sociology and psychology (admitedly incomplete) and seen any permutation where there was a space I felt a G*d like force _could_ be even +possibly+ present in the Big Picture with anything approaching plausibility.

Always I had seen (in previous close contemplations of other religions) the nature of humanity or physical reality rise to overshadow any place evidence of divinity could be found.

Now, here was this shadowy but finally _possible_ "maybe G*d". Not an agency maintaining order by a hand (indistinguishable to the casual observer) of Madness. Not an agency distinterested and as remote as a parent leaving a child to play in traffic, working by some hypothetical "natural law"....here was an agency that had acted once, may plausibly do so again, and had caused often subtle but dramatically striking consequences to come about from that single intervention.

"Give me a long enough lever and I will move the world". Many humans have aspired to finding that sort of lever; either the Jews succeeded where others didn't, or they had a helping hand after all. Either way there's something special here.

And the more I've thought about it, the more satisfied I am with this viewpoint, for a variety of reasons. And if it turns out there is no G*d, I am pleased to have found the one society on Earth that seems to have "put its money where its mouth is" about seriously trying to live _as though there was one_. A society whose theology made the search for truth into a sacrament. A society that had demonstrable proficiencies and achievements to put it into a class of its own. Admitedly, a class of the astigmatic one eyed beating the sharp eared, quick witted blind, but still....

As I said, if G*d is a delusion rooted in the biology of our brain and the peculiarities of human evolution....the G*d the Jews conceived of is a dream worth living for.

Just thought I'd clear up some facts about circumcision you seem to be confused about...

So it's okay to mutilate babies if they don't know we're doing it?

And there's no scientific evidence of that hygiene angle. I think the wiki covers the issue quite well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumc...edical_aspects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_aspects)

For one, the wikipedia article you linked to doesn't claim that there is no scientific evidence of hygiene. In fact, it lists quite a few studies that demonstrate that circumcision lowers the risk of contracting HIV & HPV, etc.

Here are some quotes from the wikipedia article you posted:

"The results of the first randomised controlled trials were published in November 2005, reporting a 60% reduction in the rate of new HIV infection in the circumcised group."

"Several studies have shown that non-circumcised men are at greater risk of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection."

"Non-circumcised boys and men tend to have higher rates of various infections and inflammations of the penis, and of the foreskin, than circumcised men."

"Twelve studies have indicated that neonatal circumcision reduces the occurrence rate of Urinary tract infections in male infants by a factor of about 10."

So, no scientific evidence? The article you linked to disagrees. The fact is, no one worth their salt in the medical community today is as black and white about it to claim, like you're doing, that there are no benefits. There are many proven benefits, and many proven risks as well. The reason circumcision is not advised in the medical community anymore is not because there are no health benefits, but because the benefits aren't strong enough to call for the risk involved.

But you must have missed that in the wikipedia article. Selective reading.

You don't use your little toe for anything. Mind if I harvest that from your children?

It's the principle of the thing. You can't allow the ritual mutilation of children.

And there aren't any medically agreed upon benefits to circumcision.

Lets see if there are any medically agreed upon benefits to circumcision. Here is a report from the American Medical Association (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html) on circumcision:

"The most recent statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics reads as follows: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."

"Debate on the wisdom of routine circumcision centers on the possible benefits offered by circumcision, and whether they medically justify the risks associated with the procedure. Properly performed circumcision protects against the development of phimosis, paraphimosis in elderly men requiring intermittent or chronic bladder catheterization, and balanitis. The only longitudinal study to address the former found a 4% incidence of phimosis in uncircumcised boys. The medical benefits suggested to accrue from circumcision are reduced incidence of urinary tract infection in infant males, decreased incidence of penile cancer in adult males, and possibly decreased susceptibility to certain sexually transmissible diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."

"There is little doubt that the uncircumcised infant is at higher risk for urinary tract infection (UTI), although the magnitude of this risk is debatable."

"Five of 7 prospective studies involving heterosexual transmission of HIV-1 found a statistically significant association between lack of circumcision and elevated risk for acquisition of HIV (relative risks 2.3-8.1)."

"In general, circumcised individuals appear to have somewhat lower susceptibility to acquiring chancroid and syphilis, possibly genital herpes, and gonorrhea compared to individuals in whom the foreskin is intact."

Once again, it would appear that you are wrong. The AMA report lists quite a few medical facts that are agreed upon. At least by the American Medical Association, the largest association of physicians in the United States. That's what we call a concensus.

What isn't agreed upon, by anyone worth their salt in the medical community, is the black and white claim that there are no medical benefits to circumcision whatsoever. The wikipedia article you listed didn't claim that, nor did any of the sources it referred to.

Nor does the medical community refer to circumcision as "mutilation." You engage in a fallacious double standard when you attempt to play the medical card, claiming that its bad because there are no medical benefits (which we've already proven to be false), then using hyperboile like "mutilation" when , in the medical world, we call it circumcision. "Mutilation" can be used to refer to other acts, but to use it to refer to male circumcision in this fashion is hyperboile and extremist speech. The type of speech used when you are attempting to make an appeal to emotion rather than an argument supported by facts.

So, if you'd like to address the facts - that there is medical evidence of medical benefefits, tons of it. That this is accepted by the medical community today, even though we no longer recommend routine circumcision due to risks. That you've been relying on hyperboile and extremist speech to make an appeal to emotion. And that no one worth their salt in the medical community claims that there are no benefits of circumcision. If you'd like to address those facts, as presesnted in the AMA report on circumcision and in the very article you listed, let me know.

3. Imagine Christian fundamentalists founded a belligerent white Christian state armed with nuclear weapons in Africa, displacing the local people. Would you be surprised if they ended up despised? Of course not. Why should we have a Jewish state when no one would accept an "Aryan" state?

To begin, its important to remember that Jews as a people are not comprised strictly by religion, but via culture as well. This makes up the Jewish ethnicity. Note, I'm not saying that this makes up the Jewish "race." Ethnicity and race are two different things. There is Judaism, the religion, and then a Jewish ethnicity as well. In contrast, there is no Christian ethnicity. Nor any "Christian people." So it doesn't really work here to compare a Christian fundamentalist theocracy to Israel. Especially if you remember that Israel was founded upon secular Zionism to a much larger degree than religious Zionism.

Second, many countries all over the world have national ethnicities. Israel being officially a Jewish state is not unique to this world. China has a national ethnicity as well, one that is state sponsored, that they refer to as the "Chinese nation." Again, this is a reference to the Chinese ethnic nationality, rather than the Chinese political nationality. Ireland has a national ethnicity as well - Irish. Once again, this doesn't refer to the political citizenship, but the ethnic Irish identity. If you look into the political documents of most countries, you can find references to ethnicity. The political documents of the UK often refer to it as an 'anglo' nation.

Most ethnicities have their own political states where their ethnicity is officially recognized. People do accept them. However, when we hear "Jewish state" it seems to be singled out for criticism. We don't hear complaints about Ireland being an Irish state, China being a Chinese state, or Japan's constitution referring only to the "Japanese people." Only about Israel being a Jewish state.

Here is an excerpt from the Japanese constitution, Article 9:

"Japanese people renounce war" - OMG, Japan is a state for the Japanese people. Who would have thought?

The PRC Constitution (China):

"The Chinese people waged wave upon wave of heroic struggles."

"The Chinese people had yet to fulfil their historical task of overthrowing imperialism and feudalism." - The PRC Constitution talks about the Chinese people exactly as the Jewish people are referred to in Israeli politics.

And lets not forget about Arab states, virtually all of who recognize either an official ethnicity or religion. Like Morocco:

"An Islamic and fully sovereign state whose official language is Arabic, the Kingdom of Morocco constitutes a part of the Great Arab Maghreb."

States that have official ethnicities are the rule rather than the exception. Its only in states that were 'melting pots' like the United States where we find political documents void of reference to specific ethnicity. Most countries are so entwined with their ethnicity that the same name is used to refer to political citizens and members of the ethnicity, like Ireland and Irish, or China and Chinese.

So since Israel isn't the only one out there, and we have real Islamic theocracies, why should we not have a Jewish state? Isn't the Jewish state being singled out over everything else?

I think the Jewish people are chosen by G-d to guide the rest of humanity. Their highly intelligent nature suggests that they have special blessing from G-d.

In fact, two millennia ago they developed Christianity to help the gentiles become more moral. However, Judaism is the only religion that is actually true.

Now the Jewish people want humanity to evolve to the next step, which involves adopting humanism and socialism. Based on the highly successful track record so far, I'm inclined to go along.

Comments?

I think the Jewish people are chosen by G-d to guide the rest of humanity. Their highly intelligent nature suggests that they have special blessing from G-d.

Our "highly intelligent nature"? I'd question the "nature" part; to the extent that it is true at all, it is culture, not nature.

In fact, two millennia ago they developed Christianity to help the gentiles become more moral.

An unsuccessful attempt, considering Christianity's rather bloody record.

However, Judaism is the only religion that is actually true.

What version?

Now the Jewish people want humanity to evolve to the next step, which involves adopting humanism and socialism.

Some of the Jewish people. Who do you listen to as to what the "next step" is? Opinions vary.

Our "highly intelligent nature"? I'd question the "nature" part; to the extent that it is true at all, it is culture, not nature.

An unsuccessful attempt, considering Christianity's rather bloody record.

What version?

Some of the Jewish people. Who do you listen to as to what the "next step" is? Opinions vary.

All I know is that the next step is up to the Jewish people to figure out. I believe that Reform Judaism is the best Judaism because it is the Judaism that reflects the evolving nature of the Jewish people's unique relationship with G-d.

Part of the reason that the Jews have been persecuted so much is that they sometimes have to drag humanity forward, when humanity doesn't want to go forward. But this is the nature of the Jewish sacrifice, we must perservere to serve G-d.

The next step seems to be political progressivism, but it seems to have temporarily stalled. The gentiles have rebelled against it, but it will eventually prevail, with G-d's help.

All I know is that the next step is up to the Jewish people to figure out.

No, it's not. It's for the people of the world as a whole to figure out. The Jewish people have no right to decide for everyone else.

Part of the reason that the Jews have been persecuted so much is that they sometimes have to drag humanity forward, when humanity doesn't want to go forward. But this is the nature of the Jewish sacrifice, we must perservere to serve G-d.

A "light unto the nations" and all that. I don't believe it. We are no better and no worse than any other people, simply with a unique culture that has a number of positive elements to it.

The next step seems to be political progressivism, but it seems to have temporarily stalled. The gentiles have rebelled against it, but it will eventually prevail, with G-d's help.

Paul Wolfowitz is not a "gentile." Daniel Pipes is not a "gentile." Meir Kahane was not a "gentile." Jews have participated in that "rebellion" just as much as anyone else.

*ahem*

There is no god.

Thus, as with all religions, the Jewish faith is blinkered and ignorant. It relies on a crutch-concept designed to keep secular power in the hands of the few, as opposed to the many.

Jewish people, however, in the main, rock. Particularly the radical dudes. Lots of Jewish anarchists and socialists in them thar history books. Shame about the loonies, but then again Cromwell was a loony...

I do not believe they're going to Heaven, however, they are definitley very friendly people. I have a Jewish friend who doesn't even seem to mind that I'm a devout Christian at all. Lovely bunch ^_^

I think the Jewish people are chosen by G-d to guide the rest of humanity. Their highly intelligent nature suggests that they have special blessing from G-d.

In fact, two millennia ago they developed Christianity to help the gentiles become more moral. However, Judaism is the only religion that is actually true.

Now the Jewish people want humanity to evolve to the next step, which involves adopting humanism and socialism. Based on the highly successful track record so far, I'm inclined to go along.

Comments?

Ugh...socialism? I'm Jewish as is my family and neither of us..nor the temple that my dad attends want humanity to evolve into socialist pussies. Generalize much?

*ahem*

There is no god.

Thus, as with all religions, the Jewish faith is blinkered and ignorant. It relies on a crutch-concept designed to keep secular power in the hands of the few, as opposed to the many.

Jewish people, however, in the main, rock. Particularly the radical dudes. Lots of Jewish anarchists and socialists in them thar history books. Shame about the loonies, but then again Cromwell was a loony...

if your taking about Marx, then hes not Jewish. His parents were Christians (Lutherans?) and he never practiced Judaism...never considered himself Jewish, and spoke of Jews in the third person.

No, it's not. It's for the people of the world as a whole to figure out. The Jewish people have no right to decide for everyone else.

A "light unto the nations" and all that. I don't believe it. We are no better and no worse than any other people, simply with a unique culture that has a number of positive elements to it.

Paul Wolfowitz is not a "gentile." Daniel Pipes is not a "gentile." Meir Kahane was not a "gentile." Jews have participated in that "rebellion" just as much as anyone else.

No, the Jewish people uniquely have this insight, otherwise why would we always be getting involved in so many unpopular causes, when we could just blend in with the majority. We passionately defend the American Civil Liberties Union, even though this only raises the ire of the regressive gentile majority. The fact is even "atheist" Jews are forfilling G-d's purpose, by helping move humanity forward.

Well, how many Jewish "conservatives" would support establishing Christianity as the faith of the nation? That's what true true conservatives would want. Even relatively regressive Jews are progressive compared to gentiles.

If you don't believe that the Jews are the real Chosen, then why even bother still saying you are a Jew?

if your taking about Marx, then hes not Jewish. His parents were Christians (Lutherans?) and he never practiced Judaism...never considered himself Jewish, and spoke of Jews in the third person.

You are a Jew whether you pratice Judaism or not, and remain God's Chosen no matter what.

Ugh...socialism? I'm Jewish as is my family and neither of us..nor the temple that my dad attends want humanity to evolve into socialist pussies. Generalize much?

Yes, but do you support the Christian fundies that make up the republican party?

I do not believe they're going to Heaven, however, they are definitley very friendly people. I have a Jewish friend who doesn't even seem to mind that I'm a devout Christian at all. Lovely bunch ^_^

Does your Jewish friend accept Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior?

If so, are you right or is he right. Chances are he is right.

You are a Jew whether you pratice Judaism or not, and remain God's Chosen no matter what.

Wrong. The whole point of being a Jew and being part of God's Chosen is accepting the Bible, the code of laws, and the religion that he gave the Hebrews. Thats why the Hebrews were chosen in the first place.

Do you have too much blind pride to even see that?

Marx, was not a Jew. His parents didint circumsize him..he didnt have a bar mitzvah...and didnt beleive in God and spoke of Jews in the the third person.

Your wrong again.

Does your Jewish friend accept Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior?

Hed be Christian if he did.:rolleyes:

if your taking about Marx, then hes not Jewish. His parents were Christians (Lutherans?) and he never practiced Judaism...never considered himself Jewish, and spoke of Jews in the third person.

No, no I'm not talking about Marx. I'm talking about people such as Emma Goldman. Real radical types.

Ah, my dear Conscience and Truth, you really are a religious nutter, aren't you? Well, carry on, old chap! :)

Yes, but do you support the Christian fundies that make up the republican party?

Well...we voted for them.

And they are hardly fundies. Fundies are the people like Pat Robertson and such. Neo Conservatives are not fundemantalist.

Neo Conservatives are actually the Jews best friend and have the been the biggest ally and supporter to Israel.

Hed be Christian if he did.:rolleyes:

Save his soul. He seems like a nice guy. The original Christians preached in synagogues, although if he tried that today he'd be expelled.

No, no I'm not talking about Marx. I'm talking about people such as Emma Goldman. Real radical types.

Ah, my dear Conscience and Truth, you really are a religious nutter, aren't you? Well, carry on, old chap! :)

Sometimes I get into pretending to be fundy. The truth is that I believe in the Big Bang and Evolution and the modern post-christian world. Don't hate me. :(

Well...we voted for them.

And they are hardly fundies. Fundies are the people like Pat Robertson and such. Neo Conservatives are not fundemantalist.

Neo Conservatives are actually the Jews best friend and have the been the biggest ally and supporter to Israel.

You don't like Pat Robinson? Has he advocated anything particularly christian as it pertains to government?

Save his soul. He seems like a nice guy. The original Christians preached in synagogues, although if he tried that today he'd be expelled.

Thats cuz those werent Christians. There was no Christianity yet.

Jesus and his apostles were JEWISH...they just beleived in a different branch of Judaism that later branched off.

Jon Stewart is a Jew, so they can't be that bad.

You don't like Pat Robinson? Has he advocated anything particularly christian as it pertains to government?

Uh..yes.

I'm not nearly religious enough to like Pat, but I would say I like him loads more than the extreme left.

Hey, [QUOTE=Conscience and Truth]


Did you even read this? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11223028&postcount=209)

There is reason to believe that Jesus didn't even want to form a different religion off of Judaism, and I know you all believe his body went up to heaven, blah blah blah, but he might have just been some random wannabe-rabbi trying to preach his beliefs.

I mean, who WOULDN'T have liked to start their own religion that one day influenced half the world? But still, it probably wasn't his intention.

There is reason to believe that Jesus didn't even want to form a different religion off of Judaism, and I know you all believe his body went up to heaven, blah blah blah, but he might have just been some random wannabe-rabbi trying to preach his beliefs.

I mean, who WOULDN'T have liked to start their own religion that one day influenced half the world? But still, it probably wasn't his intention.

No. It wasnt his intention. Though I wouldnt call him a wannabe rabbi:rolleyes: He was a religious Jew who went throughout the land teaching the religion. There was nothing wannabe about him.

Thats cuz those werent Christians. There was no Christianity yet.

Jesus and his apostles were JEWISH...they just beleived in a different branch of Judaism that later branched off.

No, they had already considered themselves Christians when they were still preaching in the synagogues. Being Christian just means you accept the Annointed, Jesus Christ, Son of God, as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. I don't necessarily see a problem with being Jewish and Christian simultaneously.

Sometimes I get into pretending to be fundy. The truth is that I believe in the Big Bang and Evolution and the modern post-christian world. Don't hate me.

Ooh, no, I don't hate you, C&T - I've no reason to. Here, have a fluffle: :fluffle: No hard feelings, old fellow!

Neo Conservatives are actually the Jews best friend and have the been the biggest ally and supporter to Israel.

NEWSFLASH: A lot of them do that so you'll convert to Christianity and bring about the End Times. They don't really like you - but they prefer you to "goddam ragheads".

Wrong. The whole point of being a Jew and being part of God's Chosen is accepting the Bible, the code of laws, and the religion that he gave the Hebrews. Thats why the Hebrews were chosen in the first place.

This point of view, from a religious perspective, makes no sense at all.

The whole idea is that Jews are supposed to embody Judaism, and if they leave the path, they can be judged negatively because they are Jews, and are supposed to be a "light among nations." Gentiles don't have an obligation to follow the commandments; all Jews, atheists or whatever, do.

That's why the halacha is the way it is, and imposing non-Jewish notions of religion on Judaism is blatantly contrary to its tenets.

No, the Jewish people uniquely have this insight, otherwise why would we always be getting involved in so many unpopular causes, when we could just blend in with the majority. We passionately defend the American Civil Liberties Union, even though this only raises the ire of the regressive gentile majority.

Since when? The ADL has disagreed numerous times with the ACLU.

The fact is even "atheist" Jews are forfilling G-d's purpose, by helping move humanity forward.

Okay. Why be religious then?

Well, how many Jewish "conservatives" would support establishing Christianity as the faith of the nation? That's what true true conservatives would want. Even relatively regressive Jews are progressive compared to gentiles.

But quite a few would support establishing Jewish fanaticism as the faith of Israel.

If you don't believe that the Jews are the real Chosen, then why even bother still saying you are a Jew?

Because my mother is, and the halacha is clear on this point.

No, they had already considered themselves Christians when they were still preaching in the synagogues. Being Christian just means you accept the Annointed, Jesus Christ, Son of God, as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. I don't necessarily see a problem with being Jewish and Christian simultaneously.


Becuase they are two seperate religions!

They were Jewish...just a branch of Judaism. Christianity hadnt become a real religion yet.

Oh, I don't see anything at all wrong with wanting Jewish children or grandchildren. I've just seen or heard of many cases (my own experience included, as you might have guessed) where that has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and it's purely a racial thing. As, for example, when Teh Evil Shikseh has repeatedly stated that she would convert to Judaism and raise any potential kiddies Jewish if she and the Nice Jewish Boy got married, but she somehow still remains Teh Evil Shikseh. ;)
I'm Jewish. I would only enter in an interfaith marriage if I was given assurances that the kids would be raised Jewish. That's a sticking point with me. Other than that, nothing against Shisehs. Many Jewish guys actually have a shikseh fetish.

No. It wasnt his intention. Though I wouldnt call him a wannabe rabbi:rolleyes: He was a religious Jew who went throughout the land teaching the religion. There was nothing wannabe about him.

I think the main issue is that the High Priests felt that because Jesus hung around with the common folk, the poor, and sinners, and not the high and mighty, they looked down on him.

Ooh, no, I don't hate you, C&T - I've no reason to. Here, have a fluffle: :fluffle: No hard feelings, old fellow!



NEWSFLASH: A lot of them do that so you'll convert to Christianity and bring about the End Times. They don't really like you - but they prefer you to "goddam ragheads".

Do you honestly think thats true? Almost all of my friends are Christian, protestant and Catholic and some are pretty religious. None of them have problems with Jews, and neither does our government.

Anyway, who cares if they want us to convert...if they are our friends, for whatever reason, the whatever. I'm just making the point that they ARE our friends, not why.

I'm Jewish. I would only enter in an interfaith marriage if I was given assurances that the kids would be raised Jewish. That's a sticking point with me. Other than that, nothing against Shisehs. Many Jewish guys actually have a shikseh fetish.

Why?

Yesterday, was forced to go to a bat mitzvah for a sister's friend. I'm pretty sure the cantor was high on the opiate of the masses :D

Ok seriously - they're fine by me.
I've seen way to many bad cantors. It really destroys a service. Especially the cantor at my cousin's temple. He sounds like Dana Carvey's Carsenio character on SNL.

Why?
what the fetish? I don't know.

As for wanting my kids to be raised Jewish, it is because too many Jewish kids are not being raised Jewish. It is sad to see that. I will sure as hell not contribute to it. It is up to my generation to make sure Judaism continues. There are only 14 million of us.

This point of view, from a religious perspective, makes no sense at all.

The whole idea is that Jews are supposed to embody Judaism, and if they leave the path, they can be judged negatively because they are Jews, and are supposed to be a "light among nations." Gentiles don't have an obligation to follow the commandments; all Jews, atheists or whatever, do.

That's why the halacha is the way it is, and imposing non-Jewish notions of religion on Judaism is blatantly contrary to its tenets.

I think you are just jewish because its convienet. If you disbeleive in God..then there is no point in even BEING Jewish...because the whole point of being Chosen...having an actual role given from God and all...is apparntly false to me. An atheist Jew is no Jew to me. Not saying your a bad person, just not Jewish.

Anyway, the point I was making originally, is the only reason the Hebrews were chosen in the first place, is because they accepted the bible, God, and his rules. Not practicising Judaism sorta cancells this deal because you are rejecting the very reason your chosen.

Do you honestly think thats true? Almost all of my friends are Christian, protestant and Catholic and some are pretty religious. None of them have problems with Jews, and neither does our government.

Anyway, who cares if they want us to convert...if they are our friends, for whatever reason, the whatever. I'm just making the point that they ARE our friends, not why.

Hey, I never said they all do. Just that a significant amount do. And you're right, to a point - it really doesn't matter, as they will back Israel to the hilt, regardless.

But 'Isreal' is not synonymous with 'Jewish' - plenty of Jews live outside Israel, and there are Christians and Muslims (and, I dare say, a fair few atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Druze, and Spaghetti Monsterists) in Israel...

Do you honestly think thats true? Almost all of my friends are Christian, protestant and Catholic and some are pretty religious. None of them have problems with Jews, and neither does our government.

Anyway, who cares if they want us to convert...if they are our friends, for whatever reason, the whatever. I'm just making the point that they ARE our friends, not why.

The fundies want everyone to convert, not just Jews. Not all fundies want you to convert for the end times, some just want to save your soul.

Why don't you convert for your friend, and put your faith in Jesus Christ as the Mashiach. If you think about it, and think about G-d's Justice, doesn't it actually make perfect sense that he would come as one of life's downtrodden?

It's not racist. If Jewish people continued to inter-marry and not raise their children Jewish, there won't be any Jews left. If you didn't know, there aren't that many Jews out there. Anywhere from 1-2% of the worlds population.

Jews don't inter-marry not because they look at non-Jews as lesser peopple but that with inter-marriage comes the eventual non-existence of the Jewish people.
Your numbers are way off. We are more like 0.2% of the world's population.

The fundies want everyone to convert, not just Jews. Not all fundies want you to convert for the end times, some just want to save your soul.

Why don't you convert for your friend, and put your faith in Jesus Christ as the Mashiach. If you think about it, and think about G-d's Justice, doesn't it actually make perfect sense that he would come as one of life's downtrodden?

Because he already BELIEVES with capital letters. I reckon we'd need a good old-fashioned heretic burning before he recanted, saw the light, and joined the Christians. :p

Uh..yes.

I'm not nearly religious enough to like Pat, but I would say I like him loads more than the extreme left.

Rev. Robertson is such a nice guy, he isn't anti-Semitic at all. He is just strongly for moral values, don't orthodox Jews share those values?

I think the main issue is that the High Priests felt that because Jesus hung around with the common folk, the poor, and sinners, and not the high and mighty, they looked down on him.

The High Priests were assholes. The same corrupt leaders that the Church had through European history.

Because he already BELIEVES with capital letters. I reckon we'd need a good old-fashioned heretic burning before he recanted, saw the light, and joined the Christians. :p

So then you should convert. One of you has to be wrong about things.

what the fetish? I don't know.

As for wanting my kids to be raised Jewish, it is because too many Jewish kids are not being raised Jewish. It is sad to see that. I will sure as hell not contribute to it. It is up to my generation to make sure Judaism continues. There are only 14 million of us.

How old are you? Are you married yet?

I've never heard of anyone except the Jewish doing it, but I'm no expert on the subject so I guess I really don't know. It still sounds a bit bizarre to me. But each to his own, I suppose.
A majority of AMericans get it done now. Besides, women prefer men to be circumsized

Hey, I never said they all do. Just that a significant amount do. And you're right, to a point - it really doesn't matter, as they will back Israel to the hilt, regardless.

But 'Isreal' is not synonymous with 'Jewish' - plenty of Jews live outside Israel, and there are Christians and Muslims (and, I dare say, a fair few atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Druze, and Spaghetti Monsterists) in Israel...

Agreed on the first part.

Whatever. The minorities in Israel dont give Israel its face. Its Jewish. As for the ones that live outside Israel...we have no connection to Israel at all. I'm Jewish, but I'm American...and my family came from Europe. I am not Israeli. I've visted there and while I support it 110% I wouldnt live there.

I think you are just jewish because its convienet.

Convenient? No. I am Jewish because my mother is Jewish. I have no choice in the matter. Now, I might identify as Jewish for other reasons - and I do - but I am Jewish whether or not I identify as Jewish.

If you disbeleive in God..then there is no point in even BEING Jewish...because the whole point of being Chosen...having an actual role given from God and all...is apparntly false to me. An atheist Jew is no Jew to me. Not saying your a bad person, just not Jewish.

The point of being Chosen is expressed just as much in sin as it is in obedience; that's why the Bible is full of examples of God punishing the Jews for worshipping other gods. Why? Because according to Judaism all Jews, faithful or not, have a duty to be faithful, and you don't lose that duty just because you aren't.

Anyway, the point I was making originally, is the only reason the Hebrews were chosen in the first place, is because they accepted the bible, God, and his rules. Not practicising Judaism sorta cancells this deal because you are rejecting the very reason your chosen.

You don't have a choice in being chosen. It isn't a status you can abandon.

How old are you? Are you married yet?
I'm 18 and not married yet. When I do, it will be to a Jew or a non-Jewish women who is fine with raising Jewish children

Becuase they are two seperate religions!

They were Jewish...just a branch of Judaism. Christianity hadnt become a real religion yet.

When the holy Apostle Peter and his cohorts were preaching Jesus Christ as the Mashiach to the Jews, they had already begun referring to their sect as Christians. The Jews decided they didnt want to have anything to do with these "Nazarenes," but Jesus Christ never said anything with regards to abolishing Judaism. In fact, his main purpose was to save Jews, not gentiles, although he was open to the whole world.

So then you should convert. One of you has to be wrong about things.

Hey, why doesn't everyone just get membership in every religion going, and then some? Then we'd be almost sure we'd've got it right... :rolleyes:

Besides, women prefer men to be circumsized

Prove it. I'm not bloody well hacking off my foreskin for anyone, thangyewverramuch.

I'm 18 and not married yet. When I do, it will be to a Jew or a non-Jewish women who is fine with raising Jewish children

You are a nice Jewish boy then. LOL. Don't the children technically have to convert if they are born to a non-Jewish woman?

The fundies want everyone to convert, not just Jews. Not all fundies want you to convert for the end times, some just want to save your soul.

Why don't you convert for your friend, and put your faith in Jesus Christ as the Mashiach. If you think about it, and think about G-d's Justice, doesn't it actually make perfect sense that he would come as one of life's downtrodden?

I wont convert because I beleive in Judaism. I already said that, your a strange one.

Rev. Robertson is such a nice guy, he isn't anti-Semitic at all. He is just strongly for moral values, don't orthodox Jews share those values?

Who said anything about anti-semitic. I just said he was too religious for me. Yes, he shares the same views as Orthodox Jews but I am not an Orthodox Jew.

I wont convert because I beleive in Judaism. I already said that, your a strange one.

You think I'm strange. :(

Are you a Reform Jew then? Do you get into any trouble being a republican?

You are a nice Jewish boy then. LOL. Don't the children technically have to convert if they are born to a non-Jewish woman?

No. We live in an age which values the individual. This is the fucking modern age, not middle age Europe. You have a choice in your religion. If the Children are raised Jewish and beleive in Judaism, then they are as Jewish as or I. The whole concept of passing down a religion through genetics is just retarded.