Hello again--
"Two issues here. First, you placed your religion above others right about here, "I said that I find the practices found in some religions to be "contemptible. . . " You then go on to say that judaism doesn't practice these things."
I thought I made that clear in my last post. I don't regard those practices to be representative of those religions. IMO, most "faith healers" and other religious con men have no more commitment to their professed faiths than a pornographer has to women's liberation.
"Second, don't aplologize. I expect that anyone who chooses one system over another does so because they believe that system is better. No one would choose judaism if they thought christianity was better. You did choose your religion didn't you? You weren't just born into it? What were you before you decided judaism was best?"
I was a Methodist; in fact, 30+ years ago, I was a Methodist minister. I abandoned that faith specifically on skeptical grounds; I could not buy into the God-become-man thing, and had a very hard time with various Christian teachings, e.g., that what one BELIEVES is more important than what one DOES, that those who do not believe in Jesus are condemned to Hell, and much more. I think now that I entered seminary and the ministry in an effort to quell those doubts, but they only got worse. I left the ministry, and for many years I maintained a kind of eclectic faith that was quasi-Christian but rejected most Christian dogmas. Like most Christians, I really knew very little about modern Judaism; but when I began to read about Judaism in my late 40s, I realized that these were the beliefs that I had always held. The parts of Christianity that were precious to me all turned out to be Jewish, and the things that were different I embraced like long-lost friends. The freedom, even the expectation, of arguing with authority and even with God Himself; the disinterest in emotional display and manipulation; the conviction that the life and dignity of the individual human were more precious than any dogma or teaching; and so much more. I loved it, and I still do.
The funny part is that almost all converts fall in love with the culture, the ritual and music and holidays and all that--the emotional connections--first, and only accept the teachings to get that. I have no feeling for any of that at all. My attraction was entirely intellectual and theological, and still is. I HATE going to services; it's mostly in Hebrew and they're four hours long on a good day.
It's also pretty cool that I'm not expected to try to get others to join up. I'm not doing that now; you did ask, and you'd strike me as pretty unlikely to ask me to introduce you to a rabbi anyway.
"How can you discuss abortion without discussing the people who perform them? Well, it is quite simple, you discuss what the tenets of the religion are and not the individuals who practice it just as you discuss the issues of abortion without discussing the personality of the doctors performing them. Sometimes there can be an overlap where the discussion includes the people involved but a meaningful discussion doesn't require it."
Point taken. You're right.
"Really? Funny but when there is an issue judaism feels it has a say in, I hear jewish leaders speaking out about the position of the jewish faith. I never see them take a poll to decide where each individual jew sits on the position."
Some examples would help, but I suspect that those issues are things that most Jews would agree on and that everybody involved knows that. I can't imagine anyone daring to speak for the Jewish community on a matter that's still in dispute.
"Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong-il, Hirohito, etc., etc."
Like I said; anecdotes are not evidence. I can't imagine how either Stalin or Kim were involved with religion, anyway (Hitler's religious attitudes are problematic and are currently being argued to death on another thread. Hirohito I'll accept--he used Shinto to ensure people's devotion--but I don't think he was either the real dictator or the force behind Japanese imperialism. Not worth arguing about here, either way).
"Yes, my mistake. I meant to say "the belief in god," not "belief in the bible."
No harm, no foul. I thought it an odd lapse.
"We and our children have the advantage over ancient biblical scholars. Let's face it, even young children realize that it is as bad to kill an atheist as it is to kill a christian or a jew."
Again, I have to disagree there. Jews were never in the business of murdering those who didn't believe as we do (well, not since Joshua's day, anyway). For most of our history, that wouldn't have been a very good idea, since we were surrounded by and dependent on them. I can't recall anything in the Bible that says atheists ought to be killed, but I could be wrong.
"You are mistaking reasoning power with morality. An ancient biblical scholar obviously had better reasoning ability than today's child but was hamstrung by their religious indoctrination."
Since those scholars were concerned mainly with discussions of morality and justice, I can't see how they were "hamstrung". They also discussed religious matters, but since those were of no interest to anyone but coreligionists, what's the problem?
"Well, you aren't getting that from ancient religious texts."
That's pretty hard to credit, since those texts are cited as the justification for every moral pronouncement the sages ever made, and still are. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of what you say; if you can't find some indication of the rightness of your position ANYWHERE in the Torah, you're going to have a hard time getting it accepted. That was true 3,000 years ago and still is.
"In the case of moral guidance your religion is no better than any other..."
Never claimed that it was. Virtually every modern faith recognizes some variant of the Golden Rule, and that's been the heart of the Jewish ethic from the beginning.
"...and far less effective than one based on modern reasoning and an all inclusive world view."
I can't help wondering how that would be different.
"Religions are not all inclusive. In fact, they are exclusive."
On that point, you are indubitably correct. The idea of being a "separate people" is integral with early Judaism, and remains to some degree even today. There are reasons for it, but they don't negate your point.
That argument does not, however, apply to the ethic. Jews are admonished over and over, throughout the Torah, to have "the same law for yourselves and for the stranger (i.e., the non-Jew) in your midst." The analogous concept in Islam is "infidel", and the admonitions are not quite the same.
"Yes, the bible is a snapshot of early civilization and as such it is an important historical document. Not a very accurate one but it illustrates well the things people of that time and culture found important."
The fact that the moral principles found there are still valid and dominant today, not to mention the literary value of the books--which has influenced artists, writers and poets throughout history--argues that there is a bit more to be found there than mere history. It's a bit ironic, really--history is one area (as well as science) where Jews say that the books are NOT to be trusted, at least in the early sections.
"I don't hate religions. I strongly dislike the fact that believers try to gloss over the damage done by religions and go to such extremes to claim their version of the myth is beyond reproach. I don't think it is hateful of me to point out the faults with religions in general or your religion in particular."
I have no problem with anyone pointing out the faults of my religion (and certainly not those of any others); Judaism is certainly not perfect, and there are no people more obsessive--and argumentative--about pointing out its faults than Jews themselves. My difficulty is your lumping in Judaism with all other beliefs, and then holding it equally responsible for the kind of horrors that it has never participated in, and in fact has most often suffered from.
Wherever you find a religion that dominates a society and uses that dominance to repress and oppress others, guess who is first on the list for sanctions, segregation and forced conversion? Whenever a dominant religion looks around for an "other" who can be blamed and persecuted, who do they focus on first? When there are religious wars, who invariably gets it from both sides? If you want examples, I can give them to you geographically or by century.
Oppression? Please. Our religion was born with our being freed from slavery, and whether that was historical or not is irrelevant. It remains the centerpiece of our identity, and we celebrate and remember it every year at Passover. Whenever and wherever there is a struggle for freedom, we have been there; whether it was for the abolition of slavery, the Civil Rights movement, the plight of Soviet dissidents, or gay liberation, you will find Jews on the front lines in far greater numbers than our percentage of the population would make likely.
If you want to condemn Christianity through most of its history--from the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, through the Russian Orthodox in the 18th and 19th centuries, to Southern Baptists in the 60s--or medieval (and modern) Islam, or the ancient Pagans, for that matter, for their brutality, repression, intolerance, and murderousness, for their cooperation with and support of tyrants, despots, demagogues, kings, czars and dictators of all kinds, you'll get no disagreement from us, because we have usually, throughout Western history, been their first and most frequent victims.
It's pretty hard, though, to watch as we are derided and condemned along with them.
When you talk about "the damage done by religion," try for a moment to remember how much of that damage was done to us. We really haven't had much time to oppress or persecute others--we've been pretty busy being oppressed and persecuted ourselves.
The most remarkable thing of all, in my mind, is that even after all the above, Judaism still refuses to condemn other faiths. We maintain that those who have persecuted us were never typical of those religions, but betrayers of them. A dear friend of mine, one of the only Jews I knew in my youth, once said, "We don't want Christians to become Jews; we just wish they'd be good Christians."
(not directed at you, but at others; spare me any nonsense about Palestinians. Their persecution, if that's what it is, is being carried out by the Israeli government, not by the Rabbinate--and Jews are in the front lines of their struggle too, in organizations like Gush Shalom and Peace Now. Jews defend and demand justice for even their enemies.)
Thanks. I needed a good rant.
Thanks, qayak. Whatever else may be true, I'm enjoying the conversation.
