BS: Theology question

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 04:55 PM

Dang right, Bill. She rules! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 07:56 PM

I think my point about "theology" being an oxymoron has done proved itself, gennulmen.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 08:07 PM

If only those Canaanites had a coherent immigration policy and a fence! Oh, wait! Wasn't that the ideas of the wall around Jericho?

Many, virtually all the Arabs before the time Of Mohammad had household god and goddesses, tribal gods and the like in addition to a proper healthy respect for the major gods of the region. Allah was a tribal god. It was Mohammad who declared Allah to be the one god and identified him as one and the same with the god of the Jewish Torah. Their claim is that of being the firstborn of Abraham and this claim is NOT disputed in the Bible. The mother, however, was NOT Abraham's wife but his wife's servant. Check out Genesis for the details and you might check out the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament to see Paul's (?) take on the story.

Back to history. Mohammad realized that the Jews and the Christians both had a unifying factor that the Arab people did not in having one god and no other. You have to give him credit for being a real organizer and a great leader for unifying his people under Allah and settling the endless picayune disputes that kept them at a tribal state. United they were able to throw off the yoke of oppression at the hands of both the Jews and especially the Christians of that time. They emerged as a world power of their day. If the people had any doubts of Allah before then, they were gone with the ousting of the foreign powers.

You don't have to read very far in the Koran to realize that it is a mishmash of the Jewish Bible, the pseudoepigrapha and New Testament as well as the history of their struggles. More on this I won't say because I have neither the time nor the energy to wade through the morass of three major world religions and their theology in this forum. Have at it kids!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 08:38 PM

Yes, the Koran is "a mishmash of the Jewish Bible, the pseudoepigrapha and New Testament", while the Christian holy books are a mishmash of the earlier Jewish holy books and a host of earlier Pagan beliefs, while the Jewish holy books are a mishmash of earlier Egyptian, Babylonian, and other pre-Jewish beliefs and texts!

They all built a new religion out of pieces of the older religions that had preceded them, and then claimed exclusivity.

I don't have a problem with them borrowing from the past, I just have a problem with them claiming exclusivity when they do it.

I have a feeling that if Jesus had anything to say about it now, he would say he doesn't belong to any one of those three religions...although he would probably find some good points in all of them, points which he could agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: john f weldon
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 08:49 PM

I've always felt a bit sorry for the Midianites (Numbers 31). They don't get to bemoan their fate, since there aren't any left.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Kent Davis
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 10:38 PM

Little Hawk,

Neither the prophets nor the Torah claims that the Israelites were, in general, "the good guys", nor do they claim that their being chosen was a reward for their virtue.   

Their being chosen, though potentially a blessing to them, and ultimately a blessing to the whole world, often looked more like a curse. For example, consider Amos 3:1,2, "Hear this word the LORD has spoken against you, O people of Israel—against the whole family I brought up out of Egypt: 'You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; THEREFORE I will punish you for all your sins.'"

The Koran and the Torah agree that there is one God and that He reveals Himself, in part, through the history of the children of Abraham. Both the Koran and the Prophets condemn the sins of the Israelites and also condemn the sins of the other descendants of Abraham.   

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 10:47 PM

It fascinates me to watch folks on this thread use the words "is" and "was" in the same tone as we would use them to describe, say, the development of steam engines or streets around London, or the rise and fall of the Roman Empire--as though they were detailing straight facts firmly placed in time. I think the actual definitions being used are not the same as we use them modernly. They are indicating an inventory of hypothetical or legendary case histories, and the use f these verbs are about as appropriate as to say Paul Muad'dib was raised on Dune, or that the Dora was equipped with artificial intelligence by Lazarus Long.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 11:28 PM

What hubris it takes for the christian religions to insist that there is just one god, that the gods Others worship are all manifestations of the god of their christian religion. This is a case of appropriation and colonization on a global scale.

This attitude is an obscenity.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:07 AM

Hey, it takes hubris for any religion to insist that it's the best one and that all the others are either wrong or inferior in some way, but they almost all either do that...or they strongly imply it.

One exception is the Bahais, who are inclusive of all the major religions in their thinking, although I'd have to say that they concentrate most on Baha-Ullah...given that they think he was the most recent in a long series of Christ figures (which includes Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Abraham, etc...) They believe that there is progressive revelation and that every great religion has been founded by a genuine incarnation of "the Christ", sent to speak to people in terms they can understand in his (or her) time period.

Kent - What I meant about the Jews thinking they are the "good guys" is that they think their religion is the "right" one and the other religions aren't. I didn't mean they think they are morally superior to other people in some way, they just think their religion is superior to the others, that's all. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

I cannot accept the notion of one religion being inherently superior to another, because I think they are all well-suited to certain people, and those people are different from other people. Thus they are suited to a different religion. That's okay. If there is a God, I suspect he/she would be totally non-denominational. I would be utterly astounded by the existence of a God who favored any one religion over another...that would mean that God was as narrow-minded as most people are! ;-) A hopeless situation, if ever I've heard of one.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:42 AM

I don't think the Hebrews/Jews ever claimed an exclusivity. Moses knew virtually nothing of God until he hooked up with Jethro and the Midianites, descendants of Ishmael. It was there that he encountered his God and learned more of Him and received his commission. Apart from the development of monotheistic ideation as demonstrated by form and textual criticism, is a clear picture of the development of the knowledge of God: from Elohim to El Shaddai to YHWH. It is an ongoing refinement. Christianity, which technically is a cult of Judaism, offers a statement of the final revelation and fulfillment of prophecy. You can check out the other threads on "Faith" because it all comes down to a question of faith. Nobody, in this country at any rate, is holding a knife to your throat and demanding your heartfelt declaration. Ain't freedom OF religion, as well as freedom FROM religion, wonderful? I believe the original question was about THEOLOGY.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 08:55 AM

If I could get free from religion, it would sure be wonderful!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 11:53 AM

You are already free from religion, Mrrzy. (At least in the terms you define the word "religion. You're not religious. You are therefore free of it.)

If by "free", however, you mean that the world should be changed in such a way that no one ELSE is ever again religious and that you would never again be confronted by or hear about religion....

Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:02 PM

To amplify a bit on Kent's post, most of the prophets in the Hebrew bible are not addressing gentiles, but the Israelites. They chastise kings (Nathan/David) and the polity as a whole (Jeremiah, Isaiah), urging them to repent of their sins, speaking of God's punishment if they don't, and his protection and blessing if they do follow God's commandments.

An exception is Jonah (my Hebrew namesake) who is sent to Ninevah to get the inhabitants to turn from evil ways to good actions pleasing to God. However, Jonah is not attempting to convert Ninevites to Judaism, i.e. worshiping God or following the commandments and ritual imposed on Jews.

The concept of Choseness, doe not mean Jews are 'better' than other people, but that they are chosen to be a moral exemplar to the world. Alas, being human, they often are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:07 PM

Kind of like me saying, "I wish I could be free from advertising." (and I do wish it!)

Well, I almost am free from advertising, and I'll tell you why. I don't watch television. I don't listen to commercial radio. I thereby escape virtually all the more intrusive (meaning noisy) forms of advertising through my own power of decision. Simple. I am still, of course, exposed to advertising in print media, but that's easy to ignore and it doesn't interrupt anything else that I'm reading and make me wait until it ends. Ha! I barely even glance at it, so it costs me virtually no time or attention. Then there are billboards. Same deal. I ignore them. Then there is spam email. It only takes a few seconds to delete it all.

Nope, the only intrusive advertising that really forces itself upon me is: Advertising in movie theatres and on movie CDs before the movie itself begins. Advertising on radios and TVs that various restaurants and businesses insist on inflicting upon their helpless clients.

I wish I could be free of those 2 forms of advertising. Boy, do I ever!

But other than that, I am free of advertising.

Similarly, you are free of religion, simply by virtue of the fact that you don't partake of it. You would be even much freer of it if you would stop negatively focusing on it. (as I would be from advertising if I stopped focusing on how much I dislike advertising)

To the extent that you choose to negatively focus on it, you remain negatively emotionally affected by it...and that negativity then moves out in waves to affect other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:07 PM

"If by "free", however, you mean... that you would never again be confronted by or hear about religion...."



                           Ah, what bliss that would be, ay?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:10 PM

I do not find the idea of a God who punishes people as either believable or palatable, John, and I would not give my allegiance to such a God. Such a God would just be a bigger person, with the same evil tendencies and nasty shortcomings as ordinary people have. That's not acceptable.

And there, in a nutshell, is one of my primary objections to the 3 modern religions which came out of the Middle East. I disagree with them totally on that particular matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: MMario
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:16 PM

LH- I'm just curious; are there examples of religious systems in which the diety(s) do not punish; at all? (including in afterlife?)

I mean religious systems in which there *is* a diety.

And if so - how common are such systems? All the ones I can think of punishment is there.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:17 PM

Riginslinger - I feel that way about commercial advertising, American elections....(no, make that ALL elections!)....and the Democratic and Republican parties. ;-)

Religion? (shrug) It barely touches my life, so I don't worry about it much at all. I find it interesting, mind you, but I don't worry about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:31 PM

Mario - Well, it depends on which particular school of thought you mean IN which religion. There are numerous schools of thought within most mainstream religions, and some tend to focus much more on punishment while others focus much more on love or forgiveness.

This is true within the Christian community, it depends which Christians you're dealing with, and it's probably true in the other major religious communities too.

Some people focus on negatives, others on positives. I prefer religious views (and people) which focus on positives, and there are such views (and people).

But moving on from there, the Asian religions tend to focus much less on punishment and more just on the idea that certain actions yield certain results (karma). So you're not being punished by a deity for doing bad things...but you will experience the karmic return of your actions like the swing of a teeter totter...simple cause and effect....while the way to alter "bad" karma is to creatively use your own FREE WILL to take positive actions and change it to good karma.

Example: You hate someone. It generates emotional negativity in you. That hurts your health and damages your state of mind. It also causes others to feel uncomfortable around you, and they may respond by avoiding you or being hostile back to you.

That isn't God's punishment on you, it's just the inevitable results of what happens when you hate people!

Another example: You steal things from people. That causes you to have to hide those things and hide what you're doing, which makes you paranoid. It will probably eventually result in you getting caught and charged with crimes. You will be in a whole lot of trouble from that point on. It will mess up your life.

That isn't God's punishment on you, it's just the inevitable result of your own foolish behaviour.

That's karma in action. Asian religions usually see things in terms of karma, not God's punishment of people.

Karma is easy to understand. It's just cause and effect. Action and reaction. You punch the brick wall, you hurt your hand. You overindulge, you get ill. You act hateful, you experience hatred. Etc.

You are therefore yourself the agent of whatever "punishment" comes upon you, not God. It's all up to you!!! I like that concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:52 PM

LH - Yes, I can certainly agree with you about elections. I don't suppose there's any way to get the hoopla out of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:42 PM

In all Arabic translations of the Bible, and in the liturgy of Arabic Chrustians, "Allah" is the word used where the English would say "God" and the French would say "Dieu" and the Russian would say "Bog" etc etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Kent Davis
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 03:53 PM

Sorry for the thread drift, but I thought a public question deserved a public answer.

Little Hawk,

You are not wrong in saying that observant Jews "think their religion is the 'right' one and the other religions aren't."

In every controversial area of life, people tend to hold the positions they think are right. They certainly wouldn't hold positions they think are wrong, would they?

You also hold the position you think is right. You think that God - if He exists - doesn't care how people worship him.

You may be right. You may be wrong. But in holding your position, you also necessarily hold that everyone who thinks God DOES care is wrong. Thus you, like those observant Jews, also think that you are right and "the other religions aren't".

Hope this helps,

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 04:46 PM

Right, Kent - and atheists just go one god farther!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 05:20 PM

I am sure there are, MM. But at the same time those religions do not anthropomorphize their version of the infinite.

Both Buddhism and Taoism, for example, point the individual toward the Infinite without embodying it with a name or a bodily form. Nor do they ascribe to it any interest in punishment.

When you think about it, bludgeoning bodies for poor behaviour is pretty low-grade conduct for an unbounded spiritual awareness.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 05:58 PM

McGrath of Harlow, any good Muslim will tell you that there is no "good" translation of the Koran. It must be read in the original language.

LH, quite aside from the topic are you OK? You sound as though you may be a little depressed and cutting yourself of from too much. That's honest concern my friend. I've been there.

Be that as it may, I still hate 98% of TV commercials and the silly season (pre-election). Bah.

As long as there is good and evil in this world you will always have the question of punishment before you. You may be able to tuck yourself away somewhere and not have to deal with the concept in any tangible way, but that is delusional. If for no other reason your own foibles will haunt you. And if you have achieved some way to mitigate your own shortcomings, well, that means that you HAVE found a way of dealing with the problem. And if you share your way of dealing with the problem of good vs evil, I submit that you have just formed a new religion. Religion, religious thought is a defining characteristic of humankind.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 06:57 PM

Kent and Little Hawk, you err in thinking that observant Jews think "their religion is the 'right' one and and the other religions aren't." There may be some individuals or groups who feel that way, but I don't believe this is a tenet of 'normative Judaism.'

If by 'observant' you mean 'Orthodox', it still doesn't apply. Orthodox Jews believe that their observance is 'right' vis a vis Reform or Conservative Judaism, but not as concerns the validity of outside religions. It is not necessary for the whole world to be(come) Jewish in order for the Messiah to come, only that the people of the world be good.

BTW, I belong to a Reform congregation and consider myself an 'observant Jew' within that construct.

JotSC (Jonah ben Avraham)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 07:05 PM

McGrath of Harlow, any good Muslim will tell you that there is no "good" translation of the Koran. It must be read in the original language.

So?

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 07:46 PM

John, I'm sure that in Judaism, as in Christianity or Islam, there are a great many different viewpoints. I would expect that. I would expect some Jews to be more flexible and less judgemental than others. That's what I like about people...they are infinite in their variety and uniqueness...and they bring that to their approaches on religion as well.

The only thing that really scares me is when I see a group of people who are all rigorously the same in their viewpoints.

And that's one of the things that has tended to make me avoid participating in:

1. organized religions
2. political parties
3. and other similar organizations which cling to a specific dogma

Slag - Well, hey, I'll PM you about that stuff, okay? You ask some good questions.

Kent: "You also hold the position you think is right. You think that God - if He exists - doesn't care how people worship him."

Yes. But I only think that's right for ME to think that way about it, because it works for me. I don't necessarily think it's right for other people to think that way or that other people should necessarily believe the same as I do. If they find happiness and good purpose in their lives by believing something different, I don't mind. I think there are many "right" ways of being, not just one right way...because people are all different, so different people need to find different ways of being and believing that properly suit them and bring the best out of them.

For Mother Teresa it was her Roman Catholicism. Fine with me, although I am myself in no way attracted to Roman Catholicism.

I have no reason to judge my form of belief superior to hers. She did a lot more for other people in her life than I have managed to.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 01:03 AM

The Israelites, the Hebrews, the Jews are a peculiar race. Being Jewish isn't so much about "my faith is the true one" as it is the burden of being Jewish. They don't question God. Rather, they say "This is how God has dealt with us!" You will notice as you read the Torah, the Jews spent a great deal of time figuring ways around the strictures and edicts of God. The message was always the same: "You are my people and this is how it's going to be".

I know a lot of you shy away from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures because of preconceived ideas you have about religion and such but if you ever sit down and read the book for what it's worth, it is really something else! It is funny, sad, tragic, wise, exciting, historic, mysterious and on! A real page turner if you go into it with an honest curiosity and a desire to know what the context was when all these events occurred. You are not required to believe anything you don't believe beforehand. Just bring your open mind.

I have read a lot of the ancient writings and not much is of the brainwashing variety. Rather, it gives insight into the conditions and culture and the development of human thought at that time. It is surprising to me how educated and sophisticated these people were for their times and before the advent of science. Same holds true for the Vedas and I Ching, the sayings of the Tao and many others. It is our roots and our heritage whether you want to admit it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 04:37 PM

Slag, the Jews may have been a race at one time...when they were a group of tribes enslaved in Egypt...but they are not a race any longer, and they haven't been for a long time. They are a cultural group, united simply by sharing certain cultural values which are identified as "Jewish" BY the Jews (and by other people around them).

You can be a Jew and not be one bit religious. If so, you may do a number of "Jewish" things, you may follow Jewish social customs, but you won't worship Jehovah and you won't necessarily follow what's in the Jewish holy books or believe it (although you will probably follow some of it).

Woody Allen is a Jew. He's also a very outspoken atheist, and there are many other Jews who would agree with him on that 100%.

In fact, if you think about it long enough, it becomes kind of funny. What the heck IS a Jew, anyway??? No one seems to know, except for this: he or she must have had a Jewish mother.

But, wait! Did Sammy Davis Jr, who converted to Judaism, have a Jewish mother???? I don't think so.

Okay then... It must be this: if anybody whatsoever, no matter their race or cultural origin claims to BE a Jew, then they are one from that moment on, unless they change their mind about it. And if they don't claim to BE a Jew...then they aren't one...unless, of course, they had a Jewish mother...in which case they really ARE Jewish, but they're in denial about it or working undercover!

LOL!!!! The mind boggles.

I don't know of any other group of people in the world who quite fit that kind of odd and hard to pin down cultural labeling, frankly, but maybe there is one and I just haven't thought of it.

I also would say that the vast majority of the world's tribal peoples since time immemorial have claimed to be God's Chosen or have assumed that they were a people specially picked out and sponsored in some way by God, over and above other people. They all thought they were God's Chosen. The Romans did. The Greeks did. The Trojans did. The Lakota did. The Japanese did. The Chinese did. The Germans did. Many Americans seem to now! It is not an exclusively Jewish notion at all, but a tacit assumption held by virtually every ancient culture of people.

Why? Because people are ethnocentric, that's why. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 05:04 PM

The difference with Islam and Christianity as religions is that these are in principal universal rather than ethnocentric.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 05:13 PM

Yes. And so are Buddhism and Hinduism and most of the other religions, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 05:20 PM

That was my point with Israel>the twelve(13)tribes. They were the Hebrews when they left Egypt (Nooo!? They couldn't have picked up any baggage there, could they have?). Then the 10 tribes did a super meld and what they left undone, the Syrians took care of, leaving Judah and Benjamin>the Jews. Ethnicity was never large on the horizon and yet there IS that connection. And, beginning with God's promise to Abraham, it was their sacred mission to introduce the rest of the world to YHWH! Which they did in one way or another, i.e. directly or in spite of themselves. When you understand this and then understand that Jesus' earthly mission was TO THE JEWS you gain a lot of insight into his parables (eg the Master's Vineyard, The Unsavory Salt, The Good Samaritan and so forth). So many times Christians have co-opted these and made it about them. There is a general sense in which they apply to anyone everywhere and yet they were really specifically to and for the Jewish people!

God's promise to Abraham that he would become the father of many nations and kings and that his descendants would be 1. like the sands of the sea and 2. like the stars in the heavens. The point here is that the sand analogy is to the earth, ethnic and physical. The children of faith which Paul(?) discusses in the NT book of Hebrews are his spiritual children, i.e. the stars! Very interesting!

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 05:40 PM

Yes, it is quite interesting in that sense. Are you aware how much the culture and religion of Babylon influenced the development of the Jewish religion, Slag? That's a whole story all to itself. I believe the Jews were held as slaves in Babylon for several 100 years, weren't they? That would have a huge effect on them as a people. Look how much Black Africans were changed by 2 or 3 hundred years of being transplanted into the USA, after all. African-Americans are now a cultural group all their own, quite distinct from their African ancestors.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 07:19 PM

Little Hawk, what is your obsession with Jews…who is a Jew, and what is a Jew and what is the purpose of Jews?   Seemingly, you have not been reading some of my posts or those of others, or you have chosen to ignore them. The historian, Arnold Toynbee, believed that the Jews should have disappeared from history, as did the Babylonians and other ancient peoples, with the ascension of Christianity in the 4th century CE. But they haven't. I get that feeling, somewhat, from reading your post(s), especially the tone of that at 4:30 PM.

Jews have never been, per se, a race; they are a Semitic group which practices Judaism, related to Arabs and other Semites. Through most of the Torah after the Exodus they are called Israelites. I'm not sure, but I don't believe the term 'Jewish' was applied until the 6th century BCE, after the exile to Babylonia. During the early Roman occupation they area was called Idumea (Judea); after the expulsion of the Jews by Rome the area became known as Palestine, expunging reference to Jews and Judeans, although some remnant of Jews were always there.

Jews share religious values, although they may not express them in exactly the same way, or at all. They do not necessarily share cultural values. Jews from Eastern Europe have different culture and outlook than those from Palestine, Iraq Iran etc., and different from those Jews from Ethiopia or from China or India! Yes, they are/were there too, and many look Chinese or Indian.

Jews used to have to have a Jewish mother to be considered 'born' Jews; except for the Orthodox, this requirement has eased so that if one has a Jewish mother or a Jewish father s/he may be considered Jewish. Your reference to Sammy Davis, Jr. seems gratuitous. Of course he didn't have a Jewish parent…he was a convert as you noted! There is, in Judaism, no legal or religious difference between 'born' Jews and those who converted from other religions.

Once a Jew, always a Jew. Woody Allen may be an athiest, but if he, like Kirk Douglas, now wanted to participate in religious Judaism he would be allowed to do so fully. Unless one is excommunicated (a real rarity) or formally renounces the religion, but even then they are often still thought of as Jews by Jews. However, one cannot merely declare oneself to be a Jew and be considered one, any more than one can say s/he is a Catholic or a Frenchman and so be in the legal sense.

I suppose there are some folks of Jewish background who are in denial or ashamed of it, but I don't know what you mean about being 'undercover'. Am I missing a conspiracy that I should be part of?

As to the Jewish concept of 'Chosen,' see my post of t/23 about noon. It differs quite a bit from being merely ethnocentric or religiocentric.

I hope this has helped you understand Judaism a little better, at least from the perspective of a Jew. I know it is very general, but there are books that give very good overviews of the Jewish religion and history.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 08:27 PM

You may be assuming an offense where none is intended, John. I was simply trying to clarify that Jews are not a race. Some people seem to think they are one.

I keep bringing it up, because it seems to be a very fuzzy area in people's minds as to what they think a Jew is. Usually you find they haven't really given it much thought at all.

It's easy to know what a Canadian is. He's someone born in Canada. A German is someone born in Germany...or possibly a descendant of someone born in Germany if you want to look at it that way. A Lakota Indian is someone descended from other Lakota Indians. A Swede is someone from Sweden. A Catholic is a member of the Catholic religious community. A Buddhist is a member of the Buddhist community. Etc....etc...

But a Jew is not necessarily someone born in any particular location (including Israel) nor is he necessarily someone born to Jewish parents (since he could be a convert) NOR is he some necessarily who practices Judaism (the religion), since he could be an atheist. Some people born in Israel (like Arabs) are definitely not Jews, but they are Israelis. So what the heck is the final definition of a person called a "Jew"? Most people never even gave that 10 seconds thought in their life, I bet.

And yet we have a special red flag word "anti-semitic" coined specially to designate people who are against Jews, and it seems to be the ultimate negative stigma possible (along with "racist" or "child molester"). So what's that about if most people can't even agree among themselves on what a Jew is and have never really thought about it? Doesn't it seem a little strange?

It's because of the extremities of emotion and attitude around these anti-semitism issues that I bring it up, and that's why it interests me. If people are going to raise very emotional issues around an identity like "Jewish" then they should at least give some thought to what it actually MEANS, right? At least I would hope they would.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a unique situation in the world, and it has been so since WWII, if not long, long before that, since there were many previous pogroms against the Jews. I think most people are incredibly mentally lazy about it, because most of them never even stopped to think what a "Jew" is, did they? They just acted on some facile assumptions about what a Jew is, picked up some cardboard stereotype from their parents and filed it in their mind, and those assumptions were probably several cards short of the whole deck.

Hitler could not have fooled so many Germans, for example, and gotten them to support his crazy anti-Jewish crusade if a few more of them had been inclined to actually THINK a bit about what a Jew is, and what varieties of possibility that entails...instead of just accepting the cardboard stereotype of a Jew that he waved in front of them.

But again, I'm clearly expecting too much of humanity, right? I expect humanity to be smart enough to get over this divisive nonsense of labelling people in groups and prejudging them on that basis, but it clearly is not going to happen in my lifetime.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 08:41 PM

Oh, what I meant about working undercover was this: Some Jewish agents in Mossad or in the Israeli military have had to work undercover at times and pass themselves off as Arabs, Palestinians, or some other identity, in order to effectively carry out their missions against Islamic Jihad or some other enemy of Israel. They cannot possibly succeed in such a mission...or survive it...unless they pretend not to be Jewish while they're doing it.

That's what I meant by working "undercover", and only that. I wasn't implying anything snide or critical in using the term. If an Arab was on such a mission against Israel, he might just as well pretend to be a Jew or a Christian, right?

That's undercover work.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Kent Davis
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 11:19 PM

John on the Sunset Coast,

As a Gentile, I may be getting it all wrong, but I've read the Torah enough that I don't really think so. Perhaps I'm not being clear.

In saying that "observant Jews think 'their religion is the "right" one and and the other religions aren't.'", I am refering mostly to what Judaism says about God and His nature. I realize that most Jews do not think that Gentiles must follow Jewish traditions.

However, as you know even better than I do, observant Jews most certainly do think that their religion is right. They think, for example, that there is one God, that He is holy, that some actions of ours are pleasing to Him, and that some are abhorrent.

In thinking these things, they are in agreement with Islam and with Christianity. (In other words, Jews and Christians and Moslems all worship the same God.)

However, in holding these beliefs, observant Jews (and Christians and Muslims) are necessarily in disagreement with atheists, deists, and polytheists. They are also necessarily in disagreement with rapists, blasphemers, false witnesses, thieves, etc. They think the Aztecs were mistaken with that whole human sacrifice thing. Unless they are Messianic Jews, they deny that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. I understand that there are certain disagreements with Muslims as well. In other words, like everybody else in the world, excepting only the hypocrites, they hold the position they think is correct and, in so doing, necessarily disagree with the contrary position.

If I am missing something, please correct me.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Dan Schatz
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 11:25 PM

Whew! This thread is all over the place, theologically. I'm afraid I just skimmed it, but I did note Curmudgeon's post. He's exactly right - the word "El" (one of the Hebrew words for God - it's what you see in the Hebrew Scriptures as "God," as opposed to "Lord) is the same root as the word "Allah." "Allah" simply means "God," so the Muslim Creed statement of faith should be read in English as "There is no God but God, and Mohamed is His prophet." Since Islam acknowledges both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures as sacred texts, I think there can't be much doubt that they're one and the same deity.

It's an interesting idea, though, that there would exist two different beings - God and Allah. Is that what your friend was arguing, Kendall? Does he believe both of these beings actually exist? If so, he might have something in common with the most ancient of Hebrews, who believed that there were other gods, but that theirs was supreme. As far as I know, however, that belief hasn't been current in Judaism or Christianity for many thousand years.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 02:44 AM

Little Hawk--
I accept that you intended no offense and I take none. I am trying to understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure I always do (with respect to this topic.)

A Lakota Indian can be both Lakota and American--unless, I suppose, he's Russell Means and doesn't want to. Or s/he can be both Lakota and Canadian. It depends on which side of that border s/he's born. The same is true for Catholics or any religious entity; they can be both X religion and American, or Brazilian or fill in the blank. As we seem to agree that Judaism is not a race or nationality, Jews can be integral to any or all nations.

There is no final answer as to what is a Jew. It is a moving target. As you note, one can be born into Judaism. And whether they observe the religious precepts or not, they are Jews unless they make a conscious to not be Jewish. That didn't help Europeans who had either themselves renounced Judaism, or were descendants of those who had. Uncle Adolf and his coterie saw to that. One can formally convert to Judaism, and their descendants from that time on are as Jewish as if they were descended directly from Moses himself.

I was a bit coy with you in questioning what you meant by 'undercover' Jews. Since the time of the Spanish Inquisition it has been permissible according some rabbis to make false conversions to Catholicism and secretly practice Judaism in order to save their lives, and I thought you might have that in mind. This was a dangerous game, however, and if caught one suffered the fate of a heretic as well as a Jew. There is in New Mexico a group of 'Crypto-Jews' who trace their heritage to that time.

I certainly agree with you that you may expect too much of humankind.   I know I do. I often feel that despite two major wars to end all wars in the 20th century, and scores if not hundreds of smaller wars between and since those wars, the peoples of the planet are becoming more tribal, and less able to deal sanely one with the other. But that is another discussion for another time.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 03:35 AM

Muslims acknowledge Jesus as one of the great spiritual leaders. their views on Allah-God would vary according to the particular version of Islam. Like most Christians, they may not understand that the early roots of Christianity lay in persia with the worship Mithras.

The most important of the many festivals of Mithras was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December. He was considered a great traveling teacher and had twelve companions. Mithra was called "the good shepherd," "the way, the truth and the light," "redeemer," "savior," "Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.
        
        
The worship of Mithras influenced early Rome, where the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. followers purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.

They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe.

Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ.
        
In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.

Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
        
freda

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 03:40 AM

Kent, what you say is pretty self-evident to me. People of every religion think their religion is right for them, else most would leave it for another religion...or none at all. The problem comes when the adherents of a religion think their's is right for everyone, and they attempt to inculcate that religion by force of arms or force of law. Jews may disagree with certain precepts of other religions, but they do not invalidate those religions as a result of those disagreements.

Jews generally have no problem with others practicing their normative religions as long as those practices don't hurt other people. There are, of course differences and disagreements, else everybody would be the same thing. Followers of Buddhism, Taoism or Zoroastrians etc. are can find a way to salvation or heaven, in whatever way they understand that concept, if their actions are good on earth. I suppose that religions requiring human sacrifice would be considered religions which condone murder. Murder is not a good thing, whether considered from a religious or a secular perspective.

You used the term 'Messianic Jew', and I'm probably going to get a lot of hurt on this. For me this a term without meaning. With the victory of Pauline theology, and the Council of Nicea (I may have the wrong Council) in the 4th century CE the bond between Jews and Christians was removed. The folks you reference 'ARE Christians;' they masquerade as Jews for the sole purpose of evangelizing and converting unsuspecting Jews to Christianity. I am not aware that they try to convert any other group. We are their special project. I believe them to be as dishonest in dealing with Jews as I suppose the anti-Christ is to Christians. I hold this disdain only for this group, not for any other Christian entity from Catholicism to Jehovah's Witnesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 04:07 AM

Dan, I'm afraid that just isn't so. El is short for Elohim=the Strong One. The closest anything in the Hebrew come to it is aleph lamed he(th), English equivalent is "alah": Strong give the first instance as a prime root which is solely connected with a second nearly identical word which also comes across in the English as "alah". The first carries the idea of invocation to bewail and is therefore translated as "lament". The second instance means to adjure (in a bad sense-Strong) and is translated "to curse or swear". Third instance is "imprecation:-curse, cursing, execration, oath, swearing".

From the Chaldean (there's your Babylonian influence LH!) you have a word that comes over to the Hebrew as "el-ahh" meaning "God". The word which comes closest, at least in the English transliteration, is allah which means "oak"! It stems from a poetic word "ayil" which means strong like a strong tree. "Mamre" is the usual Heb. for "Oak".

The God of the Torah has several appellation. Elohim has been discussed. El Shaddai means "the Nurturing One" "Adonai" is also translated "Lord". Adonai "Sabbaoth" Lord of the Sabbath. Elohim Ts,ab,ba or "tsabah", is Lord of Hosts (Armies). There is a continuing revelation of Who and What God is. The revelation which Moses received and which united the Hebrews under Him was YHWH, translated in the King James as Jehovah but more correctly in the English form "Yahweh". There is no connection with the Arabic "Allah". You might want to run this by a scholar of Hebrew but I believe my basic analysis is correct.

What you see is a continuing revelation of God and how He relates to His creation. In every other religion we find Man seeking God (or whatever he names as his ultimate concern). In the Bible we find God seeking Man, attempting to show him the way home, back to God. This is not your ordinary religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: bankley
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 07:57 AM

maybe she's twins

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 12:25 PM

So if a Jew decides to become a Christian does that mean he or she ceases to be a Jew, John? Hitler certainly didn't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 12:45 PM

You are correct about Hitler...and others as I noted earlier this morning.   Does a Jew who converts to Christianity cease to be a Jew? I would think yes, at least religiously, if it is a sincere conversion. But, again, you can find lists of Jews in various fields of endeavor who had themselves converted, or whose recent ancestors had converted from Judaism; Disraeli and Felix Mendelsohn come quickly to mind.

Please note that I do not speak for Judaism. I only speak from history, and the teachings and discussions I have understood over the years. There are many introductions to Judaism which can give a great overview, but if you read two of them, you'll get three opinions. :>\

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 01:14 PM

McGrath - Hitler didn't think so because Hitler was a paranoid fanatic with a gigantic persecution complex. Such people are dangerous. Had Germany not lost the First World War and had the young Hitler never been a disgruntled and bitter German veteran at the end of that war...you would never have had the rise of the Nazis. He was a product of his own negative experiences and his reaction to those....as is the case with most people. Whatever they suffer in youth tends to haunt them for the rest of their lives.

freda - Thanks for the great post on Mithras! Bravo. People really need to learn about stuff like that in order to get a bit more insight into the ancient origins of the religions they take for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 01:33 PM

John, you said it in a nutshell:

"There is no final answer as to what is a Jew. It is a moving target."


That's what I'm saying.

Now I think that if people who are prejudiced against Jews gave a bit of thought to that, it might help open their minds a little and maybe they would like go of some of the "Jew" stereotypes they are clinging to in order to justify their prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: Slag
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 01:36 PM

A close friend of my father by the name of Art Levine once lead him to a graveyard in Tracy CA to show him something. There in the cemetery was a headstone with his name on it. The date of death was the day that Art told his parents that he had accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior and God. In Art's parent's eyes, at least, you could not be a Christian and still be a Jew.

Subject: RE: BS: Theology question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 01:40 PM

I'm sure there are parallels to that story you could find in most religions. It's shameful, but it happens.