Split from Christianity and Self-Defense article topic

[5-0 Kenpo]

When is the last time you saw a Muslim standing on a street downtown, trying to convert people?

Nation of Islam, downtown Los Angeles, uh, everyday.

 

[Xinglu]

I think it is very important to separate the behaviour from the faith. Christianity in its entirety is not to blame, neither is Hinduism, etc. There may be sticking points that are systemic to one pattern of conversion, but the root cause of the issue is the behaviour of certain people.

If an institution consistently produces people who behave in a certain manner, then that institution must share the accountability with those people.

A church/temple/religion does not exist without it's parishioners/faithful. That means that if the people act in a certain way because of teachings/scriptures/dogma the religion is not separate and does not stand blameless.

 

[CanuckMA]

Are you suggesting that it can't be both; one thing to Jews and another to Christians?

Do you dispute that Christians see Christ as the realization and fulfillment of the promises and prophecies made in the various books that make up the Old Testament? At that point, can they not read it and see their meaning in it? After all, a noteworthy number of Jews in the first century AD apparently came to that conclusion as well.

Never suggested that. I've said it often, you want to interpret it your way, go nuts.

What I find deeply offensive is when you then come to me and tel me that I'm wrong. That my people have been wrong for 3,000 years and that, really we should convert, see the light, be a 'completed Jew' as most messianic organizations phrase it.

It amounts to an attempt to relegate Judaism to an historical footnote, I can tell you it's not going to work.

So do what you want, but leave us alone.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

You know, my wife is a Christian, and I, well, I would call myself a Deist more than anything else. Occasionally religious discussions come up. We don't so much disagree as take issue with some of the finer points of religion.

It's ironic that the last discussion that we had, even before looking at the points in this thread, I brought up how interesting it is that Christians think they know more about the Old Testament prophesies then Jews.

What I find interesting is the attempt to try to understand people's intentions. To this end, I will simply pose a number of questions?

1. Is it condesending for a teacher to try to teach someone? For instance, if I see someone who crosses that never looks both ways before crossing, should I try to teach him to do so, or rather let him take his chances and get hit by a bus? That is essentially what most Christians are doing. Trying to keep non-Christians from being hit by a bus.

Of course, there are ways of going about it that can be better or less received.

2. Why the angst? Why not just accept that they may be doing something to help, rather then hinder, a person. Why must it always be looked upon in the negative light?

3. How are Christians trying to destroy Jews? Are Jews for Jesus, or other like minded Jewish organizations, any less culturally Jewish because of their belief in Jesus as the Messiah?

4. If there are people who are culturally and ethnically Jewish who believe in Jesus as the Messiah, doesn't it stand to reason that there is at least some credence to the Christian faith of being right, or that the majority opinion, of Jesus not being the Messiah, being wrong?

5. Even as has been said by Jewish people here, there is often animated debate over what some passages in the Torah mean. How then can you argue that the Christian interpretation is any less wrong, as it would simply be one among many, including those Jewish people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

Now, a question for personal clarification, if I may. And this question comes because I truly don't know the answer, and is in no way intended to be condesending.

If Jews know that the God they know of is true, what does that make any other religions gods? Are they false gods, in the understanding that they don't really exists? Is our reality one of multiple gods, one suited for each culture? Is this issue one that is not even of concern to Jews?

Other then the obvious reason for these questions, what I also would like to know is if Jews believe that their God is the only one, and they actively discourage converts, what does that say about their view of other races?

Out of anticipated frustration with what I believe what some of the responses to my questions may entail, I am not anti-semitic. The questions I pose are for either greater understanding among two apparently diametrically opposed factions, or personal clarification. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Xinglu]

again, I'm sorry you've had nothing but bad experiences with Christians. That's extremely sad. I understand where you're coming from. Even BEING a Christian, I've sure had my share of negative experiences from other fellow believers. That too, however, isn't unique to Christianity. The Biggest problem with any of the religions on Earth is that they are represented and made up by fallible humans, with all of the problems and baggage that come with our human frailty. Don't see how any of us can get around that. I pray that someday you have a very positive experience with Christians, and that you're open to know it as such.


I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. The ability to ALWAYS Love purely and perfectly is a gift from God IF it's ever achieved. I don't think that any person could fully and continually accomplish this outside of a miracle. But there are instances in which we are given a goal or pointed by God toward an ideal standard that's beyond our ability to accomplish fully or always. For instance, lets look at the place where Jesus Christ is telling us, as you pointed out, to Love always.

There've been people in history and maybe even alive today who can do VERY well with this, but not always, not perfectly. AND: Being "Perfect"?? Only by the Grace of God can that be accomplished. So sometimes we are instructed to do what cannot be fully accomplished, perfectly all of the time by flesh-bound humans. Only by the supernatural help of God can we even come close.
Just my point of view.

Perfection?! Who said anything about that? None of Yeshua's teaching demand or expect perfection. They are about LOVE and treating others with love and compassion. Being loving and compassionate does not a perfect person make. It seems that you have introduced a straw-man argument here. Weather or not it was intentional I don't know. It seems simple to me: One cannot love God if they do not also love their fellow man. Therefore, to love God is to also love others and treat others with compassion and charity. Nothing I have ever seen or experienced tells me that the Christians even attempt that.

Your argument seems to imply that only by a miracle can you actually follow the teachings of Yeshua. Quite the loophole to say "I'm not accountable" when you (generalized you) don't live up to his teachings. Excuse me while I have a general rant (not directed at any one person):

[rant]I have seen to many people even use that same argument to justify not even trying! And it amazes me how convient so many people's religion is. They toss it out when they don't want it around, and yet hide behind it when it suits them. I call that veiling in false piety or lazy spirituality. If people can't give their 100% to what the proclaim to believe then what is the point in their belief? Yes, everyone is a hypocrite from time to time, but when one's entire religion is focused on pointing out the imperfections of others and their beliefs that hypocrisy is magnified ten-fold.[/rant]

YES! That would be a copout, in no uncertain terms!
But also, might consider this: Nobody likes being shown their errors, being disillusioned about what they "Though" life was really all about, OR..... and I'll use a strong word here.......being made to see their own "SIN". That can really rankle anyone. It's never comfortable, even for those of us who already 'believe'. But, it's a necessary step. Often, VERY VERY often, that step is the biggest stumbling block to anyone investigating Christianity. It's an offense to them and they view it as intrusive or "judgmental"....things like that. So....if they go no further than this early stumbling block and resist the 'truth' because of it, they often come away with very negative impressions of Christianity and simply remember the uncomfortable, anger evoking, "offense".

Also: Christian's DO try to convert others. I'm not at all apologetic about that fact. It's simply the truth. BUT......we're often woefully inept at being ABLE to do it well. That's a horribly sad truth. Being able to share the truths about Jesus Christ with others SHOULD be one of the biggest things on our mind, but really.....it's frightening. Remember that "First Stumbling Block" I talked about above? It's very frightening to a well meaning Christian who really feels moved to share the Gospel with others!! Nobody wants to offend!!! In fact, it's the direct opposite of what we'd really like to do. Yet, it's a hurdle that we've got to approach and jump over. It's never easy. But like I said, it's a necessary step! Sadly, many of us either bungle that step OR....the person digs in their heels at the idea that they are a sinner (very common) and the believer doesn't know how to handle THAT with good tact. Not easy. Then...we come off as being pushy and demanding. Sad. The people I've met who are Gifted in being able to effectively share their faith with others are my HEROES! But they're rarer than I'd like.

It seems their nature (or teachings of the churches) to judge others righteousness or standing with god, point it out, and then tell them how they think they should live their lives. One cannot proselytize without first deeming the other person in "need" of conversion. To deem them in "need" is quite a judgement IMHO.

Furthermore, it is an extremely bleak outlook to think that to be alive is to be in a state of sin. In fact, it is an assertion that I reject on it's head. We are accountable for our actions, not the actions of those who lived many thousands of years ago.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

If an institution consistently produces people who behave in a certain manner, then that institution must share the accountability with those people.

A church/temple/religion does not exist without it's parishioners/faithful. That means that if the people act in a certain way because of teachings/scriptures/dogma the religion is not separate and does not stand blameless.

I would be careful with line of reasoning. What you have experienced, and what the larger group of people within the religion do may be completely different. This is the type of thought that leads a lot of people to believe that Islam is a violent religion, which most here would decry, or because you were assaulted by a person of a particular race, that all members of the race are similarly inclined.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

[rant]I have seen to many people even use that same argument to justify not even trying! And it amazes me how convient so many people's religion is. They toss it out when they don't want it around, and yet hide behind it when it suits them. I call that veiling in false piety or lazy spirituality. If people can't give their 100% to what the proclaim to believe then what is the point in their belief? Yes, everyone is a hypocrite from time to time, but when one's entire religion is focused on pointing out the imperfections of others and their beliefs that hypocrisy is magnified ten-fold.[/rant]

From my point of view, to be imperfect with what one wishes to be, or believes oneself to be, is not hypocracy. It is imperfection. We all make mistakes. I would argue, based on the definition of hypocrite, that being one would require consistently and knowingly contradicting your stated beliefs, not something that is a one time act.

Anyway....

I don't see where you believe that the entire Christian religion is focused on pointing out the imperfections of others. Case in point:

Luke 6: 41-42
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]41. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 42. Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye. [/FONT]

Matthew 7: 3-5
3. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4. Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? 5. You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye.

Not that I'm not saying that individuals don't do this. But to classify an entire religion based on the actions of individuals is unfair.

It seems their nature (or teachings of the churches) to judge others righteousness or standing with god, point it out, and then tell them how they think they should live their lives. One cannot proselytize without first deeming the other person in "need" of conversion. To deem them in "need" is quite a judgement IMHO.

Humans do this all the time. It is consistent with our nature. Do you decry such behavior in all aspects of life, the telling people of what they "need".

I will tell you that, mostly, Christians tell people that they need Jesus. That's pretty much it. However, to live in accordance with Jesus' will, you "need" to abide by certain principles and behaviors. But that's if you choose to believe in Jesus, because remember, it is by faith, not works that you are saved.

 

[Xinglu]

What I find interesting is the attempt to try to understand people's intentions. To this end, I will simply pose a number of questions?

1. Is it condesending for a teacher to try to teach someone? For instance, if I see someone who crosses that never looks both ways before crossing, should I try to teach him to do so, or rather let him take his chances and get hit by a bus? That is essentially what most Christians are doing. Trying to keep non-Christians from being hit by a bus.

Of course, there are ways of going about it that can be better or less received.

2. Why the angst? Why not just accept that they may be doing something to help, rather then hinder, a person. Why must it always be looked upon in the negative light?

3. How are Christians trying to destroy Jews? Are Jews for Jesus, or other like minded Jewish organizations, any less culturally Jewish because of their belief in Jesus as the Messiah?

4. If there are people who are culturally and ethnically Jewish who believe in Jesus as the Messiah, doesn't it stand to reason that there is at least some credence to the Christian faith of being right, or that the majority opinion, of Jesus not being the Messiah, being wrong?

5. Even as has been said by Jewish people here, there is often animated debate over what some passages in the Torah mean. How then can you argue that the Christian interpretation is any less wrong, as it would simply be one among many, including those Jewish people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

1. It depend on the context. Is the teacher qualified to teach in the subject they are teaching? If not then yes it is quite arrogant of them. Who are they attempting to teach? Experts? Then yes it could be condescending.

2. In my experience there is no acceptance on their end that I am not interested. They become disrespectful and ultimately it causes a termination in the friendship due to an antagonistic relationship.

3. I cannot speak to this, I believe it was Canuck that said that.

4. How? That is like saying that because some Americans support the actions of Al Queada that there is some credibility or credence to their beliefs and actions. Just because some ethnic Jews are Christians does not give any any more or less credibility to either faiths. Furthermore, just because a bunch of people believe something does not make it true. The appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy that just doesn't get old.

5. They're not. They are merely saying "don't tell us how to read the book we wrote." It is one thing for debate inside the faith, because ultimately they are worshiping the same God. Christians are worshiping Yeshua, whom the Jews do not acknowledge as God. IF Christians worshiped the same God and observed the same rites and rituals that Jews did, then there would probably be far less issues with the debate, but they don't.

Now, a question for personal clarification, if I may. And this question comes because I truly don't know the answer, and is in no way intended to be condesending.

If Jews know that the God they know of is true, what does that make any other religions gods? Are they false gods, in the understanding that they don't really exists? Is our reality one of multiple gods, one suited for each culture? Is this issue one that is not even of concern to Jews?

This is the problem with monotheism being asserted. However, one could argue that the other religions are worshiping the same god, just differently.

Other then the obvious reason for these questions, what I also would like to know is if Jews believe that their God is the only one, and they actively discourage converts, what does that say about their view of other races?

I believe that this is to test how much the perspective convert actually want's to become a Jew and take on the responsibilities of conversion and has nothing to do with race. For example many who are denied a couple of times will simply walk away. Clearly they didn't believe in the hebrew God or else being turned away would not stop them from pursuing conversion.

 

[jks9199]

Never suggested that. I've said it often, you want to interpret it your way, go nuts.

What I find deeply offensive is when you then come to me and tel me that I'm wrong. That my people have been wrong for 3,000 years and that, really we should convert, see the light, be a 'completed Jew' as most messianic organizations phrase it.

It amounts to an attempt to relegate Judaism to an historical footnote, I can tell you it's not going to work.

So do what you want, but leave us alone.

The thing is that, if I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that the truth is that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, who died on the cross to redeem us all -- then how can I not share that truth if asked?

To me -- the most powerful way I can share my faith is to live it, and to show it by my actions. Words are cheap. If I'm living my faith properly -- and know it as well as the reasons underlying it -- it should show in my life, and I should be able to answer questions about it if asked. And it should cause someone to ask those sorts of questions... There's a vast difference between sharing information, and being insulting or rude about it.

I don't have any patience for the people who feel that not only must they offer information, they must all but pound it into your head until you agree with them. I recently had a lengthy conversation with someone who'd had a very powerful conversion experience; it remained a conversation, and we actually managed to respect each other's view. I've dealt with plenty of others who can't do that...

 

[Carol]

1. Is it condesending for a teacher to try to teach someone? For instance, if I see someone who crosses that never looks both ways before crossing, should I try to teach him to do so, or rather let him take his chances and get hit by a bus? That is essentially what most Christians are doing. Trying to keep non-Christians from being hit by a bus.


Of course, there are ways of going about it that can be better or less received.

Because in general this comes across as selfish, not altruistic. People try to convert others to make their scorecard look better on Judgment Day.

When atheists try to promote their ideals to Christians, it is not seen as trying to keep Christians from being hit by a bus, nor is it dismissed as someone only trying to help.

Isn't it logical to understand that when Christians do this to other faiths it is also not seen in a positive light?

2. Why the angst? Why not just accept that they may be doing something to help, rather then hinder, a person. Why must it always be looked upon in the negative light?

If someone doesn't accept you for simply who you are, and instead wants to change you to be more like them, that a natural reason for angst, yes?

 

[Xinglu]

Not that I'm not saying that individuals don't do this. But to classify an entire religion based on the actions of individuals is unfair.

In my direct experience it has been EVERY Christian I have met with the exception of one (and he is fairly fringe in his beliefs as I understand it), not just select individuals.

Their actions and words speak clearly about their religion.

 

[Xinglu]

I would be careful with line of reasoning. What you have experienced, and what the larger group of people within the religion do may be completely different. This is the type of thought that leads a lot of people to believe that Islam is a violent religion, which most here would decry, or because you were assaulted by a person of a particular race, that all members of the race are similarly inclined.

While this may be true, I have no reason to base my opinions on anything other than my observations and experience. I would be remiss if I based my opinions upon what people would like me to believe. It's not like I haven't been to a Christian Church before, I've sat through many lessons and services from many different denominations. What I have heard come from the pulpet never ceases to amaze me. And then it is repeated and exaggerated by the congregation.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

1. It depend on the context. Is the teacher qualified to teach in the subject they are teaching? If not then yes it is quite arrogant of them. Who are they attempting to teach? Experts? Then yes it could be condescending.

Agreed. But that's kinda my point. I don't see too many lay Christians going around telling Jewish scholars that they are going to hell. What I do tend to see is Christians giving non-Christians some measure of information, and then saying come to my church where a person who has studied more then I have can teach you.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule.

2. In my experience there is no acceptance on their end that I am not interested. They become disrespectful and ultimately it causes a termination in the friendship due to an antagonistic relationship.

And I get that. All I'm saying is to maybe keep an open mind and understand that, in my opinion, the vast majority of Christians are not that way.

4. How? That is like saying that because some Americans support the actions of Al Queada that there is some credibility or credence to their beliefs and actions. Just because some ethnic Jews are Christians does not give any any more or less credibility to either faiths.

I don't think you example is synonymous with mine. You are talking about actions versus my position of beliefs. And as you say later, this, unlike your example, is an internal debate, ostensibly between people who know what they are talking about, or have a similar level of understanding. Jewish "Christians" are still Jews, not outsiders looking in, so to speak.

5. They're not. They are merely saying "don't tell us how to read the book we wrote." It is one thing for debate inside the faith, because ultimately they are worshiping the same God. Christians are worshiping Yeshua, whom the Jews do not acknowledge as God. IF Christians worshiped the same God and observed the same rites and rituals that Jews did, then there would probably be far less issues with the debate, but they don't.

I get that they may not want to be told how to interpret those texts. But, considering that Christian scholars may have the same level of learning as Jewish scholars on the subject, both of whom believe in similar, if not exactly the same thing, how is their interpretation any less valid, which was my question.

This is the problem with monotheism being asserted. However, one could argue that the other religions are worshiping the same god, just differently.

I agree, which is why I posed the question. I don't know what Jews think, and would like to be further informed.

I believe that this is to test how much the perspective convert actually want's to become a Jew and take on the responsibilities of conversion and has nothing to do with race. For example many who are denied a couple of times will simply walk away. Clearly they didn't believe in the hebrew God or else being turned away would not stop them from pursuing conversion.

If that is the case, then so be it. I can accept that. They may not want people who only follow the rules on the Sabbath, and leave the other days to their whim. But from what has been said here, it is as though Jews actively do not want non-ethnic Jews converting to their religion, and will only accept them grudgingly. If I'm wrong, I want them to let me know.

 

[Chris Parker]

Well, I'll try this one...

You know, my wife is a Christian, and I, well, I would call myself a Deist more than anything else. Occasionally religious discussions come up. We don't so much disagree as take issue with some of the finer points of religion.

It's ironic that the last discussion that we had, even before looking at the points in this thread, I brought up how interesting it is that Christians think they know more about the Old Testament prophesies then Jews.

What I find interesting is the attempt to try to understand people's intentions. To this end, I will simply pose a number of questions?

1. Is it condesending for a teacher to try to teach someone? For instance, if I see someone who crosses that never looks both ways before crossing, should I try to teach him to do so, or rather let him take his chances and get hit by a bus? That is essentially what most Christians are doing. Trying to keep non-Christians from being hit by a bus.

Of course, there are ways of going about it that can be better or less received.

I think the issue is not that Christians are "saving people from an oncoming bus" (to use your metaphor), as the bus isn't really there. It is not a tangible physical rescue here, undeniable in it's reality, it is a belief that anothers beliefs (as they contradict your own) are therefore wrong, and need correcting. As was covered in other threads, this is a matter of faith, and as such there is no actual "teaching" involved. Teaching involves education, this is the convincing of beliefs.

Now, this is where the claims of arrogance have come in. There is no "proof" where faith is concerned, so to attempt to convert someone to your beliefs is a matter of believing that your faith is correct, and by extension anothers is wrong, or incorrect. Really, there is just as much likelihood that you are completely wrong, barking up the wrong tree, and are just going to be left out when it comes down to it at the end.

So if Christians are trying to stop non-Christians from being "hit by a bus", first off they should be absolutely positive that the bus is really there... and that they are not the ones in it's path. And for issues of faith, that is not possible, other than for one individual themselves (for example, if you were to try to convert me, you would suddenly find that your faith would be challenged pretty quickly. And effectively, I must say).

2. Why the angst? Why not just accept that they may be doing something to help, rather then hinder, a person. Why must it always be looked upon in the negative light?

Kempo is the wrong martial art. It doesn't work, and if you spend your time training it (believing that it works, making it a part of your life, continuing to believe that it actually will protect you), you are going to be hurt, or killed. You should be training in Irish Dancing instead. That's the true martial art. It gives you spring in your step, and makes you very fleet of foot. You're completely wrong for training in Kempo. Stop being so wrong, you're just going to end up dead for it. In fact, Kempo is evil. If you study Kempo, you are going to get into trouble, and you will get others around you into trouble. Kempo is just stupid. Studying Kempo is just wrong. Stop studying Kempo, study Irish Dancing.

Okay, it's a bit of an odd metaphor, you can prove the effectiveness of Kempo over Irish Dancing, but you see the point? And yes, I chose Kempo deliberately for your emotional attachment to it.

3. How are Christians trying to destroy Jews? Are Jews for Jesus, or other like minded Jewish organizations, any less culturally Jewish because of their belief in Jesus as the Messiah?

Okay, the praciticing Jewish members here will be able to explain this from a far better position than I, but here you go.

Christian belief and doctrine has been altered over time to move it away from a Jewish origin to a more "generic", or gentile, appeal, beginning with the adoption of the Faith for the Roman Empire under Constantine. Prior to that, the political focus for much of the early Christian writings had been focused on the idea that the Romans were the oppressive force that salvation would be delivered from (this is the basis of most of the ideas andsymbology for the Book of Revelations, which are appocalyptic letters from John, probably never intended as public fodder).

I mentioned briefly earlier why certain books were included in the cannonical Bible, and others left out. Revelations was one of probably 10 or more books on the same type of topic, so why was it included when other (possibly less anti-Roman ones) were excluded? There are a few theories, amongst which are the fact that it is very potent imagery, and being written in highly symbolic language, it could be included without risk. In other words, it was a highly maleable text. But other texts being included are of more importance here...

The Gospels. These texts were included over other Gospels (The Gospel of Truth, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, and more... all the way up to The Gospel of Judas, fun reading there!) for again a variety of reasons. Some of the main ones are the issue of validity of certain texts, in other words they were known to have been written within 100 years of Jesus' time. But it is important to realise that they are not contemporary writtings the way the writings of historians such as Josephus were. They were stories that had been passed down, in various forms, and were eventually written down. But that was not the end of their alterations. They continued to be passed around, and in that movement, change was inevitable. By the time of the Council of Nicea, there were many versions, and some versions would be put in over others due to the political messages. These included the shifting of the blame for Jesus' death from the Roman authorities to the Jewish populace. The order the Gospels are in shows an escalation of such ideas, making the concept first almost innocuous, but later becoming more and more overt.

As for how is a Jewish person who believes that Jesus was the Messiah any less Jewish, well, a basic tenet of Christianity is that Jesus was the Son of God, the Messiah, sent to deliver the People's of the World from the grip and hold of Satan (who again is rather misinterpretted by most people, particularly Christians it seems...), whereas Judaism is a Messianic belief system. It is just that they are still waiting for the Messiah to arrive. So if Jesus was the Messiah, and that is your belief, then you are Christian. We have moved away from a true Judaism here. And as for Jews for Jesus, really guys, commit to one faith, playing both sides is just pitiful. To my mind, these people have no real faith, as they are trying to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time, leaving them neither in reality.

4. If there are people who are culturally and ethnically Jewish who believe in Jesus as the Messiah, doesn't it stand to reason that there is at least some credence to the Christian faith of being right, or that the majority opinion, of Jesus not being the Messiah, being wrong?

Nope. Faith. Personal, not based on proof, reality, evidence, or any such thing. I have personal beliefs that go against the beliefs of many. Am I wrong? No. Are they wrong? No. We just have different belief systems. But this is one situation where majorities do not make truth. If everyone believed that, oh, let's say the Earth was the centre of the Universe, or it was flat, did that make it correct? By bringing in terms such as "stand to reason" in a faith based argument is to completely misunderstand the most basic concept of the argument in the first place. There is no place for reason, proof, evidence, right or wrong. It is faith. And faith can be completely wrong, even in the majority.

5. Even as has been said by Jewish people here, there is often animated debate over what some passages in the Torah mean. How then can you argue that the Christian interpretation is any less wrong, as it would simply be one among many, including those Jewish people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

Well, the "animated debate" over the Torah (as seen in the Talmud and other places) are an attempt to engage members of the community in a deeper sense of understanding of the rich history that the members are a part of. It is not a case of "You're wrong, I'm right". It is more like poetry interpretation, read into the poems at surface level, and you get one understanding. Go deeper, and you get more. And there is no-one saying that the Christian interpretation is wrong, more that Christians will have a different take on the texts, as they are removed from the history itself, whereas for Jews, it is a living embodiment of their people.

But importantly, we are here talking about the Old Testament/Torah. This all predates Jesus' time, so any interpretation of Jesus as Messiah are bringing into it aspects that simply do not exist in the text. Most of the prophesies that are used to "prove" that Jesus was the Messiah are stretched, created, misinterpreted, or more. There are quite a few examples of stories of Jesus being created after His death to fit pre-existing prophesies. These include such details as His birth. And bear in mind that Jesus was only one of many potential Messiahs, John the Baptist was actually far more popular at the time, and had more followers. In fact, it is believed that Jesus was a follower of John, but this has been "reframed" within the Gospels, as you couldn't have Jesus, the Son of God being a follower of a mere mortal human, no matter how great a leader John was. That lead to the addition of John refusing to baptise Jesus initially on their first meeting (that was a political addition to the story there, for those who don't know).

Now, a question for personal clarification, if I may. And this question comes because I truly don't know the answer, and is in no way intended to be condesending.

If Jews know that the God they know of is true, what does that make any other religions gods? Are they false gods, in the understanding that they don't really exists? Is our reality one of multiple gods, one suited for each culture? Is this issue one that is not even of concern to Jews?

From my discussions with peoples of various faith (I am very intrigued by faiths, rather than religions, so I take any opportunity to speak and learn from anyone I can), I don't think it is really too much of an issue. Of course, if I am wrong here I am sure that Tez or another will let me know... To take it into a martial arts metaphor, we'll go back to your Kempo.

If you know that your Kempo is effective, powerful, and will save you if/or when you need it, are you concerned when someone else trains in another martial art, or do you just say "okay, that works for them". Going back to the conversion debate, the Christian/Kempo guy would want the other martial artist to realise that their art was ineffective, had no power, and wouldn't help them. So they should study Kempo, and by telling them that, I am helping them! Doesn't matter if they have no interest in Kempo, if they are happy with their art, and if their art is the perfect one for them, they must study Kempo and avoid that bus!

Other then the obvious reason for these questions, what I also would like to know is if Jews believe that their God is the only one, and they actively discourage converts, what does that say about their view of other races?

Judaism, along with Christianity and Islam, is a monothieistic belief system. So yes, the belief is that Yahweh, The Master of the Universe, is the one true and only God. As to the discouragement of conversion, I personally find that extremely comforting. It ensures that people are not converting for insincere reasons, as only sincere persons will continue to seek acceptance after being turned away. Insincere ones will give up.

As to a view on other races, not really sure what that has to do with this. Jewish people are Jews. Non-Jews are not. You are what you are, and that's all there is to it, really. That said, to be officially recognised as Jewish (in terms of blood), you have to be able to demonstrate your lineage on your maternal side. Because if your mother was Jewish, even if your father was not, you certainly had Jewish blood. If your father was Jewish, and your mother was not, well, there was no guarantee that your father really was your father...

Out of anticipated frustration with what I believe what some of the responses to my questions may entail, I am not anti-semitic. The questions I pose are for either greater understanding among two apparently diametrically opposed factions, or personal clarification. Nothing more, nothing less.

If it helps, I didn't glean any anti-semitism there. Just maybe a little Christian-centric in your views, and that is narrowing your understanding a bit. But hopefully this will give you a little more pause for thought!

 

[Xinglu]

Agreed. But that's kinda my point. I don't see too many lay Christians going around telling Jewish scholars that they are going to hell. What I do tend to see is Christians giving non-Christians some measure of information, and then saying come to my church where a person who has studied more then I have can teach you.

You should meet my next door neighbors, they like to tell anyone and everyone how and why they are wrong for not being Christian. I also had a co-worker who felt he was "commissioned of Jesus Christ" to preach the "word of God" to everyone. He was a lay person, with no real education to speak of. My list goes on... but hey, I'm trying to change your opinion of your faith. I'm giving my opinion based on my experiences.

And I get that. All I'm saying is to maybe keep an open mind and understand that, in my opinion, the vast majority of Christians are not that way.

I do have an open mind, and when/if I ever experience a group of Christians who do not proselytize and evangelize in a condescending and judgmental manner, I will be pleasantly surprised. Until then, don't expect to see me attending any services .

I get that they may not want to be told how to interpret those texts. But, considering that Christian scholars may have the same level of learning as Jewish scholars on the subject, both of whom believe in similar, if not exactly the same thing, how is their interpretation any less valid, which was my question.

Because, as I said, they don't assert the same God. One assert "Jesus" the other does not. One Worships and considers "Jesus" God, the other does not.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Chris,

I appreciate your explanations. Though, as I said before, I'm not a Christian, though having gone to Christian schools allows me to relate to them a bit better then other religions. In fact, it has been argued by me in real life that logically, Judaism makes more sense to me then Christianity.

I get what you are saying about reason versus faith. My whole point though with this thread though is not about the religion itself, but about trying to be understanding about where a person who is trying to convert you is coming from. More often then not in my opinion is that it is one of being sincerly concerned about another's well-being, not about showing you how right they are. I just don't understand the viseral reaction, especially if one is secure in one's own faith.

For me, you can talk about Kenpo (not Kempo, dang it ) all you want. I will take your arguments for what they are worth. I know the strengths and weaknesses of my art, and if others can provide clarification, then good for me. I have faith that Kenpo will be their if I need it. The same thing, I would think, could be said of one's religious faith. Be secure in your faith, and yourself, and such reactions would not only be unnecessary, but counter-productive.

As for Jews for Jesus, what I believe that they are doing is remaining culturally Jewish, while expressing their understanding of Jewish texts to mean that Jesus was the Messiah. Certainly disagree with them if you want. I get that. But as for the assertion that Christians are trying to "obliterate" Jews, that's non-sensical rhetoric.

As for people being "right" or "wrong" based on faith, I am admittedly making the assumption that there is, in fact, a God, and that he revealed Himself to mankind. So, bearing those assumptions in mind, it stands to reason that someone is wrong, and someone is right (or everyone is wrong). But when discussing the interpretation of what is believed to be God's revelation to man, to maintain that Christians are wrong, when Jews who, as you would potentially say, are not removed from the history itself, and understand culturally that it is the living embodiment of their people, then they can be as "right" as any non-Jesus believing Jew.

As far as bring into the Old Testament meaning that wasn't there, you are making a faith based argument, which you can neither prove nor disprove. Not to try to delve this into a debate over dogmatic minutiae, but to a certain extent, it hits to the heart of the matter, interpretation. Christians would argue that it was there, Jews would not. But of one thing they agree (I think), it is Messianic. It only matters as to who the Messiah is, not whether one will come about or not.

My question about what are Jewish interpretations of Non-Jews has to do with the fact that, if there God is the one and only true God, and non-Jews shouldn't be included in the faith, what does that mean as to their relationship, philosophically speaking, towards them. Are we mere mongrels deserving of nothing more then what they choose to give us? Are we here as a testament / challenge to their faith? What happens to a non-Jew's soul after death? I have no idea and am interested in finding out.

As to your last statement, I am no more Christian then the computer I'm typing on, though it is the religion with which I am most familiar. At one time in my life, I was quite anti-Christian, though my views have moderated quite a bit. For clarification, I wouldn't say that it is a Christian-centric view that I have as opposed to ignorance of other faiths, if that makes any sense.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

You should meet my next door neighbors, they like to tell anyone and everyone how and why they are wrong for not being Christian. I also had a co-worker who felt he was "commissioned of Jesus Christ" to preach the "word of God" to everyone. He was a lay person, with no real education to speak of. My list goes on... but hey, I'm trying to change your opinion of your faith. I'm giving my opinion based on my experiences.

Believe me, I have met my share of Christian prostelitizing a**holes. I don't know where you're from, or where your travels have taken you, but as counterpoint to your experience, most Christians that I have met have nothing but a sincere desire for the saving of souls, and do so in a non-obnoxious manner.

And, as I have said before, Christianity is not my faith.

I do have an open mind, and when/if I ever experience a group of Christians who do not proselytize and evangelize in a condescending and judgmental manner, I will be pleasantly surprised. Until then, don't expect to see me attending any services .

I hope that you do. Not in order to change your mind about the belief system itself, but so that you generalization about an entire group of people will be crushed, and you will judge each individual on their own merits or vices.

Because, as I said, they don't assert the same God. One assert "Jesus" the other does not. One Worships and considers "Jesus" God, the other does not.

But I am not arguing that they believe the same thing. Obviously they don't. But I am calling both of them scholars in the subject. Ultimately, as with all religions, it will come down to a matter of faith. This is even true of the atheist. And I don't know if eating kosher versus non-kosher foods gives anyone more insight into the historical understanding of the texts. For instance, I may not be a communist, but the doesn't necessarily mean that I don't understand its under history / underpinnings / effects any less then a person who is communist, or even lives in a communist country.

I want to get into the concept of not being able to understand a system within itself here, but that's a whole other subject.

 

[Tez3]

The reason I think we don't encourage converts is that while we may be the Chosen people it is a very hard road to take and many break along the way, it would be unfair to take people who would be hurt and destroyed by taking our path. We weren't chosen to be special in that we have a better life or more possessions, we were chose to be the vanguard of the human race and that means taking casualities. We can't in good faith encourage other to share our fate. You've seen a small example on here of the hatred we can attract.

The crossing the road analogy isn't a good one if all you are trying to save people from is imaginery buses Remember too the free choice that is given to us by G-d, that means if I chose to cross the road when traffic is coming and don't chose to look you have no right to stop me or advise me on how to cross the road. It's simply none of your business.

I think too that that you may want to consider the fact that being Jewish is also a racial thing. I belong to the Jewish race and I also am a practising member of that faith. You are still Jewish however much you may deny it if you convert to whatever religion you want or indeed have none at all.

I'm curious too too know if anyone cares to tell me what laws Jesus chucked out? I understood that he kept all the laws himself. Also as has been pointed out, theres been many messiahs before during and after Jesus' time. It is believed by some there is a potential messiah in every generation. I know that there were some sects (and still is one sec) who venerated John the Baptist as the messiah. It simply doesn't have the meaning ascribed to it by Christians for us. I think many people don't understand the almost onion like qualities of Judaism, it's something you could quite easily lose yourself in it is so deep.

It is not a concern of mine what others believe, it would be intrusive of me to probe and question others beliefs in such a way as to disturb them. We are commended that when talking to an atheiest we are to talk as if there is no G-d, we are not to say 'take your troubles to G-d', we are to act as if there is no G-d and help him ourselves. Forgiveness has always been there from G-d for those that asked, it was never needed that someone had to die for us to get this from our Father so for that reason alone we find Christians pursuing us odd. If you believe differently thats fine but please don't try to make others believe too, that goes for atheiest, agnostics as well as other faiths. A rabbi once told me religion is like petrol (gas to the Americans, another word open to misinterpretation) there's many different brands but all do the same job. G-d doesn't need religion, prayers hymns or sermons, we do.

To understand us better you must read Jewish interpretations of the Bible as well as the Commentaries. Try collections like Ginzbergs Legends of the Jews, the Monteifiore and Loewe A Rabbinic Anthology and Bubers Tales of the Hasidim. Isreal Abrahams Jewish Life in the Middle Ages. Read too The Sayings of the Fathers.

Now I'm off to bed it's been a long night shift.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey 5-0 Kenpo,

(spelled it right that time? Cool. Off topic, but kenpo is my prefered, I just misread your handle, kempo seems to be a mistranslation, similar to jiu-jitsu, that one really bugs me... okay, on with it!)

As to why people want to convert others, well I always go back to the cultural underpinnings of any group, so let's look at those here. Christianity, in it's origins, was a popularity contest. There were various factions stemming from Jesus, including those who followed James (Jesus' half brother in most accounts), in which there were no miracles, no resurrection, and Jesus was simply a teacher of Judaism, and followers of others who had no direct contact with Jesus, but added in things such as the resurrection in order to give credence to the Son of God aspect that was being promoted. This lead to aggressive "campaigning" which became the model for Christian groups going forth. This continued as the Catholic Church had splinter groups such as Martin Luthors Reformation, with sides constantly seeking to convert others, as well as swell their numbers with new converts. This included promises of salvation (spiritual and material) with conversions as well.

An inherrant aspect of Christian doctrine since those early days has been to grow the religion. This is mainly due to the early persecutions, where if aggressive conversions were not made, the fledgling religion simply would not survive. However, it later became a far more fervent aspect, culminating in the infamous Inquisition (most commonly refered to as the Spanish Inquisition, but that was just one arm of the Vatican's reach). The Inquisition was infamous for it's conversion methods, utilising torture, terror, death and more in order to convert the masses, particularly Jews and Muslims in Europe. Now, if your history involves such persecution, it can certainly be reasonable to understand why you would have such a reaction to fervent conversion attempts.

As to obliterating an ethnic group, well that has been attempted with the Jewish peoples before, in various forms, some far more overt, and others more insidious. But it is not just the Jewish people that that has happened with. For example, when Christianity was being introduced to the Norse peoples, they deliberately created new mythology to "kill off" the Norse religions, and replace it with the new Christian one. That is one form of religious obliteration (so you know, the old stories of Norse Gods end with an apocolyptic scenario known as Ragnarok, in which the evil presence, a giant serpent symbolising evil, and Thor, symbolising good and order, both fight to the death, with both dying. This destroys the world, leaving only the Tree of the World, and a single man and woman hiding in it. So they used the Norse mythology as a "prequel" to the Old Testament, giving it validity, and at the same time killing off the old religion).

Hmm, with Jews believing in Jesus, bear in mind that Jews do certainly beileve in Jesus... He just wasn't the Messiah. And if you believe He was, then you are a Christian. Whether or not you are practicing or not is rather irrelevant, if you beileve in God, and believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah, you are Christian. You may follow Jewish Law as much as you want, but you are a Christian. At least that's how I see it. Tez?

I'm not trying to bring into a reading of the Old Testament meaning that wasn't there, I am more saying that the entire Nativity story is designed to match prophesy, despite the fact that it has been quite clearly proven that the circumstances contrived to create the story in the Gospels could not have possibly happened (the timing of the Census, why Joseph and Mary would have been travelling, and more). That's more what I was getting at. Oh, and you may tell I'm not Christian either...

When it comes to the Jewish God being the one true God, and that excluding other races, that is hardly unique. The Japanese have a phrase which translates to "We Japanese", inferring a belief that they are unique from all other races, going from their courage and Japanese spirit, through to beliefs that they have longer intestines than other races. But one of the major aspects of the Torah to the Jewish people is that it is a sign and document of the convenant between the Peoples of Israel and God, they are the chosen People, the true followers of God, and the ones whom God loves most. That is their belief system, Christians have a different take on things.

As to what happens to a Jewish persons soul after they die, well, that is a little different to Christian belief. For example, there isn't really a Heaven and Hell situation. Instead, there is kind of a "limbo", refered to as She'ol. This is a waiting place, awaiting the resurrection of the dead. However, there are concepts of a Heaven and Hell-like ideal, known as Gan Eden and Gehinnom respectively. I'll let others expand on this.

 

[CanuckMA]

You know, my wife is a Christian, and I, well, I would call myself a Deist more than anything else. Occasionally religious discussions come up. We don't so much disagree as take issue with some of the finer points of religion.

It's ironic that the last discussion that we had, even before looking at the points in this thread, I brought up how interesting it is that Christians think they know more about the Old Testament prophesies then Jews.

What I find interesting is the attempt to try to understand people's intentions. To this end, I will simply pose a number of questions?

Ok, before I get started, I’ll attempt to answer two important questions, because those definitions will be germane to my answers.

Who is a Jew: Halacha (Jewish Law) defines a Jew as on born of a Jewish mother or one who is converted in accordance to Halacha. And that is the only definition that matters.

What are the Jews: That one is a bit trickier. We are not a religious group. Although one must be a Jew to practice Judaism, and one converts through a religious process, you can be a Jew without practicing Judaism. We are not an ethnic group. You can covert to Judaism. I can eat Chow Mein 3 times a day for the rest of my life, I’ll never be Chinese.
Best description available is that we are a people with shared experiences and a religion.

1. Is it condesending for a teacher to try to teach someone? For instance, if I see someone who crosses that never looks both ways before crossing, should I try to teach him to do so, or rather let him take his chances and get hit by a bus? That is essentially what most Christians are doing. Trying to keep non-Christians from being hit by a bus.

Of course, there are ways of going about it that can be better or less received.

For a teacher to teach, no. That assumes that a) there is something to teach, and that you have a student. Your example posits the Xtian view that anybody who does not believe as you do is in mortal danger. That is arrogant and condescending.

2. Why the angst? Why not just accept that they may be doing something to help, rather then hinder, a person. Why must it always be looked upon in the negative light?

We don’t need the ‘help’. Again, assumption that what I’m doing is wrong and I need help.

3. How are Christians trying to destroy Jews? Are Jews for Jesus, or other like minded Jewish organizations, any less culturally Jewish because of their belief in Jesus as the Messiah?

J4J and their ilk are not Jewish organizations. They are Xtians who surround themselves with Jewish trappings to deceive Jews that their way is acceptable.

As I said in my intro, part of who we are is our religion. By wanting to convert us to Xtianity, you want to annihilate Judaism. That will destroy Jews as a people. Whether a Jew practices or not, who we are and what we do is intrinsically linked to Judaism. Destroy Judaism and you’ve destroyed the Jews.

4. If there are people who are culturally and ethnically Jewish who believe in Jesus as the Messiah, doesn't it stand to reason that there is at least some credence to the Christian faith of being right, or that the majority opinion, of Jesus not being the Messiah, being wrong?

That some Halachic Jews are practicing Xtians does not lead any more credence to Xtianity than anything else.

And I find your last comment reveling, and deeply offensive. There is that arrogance again. You are right, and Jews are wrong.

5. Even as has been said by Jewish people here, there is often animated debate over what some passages in the Torah mean. How then can you argue that the Christian interpretation is any less wrong, as it would simply be one among many, including those Jewish people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

We debate the language, we debate why a particular word was used. We don’t shift the entire meaning.

Your interpretation may be right for you, but all too often it is based on mistranslation and/or horribly out of context quotes. Or just plain not wanting to see the original intentions.

For example, both Isaiahs are often used as proof of the prophesy of Jesus. However, when you read the entire text, it is clear that the parent-child language refers to the G-d/Israel relationship. It is meant to be poetic, comforting language.

Now, a question for personal clarification, if I may. And this question comes because I truly don't know the answer, and is in no way intended to be condesending.

If Jews know that the God they know of is true, what does that make any other religions gods? Are they false gods, in the understanding that they don't really exists? Is our reality one of multiple gods, one suited for each culture? Is this issue one that is not even of concern to Jews?

First Commandment, I am the Lord your G-d, you shall have no other god before Me.

Adonai is our G-dHe is the One G-d. But it does not preclude that others may worship other gods. And quite frankly, we don’t care.

Other then the obvious reason for these questions, what I also would like to know is if Jews believe that their God is the only one, and they actively discourage converts, what does that say about their view of other races?

It doesn’t say anything. G-d gave us His Torah. It is our Joy and our Burden. We discourage conversion because it is hard to be a Jew. Both in the observance of Halacha and in secular everyday life. Folks have been trying to destroy us since we went into Egypt.