Split from Christianity and Self-Defense article topic

[Brother John]

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. .

No sir. Not a straw man argument at all. It's contextual. Please allow me to show you the context more explicitly.

In the fifth Chapter of Matthew we read a very important sermon that Jesus gave commonly called "The Sermon on the Mount". It's the one that starts off with

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

This first section is called the beatitudes. The rest of the chapter go on to entail specific lessons on ethics and behavior. In it Jesus Christ sets forward some of the most explicit instruction on the extent of Love that we are to have (what you were referring too).

"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on {the} evil and {the} good, and sends rain on {the} righteous and {the} unrighteous. "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing {than others?} Do not even the Gentiles do the same? "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

That's the last fifth (approximately) of the chapter: Matthew 5:43-48 to be specific.
Anyway, you may notice that in it Christ instructs us to Love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. I don't think it's impossible, but I don't think that anyone has done it perfectly, ALL of the time without fail. Also: note the last line. "You are to be perfect,..." That's what I was referring too. It's not a straw man argument, it's in the context that Jesus posed it in.

Please understand: I'm in NO way meaning that anyone is free of the command to LOVE and be Perfect in anyway. We will all be held accountable for that! I'm simply saying, while on this earth mankind of every stripe will continue to fail.... but we become better by picking ourselves up and trying again, by the Grace of God.

Listen: I really don't care to go on and on and on belaboring this point. I think it's horrible that you feel you've never met a Christian who strove to be a loving person. I think it may either entail you being exposed to VERY few Christians ((and horrible ones at that)) OR to be SO very jaded against Christianity and Christians that you'd not recognize kindness, mercy or love from one if it stood up and blessed you in your face. I cannot help you with that. No amount of intelligent and well meaning argument will persuade you to drop something like that.

Your Brother
John

 

[Carol]

BTW, the idea of ethnically Jewish is valid by definition: pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

Is ethnicity being confused with race? Latinos are an ethnic group but are not a race. Many folks equate the Latino people as morenos, (brown skin, dark hair), but Latinos can be black, brown, white, any color.

 

[Xinglu]

Sorry, but you have stated that Christians are arrogant and condescending. Maybe you were generalizing, and don't believe that of every Christian. My statement, if you could at least try to take it for what it's worth, was that I hope you meet Christians who are unlike you past experience so that you would not have, as you statments seem to suggest, an inherent dislike of them as a group, as your own following statment seems to suggest:

Yes, I was generalizing: Would a rephrase such as "The Christians I have met are arrogant and condescending?" be more precise for you?

If you are talking about modern methods of "teaching" then you are correct. But, in times past, teachers often taught unsolisited.

Irrelevant. We live in modern times. Teaching methods need to be contemporary as we are here and now, not 1500 years ago. And if you plan to "appeal to tradition," please don't, it's fallacious and I don't care to have that conversation.

I know that if someone saw me doing something "wrong", and had a sincere belief that they were trying to do something beneficial for me, then I would take it in that context. I would not get up in arms and be angry about it.

"Wrong," there it is again. Please, how can a proselytizer who doesn't know me assume my beliefs are wrong and not come across as insulting? I make it a point to not discuss religion with others offline unless I am directly asked about it. I even tell people who start to tell me all about theirs (unsolicited) that I'm simply not interested and ask if we could talk about something else. Never, in the many times I have said that are my wishes respected. In fact, I'm usually met with one of two reactions: increased intensity with their efforts, or passive agressive behavior. It's not like I'm being rude about it either. I try very hard to be honest AND respectful about my disinterest.

But Jewish in what context? Ethnically, religiously. I have asked, and received contradictory answers, on what exactly it means to be a Jew.

I assert both. If one is a Jew, yet converts to Christianity, they are a Christian, not a Jew. If they are a Jew by birth or conversion and don't go to temple or participate in the religion: they are still a Jew. But if you turn your back on the Jewish faith and culture, you forfeit being jewish. That is my understanding.

 

[Xinglu]

No sir. Not a straw man argument at all. It's contextual. Please allow me to show you the context more explicitly.

In the fifth Chapter of Matthew we read a very important sermon that Jesus gave commonly called "The Sermon on the Mount". It's the one that starts off with

This first section is called the beatitudes. The rest of the chapter go on to entail specific lessons on ethics and behavior. In it Jesus Christ sets forward some of the most explicit instruction on the extent of Love that we are to have (what you were referring too).

That's the last fifth (approximately) of the chapter: Matthew 5:43-48 to be specific.
Anyway, you may notice that in it Christ instructs us to Love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. I don't think it's impossible, but I don't think that anyone has done it perfectly, ALL of the time without fail. Also: note the last line. "You are to be perfect,..." That's what I was referring too. It's not a straw man argument, it's in the context that Jesus posed it in.

Please understand: I'm in NO way meaning that anyone is free of the command to LOVE and be Perfect in anyway. We will all be held accountable for that! I'm simply saying, while on this earth mankind of every stripe will continue to fail.... but we become better by picking ourselves up and trying again, by the Grace of God.

Thank you, for clarifying what you were saying. But my point is the same, until you (general you) can get that that right, how is it right to seek out others to point out their beliefs as wrong and in need of conversion to your own? Once again back to the mote and plank: Matt 7:5.

 

[jks9199]

Harsh, perhaps, but valid. Last time I checked the RCC views the "holy sacraments" as essential to salvation. Since only RCC members can receive those sacraments, the implication is that protestants and any offshoot from that branch are ultimately "dead" or spiritually "blocked" unable to progress past a certain point.

While the first sacrament baptism may be recognized by the RCC from other denominations Confirmation/Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony are not.

Confirmation is important because to the RCC it is the validation and sealing of the baptismal covenant. Something non-catholics cannot have and is taught as essential to salvation.

Eucharist is obligatory at least once a year. Non-Catholics cannot have this.

Penance and Reconciliation (confession) is to set right the sins one has made since baptism. Non-Catholics cannot be absolved of their sins in this manner, yet another essential to salvation sacrament.

Anointing of the sick includes last rites... kinda important within the RCC. Cannot be had by non-Catholics.

Holy Orders, not essential.

Matrimony while the RCC is obligated to recognize all legal marriages they do not consider non-sanctified marriages as holy or blessed by God. This implies a lot of things.

So - to the RCC those not partaking of the sacraments are up a certain creek with no paddle to speak of. Might sound harsh, but boiled down to brass tacks, that is their position.

This is a very superficial and incomplete understanding of the Sacraments of the Church, and the Church's teachings about them. You may wish to review The Catechism of the Catholic Church for more complete teachings.

The Church generally recognizes any Baptism, so long as it is done with respect to and the intent to be baptized according to the teachings of Christianity. (Yes, a non-Christian may actually baptize a person into Christianity under some circumstances, like an infant born into medical crisis.) Similarly, the Church recognizes most Christian marriages as being valid marriages; it's secular (and perhaps non-Christian; I'm honestly not certain) marriages that are not considered valid in the eyes of the Church.

The Eucharist (or Communion) is a special issue. The Church considers the Eucharist to be the summit of worship, for in the Eucharist we come as close to God in the form of Christ as is humanly possible. When consecrated, the Host (in the form of bread and wine) become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus the Christ, according to the teachings of the Church. Because of this radical statement and belief -- only those in full communion (or unity) with the Church may receive the Sacrament; a Catholic who is conscious of having committed a grave sin or who does not believe themselves to be in a state of grace should not receive Communion. This can be as simple a failing as not observing the liturgical fast... Because of the divisions between Catholics and other Christians, only a very few non-Catholic denominations can receive Communion -- and a Catholic may only participate in an equally small number of non-Catholic Communion services.

 

[Carol]

Similarly, the Church recognizes most Christian marriages as being valid marriages; it's secular (and perhaps non-Christian; I'm honestly not certain) marriages that are not considered valid in the eyes of the Church.

The Church recognizes most Christian marriages (and others, such as a civil ceremony with a JP) as marriages that can be convalidated by the Church. But, sparing a diosesal dispensation, a marriage outside the Church is not valid (and the Catholic(s) in the marriage cannot receive the Eucharist) until the marriage has been convalidated by a priest.

 

[Xinglu]

This is a very superficial and incomplete understanding of the Sacraments of the Church, and the Church's teachings about them. You may wish to review The Catechism of the Catholic Church for more complete teachings.

The Church generally recognizes any Baptism, so long as it is done with respect to and the intent to be baptized according to the teachings of Christianity. (Yes, a non-Christian may actually baptize a person into Christianity under some circumstances, like an infant born into medical crisis.) Similarly, the Church recognizes most Christian marriages as being valid marriages; it's secular (and perhaps non-Christian; I'm honestly not certain) marriages that are not considered valid in the eyes of the Church.

The Eucharist (or Communion) is a special issue. The Church considers the Eucharist to be the summit of worship, for in the Eucharist we come as close to God in the form of Christ as is humanly possible. When consecrated, the Host (in the form of bread and wine) become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus the Christ, according to the teachings of the Church. Because of this radical statement and belief -- only those in full communion (or unity) with the Church may receive the Sacrament; a Catholic who is conscious of having committed a grave sin or who does not believe themselves to be in a state of grace should not receive Communion. This can be as simple a failing as not observing the liturgical fast... Because of the divisions between Catholics and other Christians, only a very few non-Catholic denominations can receive Communion -- and a Catholic may only participate in an equally small number of non-Catholic Communion services.

We can pick nits all day long, but the point is the same: no sacraments :: no favor/positive merit with God. No favor/positive merit with God :: no heaven.

Tell me, this does the RCC believe that one can be not Catholic AND attain "salvation" (outside of special circumstances)? If so, what is the point of Catholicism ?

 

[Ken Morgan]

Hey, wait a minute...who scared off Brother John? Where'd he go?

 

[CanuckMA]

So if you can be a Jew without practicing Judaism, does that mean that practicing another religion makes you not a Jew? That is the question that I am asking in relation to the fact that you say that if you are ethnically Jewish and are trying to be converted would destroy Jews.

Because beeing a Kew according to Halach is only part of it. Much of the culture and shared experience are grounded in Judaism. Destroy Judaism and you destroy the Jews.

BTW, the idea of ethnically Jewish is valid by definition: pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

It's close but it does not really fit.

Again, I go back to the walking across the street without looking. I understand that people often don't want to be told things that upset their world view (in the broad sense), and get upset when it is done. What I am trying to illustrate is that rather then get up in arms about it, why the absolute refusal to take it in the spirit with which it is intended. If a person is being obnoxious when doing so, then treat him as such. If they are trying to legitimately "help" (as this word for some reason keeps getting taken out of context, I will put it in quotations) and are being kind and considerate , then why not take it in that context?

Why can't you understand that we don't want or need your 'help'? Your offer to 'help' assumes that there is something we lack. We don't.

Be that as it may, I don't know anything about J4J. I used them as they were already discussed. Whether it's a group or individuals, the point is still the same.



That's what I'm not understanding. You say that you don't need to practice Judaism to be Jewish, but at the same time you say that Judaism is a part of being Jewish. Your statements are conflicting.

It's a hard concept to understand from the outside because there is no other group like us. You don't need to be observant to be a Jew. But even secular Jews will get together for a Passover Seder, will circumcise their sons, will sit shiva and recite yartzeith. The religion is an immense part of who we are. Once you remove the religion, you remove the tie that binds us, you destroy us as a people.

What I am trying to get at here is that in the Jewish world, there are Jews who dispute the orthodox view, whether right or wrong. This is a question of epistomolgy, not dogma.

You're right. The Reform mvement doesn't fully accept the Revelation at Sinai. But their interpretation is not that different from the Orthodox interpretation. And for as far away as Reform swung, Jesus has always been a line they stayed far away fom.

I would be interested in what you think the statement reveales about me. I have no bone to pick in this fight other then people getting along, and gathering information for my own understanding of how, generally speaking, Jews view other ethincities and religions. Again, the questions are one of trying to debate the epistomology of this subject, or how can we know who is right or wrong.

We are discussing faith. You want to beleive that you are right, that is your prerogative. Jews don't care what Xtians believe, so long as you don't ty to convince us that you are right and therefore we are wrong.

I find it interesting that you have no problem with calling Christians wrong or lack knowledge, but when the same characterization is made of you, somehow you take umbrage with that. You don't like to treat others the way that you are treated. And I'm talking about our discussions here, not with some obnoxious Christian who is badgering you. Somehow, Brother John (for instance) telling you that your interpretation is wrong and he is attempting to destroy your people, but you telling him that his entire belief system is perfectly justifiable. Talk about arrogant and condescending. Kettle, meet pot.

Xtians are trying to destroy and invalidate our religion. we don't give a hoot about the Xtian religion. Is it right for you? if yes then good on you, hope it makes you a better person.

Ok. But do Jews acknowledge that other gods actually exist in reality? I really don't know. And what happens to people in the afterlife, if Jews believe in such, if they do not believe in the Jewish God?

can you understand that we don't concern ourselves with that?

We have a covenant with G-d. We are following His Torah. We do not concern us with what others believe.

 

[Brother John]

Hey, wait a minute...who scared off Brother John? Where'd he go?

Hey Ken...
I'm still about. Reading mostly, but I did post a response to Xinglu in post #161.

But I'm not scared off. I feel I stated my case and other than that...I'll just let others keep discussing this and enjoy the read.

But thanks for looking out for me.
WHERE I went too? The gym, then Wal-Mart.
I'm back now..


Your Brother
John

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Yes, I was generalizing: Would a rephrase such as "The Christians I have met are arrogant and condescending?" be more precise for you?

Yes, actually.

Irrelevant. We live in modern times. Teaching methods need to be contemporary as we are here and now, not 1500 years ago. And if you plan to "appeal to tradition," please don't, it's fallacious and I don't care to have that conversation.

Not at all, since it is the "tradition" which Christians are practicing. You may consider such methods irrelevant, but when they are basing their practise on such, it is perfectly relevant.

After all, are we not discussing "destroying" the traditions of the Jewish faith as a part of this thread.

"Wrong," there it is again. Please, how can a proselytizer who doesn't know me assume my beliefs are wrong and not come across as insulting?

I said "wrong" so that you understand that I am talking about from their perspective. Anyway, insulting is in the eye of the beholder. You choose your attitude based on what they are doing, they are not dictating it for you. Therefore if you considering it insulting, that is because you choose for it to be insulting.

I make it a point to not discuss religion with others offline unless I am directly asked about it. I even tell people who start to tell me all about theirs (unsolicited) that I'm simply not interested and ask if we could talk about something else. Never, in the many times I have said that are my wishes respected. In fact, I'm usually met with one of two reactions: increased intensity with their efforts, or passive agressive behavior. It's not like I'm being rude about it either. I try very hard to be honest AND respectful about my disinterest.

And I have agreed with you about people being a**es. I make no excuses for them. I will stipulate, so that we don't have to keep rehashing it, that some Christians are d**ks when it comes to such things.

I assert both. If one is a Jew, yet converts to Christianity, they are a Christian, not a Jew. If they are a Jew by birth or conversion and don't go to temple or participate in the religion: they are still a Jew. But if you turn your back on the Jewish faith and culture, you forfeit being jewish. That is my understanding.

I get that that is your understanding, but it sounds like a bit of boulderdash to me.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Hey Ken...
I'm still about. Reading mostly, but I did post a response to Xinglu in post #161.

But I'm not scared off. I feel I stated my case and other than that...I'll just let others keep discussing this and enjoy the read.

But thanks for looking out for me.
WHERE I went too? The gym, then Wal-Mart.
I'm back now..


Your Brother
John

Yeah observer status on some threads is much more enjoyable....

 

[Brother John]

Yeah observer status on some threads is much more enjoyable....

:soapbox: <---- Not fun.

:knight2:<------- tiresome, time consuming and does NO good.

:hmm:+irateboo+:cheers:+opcorn:= MUCH more fun!!!!


Your Brother (who likes it with LOTS of butter)
John

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Because beeing a Kew according to Halach is only part of it. Much of the culture and shared experience are grounded in Judaism. Destroy Judaism and you destroy the Jews.

I don't think theirs anything in Christianity which would destroy Jewish cultures. In fact, I know Christian who believe that following the cultural traditions of Judaism would put them "closer" to God here on earth. And how do you "destroy" your ancestry or historical heritage? It is biological fact that your ancestors are 'X'. Try as you might to deny it, it wouldn't be any less true.

It's close but it does not really fit.

Sorry, but you don't get to redefine words so that they fit your argument. The term applies.

Why can't you understand that we don't want or need your 'help'? Your offer to 'help' assumes that there is something we lack. We don't.

Because it is what they believe, just like some scientist believe we need to stop greenhouse gasses in order to save the ozone.

It's a hard concept to understand from the outside because there is no other group like us. You don't need to be observant to be a Jew. But even secular Jews will get together for a Passover Seder, will circumcise their sons, will sit shiva and recite yartzeith. The religion is an immense part of who we are. Once you remove the religion, you remove the tie that binds us, you destroy us as a people.

Ok, but what you are talking about is cultural, not religious.

But for my enlightenment, what would traditional Jews think about ethnic Jews who do not observe Jewish rites, but have also not converted to another faith. Would they no longer be considered Jews?

This reminds me of the time in college where I was accused by my college roommate of "acting real white". That, despite my ancestry, I am no longer black because I don't "act" black.

You're right. The Reform mvement doesn't fully accept the Revelation at Sinai. But their interpretation is not that different from the Orthodox interpretation. And for as far away as Reform swung, Jesus has always been a line they stayed far away fom.

So, what you're saying is, it's a matter of degrees of separation. We will accept you as Jewish if you go this far, but if you cross this line, you are no longer Jewish?

Weird.

We are discussing faith. You want to beleive that you are right, that is your prerogative. Jews don't care what Xtians believe, so long as you don't ty to convince us that you are right and therefore we are wrong.

Ok, but that's not what Christians believe.

Xtians are trying to destroy and invalidate our religion. we don't give a hoot about the Xtian religion. Is it right for you? if yes then good on you, hope it makes you a better person.

What you have said here doesn't address anything that you quoted. I am merely pointing out that the arrogance and condescension is on both sides, not one of the other.

can you understand that we don't concern ourselves with that?

We have a covenant with G-d. We are following His Torah. We do not concern us with what others believe.

So no where in the Jewish literature is there even one philosophical text dealing with the Jewish perspectives of other religions and their gods. I get that you, specifically, may not be interested in it. But are you telling me that no Jewish philosopher has touched on the subject? Honestly, I find that very hard to believe.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Just to throw this little tidbit out there:

It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox. In this sense, Judaism is more like a nationality than like other religions, and being Jewish is like a citizenship.

Source: http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother or an adult who has converted to Judaism is considered a Jew; one does not have to reaffirm their Jewishness or practice any of the laws of the Torah to be Jewish. According to Reform Judaism, a person is a Jew if they were born to either a Jewish mother or a Jewish father. Also, Reform Judaism stresses the importance of being raised Jewish; if a child is born to Jewish parents and was not raised Jewish then the child is not considered Jewish. According to the Orthodox movement, the father’s religion and whether the person practices is immaterial. No affirmation or upbringing is needed, as long as the mother was Jewish.

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.html

All bolds are mine. Although I have not found anything that states what a Jew converting to another religion would be considered, the fact that under certain circumstances (depending on which orthodoxy of Judaism you are referring to) you need not practice or obey the laws of the Torah to be considered a Jew.

 

[CanuckMA]

Quote:
It's a hard concept to understand from the outside because there is no other group like us. You don't need to be observant to be a Jew. But even secular Jews will get together for a Passover Seder, will circumcise their sons, will sit shiva and recite yartzeith. The religion is an immense part of who we are. Once you remove the religion, you remove the tie that binds us, you destroy us as a people.
Ok, but what you are talking about is cultural, not religious.

That's where you get it wrong. Every one of those is a religious obligation. That tjhey are also done by secular Jews is because how much Judaism is intrinsic to who we are.

But for my enlightenment, what would traditional Jews think about ethnic Jews who do not observe Jewish rites, but have also not converted to another faith. Would they no longer be considered Jews?

They are apostate Jews. Once they convert to another religion, that's another matter.


Being Jewish is tightly bound to Judaism, whether one practices or not does not eny that bond. If you destroy Judaism, you destroy the Jews. It's hard to explain and grasp because there is no other group where who they are and their religion is so intertwined.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

They are apostate Jews. Once they convert to another religion, that's another matter.

That's where you get it wrong. Every one of those is a religious obligation. That tjhey are also done by secular Jews is because how much Judaism is intrinsic to who we are.

Looking at various Jewish website regarding apostate Jews, there is not difference between an atheist Jew or a Christian Jew.

I get that they are religious rites that secular Jews are observing. But what is there that says that if the become Christians and observe Jewish rites, that they are no longer Jews? After all, Christianity is obstensibly a Judaism based religion.

Another quote:

In Jewish religious law, it is technically impossible for a Jew (born to a Jewish mother or properly converted to Judaism) to change his religion. Even though a Jew undergoes the rites of admission to another religious faith and formally renounces the Jewish religion he remains &#8211; as far as the halakhah is concerned &#8211; a Jew, albeit a sinner (Sanh. 44a). According to *Na&#7717;manides this attitude derives from the fact that the covenant between God and Israel was made "with him that standeth here with us today before the Lord our God and also with him that is not with us here today" (Deut. 29:14; Na&#7717;manides ad loc.). For the born Jew, Judaism is not a matter of choice and for the proselyte it ceases to be one once he has converted. However, persons who did assume another religion or formally renounced Judaism are treated differently by Jewish law from Jews who, even while sinning, have not taken such actions. These people are known in the halakhah as mumar (from the root meaning "to change"), or meshummad (from the root meaning "to persecute or force abandonment of faith"), or apikoros ("heretic"), or kofer ("denier"), or poshe'a Yisrael ("rebellious Jew"). Since in the technical halakhic sense, apostasy is impossible, the above terms are often used very loosely in rabbinic literature.

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01188.html

 

[CanuckMA]

Just to throw this little tidbit out there:





All bolds are mine. Although I have not found anything that states what a Jew converting to another religion would be considered, the fact that under certain circumstances (depending on which orthodoxy of Judaism you are referring to) you need not practice or obey the laws of the Torah to be considered a Jew.

But once you destroy Judaism, Halacha disapears, therefore the definition of who is a Jew disapears.

 

[CanuckMA]

And now I'm done.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

But once you destroy Judaism, Halacha disapears, therefore the definition of who is a Jew disapears.

I don't know why, with a Judaism-based religion such as Christianity, you would be forced to abandon the precepts of Halacha. Especially since the things that I have quoted above show that you do not have to observe them in order to be Jewish.

I'm sorry that you are done, but thank you for the lively debate anyhow.