 |
| |
|
|
Natan
|
 |
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Dear Natan,
Allow me to remind you of this previous post:
quote:
The acceptance of the yoke of halakhah is seen by many as the distinctive essence of Judaism. |
Yes, but that doesn't mean that those who reject the Halakha are non-Jews. While "religion" is arguably the best English word to describe Judaism, it has never been our self-description. There isn't even a word for religion in ancient Hebrew, nor is "Judaism" ever reffered to. Even in Yiddish, the term "Yiddishkeit" is the closest you can come to anything like Judaism, and the terms really aren't interchangeable.
quote:
According to the Orthodox, halakhah is God-given and must be obeyed. The Progressive movements, while reverencing the halakhah, do not accept its binding obligation in every aspect of life. In so doing, Progressive Jews are perceived by their Orthodox co-religionists as rejecting the point and purpose of the tradition. Hence Reform rabbis are not accepted, and Reform proselytes are not believed to be Jews. |
Yes - reform Rabbis are not accepted - they do not conform to the Halakha and therefore are not Rabbis. And their proselytes (converts) are not accepted because their conversions were not performed in accordance with Halakha. But tell me, would they bother to say that the Orthodox don't accept reform converts as Jews if they don't accept any non-Orthodox person as a Jew?
quote:
"Orthodox Judaism Traditional Judaism. The term 'Orthodoxy' was first applied in Judaism in 1795 as a distinction between those who accepted the written and oral law as divinely inspired and those who identified with the Reform movement. The Orthodox believe that they are the sole practitioners of the Jewish religious tradition and regard non-Orthodox rabbis as laypeople and non-Orthodox proselytes as gentiles. |
Yes - they're non-Orthodox Rabbis are laypeople - Jewish laypeople. Arguing that anyone who doesn't accept the Halakha isn't Jewish is absurd, because the Halakha defines a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or converted in accordance with the Halakha - so by your definition, to be a Jew means to be wrong about what it means to be a Jew, since a Jew who accepts the Halakha believes that Jewish apostates are Jews. In short, you're argument is totally absurd.
Siro:
quote:
The Talmud itself says that after the Bible has left God's hands (so to speak) it is the people's to interpert and to have opinions about.
And the Orthodox are saying that no opinions are allowed, and only their conservative view is legitimate. |
No, the Orthodox are saying that the opinions of ignorant persons which are based on a faulty understanding of the Torah, both its principals and its details, and motivated solely by irreligious (if not sacrilegious) concerns are not valid interpretations. For example, the opinion of the Conservative and Reform movements that one may drive to the synagogue on Saturday, which is a direct violation of Torah law based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Torah and the obligation to pray.
Imran: This is mostly a semantic point, but there are some ethnic groups which define themselves by religion and can be changed by conversion. In my view, Jews are not an ethnic group, but there are many Jewish ethnic groups such as Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Bukharans, various Arab Jewish groups. It's mostly a semantic point though, like I said.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Ethelred - ok, I still don't really get what you are saying. |
You asked a question about what I meant about butchers. If you have a problem with that take up with the meat industry.
quote:
If Iranian Jews want their country they are free to try and organize one or something. |
No they aren't free to do that and why the heck the should the rest of Iran tolerate having their country torn up by a minority.
quote:
But they did nothing of that sort.
And I talked asbout brittain as an example. |
So was I when I mentioned Iranian Jews. They were one of many and only mentioned to remind people that Jews are not a mono-block group.
quote:
However, it does not make you an Israeli in nationality. To be an Israeli, you have to live in Israel and to gain acess to Israel via the law of return you have to be of Jewish religion or ethnicity. |
I had two points let me make them clear again.
One. I think its bizzare and close minded to call people anti-Semetic for saying Israel never should have been founded. Anti-Zionism DOES NOT EQUAL anti-Semitism.
Two. I think its irrational to say that every ethnic group deserves a state. That clearly relates to number one but it is not dependent on it. There are thousands of ethnic groups. Tolerance is right answer not Balkanization.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Natan
Not so - the bible recounts how Moses stoned the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath - no mention of calling in the abusive employer who forced him to do that; he just wanted to gather some sticks. |
More proof that the Bible is a very poor source for moral guidance. This makes Moses a murderer if he killed a man for doing something that harmed no one. Intolerance like this just plain murder.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Judaism is a name of an ethnicity, and a religion and a nationality. |
*BZZZZT* Wrong!
Judaism is the name of a religion. Hebrew is a name of an ethnicity and nationality. Judaism DOES NOT EQUAL Hebrew. People that turn to Judaism do NOT change their ethnicity! |
Hebrew is not an ethnic grouping. Its a language. One that was pretty much dead for a very long time. When the Romans had their hissy fit with Judea most of the inhabitants spoke Aramaic and Hebrew was mostly a religious language somewhat akin to Latin after the Italians stopped being Romans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, Toleration? How the h*ll are you going force bigots to be tolerant? In the U.S. it is possible because we have a constitution and a Supreme Court. Most other countries are not so blessed. Bigotry is the norm.
Ned |
I can't force it. I can only try to help promote tolerance.
I don't see where the world in general has a heck of lot of choice in the long run. The world is a smaller place then it once was and people will be affected greatly by the change. Look at this site for instance. We all communicate in English.
On a side note I think English has a big advantage in this regard. Not just because so many people use it but because we English speakers stole from so many languages. It makes it easier for those with other native languages to be able to express themselves in English as opposed to previous trade languages like French or Greek. Now if only it wasn't so bloody hard to spell in English but that is partly an artifact of the all the languages it has stolen from.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anunikoba
I am anti-baryon; somehow I just can't accept their quarky schemes.
|
Then you should read Stephen Baxter's Ring
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, Just to understand your position, should East Timor been made and independent state? Ned |
Why should it? The rebels aren't even all that popular there. Nasty buch all the way around based I what I read. I haven't read anything about in a while though. It might be that East Timor would be the best solution for the situation but from what I remember of the situation there is quite a lot of overlap in the various ethnic lands.
Should Afganistan have remained under Taliban rule just because the Taliban thought they had the right?
Its one thing to have an ethnic group form a state when they allready have a clear geographic seperation that won't make big holes in the present state. Its another thing to say that a some land must be given to an ethnic group that is spread all over the place. Thats the case for what the Jews were in the 1900's and for the Gypsies still. Who gives up the land and what justifies it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, I was testing your point about tolerance. When the Portuguese pulled out in '75, Indonesia invaded. Indonesia is Moslem. East Timor is Catholic.
A rebellion began that culminated in a referendum in 1999. The people chose freedom by an overwhelming majority. Indonesian militias began a massacre. Australia intervened to put a stop to the violence.
Yesterday, E. Timor was declared a state.
Tolerence here was out of the question. Violence continued so long as Indonesia continued its occupation. It seems to me that E. Timor had a right to self-determination.
Ned |
I mixed up the countries. Did you notice I mentioned rebels? That was because I was thinking about the mess in Sri Lanka.
Tolerance is still a better answer in cases where the people are not seperable. Indonesia is quite unlike the Middle East. Its many islands not a contiguous state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
 |
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
quote:
"Right, and IMHO, (some will disagree) Orthodox Judaism is the Judaism which was practiced for some 1500-2000 years before the other sects showed up, and is therefore the real deal."
This is utter nonsense.
Orthodox Judaism sprung about in the 1700s in eastern europe, as a reaction to the springing reformation and liberalization movements in western europe.
The Orthosox Judaism, insists on keeping things the way they were in the 1700, claiming like the catholic church, that the scriptures are sacred and shouldn't be touched.
This is an anti-thesis to all the great scholars which rose to
The Talmud itself says that after the Bible has left God's hands (so to speak) it is the people's to interpert and to have opinions about.
And the Orthodox are saying that no opinions are allowed, and only their conservative view is legitimate.
Again, don't talk about things that you have no idea about.
|
Dear Sirotnikov,
This post of you only shows you are a most inaccurate reader. The statement I quoted was made by Natan.
For the moment I suggest you continue the discussion with Natan, though he is -in your opinion at least- completely incompetent.
Sincere regards,
S.Kroeze
PS: I understand it is difficult for you to accept you are not a 'true Jew' by his (and mine) definition.
By the way, your utterances show a lot of contempt for people who take their religion seriously.
You are probably an apostate?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
|
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Natan
Arguing that anyone who doesn't accept the Halakha isn't Jewish is absurd, because the Halakha defines a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or converted in accordance with the Halakha - so by your definition, to be a Jew means to be wrong about what it means to be a Jew, since a Jew who accepts the Halakha believes that Jewish apostates are Jews. In short, you're argument is totally absurd. |
A question:
According to this same halakhah, should someone, whose mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of himself/herself was a Jewish woman observing all six hundred and thirteen commandments of the Pentateuch, be considered a Jew -though ALL his/her other ancestors were non-Jewish?
Last edited by S. Kroeze on 21-05-2002 at 22:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Dear Sirotnikov,
This post of you only shows you are a most inaccurate reader. The statement I quoted was made by Natan.
For the moment I suggest you continue the discussion with Natan, though he is -in your opinion at least- completely incompetent. |
It doesn't matter whether you quoted Natan or Neturei Karta or whomever.
To claim that the orthodox movement or it's exact way of deciphering the Bible and the additional books, exists for 1700 years is sheer nonsense.
Right under my nose there are eastern jews, who existed 1700 years ago and lived together with now orthodox Jews, and they see the Torah in a different light.
quote:
PS: I understand it is difficult for you to accept you are not a 'true Jew' by his (and mine) definition. |
a) Natan himself said that you are misunderstanding him.
b) I don't care the slightest bit about your particular opinion about judaism or whether I am jewish or not. I have forgotten more things about Judaism than you will learn if you will try to convert.
quote:
By the way, your utterances show a lot of contempt for people who take their religion seriously. |
As I was saying, you choose to take an ethnical group of people, strip them of identity and claim that the only thing that seporates them from the rest of the people of the world is thier religion?
When you learn the slightest about the connection between nations and religions in the ancient middle east, you will understand that each nation had it's own religion. The Jewish faith is unique in that it has preserved itself as mainly a faith of a certain nation - the Jewish / Hebrew / Judean / Israeli nation. Call it as you will.
Just because you took Judiasm 101 doesn't give you any status.
quote:
You are probably an apostate? |
You are probably an atheist?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
Yes, absolutely and 100%. And if every one of your ancestors was a Jew except for your mother's mother's mothers' etc. who was not Jewish, then you are not Jewish |
I think that that is nonsense.
It all comes down to the first two biblical Jews in the world - Abraham and Sara. Now, their son, Itzhak, married a non-jew. Does that makes each one of his sons not jewish?
Ruth, grandmother (?) of king David was moavite. Is he not Jewish? Is Solomon not Jewish?
My point is that through out history Jews have broke the Halacha rules:
1) We accepted non jews into the faith (think of egypt, think of the events leading to the babylonian diaspora)
2) We never fully abided to the 613 rules (think of the events leading to each diaspora, when we had so much sin in Israel and Judea)
How did one become a jew in ancient times?
Step 1: marrying a jew - it didn't matter whether the mother or the father was jewish.
Step 2: integrating into the jewish society and ethnicity - ie: observing jewish faith, keeping jewish nationality and marrying only [mostly] with jews.
Therefore, I think that while a convertee can't be considered ethnically a Jew (or hebrew or what ever) his grandson, assuming he and his son married jews, can be considered jewish. After all, he is 75% Jewish.
In any case, I think that we should widen up the definition a bit. we've been such a closed society for a good period of years, and it's time we open up and recruit new ranks again.
I do however agree in one point with the orthodox - if one wants to become a jew by means of conversion, it should be made sure that he is doing it out of true love, not out of short term gain (getting a right to become an israeli, getting some protection from jewish communities... what do I know)
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2002 04:20
.
) that one should build on tolerance, not balkanization. It is wrong of any counry to discriminate against people on the basis of ethnicity or religion, so it is wrong for any nation to be exclusively for one ethnic group or religion. 
) ancestors in Germany in the 19th century.
|