quote:*raises eyebrow* Actually, it's not a simple answer. And I see no reason to invest my time and energy into ANY answer, when as far as I can tell, your primary (if not sole) motivation for asking is to "stir things up."
You want to argue for the sake of argument, find someone else.
My primary motivation is to discover the truth behind religion -- which, I hope, is your primary motivation to be a Jew. I'm not asking solely for the sake of "stir[ing] things up" (where did you get that quote from, out of interest?), but rather asking healthy and reasonable questions about religion that any and every person who studies or follows a religion should be able and willing to answer.
Is it really that difficult to say whether or not you believe Judaism is the one true religion of God?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: "stir[ing] things up" (where did you get that quote from, out of interest?
It wasn't a quote. It was using an expression. Would you prefer single quote-marks? That's not how I was taught to punctuate, but if it adds clarity, I'll try to remember.
quote: My primary motivation is to discover the truth behind religion
I have great difficulty believing your claim. I have greater difficulty believing that any answer I give you will be used by you to do anything positive.
Your responses in this thread alone are sufficient proof to me of that; and I've seen you do this in other threads before. You may disagree. That is your privilege. I choose not to argue religious issues with you any longer. That is my privilege.
quote: questions about religion that any and every person who studies or follows a religion should be able and willing to answer
Thanks for informing me of my duties. I happen to disagree.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "stir[ing] things up" (where did you get that quote from, out of interest? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't a quote. It was using an expression. Would you prefer single quote-marks? That's not how I was taught to punctuate, but if it adds clarity, I'll try to remember.
If you're not quoting someone, I'm not all that sure that you're supposed to use quotation marks. But then, I could be wrong.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My primary motivation is to discover the truth behind religion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have great difficulty believing your claim. I have greater difficulty believing that any answer I give you will be used by you to do anything positive.
I'm rather insulted. While finding the truth in religion may necessarily mean partly discrediting Judaism as the one true religion of God -- or, at least, every other religion in existence -- how is it not a positive deed to discover which aspects of religion are falsehoods?
To be honest, I find it rather sad that you can both claim to believe in your religion (which, to be fair, you have yet to do) and not only be unable to defend it from the most basic of questions, but refuse to subject your religion to questioning at all. It smacks of denial and wishful thinking, and does far more to discredit your religion than any argument I could put together.
quote:Your responses in this thread alone are sufficient proof to me of that; and I've seen you do this in other threads before. You may disagree. That is your privilege. I choose not to argue religious issues with you any longer. That is my privilege.
My responses in this thread? To what? I first posted that the test was necessarily wrong because it didn't mark atheism as enough of a leap of logic, then I went on to -- repeatedly -- ask you if you believe your religion to be accurate. Which responses are "proof" of my inability to do "anything positive"?
Also, as I said above, it's rather depressing that you so fear to allow even the most basic of questioning into your religious life. Judaism has existed for how many thousands of years, and fear that I can disprove it in a thread? Or is your faith so shaky that daring to answer whether or not you believe in your religion can lead to your own disillusionment with Judaism?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not asking solely for the sake of "stir[ing] things up" (where did you get that quote from, out of interest?), but rather asking healthy and reasonable questions about religion that any and every person who studies or follows a religion should be able and willing to answer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for informing me of my duties. I happen to disagree.
You disagree that your religion's meant to discover (or be) the truth about God? You disagree that asking questions is a necessary and important step in finding the truth about anything? Or is it that you believe Judaism doesn't mean for you to know truths about God?
I'll stop questioning you if your religious faith is too shaky to withstand even the slightest, easiest questioning, but I fear I've lost a great deal of respect for Judaism if its members aren't sure enough of their religion to answer the most basic of questions about it.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, Lalo. I've been watching this ongoing tirade for the last few hours, and I thought you were pushing it about a dozen posts ago.
Some people just don't enjoy discussing religion, and specifically their own beliefs, at any time of the day for the pure academic enjoyment of someone else. It's tiring, and it's annoying, and on hatrack it can be quite blood-pressure-rising.
You're starting to be a bit hostile with the whole, 'you're defeating yourself quite handily' train of thought.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that the directness and implied hostility of Eddie's questioning would put anyone on the defensive and very reluctant to put on the table their most sacred thoughts and beliefs to be ripped apart.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I have discussed -- and will continue to discuss -- my beliefs with those I view as seriously interested in my answers.
You can be as insulted as you like. (I suspect that you are not actually insulted, but that's not really relevant.) But your response seems to me deliberately insulting and inflammatory. I am doing my best to be neither.
posted
Now that I got the quick response out of the way, here are a few comments.
1. Plenty of people use quotation marks for 'euphemism' or exaggeration. I don't think most people read it as rivka quoting you. She was using a common phrase and labelling it with quotation marks. Perhaps not the absolutely correct method, but reasonable.
2. You insinuate (or you say explicitly) that you doubt rivka's ever allowed someone to question her faith. That's a pretty brash statement. What you really mean is that right now, she refuses to answer your question. In fact, she refused to answer it many times and you kept repeating it. It's not like she missed it the first couple times. It isn't wrong to back out of a fight when you're not in the mood.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka has said: "...we don't believe you have to be of our faith to be a good person and have a good afterlife."
Rivka put, on this very thread: "I didn't say that my morality isn't derived from God -- it is." and "Jews do not believe that everyone need follow Judaism -- nor that the whole world being Jewish is even an ideal." and "I happen to try very hard not to judge other people or their beliefs, unless they choose to infringe upon mine."
I think these are noble views, and I think they're pretty good justification for not giving a "yes" answer to the question at hand, because in a certain way, in light of these views, to do so would be to judge not only the religion of others but also their morality. On the other hand, to give a "no" answer would actually be a bit strange, if not lying or hypocritical. Since, after all, who does not believe that their religion is the true religion, or at least the true religion for him/her(I also don't know of very many individuals that can enter the mind and thus understand the exact viewpoint of another individual;), so how is it right to say definitely that 'you are right to'). Tell me one person who does not think they are right about the things they think they're right about! Does that pretty well estimate your standpoint, Rivka? If so, and with the guarantees that my question is based only on an infinite curiousity that's bubbled up, and that I'm not looking for a "yes" or a "no", would you please tell me, if you think you have an answer, whether you think Judaism the one true religion of God?
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect (although I could be wrong) that the question “Is Judaism the One True Religion of God,” doesn’t actually make much sense in the world view of Judaism. Y’all might be better off asking Rivka to explain that, rather than demanding yes-no answers to a mu question.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. Plenty of people use quotation marks for 'euphemism' or exaggeration. I don't think most people read it as rivka quoting you. She was using a common phrase and labelling it with quotation marks. Perhaps not the absolutely correct method, but reasonable.
I don't think most people would read it that way, either, but for the few people not willing to read through every post could reasonably interpret Rivka's quotation as my own. Which brings the question as to why she put them in there at all -- it certainly wasn't to exaggerate "stir things up," since it's a hard phrase to but a sarcastic twist on, nor was it an accurate recounting of anything I've said. Why use them at all?
quote:2. You insinuate (or you say explicitly) that you doubt rivka's ever allowed someone to question her faith.
Well, no. I charge her with being unwilling or unable to allow me to ask her a basic question -- a question she's dodged from Tom and about a dozen, according to your count, times from me.
quote:That's a pretty brash statement. What you really mean is that right now, she refuses to answer your question. In fact, she refused to answer it many times and you kept repeating it. It's not like she missed it the first couple times. It isn't wrong to back out of a fight when you're not in the mood.
No, though it is obnoxious to keep misanswering a question she understands. If she's unwilling or incapable of answering the question, why not tell Tom that the first time he asked her? Backing out of a fight implies actual declaration that one won't or can't answer a question -- an exercise Rivka finally got around to practicing when this page began. I can't say I'm not disappointed that she's so unwilling or unable to, as Mac said, put her sacred beliefs on the table to be ripped apart -- perhaps I'm alone in this, but a thought isn't sacred to me unless it's able to withstand being ripped apart. How can one both hold a belief she believes to be accurate and refuse to question it?
I don't mean to imply all religious people do this -- several, if not most religious people I know love nothing better than to question and argue the merits and truths of religion. It's rather disconcerting to see someone -- let alone someone who holds to an orthodox faith -- refuse to answer whether or not they believe in their religion in fear of a future logical trap that might conceivably show their faith to be inconsistent or incorrect (or vice versa).
I'm genuinely interested, despite Rivka's constant allegations of negative sadistic desire to rip apart people's beliefs, to find out the truths behind gods. If there is one out there willing to grant me Paradise or seventy-two virgins, you won't find anyone happier about it than me. Unfortunately, I have yet to see any religion which comes at all close to making reasonable judgments about gods (or their accessories, be they paradise, angel armies, human mates) -- or, to be fair, any reasonable judgements I'm capable of understanding, having never been communicated to by God or Satan or angels or flaming shrubs.
I engage in religious debate precisely because I'm interested in finding out if there's any truth behind religion -- thus far, especially with Rivka's apparent fear of even answering whether she believes her religion or not, I've been let down.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the belief could withstand the tearing, but the emotions surrounding that belief in the PERSON may not be.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow, I can tell that copious amounts of attention are being paid to my last post. I just love it when people do that
No offense intended, Lalo, I'm sure you don't mean to, but to me anyway, you are coming across as an asshole. You could try toning it down a tad. In reference to:
quote: how is it not a positive deed to discover which aspects of religion are falsehoods?
Well, worded exactly as you did "religion" and not "religions", because in attempting your deed, you (Seem to, that is) assume that all religions share some common falsehood, and I believe that is false, and since your actions seem to be based on a false premise, there's no way your action can be trusted to be positive.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And in the middle of a random thread, out of sheer boredom, Nathan released a bag of monkeys with a promise to delete this post in the morning.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"perhaps I'm alone in this, but a thought isn't sacred to me unless it's able to withstand being ripped apart."
Eddie, you and I feel roughly the same way about sacred things -- that they should only be sacred if they're true and inviolate.
To other people, though, many of whom are religious, "sacred" doesn't mean "inviolate;" it means that the object must not be violated, which is something altogether different.
Rivka's uncomfortable with this line of questioning for two reasons: because she doesn't want to insult other people by being forced to admit she doesn't share their beliefs, which is rather noble of her; and because her beliefs are sacred to her in the second sense -- as something that should not be violated.
I stopped harping on this topic (a page ago) once that became clear to me, and once I realized that she was avoiding my question rather than misunderstanding it. I don't think you're going to achieve anything worthwhile by continuing to press her for a clearer statement, and you're only going to come off as increasingly hostile and inflammatory if you try.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*WARNING! THIS POST WILL BE LONG AND RAMBLING!*
One of the things I love about Hatrack is that there are so many people here who make me really think about what I thought I knew. I'm a proponent of living an 'examined life,' and I strongly believe that the alternative to growth and change is stagnation.
One of the things I dislike intensely about Hatrack is the tendency toward polarization. So many things -- in politics, religion, etc, etc -- are better represented as a spectrum, not a choice between two extremes.
IMO, sometimes meeting a challenge is the way to grow; but sometimes choosing not to argue in circles is the better exercise. The difficult part is figuring out which applies at any given time.
A little personal history might be helpful. When I was about 16, I had an 'email buddy.' We corresponded about all kinds of things, and disagreed at least as often as we agreed -- usually fairly courteously. He is Mormon, and we had discussed religious and cultural differences repeatedly. I was intrigued to learn about both differences and similarities that I had been unaware of. And I know he was surprised when I declared that learning to live without coffee was be something I could never do, although I find living without cheeseburgers no big deal.
I was 16, even more opinionated than I am now (I know, scary, isn't it?), and not particularly tactful. I also had a tendency to argue as though my life depended on it, even over very minor issues.
At some point, one religious discussion got out of hand. I remember being hurt and furious; but mostly very sad that the friendship was clearly over. Fortunately, he was older and wiser, and calmly suggested that that specific topic be allowed to die with no hard feelings. I gladly agreed, but the friendship was really never the same.
I come from a religious tradition where there are often two (or more) contradictory opinions on a text -- and yet both are considered completely valid! Sometimes there exists an insight that allows us to see that the two are merely facets of a larger picture, and not really incompatible at all. Often, it's not possible (for me, at least) to see how the different views are compatible -- yet I believe that they are, in some way I do not yet understand. Cognitive dissonance is sort of fun.
Orthodox Judaism is not a single institution -- and in some ways it never was, nor was it intended to be. There are some aspects that are common to all (Maimonides 13 statements of belief is a good summary); but details of custom and methodology vary greatly. IMO, this is a GOOD thing, if not taken to extremes.
I am well aware of what makes my beliefs different from those of Christians (in general terms, at least), and I strongly suspect that Tom and Lalo are as well. I honestly don't see the point in dwelling on the differences. I am so much more intrigued by the unexpected similarities! Additionally, dkw was right on target when she said
quote: I suspect (although I could be wrong) that the question “Is Judaism the One True Religion of God,” doesn’t actually make much sense in the world view of Judaism.
If you asked me if it were the MOST true, I would say absolutely (and naturally, I would be defining "Judaism" as the particular flavor that I practice )! And for Jews, I believe that Orthodox Judaism is the correct path -- but that it is NOT my job to shove it down anyone's throat, and that any attempts by me to do so would be highly counterproductive.
For non-Jews, it gets more complicated. As I've explained, we discourage conversion. The degree to which other religions (primarily Christianity and Islam) contain Truth has been debated by Jewish scholars for hundreds of years. My personal opinion (based on Maimonides' and the Abarbanel's views on the subject, among others) is that while there are aspects of those religions that I personally believe are false, there are many more that are true, and that these religious fill an important role in God's plan for the world.
So I really wasn't trying to dodge Tom's question. I just didn't feel like going into the whole gantze megillah!
quote: Rivka's uncomfortable with this line of questioning for two reasons: because she doesn't want to insult other people by being forced to admit she doesn't share their beliefs, which is rather noble of her; and because her beliefs are sacred to her in the second sense -- as something that should not be violated.
I don't think I was being 'noble' so much as practical. I saw -- and still see -- no POINT to dwelling on the beliefs of others with which I disagree. I think the commonalities are usually both far more interesting and far more important.
As far as whether my beliefs are "inviolate," I question and reassess them all the time. I think that's very important. However, I think the attitude one brings to the reassessment process is of crucial importance. I don't believe that attacking beliefs is useful. Not, God forbid, because a true belief will be diminished. I agree that is an impossibility. Rather, because we are all flawed, limited mortals, and starting out with a negative "I don't believe anything and you can't make me!" attitude (or something along those lines) will always lead us to negative conclusions. The fault lies not in the beliefs, but in the attitude -- IMO, YMMV.
I warned you it was going to be a long-winded post! But since I decided to post this in lieu of a 4000 landmark, and it sums up several days of thought and intense conversations with RL friends, I think I'm entitled. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka -- that was just an absolutely excellent post, all around.
I, too, have had many of my thought processes challenged by participating in Hatrack, and I consider that a great blessing.
I have a dear friend from my church, who I consider more "learned" than me in the scriptures, and sometimes things come up here on Hatrack that really throw me, and make me examine WHY I believe what I do. When that happens, I can post off an e-mail to my church friend, and we end up in a lively discussion back and forth to further clarify my understanding or the perspective.
I find it extremely stimulating -- because being a "comfortable" Christian is not a good way to grow spiritually. Debate here helps me think, grow and defend. I will never agree with Lalo or Tom, probably, spiritually, but they have certainly caused me to step back and examine my beliefs.
As you said, there are times it isn't necessary to "get into it" in a religious debate here that is not going to change anyone's mind. Yet it is a good exchange, usually, when we all respect each other.
posted
I don't understand my religion at all. I'm pretty aware of the customs, history, laws, etc, but... My judaic studies teachers (the ones that aren't Taliban, that is) like to encourage questioning of beliefs. But they seem to focus on relatively minor details. Instead of "Why should I believe in God? Why should I believe in the Torah? Why should I practice any Jewish customs at all??" they focus on "Why did Jacob build a monument if idolatry is forbidden?". And if they do focus on relevant questions like "Is the Torah sexist?" the answer ends up being no. They use the Torah as a source in proving the Torah!
posted
Shlomo, I had some similar issues in high school. I did a lot of 'independent study' -- i.e., read lots of books on my own.
Now it's so much easier! There are SO many sites online, representing a good chunk of the spectrum. My favorite is Aish.com -- mostly because they deal with so many issues (not that I agree with them on everything, but that's part of the fun ) -- but there are TONS of others. I find new sites every time I research a topic!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
