What is a Jew

[bmolsson]

Note the definition of Fundamentalism: a movement.

You are a movement, Pindar....

I don't see belief as the base of a religion. I do see belief as central to the devotee's joining or aligning themselves with a religion.

You are locked in your own perception of religion and are inable to see reality. Your own faith is set as the reference for your stand in this question. You are a fundamentalist. A very nice fundamentalist though, I might add....

"Need to" and "wish" are subject specific and connote desire. In a religious milieu these feelings suggest a will to join which it is not unreasonable to associate with belief. You made my point.

I converted to Islam to be able to marry my wife. If you see that as a faith, you have made a point. Actually I know close to a hundred converts between different religions, none of them have the faith you are looking for. Reality is not as you believe it is.....

[Pindar]

You are a movement, Pindar....

Sometimes

Posted by Pindar
I don't see belief as the base of a religion. I do see belief as central to the devotee's joining or aligning themselves with a religion.


You are locked in your own perception of religion and are inable to see reality. Your own faith is set as the reference for your stand in this question. You are a fundamentalist. A very nice fundamentalist though, I might add....

So if I ask someone if they're religious and they say: "yes, I am a member of X" and I follow up with a question about why they joined that faith, to which they reply: "Because I believe it" Your position would be I created this and I am unable to see reality?

You used fundamentalist incorrectly.

I'm not nice.

I converted to Islam to be able to marry my wife. If you see that as a faith, you have made a point. Actually I know close to a hundred converts between different religions, none of them have the faith you are looking for. Reality is not as you believe it is.....

So there are over a hundred people that joined some religion because of a personal agenda and you consider this a reflection on the religion rather than on the people. You also consider these people religious. Amazing.

Through the course of our discussions I have found you as foreign as the word can suggest. I can't recall any, even Marxists with whom I have less in common.

[Sigurd]

It is my opinion based on the things I have read that the term Jew has always been race related. In ancient Israel you had the 12 tribes where Jews (yehudi) were members of the tribe of Judah. Later the term broadened and it meant those who lived in the Kingdom of Judah, not considering tribe affiliation (but still, sons of Jacob).

This was a race issue because the Jews where not allowed to marry non-Jews. Their religion was also only for Jews*. The sect that Jesus and his apostles organised in the 1st century AD was strictly for Jews and the apostles were forbidden to preach to the gentiles. It was Peter who later changed this when he had his vision about the forbidden food on a blanket.

There was also a problem with part Jews, something that the New Testament repeatedly illustrates. The Samaritans, originally a mix of Jewish descent and Babylonian decent, wanted to be recognised as Jewish but were despised by the Jews.



* There were cases of gentiles converting to Judaism, but they were never considered Jewish but were called proselytes.

[Don Corleone]

Well, yeah, but in those days, most people in Western Europe practiced infanticide on newborns perceived to be inferior. I don't think it's fair to hold a people to the historical baggage of their ancestors, namely that the Jews were racially segregated, unless they're carrying those practices into today. By virtue of the fact I could convert to Judaism & be recognized as a Jew, that does not apply in today's world.

Actually, as an American, this might not be such a bad thing. Yeah, we have slavery and the Native American genocides to contend with, but that pales in comparison to the things the Europeans have done over the centuries. And, as you Europeans are so quick to point out, Americans are Americans, there is no link back to our ancestors' countries... so no blame either!

[Steppe Merc]

Europeans have had more chances to screw up.
Seriously, Americans has been around for 300 or so years, so it makes sense for Europeans to have done more bad things over the years, since they've had more years to do so.

[Don Corleone]

I'm just saying, that since as they claim, we are a race unto ourselves, I personally don't have to own up to human sacrifice, cannibalsim and a host of other civilized events they've participated in over the years.

[Idomeneas]

I'm just saying, that since as they claim, we are a race unto ourselves, I personally don't have to own up to human sacrifice, cannibalsim and a host of other civilized events they've participated in over the years.

Your family fell from the sky to america?

[Sigurd]

I know I could be perfectly wrong in my position and I for one do try to be as inoffensive as I can towards the Semitic people.
But the fact remains; there are two kinds of Jews (according to the Jewish community) the Jews by birth and the Jews by choice. These two groups are separate and distinct. Sadly the latter is many times looked down upon, mainly because the Jews by birth question the motives for converting.
According to the wise men of Judaism the proselytes or converts are a choice people of God. They embraced the truth without being compelled to.
There shouldn’t be a difference between the two but reality speaks of other practises.

[Pindar]

[font=Verdana]It is my opinion based on the things I have read that the term Jew has always been race related. In ancient Israel you had the 12 tribes where Jews (yehudi) were members of the tribe of Judah. Later the term broadened and it meant those who lived in the Kingdom of Judah, not considering tribe affiliation (but still, sons of Jacob).

Regarding OT vernacular: in English a distinction is made between Hebrew and Jew. Hebrew is the designation for the 12 respective tribes of Israel and their descendents. Jew is applied to the direct descendants of Judah.

The general designate Jew was also applied to loyal subjects of the Kingdom of Judah, as you noted, or followers of the Covenant after the destruction of the Kingdom of Ephraim.

This was a race issue because the Jews where not allowed to marry non-Jews. Their religion was also only for Jews*. The sect that Jesus and his apostles organised in the 1st century AD was strictly for Jews and the apostles were forbidden to preach to the gentiles. It was Peter who later changed this when he had his vision about the forbidden food on a blanket.

This is not correct. There were three designates for proselytes:

Rev a proselyte of the gate

Myrkv a mercenary and

Qdu rg a proselyte of righteousness.

Proselytes of the gate ( Ex. 12:15; Lev. 25:45, 47) sometimes referred to as bwvt rg a "proselyte inhabitant", were gentiles who were allowed to live among the Jews who had accepted to live by the standards of the law.

A mercenary was a hired servant ( Exodus 12:44, 45) who could live amongst the Jews for a certain time period but with constraints i.e. not eating together etc.

Proselytes of righteousness (Deut. 16:20) were gentiles who fully converted to Judaism. They were considered "sons of the covenant" and considered the same as an Israelite enjoying all religious and civil liberties.

Proselyte is Greek derived. It first appears in Philo as I recall. It does not connote any negative connotation.

There are some references to proselytes in the NT: ( Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43) One includes the Christ rebuking Pharisees for converting people to the wrong understanding:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." Matt. 23:15

For our purposes it clearly indicates conversion attempts to Judaism.

There was also a problem with part Jews, something that the New Testament repeatedly illustrates. The Samaritans, originally a mix of Jewish descent and Babylonian decent, wanted to be recognised as Jewish but were despised by the Jews.

Whether Samaritans were mixed or not is unclear. The Jewish, Samaritan and Assyrian records contradict each other. What is clear is they had a separate temple on Mt. Girizim and rejected the Oral tradition while retaining the Torah. The general Jewish view seems to have been they were idolaters.



Regarding Modern Jewry: do you consider an Ethiopian Jew the same race as a Russian Jew?

[Sigurd]

I take your word for it regarding the proselytes.
The more I read about it the more I suspect that Judaism have a Christian core.
The different Jewish directions(?) would probably disagree.
There is goodwill towards humanity and I have stumbled over many quotes from famous rabbis praising the proselytes as the choice people of God. They are more worth to Him because they are more righteous and not as stiff-necked(?) as the generations of a troublesome people.

I take it that it is as you suggest a question of religion or should be, but the reality and practice suggest that it is all about race or heritage.
I am sitting here thinking of differences in the actual practice of a religion, and the intended practice described through intricate commandments, creeds and articles of the same(religion).
Possibly there were restrictions because of growth pains.
I believe even in your faith which is based on chosen/voluntary/unpaid leadership, there would be problems when the growth is too high.
There is a maturation process that has to elapse before people understand the deeper meanings and the way things work. I suspect that even life-long members have problems with the core principles and would become the Pharisees and Sadducees of the New Testament era*.

I have talked to a couple of the "fallen" LDS members even on this board and they speak of other people that is exalting themselves and sit on their high horses thinking they are better than others, like the Jews by birth looks down on the Jews by choice. They frown upon the new proselytes or converts that might not have a shirt and tie when they come to the chapel to partake of the sacraments or other small quirks they might have.
To one who beholds this from the outside this is a little confusing.
There is definitely a difference in the practice of a religion and its intentions described in rules, creeds and articles.
That is probably why they are chastised so much by prophets and religious leaders. Even Jesus himself had a go at the Jews of his time.


*the third direction is not mentioned, could it be that Jesus and his followers where Essenes?

Regarding Modern Jewry: do you consider an Ethiopian Jew the same race as a Russian Jew?

The word race is such a negative word but for the lack of a word that describes a people that keep strict adherence to maintaining blood relation by not intermingle with other peoples, I chose that word when I posted.
Having said that, the twelve sons of Jacob must have married women of the gentile nations and I know some were Canaanites and some of the other people in the Palestinian area.
Didn’t Joseph marry an Egyptian?
I have also read, without remembering the exact details, that Jacob and his sons came to Egypt with a lot of men(grandsons) and that at least 55 of them were described as without wives. That is if all the women described, married one of their cousins.
This means they must have taken either Egyptian wives or wives from other African nations possibly even Ethiopian women.
Didn’t Moses of the tribe of Levi marry an Ethiopian princess?
Is not the tribe of Ephraim considered fair in skin and hair? Did Joseph have other wives?
It was after the exodus when they started to restrict the intermingling with other peoples. At that time the people of Israel – the 12 tribes could very likely have a diversity of ethnic looks and attributes.
Correct me if I am wrong but was it not Solomon that broke the tradition by taking wives from diverse nations and introduced again fresh blood into the Jewish people?

After the first Diaspora, 10 of the tribes were lost into the north countries.
(Hey, I could even be a descendant of one of them without knowing it; many of the peoples of Norway came from the east. I could be a blond descendant of Ephraim).
The story of the Book of Mormon tells of migrating Jews (meaning people from the Kingdom of Judah) they were Manasseh and Ephraim were they not(refugees from the destruction of the North kingdom)? They traveled to America and settled there creating two powerful nations: the Lamanites and Nephites. They became two different ethnic groups were the first destroyed the latter. Some of the Native peoples of America could very well be descendants of the first?
I do think a couple of the LDS prophets called them Jews (not the Indians but the Lamanite/Nephite nations).

The Jews of Ethiopia and the Jews of Russia could be of different tribes with different ethnic attributes. Or they could be of the same tribe i.e. Judah but have different ancestral fathers/mothers.

[Pindar]

I take your word for it regarding the proselytes.
The more I read about it the more I suspect that Judaism have a Christian core.
The different Jewish directions(?) would probably disagree.
=Verdana]There is goodwill towards humanity and I have stumbled over many quotes from famous rabbis praising the proselytes as the choice people of God. They are more worth to Him because they are more righteous and not as stiff-necked(?) as the generations of a troublesome people.[/font]

I take it that it is as you suggest a question of religion or should be, but the reality and practice suggest that it is all about race or heritage.
I am sitting here thinking of differences in the actual practice of a religion, and the intended practice described through intricate commandments, creeds and articles of the same(religion).

I mentioned in an earlier part of the discussion, before I moved this to its own thread, that I think many oppressed peoples often assume the rhetoric of their oppressors. I think many Jews have fallen into this situation. The very notion of race is problematic, yet the term persists as a hang over from the days of the "white man's burden" and eugenics.

Another issue is the shear weight of years that have passed. It is clear that Judaism pre-70 A.D. and what arose after the Temple's destruction and the Diaspora are quite different: as different as Christianity before the Ecumenical Councils and their consequent. Thus, it shouldn't be surprising that a variety of views have some historical referent. This could include even ideas about base identity.

Your references to mixing is apropos. Moses having an Ethiopian wife a good example. Solomon's is noted for his many wives, but my reading is that the real issue was his marrying outside the Covenant (non-believers) and then he began to fall under their influence.

Possibly there were restrictions because of growth pains.
I believe even in your faith which is based on chosen/voluntary/unpaid leadership, there would be problems when the growth is too high.

I think that is right. Growing pains certainly exist and the foibles of men are always a problem as well.

*the third direction is not mentioned, could it be that Jesus and his followers where Essenes?

I know people who hold this view, but it seems to me to have problems. One simple one is the Essenes were separatists this continued up until the rebellion and their destruction by Titus. Whereas, Jesus embraced Jerusalem and the Temple. Further, this continued even afterwards: Peter and Paul taught in the Temple and Jesus' brother James was based in Jerusalem.

After the first Diaspora, 10 of the tribes were lost into the north countries.
(Hey, I could even be a descendant of one of them without knowing it; many of the peoples of Norway came from the east. I could be a blond descendant of Ephraim).
The story of the Book of Mormon tells of migrating Jews (meaning people from the Kingdom of Judah) they were Manasseh and Ephraim were they not(refugees from the destruction of the North kingdom)? They traveled to America and settled there creating two powerful nations: the Lamanites and Nephites. They became two different ethnic groups were the first destroyed the latter. Some of the Native peoples of America could very well be descendants of the first?
I do think a couple of the LDS prophets called them Jews (not the Indians but the Lamanite/Nephite nations).

That's right.

[bmolsson]

So if I ask someone if they're religious and they say: "yes, I am a member of X" and I follow up with a question about why they joined that faith, to which they reply: "Because I believe it" Your position would be I created this and I am unable to see reality?

You used fundamentalist incorrectly.

Yes and No.

I'm not nice.

If you say so Tiger....

So there are over a hundred people that joined some religion because of a personal agenda and you consider this a reflection on the religion rather than on the people. You also consider these people religious. Amazing.

Through the course of our discussions I have found you as foreign as the word can suggest. I can't recall any, even Marxists with whom I have less in common.

I am sure that you know at least one more objective person in your life.

What you mean with religious has nothing to do with belonging to a religion. Sure there are religious people in all religions, but they have very little to do with the reality of the religion in question.

[King of Atlantis]

What you mean with religious has nothing to do with belonging to a religion. Sure there are religious people in all religions, but they have very little to do with the reality of the religion in question.

Actually believing in a religion is the whole point of being a member. In my church there are plenty of religous people. Sure there are people who rarly come to church and probably lake faith, but the religious people are certainly a majority.

[Pindar]

Posted by Pindar
So if I ask someone if they're religious and they say: "yes, I am a member of X" and I follow up with a question about why they joined that faith, to which they reply: "Because I believe it" Your position would be I created this and I am unable to see reality?

You used fundamentalist incorrectly.


Yes and No.


What you mean with religious has nothing to do with belonging to a religion. Sure there are religious people in all religions, but they have very little to do with the reality of the religion in question.

As noted in your own definition of fundamentalism: it is sectarian and a movement. I haven't argued any sectarian position. The question has been focused on the general.

If you reject parishioners own statements about their faith, you have no basis from which to judge religiosity. I understand that for you declaring to be Muslim was a simple expediency (getting married), but it is an error to assume that your own lack of belief is standard.

[bmolsson]

The question has been focused on the general.

Your stand is that religion is all about faith. I disagree. You argue a fundamentalistic view on religion by putting the old values of faith above a new more secular reality where the religion today is active.

I understand that for you declaring to be Muslim was a simple expediency (getting married), but it is an error to assume that your own lack of belief is standard.

In the worlds largest muslim country, Indonesia, most muslims call themselves "muslim KTP", which means that their religion is stated in their identity card, but not a part of their faith. There are a lot of literature written in Indonesia on the problem with the growth of a secular culture in a country built of a very religious views. Indonesia is still a islamic democracy, even if people don't have the faith anymore. It's already proven with scientific methods. Your position is subjective and have no relevance today.

[Pindar]

Your stand is that religion is all about faith.

No, I argued, as I already pointed out, faith (belief) is relevant for understanding devotion. The religious system is distinct.

I disagree. You argue a fundamentalistic view on religion by putting the old values of faith above a new more secular reality where the religion today is active.

Religion cannot be secular and what is secular is not religion. Neither of these points involve any kind of fundamentalism.

In the worlds largest muslim country, Indonesia, most muslims call themselves "muslim KTP", which means that their religion is stated in their identity card, but not a part of their faith. There are a lot of literature written in Indonesia on the problem with the growth of a secular culture in a country built of a very religious views. Indonesia is still a islamic democracy, even if people don't have the faith anymore. It's already proven with scientific methods. Your position is subjective and have no relevance today.

The failures of Islam to instill any devotion amongst Indonesians is irrelevant to the more basic issue of devotion. If one is Muslim according to a legal category that is a contrivance of the nation, not a standard at large. Whatever changes are going on in Indonesia does not effect this basic point.

[bmolsson]

No, I argued, as I already pointed out, faith (belief) is relevant for understanding devotion. The religious system is distinct.

Maybe devotion, but it's not relevant to understand religion as a system.

According to you and the metaphysical, how can you say that a religious system is distinct ??

Religion cannot be secular and what is secular is not religion. Neither of these points involve any kind of fundamentalism.

The reality of today is far more secular than when the largest religions was developed. Inability to evolve is a clear sign of fundamentalism.

The failures of Islam to instill any devotion amongst Indonesians is irrelevant to the more basic issue of devotion. If one is Muslim according to a legal category that is a contrivance of the nation, not a standard at large. Whatever changes are going on in Indonesia does not effect this basic point.

Empirical data shows that you are wrong. The majority of muslims today are not muslims due to devotion, but due to birth and affiliation.