Catholics to Pray (Again) for Jews to be...Enlightened

[Teremia]

Jn, I just read your post with great interest. Thank you for taking the time to write that all up!

[yovargas]

Ugh. I hate to osgilliate the thread for this but I would really like some explanation of your ridiculous "you're okay with persecution" assertion. Either an explanation or some sort of apology for what struck me as a pretty insulting statement.

[halplm]

While one cannot possibly say it is a good thing to forget history, or dismiss it as irrelevant. I find it equally difficult to understand what the point of holding past actions of a particular group against the current members of that group.

I have stated previously that I thought it foolish for Christians to hold the Jews responsible for killing Jesus, for multiple reasons. But if I were to take the position that Jnyusa is suggesting, that historical persecution of Christians is part of our culture, and should rightly shape our "world view," then why don't we discuss the attempts by Jews to exterminate Christianity before it even got started?

At what point does history become history, and you have to deal with the people of today?

To many Christians, myself included, Christianity is not about the 2000 years of history of Christians, it is about a personal relationship with God. This means the history of the church, while interesting, is secondary to that relationship. So if I were praying for a Jewish friend to believe as I do, it's not about getting them to forget 2000 years of history and culture. It's not about them forgetting or even forgiving all the past evils done to Jewish people. It is about discovering a new relationship with God that they didn't have before, that is one that I have with God.

[vison]

I hope I am not one of those "aggressive atheists". I call myself an agnostic, merely because I think it is less offensive to religious people. As a rule. Is that cowardly of me? I don't think cowardly as much as simply taking the easy route. If challenged, I admit I am, in fact, an atheist. I don't say too loudly "I know there is no god", but in my heart? I am certain - certain as a person can be. Is it possible I am wrong? Yes, of course I could be wrong. Anything is possible. Does that turn me from atheist to agnostic? Not in my view - since I admit it's possible that Sasquatch might walk into my back yard while I'm sitting here. I "don't believe" in Sasquatch, but, I could be wrong.

Am I comparing the belief in god with a belief in Sasquatch? Well, I guess I am. No, I do more than guess, I know I am. The "proof" for one seems to me to be much like the "proof" for the other. There is no evidence for Sasquatch, but then, there is no evidence for lack of Sasquatch. See? Not the same only different, not the same at all.

Having said that, I don't know how I could be aggressive. (Jnyusa, I know you weren't speaking to me or about me.) I am not about to say, "I know there's no god and you ought to think the same as I do." That I have expressed a certain amount of contempt in response to a couple of posts by Christians on this forum and the others I frequent, I admit. When I am confronted, as I have occasionally been, by smug, provincial certainty and intolerance, I tend to respond with sarcasm or mocking. But I never say, "You must believe as I do!" I do say, "You are free to believe as you wish - but so am I. If you have contempt for my lack of belief, then I am entitled to have contempt for your certainty."

I believe pretty seriously in the separation of church and state and am always amazed at how much religion there still is in public affairs. I was at a bankers' convention where the hosting chairman prayed at quite great length that the Lord Jesus Christ might notice and bless our deliberations, and could see the unease and distaste of Sikh, Muslim and, probably, Jewish people while he did so. Never mind me, who sat there wondering what the hell Jesus Christ had to do with the whole thing. The praying guy was clueless. Had he said, merely, God, it might have suited most people better. When I brought it up I was, you know, stared at. The others who were offended, at least those I spoke to, did not care to "make a fuss", for reasons entirely to do with their "race" and religion, fearing to waken something. Something, indeed. So I shrugged and moved on.

So that's my two bits' worth.

[Holbytla]

vison, I mostly agree with you, but the Sasquatch thing fails I'm afraid. For lots of reasons. In fact I am more likely to believe in a God with absolutely zero proof, than I am in Sasquatch, which to me is about as believable to me as the Kennedy Assasination conspiracy is to you.

In any case I am not an atheist, but I don't believe in any specific thing. I am not a big fan of organized religions, but I do believe there is wisdom and truth in many of them.

I have no answers and I know nobody else does either. That is to say they have faith but not facts, which is really what religion is about anyway.

[vison]

Holbytla, I don't "believe" in anything either. "Not believing" in God is not a faith. It's just not believing. I have no reason to believe so I don't. No faith in anything is required for that.

[Holbytla]

Well I do believe in "something", but I don't really feel a need to define that or follow a set of beliefs.

[Primula Baggins]

vison, if Sasquatch existed, there could, and would, and should be convincing physical evidence of it. The absence of such convincing physical evidence, after all this time, is a strong indication to me that the beast is mythical.

But the absence of physical evidence for the existence of God doesn't mean the same thing, because there can't be any such evidence.

A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence, and people draw their own conclusions from that, as they should. But the cases don't truly compare.

[Cerin]

Jn, thanks so much for clarifying!

I find it equally difficult to understand what the point of holding past actions of a particular group against the current members of that group.

I don't think it's so much holding past actions against current members, as for the current members to understand that the past actions have shaped the perceptions of those relating to the current manifestation of the religion, and its members.

When I am confronted, as I have occasionally been, by smug, provincial certainty and intolerance, I tend to respond with sarcasm or mocking.

So vison, are you saying that the difference between your certainty that there is no God and those you refer to above, is not that your certainty is less smug or provincial, but simply that you are less inclined to be frank about it?

"You are free to believe as you wish - but so am I. If you have contempt for my lack of belief, then I am entitled to have contempt for your certainty."

But you've said you share a similar certainty. So then, when you have contempt for someone else's certainty, are you also holding your own certainty in contempt? Or is it the matter of the certainty, and not the certainty itself, that can warrant varying degrees of contempt?

[Jnyusa]

Jn, I just read your post with great interest. Thank you for taking the time to write that all up!

Thank you for reading it!

I would really like some explanation of your ridiculous "you're okay with persecution" assertion

Yov, you have said many times on this board that you understand why some Christians hate homosexuality, it's part of their religion, they have a right to tell you that you are sinning and going to hell, and you don't criticize them for this. Many times I have been shocked by what you claim to be willing to tolerate, attitudes and stories of comments that I would consider persecutory if they were directed toward me. I've never mentioned it before in a thread, because it's a bit pop-psychology, isn't it, to ask someone whether this isn't self-hatred, and not being a homosexual I don't feel quite qualified to say what gays should or should not accept. But when you suggest that there is something arrogant about Jews who do not allow Christians to tell them they are unbelievers and going to hell for being Jews, then I am unable to resist pointing out that an oft-expressed willingness to be excoriated is not necessarily a good thing.

But, you see, I do not think that Christians who hate and who say hateful things and who do violent deeds behave this way because of their Christianity. I think their attitudes and behavior arise from their character, and they are cherry picking Christianity to support the drowning anger that they feel inside. So even if I were not the victim, it would make no sense to me to excuse such people on the grounds of religion.

(Jnyusa, I know you weren't speaking to me or about me.)

For sure not! I was thinking of those like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who made a profession out of criminalizing all religious expression. To a lesser extent Richard Dawkins falls into this category ... in that this is not a realm where I would consider a good offense to be the best defense. But O'Hair was no different from Pat Robertson, imo ... just, in the opposite direction.

And then, we have heard complaints from the religious people on this board that they have been maligned in pretty serious ways on other boards in the past. In this, I think the Christians are justified in saying that they are the primary victims of such criticism, because there is really no way to malign a Jew for his/her religion without it sounding like disguised anti-Semitism. It is 'safe' to criticize Christians because one can do so without raising the specter of racism or ethnocentrism.

While one cannot possibly say it is a good thing to forget history, or dismiss it as irrelevant. I find it equally difficult to understand what the point of holding past actions of a particular group against the current members of that group.

It is not a matter of holding past actions against a group of people, hal. It is a matter of being able to state openly in discussion what things have shaped your world view.

But if I were to take the position that Jnyusa is suggesting, that historical persecution of Christians is part of our culture, and should rightly shape our "world view," then why don't we discuss the attempts by Jews to exterminate Christianity before it even got started?

hal, it was the Romans who tried to stamp out incipient Christianity, not the Jews. The first Christians were Jews, remember?

Re sasquatch ... ... such comparisons become relevant, I think, when we consider why some religious people go to lengths to discover, or create, physical evidence ... like, those people who planted fake fossilized human footprints near a dinosaur fossil bed, thinking this would be accepted as proof that the world was as young as the Bible seems to imply. For some people, I think that their belief in god is very much like their belief in sasquatch, and I feel a certain amount of pity for that worldview, because it suggests to me a sense of personal defeat.

Jn

cross-posted with Cerin

[vison]

I don't usually have contempt for anyone's beliefs, Cerin. Just the odd person!!!

I guess the thing is, a lot of people I value a great deal, people I love and admire, etc., are people who have some religious - faith. Conviction. I don't.

I don't want to seem smug. I don't want to BE smug. I'm not. I am just a person who does not believe there is a god. That's all. I don't think "I'm right!!!" I think, "That's what I think." Right doesn't enter into it. It doesn't matter.

My "certainty" is because I see no reason to believe in god. But people who do say that faith is all that you need. I don't see it that way.

Not only do I not see any "reason" as in "evidence" (the Sasquatch argument) I don't see any "reason" as in, "Why would I? What reason do I have to believe in god? What is it going to do for me? What need do I have for god?"

Mostly, I don't think about it. Once in a while I get drawn into a thread like this, but usually I don't. I don't have much to contribute, and I always, always, always, seem to wind up saying the wrong thing. Which is why, in RL, I usually avoid the topic or say, if I'm pressed, "I'm agnostic".

[Cerin]

Once in a while I get drawn into a thread like this, but usually I don't. I don't have much to contribute, and I always, always, always, seem to wind up saying the wrong thing.

Thanks for your reply, vison. I think almost anything one could say in such discussions could be the wrong thing, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many of us feel that way.

[anthriel]

Once in a while I get drawn into a thread like this, but usually I don't. I don't have much to contribute, and I always, always, always, seem to wind up saying the wrong thing.

Thanks for your reply, vison. I think almost anything one could say in such discussions could be the wrong thing, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many of us feel that way.

<nods vigorously>

Amen to that, Cerin.



Oh... wait...

[yovargas]

I would really like some explanation of your ridiculous "you're okay with persecution" assertion

Yov, you have said many times on this board that you understand why some Christians hate homosexuality, it's part of their religion, they have a right to tell you that you are sinning and going to hell, and you don't criticize them for this. Many times I have been shocked by what you claim to be willing to tolerate, attitudes and stories of comments that I would consider persecutory if they were directed toward me. I've never mentioned it before in a thread, because it's a bit pop-psychology, isn't it, to ask someone whether this isn't self-hatred, and not being a homosexual I don't feel quite qualified to say what gays should or should not accept. But when you suggest that there is something arrogant about Jews who do not allow Christians to tell them they are unbelievers and going to hell for being Jews, then I am unable to resist pointing out that an oft-expressed willingness to be excoriated is not necessarily a good thing.

But, you see, I do not think that Christians who hate and who say hateful things and who do violent deeds behave this way because of their Christianity. I think their attitudes and behavior arise from their character, and they are cherry picking Christianity to support the drowning anger that they feel inside. So even if I were not the victim, it would make no sense to me to excuse such people on the grounds of religion.

This...I...probably should just ignore this because I'm too angry right now...it feels like such a purposeful twisting of my words, indeed the words of practically anyone who disagrees with you...but since it happens to provide what I think may be a convenient parallel to the discussions of this thread...I'll address this question to thread:



My 68-year old mother, who was raised in the literal-minded, rule-loving tradition of the Seventh-Day Adventists and is still strong in her traditional SDA beliefs, has said on a several occasions that she believes homosexuality is a sin, that she hopes I realize the error of my ways, and that she prays I return to God and live the kind of life that He wants me to lead. She has also told me on far more occasions that she loves me completely and unconditionally, that she ultimately wishes for nothing more than my happiness, and that she will accept whoever I end up with as long as I am happy with them. Is my mother being "intolerant" of gays? Is she "persecuting" me? Is she being "arrogant"? OR - if I rebuked and chastised her for her beliefs, demanded that she renounce her views, and insisted she adopt my way of thinking or else I will no longer let her be a part of my life - would I be the one who is being intolerant arrogant and persecuting?


Hopefully, the parallels between that situation and what I see happening in this thread are obvious.......

[Impenitent]

I'm sorry you're feeling so angry about it yov.

I have consciously stayed out because my views are strong and, having travelled broadly in my personal fields of belief and faith, I have a lot to say that would undoubtedly cause disturbance, not the least to my self.

However, on the specific point you are in dispute over with Jn, may I suggest that perhaps you have not been clear in your posts in past threads because I also have always been as perplexed as Jn with regards to your magnanimity to homophobes. Perhaps it is not what you meant, perhaps your words were not clear, but I was of a similar impression, that you extend the right to them to condemn you, even when they do so in hateful terms.

I suspect now, in view of the above anecdote about your mother, that you have had difficulty expressing the complexity of your stance and that therefore I misunderstood you on the basis of your previous posts in other threads.

I am very sorry that you're feeling so angry and upset about it.

[Jnyusa]

yov, I honestly don't recall you ever talking here about your relationship with you mother. In fact the one discussion where I recall (what struck me then as) an unusually vigorous defense of homophobes was posted before you came out to your parents. The person with whom you were arguing at that point was nel, iirc. I should probably go through earlier threads to determine why I have this impression of your position and whether it is a complete one-off, but the topic has come up so often on the board that I'm afraid I would be all night reading old threads.

But more recently you did say yourself that you have often taken this position ... in the thread about the Pope's condemnation of homosexual unions:

You know, I've often and vocally defended those who view homosexual acts as sin. But to tell ME that MY feelings aren't AUTHENTIC?? ..... I'd have a hard time saying what I think of that without somoene turning off the word filter.

Perhaps, as Imp said, we have all misunderstood what you were trying to convey. In any event, my point was that I do not feel nearly so generous toward my enemies as you feel toward yours.

Jn

[yovargas]

Perhaps I am less quick to deem people my enemies than you are.



ps - Anthy should never delete her posts
(just sayin')

[Jnyusa]

Perhaps I am less quick to deem people my enemies than you are.

That may also be true, but I was speaking of self-declared enemies. Anyone who says my kind needs to not exist has declared me their enemy, nu?

[Holbytla]

Well I am heterosexual, so I obviously don't believe in homosexuality.
But I am not yov's enemy.

I don't believe in Judaism, but I am not the enemy of any Jews.

All of this is above my ken, but I think there are more shades to this than black and white.

I think it is ok to have a contrary opinion and hope for someone's well being. I mean we can only be us and think what we think. If we believe in Christianity, then that pretty much precludes you not believing in Judaism. But that doesn't make one the enemy of the other.

[Jnyusa]

If we believe in Christianity, then that pretty much precludes you not believing in Judaism. But that doesn't make one the enemy of the other.

Clearly. It should not.