Thursday, August 09, 2007

The Philosopher’s Quick Summary


[The Thinker by Auguste Rodin]


Orthodox Judaism: The only rational way to live.

Christianity: Magical thinking; the idea that believing in Jesus will solve everything.

Islam: Macho men gone wild.

Atheism: Synonym for narcissism and hedonism.

Agnosticism: Mental laziness.

Gay: Promiscuous men with a filthy habit.

Mythology: The ancient version of science fiction.

Secular morality: Whatever most people think is good at the moment.

Evolution: The irrational belief that although everything appears to be designed, it really developed very gradually by chance.

Documentary Hypothesis: An academic fraud with a kernel of truth.

Pornography: Bad acting with no clothes; the primary gateway to atheism.

Fossils: Proof that life has originated through a series of special creations.

Cosmology: Indicates that the universe was created from nothing.

Quantum theory: Indicates that on a subatomic level, things do not always behave according to any predictable rules.

56 comments:

Joebaum said...

How about pagenism?

Joebaum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jewish philosopher said...

No. It's under "mythology", I think.

Joebaum said...

OH!

Joebaum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
david said...

Orthodox Judaism: A denial of your own God and what he has done, or the belief that he is a liar.

Christianity: The simple realization of what the Old Testament promises, and and that God kept his promise.

Joebaum said...

Well for ones your "god" didn't bring us (peaple) anythink.
Anything i'm not aware of?

jewish philosopher said...

"Christianity: The simple realization of what the Old Testament promises, and and that God kept his promise."

I am familiar with all the Christian proof texts, however the problem I have with them is that they are too vague.

In other words, if Isaiah would have predicted "Seventy years before the destruction of the second Temple a child will be born in Bethlehem. His mother will be named Mary and he will be named Jesus. He will do many miracles. He will be put to death at a young age. He will be God in the form of a man." I would say "You know, that's quite impressive. There may be something to this." However in reality, all the proof texts are very vague and general and can be interpreted to mean many other non-Christian things. In other words, they actually prove nothing unless you are already convinced.

Joebaum said...

You guys can get away with beleaving in Jesus, just don't beleave he is some kind of "god" for god's sake!

Joebaum said...

JP, Please consider adding this one to your "list":
Zionism: a cause is more importent then humen blood.
Please go to:
http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/weissmandel_lublin.htm
And you'l see what i mean.
Please when you'r finishd reading don't take it too hard, "mushiach" will come soon and all the evil peaple will pay for what thay have done.

david said...

Does Daniel not predict it in those terms, From Chapter 9 vs 20 he talks of how long until the ruler, or anointed one will come. Then talks of the ruler being cut off. This is just another example, one if I may add that isn't refuted by the link you provided, of a prediction that Jesus seems to fulfill.
And you have a point that these texts can be misinterperated to mean many things. Why do you suppose that it was the early christian church who did this, they had everything to loose and almost all of the disciples were killed for their belief. The Pharasees however were powerful well respected men who were being slammed by the teaching of Jesus. To accept him would have ment they lost all of this power, it was them who had reason to twist the meaning of the prophesies.
So far as the Messiah goes I would like something cleared up. Since the Christian proof texts are so vauge, where does it say that the Messiah will come when all of Israel turn away from sin. What does it mean, and to what degree does Israel need to turn from his sins. Remember though it needs to be clear from the passage, not just it's how Jews have always understood it. It needs to be better then what Christians use as proof or you cannot accuse us of being vauge while accepting a simular level of proof.

Aubrey said...

David, here's a question for you. As a Christian, you accept that the "Old Testament" (as you call it) was G-d's will, right? At the time it was given, anyway. Then it got replaced by the new one, which is G-d's new will. G-d gave the Torah in front of approximately 3 million people *specifically* so that there would be no doubt in anyone's mind who was there at Mt. Sinai that this was His will. This is precisely what has enabled Jews to pass down the tradition so faithfully over the timespan of 3,000 years, despite the fact that we have always been so few in number and are dispersed all over the globe. Thus Maimonides stated that if the Jews had accepted that Moshe was a prophet from seeing him perform miracles alone, it would not have been enough because there would always be a measure of doubt in their minds about whether or not he used black magic. This is why a mass revelation was crucial - and there is no evidence whatsoever of anyone ever denying the revelation. The two biggest monotheistic religions accept that it happened, they just say it's no longer applicable. My question to you is, if G-d in his Infinite Wisdom and Infinite Fairness, knew that it would be unfair to appoint a nation to live a life bound by Torah law without removing all possibility of doubt that this was indeed His will, why would He not then have a mass revelation of the same magnitude, if not GREATER, for His new will? After all, according to Christianity, if you don't accept J as your savior, you're going to Hell, so wouldn't it make sense that G-d would want to make the "truth" as openly apparent as possible? The punishment is way too severe.

It's also interesting to note that Jews do not proselytize (which is why I'm undecided now about how I feel about this blog's purpose being to 'promote Orthodox Judaism', although I do agree with its content). As Rabbi Akiva Tatz put it, we are not worried about the survival of Judaism because that was promised to us at the covenant with Avraham.

Yoshka did not build the Third Temple, and we still don't have world peace. And if you want to say that he fulfills the prophecies, PLEASE, for the sake of your argument, learn Hebrew first and do your own translating! You'll see the translations taught to you make zero sense. Also, please take the time to read this. It does a very thorough job of explaining why Yoshka wasn't Moshiach.

-A

jewish philosopher said...

Dave, what you have to realize is that from the point of view of Judaism, Christianity is to us what Mormonism is to mainstream Christians. It's a breakaway cult started by a crazy guy who got killed.

As far as Daniel chapter 23 is concerned:

21 yea, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, approached close to me about the time of the evening offering. 22 And he made me to understand, and talked with me, and said: 'O Daniel, I am now come forth to make thee skilful of understanding. 23 At the beginning of thy supplications a word went forth, and I am come to declare it; for thou art greatly beloved; therefore look into the word, and understand the vision. 24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place. 25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times. 26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment.'

This is probably one of the most cryptic passages in scripture. It can mean almost anything.

david said...

First of all the Law given to Moses was the only example of such a huge scale revelation other than Jesus and you still accept many other prophets. Remember that Jesus taught all through Israel for about 3 years to huge crowds, his teachings were recorded better than Moses, remember we have 4 seperate accounts of just his life writen within living memory. But getting back to Moses, while I have no doubt this happened, look at how the Jewish people reacted to that. First they build a Golden Cow that they could worship, and even after all the other signs God gives them do they obey him and enter Canan? Hardly the basis for accepting mass revelation in the way you seem to be claiming.
As far as these bad translations go I find it odd that the vast majority of translators have been wrong as you would claim, but lets use the Hebrew Bible that JP provides. Isiah 53 for example is one of the most famous exmples for Christians of Prophesy concerning Jesus. Jews claim this is an extension of the previous Chapter and refers to them. But in your own translation there are numerous mentions of this persons death and his bearing our sins. I would really like to someone explain vs 12
Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

It seems to me that Jews need to put alot more effort into justifying their position from scripture then Christians do.
By the way still waiting for some passages that give a clear vision of the Messiah only coming when the world stops sinning rather then to save the world from sinning

Miriam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jewish philosopher said...

If you prefer not to accept the Jewish commentaries, Isaiah 53 could be referring to anyone. Why not Joseph Smith, the Lubavitcher Rebbe or me?

What has the Messiah got to do with the world sinning or not? He will just be a great king.

david said...

If they continue into one another, why does the language change from phrases like
Isa 52:2 Shake yourself from the dust and arise; be seated, O Jerusalem; loose the bonds from your neck, O captive daughter of Zion.
to,
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.
Surley you see a shift from refering to a group in 52 to a single person in 53.
Still I would honestly like to know where scripture says the messiah will be only a great King. I only want to understand where you are coming from.

jewish philosopher said...

In some cases an entire nationality can be referred to as an individual, such as "Uncle Sam" for the US.

There are actually very few scriptural references to the Messiah personally. Isaiah 11 is one. Jeremiah 23 is another. There isn't really much else besides that. The message is simply that in the future the Davidic monarchy will be restored.

david said...

I understand what your saying, but I just don't think this is the ase in Isiah 53. For example
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.

If in this verse Isiah were talking the whole way about the Jewish people as one person, why do we see the use of "he" and then "our" and "we". This only makes sence if he is talking about one person in the first instance and Israel in the second.

jewish philosopher said...

I think the idea is that in the future, when the world realizes the truth, the gentiles will be amazed by how much suffering the Jews have endured in spite of their righteousness. They will speculate that perhaps the Jewish suffering was an atonement for their own, the gentiles', sins.

david said...

I think that with the benefit of an extra 2000 years of history we can see that the best way of explaining all of these passages is Jesus. I know that he was far from what the Jewish people were expecting or hoping for, but he really does make sence of alot of things in the Old Testament. What confirms his divinity for me as well as alot of Christians is the reserection. Obviously anyone, including you or I, could go arourd claiming to be the Messiah, but that alone means very little. I am sure that you would agree that if Jesus was risen from the dead, an act only God could perform, that this vindicates his claims. And i think there is more good reasons to believe that he did than any other explination. You don't but I would encourage you to go to the URL below and see for yourself.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html

jewish philosopher said...

I don't find the resurrection story to be impressive.

The reason I say that is because first of all, it is far more likely that Jesus' followers were clever liars than it is that he was resurrected. Secondly, even it he did come back to life, it is more likely that he was a sorcerer or a space alien than that he was God in human form.

According to the Talmud by the way, Jesus was and is in hell.

david said...

It's all good to assume that because it's in the Talmud it's true, but I think your wrong. Both the Talmud and the New Testament claim devine insperation but obviously they cannot both be right. So I think you need to establish that Jesus could not have risen from the dead before you can rightfuly claim the divinity of the Talmud.
To say that it is most likely that his followers were good liars, that is far fetched as 11 of the 12 were killed in horrible ways including crucifixion and being thrown off buildings. These men knew wether they were lying or not better than anybody else could, and if I may add were all Jewish, they would not have made this up and then died for it especially knowing what awaited them after death if wrong.
Secondly how many Aliens or Sorcerers do you know of that have come back to life? I don't know any. The only way somebody could come back to life is if God made it happen. God would not do this for Jesus, given the claims he made, if they were not true.

By the way the New Testament says that notonly is Jesus in Heaven, but he will be waiting for you and provide the Divine Judgement that your looking forward to so much.

jewish philosopher said...

I'm not sure I follow you David. Do you need to establish that Joseph Smith and Mohammed were not prophets before you can claim the divinity of Jesus?

Also, the fact that a handful of people have convinced themselves that something is true does not make it true.

david said...

OK then Joseph Smiths claims have had no support from historians, for example here are no ruins of any buildings where he claims these ancient people were. Mohammeds' cliams contadict themselves.

On the second point I totally agree with you, this applies equally to th Talum as the Gospels. So far the argument for the resurection is in my view stronger then the one against, including your alien theory. In my opinion if the resurection is true then it follows that the Gospels and not the Tulmad are true. What evidence do you have against the resurection?

jewish philosopher said...

Well, let's put it this way. Many men have claimed divinity - Roman emperors, Egyptian Pharaohs, Reverend Moon today in Korea, etc. and many people have believed them. I personally, however, find the idea of a person being a god so incredible that it would require an extremely high level of evidence to convince me. Almost any alternative, including space aliens or sorcery, seems more likely. A very nice book written by his followers claiming that he fulfilled a few vague Biblical prophesies just doesn’t do it for me.

david said...

Is your doubt because you have a weak idea of God? If God exists, and he chose to take the form of a creature he created then whats stopping him? Again I think the way to find out the truth is simply to explore the story of the ressurection. It could not have happened if Jesus was not claiming what was true, if he was raised Christians are right, if not then we are wrong.
It is just unfortunate that you can so easily be convinced by one mans written account from 3600 odd years ago, yet 4 seperate biographies, plus another 23 books written by various authors are so hard for you to accept.
I don't understand how it is that you can on one hand say that these prophesies are vauge and on the other say with such certainty that Jesus didn't fill them. You seem prepared to take all of the prophesies the Christians see as refering to Jesus and at the same time say that we can both not know what they are refering to, and know that Jesus didn't have anything to do with them.

jewish philosopher said...

I don't know if you realize this, however Muslims also claim that Jewish and Christian scriptures foretell precisely the coming of Mohamed.

You might be surprised what a little imagination and fraud can do.

david said...

I agree, those Pharasees did well in that regard, great liars that lot. I have already given reasons as to why the Koran is rubbish. All of the examples in that last link are only any good if you look at them in isolation.
Give me good reason to believe that the Old Testament prophets are not predicting a Messiah like Jesus or that the New Testament cannot be true, as I have shown for the Koran. If you can't then why should I believe that it is not the Jewish people that have an overactive imagination.

jewish philosopher said...

Why don't you prove that Reverend Moon or the Lubavitcher Rebbe are not Messiah?

There are plenty of candidates around you know.

david said...

But are the really serious contenders? I dont think that you can seriously look outside the 3 main monotheistic religions as they are the ones with a good enough case to gain a reasonable following. Neither the Jewish or Christian eye witnesses ever said Jesus was a prophet, both state that he claimed divinity, so it would be odd if both groups with their different perspectives said the same thing but the right answer came from a guy 600 years later. So for me Jesus is the one that needs to be considered. Every other person to claim to be the Messiah saw their following fall away when they died, in Jesus case something different happened to make his following grow. This was the ressurction, if it didn't happen then I am wrong and I would conceed that you are right. However the ideas that you are throwing around are not convincing, if that is as good as Jewish apologetics gets then why should anybody believe you. The case for the ressurection is simply stronger then the alien ideas that you throw around without any proof, there is more proof for evolution then that idea of yours and yet you reject evolution.
So again I am not interested in these Messianic frauds that your throwing around, what proof do you have against Jesus claims?

jewish philosopher said...

"I dont think that you can seriously look outside the 3 main monotheistic religions as they are the ones with a good enough case to gain a reasonable following."

How many followers did Jesus have c. 60 CE? Probably fewer than the Moonies or Lubavitchers have today. How do you know how large they may be in a thousand years?

In my humble opinion proving Jesus is not Messiah is like proving I am not Napoleon. The entire idea is ludicrous.

Ananda Eliya said...

b"H
In some things i personally agree with you, in some i completely don't. i am an orthodox jewish wife. On the other hand i studied both psychology and science of religion and to me part of what you say is utterly polemic in nature. This post,offending other peoples faith, gets close to chilul HASEM (please forgive me for this strong wording, i'll explain). We should state to the world ha Emet, but the way you do it, let's say the tone, can foster misunderstanding and by no means stands up to the ideal of Am Israel being ethical and a role-model for the world, thus it can encourage anti-shemiut. On the other hand I agree with to some extend, because i have knowlegde of other religions, but even if there are things we disagree and would never participate in, to offend them won't help much (from a psychological point of view). And also, your knowlegde of Christianity makes u by no means fit to judge other religions. as u r an intelligent person i suggest u differentiate more. From the religious side; may we all make Tshuva wether religious or secular and may we live up to the standards of our Avot and Imaot and therefore be an example to the world. Let them see they are "wrong" about Judaism by showing how truly wonderful our religion is. I also don't understand your concern, why do u want to convince other people? If you want to convince, help Chilonim find their way back home, but don't bother about what others think. I see you were converted (forgive me for reminding u, but you seem not to have a problem with it) by Reb Moshe, so there can't be a doubt, but it just looks to me, as if you still have something to prove or defend. What for?

david said...

Explain why you think that even though there are numerous claims of messiahship, only Jesus is considered to be serious by more than a handful of people. Your right that some of the more recent ones may well have huge followings in the centuries to come. But history suggests this is unlikely. Every other claimant has lost his following right after death, something is differennt with Jesus. For some reason Jesus' followers record hiding away and for fear of their lives, and then suddenly being prepared to die rather then deny Jesus. They give the reason for this as seeing the risen Jesus, the same man that only days before they saw crusified, appearing to them.
You say that to you it is as easy to prove that Jesus is not messiah as it is to show your not Napoleon, so why dont you show me this proof. It is very easy for you to be the ultra-skeptic, but why not show your reasoning instead of simply saying it.

jewish philosopher said...

To me, the issue is, what proof would be required to demonstrate to me that a certain person is God? I think the proof would have to be very, very convincing. For example, if Jesus would have stood up on a mountain in Palestine and announced "I am the Lord your God!" and everyone in the world would have heard his voice and then he had blasted off into space like a human rocket ship in front of a million people, and we would know all this based on countless eyewitness testimonies, I would say "You know, I'll have to think about that."

However to tell me that a verse in Daniel and a verse in Isaiah may be interpreted to indicate that Jesus was God based on something one of his followers wrote about him which might not even be true, that just doesn't impress me in the slightest. If it works for you, fine, but it does nothing for me.

The popularity of Christianity is meaningless. In 1950, Communism was probably more popular than Christianity. Today, there are probably more devout Muslims than devout Christians. Most scientists are probably atheists. Two thousand years, the elite of Rome worshipped Jupiter. So what? There has never been a shortage of fools.

david said...

There are examples of exactly the kind of things you are after, for example in Luke 23:44 we see a claim that when Jesus dies that
Darkness came over the land for 3 hours. This is also recorded by ancient Roman and Greek historians such as Phlegon and Thallus. An eclipse of the Sun can last no more then about 6 minutes. And in Luke 24:50 and Mark 16:19 it is recorded that Jesus was lifted up to heaven.
Besides this there are many more passages that refer to Jesus.

jewish philosopher said...

Thallus and Phlegon are lost to us in the original and it isn’t clear what they actually wrote and when. This isn’t quite “countless eyewitness testimonies”.

Ananda Eliya said...

You didn't answer my post, but i have to admit i'm amused by your struggles. opposite to what i said earlier i know u do intend to do Kidush HASEM and i'm sure it has some kind of that effect. And yes, there is never a shortage of fools and we should not let our speech be limited by them, i guess me personally i just prefer a more diplomatic approach, but then that's my derech and this one is yours. Tihie bari, ve Chatima tova!

jewish philosopher said...

I'm sorry, I accidentally attached my answer to you to a different post:

The main reason why I bother to criticize other religions is because many people (Richard Dawkins and others) enjoy lumping us all together. If a suicide bomber blows up a bus in London, the atheists get all excited “You see what religion does! Atheism is the only good way to live.” Well, there is religion and there is religion. We aren’t by any means all the same. I am religious, but I am not Bible thumping evangelist nor a bomb throwing mullah, and I don’t even especially like those guys.

david said...

Oh yeah, the internet infadels. Seems odd that you would use an atheist group to challange the validity of Thallus, But I am not sure it is so easy to dismiss him. Thats fine though, if you look at how he is discribed on the page you refer to, a pagan chronologer. He simply would have no reason outside of recording the facts to refer to this event if it had not happened.
The example of darkness is a great example of an event that happened in the middle east also being seen in Europe. One that if true defies scientific explaination and must be a miricle. If on Siani Gods voice was like thunder then why is it hard to believe that the darkness could be a sign that would make it easy to check the validity of the Gospel accounts. God can speak in nature and this is one way that He chose to how that something out of the ordinary was going on.

jewish philosopher said...

It's funny that Jesus didn't make much of an impression on Jews who lived with him in Palestine. To the best of anyones knowledge only a tiny number became Christians.

david said...

Again if you accept the Christian reading of the Old Testament, and I know you won't, this should not be a surprise.

Isa 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

If this is as I believe, a reference to the Messiah, then it explains why he was not acknowledged at the time. If for example Gods plan was to save the world through a dying Messiah, he could not be recognized, or he could not have been killed.
Besides this he obviously made a huge impression in that he drew huge crowds, and was seen as a big enough threat to the Jewish authorities to want him killed. Also for to Romans to execute him as a threat to Ceasar. After his crusifixion he, like others to claim to be the Messiah, his following obviously fell away until he appeared to people risen.

jewish philosopher said...

My assumption is that Jesus made little impression on the Jews in Palestine because he did very little. A little faith healing, a little preaching (just repeating a few ideas he had heard from his rabbis), a messianic claim, and then he got killed. An unstable person who came and went from the scene with barely a trace.

david said...

There was more than a little faith healing, yes he drove out demons, restored sight and heald cripples. But how do you explain away a mirical such as feeding the 5000 in the desert. This is a massive claim, and with number of people that were there it would have been shot down in seconds if false.
Futher from that I think the statement,
"An unstable person who came and went from the scene with barely a trace." shows just how tight your closing your eyes to reality. This is unless you count "barely a trace" as being the single most influential figure in history. Regardless of wether he was telling the truth or not, 2 billion Christians, and one billion muslims think he was either God or a prophet. This however is a side issue, to say that he did very little and still is the most significant person in history for most of the worlds population is ludicrous. You again make assumptions that fly directly in the face of logic and recorded history.

jewish philosopher said...

"This is a massive claim, and with number of people that were there it would have been shot down in seconds if false."

It was. That is why Jews didn't accept him.

I think Christianity's popularity was based on Paul's mission to the Greeks, not Jesus himself.

david said...

Show me where it was shown false, the New testament makes a number of huge claims about Jesus. It would seem odd if they were false and it was as obvious that they were, that Christianity could ever have got off the Ground. Remember that Pauls' missions were during the lifetime of those that were alive to see Jesus.
I think that if all of the claims made by Christians about what Jesus did and how it fits Old Testament scripture he would be shown to be a false Messiah. Only Jews attack poor translation and reading of the original Hebrew. Most other skeptics would sooner attack the existance of Jesus, and have no issue with Translations.
The truth here is that your grasping to straws here, claiming that because of small group of people didn't accept Him based on a poor understanding of prophesies, and Rabbis that told them not to, that it is case closed. The truth is that the vast majority of people that here this message become Christians rather than Jews because the evidence points to Jesus.

jewish philosopher said...

"It would seem odd if they were false and it was as obvious that they were, that Christianity could ever have got off the Ground."

How did Islam get off the ground? Most people are fools.

"The truth is that the vast majority of people that here this message become Christians rather than Jews because the evidence points to Jesus."

First of all, Jews discourage converts while Christians desperately encourage them. Secondly, being a Jew is far more burdensome than being a Christian. Even so, you might be surprised how many people convert to Judaism. Until modern times, the Church punished Judaizers with death in order to stop them.

david said...

Why do the Jews not want converts, and where does that leave you? It sounds to me that to many Jews that this is purely a national identity.
It may well be that being a Jew is more burdensome than being a Christian. But I don't care about that, this is not a pissing contest, I want to know wether Jesus was Messiah and that is all that matters. The fact is that although there may be a few people who convert to Judaism, more choose Christianity. Christians use the same Hebrew Bible as Jews, and it seems that the New Testament explination of the Old Testament is better than the Jewish. If I am wrong, maybe you could give a good reason for why with the same evidence, more people believe the Christian narative, and why these people are the fools rather than he Jews.
Islam by the way seems to have developed as a mix between different forms of Judaism and Christianity that were far from the correct teachings of either religion, and for political reasons.

jewish philosopher said...

We discourage converts because we don't want our community diluted with a lot of half baked converts.

Most people live according to emotion not logic and therefore I don't think you can accept public opinion as being a very good indicator of truth. If it were, then if you lived 2,000 years ago you should have worshipped Jupiter.

david said...

I am not saying that you should simply follow the crowd. Christianity is Unique in that we accept the Jewish scripture and study it. Islam would tell you they do aswell, but they also would claim that it has been tampered with over time, and I am yet to meet a Muslim who studies the Bible at all. So when a new Convert first goes to church they are just as likely to hear a sermon about Genesis as Acts.
In light of this I think it is important to note that with the same starting point most people view the Christian New Testament as a better explaination of the Old Testament then the Jewish version.
I would like to know why you are worried about the "Half baked converts" that may come into your community if you allowed them. Gods intention was never for only a few people to ever benefit from His promise to Abraham. Gen 12:3 clearly states that the whole world would be blessed. If you truly Love your God and your neighbour, nothing in this world should be as important to you as seeing his will done. You should want as many people to know the joy of God as possible, and what you say tells me that to the Jew it is all about self. For example Charity it would seem is only done because the Law says to, and you boast about how wonderful this makes the Jewish people. It should be done out of a genuine desire to help your fellow man, not make you look good. I really hope that this is a misrepresentation of the truth.

jewish philosopher said...

Maybe my blog is blessing the whole world. You'd be surprised how I get visitors daily from everywhere.

david said...

It may be doing so, but from what you say if somebody did take what you say seriously, they would hardly be welcomed into the Jewish community

jewish philosopher said...

No one needs to become Jewish. One can observe the Noahide Laws and be a righteous gentile.

david said...

So you believe in a God and his law, but beyond that it's just a matter of nationality. May I ask why you call yourself a Jew rather then a Torah observant Gentile?

jewish philosopher said...

"Jew" is not a nationality. Jew is someone who adheres to Judaism. Judaism is a relgion which puts some emphasis on heredity, for example if a woman converts, her children do not need to convert (or be baptised, so to speak).

You can be a Swedish, American or Nigerian Jew just like you can be a Swedish, American or Nigerian Catholic.

Joebaum said...

David you got to understand how converts by Judaism works.
1) We don't reject converts but only test them if they are realy serious, because of if not authentic Judaism will not sustain for too long.
2) Every gentile is allways welcome to join Judaism but we don't push them because if so they will not be sincere. and definitely don't force them as every gentile has a right not to be Jewish.
As it says in Isaiah 56 that every gentilIe can find hope in Judaism.
I for one say to every convert : WELCOME HOPE BABY, WELCOME HOME!