Torah, Tabbies, and Tunes

For one thing I see varying opinions of what it means to be Jewish and how this relates to Zionism.

I'm also intrigued as to the percieved benefits of tribalism to humanity, not just to members of one tribe or another.
 
Bloodshot said:
For one thing I see varying opinions of what it means to be Jewish and how this relates to Zionism.

I'm also intrigued as to the percieved benefits of tribalism to humanity, not just to members of one tribe or another.
Click to expand...
A non-Jew does not get to tell Jews what it means to be a Jew or what Judaism teaches.

And no, I'm not interested in changing the topic to whether Europeans get to tell people who are party of tribes that they are bad.
 
IndigoChild5559 said:
A non-Jew does not get to tell Jews what it means to be a Jew or what Judaism teaches.
Click to expand...
Sure they do...they get to do whatever they want (if there is such a thing as free speech)

Not to say it is right....but they can and do.

Just as every group has folks who are perfectly willing to tell folks they know nothing about what they think or believe.

Happens to all tribes, nationalities, races and skin colors literally day in and day out and is the reason we had to ban political discussion on this forum and why we created various dandboxes...

But that is me saying what ibrian thought at the time.
 
IndigoChild5559 said:
A non-Jew does not get to tell Jews what it means to be a Jew or what Judaism teaches.

And no, I'm not interested in changing the topic to whether Europeans get to tell people who are party of tribes that they are bad.
Click to expand...
Well neither am I, of course.

As someone whose culture was almost entirely systematically destroyed by invading tribes, I struggle to see any positives to tribalism myself, but I'm open to being convinced.
 
IndigoChild5559 said:
A non-Jew does not get to tell Jews what it means to be a Jew or what Judaism teaches.
Click to expand...
I wasn't going to address this but I feel I need to.

Firstly, I don't know the background of all the posters on here, maybe you do. Regardless I prefer to focus on the message rather than speculate about the source.

Secondly, everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone is entitled to express it, especially in a forum specifically designed for discussing opinions.

Thirdly, your statement looks awfully like "only the opinions of my people count", so perhaps you could clarify if this is what you actually meant. I'm keen to avoid misunderstanding.
 
Bloodshot said:
Well neither am I, of course.

As someone whose culture was almost entirely systematically destroyed by invading tribes, I struggle to see any positives to tribalism myself, but I'm open to being convinced.
Click to expand...
Humans form a variety of social groups and societies (IOW their rules for who is part of the group). Tribes, bands, city states, countries... None are good or bad. Rather, they just work or don't work. And they are all likely to see their own group as superior to other groups (us-them mentality), although this sort of judgment is usually based on culture (like are they communist or cannibals or do they sacrifice people to their gods) rather than the organization of their society.

I think you need to reflect on the reality that your culture could just as easily been destroyed by a nation. Russia is trying to wipe out Ukrainian culture. China is trying to wipe out all non-Han cultures--think of the Tibetans or the Uyghurs. Look at what the US did to the Native Americans. I know that what happens to you personally will always carry great weight. But when we make the decision what kinds of societies we accept or oppose, it helps to make a conscious effort to include data we have about other kinds of societies outside our direct experience.
 
Bloodshot said:
everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone is entitled to express it, especially in a forum specifically designed for discussing opinions.
Click to expand...
You are talking apples and oranges.

Your point addresses the rules for what is allowed in a forum. Most forums allow a lot of free speech up to a point, but draw the line at name calling, overt racism, etc. So you are absolutely right. Interfaith.org isn't going to censor what someone says about who is a Jew. And I SUPPORT that. I don't advocate censorship.

I'm not addressing the free speech versus censorship question. I'm addressing who has the authority and education to voice a VALID opinion on an issue. While he has the right to express his opinion on this forum, his opinion carries no weight. He can express it but it's worthless. He lacks the authority to tell the Jewish People what it means to us to be a Jew. He doesn't have the education to form a reliable opinion on what Judaism does and doesn't teach. It's like someone with a high school diploma saying the earth is flat, or a French citizen telling American who should be able to become an American citizen, or someone who has never studied structural engineering declaring that a bridge is perfectly safe after the engineers have condemned it.
 
IndigoChild5559 said:
Humans form a variety of social groups and societies (IOW their rules for who is part of the group). Tribes, bands, city states, countries... None are good or bad. Rather, they just work or don't work. And they are all likely to see their own group as superior to other groups (us-them mentality), although this sort of judgment is usually based on culture (like are they communist or cannibals or do they sacrifice people to their gods) rather than the organization of their society.

I think you need to reflect on the reality that your culture could just as easily been destroyed by a nation. Russia is trying to wipe out Ukrainian culture. China is trying to wipe out all non-Han cultures--think of the Tibetans or the Uyghurs. Look at what the US did to the Native Americans. I know that what happens to you personally will always carry great weight. But when we make the decision what kinds of societies we accept or oppose, it helps to make a conscious effort to include data we have about other kinds of societies outside our direct experience.
Click to expand...
Well thanks for sharing your thoughts, but since you haven't made a single point in favour of tribalism, I'm still far from convinced.
 
IndigoChild5559 said:
I didn't address "tribalism." I addressed tribes, and I addressed your confession that your assessment of tribes was skewed.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I have no idea why, since I was talking about tribalism specifically.

I made no such "confession". I gave my views and stated one of my reasons. "Skewed" is entirely your own perspective on them, presumably because they don't match your own?
 
Bloodshot said:
Yes, and I have no idea why, since I was talking about tribalism specifically.

I made no such "confession". I gave my views and stated one of my reasons. "Skewed" is entirely your own perspective on them, presumably because they don't match your own?
Click to expand...
I will be adding my thoughts down the line aways. Right now I just want to make the following point -

Although you and @IndigoChild5559 are both writing in English, you’re not actually writing in the same language. I can recognize it, but I’m not sure how well, if at all, either of you see it. It’s somewhat reminiscent of George Bernard Shaw’s remark about Great Britain and the United Staes.
 
Bloodshot said:
Yes, and I have no idea why, since I was talking about tribalism specifically.
Click to expand...
Because when a slam-word like tribalism is formed, it casts a negative light on its root word.
Bloodshot said:
I made no such "confession". I gave my views and stated one of my reasons. "Skewed" is entirely your own perspective on them, presumably because they don't match your own?
Click to expand...
It was the ONLY reason you listed, and yes, it is skewed. It's the same flawed reasoning as the person who says, "I was raped by a man so men are all violent," or "I was mugged by a Black, so Blacks can't be trusted," or "The pastor molested my daughter so religion is rotten to the core."
 
IndigoChild5559 said:
Because when a slam-word like tribalism is formed, it casts a negative light on its root word.
Click to expand...
I don't know what a slam word is, sorry.
IndigoChild5559 said:
It's the same flawed reasoning as the person who says, "I was raped by a man so men are all violent," or "I was mugged by a Black, so Blacks can't be trusted," or "The pastor molested my daughter so religion is rotten to the core."
Click to expand...
I made no such extreme claims. I actually said:
Bloodshot said:
As someone whose culture was almost entirely systematically destroyed by invading tribes, I struggle to see any positives to tribalism myself, but I'm open to being convinced.
Click to expand...
I think RabbiO is right. I'm trying to have a serious debate and increase my understanding of other points of view. What are you trying to do?
 
IndigoChild5559 said:
A non-Jew does not get to tell Jews what it means to be a Jew or what Judaism teaches.

And no, I'm not interested in changing the topic to whether Europeans get to tell people who are party of tribes that they are bad.
Click to expand...
Maybe it requires a Jewish mind/mentality or someone who consciously identifies with or embraces their own Jewishness to understand and sympathize with the Jew.
How do you know for certain that I'm a non-Jew? There were Jews who had never knew about their ancestry and didn't find out until later. I don't know if I have a trace of Jewish blood in my veins, but I do know that I'm Asiatic and I'm able to assess the racial conflict between Europeans and Jews with impartiality. While I was not raised in Judaism, even Julian points out that Christians are still Jews, because they obey the law of Moses and share the same prophets. The fact is the whole of Christian ethics are rooted in Judaism, as long as they keep the so-called Old Testament in their Bible.

While he has the right to express his opinion on this forum, his opinion carries no weight. He can express it but it's worthless.
Click to expand...
I have plenty of resources to back up my opinions, but I did not come here to argue over what it means to be a Jew.
Whenever an opinion is dismissed as worthless without careful examination, it shows willful blindness, perhaps malicious intent.

He lacks the authority to tell the Jewish People what it means to us to be a Jew.
Click to expand...
I was willing to indulge your ideas ("We will recreate the Garden of Eden here on earth, paradise restored"; my project is literally about a garden. "A world where the wolf will lie down with the lamb"; my project is focused on improving animal relations), and then you got worked up over this testimony from a Jew which I was paraphrasing:
"Their purpose is to assimilate into the nations that have received them in order to ennoble them, according to what a learned Jew once told Origenes." Was Origenes a liar, did he just make up the Jewish figure? "The Jew said that these prophecies referred to the whole people as though of a single individual, since they were scattered in the dispersion and smitten, that as a result of the scattering of the Jews among the other nations many might become proselytes."

Martin Buber validates the truth of this interpretation: "The idea of unity and the tendency toward it inherent in the nature of the people originate in the fact that the Jew has at all times perceived more keenly the context in which phenomena appear than the individual phenomena as such. He sees the forest more truly than the trees, the sea more truly than the wave, the community more truly than the individual."

As for this part of my reply: "Reactionaries in both camps stand in opposition to assimilation, it's not for nothing that Zionists and anti-Semites/Nazis cooperated, they both need each other's existence to justify their hatred and maintain the cycle of violence." I am not saying Zionists and Nazis are equivalent or that they sympatized with each other. They were both using each other to further their own ends. "When the attachment of one being to another is made up of need and nothing else it is a fearful thing." (Simone Weil)

He doesn't have the education to form a reliable opinion on what Judaism does and doesn't teach.
Click to expand...
It doesn't require a professor to tell you what Judaism is. An "educated" person does not really have the prospect for truly understanding Judaism and the purpose of Jewish Diaspora. What takes an "educated" person 30 years to realize can be done in a shorter amount of time. Scriabin was able to master the communist doctrine within 6 months. Modern education does not enable people to form reliable opinions on anything, let alone teach them how to reflect or to think for themselves. Education doesn't inculcate them with facts, but enables them to form opinions on everything under the sun that are divorced from facts.

Thomas Jefferson pointed out that in order to compare Jewish ethics with Christian ethics:
"the philosophy of the Hebrews must be enquired into, their Mishna, their Gemara, Cabbala, Jezirah, Sohar, Cosri and their Talmud must be examined and understood, in order to do them full justice." I've read excerpts from the Mishna, Gemara and Talmud. I've read the works of kabbalists, but not the Kabbalah itself.

I only need to point out the doctrine of reincarnation was embraced by early Christians,
even Islam contains traces of it, which implies Judaism originally possessed the teaching. If the doctrine is accepted by Abrahamic faiths, antagonisms between races, classes, gender, etc. will be done away with and will be explained along these lines.
Only Origenes' doctrine of preexistence of souls was condemned, there has never been a wholesale condemnation. Knowing the character of the person, Justinian I, who recklessly condemned it, overrules the synod's ruling and obliges the Church to call for reexamination of dogma.

I'm not as naive as Luther to believe that I could reform the Jews if they only converted to my brand of Christianity. I admit I do not have the right to attempt a reformation of Judaism, that was not my intention. My messages/outreach attempts was on behalf of the Prophet Elijah who is yet to be born and on behalf of the future Jewish Messiah who is yet to come in order that they may be able to implement such reforms. I've sought to establish proof for both the Tsar/ King of Israel and the Antichrist/Dajjal. Now it's time for everyone to choose their path.
 
Last edited:
Bloodshot said:
For one thing I see varying opinions of what it means to be Jewish and how this relates to Zionism.

I'm also intrigued as to the percieved benefits of tribalism to humanity, not just to members of one tribe or another.
Click to expand...
I am offering the Jews a chance to escape what will befall their brethren in the Middle East, in order that a remnant of them may be preserved. When the Scriptures say flee to mountains, it should be heeded. They will rediscover their origins, traces of both Abraham and Moses' path before them.

I once read an interesting story from a Jew about his meeting with Dalai Lama, who helped the guy realize that there is more to being Jewish than being "wrapped up in our collective history, my family, my identity", made him consider how it could be a spiritual path for the cultivation of the inner life. https://thubtenchodron.org/2011/06/jew-dalai-lama/ Judaism can be transformed into a positive, life-affirming religion, instead of allowing its past to define them.
 
IndigoChild5559 said:
A slam word is a word with an extremely negative connotation. Where I live, "tribalism" is a word used by the left to explain most of the world's problems.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Here the right wing use "immigration" for much the same thing. Letting it become a taboo word would play into their hands, I think.

So am I to assume my repetition of a word that you used first has rendered you emotionally incapable of forming a coherent argument?

Or is there some other reason you choose to put words in my mouth, and negative judgemental spin on my replies, rather than actually justifying your own position? Because I find that far more disrespectful and offensive, IndigoChild5559, than any naughty word you could use.
 
Bloodshot said:
Thank you. Here the right wing use "immigration" for much the same thing. Letting it become a taboo word would play into their hands, I think.

So am I to assume my repetition of a word that you used first has rendered you emotionally incapable of forming a coherent argument?

Or is there some other reason you choose to put words in my mouth, and negative judgemental spin on my replies, rather than actually justifying your own position? Because I find that far more disrespectful and offensive, IndigoChild5559, than any naughty word you could use.
Click to expand...
You've used up my patience. Every one of your posts have been what I call nit picking. Nothing ever too terrible. No knives. Just a constant stream of pins and needles. Find a different target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top