Reform

[Saltmeister]

The one I really, really, REALLY want to sink my teeth into is Thomas!!!

Ever noticed the kind of stuff he has to say about the Gnostics??? But I don't care for anything that smug, self-righteous Scholastic SOB has to say about anything. That guy sets my teeth on edge when I'm just lurking on here and not posting.

However, I'm smart enough to know when I'm out of my depth, so I'm not gonna take him on personally. But I do have a very good online friend who hangs out at another interfaith forum. I'm gonna see if I can drag him over here, and then we call ALL watch the fun!

Oh yeah, I have wanted to wrestle with him for a long time and beat him up over the flaws in his so-called "orthodoxy." I just haven't had the time or the money (I mean resources) to do it.

Unfortunately, the poor guy has recently made a big retreat across the Tiber so it's unlikely I'd be able to get into a debate with him about the flaws in his so-called "orthodoxy." It's like the guy chickened out before I could do anything.

So Raksha, unlike BB he's really a big fat coward.

oh i do, i just don't think it's always obvious when i'm being playful if you're not british - and the web doesn't convey tone all that well.

Well, now you're starting to sound like Tao_equus.

Oh, so he is the one that really has to watch out for those spells ?

Oh darn. Raksha, you seem to have a vendetta against a lot of people. I just hope I don't end up at the wrong end of your stick.

 

[bananabrain]

Well, yes...it *IS* an argument of post hoc rationalization [...]and patriarchal cover-up. All I said was that the post hoc rationalization and and patriarchal cover-up was relatively thin at that point, making it fairly easy for me to reconstruct or re-vision what Deborah's actual position must have been.

ok, but you presumably concede that therefore, it's more a matter of competing opinions - we both hope we are right about what deborah's actual position was, but i don't think either of us can assert with any degree of certainty that it "must have been".

What you DON'T have the right to do is imply there is no historical basis for my preference when there is.

i guess i am starting from a place where i have to be given good reason to believe that she was anything other than how she is traditionally portrayed and that reason has to include compelling textual evidence or reasoning, not just circumstantial historical and archaeological interpretation. otherwise, it's just as much wishful thinking as neo-traditionalists thinking that moses wore a black hat. that is partly because i don't subscribe to the "paternalist cover-up" school of thought (and i am by no means ignorant of the basis for this theory, i just don't find it convincing) and partly because i don't mistrust the chain of transmission, whereas you do both, as is your right. i have every right to question your thinking if i wish, just as you have every right to question mine.

What I DON'T know yet is whether you read [dauer's] post [about abraham] and whether or not you responded and if so, how you responded.

i haven't got involved on that thread because it got too theologically abstruse for me and it wasn't especially a subject i found interesting. i do have a job to do, you know!

Of course, you could argue that since Abraham represents a much earlier period in Jewish history and Deborah a later one (although still very early and pre-patriarchal), that it's likely true for him but not her.

umph - if i were to comment on it, i would say that it is abraham's recognition of the truth of monotheism that is his defining feature of importance to the tradition - it is hard to see what the point of him would be otherwise. if you look at his story, what is depicted is a man coming to terms with the ultimate, underlying reality that has interrupted his otherwise unexceptional life as the son of a well-to-do merchant in ur. if he isn't the first monotheist, what's the point of the story?

Okay, now for my value judgment: I believe Deborah and Yael were priestesses of the war-goddess Astarte, an early forerunner of the Matronit.

ok, but what is that actually based on in the text? what do they do or say that suggests this? if your argument is merely "they were important, assertive women and there were a lot of priestesses of astarte around at the time, therefore they must have been priestesses of astarte" then that's about as logical as saying because you live in chicago, you must be a big fan of barack obama.

I think more highly of them for it...although that Yael WAS a bit excessive in her treatment of Sisera.

i'm looking at their reported actions, not their beliefs. and, to be honest, if you look at the war goddesses patai talks about in THG and then shy away from a tentpeg through the head, then that seems kind of fainthearted to me (which surprises me) - these goddesses were not milquetoast, new-agey hippified sort of deities, they valued war, sacrifice and bloody victory, not sharing circles and silver unicorns. if you've seen "kill bill" you'll understand the sort of thing i'm on about here.

HUH??? Apostate??? I don't know what you're talking about, but it has nothing to do with me.

well, if someone jewish says "i'm not jewish any more, i don't believe in that, i'm a wiccan" they're an apostate. if they say "i've combined jewish stuff and wiccan stuff into a new sort of composite religious system", then, technically, they're a heretic. either way, they're still jews. and, actually, i don't see a problem with someone being a jewish "witch" per se as long as they work solely with Divine energy and are mindful of the honour of Torah.

I pointed out to her that "all the gods are one God, and all the goddesses are one Goddess, and both are ONE." I'm quoting a mythic fantasy novel here, whose title and author I forget.

it's not a statement i actually have a problem with.

You can be a very bad Jew, or an apostate Jew, and you can even be called "a traitor to Judaism" by your nearest and dearest, but if you have a Jewish soul you can no more change that than you can change the color of your eyes.

i'm not an essentialist in the matter of soul-structure, but i do believe it is very difficult to stop being jewish!

I think the only way you could ever stop being Jewish would be by descent to the depths of murderous idolatry like that Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro who was the subject of your polemic.

i don't think he has stopped being jewish, in fact, but if you ask me, he needs to do pretty major teshuvah, possibly involving more than one future soul-transmigration and probably forfeits his portion in the World-to-Come into the bargain if he doesn't.

I will never compare my pain with anyone else's or try to tell anyone I had it worse, not unless they are so insensitive as to start the one-upmanship games on their own.

i'm not comparing it or playing one-upmanship, i'm trying to empathise!!

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with either of those analogies. I don't understand them. If I'm being compared with something, I'd at least like to know what it is!

well, Elisha ben Abuyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - a "zaken mamre" is known as a "rebellious elder", ie someone knowledgeable who dissents from the rulings of duly constituted authority - there is a lot of discussion about what to do about such people whether they should be punished - or applauded!

incidentally, with my moderator hat on, i think all of you ought to dial down the rhetoric about thomas - you may not agree with him, but he has considerable knowledge, great integrity and in my view does an excellent job of defending his points of view whether i agree with them or not. i don't think this level of hostility is warranted and i advise you to proceed with caution. in particular i am going to ask the other moderators if that personal remark made by saltmeister should be removed.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Saltmeister]

incidentally, with my moderator hat on, i think all of you ought to dial down the rhetoric about thomas - you may not agree with him, but he has considerable knowledge, great integrity and in my view does an excellent job of defending his points of view whether i agree with them or not. i don't think this level of hostility is warranted and i advise you to proceed with caution. in particular i am going to ask the other moderators if that personal remark made by saltmeister should be removed.

For the record, BB, that was meant as a joke and no hostility was intended. Whatever hostility appeared to have been expressed there was an exaggeration as I often make fun of "hypothetical situations" that I might get myself into.

I couldn't have meant any hostility as I was never angry at the guy and when he did "retreat across the Tiber" I know it had nothing to do with me because when he did, it was because of the discussions he was having with everyone else. Obviously he got tired trying to make his views accepted.

That makes my comment on Thomas in that post rather facetious.

The reason why I said what I said was because I was disappointed that I didn't get into the debates I intended when I had the chance.

If I had been responsible for Thomas' "retreat across the Tiber" I wouldn't have said that, because then it'd be like I was gloating and humiliating him. I felt safe saying what I said because I wasn't gloating at all. We never went to war with each other. I said what I said because it wasn't supposed to be personal at all.

I realise that some people may take the joke a little more seriously. I just didn't sense the danger when I said it. Calling someone a "coward" these days is actually rather old-fashioned and appeals to people's sense of honour. It belongs more in the 19th century. But it may still be important in intellectual debates. It depends if people take the "coward" word seriously.

But considering that I meant it as a joke, if I was to explain it to Thomas right now, I think he'd probably understand (at least I hope). I hope that's enough to prove that I respect him and didn't mean the post to be insulting. I don't despise him at all or his views, not that I agree with them or hold them in high regard. Actually there are things I don't like about them.

But I would never have tried, deliberately to insult Thomas or humiliate him. That's what I expected everyone here to know. No malice was intended.

I understand that a lot of people were involved in what took place during the months leading up to his "retreat across the Tiber" but I wasn't there to see it happen. I could well have been logging on to the message board. I just didn't frequent the threads where Thomas was possibly being, well . . . bombarded with . . . I don't know what kind of rhetoric it was. I never knew this would ever happen to him. I thought it was business as usual.

We did have a few discussions concerning the subject I mentioned, but that was a long time ago, but not during the months leading up to his decision to withdraw. But I always wanted to resume those discussions. I just never had the chance. I don't have a personal vendetta against Thomas.

I think this time I went a little too far with the joking around. You may delete the post or the comments if you like, but I think it's better if you don't. I think it's better that Thomas knew that I almost accidentally offended him. I would want him to know. If you delete those comments, it will just confuse him. Please don't cover up my sins for me.

Actually I think it's more important for me to speak to him about it myself.

 

[wil]

Namaste Salty, Avi and Raksha,

Now our goal here is discussion, and since we disagree on many topics sometimes it becomes heated discussion. But we should all attempt to keep personal attacks out of it. And goals to 'go at' anyone.

Now despite Avi painting me as some larger than life chauvinist because I'm thinking Raksha and I will get on famously, especially during the moments when she is being used as a channel by her Lady and not overthinking things or planning coups.

Funny how often we get into this stuff when if we just took our own advice on the tennents of our beliefs (atheist, theist or somewhere between or beyond) we'd say and do things differently.

peace to all

 

[Avi]

Namaste Salty, Avi and Raksha,

Now our goal here is discussion, and since we disagree on many topics sometimes it becomes heated discussion. But we should all attempt to keep personal attacks out of it. And goals to 'go at' anyone.

Now despite Avi painting me as some larger than life chauvinist because I'm thinking Raksha and I will get on famously, especially during the moments when she is being used as a channel by her Lady and not overthinking things or planning coups.

Funny how often we get into this stuff when if we just took our own advice on the tennents of our beliefs (atheist, theist or somewhere between or beyond) we'd say and do things differently.

peace to all

Hi Wil,

Use of the symbol, , indicates that I am just kidding:

if you do not agree with this see the thread on feminsts, you will then know the worst chauvinists in this forum - his name starts with Wil

Reading your many posts, I have no reason to believe that you are a chauvinist, sorry for any confusion !!

 

[Saltmeister]

Now our goal here is discussion, and since we disagree on many topics sometimes it becomes heated discussion. But we should all attempt to keep personal attacks out of it. And goals to 'go at' anyone.

I wasn't actually trying to be mean to Thomas there or to try to hurt him. I saw everyone else joking so I thought I might join in. But I see how that could easily be seen as us making fun of people. I didn't think of my comments as insulting or offensive at the time and thought of it as just some light-hearted humour. But I think my word choice went a bit too far.

It wasn't until bananabrain pointed it out that I realised what I said was inflammatory. I went back to read my own words.

Me and Thomas haven't been involved in any deep theological discussions for a very long time, not even just before his recent withdrawal from theological discussions. My disappointment was not getting involved in those exciting debates he had before his withdrawal.

I had no intention of having "heated discussions" of the nature Raksha was actually proposing. I feel no anger or contempt for Thomas, especially now that he's withdrawn. Somehow it's actually better that I didn't get involved in those exciting debates he had with others because I don't have to feel responsible for his withdrawal. I'm glad I didn't add to his pain. I just had no idea that was how people made him feel.

I'd have more of a vendetta against those who drove him away.

But anyway, I realise that jokes of the nature we were throwing around can get pretty cruel even if that's not what was intended. We never asked Thomas if we could make jokes like that and this could look a lot like we're backstabbing him. I'm aware that it may hurt even more to know that people would do this to him. If Thomas had been around maybe there's a chance he might have appreciated them as attempts at friendliness, however ironic. But he wasn't so I guess the jokes we made were uninvited.

So as not to avoid the issue, I know I made the worst joke of all about Thomas in this whole thread, in spite of all Raksha ever said. For that I apologise to all including Thomas.

If Thomas is going to be hurt I would like to take back what I said. But to be fair to him I think my post shouldn't be deleted until he gets to see it and figure out what this is all about.

For now, I just want to put this behind us as quickly as possible.

I haven't been in trouble with the mods and admin for a long time, but I suppose there's a time when a transgression has to be made. I tried hard to be a good boy and now I've finally done something naughty enough to get me into trouble.

 

[Avi]

I saw everyone else joking so I thought I might join in.

Salty, not so sure it was "everyone else" , it might have just been me , and I love getting into trouble .

For now, I just want to put this behind us as quickly as possible.

Not so fast, my fine feathered friend !!

I haven't been in trouble with the mods and admin for a long time, but I suppose there's a time when a transgression has to be made. I tried hard to be a good boy and now I've finally done something naughty enough to get me into trouble.

Salty, you have this backward. The best posters are the ones that are always in trouble with the mods and admin . Keep up the good work !! And welcome to the Reform thread !!

 

[Raksha]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raksha
Well, yes...it *IS* an argument of post hoc rationalization [...]and patriarchal cover-up. All I said was that the post hoc rationalization and and patriarchal cover-up was relatively thin at that point, making it fairly easy for me to reconstruct or re-vision what Deborah's actual position must have been.

ok, but you presumably concede that therefore, it's more a matter of competing opinions - we both hope we are right about what deborah's actual position was, but i don't think either of us can assert with any degree of certainty that it "must have been".

Quote:
What you DON'T have the right to do is imply there is no historical basis for my preference when there is.

i guess i am starting from a place where i have to be given good reason to believe that she was anything other than how she is traditionally portrayed and that reason has to include compelling textual evidence or reasoning, not just circumstantial historical and archaeological interpretation. otherwise, it's just as much wishful thinking as neo-traditionalists thinking that moses wore a black hat. that is partly because i don't subscribe to the "paternalist cover-up" school of thought (and i am by no means ignorant of the basis for this theory, i just don't find it convincing) and partly because i don't mistrust the chain of transmission, whereas you do both, as is your right. i have every right to question your thinking if i wish, just as you have every right to question mine.

BB,

I bolded a portion of your response for a specific reason, and the reason more than anything is because of that little word "just." You say you are unwilling to revise your understanding of Deborah's position based on "JUST circumstantial historical and archaeological interpretation."

What that tells me is that you are using the standard traditionalist tactic, of making the burden of proof impossibly high for your opponent and conveniently low for your own position. In other words, you are applying a double standard here. You can't expect that to be convincing to someone who doesn't share your reverence for the traditional sources, and who is in fact highly suspicious of them in certain areas.

You also say there has to be texual evidence of patriarchal censorship and/or rewriting before you are willing to concede my point that goddess worship was not only practiced but accepted and considered perfectly normal, valid and proper right through the First Temple and probably well into the Second Temple period also.
I believe that the only people who strenuously objected were the Babylonian exile community, both during and after the Babylonian exile. But they were a highly influential community both in terms of education and social position, so their view was the the one that prevailed and eventually became "normative" or mainstream Judaism. My inadequate Jewish education is showing here--were they the tanaim, the scribes? Is that the word I'm looking for? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, I find that the more I learn, the more I don't trust them. I am beginning to believe that Ezra and Nehemiah and their circle were what I would call Jewish fundamentalist (or the equivalent), and I absolutely DON'T trust that type because they are shameless revisionists. These are NOT the people I want doing the selecting and editing of texts EVER, because they select on the basis of what they believe is good for the common people, not on the basis of what may have normative and acceptable up to that point.

In my never-humble opinion, that is simply unforgivable. It's paternalistic and condescending and above all, it's dishonest. For example: Why wasn't the book of Enoch included in the canon? We know from the number of copies that have been found that it was enormously popular and influential during the Hellenistic period and maybe before (I'm not sure how old it is). And yet it's an apocryphal book and not part of the Tanakh. WHY NOT??? Apparently somebody thought it was "dangerous for the masses," although I'm not really sure why.

In other words, for me the question is not why YOU shouldn't trust the traditional sources and give them more weight than the archaeological record. It's why should I trust them when I thoroughly distrust the paternalistic motives of the tanaim?

All of this is just a long-winded way of saying I reject your argument that when speculating on Deborah's actual position in her community--i.e. the question of was she or was she not a priestess--that the burden of proof should be on the non-traditional feminist view, which happens to be the one supported by the archaeological evidence. Or that equal weight should be given to both. I don't concede that either, for the reasons I already stated.

Actually, there IS textual evidence of patriarchal censorship and/or rewriting in the Tanakh. As Raphael Patai and others have pointed out, that evidence is most apparent in the "slippages," i.e. the places where the censorship was incomplete or badly handled, in the places where a text simply does not make any sense when an "orthodox" interpretation or translation is applied, but *does* make sense when interpreted or translated in a non-traditional way. I think you probably know what I'm talking about better than I do.

I hope that THIS TIME I managed to get my point across without sounding like I'm accusing you of beating your wife!!! That would be a slight improvement in communication anyway.

B'shalom,
Linda

 

[wil]

Salty, you have this backward. The best posters are the ones that are always in trouble with the mods and admin . Keep up the good work !! And welcome to the Reform thread !!

Namaste Avi,

This here mod gets in plenty of trouble by hisself. (I keep misplacing the hat)

And thanx for the reform thread, I'm only here as I hope it leads to Renewal!

I just spent a week at an Orthodox Retreat center...other than having to eat Kosher there pretty much isn't anything they don't let us do....

 

[Raksha]

Now despite Avi painting me as some larger than life chauvinist because I'm thinking Raksha and I will get on famously, especially during the moments when she is being used as a channel by her Lady and not overthinking things or planning coups.

Wil,

I wasn't kidding about that. I am seriously a channeler, and sometimes it happens spontaneously when I'm in the middle of posting a note on a discussion board. That was only very light channeling, just enough to make my writing a flow a little more easily than it usually does. There have been occasions though when it's been much heavier, when she has actually spoken through me. That usually happens when it's important to get a message across to someone for some specific reason. I don't always know the reason, but there's a kind of imperative that goes along with it. I always follow through if I possibly can, usually by sending the person an e-mail or private message. That's why I sometimes refer to myself as "Lady Sophia's errand girl."

I often do channeling or automatic writing offline, writing longhand in my journal. I am not in a trance at such times and my handwriting doesn't change. I don't post my channelings on my blog and I don't specially want to be known as a "channeler" either. I have only very rarely done it for another person, and only when there was a compelling need. I would NEVER consider charging money for it.

This is for a number of reasons. I suppose if I thought I had some kind of compelling message I had to get across to the world at large I would do it. But most of the questions I ask are of a personal nature, because most of all I want to gain insight. I want to understand how my personal concerns fit into the greater scheme of things. Later on, some of the insights I gain through channeling find their way into my other writing, and I might or might not make reference to the source. The same standard applies that I apply to everything: If it's true, it can stand on its own.

Also, there is SOOOO much channeled material on the Internet already, and most of it is unbelievably long-winded and often incredibly boring. Often you have to sift through reams of confusing and/or seemingly worthless material for any nuggets of real wisdom or insight. I do look at some of it occasionally, but not as often as you might think.

Namaste,
Linda

 

[iBrian]

Actually, there IS textual evidence of patriarchal censorship and/or rewriting in the Tanakh.

Uh-oh - she's hinting at redaction theory!

For a great and very intelligent debate on that, see this earlier thread:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/tilting-at-windmills-a-response-369.html

which is very much a response to bob X's piece here:
Redaction Theory (Documents Hypothesis) - torah torah torah

 

[Raksha]

Uh-oh - she's hinting at redaction theory!

For a great and very intelligent debate on that, see this earlier thread:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/tilting-at-windmills-a-response-369.html

which is very much a response to bob X's piece here:
Redaction Theory (Documents Hypothesis) - torah torah torah

Brian,

Thanks for the links...I'll take a look at them. Now I am NOT saying I'll find them convincing, let alone compelling. But then you already knew that.

But I won't know one way or the other until I see what they have to say.

--Linda

 

[wil]

I wasn't kidding about that.

namaste Linda,

Did it sound like I thought you were kidding?

I find it a joy when my fingers start flying and I get to read it on the screen for the first time...

 

[Raksha]

Quote:
I think more highly of them for it...although that Yael WAS a bit excessive in her treatment of Sisera.

i'm looking at their reported actions, not their beliefs. and, to be honest, if you look at the war goddesses patai talks about in THG and then shy away from a tentpeg through the head, then that seems kind of fainthearted to me (which surprises me)

BB,

Ummm...you may have noticed there is MORE than a little bit of Kali/Astarte in me, even though I detest gross violence and brutality. I am not 100% committed to nonviolence like my daughter is, but I definitely believe war should be a last resort--and only engaged in for defensive purposes. Still, I can't deny that I strongly identify with Patai's description of the "wrathful goddesses" like Astarte. But it's a tendency I try to keep within reasonable limits, although granted I don't always succeed.

I'd think you'd be relieved to know that I do try to put the brakes on it (at least sometimes) and that I'm not really getting ready to drive a tent peg through your skull...or even Thomas's skull!

Although I have to admit it was kind of amusing when I first looked at this topic this morning to see how many of the regulars here share the temptation...at least where Thomas is concerned.

these goddesses were not milquetoast, new-agey hippified sort of deities, they valued war, sacrifice and bloody victory, not sharing circles and silver unicorns. if you've seen "kill bill" you'll understand the sort of thing i'm on about here.

I haven't seen "Kill Bill" and don't even know what it's about, but I have to tell you I'm getting MORE than a little fed up with your incessant caricatures of "hippies" and your obvious hatred of the Baby Boomer generation. I was born in 1946 and I am 63 effing years old, fer cryin' out loud!

I am indeed an early vintage Baby Boomer, and if you think I'm about to apologize for that, you are seriously mistaken! I'd think you could at least have some small degree of respect for your elders if nothing else. But even if you don't, I'd advise you to drop that attitude right now--unless of course you really want to see a 24-karat war goddess in action.

Okay, so where did I put that tent peg? Story of my life...I can never find anything around here when I need it!

B'shalom,
Linda

 

[Raksha]

Uh-oh - she's hinting at redaction theory!

For a great and very intelligent debate on that, see this earlier thread:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/tilting-at-windmills-a-response-369.html

which is very much a response to bob X's piece here:
Redaction Theory (Documents Hypothesis) - torah torah torah

Brian,

Now that I've had a chance to read some of Bob X's wonderful research piece, "torah torah torah" and BB's response to it, I want to thank you for posting these links. I was up very late last night reading them...I'm not even gonna tell you HOW late!

I absolutely shouldn't have done that, but it was worth it on a number of different levels at once. For one thing, the research is completely fascinating in itself. I can see that although I've barely scratched the surface of it so far, and it makes me want to learn more.

First of all, I was gratified to see some of my earlier intuitions about the texts confirmed. I've always assumed that what we call today "the written Torah," not including the book of Deuteronomy, was oral tradition for unknown generations before it ever got written down in its present form. I have always assumed, or believed, or imagined--that the written Torah had its origin in songs, stories and poems nomadic peoples sang and recited to each other around the campfires at night, and that was how it got passed down from generation to generation. I assumed also that the actual time and place of origin of some of the oldest parts were lost in mists of time, as they say, and might never be known. Although in cases where it's possible to make an educated guess as to origin, it should certainly be made by anyone qualified to do it, and Bob X certainly has such qualifications.

What I don't understand is why making this observation, and following through in the case of specific texts, should be viewed as debunking, reductionism or even anti-Semitism. Oral transmission WAS the standard method of transmission of knowledge and culture in preliterate societies, after all. And it would still be relied on heavily in literate societies in situations where writing materials were hard to come by.

Is there supposed to be something wrong, or reductionist, or sacrilegious in pointing out these obvious facts or working from them?

What I'm saying is that the most revealing and enlightening thing about those links you posted was the debate between Bob X and BB that followed BB's "tilting at windmills" post. Because I wasn't involved in this debate (which I realize took place six years ago) and it wasn't *MY* ego on the line, I could see more clearly than I ever have before the unbelievable--and in fact, borderline irrational-- defensiveness on BB's part. There is a consistent assumption of hostility and a questioning of Bob X's motives, a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude, the extent of which I've hardly ever seen before.

And a "guilt by association" attitude was very much in evidence also. Just because a certain 19th century researcher who attempted the same kind of textual analysis was an anti-Semite and a Christian chauvinist doesn't mean Bob X is! Okay, BB isn't crazy and he's intelligent enough and fair enough to concede THAT, but why bring it up at all? It's pretty obvious when someone is an anti-Semite and a Christian chauvinist, and any Jew can pick up on that in about 30 seconds. Besides, Bob X is Jewish, right? It sure sounds that way from what I've read so far.

Anyway, I have to conced that you were right and I was wrong. It's NOT just me! BB really DOES treat everyone that way, at least everyone who expresses an attitude towards the sacred texts and "the Tradition" that he doesn't like or finds threatening for whatever reason.

I mean...if he could take such an extreme defensive attitude towards an expert in Semitic languages, fer cryin' out loud...who am I to complain that he's picking on me?

From now on, I'll take his sarcasm and condecension from where it comes--meaning I'm not going to take it personally any more. But it's still rude and nasty, so I'm still gonna call him on it when I see it.

B'shalom,
Linda

 

[iBrian]

I think what's special about bob x's comments is not simply his learning, but also his great respect for the Torah.

But you can understand bb's defensiveness in the dialogue - after all, bob was - whether intended or no - directly challenging a key pillar of bb's personal faith.

But still an interesting study.

 

[Raksha]

I think what's special about bob x's comments is not simply his learning, but also his great respect for the Torah.

But you can understand bb's defensiveness in the dialogue - after all, bob was - whether intended or no - directly challenging a key pillar of bb's personal faith.

But still an interesting study.

Brian,

No, I'm sorry but I absolutely DO NOT understand his defensiveness, which seems to be his "default" posture in relation to practically everything. I mean...so what if the Torah is a patchwork quilt composed of pieces of varying ages and ethnic origins? Why would any reasonable person expect it to be otherwise? I happen to think patchwork quilts are beautiful--or they can be beautiful anyway.

The attitude I'm picking up from his comments (then and now) is something I do understand simply because I've seen it so often, but I don't have the slightest patience with it and I don't intend to humor or indulge it either. If religion ever becomes extinct and the whole world becomes atheists (which might actually be an improvement!) it will be for precisely this reason.

What I'm referring to is the constant anxiety, or fear, or suspicion, that OTHER PEOPLE are either guilty of or on the edge of being guilty of some horrendous sin or heresy--in BB's case it would probably be some type of dualism--and he seems to be perpetually terrified that OTHER PEOPLE are going to fall into it unconsciously and then proceed to go right off the deep end.

That's projection, pure and simple. Projection has to be the collective disease of all religion, not only Judaism but Christianity (especially) and every other religion--the tendency to ascribe undue power to the forces of evil--and inevitably increasing their power in the process!--and then projecting them onto other people, other religions, other ethnic groups. That has the very predictable effect of alienating said other people and making them want to avoid you like the plague. And alienating them is the least of it. We all know how much worse than that it can get.

Projection is the cardinal sin of religious people in general and religious MEN especially. THEY are the ones who have been grinding the Shekhina into the dust over and over again through 5000 years of patriarchal domination. I won't say it isn't my problem because obviously I have my share of scars from the grinding-down process, both individual and collective.

What I do (which includes what I choose to believe, obviously) about healing those scars to the extent that they can be healed is strictly my own business. Any constructive input from anyone male or female is welcome, of course. But I and nobody else get to determine what is and is not constructive. I alone have absolute veto power. Nobody else...and above all no MAN!

If BB wants to obsess over the purity of my motives, it's not my problem and he isn't going to make it my problem either.

B'shalom
Linda

 

[Dream]

That's projection, pure and simple. Projection has to be the collective disease of all religion, not only Judaism but Christianity (especially) and every other religion--the tendency to ascribe undue power to the forces of evil--and inevitably increasing their power in the process!--and then projecting them onto other people, other religions, other ethnic groups. That has the very predictable effect of alienating said other people and making them want to avoid you like the plague. And alienating them is the least of it. We all know how much worse than that it can get.

In the case of Christians, projection happens because people have pursued miracles instead of principles. There is actually no excuse for it, however it is a group responsibility rather than just an individual one. If the group goes after miracles then everyone eventually suffers together regardless of the presence of those who judge based upon principles. In Christianese, it is the biggest demon gate you could possibly leave standing open. Until that door is closed, nobody can tell down from up. Lies appear to be truth and vice-versa. Demons are embraced while angels are shot-on-site. Close that door, then you can kill the big demon and finally go after the little demons. Don't close it, and you'll be chasing demons forever.

 

[Raksha]

In the case of Christians, projection happens because people have pursued miracles instead of principles. There is actually no excuse for it, however it is a group responsibility rather than just an individual one.

Dream,

That sounds about right to me, but to really respond to your post intelligently I'd have to have a better idea what you mean by "miracles." Are you referring to things like the loaves and fishes story and healing the sick, or do you mean the phenomenon of metanoia--in other words, "the born-again" experience? From what I've seen of fundamentalist Christianity, there is such peer pressure to be "born again" that people actually fake it! In fact, I can remember a prison minister telling me he just had to assume the prisoners who were "born again" were faking it, unless there were actual changes in the person's behavior over time. I'll never forget that.

You should consider reposting this note on the Christianity board. It's a very good post but I'm not sure it belongs on this topic. It's already wandered pretty far away from Reform Judaism--and that's mostly my fault. Although most of my posts have something to do with Judaism...more or less, anyway.

--Linda

 

[Dream]

You should consider reposting this note on the Christianity board. It's a very good post but I'm not sure it belongs on this topic. It's already wandered pretty far away from Reform Judaism--and that's mostly my fault. Although most of my posts have something to do with Judaism...more or less, anyway.

Thank you I will think about that! I meant something else but did not intend to sidetrack the thread. To keep it short, miracles like the men in the fiery furnace of Daniel are not what I meant. I meant the desire of personal miracles is like blind love. Desiring these doesn't enlighten and substitutes for good judgment, so its a double injury.