Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 72023 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Ronald Adler

Bensalem, PA

#72460 Apr 25, 2014
Slow Dance Chubby wrote:
That's funny, when the faithful try to get me in the Mitzvah van I say, "no thanks", and keep walking.
It's happened a few times and I'm not even Jewish.
Was I being oppressed?
Yes. You were.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#72461 Apr 25, 2014
Slow Dance Chubby wrote:

That's funny, when the faithful try to get me in the Mitzvah van I say, "no thanks", and keep walking.
It's happened a few times and I'm not even Jewish.
Was I being oppressed?

Ronald Adler wrote:
Yes. You were.

Thank you and nothing follows, i do not call that oppression.

Imagine 10 christians that have come to Jerusalem with the intent to convert Jews to their particular brand of reading the gospel.
They answered the add, followed the course:' How to not take no for an answer', did the cross-walk and are now ready and fired up.
So now imagine you are the target and can't even move.

Are you being oppressed?.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72462 Apr 26, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
sometimes .
I'd say love all the time but some days like her more than other days.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Understood, but I never really said I didnt not believe in God, more like I don't believe in the same God that many other people don't believe in, and that there are God concepts out there that reflect more of my belief than the God idea that you are agnostic about. Also, faith, as you would no doubt agree, isnt a static belief per se but more the practice of an attitude.
But how do you presume to know the nature of the god that I don't believe in?
Or that of any other nonbeliever?

My god concept is fairly wide open.

How do you know that I haven't (by chance) rejected the exact god concept that you hold?
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72463 Apr 26, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
But as you admitted, you dont need evidence to practice faith.
?? You mean going to church and following the golden rule?

Not sure if that's "practicing faith?"
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
And with no sure evidence either way, and an acknowledgement of the limitations of us humans to perceive only what we are biologically wired to perceive at the moment, no reason to discount another reality. Heck - the movie the Matrix illustrated one potentiality.
That's the agnostic part of agnostic-atheist.

Agree with the "unknown and unknowable" thing, at least at present. Would be tickled pink to find out it's all true, or that there was real Easter Bunny!

Similarly, you might argue it but I would call you an agnostic-theist.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72464 Apr 26, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly!
however, I would amend your comment to "everything is a PART of God".
This is what I previously called moving the goal posts.

As if you said there is a giant easter bunny and I said I never saw one.

Then you said. Well it's not really giant and I've seen at other times of the year
in my back yard!(I might just call that a cottontail.)

So if you just widen/loosen up the definition of what is god enough, then as I said, anything or everything is god (or "part of god") then EVERYONE by your definition simply has to call himself a believer.

Because how can I possibly deny the existence of everything? Tress? birds? I can't.

Do you see this? How can anyone on earth, using you definition of god, call himself an theist?

It seems you've committed extensive intellectual gymnastics/contortions in order to make the case for your faith. You wouldn't be the first one to do this.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Or even better, as I have been advocating from the beginning, move of the binary paradigm of believer vs nonbeliever of "the God out there" - and onto other frameworks - which are more sophisticated in their treatment of the issue.
Or more obfuscation?? We can convince ourselves of lots of things, given time, brains and space.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72465 Apr 26, 2014
Although Ellison was raised in a Reform Jewish home by his adoptive parents, who attended synagogue regularly, he remained a religious skeptic. Ellison states: "While I think I am religious in one sense, the particular dogmas of Judaism are not dogmas I subscribe to. I don't believe that they are real. They're interesting stories. They're interesting mythology, and I certainly respect people who believe these are literally true, but I don't. I see no evidence for this stuff." At age thirteen, Ellison refused to have a bar mitzvah celebration.[8]

Larry Ellison
CEO and Cofounder of Oracle
Worth $48 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72466 Apr 26, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd say love all the time but some days like her more than other days.
<quoted text>
But how do you presume to know the nature of the god that I don't believe in?
Or that of any other nonbeliever?
My god concept is fairly wide open.
How do you know that I haven't (by chance) rejected the exact god concept that you hold?
Actually, I admit dont know the nature of the god you don't believe in...the statement was intended to poke fun at the harder core atheists, to highlight that everyone has their own unique concept before they disbelieve in it...

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72467 Apr 26, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what I previously called moving the goal posts.
As if you said there is a giant easter bunny and I said I never saw one.
Then you said. Well it's not really giant and I've seen at other times of the year
in my back yard!(I might just call that a cottontail.)
So if you just widen/loosen up the definition of what is god enough, then as I said, anything or everything is god (or "part of god") then EVERYONE by your definition simply has to call himself a believer.
Because how can I possibly deny the existence of everything? Tress? birds? I can't.
Do you see this? How can anyone on earth, using you definition of god, call himself an theist?
It seems you've committed extensive intellectual gymnastics/contortions in order to make the case for your faith. You wouldn't be the first one to do this.
Its only moving goal posts if I am trying to defend a viewpoint. I am not. I am presenting a view point. I am not claiming that my viewpoint is the real way (ie. the correct way) to understand god. I am presenting it as the way I understand god. So it isnt my problem how others might label themselves or others, and as I mentioned a few times, the label paradigm you are using is not very descriptive either.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72468 Apr 26, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>

Or more obfuscation?? We can convince ourselves of lots of things, given time, brains and space.
Again, your bias is showing. You are determined to make this a trial where the validity of my beliefs are under examination. Rather than realizing that all I am doing is articulating them.

Part of the problem is that you are hung up on the framework of Western Philosophy and Christianity, if you would spend anytime learning about the issue from Eastern spirituality or nonChristian perspectives, you would see that there are entire descriptive vocabularies out there that move past classic theism.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72469 Apr 26, 2014
former res wrote:
Although Ellison was raised in a Reform Jewish home by his adoptive parents, who attended synagogue regularly, he remained a religious skeptic. Ellison states: "While I think I am religious in one sense, the particular dogmas of Judaism are not dogmas I subscribe to. I don't believe that they are real. They're interesting stories. They're interesting mythology, and I certainly respect people who believe these are literally true, but I don't. I see no evidence for this stuff." At age thirteen, Ellison refused to have a bar mitzvah celebration.[8]
Larry Ellison
CEO and Cofounder of Oracle
Worth $48 billion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison
Wasnt Oracle the contractor responsible for the debacle of the Oregan health exchange?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#72470 Apr 27, 2014
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Do you mean Newspeak? Or have you just immersed yourself in the scriptures?
April is almost done and nothing really bad has happened.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72471 Apr 27, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I admit dont know the nature of the god you don't believe in...the statement was intended to poke fun at the harder core atheists, to highlight that everyone has their own unique concept before they disbelieve in it...
Of before they do believe in it.

Doesn't everyone have their own unique idea of just about everything?

Rationalization is a powerful thing.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72472 Apr 27, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Its only moving goal posts if I am trying to defend a viewpoint. I am not. I am presenting a view point. I am not claiming that my viewpoint is the real way (ie. the correct way) to understand god. I am presenting it as the way I understand god. So it isnt my problem how others might label themselves or others, and as I mentioned a few times, the label paradigm you are using is not very descriptive either.
You are not claiming to know, I realize this, as you're an agnostic version of whatever it is you are, I would say a theist, you would say something else.

But regardless of the nomenclature/semantics, it still seems you've broadened the definition of god SO much as to include anything and everything.

If it all fits together and works for you, so be it.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72473 Apr 27, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, your bias is showing. You are determined to make this a trial where the validity of my beliefs are under examination. Rather than realizing that all I am doing is articulating them.
Part of the problem is that you are hung up on the framework of Western Philosophy and Christianity, if you would spend anytime learning about the issue from Eastern spirituality or nonChristian perspectives, you would see that there are entire descriptive vocabularies out there that move past classic theism.
Of course we all have bias. To deny it would be disingenuous.

But my point was that we can put ourselves though so many mental gymnastics that it would be possible to convince ourselves that up is down and night is day. Nuance can be taken too far. At one point one has to shxt or get off the pot/the fence. Something at one level is one thing or it's another. And we can also end up old men sitting in a smoke-filled room uttering our muddled philosophy. But in the end, as Robert De Nero said in The Deer Hunter, "This is this."

Not there isn't room for nuance, wonder and questions. For me, abortion, affirmative action, even the death penalty (at times), welfare etc. Not all cut and dried. And of course the grand daddy of them all, religion.

But at some point someone says they believe in god of they don't. Or they say, sometimes or most of the time. I understand. "There are no atheists in foxholes" goes the expression. I hope I end up like Christopher Hitchens who said if you hear of him making a deathbed conversion, don't believe it.

But bottom line. I think a believer should likewise take a stand. But also as noted, actions speak louder than words, and so have they done for you.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72474 Apr 27, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasnt Oracle the contractor responsible for the debacle of the Oregan health exchange?
Don't know.

Maybe the company has been a big flop and the guy's a loser?

:)

Actually I hear they are pointing fingers at each other out in Oregon.

I don't really know the details.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72475 Apr 27, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Of before they do believe in it.
Doesn't everyone have their own unique idea of just about everything?
Rationalization is a powerful thing.
True, but the idea is that the harder core of the atheists are first presupposing something, and then disbelieving it. The statement that I dont believe in the same god you dont believe in, is, in part, trying to highlight that irony.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72476 Apr 27, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not claiming to know, I realize this, as you're an agnostic version of whatever it is you are, I would say a theist, you would say something else.
But regardless of the nomenclature/semantics, it still seems you've broadened the definition of god SO much as to include anything and everything.
If it all fits together and works for you, so be it.
But if we all agree that all I am doing is articulating how I experience my reality, why does it matter to anyone else WHAT or HOW I label. Are you saying that only you have the right to provide the label for my pink elephant?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72477 Apr 27, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't know.
Maybe the company has been a big flop and the guy's a loser?
:)
Actually I hear they are pointing fingers at each other out in Oregon.
I don't really know the details.
On the other hand, CT did so well they are consulting out their expertise.

sorry to poke fun at your quote - couldnt resist...
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72478 Apr 27, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasnt Oracle the contractor responsible for the debacle of the Oregan health exchange?
...besides we all know gov't can't do anything right anyway, so it's probably the state's fault!

:)

Just ask our friend, ATF.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72479 Apr 27, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course we all have bias. To deny it would be disingenuous.
But my point was that we can put ourselves though so many mental gymnastics that it would be possible to convince ourselves that up is down and night is day. Nuance can be taken too far. At one point one has to shxt or get off the pot/the fence. Something at one level is one thing or it's another. And we can also end up old men sitting in a smoke-filled room uttering our muddled philosophy. But in the end, as Robert De Nero said in The Deer Hunter, "This is this."
Not there isn't room for nuance, wonder and questions. For me, abortion, affirmative action, even the death penalty (at times), welfare etc. Not all cut and dried. And of course the grand daddy of them all, religion.
I take a more liberal view of things. I acknowledge that there are more than one god concepts out there, and have no qualms with that. I also share the visceral reaction and uncomfortableness many Jews and others feel when some fundamentalist Christian hijacks the god talk, and for that reason as well promote multiple god concepts.
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
But at some point someone says they believe in god of they don't. Or they say, sometimes or most of the time. I understand. "There are no atheists in foxholes" goes the expression. I hope I end up like Christopher Hitchens who said if you hear of him making a deathbed conversion, don't believe it.
But bottom line. I think a believer should likewise take a stand. But also as noted, actions speak louder than words, and so have they done for you.
True, but the conversation has morphed (which is ok, but I wanted to note this). Originally you posed the question what is the boundary of belief for a Jew (to not get kicked out). And the answer would be, regarding these last posts, is a belief in the "one" of a god concept of some sort. But the god concept itself is rather permeable. All of the subsequent talk about what theism is or isnt, etc etc, is a tangent IMO.(But that said, I still think you are viewing all of this from the wrong vantagepoint, as you are using categories of analysis that are meaningful from the perspective western philosophy but not so meaningful to understanding from the perspective of the religion itself).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min flack 1,345,617
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 9 min Dr Phil 207,316
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 23 min Russell797 57,152
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 1 hr RJS 8,292
News Teen Charged After Pouring Boiling Water on Cat... 2 hr racist observation 2
Word (Dec '08) 3 hr Red_Forman 5,630
last post wins! (Apr '13) 3 hr Red_Forman 589
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages