Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 72039 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.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66566 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles: Just because someone identifies as religious does not make them an automaton.
FR: But it helps
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Me, familiar with Fundies?
How so?
Have definitely had more Jewish friends than fundies. The only I even know is a brother I rarely get to see. Though admittedly he is annoying.
My Philadelphia Jewish friend wouldn't eat a cheesesteak. But that may have been more from eating habits than religious reasons. So I can't definitely attribute this to strict compliance.
I dont see the basis for your above statement. Maybe in the fundamentalist strands of religion. Which is why I made the latter comment about your exposures.

Do you know what is involved in a religious lifestyle? Sure, from the outside its about comformity. But with a set of standards up close and personal to apply at all times, it actually INCREASES your choices. By design. A spiritual path, if done seriously, will lead to a heightened state of awareness on ALL fronts, including a conscious awareness of behavioral choices.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#66567 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
I dont see the basis for your above statement. Maybe in the fundamentalist strands of religion. Which is why I made the latter comment about your exposures.
,
Would you concede at least that some personalities are better at following a set of rules, "standards" and laws than others? And some are joiners, while others aren't.

You keep saying that CoR and I are grouping all religions together (into the Fundie mode)..
I say I don't know any. And when I think of religion, I don't actually think specifically of them.
(Perhaps when thinking of the abortion/birth control/gay issues here in the US.)

But generally I think of the world, the Middle East, history, the Crusades and so on. Christians, Muslims, Jews....

But clearly YOU keep grouping all Christians under the Fundie umbrella. Call it the low-hanging fruit, if you will. I do.

I understand, as this may be your exposure, or what comes to mind for you when you think of Christians. I OTOH was born and raised Catholic, dad was an altar boy, mom went to Catholic boarding schools (poor mom!)
Frijoles wrote:
Do you know what is involved in a religious lifestyle?
Only as stated above and from friends and other limited expore.

Similarly, you would have limited exposure to a non-religious lifestyle.
Frijoles wrote:
Sure, from the outside its about comformity. But with a set of standards up close and personal to apply at all times, it actually INCREASES your choices. By design. A spiritual path, if done seriously, will lead to a heightened state of awareness on ALL fronts, including a conscious awareness of behavioral choices.
That's a hell of a statement.

So you have a more "heightened state of awareness" that the average atheist?

This strikes me as arrogant which is why folks like me stay away from this sort of thing.

The behavioral statement smacks of piety.(Which puts me in mind of Fundies!)

Those goes back to the discussion CoR and Rick were having.

None of us invented ethical/moral behavior. Our point is only that you don't need religion to do it - or even to do it better.

It is normal human behavior that when we form ourselves into groups, we reinforce one another's thinking and then begin to exclude others (and even feel superior to "others").

This can be seen in high schools when we formed ourselves into cliques. Jocks, freaks etc.

Sociology is what it is.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66568 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
So its a fundamentalist-extremist issue, which is arguably not even a religious issue.
How is that not a religious issue?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66569 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
...The path of life, for the religious, is not only to enact moral behaviors (i.e. actions between man), but to enact religious behaviors (i.e. acts of devotion, praise, yearning, and connection). Those are intangibles, and obvious not what you value. No one has posited that religion is the sole source of morals. But for those who seek a lifestyle deeper than just following moral precepts, its a viable alternative.
Fair enough. But my point is that the moral precepts can survive on their own and needn't be unnecessarily tied to religion. And the things that religion does offer you (i.e. acts of devotion, praise, yearning, and connection) can also survive on their own without being unnecessarily tied to moral precepts. Therefore, why combine the two?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66570 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
...not everyone lives in their head, many or most people live in their hearts as well. Secular Humanism provides zippo in that direction.
You're stuck on this notion that moral precepts and emotional fulfillment that religion provides need to be bundled up neatly in one package (which is what religions attempt to do today), and that because secular humanism doesn't provide the latter, it is somehow an inferior worldview.

I'm suggesting that the two can be unbundled and dealt with seperately. I'm not advocating for the abolition of religion, but rather for the unbundling. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66571 Jan 30, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should you "lead" a moral life if there are no consequences?
Existence of God is no "exercise in futility"..... it is account giving of our deeds that "leaves us no option but to lead a moral life".
You might lead a moral life strictly because of the reward/punishment you believe will occur in the afterlife.

I lead a moral life because I'm concerned about the world I (and my children) live in now.

I will argue that my approach is more genuine. Yours is predicated on coercion. Your approach makes your behavior disingenuous at best, psychopathic at worst.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66572 Jan 30, 2014
Rick Moss wrote:
Griffith, Selznick, Kubrick, Spielberg were all filmmakers who make groundbreaking strides in film. But not one of them claims to have invented film making. So I find it difficult to understand why secular humanists insist on believing they invented the concept of morality.
When did I, or anyone for that matter, claim that secular humanists invented the concept of morality. On the contrary, secular humanists see morality as a natural extension of evolutionary growth. I would argue that it is the religionists and objective moralists that are more likely to claim ownership of the "truths" behind morality.
Rick Moss wrote:
For longer than recorded time, the human species has been divided into cultures and most of those cultures had a concept of religion. This religion provided the backbone to their moral code. Believers in the religion had an obligation to abide by that code to be considered part of the social construct of that religion. That was the impetus to abide by the moral code.
I'd like to think we're capable of evolving beyond that and adopting newer, more efficient tools or processes.
Rick Moss wrote:
Secular humanism doesn't provide the same social construct as religion and provide no moral authority to abide by its precepts.
Like Frijoles, you are making the mistake of assuming that morality and religion is a bundled package and that the components of that bundle can't be dealt with separately. They most certainly can.
Rick Moss wrote:
Additionally, secular humanism deals almost exclusively in ethics (that which a culture defines at the moment as right and proper) vs morality -- that which is objectively good and bad.
I disagree with your definitions and separation of ethics and morality. I see them as one and the same, and I also reject the concept of an objective morality. Throughout human history, morality is and always has been relative.
Rick Moss wrote:
What moral code humanism does have comes unchanged from the religion-based moral codes that preceded it -- don't murder, don't steal, treat people fairly, etc.
Are you implying that murder was not recognized as being bad prior to religion? Murder is bad for society. Our primitive ancestors would have evolved to understand that, even before religion was invented. Religion was simply one means of enforcing these rules, but certainly not the only means.
Rick Moss wrote:
... But let's take a look at some of the horrendous concepts that humanism has been quick to embrace and provide justification over just the last century or so -- Nazism, communism, fascism, eugenics, the list goes on. So, maybe slow and steady has its advantages when attempting to define a moral code.
Are you seriously implying that humanism embraced Nazism, communism, fascism, eugenics, etc...?

From wiki...

"Humanism is a movement of philosophy and ethics that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism)."

Please tell me how that equates to all the bad things you listed.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#66573 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles

Would you agree that religion is man-made? Yours?

What is the difference between religion and philosophy?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66574 Jan 30, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that not a religious issue?
Because I believe it is more of a personality issue than a social issue.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66575 Jan 30, 2014
former res wrote:
Frijoles
Would you agree that religion is man-made? Yours?
What is the difference between religion and philosophy?
(Organized) Religion is how man answers what he perceives is a call from God.

Religion is man in search of God. Philosophy is man in search of truth. On some level these are the same, but only if everyone agrees what truth is. Which never happens.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66576 Jan 30, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough. But my point is that the moral precepts can survive on their own and needn't be unnecessarily tied to religion. And the things that religion does offer you (i.e. acts of devotion, praise, yearning, and connection) can also survive on their own without being unnecessarily tied to moral precepts. Therefore, why combine the two?
Because, as I said, not everyone lives soley in their head. Traditionally, secular ethics provides a lousy outlet for affairs and expressions of the heart. Not to say that you couldnt combine secular ethics with the arts, but some people want it all in one bundle. You dont. But some do.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66577 Jan 30, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
Like Frijoles, you are making the mistake of assuming that morality and religion is a bundled package and that the components of that bundle can't be dealt with separately. They most certainly can.
.
Straw argument. See above.

I have always been a proponent of secular ethics. I see no conflict in being religious and advocating for this as well, just as I see no conflict between my religion and science.

The question is, why do you have a problem with this? Why is it secular humanism or the highway?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66578 Jan 30, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>

That's a hell of a statement.
So you have a more "heightened state of awareness" that the average atheist?
This strikes me as arrogant which is why folks like me stay away from this sort of thing.
The behavioral statement smacks of piety.(Which puts me in mind of Fundies!)
Those goes back to the discussion CoR and Rick were having.
None of us invented ethical/moral behavior. Our point is only that you don't need religion to do it - or even to do it better.
It is normal human behavior that when we form ourselves into groups, we reinforce one another's thinking and then begin to exclude others (and even feel superior to "others").
This can be seen in high schools when we formed ourselves into cliques. Jocks, freaks etc.
Sociology is what it is.
I never said this was superior - I only said that dont discount the amount of choices that open up once one adopts a conscious lifestyle. Its not all comformance.

I challenge you to go on a silent retreat - Bhuddist variety - no religion - for 3 days - and then tell me that you havent experienced a hightened sense of awareness.

But that wasnt really the awareness I was referring to. What I was referring to is the practice of identifying choices you make in daily life. I.e. getting off autopilot. Everyone suffers from this. Not just fundie automatons.

For example, when you keep kosher you are confronted with this during every meal.(If you are vegetarian you are as well)

religion is not the only way to develop conscious living - nor is it "the" superior way. But it is the topic here and hence the discussion.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66579 Jan 30, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
,Would you concede at least that some personalities are better at following a set of rules, "standards" and laws than others? And some are joiners, while others aren't.
That's not a concession. Thats a reality. And personalities do fluctuate over the course of ones lifetime, and as well as hourly. Which is why it is not uncommon for Jews to become more observant as they get older.
former res wrote:
<quoted text>You keep saying that CoR and I are grouping all religions together (into the Fundie mode)..
I say I don't know any. And when I think of religion, I don't actually think specifically of them.
(Perhaps when thinking of the abortion/birth control/gay issues here in the US.)
But generally I think of the world, the Middle East, history, the Crusades and so on. Christians, Muslims, Jews....
But clearly YOU keep grouping all Christians under the Fundie umbrella. Call it the low-hanging fruit, if you will. I do.
I understand, as this may be your exposure, or what comes to mind for you when you think of Christians. I OTOH was born and raised Catholic, dad was an altar boy, mom went to Catholic boarding schools (poor mom!)
<quoted text>
Only as stated above and from friends and other limited expore.
Similarly, you would have limited exposure to a non-religious lifestyle.
<quoted text>
COR definitely was. His earlier assertions were 100% based on fundamentalism. I wasnt grouping, I was answering him from where he started from. Fundamentalism is not a religious phenomenom, its a social-psychological phenomenon that cuts across all sectors (we have fundies within political parties, fundie environmentalists, fundies within most religions, etc etc). Hence his dislikes are misplaced, IMO. Its fundies that should be the focus of his crusade, not religion.

I know a bit about the varieties of Christianity. I have lived my entire social and professional life embedded with Christians. Plus I have intermarriage within my extended family.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66580 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
...
The question is, why do you have a problem with this? Why is it secular humanism or the highway?
I never said secular humanism or the highway. But I am trying to make the point that secular humanism, as a guide to moral behavior, transends religion.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#66581 Jan 30, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>.
Fair enough.
And by the same token, those who take pot shots at the beliefs of others will have pot shots taken at their own.
But wouldn't it be better to live and let live?
Or in other words:
The phrase originates from the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, an alternative for "an eye for an eye" is given by Jesus:
38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
—Matthew 5:38–5:42 KJV
Your way hasn't worked too well in the world.
These things only escalate and then we all know what happens.
It's enough to give religion a bad name.
'your way' asin suggestive of 'jewish' is not relevant.

I would say this part of Matthew specifically addresses roman behaviour towards the populace (mind Judea was not a province of them )
They essentially redicule the romans.

(went into detail about these before, not repeating that.)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#66582 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
...COR definitely was. His earlier assertions were 100% based on fundamentalism. I wasnt grouping, I was answering him from where he started from. Fundamentalism is not a religious phenomenom, its a social-psychological phenomenon that cuts across all sectors (we have fundies within political parties, fundie environmentalists, fundies within most religions, etc etc). Hence his dislikes are misplaced, IMO. Its fundies that should be the focus of his crusade, not religion.
I know a bit about the varieties of Christianity. I have lived my entire social and professional life embedded with Christians. Plus I have intermarriage within my extended family.
Then you misunderstood my point.

Again, my point is that moral precepts and religion are discreet entities and need not be bundled. Today, they are by most if not all religions (not just the fundies). I assume we agree on this point?

I get it that you prefer to have your "products" bundled and that you see an up-side to that. I, on the other hand, assert that bundling them has certain negative side effects that wouldn't exist otherwise.

I think we've beaten this horse to death...
former res

Cheshire, CT

#66583 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
(Organized) Religion is how man answers what he perceives is a call from God.
Religion is man in search of God. Philosophy is man in search of truth. On some level these are the same, but only if everyone agrees what truth is. Which never happens.
I've heard it said that science is about the how and religion about the why.

But why search for god?

To give meaning and value to life. To explain our existence. To make sense out
of all of this. Religion sounds to me like a branch of philosophy. But doesn't matter much what you call it.

On a physiological level our deepest thoughts/emotions/feelings, even our so-called "spirituality" - are electrically charged chemical reactions. True.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#66584 Jan 30, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said this was superior - I only said that dont discount the amount of choices that open up once one adopts a conscious lifestyle. Its not all conformance.
Fair enough.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
I challenge you to go on a silent retreat - Bhuddist variety - no religion - for 3 days - and then tell me that you havent experienced a hightened sense of awareness.
Same reason I never did my homework in front of the TV - too distracting.
Or why a suddenly blind person has heightened other senses.

Makes sense to me.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
But that wasnt really the awareness I was referring to. What I was referring to is the practice of identifying choices you make in daily life. I.e. getting off autopilot. Everyone suffers from this. Not just fundie automatons.
If you adopt a healthy eating regimen, same thing, you actually have to think about everything that you put into your mouth.

Why do say "fundie automatons?" why do you assume they haven't made the same
decision you have to follow their religion in their own way?
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
For example, when you keep kosher you are confronted with this during every meal.(If you are vegetarian you are as well)
Agreed. Same as I said above. Healthy eating etc.

There is no convincing health argument of keeping Kosher.

It's just a rule based in history/tradition - correct?
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
religion is not the only way to develop conscious living - nor is it "the" superior way. But it is the topic here and hence the discussion.
Ok

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#66585 Jan 30, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
I've heard it said that science is about the how and religion about the why.
But why search for god?
To give meaning and value to life. To explain our existence. To make sense out
of all of this. Religion sounds to me like a branch of philosophy. But doesn't matter much what you call it.
On a physiological level our deepest thoughts/emotions/feelings, even our so-called "spirituality" - are electrically charged chemical reactions. True.
Philosophy is a discipline that relies on logic. Religion transcends logic - i.e. isnt dependent upon logic.

You are defining "search" as a mental activity. A religious perspective usually includes other modes, such as emotional modes, as well. If everyone preferred the mode of the head, and not also of the heart. we would all be Unitarians.

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.

Hanover Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Their view: No clear gain in dispute over Falkl... (Mar '10) Jul '17 Tony 630
News Experience Victorian Christmas tonight at Silve... (Dec '09) Jun '17 AmPieJam UncleSam 5
News Twenty-five car pile-up leaves six people dead Jun '17 Budda Gojkovich 2
News Fiesta Latina heats things upJune 19th, 2017 Jun '17 I love the southwest 1
News 16-year-old student dies (May '07) Jun '17 Cherie griego 10
News Man caught hunting out of season fined $4k Jun '17 Bob 1
News Doctor accused of inappropriate exam behavior t... (Nov '09) Jun '17 Yimminy Rickets 356

Hanover Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hanover Mortgages