Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucf-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!yiri From: yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Wingate - Firing blanks again Message-ID: <1711@ucf-cs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 11-Nov-84 23:53:07 EST Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1711 Posted: Sun Nov 11 23:53:07 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Nov-84 05:53:50 EST Organization: UCF, Orlando, FL Lines: 200 From mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 Yirmiyahu, if you are going to make statements like "If you understood the full meaning of the term as it was intended by the Jewish authors you would have a different outlook" [referring to "repentance"], expect us to demand to know what YOU think this "intended meaning" is. How are we supposed to understand your argument when you won't even tell us what your position means? Without an explanation of what you think they meant by repentance, you are just engaging in name-calling. Try us. We too are thinking human beings. **************************** Yiri responds: 1) I've already told you how you can come to understand 2) I don't recognize your right to demand anything 3) Human beings yes. But thinking? This net has has read more like a bad script from "As the Stomach Turns" to me. I'll be persuaded when I see it demonstrated. 4) When you have read both Parkes and Bagatti contact be by mail and we'll take another look. **************************** From mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 [St. George, protect me] I can't restrain myself. In case people haven't noticed, I am increasingly despairing of finding any reasoning in Yirmiyahu's articles. Lately all he has said is that we are unqualified to argue with him. Well, I have two comments: (1) If we aren't worth arguing with, why does he bother? (2) Where does he get the right to assume that we know nothing about Judaism? ************************ Yiri responds: 1) Because I care 2) From your writing ************************ We've learned to listen to what those 1900 years of christians have had to say on the subject before we make our own decisions. Now we have Yirmiyahu coming out of the blue with his "antiredaction" theory, refusing to even reply to the church fathers. And the funny thing is that no amount of redaction on his part is going to remove the central embarassment: the resurrection. Edit out the ressurection, and you have no text at all; leave it in, and no amount of redaction elsewhere will help. ************************ Yiri responds: That's just your problem. You listen for 1900 years only to christians... and not just any christians, but christians who agree with you in the areas under discussion. Parkes and Bagatti were/are christians and you won't even learn from them. How could anyone be even mildly surprised that christian doctrine is reinforced by listening to christians. Classic circular reasoning. You despair of finding any reasoning in my articles. Why am I not surprised? The real source of your despair is that there is no way to provide answers for the flaws I've pointed out in christianity. I'm not surprised you are frustrated either. Among others, you have a great confusion between 1) understanding the N'tzarim writings as a historical document, what it most likely read, and what was meant by the Jews who wrote it and the Jews to whom it was written 2) asserting one's beliefs about the implications of the writings, and 3) intractable insistence upon absolute faith in a perverted version of #1 My interest is in #1. Your defiantly committed to 3 and asking me to leave the scholarly aspect of it and get involved in #2. No. Since my interest is in #1, what it says or does not say is not an embarrassment to me in any way. You are under some kind of delusion in that regard. I search for the truth and have no reason to fear it. ************************* From mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 In article <1654@ucf-cs.UUCP> yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) writes: > > Since my information regarding Christianity > 1) comes from a formerly observant, religious and knowledgeable > Christian who has converted to Judaism, his comments certainly are > qualified > 2) has defied any logical disputation, there seems to be no apparent > basis for disregarding it simply because you can't find any other > answer. Tell us more about this source of yours, Yirmiyahu. Was he Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, Coptic? And I'm not sure I would consider an apostate as a reliable source. Christianity is at least as diverse as Judaism, from my admittedly limited experience. ************************** Yiri responds: He was a Baptist and an ordained minister. After learning what his peers knew, he kept on learning. Eventually, he discovered christianity was lacking - principally in the areas I've been discussing (though not solely by any means). He did not backslide out of christianity. He studied his way up to a point that there were questions for which the answers were obviously flawed - even according to christian authors. That is why it hasn't even been necessary for me to recommend authors outside of christianity. I notice that you have already judged him apostate knowing nothing about him... judging his heart. At least I know a little about the semitic christians who were apostate before becoming christians. You can check their backgrounds for yourself. And you accuse me of name-calling. That your notion of reasoning too? ************************** Perhaps you should read some of the great modern theologians. How about Reinhold Neibuhr, or Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who died in a Nazi prizon for your race, incidentally), or, if you refuse to listen to Christians, Martin Heidegger [sp?], or if that is too difficult, _The Road Less Travelled_ by M. Scott Peck. My point is that if you want to take potshots at the theology of Christianity, you should get better information. ************************** Yiri responds: Apparently no one has ever informed you that we are not a race. That, in itself is antisemitic. As far as my knowledge of christianity, it certainly seems to be more than adequate thank you. And I can't imagine why I would want to learn more about something which I know became perverted over a millenia before those authors got out of their diapers. ************************* While I'm at it, I would like to point out that I do not attack Judaism in the same way that Yirmiyahu attacks christianity. I do not claim to be a great expert on Judaism; in any case, I am not going to engage in wanton attacks against it. I find it amusing, and a little disturbing, that Yirmiyahu is engaging in exactly the sort of intolerant abusive attacks that he accuses all christians of. ************************* Yiri responds: In an earlier article, you asked where I get the right to assume that you know nothing about Judaism. Now, you volunteer it. Your inconsistency is showing again. First, I didn't say 'nothing'. Because you can spell Judaism and know a few facts about it doesn't make you knowledgeable enough to have the insights to interpret the meanings of Jewish writings. On the other hand, claiming the competence to properly interpret Jewish writings presupposes such expertise - which you and other christians do not have. It is good that you admit that you lack such expertise. It is a first step... perhaps. I am pleased that you were disturbed by the look in the mirror at what christians have been trying to put on us for 2 millenia. I am truly sorry you find it amusing. It is not. Again, why am I not surprised? ************************* From mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 Those who have read any of the Divine Comedy are familiar with Dante's notion that those who are in Hell have in fact chosen to be there. (I freely admit, by the way, that I may have my source wrong; it's been MANY years since I read Dante.) At any rate, Yirmiyahu seems to be going out of his way to provide the net with a second illustration of this principle, Tim Maroney being the first. ************************* Yiri responds: Perhaps you would have the courage to say what you mean without beating around the bush? ************************* I don't hate Yiri, although I am often exasperated with his style of argument. I do fail to understand why he has to attack everyone who disagrees with him with such rage and (dare I say) even hatred. I do feel no qualms about telling someone that I think they are wrong; why Yiri should think that this is necessarily hatred is beyond me. I admit to being intemperate on recent occasions; frustration has a way of removing one's better sense. I am getting extremely tired of Yiri's constant allegations that a) we have never read anything, and that b) anyone who dares to disagree with him is anti-semetic. Let me tell you something; went I went to High School, and took sacred studies, we didn't study pious little tracts on St. Teresa; we read critiques of christian ethics, and Camus and Sartre, and in college, Neitzche and Heidegger. As for the insinuation that I am anti-semetic, I have many jewish friends, reform, conservative, and orthodox; we sometimes have spirited discussions of religion. I don't consider them anti-christian, and I see no signs that the think of me as anti-semetic. Seems like it is just you, Yiri. Perhaps the fault lies within yourself. ************************* Yiri responds: You accuse me of hating... you are judging my heart again. What do your writings tell you about that? Another fine example of reasoning vs perverting someone else's words and intentions. If you can't find any logic to use then I suppose that is your only recourse. As far as 'seeing signs', why am I not surprised you don't see signs of this either? If you would read Parkes... and Bagatti... you might at least have a shot at getting a glimmer (if you could open up your mind). Ah, but not you. You couldn't be missing such things. Not you. That's unthinkable. ************************