Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxi.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxi!dsg From: dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Down to Brass Tacks Message-ID: <339@mhuxi.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Jul-85 10:28:09 EDT Article-I.D.: mhuxi.339 Posted: Fri Jul 26 10:28:09 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Jul-85 04:55:17 EDT References: <11605@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1236@pyuxd.UUCP> <338@mhuxi.UUCP> <1315@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 85 > >> Okay Rich, this may have been asked before. I can't prove that the Torah was >> given at Mt. Sinai and that G-d exists; I can't even try to offer proof. >> So, the question to you is: >> Can you offer proof that G-d doesn't exist and the Torah wasn't given at Mt. >> Sinai? [DAVID GREEN] >I always thought it was those who posited the extraordinary claims who had the >burden of proof, not those who didn't posit such claims. In the absence of >evidence, your claims are just claims. They may be axioms in YOUR personal >belief system, but that doesn't oblige me to accept them as axioms just because >you choose to, for whatever reason. If you intend to make me or anyone else >follow your rules, the burden of proof is on your shoulders. A burden Samet >and his ilk seem unwilling to accept, perhaps preferring that we all just take >his axioms as givens and accept whatever he has to say. [RICH ROSEN] First, I think that your contributions to net.religion.jewish are important and you should continue to post here. Now, Rich, down to business at hand! Instead of saying that there are three Jewish "Denominations", I would say that there are three Jewish "Affiliations" which are: Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. The important difference between the three is the interpretation of the Torah and Talmud, Orthodox is fairly rigid and Conservative and Reform are more liberal in their interpretation of the law. The important commonalityis that all three believe, more or less, that G-d exists and that there was some sort of event at Mt. Sinai several thousand years ago which formed the groundwork for Jewish beliefs. I don't have exact statistics, but the number of people who are "affiliated" and born or converted are in the millions. I *assume* that there are as many atheists and agnostics in the world as there are Jews, if not more. The important issue is that this is net.religion.jewish NOT net.religion.atheist|agnostic|rosen|ubizmo. Many people in *this* newsgroup have differences of opinion, usually because of their "affiliation" and level of knowledge of Torah and Talmud. This difference of opinion leads to arguments, insults, and sometimes understanding. If you were to read the Talmud, you would see the School of Hillel arguing with the school of Shammai and various commentators insulting one and other, sometimes in good nature, sometimes not. Unless *you* can show me otherwise, Jewish people DO NOT try to force their beliefs on others, whether they were born Jewish or not; correct me if I am wrong. Some people ( including myself ) have suggested that you read some basic Jewish texts so that a discussion can be carried out on a higher level. You, Rich, sometimes counter that *we* should read the "Book of Ubizmo". I don't see how ( maybe I'm missing something ) that Samet's, Martillo's or my suggestions on reading material are foistering "our beliefs" on you or anyone else. Jews are just not noted for trying to convert or change other people's beliefs. Most certainly, we are not trying to force you or anyone else to follow our rules. Really, the keyword is force. At best, some of us are just trying to explain the rules of the various Jewish affiliations. Since this is net.religion.jewish and not net.religion.* I do not see why the burden of proof is on us. I can easily point you to a few modern ( recent ) books that attempt to "prove" the Jewish beliefs but since I don't want to read the book of Ubizmo I am not going to list them, unless asked to. And one final point before I summarize - - Samet was just trying to explain the orthopratic view of homosexuality, not the conservative view, the reform view, or even the "liberal" modern orthodox view. Much of what he said comes down to this: 1. In the days of the Sanhedrin ( > 2000 years ago ), if a homosexual act was seen by three valid witnesses ( who a valid witness is, is another story) the person commiting the act *could* ( not would ) be punished by death. 2. In the time of the Messiah ( Sorry, I don't know when the Messiah is coming but the time is in the "future" ) the Sanhedrin may be re-established and the above would be applicable, again. But this is really of philosophical interest only, because if you believe in the Messiah and the Messiah comes, there will be much more to worry about than homosexuality. 3. If an "orthopractic" jew has homosexual leanings, counseling/therapy/etc. is the only thing that would be offered to the orthopractic homosexual, not stoning! My summary is quite simple: Given that this is net.religion.jewish, there are a basic set of axioms that most of us agree with. It is difficult to carry on a debate about Jewish issues with affiliated Jews given those axioms. It is even harder to debate with an atheist/agnostic/ubizmist who not does not believe those axioms and does not want to do read the traditional or modern Jewish texts that explain those axioms. Shalom(Peace), David S. Green {ihnp4}!mhuxi!dsg PS If I do not answer any responses to this posting for the next week or so it is because I will be on vacation, working hard on my suntan, far far away from any full-screen async devices.