Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bu-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!bu-cs!sam
From: sam@bu-cs.UUCP (Shelli Meyers)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Re: Down to Brass Tacks
Message-ID: <529@bu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 15:52:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.529
Posted: Tue Jul 30 15:52:35 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 20:11:45 EDT
References: <11605@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1236@pyuxd.UUCP> <338@mhuxi.UUCP> <1315@pyuxd.UUCP>, <669@cvl.UUCP>
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 35

>>What I am trying to demonstrate is the lack of rooting in actual fact
>>it on others. [ROSEN]

>It's hard to have a net.religion.jewish that satisfies everyone. It is,
>however, fair to say that there should be some common ground among
>members of the net. Nobody is imposing on Rosen or anyone else to 
>contribute to n.r.j. , but let's have certain ground rules for those
>who want to contribute. This net discusses different aspects of Judaism--
>orthodoxy vs. conservatism vs. reform vs. reconstructionism vs. humanism ,,,,
>,Israel,....etc. It has not, at least until recently, questioned the basic
>underpinnings of Judaism itself, nor should it. If someone isn't sure about
>what religion he belongs to, or chooses to affiliate with, let him discuss
>it outside of this group (in net.religion or elsewhere). [GROSS]

While it may be a valid point that perhaps not all Jewish beliefs are
rooted in "actual fact" (by Rich's definition), it really isn't an issue
here.  Rich, you yourself have said that reading certain books to acquire
"proof" of a religion's validity assumes basic precepts as being true
to begin with.  I think this net makes some assumptions, too.  One of them
is that the readers are Jews, and are not in the market to find proof
of their beliefs, nor to have others provide proof against their beliefs.
You have mentioned that there are "non-religious" Jews, who still consider
themselves Jews.  Perhaps this is so, but they are definitely a minority.
And in that minority, probably only a tiny percentage reads this net.
Why?  Because it is called net.RELIGION.jewish, not net.jewish.  Therefore
we've got to assume some sort of religious concepts here.  We ought to
discuss those religious differences, not the validity of individuals'
beliefs themselves.

Since you constantly dispute classic Jewish belief, do you consider
yourself a "non-religious" Jew?  If so, why not post the reasons why
you still associate yourself with the Jewish people, rather than
concentrating on why you don't.  And if you or anyone else on the net
doesn't thing THAT'S an appropriate thing to discuss on the net either,
than mail a reply to me. *I'd* sure like to know.