Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Rosen, "bug off"! Message-ID: <1392@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 15:16:09 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1392 Posted: Fri Aug 2 15:16:09 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 10:37:28 EDT References: <164@vilya.UUCP> <658@cvl.UUCP> <39@unc.UUCP> <288@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 58 > Rich Rosen's viewpoints belong in this newsgroup. > It seems there is no hope for anything said in this newsgroup to > be m'karev Mr. Rosen -- I doubt that he would heed even a bas kol. > But his arguments are the ones that must be refuted if the Orthodox > in net.religion.jewish hope to be m'karevim the poor sheep who are > following the liberal Jewish mis-leaders on the path to spiritual > destruction. We ignore him at our peril, for it is arguments like > his that mislead orders of magnitude more young Jews than the > blandishments of the missionaries or the Moonies -- they simply > drop out of Judaism entirely when they get to college and their > professors reveal that the Bible is a "myth," or even earlier when > their secondary school curriculum, written by New York secular > humanist Jews, ignores or laughs at "outdated superstition," or > even earlier than THAT when their "rabbis" tell them (chas v'chalilah) > that "you don't have to believe in G-d to be Jewish." [MATT ROSENBLATT] Obviously I take a diametric opposite position to what you have to say. Obviously I think that it is YOU who are the "poor sheep", that "myth" and "outdated superstition" are ACCURATE words to describe your beliefs and that the quotes are not at all necessary. The professors and thinkers who show people this way of thinking have a very powerful tool on their side---logic and reason, from which comes real knowledge. What you call knowledge (of the "truth" of the Bible and of God) has its roots in supposition and presumption: remove the assumption of the existence of god in the nature you describe it to be, and the rest of the belief system (not necessarily ALL moral tenets, but the bulk of the capricious ones) falls to the ground. You're absolutely right, it is arguments like mine that you must face as more and more people see through the cloak of presumption and wishful thinking, and I have sincere doubts about your ability to show hard proof that contradicts any of this. > What I would like to see is an end to name-calling and insults on > the net. Rich Rosen (and others who use bad language) ought to be > intelligent enough to realize that such language only detracts from > the efficacy of their arguments, in the sense that they put off > readers who might otherwise be receptive. I'm just wondering what "bad language" you are referring to that *I* offered. Care to document instances IN CONTEXT??? > There are all sorts of > epithets, in Hebrew, Aramaic, Yiddish, and even Greek, that are used > to describe people with liberal, skeptical beliefs that run counter > to our Torah. The religious have refrained from tarring Mr. Rosen > with these epithets, no matter how exasperated they have become with > his stubbornness in clinging to his liberal position. I would > request that Mr. Rosen similarly refrain from name-calling and insult, > no matter how exasperated he may become with the stubbornness of the > religious in holding positions that to him seem outrageous. When you show examples of my language that you find offensive (other than just phrases that disagree with your position---or is that your idea of "bad"?) that exceed the badness of "bug off" or other threatening little jibes, I'll refrain from using them. I can't refrain from doing what I don't do. Sorry. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr