Posts by David

32

Beardless Jesus. Why?

by UnshackleTheChains in

beardless jesus in watchtower publications between 1930s and 1960s.

a simple detail 'deliberately' left out.

the question is why?.

The earliest painted depictions of Jesus by Christians were beardless. If you look in the catacombs and in other Christian art of the period, Jesus is always a young man without a beard. Considering that these were made prior to the formal canonization of the New Testament, the Jehovah's Witnesses saw this as evidence that Jesus was beardless. Why?

Foremost was the time period. After WWII when the Western clean-shaven look in men was synonymous with moral virtue, this really skewed the way the Witness leadership saw itself and the world around them. Those at the time who wore beards were synonymous with free-thinking, rebellion, free-love...and communists! Communists leaders wore (you guessed it) beards! This played a big part in the rejection of facial hair after WWII. Also before the hippies of the 1960s, there was the beatnik of the 1950s, and before them the Bohemians of the 1940s. None of these styles represented the Western Allies and the virtuous Christian, freedom-loving image that went along with it.

The JW leadership of the period after WWII ate this U.S. white-man stereotype up (remember, commies wore beards, and they were against freedom and God--icky poo!). And these JWs were also, like today, quite ignorant of what you learn from a full basic education. While these beardless depictions of Jesus were indeed the earliest produced by Christians, they were not meant to be depictions of how Jesus actually looked.

In ancient times artists painted stories using stereotypes and symbols which were universal in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. Incarnations of gods (when male) were depicted as young men. A nimbus (halo) was a symbol of unearthly glow or honor. Leaders were often pictured as shepherds.

All these types of iconography were employed by Gentile Christians in their earliest portrayals of Jesus Christ. Since they believed Jesus was an incarnation of God, the way to paint this was to illustrate a young man. Young men, by nature, had no beards. This was the reason you see Jesus illustrated like this in paintings of this period.

Being as ignorant as they've always been, the JW leadership knew nothing about ancient iconography and art. Interpreting everything from their WWII point of view and being Western, white American males, they interpreted these early pictures without doing their homework: "These are the oldest pictures of Jesus. Jesus is beardless. Since he was a perfect man, perfect men must be beardless. Let's illustrate Jesus as beardless in our publications and forbid beards."

They did eventually admit their mistake, but did not do away with what caused it, namely interpreting things from their limited perspective and failing to test their conclusions by having them verified by disinterested parties.

22

For those that read the bible, does the true message of scripture still come through in NWT?

by NikL in

jw
friends

my active and in jw wife is up for reading bible together.

thing is she wants to use nwt.. i have problems with that translation as you my imagine.. just wondering if you thought the true message of the bible will shine through the deliberate tampering of the nwt?.

i know many people here don't like or want to read the bible and think it's rubbish anyway, so if that's you, you can save your comments :-).

David_Jay

I have to agree with scratchme.

The Bible was not assembled to have one particular message to derive from it. It was definitely not assembled to be read apart from the religious groups that wrote them and later officially canonized them.

The selections of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament were made up of texts read during the liturgical year to mark either the festivals of Judaism and later the feasts and solemnities of Christianity. While they do contain religious teaching, neither group wrote or used the Scriptures as a compendium of doctrine.

It was not until long after the Reformation, perhaps even as late as the Second Awakening in America that the invention of seeing the Bible as the main source of divine revelation came to the fore. Ideas like that were squashed by the early Church as such a view of Scripture belonged to the heresy of movements like Marcionism.

So it doesn't matter what translation one uses if you are worried about whether the "true message" can stand out in its reading. If the original composers and religions that assembled the writings didn't intend one and reading them in the original tongues can't change that fact, no translation can provide something that isn't there.

Since the original languages aren't hard to learn (we teach our children ancient Hebrew which is different from modern Hebrew), I don't see why people believe they need to rely on a translation if they are so interested in reading and understanding it. In my community, English-speaking Jews know Biblical Hebrew, some Yiddish, Ladino, and often some Aramaic too. Babes are taught to recite the Shema before they even learn to read English. So there is no reason that interested adults in this day and age of the Internet have to rely on Bible translations.

And if you're going to use a translation, read the ones composed by the greater array of scholars from different backgrounds, like the NRSV or the CEB. These were made by Christians and Jews of various traditions so that no bias would slip in. Why would you trust yourself to anything less than a version that has its renditions validated by multiple disinterested scholars? Even the Catholic NABRE was made by an interdenominational group of translators (and it's their official translation in the USA)! People who read versions made by single denominations are only advertising how closed their minds really are.

4

Prayer vs. Meditation

by schnell in

jw
friends

whenever i prayed, it was always done consciously and ostensibly to another person -- a higher, spirit person -- called jehovah.

the subject was always something about me, even if it was for someone else.

if i prayed to thank jehovah for my meal, it was about me.

David_Jay

Prayer is not like the way you describe from our Watchtower days in either Judaism or the most ancient of Christian traditions like Orthodox practice or in Roman Catholicism.

Catholicism and Judaism follow the practice of praying the psalms throughout the day--morning, noon, midday, evening, night, and during the night watch. I believe a similar practice is found not only among the Orthodox but some of the Protestant faiths, like the Anglicans as well.

The psalms are sung or chanted, used as a means to offer praise and to meditate. The official prayer of the Catholic Church is the Liturgy of the Hours, for instance, which gave birth to modern music and western harmony due to the Gregorian chants the psalms were set to. This type of prayer is more listening to God speak to us in Scripture than talking to God as if God were Santa Claus and we were kids reading off our Christmas list to him.

Prayer comes in the form of petitions with these also (as you mentioned where people request things of God), but more often they take the form of meditation and even another form called contemplation. In fact, some of the saints of Catholicism were "contemplatives," people who allegedly made mystical connection with God in ways that are not totally comprehensible via language.

Eastern religions have certain types of similar prayer too, and all of this together shows how dry and stale the "spirituality" of Jehovah's Witnesses really is by comparison. It is all study and scholastic exercise with the Witnesses. There is no contemplation of the transcendent, no embracing of mystery, not even a feeling of anything that matches the mystical experiences of the prophets, the brilliance of the Transfiguration, or the experience of the inexplicable miracle. It is all "highlighting answers" in pre-printed paragraphs, knocking on doors, sitting in an audience listening to long-winded speeches. That is their "spirituality."

Someone on here asked in a thread why so many ex-JWs become atheists. What do you expect when all the Watchtower shows you of God is an empty room inhabited by a dusty and dry wilderness? They have nothing to show of God to others, so how is one to be attracted to the idea at all when all you have is nothing? Nothing begets nothing.

22

How Do JWs Reconcile Contradictions Between Mt. and Lk. and Their Birth Stories?

by Saename in

does anybody know how jehovah's witnesses reconcile the contradictions between the stories of jesus' birth as found in matthew and luke?

when i was a jehovah's witness, i wasn't even aware of this contradiction; i simply thought that all of it happen—namely that there was a census (luke 2) and the slaughter of the innocents (matthew 2) simultaneously.

but at the time i didn't know that the census took place in 6 ce and that herod the great died in 4 bce, thus placing those birth stories 10 years apart in time.

David_Jay

JWs and many others make the common mistake of reading Luke as a separate work from the Acts of the Apostles, but they are actually one book (separated only as presented in the canon). So some of the things Luke writes in his gospel are actually dramatic foreshadows of what he says later in Acts. The “obedience” of Joseph and Mary to this "census" is supposed to stand in contrast to the revolt of Judas the Galilean who opposed it. (See Acts 5:37) This helps explain what Luke was doing with his “Infancy Narrative,” as it is called in critical scriptural study (something Jehovah’s Witnesses abhor like the plague).

While some of what is described may have a basis in fact, the individual details are purposefully woven together in such an anachronistic tapestry that they cannot, nor are they meant to be historically reconciled. Even the official Catholic Bible of the United States (the NABRE) mentions about this detail in a footnote to Luke 2:1:

Luke may simply be combining Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius...to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world: through this child born in Bethlehem peace and salvation come to the empire.--Italics added.

Luke was as creative a writer as Cecil B. DeMille was a filmmaker (who, by the way, also retold Bible narrative with as much poetic liberty). There are two key factors which Jehovah’s Witnesses never point out about the Infancy Narrative of Luke which are commonly understood even by average members of Christendom:

It’s written in a different format meant to read like Jesus’ birth was no lesser than the great legends of the Hebrews. Luke 1:5-2:52 is written in a style that mimics the older Greek style of the Septuagint (some scholar believe it is actually not Koine). This peculiar style abruptly starts at 1:5 and in the same fashion ends just as suddenly with the first verse of chapter 3. If Luke were a filmmaker, this would be the equivalent of filming this section in black-and-white. He also adds “canticles,” or chanted prayers, much like adding musical numbers to a movie, in this section. (Note the "musical numbers" of: the Magnificat at Luke 1:46-56, the Benedictus at Luke 1:68-79, and even a third “song,” the Nunc dimittis of Luke 2:29–32.) Immediately this is a signal that this is not a direct report of history but an attempt to make the birth of Jesus take the form of a story or liturgical play.

There are peculiar comparative parables within that teach lessons within lessons. Luke writes things that cannot make sense as literal history, but they do as religious parables (an earmark of Jesus’ teaching style). Note that both Zechariah and Mary receive similar messages from Gabriel, but Zechariah is “punished” with speechlessness for asking "why," while Mary is portrayed as faithful for asking the same question. (Compare Luke 1:18, 20 with Luke 1:34-38.) Mary’s “song” precedes that of Zechariah’s, even though John is conceived and born first. Mary’s unborn infant even “baptizes” John in the Holy Spirit before he is born (and before John baptizes Jesus in the Jordan with water). Luke is demonstrating through an illustration that Jesus is John’s superior via this narrative device common to Hebrew legend-telling. (Note something similar in the infancy narrative of Jacob and Esau at Genesis 25:21-26.)

The Gospels are not meant to be journalism but religious retellings. The Jehovah’s Witnesses on the other hand crush even the religious life out of them by demanding that they be read as the equivalent of a journalist’s news report on the events. Matthew on the other hand is retelling the birth in the light of Jesus being the greater Moses: Jewish tradition holds that a star foretold Moses’ birth and that this was reported to the Pharaoh of Egypt which caused him to order the death of the Hebrew children; that Jesus’ birth is accompanied by similar events in reference to the Magi and Herod with Jesus fleeing to Egypt, Christ’s return from Egypt marks him in Matthew as the Greater Moses as Jesus return and literally enters the Promised Land whereas Moses did not after he left Egypt.--Matthew chapter 2.

The reason people don’t see these things when they are Jehovah’s Witnesses when you can open any commentary in Christendom or read these details in the footnotes of their very Bibles is indeed astonishing. I mean, you can walk into any bookstore or even go on line and read that the rest of Christianity knows these aren't meant to be taken literally. So obviously it shows how content the Witnesses are in being told they are right and how lazy they are in an attempt to double-check on themselves!

27

the Book of Enoch and the Nephilim

by schnell in

jw
friends

i've heard all my cognizant life that angels from heaven looked upon the daughters of men, took wives, and their wives bore giants called nephilim.. i've heard all my adult life about the book of enoch and why it's apocryphal and to be avoided.. so tonight i was curious enough to download an e-book and have a look, since dothemath had the thread about rarely used scriptures and the book of jude directly quotes from the book of enoch.. if jude quotes from enoch, shouldn't both or neither of them be canonical?

if you consider jude canonical, then enoch should be too.. hey, how many fallen angels were there again?

two thirds of heaven, right?

David_Jay

The Marcion factor, scholars believe, is why Luke's gospel (and Acts) occur in the canon.

Luke is not an apostle. He is not even a Jew, but a Gentile (all original Christians were Jews). Whereas Marcion chopped up the Gospel of Luke to make it look like he was not supportive of Jewish thinking, the Church restored it and placed it in the canon. Luke follows the sources of Mark (written under the auspice of an apostle) and Matthew (the oracles or "saying" traditionally were written down by the apostle Matthew), but unless it was for answering the challenges of Marcionism, it is out of place.

Petrine authority was not challenged in the early Church. Even in Scripture, Peter is always the spokesperson for the apostles, even though James what the bishop of the Jerusalem Church. Acts is a story of Peter and Paul, and even Paul talks about facing off with Peter over kosher food (a story which would mean nothing if Peter was not an authority). So why so many letters from Paul in the canon?

Because Marcion said Paul was supportive of his Gnostic ideas. This might seem true if all you read is Galatians, but if you read Romans (and Acts) you see that Paul only taught that the Mosaic Law was not a requisite for Gentiles. He was the apostle to the Gentiles, whereas Peter and the others preached to the Jews (because Christian Jews still followed the Torah). Thus it seems by including as many letters as possible, the Church was disproving Marcionism's claim that Paul preached against Judaism and made Jesus a separate deity.

27

the Book of Enoch and the Nephilim

by schnell in

jw
friends

i've heard all my cognizant life that angels from heaven looked upon the daughters of men, took wives, and their wives bore giants called nephilim.. i've heard all my adult life about the book of enoch and why it's apocryphal and to be avoided.. so tonight i was curious enough to download an e-book and have a look, since dothemath had the thread about rarely used scriptures and the book of jude directly quotes from the book of enoch.. if jude quotes from enoch, shouldn't both or neither of them be canonical?

if you consider jude canonical, then enoch should be too.. hey, how many fallen angels were there again?

two thirds of heaven, right?

David_Jay

Good point, Schnell.

But the canon was not set in order to create a library of books from which to create a standard of religious doctrine. One might say, according to Jewish theology, that God did in fact inspire the Book of Enoch. The reason it didn't "make the cut" has nothing to do with that. Remember, the idea of a canon was invented by a heretic, Marcion. The whole reason there is canonization goes back to his heresy and what he was saying.

Marcion set a "rule" or standard for what was salvific revelation from the divine. Marcion said it was limited to what was written in his collection of books, whereas the Church said it was found in the Person of Jesus Christ.

The Church claimed that revelation was also found in what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures, yes, but ultimately in Jesus was the Word of God in human form. Revelation was also found in the providential leadings of the Holy Spirit that guided the Apostles and the faith of the Church as a whole. This was a battle over what was revelation from God and what was not, not whether God was inspiring certain books.

Marcion's KANON or "rule"/"standard" was that salvific revelation had: 1.) to be limited to a written format, 2.) claim Jesus was divine, 3.) reject and transplant Jesus as a divinity superior to YHVH, 4.) to be filled with hidden Gnosis ("knowledge") that could only be deciphered by the "select" chosen by the divine, but others could be saved to if they believed what the chosen taught.

The Church set a standard in contrast: 1.) that salvation was not limited to a "select" or "chosen" group, but was universal (KATHOLICOS, from which we get the word "catholic"), 2.) that any inspired texts written by Christians supported the catholic view that Jesus was the ultimate form of revelation, 3.) that the texts were but a continuation of the revelation given to the children of Israel, 4.) that the Christian texts were Apostolic (or written under the auspice of such), 5.) and that the texts were used in the liturgy (the liturgy was a Tradition believed to be inspired of God from the time of the Jewish Temple era).

Enoch was not widely read (if at all) in Christian liturgy, one of the requirements for determining what texts could be considered part of the revelation that included Jesus. There were no phones, computers, etc., from which the bishops could contact others and ask: "Hey, what are you adding in your Eucharist services after you read from the Torah and the Prophets?" It would take 200 years for the Church to gather all that information, not to mention then determine if the book was written under the auspice of Apostolic authority (another necessity). The Book of Enoch may have been inspired by God (which is why it appeared in some Christian collections), but it was not Apostolic. The canon of the New Testament was set with the event of Athanasius' Easter Letter of 367 CE.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have an odd view of the expression "inspired." They believe it is limited to direct revelation from God in written form. Judaism and Christianity believes inspiration refers to the providence of God, and it can happen to anyone. God can even inspire someone who doesn't believe in God to do something, according to this understanding. So even if Enoch is inspired, the fact that it didn't measure up to the other standards is why it was not included.

You might have already noted that Jehovah's Witnesses tend to reflect the Marcion heresy: they believe that God has "hidden knowledge" in the Scriptures; they believe holy writ is the ultimate form of revelation from God (if it's not in the Bible, it's not truth); they believe only a "select group" are given insight into the hidden truths of Scripture; they believe (like Marcion) that people have to follow the select/chosen ones in order to saved. None of this is taught by Christianity or Judaism.

The term "canon" is Greek, and no such concept was ever thought of in Judaism until relatively modern times. The Masoretic text became the standard for the Jewish text even though there are early traditions which are still extant. With the Council of Trent, the Church stated that the books of the Alexandrian Septuagint were also part of the "canon" (thus the reason for the Deuterocanonical books), but prior to this there was no formally declared "canon" of the Hebrew text even in Christianity. (These so-called "extra" books remained even in Protestant Bibles until 1825 when the British and Foreign Bible Society were the first to remove them from their distribution copies of Scriptures due to pressure from the Puritans and Presbyterians in their midst).

Now, if we were to rely on a "canon" made up of what was popular, the New Testament would have looked a bit differently. We would have had the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter. The Wisdom of Solomon and Ben Sira would be in the New Testament instead of the Catholic Old Testament collection of "extra books." There would be no Revelation to John, and probably no 2 Peter. The canons of Christianity have nothing to do with who was quoting what but what Church Tradition said was canon. Those who follow accept the canon are actually following Catholic Tradition, even those who claim they believe in "Scripture alone."

As a Jew I find that very, very funny, especially when a Jehovah's Witness comes to my door and says they believe the Bible is inspired but not Catholic Tradition.

27

the Book of Enoch and the Nephilim

by schnell in

jw
friends

i've heard all my cognizant life that angels from heaven looked upon the daughters of men, took wives, and their wives bore giants called nephilim.. i've heard all my adult life about the book of enoch and why it's apocryphal and to be avoided.. so tonight i was curious enough to download an e-book and have a look, since dothemath had the thread about rarely used scriptures and the book of jude directly quotes from the book of enoch.. if jude quotes from enoch, shouldn't both or neither of them be canonical?

if you consider jude canonical, then enoch should be too.. hey, how many fallen angels were there again?

two thirds of heaven, right?

David_Jay

"Canonicity" was a response to the challenge of Marcionism, and understanding a bit about that explains why certain books did not end up in the Christian canon.

Marcion of Sinope was a bishop who, influenced by Gnosticism, became a heretic. Like the Gnostics, Marcion taught that salvation was possible only through gaining special "gnosis," or knowledge. Holy writ (religious texts) from various cults were often believed to have the ultimate form of revelation hidden in their words, but they could only be understood by those "chosen" to understand them.

Marcion adapted Gnostic belief into his form of Christianity. He rejected the God of Abraham in favor of Jesus (in the primitive Church it has already been decided that Jesus was some sort of epiphany of the God of Abraham, an "incarnation" of the Shekinah or "Light" of God [see John 1:4-9]). Marcion claimed that Jesus was not the YHVH but a superior and kinder god, and that Paul was his primary apostle. Marcion also taught that though only "chosen ones" had the ability to understand the "hidden knowledge" found in holy writ, this "gnosis" could be disseminated by the chosen to those who joined them.

As for "holy writ" Marcion made a "rule" (in Greek, KANON) that only select letters of the apostle Paul were true, and the gospel of Luke (with all Jewish references edited out). Marcionism was born and attracted many followers.

In response, the Church (which up till that time believed that the Hebrew Scriptures were the only form of holy writ inspired of God) responded by excommunicating Marcion. But the genie had been let out of the bottle, so to speak, never to get back in. Were the books of Luke and some of Paul’s letters inspired like the Hebrew Scriptures?

Marcion got his idea about these books because early Christian worship services were liturgical, actually imitations of Jewish synagogue services which read the Torah and the other holy books on a schedule much like Jews do today (and Christians that follow the Revised Common Lectionary based on the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar). After reading from the scheduled Tanakh readings, the Christians would add brief portions from one of the gospels or epistles that “interpreted” the Old Testament reading. Marcion got his “rule” of books from these additional Christian readings.

The leaders of the Church began to investigate as to whether any of their books were inspired. To do so they set their own “rule,” that it basically had to be apostolic in nature or written under the auspices of the same. The books had to be those commonly read in liturgical services across the world. It would take 200 years after Marcion before the Church had the New Testament “rule” or “canon” settled and the issue closed.

The books were not chosen by popularity or merely because they were quoted by other authors. For instance, Paul quotes from Greek poetry in Acts but this doesn’t mean that the writings of the Greeks is inspired. (Acts 17:28) Therefore just because there is a quote from a book like Enoch does not mean that it is inspired. Also, it appears Luke was added to prove Marcion wrong. Luke’s gospel is not apostolic, but it is very thorough, and it follows the same sources of Matthew and Mark (Mark wrote under the auspice of Peter, or so the understanding has been). There are also more letters from Paul than any other apostle, though he was not one of the original twelve and even history testifies that Petrine authority was recognized. This choices may have been to counter Marcionism.

27

Where We Jews (and Religionists) Have Not Been So Forthcoming

by David_Jay in

because i feel some people have become confused in thinking that i am promoting religion or thinking that being jewish is some type of special gift that makes me better, i am writing to tell you that i don’t feel this way.

think of this as your christmas gift (or chanukah or festivus or whatever).. despite the fact that i too practice a religion, i also think atheism is a purposeful and noble use of the mind.

too often people with a religion have only bad things to say about atheism and atheists.

David_Jay

People like Viviane are so powerful with their hurtful words. Oh my gawd, all you haters are so true in what you say that I can't stay one moment longer! Goodbye Internet!

Yeah, right! Over 20 years ago I left the Jehovah's Witnesses the minute I finished my last public talk. I left behind people who were virtually the only family I had, even an aunt who had raised me. I had no job waiting for me anymore either as I worked for JWs at that time. But the moment I realized it was a cult, I left it all in a snap. I told no one anything, never looked back. Didn't even care to say goodbye.

Regardless of how important these ties had been and the fact I had not a cent to my name, I found it easy to leave the only world I knew. The people meant nothing to me. Yes, they said horrible things about me after I left, but I didn't care. They belonged to a cult, and if they weren't leaving then they didn't matter.

Today I am successful, own a house, a family, I got a formal education and belong to a real religion. I am happier and more fulfilled than ever.

Viviane is just being mean because in another thread she misread my words and wouldn't back off from trying to make me look bad, so I spouted a very funny insult in reply. This isn't the first time Viviane has been horrible to me or others, but it is obviously the first time I burned Viviane enough that I had to be pursued to another thread. I must have really scored with that burn, huh? (Again it was very funny too.)

Viviane, if the Jehovah's Witnesses meant nothing to me back then when they were my only friends and family and source of income, can you imagine what you and your words mean to me now now that I have a full life? Even less. I can leave this forum now and it wouldn't bother me. I am not here because I need it or have no one else to hear me.

You, on the hand, without it have what? If you had to follow me from one thread to another just to get back at me for what I said to you, it obviously means you have less of a life and only this small corner of the world to expel your venom. I've seen how hateful you are to people here. You deserve worse than an insult from me.

I'm sure Viviane has something hateful and mean to say in reply. I won't be reading it because I have a life that is much better without Jehovah's Witnesses and people like Viviane. It means nothing to me to miss it. To Viviane, you will see it means everything so there will be something. Using this forum to be mean is obviously all Viviane's got.

Everyone else, you're loved. Take care.

21

Garden of Eden

by Onager in

where is the garden of eden?.

i don't mean where in the world, i mean where in history.

adam and eve get booted out of this place.

David_Jay

Schnell,

I love that quote.

I know I shouldn't, but I often get angry at what some Gentiles do with my people's legends and religious stories. I mean, you don't see Jews claiming that George Washington literally chopped down a cherry tree and then claiming that Americans are stupid because the story turns out to be a legend.

The George Washington legend teaches how honesty is valued by Americans, but if you get involved with saying it's all facts and then learn it isn't, what happens next? Should we take it out on George Washington, claiming he wasn't real since he is featured in a fictional tale? Should we hate cherry trees or people who eat cherries now because the story isn't literal? The reason for the legend and it's value gets lost.

That's kinda what happens with our Scriptures. If they would have just asked us to begin with, we could have told people what to take literally and what not to. But no! Like one of Jehovah's Witnesses recently told me with a sneer: "What do Jews know about the Bible?" I was like, "What the f--?" Do these people hear themselves?

Hey, it's okay if you don't believe in our God or the Bible or don't like religion. I'm cool with that. But don't get mad at us or our stories or our God concept because some idiot with a Watchtower told you stupid stuff. If someone tells you Star Wars is true, then you learn it's not, that's no reason to hate George Lucas.

Go get your own legends, like the Mormons!

P.S.: If you JWs are trying to claim the New Testament, forget it. It was written by a Jewish tax collector, a Jewish scribe, a Gentile convert to Judaism, two Jewish fishermen, the first Jewish bishop of Jerusalem, a Jewish cousin of Jesus, and the majority by a Pharisee.

27

Where We Jews (and Religionists) Have Not Been So Forthcoming

by David_Jay in

because i feel some people have become confused in thinking that i am promoting religion or thinking that being jewish is some type of special gift that makes me better, i am writing to tell you that i don’t feel this way.

think of this as your christmas gift (or chanukah or festivus or whatever).. despite the fact that i too practice a religion, i also think atheism is a purposeful and noble use of the mind.

too often people with a religion have only bad things to say about atheism and atheists.

David_Jay

I'm not speaking for others entirely.

If you recall that I said that I can't apologize for the actions of other theists. They need to change, I said, because they are not sorry. I can't speak for these.

I can speak for us who are Jews who aren't always as honest as we can be sometimes. I work with the Jewish-Christian dialogue movement in the USA and Israel, in association with several groups including the Orthodox Jews, URJ, and the United States Council of Catholic Bisbops. As part of our work those of us who are Jewish are trying to find avenues where we can talk about where we as Jews aren't being fair, aren't doing our best. Some of the things mentioned are from our discussions over the past 25 years between Jews and Christians.

However I don't think I highlighted any of my personal insecurities here. I also don't like the concepts of "faith" and "belief." They are less important than actions. Jews aren't into the whole "faith" cocnepts of Christianity, and I am not trying to share our religion or make converts. I don't have anything to share about such things.

But thanks for bringing up the arrogance. I didn't know this sounded arrogant. That's what I am hoping to find out. How can I help build bridges of tolerance or understanding without sounding arrogant? If you can point out my arrogance and insecurities I would really like to know.

As for "not with them," that was a tongue-in-cheek statement. What I meant is I am not approving of the way atheists are persecuted, hated, etc. by other people with a religion.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay