From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Sat Oct 25 2003 - 11:22:23 EDT
In a message dated 10/24/03 10:08:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gmurphy@raex.com writes:
> The point you have not addressed is the counterexamples I cited in the
> earlier
> post & the obvious reason you haven't addressed them is because they show
> that what
> I've said is right & you're wrong.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
Please point out where I am wrong and you are right in the exchange we had
below. It is not enough to state that you are right.
> To the extent that Jews feel threatened with religious & cultural
> assimilation,
> an emphasis on "biological purity" will naturally be emphasized. The fact
> that that has
> been the case for many generations since the return from Babylonian exile
> makes it
> unsurprising that it would come to be seen by observant Jews as an essential
> of their
> faith. My point was that that was not an important part of earlier
> Israelite faith - a
> point that you have not addressed for obvious reasons. The fact that
> Judaism has, in a
> sense, been existing in an emergency situation for ~2500 years does not
> change this.
>
The tradition of endogamy is established by Abraham in Genesis when he finds
Canaanite women morally unsuitable and sends Eliezer to find the right bride
for Isaac among the members of his family and the house of his father. Remember
Haaran? What point have I not addressed for obvious reasons?
you're wrong here:
There's your remark that endogamy had "come to be seen," that it was not an
important part of earlier Israelite faith, but you squirm out of explaining the
tradition Abraham establishes in genesis, a tradition maintained when rebecca
sends jacob back to Harran for his wife and you ignore that that was the
point you say I did not address. I addressed it immediately and directly by
citing eliezer's mission in genesis.
> I am speaking here of Judaism as a religion, not simply as a cultural
> and ethnic
> identity. The 2 aspects are not identical, though there may be consdierable
> overlap.
> The fact that they are not identical is shown simply by the fact that
> proselytes from
> the Gentiles can be accepted as religious Jews.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
That's why you can't see Judaism through Darwinian eyes, George. You can't
muster the objectivity. ALL ancient religion was ethnically based. It was
family religion. Judaism is an ancient religion, unlike Christianity or Buddhism
which are egalitarian and non-ethnic. Judaism is ethnically based. It is a
tribal religion.
you're wrong again;
The two aspects are identical george. I made the reference in another post
to Lamm's explanation of the kohen.
Your style is to say you made a point without actually having made the point
successfully at all.
Here's the reference from another post;
“The kohen, or priest, was historically the chief religious functionary of
the Jewish people. It was understood that Judaism could not survive without
the kohen and the detailed laws of tradition.Since the laws required meticulous
concern for tradition, the stability of an hereditary priesthood was
indispensable. The purity of the kohen’s heredity has guaranteed the purity of his
heritage.” That's Maurice Lamm - his brother, a past president of yeshiva
university is acknowledged in the foreword. I suggest they know their religion and
that is why I cite them. (from the Jewish way in Love and Marriage)
The chief religious functionary of the Jewish people is a thoroughbred kohen.
Read it - the purity of his heredity guarantees the purity of his heritage.
You are stubborn george, but you are not right.
rich faussette
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 25 2003 - 11:22:44 EDT