yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/21/84)
The concept of idolatry in both Judaism and Christianity is derived from the Judaic definition of the Jewish scriptures. This definition encompasses the ASSOCIATION of an image or images, whether carved, sculpted, painted or drawn, with the object of worship, including peripheral entities such as angels. This definition encompasses such idolatry as images of Jesus, Mary, saints, apostles, angels, etc. whether as sculpted into idols in the traditional sense painted in pictures, stained glass windows, etc. It also includes idols of 'the baby Jesus'. Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough). Its parallels with the Roman Empire become more and more evident with each passing day.
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/24/84)
[] >[Yirmiyahu Ben-David] >Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes >be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the >United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present >among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We >can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and >idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough). 1. Against murder 2. Against stealing 3. Against sexual immorality 4. Against eating part of a living animal 5. For setting up a system of Justice 6. Against idolatry 7. Against blasphemy So we can now check off number 6. Those who are concerned about such things should note that numbers 1, 3, 7, and increasingly 5, are also in grave danger. If the US passes Gay Rights, for example, it will be taking an official stance in violation of number 3. It has already granted federal money to groups trying to legitimize male homosexuality. A more correct evaluation of what is happening in the US today goes like this: The Jews have failed to take an active interest in upholding the mizvot at the public policy level. The goyim are becoming alarmed at the decay in moral values which increasingly manifests itself in public policy. Since they have no other alternative (chiefly because of their own ignorance), the goyim are desparately embracing whatever religious expression presents itself in an effort to combat decadence. Those who are genuinely concerned that the mitzvot be upheld should be more agressive with respect to the first 5 instead of exclusively concentrating on violations against 6 and 7, sustaining the Christian-Jewish polemic. While a convincing argument can certainly be made for the danger of a Christian state, an equally convincing argument can be made for the danger of a secular state. The answer is not irreligion, but *correct* religion. Jews should be taking the lead in educating us about *correct* religion instead of promoting secularism, whether by advocating it outright or by indifference to moral concerns in public policy. -- David Brunson ... better understanding through higher education
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (11/25/84)
>[from Yiri BenDavid:] >The concept of idolatry in both Judaism and Christianity is derived >from the Judaic definition of the Jewish scriptures. This definition >encompasses the ASSOCIATION of an image or images, whether carved, >sculpted, painted or drawn, with the object of worship, including >peripheral entities such as angels. It needs to be more than just association to constitute idolotry doesn't it? I would think that the figure would have to be the actual object of worship or be identified with the object evidently by the actions of the worshipers toward it. I don't think the mere existence of images constitutes idolatry. The Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant and in Solomon's temple would have to be included under "peripheral entities" yet they were included at God's command. I would think that idolotry lies more in the heart or motive of the worshiper than the image itself. Maybe you agree with this but, if so, you don't seem to be making the distinction clear. >This definition encompasses such idolatry as images of Jesus, Mary, >saints, apostles, angels, etc. whether as sculpted into idols in the >traditional sense painted in pictures, stained glass windows, etc. >It also includes idols of 'the baby Jesus'. If the images are used for illustrative purposes rather than worship, I don't think we can call them idols. (There is and Orthodox synagogue here in Columbus that has some of the most beautiful stained glass I have ever seen depicting major events in the Old Testament Scriptures.) The accuracy of the illustration can be brought into question. I can't remember seeing a nativity scene where the figures of the family really looked Jewish. Same goes for paintings of Jesus. But I digress. These images, though they be of those with religious significance--may only serve a purpose similar to the statue of Lincoln at the memorial in D.C. >Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes >be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the >United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present >among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We >can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and >idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough). Its parallels with >the Roman Empire become more and more evident with each passing day. It seems to me that a nativity scene is not put up for the purposes of worship, but for more historical and cultural purposes. The traditional raison d'etre for Christmas festivities centered around the Christ. It is ostensibly getting much less so every year. More and more the importance of Christmas seems to be keeping our economy moving. Perhaps we should replace the nativity scene with a model of the Federal Reserve Bank. :-( "In God we trust" -- The "resurrected", Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/26/84)
In article <1747@ucf-cs.UUCP> yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) writes: >The concept of idolatry in both Judaism and Christianity is derived >from the Judaic definition of the Jewish scriptures. This definition >encompasses the ASSOCIATION of an image or images, whether carved, >sculpted, painted or drawn, with the object of worship, including >peripheral entities such as angels. > >This definition encompasses such idolatry as images of Jesus, Mary, >saints, apostles, angels, etc. whether as sculpted into idols in the >traditional sense painted in pictures, stained glass windows, etc. >It also includes idols of 'the baby Jesus'. > >Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes >be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the >United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present >among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We >can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and >idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough). Its parallels with >the Roman Empire become more and more evident with each passing day. I agree with Yiri almost totally on this one, and I am really annoyed that this stupid issue has reared its ugly head again. There's no reason in the world why the U.S. should in any way be associated with a nativity scene being set up with its express approval. For some reason the Reagan government thinks it needs to ram this down everyone's throat. It really bugs me that they keep trying to promote this "we are anointed by God" attitude; it sounds like Divine Right of Kings and it sounds blasphemous. I'm afraid I can't get too excited about Christmas stamps, though, unless you want to get rid of any commemoration of anything even remotely religious (such as the Truro synagogue stamp). What I really wish they would do is put out a passover stamp in the spring. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
yosh@hou2e.UUCP (M.CHING) (11/26/84)
Forgive me, but I think many will agree that the ONLY way to assure freedom of religion is for the State to take an ir- (non?-) religious stance. It IS possible to be MORAL without being religious. (Though I am Jewish by birth and proud of my Jewish heritage, I consider myself increasingly agnostic in my beliefs) Dave Bloom Bell Labs, Holmdel
features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (11/27/84)
> From: yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) > Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes > be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the > United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present > among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We > can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and > idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough). "If the tree hadn't been enough"?? What are we supposed to be, Druids?? aMAZon @ ihnp4!ihuxf!features
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/28/84)
>[Yirmiyahu Ben-David] >Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes >be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the >United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present >among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We >can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and >idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough). > 1. Against murder > 2. Against stealing > 3. Against sexual immorality > 4. Against eating part of a living animal > 5. For setting up a system of Justice > 6. Against idolatry > 7. Against blasphemy > > So we can now check off number 6. Those who are concerned about such > things should note that numbers 1, 3, 7, and increasingly 5, are > also in grave danger. [BRUNSON] What is this list? A list of absolute good/evil dichotomies for which the good side is listed, or a list of things Brunson doesn't like? Obviously it's nothing but the latter. Frankly, murder and stealing I consider wrong because they harm other human beings. Sexual immorality? Meaning any sexual behavior different from yours? (Giving Brunson's ramblings on the net, if they serve as examples of his sexual behavior, by adhering to his standards the human race have died out years ago. Figure it out.) Sorry, I see no reason for worrying about people's private lives and attempting to control their "immorality". Eating part of a living animal? People do it in Japan. What's it to you if people choose to eat food in this manner? (Granted, the process can be considered inhumane treatment to animals, but is it a major moral issue? You have a strange and sick [and arbitrary] set of priorities.) Justice? I thought God administers justice. What business is it of ours to do so? (Unless justice is what we make it and nothing more.) Idolatry? Who cares what or how people worship, as long as 1) everyone remains free to choose, 2) the government does not support/condone a particular system above (or below) others, and 3) that the belief system does not include imposing one's will on other people. Blasphemy? You want to get rid of it? I think we'd be better off REQUIRING it! Without blasphemy and sacrilege, without that questioning of what certain people think is "obviously" right, people whose defense against such questioning is "Shut up or we'll kill you!", a civilization is as good as dead. Now, I'd like to hear Mr. Brunson's reasons for supporting the particular points on his list, and his reasons for believing that certain ideals (held for what reason?) are being eradicated. Of course, if they are based on his "learned value orientation" rather than logic and reason, we can just throw them right out. -- Occam's Razor: I liked it so much, I bought the company! Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (11/29/84)
> > From: yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) > > > Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes > > be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the > > United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present > > among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We > > can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and > > idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough). > > "If the tree hadn't been enough"?? What are we supposed to be, Druids?? > > aMAZon @ ihnp4!ihuxf!features no one is telling you what to be. all I want is that the government not favor one group over another. And the only way to do this is to not get involved, which it has. Eliyahu Teitz.
berger@aecom.UUCP (12/03/84)
>> 1. Against murder >> 2. Against stealing >> 3. Against sexual immorality >> 4. Against eating part of a living animal >> 5. For setting up a system of Justice >> 6. Against idolatry >> 7. Against blasphemy > What is this list? A list of absolute good/evil dichotomies for which the > good side is listed, or a list of things Brunson doesn't like? Obviously > it's nothing but the latter.... > Now, I'd like to hear Mr. Brunson's reasons for supporting the particular > points on his list, and his reasons for believing that certain ideals (held for > what reason?) are being eradicated. Of course, if they are based on his > "learned value orientation" rather than logic and reason, we can just throw > them right out.... Bronson's list is the list of the 7 commandments for the children of Noah, as believed by traditional Jews. You may bot like this list, I disagree, but thats your buisness. As this is net.religion.jewish, you must expect Jewish values to be assumed. michab
teitz@aecom.UUCP (12/03/84)
> >[Yirmiyahu Ben-David] > >Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes > >be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the > >United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present > >among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We > >can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and > >idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough). > > > 1. Against murder > > 2. Against stealing > > 3. Against sexual immorality > > 4. Against eating part of a living animal > > 5. For setting up a system of Justice > > 6. Against idolatry > > 7. Against blasphemy > > > > So we can now check off number 6. Those who are concerned about such > > things should note that numbers 1, 3, 7, and increasingly 5, are > > also in grave danger. [BRUNSON] > > What is this list? A list of absolute good/evil dichotomies for which the > good side is listed, or a list of things Brunson doesn't like? Obviously > it's nothing but the latter. Frankly, murder and stealing I consider wrong > because they harm other human beings. Sexual immorality? Meaning any > sexual behavior different from yours? (Giving Brunson's ramblings on the > net, if they serve as examples of his sexual behavior, by adhering to his > standards the human race have died out years ago. Figure it out.) Sorry, > I see no reason for worrying about people's private lives and attempting > to control their "immorality". Eating part of a living animal? People do > it in Japan. What's it to you if people choose to eat food in this manner? > (Granted, the process can be considered inhumane treatment to animals, but > is it a major moral issue? You have a strange and sick [and arbitrary] set > of priorities.) Justice? I thought God administers justice. What business > is it of ours to do so? (Unless justice is what we make it and nothing more.) > Idolatry? Who cares what or how people worship, as long as 1) everyone remains > free to choose, 2) the government does not support/condone a particular system > above (or below) others, and 3) that the belief system does not include > imposing one's will on other people. Blasphemy? You want to get rid of it? > I think we'd be better off REQUIRING it! Without blasphemy and sacrilege, > without that questioning of what certain people think is "obviously" right, > people whose defense against such questioning is "Shut up or we'll kill you!", > a civilization is as good as dead. > > Now, I'd like to hear Mr. Brunson's reasons for supporting the particular > points on his list, and his reasons for believing that certain ideals (held for > what reason?) are being eradicated. Of course, if they are based on his > "learned value orientation" rather than logic and reason, we can just throw > them right out. > -- > Occam's Razor: I liked it so much, I bought the company! > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr Rich, Sorry but the list is not Mr. Brunson's, it's G-Ds. These are the 7 Noahide laws that G-D commanded all non-Jews to observe( we got 606 more ). Eliyahu Teitz.
ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) (12/06/84)
REFERENCES: <224@usfbobo.UUCP> <295@pyuxd.UUCP>, <988@aecom.UUCP> Brunson: > >> 1. Against murder > >> 2. Against stealing > >> 3. Against sexual immorality > >> 4. Against eating part of a living animal > >> 5. For setting up a system of Justice > >> 6. Against idolatry > >> 7. Against blasphemy michab: > Bronson's list is the list of the 7 commandments for the children of Noah, > as believed by traditional Jews. You may bot like this list, I disagree, but > thats your buisness. As this is net.religion.jewish, you must expect Jewish > values to be assumed. 1) This was also in net.religion. If you post in net.religion, you *cannot* assume "Jewish values." 2) The *seven* commandments?--I thought there were ten. And Brunson is claiming homosexuality is sexual immorality--not adultery. (That is, adultery is also, but Brunson's range is wider than the commandment's.) Evelyn C. Leeper ==> Note new net address: ...ihnp4!ahuta!ecl (Mail sent to my old address will be forwarded temporarily.)
ktw@whuxi.UUCP (WOLMAN) (12/06/84)
Some questions/comments about E. Leeper's posting: 1. There are indeed 10 commandments. There are also 7 Noachide laws given to the WORLD by God after the Flood. These commandments are incumbent not merely to Jews but also on righteous Gentiles. They are, then, laws of universal civilization. 2. Why does posting to net.religion somehow divorce an issue from its "Jewish content"? A religious issue of primary interest to Jews may also be of interest--intellectual or otherwise--to gentiles; the reverse may also be the case. Leeper's posting seemed to posit (however inadvertently) a split between Jewish and religious values.