[net.religion] Jews too???

arndt@lymph.DEC (09/09/84)

Yiri baby.  Do you include Jews too in the methodology by which you judge
Christianity?  That is, what about all the sects of Jews past and present
arguing over who and what is a Jew.  When the Romans came over the walls in
Jerusalem those Jews holding the temple were still fighting those Jews out-
side the temple.  Seems like a fine ole Jewish way to pass the time that 
Christian just picked up?  Or is it something larger in human nature?

How do you decide who is a Jew?  Because he says so?  Or because he fits the
description in the Torah, etc.?  Or is anyone who says he's a Jew a Jew?

Christians have the same problem.  Some cases seem fairly clear.  Like the 
great cosmic punching bag - Hitler.  Surely if anyone was NOT a Christian
despite any claims he may have made, he was not.

Let's blame communism on Jews.  There were enough of them in at the start.

You seem to feel that there is no way to judge if a man is of a certain faith.
What about someone who claims to be a Jewish Christian?

Keep chargin'

Ken Arndt

yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (David) (09/10/84)

It strikes me, Ken, that you find it much easier to launch
a sophmoric attack in an attempt to change the subject 
rather than deal with the questions which were raised.

At any rate, I'll proceed under the presumption that you
really don't see the answers to the questions you raised.

Jews disagree. They are Jews who disagree. (I'll leave
the historical problems to be looked up in good reference
books in any local library.)

That some Jews were/are communists does not imply that
communism can be blamed on them. This is the same kind
of reasoning which has so ofter led to our persecution.

Jews agree on this: someone who claims to be a Jewish 
Christian is not a Jew anymore than someone who was a
Christian and became an athiest, Buddhist, etc. is still
a Christian. Judaism and Christianity are mutually
exclusive. If someone disputes this you are not
listening to a Jew. He may have been born that way, 
but that is not the only consideration - even though
they would like you to think so.

Are you going to deal with the earlier issues or continue
to change the subject with superficial obfuscations?