samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (07/08/85)
> ... The point being: you have based your views on > what is right on the content of Torah. But who on earth are you to say > that other people are obliged to hold that same view? You feel bound > to those laws for yourself, and that is fine. But to claim that OTHERS > *must* adhere to them because you do is ludicrous. 1 - Believe it or not, I don't expect anyone to accept the Torah without proof of its validity. 2 - As I have explained previously, it is virtually impossible to do justice to the issue of proof of the validity of Torah within the limits of net discussions. I therefore suggested reading material on this extensive and complicated subject for anyone who is genuinely interested in exploring it. 3 - If there were a net.atheism or net.antireligion I would consider it inappropriate to harass contributors of that net with my beliefs. There would be no purpose in this, and no genuine dialogue would be possible, unless I were willing to painstakingly prove my axioms to to all the atheists and anti- religionists for whom that net was dedicated. 4 - When addressing net.religion.jewish, I feel free to express Torah views, as such, without having to prove the axioms of Torah belief as a precondition for expressing these views. If there are atheistic contributors, I would hope that they remain cognizant of the context of this net, just as I would if I were writing in net.atheism. 5 - Within net.religion,jewish, I am willing to engage in discourse with anyone who is sincerely interested in exploring the Jewish religion. 6 - Unfortunately, I made the mistake of debating someone who has no interest whatsoever in the Jewish (or any) religion and who argues solely for the sake of malicious antagonism. I apologize to net readers for my role in encouraging the endless, cyclical, redundant monologues which have ensued. I will try to restrain myself from being baited into exchanges with people who are not seeking real discourse. I hope that others will do likewise so that we can get away from the nauseating and futile word contests that we have been witnessing. Yitzchok Samet
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/08/85)
>> ... The point being: you have based your views on >> what is right on the content of Torah. But who on earth are you to say >> that other people are obliged to hold that same view? You feel bound >> to those laws for yourself, and that is fine. But to claim that OTHERS >> *must* adhere to them because you do is ludicrous. > 1 - Believe it or not, I don't expect anyone to accept the Torah > without proof of its validity. Yet you would advocate killing those who don't. I don't understand... > 2 - As I have explained previously, it is virtually impossible to > do justice to the issue of proof of the validity of Torah within > the limits of net discussions. I therefore suggested reading > material on this extensive and complicated subject for anyone who > is genuinely interested in exploring it. Methinks you could have ended that first sentence prior to the word "within". Your "proof" is no better or worse than those of any other religion, so whom are we kidding? Such religious "proofs" only prove things to those who already believe. Given that, your claims that you could through additional reading strike me as hot air. > 3 - If there were a net.atheism or net.antireligion I would > consider it inappropriate to harass contributors of that net with > my beliefs. There would be no purpose in this, and no genuine > dialogue would be possible, unless I were willing to > painstakingly prove my axioms to to all the atheists and anti- > religionists for whom that net was dedicated. Which I'd just love to see you try to do. ("Prove" your axioms?) Originally there was a group called net.religion to discuss ALL relevant topics surrounding religion. Then n.r.christian was created to get the bulk of Christian/non-Christian debate traffic out of the main group (a move I was wholeheartedly against, as I was against the further isolationism of n.r.jewish). The subgroups are not "havens" where people can expect no disagreement with their views. As you may have seen in my "reconfiguration" article, the only subgroup in which there will be no disagreement is net.sfmag.samet (and I have my doubts about that!). > 4 - When addressing net.religion.jewish, I feel free to express > Torah views, as such, without having to prove the axioms of Torah > belief as a precondition for expressing these views. If there are > atheistic contributors, I would hope that they remain cognizant > of the context of this net, just as I would if I were writing in > net.atheism. Continuing what I was saying above, as with all newsgroups, n.r.j is a PUBLIC forum where people submit varying opinions and not just party lines. If you don't like disagreement, discussion with people with different points of view, why are you posting to the net? > 5 - Within net.religion,jewish, I am willing to engage in > discourse with anyone who is sincerely interested in exploring > the Jewish religion. I consider my questions and statements to be very sincere exploration, even though you might not. I am very curious as to why someone who was raised in the Jewish faith and heritage would be interested in carrying forth the same brand of intolerance against others that he and his people have been subjected to for centuries. It strikes me as very odd. Doesn't it strike you that way? > 6 - Unfortunately, I made the mistake of debating someone who has > no interest whatsoever in the Jewish (or any) religion and who > argues solely for the sake of malicious antagonism. I apologize > to net readers for my role in encouraging the endless, > cyclical, redundant monologues which have ensued. I will try to > restrain myself from being baited into exchanges with people who > are not seeking real discourse. I hope that others will do > likewise so that we can get away from the nauseating and futile > word contests that we have been witnessing. It would seem that anyone who does not hold the same point of view as you do is engaging in "malicious antagonism", anyone who disagrees with your position has "no interest whatsoever in the Jewish or any religion". On the contrary, I have a great deal of interest. Maybe not the type of interest you would like, but who are you to determine what varieties of interest are acceptable? I'd say it is YOU who is not seeking real discourse! Real discourse to you would seem to mean wholehearted agreement. That ain't the real world, my friend, and if you think your views are so sacrosanct as to be above suspicion, you've got another thing coming. I've gotten my share of mail from people who've tangled with you and your adamant orthodoxy for its own sake in the past, who are glad I am willing to continue something that they tried of: arguing with a brick wall. If you're only interested in "real Jews" talking about Judaism and its tenets as unquestionable fact, perhaps a discourse with Martillo would do you good. Maybe then you'd really get your hair mussed. -- Like aversion (HEY!), shocked for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (07/08/85)
Samet says, > 3 - If there were a net.atheism or net.antireligion I would > consider it inappropriate to harass contributors of that net with > my beliefs... > 4 - When addressing net.religion.jewish, I feel free to express > Torah views, as such, without having to prove the axioms of Torah > belief as a precondition for expressing these views. If there are > atheistic contributors, I would hope that they remain cognizant > of the context of this net, just as I would if I were writing in > net.atheism. > 5 - Within net.religion,jewish, I am willing to engage in > discourse with anyone who is sincerely interested in exploring > the Jewish religion. > Yitzchok Samet In response, I will say that I am profoundly upset by the language used by Samet here and during past postings which is offensive to those who are not "orthopractic" like Samet and who disagree with his ripping-off (along with others of his ilk) of the word "torah" to describe only his narrowly-practiced "orthopractic" brand of orthodox Judaism. I would hope it to be obvious to all who read Samet's comments that net.religion.jewish should not, as Samet claims, serve as a protected area for only one form of Judaism. Samet would like to equate Judaism with his beliefs, and those of his cronies. But Orthodox Judaism of today (if indeed he is really representative of it, which I question) is only one form of Judaism. It cannot, as Samet has claimed in the past, be considered as the only true heir to historical Judaism, but rather formed during the past approximately 150 years as Ashkenazi Jews in Europe had to decide whether to shut themselves off from secular society as transportation and communication technologies began to integrate societies. Samet's orthopractic form of Judaism strives both to be true to traditional values, and also to prevent the dissolution of orthopractic culture (only a subset of which is actually Jewish culture) through total separation to the maximum degree possible from secular culture. The fact that he participates in the activities of this net is, for him, a troubling break from this separation which explains why people like him are in such small representation. Economic factors explain the increasing participation of orthopractic Jews in workplaces involving computing which allow in certain ways a maximum of separation from the secular world compared to other types of work. In spite of the strong language I don't know Samet personally and wish to emphasize that I bear no personal dislike of him. I am offended by his continuing ripping-off of words like "torah" and "Judaism" to refer only to his brand of "orthopractic" Judaism. --J. Abeles
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (07/09/85)
> > ... The point being: you have based your views on > > what is right on the content of Torah. But who on earth are you to say > > that other people are obliged to hold that same view? You feel bound > > to those laws for yourself, and that is fine. But to claim that OTHERS > > *must* adhere to them because you do is ludicrous. > > 1 - Believe it or not, I don't expect anyone to accept the Torah > I think you miss the point. The issue is not whether the Torah is valid or not valid. The question is whether others *must* be forced to adhere to it. it > > 4 - When addressing net.religion.jewish, I feel free to express > Torah views, as such, without having to prove the axioms of Torah > belief as a precondition for expressing these views. If there are > atheistic contributors, I would hope that they remain cognizant > of the context of this net, just as I would if I were writing in > net.atheism. > > 5 - Within net.religion,jewish, I am willing to engage in > discourse with anyone who is sincerely interested in exploring > the Jewish religion. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (07/09/85)
I am reposting this. My previous posting misfired. > > ... The point being: you have based your views on > > what is right on the content of Torah. But who on earth are you to say > > that other people are obliged to hold that same view? You feel bound > > to those laws for yourself, and that is fine. But to claim that OTHERS > > *must* adhere to them because you do is ludicrous. > > 1 - Believe it or not, I don't expect anyone to accept the Torah > I think you miss the point. The issue is not whether the Torah is valid or not valid. The question is whether others *must* be forced to adhere to it. > > 4 - When addressing net.religion.jewish, I feel free to express > Torah views, as such, without having to prove the axioms of Torah > belief as a precondition for expressing these views. If there are > atheistic contributors, I would hope that they remain cognizant > of the context of this net, just as I would if I were writing in > net.atheism. > > 5 - Within net.religion,jewish, I am willing to engage in > discourse with anyone who is sincerely interested in exploring > the Jewish religion. Let me remind you that this is net.jewish.religion and not net.religion.jewish.orthodox (or net.religion.jewish.torah). Please do not define other people Jewishness. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
elb@mtx5d.UUCP (Ellen Bart) (07/10/85)
I have been staying out of the discussions for various reasons but J. Abeles's posting bothered me sufficiently to respond. I think your attack on Samet was uncalled for. If you disagree with his views then it would have been sufficient to say "Net readers -- I would like you to know that others feel differently than Samet. Here is my view .. etc" You may not agree with Samet's brand of Orthodoxy, but he is always careful to state that these are his views and he does not force them on anyone else (UNLIKE MANY OTHER POSTERS WHO WOULD DO WELL TO FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE). I agree with his statement of expectations from net.religion.jewish. If an Orthodox person wants to state that he/she believes/practices/ accepts something because he/she believes the torah says so, the basis for the use of the torah as an authority should not be called into question. Is it unreasonable to expect readers of this group to *understand* the basis for some Orthodox viewpoints even if they don't *accept* those viewpoints?? Note that I am NOT saying discussions about particulars of the practice or varying opinions would be unwelcome. BUT, some axioms are a given in this newsgroup. The easiest example is that we understand that we are talking about a monotheistic religion here. As Samet said, if this were net.religion.atheist he couldn't expect to have that statement as a given. One of the things that is most distressing/depressing to me as a Jew is that there is so much contempt for others who draw the lines in a different place than they do. And make no mistake, we ALL draw lines somewhere. Is it so hard to understand that others are just drawing different lines? Is it surprising that people will try to spread their views to others? Is Samet passing legislation to make you believe what he believes? Isn't he just expounding/explaining his view, trying to find others who agree, trying to convince others he might be right? The thing I feel most about going to Boro Park is not contempt for others with differing views. Mostly I feel uncomfortable because of the stares, the condescending looks, the comments and behavior which are signs of their contempt for me. Sometimes I feel I just want to go over to them and say " Look, we're all Jews, we have different ways of looking at things but why does there have to be fear, and hatred." I think certain posters on the net have a tendency to say "you show contempt for my viewpoint -- that makes you worthy of my contempt" Isn't that just a little ridiculous? ellen bart
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (07/11/85)
In article <1176@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: || Originally ||there was a group called net.religion to discuss ALL relevant topics ||surrounding religion. Then n.r.christian was created to get the bulk of ||Christian/non-Christian debate traffic out of the main group (a move I ||was wholeheartedly against, as I was against the further isolationism ||of n.r.jewish). The subgroups are not "havens" where people can expect ||no disagreement with their views. For the record, that is not what happened. At the time I proposed (on behalf of a large number of interested people) that this newsgroup be created, there were no subgroups under net.religion. Rich, maybe YOU are against the "isolationism" of n.r.j. If you're primarily interested in discussing religion in general, go right ahead in net.religion. I, and many other Jews on this network, are NOT interested in other religions. We have a certain basic set of beliefs, and are interested in discussing Judaism. I unsubscribed to net.religion long ago. If you are interested in legitimate discussion about Judaism, this is the place for it. If you are interested in general discussion about the validity of religion, it does not belong in this newsgroup. Your postings about Judaism do belong here, but at the same time observant Jews should be free to post articles which make basic assumptions about the validity of Torah without being attacked for those assumptions. Dave Sherman Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (07/13/85)
> [Dave Sherman in response to Rich Rosen] > If you are interested in legitimate discussion about Judaism, this > is the place for it. If you are interested in general discussion > about the validity of religion, it does not belong in this newsgroup. > Your postings about Judaism do belong here, but at the same time > observant Jews should be free to post articles which > make basic assumptions about the validity of Torah without being > attacked for those assumptions. ----------------------------------------------- Dave, your last sentence is self-contradictory. Either discussions of the validity of the Torah and Judaism belong in this newsgroup or they don't. If they do, observant Jews should expect to have their basic assumptions attacked. If not, most (if not all) of Rosen's postings about Judaism do not belong in this newsgroup. As for me, I vote for Rosen. For example, where else except in this newsgroup should someone attack Samet's (or the Torah's) basic assumtions about homosexuality? -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/13/85)
> Rich, maybe YOU are against the "isolationism" of n.r.j. > If you're primarily interested in discussing religion in > general, go right ahead in net.religion. I, and many other > Jews on this network, are NOT interested in other religions. > We have a certain basic set of beliefs, and are interested > in discussing Judaism. I unsubscribed to net.religion long ago. Isolationism is the separation of oneself or one's group from a larger group you are "NOT interested in", for whatever reason. > If you are interested in legitimate discussion about Judaism, this > is the place for it. If you are interested in general discussion > about the validity of religion, it does not belong in this newsgroup. > Your postings about Judaism do belong here, but at the same time > observant Jews should be free to post articles which > make basic assumptions about the validity of Torah without being > attacked for those assumptions. [SHERMAN] Let me get this straight. Orthopracts should be free from "fear" that someone will question their notions, but my notions should be questioned, attacked, and squelched? Hmmm... Haven't we seen enough articles on meta-topics? -- Like a turban (HEY!), worn for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr