Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 17:22:10
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: Let's change the subject line....
Rob,
This is a reply to yesterday afternoon's message. BTW, read today's with my flack vest and helmet, but no insect repellent. Didn't get a Purple Heart either!
D'you know your version of the Ten Commandments differs from the Jews'?
No, I didn't know that! But I will get on the Jewish site tonight and get their version and compare with my Bible.
Again, it's a matter of definition. I think the answer may be "no." Ours is not a three part god, and that's a critical distinction. I think part of the Christian right leads to anti-Semitism (more later) issue/problem, is that they ASSUME we have the same view of God, so they say, "what's the diff?" The difference is that the assumption doesn't have a foundation in fact, and if we haven't defined our terms to recognize that there ARE distinctions, miscommunication is the inevitable result.
I keep looking for that COMMON foundation, but we seem to be diverging. Any ideas?
In our discussions, I use the term "God" as a convenient metaphor for discussion, it's more in keeping with your understanding of the term, because I THINK I understand where you're coming from (I've had more experience living in your world than you've had in mine). But it's merely a term we've agreed upon for purposes of discussion.
I've tried to define God as I understand Him. I thought somewhere in there we would find agreement. Help me out here.
Even if true, it's such a broad generalization of "Christian" as to render it meaningless. The puritans came here to escape the Anglicans in England. There were Catholics and Baptists represented at the convention and different colonies had different religious majorities and sentiments than one another. Nobody had the same universal definition of what it meant to be a "good Christian." For that reason, I've always found it misleading and self deceptive for the "right" to make the argument that we were founded on Christian principles.
Our nation had lost some of its Christian "character" by the late 1800's, and even more in modern times. BTW, did you know the Pilgrims were actually living in Holland before setting out for the New World? I'll find you a quote on "Christian principles" when I get home tonight.
And if you read the writings of Jefferson and Madison, the "majority rules" argument is exactly why the first amendment and its precursors in the states were such a high priority.
Agreed. I've been lead to believe that our founders drew a great distinction between "democracy" and "republic." That difference seems to have been lost in today's world (or perhaps willfully ignored).
Well, it won't be as long as one identifiable group claims moral superiority over another, or as long as man is resentful, covetous and jealous of his neighbor.
Sadly, I don't think man nor society changes very much very fast. Education helps, however.
Just be careful not to assume you know all there is to know about the relationships between the races because of that one friendship.
Right, but it goes a long way when you have someone with whom you can talk and ask questions without fear of inadvertently offending them.
You lost me here. Yes, they invite us. But I think I might have the answer for you.
I guess what I was trying to say is that charges of anti-Semitism, racism, and sexual harassment are determined, in some cases, by those making the charge. (This is one of my soap boxes, but I'll try to spare you the long version.) See, I can decide to commit a robbery and go do it. The offender decides to do the crime. With one of the above, claims can be brought by someone else because of their perception of an act or remark. The accused may be innocent, but find this innocence difficult to prove. If I rob 10 houses, 10 owners will know they've been robbed. If I tell 10 different women (in the workplace) that I like the smell of her perfume (or some other absolutely innocent remark or gesture), nine of them may appreciate it and take it as intended while one may file a sexual harassment complaint. That would not only ruin my career, but damage my marriage as well. That isn't fair! If I am paranoid about anything, it is being too "friendly" with women in the workplace. I keep my distance. (I'm off the box now.)
AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT. That is a critical, critical distinction.
On who else's understanding can I depend?
Oooohhh, I don't think I can speak for the Jews on that one.
Okay, it was an honest question after all. I'll look for the "Jewish" answer, which is really the one of interest.
If I understand you correctly, you've just justified the Spanish inquisition, pogroms and the holocaust as divine punishment. Surely you can see how that kind of argument can lead to abuse in the hands of tyrants and demagogues. And (no offense), but if that is your God, I want no part of him.
Oh no! You misunderstood. I certainly didn't mean to imply that at all. But with my knowledge of the history of the OT and the nation of Israel, they have oppressed by their enemies from time to time, i.e. the Babylonian captivity. (If I say more, you will give me the same response again.) You really don't seem to understand where I'm coming from on this. I'm not sure I'm up to the task of explaining it. But, God seemed to deal more closely with the Jews more before the first century AD. I'm only relying on biblical history.
Whackos are those who grasp and idea that's articulated by someone else to justify their own prejudices without self examination of the merits of the concept. You don't do that.
Good definition! I try to gain information and weigh the issues before I assume a position.
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment