flav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > dshar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > > Bug-Eyed Churl <theda...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> There must be a way to _define_ "Jew" besides "you're Jewish if you
> > >> say you are."
There are lots of other ways, but I've seen nothing to indicate any of
them are more valid than that way.
> > > Look it up.
>
> > > Who is a Jew?
> > > A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has
gone
> > > through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.
> > >www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm
That definition would seem to imply that there is only one formal
process of conversion to Judaisim. But surely there are multiple such
processes.
> > Look it up yourself. The Jewish Scriptures are patrilineal.
>
> In terms of tribal lineage, yes.
Yes.
> > All sorts of great
> > "Jewish" heroes there have non-Jewish mothers without even a whiff of
> > "conversion".
>
> Like WHO?
That's a sort of interesting question. It's never been im****tant to me
so I don't recall much about it. Moses was obviously egyptian except
that he had some sort of untestable story about his mother being
secretly hebrew. It could have been true. Gideon's father was a priest
of Ba'al but I don't remember anything about his mother. She could
have been jewish. Maybe Moggini would know all the details about this
sort of thing. He seems to care deeply about biblical details.
> > Matrilineal reckoning is a late im****tation into Judaism
> > from oppressor states in the common era.
>
> Completely false, as proven by Torah, itself.
Is that proven? Where is it proven? Do the relevant passages exist in
Torah copies older than 500 AD ? Is it clear that the passages were
interpreted that way before 500 AD?
> > Your Rabbis have lied to you
> > for over 1500 years.
>
> Whatever reason you may have for wanting to believe this, you are wrong.
I find his tone rude. It seems implausible that anyone would keep all
the same interpretations unchanged for 1500 years, but that's no
reason to call the more recent interpretations lies any more than
you'd call the older interpretations truth. More im****tant that
religious leaders find ways to meet the current needs of their people.
Religions are there to serve their participants, not the other way
round.
|
