What do Jews think of Christ?

[n24il]

[spam deleted]

[DrewJMore]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

... i would prefer to be more positive about it.

"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed. " --Russell

"If merely "feeling good" could decide, drunkenness would be the supremely valid human experience..." --James

[I, Brian]

Sounds applicable to anyone with any kind of opinion, from the extreme reductionist to furthest-out theist.

But let's keep to the discussion issues, rather than throw in a few quotes for ad hominem purposes in the absence of a more constructive response.

[bananabrain]

oh, so i'm "feeble and contemptible" am i? frankly, if that's your attitude you can feck right off. there are plenty of genuine discussions to be had without my subjecting myself to this sort of rubbish.

bananabrain

[DrewJMore]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

But let's keep to the discussion issues, rather than throw in a few quotes for ad hominem purposes in the absence of a more constructive response.

Brian:
I do not feel that my citation of Bertrand Russell-- twice cited by our friend Bannanabrain-- rises above the level of personal assault perpetrated against me in this discussion. Further, it explicitly addresses the argument against my assertions regarding the motivations behind theological change--specifically, it refutes that Banannabrain's idealist viewpoint, per se, is meritorious.
The lack of irony in h(is/er) most recent angry response demonstrates the applicability of Russell's idea.

B-brain,
It was wrong of me to cast you as either feeble or contemptible. I regret the offense.
-djm

[bananabrain]

russell's insults are easy to read between the lines. if only yours were as subtle.
now, it is one thing to quote russell at me (and, frankly, he doesn't understand judaism either, if his chapter on it in "history of western philosophy" is anything to go by) but you are obviously intelligent enough to know when you are likely to give offence, despite your original protestations to the contrary. i was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt about your "primitive" comment but this last post leads me to conclude that you knew exactly what you were doing and dam' well did it anyway. intentionally insulting me and then mock-apologising for it just comes across as underhand and snide. it's exactly what a politician does when he gets caught out - "it was taken out of context", "i didn't mean it like that", "i was misquoted" and all the other excuses, when it's manifestly obvious that he did exactly what he was accused of.

all i have *ever* said about you is that you don't know anything about the way judaism works. that's not a personal insult, merely a conclusion based on your statements so far and one which you have given me no cause to revise. you said that judaism was "primitive" and i responded by comparing jewish culture to the contemporary european equivalents. what you perhaps fail to understand is that in disparaging my culture you disparage me. it's very personal to me. i am astonished that someone can do this and be unaware of the reaction he/she is likely to provoke. i merely responded in kind.

i actually find it illogical, not to mention extremely rude, that you should choose to insult me (and, by extension, everyone here - in fact, while we're at it, wasn't russell a socialist?) for being idealistic. all belief systems (including logic) are idealistic to some degree - everything has its axioms or is supported in some way by circular reasoning. hence the necessity for belief.

i'm not here for flame wars. i am here for dialogue. i wouldn't post things on a board of atheists saying "you're all going to hell" (not that i believe such things anyway) - and, if i did, i don't think i'd be entitled to complain about the responses i got.

bananabrain

[DrewJMore]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i'm not here for flame wars. i am here for dialogue.

As I said, I regret having given offense. However, realize that you have been deliberately baited to drive my point.

You'll correct me, I'm sure, but it seems you believe that Jewish oral law as it regards 'tolerance' follows entirely from grand theological truths, and not from political necessity. If you cannot accept the influence of politics on the development of laws, or stipulate such for the sake of an argument, then this belief appears to be one of Russell's "comfortable myths," the consequence of which (i.e., "...becomes furious...") you have demonstrated.

[bananabrain]

As I said, I regret having given offense. However, realize that you have been deliberately baited to drive my point.

in other words, "haha, gotcha!" wow, that's really telling me. as i thought i made clear in my last post, it was pretty obvious that you were acting intentionally - and what you've just said here is that you regret giving offence at the same time that you deliberately give it to make what is a rather banal point. therefore, you don't actually regret it at all, as you very well know. what you appear to have just proved in fact is that insulting somebody makes them annoyed (not furious, in fact, just irritated). impressive stuff.

it seems you believe that Jewish oral law as it regards 'tolerance' follows entirely from grand theological truths, and not from political necessity. If you cannot accept the influence of politics on the development of laws, or stipulate such for the sake of an argument, then this belief appears to be one of Russell's "comfortable myths,"

i notice that you ignore the fact that socialism and logic are both idealistic disciplines essentially founded on belief - a comfortable myth if ever i've heard one. one of the things i like about judaism is that it deals well with paradox and can embrace both the rational/logical/scientific as well as that with which these methods cannot cope. i'm not going around saying that science, logic and rationalism are rubbish - i'm just saying they are not as all-encompassing as its fundamentalists like to think.

furthermore, i never said "entirely". all i said is that anyone who knew anything about the oral law and the personalities involved can point to tolerance which evolved at a time of power, as opposed to from political necessity. at no point did i say politics had no influence on the development of these laws. once again you are drawing sweeping and oversimplified conclusions before actually investigating the issue, which was the cause of my original objection. reductio ad absurdum is a lousy way to make a point - perhaps if you stop doing trying to prove religion ridiculous we might have a more productive discussion. until then, you're just going to piss people off and i'm going to get tired of it - as indeed i now am.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[I, Brian]

The thread is way off topic and becoming a flame war - time to close, methinks.