Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Nausea ad Nauseum
Message-ID: <1176@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 09:42:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1176
Posted: Mon Jul  8 09:42:37 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 07:10:46 EDT
References: <622@sfmag.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 92

>> ...  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