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