![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 34 to 58 of 58. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 14:09:18
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 12:52:13
Alexandra,
Thank you for your post. I was attempting to answer the 3 questions to me but the gramatical structure ofthe post directed to me is not clear to me and I asked for clarification in order so that I could possibly answer in 3 posts.
You see, I was asked the same type of questions by a group many years ago. They were a hostile group toward me, ridiculing me and taunting me with epithets of hatred toward jews, saying that the Jews thought that they were chosen to be in the Kingdom of God on the basis of their lineage only. My answer is not that, and I do not know of any Jews personally that think that. The Jews that I know ,including myself, think that they are no better or worse than anyone else because they are Jews.
But Scott's post has in it:
[...How different is this than a Christian stateing that one must go through Jesus Christ to arrive at the Kingdom of God everlastingly?..]
The grammatical structure of the post , with that statement following the other 2 questions to me, is not clear to me. I do not know if that means that the poster is saying that Jews refer to themselves as "The Chosen People" because of their lineage or not. The poster writes,[...How different is this than a Christian stateing that one must go through Jesus Christ to arrive at the Kingdom of God everlastingly?...] because the poster uses the phrase,[...how is it different?...].
Well, I could answer that, but to save a lot of time, a clarification of what the poster thinks that the Jews think about what it means to them to be chosen could help me to reply in 3 posts.
Although you wrote that you liked "E", if you think that you know what the post in question means as per the jews being chosen, could you tell me what they are chosen for, according to how you see the grammatical structure of the post in question?
Lou
Posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 14:33:32
In reply to Re: Lou's request » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on March 14, 2005, at 13:31:43
> Scott:
>
> Under the guidlines of not saying any one faith is better than the other, I would think that this would be a violation.
>
> The same sentence without "since he is the supreme" would be ok.
>
> In my opinion.
That's ok with me.I wish Dr. Bob would clarify this issue by commenting on the original post on the Faith board.
It must be difficult for someone who embraces their religious faith with passion not to make such statements when it is their desire to help people, especially if it is a guiding principle of their religion to do so.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 14:42:53
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 12:52:13
alexandra_k,
Another part of thr grammatical structure of the post in question that is not clear to me is that the poster writes,[...how do you account for why {the Jews}...].
It is not clear to me if the poster is refering to all the Jews that ever lived or some particular jews now, or ancient jews or jews that the poster personally knows, or jews that he has read about or something else. And I can only speak for myself, not other jews. So I do not think that I can answer for other jews and that is why I requested clarification as to what the poster could think that the jews think about what they are chosen for.
Lou
Posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 14:44:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 12:52:13
> I think you asked Lou
>
> > > As a spokesman for Jewry, how do you account for why the Jews commonly refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?
>
> He gave a variety of reasons why Jews might want to refer to themselves as "The Chosen People".
>
> I think it was a genuine attempt to answer your question...
>
> I quite liked E. Myself. Not that I am Jewish...
>
If you were taking a test, you would have failed. The answer to the question posed has two right answers, neither of which was given as a choice.It was a test.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 14:57:23
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Scott- » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 14:44:16
> > I think you asked Lou
> >
> > > > As a spokesman for Jewry, how do you account for why the Jews commonly refer to themselves as "The Chosen People"?
> >
> > He gave a variety of reasons why Jews might want to refer to themselves as "The Chosen People".
> >
> > I think it was a genuine attempt to answer your question...
> >
> > I quite liked E. Myself. Not that I am Jewish...
> >
>
>
> If you were taking a test, you would have failed. The answer to the question posed has two right answers, neither of which was given as a choice.
>
> It was a test.
>
>
> - Scott
>Scott, You wrote above that [...there were two right answers, neither of which is given as a choice...].
Could not the choice,{something else} or the choice {none of the above} been an answer then?
You also wrote that [...It was a test...].
It was not my intention for it to be a test, for there are choices that could be used to indicate that there is a different choice or none of the above or a combination, so that ,in your case, you have the opportunity to offer clarification as requested.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 14, 2005, at 16:20:30
In reply to Lou's response to alexandra_k's post » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 14:42:53
Lou,
You had earlier stated that you were a spokeperson here for Jewery.. "As a spokesperson here for Jewery" were your exact words.
Nikki
Posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 16:37:58
In reply to Re: Lou's response to alexandra_k's post » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 14, 2005, at 16:20:30
Maybe he meant that he was a spokesperson for defending Jewery (given that he seems to be the only one here doing that?)...
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 14, 2005, at 17:09:14
In reply to Re: Lou's response to alexandra_k's post » NikkiT2, posted by alexandra_k on March 14, 2005, at 16:37:58
alexandra-k,
Thank you for offering that clarification. I think that anyone could be a spoksperson for anything here. I become that spoksperson for jewery when staements that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings are posted here.
There are many different branches of Judaism and I can not speak for individuals, but my speaking ,as you have written, is in defense of jewery. There is another poster here, Noa, that offered a brilliant defense of jewery and there are also others that I have seen here posting in defense of jewery. Dinah has also posted very good and enlightening defenses of jewery and she writes that she is not a jew. Others also.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 14, 2005, at 18:23:27
In reply to Re: Lou's request » AuntieMel, posted by SLS on March 14, 2005, at 14:33:32
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2005, at 3:17:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Phillipa's post-clarfyit » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on March 13, 2005, at 17:24:13
> I just think it's "petty".
Sorry if this is more microscopic examination, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on March 15, 2005, at 12:16:24
In reply to Re: please be civil » Phillipa, posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2005, at 3:17:57
I know you said he was blocked for something else, but folks here would like (as a reference) to know what the answer is.
Posted by Phillipa on March 15, 2005, at 17:04:44
In reply to Re: could you answer the original question? » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on March 15, 2005, at 12:16:24
Dr. Bob, I'm sorry. It was never my intention to put someone down. I feel this Board is a too sensitive one for me to Post on. Thanks for the warning. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2005, at 22:21:46
In reply to Re: could you answer the original question? » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on March 15, 2005, at 12:16:24
> I know you said he was blocked for something else, but folks here would like (as a reference) to know what the answer is.
Sorry, but how about not crossing that bridge unless we come to it?
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on March 15, 2005, at 22:39:09
In reply to Re: the original question, posted by Dr. Bob on March 15, 2005, at 22:21:46
I think we did come to that bridge, but somehow we got shuttled off to another path.
gg
Posted by SLS on March 16, 2005, at 6:11:45
In reply to Re: the original question » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on March 15, 2005, at 22:39:09
> I think we did come to that bridge, but somehow we got shuttled off to another path.
I would have to agree with this.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on March 16, 2005, at 8:07:21
In reply to Re: the original question, posted by SLS on March 16, 2005, at 6:11:45
To me, the faith board rules seem pretty simple. You aren't allowed to claim exlusivity. So you can't say there is only one God, or only one right path to God, only one right religion. You are allowed to say that you believe in God, but restating a statement that there is only one right way to believe as a belief is not sufficient.
You can say that for me and my people this is what we believe WE need to do, but you can't say that for me and my people this is what we believe *everyone* has to do.
This may require that certain aspects of a person's faith shouldn't be expressed on the Faith board.
It's the exclusivity that is the problem area.
As regards "chosen people", I think it would be against Faith board rules to say we are *the* (only) Chosen People. But my understanding of the concept is that the concept does not necessarily mean that. (Perhaps it does for some or even many Jews; consensus is rare in any faith.) But the concept as I've read it is that the Abraham and his descendents were chosen by God to enter into a specific covenant with Him that required various specific responsibilities on the part of the people and various promises on the part of God. It does not necessarily follow that they believe that they are the only chosen people or that God did not make other specific or general covenants with other people and or peoples. I've read lovely writings on the subject where Judaism is described as a communal covenant with God while Christianity involves individual personal covenants with God. So "Chosen" doesn't imply superiority. It is referring to a specific covenental relationship and thus does not put down other faiths. Unless it is used in context in a way that does.
That's my understanding, and perhaps Dr. Bob could comment on the faith board aspects, and Jews could comment on the "Chosen People" aspect.
Posted by SLS on March 16, 2005, at 9:21:28
In reply to Re: the original question » SLS, posted by Dinah on March 16, 2005, at 8:07:21
Hi Dinah.
Thanks for the additional insight.
> To me, the faith board rules seem pretty simple. You aren't allowed to claim exlusivity.
Sounds simple enough.
> So you can't say there is only one God, or only one right path to God, only one right religion.
>
> You are allowed to say that you believe in God, but restating a statement that there is only one right way to believe as a belief is not sufficient.That must be extremely difficult and frustrating for some people.
> You can say that for me and my people this is what we believe WE need to do, but you can't say that for me and my people this is what we believe *everyone* has to do.
I see.
> This may require that certain aspects of a person's faith shouldn't be expressed on the Faith board.
> It's the exclusivity that is the problem area.> As regards "chosen people", I think it would be against Faith board rules to say we are *the* (only) Chosen People. But my understanding of the concept is that the concept does not necessarily mean that.
I can talk to my brother about this. He is a rabbi.
> But the concept as I've read it is that the Abraham and his descendents were chosen by God to enter into a specific covenant with Him that required various specific responsibilities on the part of the people and various promises on the part of God.
Not all of Abraham's decendents were to become Jewish and thus be chosen once more by God to receive the Law at Mt. Sinai. Isaac's two sons, Jacob and Esau went their separate ways; the decendents of Esau to become the Arab Nation; the decendents of Jacob to become the Jewish Nation. The Jews were thus chosen twice.
> It does not necessarily follow that they believe that they are the only chosen people or that God did not make other specific or general covenants with other people and or peoples.
I believe it does.
> I've read lovely writings on the subject where Judaism is described as a communal covenant with God while Christianity involves individual personal covenants with God.
That is interesting. I don't know if I agree with this or not. I tend to disagree having participated in orthodox Shabbos services, but I am nonetheless a lover of the New Testament, despite not believing in its most fundamental assertion.
So "Chosen" doesn't imply superiority.
It does imply something that is exclusionary. But that really is not the issue here. I think you covered the issue quite well at the beginning of your post.
I chose my example of Jews as being the Chosen People to point out to Lou that this assertion is no less exclusionary than that of Jesus being the Christ through which singularly comes salvation and the passage to the Kingdom of God. If my analogy was flawed or ignorant of religious doctrines, I apologize.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on March 16, 2005, at 10:12:45
In reply to Re: the original question » Dinah, posted by SLS on March 16, 2005, at 9:21:28
It does make posting on the Faith board difficult for many. I've always thought the Faith board should be just removed, for that very reason. Although I understand the reasoning, since the Faith board embraces those of all faiths and there are people who do not believe in a higher power here on Babble, and they should also be respected.
As to my views on Jewish doctrine, I get my information from an admittedly small subsect of Jewish writers, most of them ecumenical in orientation, and my information might not reflect the views of all Jewish people. Since my own personal bias is ecumenical tolerance, I probably self select my sources of information. :)
Posted by AuntieMel on March 16, 2005, at 12:39:49
In reply to Re: the original question » Dinah, posted by SLS on March 16, 2005, at 9:21:28
Some ask 'chosen for what? Could you choose someone else this time?'
>
> So "Chosen" doesn't imply superiority.
>
> It does imply something that is exclusionary. But that really is not the issue here. I think you covered the issue quite well at the beginning of your post.
>
> I chose my example of Jews as being the Chosen People to point out to Lou that this assertion is no less exclusionary than that of Jesus being the Christ through which singularly comes salvation and the passage to the Kingdom of God. If my analogy was flawed or ignorant of religious doctrines, I apologize.
>The key word there is 'singularly.' I have never heard any rabbi say 'our way is the only way and the rest of humanity is doomed unless they join us'
Some denominations of Christianity do teach that, and it seems to me that it's the voicing of that belief that isn't acceptable.
Many Christian denominations teach that it is their duty to convert others. Judaism is quite the opposite. I can say from experience that you can't convert to Judaism unless you really, really, really want to.
Posted by SLS on March 16, 2005, at 15:18:14
In reply to Re: the original question » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on March 16, 2005, at 12:39:49
> Some ask 'chosen for what? Could you choose someone else this time?'
:-)
"Fiddler on the Roof"?
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on March 16, 2005, at 16:29:39
In reply to Re: the original question » AuntieMel, posted by SLS on March 16, 2005, at 15:18:14
I saw Fiddler in Poland. In Polish, of course.
It made me a little nervous when it seemed like some of the audience was rooting for the Russians.
But again, that was right after the iron curtain fell. Nowadays Krakow has a really nice area with kosher restaraunts and everything.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2005, at 22:11:08
In reply to Re: funny story » SLS, posted by AuntieMel on March 16, 2005, at 16:29:39
Posted by Dinah on March 17, 2005, at 9:47:01
In reply to Re: the original question » SLS, posted by Dinah on March 16, 2005, at 8:07:21
Since Dr. Bob didn't correct me, I assume I'm right about the faith board rules. Does that clear it up the questions, or I can try again, with everyone's permission? I don't want to butt in (although I know I did.)
And if I'm wrong about Judaism, you can let me know on Faith. But give me a heads up because I might not see it. (But I sort of hope I'm not wrong, because it's one of the things I like best about Judaism.)
Posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2005, at 11:02:20
In reply to Re: the original question » Dinah, posted by Dinah on March 17, 2005, at 9:47:01
I think you are dead on.
There is an old saying that if you get five rabbis in a room you will get at least six different opinions.
There is some truth in that. That many different opinions is considered to be a good thing, as is thinking for oneself. This is one of the things that drew me to Judaism.
Posted by Dinah on March 17, 2005, at 16:57:53
In reply to Re: the original question » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2005, at 11:02:20
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.