Jews for Jesus
Ok, in the one sense, I understand why this is upsetting, because I was upset when people were saying Mormons were Christians.
However, because there is a long Jewish tradition and culture, I don't understand why someone who believes in Jesus as a Christian, can't appreciate their being part of that tradition and culture, even if they no longer believe in Judaism as their religion.
If the early Christians, who were all jews, had called themselves Jews for Jesus... and that name was 2000 years old, would there still be an objection?
The name Christian just means "follower of Christ." If the world is divided into Jews and Gentiles, then Christian is exactly the same as saying "Jews and Gentiles following Christ"
What you seem to be saying, Jnyusa, is that you can't be a Jew and a Christian... but all early Christians were Jewish. I'm not sure how that can work.
I'm not sure why the Jews for Jesus wish to maintain that connection to Judaism,e xcept the connection IS there. I've always just taken it for granted, and because I don't identify with Jewish culture or tradition, it doesn't impact me.
Of course, their obvious goal is to reach out to other Jews. They could do this just calling themselves Christians, but they are reaching out to people they understand and who understand where they come from.
However, because there is a long Jewish tradition and culture, I don't understand why someone who believes in Jesus as a Christian, can't appreciate their being part of that tradition and culture, even if they no longer believe in Judaism as their religion.
If the early Christians, who were all jews, had called themselves Jews for Jesus... and that name was 2000 years old, would there still be an objection?
The name Christian just means "follower of Christ." If the world is divided into Jews and Gentiles, then Christian is exactly the same as saying "Jews and Gentiles following Christ"
What you seem to be saying, Jnyusa, is that you can't be a Jew and a Christian... but all early Christians were Jewish. I'm not sure how that can work.
I'm not sure why the Jews for Jesus wish to maintain that connection to Judaism,e xcept the connection IS there. I've always just taken it for granted, and because I don't identify with Jewish culture or tradition, it doesn't impact me.
Of course, their obvious goal is to reach out to other Jews. They could do this just calling themselves Christians, but they are reaching out to people they understand and who understand where they come from.
Cerin, I like the way your mind works. 
You can have a limited, non-exclusive license to use the word in the context of the messageboard but not for any commercial purpose. 
You can have a limited, non-exclusive license to use the word in the context of the messageboard but not for any commercial purpose. "Aargragaah. It mean lit’rally der time when you see dem little pebbles and you jus’ know dere’s gonna be a great big landslide on toppa you and it already too late to run. Dat moment, dat’s aagragaah.”
Terry Pratchett, Jingo
Terry Pratchett, Jingo
tp, I apologize for the rambling non-sequitur to your rambling non-sequitur. The problem with long posts is that the topic has changed by the time they appear.
I was thinking about exactly that question, part of it, earlier when Hal and Cerin asked about identity through ancestry.
First of all, if a convert to Judaism later re-embraced Christianity, would that be different from a born-Jew embracing Christianity? ... well, I think the identity crisis would be worse for the convert!
Honestly, I think that amount of Jewish identification would depend upon the individual. But the issue of self-proclamation would be the same, I think. They would have the right to lay claim to a Jewish cultural tradition within their lives and carry on as much or as little of that as they liked, but they would not have the right to refer to themselves as religiously Jewish.
Why is the subset of JFJ different from the subset of agnostic or atheist? ... because the agnostic and the atheist do not claim to be religiously Jewish. Their beliefs do not assert that Judaism is really atheism depending on your point of view. They don't claim that Judaism is something other than what it is.
The breach between Orthodox and Conservative, etc., in the US presents definitional complications ... one can always argue that the Orthodox do not consider the others to be really practicing Judaism as it should be practiced, but the gulf between Orthodox and Reform is infinitessimal compared to the gulf between Reform and JFJ. There are core beliefs to every religion. Those who do not share those beliefs are not members of the same religion.
Jn
eta: because once again the topic advanced ...
Hal: but all early Christians were Jewish.
That was 2000 years ago and meanwhile Christianity has changed. Accomodations were made so that Christians would no longer have to observe Jewish Law; all sorts of other cultural beliefs have entered Christianity and shaped it into what it is today. Christianity is no longer Judaism.
I was thinking about exactly that question, part of it, earlier when Hal and Cerin asked about identity through ancestry.
First of all, if a convert to Judaism later re-embraced Christianity, would that be different from a born-Jew embracing Christianity? ... well, I think the identity crisis would be worse for the convert!
Honestly, I think that amount of Jewish identification would depend upon the individual. But the issue of self-proclamation would be the same, I think. They would have the right to lay claim to a Jewish cultural tradition within their lives and carry on as much or as little of that as they liked, but they would not have the right to refer to themselves as religiously Jewish.
Why is the subset of JFJ different from the subset of agnostic or atheist? ... because the agnostic and the atheist do not claim to be religiously Jewish. Their beliefs do not assert that Judaism is really atheism depending on your point of view. They don't claim that Judaism is something other than what it is.
The breach between Orthodox and Conservative, etc., in the US presents definitional complications ... one can always argue that the Orthodox do not consider the others to be really practicing Judaism as it should be practiced, but the gulf between Orthodox and Reform is infinitessimal compared to the gulf between Reform and JFJ. There are core beliefs to every religion. Those who do not share those beliefs are not members of the same religion.
Jn
eta: because once again the topic advanced ...
Hal: but all early Christians were Jewish.
That was 2000 years ago and meanwhile Christianity has changed. Accomodations were made so that Christians would no longer have to observe Jewish Law; all sorts of other cultural beliefs have entered Christianity and shaped it into what it is today. Christianity is no longer Judaism.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
Frelga...reading for my most insanely difficult class had caused my brain to shut down, literally, almost all the way, and then I saw your "limited, nonexclusive license..." and my brain hung up its "closed for tonight" sign. It couldn't process the rest of your sentence, which I'm sure was very nice.
[this is me trying to excuse that convoluted previous post, and this one in advance]
Really quickly:
Yes, my post is related to the conversion question, but it's also, I think, on point here (if anyone can figure out what it's saying). Let me try again:
When I've discussed this question, of who is Jew, with the Orthodox, they have provided me the following answer:
- To be a Jew, you must be born a Jew or convert in the traditional fashion.
- If you are born a Jew, regardless of your beliefs OR level of observance, you remain a Jew. If you are female, your children will also be Jewish.
- If you purport to convert in a non-traditional fashion, you have never done anything to become Jewish, and you remain a Gentile. This is because, to convert, you must actually embrace Jewish religious beliefs (in their traditional format).
- If you convert in the traditional fashion, and your beliefs subsequently change (e.g. you become Conservative rather than Orthodox, or you do something like my Jews for Jesus hypothetical), then whether you are still Jewish, or your children are Jewish if you are female, is a question for a posek.
Whether or not you agree with their definition (I lean towards agreeing)...at least it's relatively straightforward: beliefs are only relevant to determining your status as a Jew if you have converted. If you are born Jewish, you remain so, no matter what.
So, even though Jews for Jesus might be acting "unJewishly" - in a matter out of sync with traditional Judaism - if they satisfy the matrilineal test, they are Jewish according to the traditional definition.
I guess I'm asking - if you break with the traditional definition, what new standard are you using to evaluate whether the "Jews for Jesus" are Jewish? (This question goes for Impy, too.) And if the answer is that we look to whether the born Jew's beliefs are "foreign to the very core of Judaism"...then is there any general test for what beliefs are so foreign? Or do we just determine, on a case-by-case basis, according to our personal views, whether beliefs are sufficiently foreign?
To integrate Jn's response:
Why is the subset of JFJ different from the subset of agnostic or atheist? ... because the agnostic and the atheist do not claim to be religiously Jewish. Their beliefs do not assert that Judaism is really atheism depending on your point of view. They don't claim that Judaism is something other than what it is.
Well, ok - but how does this "difference" (i.e. the fact that they are making a false claim about the nature of Judaism) make them less *Jewish* than the agnostic or the atheist? Especially an agnostic who attends synagogue services and insists that Jewish religious writings are "metaphorical" - in essence, making an argument that Judaism is, or can be, agnosticism (someone gave an example of that in my other thread).
There are core beliefs to every religion. Those who do not share those beliefs are not members of the same religion.
I agree, but that leads me back to my question to Frelga and Impy, regarding which beliefs are "core", who is to determine that question, and how? What gulf is sufficiently wide?
(As I hope you know, I absolutely agree with all three of you that the Jews for Jesus are not religiously Jewish. Whether or not they are Jewish in some other sense - which ties into both my thread and this one - I'm playing devil's advocate to see whether that helps me figure it out.)
[this is me trying to excuse that convoluted previous post, and this one in advance]
Really quickly:
Yes, my post is related to the conversion question, but it's also, I think, on point here (if anyone can figure out what it's saying). Let me try again:
When I've discussed this question, of who is Jew, with the Orthodox, they have provided me the following answer:
- To be a Jew, you must be born a Jew or convert in the traditional fashion.
- If you are born a Jew, regardless of your beliefs OR level of observance, you remain a Jew. If you are female, your children will also be Jewish.
- If you purport to convert in a non-traditional fashion, you have never done anything to become Jewish, and you remain a Gentile. This is because, to convert, you must actually embrace Jewish religious beliefs (in their traditional format).
- If you convert in the traditional fashion, and your beliefs subsequently change (e.g. you become Conservative rather than Orthodox, or you do something like my Jews for Jesus hypothetical), then whether you are still Jewish, or your children are Jewish if you are female, is a question for a posek.
Whether or not you agree with their definition (I lean towards agreeing)...at least it's relatively straightforward: beliefs are only relevant to determining your status as a Jew if you have converted. If you are born Jewish, you remain so, no matter what.
So, even though Jews for Jesus might be acting "unJewishly" - in a matter out of sync with traditional Judaism - if they satisfy the matrilineal test, they are Jewish according to the traditional definition.
I guess I'm asking - if you break with the traditional definition, what new standard are you using to evaluate whether the "Jews for Jesus" are Jewish? (This question goes for Impy, too.) And if the answer is that we look to whether the born Jew's beliefs are "foreign to the very core of Judaism"...then is there any general test for what beliefs are so foreign? Or do we just determine, on a case-by-case basis, according to our personal views, whether beliefs are sufficiently foreign?
To integrate Jn's response:
Why is the subset of JFJ different from the subset of agnostic or atheist? ... because the agnostic and the atheist do not claim to be religiously Jewish. Their beliefs do not assert that Judaism is really atheism depending on your point of view. They don't claim that Judaism is something other than what it is.
Well, ok - but how does this "difference" (i.e. the fact that they are making a false claim about the nature of Judaism) make them less *Jewish* than the agnostic or the atheist? Especially an agnostic who attends synagogue services and insists that Jewish religious writings are "metaphorical" - in essence, making an argument that Judaism is, or can be, agnosticism (someone gave an example of that in my other thread).
There are core beliefs to every religion. Those who do not share those beliefs are not members of the same religion.
I agree, but that leads me back to my question to Frelga and Impy, regarding which beliefs are "core", who is to determine that question, and how? What gulf is sufficiently wide?
(As I hope you know, I absolutely agree with all three of you that the Jews for Jesus are not religiously Jewish. Whether or not they are Jewish in some other sense - which ties into both my thread and this one - I'm playing devil's advocate to see whether that helps me figure it out.)
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Isn't not believing in God about as far from the core of Judaism as you can get?
I just don't see how an atheist can be considered Jewish and more than a Jew for Jesus can.
Well, okay I do see why many consider the atheist born a Jew to be Jewish, because for some reason Jewishness seems to double as a religion and an ethnicity. But then how does converting to even Christianity make you lose ethnicity? Unless it's a sort of volitional ethnicity.
I have to say that in general, I don't think it's a good for something to double as both an ethnicity and a religion. These are very different concepts that don't mix well in my opinion.
I don't really buy that there is a true Jewish ethnicity anyway. It's a culture and a religion. Well ... maybe the key is to look at culture rather than ethnicity.
Maybe becoming an atheist isn't enough to jolt loose the childhood culture, but becoming a Christian is. That's the only logical way I can see keeping the Jewish atheists in but kicking the Jews for Jesus out.
I just don't see how an atheist can be considered Jewish and more than a Jew for Jesus can.
Well, okay I do see why many consider the atheist born a Jew to be Jewish, because for some reason Jewishness seems to double as a religion and an ethnicity. But then how does converting to even Christianity make you lose ethnicity? Unless it's a sort of volitional ethnicity.
I have to say that in general, I don't think it's a good for something to double as both an ethnicity and a religion. These are very different concepts that don't mix well in my opinion.
I don't really buy that there is a true Jewish ethnicity anyway. It's a culture and a religion. Well ... maybe the key is to look at culture rather than ethnicity.
Maybe becoming an atheist isn't enough to jolt loose the childhood culture, but becoming a Christian is. That's the only logical way I can see keeping the Jewish atheists in but kicking the Jews for Jesus out.
tp: Well, I disagree with the Orthodox that people who convert in Conservative or Reform synagogues are not Jewish. If they live in the Jewish community and practice the religion as their born-Jewish peers do and remain in this religion and and raise their children Jewish, I don't see how they can be justifiably excluded under the Shulkhan Arukh.
There is, as I've said before, a financial interest intertwined with all of this. I tend to have rather cynical views of the orthdox community. For example, there was an orthodox rabbi one place where I lived who, for an extra donation, would allow female converts to enter the mikvah in their nightgowns if they were embarrassed to enter nude. Better this than a Reform conversion! His conversions are acknowledged as halachicly valid by the rest of the orthodox community because he pays his dues to the right union. I have a friend who has made it his life's work to out the kashrut inspections supposedly performed by Rabbis who have been dead for years and years. So, I'm very far away from believing that the orthodox have exclusive claim to righteousness.
I think that what the Rabbis mean when they say that a Jewish convert to Christianity is still a Jew is that they could return to Judaism at any time and be received as an already-Jewish member. They would not have to convert back to Judaism. I do not think they mean that such a person is practicing Judaism, and would not call their religious beliefs Jewish beliefs.
Again, the problem I have with JFJ is that its members claim that their religion is still somehow Judaism. And I really don't see how any Rabbi could agree with that.
Faramond: But then how does converting to even Christianity make you lose ethnicity? Unless it's a sort of volitional ethnicity.
No, I don't think they lose their ethnicity. The problem is not that they claim to be ethnically Jewish. The problem is that they claim their religion to be a form of Judaism.
Maybe becoming an atheist isn't enough to jolt loose the childhood culture, but becoming a Christian is. That's the only logical way I can see keeping the Jewish atheists in but kicking the Jews for Jesus out.
It's not a matter of kicking them out. It's a matter of denying their claim that belief in Jesus is consistent with Judaism.
Maybe my opinion is colored by the fact that I don't consider atheism to be a religion. That seems to me a contradiction in terms. But it seems qualitatively different to me to say that one can no longer adhere to any religious belief, including those of one's own childhood, versus saying that one does have a set of religious beliefs and they belong to a religion that they don't belong to. There seems to me an element of deceit and subversion in the latter which is not present in the former.
Jn
There is, as I've said before, a financial interest intertwined with all of this. I tend to have rather cynical views of the orthdox community. For example, there was an orthodox rabbi one place where I lived who, for an extra donation, would allow female converts to enter the mikvah in their nightgowns if they were embarrassed to enter nude. Better this than a Reform conversion! His conversions are acknowledged as halachicly valid by the rest of the orthodox community because he pays his dues to the right union. I have a friend who has made it his life's work to out the kashrut inspections supposedly performed by Rabbis who have been dead for years and years. So, I'm very far away from believing that the orthodox have exclusive claim to righteousness.
I think that what the Rabbis mean when they say that a Jewish convert to Christianity is still a Jew is that they could return to Judaism at any time and be received as an already-Jewish member. They would not have to convert back to Judaism. I do not think they mean that such a person is practicing Judaism, and would not call their religious beliefs Jewish beliefs.
Again, the problem I have with JFJ is that its members claim that their religion is still somehow Judaism. And I really don't see how any Rabbi could agree with that.
Faramond: But then how does converting to even Christianity make you lose ethnicity? Unless it's a sort of volitional ethnicity.
No, I don't think they lose their ethnicity. The problem is not that they claim to be ethnically Jewish. The problem is that they claim their religion to be a form of Judaism.
Maybe becoming an atheist isn't enough to jolt loose the childhood culture, but becoming a Christian is. That's the only logical way I can see keeping the Jewish atheists in but kicking the Jews for Jesus out.
It's not a matter of kicking them out. It's a matter of denying their claim that belief in Jesus is consistent with Judaism.
Maybe my opinion is colored by the fact that I don't consider atheism to be a religion. That seems to me a contradiction in terms. But it seems qualitatively different to me to say that one can no longer adhere to any religious belief, including those of one's own childhood, versus saying that one does have a set of religious beliefs and they belong to a religion that they don't belong to. There seems to me an element of deceit and subversion in the latter which is not present in the former.
Jn
Last edited by Jnyusa on Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Surely it's an ethnicity if it's defined by blood? And it is: if your mother is a Jew, you're a Jew. It doesn't work that way with (say) Lutherans.Faramond wrote:I don't really buy that there is a true Jewish ethnicity anyway. It's a culture and a religion. Well ... maybe the key is to look at culture rather than ethnicity.
Ethel: Surely it's an ethnicity if it's defined by blood? And it is: if your mother is a Jew, you're a Jew. It doesn't work that way with (say) Lutherans.
Doesn't it though? Okay, not in the technical sense.
But most people end up following the religion they grew up with. And even if not it remains a cultural influence throughout life, most likely.
Most religions are passed down by blood, even if not officially.
But that doesn't answer your question.
I guess I'd rather not see Jews as an ethnic group, even if someone can prove to me they are. I just think religions and ethnic groups should be separate.
Doesn't it though? Okay, not in the technical sense.
But most people end up following the religion they grew up with. And even if not it remains a cultural influence throughout life, most likely.
Most religions are passed down by blood, even if not officially.
But that doesn't answer your question.
I guess I'd rather not see Jews as an ethnic group, even if someone can prove to me they are. I just think religions and ethnic groups should be separate.
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6294
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Jn: It's not a matter of kicking them out. It's a matter of denying their claim that belief in Jesus is consistent with Judaism.
Okay, I understand this. The atheists aren't claiming that thinking God doesn't exist is consistent with Judaism.
Jn: Maybe my opinion is colored by the fact that I don't consider atheism to be a religion.
But even if not a religion, atheism seems to me to be a rejection of the heart of religious Judaism. But your point is that only the Jews for Jesus are claiming to be religiously Jewish, while the Jews not for God aren't claiming to be religiously Jewish. One involves deception and the other doesn't.
Okay, I understand this. The atheists aren't claiming that thinking God doesn't exist is consistent with Judaism.
Jn: Maybe my opinion is colored by the fact that I don't consider atheism to be a religion.
But even if not a religion, atheism seems to me to be a rejection of the heart of religious Judaism. But your point is that only the Jews for Jesus are claiming to be religiously Jewish, while the Jews not for God aren't claiming to be religiously Jewish. One involves deception and the other doesn't.
Ok, I understand Jnyusa's objection. Even if the Jews for Jesus are Jews by blood, they are not practising Judaism as it is defined currently by the collective Rabbi community.
So if they are merely Christians who are also saying they have jewish ancestry, there should be no objection.
The objection comes from if they claim to also be practicing Judaism at the same time. I can understand that as it's similar to Mormons claimng to practice Christianity at the same time. HOWEVER, the reason I think the comparison doesn't work is... Christianity came directly out of Judaism. It was not the way the Jews were expecting, but Jesus claimed to be the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for, and Christians believed him. It began as a next step in Judaism. This is significantly different than Mormanism, which took Christianity, and added a bunch of stuff to it out of nowhere.
None of this really matters though. Does it matter if Jews for Jesus claim to be practicing Judaism, or if Mormons claim to be Christians? Athiests claim to be Jewish, people that don't believe in anything claim to be Christians because their parents were.
God knows what's right, and that's all that matters.
So if they are merely Christians who are also saying they have jewish ancestry, there should be no objection.
The objection comes from if they claim to also be practicing Judaism at the same time. I can understand that as it's similar to Mormons claimng to practice Christianity at the same time. HOWEVER, the reason I think the comparison doesn't work is... Christianity came directly out of Judaism. It was not the way the Jews were expecting, but Jesus claimed to be the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for, and Christians believed him. It began as a next step in Judaism. This is significantly different than Mormanism, which took Christianity, and added a bunch of stuff to it out of nowhere.
None of this really matters though.
Does it matter if Jews for Jesus claim to be practicing Judaism, or if Mormons claim to be Christians? Athiests claim to be Jewish, people that don't believe in anything claim to be Christians because their parents were.God knows what's right, and that's all that matters.
But hal, I think people have said that the Christian concept of the messiah is very different to the Jewish concept of the messiah. Yes, Jesus claimed to be the messiah Jews were waiting for. Jews or anyone else who believed him became Christian, and those Jews didn't believe him remained Jews.
I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Christianity just "grew out" of Judaism rather than added to it and changed it for it's own purposes.
I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Christianity just "grew out" of Judaism rather than added to it and changed it for it's own purposes.
I think the reason I object to that idea (that it added to and changed it), is because I consider one of the reasons that Christianity is true to be because it is rooted in such an ancient religion.
If Jesus added to and changed Judaism, then how can one believe he is the Messiah? If he invented something new, and created a new religion, then he can NOT be the jewish Messiah. And if he is not, then he was a liar, a scam artist, and not a very nice person, not to mention nuts for dying on a cross.
Either he was a false prophet, or he WAS the Jewish Messiah. I believe he was, which makes Christianity part of that ancient Judaism. Obviously it has nothing to do with the 2000 years of Jewish tradition and law that has developed since then, but it IS directly tied to what Judaism was before.
Otherwise, it is nothing.
If Jesus added to and changed Judaism, then how can one believe he is the Messiah? If he invented something new, and created a new religion, then he can NOT be the jewish Messiah. And if he is not, then he was a liar, a scam artist, and not a very nice person, not to mention nuts for dying on a cross.
Either he was a false prophet, or he WAS the Jewish Messiah. I believe he was, which makes Christianity part of that ancient Judaism. Obviously it has nothing to do with the 2000 years of Jewish tradition and law that has developed since then, but it IS directly tied to what Judaism was before.
Otherwise, it is nothing.
I think I see halplm's point. Jesus was a Jew, he lived as Jew, he taught using the Jewish texts. The revelation in the book of Mormon was completely new and unrelated to the New Testament, as far as I understand. It wasn't just a new interpretation of older texts.
So saying that the New Testament is as new and as without ties to the Old as the Book of Mormon is new and without ties to the New Testament isn't quite right.
So saying that the New Testament is as new and as without ties to the Old as the Book of Mormon is new and without ties to the New Testament isn't quite right.
<snerk>TP wrote:Really quickly:
Any post that I have to scroll down to read in its entirety is NOT a "really quickly" post. Just sayin'.
Well... just want to say that this sentence caught my eye.For example, there was an orthodox rabbi one place where I lived who, for an extra donation, would allow female converts to enter the mikvah in their nightgowns if they were embarrassed to enter nude.
.
.
.
.
I can see where Jews for Jesus would be irritating for people who are currently Jewish... and whose families have been practicing Judaism for generations. There is a bit of a flavor of "you guys sure missed the boat 2000 years ago" about a sentence which says something like "Christianity is the perfection of Judaism". Wouldn't that imply, somewhat less than subtly, that Christianity is perfect and Judaism is not?
That being said, I have a certain amount of empathy for people who are cultural Jews (a more accurate term, perhaps, than "ethnically" Jews?) and then decide (for themselves!) that Christ is and was the Messiah. I think, if I were them (they?), that I would feel very reluctant to give up so much of what has defined me as a person to the world, something that is so rich and deep, something as powerful as being "Jewish", to embrace the CULTURE of Christianity. Because there certainly is a culture to Christianity, under whose constraints I have often chafed, and I was raised in a family who attended a church belonging to a fairly mainstream denomination.
I never really identified with "being an Episcopalian"... so many of those memories of hours in church were spent staring at the stained glass windows, wondering what the heck I was supposed to be thinking about.
But I still can go back to that church and feel some level of comfort, of BELONGING there, because I know all the rote prayers by heart, and can chant them in cadence with the stranger standing next to me. On a religious level, that man and I are quite different, I would suspect. On a CULTURAL level, we connect in a way that I cannot feel elsewhere. He, and the culture he represents, are a part of me in a way I could not expunge if I were to try.
Now, my parents don't want me to attend the Episcopal church they attend, because they feel that I have "strayed from the faith". (Plus, I think, because I don't have the right clothes.
) Which, from my point of view, is dumb... are we not all believers in Christ? From their point of view, I guess, my RELIGIOUS change of heart, however subtle a change it may seem to many, has precluded me from remaining a part of the CULTURE of the faith. That may be true, although I wonder about how strong a culture that is, and why it cannot accomodate, very occasionally, a questioner like me.
This may have not a darned thing to do with this topic.
But it feels like it does.*inserts careful hope that I've not offended, yet again, any members of my online family*
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
to be fair, I'm bringing up the comarisons to Mormonism... just because that topic was recently brought up... and I find myself saying to Jnyusa the same things a Mormon would say to me trying to convince me Mormons are Christians.
That's why I was trying to explore how the two situatiosn were different... perhaps also not entirely on topic for the thread, but certainly related
That's why I was trying to explore how the two situatiosn were different... perhaps also not entirely on topic for the thread, but certainly related