I think this answers all the questions - Who really is a Jew?

[AmbiguousGuy]

So you do not see (I wont even ask about appreciating) any differences between Southern American society and Japanese one for example?

Wow. What an extraordinary question to occur to you. Apparently you really do believe in labeling. As if we cannot appreciate a thing unless we are willing to first insist that it is properly labeled. How strange that seems to me.

To answer your question, I'm able to see and appreciate the difference in people and places quite fine. I've even been known to use the convenient convention of labeling those people and places as the majority of my linguistic culture labels them. But of course, I only do that in casual conversation. I'm much too attentive to language to actually believe in those labels as somehow transcending convenience.

Neither are distinct in several ways? In addition, would you expect a visitor to Texas or to Tokyo to see no differences in local culture? Shouldn't a slightly enlightened visitor appreciate before hand what are the cultural norms in each place? Or perhaps what the local culture has to offer? Anything from local cuisine, to music style, to festivals, to taboos?

You seem quite lost as to what I've been saying. Maybe you could re-read my messages, trying to set aside your assumptions as you do so?

There is nothing to be confused about, you bothered to let the rest of us know where you are from not only in the world, but also in your own country.

And you really can't see the difference between (out of politeness) telling someone that you live in the southern US vs. insisting that you are 'a Southerner'? Or actually arguing (as the OP does) over whether I am really and truly a Southerner?

Ask me if I'm a Southerner. I'll tell you that you're welcome to label me that way or not, as you please.

Then ask yourself if you are a Jew and see if your answer is so casual as mine.

So either it means something (anything) or it does not.

Of course it means something. You think I'm arguing that labels don't mean anything?

You are the one who claimed words such as 'Jew' or 'Wolf' do not objectively mean anything.

Please don't claim that I've said stuff which I haven't actually said. That's not coducive to good debate.

It seems to me that words only mean anything when they support your OWN personal subjectivity but not that of others.

Yeah, you're completely lost. My best guess is that I've upset you somehow... by claiming there's no such thing as a Jew, yes?

The problem in discussion and debate is when one side asks us to be objective about their subjectivity while not offering the same. Another problem is that it has become a common trend to supercedes objectivity with subjectivity and claim it as an objective right. It could be sometimes, but certainly not in all cases.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to mean with that bit of wordage. If you think that you do, you're welcome to try a paraphrase. Objective about their subjectivity while not offering the same? What on earth could you be trying to mean by that.

Good for you, neither to the rest of us. But you do seem to erase the life experiences, personality, and culture of others.

Yeah, I think you’re pretty upset. Sorry about that.

There are Jews in the world, there are Japanese, there are Malinois and there are Dutch Shepherd. All these words are essential and true, taking the word 'wolf' will not stop a wolf from being one.

So you're saying that if I refuse to call a particular animal a 'wolf', then that animal will not poof into non-existence but will remain standing in from of me? Well, thanks for that information, I guess.

By your logic, how would you order a pizza with anchovies or any other of your favorite toppings over the phone without using words to describe what is it exactly that you wish to eat?

How could anyone make such an order without using words? What are you talking about?

Likewise, if you are going to Israel, Jews are going to speak Hebrew. If you are going to neighboring Egypt, people are going to speak (Egyptian) Arabic, and if you travel a bit north west to Greece, people are going to speak Greek.

Interesting you should say that. There are, of course, no such things as languages.
The language just deceives us into thinking so. Since there is a word, we think there is a thing. We confuse the map with the territory.

For some reason people cant respect that. I hope you don't expect us all to speak English in the future and abandon our local customs and etiquette?

If you'd like to dialogue with me, I'm available. But I’m getting a little tired of swatting aside the insincere and hostile stuff you are saying to me.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

For example, I'm not sure whether doing anything like a Hina Matsuri would even occur to the people of the southern US. There might be a few who might get into something like Hadaka Matsuri, but I doubt that anything like a Kanamara Matsuri would be appreciated there. (I could be wrong, however.)

We all have IQs between 75 and 85. It's a requirement for living here.

So don't worry yourself with bringing your sophisticated religious stuff down here. It'll just be a waste of your super-intelligent and highly-spiritual energy.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This deserves applause. :clap

Um... a false claim about my actual words -- that deserves applause?

I guess morality works differently for you sophisticated Northern thinkers.

 

[Caladan]

Well I could address every sentence you've made here objectively, I also understand it is a futile task since you have already trumped your subjective POV as an absolute objective reality. So with all the fun of going into another futile debate of circular reasoning, I think I have said enough to generate interest from at least several members who do take the time to play poker without inflating their cards with jokers (or the ultimate objective reality card).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well I could address every sentence you've made here objectively, I also understand it is a futile task since you have already trumped your subjective POV as an absolute objective reality. So with all the fun of going into another futile debate of circular reasoning, I think I have said enough to generate interest from at least several members who do take the time to play poker without inflating their cards with jokers (or the ultimate objective reality card).

Apparently you have some idiosyncratic meanings for 'subjective' and 'objective' and a personal theology based on those meanings. Which is fine, but I really have no idea what you are wanting to mean in the backquote above.

But thanks for the exchange.

 

[crossfire]

We all have IQs between 75 and 85. It's a requirement for living here.

So don't worry yourself with bringing your sophisticated religious stuff down here. It'll just be a waste of your super-intelligent and highly-spiritual energy.

Was that really called for?

 

[Tumah]

If being Jewish had anything to do with bloodline it wouldn't matter what they said. They would still be Jews. The only way someone could lie about being a Jew is if being Jewish is a matter of faith.

Correct, it doesn't matter what they say. You can't just get up and appropriate an entire religion in order to provide your own with a sense of authenticity.

The Jews beginning came at the mountain that burned with fire where there was a marriage ceremony. There, they took the name of the Bridegroom as in our custom today. Difference is, In those days taking the name comes at the start of the engagement, not the cohabitation. Between a man and woman the cohabitation or consummation came a year later. Between God and man it's much longer but is still called the Consummation, where the two parties become one family and live together.

This is incorrect. In ancient times there was no ceremony until the actual wedding. The engagement was merely a matter of giving the girl some amount of money or a contract of their impending marriage and that's it. She went back home to her parents' home until the groom was ready- usually after he had taken a year to build their house. They specifically don't "become one family and live together". "Becoming one family and living together" is a sign that the marriage has been consummated. Indeed, the actual marriage ceremony represents the man taking the woman into his home. At least, that is how they did it when your god was around.

This becomes even more conspicuous when we look at the Hebrew name for God and the name of the people 'called by His Name'.
It's a bit of a reach to pronounce, יהוה, Jehovah. The yod י carries the 'Je', but there is no 'Ho' because without an O the 'hay' ה is silent. Next is the vav ו pronounced, 'Vah', with the vowel qamets וָ , then another silent 'hay', making - YehVah. However, using different vowels it should be translated, Yehu, which happens to match the name for Jews in Hebrew, the Yehudim.

Not that I agree that "Jehovah" is the correct pronunciation, but seriously. You just made this all up. Are you familiar with the two forms of the cholam? There is no logical reason presented here that explains why the cholam shouldn't be placed on top of the "hay".

יְהוּה - Yey Hoo

While the word - Yehudim, יְהוּדִּים means Jews, the dim, דִּים, means 'those of', therefore, 'those of God'. In turn, it makes the scripture accurate that says, 'My people who are called by My Name'.​

In what language does the "dim" suffix mean "those of"? Also, what language uses "dim" as a suffix"?

Yehudim comes from the word "Yehudah". The tribe of Judah. "Yehudi", "of Judah." "Yehudim", "of Judah (plural)." Check out Numbers 26, you'll find tons of them there. For example: Re'uveni, (of Reuben), Shimoni (of Simon), etc.

Of course this happened thousands of years before any other nation got this information or English was invented. Trying to convince us all that the whole nation is called by the name of Judah, one of the tribes, appears to be a deception.

My wife said my original response to this was mean. So I will leave with a

 

[outhouse]

I know that the first Christians were Jewish .

YOU do not know that.

YOu might not be correct.

Many of the first Christians were Gentiles and Poselytes to Judaism.

By the time this sect was labeled as Christian they were not Jews.


Remember, this was a failed movement in Judaism and Israel. It flourished in the Diaspora, This is why we dont have a single Hebrew text and only Hellenized text [Koine greek]

 

[outhouse]

But I'm trying to figure what the OP's point is.

Good luck with that. he is wrong on many levels.


Judaism in the first century is a hard thing to define.

It was wide and diverse and multi cultural, with many different degrees to the point of being Jewish was very vague.

Some people were deemed Jewish by swearing off all other deities and following the one god of he OT.

Other groups need cicrumcision and what would amount to orthodox views.


There was little that was orthodox about first century Judaism though.

Zealots
Pharisees
Saducees
Essenes
God fearers
Gate Proselytes
Hellenistic Judaism

And more

 

[Adept]

You're letting the Christian scriptures tell you who is Jewish? I'm actually offended, which doesn't usually happen. Especially considering you're blatantly wrong. Judaism is a bloodline / conversion thing, it has nothing to do with what you say or even really what you believe. Religiously, beliefs obviously matter but culturally it's simply inherited through the mother.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Was that really called for?

I think so. When someone opines that a population of some 50-75 million individuals would not appreciate some particular religious path, I am called to point out that there could be some overgeneralizing afoot.

But sorry if I bit you a little too hard.

 

[outhouse]

Judaism is a bloodline .

I would agree, and in the first century I would bet there was a sharp division between those born to oppresseed Judaism, and those Hellenistic Jews above oppression that perverted the religion.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Especially considering you're blatantly wrong. Judaism is a bloodline / conversion thing, it has nothing to do with what you say or even really what you believe.

If Judaism is a bloodline, then any Jew who converts to another religion is still a Jew?

 

[crossfire]

I think so. When someone opines that a population of some 50-75 million individuals would not appreciate some particular religious path, I am called to point out that there could be some overgeneralizing afoot.

But sorry if I bit you a little too hard.

Those were Japanese cultural festivals. Most Japanese associate these festivals with being Japanese, not necessarily with Shinto itself in a religious context.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Sounds like early Christian preaching against Jews for rejecting Jesus. (Godwin alert!) Hitler did the same thing, and used the same arguments.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Those were Japanese cultural festivals. Most Japanese associate these festivals with being Japanese, not necessarily with Shinto itself in a religious context.

OK, sorry if I misunderstood you. You were saying not just that US Southerners, but anyone non-Japanese would not appreciate the festivals?

If so, you have my full apology.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Sounds like early Christian preaching against Jews for rejecting Jesus. (Godwin alert!) Hitler did the same thing, and used the same arguments.

Oh, come on. Don't chase the OP away with Hitler comparisons. Let's let him talk.

 

[crossfire]

OK, sorry if I misunderstood you. You were saying not just that US Southerners, but anyone non-Japanese would not appreciate the festivals?

If so, you have my full apology.

Don't you have any local festivals that non-locals don't quite understand?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Don't you have any local festivals that non-locals don't quite understand?

I don't follow festivals. Bah humbug.

 

[crossfire]

I don't follow festivals. Bah humbug.

I see Manitou Springs cancelled their annual Fruitcake Toss this year.

Fruitcake won't fly in 2014 | News - Home

*sigh*