The forum description also says, "fundamental likenesses".

[Gehanna]

Why does humanity tend to promote ideas that focus on our differences? Religious tolerance would be an example of what I mean.

I have such a desire to celebrate and promote our likenesses. How can Peace thrive when the approach taken to advance it is through a primary focus on our differences as opposed to our similarities?

The words "tolerance" and "acceptance" when used in context of our differences does not sit well with me. It feels forced no matter how gently the words are applied. This is because I am less interested in our differences and very interested in our "fundamental likenesses".

Where illness is concerned, have you ever had someone "gently" push a suppository into your rectum for purpose of healing? I don't care how "gently" the person thinks they can put it in. If this same person refuses to work with me to consider alternatives, there will be conflict. I would be more likely to "tolerate" and "accept" if for some legitimate reason there were no other alternatives.

Where attempts are made to heal the illnesses of Peace, there are other alternatives. One alternative I would like to suggest is shining more light on our likenesses.

Gehanna

[Higgins]

Why does humanity tend to promote ideas that focus on our differences? Religious tolerance would be an example of what I mean.

I have such a desire to celebrate and promote our likenesses. How can Peace thrive when the approach taken to advance it is through a primary focus on our differences as opposed to our similarities?

The words "tolerance" and "acceptance" when used in context of our differences does not sit well with me. It feels forced no matter how gently the words are applied. This is because I am less interested in our differences and very interested in our "fundamental likenesses".

Where illness is concerned, have you ever had someone "gently" push a suppository into your rectum for purpose of healing? I don't care how "gently" the person thinks they can put it in. If this same person refuses to work with me to consider alternatives, there will be conflict. I would be more likely to "tolerate" and "accept" if for some legitimate reason there were no other alternatives.

Where attempts are made to heal the illnesses of Peace, there are other alternatives. One alternative I would like to suggest is shining more light on our likenesses.

Gehanna

Perhaps differences actually cause less trouble than similarities. In the Geopolitical world, for example, everybody used to really like narrow straits where nautical traffic could be controlled. This similarity of desire to control nautical traffic and thereby trade and thereby lots of liquid assets actually caused more friction than if some people had thought that liquid assets were icky. I'm not sure what the similarities are there now except that there hasn't been a major confrontation focused on say the Straits of Molluca since 1964.

[Gehanna]

Hello Higgins,

You wrote:

Perhaps differences actually cause less trouble than similarities.


That could be, but then I noticed something interesting. You mentioned a similarity of desire to control. It was the word control that stood out.

Strange, the want of control while also not wanting to be controlled.

Gehanna

[Higgins]

Hello Higgins,

You wrote:


That could be, but then I noticed something interesting. You mentioned a similarity of desire to control. It was the word control that stood out.

Strange, the want of control while also not wanting to be controlled.

Gehanna

Traditionally "control" was pretty contextual. You would control shipping at a strait by sending out an armed vessel. The idea of a more general control was probably not as clear in say the 16th century when say Hawkins was in the middle of trading happily and illegally with Mexico (tied up at the docks in fact) when the locals decided it all just looked too bad. The Crown of Spain had decided that the similarity of everybody wanting to trade with Mexico was best narrowed down to only certain friends and allies of Spain and eventually the locals decided they'd better follow that set of regulations about the control of trade.
Control may always be more a matter of threat than actual penalties on the spot. Mary Beard makes a similar and somewhat unconvincing argument about Romans and violence in The Roman Triumph

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/dec/22/featuresreviews.guardianreview8

[AMCrenshaw]

Identity means something (to me) when we discuss difference. It means little (to me) when we discuss likeness.


But also, I think learning about the "likeness" between faiths is sometimes a bit misleading. Some beliefs and rituals are cognates - a guy I like to reference often, Thomas Merton, was really really a Catholic. But he saw something in the zen concept of emptiness he thought was a quality of the divine (he wasn't alone, either). We can't say that emptiness and panentheism refer to the same thing, but perhaps from a third-party's perspective they certainly seem like cognates. By the same token, I don't think it's useful - ever, really - to say "so we practically believe in the Same Thing, we're just using different words to describe it" (I used to think this way before entering regular spiritual discussion)... especially when the rituals, practices, etc. surrounding these beliefs and concepts are in fact very different.


The words "tolerance" and "acceptance" when used in context of our differences does not sit well with me. It feels forced no matter how gently the words are applied.
At a recent interfaith meeting, we discussed something very plain: the distinction between diversity and pluralism. Diversity would mean a pure factual statement of difference among individuals in a group. Pluralism in this context would refer to understanding difference for everyone's benefit; this process of understanding is beneficial in and of itself, especially in a spiritual context. We come to understand ourselves better as we understand others. Differences shed light on our beliefs and sometimes reinforce them positively by adding new ways of thinking about them. Tolerance needn't change our core beliefs - our faith, or way, or what have you - but it changes the way we see others in relation to ourselves, in that we can put ourselves in others' shoes and see from their perspective. This promotes the building of empathy and compassion most of all.

This is because I am less interested in our differences and very interested in our "fundamental likenesses".
I don't blame you. I've written a book solely based on trying to discover these fundamental likenesses (I called it kommein). But I realized that a lot of these similarities aren't enriching, for one thing. Mostly the likenesses are organic - biological or psychological, say. We need food, water, shelter, and love. We suffer. We feel pleasure. We have in common the need for meaning. But when we move beyond these fundamental likenesses, we find a world of difference.


Where attempts are made to heal the illnesses of Peace, there are other alternatives. One alternative I would like to suggest is shining more light on our likenesses.
I will disagree for the most part, then come back around to slightly agreeing.

I would say that concentrating on similarity is a very, very dangerous thing. It might be best to acknowledge we're all human and leave it there. Damn. I hate to bring Nazism into this, but I can't think of a better example. When I was in undergrad school, my mentor (who is gay) made a film that included all these vernacular photographs of Nazis essentially being gay together. Surely the fundamental likeness was clear as day to them. What stood in the way, then, besides layers of history and propaganda? A lack of tolerance, a lack of understanding of the other. Let's oscillate now.

What does understanding difference do, from this perspective? It also reveals a fundamental likeness and unity: that of being different, put simply. That of being an individual, an irreducible subject. In fact, individuality requires difference - for without difference there is neither an individual, nor the concept of individuality...

Tolerance, again, highlights individuality (or whatever shreds of individuality really exist - which is another thread, granted). The illness of Peace is healed, I think, through a growing understanding of every other where possible.


AMC

[Higgins]

I would say that concentrating on similarity is a very, very dangerous thing. It might be best to acknowledge we're all human and leave it there. Damn. I hate to bring Nazism into this, but I can't think of a better example.


"All Human"...then the problem is defining "human". The Nazis decided that most people were subhuman, in fact so much of the population of the world was subhuman from their point of view in one way or another, that in the end the Nazis had to place more and more reliance on their subhuman allies (as Niall Ferguson points out in War of the Worlds...a book I found too horrifying to read, though I suppose I'll try again soon)...

http://www.penguin.co.uk/static/cs/uk/0/articles/waroftheworld/index.html

[AMCrenshaw]

"All Human"...then the problem is defining "human". The Nazis decided that most people were subhuman, in fact so much of the population of the world was subhuman from their point of view in one way or another, that in the end the Nazis had to place more and more reliance on their subhuman allies (as Niall Ferguson points out in War of the Worlds...a book I found too horrifying to read, though I suppose I'll try again soon)...


I was tentative writing that, at any rate, feeling that something was off (maybe because I'd been discussing this whole human/subhuman thing in another thread...)

[Higgins]

I was tentative writing that, at any rate, feeling that something was off (maybe because I'd been discussing this whole human/subhuman thing in another thread...)

The idea that similarities create harmony and differences cause discord doesn't seem all that true. For example, the fact that everyone has some needs in common with a lot of other people is as much a source of conflict as anything I can think of. And even the most elementry need can be quite complex. For example water....well you might say everybody needs say two liters a day. is that true? Is that the whole story of water and human needs? What if somebody wants a bath or a shower? What if water is needed for irrigation?

Moreover even conflict isn't necessarily worse than the absence of conflict. Suppose you're sitting on the Nile six thousand years ago. In the absence of conflict or political messes of various kinds, the human population would just grow to the point where catastrophic declines and rebounds kept the whole ecosystem in a state of equal misery. If you add in the human propensity to errect savage local gods and fetish sanctuaries and petty cheifdoms manipulating insane religious imagery...you get some nucleation of settlements, improved storage of surplus food, better and more complex ways of handling production and probably less fluctuation in population since the demands of the savage gods and what not keep the population from going straight up and straight down.
So the conflict between the gods and cheifs would probably act to stabilize people's experiences, enable them to accumulate some surpluses and transmit things in more complex ways from generation to generation.

[AMCrenshaw]

The idea that similarities create harmony and differences cause discord doesn't seem all that true. For example, the fact that everyone has some needs in common with a lot of other people is as much a source of conflict as anything I can think of.

I agree with this. But it's also the place where harmony can begin to take shape, since this is the place we'd come to understand these needs are shared (and universal to human).

As for the rest of your post, nowadays I'd take my chances trying to keep population under control in other ways besides conflict.


AMC

[Higgins]

I agree with this. But it's also the place where harmony can begin to take shape, since this is the place we'd come to understand these needs are shared (and universal to human).

As for the rest of your post, nowadays I'd take my chances trying to keep population under control in other ways besides conflict.


AMC

In my example, conflict is not necessarily in terms of violence, it can also be in terms of competing ceremonial complexes and so on.

[AMCrenshaw]

In my example, conflict is not necessarily in terms of violence, it can also be in terms of competing ceremonial complexes and so on.

Well I didn't think you referred to violence at all. But separating into petty chiefdoms, nowadays, seems like a bad idea. Then again, is there a difference between a petty chiefdom and a compartmentalized society?

[Higgins]

Well I didn't think you referred to violence at all. But separating into petty chiefdoms, nowadays, seems like a bad idea. Then again, is there a difference between a petty chiefdom and a compartmentalized society?

Sure there are major differences. Basically, once you get to a petty chiefdom/savage god level of organization you start generating ideological stuff that stays in circulation for the next six thousand years. So to start with the current "society" has about six thousand years worth of more or less dysfunctional symbology stuck in its communal mental universe in the form of ideology.

On the other hand the state as an administration with responsibilities has less and less to do with violence and human sacrifice and such and more and more to do with administering complex societies.

[Ruv Draba]

It's not true that similarities only create harmony and differences only create conflict. If my farm grows apples and oranges, but my neighbours only eat apples then I have a problem. Likewise if my wife tells me I'm just like my father, that's a problem too. Not all similarities are pleasant; not all differences are unpleasant. :)

I really liked AMC's thinking about pluralism above. In my words, it's about making the most of fortuitous differences, while acknowledging shared ground. The other side of it -- tolerance -- I see as being about allowing equity in competing needs. I've said elsewhere recently that if equity doesn't cost us something it's probably not equity -- because equity only really matters when needs compete. So if we play 'my tribe first in all things' then we'll only offer equity when it doesn't count... which means that it's not equity at all. Likewise 'Do unto others' is not always equitable when what others need is not what we need.

But with all that said, I don't mind having conflict in my environment. Actually, I need it. 'You have toes; I have toes; we are toe-brothers' will quickly send me to sleep. I find no wisdom in it. On the other hand, I learn a tonne from people who are passionately and implacably different from me. Sometimes I learn from the differences; sometimes I learn from the similarities. Sometimes those things are pleasant; sometimes unpleasant. I don't care -- it's the truth that keeps me interested.

[Gehanna]

To Higgins, AMCrenshaw, and RuvDraba,

My thanks to the three of you for participating in this thread. I've been on a workaholic binge the last few days. This is why I've failed to add any additional comments.

I plan to get back to the thread within the next day or two ... or three. :D

Gehanna

[Gehanna]

Here is the saying, "There are two things we all have in common. We are born and then we die." That saying disturbs me. I do not like it because it is empty in the middle.

Back to Peace. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think a desire for Peace is a fundamental likeness the majority of us share. In my opinion, the easy and boring way to attempt to achieve Peace is through the forcefulness of "acceptance" and "tolerance" of differences.

What parts of human variety and difference are not constantly in the face of humanity? Then, what parts of human likenesses are constantly in our faces? I find that confrontation with genuine similarities is seriously lacking.

It seems to me that the far more challenging way would be to attempt to achieve Peace by means of commonality. In fact, I doubt it is even possible.

Gehanna

[AMCrenshaw]

Then, what parts of human likenesses are constantly in our faces? I find that confrontation with genuine similarities is seriously lacking.


I'd say most of our egotistical and tribal behavior is due to (perhaps too much) confrontation between likenesses.

AMC

[Gehanna]

To AMCrenshaw,

Yeah, I hate the ego. Even my own makes me want to throw up at times. The good thing is that while I live I know I'll not have to worry that I'll ever meet anyone without. As for the tribe thing, I am a mutt breed and have no clear connection to any one tribe in particular. Then again, as a mongrel I've got many connections. *smirk*

Gehanna

[ColoradoGuy]

Back to Peace. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think a desire for Peace is a fundamental likeness the majority of us share. . .
As a Quaker, I agree entirely. We also believe the fundamental similarities of the aspirations (and essential goodness) among people far, far outweigh any differences.

[Mac H.]

Here is the saying, "There are two things we all have in common. We are born and then we die." That saying disturbs me. I do not like it because it is empty in the middle. It isn't empty in the middle!

It is just saying that the bit in between is what makes us different to each other.

Mac

[semilargeintestine]

Well said.

[Gehanna]

Hello Mac H.,

I can agree with that, but I would prefer to fill the middle with similarities for a while. Bizarre as this may read, I get tired of looking at the same old differences.

Gehanna

[Ruv Draba]

I think a desire for Peace is a fundamental likeness the majority of us share.I think it's only certain personalities to whom peace as an ideal is very important. I feel that much of the rest of society don't want peace -- they want bounded conflict to allow them to compete safely. People compete for grades, for jobs, for friends, for spouses and lovers, for parking-spots. I believe that if people genuinely wanted peace they'd drive differently, mate differently, make different purchases, choose homes and jobs differently.

There are species advantages to bounded conflict -- we weed out our least viable genotypes. Every species does this.

Where we differ individually is in where we set our bounds. Some people would rather have no conflict at all (or I think that many prefer to compete passively and deny that they're doing so). Others like the conflict to be obvious and wide-ranging. Yet others -- more predatory personalities -- believe that nobody has any right not to conflict over anything.

Conflict to me is background noise. I try not to seek it or flee from it. I don't always need to win, but I don't like to lose. Like most individuals in most species I prefer conflict to be bounded by time, space and stakes.

I find that confrontation with genuine similarities is seriously lacking. Yes, because our decisions are generally aimed at gaining advantage, which is informed by competition and the important part of that is our differences.

Under many circumstances I think it's very, very easy to live a peaceful life. Begin by giving everyone exactly what they need just before they ask for it. Bend our life efforts to that one aim and we can live peacefully. However we may also never learn who we are.

We can also focus on our similarities in times of shared crisis, however I'm not sure how much sustainable peace this produces. For instance, Afghanistan is a country renowned for its Balkanisation and tribal squabbles, and for rising against invaders whenever it gets the chance.


I and Somalia against the world. I and my clan against Somalia. I and my family against the clan. I and my brother against the family. I against my brother -- Somalian proverb (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,975144,00.html)

In order for us to win, someone else has to lose. -- Maurice Saatchi

Whether you believe in competition determines your behaviour, but what determines your relationships is whether others do.

[Ruv Draba]

We also believe the fundamental similarities of the aspirations (and essential goodness) among people far, far outweigh any differences.I'd agree with caveats: when people are prosperous enough to have enough, and educated enough to understand other people. Under those circumstances we have growing incentive and ability to seek good for others and not just ourselves. We also have plenty of historical examples to show that when one of these is lacking, our understanding of good and ability to seek it fall away.

For me, the decay of civilisation into vicious barbarism is only ever an economic collapse and a couple of natural disasters away. A robust morality requires a robust and prosperous society (a necessary but not sufficient condition).

[Gehanna]

I believe that if people genuinely wanted peace they'd drive differently, mate differently, make different purchases, choose homes and jobs differently.

Agreed.

There are species advantages to bounded conflict -- we weed out our least viable genotypes.

Did you intend this literally, figuratively, or both?

Where we differ individually is in where we set our bounds. Some people would rather have no conflict at all (or I think that many prefer to compete passively and deny that they're doing so). Others like the conflict to be obvious and wide-ranging. Yet others -- more predatory personalities -- believe that nobody has any right not to conflict over anything.

Conflict to me is background noise. I try not to seek it or flee from it. I don't always need to win, but I don't like to lose. Like most individuals in most species I prefer conflict to be bounded by time, space and stakes.

Passivity is best left to Hognose snakes.

Begin by giving everyone exactly what they need just before they ask for it.

"...just before they ask for it." Yesterday I was speaking on the importance of being able to ask for what is needed. It seems to me that the removal of the need to ask would result in spoil and create a dangerous dependency unless we also lived in an absolute world. Our capacity for appreciation would also decrease. If we remove awareness of need, we will become blind to our most fundamental likenesses.

We can also focus on our similarities in times of shared crisis, however I'm not sure how much sustainable peace this produces. For instance, Afghanistan is a country renowned for its Balkanisation and tribal squabbles, and for rising against invaders whenever it gets the chance.

Is it an intelligent thing to limit the acknowledgment of our similarities to times of crisis?

Gehanna

[Ruv Draba]

Did you intend this literally, figuratively, or both?Literally. Most species engage in bounded competition to win the best breeding partners. The competition might be dance, or song, a race, decoration of a nest, or limited kinds of fighting. In humans it seems to be mainly decoration of the self and decoration of the nest, with a bit of everything else thrown in. Offspring engage in bounded competition all the time as part of their training to become predators and sexual rivals.

It seems to me that the removal of the need to ask would result in spoil and create a dangerous dependency unless we also lived in an absolute world. Our capacity for appreciation would also decrease.It wasn't a serious suggestion. Very few people go around trying to give others what they want before they ask -- and those who do are normally very controlling. :)

Is it an intelligent thing to limit the acknowledgment of our similarities to times of crisis?People usually enter a crisis already knowing whom they want to protect -- themselves, their family, their tribe. Some feel differently to that, but under pressure, very few change alleigance for any reason but self-interest.

[Gehanna]

Very few people go around trying to give others what they want before they ask

I would have readily agreed with that some 12-15 years ago. I see an actively growing tendency to feed into the societal id through the provision of unearned wants for various reasons. One reason area I am exploring has to do with the development and maintenance of interdependence. I understand the limits of individual observation and I realize the impact that generational influence may have on me. For these reasons and more, I continue to observe. How does this relate to religion and fundamental likenesses? I don't know... yet.

Gehanna

[semilargeintestine]

How does this relate to religion and fundamental likenesses? I don't know... yet.

In Judaism, we are required to do that in certain circumstances, many of which include our wives. A husband is required to anticipate when his wife wants...relations...and offer/start things up before she has to ask. It's present elsewhere too. For example, it's a mitzvah to give up your seat for someone older than you (not necessarily old, just older), and the buses in Israel have מִפְּנֵי שֵׂיבָה תָּקוּם displayed, which comes from the possuk:


מִפְּנֵי שֵׂיבָה תָּקוּם, וְהָדַרְתָּ פְּנֵי זָקֵן; וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֲנִי הי.

Thou shalt rise up before the elderly, and honor the face of the old man, and thou shalt fear thy G-d: I am the LORD.

It is expected that a Jew will hold the door or give up a seat for an elderly person or even someone simply a few years older than himself without being prompted. We are expected to do a lot of things for people without being asked.

[Medievalist]

For example, it's a mitzvah to give up your seat for someone older than you (not necessarily old, just older)

You might want to explain the concept of a mitzvah--I don't think there's a direct synonym in English; it's not just a "good deed."

[semilargeintestine]

Good idea. There isn't a direct synonym I don't think.

The simple answer is a mitzvah is a "commandment." That doesn't really get the entire scope of it though.

The Torah teaches us that the purpose of life is to achieve closeness to G-d. This is done through following the 613 mitzvot (plural of mitzvah) found in the Torah, because each mitzvah serves to elevate the soul to a place closer to Him. There are 248 positive mitzvot that serve to strengthen the bond between G-d and man, and there are 365 negative mitzvot that protect man from doing things that break down and weaken the relationship.

The word mitzvah is related to the word tzavta, which means "connection." Thus, each mitzvah serves to strength the connection between us and our Creator.

[Gehanna]

613? That's an interesting number. Is there any significance to that number Semilargeintestine such as being different because it is different?

613 mitzvot = likenesses among Jews who fully comply with them? If yes, then would a non-Jew who is fully compliant with them be considered to have an equal likeness or no?

Believe it or not, I am not attempting to start a Holy War. At least not here on the AW forums that is.

Gehanna

[semilargeintestine]

613? That's an interesting number. Is there any significance to that number Semilargeintestine such as being different because it is different?

There is a significance, but the simple answer is because that's how many there are. The Torah does not say that there are 613, we just counted when we made the list. The Talmud mentions the number, but I can't remember if it's in the Mishnah (Torah) or the Gemara (commentary on Oral Torah).

There are two things mentioned in conjunction with 613. The first is that there are 365 negative commandments (don't do this) corresponding with 365 solar days of the year, and 248 positive commandments (do this) corresponding to the number of bones and significant organs.

The other involves numerology. The word Torah in Hebrew is spelled:

תורה

The letters break down as follows:

ת - 400
ו - 6
ר - 200
ה - 5
------------
611 mitzvot that Moses was given on Mount Sinai

Add the 2 mitzvot that G-d actually gave the people of Israel Himself, and you get 613.



613 mitzvot = likenesses among Jews who fully comply with them? If yes, then would a non-Jew who is fully compliant with them be considered to have an equal likeness or no? I'm not sure what you mean by likeness. By keeping the Torah, a Jew is being "like G-d" in that he is doing what G-d wants him to do. All Jews share a special bond whether they keep the commandments or not. Many of the Jews who experienced miracles in the Six Day War were not religious (it's ironic that the six days of the most open miracles the world has seen since the Exodus is completely ignored and explained away as weird coincidences by most of the world--if you're interested in the types of miracles that occurred, PM me because there are a lot, and they are amazing).

A non-Jew that is fully compliant with the 613 mitzvot would not be doing G-d's will. There are only 7 mitzvot that are required for non-Jews (which actually breaks down to about 50 as a few of them are general mitzvot like do not practice sexual devience). A non-Jew is free to take on more mitzvot if she wants, which will certainly increase her merit and make her a more righteous person; however, there are certain mitzvot that a non-Jew is forbidden from doing, as they are only for the Jews. An example of this would be keeping the Sabbath. Non-Jews can go to synagogue and such, but they are forbidden from completely observing the Sabbath unless they are in the process of converting.

G-d rested on the seventh day, but He only instructed the Jews to do that as well, and so only the Jews are to observe it.


Believe it or not, I am not attempting to start a Holy War. At least not here on the AW forums that is.

Gehannahttp://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/drmg01/84destroy_the_Jews.jpg

Maybe it should say Gehanna instead of Iran? ;)

[Gehanna]

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/drmg01/84destroy_the_Jews.jpg

Maybe it should say Gehanna instead of Iran? ;)

Do you feel like I am trying to destroy you, semilargeintestine?

Gehanna

[semilargeintestine]

It was a joke based on your comment about starting a Holy War.

Of all people on this forum, I feel like you're probably the one who would be least likely to start a Holy War.

[Ruv Draba]

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r110/ruvdraba/Eat-Chicken.jpg

Ruv, not trying to start a holy war.

[semilargeintestine]

While my initial reaction was to laugh (out loud, mind you), the implication is insulting.

Thanks though.

[Ruv Draba]

My point is a humanistic one: even the humble chicken has a survival story to crow about, but there's a certain comic vanity in doing so.

Glad it got a laugh. :Hug2:

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Why does humanity tend to promote ideas that focus on our differences? Religious tolerance would be an example of what I mean.

...Snipped for Length...

Where attempts are made to heal the illnesses of Peace, there are other alternatives. One alternative I would like to suggest is shining more light on our likenesses.

Gehanna


I understand where you're coming from, Gehanna, but at the same time I have trouble with this. I was raised in a religion where if you were not "One of us," you were going to be punished for eternity. In the context of our religion, "One of us" meant being one of our particular sect of the said religion.

Your idea, I think, is outstanding. But carrying it out likely will be a hard sell for a lot of good members of differing religions, especially for those who follow what some people refer to as "Exclusivist" religions: that is, where you must be part of that religion to be right.

I think the honest truth is that until certain people accept that others are different from them and that that's okay, there will be no peace. As long as there are people who try to force their viewpoints on other people, there will be a backlash and there will be arguments and fighting. People have fought wars over religious views and freedom of thought. However, I do not believe that this is because we're focusing so much on our differences, as it is because we're trying to make people seem just like us.

My suggestion is that we try to work not on one point or the other, but as best we can on both. Tolerating our differences AND finding similarities with each other, I believe, will work far better than concentrating on one of the two points. This would provide, I think, a more balanced and whole view of the people who live around us, because it will focus on differences and similarities.

In other words, to understand our neighbors completely and accept that they will not always be just like us is, in my opinion, the only way we'll really gain any real peace.

And if you think about it, our world has made some progress in this. I've not heard of, for instance, any news stories about the Pope calling for all good Christians to go fight in a war against unholy marauding members of other religions... at least not in the last couple hundred years. So we've made some progress, at the very least.

Anyway, this is only my opinion. I hope it adds something good to the discussion, and maybe gives some food for thought.


Blessed Be. :)

[semilargeintestine]

And if you think about it, our world has made some progress in this. I've not heard of, for instance, any news stories about the Pope calling for all good Christians to go fight in a war against unholy marauding members of other religions... at least not in the last couple hundred years. So we've made some progress, at the very least.


That's because they're trying to change the image of the last 2000 years. Rather than torture and kill Jews and Muslims who don't convert, they tell you you're going to burn in hell for eternity for being a heathen pagan.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

That's because they're trying to change the image of the last 2000 years. Rather than torture and kill Jews and Muslims who don't convert, they tell you you're going to burn in hell for eternity for being a heathen pagan.


Indeed, that's a lot better than torturing and killing them, wouldn't you say?

Besides, SLI, there's this little issue of the peoples of the Land of Canaan that needs to be dealt with now. You know, where your God commanded Moses and the Children of Israel to "Utterly destroy" every man, woman, and child in the land of Canaan? A commandment that He later gave to Joshua and was followed through in the book that bears his name? I'm not saying that what the Pope did a long time ago was right, or that the general attitude in some Christian churches is right (I've gone to many different kinds of churches; not all Christians are exlusivists, and not all Christians believe that everyone else is going to Hell in a handbasket), but what I am saying is that they're not the only people in the world that has changed their image. Yours has too. I suggest you remember that before you charge the Christians with the evils that you mentioned. Your people are guilty of it too, if the Bible is to be believed.

[semilargeintestine]

Indeed, that's a lot better than torturing and killing them, wouldn't you say?

Not much. That's like saying it's better to have stage I cancer than stage IV cancer.


Besides, SLI, there's this little issue of the peoples of the Land of Canaan that needs to be dealt with now. You know, where your God commanded Moses and the Children of Israel to "Utterly destroy" every man, woman, and child in the land of Canaan? A commandment that He later gave to Joshua and was followed through in the book that bears his name? I'm not saying that what the Pope did a long time ago was right, or that the general attitude in some Christian churches is right (I've gone to many different kinds of churches; not all Christians are exlusivists, and not all Christians believe that everyone else is going to Hell in a handbasket), but what I am saying is that they're not the only people in the world that has changed their image. Yours has too. I suggest you remember that before you charge the Christians with the evils that you mentioned. Your people are guilty of it too, if the Bible is to be believed.

There's a big difference between G-d commanding the Jewish people to conquer the Land of Israel and the Pope telling Xtians to go slaughter Jews and Muslims in a land that doesn't belong to them.

First of all, G-d can give any land to whomever He wants. The Canaanites had their chance. There's a reason that G-d chose to use the Jewish people to force them out of the Land of Israel, and it wasn't because of the merit of the Jewish people. In fact, there were several instances where G-d was going to just wipe out the Jewish people because of their sins. He only protected them and helped them win because of the vow He made to the forefathers and because of the wickedness of the Canaanites. In fact, He tells us pretty clearly that it is not because of our merit that we entered Israel.


ה לֹא בְצִדְקָתְךָ, וּבְיֹשֶׁר לְבָבְךָ, אַתָּה בָא, לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת-אַרְצָם: כִּי בְּרִשְׁעַת הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מוֹרִישָׁם מִפָּנֶיךָ, וּלְמַעַן הָקִים אֶת-הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ, לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב.

Not for your righteousness, or for the uprightness of your heart do you go into possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD your G-d does drive them out from before you, and He may establish the word which the LORD swore unto your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

Just like G-d created the Garden of Eden and drove out Adam and Chava because of their sin, so too can He drive out the wicked of any nation because of their sins.

Second of all, we haven't changed our image. We celebrate the victory of Joshua and the Jews over the Canaanites. They were evil people. Do you mourn the loss of the Nazis to the Allied forces? I doubt it. The Crusaders did not go into a land to act as a tool of G-d against wicked people--they went on their own into a land that is not theirs to kill thousands and thousands of people that simply disagreed with their religion. You also can't use the argument that the Church was doing what they thought was right--they may have been, but when a Pope apologizes for 2,000 years of violence committed by the Church, that is a good indication that it wasn't the right thing to do.

Jews don't try to convert non-Jews, and we don't start fights with people that aren't Jewish. Joshua conquering the Land of Israel is hardly the same as the Inquisition or the Crusades. We are forbidden from engaging in any war that is not mandated by G-d. This is part of the reason Israel was so willing to make peace with Egypt and Jordan, and why she would gladly accept a two-state solution if it actually meant peace. Last time I checked, Xtianity, Islam, and Paganism alike have more than gladly made war on other people in order to take their land or convert them or both.

Missionizing people is just a form of silent warfare where you try to either trick or guilt people into agreeing with you. You may not steal their land, but you're stealing their souls. I don't care if you want to practice your own religion even right next door to me. Go ahead. Just don't knock on my door with the goal of converting me without expecting me to slam the door in your face.



I also wanted to add something. I realized after I turned the computer off that you said something about equating all Xtians with the atrocities of the last 2,000 years. I just wanted to clarify. I purposely used the term Xtianity whenever I could, because obviously not all Xtians hated Jews or did anything bad to us; however, I can't think of a major branch of Xtianity that didn't at one time call for the persecution of the Jewish people.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

SLI,


I've been gone for quite a few days, because I needed some time after I wrote my post to collect my thoughts. I realized almost as soon as I wrote my post how it must have sounded to you, and I'll be honest with you: I had no intention of sounding the way I did.

My point was not that it was wrong of your people to conquer the Land of Canaan. My point was that indicting today's Christians for what their ancestors did hundreds or even thousands of years ago is the real problem. I'm guilty of the same thing myself, as when I started studying my present religion, I attacked all of Christianity for what members of my religion call "The Burning Times," better known as the Inquisition. I had no right to blame today's Christians for what their ancestors did long ago, and I don't believe it's right for anyone to do that. That was my point.

I never intended to attack either your God, any of your Prophets (Moses, specifically), your people, or yourself. My only intent in my post was to point out what I see as a fatal flaw in getting on any other religion's case for its past actions. My entire purpose with my post was to plant a seed in people's minds that this accusation of members of other faiths for what people of those faiths did a long time ago really does not help anything.

Yes, many Christians do try to win others to their faith. And yes, many use scare tactics (I was a Fundamentalist Christian, and I used a few of those nasty tactics myself -- and I might add that I did so out of fear, not out of malice) to get people to follow their path. But what you need to understand is that many of these people see their God as the exact same God that you follow. Many of the Christians that I went to Sunday School with used the same exact reasoning for the Crusades that you did in your previous post for the conquest of the Land of Canaan. My Sunday School teachers, for example, taught me that the Crusades were God's ordained war to rescue the Holy Land from the heathens (namely, in the case of the church I went to, the Muslim population there). There was never any doubt among the Christians I went to church with, that the same God you serve with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, was the same God Who ordained the Crusades in the first place.

Like I said above, I'm as guilty as anyone else of accusing entire religions for the acts of a few of their members. And that's part of the reason I'm writing this post. I wanted you to see only how your argument parallels with a lot of the arguments that other religions use to wage war against your own people. They say that God commanded it. Whether He did or not is irrelevant to the fact that many of those people believe they are serving God with all their hearts.

And one more thing: I apologize if I sounded in any way, shape, or form, anti-Semitic. I did not intend my post that way, but I can see how it could have come across as such. I do not hate any ethnicity, SLI. What I hate is the attitude that so many peoples have that tells them it's okay for them to accuse others, but that it's not okay for anyone else to accuse them. I saw your first response to me as such an attitude, and I also am fully aware that I'm as guilty of that attitude as anyone else is. I hope you understand I had absolutely no ill desire for you or anyone; I just was trying to put forth a simple point, and as usual, I didn't do a very good job of it.

Blessed Be.


EDIT:

And also, after this post I'm calling it quits for both this discussion and this forum. I just need to get on with my life, and I feel like the stress I go through going to this forum will eventually kill me someday. So it's best, I think, for me to leave. I'll see you around, hopefully, and I wish you all the best.

[semilargeintestine]

I didn't think you were anti-Semitic, and I didn't blame today's Xtians. I said very clearly that my beef is with Xtianity as a religion, not its individual followers. Obviously, some of them are bad people (as with any group), but that doesn't mean they all are.

[Deb Kinnard]

Back to "mitzvah" -- one of my co-workers told me the word means both a command and a blessing (if followed in the correct spirit). Is this true?

[Ruv Draba]

I think that differences don't much matter until there's inequity in privilege, then they matter enormously. Those with greater privilege use the differences to justify preserving their privilege. This persuades those with too little privilege to see the difference as the problem.

While there's strong inequity of privilege it's hard to do much with similarity. People want to and they try, but ultimately the inequity gets in the way of cooperation, and the differences become the symbol of that.

I'm unfailingly polite to evangelists who knock on my door. I see them as members of my community and I think I owe them courtesy and goodwill. But I'm tired of receiving looks of suspicion and hate from evangelical visitors when I tell them I'm an atheist. Apparently I can see more similarity between us than they can. And my sense of similarity does me no good at all because they've decided that I don't have the right to peaceful enjoyment of my own home on weekends. They're exercising a visitor's privilege and imposing on my hospitality, while not respecting my privileges of privacy and freedom of reverence.

[semilargeintestine]

Back to "mitzvah" -- one of my co-workers told me the word means both a command and a blessing (if followed in the correct spirit). Is this true?

That's not what it means, but that's a nice way to look at it. A mitzvah is something we get to do in order to be closer to G-d. We may have to do it, but we would be sad if we couldn't. That is why every morning, Jewish men and women thank G-d for making them Jews so that we can have 613 mitzvos instead of 7.