Re: the Pope's rewritten Good Friday prayer and the Rabbi critic

[Ethan Complex]

I wonder what I'm missing here.
Pope’s Rewrite of Latin Prayer Draws Criticism From 2 Sides (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/world/europe/06pope.html?ref=europe)

"The new prayer, published only in Latin on Tuesday in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, deletes a reference to Jews’ “blindness” and a call that God “may lift the veil from their hearts.”

An unofficial translation of the new prayer reads: “Let us pray for the Jews. May the Lord Our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men.

“Almighty and everlasting God,” it continues, “you who want all men to be saved and to reach the awareness of the truth, graciously grant that, with the fullness of peoples entering into your church, all Israel may be saved.”

Rabbi Rosen, while saying he was pleased that language he found offensive was removed, objected to the new prayer because it specified that Jews should find redemption specifically in Christ. He noted that the standard Mass, issued after the liberalizations of the Second Vatican Council, also contained a prayer for the Jews’ “redemption” but did not specifically invoke Christ, stressing rather God’s original covenant with Jews. "

Now, why would a Rabbi complain that a Christian prayer does not allow Jews redemption, when Judaism, I recall, is all about chosen people, which excludes the Pope?

[Frylock]

Now, why would a Rabbi complain that a Christian prayer does not allow Jews redemption, when Judaism, I recall, is all about chosen people, which excludes the Pope?

To my knowledge, no denomination of Judaism is exclusivist concerning salvation.

-FrL-

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

Rabbi Rosen, while saying he was pleased that language he found offensive was removed, objected to the new prayer because it specified that Jews should find redemption specifically in Christ. He noted that the standard Mass, issued after the liberalizations of the Second Vatican Council, also contained a prayer for the Jews’ “redemption” but did not specifically invoke Christ, stressing rather God’s original covenant with Jews. "

Now, why would a Rabbi complain that a Christian prayer does not allow Jews redemption, when Judaism, I recall, is all about chosen people, which excludes the Pope?
As I understand it, the Jews were "chosen" to follow special rules, which the non-jews had no need to follow. As long as the non-jews followed a few basic rules like "don't steal" and "don't kill", etc. then they were in good standing with God.

It was the Christians who set up exclusivity as far as being right with God goes, condemning even the virtuous non-christian to the fires of hell.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Even as an atheist, this type of complaint annoys me. It's as though nobody is allowed to believe any more that their religion is the correct religion. No, for the sake of respect for other ways of being, we have to concede that every other religion is a legitimate path to God. It might soothe people's liberal sensibilities, but IMO, theologically it's utter bullshit. If Christianity says Christ is the Messiah, and none are saved but through Him; and Judaism says the Messiah hasn't come yet, but is on His way; then one of them is wrong. Why are we not allowed to say that?

[Shodan]

It isn't just about the Jews - Christians pray that everyone will accept Christ/join the Church/be converted/however you want to phrase it. That's what we do. Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;
but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but we're not allowed to stop.

Regards,
Shodan

[Ethan Complex]

Even as an atheist, this type of complaint annoys me. I'm not sure which complaint you're referring to here.
But let me just restate what my conundrum is:
Seems like all religions are based on the premise 'I'm right and all others are wrong', so why should a proponent of one be critical that the other doesn't account for him?
It's like saying "Muslims won't be happy unless I pray facing Mecca". Well, duh, that's their rules. Religions are all about rules.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

Seems like all religions are based on the premise 'I'm right and all others are wrong'
Again, on the whole, Judaism doesn't appear to be based on that premise.

Disclaimer: IANAJ, I've only gathered this from lectures I have heard and various works I've read.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but we're not allowed to stop.
Hurt feelings? Hardly.

Annoyed by the continuing repetition of the message after having said "no thank you" to it? You bet.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

I'm not sure which complaint you're referring to here.
But let me just restate what my conundrum is:
Seems like all religions are based on the premise 'I'm right and all others are wrong', so why should a proponent of one be critical that the other doesn't account for him?
It's like saying "Muslims won't be happy unless I pray facing Mecca". Well, duh, that's their rules. Religions are all about rules.
The complaint that annoys me is the complaint, "Oh, those Christians are saying that we Jews have the wrong religion. How dare they not be drooling relativists!" I'm not religious, but if you're going to be religious, then fucking be religious. If you are a Christian, then you should believe that those guys over there who deny the divinity of Christ are taking a big risk, and you should pray for their salvation.
ETA--Sorry, that was stated more annoyed-ly than it needed to be. But the essential argumentative point is the same.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Hurt feelings? Hardly.

Annoyed by the continuing repetition of the message after having said "no thank you" to it? You bet.
Well, you have to give each generation in turn the opportunity to say "No thank you." It's only fair. :D

[Huerta88]

As the article notes, the prayer has sections specific to the Orthodox, the Protestants, and Pagans and their respective hoped-for conversions. I would expect (have not read it in full) the one about the Protestants speaks in terms of the context that led to them not being part of the Church -- a nice word for this might be "divisions," I doubt they'd use the more loaded word "schism."

The one relating to Jewish folk uses "blindness" and "veiling" because in the Christian narrative, Christ was walking among them and (at least as to the ones who didn't become Christians) they failed to recognize (see) his divinity -- i.e., they're missing out (on the Catholic worldview) for historical reasons different from those that are leading other non-Catholics (for various reasons of their own) from being in full communion.

[Shodan]

Hurt feelings? Hardly.

Annoyed by the continuing repetition of the message after having said "no thank you" to it? You bet.Perhaps so, but In this instance, the annoyance is easily avoided by not attending the Mass, and some things are more important than avoiding offense.Suppose I had a family member who was an alcoholic, and it ticked them off that I attended Al-Anon meetings. That doesn't mean I should stop doing it.

Or take it even further. Maybe it irritates non-alcoholics to hear about the Twelfth Step. Does that mean AA should become an eleven-step program?

You can certainly make a case for a different approach that might be more successful, but our experience as a Church is that sometimes a direct approach works. So we include that, along with all the other stuff we do as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_World_Relief)

Regards,
Shodan

[Anne Neville]

I think the real issue here is the fraught historical relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jews. We'd rather fly under their radar- decidedly unpleasant things have happened in history when they've tried to "save" us.

Again, on the whole, Judaism doesn't appear to be based on that premise.

Nor are many varieties of Hinduism.

[carnivorousplant]

decidedly unpleasant things have happened in history when they've tried to "save" us.
You have a talent for understatement. :)

[Vinyl Turnip]

Well, you have to give each generation in turn the opportunity to say "No thank you." It's only fair. :D
As with dinnertime interruptions by exciting, limited-time offers for "fixer-upper" timeshares in the NOLA 4th Ward or shadowy solicitations for the Fraternal Policeman's Benevolent Butt-Plug Fund, it's a bit of a shame that "no thanks" isn't the default position...

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

Perhaps so, but In this instance, the annoyance is easily avoided by not attending the Mass, and some things are more important than avoiding offense.Suppose I had a family member who was an alcoholic, and it ticked them off that I attended Al-Anon meetings. That doesn't mean I should stop doing it.

Or take it even further. Maybe it irritates non-alcoholics to hear about the Twelfth Step. Does that mean AA should become an eleven-step program?
If Christianity followed the AA and Al-Anon principles of "attraction rather than promotion" I'd be a lot happier.

But many (most?) denominations do not.

[Shodan]

If Christianity followed the AA and Al-Anon principles of "attraction rather than promotion" I'd be a lot happier.Like I said, we try that too. But as one of our leading proponents once wrote, I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

Regards,
Shodan

[carnivorousplant]

"We had hoped that the prayer in the Latin rite would be the same as that of the universal Catholic liturgy in use since 1970," said Rabbi David Rosen, the chairman of the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations. "This new version for the Latin rite appears to be a regression from the path advanced by the declaration of the second Vatican Council. We urge the Catholic Church to deepen its exploration of the full implications of Nostra Aetate's affirmation of the eternal validity of God’s Divine Covenant with the Jewish People."
From JTA (http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/home/index.html)

[Voyager]

I'm not sure which complaint you're referring to here.
But let me just restate what my conundrum is:
Seems like all religions are based on the premise 'I'm right and all others are wrong', so why should a proponent of one be critical that the other doesn't account for him?
It's like saying "Muslims won't be happy unless I pray facing Mecca". Well, duh, that's their rules. Religions are all about rules.
The problem is what the religions say about those disagreeing. Judaism and Hinduism teach that those outside the religion don't fare any worse than those within. Christianity says those outside suffer eternal damnation. This has an impact. What's the last time a Rabbi or a Buddhist came to your door? The problem, as history has taught, is that it is only a small step from regretting that we will go to hell to deciding that it is in our best interest to be forcibly converted so we won't.

I'm an atheist, so I think everyone is wrong, but there is a difference.

[Revenant Threshold]

Like I said, we try that too. But as one of our leading proponents once wrote, I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. Indeed, as one of your leading proponents once wrote,
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I personally have no problem with you praying for other (and me, unspecifically) to find Christ, since while I think you're wrong I appreciate that it comes from a good place. I'll hope in turn that you find the truth, because hey, I do, plus it's bit less potentially offensive.

[Malthus]

As I understand it, the Jews were "chosen" to follow special rules, which the non-jews had no need to follow. As long as the non-jews followed a few basic rules like "don't steal" and "don't kill", etc. then they were in good standing with God.

It was the Christians who set up exclusivity as far as being right with God goes, condemning even the virtuous non-christian to the fires of hell.

You are correct.

In Judaism, the concept is known as the "Noahide laws".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

In essence, in Judaism there are a certain minimum set of laws which all people have to obey to be considered "righteous" - stuff like "don't murder" and "don't steal".

If you follow them, you are just as "righteous" as an observant Jew, even if you are (say) The (Catholic) Pope. Sort of raises the issue of why anyone would want to be Jewish - but then, Judaism isn't a prostheletizing religion.


So it is not the case that Judaism considers people in other religions, such as Catholicism, "unsaved". There is no equivalence here.

It is a more valid criticism that members of one religion really have no right to complain about the doctrines of another. To my mind that is true to the extent that those doctrines have no impact on others ... something not historically the case between Catholicism and Judaism.

I would add that there is no more misunderstood concept in all of religious history as that to the "chosen people". This "chosen-ness" is universally understood by Jews as being an obligation not a reward - it does not imply Jews are superior or always right by any means - in the Bible, on the contrary, it was an explaination for why Jews were so often hammered or punished by God (they were, as it were, supposed to 'live up' to being chosen by being extra- moral, and punished if they were not: (Book of Amos 3:2): "You only have I singled out of all the families of the earth: therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities.")

[Sophistry and Illusion]

It is a more valid criticism that members of one religion really have no right to complain about the doctrines of another. To my mind that is true to the extent that those doctrines have no impact on others.
But why? If you think another religion's practices are going to send its adherents to hell, wouldn't you have something to say about that? How is it different from criticizing smoking, if you firmly believe that others harm themselves by smoking?

I would add that there is no more misunderstood concept in all of religious history as that to the "chosen people". This "chosen-ness" is universally understood by Jews as being an obligation not a reward - it does not imply Jews are superior or always right by any means - in the Bible, on the contrary, it was an explaination for why Jews were so often hammered or punished by God (they were, as it were, supposed to 'live up' to being chosen by being extra- moral, and punished if they were not: (Book of Amos 3:2): "You only have I singled out of all the families of the earth: therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities.")
Maybe. Ask the Amalekites if God found them equal to the Israelites. Except you can't, 'cuz God had the Israelites kill them all. The Israelites definitely had some special rights in the OT, even if they were accompanied by certain onerous obligations.

[begbert2]

You are correct.

In Judaism, the concept is known as the "Noahide laws".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

In essence, in Judaism there are a certain minimum set of laws which all people have to obey to be considered "righteous" - stuff like "don't murder" and "don't steal".

If you follow them, you are just as "righteous" as an observant Jew, even if you are (say) The (Catholic) Pope. Sort of raises the issue of why anyone would want to be Jewish - but then, Judaism isn't a prostheletizing religion.


So it is not the case that Judaism considers people in other religions, such as Catholicism, "unsaved". There is no equivalence here. I note that those laws still prohibit idolotry and blasphemy, and therefore condemn those who do not "revere" the one God of the jews. That's fine if you're christian or islamic, one supposes, but not so great if you're an atheist, hindu, buddhist, taoist...

[Alessan]

My problem with the prayer in question is that it mentions Jews by name. You think you're right, you want the whole world to believe as you do, fine. Just don't single us out. That makes things a little too personal, you know?


As far as I'm aware, there exists not a single mention of Christianity in Jewish liturgy. I think we should keep that mutual.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

My problem with the prayer in question is that it mentions Jews by name. You think you're right, you want the whole world to believe as you do, fine. Just don't single us out. That makes things a little too personal, you know?


As far as I'm aware, there exists not a single mention of Christianity in Jewish liturgy. I think we should keep that mutual.
Well, in post 11, Huerta88 points out that the Jews aren't singled out. If that makes you feel any better.

[carnivorousplant]

Ah, but we don't come over to your house and torture you until you convert to our religion. :)

[tomndebb]

A couple of points:

The change was made, specifically, to the Tridentine Mass, not to the Mass currently celebrated by the overwhelming majority of Catholics. Last year, the pope relaxed the rules under which the Tridentine mass could be celebrated in an effort to be more inclusive of Traditionalists (who have always had the theoretical ability to worship using that liturgy, but who were often rebuffed by their local diocese as being too backwards looking).
At the time that the rules making it easier to celebrate a Tridentine Mass were published, there was a hue and cry among a number of people that the pope was deliberately trying to insert anti-semitic rhetoric back into the mass (ignoring, of course, the facts that the Tridentine Mass had been celebrated continuously for years so nothing was being "inserted" and that even under relaxed rules, something like .01% of Catholics are actually going to go out of their way to find a traditionalist mass to attend, and that no changes were made to the current liturgy). So, this year, responding to those calls for the elimination of the anti-Jewish rhetoric in the older liturgy, the pope removed the offensive language.

Some number of Jewish leaders are upset that he did not make more drastic changes while some number of Traditionalists are upset that he made any change, at all. (Much like among many Fundamentalist Protestants and the KJV bible, there is a strong belief among a large number of Catholic Traditionalists that the Tridentine Mass was handed to humanity directly by God and the slightest change is a direct violation of Divine Law and Natural Order.)

I'm not sure that some small number of Jewish scholars expressing disappointment in the decision quite rises to the level of outrage or cries of persecution, but One's MMV.

[BrainGlutton]

Some number of Jewish leaders are upset that he did not make more drastic changes while some number of Traditionalists are upset that he made any change, at all. (Much like among many Fundamentalist Protestants and the KJV bible, there is a strong belief among a large number of Catholic Traditionalists that the Tridentine Mass was handed to humanity directly by God and the slightest change is a direct violation of Divine Law and Natural Order.)

And then there are the Sedevacantists. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism) (And you thought the Pope was Catholic!)

[Alessan]

Well, in post 11, Huerta88 points out that the Jews aren't singled out. If that makes you feel any better.
A bit, but considering our history, I'd rather the Catholic Church didn't talk about us at all.

[Liberal]

It was the Christians who set up exclusivity as far as being right with God goes, condemning even the virtuous non-christian to the fires of hell.Not all of us.

[Malthus]

I note that those laws still prohibit idolotry and blasphemy, and therefore condemn those who do not "revere" the one God of the jews. That's fine if you're christian or islamic, one supposes, but not so great if you're an atheist, hindu, buddhist, taoist...

I do not think that a prohibition on "idolatry" and "blasphemy" is exactly the same thing as "you gotta revere the God of the Jews", myself. Though no doubt some commentators do.

Certainly, an Athiest by definition doesn't worship "idols" in the traditional sense, or of necessity blaspheme; nor does a Taoist or Buddhist of the philosophical variety.

Hindus, and some Buddhists and Taoists certainly have religious statues which could be considered "idols" - as do some Christians; the argument is that they are not worshipping the Idol but rather the diety represented by that Idol. Most Jews would find that particular practice "idolatry", but note it is not the fact of worshipping Ganesh or Indra which is the problem - it is worshipping an idol.

Myself, I believe that the real moral imperitve behind the admonisions against idolitry and blasphemy are as follows: (1) do not mistake outward forms and distractions for the Divine (and in this respect a philosophical Taoist or Buddhist may well be better off than a Jew); and (2) do not insult your own beliefs with hypocrasy or the beliefs of others with abuse. I admit this is my own interpretation, however.

Judaism isn't the same thing as today's multi-cultural liberalism, not by a long way. But you gotta admit, with the concept of Noahide Laws it comes closer than most forms of Christianity.

[coffeecat]

The complaint that annoys me is the complaint, "Oh, those Christians are saying that we Jews have the wrong religion. How dare they not be drooling relativists!" I'm not religious, but if you're going to be religious, then fucking be religious. If you are a Christian, then you should believe that those guys over there who deny the divinity of Christ are taking a big risk, and you should pray for their salvation.
ETA--Sorry, that was stated more annoyed-ly than it needed to be. But the essential argumentative point is the same.Since Paul said God doesn't give a gift, like a covenant, and then take it away, there's room in Christianity to say that the Jews aren't taking a big risk, without being a drooling relativist. I think the Rabbi just said it's a pity that the Pope didn't go that way rather than: "Everybody must get Jesus!"

From what tomndebb said, it looks like a tempest in a teapot. The Evangelicals who continually say, "Everybody must get Jesus!" bother me more than the .01% of Catholics who say it once a year.

[Alessan]

I note that those laws still prohibit idolotry and blasphemy, and therefore condemn those who do not "revere" the one God of the jews. That's fine if you're christian or islamic, one supposes, but not so great if you're an atheist, hindu, buddhist, taoist...

Actually, atheists are cool, so long as they don't actively blasheme. Theoretically, a man can go his whole life without a single religious thought, and be the most wise of gentiles.

As for Hindus &c, well, I suppose one could say that since all gods are one God, ten they're just orshiping Him in their on way, and not a "false idol." That's the beauty of rabinnical thought - anything can be debated.

[Malthus]

But why? If you think another religion's practices are going to send its adherents to hell, wouldn't you have something to say about that? How is it different from criticizing smoking, if you firmly believe that others harm themselves by smoking?

To my mind the notion of good people going to eternal torment because they made a mistake as to what to believe just seems incredible.

However, my main point was that Jews have no right to complain about the religious doctrines pronounced by the Pope, except to the extent that those doctrines actually affect Jews.

To my mind, people can believe what they want. If Christians want to believe that I will go to hell for not being Christian, they have a perfect right to believe that; and they have a right to "say something about that". As I have a right to ignore them.

Maybe. Ask the Amalekites if God found them equal to the Israelites. Except you can't, 'cuz God had the Israelites kill them all. The Israelites definitely had some special rights in the OT, even if they were accompanied by certain onerous obligations.

Well, last I checked we aren't living in Old Testament times. Judaism has moved on a bit since then.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

To my mind the notion of good people going to eternal torment because they made a mistake as to what to believe just seems incredible.
I think it's a dumb view too. But there's no denying Paul wrote that we are saved by faith, not works. To me, that means non-Christians are SOL. Ergo, Christians ought to pray for the salvation of non-Christians. Not to do so would be...well...un-Christian.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

Christians ought to pray for the salvation of non-Christians. Not to do so would be...well...un-Christian.
Prayer is fine. Just do it silently, or in your own church or home. Don't keep banging on my door to try to convert me, or turn every chance encounter at the grocery store into an opportunity to 'save my soul'. :rolleyes:

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Prayer is fine. Just do it silently, or in your own church or home. Don't keep banging on my door to try to convert me, or turn every chance encounter at the grocery store into an opportunity to 'save my soul'. :rolleyes:
You just seem like a nice guy, QtM, and I would hate to see you go to hell. So maybe, in your spare time, you could read this literature... :p

And just to reiterate, I am not a Christian (or anything else). I just don't understand why Christians are somehow not supposed to be Christians, but instead relativists who think all paths to God are equally 'valid'.

[Miller]

And just to reiterate, I am not a Christian (or anything else). I just don't understand why Christians are somehow not supposed to be Christians, but instead relativists who think all paths to God are equally 'valid'.

Because it would be much more convenient for me, personally. If Christianity as a whole were more ecumenical, many behaviors I find personally obnoxious would be curtailed. I'm not outraged that Christians don't behave the way I want them to, so long as they aren't trying to force me to adopt their beliefs, and I agree that this particular controversy is very much a tempest in a teapot. But I do think that things would be better off in general if folks (and not just Christians) dropped the whole, "One true path to God," schtick.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Because it would be much more convenient for me, personally. If Christianity as a whole were more ecumenical, many behaviors I find personally obnoxious would be curtailed. I'm not outraged that Christians don't behave the way I want them to, so long as they aren't trying to force me to adopt their beliefs, and I agree that this particular controversy is very much a tempest in a teapot. But I do think that things would be better off in general if folks (and not just Christians) dropped the whole, "One true path to God," schtick.
Well, there you go, trying to change God's truth to fit your personal preferences. I tell you, in the good old days (ca. 1500 AD) the Christians would have known how to deal with your ilk! None of this "One God, many paths" crap back then, nosirree.

[carnivorousplant]

I tell you, in the good old days (ca. 1500 AD) the Christians would have known how to deal with your ilk!
That's not funny.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

That's not funny.
Don't worry; I haven't quit my day job yet.

The comment was made tongue in cheek, but my point remains the same throughout this thread: nobody has given me a compelling reason why religious people ought not for intellectual reasons be religious exclusivists. Frankly, the 'one God, many paths' view seems more like a contemporary feel-good position rather than one based in good theology. I'm willing to be corrected by the more theologically-knowledgeable posters on this board (God knows there are plenty of those), but as I noted above, Paul for one seems pretty explicit that if you don't have faith in Jesus then you are screwed.

[monavis]

In my view all religions are good for the ones that use it for good, All religions were founded by humans, any and all writings were done by humans. and all declarations were only human declarations. To me it is like a medicine, some people are helped by a certain medicine and it could harm or kill another. It is up to the need of a person as to what they believe or not. If Christians worry about if Jews are converted or not most Jews have known this for 2000 years. I do not see why the Pope says anything they have to take it to heart. Their 2000+ years of praying still hasn't produced much change.

Monavis

[C K Dexter Haven]

If Christianity says Christ is the Messiah, and none are saved but through Him; and Judaism says the Messiah hasn't come yet, but is on His way; then one of them is wrong. Why are we not allowed to say that?Not necessarily; only by human logic, but not necessarily by Divine logic. Three quick ways to reconcile: (1) Jesus will be the Messiah when he comes again; (2) "none are saved" means "none among the Christians." I'm always surprised that so many monotheists, who believe in a single God, think that there is only one path to that God. Why would God be so exclusive? Judaism, to the contrary, believes that each people (nationality, group, religion, ethnicity, whatever) have their own path to God (read: righteous, charitable, behavior, if you don't like me interjecting God.) Hence, as noted above, the notion of the Jews being "chosen" means they were chosen for a particularly difficult path that includes many (many!) obligations, and are held to a higher standard of moral behavior.

BTW, I'm amazed how that one sentence ("none shall be saved...") has been interpreted in only one way. It doesn't say: "... but by faith and belief that Jesus is God." It could, for instance, simply mean that Jesus is like a gate-keeper, who gives a nod of approval before letting anyone in.

Although, I, of course, think that Paul was just wrong on this, as on so many things.

And just to reiterate, I am not a Christian (or anything else). I just don't understand why Christians are somehow not supposed to be Christians, but instead relativists who think all paths to God are equally 'valid'.They can believe what they want, but the problem is 1800 years of history when they foist their beliefs on others through torture, inquisition, murder, etc. After all, since those other guys are damned anyway, it's perfectly OK to let the mobs beat them up, rob them, evict them, and rape their women. This is not merely historic: such activities still go on -- perhaps less violent in the U.S. nowadays, but still there. And, of course, this is the justification that the Moslem terrorists use to slay the infidels.
However, my main point was that Jews have no right to complain about the religious doctrines pronounced by the Pope, except to the extent that those doctrines actually affect Jews. See my prior comment. The doctrines that Jews are damned unless they convert has led to persecution, segregation, and tromping on human and civil rights. They therefore DO "actually affect Jews." Again, the U.S. is perhaps more tolerant, but the Pope's declarations go out to countries where non-Catholics are still victims of abuse.

I also want to note that Christianity is all about personal salvation after death; those who believe the right way go to heaven, the rest burn in eternal torment. Someone above quoted Paul as saying that this salvation comes through faith and faith alone, not through deeds.

Judaism is NOt about that. To the contrary, Judaism is about deeds: what you do here and now on earth. Belief/faith is not as important: a person who does good deeds but is an atheist is still doing the good deeds, and that's much preferred to a person who is a strong believer but (say) steals from the poor. Judaism does believe in an after-life, but the purpose of existence is to do charitable deeds on earth, for their own sake, and not for some reward. We have no "promise" of an afterlife like the Christians think they do; we have only our trust in God. And we have no consensus on what the after-life might be like -- it's generally thought to be just like earth today, but with no war, hunger, illness, or strife... and it might come about when humankind makes it so.

[carnivorousplant]

Judaism does believe in an after-life,
Rabbi Telushkin (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/afterlife.html) came up first in my search.

[Jackmannii]

Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but we're not allowed to stop.That's OK, you're forgiven.

Just get the hell off my porch.

[Anne Neville]

Think of it this way: Say you have a man who used to beat his wife. Before he would beat her, he would say certain things. He recently changed his ways, and stopped beating her. But she still gets nervous when she hears him say stuff like what he used to say before he beat her, even if the things he would say are not abusive in and of themselves.

The Catholics are using some of the same language and talking about some of the same ideas that they used to do before they would come after the Jews. This makes us Jews nervous. The Catholics have a right to do it, of course, but we wish they wouldn't.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

BTW, I'm amazed how that one sentence ("none shall be saved...") has been interpreted in only one way. It doesn't say: "... but by faith and belief that Jesus is God." It could, for instance, simply mean that Jesus is like a gate-keeper, who gives a nod of approval before letting anyone in.

Although, I, of course, think that Paul was just wrong on this, as on so many things.
I'm not buying it. If you are saved by faith (not works), then the obvious question is, "Faith in what?" And for Paul, the only answer to that question could be, "Jesus." I mean, if you press Paul, he isn't going to answer, "Faith in the innate nobility of the human spirit," or "Faith in some God or other, as long is it is recognizably a God." So if you believe you have the path to salvation, and you don't share it with others, you're kind of being a dick. Sort of like having a cure to cancer, but only sharing it with your friends and relatives, and not the world at large. At least, that is how I would think if I were a Christian.

They can believe what they want, but the problem is 1800 years of history when they foist their beliefs on others through torture, inquisition, murder, etc. After all, since those other guys are damned anyway, it's perfectly OK to let the mobs beat them up, rob them, evict them, and rape their women. This is not merely historic: such activities still go on -- perhaps less violent in the U.S. nowadays, but still there. And, of course, this is the justification that the Moslem terrorists use to slay the infidels.
Yep. Religious exclusivists don't have the best track record, morally. But that doesn't show that the doctrine is false.

[carnivorousplant]

Yep. Religious exclusivists don't have the best track record, morally. But that doesn't show that the doctrine is false.
Makes it seem kind of silly, though. :)

[tomndebb]

The Catholics are using some of the same language and talking about some of the same ideas that they used to do before they would come after the Jews. This makes us Jews nervous. The Catholics have a right to do it, of course, but we wish they wouldn't.Your point is correct, as far as it goes.

However, I think we ought to clarify the context. On one day of the year (Good Friday), one of the prayers recited at the liturgy is a litany of people for whom the church asks for help from God (from a Catholic perspective, of course). This includes numerous separate groups. In the older Latin Tridentine rite, the passage that prayed for the Jews asked that their blindness be removed. So, the pope has removed the allusion to blindness in the single two-line passage of a prayer referring to Jews that is spoken--only in Latin--one time a year, for a very tiny number of Traditionalist Catholics.

If someone is interested in being upset, they might concentrate on the RCC's recent revival of interest in evangelization and examine whether the church is acting in an offensive manner toward Jews under that program. (Unlike the Baptists, the Catholics do not yet have anything resembling "Jews for Jesus" at this time.)

[carnivorousplant]

One presumes Torquemada believed himself to be helping us, too. :)

[Malthus]

Don't worry; I haven't quit my day job yet.

The comment was made tongue in cheek, but my point remains the same throughout this thread: nobody has given me a compelling reason why religious people ought not for intellectual reasons be religious exclusivists. Frankly, the 'one God, many paths' view seems more like a contemporary feel-good position rather than one based in good theology. I'm willing to be corrected by the more theologically-knowledgeable posters on this board (God knows there are plenty of those), but as I noted above, Paul for one seems pretty explicit that if you don't have faith in Jesus then you are screwed.

*Shrug* is Judaism a "contemporary feel-good" liberal creation? Its roots are a lot *older* that Christianity, and yet it does not, apparently, see any need to adopt a "believe in our religion or go to hell" attitude. There are in fact plenty of religions who have much the same attitude - Christianity and Islam are I think the outliers in this respect.

[Malthus]

See my prior comment. The doctrines that Jews are damned unless they convert has led to persecution, segregation, and tromping on human and civil rights. They therefore DO "actually affect Jews." Again, the U.S. is perhaps more tolerant, but the Pope's declarations go out to countries where non-Catholics are still victims of abuse.

I also want to note that Christianity is all about personal salvation after death; those who believe the right way go to heaven, the rest burn in eternal torment. Someone above quoted Paul as saying that this salvation comes through faith and faith alone, not through deeds.

Judaism is NOt about that. To the contrary, Judaism is about deeds: what you do here and now on earth. Belief/faith is not as important: a person who does good deeds but is an atheist is still doing the good deeds, and that's much preferred to a person who is a strong believer but (say) steals from the poor. Judaism does believe in an after-life, but the purpose of existence is to do charitable deeds on earth, for their own sake, and not for some reward. We have no "promise" of an afterlife like the Christians think they do; we have only our trust in God. And we have no consensus on what the after-life might be like -- it's generally thought to be just like earth today, but with no war, hunger, illness, or strife... and it might come about when humankind makes it so.

I'm with you but only to an extent. Way I see it, there is little threat of a new Inquisition against Jews, and the Pope meddling in the wording of this religious formula really isn't much of a big deal, because it is unlikely to actually have any real-world impact on Jews. If I thought it would, I'd be more concerned about it.

Agree that Judaism is about deeds and not belief of course. Some Jews believe in an afterlife and some don't, or don't care - it just isn't a big deal either way. My wife was raised a Catholic, and this was the most difficult aspect of Judaism for her to accept - that theology, belief, and an afterlife wasn't really a major part of it.

I know I risk offending everyone by saying this, but in some ways Judaism seems to me to be the most logical religion based on the most absurd premise - the end result of thousands of years of some relatively sophisticated, intelligent and civilized people taking seriously the notion that a primitive and barbarous tribal diety hurling thunderbolts for violations of taboos (and ordering massacres of tribal enemies) actually exists. Christianity is somewhat the opposite - the original inoffensive premise of a philosophy of love and personal salvation worked on by a couple of thousand years of relative barbarians, resulting is some very bizzare abberations indeed.

Not to say that there haven't been very sophisticated and intelligent Christians, or barbarous Jews, of course. I think the difference is one of power. Throughout the last couple of millenia, Jews were generally not in any positions of power, and so no mechanisms developed for the powerful (and barbarous) to impose their views by violence on the others - so persuation had more effect (in a social-evolutionary sense) than compulsion. A Jew wishing to establish an Inquisition to root out thought crime with burning had no way of practically doing it. In the case of Christianity, until the Enlightenment, the opposite was the case. These different histories have marked the character of the two religions, even into these times when, in the West at least, compulsion in matters of religion has more or less altogether ceased as a force.

[Shodan]

*Shrug* is Judaism a "contemporary feel-good" liberal creation? Its roots are a lot *older* that Christianity, and yet it does not, apparently, see any need to adopt a "believe in our religion or go to hell" attitude. There are in fact plenty of religions who have much the same attitude - Christianity and Islam are I think the outliers in this respect.
This may have to do with Judaism beginning as a tribal religion, not a proselytizing one like Christianity and Islam. Plus, I don't think Judaism even had a concept of hell as a place of punishment until much later in its development. Even during Jesus' time on earth, there were the Sadducees, who did not believe in a life after death.

ISTM that to have the "believe or burn" concept, a religion has to have the idea of rewards and punishments in the afterlife, as well as being a proselytizing religion that seeks converts. Animist and tribal religions lack one or both, and that covers a lot of religions.

Regards,
Shodan

[Frylock]

I'm not buying it. If you are saved by faith (not works), then the obvious question is, "Faith in what?" And for Paul, the only answer to that question could be, "Jesus." I mean, if you press Paul, he isn't going to answer, "Faith in the innate nobility of the human spirit," or "Faith in some God or other, as long is it is recognizably a God." So if you believe you have the path to salvation, and you don't share it with others, you're kind of being a dick. Sort of like having a cure to cancer, but only sharing it with your friends and relatives, and not the world at large. At least, that is how I would think if I were a Christian.


Paul also said elsewhere that the gospel has been preached to the entire creation. (By "the heavens and the earth" whatever that means. This is in Colossians somewheres.) This indicates that people who haven't physically heard the spoken words "Jesus Christ" have nevertheless had the gospel "preached" to them in some fashion. Meaning, apparently, that it is available to them to live in faith in response to this gospel--even if they don't know the physical word for what it is they have faith in.

So it may be that people can only be saved through faith, indeed, faith in Jesus Christ, yet this does not mean they require explicit, physical interaction with Christians and spoken introduction to Christian concepts. The gospel (and so, presumably, faith in it) exist outside their expression in the Church.

-FrL-

[Malthus]

This may have to do with Judaism beginning as a tribal religion, not a proselytizing one like Christianity and Islam. Plus, I don't think Judaism even had a concept of hell as a place of punishment until much later in its development. Even during Jesus' time on earth, there were the Sadducees, who did not believe in a life after death.

ISTM that to have the "believe or burn" concept, a religion has to have the idea of rewards and punishments in the afterlife, as well as being a proselytizing religion that seeks converts. Animist and tribal religions lack one or both, and that covers a lot of religions.

Regards,
Shodan

I agree with that, and would expand on it to note that religions which develop out of a more primitive belief such as animism or polytheism find it relatively easy to take a philosophical tone that in effect allows them to accept that other religions are either basically the same or have a grasp on some sort of truth simply expressed differently.

The Greeks, for example, saw no difficulties with believing that (say) the Egyptian religion was in a sense "true" or similar to Greek religion, allowing for considerable syncretism (as evidenced in Herodotus).

Thus, far from being merely a touchy-feely outgrowth of modern liberalism, this notion is in fact well-established -- except in Christianity and Islam.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Makes it seem kind of silly, though. :)
Well, there is that. I mean, obviously I take the whole thing to be kind of silly, since I'm an atheist. But I remember when I was a kid, and I believed in God, and I would hear my dad say "Godammit" sometimes, and I was scared he would go to hell for that. It's a natural impulse to worry about the spiritual welfare of those you care about. (Not that care and concern have been the primary motivating forces behind most attempts at conversion in the Church's history.) And religious pluralism loses some of its plausibility when religions are making factually incompatible claims (e.g., Islam says Jesus isn't the son of God; Christianity says he is.) But I agree that it would be silly for God to send a bunch of people to hell for believing the wrong thing. Actually, scratch 'silly' and replace with 'fucking evil.' But these are just some of the aspects of religion that seem a bit incoherent to me, and lacking any straightforward resolution. Maybe that's why I'm an atheist. :)

[Sophistry and Illusion]

*Shrug* is Judaism a "contemporary feel-good" liberal creation?
No, but it's also not a "one God, many paths" religion. Not to offend, but the OT would suggest it's more of a "one God, one path, we're on it, and neither we nor God really gives a rat's ass about the rest of you" sort of religion. Contemporary Judaism isn't like that, of course, but IMO that's because contemporary enlightened theists just ignore the parts of their scripture that sound too much like Iron Age barbarism.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Paul also said elsewhere that the gospel has been preached to the entire creation. (By "the heavens and the earth" whatever that means. This is in Colossians somewheres.) This indicates that people who haven't physically heard the spoken words "Jesus Christ" have nevertheless had the gospel "preached" to them in some fashion. Meaning, apparently, that it is available to them to live in faith in response to this gospel--even if they don't know the physical word for what it is they have faith in.

So it may be that people can only be saved through faith, indeed, faith in Jesus Christ, yet this does not mean they require explicit, physical interaction with Christians and spoken introduction to Christian concepts. The gospel (and so, presumably, faith in it) exist outside their expression in the Church.

-FrL-
True; I forgot about the part where Paul said "the gentiles have the law written on their hearts" or something. But the stuff you are talking about refers to people who haven't heard of Christianity, not those who have heard of it and rejected it, right? For the Catholic Church, contemporary Jews would of course, by and large, fall into the latter category.

[Malthus]

No, but it's also not a "one God, many paths" religion. Not to offend, but the OT would suggest it's more of a "one God, one path, we're on it, and neither we nor God really gives a rat's ass about the rest of you" sort of religion. Contemporary Judaism isn't like that, of course, but IMO that's because contemporary enlightened theists just ignore the parts of their scripture that sound too much like Iron Age barbarism.

"Contemporary" Judiasm is just about as old as Christianity, though. Jews haven't literally followed the OT since at least the distruction of the Temple (aprox. 70 AD). Judaism is more about the Talmud than it is about the OT.

It is IMHO a serious mistake to read the OT and think that one understands Judaism, somewhat equivalent to reading what Julius Ceaser had to say about the Britons and thinking that one understands the English.

[OttoDaFe]

That's not funny.I think it's funny . . . but then I would, given my name.
Stake — check.
Fagots (not faggots) — check
Lighter fluid — check
Matches — check


<. . .>

Judaism, to the contrary, believes that each people (nationality, group, religion, ethnicity, whatever) have their own path to God (read: righteous, charitable, behavior, if you don't like me interjecting God.) Hence, as noted above, the notion of the Jews being "chosen" means they were chosen for a particularly difficult path that includes many (many!) obligations, and are held to a higher standard of moral behavior.This came up for a fair amount of discussion at the "Taste of Judaism" class I'm attending at the local Reform temple. The notion that the Covenant imposes additional obligations on Jews (rather than excluding Gentiles from the favor of the Most High) was a small-r revelation to some of the more orthodox Christians present; and while I was reasonably familiar with that concept, the idea that each nation has its own calling came as something of a surprise to me as well.

[Miller]

Don't worry; I haven't quit my day job yet.

The comment was made tongue in cheek, but my point remains the same throughout this thread: nobody has given me a compelling reason why religious people ought not for intellectual reasons be religious exclusivists. Frankly, the 'one God, many paths' view seems more like a contemporary feel-good position rather than one based in good theology. I'm willing to be corrected by the more theologically-knowledgeable posters on this board (God knows there are plenty of those), but as I noted above, Paul for one seems pretty explicit that if you don't have faith in Jesus then you are screwed.

Because plurality is better than exlusivity. There really doesn't need to be a better reason than that. Sure, Paul said X, Y, and Z. So what? Paul was just a guy saying stuff. If some other guy comes along and says something different, that works better than what Paul was saying, why not go with that? It would hardly be the first time a major religion has changed to better align itself with contemporary secular mores.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Because plurality is better than exlusivity. There really doesn't need to be a better reason than that. Sure, Paul said X, Y, and Z. So what? Paul was just a guy saying stuff. If some other guy comes along and says something different, that works better than what Paul was saying, why not go with that? It would hardly be the first time a major religion has changed to better align itself with contemporary secular mores.
But see, this comment privileges contemporary secular mores over scripture, and says that in conflicts between the two, the former should prevail. It's easy to understand why a religious person would reject this, and therefore reject pluralism as an artefact of contemporary thought rather than of revelation. And so it's not hard to understand why a religious person would hope that others who (presumably) held false religions would see the light.

[Frylock]

True; I forgot about the part where Paul said "the gentiles have the law written on their hearts" or something. But the stuff you are talking about refers to people who haven't heard of Christianity, not those who have heard of it and rejected it, right? For the Catholic Church, contemporary Jews would of course, by and large, fall into the latter category.

I think a lot of people who have heard people talk, or had people talk to them, about Christian doctrines have not necessarily thereby had the gospel preached to them.

Someone could easily hear about and reject Christianity--the social and doctrinal institution--without thereby having rejected "the gospel" (i.e. as "preached" by "the heavens and the earth" as well as, sometimes, by people relating the story of Jesus and the life they live in the Church etc etc.)

-FrL-

[Huerta88]

Paul also said elsewhere that the gospel has been preached to the entire creation. (By "the heavens and the earth" whatever that means. This is in Colossians somewheres.) This indicates that people who haven't physically heard the spoken words "Jesus Christ" have nevertheless had the gospel "preached" to them in some fashion. Meaning, apparently, that it is available to them to live in faith in response to this gospel--even if they don't know the physical word for what it is they have faith in.

So it may be that people can only be saved through faith, indeed, faith in Jesus Christ, yet this does not mean they require explicit, physical interaction with Christians and spoken introduction to Christian concepts. The gospel (and so, presumably, faith in it) exist outside their expression in the Church.
Similar discussions have come up in the context of the concept of "no salvation outside of the Church." tomndebb has participated in some or all of those, here's one I recall chiming in on:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=136846&highlight=outside+the+church

Liberals would argue that this doctrine can be reduced down to "As long as you're a good [whatever you are], it's copacetic."

Traditionalists would say "Christ must have died for something, and while you could read it as meaning the Church will be the vehicle for salvation for believers and non-believing freeriders, that doesn't make much sense to us."

If someone were praying for my conversion, even if I didn't want it, I wouldn't resent it -- I'd view it as a kind of inverse Pascal's wager. "Hey, I get some of the (putative) benefits of Christianity without bothering with all their weird doctrine (for now), maybe I'll have a miraculous deathbed conversion (if I need one). And if I don't need it -- what's the harm?" Someone wants to don an extra phylactery, burn a joss stick, invoke Odin, in the comfort of their own home or pagoda, to cure me of my wicked ways -- well, thanks; I don't think my ways are wicked, wasn't particularly looking for your help, but no harm, no foul, and I appreciate the intention.

[monavis]

It was always my understanding that the Jews were the Chosen People out of whom the Messiah would come. Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus was a Jew and that was as far as the prophecy went. Jesus was now the new Law. The reason for their being chosen had been fullfilled.

There is a passage that says(In the New Testement) ,"He came into His own but His own recieved Him Not."

The Jews had been waiting for a Messiah for 2000 years. Paul seemed to decide that his was it. His story was that he was blinded and spoken to by Jesus.

Monavis

[carnivorousplant]

There is a passage that says(In the New Testement) ,"He came into His own but His own recieved Him Not."

I never argue with someone who quotes scripture to support his thesis.

I used to post to a Jewish board-I believe it was on some Jewish singles site.
One of the MPSIMS type questions was "What would you ask Jesus if you could meet him?"
My favorite response was, "So, did Paul screw things up or what?"
:)

[monavis]

I never argue with someone who quotes scripture to support his thesis.

I used to post to a Jewish board-I believe it was on some Jewish singles site.
One of the MPSIMS type questions was "What would you ask Jesus if you could meet him?"
My favorite response was, "So, did Paul screw things up or what?"
:)

I do not believe the Bible is any more God's word than any other book. I do not believe in any Messiah. A person's beliefs are personal so as long as they use their beliefs for good and no harm; as far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with that. As far as I am concerned Paul was just a human and his word is no better than anyone else who may disagree with him.

Monavis

[C K Dexter Haven]

No, but [Judaism is] also not a "one God, many paths" religion. Not to offend, but the OT would suggest it's more of a "one God, one path, we're on it, and neither we nor God really gives a rat's ass about the rest of you" sort of religion. Contemporary Judaism isn't like that, of course, but IMO that's because contemporary enlightened theists just ignore the parts of their scripture that sound too much like Iron Age barbarism.Sorry, but I disagree profoundly on two counts. First, like Malthus said, don't confuse biblical Judaism with modern Judaism. But second, the Old Testament gives several examples of righteous people who are non-Jews: Abimelech, Jethro, and Rahab come to mind fairly quickly. I'm sure there are others, but it's early in the morning. The statement that "God doesn't care about non-Jews" is NOT a sentiment that the OT authors would agree with. The implication has always been that different peoples have their different paths; the OT laws are obligations for Jews (and we are honored to be given such obligations), but not required for non-Jews.