RFD: talk.religion.messiah and soc.religion.messianic
rbp...@primnenet.com
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.messiah
moderated group soc.religion.messianic
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
two worldwide Usenet newsgroups, talk.religion.messiah, and
soc.religion.messianic (moderated). This is not a Call For Votes;
you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below.
Newsgroup lines:
soc.religion.messianic Jewish-Jesus perspectives. (Moderated)
talk.religion.messiah All things about messiah.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.messiah
For those who cannot receive the alt.messianic newsgroup, or who
will not be able to do so in the future, there is no appropriate
forum for discussion of all concepts of messiah. Posts concerning
this topic (will) end up being posted to other newsgroups, such
as soc.culture.jewish, where they may be considered intrusive and
might be unwelcome. The new group, talk.religion.messiah, will
eliminate this problem, as well as provide a forum for those who
may wish to discuss this topic in a newsgroup but are currently
unable to do so.
RATIONALE: soc.religion.messianic
There is currently no moderated forum available for discussion and
exchange of ideas by persons of Jewish ethnicity who believe that
Yeshua of Nazareth is the messiah of Israel, as well as by others
interested in the topic. Posts concerning this topic must necessarily
be posted to other forums, where they are regarded as intrusive and
unwelcome. The need for a moderated forum for this specific topic is
best explained by taking a casual look at the many off-topic postings
in other, unmoderated forums (especially alt.messianic).
CHARTER: talk.religion.messiah
Talk.religion.messiah is an unmoderated forum for the discussion
of the concept, nature, possible identity, and history of the
messiah (and the messianic idea). Talk.religion.messiah is open to
persons of all religious persuasions, or none, who can follow Usenet
newsgroups netiquette and basic rules of polite human interaction.
Submissions containing ethnic slurs, or submissions intended to
denigrate any given race or religion, are inappropriate. Otherwise,
all opinions are welcome.
END CHARTER.
CHARTER: soc.religion.messianic
Soc.religion.messianic is a moderated forum for discussion and
exhange of ideas by persons of Jewish ethnicity who believe that
Yeshua of Nazareth is the messiah of Israel, as well as by others
interested in the topic. Soc.religion.messianic is open to all
persons interested in discussing the topic, and who can follow
Usenet newsgroups netiquette, basic rules of polite human inter-
action, and any further requirements imposed by the charter. There
is no test or requirement that one must have been born of Jewish
parentage, or hold any particular set of religious veiws, in order
to participate. Any restrictions concerning the contents of a post
are intended to keep to the topic, and are not intended to restrict
anyone's expression of opinion. If the submission is not germane
to this topic, then forums other than soc.religion.messianic are
more appropriate.
Format of submissions shall be as follows:
There is no limit to the length of a submission; documents, and articles
posted elsewhere,may be posted here.
Submissions unrelated to the topic shall be rejected. Commercial
advertisements unrelated to the topic shall be rejected.
Submissions containing ethnic slurs, or intended to denigrate any
given race or religion, shall be rejected.
The role of the moderators is to insure the conditions of the charter
are met by any submissions. New moderators shall have to be approved
by a majority vote of the exisiting panel of moderators. Moderators
shall not be required to belong to any specific national/ethnic/
cultural group. Submissions are evaluated as to whether or not they
(1) are on topic; (2) meet netiquette; and (3) meet any other
standards as defined in the charter. The forwarding of submissions
to soc.religion.messianic by the moderators shall be in a timely
manner.
Should a moderator reject a submission, he/she will return the
submission together with an explanation for the rejection in
a timely manner (usually within 72 hours). Only one moderator
shall be required to rule on a submission.
Submitters should recognize the voluntary nature of a moderator's
service, possible equipment failures, etc., and keep such issues
in mind when considering whether or not a post was made in a
timely way.
Appeals of the rejection of a submission may be made to the entire
panel of moderators. A vote by the majority (in this case, 2 out
of 3) will be enough to reverse the rejection.
If a moderator wants to retire, he/she must make a public state-
ment at least 30 days prior to retirement so that a replacement
may be found. A moderator may also be removed by a 2/3 vote of
the active participants in the group. A participant shall be
deemed 'active' if he/she shall have successfully posted two
or more articles to the group in the 30 days prior to a request
for a vote. The voting period shall last not less than 2 weeks
and not more than 3 weeks.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: soc.religion.messianic
Moderator: Jamie Kraft <j2k...@msn.com>
Moderator: Brian Carling <b...@mnsinc.com>
Moderator: Moshe Rosen <Mit...@aol.com>
END MODERATOR INFO.
PROCEDURE:
This is a Request For Discussion (RFD), not a Call For Votes. The
discussion period will last for a minimum of 21 days (starting
from when the RFD for this proposal is posted to news.announce.
newgroups), after which a Call For Votes will be posted by a
neutral vote taker. Please do not attempt to vote until this
happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroups
creation guidelines outlined in 'How to Create a New Usenet
Newsgroup' and 'How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal'.
Please refer to these documents (available in news.announce.
newgroups) if you have any questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.christnet.bible,
alt.messianic,alt.religion.christian,
alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,
rec.music.christian
Proponent: Randolph Parrish <rbp...@primenet.com>
Eric Jaron Stieglitz
In article <8678325...@isc.org>, <rbp...@primnenet.com> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group talk.religion.messiah
> moderated group soc.religion.messianic
I'm still not sure how I'll vote on this proposal (I voted against one
and abstained from the other the last time this came up), but in any
case I would most certainly like to see talk.religion.messiah robo-moderated
to at least prevent crossposts. If you don't do that, I'm pretty certain
that this group will be the home for numerous crossposted flamewars.
--
Eric Jaron Stieglitz eph...@ctr.columbia.edu
Home: (212) 280-1152 Systems Manager
Work: (212) 854-8782 Civil Engineering, Columbia University
Fax : (212) 854-6267 http://www.ctr.columbia.edu/people/Eric.html
Roger Reini
rbp...@primnenet.com wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group talk.religion.messiah
> moderated group soc.religion.messianic
>
Why "messiah" for t.r.m and "messianic" for s.r.m? Should they not be
identical?
Roger (rre...@wwnet.com)
Christopher B. Stone
In article <5pdr3u$6t0$1...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>,
Eric Jaron Stieglitz <eph...@atlantis.ctr.columbia.edu> wrote:
> I'm still not sure how I'll vote on this proposal (I voted against one
>and abstained from the other the last time this came up), but in any
>case I would most certainly like to see talk.religion.messiah robo-moderated
>to at least prevent crossposts. If you don't do that, I'm pretty certain
>that this group will be the home for numerous crossposted flamewars.
Whatever happened to the argument that moderating talk.origins was a one-time
exception?
--
Chris Stone * cbs...@princeton.edu * http://www.princeton.edu/~cbstone
"Isolationism must become a thing of the past." -Harry Truman
Bob Felts
Roger Reini <rre...@wwnet.com> wrote:
> rbp...@primnenet.com wrote:
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group talk.religion.messiah
> > moderated group soc.religion.messianic
> >
>
> Why "messiah" for t.r.m and "messianic" for s.r.m? Should they not be
> identical?
>
No, because the topics are not identical. t.r.m is for discussion about
messiahs in general (e.g. Bar Kochba, Shabbat Zvi, Jesus, et. al.) while
s.r.m is more limited in scope (basically the current "Yes, He is!"
"No, he isn't" discussions in alt.messianic but with moderation to
improve the signal to noise ratio).
__|_____
| Bob Felts
| wr...@mindspring.com
| http://www.mindspring.com/~wrf3
Bob Felts
<rbp...@primnenet.com> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group talk.religion.messiah
> moderated group soc.religion.messianic
[...]
>
>>
> CHARTER: soc.religion.messianic
>
[...]
>
> Submissions containing ethnic slurs, or intended to denigrate any
> given race or religion, shall be rejected.
>
"Ethnic slurs" and "denigration" are very much subjective terms. Some
Jews, for example, think that basic claims of Christianity denigrate
Judaism. If we go by the letter of the law then we could argue that
discussions about Christianity are out of bounds for this group. And
some Christians, as one example, think that the Jewish characterization
of Jesus as a magician learned in Egyptian occultism is a slur on its
founder, and therefore the religion.
It might be somewhat more conducive to discussion to have submissions
that contain personal insults rejected. This would permit topics like
"Hitler was a Christian..." , "Jesus was a bastard...", "Jews are blind
to their Messiah" to be discussed at least somewhat rationally.
At least, one might hope... ;-)
Joe Slater
Why wasn't this crossposted to soc.culture.jewish? Surely it's of
interest to that newsgroup. You played the same trick last time.
jds
--
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | 'Look up, speak nicely, and don't
Fax: +61-3-95259206 | twiddle your fingers all the time.'
Email not accepted from rogue sites including: AOL, Moneyworld, Interramp,
Airmail, Earthstar and Winternet.
Chuck Pearson
rbp...@primnenet.com wrote:
: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
: unmoderated group talk.religion.messiah
: moderated group soc.religion.messianic
[...]
: RATIONALE: talk.religion.messiah
: For those who cannot receive the alt.messianic newsgroup, or who
: will not be able to do so in the future, there is no appropriate
: forum for discussion of all concepts of messiah. Posts concerning
: this topic (will) end up being posted to other newsgroups, such
: as soc.culture.jewish, where they may be considered intrusive and
: might be unwelcome. The new group, talk.religion.messiah, will
: eliminate this problem, as well as provide a forum for those who
: may wish to discuss this topic in a newsgroup but are currently
: unable to do so.
*jawdrop*
now, immediately i realize that the proposal for these groups is stemming
out of the judaism end of things, and as such is probably not stomping on
the turf of a soc.{religion OR subculture}.christian.evangelical; but one
of the aspects of the discussion ahead of that [still coming] RFD was the need
for an unmoderated forum for the discussion of christianity on a much
broader scale than christian music or christian homeschooling. might this
unmoderated group help serve that purpose? and, if the proponent is open,
how much probability is there for a name-change of the unmoderated group
to reflect a wider theological bent?
christianity, after all, reflects the belief that that Jesus [or Yeshua,
whichever you prefer] was the promised messiah of the "old testament"
prophets [isaiah, jeremiah, daniel, et. al]. if i was to go ahead with a
proposal for an unmoderated talk.religion.christian at some point in the
future, there would be serious potential for overlap...
: DISTRIBUTION:
: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.christnet.bible,
: alt.messianic,alt.religion.christian,
: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,
: rec.music.christian
and why hasn't this RFD been posted to more of the big 8 christianity
newsgroups - the whole soc.religion.christian.* heiarchy, for instance?
chuck
--
fear is a fool who just won't shut up. (thanx to dime store prophets.)
cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
Bob Felts
Joe Slater <j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> Why wasn't this crossposted to soc.culture.jewish? Surely it's of
> interest to that newsgroup. You played the same trick last time.
>
It should have also been posted to:
soc.religion.christian
soc.religion.christian.bible-study
alt.christnet.* (well, maybe not alt.christnet.sex ;-)
alt.religion.christianity
christnet.religion
etc...
Don't be so paranoid, Joe.
Randolph Parrish
jkra...@swarthmore.edu (Joshua Kramer) wrote:
>>Soc.religion.messianic is a moderated forum for discussion and
>>exhange of ideas by persons of Jewish ethnicity who believe that
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This was a compromise to get around opposition to calling
participants in the group "Jews" or "Christians", either of which drew
opposition from one side or the other last time around.
>The title for "soc.religion.messianic" should be changed to read either
>"soc.religion.christian.jews-for-jesus" or "soc.religion.jews-for-jesus."
Except that this group is not about "Jews for Jesus" itself,
which is a specific organization, but about all aspects of messianic
Judaism. And believe me, we have tried all the possible name
combinations: 'Hebrew-Christian' is too many letters. "Hebrew-Xian'
offends some people who don't like the word 'Christian' abbreviated by
'Xian'. "Hebr-Christian' could be taken to mean something like
'Hebrides-Christian'. 'Soc.culture.religion.jewish.XXXX' wasn't
anybody's favorite. 'Soc.culture.relgion.christian.XXXX' offended the
people who wanted the group. And so on. 'Soc.religion.messianic' was
the best compromise we could come up with.
Randolph Parrish
cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Chuck Pearson) wrote:
.
>and why hasn't this RFD been posted to more of the big 8 christianity
>newsgroups - the whole soc.religion.christian.* heiarchy, for instance?
There's a limit to the number of groups you can list in the RFD.
Joe Slater
cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Chuck Pearson) writes:
>: RATIONALE: talk.religion.messiah
>*jawdrop*
>now, immediately i realize that the proposal for these groups is stemming
>out of the judaism end of things
Is it? The proponent isn't Jewish, and the CFV hasn't been posted to
soc.culture.jewish. You're complaining that the proponent has missed the
Christian groups; I'm complaining that he missed the Jewish ones.
>: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.christnet.bible,
>: alt.messianic,alt.religion.christian,
>: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,
>: rec.music.christian
>and why hasn't this RFD been posted to more of the big 8 christianity
>newsgroups - the whole soc.religion.christian.* heiarchy, for instance?
This is a rehash of a similar proposal made by the same person last year,
and posted (as far as I can tell) to the same newsgroups. I suspect that
it's because he doesn't want input from the mainstream potential users of
his newsgroup.
Jay Denebeim
In article <5per3u$2...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
Chuck Pearson <cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>now, immediately i realize that the proposal for these groups is stemming
>out of the judaism end of things, and as such is probably not stomping on
>the turf of a soc.{religion OR subculture}.christian.evangelical; but one
>of the aspects of the discussion ahead of that [still coming] RFD was the need
>for an unmoderated forum for the discussion of christianity on a much
>broader scale than christian music or christian homeschooling. might this
>unmoderated group help serve that purpose?
Um, Chuck, you don't want to ride this particular train. They
neglected to build a bridge over that chasm just like the last time
around.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim, Moderator, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
Joshua Kramer
In article <33bafac3...@news.mnsinc.com>, b...@mnsinc.com wrote:
>If I try to post to news.groups
>it says that that group does not exist, Randall.
This is a proposed moderator, folks.
Do we insist on basic knowledge from the moderators?
--
Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College.
Vote *NO* on the soc.religion.messianic RFD currently in news.groups
Read the newsgroup news.groups untill this proposal is squashed.
Joshua Kramer
I have crossposted this message to soc.culture.jewish, and hopefully
later on to .parenting on purpose. I have left the RFD in the message
for the same purpose. I believe the origional message should have been
posted thus. I will highlight the reasons why.
In article <8678325...@isc.org>, rbp...@primnenet.com wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group talk.religion.messiah
> moderated group soc.religion.messianic
>
>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
>two worldwide Usenet newsgroups, talk.religion.messiah, and
>soc.religion.messianic (moderated). This is not a Call For Votes;
>you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below.
>
>Newsgroup lines:
>soc.religion.messianic Jewish-Jesus perspectives. (Moderated)
>talk.religion.messiah All things about messiah.
>
>RATIONALE: talk.religion.messiah
>
>For those who cannot receive the alt.messianic newsgroup, or who
>will not be able to do so in the future, there is no appropriate
>forum for discussion of all concepts of messiah. Posts concerning
>this topic (will) end up being posted to other newsgroups, such
>as soc.culture.jewish, where they may be considered intrusive and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>might be unwelcome. The new group, talk.religion.messiah, will
>eliminate this problem, as well as provide a forum for those who
>may wish to discuss this topic in a newsgroup but are currently
>unable to do so.
>
>RATIONALE: soc.religion.messianic
>
>There is currently no moderated forum available for discussion and
>exchange of ideas by persons of Jewish ethnicity who believe that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Yeshua of Nazareth is the messiah of Israel, as well as by others
>interested in the topic. Posts concerning this topic must necessarily
>be posted to other forums, where they are regarded as intrusive and
>unwelcome. The need for a moderated forum for this specific topic is
>best explained by taking a casual look at the many off-topic postings
>in other, unmoderated forums (especially alt.messianic).
>
>CHARTER: talk.religion.messiah
>
>Talk.religion.messiah is an unmoderated forum for the discussion
>of the concept, nature, possible identity, and history of the
>messiah (and the messianic idea). Talk.religion.messiah is open to
>persons of all religious persuasions, or none, who can follow Usenet
>newsgroups netiquette and basic rules of polite human interaction.
>Submissions containing ethnic slurs, or submissions intended to
>denigrate any given race or religion, are inappropriate. Otherwise,
>all opinions are welcome.
>
>END CHARTER.
>
>CHARTER: soc.religion.messianic
>
>Soc.religion.messianic is a moderated forum for discussion and
>exhange of ideas by persons of Jewish ethnicity who believe that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
8 postings to alt.messianic. Most exciting of all is the one with
15 lines of new text and about 600 from one of the standard
quoted diatribes.
>Moderator: Brian Carling <b...@mnsinc.com>
You might want to read some of bry's deja news postings. The
page where you can catch the *really* abusive ones is
Try searching for standard kook-kabal phrases, like "you are a liar"
and "you are stupid"
It's enlightening.
>Moderator: Moshe Rosen <Mit...@aol.com>
Listed as "Founder" on the Jews for Jesus Home page at
http://www.jews-for-jesus.org/JWAFJ/JewsForMain.html
>END MODERATOR INFO.
>
>PROCEDURE:
>
>This is a Request For Discussion (RFD), not a Call For Votes. The
>discussion period will last for a minimum of 21 days (starting
>from when the RFD for this proposal is posted to news.announce.
>newgroups), after which a Call For Votes will be posted by a
>neutral vote taker. Please do not attempt to vote until this
>happens.
>
>All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
>
>This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroups
>creation guidelines outlined in 'How to Create a New Usenet
>Newsgroup' and 'How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal'.
>Please refer to these documents (available in news.announce.
>newgroups) if you have any questions about the process.
>
>DISTRIBUTION:
>
>This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.christnet.bible,
> alt.messianic,alt.religion.christian,
> alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,
> rec.music.christian
>
>Proponent: Randolph Parrish <rbp...@primenet.com>
And now the only group it should have gone to - soc.culture.jewish.
Followups to news.groups set.
My comments - This group, while not as bad as soc.culture.indian.j-k,
sets a horrid political name precident. The group being thus represented
in a truthful light by this RFD is Jews for Jesus, who are placed
outside of the "christian" hierarchy - a blatent endorsement of
their position. For more information on this sub-religion, consult
http://shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/17-index.html
I cannot, in good conscience, vote anything but no to a group with
this as a topic, especially a moderated group, unless the name is descriptive.
The title for "soc.religion.messianic" should be changed to read either
"soc.religion.christian.jews-for-jesus" or "soc.religion.jews-for-jesus."
At the very least, this group needs "christian" somewhere in its name,
as befits any group about a christian sect, even if it is designed
as a recruitment device.
I'd like to state that right now, unless future RFD's and CFV's are
posted by the proponents to soc.culture.jewish and .parenting,
I will not hesitate to do so myself. I highly recomend that all
participants in soc.culture.jewish oppose this proposal with its
present name, and hope that all news.groups participants do so also.
Finally, the proposed slate of moderators are either:
1. Usenet neophites
2. Vicious flamers
or
3. Cult Founders
*Just Great*
LD...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
I would support the formation of either one or both of these
newsgroups. Efforts were made about a year or so ago to form
similar groups, efforts which failed. I see no reason why
there should not be more controlled forums than the alt.messianic
group.
-- Lon Mendelsohn
Eric Jaron Stieglitz
In article <5pe6kd$eng$1...@cnn.princeton.edu>,
Christopher B. Stone <cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <5pdr3u$6t0$1...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>,
>Eric Jaron Stieglitz <eph...@atlantis.ctr.columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>>case I would most certainly like to see talk.religion.messiah robo-moderated
>>to at least prevent crossposts. If you don't do that, I'm pretty certain
>
>exception?
Uh, Chris, when did I ever make that assertion?
Chuck Pearson
Jay Denebeim (dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us) wrote:
: Um, Chuck, you don't want to ride this particular train. They
: neglected to build a bridge over that chasm just like the last time
: around.
so i see. i think it's a great idea regardless, but it's apparent that
the proponent is thought of as a good ol' fashioned kook.
*sigh*
still, i gotta hold out hope that other trains can help me do my dirty work...
Chuck Pearson
Joe Slater (j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote in response to me:
: >*jawdrop*
: >now, immediately i realize that the proposal for these groups is stemming
: >out of the judaism end of things
: Is it? The proponent isn't Jewish, and the CFV hasn't been posted to
: soc.culture.jewish. You're complaining that the proponent has missed the
: Christian groups; I'm complaining that he missed the Jewish ones.
well, yeah, but it doesn't look like the proponent is southern baptist
either.
my whole point is, i've been sitting here stressing [when i have time to
stress] about the fact that there's very little in the way of unmoderated
newsgroups for the discussion of christianity at large, and here's a
possible solution, regardless of what viewpoint the proponent is coming
from in the first place. i'm speaking from a purely selfish motive; if
such a talk.religion.* group goes through, i would be less inclined to
submit my RFD for soc.{religion OR subculture}.christian.evangelical as an
unmoderated newsgroup, and i would be a lot less worried about the thing
passing.
: >: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
: >: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.christnet.bible,
: >: alt.messianic,alt.religion.christian,
: >: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,
: >: rec.music.christian
: >and why hasn't this RFD been posted to more of the big 8 christianity
: >newsgroups - the whole soc.religion.christian.* heiarchy, for instance?
: This is a rehash of a similar proposal made by the same person last year,
: and posted (as far as I can tell) to the same newsgroups. I suspect that
: it's because he doesn't want input from the mainstream potential users of
: his newsgroup.
then, for God's sake, let's get input. i dunno about the proponents'
motives, but this really doesn't sound like a bad idea...
i forwarded my original post to the proponent, so if he wants to get this
done...
Jay Lapidus
On Wed, 02 Jul 1997 08:35:11 GMT, in article <8678325...@isc.org>,
rbp...@primnenet.com wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group talk.religion.messiah
> moderated group soc.religion.messianic
>
>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of
>two worldwide Usenet newsgroups, talk.religion.messiah, and
>soc.religion.messianic (moderated). This is not a Call For Votes;
>you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below.
>
>Newsgroup lines:
>soc.religion.messianic Jewish-Jesus perspectives. (Moderated)
>talk.religion.messiah All things about messiah.
>
>RATIONALE: talk.religion.messiah
>
>For those who cannot receive the alt.messianic newsgroup, or who
[snip]
>RATIONALE: soc.religion.messianic
>
>There is currently no moderated forum available for discussion and
>exchange of ideas by persons of Jewish ethnicity who believe that
>Yeshua of Nazareth is the messiah of Israel, as well as by others
>interested in the topic. Posts concerning this topic must necessarily
>be posted to other forums, where they are regarded as intrusive and
>unwelcome. The need for a moderated forum for this specific topic is
>best explained by taking a casual look at the many off-topic postings
>in other, unmoderated forums (especially alt.messianic).
>
>CHARTER: talk.religion.messiah
[snip]
What the above does not tell you is that "Moshe" Rosen is the head of
"Jews for Jesus." What "Jews for Jesus" won't eagerly tell you is
that they are part of the Southern Baptist Convention and are funded
by them to proselytize Jews.
Unlike legitimate Christians and Jews, J4J uses deceptive tactics in
its missionizing campaigns. They are not candid about their
affiliation and sponsorship, and they distort Jewish ritual.
>END MODERATOR INFO.
[snip]
>DISTRIBUTION:
>
>This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.christnet.bible,
> alt.messianic,alt.religion.christian,
> alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,
> rec.music.christian
As others have noted, it's most interesting that this was not posted
to soc.culture.jewish and to soc.culture.israel.
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> ******************************
| | * "Nonsense is nonsense, but *
__ |__ |__ * the history of nonsense is *
| | | | | | | | \| | | * a very important science." *
|__| | __| \|/ __| |\ | * -- R' Saul Lieberman, z"l *
******************************
Ingo Schwarze
In the RFD posted on 02 Jul 1997 08:35:11 GMT,
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group talk.religion.messiah
> moderated group soc.religion.messianic
the proponents twice use the term "persons of Jewish ethnicity"
for those invited to participate in the proposed newsgroup.
I know some people who understand "Jewish" as designating their
religion. Maybe "Jewish" is also used by some to designate their
nationality; yet i know there is a lot of discussion already about
this issue, since many people stress that the nation is to be
called "Israel".
I never talked to anybody who understood "Jewish" as her or his
"ethnicity". In any case, the concept of "ethnicity" is quite
problematic, especially when inviting people to participate in a
discussion. And regarding German history, i feel somewhat alarmed
when people start talking about "Jewish ethnicity".
Really nothing points to the conclusion that the proponents use this
term in any malignant intention. On the contrary, they explicitly
state:
> Soc.religion.messianic is open to all persons interested in
> discussing the topic, and who can follow Usenet newsgroups
> netiquette, basic rules of polite human interaction, and any further
> requirements imposed by the charter. There is no test or requirement
> that one must have been born of Jewish parentage, or hold any
> particular set of religious veiws, in order to participate.
Yet, it might be worth to rethink what this term is meant to designate
and why it needs to be used in this context.
--
Ingo.S...@cern.ch ===> http://www.unix-ag.uni-siegen.de/fsr7/ <===
(sorry, our site uses german language...)
Jay Denebeim
In article <5pgbau$s...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
Chuck Pearson <cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>Jay Denebeim (dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us) wrote:
>: Um, Chuck, you don't want to ride this particular train. They
>: neglected to build a bridge over that chasm just like the last time
>: around.
>
>so i see. i think it's a great idea regardless, but it's apparent that
>the proponent is thought of as a good ol' fashioned kook.
Not quite. The problem is that he keeps using 'jewish' and 'jesus' in
the same sentence. He then neglects to post the RFD to the jewish
newsgroups, and invariably someone crossposts it. This results in
them being even more irritated than they would be.
Last time around there was a long theological debate here that boiled
down to why jesus couldn't be the jewish messiah. (he's dead, or at
least not around earth anymore. That's the 'litmus test' for the
jewish messiah.)
If it goes to a vote with something evockative of 'jews for jesus' in
the description, pretty much the entire jewish population of usenet
will turn out to vote against it. Note here that I know that his RFD
talks about 'ethnic jews', however that goes away after the vote.
What lasts is the one line description that shows up on all
newsreaders.
I don't think anyone has problems with the subject matter per-se, but
any mention of things jewish attempting to legitimize the view of
jesus as messiah is going to piss off alot of jews, myself included
even though I'm a flaming agnostic. It would invoke much the same
reaction amoung jews as a proposal of soc.religion.christian.satanisim
would amoung christians. The latter is even a much more supportable
point of view, but no one would even dream of proposing it.
This is a powder keg, and it would take an extreme amount of tact to
get it passed. There's a large number of people who would enjoy
debating this topic, however the proponant always words things as if
there is no debate and his (extreme minority) opinion is the correct
one.
Your proposal is also a powder keg, but not nearly as volitile as this
one, and you've got a ton more tact and class. I don't think it would
do your proposal any good to be associated with this one.
Emma Pease
>I cannot, in good conscience, vote anything but no to a group with
>this as a topic, especially a moderated group, unless the name is descriptive.
>The title for "soc.religion.messianic" should be changed to read either
>"soc.religion.christian.jews-for-jesus" or "soc.religion.jews-for-jesus."
>At the very least, this group needs "christian" somewhere in its name,
>as befits any group about a christian sect, even if it is designed
>as a recruitment device.
I have a suspicion that many Jews would dislike 'jews-for-jesus' on
the grounds that any Jew who becomes a Christian is no longer a Jew.
Note that whether to put Christian sects under soc.religion.christian
has been debated in the past. The problem is that those most likely
to form newsgroups at this time aren't considered by many other
Christians as Christians (Mormons for instance consider themselves
Christians, you will note the group ended up being
soc.religion.mormon). I can certainly see some Christian sects as
seeing Jews for Jesus as not being proper Christians and therefore not
deserving to be put under soc.religion.christian.
some possibilities might be
soc.religion.christian.jews
soc.religion.christian.hebrew
Which would include Jews for Jesus as well as other people who might
consider themselves Jewish (or of Jewish background) and Christian and
would not involve passing judgement on whether Jews for Jesus was a
Christian group.
Other problems are:
1. Failure to cross post to relevant groups. Easily and almost
certainly will be fixed. I suggest the proponents do so in order to
avoid anger because they didn't
2. Whether the moderators are competent.
Joshua states they are
>1. Usenet neophites
>2. Vicious flamers
>or
>3. Cult Founders
I don't think 3 is relevant to the discussion here as long as a place
is available for those against the cult (or against the religion) to
post. In other words unless this group is trying to ban criticism of
the group elsewhere on usenet, whether it is a cult or a moderator is
a cult founder should not matter.
Whether the moderators are competent technically (i.e., can handle the
software involved) and trustworthy (i.e., will carry out the charter
in an even handed way) are reasonable questions.
Emma
ps. If the talk group is going to talk about messiahs from many
different religions, I suggest the plural, talk.religion.messiahs.
I agree that very light moderation might be an idea, perhaps we should
ask the talk.origins people how things are going over there?
pps. I note the groups failed last time because of insufficient yes
votes. 69 for the soc group and 76 for the talk group is a woefully
small yes turnout for a vote that caused so much discussion. Judging
from the 'no' votes they need at least 150 more 'yes' votes to pass
the groups. I forsee a similar result this time.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ em...@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Jay Lapidus
On Wed, 2 Jul 1997 21:27:02 -0400, in article
<1997070221...@user-37kbsrf.dialup.mindspring.com>,
wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
>Joe Slater <j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> Why wasn't this crossposted to soc.culture.jewish? Surely it's of
>> interest to that newsgroup. You played the same trick last time.
>>
>
>It should have also been posted to:
>
> soc.religion.christian
> soc.religion.christian.bible-study
> alt.christnet.* (well, maybe not alt.christnet.sex ;-)
> alt.religion.christianity
> christnet.religion
>
> etc...
>
>Don't be so paranoid, Joe.
Bob,
This is not a matter of "paranoia." Your labeling Joe "paranoid"
serves, regardless of your intentions, to belittle real concerns about
the deceptiveness of "Jews for Jesus" and the "moderated" newsgroup
that it trying once again to put onto Usenet.
Randolph Parrish
schw...@alpha1.physik.uni-siegen.de (Ingo Schwarze) wrote:
>the proponents twice use the term "persons of Jewish ethnicity"
>for those invited to participate in the proposed newsgroup.
(snip)
>Yet, it might be worth to rethink what this term is meant to designate
>and why it needs to be used in this context.
Sorry, this wasn't meant to give offense. This was only used
because some people objected to the use of the word "Jews" here (on
the grounds that 'messianic Jews' are not 'Jews'); and others objected
to not being called 'Jews', and so on, and so this was a compromise.
Randolph Parrish
cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Chuck Pearson) wrote:
>my whole point is, i've been sitting here stressing [when i have time to
>stress] about the fact that there's very little in the way of unmoderated
>newsgroups
There are unmoderated Christian groups in the 'alt.' newsgroups,
such as 'alt.Christnet.Bible', etc. I don't know if you can get the
'alt.' groups or not; not all servers will carry them; and this is one
of the reasons for wanting to set up 'talk.religion.messiah', which
will, as one of its objectives, provide a forum like 'alt.messianic'
for those who cannot get 'alt.messianic'
Randolph Parrish
dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
> There's a large number of people who would enjoy
>debating this topic, however the proponant always words things as if
>there is no debate and his (extreme minority) opinion is the correct
>one.
I think you're confusing the prupose of the two groups. The first
group is a fellowship group for those who think that Jesus is the
messiah.It is not a debate group. The second group is the debate
group, where anything goes.
Bob Felts
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 1997 21:27:02 -0400, in article
> <1997070221...@user-37kbsrf.dialup.mindspring.com>,
> wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
>
> >Joe Slater <j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Why wasn't this crossposted to soc.culture.jewish? Surely it's of
> >> interest to that newsgroup. You played the same trick last time.
> >>
> >
> >It should have also been posted to:
> >
> > soc.religion.christian
> > soc.religion.christian.bible-study
> > alt.christnet.* (well, maybe not alt.christnet.sex ;-)
> > alt.religion.christianity
> > christnet.religion
> >
> > etc...
> >
> >Don't be so paranoid, Joe.
>
> Bob,
>
> This is not a matter of "paranoia." Your labeling Joe "paranoid"
> serves, regardless of your intentions, to belittle real concerns about
> the deceptiveness of "Jews for Jesus" and the "moderated" newsgroup
> that it trying once again to put onto Usenet.
>
Isn't "paranoia" worrying about what other people will do to you when
you aren't looking; especially when you have to ascribe motives to
someone that you have no assurance is correct?
Second, the "deceptiveness" of organizations such as "Jews for Jesus" is
solely a product of your world-view -- a world-view which many do not
share. In your world, a Jew cannot be a Christian and still claim to be
a Jew. In their world, they can. So, what you label as "deception" is
simply a clash of incompatible world views. But instead of
acknowledging the real cause of the problem, you have to assign dark
motives to those with whom you disagree. Why is that?
Brian Mailman
Randolph Parrish wrote:
> I think you're confusing the prupose of the two groups. The first
> group is a fellowship group for those who think that Jesus is the
> messiah.It is not a debate group. The second group is the debate
> group, where anything goes.
I think the proposed names of these groups indicates messiahs of all
religions that have one. If these groups are solely to discuss
Jesus-as-Messiah, then they should be named *.*.jews-for-jesus IMO. I
would tend to vote "NO" if they aren't renamed.
Brian Mailman
Bob Felts
Brian Mailman <bmai...@hooked.net> wrote:
> Randolph Parrish wrote:
>
> > I think you're confusing the prupose of the two groups. The first
> > group is a fellowship group for those who think that Jesus is the
> > messiah.It is not a debate group. The second group is the debate
> > group, where anything goes.
>
> I think the proposed names of these groups indicates messiahs of all
> religions that have one.
That's the stated purpose of talk.religion.messiah (although, now that
you mention it, t.r.messiahs might be a better name).
> If these groups are solely to discuss
> Jesus-as-Messiah, then they should be named *.*.jews-for-jesus IMO. I
> would tend to vote "NO" if they aren't renamed.
>
There are many Gentiles who believe that Jesus is the Messiah and who
enjoy discussing this with Jews who do not share that belief. Should
the group be named for a subset of the intended participants?
Bob Felts
Joe Slater <j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish) writes:
> >'Soc.culture.relgion.christian.XXXX' offended the
> >people who wanted the group. And so on. 'Soc.religion.messianic' was
> >the best compromise we could come up with.
>
> Which people wanted the group? There has been zero discussion of this in
> alt.messianic, the group you intend to replace. What's wrong with
> soc.religion.christian.XXXX? Are you a Christian? Are those people of
> Jewish ethnicity Christians? What's there to get offended about?
>
We're asking you the same thing. ;-)
soc.religion.messianic has the nice property that it is about as name
neutral as can be while still giving some hint as to what the group is
about (although, I suppose, we could try for
"soc.religion.yes-he-is.no-he-isn't" ;-).
Even though you disagree with them, there are people of Jewish ethnicity
who are Christians who consider themselves to be Jews in the religious
sense. So, we either offend them by denying them what they see as their
identity or we offend you by denying you what you see as your identity.
If we've managed to get by with alt.messianic (which has become a
cesspool lately), then surely both sides can live with s.r.messianic
with moderation to get rid of the off-topic posts.
Bob Felts
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
[...]
> >
> >Isn't "paranoia" worrying about what other people will do to you when
> >you aren't looking; especially when you have to ascribe motives to
> >someone that you have no assurance is correct?
>
> As one who has certification in pastoral counseling, I can tell you
> that a fundamental rule is "diagnosis without therapeusis is hostile."
> Your labeling Joe "paranoid" demeans him and his views, and it
> contributes nothing constructive to the discussion.
And your labelling certain groups as "deceptive" does?
>
> >Second, the "deceptiveness" of organizations such as "Jews for Jesus" is
> >solely a product of your world-view -- a world-view which many do not
> >share. In your world, a Jew cannot be a Christian and still claim to be
> >a Jew. In their world, they can. So, what you label as "deception" is
> >simply a clash of incompatible world views.
>
> This is not a matter of "incompatible world views." I personally know
> of Jews who have become Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutherans.
> Although I do not personally like that, it is the right of such people
> to become Christian. I have no problem with the contemporary Roman
> Catholic, Episcopalian and the Lutheran synods (among so many other
> denominations), because whatever Jewish adherents they gain are based
> on open and honest methods, my sharp disagreements notwithstanding.
What about the people who adhere to Christianity and consider themselves
religiously Jewish? Furthermore, there exist Gentile Christians who
consider themselves religiously Jewish. You may disagree with them,
and you have every right to do so, but they exist.
And, if this were the place for it, I would -- using open and honest
methods -- show you why they believe what they believe.
>
> This is not so of either Messianic Jews (associated with the
> Pentecostals) or with "Jews for Jesus" (affiliated with the Southern
> Baptists).
Why is it not so? There are a whole lot of Christians, both of Jewish
and Gentile descent, who hold that Christianity is Judaism under the New
Covenant. They, like the Apostle Paul, would argue "for a person is not
a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external
and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real
circumcision is a matter of the heart--it is spiritual and not literal."
[Romans 2:28].
On the one hand, you are asserting your right to define your identity.
On the other hand, they are asserting their right to define their
identity. And the problem is that the same word is being used by both
groups. Simply put, you're fighting over a trademark dispute.
Consider a recent example in the news. Coca-Cola has a new soft-drink
drink called "Surge". Yet there is a company in Tennessee (I think)
that also has a drink named "Surge". Both companies hold that the name
belongs to them. Only time will tell who really has ownership.
But I doubt very seriously that you would accuse either company of
deception, would you?
> This RFD is an example. Nowhere in the RFD is Moshe
> Rosen's affiliation mentioned.
Why is that relevant? The last time a moderated version of
alt.messianic was proposed I was named as a moderator. I'm not a member
of Jews-for-Jesus or any similar group, but I happen to agree with them
on the answer to the question of "who is a Jew".
Now, are you going to label *me* as being deceptive? Are you going to
force me to give up a trademark that I think belongs to me? Or are we
going to keep this at a level of uneasy tension while waiting for the
Supreme Court to settle the issue?
> I don't know the backgrounds of the other two. The RFD was not posted by
> the proponents to soc.culture.jewish.
And it wasn't posted to soc.religion.christian.bible-study. (Where,
BTW, this issue is often discussed). One of the makers of Surge didn't
do their homework, either. So what?
>
> The deceptiveness of J4J should not be viewed in terms of a mere
> difference in "world views," religious interpretation, or theology.
That's exactly what it is. I'll be glad to go a few rounds with you in
a more appropriate forum, if you'd like.
> Rather, it should be viewed in the light of "truth in packaging."
> There needs to be honest disclosure. Mainline Christian denominations
> recognize J4J for what it is - a front group for the missionary
> efforts of the Southern Baptists.
Wrong. I'm a "mainline Christian" who holds that the Church is Israel.
Find a good library, look for books which deal with Christian
Eschatology and discuss the "amillennial" point of view. "Prophecy and
the Church" by Allis is one good example.
> The local interfaith clergy associations to which I have belonged have
> stood with the Jewish community against J4J as well as the MJ.
Then you need to broaden your circle of acquaintences.
>
> >But instead of acknowledging the real cause of the problem, you have to
> >assign dark motives to those with whom you disagree. Why is that?
>
> Ditto my opening comment about hostile diagnosis. Instead of arguing
> ad hominem, I suggest that you read some books on basic Judaism. One
> is a paperback by Milton Steinberg, _Basic Judaism_, for starters.
>
Read the New Testament which describes New Covenant Judaism, for
starters.
Bob Felts
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 1997 20:10:50 -0400, in article
> <1997070320...@user-37kb6gu.dialup.mindspring.com>,
> wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
>
> [Deletae]
>
> >There are many Gentiles who believe that Jesus is the Messiah and who
> >enjoy discussing this with Jews who do not share that belief. Should
> >the group be named for a subset of the intended participants?
> >
> >
> >__|_____
> > | Bob Felts
> > | wr...@mindspring.com
> > | http://www.mindspring.com/~wrf3
>
> Dear Bob,
>
> I'm wondering why you are not using your full .sig file, which I have
> found courtesy of DejaNews? Here it is:
>
> Through His love and through a ram,
> | He saved the son of Abraham...
> | Bob Felts But God demonstrates His own love for us,
> | wr...@mindspring.com in that while we were still sinners,
> | http://www.mindspring.com/~wrf3 Christ died for us.
>
>
Why, it's because I'm deceptive, Jay. What other reason could it be?
Well, I'll tell you. I started using different software for reading
news. I used to use YA-NewsWatcher and its .sig file allowed 5 line
sigs. Several months ago I switched over to a new News/E-mail program
called MacSoup which gets all of my mail and news at once and allows me
to do everything offline. MacSoup, however, only supports 4 line sigs.
As much as I hated to do it, I had to trim my sig.
I do, however, have the "old" one as my primary mail signature in
Eudora.
Satisfied?
P.S. Since you've been busy playing detective why don't you use
DejaNews to determine when I finally made the switch from YA-Newswatcher
to MacSoup?
Randolph Parrish
Brian Mailman <bmai...@hooked.net> wrote:
> If these groups are solely to discuss
>Jesus-as-Messiah, then they should be named *.*.jews-for-jesus IMO. I
>would tend to vote "NO" if they aren't renamed.
This wouldn't work, because 1) "Jews for Jesus" is the name of a
specific organization, and the group is not about that organization;
and 2) there were lots of people who object (ed) to the use of the
word "Jews" in connection with "Jesus", so a compromise had to be
found. (And the same goes for "Messianic Jews",
"soc.culture.religion.jewish.jesus', etc.)
Randolph Parrish
wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
>That's the stated purpose of talk.religion.messiah (although, now that
>you mention it, t.r.messiahs might be a better name).
That may be possible
Joe Slater
rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish) writes:
>'Soc.culture.relgion.christian.XXXX' offended the
>people who wanted the group. And so on. 'Soc.religion.messianic' was
>the best compromise we could come up with.
Which people wanted the group? There has been zero discussion of this in
alt.messianic, the group you intend to replace. What's wrong with
soc.religion.christian.XXXX? Are you a Christian? Are those people of
Jewish ethnicity Christians? What's there to get offended about?
jds
Jay Lapidus
On Thu, 3 Jul 1997 18:53:46 -0400, in article
<1997070318...@user-37kb6g1.dialup.mindspring.com>,
wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
>Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Jul 1997 21:27:02 -0400, in article
>> <1997070221...@user-37kbsrf.dialup.mindspring.com>,
>> wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
>>
>> >Joe Slater <j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why wasn't this crossposted to soc.culture.jewish? Surely it's of
>> >> interest to that newsgroup. You played the same trick last time.
>> >>
>> >
>> >It should have also been posted to:
>> >
>> > soc.religion.christian
>> > soc.religion.christian.bible-study
>> > alt.christnet.* (well, maybe not alt.christnet.sex ;-)
>> > alt.religion.christianity
>> > christnet.religion
>> >
>> > etc...
>> >
>> >Don't be so paranoid, Joe.
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> This is not a matter of "paranoia." Your labeling Joe "paranoid"
>> serves, regardless of your intentions, to belittle real concerns about
>> the deceptiveness of "Jews for Jesus" and the "moderated" newsgroup
>> that it trying once again to put onto Usenet.
>>
>
>Isn't "paranoia" worrying about what other people will do to you when
>you aren't looking; especially when you have to ascribe motives to
>someone that you have no assurance is correct?
As one who has certification in pastoral counseling, I can tell you
that a fundamental rule is "diagnosis without therapeusis is hostile."
Your labeling Joe "paranoid" demeans him and his views, and it
contributes nothing constructive to the discussion.
>Second, the "deceptiveness" of organizations such as "Jews for Jesus" is
>solely a product of your world-view -- a world-view which many do not
>share. In your world, a Jew cannot be a Christian and still claim to be
>a Jew. In their world, they can. So, what you label as "deception" is
>simply a clash of incompatible world views.
This is not a matter of "incompatible world views." I personally know
of Jews who have become Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutherans.
Although I do not personally like that, it is the right of such people
to become Christian. I have no problem with the contemporary Roman
Catholic, Episcopalian and the Lutheran synods (among so many other
denominations), because whatever Jewish adherents they gain are based
on open and honest methods, my sharp disagreements notwithstanding.
This is not so of either Messianic Jews (associated with the
Pentecostals) or with "Jews for Jesus" (affiliated with the Southern
Baptists). This RFD is an example. Nowhere in the RFD is Moshe
Rosen's affiliation mentioned. I don't know the backgrounds of the
other two. The RFD was not posted by the proponents to
soc.culture.jewish.
The deceptiveness of J4J should not be viewed in terms of a mere
difference in "world views," religious interpretation, or theology.
Rather, it should be viewed in the light of "truth in packaging."
There needs to be honest disclosure. Mainline Christian denominations
recognize J4J for what it is - a front group for the missionary
efforts of the Southern Baptists. The local interfaith clergy
associations to which I have belonged have stood with the Jewish
community against J4J as well as the MJ.
>But instead of
>acknowledging the real cause of the problem, you have to assign dark
>motives to those with whom you disagree. Why is that?
Ditto my opening comment about hostile diagnosis. Instead of arguing
ad hominem, I suggest that you read some books on basic Judaism. One
is a paperback by Milton Steinberg, _Basic Judaism_, for starters.
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net>
"Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is
a very important science." -- Prof. Saul Lieberman
Jay Lapidus
On Thu, 3 Jul 1997 20:10:50 -0400, in article
wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
[Deletae]
>There are many Gentiles who believe that Jesus is the Messiah and who
>enjoy discussing this with Jews who do not share that belief. Should
>the group be named for a subset of the intended participants?
>
>
>__|_____
> | Bob Felts
> | wr...@mindspring.com
> | http://www.mindspring.com/~wrf3
Dear Bob,
I'm wondering why you are not using your full .sig file, which I have
found courtesy of DejaNews? Here it is:
Through His love and through a ram,
| He saved the son of Abraham...
| Bob Felts But God demonstrates His own love for us,
| wr...@mindspring.com in that while we were still sinners,
| http://www.mindspring.com/~wrf3 Christ died for us.
Cheers,
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net>
"The difference between genius and
stupidity is that genius has limits."
Joe Slater
wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) writes:
>The last time a moderated version of
>alt.messianic was proposed I was named as a moderator. I'm not a member
>of Jews-for-Jesus or any similar group, but I happen to agree with them
>on the answer to the question of "who is a Jew".
You believe that Christians are "the true Israel". In other words, you
believe that you, as a Christian, are Jewish. You believe that I, as a
not-Christian am not Jewish - despite the fact that I'm a circumcised male
of Jewish parents belonging to a synagogue.
>Now, are you going to label *me* as being deceptive?
No. You're crazy. You are using a weird definition that makes sense only
in a perverse polito-religious context. If you went around saying that
apples were the true oranges you'd be locked up. Your particular lunacy
manifests itself in a sphere where more leeway is allowed, and you
therefore escape the consequences of your beliefs.
If you're happy to be called a Christian then soc.religion.christianity is
the appropriate forum for you - even if you think that you're also
entitled to post your views in soc.culture.jewish, soc.religion.islam or
soc.religion.jain. The same applies to the other notional users of the
forum. If you're happy to be called Christians you use the Christian
newsgroup, because real Christians are willing to accept you and real Jews
are not. If you're *not* willing to call yourself a Christian then we
can find a third name for you.
Are you a Christian?
Bob Felts
Joe Slater <j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) writes:
> >The last time a moderated version of alt.messianic was proposed I was
> >named as a moderator. I'm not a member of Jews-for-Jesus or any similar
> >group, but I happen to agree with them on the answer to the question of
> >"who is a Jew".
>
> You believe that Christians are "the true Israel". In other words, you
> believe that you, as a Christian, are Jewish. You believe that I, as a
> not-Christian am not Jewish - despite the fact that I'm a circumcised male
> of Jewish parents belonging to a synagogue.
You are ethnically Jewish, and you practice a religion that you like to
think is the "One True Judaism (tm)", but as long as you are in a state
of rejection of the Messiah of Israel, Jesus Christ, you have cut
yourself off from the covenant community.
>
> >Now, are you going to label *me* as being deceptive?
>
> No. You're crazy. You are using a weird definition that makes sense only
> in a perverse polito-religious context. If you went around saying that
> apples were the true oranges you'd be locked up. Your particular lunacy
> manifests itself in a sphere where more leeway is allowed, and you
> therefore escape the consequences of your beliefs.
My definition is "weird" only because you don't happen to like it.
Furthermore, your analogy is wrong. Consider just apples. Apples are
alive only why they are attached to the tree. When they fall off, they
eventually rot and die. If Jesus Christ is the root of Israel -- as
Christianity demands that He is -- then those who are attached to Him
are living apples. Those that are not are not.
>
> If you're happy to be called a Christian then soc.religion.christianity is
> the appropriate forum for you - even if you think that you're also
> entitled to post your views in soc.culture.jewish, soc.religion.islam or
> soc.religion.jain. The same applies to the other notional users of the
> forum.
Am I "entitled" to post my views in alt.messianic? How about you?
Furthermore, you're more than welcome to post in
soc.religion.christian.bible-study. Moshe Shulman does with some (but
not enough) regularity. Michael Armel was posting prodigious amounts of
anti-Christian material in s.r.c.b-s until he went on vacation. But I
expect him to drop back in any day now.
> If you're happy to be called Christians you use the Christian
> newsgroup, because real Christians are willing to accept you and real Jews
> are not.
Sorry, but you're begging the question of the "real" definition of these
terms. Who owns the "real" title to Surge? Coca-cola, or the company
in Tennessee that makes a drink with the same name?
In the same way, if Jesus Christ is who Christians say that He is, then
we are the "living apples". If he isn't, then you are.
But don't worry. He'll sort it all out when He returns. ;-)
BTW, you do know, don't you, that the term "Christian" was first used by
the opponents of Christianity as a derogatory term? It meant "little
Christ" and we became so taken by the name that we started using it,
too.
Do you know what Christians were called before that?
Answer: Jews.
> If you're *not* willing to call yourself a Christian then we
> can find a third name for you.
You already have, Joe. "Crazy", remember?
>
> Are you a Christian?
>
Yes. I am also attached to the root of Jesse.
Henrietta Thomas
In news.groups on 4 Jul 97 00:38:13 GMT, j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe
Slater) wrote:
>rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish) writes:
>>'Soc.culture.relgion.christian.XXXX' offended the
>>people who wanted the group. And so on. 'Soc.religion.messianic' was
>>the best compromise we could come up with.
>
>Which people wanted the group? There has been zero discussion of this in
>alt.messianic, the group you intend to replace. What's wrong with
>soc.religion.christian.XXXX? Are you a Christian? Are those people of
>Jewish ethnicity Christians? What's there to get offended about?
Go to DejaNews and find last year's discussion. We went through all
sorts of traumatic changes debating the name of the group. And some
woman kept saying all sorts of nasty things about _ians, and I got
pretty hopping mad at her insistence on representing a respected
religious teacher by a symbol. Thanks to Chris Stone and Joshua
Kramer, we are about to go through the same d*mn thing again,
and if we do, I swear I will vote YES just to spite the naysayers.
Every person has a right to his own religious beliefs, or to have no
religious beliefs at all (see famous quote of Thomas Jefferson). If
some people of Jewish ancestry believe that Jesus of Nazareth was
in fact the messiah promised in the Old Testament, they have a right
to believe that, and they have the right to have a newsgroup where
they can discuss their ideas of just who Jesus was. And if anyone
disagrees with them, they should set up another newsgroup to discuss
what Jesus was NOT.
Nobody knows the answer to the question but Jesus himself, or God.
Henrietta Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h...@wwa.com
Michael Shoshani
Randolph Parrish (rbp...@primenet.com) wrote:
: And believe me, we have tried all the possible name
: combinations: 'Hebrew-Christian' is too many letters. "Hebrew-Xian'
: offends some people who don't like the word 'Christian' abbreviated by
: 'Xian'. "Hebr-Christian' could be taken to mean something like
: 'Hebrides-Christian'. 'Soc.culture.religion.jewish.XXXX' wasn't
: anybody's favorite. 'Soc.culture.relgion.christian.XXXX' offended the
: people who wanted the group. And so on. 'Soc.religion.messianic' was
: the best compromise we could come up with.
I don't recall any discussion in alt.messianic *at all* concerning any
proposed name of any proposed "big 8 group". It has not been hashed out,
and opinions are very much divided.
--
shos...@wwa.com // In the beginning, God made idiots;
Michael Shoshani // This was for practice
Chicago IL, USA // Then he made school boards.
http://miso.wwa.com/~shoshani/ // --Mark Twain
Michael Shoshani
Bob Felts (wr...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Brian Mailman <bmai...@hooked.net> wrote:
: > Randolph Parrish wrote:
: >
: > > I think you're confusing the prupose of the two groups. The first
: > > group is a fellowship group for those who think that Jesus is the
: > > messiah.It is not a debate group. The second group is the debate
: > > group, where anything goes.
: >
: > I think the proposed names of these groups indicates messiahs of all
: > religions that have one.
: That's the stated purpose of talk.religion.messiah (although, now that
: you mention it, t.r.messiahs might be a better name).
But that is not how Randolph is describing it. He describes "the first
group", which is talk.religion.messiah (check the Subject: line of this
very thread) as "a fellowship group for those who think that Jesus is the
messiah.It is not a debate group.". This excludes all other messiahs of
all other religions.
Jay Lapidus
On Thu, 3 Jul 1997 23:47:50 -0400, in article
<1997070323...@user-37kb72n.dialup.mindspring.com>,
wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
[snip]
>Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear Bob,
>>
>> I'm wondering why you are not using your full .sig file, which I have
>> found courtesy of DejaNews? Here it is:
>>
>> Through His love and through a ram,
>> | He saved the son of Abraham...
>> | Bob Felts But God demonstrates His own love for us,
>> | wr...@mindspring.com in that while we were still sinners,
>> | http://www.mindspring.com/~wrf3 Christ died for us.
>>
>>
>
>Why, it's because I'm deceptive, Jay. What other reason could it be?
>
>Well, I'll tell you. I started using different software for reading
>news. I used to use YA-NewsWatcher and its .sig file allowed 5 line
>sigs. Several months ago I switched over to a new News/E-mail program
>called MacSoup which gets all of my mail and news at once and allows me
>to do everything offline. MacSoup, however, only supports 4 line sigs.
>As much as I hated to do it, I had to trim my sig.
>
>I do, however, have the "old" one as my primary mail signature in
>Eudora.
>
>Satisfied?
>
>P.S. Since you've been busy playing detective why don't you use
>DejaNews to determine when I finally made the switch from YA-Newswatcher
>to MacSoup?
Bob,
Your answer today to Joe, and your other reply to me, indeed do make
your own agenda plain and open. You wish to have Jews believe in
Jesus. As you are well aware, traditional Christian belief holds that
Jesus cannot return until every Jew becomes a believer in Jesus.
So Bob, Jesus won't return in your lifetime - or ever - regardless of
all the RFDs, CFVs, missionizing web pages, etc., etc. Sorry to
disappoint you.
Cheers,
Bob Felts
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
[...]
> Bob,
>
> Your answer today to Joe, and your other reply to me, indeed do make
> your own agenda plain and open.
First, which agenda is that, Jay? I have more than one.
Second, when did I ever hide, or attempt to hide, my agendas?
> You wish to have Jews believe in Jesus.
I wish to have everyone believe in Jesus.
> As you are well aware, traditional Christian belief holds that
> Jesus cannot return until every Jew becomes a believer in Jesus.
No, I am not well aware of that. I've heard that this is held by some
people, but it isn't a "traditional" belief.
If you don't believe me, ask this question in
soc.religion.christian.bible-study and do a survey of the answers you
recieve.
>
> So Bob, Jesus won't return in your lifetime - or ever - regardless of
> all the RFDs, CFVs, missionizing web pages, etc., etc. Sorry to
> disappoint you.
Since I don't hold, and have never held, the position that you ascribed
to so-called "traditional" Christianity, the only thing that disappoints
me is the fact that you're misinformed about Christian eschatology.
Jay Lapidus
On Thu, 3 Jul 1997 21:54:13 -0400, in article
<1997070321...@user-37kb6hp.dialup.mindspring.com>,
[snip]
>> that a fundamental rule is "diagnosis without therapeusis is hostile."
>> Your labeling Joe "paranoid" demeans him and his views, and it
>> contributes nothing constructive to the discussion.
>
>And your labelling certain groups as "deceptive" does?
Yes. I'm calling a spade a spade. Rabbi Tovia Singer, the director
of Outreach Judaism, an anti-missionary organization, shared with his
fellow rabbis recruiting pointers to be used by missionaries when
approaching Jews.
>>
>> >Second, the "deceptiveness" of organizations such as "Jews for Jesus" is
>> >solely a product of your world-view -- a world-view which many do not
>> >share. In your world, a Jew cannot be a Christian and still claim to be
>> >a Jew. In their world, they can. So, what you label as "deception" is
>> >simply a clash of incompatible world views.
>>
>> This is not a matter of "incompatible world views." I personally know
>> of Jews who have become Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutherans.
>> Although I do not personally like that, it is the right of such people
>> to become Christian. I have no problem with the contemporary Roman
>> Catholic, Episcopalian and the Lutheran synods (among so many other
>> denominations), because whatever Jewish adherents they gain are based
>> on open and honest methods, my sharp disagreements notwithstanding.
>
>What about the people who adhere to Christianity and consider themselves
>religiously Jewish? Furthermore, there exist Gentile Christians who
>consider themselves religiously Jewish. You may disagree with them,
>and you have every right to do so, but they exist.
Of course they exist. I have no problem with them per se. My problem
enters when people confuse Judaism and Christianity - two of the great
religious traditions. The differences between J and C go well beyond
Jesus and Messianism, to such issues as Original Sin, Reward and
Punishment, Unity of God, the function of Messiah, theodicy,
Revelation, to name just a few of a host of examples.
>And, if this were the place for it, I would -- using open and honest
>methods -- show you why they believe what they believe.
I have seen your web page. You are not the first missionary I have
encountered, not will you be the last. I deal with them not primarily
through cyberspace, but when they approach me in person. (They are
actually a lot of fun, when I have the time.)
>> This is not so of either Messianic Jews (associated with the
>> Pentecostals) or with "Jews for Jesus" (affiliated with the Southern
>> Baptists).
>
>Why is it not so? There are a whole lot of Christians, both of Jewish
>and Gentile descent, who hold that Christianity is Judaism under the New
>Covenant. They, like the Apostle Paul, would argue "for a person is not
>a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external
>and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real
>circumcision is a matter of the heart--it is spiritual and not literal."
>[Romans 2:28].
People are entitled to their beliefs. I just ask that they be
above-board when proselytizing others.
>On the one hand, you are asserting your right to define your identity.
>On the other hand, they are asserting their right to define their
>identity. And the problem is that the same word is being used by both
>groups. Simply put, you're fighting over a trademark dispute.
>
>Consider a recent example in the news. Coca-Cola has a new soft-drink
>drink called "Surge". Yet there is a company in Tennessee (I think)
>that also has a drink named "Surge". Both companies hold that the name
>belongs to them. Only time will tell who really has ownership.
>
>But I doubt very seriously that you would accuse either company of
>deception, would you?
Thank you for that analogy, which I'll take further. This is not a
"naming" or "trademark dispute." Rather, let's suppose that the
Tennessee company, in addition to using the name "Surge," were to put
"bottled by Coca Cola" on its labels, using the external symbols
associated with Coca Cola, but with a different product inside?
That's what J4J and MJ do. In public, they sport the external, more
showy, trappings of Judaism, including yarmulkes, fringes, Stars of
David, matzas, and the like, but internally, their contents are
Southern Baptism (J4J) or Pentecostalism (MJ).
Coke is "the real thing." J4J and MJ are not. Christians should know
that they insult Jews when they imply that Judaism is an incomplete
religion in need of Jesus. Usenet voters - Christian or otherwise -
should not give missionaries an official domain.
>> This RFD is an example. Nowhere in the RFD is Moshe
>> Rosen's affiliation mentioned.
>
>Why is that relevant? The last time a moderated version of
>alt.messianic was proposed I was named as a moderator. I'm not a member
>of Jews-for-Jesus or any similar group, but I happen to agree with them
>on the answer to the question of "who is a Jew".
Actually, I'm checking further. I'm not sure at this time whether the
"Moshe Rosen" on the RFD is the same person as "Moishe Rosen," the
"founder" of "Jews for Jesus." In any case, the RFD needs to give the
backgrounds of the proposed moderators.
As for Jews for Jesus, take a look at their web page. Nowhere on it
do they mention their direct connections to Chosen People Ministries
and to the Southern Baptist Convention. They to have a web link to
the former, but only among other web links. Look at Chosen People
Ministries' web page, and you will find that they fail to mention
their direct sponsorship of "Jews for Jesus."
>Now, are you going to label *me* as being deceptive? Are you going to
>force me to give up a trademark that I think belongs to me? Or are we
>going to keep this at a level of uneasy tension while waiting for the
>Supreme Court to settle the issue?
Unlike J4J and MJ, your agenda, Bob, is open. You want to convert
Jews and you would like the official imprimatur of a Usenet domain to
do so. Missionize all you like, but don't ask Usenet voters to aid
and abet this demeaning of Judaism.
>> I don't know the backgrounds of the other two. The RFD was not posted by
>> the proponents to soc.culture.jewish.
>
>And it wasn't posted to soc.religion.christian.bible-study. (Where,
>BTW, this issue is often discussed). One of the makers of Surge didn't
>do their homework, either. So what?
This is not a matter of "homework." It is a matter of cynicism. The
proponents of the RFD know full well the level of opposition in SCJ
among Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, humanistic
and secular Jews to such missionizing activities.
>>
>> The deceptiveness of J4J should not be viewed in terms of a mere
>> difference in "world views," religious interpretation, or theology.
>
>That's exactly what it is. I'll be glad to go a few rounds with you in
>a more appropriate forum, if you'd like.
No thank you. I've been through this before ad nauseam.
>
>> Rather, it should be viewed in the light of "truth in packaging."
>> There needs to be honest disclosure. Mainline Christian denominations
>> recognize J4J for what it is - a front group for the missionary
>> efforts of the Southern Baptists.
>
>Wrong. I'm a "mainline Christian" who holds that the Church is Israel.
>Find a good library, look for books which deal with Christian
>Eschatology and discuss the "amillennial" point of view. "Prophecy and
>the Church" by Allis is one good example.
>
>> The local interfaith clergy associations to which I have belonged have
>> stood with the Jewish community against J4J as well as the MJ.
>
>Then you need to broaden your circle of acquaintences.
It's broader than you think. Jews as a tiny minority in the USA (and
most of the world), cannot help but be exposed to Christians of all
stripes.
>> >But instead of acknowledging the real cause of the problem, you have to
>> >assign dark motives to those with whom you disagree. Why is that?
>>
>> Ditto my opening comment about hostile diagnosis. Instead of arguing
>> ad hominem, I suggest that you read some books on basic Judaism. One
>> is a paperback by Milton Steinberg, _Basic Judaism_, for starters.
>
>Read the New Testament which describes New Covenant Judaism, for
>starters.
Actually, I have read it and I own a few editions, including the "New
Testament - Old Testament Prophecy Edition."
The New Testament is a great piece of literature and more than that,
it is a great piece of religious teaching. It's just not Jewish.
Jay Lapidus
On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:29:06 -0400, in article
<1997070410...@user-2k7i8ek.dialup.mindspring.com>,
wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
>Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Your answer today to Joe, and your other reply to me, indeed do make
>> your own agenda plain and open.
>
>First, which agenda is that, Jay? I have more than one.
>Second, when did I ever hide, or attempt to hide, my agendas?
>
>> You wish to have Jews believe in Jesus.
>
>I wish to have everyone believe in Jesus.
That's your agenda. Nothing wrong with that, especially because you
are open about it.
Now take Moishe Rosen. In another reply, I expressed my lack of
certainty whether he is one and the same as "Moshe Rosen," one of the
three proposed moderators. Well, he is. Why doesn't anyone mention
his J4J connection? As for Rosen's agenda, he does not state it
openly in the RFD, but he has so stated it on alt.messianic:
>Subject: "Targetting"
>From: mit...@aol.com (Mity Mo)
>Date: 1997/03/29
>Message-Id: <19970329010...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.messianic
>[More Headers]
>
>All Missionary work is directed toward some group. Whether it is a college
>age group or Native Americans. Why should Christians not direct a ministry
>at peoples groups like Jews. Missionaries don't talk to those who are
>already Christians.
>Mity Mo
Sure Mity Mo, go ahead! Just don't ask Usenet voters to abet you.
>> As you are well aware, traditional Christian belief holds that
>> Jesus cannot return until every Jew becomes a believer in Jesus.
>
>No, I am not well aware of that. I've heard that this is held by some
>people, but it isn't a "traditional" belief.
>
>If you don't believe me, ask this question in
>soc.religion.christian.bible-study and do a survey of the answers you
>recieve.
Great! So there's already one of a number of official Usenet groups
where the issue can be discussed. And, the group is honestly labeled.
>> So Bob, Jesus won't return in your lifetime - or ever - regardless of
>> all the RFDs, CFVs, missionizing web pages, etc., etc. Sorry to
>> disappoint you.
>
>Since I don't hold, and have never held, the position that you ascribed
>to so-called "traditional" Christianity, the only thing that disappoints
>me is the fact that you're misinformed about Christian eschatology.
Or the eschatology of some Christians. Anyway, since you don't need
me and other Jews to believe in Jesus, why don't you just leave us
alone? Is it that you think that Judaism without Jesus is deficient?
Is it that you want to "save" us? If so, I'd rather go to that other
place, where the temperature is a lot hotter. It may not be too
comfortable, but all my friends will be there.
Brian Mailman
OK, then. How about *.*.missionaries? or *.*.christian.missionaries?
(that would fit into the heirarchy *.*.christian, with *.*.evangelical
as a same-level group). That's what it seems the group you're
promulgating is about--not a discussion of messiahs as the proposed
names indicate.
I'm Jewish, and I have definite opinions about such things. I do not
believe those opinions are within the scope of this discussion. But I
don't want to make the mistake of a no-vote based on content.
From my reading of news.groups it seems that a group should be named so
that people looking for a particular subject can find it easily, and be
reflective of the purpose of the group. The proposed names, IMO, do
neither.
Brian Mailman
Bob Felts
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 1997 21:54:13 -0400, in article
> <1997070321...@user-37kb6hp.dialup.mindspring.com>,
> wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
> [snip]
> >Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> >> As one who has certification in pastoral counseling, I can tell you
> >> that a fundamental rule is "diagnosis without therapeusis is hostile."
> >> Your labeling Joe "paranoid" demeans him and his views, and it
> >> contributes nothing constructive to the discussion.
> >
> >And your labelling certain groups as "deceptive" does?
>
> Yes. I'm calling a spade a spade.
So are they. In their world, you are the one who is being deceptive.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that they are the mirror image of
you.
> Rabbi Tovia Singer, the director of Outreach Judaism, an anti-missionary
> organization, shared with his fellow rabbis recruiting pointers to be used
> by missionaries when approaching Jews.
I know who Singer is. He would post once in a while on alt.messianic a
long time ago. In any case, what do you find objectionable about the
posters?
> >>
> >> >Second, the "deceptiveness" of organizations such as "Jews for Jesus"
> >> >is solely a product of your world-view -- a world-view which many do
> >> >not share. In your world, a Jew cannot be a Christian and still claim
> >> >to be a Jew. In their world, they can. So, what you label as
> >> >"deception" is simply a clash of incompatible world views.
> >>
> >> This is not a matter of "incompatible world views." I personally know
> >> of Jews who have become Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutherans.
> >> Although I do not personally like that, it is the right of such people
> >> to become Christian. I have no problem with the contemporary Roman
> >> Catholic, Episcopalian and the Lutheran synods (among so many other
> >> denominations), because whatever Jewish adherents they gain are based
> >> on open and honest methods, my sharp disagreements notwithstanding.
> >
> >What about the people who adhere to Christianity and consider themselves
> >religiously Jewish? Furthermore, there exist Gentile Christians who
> >consider themselves religiously Jewish. You may disagree with them,
> >and you have every right to do so, but they exist.
>
> Of course they exist. I have no problem with them per se.
Except, of course, when they want to advance their viewpoint that *they*
are the true Judaism and *you* are not. You seem quite willing to
tolerate your view point: that you are the true Judaism and they are
not, but you don't seem to want to extend that tolerance to them.
Now, certainly, only one of you is right. But you seem to want to make
the discussion of this issue one-sided.
> My problem enters when people confuse Judaism and Christianity - two of
> the great religious traditions. The differences between J and C go well
> beyond Jesus and Messianism, to such issues as Original Sin, Reward and
> Punishment, Unity of God, the function of Messiah, theodicy, Revelation,
> to name just a few of a host of examples.
Indeed. But some would claim, against you, that the "pedigree" of
Judaism follows the line of, say, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, ... Moses ...
David ... Jesus ... (not in terms of lineage in the physical sense, but
in the sense of "this is Judaism"). Some of us would argue that Jesus,
as King of the Jews, defines Judaism.
Now, of course, you don't agree with that. Such is your right. But you
don't have the right to call people who hold the above view as
"deceptive".
[...]
>
> >> This is not so of either Messianic Jews (associated with the
> >> Pentecostals) or with "Jews for Jesus" (affiliated with the Southern
> >> Baptists).
> >
> >Why is it not so? There are a whole lot of Christians, both of Jewish
> >and Gentile descent, who hold that Christianity is Judaism under the New
> >Covenant. They, like the Apostle Paul, would argue "for a person is not
> >a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external
> >and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real
> >circumcision is a matter of the heart--it is spiritual and not literal."
> >[Romans 2:28].
>
> People are entitled to their beliefs. I just ask that they be
> above-board when proselytizing others.
They are. That's the whole point.
You say "Judaism is defined by _______" and offer one definition.
They say "Judaism is defined by Jesus Christ".
Only one of you is correct, but you can't co-opt their right to use and
live by their definition.
>
> >On the one hand, you are asserting your right to define your identity.
> >On the other hand, they are asserting their right to define their
> >identity. And the problem is that the same word is being used by both
> >groups. Simply put, you're fighting over a trademark dispute.
> >
> >Consider a recent example in the news. Coca-Cola has a new soft-drink
> >drink called "Surge". Yet there is a company in Tennessee (I think)
> >that also has a drink named "Surge". Both companies hold that the name
> >belongs to them. Only time will tell who really has ownership.
> >
> >But I doubt very seriously that you would accuse either company of
> >deception, would you?
>
> Thank you for that analogy, which I'll take further.
Before you do, answer the question as the analogy stands.
> This is not a "naming" or "trademark dispute."
We would argue that it is, but let's look at your analogy.
> Rather, let's suppose that the Tennessee company, in addition to using the
> name "Surge," were to put "bottled by Coca Cola" on its labels, using the
> external symbols associated with Coca Cola, but with a different product
> inside?
>
> That's what J4J and MJ do.
No, it's not. Your analogy is flawed in that you have left out the most
important party. The better analogy would be "Surge" (aka Judaism),
"bottled by God" on the labels, with a different product inside.
You say: "Judaism", "bottled by God", "Product A", "these symbols".
They say: "Judaism", "bottled by God", "Product B", "these symbols"
You are trying to make an issue over the symbols, when the real issue is
what has God done?
> In public, they sport the external, more showy, trappings of Judaism,
> including yarmulkes, fringes, Stars of David, matzas, and the like, but
> internally, their contents are Southern Baptism (J4J) or Pentecostalism
> (MJ).
And mainline protestant and Roman Catholic and ...
All of these groups have one thing in common: the belief that Jesus is
the Messiah of Israel. And, if Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, then
they have every right to use symbols associated with Israel, do they
not?
>
> Coke is "the real thing." J4J and MJ are not.
Jesus Christ is "the real thing". Orthodox Judaism is not.
> Christians should know that they insult Jews when they imply that Judaism
> is an incomplete religion in need of Jesus.
And Jews should know that they insult us when they make statements like
this.
> Usenet voters - Christian or otherwise -
> should not give missionaries an official domain.
So it's ok to have official forums for your position, but not them?
[...]
>
> As for Jews for Jesus, take a look at their web page. Nowhere on it
> do they mention their direct connections to Chosen People Ministries
> and to the Southern Baptist Convention.
What about their link to every other group of Christians? They hold,
like the rest of us, that Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Israel.
Frankly, the connection should be obvious. Methinks you are missing the
forrest for the trees.
Remember, "Christ" is the Greek word for the Hebrew "mosiach". Every
time a Christian says "Jesus Christ" he or she is saying "Messiah
Jesus".
>
> >Now, are you going to label *me* as being deceptive? Are you going to
> >force me to give up a trademark that I think belongs to me? Or are we
> >going to keep this at a level of uneasy tension while waiting for the
> >Supreme Court to settle the issue?
>
> Unlike J4J and MJ, your agenda, Bob, is open. You want to convert
> Jews and you would like the official imprimatur of a Usenet domain to
> do so. Missionize all you like, but don't ask Usenet voters to aid
> and abet this demeaning of Judaism.
What you see as "demeaning" some see as "completing".
But you won't allow them their viewpoint, will you?
[...]
>
> >> >But instead of acknowledging the real cause of the problem, you have to
> >> >assign dark motives to those with whom you disagree. Why is that?
> >>
> >> Ditto my opening comment about hostile diagnosis. Instead of arguing
> >> ad hominem, I suggest that you read some books on basic Judaism. One
> >> is a paperback by Milton Steinberg, _Basic Judaism_, for starters.
> >
> >Read the New Testament which describes New Covenant Judaism, for
> >starters.
>
> Actually, I have read it and I own a few editions, including the "New
> Testament - Old Testament Prophecy Edition."
>
> The New Testament is a great piece of literature and more than that,
> it is a great piece of religious teaching. It's just not Jewish.
So you have said. Who made you God?
Bob Felts
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:29:06 -0400, in article
> <1997070410...@user-2k7i8ek.dialup.mindspring.com>,
> wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
>
> >Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >> Your answer today to Joe, and your other reply to me, indeed do make
> >> your own agenda plain and open.
> >
> >First, which agenda is that, Jay? I have more than one.
> >Second, when did I ever hide, or attempt to hide, my agendas?
> >
> >> You wish to have Jews believe in Jesus.
> >
> >I wish to have everyone believe in Jesus.
>
> That's your agenda. Nothing wrong with that, especially because you
> are open about it.
So if _I_ issued an RFD for these groups, it would be ok? You'd
vote for them in the interest of maintaining free speech and the open
exchange of ideas on the Internet?
>
> Now take Moishe Rosen. In another reply, I expressed my lack of
> certainty whether he is one and the same as "Moshe Rosen," one of the
> three proposed moderators. Well, he is. Why doesn't anyone mention
> his J4J connection?
As I mentioned in a previous post, the connection should be obvious.
Rosen is a Christian. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the
Messiah of Israel, the prophet like Moses, the King of the Jews.
> As for Rosen's agenda, he does not state it
> openly in the RFD, but he has so stated it on alt.messianic:
[... cut Deja News post ...]
You're stating the obvious.
Jesus said to His disciples "Go into all the world and proclaim the good
news to the whole creation."
Every Christian who takes the words of Messiah Jesus seriously has that
as their stated, open, obvious agenda.
>
> >> As you are well aware, traditional Christian belief holds that
> >> Jesus cannot return until every Jew becomes a believer in Jesus.
> >
> >No, I am not well aware of that. I've heard that this is held by some
> >people, but it isn't a "traditional" belief.
> >
> >If you don't believe me, ask this question in
> >soc.religion.christian.bible-study and do a survey of the answers you
> >recieve.
>
> Great! So there's already one of a number of official Usenet groups
> where the issue can be discussed. And, the group is honestly labeled.
My main interest is in having a moderated equivalent to alt.messianic
where Jews and Christians can have their usual "Yes, He is!" "No, he
isn't" discussions without all of the extraneous stuff that has appeared
lately. soc.religion.messianic fits that in a way that s.r.c.b-s does
not.
talk.religion.messiah fills a hole that groups such as s.r.c.b-s does
not, since it is for discussion about messiahs other than Jesus.
>
> >> So Bob, Jesus won't return in your lifetime - or ever - regardless of
> >> all the RFDs, CFVs, missionizing web pages, etc., etc. Sorry to
> >> disappoint you.
> >
> >Since I don't hold, and have never held, the position that you ascribed
> >to so-called "traditional" Christianity, the only thing that disappoints
> >me is the fact that you're misinformed about Christian eschatology.
>
> Or the eschatology of some Christians.
A good textbook on Christian eschatology would cover the many different
viewpoints.
> Anyway, since you don't need me and other Jews to believe in Jesus, why
> don't you just leave us alone?
We have our orders, you have yours.
> Is it that you think that Judaism without Jesus is deficient?
Yes. In fact, *anything* without Jesus is deficient.
> Is it that you want to "save" us? If so, I'd rather go to that other
> place, where the temperature is a lot hotter. It may not be too
> comfortable, but all my friends will be there.
>
But God won't.
However, this isn't the forum to ask why you would prefer the company of
your friends to the company of God.
Jay Lapidus
On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 13:01:33 -0400, in article
<1997070413...@user-2k7i81a.dialup.mindspring.com>,
wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
>Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:29:06 -0400, in article
>> <1997070410...@user-2k7i8ek.dialup.mindspring.com>,
>> wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
[snip]
>> >I wish to have everyone believe in Jesus.
>>
>> That's your agenda. Nothing wrong with that, especially because you
>> are open about it.
>
>So if _I_ issued an RFD for these groups, it would be ok?
I doubt that you would state the following, since AFAIK you are not of
"Jewish ethnicity":
"RATIONALE: soc.religion.messianic
"There is currently no moderated forum available for discussion and
exchange of ideas by persons of Jewish ethnicity who believe that
Yeshua of Nazareth is the messiah of Israel, as well as by others
interested in the topic. Posts concerning this topic must necessarily
be posted to other forums, where they are regarded as intrusive and
unwelcome. The need for a moderated forum for this specific topic is
best explained by taking a casual look at the many off-topic postings
in other, unmoderated forums (especially alt.messianic)."
>You'd vote for them in the interest of maintaining free speech and
>the open exchange of ideas on the Internet?
This is not an issue of "free speech." There are plenty of forums
available to missionaries on the Internet, including not only the
alt.* groups and various web sites, but some of the official
newsgroups that you participate in.
>> Now take Moishe Rosen. In another reply, I expressed my lack of
>> certainty whether he is one and the same as "Moshe Rosen," one of the
>> three proposed moderators. Well, he is. Why doesn't anyone mention
>> his J4J connection?
>
>As I mentioned in a previous post, the connection should be obvious.
>Rosen is a Christian. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the
>Messiah of Israel, the prophet like Moses, the King of the Jews.
Now, you ask Rosen whether he calls himself a "Christian" when he
missionizes. Their recruiting literature urges their workers to avoid
that term, as well as the name "Jesus."
>> As for Rosen's agenda, he does not state it
>> openly in the RFD, but he has so stated it on alt.messianic:
>
>[... cut Deja News post ...]
>
>You're stating the obvious.
>
>Jesus said to His disciples "Go into all the world and proclaim the good
>news to the whole creation."
>
>Every Christian who takes the words of Messiah Jesus seriously has that
>as their stated, open, obvious agenda.
Indeed, "Moshe" Rosen is an ordained Baptist minister. It should say
that in the RFD.
[Deletions]
>
>My main interest is in having a moderated equivalent to alt.messianic
>where Jews and Christians can have their usual "Yes, He is!" "No, he
>isn't" discussions without all of the extraneous stuff that has appeared
>lately. soc.religion.messianic fits that in a way that s.r.c.b-s does
>not.
Its proponents want soc.religion.messianic to be moderated. But look
at who the moderators are. I invite our readers to do as I did and to
check their various Usenet postings and web pages. Then ask the
question, "How fair can we expect the three would-be moderators to be?
>talk.religion.messiah fills a hole that groups such as s.r.c.b-s does
>not, since it is for discussion about messiahs other than Jesus.
There are enough groups now for such issues to be raised. For example
in soc.culture.jewish, issues about that faction of Chabad-Lubavitch
that believes that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe is the "Moshiach" have
been debated. Questions about such false messiahs such as Frank and
Shabbatai Tzvi have arisen. As far as Jesus, there is no shortage of
appropriate Christian-oriented newsgroups.
[snip]
>A good textbook on Christian eschatology would cover the many different
>viewpoints.
>
>> Anyway, since you don't need me and other Jews to believe in Jesus, why
>> don't you just leave us alone?
>
>We have our orders, you have yours.
What are my "orders"?
>> Is it that you think that Judaism without Jesus is deficient?
>
>Yes. In fact, *anything* without Jesus is deficient.
You don't need me to tell you that you have a right to your belief and
to freely express it.
>
>> Is it that you want to "save" us? If so, I'd rather go to that other
>> place, where the temperature is a lot hotter.
Actually, there is a place now that is giving us practice.
It's called Florida.
>>It may not be too comfortable, but all my friends will be there.
>
>But God won't.
Don't be so sure. With all that Bible-thumping and proclamations of
having T*H*E T*R*U*E W*O*R*D O*F G*O*D, God Himself would probably be
driven crazy enough to join the rest of us "down there."
>However, this isn't the forum to ask why you would prefer the company of
>your friends to the company of God.
Actually, I'm more interested in avoiding the company of missionaries.
As far as the company of God, I'll always be with him. You will be
too, if you stop "hoken a tchainik" (rattling the teakettle).
Jay Lapidus
On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 12:41:42 -0400, in article
<1997070412...@user-2k7i81a.dialup.mindspring.com>,
[snip]
>Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes. I'm calling a spade a spade.
>
>So are they. In their world, you are the one who is being deceptive.
>You don't seem to be able to grasp that they are the mirror image of
>you.
"Mirror image"? I'm not an ordained Baptist minister, "Moishe" Rosen
is. Why does he not so state in the RFD?
>
>> Rabbi Tovia Singer, the director of Outreach Judaism, an anti-missionary
>> organization, shared with his fellow rabbis recruiting pointers to be used
>> by missionaries when approaching Jews.
>
>I know who Singer is. He would post once in a while on alt.messianic a
>long time ago. In any case, what do you find objectionable about the
>posters?
"Posters"? (I'm not sure to what you are referring.)
[snip]
Bob:
>> >What about the people who adhere to Christianity and consider themselves
>> >religiously Jewish? Furthermore, there exist Gentile Christians who
>> >consider themselves religiously Jewish. You may disagree with them,
>> >and you have every right to do so, but they exist.
>>
>> Of course they exist. I have no problem with them per se.
>
>Except, of course, when they want to advance their viewpoint that *they*
>are the true Judaism and *you* are not. You seem quite willing to
>tolerate your view point: that you are the true Judaism and they are
>not, but you don't seem to want to extend that tolerance to them.
>
>Now, certainly, only one of you is right. But you seem to want to make
>the discussion of this issue one-sided.
The appropriate forums exist now. However, the proposed moderated
soc.religion.messianic, with three proposed moderators who can hardly
be deemed impartial won't provide assurance of being more than
one-sided.
>
>> My problem enters when people confuse Judaism and Christianity - two of
>> the great religious traditions. The differences between J and C go well
>> beyond Jesus and Messianism, to such issues as Original Sin, Reward and
>> Punishment, Unity of God, the function of Messiah, theodicy, Revelation,
>> to name just a few of a host of examples.
>
>Indeed. But some would claim, against you, that the "pedigree" of
>Judaism follows the line of, say, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, ... Moses ...
>David ... Jesus ... (not in terms of lineage in the physical sense, but
>in the sense of "this is Judaism"). Some of us would argue that Jesus,
>as King of the Jews, defines Judaism.
>
>Now, of course, you don't agree with that. Such is your right. But you
>don't have the right to call people who hold the above view as
>"deceptive".
No, just some of them, including the proposed moderators.
[snip]
>You say "Judaism is defined by _______" and offer one definition.
>They say "Judaism is defined by Jesus Christ".
>
>Only one of you is correct, but you can't co-opt their right to use and
>live by their definition.
"Co-opt their right"?! What "right"? Jews have paid for the right
through nearly two millennia of persecution and massacres committed in
the name of Jesus.
[Coke-Surge analogy snipped.]
Bob:
>Your (Jay's) analogy is flawed in that you have left out the most
>important party. The better analogy would be "Surge" (aka Judaism),
>"bottled by God" on the labels, with a different product inside.
>
>You say: "Judaism", "bottled by God", "Product A", "these symbols".
>They say: "Judaism", "bottled by God", "Product B", "these symbols"
>
>You are trying to make an issue over the symbols, when the real issue is
>what has God done?
>
[snip]
>And mainline protestant and Roman Catholic and ...
>
>All of these groups have one thing in common: the belief that Jesus is
>the Messiah of Israel. And, if Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, then
>they have every right to use symbols associated with Israel, do they
>not?
Mainline Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics do not
represent themselves as "Jews" and they do not represent their
religions as "Judaism."
>> Coke is "the real thing." J4J and MJ are not.
>
>Jesus Christ is "the real thing". Orthodox Judaism is not.
ROTFL, but not for the reason that you may think. (Joe, do you want
to clue him in?)
>> Christians should know that they insult Jews when they imply that Judaism
>> is an incomplete religion in need of Jesus.
>
>And Jews should know that they insult us when they make statements like
>this.
Who is "us"?
>
>> Usenet voters - Christian or otherwise -
>> should not give missionaries an official domain.
>
>So it's ok to have official forums for your position, but not them?
I've already addressed this.
>[...]
>> As for Jews for Jesus, take a look at their web page. Nowhere on it
>> do they mention their direct connections to Chosen People Ministries
>> and to the Southern Baptist Convention.
>
>What about their link to every other group of Christians? They hold,
>like the rest of us, that Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Israel.
But J4J is a direct affiliate of CPM and the Southern Baptists, but
they do not openly say so.
>Frankly, the connection should be obvious. Methinks you are missing the
>forrest for the trees.
>Remember, "Christ" is the Greek word for the Hebrew "mosiach". Every
>time a Christian says "Jesus Christ" he or she is saying "Messiah
>Jesus".
I know that. I'm sure that you are aware of the arguments - on the
extant newsgroups - why Jesus does not meet the Jewish criteria. I'm
equally sure that you have debated them, on the extant newsgroups.
[snip]
>> Unlike J4J and MJ, your agenda, Bob, is open. You want to convert
>> Jews and you would like the official imprimatur of a Usenet domain to
>> do so. Missionize all you like, but don't ask Usenet voters to aid
>> and abet this demeaning of Judaism.
>
>What you see as "demeaning" some see as "completing".
Bob, can you understand why a normative Jew would find your attitude
demeaning? I don't know if you can so empathize, but I hope that
Usenet voters can.
>But you won't allow them their viewpoint, will you?
You keep on raising this strawman, which I have answered on this and
on previous posts.
[...]
>> The New Testament is a great piece of literature and more than that,
>> it is a great piece of religious teaching. It's just not Jewish.
>
>So you have said. Who made you God?
Non sequitur.
Ingo Schwarze
On 3 Jul 1997 10:16:00 -0700, Randolph Parrish wrote:
>
>schw...@alpha1.physik.uni-siegen.de (Ingo Schwarze) wrote:
>
>>the proponents twice use the term "persons of Jewish ethnicity"
>>for those invited to participate in the proposed newsgroup.
>
> Sorry, this wasn't meant to give offense. This was only used
>because some people objected to the use of the word "Jews" here (on
>the grounds that 'messianic Jews' are not 'Jews'); and others objected
>to not being called 'Jews', and so on, and so this was a compromise.
In that case, the proponents might consider something both Jews and
Chistians - and perhaps even "Messianic Jews" - could identify with,
for example
"people believing in [the] God who inspired the Old Testament"
Neither the proposed newsgroup nor this thread have anything to do
with ethnicity so far, and it need not be difficult to avoid confusion
- let alone offense - in that respect.
--
Ingo.S...@cern.ch ===> http://www.unix-ag.uni-siegen.de/fsr7/ <===
(sorry, our site uses german language...)
Bob Felts
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 13:01:33 -0400, in article
> <1997070413...@user-2k7i81a.dialup.mindspring.com>,
> wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
>
> >Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:29:06 -0400, in article
> >> <1997070410...@user-2k7i8ek.dialup.mindspring.com>,
> >> wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
> [snip]
> >> >I wish to have everyone believe in Jesus.
> >>
> >> That's your agenda. Nothing wrong with that, especially because you
> >> are open about it.
> >
> >So if _I_ issued an RFD for these groups, it would be ok?
>
> I doubt that you would state the following, since AFAIK you are not of
> "Jewish ethnicity":
[... cut RATIONALE: soc.religion.messianic ...]
a) Assume that I was. Would you then object?
b) the rational says "by persons of Jewish ethnicity ... as well as by
others interested in the topic"
[...]
>
> >You'd vote for them in the interest of maintaining free speech and
> >the open exchange of ideas on the Internet?
>
> This is not an issue of "free speech."
Sure it is. You don't like people who say "I'm a Jew, I believe Jesus
is the Messiah, and, btw, I'm still a Jew".
> There are plenty of forums available to missionaries on the Internet,
> including not only the alt.* groups and various web sites, but some of the
> official newsgroups that you participate in.
Well, if I were a Jew who wanted to talk about Jesus, soc.culture.jewish
sure sounds like the right place for me.
>
> >> Now take Moishe Rosen. In another reply, I expressed my lack of
> >> certainty whether he is one and the same as "Moshe Rosen," one of the
> >> three proposed moderators. Well, he is. Why doesn't anyone mention
> >> his J4J connection?
> >
> >As I mentioned in a previous post, the connection should be obvious.
> >Rosen is a Christian. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the
> >Messiah of Israel, the prophet like Moses, the King of the Jews.
>
> Now, you ask Rosen whether he calls himself a "Christian" when he
> missionizes. Their recruiting literature urges their workers to avoid
> that term, as well as the name "Jesus."
Do you blame them? Look at the reaction to "We're Jews. We believe
in Jesus. We'd like a moderated forum to discuss issues specific to
us."
The response? "Not in our internet, you deceptive, crazy, liars".
You can't even hear them because of the knee-jerk reaction to the name
"Jesus" in the same sentence with "I'm a Jew".
>
> >> As for Rosen's agenda, he does not state it
> >> openly in the RFD, but he has so stated it on alt.messianic:
> >
> >[... cut Deja News post ...]
> >
> >You're stating the obvious.
> >
> >Jesus said to His disciples "Go into all the world and proclaim the good
> >news to the whole creation."
> >
> >Every Christian who takes the words of Messiah Jesus seriously has that
> >as their stated, open, obvious agenda.
>
> Indeed, "Moshe" Rosen is an ordained Baptist minister. It should say
> that in the RFD.
So what? Why does it matter if he is Baptist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic,
Pentecostal, or any other group? First and foremost he considers
himself a Jew.
>
> [Deletions]
> >
> >My main interest is in having a moderated equivalent to alt.messianic
> >where Jews and Christians can have their usual "Yes, He is!" "No, he
> >isn't" discussions without all of the extraneous stuff that has appeared
> >lately. soc.religion.messianic fits that in a way that s.r.c.b-s does
> >not.
>
> Its proponents want soc.religion.messianic to be moderated. But look
> at who the moderators are. I invite our readers to do as I did and to
> check their various Usenet postings and web pages. Then ask the
> question, "How fair can we expect the three would-be moderators to be?
IOW, they are guilty until proven innocent?
The solution is not to impugn their personal character, but ensure that
the charter has a provision for replacing moderators in case some ever
turn out to be derelic in their duties.
>
> >talk.religion.messiah fills a hole that groups such as s.r.c.b-s does
> >not, since it is for discussion about messiahs other than Jesus.
>
> There are enough groups now for such issues to be raised. For example
> in soc.culture.jewish, issues about that faction of Chabad-Lubavitch
> that believes that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe is the "Moshiach" have
> been debated.
Will people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah find a congenial and
safe haven in soc.culture.jewish?
> Questions about such false messiahs such as Frank and
> Shabbatai Tzvi have arisen. As far as Jesus, there is no shortage of
> appropriate Christian-oriented newsgroups.
Really? What newsgroup provides a home for Jews who believe Jesus is
the Messiah? A place where people who partake of the Jewish culture can
hang out and be welcome and understood?
>
> [snip]
> >A good textbook on Christian eschatology would cover the many different
> >viewpoints.
> >
> >> Anyway, since you don't need me and other Jews to believe in Jesus, why
> >> don't you just leave us alone?
> >
> >We have our orders, you have yours.
>
> What are my "orders"?
You tell me.
>
> >> Is it that you think that Judaism without Jesus is deficient?
> >
> >Yes. In fact, *anything* without Jesus is deficient.
>
> You don't need me to tell you that you have a right to your belief and
> to freely express it.
So you'll vote "yes" to soc.religion.messianic?
[...]
Bob Felts
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 12:41:42 -0400, in article
> <1997070412...@user-2k7i81a.dialup.mindspring.com>,
> wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
> [snip]
> >Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes. I'm calling a spade a spade.
> >
> >So are they. In their world, you are the one who is being deceptive.
> >You don't seem to be able to grasp that they are the mirror image of
> >you.
>
> "Mirror image"? I'm not an ordained Baptist minister, "Moishe" Rosen
> is. Why does he not so state in the RFD?
a) because he didn't write it?
b) I did a cursory search of the RFD's posted to news.groups and
found that some RFD's give mini-biographies of the proposed
moderators (e.g. soc.religion.buddhism.tibetian and rec.gambling.
blackjack) and some do not (e.g. rec.games.mecha and
sci.psychology.psychotherapy). There doesn't seem to be any
standard when it comes to proposing moderators.
c) This information is easily available (go to AltaVista, find the
Jews for Jesus home page, follow the line to Rosen's home page).
But the key point is, why does it make a difference to you?
Is a person's background really that important when it comes to
moderation? Either they moderate according to the charter, or they're
gone. You could do it. I could do it. Does being a Jew who holds that
Jesus is the Messiah somehow disqualify one from being able to moderate?
> >
> >> Rabbi Tovia Singer, the director of Outreach Judaism, an
> >> anti-missionary organization, shared with his fellow rabbis recruiting
> >> pointers to be used by missionaries when approaching Jews.
> >
> >I know who Singer is. He would post once in a while on alt.messianic a
> >long time ago. In any case, what do you find objectionable about the
> >posters?
>
> "Posters"? (I'm not sure to what you are referring.)
Sorry. Should have been "pointers".
>
> [snip]
> Bob:
> >> >What about the people who adhere to Christianity and consider
> >> >themselves religiously Jewish? Furthermore, there exist Gentile
> >> >Christians who consider themselves religiously Jewish. You may
> >> >disagree with them, and you have every right to do so, but they exist.
> >>
> >> Of course they exist. I have no problem with them per se.
> >
> >Except, of course, when they want to advance their viewpoint that *they*
> >are the true Judaism and *you* are not. You seem quite willing to
> >tolerate your view point: that you are the true Judaism and they are
> >not, but you don't seem to want to extend that tolerance to them.
> >
> >Now, certainly, only one of you is right. But you seem to want to make
> >the discussion of this issue one-sided.
>
> The appropriate forums exist now.
Name one appropriate moderated forum that exists now.
> However, the proposed moderated soc.religion.messianic, with three
> proposed moderators who can hardly be deemed impartial won't provide
> assurance of being more than one-sided.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
[...]
>
> [snip]
> >You say "Judaism is defined by _______" and offer one definition.
> >They say "Judaism is defined by Jesus Christ".
> >
> >Only one of you is correct, but you can't co-opt their right to use and
> >live by their definition.
>
> "Co-opt their right"?! What "right"? Jews have paid for the right
> through nearly two millennia of persecution and massacres committed in
> the name of Jesus.
Moishe Rosen hasn't persecuted you, has he? All he's "guilty" of is
saying "I'm a Jew and Jesus is the Messiah of Israel".
>
> [Coke-Surge analogy snipped.]
>
> Bob:
> >Your (Jay's) analogy is flawed in that you have left out the most
> >important party. The better analogy would be "Surge" (aka Judaism),
> >"bottled by God" on the labels, with a different product inside.
> >
> >You say: "Judaism", "bottled by God", "Product A", "these symbols".
> >They say: "Judaism", "bottled by God", "Product B", "these symbols"
> >
> >You are trying to make an issue over the symbols, when the real issue is
> >what has God done?
> >
> [snip]
> >And mainline protestant and Roman Catholic and ...
> >
> >All of these groups have one thing in common: the belief that Jesus is
> >the Messiah of Israel. And, if Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, then
> >they have every right to use symbols associated with Israel, do they
> >not?
>
> Mainline Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics do not
> represent themselves as "Jews" and they do not represent their
> religions as "Judaism."
If you mean "Judaism" as represented by the covenant made at Sinai, you
are correct. But if you mean "Judaism" as represented by the New
Covenant made at Calvary, then you are incorrect.
>
> >> Coke is "the real thing." J4J and MJ are not.
> >
> >Jesus Christ is "the real thing". Orthodox Judaism is not.
>
> ROTFL, but not for the reason that you may think. (Joe, do you want
> to clue him in?)
I would guess that you aren't Orthodox. BTW, I do like your term
"normative Judaism".
>
> >> Christians should know that they insult Jews when they imply that
> >> Judaism is an incomplete religion in need of Jesus.
> >
> >And Jews should know that they insult us when they make statements like
> >this.
>
> Who is "us"?
Anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel.
[...]
>
> >[...]
> >> As for Jews for Jesus, take a look at their web page. Nowhere on it
> >> do they mention their direct connections to Chosen People Ministries
> >> and to the Southern Baptist Convention.
> >
> >What about their link to every other group of Christians? They hold,
> >like the rest of us, that Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Israel.
>
> But J4J is a direct affiliate of CPM and the Southern Baptists, but
> they do not openly say so.
Here's what they say on their web page:
Each person on our staff is a member of an evangelical congregation,
and together we represent MANY DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS. ...
About 145 full-time staff members are supported through the
contributions of individuals and churches. ... We trust God for the
financing and funding of Jews for Jesus, and He has provided through
caring Christians. ...
Sources of Income
Individual Support: 74%
Miscellaneous Revenue*: 14%
Congregational Offerings: 7%
Congregational Support: 5%
*Sales of books, tapes, CDs, etc., interest; tuition; in-kind gifts
Now, unless you can show me differently, all I see is that the SBC may
provide support to J4J. But so what? The SBC provides support to a lot
of people.
[...]
> [snip]
> >> Unlike J4J and MJ, your agenda, Bob, is open. You want to convert
> >> Jews and you would like the official imprimatur of a Usenet domain to
> >> do so. Missionize all you like, but don't ask Usenet voters to aid
> >> and abet this demeaning of Judaism.
> >
> >What you see as "demeaning" some see as "completing".
>
> Bob, can you understand why a normative Jew would find your attitude
> demeaning?
Of course.
> I don't know if you can so empathize, but I hope that
> Usenet voters can.
Jay, can you understand why a Christian Jew would find your attitude
offensive?
[...]
> >> The New Testament is a great piece of literature and more than that,
> >> it is a great piece of religious teaching. It's just not Jewish.
> >
> >So you have said. Who made you God?
>
> Non sequitur.
>
No, it's not. It's at the very heart of the matter.
If man gets to define who is a Jew, then you have every right to claim
that your group is the group which gets to make the definition.
If, however, it is God who defines who a Jew is, then we have to argue
how God has made this definition. If God drew the line from Sinai to
today's Judaism, then you are correct. If God drew the line from Sinai
to Calvary, then we are correct.
Randolph Parrish
shos...@wwa.com (Michael Shoshani) wrote:
>But that is not how Randolph is describing it. He describes "the first
>group", which is talk.religion.messiah (check the Subject: line of this
>very thread) as "a fellowship group for those who think that Jesus is the
>messiah.It is not a debate group.". This excludes all other messiahs of
>all other religions.
I goofted slightly. By 'first' I meant the moderated group.
Randolph Parrish
shos...@wwa.com (Michael Shoshani) wrote:
>Randolph Parrish (rbp...@primenet.com) wrote:
>: And believe me, we have tried all the possible name
>: combinations: 'Hebrew-Christian' is too many letters. "Hebrew-Xian'
>: offends some people who don't like the word 'Christian' abbreviated by
>: 'Xian'. "Hebr-Christian' could be taken to mean something like
>: 'Hebrides-Christian'. 'Soc.culture.religion.jewish.XXXX' wasn't
>: anybody's favorite. 'Soc.culture.relgion.christian.XXXX' offended the
>: people who wanted the group. And so on. 'Soc.religion.messianic' was
>: the best compromise we could come up with.
>I don't recall any discussion in alt.messianic *at all* concerning any
>proposed name of any proposed "big 8 group". It has not been hashed out,
>and opinions are very much divided.
I was referring to last year's proposition, when it was discussed
in news.groups.
Henrietta Thomas
In news.groups on 4 Jul 1997 11:59:48 GMT, shos...@wwa.com (Michael
Shoshani) wrote:
The discussion to which Mr. Parrish refers occurred on news.groups last
year when this proposal was first brought up. It was a horrendous ordeal
for everyone, with all sorts of charges floating back and forth. Now we
are getting into it again. :-(
Henrietta Thomas
h...@wwa.com
====
I <heart> Junk Detector -- http://members.aol.com/junkdtectr
Henrietta Thomas
In news.groups on Fri, 4 Jul 1997 13:01:33 -0400, wr...@mindspring.com (Bob
Felts) wrote:
[snip].....
>Jesus said to His disciples "Go into all the world and proclaim the good
>news to the whole creation."
>
>Every Christian who takes the words of Messiah Jesus seriously has that
>as their stated, open, obvious agenda.
Then I must not be a very good Christian, because I don't believe in
proselytizing anyone at any time. Period.
[snip].....
>My main interest is in having a moderated equivalent to alt.messianic
>where Jews and Christians can have their usual "Yes, He is!" "No, he
>isn't" discussions without all of the extraneous stuff that has appeared
>lately. soc.religion.messianic fits that in a way that s.r.c.b-s does
>not.
Then I think you should go for that. You might need to make some
changes in the charter and clarify the situation with your moderators,
even to the point of looking for someone else, but there should not
be any wild objections to a fellowship group.
>talk.religion.messiah fills a hole that groups such as s.r.c.b-s does
>not, since it is for discussion about messiahs other than Jesus.
This I think should be dropped completely. It is much too open and
too likely to lead to permanent floating flamewars. Not good for Jews.
Not good for Christians. Not good for Usenet or the world community.
The only topic which will be discussed there is Jesus of Nazareth,
and I really think we ought to give the man a rest.
Robyn Kozierok
In article <5pffpl$j...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
Randolph Parrish <rbp...@primenet.com> wrote:
>'Soc.culture.relgion.christian.XXXX' offended the
>people who wanted the group.
soc.religion.christian.XXX is about the only placement that I wouldn't
vote against. As far as I am concerned any religion which considers
Jesus of Nazarath to be the Messiah of Israel is a branch of Christianity.
I strongly object to characterizing it as anything else.
I don't see why those who want the group would be offended by a placement
in a Christian hierarchy unless they want to "hide" the fact that they are
Christians as a means of recruiting Jews.
--Robyn Kozierok
Stella Nemeth
schw...@alpha1.physik.uni-siegen.de (Ingo Schwarze) wrote:
>In the RFD posted on 02 Jul 1997 08:35:11 GMT,
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group talk.religion.messiah
>> moderated group soc.religion.messianic
>
>the proponents twice use the term "persons of Jewish ethnicity"
>for those invited to participate in the proposed newsgroup.
>
>I know some people who understand "Jewish" as designating their
>religion. Maybe "Jewish" is also used by some to designate their
>nationality; yet i know there is a lot of discussion already about
>this issue, since many people stress that the nation is to be
>called "Israel".
>
>I never talked to anybody who understood "Jewish" as her or his
>"ethnicity". In any case, the concept of "ethnicity" is quite
>problematic, especially when inviting people to participate in a
>discussion. And regarding German history, i feel somewhat alarmed
>when people start talking about "Jewish ethnicity".
I am a person of "Jewish ethnicity." By that I mean that I had Jewish
parents, who in turn had Jewish parents. But I have never practiced
the Jewish faith. My parents made that decision for me 15+ years
before I was born.
One of the reasons I still admit to Jewish ethnicity is because of
that same German history that alarms you so much. I do it because I
refuse to insult the dead.
Being of Jewish heritage has nothing to do with my national origin.
On my birth certificate it says quite plainly that both my parents
were born in Turkey. It doesn't take into consideration that my
father's birthplace was no longer called Turkey when I was born, or
that he grew up in Palestine, which was, of course, also Turkey when
he arrived there as a child of 8. Or that most of my mother's
childhood was spent on a Greek island. Under no circumstances could I
be called of Israeli origin since I don't have a clue as to where in
Palestine my father lived as a child and a young man. For all I know
that place is now called Jordan. And then, of course, there is the
whole Hispanic thread. When they weren't calling themselves Turks,
they insisted they were Spanish, which basically, they were.
As far as I can tell the proponents of this RFD and the last one like
it have been pushed to the wall by people who object to them
self-identifying as Messianic Jews. I've met a few of Messianic Jews
in my time. They tend to be Christians who started out in life as
ethnic Jews who didn't practice the Jewish religion and who, when they
went searching for faith, ended up as Christians because that is where
they found a welcoming community.
At this point in time, I'm tending towards a yes vote on these two
groups because enough is enough!
Stella Nemeth at sne...@home.com
One of the Moderators of news.newusers.questions
Joe Slater
Brian Mailman <bmai...@hooked.net> writes:
>I think the proposed names of these groups indicates messiahs of all
>religions that have one.
In fact there is at present one, and was once another, Moslem user of
alt.messianic. Was the proposal posted to any of the Islamic groups?
Joe Slater
h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
>Every person has a right to his own religious beliefs, or to have no
>religious beliefs at all (see famous quote of Thomas Jefferson). If
>some people of Jewish ancestry believe that Jesus of Nazareth was
>in fact the messiah promised in the Old Testament, they have a right
>to believe that, and they have the right to have a newsgroup where
>they can discuss their ideas of just who Jesus was. And if anyone
>disagrees with them, they should set up another newsgroup to discuss
>what Jesus was NOT.
I have no objection to that. I object to this proposal for the following
reasons.
Firstly, it's a hijack. These groups are expressly intended to replace
alt.messianic, a newsgroup in which I am a prolific poster, but there has
been no discussion or debate within that newsgroup.
Secondly, it gets rid of the main use of alt.messianic: arguments about
Judaism and Christianity held between Jews and Christians. It replaces it
with a "fellowship" group open only to Christians - which alone means
that it belongs in soc.religion.christian - and a "debate" newsgroup
whose charter expressly rules out denigration of other religions. This
sounds nice in theory, but how is Bob Felts to tell me that I am cut off
from the branch of the covenant, or whatever he says. How am I to tell
him that his god is dust and ashes?
Thirdly, the proper procedure hasn't been followed. The RFD wasn't posted
to the Jewish newsgroups, even though it's supposed to be for "people of
Jewish ethnicity". It wasn't posted to most Christian newsgroups, even
though it's supposed to be for worshippers of Jesus. And it wasn't posted
to Islamic or miscellaneous newsgroups, even though they have the concept
of a messiah.
Finally, the moderators suck. None are frequent or long standing posters
to alt.messianic; one of them is a Usenet illiterate and one of them has
distinguished himself primarily by the viciousness of his invective and
the amateurishness of his forged postings.
Bob Felts
Joe Slater <j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
[...]
>
> I object to this proposal for the following reasons.
>
> Firstly, it's a hijack. These groups are expressly intended to replace
> alt.messianic, a newsgroup in which I am a prolific poster, but there has
> been no discussion or debate within that newsgroup.
Isn't the primary place for discussions about RFD's here?
>
> Secondly, it gets rid of the main use of alt.messianic: arguments about
> Judaism and Christianity held between Jews and Christians.
You're right. We actually need two groups:
soc.religion.messianic -- a moderated version of alt.messianic, and
soc.culture.messianic -- a moderated fellowship group for Jewish
Chrsitians.
Would you be amenable to forming soc.religion.messianic as a moderated
equivalent for alt.messianic, all other factors being equal?
> It replaces it with a "fellowship" group open only to Christians - which
> alone means that it belongs in soc.religion.christian - ...
You can't win that argument by fiat, Joe. Regardless of your feelings
about the matter, Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel
consider themselves to be Jews. You can protest that they are not, you
can claim that they're being deceptive -- but you cannot take from them
their right to define themselves.
To put them in the Jewish hierarchy (where they belong), is to invite
scorn, abuse, and ridicule. To put them in the Christian hierarchy
(where they _also_ belong), is to deny them their cultural heritage.
soc.xxx.messianic is one solution which balances this tightrope act.
> ... and a "debate" newsgroup whose charter expressly rules out denigration
> of other religions. This sounds nice in theory, but how is Bob Felts to
> tell me that I am cut off from the branch of the covenant, or whatever he
> says. How am I to tell him that his god is dust and ashes?
A criticism which I also levelled earlier. We have to be able to
criticize each other's religion without devolving into the personal
insults which are far more the norm in alt.messy today.
[Wouldn't you love to be the moderator and tell (name withheld for no
particularly good reason) to take out the first three pages of invective
and just state the point? Or would that ruin the charm of
alt.yes-he-is.no-he-isn't? ;-) ]
>
> Thirdly, the proper procedure hasn't been followed. The RFD wasn't posted
> to the Jewish newsgroups, even though it's supposed to be for "people of
> Jewish ethnicity". It wasn't posted to most Christian newsgroups, even
> though it's supposed to be for worshippers of Jesus. And it wasn't posted
> to Islamic or miscellaneous newsgroups, even though they have the concept
> of a messiah.
I agree. The proponent should fix this.
>
> Finally, the moderators suck. None are frequent or long standing posters
> to alt.messianic; one of them is a Usenet illiterate and one of them has
> distinguished himself primarily by the viciousness of his invective and
> the amateurishness of his forged postings.
>
I agree that for the moderated version of alt.messy there should be
different moderators and there are a lot of good choices on both sides.
Shulman and Nixon, just to name two. Soshani and Lora D., to name two
more. Slater and Felts? Nahhh... ;-)
Bob Felts
Christopher B. Stone <cbs...@yuma.princeton.edu> wrote:
> In article <5pi09t$o...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> Randolph Parrish <rbp...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >Brian Mailman <bmai...@hooked.net> wrote:
>
> > This wouldn't work, because 1) "Jews for Jesus" is the name of a
> >specific organization, and the group is not about that organization;
>
> De facto, it is;
Are all Jewish believers in Jesus members of "Jews for Jesus"?
No, they are not.
>
> >and 2) there were lots of people who object (ed) to the use of the
> >word "Jews" in connection with "Jesus", so a compromise had to be
> >found. (And the same goes for "Messianic Jews",
> >"soc.culture.religion.jewish.jesus', etc.)
>
> So what? You are just picking different words to express the same
> idea -- and in my book, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet,
> or just as rotten in this case.
Emphasise the words "in my book". They aren't reading out of your book
and they reject your attempts to define them -- just as much as you
would reject the attempts of others to define you.
Kindly at least grant them the courtesy that you expect for yourself.
>
> What I fundamentally object to is this: like the "European communist"
> newsgroup that someone just proposed, you're using this newsgroup as
> a launch-pad for your own agenda, in this case a political agenda rather
> than a religious one.
Perhaps in your world you can separate political and religious agendas
-- but in their world no such separation between the sacred and the
secular exists. For the believer in Jesus, Jew or Gentile, there is no
area where He does not touch.
> If you *really* wanted to pick a neutral name,
> you would go for something like soc.religion.christian.converts.jewish,
> but of course that doesn't suit you because you are coy about your
> agenda. Anything else (e.g. "Hebrew Christians") is a misnomer, because
> by definition someone who believes Christ was the Messiah is a Christian,
> not a Jew.
By your definition. Not theirs. And you are trying to win the argument
over whose definition is correct by fiat.
How would you like it if every Christian on Usenet decided to gang up
and have the name of soc.culture.jewish changed to
soc.religion.christian.old_covenant? You would protest this action with
every fibre of your being -- and rightly so. So what gives you the
right to deny these people the Jewishness that they hold dear?
Emma Pease
In <5pk95o$7tv$1...@entertainment-tonight.ai.mit.edu> ro...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Robyn Kozierok) writes:
>In article <5pffpl$j...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
>Randolph Parrish <rbp...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>'Soc.culture.relgion.christian.XXXX' offended the
>>people who wanted the group.
>soc.religion.christian.XXX is about the only placement that I wouldn't
>vote against. As far as I am concerned any religion which considers
>Jesus of Nazarath to be the Messiah of Israel is a branch of Christianity.
>I strongly object to characterizing it as anything else.
Hmm, you are defining too narrowly as there have been (I don't think
there are any now) sects that consider Jesus as the savior of souls
but not the Messiah of Israel (see some varieties of gnostics who
rejected the Old Testament).
Unfortunately many christians are much more restrictive in their
definition of who are christians. By your definition Mormons are
christians (and so consider themselves) but most mainstream christian
sects do not. Because of that opposition,
soc.religion.christian.mormon would not have passed and instead we
compromised on soc.religion.mormon. Note also the Quakers and
Unitarians whom many might consider christian are also top level
soc.religion groups.
Now Jews for Jesus are probably more to the mainstream of Christianity
than any of those groups but should usenet be in the business of
deciding what is and isn't a Christian group by deciding which ones
should be under soc.religion.christian and which ones should be top
level?
I'm still not sure what is the best way of doing this.
>I don't see why those who want the group would be offended by a placement
>in a Christian hierarchy unless they want to "hide" the fact that they are
>Christians as a means of recruiting Jews.
Would you accept soc.religion.christian.jews or some variant of that
(such as soc.religion.christian.hebrews)? It avoids stating whether a
particular sect is or is not christian by not putting the name of the
sect in the newsgroup name but does allow self described christian
jews to find an appropriate place.
Emma
anyway I think both groups will probably fail due to a lack of yes
votes just like last time.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ em...@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Joe Slater
wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) writes:
>Joe Slater <j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>> Firstly, it's a hijack. These groups are expressly intended to replace
>> alt.messianic, a newsgroup in which I am a prolific poster, but there has
>> been no discussion or debate within that newsgroup.
>Isn't the primary place for discussions about RFD's here?
There should have been discussion before the RFD stage. The RFD for a
replacement newsgroup should come after a broad consensus has been
reached in the original newsgroup. If this RFD reaches the voting stage
and loses it will prevent us putting up a similar one for some period -
six months, I think.
>> Secondly, it gets rid of the main use of alt.messianic: arguments about
>> Judaism and Christianity held between Jews and Christians.
>You're right. We actually need two groups:
>soc.religion.messianic -- a moderated version of alt.messianic, and
>soc.culture.messianic -- a moderated fellowship group for Jewish
> Chrsitians.
>Would you be amenable to forming soc.religion.messianic as a moderated
>equivalent for alt.messianic, all other factors being equal?
I would suggest something like soc.religion.inter-debate.jew-christian.
That neatly encapsulates what has come to be the prime purpose of
alt.messianic.
>> It replaces it with a "fellowship" group open only to Christians - which
>> alone means that it belongs in soc.religion.christian - ...
>You can't win that argument by fiat, Joe. Regardless of your feelings
>about the matter, Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel
>consider themselves to be Jews.
They *also* consider themselves to be Christians. Since Christians are
willing to acknowledge them, and Jews are not, the proper place is within
the soc.religion.christian.* hierarchy. Usenet classification is there to
make it easy to find newsgroups. If you ask the average person in the
street what religion an ordained Baptist minister like Moshe Rosen
follows, you will be told that he's a Christian.
>> Finally, the moderators suck. None are frequent or long standing posters
>> to alt.messianic; one of them is a Usenet illiterate and one of them has
>> distinguished himself primarily by the viciousness of his invective and
>> the amateurishness of his forged postings.
>I agree that for the moderated version of alt.messy there should be
>different moderators and there are a lot of good choices on both sides.
>Shulman and Nixon, just to name two. Soshani and Lora D., to name two
>more. Slater and Felts? Nahhh... ;-)
Moderating the newsgroup would cramp my style, but there are a number of
good people who could do it. I wouldn't even be upset if none were
Jewish, although it might look better if there were a balance. The
important thing is impartiality.
Bob Felts
Joe Slater <j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) writes:
>
> >Joe Slater <j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> >> Firstly, it's a hijack. These groups are expressly intended to replace
> >> alt.messianic, a newsgroup in which I am a prolific poster, but there
> >> has been no discussion or debate within that newsgroup.
>
> >Isn't the primary place for discussions about RFD's here?
>
> There should have been discussion before the RFD stage. The RFD for a
> replacement newsgroup should come after a broad consensus has been
> reached in the original newsgroup. If this RFD reaches the voting stage
> and loses it will prevent us putting up a similar one for some period -
> six months, I think.
I'm not sure of the protocols of this thing, but can't a second RFD be
issued after this one has been discussed and, hopefully, some kind of
consensus reached?
>
> >> Secondly, it gets rid of the main use of alt.messianic: arguments about
> >> Judaism and Christianity held between Jews and Christians.
>
> >You're right. We actually need two groups:
>
> >soc.religion.messianic -- a moderated version of alt.messianic, and
> >soc.culture.messianic -- a moderated fellowship group for Jewish
> > Chrsitians.
>
> >Would you be amenable to forming soc.religion.messianic as a moderated
> >equivalent for alt.messianic, all other factors being equal?
>
> I would suggest something like soc.religion.inter-debate.jew-christian.
> That neatly encapsulates what has come to be the prime purpose of
> alt.messianic.
For a moment there, I was really taken by this idea. But then I
remembered posters such as our friend from earthlink who is neither
Jewish nor Christian who likes to participate in the group. Would this
name tend to exclude such people from the topic of Jesus as Messiah?
>
> >> It replaces it with a "fellowship" group open only to Christians - which
> >> alone means that it belongs in soc.religion.christian - ...
>
> >You can't win that argument by fiat, Joe. Regardless of your feelings
> >about the matter, Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel
> >consider themselves to be Jews.
>
> They *also* consider themselves to be Christians. Since Christians are
> willing to acknowledge them, and Jews are not, the proper place is within
> the soc.religion.christian.* hierarchy.
That's not the issue, Joe. Of course we are willing to acknowledge
them. Of course you don't. But the question isn't how you or I
classify them, but how they classify themselves. They want the right to
define themselves.
[...]
Bob Felts
Emma Pease <em...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
[...]
>
> Note that whether to put Christian sects under soc.religion.christian
> has been debated in the past. The problem is that those most likely
> to form newsgroups at this time aren't considered by many other
> Christians as Christians (Mormons for instance consider themselves
> Christians, you will note the group ended up being
> soc.religion.mormon).
Emma, I wasn't around for that RFD and the ensuing discussion. But I
would be most curious to know where the Mormons wanted to be placed in
the hierarchy. On the one hand, there is no doubt that Mormonism is
associated with Christianity. Portions of the Book of Mormon, for
example, are excerpts from the King James Bible. Their beliefs are
centered around Jesus Christ. So a case could have been made for
soc.religion.christian.mormon.
On the other hand, in Mormons hold that all of Christendom, except for
them, is corrupt and has broken off from the true teachings of Jesus
Christ. From this perspective, a case could have been made for
soc.religion.mormon.
Where in the hierarchy did they want to be? Was there any consensus
from the Mormons who participated in the discussion?
Chuck Pearson
Bob Felts (wr...@mindspring.com) wrote in response to Joe Slater
<j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au>:
: > Firstly, it's a hijack. These groups are expressly intended to replace
: > alt.messianic, a newsgroup in which I am a prolific poster, but there has
: > been no discussion or debate within that newsgroup.
: Isn't the primary place for discussions about RFD's here?
yes, but.
i'm working on a proposal for a newsgroup for the discussion of evangelical
christian subculture [the RFD is coming. honest. Real Soon Now.] and i
realized very quickly, through e-mails swapped back and forth with friends
and some lesser news.groupies that the proposal was going to be something
of a powder keg [to steal someone else's phrase].
so, instead of just throwing up the RFD to be shot down, like i could have
done, i posted a "pre-RFD" on newsgroups and as many relevant newsgroups i
could think of to get ideas about how the charter should be written, how
the group should fit into namespace, etc. and i just ran a straw poll
[also gratuitiously posted to tons of relevant newsgroups] to figure out
what kind of support i had for the thing, and if it was even worth the
trouble of writing an RFD. i think going to such great lengths to see that
the proposal gets done right has earned me a little more respect 'round
these parts than i might have otherwise had, and it improves my chances of
getting this thing passed.
politics is a dirty word, but it's not a totally useless thing.
chuck
--
fear is a fool who just won't shut up. (thanx to dime store prophets.)
cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
Bob Felts
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 15:56:45 -0400, in article
> <1997070415...@user-37kb7bi.dialup.mindspring.com>,
[...]
>
> >b) the rational says "by persons of Jewish ethnicity ... as well as by
> > others interested in the topic"
> >
> >[...]
> >>
> >> >You'd vote for them in the interest of maintaining free speech and
> >> >the open exchange of ideas on the Internet?
> >>
> >> This is not an issue of "free speech."
> >
> >Sure it is. You don't like people who say "I'm a Jew, I believe Jesus
> >is the Messiah, and, btw, I'm still a Jew".
>
> No, it is not about people. There are plenty of people with whom I
> sharply disagree, who I nevertheless do not dislike. I do indeed
> dislike the statement, "I'm a Jew, I believe Jesus is the Messiah,
> and, btw, I'm still a Jew." Even though such a statement is patently
> ridiculous, I do believe that a person has the right to say it and to
> do so openly. I do not believe, however, that Usenet voters should
> give an official imprimatur to a statement that is deeply offensive to
> Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, Reconstructionist, humanist, and to
> secular Jews.
Do you even begin to realize that your statement "Even though such a
statement is patently ridiculous" is as offensive to them as their
statement "I'm a Jew, I believe Jesus is the Messiah and, btw, I'm still
a Jew" is to you?
Why is it ok for _you_ to have a UseNet forum with it's official
imprimature to make such deeply offensive statements to these people?
>
> >> There are plenty of forums available to missionaries on the Internet,
> >> including not only the alt.* groups and various web sites, but some of
> >> the official newsgroups that you participate in.
> >
> >Well, if I were a Jew who wanted to talk about Jesus, soc.culture.jewish
> >sure sounds like the right place for me.
>
> If someone were to post a missionizing message, s/he would be told to
> leave. If a person posts a non-missionizing contribution, e.g., about
> how the historical Jesus is viewed by thinkers within the
> Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist and Orthodox movements, then
> that would be appropriate. If one wishes to proclaim the "good news"
> that Jesus is the Messiah, then there are any number of Christian
> newsgroups, in addition to alt.messianic.
1) Because of the increase of spam and off-topic posts, alt.messianic
has lost much of it's charm. We would like to have a moderated
group that would continue in the tradition of alt.messianic but
with a better signal-to-noise ratio.
2) What if one wishes to discuss Jewish culture, or ask questions
concerning problems observing the mitzvot, or tell Jewish jokes,
or do any of the *family* things that Jews do -- would these people
be welcome? Or would they have to hide their identity? Aren't
these people treated as lepers by the Jewish community when their
association with Jesus becomes known?
>
> [snip] Regarding one of the three proposed moderators, Moishe Rosen,
> an ordained Baptist minister and the founder of "Jews for Jesus," Bob
> Felts wrote:
> >> >As I mentioned in a previous post, the connection should be obvious.
> >> >Rosen is a Christian. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the
> >> >Messiah of Israel, the prophet like Moses, the King of the Jews.
> >>
> >> Now, you ask Rosen whether he calls himself a "Christian" when he
> >> missionizes. Their recruiting literature urges their workers to avoid
> >> that term, as well as the name "Jesus."
> >
> >Do you blame them? Look at the reaction to "We're Jews. We believe
> >in Jesus. We'd like a moderated forum to discuss issues specific to
> >us."
>
> A moderated forum with biased moderators.
I'm biased, too, Jay. So are you. Does that mean that neither of us
could competently moderate this group?
[...]
> [snip]
> Bob:
> >> >Jesus said to His disciples "Go into all the world and proclaim the
> >> >good news to the whole creation." Every Christian who takes the words
> >> >of Messiah Jesus seriously has that as their stated, open, obvious
> >> >agenda.
>
> >> Indeed, "Moshe" Rosen is an ordained Baptist minister. It should say
> >> that in the RFD.
>
> >So what? Why does it matter if he is Baptist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic,
> >Pentecostal, or any other group? First and foremost he considers
> >himself a Jew.
>
> One cannot be a Jew and a Christian at the same time, ...
In _your_ book. Not in theirs. Jesus was a Jew. Paul was a Jew.
Peter was a Jew. None of them considered themselves anything other than
Jews until their detractors started using the name "Christian" and the
name stuck. But, as I've pointed out before, "Christian" is simply the
greek form of "little Messiah". You can't escape the Jewish roots of
the name "Christian".
>
> [Deletions]
> Jay:
> >> Its proponents want soc.religion.messianic to be moderated. But look
> >> at who the moderators are. I invite our readers to do as I did and to
> >> check their various Usenet postings and web pages. Then ask the
> >> question, "How fair can we expect the three would-be moderators to be?
> >
> >IOW, they are guilty until proven innocent?
>
> They already have a track record, which readers can begin to see for
> themselves on DejaNews.
Do they have a track record concering their ability to moderate? Or are
you making the assumption that people who are biased in their religious
beliefs can't moderate groups?
[...]
>
> >> >talk.religion.messiah fills a hole that groups such as s.r.c.b-s does
> >> >not, since it is for discussion about messiahs other than Jesus.
>
> Other messiahs?! For example?
Bar Kochba, Shabbatei Zvi, Jacob Frank ...
[...]
> Jay:
> >> >> Anyway, since you don't need me and other Jews to believe in Jesus,
> >> >> why don't you just leave us alone?
> >> >
> >> >We have our orders, you have yours.
> >>
> >> What are my "orders"?
> >
> >You tell me.
>
> To respect people of all religions and to respect Christianity, Islam
> and all other monotheistic religions. As far as non-monotheists, my
> "orders" are not to invade their newsgroups or to set up new
> newsgroups with the aim of missionizing them. Traditional Judaism
> does not readily accept converts, since it does *not* believe that
> there is no salvation outside of the church/synagogue. Our Sages
> taught, "The righteous of all nations (religions) have a share in the
> World to Come."
Our Sage taught "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to
the Father but through me."
Do you respect that?
>
> >> >> Is it that you think that Judaism without Jesus is deficient?
>
> Bob:
> >> >Yes. In fact, *anything* without Jesus is deficient.
>
> Jay:
> >> You don't need me to tell you that you have a right to your belief and
> >> to freely express it.
> >
> >So you'll vote "yes" to soc.religion.messianic?
>
> Nope. I'm glad that you stated that my religion - Judaism, as well as
> Islam, and all the other major religions of the world outside of
> Christianity are "deficient." I'm wondering if Randolph Parrish and
> other proponents are prepared to disassociate themselves from your
> statement?
>
So, I guess you don't respect Christianity after all. Sounds like your
orders need a wee bit of revision.
Jay Lapidus
>> >> >I wish to have everyone believe in Jesus.
>> >>
>> >> That's your agenda. Nothing wrong with that, especially because you
>> >> are open about it.
Bob:
>> >So if _I_ issued an RFD for these groups, it would be ok?
>>
>> I doubt that you would state the following, since AFAIK you are not of
>> "Jewish ethnicity":
>
>[... cut RATIONALE: soc.religion.messianic ...]
>
>a) Assume that I was. Would you then object?
Yes, because you denigrate Jews and Judaism. You wish to overtly
missionize Jews. To my knowledge, there is no other official
newsgroup whose aim - whether explicit or implicit - is to actively
missionize members of another, specific religion.
>b) the rational says "by persons of Jewish ethnicity ... as well as by
> others interested in the topic"
>
>[...]
>>
>> >You'd vote for them in the interest of maintaining free speech and
>> >the open exchange of ideas on the Internet?
>>
>> This is not an issue of "free speech."
>
>Sure it is. You don't like people who say "I'm a Jew, I believe Jesus
>is the Messiah, and, btw, I'm still a Jew".
No, it is not about people. There are plenty of people with whom I
sharply disagree, who I nevertheless do not dislike. I do indeed
dislike the statement, "I'm a Jew, I believe Jesus is the Messiah,
and, btw, I'm still a Jew." Even though such a statement is patently
ridiculous, I do believe that a person has the right to say it and to
do so openly. I do not believe, however, that Usenet voters should
give an official imprimatur to a statement that is deeply offensive to
Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, Reconstructionist, humanist, and to
secular Jews.
>> There are plenty of forums available to missionaries on the Internet,
>> including not only the alt.* groups and various web sites, but some of the
>> official newsgroups that you participate in.
>
>Well, if I were a Jew who wanted to talk about Jesus, soc.culture.jewish
>sure sounds like the right place for me.
If someone were to post a missionizing message, s/he would be told to
leave. If a person posts a non-missionizing contribution, e.g., about
how the historical Jesus is viewed by thinkers within the
Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist and Orthodox movements, then
that would be appropriate. If one wishes to proclaim the "good news"
that Jesus is the Messiah, then there are any number of Christian
newsgroups, in addition to alt.messianic.
[snip] Regarding one of the three proposed moderators, Moishe Rosen,
an ordained Baptist minister and the founder of "Jews for Jesus," Bob
Felts wrote:
>> >As I mentioned in a previous post, the connection should be obvious.
>> >Rosen is a Christian. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the
>> >Messiah of Israel, the prophet like Moses, the King of the Jews.
>>
>> Now, you ask Rosen whether he calls himself a "Christian" when he
>> missionizes. Their recruiting literature urges their workers to avoid
>> that term, as well as the name "Jesus."
>
>Do you blame them? Look at the reaction to "We're Jews. We believe
>in Jesus. We'd like a moderated forum to discuss issues specific to
>us."
A moderated forum with biased moderators.
>The response? "Not in our internet, you deceptive, crazy, liars".
They are not crazy. As far as "our internet," it's not anyone's
internet, as voters have demonstrated in the past.
>You can't even hear them because of the knee-jerk reaction to the name
>"Jesus" in the same sentence with "I'm a Jew".
A better familiarity with traditional Jewish theology and history
would help Usenet voters see that this is more than just a "knee-jerk
reaction."
[snip]
Bob:
>> >Jesus said to His disciples "Go into all the world and proclaim the good
>> >news to the whole creation."
>> >Every Christian who takes the words of Messiah Jesus seriously has that
>> >as their stated, open, obvious agenda.
>> Indeed, "Moshe" Rosen is an ordained Baptist minister. It should say
>> that in the RFD.
>So what? Why does it matter if he is Baptist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic,
>Pentecostal, or any other group? First and foremost he considers
>himself a Jew.
One cannot be a Jew and a Christian at the same time, any more than a
Christian can be a Muslim, a Baptist a Catholic, a Lutheran a Mormon,
a Muslim a Hindu, a Buddhist a Christian, etc.
[Deletions]
Jay:
>> Its proponents want soc.religion.messianic to be moderated. But look
>> at who the moderators are. I invite our readers to do as I did and to
>> check their various Usenet postings and web pages. Then ask the
>> question, "How fair can we expect the three would-be moderators to be?
>
>IOW, they are guilty until proven innocent?
They already have a track record, which readers can begin to see for
themselves on DejaNews.
>The solution is not to impugn their personal character, but ensure that
>the charter has a provision for replacing moderators in case some ever
>turn out to be derelic in their duties.
Easier said than done.
>> >talk.religion.messiah fills a hole that groups such as s.r.c.b-s does
>> >not, since it is for discussion about messiahs other than Jesus.
Other messiahs?! For example?
>> There are enough groups now for such issues to be raised. For example
>> in soc.culture.jewish, issues about that faction of Chabad-Lubavitch
>> that believes that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe is the "Moshiach" have
>> been debated.
>
>Will people who believe that Jesus is the Messiah find a congenial and
>safe haven in soc.culture.jewish?
Nope. They will find such a safe haven on the Christian newsgroups.
>> Questions about such false messiahs such as Frank and
>> Shabbatai Tzvi have arisen. As far as Jesus, there is no shortage of
>> appropriate Christian-oriented newsgroups.
>
>Really? What newsgroup provides a home for Jews who believe Jesus is
>the Messiah? A place where people who partake of the Jewish culture can
>hang out and be welcome and understood?
Such Christians I'm sure are more than welcome on the existing
Christian groups.
[snip]
Jay:
>> >> Anyway, since you don't need me and other Jews to believe in Jesus, why
>> >> don't you just leave us alone?
>> >
>> >We have our orders, you have yours.
>>
>> What are my "orders"?
>
>You tell me.
To respect people of all religions and to respect Christianity, Islam
and all other monotheistic religions. As far as non-monotheists, my
"orders" are not to invade their newsgroups or to set up new
newsgroups with the aim of missionizing them. Traditional Judaism
does not readily accept converts, since it does *not* believe that
there is no salvation outside of the church/synagogue. Our Sages
taught, "The righteous of all nations (religions) have a share in the
World to Come."
>> >> Is it that you think that Judaism without Jesus is deficient?
Bob:
>> >Yes. In fact, *anything* without Jesus is deficient.
Jay:
>> You don't need me to tell you that you have a right to your belief and
>> to freely express it.
>
>So you'll vote "yes" to soc.religion.messianic?
Nope. I'm glad that you stated that my religion - Judaism, as well as
Islam, and all the other major religions of the world outside of
Christianity are "deficient." I'm wondering if Randolph Parrish and
other proponents are prepared to disassociate themselves from your
statement?
Michael Shoshani
Randolph Parrish (rbp...@primenet.com) wrote:
: shos...@wwa.com (Michael Shoshani) wrote:
: >I don't recall any discussion in alt.messianic *at all* concerning any
: >proposed name of any proposed "big 8 group". It has not been hashed out,
: >and opinions are very much divided.
: I was referring to last year's proposition, when it was discussed
: in news.groups.
Ah. The one where everyone came off looking like they had just slightly
less sense than the attorneys at the OJ criminal trial. :)
--
shos...@wwa.com // In the beginning, God made idiots;
Michael Shoshani // This was for practice
Chicago IL, USA // Then he made school boards.
http://miso.wwa.com/~shoshani/ // --Mark Twain
Jay Lapidus
On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 18:10:17 -0400, in article
<1997070418...@user-2k7i8bi.dialup.mindspring.com>,
wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote in reply to the following
question by me:
>> ...I'm not an ordained Baptist minister, "Moishe" Rosen
>> is. Why does he not so state in the RFD?
>
>a) because he didn't write it?
>b) I did a cursory search of the RFD's posted to news.groups and
> found that some RFD's give mini-biographies of the proposed
> moderators (e.g. soc.religion.buddhism.tibetian and rec.gambling.
> blackjack) and some do not (e.g. rec.games.mecha and
> sci.psychology.psychotherapy). There doesn't seem to be any
> standard when it comes to proposing moderators.
In this RFD, this is a significant omission, regardless of what
certain other RFDs have.
>c) This information is easily available (go to AltaVista, find the
> Jews for Jesus home page, follow the line to Rosen's home page).
One should not have to go through the trouble. And it's not
necessarily so easy.
>But the key point is, why does it make a difference to you?
>Is a person's background really that important when it comes to
>moderation? Either they moderate according to the charter, or they're
>gone. You could do it. I could do it. Does being a Jew who holds that
>Jesus is the Messiah somehow disqualify one from being able to moderate?
I have just responded to some of these questions in a follow up to one
of your other posts. As for your final question, I note that none of
the moderators holds the view that Jesus is not the Messiah.
>> >> Rabbi Tovia Singer, the director of Outreach Judaism, an
>> >> anti-missionary organization, shared with his fellow rabbis recruiting
>> >> pointers to be used by missionaries when approaching Jews.
>> >
>> >I know who Singer is. He would post once in a while on alt.messianic a
>> >long time ago. In any case, what do you find objectionable about the
>> >[pointers]?
Because they are intended to mislead Jewish people, e.g., through the
use of euphemisms and by disguising affiliations.
[snip]
Bob:
>> > ... You seem quite willing to
>> >tolerate your view point: that you are the true Judaism and they are
>> >not, but you don't seem to want to extend that tolerance to them.
>> >Now, certainly, only one of you is right. But you seem to want to make
>> >the discussion of this issue one-sided.
>>
>> The appropriate forums exist now.
>
>Name one appropriate moderated forum that exists now.
We Jews do not have a moderated Usenet group. There are many
moderated Jewish E-mail lists. Are there not such lists for
Christians?
[Repetitive issues from another follow up deleted.]
>> >You say "Judaism is defined by _______" and offer one definition.
>> >They say "Judaism is defined by Jesus Christ".
>> >
>> >Only one of you is correct, but you can't co-opt their right to use and
>> >live by their definition.
>>
>> "Co-opt their right"?! What "right"? Jews have paid for the right
>> through nearly two millennia of persecution and massacres committed in
>> the name of Jesus.
>
>Moishe Rosen hasn't persecuted you, has he? All he's "guilty" of is
>saying "I'm a Jew and Jesus is the Messiah of Israel".
"Moishe" Rosen is not the first apostate. Earlier ones, such as Pablo
Christiani and Torquemada, indeed forced Jews into biased
disputations, forced conversions, physical torture, and death. In
this era, especially in light of the Holocaust, Christian missionaries
- including former Jews - realize that coercion is counterproductive.
So they use other means. Some are honest and open. Others, like
"Jews for Jesus" are deceptive.
[snip]
>> Mainline Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics do not
>> represent themselves as "Jews" and they do not represent their
>> religions as "Judaism."
>
>If you mean "Judaism" as represented by the covenant made at Sinai, you
>are correct. But if you mean "Judaism" as represented by the New
>Covenant made at Calvary, then you are incorrect.
I suppose like Humpty Dumpty, you can choose to have a word mean what
you want it to mean. Fortunately, you are in a minority, even among
Christians.
[snip]
>> >> Christians should know that they insult Jews when they imply that
>> >> Judaism is an incomplete religion in need of Jesus.
>> >
>> >And Jews should know that they insult us when they make statements like
>> >this.
>>
>> Who is "us"?
>
>Anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel.
No insult was at all intended by me. But if you or anyone else was so
insulted, then that's too bad! I tolerate, and most often respect,
other religious viewpoints. But I do not respect those who disrespect
my religion.
[...]
Jay:
>> But J4J is a direct affiliate of CPM [Chosen People Ministries]
>> and the Southern Baptists, but they do not openly say so.
>
>Here's what they say on their web page:
>
> Each person on our staff is a member of an evangelical congregation,
> and together we represent MANY DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS. ...
[Sources of income deleted.]
>Now, unless you can show me differently, all I see is that the SBC may
>provide support to J4J. But so what? The SBC provides support to a lot
>of people.
SBC does more than support J4J, as I have already noted.
[snip]
>> >> Unlike J4J and MJ, your agenda, Bob, is open. You want to convert
>> >> Jews and you would like the official imprimatur of a Usenet domain to
>> >> do so. Missionize all you like, but don't ask Usenet voters to aid
>> >> and abet this demeaning of Judaism.
>> >
>> >What you see as "demeaning" some see as "completing".
>>
>> Bob, can you understand why a normative Jew would find your attitude
>> demeaning?
>
>Of course.
>
>> I don't know if you can so empathize, but I hope that
>> Usenet voters can.
>
>Jay, can you understand why a Christian Jew would find your attitude
>offensive?
"Christian Jew" is an oxymoron, like "Christian Muslim."
>> >> The New Testament is a great piece of literature and more than that,
>> >> it is a great piece of religious teaching. It's just not Jewish.
>> >
>> >So you have said. Who made you God?
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>
>No, it's not. It's at the very heart of the matter.
>If man gets to define who is a Jew, then you have every right to claim
>that your group is the group which gets to make the definition.
>If, however, it is God who defines who a Jew is, then we have to argue
>how God has made this definition. If God drew the line from Sinai to
>today's Judaism, then you are correct. If God drew the line from Sinai
>to Calvary, then we are correct.
If I want to pursue this last part of our debate, I would do so, for
example, on alt.messianic, soc.religion, soc.religion.christian, or on
an appropriate E-mail list.
Jay Lapidus
On Sat, 05 Jul 1997 03:51:16 GMT, in article
<33cec204.453920492@news>,
sne...@home.com (Stella Nemeth) concluded:
[I deleted for bandwidth Stella's description of her own background,
which I urge readers to find on her original post.]
>As far as I can tell the proponents of this RFD and the last one like
>it have been pushed to the wall by people who object to them
>self-identifying as Messianic Jews. I've met a few of Messianic Jews
>in my time. They tend to be Christians who started out in life as
>ethnic Jews who didn't practice the Jewish religion and who, when they
>went searching for faith, ended up as Christians because that is where
>they found a welcoming community.
Stella, you make good points. Since those acquaintances have "ended
up as Christians," perhaps the proposed groups ought to be called
"talk.religion.christian.messiah" and
"soc.religion.christian.messiah."
>At this point in time, I'm tending towards a yes vote on these two
>groups because enough is enough!
Your apparent exasperation, I hope will not impel you to a hasty
decision, especially considering the moderators of the proposed,
moderated group. I'm also wondering how closely the proposed
moderators and Randolph Parrish associate themselves with the views of
Bob Felts?
Jay Lapidus
On 5 Jul 97 23:20:23 GMT, in article
<joe.86...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au>,
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe Slater) wrote as part of a longer reply
to Bob Felts:
>I would suggest something like soc.religion.inter-debate.jew-christian.
How about
"soc.religion.inter-debate,jew-christian.yes-He-is.no-he-ain't"?
8-)
>That neatly encapsulates what has come to be the prime purpose of
>alt.messianic.
(posted and mailed)
Bob Felts
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 1997 18:10:17 -0400, in article
> <1997070418...@user-2k7i8bi.dialup.mindspring.com>,
> wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote in reply to the following
> question by me:
>
> >> ...I'm not an ordained Baptist minister, "Moishe" Rosen
> >> is. Why does he not so state in the RFD?
> >
> >a) because he didn't write it?
> >b) I did a cursory search of the RFD's posted to news.groups and
> > found that some RFD's give mini-biographies of the proposed
> > moderators (e.g. soc.religion.buddhism.tibetian and rec.gambling.
> > blackjack) and some do not (e.g. rec.games.mecha and
> > sci.psychology.psychotherapy). There doesn't seem to be any
> > standard when it comes to proposing moderators.
>
> In this RFD, this is a significant omission, regardless of what
> certain other RFDs have.
And again, I ask "why?" -- other than simply because you say that it
is.
>
> >c) This information is easily available (go to AltaVista, find the
> > Jews for Jesus home page, follow the line to Rosen's home page).
>
> One should not have to go through the trouble. And it's not
> necessarily so easy.
It's not? If you can go through Deja News and find my old sig, surely
you can find Rosen's home page.
[...]
>
> [snip]
> Bob:
> >> > ... You seem quite willing to
> >> >tolerate your view point: that you are the true Judaism and they are
> >> >not, but you don't seem to want to extend that tolerance to them.
> >> >Now, certainly, only one of you is right. But you seem to want to make
> >> >the discussion of this issue one-sided.
> >>
> >> The appropriate forums exist now.
> >
> >Name one appropriate moderated forum that exists now.
>
> We Jews do not have a moderated Usenet group.
Did you ask for one?
> There are many moderated Jewish E-mail lists. Are there not such lists
> for Christians?
Most likely. But e-mail lists are not usenet groups.
[...]
>
> [snip]
> >> Mainline Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics do not
> >> represent themselves as "Jews" and they do not represent their
> >> religions as "Judaism."
> >
> >If you mean "Judaism" as represented by the covenant made at Sinai, you
> >are correct. But if you mean "Judaism" as represented by the New
> >Covenant made at Calvary, then you are incorrect.
>
> I suppose like Humpty Dumpty, you can choose to have a word mean what
> you want it to mean. Fortunately, you are in a minority, even among
> Christians.
I see. And you are in a minority compared to all the other people's on
earth. I guess that makes you wrong, too.
>
> [snip]
> >> >> Christians should know that they insult Jews when they imply that
> >> >> Judaism is an incomplete religion in need of Jesus.
> >> >
> >> >And Jews should know that they insult us when they make statements like
> >> >this.
> >>
> >> Who is "us"?
> >
> >Anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel.
>
> No insult was at all intended by me. But if you or anyone else was so
> insulted, then that's too bad!
"I didn't mean to insult you, but if I did -- tough"?
[...]
> Jay:
> >> But J4J is a direct affiliate of CPM [Chosen People Ministries]
> >> and the Southern Baptists, but they do not openly say so.
> >
> >Here's what they say on their web page:
> >
> > Each person on our staff is a member of an evangelical congregation,
> > and together we represent MANY DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS. ...
> [Sources of income deleted.]
> >Now, unless you can show me differently, all I see is that the SBC may
> >provide support to J4J. But so what? The SBC provides support to a lot
> >of people.
>
> SBC does more than support J4J, as I have already noted.
All you have done is claim it. You haven't given any evidence to back
it up. None, zilch, nada. Put up, or shut up.
>
> [snip]
> >> >> Unlike J4J and MJ, your agenda, Bob, is open. You want to convert
> >> >> Jews and you would like the official imprimatur of a Usenet domain to
> >> >> do so. Missionize all you like, but don't ask Usenet voters to aid
> >> >> and abet this demeaning of Judaism.
> >> >
> >> >What you see as "demeaning" some see as "completing".
> >>
> >> Bob, can you understand why a normative Jew would find your attitude
> >> demeaning?
> >
> >Of course.
> >
> >> I don't know if you can so empathize, but I hope that
> >> Usenet voters can.
> >
> >Jay, can you understand why a Christian Jew would find your attitude
> >offensive?
>
> "Christian Jew" is an oxymoron, like "Christian Muslim."
Jesus was a Jew. Peter was a Jew. James was a Jew. Matthew was a Jew.
Paul was a Jew. Thomas was a Jew. John was a Jew. The first several
thousand converts were Jews. And, if you've read the New Testament, you
know that Peter didn't want to proclaim the gospel to Gentiles until God
"persuaded" him.
>
> >> >> The New Testament is a great piece of literature and more than that,
> >> >> it is a great piece of religious teaching. It's just not Jewish.
> >> >
> >> >So you have said. Who made you God?
> >>
> >> Non sequitur.
> >
> >No, it's not. It's at the very heart of the matter.
> >If man gets to define who is a Jew, then you have every right to claim
> >that your group is the group which gets to make the definition.
> >If, however, it is God who defines who a Jew is, then we have to argue
> >how God has made this definition. If God drew the line from Sinai to
> >today's Judaism, then you are correct. If God drew the line from Sinai
> >to Calvary, then we are correct.
>
> If I want to pursue this last part of our debate, I would do so, for
> example, on alt.messianic, soc.religion, soc.religion.christian, or on
> an appropriate E-mail list.
Why not soc.culture.judaism? The question "who defines 'who is a Jew'"
should certainly be an appropriate topic for that group.
Joe Slater
em...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU (Emma Pease) writes:
>Would you accept soc.religion.christian.jews or some variant of that
>(such as soc.religion.christian.hebrews)?
I think that the purpose of the proposed groups hasn't been adequately
considered, and that this should be resolved before we can discuss the
names. There was no discussion in alt.messianic before the RFD was
posted, and that's probably why I and other alt.messianic users are
dissatisfied.
Stella Nemeth
jlap...@usa.net (Jay Lapidus) wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Jul 1997 03:51:16 GMT, in article
><33cec204.453920492@news>,
>sne...@home.com (Stella Nemeth) concluded:
>>As far as I can tell the proponents of this RFD and the last one like
>>it have been pushed to the wall by people who object to them
>>self-identifying as Messianic Jews. I've met a few of Messianic Jews
>>in my time. They tend to be Christians who started out in life as
>>ethnic Jews who didn't practice the Jewish religion and who, when they
>>went searching for faith, ended up as Christians because that is where
>>they found a welcoming community.
>
>Stella, you make good points. Since those acquaintances have "ended
>up as Christians," perhaps the proposed groups ought to be called
>"talk.religion.christian.messiah" and
>"soc.religion.christian.messiah."
Kindly don't put words in my mouth. They kept right on
self-identifying as Jews who had chosen the Christian faith. Being
Jewish is a bit different from being almost any ethnic group. It is a
faith, to be sure, but most of the people who self-identiry as Jewish
don't practice the faith, and quite a few of them come from families
that haven't practiced the faith for generations. Some of those
people end up doing their praying in churches. And some of those
continue to self-identify as Jewish as an ethnic group.
>>At this point in time, I'm tending towards a yes vote on these two
>>groups because enough is enough!
>
>Your apparent exasperation, I hope will not impel you to a hasty
>decision, especially considering the moderators of the proposed,
>moderated group. I'm also wondering how closely the proposed
>moderators and Randolph Parrish associate themselves with the views of
>Bob Felts?
So far Bob Felts looks like a class act to me. I haven't seen enough
of Randolph Parrish to make a decision about him. All three of the
moderators seem to have decided to stay out of the discussion so far.
I have no opinion on any of them as moderators.
What is making up my mind is the small mindedness of the opposition
which has decided that this group should not be allowed to have a
group for fellowship and that this subject should not be discussed in
the Big 8. I am not amused.
Bob Felts
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
[...]
>
> I'm also wondering how closely the proposed moderators and Randolph
> Parrish associate themselves with the views of Bob Felts?
>
[I posted John 14:6 where Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the
life. No man comes to the Father but by me." I could equally well have
posted Acts 4:11-12, where Peter says to his Jewish audience "This Jesus
is 'the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the
cornerstone.' There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other
name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved."]
Just for your information, Jay, most of Christendom holds to the
doctrine that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ. I wish I
had a copy of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church, but a quick
search on the web turned up:
Nostra Aetate, Vatican II's Declaration on the Relation of the Church
to Non-Christian Religions, articulates the Church's desire to
initiate dialogue with non-Christian religions.
...there is found among different peoples a certain awareness of
hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the
events of human life. At times there is present even a
recognition of a supreme being, or still more of a Father. This
awareness and recognition results in a way of life that is imbued
with a deep religious sense. The religions which are found in
more advanced civilizations endeavor by way of well-defined
concepts and exact language to answer these questions.
The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in
these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and
conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in
many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray
of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is
duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the
truth and the life (Jn.14:6). 78
And
The Catechism stresses the importance of faith in salvation.
Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our
salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since
'without faith it is impossible to please [God]' and to attain to
the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has
ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life
'but he who endures to the end'" 87
And you know the position of the Southern Baptists on the matter. :-)
So now you have the New Testament's take on the issue, the Roman
Catholic position, the Southern Baptists, and this poor ole' mongrel.
How's your level of respect for Christianity now?
P.S. Gotta go. Boy Scout camp starts tomorrow and I won't be back
until Wednesday at the earliest. I'm sure there will be a disk-load of
posts waiting for me when I get back and I just wanted to let you know
that I wasn't ignoring you. ;-)
Jon Bell
In article <1997070521...@user-37kb0bd.dialup.mindspring.com>,
Bob Felts <wr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>I'm not sure of the protocols of this thing, but can't a second RFD be
>issued after this one has been discussed and, hopefully, some kind of
>consensus reached?
Most definitely. 2nd RFD's are common. With the proposal to convert
news.newusers.questions to moderated status, we went to a 3rd RFD.
The reorganization of rec.pets.cats went to a 4th RFD.
The fact that cat-lovers can be *that* disputatious should give you an
idea of what to expect when serious religious differences are involved.
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu>
head moderator, news.newusers.questions
Joe Slater
sne...@home.com (Stella Nemeth) writes:
>What is making up my mind is the small mindedness of the opposition
>which has decided that this group should not be allowed to have a
>group for fellowship and that this subject should not be discussed in
>the Big 8. I am not amused.
I don't know that anyone has said that this group should not be allowed to
have a group for fellowship. In fact, I don't really know who "this group"
is. The proponent of the group (Randolph Parrish) doesn't claim to be
ethnically Jewish; neither does Bob Felts. In fact, I have the idea that
Bob rejects the idea of Jewish ethnicity since he believes that Judaism
is a matter of faith in Jesus. Where are the fellows who want to
fellowship?
These newsgroups are intended to replace alt.messianic, a group in which I
am a prolific poster. I don't like the proposal for reasons I have
outlined in another post. Bob Felts is also a prolific poster - and a
Christian. He also doesn't seem to like the proposal. Michael Shoshani is
a third prolific poster - he doesn't like the proposal either. I hope that
you will allow us some input into the disposition of our favorite
newsgroup, since you neither use alt.messianic nor would use any
successor.
Jim Riley
In article <1997070523...@user-37kb0fo.dialup.mindspring.com>
Bob Felts wrote:
>Emma Pease <em...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>> Note that whether to put Christian sects under soc.religion.christian
>> has been debated in the past. The problem is that those most likely
>> to form newsgroups at this time aren't considered by many other
>> Christians as Christians (Mormons for instance consider themselves
>> Christians, you will note the group ended up being
>> soc.religion.mormon).
>
>Emma, I wasn't around for that RFD and the ensuing discussion. But I
>would be most curious to know where the Mormons wanted to be placed in
>the hierarchy.
I think it was early on recognized that a place in the the
soc.religion.christian.* hierarachy would not have been politically
viable. Some would have preferred s.r.c.restoration, and there was also
questions about whether LDS or other forms of the denominational name
should be included in the name, and whether 'Mormon' excluded other
related groups such as the Reorganized COJCOLDS. My understanding is
that discussion of such groups is on topic in s.r.m.
>Where in the hierarchy did they want to be? Was there any consensus
>from the Mormons who participated in the discussion?
After the creation of s.r.mormon, there was a proposal for
s.r.christian.presbyterian (it never went much beyond the posting of the
RFD). There was some criticism of that name as endorsing a particular
classification system that excluded Mormons.
The current subgroups in the s.r.christian hierarchy are all
non-denominational.
--
Jim Riley
Stella Nemeth
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe Slater) wrote:
>em...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU (Emma Pease) writes:
>>Would you accept soc.religion.christian.jews or some variant of that
>>(such as soc.religion.christian.hebrews)?
>
>I think that the purpose of the proposed groups hasn't been adequately
>considered, and that this should be resolved before we can discuss the
>names. There was no discussion in alt.messianic before the RFD was
>posted, and that's probably why I and other alt.messianic users are
>dissatisfied.
That is unfortunate. There certainly should have been discussion
since your group is one of the places the traffic will come from if
these groups are created. Was there no discussion before the first
attempt at starting up these groups last year? Or just no discussion
on alt.messianic during the period BETWEEN RFDs?
Stella Nemeth
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe Slater) wrote:
>sne...@home.com (Stella Nemeth) writes:
>>What is making up my mind is the small mindedness of the opposition
>>which has decided that this group should not be allowed to have a
>>group for fellowship and that this subject should not be discussed in
>>the Big 8. I am not amused.
>
>I don't know that anyone has said that this group should not be allowed to
>have a group for fellowship. In fact, I don't really know who "this group"
>is. The proponent of the group (Randolph Parrish) doesn't claim to be
>ethnically Jewish; neither does Bob Felts. In fact, I have the idea that
>Bob rejects the idea of Jewish ethnicity since he believes that Judaism
>is a matter of faith in Jesus. Where are the fellows who want to
>fellowship?
I suggest that you reread the thread if you think that there is no
opposition to the idea of a fellowship group for Messianic Jews. It
certainly sounds like lots of opposition to me. So far every name
that has been acceptable to the people who wish to make the group has
been objected to on the basis that no one who is ethnically Jewish
could possible be a Christian too.
I've noticed that Bob Felts doesn't claim to be ethnically Jewish. I
didn't notice that he objects to these groups. Could you quote me
something from this thread that shows him having this position?
You have pointed out that the Messianic Jews have been very quiet in
this discussion so far. Good point.
>These newsgroups are intended to replace alt.messianic, a group in which I
>am a prolific poster. I don't like the proposal for reasons I have
>outlined in another post. Bob Felts is also a prolific poster - and a
>Christian. He also doesn't seem to like the proposal. Michael Shoshani is
>a third prolific poster - he doesn't like the proposal either. I hope that
>you will allow us some input into the disposition of our favorite
>newsgroup, since you neither use alt.messianic nor would use any
>successor.
I'm very glad to hear from some prolific posters from the
alt.messianic group. As far as I could tell from the discussion so
far, there was no objections from any of them. So, thank you for both
coming forward and pointing out that you are part of the population
that will be affected by a new group. Certainly your opinion is
important.
By the way, are you pro-Messianic Jew or anti-Messianic Jew? It seems
to me that it might be a good thing to know for those of us who are in
the middle.
How do you know I would not use the successor of alt.messianic? For
all you know I've been lurking there for the last 6 months? Stranger
things have been known to happen.
Jay Lapidus
On Sun, 06 Jul 1997 04:55:37 GMT, in article
<33cd2338.544354106@news>,
sne...@home.com (Stella Nemeth) wrote:
>jlap...@usa.net (Jay Lapidus) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Jul 1997 03:51:16 GMT, in article
>><33cec204.453920492@news>,
>>sne...@home.com (Stella Nemeth) concluded:
>
>>>As far as I can tell the proponents of this RFD and the last one like
>>>it have been pushed to the wall by people who object to them
>>>self-identifying as Messianic Jews. I've met a few of Messianic Jews
>>>in my time. They tend to be Christians who started out in life as
>>>ethnic Jews who didn't practice the Jewish religion and who, when they
>>>went searching for faith, ended up as Christians because that is where
>>>they found a welcoming community.
>>
>>Stella, you make good points. Since those acquaintances have "ended
>>up as Christians," perhaps the proposed groups ought to be called
>>"talk.religion.christian.messiah" and
>>"soc.religion.christian.messiah."
>
>Kindly don't put words in my mouth.
Excuse me. There was no such intention on my part. I thought that I
was quoting your own words. Thank you for clarifying your point.
>They kept right on
>self-identifying as Jews who had chosen the Christian faith. Being
>Jewish is a bit different from being almost any ethnic group. It is a
>faith, to be sure, but most of the people who self-identiry as Jewish
>don't practice the faith, and quite a few of them come from families
>that haven't practiced the faith for generations. Some of those
>people end up doing their praying in churches. And some of those
>continue to self-identify as Jewish as an ethnic group.
>
>>>At this point in time, I'm tending towards a yes vote on these two
>>>groups because enough is enough!
>>
>>Your apparent exasperation, I hope will not impel you to a hasty
>>decision, especially considering the moderators of the proposed,
>>moderated group. I'm also wondering how closely the proposed
>>moderators and Randolph Parrish associate themselves with the views of
>>Bob Felts?
>
>So far Bob Felts looks like a class act to me. I haven't seen enough
>of Randolph Parrish to make a decision about him. All three of the
>moderators seem to have decided to stay out of the discussion so far.
>I have no opinion on any of them as moderators.
>
>What is making up my mind is the small mindedness of the opposition
You are not calling me, Joe and others "small minded," I hope.
>which has decided that this group should not be allowed to have a
>group for fellowship and that this subject should not be discussed in
>the Big 8. I am not amused.
No one is trying to amuse you. Your mind appears to be made up, so I
simply wish you all the best.
Jay Lapidus
On Sun, 6 Jul 1997 01:10:01 -0400, in article
<1997070601...@user-37kb0fo.dialup.mindspring.com>,
wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
[snip]
Still great. I don't have a problem with Nostra Aetate or with the
post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church. Of course, there are
irreconcilable theological and doctrinal differences, but the
relationship between the RC Church and Jewish leaders are respectful
and cordial. I myself have good relations with the RC churches in my
area. Whatever proselytizing is aboveboard. They do not denigrate
Jews or Judaism.
Jay Lapidus
I'll respond to just a few points to avoid repeating myself and
consuming too much bandwidth.
On Sun, 6 Jul 1997 00:15:02 -0400, in article
<1997070600...@user-37kb0fo.dialup.mindspring.com>,
wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
>Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> We Jews do not have a moderated Usenet group.
>
>Did you ask for one?
Actually, there is one: soc.culture.jewish.parenting, but its scope is
limited. I prefer that scj remain unmoderated. That way, Joe Slater
and I can still flame each other!
>
>> There are many moderated Jewish E-mail lists. Are there not such lists
>> for Christians?
>
>Most likely. But e-mail lists are not usenet groups.
Frankly, I think E-mail lists may be in the best interests of all
concerned. There are various such lists now, official and unofficial,
catering to Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, rabbis, non-rabbis, etc.
E-mail lists control flame wars, challenges to the credentials of the
moderators, not to mention spam. They can call their lists anything
they want, publicize them on web pages and on existing Usenet groups
like alt.messianic, set their own rules to suit their purposes, and
choose their moderators without interference from nonbelievers.
[...]
Jay:
>> I suppose like Humpty Dumpty, you can choose to have a word mean what
>> you want it to mean. Fortunately, you are in a minority, even among
>> Christians.
>
>I see. And you are in a minority compared to all the other people's on
>earth. I guess that makes you wrong, too.
We've been told that since Abraham! The point is, however, that
mainstream Christians, including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, American
Baptists among many other Protestant denominations do not coopt the
names "Jew" and "Judaism," and they respect Jews as full partners in
the pursuit of the perfection of the universe.
>> [snip]
>> >> >> Christians should know that they insult Jews when they imply that
>> >> >> Judaism is an incomplete religion in need of Jesus.
>> >> >
>> >> >And Jews should know that they insult us when they make statements like
>> >> >this.
>> >>
>> >> Who is "us"?
>> >
>> >Anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel.
>>
>> No insult was at all intended by me. But if you or anyone else was so
>> insulted, then that's too bad!
>
>"I didn't mean to insult you, but if I did -- tough"?
That's right. We Jews are more than entitled to challenge simply and
honestly allegations that "Judaism is an incomplete religion without
Jesus."
[...]
Jay:
>> SBC does more than support J4J, as I have already noted.
>
>All you have done is claim it. You haven't given any evidence to back
>it up. None, zilch, nada. Put up, or shut up.
The evidence is available from the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai
B'rith, Jews for Judaism, Rabbi Tovia Singer's Outreach Judaism, among
other organizations.
[snip]
Marshall Beeber
Stella Nemeth <sne...@home.com> wrote in article
<33c3c0d3.584706672@news>...
> j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe Slater) wrote:
>
> >sne...@home.com (Stella Nemeth) writes:
> >>What is making up my mind is the small mindedness of the opposition
> >>which has decided that this group should not be allowed to have a
> >>group for fellowship and that this subject should not be discussed in
> >>the Big 8. I am not amused.
> >
> >I don't know that anyone has said that this group should not be allowed
to
My name is Marshall Beeber. I am a Messianic Jew (Hebrew Christian). I
believe that every religious denomination that respects the rights of
others and doesn't preach hate or other anit-social practices has the right
to establish a newsgroup for the purposes of fellowship and communication
without being obstructed by individuals or groups that oppose it's
religious inclinations.
The existence of the unmoderated newsgroup alt.messianic is inadequate for
the purposes of peaceful fellowship among Messianic believers. It was
originally designed to be a debate forum so anti-Messianic debate could
continue off the Jewish fellowship newsgroups. As Messianic Jews, we
simply desire the same peaceful fellowship that Jewish newsgroups desire.
For those that both support our religious views or oppose our religious
views but, support simple freedoms, I strongly recommend that out religious
freedoms be upheld by voting for the establishment of our newsgroup.
If our newsgroup fails in obtaining the votes to be established, a
precedence will be established that an opposing religious faction can
successfully deprive individuals of their religious freedoms.
Please bear in mind that ultra-orthodox Jewish factions in Israel tried to
prevent any Messianic and Christian presence in Israel, but recently failed
due to the enormous support of American Christians that support Israel, but
don't want the ultra-right Jews to remove the democratic freedoms that
Israel has stood for in the past.
In a similar fashion, Christians should strongly support the establishment
of a Messianic Jewish newsgroup, designed for the purpose of fellowship
amongst Messianic Jews and supportive Christians.
A sign of support by Christians reading this posting would be highly
appreciated.
Respectfully,
Marshall Beeber
Jay Lapidus
I'm just going to respond to a few points.
On Sat, 5 Jul 1997 23:49:19 -0400, in article
<1997070523...@user-37kb0fo.dialup.mindspring.com>,
wr...@mindspring.com (Bob Felts) wrote:
>I'm biased, too, Jay. So are you. Does that mean that neither of us
>could competently moderate this group?
Of course, everyone has biases. But here, the proposed moderators are
biased in the same general direction.
[snip]
Bob:
>Do they have a track record concering their ability to moderate? Or are
>you making the assumption that people who are biased in their religious
>beliefs can't moderate groups?
Again, there has to be some balance.
>> >> >talk.religion.messiah fills a hole that groups such as s.r.c.b-s does
>> >> >not, since it is for discussion about messiahs other than Jesus.
>>
>> Other messiahs?! For example?
>
>Bar Kochba, Shabbatei Zvi, Jacob Frank ...
Those three are proper subjects for discussion on SCJ. I am unaware of
anyone on SCJ who sees a need for a different newsgroup devoted to Bar
Kochba, the Frankists, the Sabbatians, the Donmeh, or the Lubavitch
Youth Organization.
The only messiah that interests the proponents of the RFD is Jesus.
>[...]
>
>> Jay:
>> >> >> Anyway, since you don't need me and other Jews to believe in Jesus,
>> >> >> why don't you just leave us alone?
>> >> >
>> >> >We have our orders, you have yours.
>> >>
>> >> What are my "orders"?
>> >
>> >You tell me.
Jay:
>> To respect people of all religions and to respect Christianity, Islam
>> and all other monotheistic religions. As far as non-monotheists, my
>> "orders" are not to invade their newsgroups or to set up new
>> newsgroups with the aim of missionizing them. Traditional Judaism
>> does not readily accept converts, since it does *not* believe that
>> there is no salvation outside of the church/synagogue. Our Sages
>> taught, "The righteous of all nations (religions) have a share in the
>> World to Come."
>
>Our Sage taught "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to
>the Father but through me."
>
>Do you respect that?
As I said, I believe the New Testament to be a great piece of
religious literature and teaching. It certainly does not need my
endorsement. The religious texts that I hold sacred, however,
contradict your particular Sage.
>> >> >> Is it that you think that Judaism without Jesus is deficient?
>>
>> Bob:
>> >> >Yes. In fact, *anything* without Jesus is deficient.
>>
>> Jay:
>> >> You don't need me to tell you that you have a right to your belief and
>> >> to freely express it.
>> >
>> >So you'll vote "yes" to soc.religion.messianic?
>>
>> Nope.
I would consider, however, an RFD for
soc.religion.christianity.messiah.
>> I'm glad that you stated that my religion - Judaism, as well as
>> Islam, and all the other major religions of the world outside of
>> Christianity are "deficient." I'm wondering if Randolph Parrish and
>> other proponents are prepared to disassociate themselves from your
>> statement?
>
>So, I guess you don't respect Christianity after all. Sounds like your
>orders need a wee bit of revision.
Non sequitur. My question still stands for Messrs. Parrish et al.
Stella Nemeth
"Marshall Beeber" <mbe...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>Stella Nemeth <sne...@home.com> wrote in article
><33c3c0d3.584706672@news>...
>> j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe Slater) wrote:
>> >[snip] Where are the fellows who want to
>> >fellowship?
>> You have pointed out that the Messianic Jews have been very quiet in
>> this discussion so far. Good point.
>My name is Marshall Beeber. I am a Messianic Jew (Hebrew Christian). I
>believe that every religious denomination that respects the rights of
>others and doesn't preach hate or other anit-social practices has the right
>to establish a newsgroup for the purposes of fellowship and communication
>without being obstructed by individuals or groups that oppose it's
>religious inclinations.
Thank you for responding to the question of where the Messianic Jews
who will use this group are. I'm hoping that some of the other
lurkers to this thread will come forward as well.
>The existence of the unmoderated newsgroup alt.messianic is inadequate for
>the purposes of peaceful fellowship among Messianic believers. It was
>originally designed to be a debate forum so anti-Messianic debate could
>continue off the Jewish fellowship newsgroups. As Messianic Jews, we
>simply desire the same peaceful fellowship that Jewish newsgroups desire.
Your description of alt.mesiannic as a debate forum set up by
anti-Messianic Jews to debate the issue sounds about what I would
expect of an unmoderated alt group with that name. To an outsiders it
was quite obvious that most of this thread was simply offshoots of the
ongoing debate on alt.messianic.
Fellowship groups generally need to be moderated. Also, there is no
reason why a fellowship group needs to allow all points of view, or a
massive ongoing flamewar to take over the group.
At this point I'm still supporting this RFD.
Chuck Pearson
Marshall Beeber (mbe...@voicenet.com) wrote:
: My name is Marshall Beeber. I am a Messianic Jew (Hebrew Christian).
cool beans, they're out there. 8-)
[...]
: For those that both support our religious views or oppose our religious
: views but, support simple freedoms, I strongly recommend that out religious
: freedoms be upheld by voting for the establishment of our newsgroup.
: If our newsgroup fails in obtaining the votes to be established, a
: precedence will be established that an opposing religious faction can
: successfully deprive individuals of their religious freedoms.
uh, nyet. if this newsgroup fails, it will be because your proponent
succeeded in alienating a large fraction of those who might see this
newsgroup as being a Very Good Thing [tm], myself included. i love the
idea of soc.religion.messianic, m'self. i also think the proponent in
question isn't showing much knowledge about the nature of usenet.
newsgroups can fail for reasons of religious bias. newsgroups far, far
more often fail because the proponent(s) don't know beans about building up
support.
: A sign of support by Christians reading this posting would be highly
: appreciated.
so noted. and supported.
but if the newsgroup fails, don't moan about religious bias. start a
mailing list instead. that's usually far more constructive. 8-)
chuck. "a place on usenet is not divine right, much as we wish it were..."
Joe Slater
>j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe Slater) wrote:
>>I think that the purpose of the proposed groups hasn't been adequately
>>considered, and that this should be resolved before we can discuss the
>>names. There was no discussion in alt.messianic before the RFD was
>>posted, and that's probably why I and other alt.messianic users are
>>dissatisfied.
sne...@home.com (Stella Nemeth) writes:
>That is unfortunate. There certainly should have been discussion
>since your group is one of the places the traffic will come from if
>these groups are created. Was there no discussion before the first
>attempt at starting up these groups last year? Or just no discussion
>on alt.messianic during the period BETWEEN RFDs?
I don't think there was any discussion last year, either. The first I
knew of it was when Randolph posted the RFD. I do actually think that
a.m. needs moderation, but this isn't the way to do it.
Alt.messianic was started in order to get a particular user out of
soc.culture.jewish. I don't think he was ethnically Jewish; he just
followed the Christians-are-the-true-Israel line. Alt.messianic was
supposed to be a place where arguments between Jews and Christians over
their respective religions were on-topic. It was never primarily a
fellowship group.
Like most alt.* groups, alt.messianic is a sewer. It's only readable if
you have a thick skin and a mighty killfile. I think most users would like
some sort of moderation, although the mechanics of implementation might be
difficult.
This RFD does not do that. The moderated group is for "fellowship", not
debate, and is useless to the prime users of alt.messianic. The
unmoderated group won't change matters, except to force people to follow
two groups instead of one. I think the basic flaw in the RFD is its
supposition that alt.messianic has something to do with providing a haven
for Jews who follow Christianity. A good start to correcting its flaws
would be by removing this link.
Last year's RFD collapsed mainly on the issue of naming. I think
soc.religion.messianic is a useless group, but it can stand or fall on its
own merits if it is only to be a fellowship group. Its charter and
moderators are unacceptable for a genuine discussion group. Scrap
talk.religion.messianic, and have a moderated group for genuine discussion
of Jewish/Christian issues, with moderators drawn from the main streams
represented in alt.messianic - Jewish, Christian, and those who can't be
categorised (Gnostics and Arians and Moslems, oh my).
I suggest that soc.religion.inter-debate.jew-christian would be an
appropriate name and provide the basis for future moderated arguments
between (e.g.) LDSs and gentiles, SDAs and non-Sabbatarians and so on.
Jay Lapidus
On Sun, 06 Jul 1997 16:07:28 GMT, in article
<33c3c0d3.584706672@news>,
sne...@home.com (Stella Nemeth) replied to Joe Slater:
>I suggest that you reread the thread if you think that there is no
>opposition to the idea of a fellowship group for Messianic Jews. It
>certainly sounds like lots of opposition to me. So far every name
>that has been acceptable to the people who wish to make the group has
>been objected to on the basis that no one who is ethnically Jewish
>could possible be a Christian too.
[snip]
With all respect, you may wish to reread the thread yourself. I for
one never said that one who is _ethnically_ Jewish cannot be a
Christian. Madeleine Albright, our Sec'y of State is a famous
example. Cardinal Lustiger of Paris is another. Years ago, my
chaplaincy supervisor, born of converted Jewish parents, was and still
is a minister in the Church of the Brethren.
What I do say is that one cannot be _religiously_ Jewish and
simultaneously a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist or any other
religion. There are too many irreconcilable theological differences
between these various faiths. To claim otherwise is simply absurd. I
trust that I am not being "small-minded" by stating this.
Regards,
Scaramouche
On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 01:08:29 -0500, jkra...@swarthmore.edu (Joshua
Kramer) wrote:
It is somewhat amusing to me (and flattering) to have somehow become
an issue in the titanic struggle over whether this NG should exist. I
therefore thought I better clarify some points that Joshua raised.
As far as my own background as being a "usenet neophyte", I have been
"active" to varying degrees on alt.messianic for about 3 years, with a
couple of hiatuses for equipment problems. I also regularly read and
post to some other newsgroups, primarily in history and archeology
A vote on the proposed NGs should be based on the following:
Do you as a reader/user feel that a newsgroup with this
charter is a need? Is it an improvement to alt.messianic. This is
really the ONLY question that is relevant to a decision to vote.
If you feel threatened by the creation of such a NG, I would be very
curious to understand why you so feel.
Arguments such as what the newsgroup should be named are secondary,
and should not cloud the issue of whether the newsgroup is needed. My
own reasons for deciding that such a newsgroup is needed are that (1)
I am tired of having to sift through the extraneous drivel that is
posted to alt.messianic in the form of SPAM, Sex ads, etc.; (2) I am
tired of the rude name-calling that some posters seem to consider
debate.
Now, as for who came up with the idea, where the proposed charter was
cross-posted, and who the proposed moderators are, these are all
perhaps interesting, but NOT relevant to whether such a newsgroup
should exist. The name is not as important as what is discussed there,
and I think fairly points to the content so that those seeking to
discuss these concepts would be attracted. Similarly, any moderator(s)
who do not conform to the standards of the charter in the opinion of
readership can be replaced.
As for as other aspects which do give me some experience relevant to
moderating a newsgroup, I am an attorney of many years' experience
who is rather dedicated to the concept of free speech. I would
encourage those interested in discussing these concepts freely within
the bounds of ordinary decency and courtesy support the NGs.
>>Moderator: Jamie Kraft <j2k...@msn.com>
>
>8 postings to alt.messianic. Most exciting of all is the one with
>15 lines of new text and about 600 from one of the standard
>quoted diatribes.
>
>>Moderator: Brian Carling <b...@mnsinc.com>
>
>You might want to read some of bry's deja news postings. The
>page where you can catch the *really* abusive ones is
>
>http://xp5.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?search=word&defaultop=and&query=%7ea%20(b...@mnsinc.com)%20%26%20%7eg%20(alt.messianic)&svcclass=dnserver
>
>Try searching for standard kook-kabal phrases, like "you are a liar"
>and "you are stupid"
>
>It's enlightening.
>
>>Moderator: Moshe Rosen <Mit...@aol.com>
>
>Listed as "Founder" on the Jews for Jesus Home page at
>http://www.jews-for-jesus.org/JWAFJ/JewsForMain.html
>
>>END MODERATOR INFO.
>>
>>PROCEDURE:
>>
>>This is a Request For Discussion (RFD), not a Call For Votes. The
>>discussion period will last for a minimum of 21 days (starting
>>from when the RFD for this proposal is posted to news.announce.
>>newgroups), after which a Call For Votes will be posted by a
>>neutral vote taker. Please do not attempt to vote until this
>>happens.
>>
>>All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
>>
>>This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroups
>>creation guidelines outlined in 'How to Create a New Usenet
>>Newsgroup' and 'How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal'.
>>Please refer to these documents (available in news.announce.
>>newgroups) if you have any questions about the process.
>>
>>DISTRIBUTION:
>>
>>This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>>
>> news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.christnet.bible,
>> alt.messianic,alt.religion.christian,
>> alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,
>> rec.music.christian
>>
>>Proponent: Randolph Parrish <rbp...@primenet.com>
>
>And now the only group it should have gone to - soc.culture.jewish.
>
>Followups to news.groups set.
>
>My comments - This group, while not as bad as soc.culture.indian.j-k,
>sets a horrid political name precident. The group being thus represented
>in a truthful light by this RFD is Jews for Jesus, who are placed
>outside of the "christian" hierarchy - a blatent endorsement of
>their position. For more information on this sub-religion, consult
>
>http://shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/17-index.html
>
>I cannot, in good conscience, vote anything but no to a group with
>this as a topic, especially a moderated group, unless the name is descriptive.
>The title for "soc.religion.messianic" should be changed to read either
>"soc.religion.christian.jews-for-jesus" or "soc.religion.jews-for-jesus."
>At the very least, this group needs "christian" somewhere in its name,
>as befits any group about a christian sect, even if it is designed
>as a recruitment device.
>
>I'd like to state that right now, unless future RFD's and CFV's are
>posted by the proponents to soc.culture.jewish and .parenting,
>I will not hesitate to do so myself. I highly recomend that all
>participants in soc.culture.jewish oppose this proposal with its
>present name, and hope that all news.groups participants do so also.
>
>Finally, the proposed slate of moderators are either:
>
>1. Usenet neophites
>2. Vicious flamers
>or
>3. Cult Founders
>
>*Just Great*
>
>--
>Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College.
>
>Vote *NO* on the soc.religion.messianic RFD currently in news.groups
>Read the newsgroup news.groups untill this proposal is squashed.
Hillel Eli Markowitz
Ingo Schwarze (schw...@alpha1.physik.uni-siegen.de) writes:
> In the RFD posted on 02 Jul 1997 08:35:11 GMT,
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group talk.religion.messiah
>> moderated group soc.religion.messianic
>
> the proponents twice use the term "persons of Jewish ethnicity"
> for those invited to participate in the proposed newsgroup.
>
[cut to save space]
>
> I never talked to anybody who understood "Jewish" as her or his
> "ethnicity". In any case, the concept of "ethnicity" is quite
> problematic, especially when inviting people to participate in a
> discussion. And regarding German history, i feel somewhat alarmed
> when people start talking about "Jewish ethnicity".
>
> Really nothing points to the conclusion that the proponents use this
> term in any malignant intention. On the contrary, they explicitly
> state:
[cut to save space]
>
> Yet, it might be worth to rethink what this term is meant to designate
> and why it needs to be used in this context.
The proponents of these news groups use "Jewish ethnicity" to mean people
who were born Jewish but converted to the Xian religion. As seen in the
group alt.messianic, it is a deceptive tactic used by certain Xian
missionaries to disguise their attempts at missionary activities.
The proposal failed abysmally last time it was brought up and should be rejected again.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore" | Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz |
| The Jews are the fish, Torah is our water | Zovchai Adam, agalim yishakun |
|____________________________________________|_______________________________|
Larry Kotz
There is simply no need for yet another Christian newsgroup. And the
statement that a moderated group is needed for "fellowship" is not genuine.
It is simply a way to proselytize without opposition. This is evident by
the one sided choice of moderators. A better venue for "fellowship" would
be a private email group. I would vote no.
--
Larry Kotz------Tucson,AZ
Email lk...@k-techav.com
Stella Nemeth
Just a small warning. Once I get into a quote and response
conversation, I tend to answer as I read. This message is a rather
obvious example of what is wrong with that method, but I'm leaving it
alone. Just remember as you read that when I was writing I didn't
know what was coming up in the next paragraph or two. <g>
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe Slater) wrote:
>Alt.messianic was started in order to get a particular user out of
>soc.culture.jewish. I don't think he was ethnically Jewish; he just
>followed the Christians-are-the-true-Israel line. Alt.messianic was
>supposed to be a place where arguments between Jews and Christians over
>their respective religions were on-topic. It was never primarily a
>fellowship group.
From the sounds of it what is wanted is a decent debate group and a
moderated fellowship group. Isn't that what this RFD provides for: a
talk.* group for the debate aspect and a soc.religion.* for the
fellowship aspect?
>Like most alt.* groups, alt.messianic is a sewer. It's only readable if
>you have a thick skin and a mighty killfile. I think most users would like
>some sort of moderation, although the mechanics of implementation might be
>difficult.
So, what you would really like is a moderated debate group. You are
right. The talk group doesn't provide for moderation. This,
**finally** is a valid (IMHO) reason for having problems with the
current version of the RFD. (I also consider the lack of discussion
in the pre-RFD stage a valid point, but it is too late to do anything
about that now.)
>This RFD does not do that. The moderated group is for "fellowship", not
>debate, and is useless to the prime users of alt.messianic. The
>unmoderated group won't change matters, except to force people to follow
>two groups instead of one. I think the basic flaw in the RFD is its
>supposition that alt.messianic has something to do with providing a haven
>for Jews who follow Christianity. A good start to correcting its flaws
>would be by removing this link.
Still, there does seem to be a desire on the part of those who are
Messianic Jews to have a fellowship group. If the debate group was
either set up as a moderated group in the current RFD (with moderators
from all sides of the issue) or hived off into its own RFD with a
different set of proponents and moderators, would that satisfy your
desire for a decent place to debate this issue?
Obviously, I'm not in a position to actually offer you this
compromise. But as a news.group regular, I can point out that such
compromises do work.
There really isn't any reason why there can't be two groups.
Following two groups, if you even felt any real need to do so once the
groups got past the infant stage which is unlikely because of their
differences, is a trivial matter with most modern newsreaders.
>Last year's RFD collapsed mainly on the issue of naming. I think
>soc.religion.messianic is a useless group, but it can stand or fall on its
>own merits if it is only to be a fellowship group. Its charter and
>moderators are unacceptable for a genuine discussion group.
It is quite obvious from the Charter that it is not intended to be a
"genuine discussion group" so the fact that it isn't acceptable to
you, or anyone else, as one seems perfectly reasonable to me. Just
don't vote NO on this group' ABSTAIN or don't vote at all.
>...Scrap
>talk.religion.messianic, and have a moderated group for genuine discussion
>of Jewish/Christian issues, with moderators drawn from the main streams
>represented in alt.messianic - Jewish, Christian, and those who can't be
>categorised (Gnostics and Arians and Moslems, oh my).
>
>I suggest that soc.religion.inter-debate.jew-christian would be an
>appropriate name and provide the basis for future moderated arguments
>between (e.g.) LDSs and gentiles, SDAs and non-Sabbatarians and so on.
Actually, it doesn't sound like a bad suggestion to me. I really
can't see this group as an unmoderated group. It would become a sewer
almost immediately because of the high emotional content of the
debates.
What we need now is for Jay Denebeim to come along and explain how he
herds cats. <g> His methods work for newgroups with lots of traffic
and very strong opinions. I think that if you want a genuine debate
newsgroup discussing these kinds of powderkeg issues you need a
moderation method that is mostly run by a robot, along with simple
rules.
Stella Nemeth
"Larry Kotz" <lk...@k-techav.com> wrote:
>There is simply no need for yet another Christian newsgroup. And the
>statement that a moderated group is needed for "fellowship" is not genuine.
>It is simply a way to proselytize without opposition. This is evident by
>the one sided choice of moderators. A better venue for "fellowship" would
>be a private email group. I would vote no.
Forgive me, but please explain how one proselytizes in a newsgroup.
Anyone who decides to read a newsgroup has made the decision for
themselves. Insisting on "opposition" in a fellowship newsgroup is
bizarre.
Joshua Kramer
In article <33c02ba6...@news.flash.net>, j2k...@flash.net
(Scaramouche) wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 01:08:29 -0500, jkra...@swarthmore.edu (Joshua
>Kramer) wrote:
>
>It is somewhat amusing to me (and flattering) to have somehow become
>an issue in the titanic struggle over whether this NG should exist. I
>therefore thought I better clarify some points that Joshua raised.
>As far as my own background as being a "usenet neophyte", I have been
>"active" to varying degrees on alt.messianic for about 3 years, with a
>couple of hiatuses for equipment problems. I also regularly read and
>post to some other newsgroups, primarily in history and archeology
Could you point us to your other account names, such that we can
verify this?
As of now, it appears that you have posted the following, since 1995.
17 soc.history.war.world-war-ii
13 alt.messianic
12 alt.thought.southern
4 alt.alt.life.the-universe.and-everything
4 alt.humor.jewish
3 soc.history.medieval
2 alt.america
2 alt.books.roger-zelazny
2 alt.folklore.military
2 alt.revisionism
2 news.groups
2 soc.history.ancient
1 alt.christnet.theology
1 alt.music.led-zeppelin
1 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg
1 houston.eats
1 sci.bio.paleontology
Additionally, you have demonstrated you're unfamilarity with both
software and ettiquite by posting and mailing this (without any
"Posted and mailed" statement), and using poor contextual quoting.
This is not the position a moderator should be in.
>A vote on the proposed NGs should be based on the following:
>
>Do you as a reader/user feel that a newsgroup with this
>charter is a need? Is it an improvement to alt.messianic. This is
>really the ONLY question that is relevant to a decision to vote.
This is false. If the moderators are incompotent, then it is *CANNONICALLY*
accepted that *EVERYONE* vote no - including disintrested parties.
Perhaps if you had looked at any of the previous discussions on news.groups,
you would know that, but, following standard proponent procedure, you
will insist that you are right, refuse to change anything and then
make up usenet maxims that are blatently false.
Perhaps you'd like retromoderaton in your group?
>If you feel threatened by the creation of such a NG, I would be very
>curious to understand why you so feel.
You threaten the continuity of the namespace, by placing a cannonically
christian group in the third level of the hierarchy.
You threaten the topic by having semi-literate moderators.
You make a political statement through the naming of the group.
You attempt to strong-arm the vote by not crossposting appropriatly.
How's that?
>Arguments such as what the newsgroup should be named are secondary,
>and should not cloud the issue of whether the newsgroup is needed. My
>own reasons for deciding that such a newsgroup is needed are that (1)
>I am tired of having to sift through the extraneous drivel that is
>posted to alt.messianic in the form of SPAM, Sex ads, etc.; (2) I am
>tired of the rude name-calling that some posters seem to consider
>debate.
I will create alt.messianic.moderated as soon as you give me a moderator
submission and contact address. Untill you are willing to deal with the
strict procedures and requirements of the big-8, your alt.* status is
perfect.
>Now, as for who came up with the idea, where the proposed charter was
>cross-posted, and who the proposed moderators are, these are all
>perhaps interesting, but NOT relevant to whether such a newsgroup
>should exist. The name is not as important as what is discussed there,
>and I think fairly points to the content so that those seeking to
>discuss these concepts would be attracted. Similarly, any moderator(s)
>who do not conform to the standards of the charter in the opinion of
>readership can be replaced.
What is your experience on news.groups? For all of my outspokeness,
at least I *know* what the accepted line is.
Do you know you are not even close to the standard conception of appropriate
voting habit?
No.
>As for as other aspects which do give me some experience relevant to
>moderating a newsgroup, I am an attorney of many years' experience
>who is rather dedicated to the concept of free speech. I would
>encourage those interested in discussing these concepts freely within
>the bounds of ordinary decency and courtesy support the NGs.
Another esteemed member of the bar?
1. Where did you recieve your degree, and what degree, exactly was it?
2. Where are you licenced to stand before the bar?
3. Why should I care what you do for a living?
<snipped, my complete post without comment.>