Conference taveng::bagels

    Must we have "new" testament "graffiti" in our conference?
    
    BTW... the JPS quotes do not offer anything new.  We are a stiffnecked
    people.  We read about it every week in the Parsha.  We read about it
    throughout the liturgy of the "Days of Awe".  We sin...we are not
    perfect.  We are human.  One of the wonderful things about the Torah is
    that our faults are not hidden.  It is typical of manmade histories
    that they only speak of the good deeds and accomplishments of the
    people. Our "history", the Torah, washes all the dirty laundry in
    public.  Compare it to other holy books.  
    
    I wonder...will these .1 quotes now be used as justification for the .0
    quotes.  I can't wait to read this logic.
    
    About to seek the shelter of the Sukkah,
    
    Av

    	The rise of Hamas as one of the two guiding organizations of the
    intifada disputes the claim of Quran not affecting the violence...
    
    DG

    Re .0 and .1:
    
    Give me a break!
    
    If you would take the time to do a little research into the life
    of Mohammed you might find the fact that when the Jewish tribes
    of Arabia wouldn't play his game (during his rise to power), he either
    drove them away or massacred them! No wonder they received such
    bad press in the Koran! Of course, he and his followers didn't hesitate
    to plunder the goods the Jews left behind. Did I leave out the fact
    that several of his concubines (their status was not of their choosing
    BTW) were Jewish?!? Funny, we don't hear much about that now do
    we?
    
    I should also mention that the rape, plunder, looting, and pillaging
    by Mohammed and his followers was not confined to the Jews. He was
    equally ruthless with his Arab opponents.
    
    All in all, not exactly a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, wouldn't you
    agree?
    
    As far as the Christian scriptures you quoted are concerned, anyone
    who has done any serious study of the development of the Christian
    Bible knows that the early church's goal was to eliminate all traces of
    Judaism from Christianity by whatever means necessary. This same
    goal eventually led to the Crusades and the Inquisition, something
    the Church is understandably somewhat reluctant to address, even
    today. Historians also generally agree that Mohammed may have been
    influenced by this teaching of the early church which could have only 
    reinforced his already strong anti-Jewish sentiments.
    
    As was pointed out in 794.2, the Torah and the Tanakh don't sanitize
    Jewish history like the Koran and the Christian Bible!
    
    Give it a rest, Ashraf.....
    
    Mark
    
    P.S. for "Jacob":
    
    I hope I didn't display too much "neurosis" for you this time, if
    you know what I mean.

    Re .4:
    
    That should be, ".....like the Koran and the Christian Bible do
    with Muslim and Christian history."
    
    Sorry about that.
    
    Mark

    I really don't get the point of .0 and .1.  Is the point to say that
    the Koran is no worse than other scriptures wrt how to treat Jews? 
    Somehow I read the lines differently.  More like a statement that it's
    okay to beat on Jews.  Which, to be sure, was the contemporaneous idea
    of Christians and lots of others.
    
    But maybe those quotes from the Prophet Muhammed are not _exactly_ what
    he meant to say.  Maybe the verses were transcribed wrong by the
    scribe.  Maybe the verses are Satanic.  I can think of a good book to
    discuss the literalness of all scriptures with...

    While it is ok that my question gets quoted in .0, I find it less
    than insatisfactory, that it still isn't answered.
    
    In simpler terms: nowhere do I find in the Thorah and what is referred
    to as "New Testament" by observing Christians a call for killing and
    blessing such action, on top. Is the Koran really saying if you kill a
    Jew (or Christian, for that discussion) then this is not only OK, but a
    good action pleasing Allah?
    
    Doesn't really sound convenient for a "holy book" by many cultural
    standards that I know. Apparently, I will have to learn more.
    
    Askingly yours,
    
    Chris

    To get my own bias out front - I detest these scriptural quarrels.
    There is often little relationship between scriptures and actual
    beliefs and practices.
    
    The Jews lived well under the Moslems in a number of areas - notably
    Spain prior to 1492.  From what I know of history, the Jews were
    better off in Moslem countries than in Christian Europse, that's
    for sure.
    
    I believe that "anti-Semitism" as known under Christianity was not
    a factor for the Moslems until recently.  Sure, they wanted to convert
    the Jews, who in some areas & times had second class citizenship.
    (And I know that forced conversion was a factor, especially in the
    beginning.)
    
    But the Jews were not considered to be sub-human nor devils as they
    were in Christian European "civilzation".  
    
    I would thus distinguish anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism historically
    since the establishment of Israel in this century.  HOWEVER, the
    Palestinian movement seems to be adopting a form of anti-Semitism
    as one more tool, or justification.  It certainly helps draw support
    from the latent (or blatant?) anti-Semites of the world.  
    
    How sad, and how ironic, since we and the Arabs are cousins, and
    are both Semitic people.

    Re .8:
    
    Agreed. In fact, some Muslim rulers were quoted as being dumbfounded
    that European Christians would exile people like the Jews given
    the skills and knowledge they possessed. No wonder that period was
    known as the Dark Ages! In addition, if memory serves, it was in Spain
    under the Moors that Sephardic Judaism flourished and prospered (that's
    remembering what I've read - please correct me if I'm wrong).
    
    However, not all Muslim rulers were that enlightened and massacres
    of Jews by Muslims have occurred over many, many years (those with
    more specific information can hop in here), not to mention those
    of Jews by Christians.
    
    The point is, IMHO, if a book that is regarded as sacred by a certain
    religous group and that book describes another group as "the bad
    guys" then sooner or later somebody is going to try to please G_d
    by doing in "the bad guys". Unfortunately, the Koran and the Christian
    Bible fall into that category and history bears that out I think.
    
    That's the problem in a nutshell.
    
    Mark

    Here's the thread of a discussuin that took place a couple of years ago
    on Usenet:
    
    Under Islam, both Christians and Jews can be treated as "dhimmi",
    literally "protected ones", which translates to "second-class
    citizens".  Only Muslims, of course, are full citizens.  Dhimmi are a
    clear notch above pagan "infidels" who are not viewed as unworthy of
    life.  Dhimmi can hold responsible jobs, but face discrimination.
    
    Compared to much of Christian practice, that's not especially bad.  Nor
    is it especially good.  I suspect that Spain (pre-1400) had enough Jews
    to be more of a condominium (original semantic) than an Islamic
    kingdom, but I may be wrong.
    
    I think the modern conflict is based almost entirely on real estate,
    with religion just a side-show used to stir up the passions of the
    masses.

    Re. Mark Starin's comment, asking out of pure lack of knowledge:

    I can't recall where the Bible has any statement particular to Jews.
    On the other hand, I'm not a fervent Bible explorer, either.
    
    Ignorantly yours,
    
    Chris   

    Re .11:
    
    Hi Chris:
    
    Well, I'm no Biblical scholar myself. 794.1 references some of the
    anti-semitic statements found in the Christian Bible - there are
    of course others.
    
    If you want, I can send you some via e-mail.
    
    Mark

        <<< Note 794.13 by OLDTMR::ASHRAF "Gone today, here tomorrow" >>>

>..............................and that Initifah is seen as real 
>estate dispute in .10.

   What else could it be other than a real estate dispute??  Am I 
   missing something?  If there was enough real estate separating 
   the Palestinians and the Israelis they would not go out of their
   respective ways in order to find issues with enough in common to 
   merit serious dispute.

    Re .13:
    
    You can't argue with historical facts - they are or they aren't.
    The facts I cited in 794.4 are just that - facts.
    
    Like it or not, that's history.
    
    Which reminds me.....why quote all that material condemning Judaism
    and the Jewish people in .0 and .1 and then fall all over yourself
    trying to demonstrate how much respect Islam has for Judaism in
    .13? Makes no sense - to me anyway.
    
    BTW, I do agree (and I mentioned this in another reply some place)
    that Judaism did flourish in Muslim Spain. No arguments there. However,
    that kind of treatment of Jews by Muslims was not always observed.
    
    Mark

I think Jews agree that the religion of Islaam is closer to Judaism than
any other religion. This is mentioned elsewhere in this notes file. It is
much closer than Christianity.

I have a copy of the Graetz history. In it I read that Jews who were expelled
from Spain and fled to Moslim countries generally fared better than those who
went to Christian countries. With all that we have in common it is surprising
to me that we cannot make peace together.

Indeed, it all boils down to a realestate dispute. When two sides are fighting,
as in the present instance, there are plenty of true incidents to mix in with
the propaganda. I find it enlightening to read what the "other side" is reading.
It enables me to understand why the Palestinians react the way they do.
Though it is clearly 95% fiction, Ashraf is doing us a favor by posting it here.
Also, he is certainly not the original author of this material. He does not
deserve to be treated bitterly.

Dave

    Re: .13
    
    As usual, Mr. Ashraf's posting leaves a great deal to be desired
    in terms of relevancy. In the case of every (religious) enemy of
    the Jews, overtures are first made to procure their willing
    conversion. At this stage, the adversary is usually extremely
    nice. Only after the "olive branch" is rejected (as it MUST be),
    do the comments become alittle more biting, followed by virulent
    anti-semitism and, inevitably, violence. Many examples of this
    in the Christian world are quite well known (i.e. Martin Luther).
    
    The notion that Jews dwelt "safely and soundly" in Muslim countries
    throughout history is erroneous, at best. The reason that Jews, in
    America at least are not as familiar with that aspect of history is
    perhaps due to the fact that most of the ancestors of American Jews
    derive from Christian Europe. To wit:
    
    In 1146 Abdulmumen, the "Emir al Mumsenin" (Prince of the Faithful),
    and ruler of Morocco, summoned the heads of the Jewish community and
    said:
    	"Your ancestors have not accepted Muhammad as the true prophet on 
    	ground that your Messiah will appear five hundred years after the
    	hegira, the advent of Muhammad. The five hundred years have now 
    	elapsed and your Messiah has not appeared. Consequently, unless 
    	you will accept Muhammad as you prophet now we shall regard you
    	as outcasts, forbidden to dwell in our land. Should you decide
    	to remain here you have only one of two choices, either embrace
    	Islam or death."
    
    The Almohades were responsible for the flight of the philosopher and
    sage Maimonides, along with thousands of other Jews, from Spain and
    later Morocco. Many were martyred. Examples abound.
    
    >Golden age
    
    What few people know is that there were long periods of relative peace
    for the Jews in many parts of Christian Europe. When people think of
    Poland, the image of ceaseless pogroms is conjured up. The truth is,
    from the time of Chmilnetski until 1881 (longer than the existence of
    the U.S.), there was no manifest persecution in that country, and
    the Jews indeed flourished. Does this somehow change the rest of
    history?
    
    Jews are sometimes TOO willing to forgive and forget. Yes, there is
    a concept of repentance, but there are a number of steps involved,
    and the real test is when a similar situation presents itself. As
    a previous reply said, of course if no Jews were in the "Muslim"
    Middle East there would be no confrontation. But the fact is, we
    are there to stay, and we are not converting to Islam, nor will we
    live under their domination. This is the true test for the Muslim,
    when he is confronted with a avowedly "unrepentant" Jew. This is
    why we hear the battle cry "Allahu Akhbar" on the lips of the
    murderous beasts. This is the reason for the intifada (80% of it,
    O.K., Fred?) 
    
    Mr. Ashraf, even if the Quran is distorted in the quotes in my
    original posting (and all one needs do is go to the Public Library),
    these are precisely the "misquotations" that are being heard in 
    mosques all across the Land of Israel, inciting the TERRORISTS to
    their butchery (sorry if you object to that word).
    
    Jem 
     

    RE: 794.17

    >from the time of Chmilnetski until 1881...there was no manifest 
    >persecution in that country, and the Jews indeed flourished.

    Before Chmilnetski, the condition of the Jews in Poland (which then
    included a large portion of the Ukraine) was relatively good (i.e., in
    terms of how Jews were being treated elsewhere in Europe).  Starting
    with Chmilnetski's pogroms, things started to go downhill. Then it got
    worse.

    When Poland was divided among Russia, Austria, and Germany, at the end
    of the 18th century, most Jews found themselves under the Russian
    Empire, which had an explicit anti-Jewish policy.  From the beginning
    the Russians made systematic attempts to disrupt Jewish life and force
    Jewish conversion to Christianity.  When the Jews seemed to thrive in
    spite of--not because of--this policy, the Russians finally resorted to
    forced relocation (which became a form of expulsion) in the 1880s.

    There were good times and bad times under both Christian and Muslim
    rule.  Jewish rule isn't a panacea,  but there are a lot of people in
    Israel who prefer it to that of the Christian and Muslim lands in which
    they were born...
                                                Aaron

    
    Since all these...ahem...tangents...were raised by others, I feel
    the need to present MHO...because what I see here [and it may only 
    be the way _I_ read it] is a picture thatis not accuarate with
    regard to the Christian scriptures quoted in .1 and the implications 
    thereof.   
    
    There is great danger in furthering misunderstanding if 1) we are 
    irresponsible and present things out of context and, 2) if we 
    accept things as they are presented without seeking the opportunity 
    to probe a little deeper. I am really disturbed when I see either
    of these things happening, and when I sense that someone seems to
    be fanning the flames of distrust and fear by failing [for whatever
    reason] to present things accurately. I don't think we need any more
    misunderstanding between us. There is enough of Christian history
    here to make me cringe, but precisely because of that I feel
    the need to comment here.
    
    re: .12, Mark 
    
    >Well, I'm no Biblical scholar myself. 794.1 references some of
    >the anti-semitic statements found in the Christian Bible - there
    >are others of course.
     
    First, may I suggest to the readers of this topic that, as was
    pointed out by Jem in .17 regarding the criticism of distortion
    of his quotations in 794.1, 
    
    >Mr. Ashraf, even if the Quran is distorted in the quotes in my
    >original posting (and all one needs do is go to the Public Library),
    
    			  the Christian scriptures used by Mr. Ashraf 
    are distorted by being presented out of context, and by having
    been selectively chosen. I can only surmise this is due to a lack of 
    understanding of the meaning of words quoted.
    
    The remarks in .12, excerpted above, also fail to address the 
    meaning and context of the passages quoted in 794.1. FWIW, let 
    us remember that the man to whom those words are attributed was 
    himself a Jew. 
    
    I have to disagree, Mark, with your statement that these words are
    anti-semitic. I, too, am no Biblical scholar ;^),  but it doesn't 
    take a biblical scholar to see the truth of what I am saying if 
    those words are examined in context. 
    
    As Chris Lehky, who also admits to being no Biblical scholar [thanks,
    Chris...I feel 'at home' ;^)], said in .7, he can find nothing in 
    the Christian scriptures which condones any kind of harm to the Jew. 
    Indeed, there IS nothing. In fact, there is an abundance of instruction
    to the contrary, and I could quote numerous scriptures, which would 
    speak clearly to how the Christian is required, urged, taught, and 
    expected to treat the Jew. 
    
    I'm willing to share these by e-mail as points of information and back
    up for what I've said here. I'll pass on posting them, out of respect
    for those of you who would object, but _please_ know that what I am 
    saying is true. It is through the Bible, and my relationship with 
    G-d, that I have learned to really love and appreciate the Jew. It's 
    not something I was taught growing up.
       
    Shalom, dear people.
    
    Irena

    It is interesting to note that the questions are still unanswered, and
    I would like to ask them again.  The answers are expected from a Muslim.
    
    1.  The quotations from .0  -- are they correct or not?  Simple "yes"
    or "no" will do.
    
    2.  If they are incorrect, what is the context?  Why Quran requires
    this treatment of the Jews?
    
    The discussion of the real estate dispute and comparison of religious
    writings could be done in another note.

    May I re-emphasize that my questions, sufficiently close to those
    re-iterated in .20, still are unanswered, too? For the purpose of
    simplifaction. Answers to .20 will suffice, for the time being.
    
    Awaitingly yours,
    
    Chris 

    Re .19:
    
    Hi Irena:

    >the Christian scriptures used by Mr. Ashraf are distorted by being
    >presented out of context, and by having been selectively chosen. I can
    >only surmise this is due to a lack of understanding of the meaning of
    >words quoted.

    Are you sure?
    
    >The remarks in .12, excerpted above, also fail to address the meaning and
    >context of the passages quoted in 794.1. FWIW, let us remember that
    >the man to whom those words are attributed was himself a Jew. 

    But given the negative feelings the early church harbored against 
    the Jews, should anyone be surprised that the words of Jesus, a 
    Galilean Rabbi, may have been "edited", so to speak, by the 
    compilers of the Christian Bible so as to downplay his Jewishness, a 
    sort of a "Hellenization" or "Romanization" of his message?
     
    >I have to disagree, Mark, with your statement that these words are
    >anti-semitic. I, too, am no Biblical scholar ;^),  but it doesn't take a
    >biblical scholar to see the truth of what I am saying if those words are
    >examined in context.

    While admittedly whenever anybody's statements are taken out of context 
    there is the risk of giving an entirely different meaning to 
    original text, that really isn't the problem. The problem is that 
    Christians themselves took those same quotes out of context and have
    used them as a pretext for centuries of anti-Jewish activities (Crusades, 
    etc). Now somebody encouraged, deliberately or otherwise, Christians 
    to do this - my feeling is the blame lies squarely with the Church 
    because up until Luther's time they essentially controlled the Bible 
    and what they said went. So what about after Luther? Sorry to say
    Luther's anti-semitism pervaded Protestant Christianity just as surely
    as the anti-semitism of the early church pervaded the Roman Catholic
    Church. True, what's in the past is in the past and it can't be changed
    but as long as those statements are there, whether they're viewed in
    context or out of context really doesn't matter, the possibility exists
    that someone in the future will use them against the Jews again.
    
    >As Chris Lehky, who also admits to being no Biblical scholar [thanks, 
    >Chris...I feel 'at home' ;^)], said in .7, he can find nothing in the
    >Christian scriptures which condones any kind of harm to the Jew.
    >Indeed, there IS nothing.

    Well, I'm not sure which Christian Bible you're reading these days,
    Irena, but even a toned down version (i.e., one where the 
    translation offers a softer criticism of Judaism) still presents the 
    same message - the Law is no longer applicable and follow 
    Christianity or be doomed.

    >In fact, there is an abundance of instruction to the contrary, and I could
    >quote numerous scriptures, which would speak clearly to how the
    >Christian is required, urged, taught, and expected to treat the Jew.

    Granted but the problem, IMHO, goes deeper than that.....somehow 
    Christianity, and I don't know how this can be accomplished given 
    the imperatives set forth in the Christian Bible and I doubt if
    any Christian would seriously countenance a re-write, has to admit it 
    made a mistake and stop preaching its message to the Jews. Somehow 
    the Church has to say, "We really blew it. Let's live and let live." 
    However, given the way literalist Christians are proliferating these 
    days, I suspect that is a nigh unto impossible task.
    
    Respectfully,

    Mark

    
    re: 22
    
    Hi Mark,
    
    >>the Christian scriptures used by Mr. Ashraf are distorted by being
    >>presented out of context, and by having been selectively chosen. I can
    >>only surmise this is due to a lack of understanding of the meaning of
    >>words quoted.

    >Are you sure?
     
    The way I see it, yes. Quite sure. Perhaps I've just been digging
    a little deeper to understand this. 
    
    >But given the negative feelings the early church harbored against 
    >the Jews, should anyone be surprised that the words of Jesus, a 
    >Galilean Rabbi, may have been "edited", so to speak, by the 
    >compilers of the Christian Bible so as to downplay his Jewishness, a 
    >sort of a "Hellenization" or "Romanization" of his message?
     
     If that were the case, Paul's numerous letters would most cetainly
      never havemade it into the Bible. 
    
     I think it's important to remember that the negative feelings were
     on both sides and actually started on the Jewish side with the
     efforts to expel the followers of Jesus from the synagogues by
     branding them apostates, and pronouncing a curse upon them with
     a benediction written specifically for them.  It worked. They
     left the synagogues, and the separation continued to grow, with
     attendant negative feelings.
    
     I will agree that traditionally the established Church [Roman
     Catholic and then Protestant as well] did much to remove the
     Jewishness of Jesus in the way he and his teachings have been
     presented.
    
     As for Luther, while it was a brilliant moment of spiritual
     illumination that caused him to break away from the Roman
     Catholic church, the darkness that descended upon him afterward
     was an opposite extreme. I cannot comprehend what happened to
     the man, except in the context of spiritual blindness.
    
    >The problem is that Christians themselves took those same quotes 
    >out of context and have used them as a pretext for centuries of 
    >anti-Jewish activities 
    
    >as long as those statements are there, whether they're viewed in
    >context or out of context really doesn't matter, the possibility exists
    >that someone in the future will use them against the Jews again.
    
    That's a lot different from saying that these passages are, in
    themselves, anti-semitic. Thanks for making that distinction, Mark.
    People who are anti-semitic at heart will use anything they feel
    will justify their actions. I think we've seen plenty of that
    everywhere, not just among professing Christians.
                            
    >Granted but the problem, IMHO, goes deeper than that.....somehow 
    >Christianity, and I don't know how this can be accomplished given 
    >the imperatives set forth in the Christian Bible and I doubt if
    >any Christian would seriously countenance a re-write, has to admit it 
    >made a mistake and stop preaching its message to the Jews. Somehow 
    >the Church has to say, "We really blew it. Let's live and let live." 
    >However, given the way literalist Christians are proliferating these 
    >days, I suspect that is a nigh unto impossible task.
     
    I've spent some time digging into this as well, Mark, and I tend
    to agree with much of what you say. Let's remember that the view
    you denounce is not representative of *all* Christians, nor is
    it even representative of *all* literalists. I'm pretty much of
    a literalist myself; I feel no urging within to evangelize
    the Jews, yet I think I have a pretty good handle on the spirit
    of the Bible and specifically the Christian scriptures. 
   
    As for your comment that Christianity says the Law is no more...
    it's a common misunderstanding. Again, it shows just how deeply
    one has, or has not, digged into the scriptures. Not one jot or
    tittle will be changed in the Law and it hasn't been. Even Jesus 
    himself said he did not come to abolish the law. I decline to
    pursue this further, as we'd be getting into Christian theology.
    
    We can continue this off-line, if you'd like, as I don't really
    wish to discuss our differing views of scripture and its authority
    in this forum, nor is that appropriate here. I simply wish to
    present another perspective to provide what I feel is better 
    balance on this subject, especially when I feel I'm seeing the
    stroke of a broad brush. :)
    
    Love,
    Irena
    
    
     
    
                                                                    
    

    Re .23:
    
    Hi Irena:
    
    I agree - it's probably best to this off-line from this point because
    we're edging into specifics.
    
    However, I do want to briefly address two of your points:
    
    1. Context - Taking things out of context is a failing that we as
    human beings have. Since everyone is prone to it and since we all agree
    that when things are taken out of context bad things can happen,
    then shouldn't we be concerned in the future about what we write
    contextually-speaking?
    
    The problem, IMHO, with your argument that it isn't the words in
    the Christian Bible that caused anti-semitism to flourish among
    Christians but rather man's imperfect nature in understanding those
    words is that it shifts the blame from the Christian leaders, the
    framers of the Christian Bible if you will, to the Christian followers
    (not that the followers are blameless of course).
    
    If the framers of Christian Bible did not intend their words to
    be taken out of context, they might have made the imperatives in
    the Christian Bible with respect to Judaism less imperative. But
    they didn't - they are imperatives, commands, dictates, for Christians
    to follow, not options. They were intended to be understood as
    imperatives by the followers, and, as history has shown us over and
    over again, they were.
    
    2. And that leads to a second problem.....if a Jewish person accepts the
    message of the Christian Bible literally, then they are violating
    the commandments and covenant that G_d made with Israel, specifically,
    "Thou Shalt Have No False gods Before Me" and because they are no
    longer observant of the Law (among other things). If a Jewish person
    accepts Christianity, then they are lost to the Jewish people. If the
    Christian message was accepted by enough Jewish people, then Judaism
    would cease to exist.
    
    So it boils down to are G_d'scovenant/commandments still in effect? The
    Jewish people believe they are and until they are told otherwise by a
    "Higher Authority", they will continue observing them. The Church does
    not constitute that "Higher Authority" BTW.
    
    More off-line......
    
    Mark

    Just a question:
    
    What do our last few have to do with the topic title?
    
    Realigningly yours,
    
    Chris
    
    P.S.:
    
    Mind putting me on your CC list for your mail exchanges?

    Re .25:
    
    Hi Chris:
    
    The Irena-Mark exchanges I believe relate to 794.1 if I'm not mistaken.
    
    The problem is a discussion of that type may degenerate into a mere
    exchange of polemics after awhile so it is best left to e-mail.
    
    Consider yourself added to the CC line......
    
    Mark

    I'm ignorant to the Quaran.  I'm not ignorant to the Bible (both
    Old and New Testaments).
    
    If you'd all allow me just one minute to get off on a tangent and
    then I'll shut up.
    
    MODS - please delete if non-applicable.
    
    
     {   flame set ON, moderate heat...hopefully some light  ;-)   }
    
    I am so sick and tired of any religion putting down members of another
    religion simply because they don't beleive the same things.
    
    Organizations that professed Jesus as Messiah did terrible things
    to ANYONE (Jews and non-Jews alike) who wouldn't accept Christ as
    Messiah.   Their misinterpretations of G-d's Word merely fueled
    their insatiable lust for blood.  That certainly does not make their
    actions right, nor does is mean that their actions were approved
    by G-d.
    
    It also does not mean that EVERY person who believes in Jesus
    Christ as Messiah feels the same way, nor does it mean that we are
    all inclined to 'eliminate' the Jew from the face of the earth.
    
    As a believer in Jesus Christ, I *do* feel an urgent need to share
    what I believe to be the truth with anyone who will listen.  I do
    not feel the need to kill those who disagree!  I am repulsed by
    the idea.  The Jesus Christ I believe in must be violently ill when
    thinking of the evil that's been done in His name, but that's another
    topic.
    
    Also another topic is that any believer in Jesus Christ who has
    read the New Testament knows that G-d will use 144,000 Jews as His
    most effective witnesses ever in the last days.  Perhaps this is
    why Irena doesn't feel an urgent need to evangelize the Jew (not
    trying to speak for you, sis...)  
    
    If one reads the Bible (whether Old or New Testament) and comes
    out with a heart full of anti-semetism, may I suggest he has completely
    misunderstood what he's read?  Again, I'm ignorant to the Quaran
    so I can't comment on that...I'm just writing in because of the
    Mark/Irena discussion which ticked me off.
    
    So often, we read that G-d views Israel as His bride.  Husbands
    and wives have spats from time to time, no?  Now when a husband
    and wife are quarreling, do you run into their house to tell the
    wife how much she is hated by the husband?   Does such a lover's
    quarrel suggest that the wife is hated by the Husband?
    
    Give it a rest.
                                                          
    {  flame off now....  }
    
    Steve
    

    Re .27:
    
    Steve:
    
    Sorry if I ticked you off but the fact remains there is an active
    movement among Christians to convert Jews to Christianity and the
    imperatives given in the Christian Bible, taken out of context or
    not, are fueling that movement. Maybe that movement isn't supported by
    you and Irena....fine. Nonetheless,every Jew that converts to
    Christianity is lost to Judaism and that amounts to "spiritual
    genocide" against the Jews by Christianity.
    
    No flames intended but as in "Parts is parts", facts is facts.
    
    I say again....the original covenant and commandments are still
    in effect, they've not been rescinded, and i don't know how to put
    it any more plainly.
    
    Mark

    Since this is getting way off the topic, I will be contacting you
    off-line, Mark, but before I do, I want to make a few quick statements.
    
    1.  *YOU* didn't tick me off, the discussion did.  Religious nuts
    who wouldn't know G-d if they tripped over Him have throughout history
    been misinterpreting G-d's words.  Though we are made in His image,
    it is quite unfair to judge the Creator by His creation since we
    all know that we chose to rebel against Him the first chance we
    got!
    
    2.  I've read quite a few notes in this conference and will admit
    I don't understand much of what I've read (my head is rather thick)
    I just don't understand why a convert to Christianity immediately
    equates to one's being "lost" to Judaism.  Remember, the early
    Christian church remained IN THE SYNAGOGUES until they were kicked
    out and started their own home churches.  Their bible is the same
    bible the Jews used etc.  That's another topic too.
    
    3.  "Spiritual Genocide"  well, again, I don't understand.  I know
    a family of (self-termed) "Messianic Jews" who celebrate all the
    Jewish Feasts, observe the Sabbath, etc. etc.  They just do it with
    the belief that Jesus is the Messiah.  While we're sharing opinions,
    let me say that accepting Jesus as Messiah doesn't kill one's
    spiritual identity, it fulfills it.
    
    4.  Parts is parts?  I'm lost.
    
    5.  You're absolutely right in that the law hasn't been rescinded.
    It's been fulfilled.
    
    Though I'm not familiar with all you've written, I do recognize
    your name from the Christian notesfile.  I don't know whether or
    not you're a Christian, but I think you're familiar with the teaching
    that the "Good News" is to be shared FIRST with the Jew, THEN with
    the Gentile.  Both groups (according to Christian teaching) should
    hear it, and both groups are free to accept or reject the teachings.
    
    Again, my apologies for going way off the topic, more to be taken
    up with you off-line.
    
    Steve (who will no longer digress and promises to keep his trap
    shut)

    Re .29:
    
    I look forward to your off-line comments.
    
    As far as my entries in the CHRISTIAN Notesfile, let's just say
    I no longer participate in that conference.
    
    Reply 794.28 should tell you why.....
    
    Mark

    re:.29
    This is an old discussion and frankly I'm rather tired of seeing it
    here.
    
    From a Jewish perpective (and this is one of the those things that
    Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, Orthodox, and all the
    plesi-Orthodox agree to), any Jew who accepts Christianity is NOT
    practicing Judaism.  While that person remains technially a Jew (for
    heredity, etc.), Christianity is pure apostasy.  Idol-worship is pretty
    much an equivalent. 
    
    "Messianic Jew" is thus an oxymoron.  Personally I consider Jewish
    Buddhists, Jewish Taoists etc. to be far more plausible, albeit
    somewhat oxymoronic. 
    
    Go back to the low-numbered topics for a rehash.
           fred

    Today a week has passed since I posted .20, and still no comments.  I
    am still begging for the answer.  Are we going to have it?
    
    Leo
    ================================================================================
Note 794.20                     Jews in the Quran                       20 of 31
HPSTEK::SIMON "Curiosier and curiosier..."           11 lines  22-OCT-1989 21:48
                         -< Will we hear the answers? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is interesting to note that the questions are still unanswered, and
    I would like to ask them again.  The answers are expected from a Muslim.
    
    1.  The quotations from .0  -- are they correct or not?  Simple "yes"
    or "no" will do.
    
    2.  If they are incorrect, what is the context?  Why Quran requires
    this treatment of the Jews?
    
    The discussion of the real estate dispute and comparison of religious
    writings could be done in another note.

    Re .32's query:
    
    While we're at it, what the heck was the purpose behind 794.1? To
    heap insult upon injury?
    
    The response of Messrs. McConnell et al was that the Christian
    Scriptures were taken out of context? Is this your position, Mr.
    Ashraf? If so, can we presume the others are taken out of context
    as well?
    
    Mark

I happened to spot a translation of the Koran in a bookstore last week and
looked up "Jew" in the index. There were quite a few entries but none of them
resembled the given quotes. Now 10 minute's perusal in a bookstore does not make
me an authority on the Koran, but what I found was this:

There were several (repetitious) denunciations of Jews who do not observe the
Sabbath or Halacha in general. These were only slightly stronger-worded than
what you might expect to hear coming from Jewish fundamentalists on the same
subject. Moreover, non-observant Christians received similar criticism.

There were several verses which advise followers of the Koran on how to answer
Jewish or Christian objections to the Moslem religion. I got the impression that
these verses were directed against Jewish and Christian proselytization.

There was a chapter concerning a Jewish tribe that had killed the Prophet. I did
not read this beyond the editor's introductary paragraph.

There was a verse directing Moslems not to make friends with Jews or Christians
because they make friends among their own kind.

Dave

    Today two weeks have passed since I posted a request to the Muslims to
    confirm or refute the claim made in .0.  Except -.1 reply, the author
    of which admitteed that "10 minute's perusal in a bookstore" did not
    make him "the authority on the Koran", there was nothing.  It is really
    getting interesting.  I am beginning to believe .0.

    re .35
    
    It does not appear that Mr. ASHRAF has any interest in a dialogue.
    Could his participation in this conf. be classified as "hit-and-run"?
    I gave up on him a while back after he took offence to something that
    I posted here. In my naive attempt to reason w/ Mr. ASHRAF, I sent
    him a personal mail telling him that no insult was intended and
    offering to publicly clarify my statement. Needless to say, he never
    replied.
    
    Alex

    Re .36:
    
    You got that right!
    
    It's harder to hit a moving target......
    
    Mark

Here's a quote from last Thursday's Wall Street Journal:

"References to Jews are censored as well. The television series 'War and 
Remembrance,' which dealt with World War II, including the Holocaust,
appeared in the Saudi video version with all reference to Jews blanked
out. 'You could see the Characters mouthing the word "Jew" but no sound
was coming out,' recalls one viewer."

Neither is Christianity treated with particular sympathy.

"A few years back, employees of the national airline were surprised by an
abrupt redesign of the carrier's logo, making a slight alteration in the
letter 'a' in the word Saudia. The airline repainted its fleet of planes,
remade neon signs and changed the appliques on employees' uniforms.

"A staffer, baffled by so much expense for a minor change,got the following
explanation: the space between the first two letters of the old Saudia logo
had formed a cross shape. The cross, as a symbol of Christianity, may not be 
displayed in Saudi Arabia. A spokesman for Saudia denied the charges..."

BTW, we're *still* patiently awaiting a reply to 757.57. When you get around
to it (round tuit?), Mr. Ashraf, we've got some more questions for you to
answer.

Jem

    You'll pardon the reference I'm sure but I fear he has, so to speak,
    "folded up his tent and stolen away in the night".
    
    Mark