Talking About God In Interfaith Families - Page 2

Page 2

< Previous

Next >

---

Author: Bryce (---.mpowercom.net) Date:   02-15-02 15:33 It said more than that. It included the provocative word "extremely" and included your personal commentary starting with "which appears".

^ top

---

My original comments

Author: James (---.nyct.net) Date:   02-15-02 15:46 Correct.

^ top

---

Author: Bryce (---.mpowercom.net) Date:   02-15-02 16:31 James, I think we're on different tracks here. While I admit that for some people -- people who aren't making the requisite mental effort -- blindly following the commandments and rituals might actually inadvertantly substitute for what really matters, I'll still ask you to address my point in #43. Regards.

^ top

---

The purpose of this bulletin board

Author: Mina (---.rutgers.edu) Date:   02-15-02 17:58 I am feeling extremely frustrated with this bulletin board -- have been for awhile and it's now come to a head. People proselytizing for Orthodox Judaism, proselytizing for Christianity, debating Judaism vs. Christianity! This is not, as I understand it, the purpose of this bulletin board. It is here for people who are in interfaith relationships -- or who are the children of such relationships -- to exchange thoughts, feelings, and experiences, and to get the input of experts. I do not even object to people who have no personal experience with or expert knowledge about interfaith families commenting on their view of the implications of such families. You have a right to speak out, and interfaith families are in fact the topic of this bulletin board. (I do hope, though, that you'd recognize that you are outside commentators and be appropriately respectful.) And I certainly understand that dialogues about interfaith relationships might include discussions of how people perceive G-d and each other's religions -- but intimately connected to the topic of interfaith relationships. However, this is not in my view what is going on here. Rather I see people using this forum to debate which is the right Judaism, which is the right Christianity, and which is the right religion all together -- period. I kick myself that I've gotten sucked into such dialogues at times. At a minimum, they interrupt the conversation that many of us are trying to have, and sometimes I think they're more destructive than that. For those whose main interest is in such dialogues, I respect the depth and sincerity of your beliefs, and the importance of the topics you are raising. However, as much as I disagree with Jerry Falwell, I'd never insert myself into an internal dialogue of his church in order to tell him why I don't think Jesus could be the Messiah or why I don't agree with fundamentalism of any stripe. I'd go to judaismvschristianity.com or fundamentalisminreview.com for that. I made those websites up, of course, but I hope I'm helping to explain my point. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe these issues are just too personal, too controversial and too connected to other controversial issues to be the topic of conversation for total strangers -- each of us with our own agenda.

^ top

---

Author: Bryce (---.ipt.aol.com) Date:   02-17-02 01:48 Mina, I respect your frustration. I feel it, too, even though I'm a contributor to it. But what you call "proselytizing for ..." is in actuality -- (I speak only for myself) -- a correction/reply to an issue that someone brought up, even if that issue was secondary to the person's main point. (See my #43 for instance.) I would recommend that the webmaster can create a special link for these kinds of debates, and he can redirect the debaters there when the topic begins to veer off of what it's supposed to be.

^ top

---

Author: mpfreed (---.proxy.aol.com) Date:   02-17-02 11:17 I can appreciate Mina's frustration, but to her and all who read and contribute to this forum its objectives to" encourage JEWISH choices by interfaith families as well as an increased acceptance of interfaith families by the Jewish community" should always be borne in mind. Presumably there are similar but separate forums where the emphasis is placed on encouraging Christian/Moslem/ Buddhist choices by interfaith families ??

^ top

---

Author: mpfreed (---.proxy.aol.com) Date:   02-17-02 13:07 I am in total agreement with you Susan. I am really at a loss to understand how a contribution like #42 in any way serves the stated objective of this forum. Murray Freedman

^ top

---

mpfreed

Author: Mina (---.trentn01.nj.comcast.net) Date:   02-17-02 15:48 mpfreed: I not only understand the mission of Interfaithfamily, but my own marriage (and imagined future family) fits squarely into what they are trying to accomplish. But I don't see that "encourag[ing] Jewish choices" is the same as pushing Orthodoxy (the first thing I complained about)-- unless you don't feel that the other denominations are Judaism; I doubt that's a view that the editors share. And, of course, we'd probably agree that encouraging Jewish choices is not furthered by Christian proselytizing (the second thing I complained about), although I doubt it's harmed by it either. I can see what the connection might be to debating Christianity vs. Judaism (the third thing I complained about), but not in the way it's being done here -- which is defensive on both sides, and --more importantly -- disruptive to the other conversations trying to happen. Don't get me wrong -- I can deal with proselytizers and I'm not worrying about people being persuaded against their better judgement, or anything like that. I just believe that we're getting pulled off into tangents that frustrate the intentions of those who come here to discuss interfaith relationships. The irony is that in my family and many others, I bet, the interfaith dialogue is a lot easier to deal with than the interfaith and interdenominational dialogue that often appears here.

^ top

---

Author: Bryce (---.ipt.aol.com) Date:   02-17-02 19:41 Mina, I do appreciate your well-written words. I wonder if you consider my posting #19, which merely provides a website, a case of "pushing orthodoxy" (I notice how you altered your wording from "proselytizing for orthodoxy")? In fact, which postings in particular do you consider to fall into that category? I would venture a guess that whichever posting you chose would simply be one that tries to refute a claim or a point of logic in a posting previous to it.

^ top

---

Author: mpfreed (---.proxy.aol.com) Date:   02-18-02 05:17 Mina: What Ii personally think about Orthodoxy vis-a-vis the other denominations is irrelevant, but I would never attempt to 'push' it as opposed to any other form of Judaism on a forum such as this. Coming again to the object of this forum (as I interpret it), it is to provide help, advice and, above all, mutual support for interfaith families in which one of the partners is Jewish. The aim is to encourage a Jewish perspective to the marriage (without prejudice to the faith and feelings of the non-Jewish partner) - particularly in the bringing up of any children. (It should therefore go without saying that Christian proselytising is out of place here.) Unfortunately, the surveys tell us that in most such marriages few of the children are brought up as Jews. With the current high rate of intermarriage this poses a grave demographic threat to the Jewish community. As a committed Jew it is not a situation I can view with equanimity. Murray Freedman

^ top

---

pushing, proselytizing, etc.

Author: Mina (---.trentn01.nj.comcast.net) Date:   02-18-02 07:47 Hi, Bryce. Thanks for your responses. I really do apreciate their tone and openness. I went back and checked out your posting #19, and it didn't seem to me be an example of what I was talking about. You were merely providing a place where one could read a type of memoir that was at that point in discussion. The fact that this was on an Orthodox website certainly doesn't invalidate it any more than if it were on a Reform, Conservative, etc. website. In general, I'd prefer not to point to specific postings as you request. I'm not out to pin anybody down. However, since you ask about it, I will say that sometimes yes I've seen you in the proselytizing for Orthodoxy camp. An example is that posting on another board in which you responded to somebody's concerns about being accepted as a convert by implying that she'd be less likely to be accepted if converted through the non-Orthodox route. That struck me as rooted in a a caricature of non-Orthodox Judaism; I felt too like you were seizing the opportunity to make a plug for Orthodoxy. And when I responded to Matthew's dilemma by talking about the other denominations, it was only because he himself had asked whether all rabbis would agree with the one who told me he had to divorce his wife. But you seemed to see this as me encouraging him away from Orthodoxy. No way! Some of my best friends are Orthodox :). The recent debates -- in which I think you've participated, but I apologize if I'm wrong -- in which Christians are told that they have to have a literalist interpretation of the New Testament, which is then punctured -- are rooted in a particular conception of religion that not all of us on this board share (including the people to whom you were responding); I don't think we should be forced into debating within that literalist framework. However, I have to say, Bryce, that overall, I find yours an intelligent and respectufl presence on this board. It's a particular trajectory of discussion I'm frustrated by -- definitely not you. mfreed: I think we're talking at crosspurposes at this point. It doesn't feel to me like your posts are responses to mine, so we're obviously missing something in each other's train of thought. In response to your last post, let me clarify a couple of things. I never accused you individually of pushing Orthodoxy. You hadn't even been posting much when I wrote my original message, and I have no idea of you're Orthodox or not. Nor did I say that you had to view any aspect of intermarriage with equanimity. If anything, my point has been that we're often no longer discussing intermarriage here.

^ top

---

Still off the topic, but

Author: Ellen (---.as5.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net) Date:   02-18-02 10:02 Mina: I wonder who you think is "pushing" orthodoxy on this site. People here may stand up for orthodoxy or defend it, but nobody would be fool enough to come here and "push" it. The people who run this site have a strong bias against orthodoxy, never present orthodox views or provide orthodox sources of information, and argue against it when it disagrees with reform. To give orthodoxy a voice here or to point out that left wing reform is not the only variety of Judaism is hardly proseltyzing is it? To try to return to the proported topic, I think that as long as couples can keep their religious discussions on nice abstract subjects such as the nature of God, they can probably find a lot to agree on; it's when their discussion turns to more concrete subjects, such as what specific lifestyles and practices that belief requires of them, that they may face conflict. And if neither party believes that it requires any specific actions of them, then they'll still avoid disagreement.

^ top

---

Author: mpfreed (---.proxy.aol.com) Date:   02-18-02 10:07 Mina: I must come to the defence of Bryce here. When he wrote that someone would be less likely to be accepted if she chose conversion through the non-Orthodox route. Bryce is quite correct in that an Orthodox conversion is accepted by ALL Jews - whereas a conversion via the other denominations will only find partial recognition. (Israel is a particular difficulty in this regard). Whether this will ever change or not I do not know, but I wouldn't bet on it. The ONLY growth area in the Jewish community is the Orthodox, and because of that growth they will be even less likely to change their stance. I did not take you remarks about 'pushing Orthodoxy personally. I agree we are not discussing intermarriage here - we are discussing its aftermath. Murray Freedman

^ top

---

Author: Bryce (---.mpowercom.net) Date:   02-18-02 10:12 Thank you Mina. I suppose I reacted to your use of the words "push" and "proselytize". (I didn't mind your softer expression "making a plug" in post #56). At Dictionary.com, "proselytize" says: To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith. This term isn't really appropriate in my situation for 2 reasons -- concerning my response to non-Jews; and my responses to Jews. 1. While I believe that Jews are supposed to act like a Light unto the Nations, we are not supposed to try to induce anyone-- no matter how sweetly -- to convert. 2. The term "proselytize" isn't appropriate for my dealings with other Jews. "Outreach" is the proper term. (Well, calling my postings a form "outreach" would be a compliment. More accurately, I'm usually just trying to "clarify".) Concerning my post 25, I was defending -- believe it or not -- Christian literalists from a very sharp criticism. I wouldn't have bothered provided a verse had I thought that Margo wasn't a Christian who took her Bible seriously. (Literally, no; seriously, yes.) While we're on the topic, I might as well steer the conversation back to the topic of this site. Let's take that verse in post 25 and 26, and present it to the intermarried couples who view this site. How does each spouse view this verse, and how do they think their significant other, as well as their inlaws, view this verse.

^ top

---

verse

Author: carol (207.106.229.---) Date:   02-18-02 15:35 Well Bryce, you've had my response. But I'll add that my spouse and in-laws view it the same way. Why? Because it's a verse from my scriptural tradition and so they are willing to acknowledge that I should be allowed the interpretation of it given in my faith. Therefore they accept my explanation of verses taken from my scriptural texts. (Plus my view does give some good ammo against the proselytizing fundies they occasionally run into. ;-P ) But the heart of the matter is that they are rightly annoyed when fundamentalist christians try to tell them what their scriptures 'really say', and so they do not go out and attempt to tell christians (esp. those who are not proselytizing them) what their scriptures 'really say'. Being good and intelligent people they follow Hillel's advice to refrain from doing to others what they hate having done to themselves.

^ top

---

Author: Bryce (---.mpowercom.net) Date:   02-18-02 16:26 Thank you, Carol, for reminding me to look at your posting #21, inspiring me to answer a question that you asked there. (My answer is not meant to prove any point; I'm just answering the question.) "Afterall, what other path draws us so close to God than the way of love? " My answer: fear/awe. (The Bible stresses these two paths -- fear/awe and love -- numerous times.) I'd venture that Deuteronomy 10:12-13 gives the best answer to your question. I would encourage you to share this verse with your husband. I figure that only those interested in the topic will look up the verse.

^ top

---

love or fear?

Author: Susan (---.as20.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net) Date:   02-18-02 22:53 Bryce: I'm afraid that you don't present a very attractive view of things in your message number 61. I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but you almost make it sound as if we have a choice between a lovable Christian God and a dreadful Jewish God. I see Judaism as having a very loving and lovable God. Christianity does not by any means have a monopoly on God's love! In our most basic daily prayer, Deuteronomy 6:4, we say we love God with all our heart and all our soul and all our might, and we know God's love for us knows no bounds. If we want to suggest a one-liner that sums up the Jewish attitude toward God, I would suggest Leviticus 19:2.

^ top

---

plugging, pushing, proselytizing, etc.

Author: Mina (---.trentn01.nj.comcast.net) Date:   02-19-02 08:38 mpfreed: Bryce's original post was not about the formal position of the Orthodox relative to non-Orthodox conversions. It was about a perceived lack of seriousness to non-Orthodox conversions. If you're interested, you should read the actual discussion, which is on the multicultural and multiracial discussion board. Ellen: I gave three examples of where I saw Orthodoxy being plugged. If you don't agree with my characterizations of those discussions, then you don't. But I find it hard to accept a characterization of them as defending Orthodoxy when in two cases Orthodoxy wasn't originally part of the discussion at all -- until what I call the plugging began. The third case doesn't fit the bill either. If you would like another example, please check out post #20 on this board. I find it hard to reconcile the tone of that post and others that have appeared here with your image of what's going on. There are other examples too, but I'm mindful of the fact that I was the one who originally complained about getting deflected from the topic of intermarriage. By the way, I'm not a Reform Jew, let alone a left-wing Reform Jew. I agree with you that there needs to be representation of the diversity of Judaism on this board. I wouldn't agree that all we hear here is Reform Judaism. I'd say that from most of this board you'd think there were only two types of Judaism -- Reform and Orthodox. I'd like to see more understanding here of the other denominations, although I'm not sure that to some who post here the distinctions really matter. If it's not Torah Judaism, it's not Torah Judaism. They're entitled to that belief, but not to dismiss Jewish thought that doesn't share it. There are thoughtful, G-d-wrestling thought systems behind the non-Orthodox denominations. They are not just a matter of convenience. And I will stand up for them as being Judaism, not just the ways of some Jewish people (to understand that distinction, see Bryce's post #38). Bryce: Thanks for hearing me. You really are good to talk to, although we disagree. I'm glad somebody took you up on your offer to get the conversation back to intermarriage. I hope some people will find this board a constructive place to talk about intermarriage.

^ top

---

Still don't know what you mean

Author: Ellen (---.as7.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net) Date:   02-19-02 10:03 Mina: I'm sorry, but I must have missed your three examples. Can you please specify those numbers again? As for #20, I think it sounds like a private comment between Susan and Bryce, and it just makes me think Susan and Bryce should exchange emails and take their discussions off board. I certainly don't think Susan is trying to make me or anybody else become orthodox. (Susan isn't orthodox, anyway).

^ top

---

Deut 10:12-13

Author: carol (207.106.229.---) Date:   02-19-02 11:48 Bryce, First, I don't need to share this verse with my husband: he is hardly unfamiliar with Torah and this is certainly one of the more well-known verses in any case. Second, I'm surprised you point out fear/awe as an alternate answer or that Susan reacted as she did to it. The phrase "fear of the Lord" here is 'yirah' in Hebrew, which primarily denotes piety and reverence (not dread or terror, which would be 'pachad' although that is also often translated 'fear of the Lord', c.f. Isaiah 2:10). Such reverence does not conflict with an intimate communion with God, only with flippancy. It acknowledges the "otherness" of God, which deserves recognition and respect on our part. Yet God's infinite "otherness" does not subtract from the fact that He is our loving Father. God deserves our reverent worship and desires our close fellowship. As we draw closer to Him in prayer, there is no real contradiction between the awe and love. A proper awe in worship is possible without a concept of God as a cold, distant or frightening Deity. Now Deut. 10:!2 also speaks of obedience as an essential part of our response to God. What should be our motivation in approaching God or even just simply obeying God? Some people obey because they fear the divine wrath if they don't! But is this "fear of the Lord" really the path that ultimately draws us close to God? Though it may cause us to obey God's commandments for a while, fear of punishment is not the highest motivation for serving God. It may even contain some hidden selfishness: "I serve God because if I don't He'll do something bad to me. So serving and obeying God is in my best interest!". Hardly a perfect motive! Our response to God may begin with such simple fear, but to really draw us into relationship, obedience must eventually come from our love for God. As a child, I sometimes obeyed my parents out of fear of punishment, but ultimately in mature relationship with them I came to honor and obey them out of love. I think the parallel is obvious. Lastly, (if we are going to throw verse around) the definition given in Proverbs 8:13 reconciles fear of God easily with the rest of Deut 10:12-13, and Psalm 97:10 completes the circle so that far from being opposites, love for God and the fear of the Lord are complementary. If we love God we will reverence and worship Him. The more whe love Him the more we will obey Him and hate and avoid that which is contrary to God, namely evil and sin. Now, perhaps we should take Mina's advice and get back to discussion interfaith marriage instead of interfaith dialoge on theology.

^ top

---

back to the subject at hand

Author: Susan (---.as20.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net) Date:   02-19-02 16:32 Carol: Actually, the title of this board is "Talking About God in Interfaith Families," which sounds to me as if it is for discussing theology, not whether certain marriages are a good idea. I don't know why you would be surprised by my message to Bryce. I was trying to point out to him that some people might infer from what he wrote that the "Love of God" approach only applies in Christianity and not in Judaism. If I had Bryce's email, I would communicate with him directly. Bryce: Why don't you email mpfreed? He has my email address and my permission to give it to you.

^ top

---

to susan

Author: carol (207.106.229.---) Date:   02-19-02 17:04 Okay, I misunderstood you. It's just didn't take what he wrote that way, so I was confused by your response.

^ top

---

Author: Bryce (---.mpowercom.net) Date:   02-19-02 18:03 Thank you Carol for your Biblical exposition. Your description of a gradual maturity in one's attitude towards God's commandments was nicely worded. Susan and Carol: I wish I hadn't made it sound that ahava (love) was in competition with yirah (awe/fear), or that Judaism stresses fear more than love. I was hoping that the verse I offered would've cleared up any misconception. Traditionally speaking, yirah is at the core of the negative commandments, while ahava is at the core of the positive commandments. (An interesting question would be why are there more negative commandments than positive ones?) I like Psalm 2:11 "Serve the Lord with awe, and rejoice greatly with trembling." which shows a linkage between the two emotions. I'm tempted to argue with a point or two that Carol wrote: "If we love God we will reverence and worship Him." I believe (with some backing by Maimonides, I believe) that the order is more likely to go in the other direction. First one needs a foundation of yirah, then comes ahavah -- as indeed Carol perhaps indicates in her description of one's maturation. When Carol wrote "But is this "fear of the Lord" really the path that ultimately draws us close to God?", the answer is obviously "no", but the rejoinder would be that there are many different levels (some less mature -- what Carol called "simple fear", some more mature) of yirah. I would venture a theory that those religious denominations which have discarded a wide variety of the commandments have fostered a system whereby the attribute of awe/fear tends slip in priority into a distant second. It can probably only be a theory, since only God can really measure each individual. Mina, in #63 wrote: "Bryce's original post was not about the formal position of the Orthodox relative to non-Orthodox conversions. It was about a perceived lack of seriousness to non-Orthodox conversions." Mina is correct, and I have already clarified this with mpfreed. It was an issue on a dual understanding of the term "acceptance".

^ top

---

Bryce and Carol

Author: Joe (---.rasserver.net) Date:   02-20-02 00:03 Bryce, Maybe I'm the only one on these boards who thinks so, but I did not interpret your reference to Deuteronomy 10:12-13 to describe an either/or interpretation of love and fear in relating to G-d. You correctly described it as "fear/awe" which as Carol notes has a rather different connotation in the Hebrew from the immature fear she goes on to describe in her post and which interpretation she seemingly attributes to you and then feels the need to correct. You also made it clear that "the Bible stresses these two paths -- fear/awe and love -- numerous times." And the verse you cited of course itself mentions both fearing (in the sense of awe or reverence--including but certainly not limited to the verses Carols cites equating fear of G-d with hating evil) and loving G-d. So I'm at a loss to understand why your comments should have been interpreted as they were. But more to the point, it seemed to me that you were trying to get at how partners who come from very different religious perspectives might view the same Biblical verses. Carol's thesis here, when discussing both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, seems to be that there is really no difference, as long as everyone looks at the Bible in a certain way that she describes (perhaps substituting one kind of fundamentalism for another?) Or at least that there are no differences worth discussing. For example, she says there is no need to share the verse you cited with her husband as he is "hardly unfamiliar" with the Torah. I know of Torah scholars whose knowledge of Torah is quite a bit greater than "hardly unfamiliar", but who interpret verses and word meanings and context very differently. For purposes of this board, however, it would probably be a lot more meaningful to discuss how she and her husband might view the verse, as well as their concept of G-d, differently--and what impact, if any, that has on their lives and their family. And if they view it exactly the same, is this typical of other Christians and Jews in interfaith marriages? Or other Christians and Jews in general? Is their interpretation consistent with the bulk of either tradition? Or consistent with a certain aspect? Or inconsistent? It seems to me that that kind of discussion, where people could respectfully agree and disagree, would be far more productive than a posting someone writes, concordance or whatever in hand to try to prove they know more so that others might be intimidated and not pursue the discussion. The fact is that the Jewish and Christian traditions, for all the diversity within each tradition, have on balance had very different perspectives on things. And some of those differences, and even conflicts, existed born the very first Christians who were born Jews, and the normative Jews of the time. Not to say that there is not a lot of overlap too. But the real differences shouldn't be minimized--rather it is ok to discuss them here since that is the point of this discussion board. I read recently of a liberal College of Jewish Studies that moved next to a liberal Christian School of Theology. They planned to do a lot of joint endeavors and joint classes. They soon both discovered that there were far more differences than either realized. They are still doing some things together, but appreciate much more where the points of divergence really are (and yes, it's a little more than whether or not one's religion includes Jesus). Now if the theologians can recognize that there are differences, and then have real dialogue about those differences, then perhaps intermarried couples can do the same here.

^ top

---

Post 64

Author: Mina (---.rutgers.edu) Date:   02-20-02 08:27 Thanks, Bryce, for the confirmation. Ellen, I think I should decline your request to restate my examples. Unless something important's going to come out of it, I'd prefer to practice what I preach and let this thread drop in favor of the more relevant conversation that's currently going on. And I don't think anything important's going to come out of restating. The original posts are still on the board, so anybody who wants to can access them. More specifically, I think it's unlikely that anything I say on this topic is going to resonate with you, especially given our very different responses to post #20. Whatever Susan's affiliation, I see that post as an unprovoked attack meant to delegitimate denominations that interpret the text more "liberally" (poor word, but you know what I mean) than hers. You see it as benign. Pretty wide gulf.

^ top

---

Joe

Author: carol (207.106.229.---) Date:   02-20-02 10:32 LOL! This is first time anyone has ever accused me of being a fundamentalist of any sort! seriously, I strikes me that maybe haven't read back and followed the discussion between me and Bryce. In brief: Bryce challenged someone to explain John 14:6 in a way that implied that the person didn't take her religion seriously. Susan then chimed in (#20) further seeming to say that Christians that didn't read that verse the way evangelicals do were just blithely disregarding their scriptures. So I replied in #21 to explain my movement's interpretation and why I felt it was valid. In that post I asked "what other path draws us so close to God as the way of love?" Bryce's reply in #61 apparently posited a second, different, (but not mutually exclusive) path - that of fear/awe. (You will note that my reply to Susan in #67 says that I did not in fact read Bryce as saying that there was an either/or between love and awe). I replied that to me the two paths are so intertwined as to be in effect one path afterall. I explained why I believe this not to impress or "intimidate" or "prove I know more" than anyone, but (a) because I knew Bryce would ask if I didn't explain, and (b) because I wanted to show that it is possible for a Christian to hold the view I do without being cavalier about dealing with scripture. Perhaps I did get a bit carried away in my exposition, but I get really tired of the presumption that liberals do not take scripture seriously or think through theological questions. I also get tired of one view of Christianity being presented as though it is the only one out there, or the only one that 'serious' Christians can subscribe to (esp. when this view is being presented by non-Christians). Now what I absolutely did NOT say was that Christians and Jews should interpret scripture in the same way. In fact I think the differences are real and important. I also think that learning about them and discussing them can be mutually enriching as long as we listen with respect and w/o the idea that we need to win the other over to our POV. Part of this, btw, is discarding preconceived notions about the other 'has to' believe. My only argument for commonality would be a largely shared set of ethics and a response to God that is born out of love (which I think is the basic common denominator for all real religious experience whether Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, etc.) Lastly, my response about my husband was not meant to dismiss the idea of that there are differences worth discussing. It was a reaction to the impression that Bryce was taking a swipe at my husband's knowledge of his scriptures. Perhaps Bryce didn't mean it that way, but saying "I would encourage you to share this verse with you husband" (as though my dh was unaware of it), rather than "I would be interested in how you and your husband interpret this seperately and together", made it sound that way to me.

^ top

---

blah blah blah blah blah

Author: Horatio (64.128.149.---) Date:   02-20-02 21:38 This passage is a little lengthy but I'm quoting here so you'll know what I'm responding to: <<For purposes of this board, however, it would probably be a lot more meaningful to discuss how she and her husband might view the verse, as well as their concept of G-d, differently--and what impact, if any, that has on their lives and their family. >> I'll tell you how the conversation goes: woman: Honey, I think this verse means blah, blah, blah. man: Sounds good to me. Pass the salt. And that's how it should go... Let's face it, interfaith couples reach a point in their lives where it just doesn't matter anymore who's right and who's wrong and what a particular bible passage means or implies. If a couple is of two different faiths, they know they have different beliefs and they also know that this can sometimes be the cause of pain and arguments and discord, both within themselves and between each other. So I don't see how a conversation about John 4:16 or whatever can help their marriage and family situation. What does help instead is finding common ground, deciding to raise the children in one faith, and sticking to it. Both parents getting very involved in this child-rearing-religious thing, and if they feel uncomfortable or sad or disappointed at times that their religion didn't "win" then they suck it up and keep at it anyway...for the sake of the children. And even though you have one faith for your children/home...it is still your obligation to learn as much as your can about the other's faith and respect and acknowledge the beauty of each other's faith. Go to temple on the high holidays with your spouse and don't say how sad you are that he/she doesn't accept Jesus. Go to church on Christmas with your spouse, and don't talk about how the eucharist is cannibalistic or the crucifix is sadistic. Suck it up. I didn't say you had to bring the kids to these holiday services; if this will cause confusion don't do it. But for your spouse, you are an adult and you can suck it up and go. But to me, bringing up John 4:16 is like picking a fight with your spouse. What is the point? We know the faith differences, we know the wounds are there. Why throw salt on them. Somewhere along the lines, we have forgotten that marriage is centered on love, and that God has put our spouses in our lives to love and to cherish and to honor, and as we honor and love each other and remain committed to each other in marriage (a much harder task, I propose, than committing oneself to a religion...) we are serving God and I believe we are doing God's will. Amen!

^ top

---

Author: Bryce (---.mpowercom.net) Date:   02-21-02 10:27 Thank you Horatio for your nicely-written post. "So I don't see how a conversation about John 4:16 or whatever can help their marriage and family situation. " The answer to this question is below. "What does help instead is finding common ground, deciding to raise the children in one faith, and sticking to it." This quote reminds me of the joke: Q: "How does one become a millionaire?" A: "First, get a million dollars..." From this, the answer to the first question is obvious, and perhaps Horatio has answered his own question. Discussing this verse (among hundreds of other potentially friction-filled verses, of course) -- among themselves as well as with Biblical scholars they each trust -- will help an intermarried couple educate themselves to decide in which faith to raise the children.

^ top

---

The examples Mina refers to

Author: Ellen (---.as29.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net) Date:   03-05-02 10:24 Mina: Your declining to "restate" your examples reminds me of that list of 156 communists in the State department which Joe McCarthy refused to share, but by golly, he had it all right!

^ top

---

Replying to Ellen

Author: Mina (---.trentn01.nj.comcast.net) Date:   03-09-02 09:49 I don't find your analogy accurate, because I'm not declining to "state" -- as McCarthy was -- but to "REstate." As I said before, there's no need to; this is a written forum. My examples are preserved here on this board. If you don't think they're good or persuasive examples, that's a different story. But they're HERE. There was even a bit of a discussion about one, including Bryce, mpfreed, and myself. And you and I discussed Susan's post. I had two additional reasons for not REstating. First, my point originally was that the discussion on this board frequently gets pulled away for too long from its true purpose. I didn't want to contribute to that unnecessarily by saying the same thing over and over. Second, as I noted, based on your responses to me I thought it unlikely that you would be truly interested in anything I had to say on this topic, and I wasn't interested in getting pulled into that kind of back-and-forth. Your last posting makes that even clearer.

^ top

---

Restatement or statements?

Author: Ellen (---.as7.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net) Date:   03-09-02 20:26 Mina: If you could just tell me where it was that you originally "stated" your evidence, then I would not be asking you to "restate" it. Why is that so difficult?

^ top

---

reply to Ellen

Author: Mina (---.trentn01.nj.comcast.net) Date:   03-10-02 08:48 Not hard at all. I didn't realize that you were unable to find them, and could not understand why in the world you wanted me to restate them. I gave three examples in post 56, the post immediately before you entered into the conversation, and directly gave you another example in post 63. Interestingly, nobody has ever challenged my statement that there is Christian proselytizing on the board, so I guess I don't need to provide examples of that.

---

< Previous

Next >