From: a0cb@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Chris Bertholf)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversations with a Rabbi
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:32:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: pdxgate.6647

dcs@witsend.tnet.com (D. C. Sessions) writes:

>  We'd all appreciate it if you took your own advice and spent the
>  next few decades doing some serious firsthand research into
>  Atheism, Buddhism, Islam, ..., Wicca, Voodoun, Zen, ...

What a total idiot!  Obviously, I don't have time to research every aspect
of religion.  However, we are only discussing two religions here, thus
research into Voodoun, Islam, Buddhism, etc. would not be germane to this
discussion, nor to the investigation of that material.  I will point
out that I do quite a bit of pleasure reading in the areas of religion,
and I have in fact learned about many of the religions of which you
write, on my own, without others telling me what those religions
mean, how I should interpret them, etc.  I'm sure you haven't.
You seem more content to let others think for you than I.  Your choice,
not mine.

>  What?  Life's too short, you say?  You already know you've got
>  the One and Only True Faith (tm)?  How closed-minded.

Who ever said I had the One and Only True Faith?  Is this your
best shot at discrediting the ideas of which I speak because you
have no intellectual arguments?  I have never suggested anything except
an open-minded look at the literature.  I never said 'convert to 
MJ or Xianity', I just advocated thinking for yourself.

>  Humans are funny.  We jump to the darndest conclusions by
>  induction. 

Such as your One and Only True Faith jump :-)

>  Some of us, for instance, have found that after the first few times we got 
>  burned by hot objects we become quite uninterested in finding out if the
>  NEXT one will, too.  Or are you open-minded enough to give
>  the next coal you see a try, just to be sure?

Another misplaced analogy.

You speak of literature as though it had some physical property, like heat,
such that the book automatically burns you when you pick it up.  I would
love to see such a book or pamphlet, as it would definitely lessen my
investigations into such matters.  However, as the literature I am familiar
with does not posess such properties, I find the only authorative way in
which to really deal with it is to read it, and based on what is contained, I
can discard it, or accept it, or discuss the contents, or ...  You
can do none of these things, because you have no knowledge of the materials,
thus anything you say is based on conjecture, and can easily be discarded
by those who do seek to ENLIGHTEN THEMSELVES BY INVESTIGATION.

>  In case this is too abstract to register, we have found that
>  some people (Sam Saal, for instance, or the RAMBAM) have
>  proven to be much more reliable than the J4Js.

Yes, groupthink!  Have someone else tell you what is right, wrong, good, bad,
indifferent, yellow, red, white, wet, dry, ad infinitum.  Why determine any
of these things for yourself based on investigation when you can rely
on someone elses interpretation.  You probably believe Siskell's and Ebert's
every word too, don't you.  I can just immaging the cognitive dissonance
you must experience when they have a one-thumb-up one-thumb-down review.
You can't go look for yourself unless you get two-thumbs-up, and you
don't look when there are two-thumbs-down.  I wonder what you are missing;
I know, you don't... You have someone else to guide you and that is easier
than thinking for yourself.


>  BTW, we're not all so dense that we fail to notice that
>  this "try us, don't listen to the Jews!" pitch is targeted

I never said "Try us".  What makes you think I am one of the "Us".  Could
it be that I don't subscribe to your groupthink, and, as such, you will
have to assume that I must be one of them.  Well I'm not!!! I just have
more of an interest in letting my own mind think for me than you do.

>  towards the most ignorant among us, who won't recognize
>  the lies and BS on their own.

I haven't advocated the acceptance of the material in any way; just the
investigation of it.  Obviously, this bothers you. Too bad.  Now go back
to having someone else think for you.  I hope their next reply is better
than the one they thought up for you this time.

>--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

But not thinking for himeself :-)