From: b_robinson@tamar.compserv.utas.edu.au
Subject: Re: Response to Rob Strom and Introduction
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:30:57 +1000

In article <1992Apr07.232512.29558@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.123648.1@tamar.compserv.utas.edu.au>, b_robinson@tamar.compserv.utas.edu.au writes:
> |> In article <1992Apr03.195813.6271@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
>  [Lots of stuff, which has become (physically) messy, deleted.
> |> > I don't consider that either made an informed decision
> |> > to change religions.  
> |> > 
> |> A question to Rob: do you consider them still to be vulnerable, or have they
> |> become "strong and knowledgeable"? If the former, and you believe in that kind
> |> of prayer, it might be appropriate to pray that they might become strong enough
> |> to make an informed decision.
> |> 
> |> From our point of view as Christians, I think most of us would rather have a
> |> committed Jew, who has made an informed decision, than someone who *thinks* he
> |> is a Christian, but really isn't.
> |> 
> 
> Your second paragraph implies that people who make "uninformed
> decisions" to become Christians aren't really Christians.  I

Yes, it does suggest that. I would rather say, I entertain a doubt about it.
Many who have made uninformed decisions (or merely have grown up in a Christian
family) have found subsequently that they *weren't* Christians, and have made
*informed decisions at that point. (That is not a problem you Jews (rabbinic)
have :-)).

> doubt that most of your co-religionists agree.  Especially
> when they completely change their life in response to this
> decision.  That's what my wife's brother and sister did.
> They abandoned their old friends, and formed new relationships
> exclusively centered around Born-Again Christian communities.
> They stopped reading books except for tracts from these
> same communities.  This went on for years.  They then
> married Christians.  I have previously posted that my
> wife's brother married a woman belonging to a fundamentalist
> cult which so controlled the family that he was unable
> to leave the cult because the pastor whisked his wife
> and child off to England until he "repented".  
> 
> At this point what does an informed decision mean?  My
> wife's sister has by now lived more of her life as
> a Christian than as a Jew, is married to an evangelist
> minister, lives in an entirely Christian-centered
> universe, etc.  What earthly good does it do to
> pray that she reconsider a decision she was pressured
> into making when she was twelve?  What about
> her young son?  He is (halachically) Jewish.
> Would you approve of my secretly meeting with
> the young boy to try to get him to return to
> Judaism?

I didn't suggest that you try to influence them by your prayers, or otherwise,
to return to (orthodox or other rabbinic) Judaism, although that is a logical
possible outcome! Yes, I believe it would be appropriate, at a suitable age,
and I think you're a good judge of that, for you to tell your nephew what you
believe, and why, preferably not in secret. If your in-laws are any reasonable
kind of Christians, I rather think they should believe that the gospel of Jesus
Christ is strong enough to stand on its own two feet. Having said that, I know
of a lot of Christians who do not have that kind of faith.

> 
> |> In relation to our proselytizing activities, and another recent posting, Jesus
> |> told a story to illustrate this, saying it's like a beggar who found food, and
> |> then went and told other beggars. I think I've got it right, but I can't
> |> remember where it is written. Jesus no doubt had in mind the lepers who told
> |> the people of Samaria, when G_d destroyed the Assyrian army, that there was
> |> abundant food available. (2 Kings 7).
> |> 
> The analogy breaks down because it's a reasonable
> presumption that the other beggars are hungry and
> that your food is better than no food.  That's
> not a reasonable presumption with respect to
> religion.
> 
Yes, it does break down, as do most analogies. But we do go on to believe
that most people don't realise they are 'hungry', because they haven't
tasted real 'food'. Now that may sound ridiculous to you, since, in terms
of the analogy, you are already eating what, to you seems like perfectly good
food, and, perhaps, being satisfied by it. But to carry the analogy a little
further, consider the events in the same story when Elisha told the King
"About this time tomorrow, a seah of flour will sell for a shekel, and two
seahs of barley for a shekel at the gate of Samaria." To the unbelieving
officer, he said, "You will see it with your own eyes, but you will not eat any
of it." The officer had food alright in the city (although he wasn't satisfied
by it, and he knew it -- here the analogy breaks down again). He simply didn't
belive it was possible, in the forseeable future, for decent food to be
available.

Besides this, there are many people around who are hungry, but they don't know
what for (and you will say, "Go proselytize them!" -- but our command is to go
to *all* the world.)

> -- 
> Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
> IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598


Barrie.