Semitic/Abrahamic

[Guest guest]

 Dear Friends – Max, Kalipadma,

Thank you for your replies. I will try to address your points at the best of my

ability.

 

First of all, I accept the suggestion of using “People of the Book” and

“Abrahamic” and I will proceed to edit my writing in this sense.

I believe that “persecutory monotheism” is even more descriptive, but my problem

is that I am living and working in India, and the general mass of people is not

aware of these subtleties. And we have to free Hinduism from the patristic

tendencies it has unfortunately developed under various circumstances, so

patriarchal may not be clear for most Hindus.

Very few Indian people have ever heard about Jews or anti-Semitism, but they

have been confronted for centuries with the oppression and bad propaganda of the

other “Peoples of the Book”, i.e. Muslims and Christians.

>Do you mean Judaism? There is no such word in

>English, "Hebraism."

 

I also acknowledge your objection about Judaism. Please forgive me, English is

not my mother tongue. However, I have consulted my Webster’s, and indeed it

contains the word “Hebraism”, defining it as follows:

“the thought, spirit, or practice characteristic of the Hebrews; a moral theory

or emphasis attributed to the Hebrews”.

I believe that Webster’s is a good authority on English. Or would you say it’s

American?

>The Jews do not have a concept of "infidels," and do

>not proselytize.

 

In my understanding, the Jews do have a concept of “infidels”, i.e. Gentiles.

They may not proselytize in the Christian sense, but the Bible I have describes

what was the treatment meted out by Jews to non-Jews: all males were slaughtered

and women taken as slaves. In some cases, men were spared if they accepted to

become Jews, i.e. to be circumcised. Isn’t it?

>> - women are not qualified to teach or practice

>> religion directly

>Only in Fundamentalist versions of these faiths.

 

Regarding the Fundamentalist versions of the faiths, I believe that these are

called “orthodox”, i.e. “the correct application of the doctrine”. Is my Greek

good?

If there is any active group of Jews who theologically and philosophically

supports a different version, please let me know. I am not interested in

“non-practicing Jews”.

I am interested in what the AUTHORITY of the Jews says.

I have been trying several times to get a Torah, but without success. In India

it is impossible, and even a friend from Israel kept sending me the Gideon’s

Bible translated in Hebrew.

>> - there are social differences based on different

>> religions

>> - the “chosen people” has the right to conquer the

>> entire planet (like Yahweh promised to Abraham), and

>> hence to have the complete political and financial

>> power,

>This is a mis-interpretation of the Biblical notion of

>a "chosen people." And Jews gained "financial power"

>only because European Christians were forbidden to

>practice "usury," while Jews were forbidden most other

>forms of employment.

 

I do not want to discuss why and how the Jews gained “financial power”. This is

not m y point. Did they or not? And wasn’t this the REASON why they were

accepted in the American society?

And isn’t that “mis-interpretation” of the Biblical notion of “chosen people”

the currently accepted interpretation of a vast number of Jews (and Christians)?

I am not talking about theory here, I am talking about international politics,

forced conversions, economic globalization and exploitation, WTO and the like.

>> - other religions are minorities, no matter what the

>> number of their followers is,

>How are you defining "minorities?"

 

By “minority” I intend a “less important” group.

 

I hope that our discussions will take a direction which is in support of a

Shakti worship approach, and not a defense of Abrahamic religions.

 

 

PKD