Religious membership hypocrisy?

[Keystone Phil]

This is coming from a member of Judaism who is lecturing me about how I'm turning people away from Christianity...

I wasn't aiming for a guilt trip. I was simply rebuffing your claim that your massive numbers means your religion is more successful or "better" than mine. If you want to make stupid comments to that extent you should be prepared to know the facts behind them.

We turn away those who want to be converts (as in aren't Jewish and want to become Jewish), not those who are in the religion already. So you're right, they aren't Jewish enough because they aren't Jewish at all! And the reason we do that is because we don't damn to hell for eternity those who aren't Jewish and prefer people to live good lives in whatever position they were born into.

On the other hand, you seem to be intent on turning away fellow Christians. It may not be your purpose, but your method of arguing against such people is absolutely a factor in alienating people from the religion. You say you are angered that people laugh off certain doctrines and yet you do nothing to fix that. Instead, you apparently have chosen to let that continue! It's a vicious cycle you have fallen into and to tell me that you aren't one of those people who yells and screams about how terrible people are for not following doctrine is a blatant lie. Whether you say they are going to hell or just telling them they are hypocrites and self-centered (which I would consider the bigger insult), either way you distance people from the religion.

He then goes on to assume that I "damn" people to Hell for not following doctrine.

[Franzl]

It's hypocritical.

But I just want to point out that every religion has hypocritical aspects....and their members as well.

[Alcon]

It's not definitionally hypocritical.  He's chastising you for driving away current Christians.  He says that his religion turns away converts.  It's arbitrary, but arbitrary does not necessarily = hypocritical.  Unless I misread/misunderstand.

I'm more interested in understanding why he draws that arbitrary line.  And why he is so bothered by what you do, if he does so.

[Keystone Phil]

But I just want to point out that every religion has hypocritical aspects....and their members as well.

Hey, you're right but this is just so blatant.

It's not definitionally hypocritical.  He's chastising you for driving away current Christians.  He says that his religion turns away converts.  It's arbitrary, but arbitrary does not necessarily = hypocritical.  Unless I misread/misunderstand.

No, Judaism turns away some converts. He described them as "wannabes." That means that there must be a test of sorts which is exactly why he got on my case.

And I don't understand how he can lecture me about turning people off my religion by turning them away and then he defends his religion literally denying people membership.

[Yamor]

I can't see the hypocricy at all.

[Keystone Phil]

I can't see the hypocricy at all.

He tells me that I'm turning people off to my religion...and then tells me how totally justified it is for his religion to only accept some converts. That basically tells me that there's a "Are you Jewish enough?" test. I apparently can't call out opportunists in my part (note how I'm not even saying that they're not Christians!) but he can say who is "Jewish enough" in his religion.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Isn't this sort of post the sort of thing people bash me over?

[Keystone Phil]

Isn't this sort of post the sort of thing people bash me over?

The difference is that I don't plan on making twenty different threads about the same subject over the course of two years and viciously harass Purple State for this.

[Yamor]

No, his point is perfectly valid. As he says, Jews do not believe Judaism is the only path to salvation. Jews do not believe non-Jews will go to hell. Hence, it is a perfectly acceptable stance for Jews to not willingly accept converts.
Christians on the other hand believe you're finished if you don't believe in Christ, and in fact missionarising is encouraged and wanted. Hence, his comment to you.

[Keystone Phil]

No, his point is perfectly valid. As he says, Jews do not believe Judaism is the only path to salvation. Jews do not believe non-Jews will go to hell. Hence, it is a perfectly acceptable stance for Jews to not willingly accept converts.

That's not a justification. Catholics don't believe that Catholicism is the only path to salvation either but that has nothing to do with calling someone "Not Catholic enough."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not all of them do. More ignorance. Not surprising but disappointing. And I still don't know how that's relevant to anything here.

[Alcon]

I can't see the hypocricy at all.

He tells me that I'm turning people off to my religion...and then tells me how totally justified it is for his religion to only accept some converts. That basically tells me that there's a "Are you Jewish enough?" test. I apparently can't call out opportunists in my part (note how I'm not even saying that they're not Christians!) but he can say who is "Jewish enough" in his religion.

Yeah, but do you understand what I'm saying?

1. He's arguing that you drive away pre-existing Christians.

2. Then, he concedes that his religion (which he claims to subscribe to) drives away "wannabe Jews," who are not an identically analogous group to #1.  Current Jews would be.

It's not a contradiction in formal logic.  Is it a contradiction in justification?  Maybe, he didn't explain his justification.

[Keystone Phil]

1. He's arguing that you drive away pre-existing Christians.

Why does that difference matter? I'm "driving away" people already in my religion (who really don't care anyway) and he's justifying driving away people that want to be in his religion!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't get why that matters. He'd throw a fit if I told converts that they weren't "Christian enough." His religion can apply some test but mine can't.

[Yamor]

But what is the hypocricy? You may not like it, but Jews believe they are a separate 'nation' chosen by God, to live in a certain way. It is not just a belief system, but a racial thing. That is what he means when he says people aren't Jewish enough - i.e. They're not born to a Jewish mother. Something you either are or not. No judgements are being made on anyone, you just either are or not.
Christianity on the other hand is quite clearly just a belief system.

[Keystone Phil]

But what is the hypocricy?

The hypocrisy is that Jews can have a test applied to their religion ("Are you Jewish enough?") but Christians cannot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There are plenty of Jewish converts that aren't Semites.

[Yamor]

I know, but Jews don't want or encourage conversion. However, if someone insists, they'll accept him without any tests at all. Purple State does not mean there are people who aren't good enough to be Jewish, just that you either are or not.

[Keystone Phil]

I know, but Jews don't want or encourage conversion. However, if someone insists, they'll accept him without any tests at all. Purple State does not mean there are people who aren't good enough to be Jewish, just that you either are or not.

That makes no sense at all. "Either you are or not." Judaism not encouraging conversion doesn't mean anything.

How are you either Jewish or not if there's no test of some sort applied to the person converting? You acknowledge that it's not purely a racial thing so how do you determine if I'm "Jewish or not" if I wanted to convert?

[Yamor]

No determination at all.
By Jewish law, any potential convert has to be discouraged and explained how drastically his life will change if he converts. If the non-Jew is insistant, then he has to be accepted, with absolutely no tests or anything.

[Keystone Phil]

No determination at all.
By Jewish law, any potential convert has to be discouraged and explained how drastically his life will change if he converts. If the non-Jew is insistant, then he has to be accepted, with absolutely no tests or anything.

Yet if I discourage people from calling themselves Christians (again, something I don't do. I don't determine one's relationship with Christ. I'm just calling out opportunism), I'm alienating people.

I still don't get how you determine someone is a "wannabe convert" though. How are they turned away and why?

[Keystone Phil]

Not only is he a hypocrite but the kid doesn't even understand Catholic doctrine - https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=93169.msg1931447#msg1931447

Now I believe people that don't celebrate Lent are going to Hell! LOL

[Alcon]

Why does that difference matter? I'm "driving away" people already in my religion (who really don't care anyway) and he's justifying driving away people that want to be in his religion!

It matters because he could, in theory, present a justification -- even if it's arbitrary or doesn't satisfy you.

So it's not a formal contradiction.

So, in formal logic, he's not necessarily a hypocrite.  You have to assume that his justification is arbitrary before you even declare him an informal-logic hypocrite.  You seem to be making that assumption, but I'm not willing to.

So, that's my answer to your poll -- "Not enough data."

That's what it matters.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't see anywhere where he said that you believe people will go to Hell for not celebrating Lent.

[Keystone Phil]

Why does that difference matter? I'm "driving away" people already in my religion (who really don't care anyway) and he's justifying driving away people that want to be in his religion!

It matters because he could, in theory, present a justification -- even if it's arbitrary or doesn't satisfy you.

So it's not a formal contradiction.

So, in formal logic, he's not necessarily a hypocrite.  You have to assume that his justification is arbitrary before you even declare him an informal-logic hypocrite.  You seem to be making that assumption, but I'm not willing to.

So, that's my answer to your poll -- "Not enough data."

That's what it matters.

I love when you speak in such a lofty way, Alcon, because I know you don't even know what you're saying.

I don't see anywhere where he said that you believe people will go to Hell for not celebrating Lent.

He was quite clear...

You, on the other hand, require that all people do exactly as you do or they are doomed to hell.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Alcon]

Why does that difference matter? I'm "driving away" people already in my religion (who really don't care anyway) and he's justifying driving away people that want to be in his religion!

It matters because he could, in theory, present a justification -- even if it's arbitrary or doesn't satisfy you.

So it's not a formal contradiction.

So, in formal logic, he's not necessarily a hypocrite.  You have to assume that his justification is arbitrary before you even declare him an informal-logic hypocrite.  You seem to be making that assumption, but I'm not willing to.

So, that's my answer to your poll -- "Not enough data."

That's what it matters.

I love when you speak in such a lofty way, Alcon, because I know you don't even know what you're saying.

What about that is "lofty" or confusing?  The most complex word I used is "arbitrary" and you used that before me.

The idea is that there is a difference between the two behaviors.  In one case, it's driving away current converts; in another, potential converts.  So, if he can logically justify that difference, he isn't hypocritical.

You're assuming that he can't, or that any justification he'd give would be ridiculous or arbitrary to you.  Being ridiculous or arbitrary means he's an "informal hypocrite."  That's because it's not a contradiction in formal logic, because there is a distinction, even if it's crappy and laughable.  You're rejecting his argument for insincerity or ridiculousness, not formal contradiction.  No formal logical contradiction, no formal logical hypocrisy.

Either way, you haven't asked for a justification -- so you haven't even determined a contradiction in informal logic.  So, you have no real solid way of knowing whether there's even an informal contradiction.  Not having proven an informal contradiction, you haven't even determined that he's a "hypocrite" in the informal sense (which, as above, involves you deciding whether his justification is good or not, as opposed to logically consistent.)

Hopefully that isn't "elitist" or "lofty," or confusing, or anything.

[Keystone Phil]

The idea is that there is a difference between the two behaviors.  In one case, it's driving away current converts; in another, potential converts.  So, if he can logically justify that difference, he isn't hypocritical.

Sure it's hypocritical when he applies the same test to potential converts that I apply to current members. He applies that test so that they don't become like the current members of my religion!

[Alcon]

The idea is that there is a difference between the two behaviors.  In one case, it's driving away current converts; in another, potential converts.  So, if he can logically justify that difference, he isn't hypocritical.

Sure it's hypocritical when he applies the same test to potential converts that I apply to current members. He applies that test so that they don't become like the current members of my religion!

Someone actually pointed out a potential justification earlier.  Current members understand the lifestyle and the difficulties.  Potential converts may not.  That property alone might justify different treatment.

Does it?  I don't know.  But why not ask him?  I'm sure you're used to people misconstruing your religion as an unconvincing morass of rules, regulations and releases.  Have you read the freakin' Catechisms?  Maybe some of the justifications of "natural law" seem, well, natural to a long-term Catholic, but they are not obvious or streamlined-seeming to me.

And yet you're remarkably unwilling to give hearing to Judaism's justifications on this issue...