Dear David f,
Apologies. Of course, you are right, that was a very silly formulation. The “other” in the sentence you quoted was in reference to the accuser, not the Archbishop (or Rabbi). There are archbishops (and rabbis) who make silly, if you like bigoted, pronouncements of their own (e.g. the ill-famed bishop Williamson), however Lustiger represented - by his position as well as by the statement you quoted - the official position of the Catholic Church, meaning - more or less - that the Messiah has already arrived. Of course, that is a position that no rabbi would agree with, nevertheless I do not see it as bigoted or offensive, the same as I do not see it offensive when a rabbi says that Jesus was just one of many Jewish prophets or that Christianity was founded by Paul.

On my first Christmas in the “free world”, THE AGE (I think) published side-by-side four accounts of Christmas and Jesus: The Catholic position I knew, the Protestant position was too over-intellectualised for my taste at that time (my taste has changed since then), the Atheist just reminded me of all the clichés I knew from my Communist schooling. It was the Jewish position that I found must insightful, not that it would make me convert, but because it shed new lights on my preferred world-view.

Much of this topic's postings are in what I call "anchored reasoning".
By that I mean they are bounded (anchored) to our personal prejudices,and 'western assumptions,.
Truth and true Philosophy are neither.
To illustrate my point apply "the simple minded ET anthropologist test".
i.e. What would an ET anthropologist make of the discussion given that they didn't have our clearly irrational/bias laden preconditioning.
One example that comes to mind is the dictum that states "atheism and anti-Semitism clearly emanate from Christianity"

In reality both emanate from our animal instinctual origins. What is less clear is the origins (substance) for our JUSTIFICATIONS.

Many of the 'explanation' are what one may call self-referential proofs. i.e. This fact is true because X (who has the same biases has rationalised it thus). In reality this is merely adding and or re-birthing several layers of fundamentalist rationale under different labeling.

I use the term "secular humanism" rather than "humanism" to differentiate and amplify between the earlier term 'humanism' which came with connotations of the "spirituality" of humans.
This aspect of spirituality assumes some level of separateness/superiority(?) from the rest of creation.

The afore mentioned Shamanism maintains the connection but has at it's base a concept of appeasement of natural forces by ritual etc.

While Shamanism doesn't have a ridiculously paternalistic 'supernatural' God(s) it is flawed in that its underlying assumption is that we can alter/influence our reality by rituals etc.

As a secular humanist I reason that our 'earthly' meaning is intrinsic in our existence. All other “big” issues are unknowable and therefore irrelevant/simply pander to our human arrogance (that we matter) or insecurity (in that we need to control by being able to explain/justify.).

Foxy I remember posting an intrinsic purpose some time back.

Dear George,

You wrote: 'not that it would make me convert'

Vinoba Bhave, a Hindu holy man, advocated vertical conversion. Every religion is complex with many strands duplicated in other religions. He advocated looking deeper in your own religion to find what you are looking for before you convert to another. You no doubt have bonded with your Catholic fellows not only in belief but a shared culture, heritage and history. Catholicism as all other existing religions is a growing, changing entity. Why should you give that up even if you found some things in Judaism that you could accept? There are new insights, new doctrines and even new intellectual adventures. No living religion can be complete. My hackles rose when I heard Lustiger talked about Catholicism as a completion of Judaism.

You could convert to Judaism but that would not create a magic change where you would become culturally Jewish. I think that is consistent with your previous thought.

The Messiah is really not a concept central to Judaism. It is a myth starting after the kingdom of Solomon split into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Jews were hoping for a figure to unite Israel and Judah and restore the kingdom of David and Solomon. The myth grew until the messiah became regarded as someone who would usher in the Messianic Age as mentioned in Isaiah where "swords would be beaten into plowshares" and "nations would study war no more" Jesus has not ushered in the Messianic Era so he really can't be the Messiah according to Jewish tradition.

Jesus is, I believe, central to Christianity. However, the Messiah is not central to Judaism although some Jews believe in the coming of the Messiah. My grandmother used to say, “When the Messiah comes.” By that she meant “never.”

Lustiger not only spoke from a Catholic tradition. He showed his ignorance of Judaism. Many rabbis simply do not care one way or the other about a Messiah. If Lustiger reduced the difference between Catholicism and Judaism to that he showed his profound ignorance of Judaism.

Dear David f,
>> He showed his ignorance of Judaism. Many rabbis simply do not care one way or the other about a Messiah. If Lustiger reduced the difference between Catholicism and Judaism to that he showed his profound ignorance of Judaism.<<

You obviously know better than I how many rabbis literally "believe in the coming of the Messiah" or how many of them consider the Messiah myth, if you like, important in Judaism (two different things). Martin Buber obviously did, though he might not have believed in its literal meaning. Clearly, some Jews do, and it is with them that Lustiger resonated, even if you call him ignorant (using alternative interpretations of facts is not what I would call ignorance) of what belongs also to the resources of Catholic theology that was his job to understand.

So again, please accept that I am not an expert on theology of the one or the other kind, and that as far as Catholic-Jewish relations are concerned I am more inspired by Lustiger, (and Jews like Rabbi Israel Singer, c.f. http://jta.org/news/article/2007/08/06/103467/lustigerjews), than by Spong digging up bones of contention buried by history.

Dear davidf,

Since I placed the words “bred like crazy” in my post with every intention of making a point about sweeping generalizations it would be rather hypocritical for me to apologise I won’t, absolutely no malice intended though.

That the infant mortality rates among the community were notably lower than other groups in similar trying economic circumstances reflected well on the Eastern European Jewry.

You wrote;

“However, people living in poverty do have more children in the hope that some of them will survive and care for them in their old age. That is what is happening in the underdeveloped world today. It is still going on. Israelis are in general more prosperous than the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have a much higher birthrate.”

I’m not confident this strictly applies. I would claim the religiosity of a people plays a large part in determining family size. Certainly the Jews of the Pale were a devout lot, the Irish vs the Anglicans is another example, and my current fundamentalist Christian in-laws are definitely breeding like rabbits.

Further I don’t care how poor families are I struggle with the notion that a conscious decision is ever made to have a large family to ensure a higher chance of survivors being able to give parents a more comfortable retirement. Another sweeping generalisation?

You discussed with Grim the landlord role played by Jews on behalf of the Polish nobility which would have drawn hatred from the peasantry, there are further consideration. Jews were also given the monopoly on rural retail liquor sales as well as holding the long term leases on the taverns in the villages. “Whenever a Polish or Ukrainian peasant wanted his necessary shot of vodka, he had to buy it from a Jewish tavern owner, whose markup in this monopoly situation was lucrative” Norman Cantor - A History of the Jews.

A final point, if we accept that God is a human construct driven by human nature then doesn’t your initial point:3 still apply even if he is used for the propagation of the community’s moral code?

Dear George,

The url you cited quoted Lustiger as saying:

“For me, the vocation of Israel is bringing light to the goyim,” he said, referring to the Hebrew term for non-Jews. “That is my hope, and I believe that Christianity is the means for achieving it.”

In that he is saying something that many Jews say. I have even heard Jews talk about Israel being a light among nations. I think it is a 'holier-than-thou' statement regardless of whether a Jew or Christian says it. I think it is much better to just try to do the best we can and live righteous lives without thinking of ourselves as good examples or bringing light to others. There is a mindset in both Christianity and Judaism that we are set on earth to enlighten others in darkness. I regard it as arrogance. I believe other than you do. However, I have no reason to think that makes me any better than you or that I lead a more worthwhile life than you.

Dear csteele,

Whether a generalisation is sweeping or not is moot. I think religiosity in itself determining family size is a sweeping generalisation. However, particular religious concepts might. I think Judaism, Christianity and Islam all think of children as blessings from God. Therefore a devout Jew, Christian or Muslim might have many children. However, Manichaeism which is a religion that once spread from Spain to China and only died out in the eighteenth century held that sexual relations are good as bonding but sinful as reproduction. This is counter to the JCI view. I doubt that devout Manichaeists had large families. maybe that is one reason why they died out.

Certainly .3 still applies if we accept that God is a human construct. Some religions take moral values that have been developed by the community and gives them divine sanction. Stealing and murder are not good ways to live in a community. So we can say that the prohibition against such behaviour comes from God. However, all religions do not contain moral injunctions.