Could I be jewish because I seem to share some of their beliefs?

I'm Finnish, close to the Nordic nations, but have not successfully been coned yet, but I am in a constant state of anticipation. I drink Guinness in moderation, usually with a sandwich at lunch, as I hear this greatest of all Irish contribution to civilization has a repelling effect something similar to garlic.

Do you think you are actually doing that . . .

Or do you have another agenda?

That is what I am doing and it is others as yourself that help me to question what I understand. I realize that some of my understandings are incorrect if not all of them but it is others who help me to evolve in my understandings.

No vampires, then, eh?

I think you may be correct but who am I to decide? It seems that what we have here are concepts constructed by by people who agree with them.

I think that these concepts have to evolve when they are confronted as being logical inconsistent.

Just image if all who are born of a Jewish woman were considered to be Jewish. Would this include those who had Jewish mothers but were atheist or converted to a different religion?

If you are born of a Jewish mother you are Jewish. You are considered Jewish by birth.

So, yes, all children of a Jewish mother are considered Jewish. And all branches of Judaism consider the child of a Jewish mother to be Jewish.

The Jewish People are a nation and an ethnoreligious group. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

Converts to Judaism are also considered Jewish.

The other definitions of who is considered a Jew can get somewhat complex because of the different branches within Judaism and differing interpretations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F#Jews_who_have_practiced_another_faith

To answer your question, "Could I be jewish because I seem to share some of their beliefs?" the answer would be, "No". You would need to go through
a formal conversion to Judaism. Just having certain beliefs would not make you a Jew.



You're right, you haven't studied Judaism--and it shows.

Hmmm.
I don't believe in an immortal soul. When you're dead, you're dead, as far as I know.
Also, I believe organized religion is responsible for most of the world's misery.
Most atheists and agnostics believe the same.
So that makes me an atheist, I guess.

That would make you an A-immortal soulist



I am not sure about what other atheist and agnostic believe or understand but this is your belief.

I do realize that this is the common belief or constructed concept but Jews have believed in different concepts for thousands of years They do not all agree on all issues. Some of them believe differently than others.

This is another Jewish belief.
The controversy in determining "who is a Jew" concerns four basic issues:

One issue arises because North American Reform and UK Liberal movements have changed some of the halakhic requirements for a Jewish identity in two ways:

Children born of just one Jewish parent – regardless of whether the father or mother is Jewish – can claim a Jewish identity. A child of only one Jewish parent who does not claim this identity has, in the eyes of the Reform movement, forfeited his/her Jewish identity.

It seems to matter on what Jewish belief you want to believe.

Maybe the loud-mouthed, pushy atheists and agnostics. Any one with a lick of sense could probably figure out that the largest cause of human suffering in the modern age is economic inequality. When the rice crop goes bust, and commodities traders have large blocks of rice futures, which they then intend to hold on to while the price goes up, i guaran-damn-tee ya that millions are going to suffer, perhaps more than a billion, as rice is the most widely used grain for feeding people (while more corn is grown than rice, most of it is not for human consumption).

There was a time, thousands of years ago, when organized religion was a positive factor in human societies. Temple societies organized labor, and land and water resources to produce surpluses of food which not only meant that no one went hungry but that hosts of priests, acolytes, weavers, potters, carpenters, wheelwrights and cartwrights would be organized to practice economies of scale. The priests and acolytes were a useful part of the equation because they had generations of accumulated data on rainfall patterns and flooding which were crucial to successful, large-scale agriculture. They also made accurate observations of the stars which allowed them to predict the seasons, and therefor the rain and flooding cycles.

But the success of temple societies brought a population explosion which had warfare in its train. That lead to the rise of aristocracy and kings, and the priests of the temples found themselves in competition for the role of authority figures. Nevertheless, they continued to provide a crucially useful function in society.

The earliest occurrence of the attempt to enforce religious adherence of which i know was by the Pythagoreans in the 5th century BCE. It wasn't entirely successful, though, because influential Greeks were not impressed. This may also have been the time of when large numbers of atheists arose, and ridiculed or ignored religious beliefs. Certainly, those are the earliest times of which i know when people were at pains to argue against atheism. But it wasn't until the rise of Christianity and then Islam that things got really nasty. Even then, religious leaders had to convince military leaders that there was something in it for them to get them to go to war. Religion is a wonderful excuse to start a war, but it doesn't feed men and horses and it doesn't pay anyone.

The only large scale civilization o which i know which was organized well without benefit of clergy was in China. The aristocracy believed in a spirit world and an afterlife, but given that they didn't care if the peasants lived or died, so long as the rice and the taxes kept coming in, i know of no one who attempted to impose religious conformity on the people. Ancestor worship was the most common "religious" expression of the majority of the Chinese people. Confucius was the source of a moral compass for the people and for government, especially after his teaching received the Han seal of approval.

All in all, organized religion was probably a good thing for mankind. Unfortunately, its been about 2000 years since that was generally true.

Whats the matter? you don't think that this setting with you being the teacher is formal enough?
Certainly you have more confidence in your ability to teach than this?

No, and it's my experience that you don't learn anything from the experience here or from wandering around all of the boring youtube videos you seem to favor.

Well You are wrong in your belief because I have learned a great deal from you even though you are the master of ad hominem.

Maybe I am wrong but your next to last post was well thought out and had a great punch.

When will you make up your mind about my ability to have a lick of sense?

Let me guess you think I differer from you on this matter?

OK, perhaps I should have said many instead of most
Still I believe it likely that economic inequality is closely related to mores and attitudes fed by religion.

Sorry to digress from the OP, RL. I know how important it is for you to stay on topic.

I think you may be correct but we may both be wrong.



Have I told you that I like your humor and your intellectual dishonesty at times? Maybe I am wrong but I think we agree on many issues.

Parody and sarcasm are dishonest only when they are offered to advance logical fallacy.

Are you suggesting that I received your input correctly and that you were being humorous?

Have you ever had an atheist experience?

I was quite comfortable as an agnostic.

Oh yeah. I didn't watch the vidiocy