I was in the Boys Brigade.

Offer me a football and I might be prepared to switch to the Jewish faith.

Have a care, Judaism, and Islam for that matter both have locked doors, the difference being that with Judaism the door is locked from the outside, whereas with Islam it's locked from the inside.

I was in the Boys Brigade.

Offer me a football and I might be prepared to switch to the Jewish faith.

Have a care, Judaism, and Islam for that matter both have locked doors, the difference being that with Judaism the door is locked from the outside, whereas with Islam it's locked from the inside.

Not accurate.

Jews aren't interested in conversions but if someone wants to do that, they may, but they will need to work and study for years to achieve being Jewish. Spouses of Jews often do this; I know a number of them. Jews may choose not to follow the faith anymore if they EVER did, a huge percentage of born Jews have never been religious. If from a super religious sect (a small minority) they will be shunned, even mourned as if dead. For the majority of Jews, no problem, but for the most part you will still be considered ETHNICALLY a Jew if born a Jew. A convert to Judaism who gives it up likely wouldn't be considered Jewish at all then.

On Islam, yes Muslims don't allow people to convert out of Islam but they enthusiastically pursue CONVERSIONS, and Islamic conversions can happen in seconds, you just say one sentence!

Huge differences there.

I was in the Boys Brigade.

Offer me a football and I might be prepared to switch to the Jewish faith.

Have a care, Judaism, and Islam for that matter both have locked doors, the difference being that with Judaism the door is locked from the outside, whereas with Islam it's locked from the inside.

Not accurate.

Jews aren't interested in conversions but if someone wants to do that, they may, but they will need to work and study for years to achieve being Jewish. Spouses of Jews often do this; I know a number of them. Jews may choose not to follow the faith anymore if they EVER did, a huge percentage of born Jews have never been religious. If from a super religious sect (a small minority) they will be shunned, even mourned as if dead. For the majority of Jews, no problem, but for the most part you will still be considered ETHNICALLY a Jew if born a Jew. A convert to Judaism who gives it up likely wouldn't be considered Jewish at all then.

On Islam, yes Muslims don't allow people to convert out of Islam but they enthusiastically pursue CONVERSIONS, and Islamic conversions can happen in seconds, you just say one sentence!

Huge differences there.

Jing, Well yes you have to jump through a few hoops to become Jewish, I know of someone who even had their foreskin removed as an adult by request from his Jewish wife to be. I state the door is locked from the outside because even if you renounce your faith that makes little difference to those who would kill you for it. With Islam and it's stance on apostasy the door is most certainly bolted from within.

True dat. I think that's horrible.

Interesting development. The COS has changed their text about Jews and Israel as they were feeling the heat of the valid charges of antisemitism. It's still not a friendly document for Jews.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-church-of-scotland-s-parody-of-judaism

The great majority of Jewish readers would most likely plump for that
rather unfashionable, much maligned term, "anti-Semitic". They would do
so because the report's initial iteration was a breathtaking exercise
in the kind of replacement theology that most of us thought had been
dispensed with long ago, thanks to the efforts of influential Christian
scholars like James Carroll, who has argued that Judaism and Christianity
can retain "an intimate bond while being different". Choice
observations like these – "Jesus offered a radical critique of Jewish
specialness and exclusivism, but the people of Nazareth were not ready
for it," "[Jews] must be challenged...to stop thinking of themselves as
victims and special" ­– led to the inescapable conclusion that the
Church's real target was not Israeli policy, or even the Zionist
movement, but Judaism itself.

As
a result of protests from the Israeli Ambassador to the U.K. and from
representatives of the Jewish community in Scotland, the Church withdrew the report
a few days after it was posted online, and then issued a new,
apparently sanitized version. Now, it is true that many of the
provocative words and references in the original report which the Church
disingenuously says were "misunderstood" have been excised from version
two. But the supersessionist thrust of the report remains intact.

Well done JT.....your campaign was successful.

Well done JT.....your campaign was successful.

Not really. Read the article. They still have issues.

Well done JT.....your campaign was successful.

Not really. Read the article. They still have issues.

Oops....keep calm and push!

(Stolen from the local maternity suite poster)

Interesting development. The COS has changed their text about Jews and Israel as they were feeling the heat of the valid charges of antisemitism. It's still not a friendly document for Jews.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-church-of-scotland-s-parody-of-judaism

The great majority of Jewish readers would most likely plump for that

rather unfashionable, much maligned term, "anti-Semitic". They would do

so because the report's initial iteration was a breathtaking exercise

in the kind of replacement theology that most of us thought had been

dispensed with long ago, thanks to the efforts of influential Christian

scholars like James Carroll, who has argued that Judaism and Christianity

can retain "an intimate bond while being different". Choice

observations like these – "Jesus offered a radical critique of Jewish

specialness and exclusivism, but the people of Nazareth were not ready

for it," "[Jews] must be challenged...to stop thinking of themselves as

victims and special" ­– led to the inescapable conclusion that the

Church's real target was not Israeli policy, or even the Zionist

movement, but Judaism itself.

As

a result of protests from the Israeli Ambassador to the U.K. and from

representatives of the Jewish community in Scotland, the Church withdrew the report

a few days after it was posted online, and then issued a new,

apparently sanitized version. Now, it is true that many of the

provocative words and references in the original report which the Church

disingenuously says were "misunderstood" have been excised from version

two. But the supersessionist thrust of the report remains intact.

Well done. There's too much free speech about.

Interesting development. The COS has changed their text about Jews and Israel as they were feeling the heat of the valid charges of antisemitism. It's still not a friendly document for Jews.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-church-of-scotland-s-parody-of-judaism

The great majority of Jewish readers would most likely plump for that

rather unfashionable, much maligned term, "anti-Semitic". They would do

so because the report's initial iteration was a breathtaking exercise

in the kind of replacement theology that most of us thought had been

dispensed with long ago, thanks to the efforts of influential Christian

scholars like James Carroll, who has argued that Judaism and Christianity

can retain "an intimate bond while being different". Choice

observations like these – "Jesus offered a radical critique of Jewish

specialness and exclusivism, but the people of Nazareth were not ready

for it," "[Jews] must be challenged...to stop thinking of themselves as

victims and special" ­– led to the inescapable conclusion that the

Church's real target was not Israeli policy, or even the Zionist

movement, but Judaism itself.

As

a result of protests from the Israeli Ambassador to the U.K. and from

representatives of the Jewish community in Scotland, the Church withdrew the report

a few days after it was posted online, and then issued a new,

apparently sanitized version. Now, it is true that many of the

provocative words and references in the original report which the Church

disingenuously says were "misunderstood" have been excised from version

two. But the supersessionist thrust of the report remains intact.

Well done. There's too much free speech about.

A few judiciously placed bombs might have achieved a quicker retraction.