quote:I'm not even sure about the seasoning part. And a really good hamburger can be eaten with just a teeny bit of A-1.
That's culinary heresy right there. And I wouldn't wait for legal niceties to distribute justice, either. A-1?! On anything, much less a perfectly good and virtuous piece of ground beef between two slices of bread? That's...that's just beyond the pale, really.
Mea culpa. There's no accounting for taste.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: OK, this question is silly and not remotely relevant, but all this talk of ETs and space travel has triggered my inner geek, and now I just wanna know.
Would an observant Jew be able to travel through space, assuming the means of travel required an engine to be going the entire time? I'm assuming not, since in that case the vehicle would be just a big car. What if they stopped the engines and coasted for the duration of the Sabbath? And what if they kept the engines going, but they traveled while frozen?
OK, sorry. Silly nerd questions expunged.
Why? I think they're cool questions. Yes, a Jew could ride a spaceship, and no, the engines wouldn't have to be turned off on Shabbat, I don't believe. You couldn't have a Jew operating them on Shabbat, though.
It's no different than a regular ship. We didn't always have airplanes, after all. When we took ships from Israel to other places, it often took more than a week.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: The reasons I find it dissatisfying are manifold. One reason is the disparity between the demands placed on Jews and the demands placed on everyone else. More than 600 commandments to only seven is quite a disparity.
It's actually not quite so bad. The seven categories for Noachides actually comes out to about 67 specifics when looked at the way we look at our 613. So it's less than 10:1.
Maybe it's training. Boot camp of sorts.
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: It makes wonder, what is it about those 600 commandments that benefits the rest of mankind? Another reason is differences in treatment between the Jews of the Bible and the Gentiles of the same period. A third has to do with the status of people prior to Sinai, including Abraham and other pre-Moses prophets. And there are others.
That's because God created all of us.
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: In my mind, there has to be an explanation for this in the Jewish faith, or at the very least a non-doctrinal explanation that Jews tell themselves as a possibility. I know I do this kind of self-explaining all the time within my own religious beliefs.
I go for the teacher thing, myself. But we basically figure that God knows what He's doing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: What is the Coservative stance on interfaith marriages? I did not start reading about how Judaism really works until I was already deeply involved and in love with my now fiance. She is the only reason I have stayed with the Reform movement. Her still believing in Jesus (though never going to church) sort of puts a crink in converting into Judaism of any shape or form.
The following is the best of my knowledge on the subject, but I'm not necessarily the right person to ask. I do not think Conservative Judaism sanctions or condones interfaith marriage, and no Conservative Rabbi will perform the marriage or attend the ceremony. Also, if and when you have children, they will not be Jewish unless they are born after a conversion takes place.
That's all correct. Although... well, technically speaking, a marriage between a Jew and a Conservative convert would be considered intermarriage halakhically, but obviously not in the eyes of the Conservative movement.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa:"One thing is that we're supposed to serve as teachers. That makes sense, right?"
Of course, and in fact this is something that I believe about Judaism as well, at least in antiquity.
starLisa:"Anyway, the main thing is that asking why God made Jews to be different is like asking why God created the world. Or people. We don't have authoritative answers to that."
Drat. I was afraid that was the answer.
starLisa:"How so?"
Well, the Why question then becomes complicated with Why are the chosen people in a worse position.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa:"Maybe it's training. Boot camp of sorts."
So, although Gentiles are presently discouraged from converting to Judaism, it's possible that one day we may all be Jews, and we need to see how it's done?
starLisa:"That's because God created all of us."
I don't understand the relevance. But that's okay, I think I already got the only answer I'm likely to get to my broader question.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a lot of words that are being used in this thread that, while I think I get the idea of them based on context, I don't really understand them. Does anyone know of a good website that explains the words you are using in a simple manner? Some of the words I'm thinking of include: freiliche chanukkah, Shabbat, halakha, Shul, Chabbad, mitzvot, daven.
Are all of these words from the same language? If so, what language is it? Is Hanakkah a misspelling?
Posts: 315 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of the words are either Hebrew or Yiddish. There are several online dictionaries that should have them.
Chabad is a type of Orthodox Jew (the kind that dress in black hats, sorta look like seventeenth century Polish merchants). You can get more information at their website www.chabad.org.
You can spell Hannukah however you want, since it's not originally in the Roman alphabet.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sala: There are a lot of words that are being used in this thread that, while I think I get the idea of them based on context, I don't really understand them. Does anyone know of a good website that explains the words you are using in a simple manner? Some of the words I'm thinking of include: freiliche chanukkah, Shabbat, halakha, Shul, Chabbad, mitzvot, daven.
Are all of these words from the same language? If so, what language is it? Is Hanakkah a misspelling?
Freiliche Chanukkah -- Yiddish for "Happy Channukah"
Shabbat (or with the Yiddishy pronounciation, Shabbos) -- Hebrew for "Sabbath"
Halakha -- Hebrew for "Law"
Shul -- Yiddish for "Synagogue"
Mitzvot (or the Yiddish pronounciation, Mitzvos) -- Hebrew for "Commandments"
Daven -- Hebrew for "Pray"
Hebrew and Yiddish are different languages that use the same alphabets. And Yiddish borrows some words from Hebrew, but is closer to English or German than to Hebrew. The inconsistencies in spelling are due to approximating the words in one language into the alphabet of another. And, accents vary, so two people may render the same word differently.
Sorry for all the jargon. I get carried away, sometimes. Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: starLisa:"How so?"
Well, the Why question then becomes complicated with Why are the chosen people in a worse position.
We don't have to be. Mostly it's because we're a stiff-necked people. That's a double-edged sword, you know. On the one hand, we're stubborn enough to have kept on plugging away despite everything, but on the other hand, we tend to be ornery and unruly. Despite all the warnings, and actual punishments, we keep screwing up.
I don't say this to excuse any of the nations and people who have mistreated us, but if we, as a nation, were to shape up, that kind of stuff wouldn't be a problem any more.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: starLisa:"Maybe it's training. Boot camp of sorts."
So, although Gentiles are presently discouraged from converting to Judaism, it's possible that one day we may all be Jews, and we need to see how it's done?
<shrug> Maybe. But... at a really high level of Jewish knowledge, there's information that I'd pretty much describe as cosmology. Stuff about the structure of the universe. Methods of manipulating the material of creation. Stuff that's extremely dangerous in potential. The vast majority of Jews never go anywhere near this, but it's part and parcel of the Torah.
Maybe we need to get the world to a point where it's safe for that stuff to be used. And as dkw suggested, it's not necessary for everyone to have the same expertise. Judaism is not egalitarian in its nature. Students aren't less important than teachers. As anyone whose ever been a teacher knows. But teachers have a major responsibility.
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: starLisa:"That's because God created all of us."
I don't understand the relevance. But that's okay, I think I already got the only answer I'm likely to get to my broader question.
Well... remember that of the almost 2000 years up to Abraham, we have very little information about what went on. Only the stuff we actually needed to know. The Torah isn't a history book. I mean, it contains history, but it's extremely selective in what it relates.
I wrote a little thing about the early stuff in the Torah. Maybe it'll be helpful.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sala: There are a lot of words that are being used in this thread that, while I think I get the idea of them based on context, I don't really understand them. Does anyone know of a good website that explains the words you are using in a simple manner? Some of the words I'm thinking of include: freiliche chanukkah, Shabbat, halakha, Shul, Chabbad, mitzvot, daven.
Are all of these words from the same language? If so, what language is it? Is Hanakkah a misspelling?
I'm sorry. I've been trying to stay away from jargon as much as possible. Freiliche is Yiddish for joyful. Hanukkah has more spellings than I can think of. Hanakkah, I think I can say is wrong, because the second vowel really is an "oo" as in "spoon". But it's transliteration, so as long as it's understandable, it's all good.
Shabbat is the original of the word Sabbath. We sometimes pronounce it Shabbat, and sometimes Shabbos. You'll see both.
Halakha (halacha) is the system of Jewish law.
Chabad is another name for Lubavitch Hassidism, which is a group of Jews who follow a particular dynasty of rabbis and a particular philosophy.
A mitzvah (plural: mitzvot) is a commandment.
And shul is another word for synagogue.
Please don't hesitate to ask if anyone uses a term that you don't get. I'm trying only to use them if I'm going to explain them at the same time.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's probably closer to the latter. And it's one of those "kids, don't try this at home" things.
But there's different levels. There's theoretical, which is just understanding how things are built, as much as you can, anyway. The second level is meditative, which is a method of learning to perceive that stuff. And practical... well, I don't know if anyone is up to that these days. It's seriously dangerous stuff, and probably compares to magick as a nuke would compare to a firecracker.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, keep on using the words you're used to using. It really is fascinating to me since I don't know much about it. Not to offend, but it is almost like reading a science fiction book about a culture you know nothing about and the words the author uses to explain things have to be figured out from the context (or the glossary that authors sometimes put at the back of their books). And considering this is a site for sf readers, OSC in particular, I'd love to learn more. I'll ask or go look it up if another word doesn't quite make sense to me. Don't change your vocabulary on my account, please.
Posts: 315 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I am excited for Purim. Last year, we made hamentashen with lemon pie filling. So, so good.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David G: Finally, a hypothetical question: Assume the conditions and authority to stone to death a violator of Shabbat came to be. Assume that you sat on the Sanhedrin (are females allowed?).
Nope. But let's say.
quote:Originally posted by David G: And assume that the evidence against the perpetrator was compelling. Would you vote to have the perpetrator stoned to death? Is that really what you would want to have happen?
Hell, I don't think someone should be ticketed for rolling through a stop sign when it's the middle of the night and no one is around, but that's the law. I would hope that such a case never happened, and I'd do my level best to educate people so that it wouldn't, but if it did, then yes.
Your answer to the hypothetical may highlight a fundamental difference between Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism.
There is no reasonable comparison between a law requiring drivers to stop at stop signs and the commandment to observe Shabbat. Violating the stop sign law (in the middle of the night when noone is around) is a mere traffic offense (not even considered a crime) and results in a modest fine; whereas, violating Shabbat results in death by stoning. But apart from this glaring difference, the stop sign law is made by humans, and the law requiring observance of Shabbat is made by God.
I know you know this and that I'm pointing out the obvious - but it leads to my point: We legitimately can regret the application of the stop sign law and the penalties for violating the law in certain situations. At least under certain circumstances, the law is minor and the penalty is minor, and we don't lose a lot of sleep over the law's violation when it happens in the middle of the night when nobody is around. It's just no big deal. Violating Shabbat, however, is a hugely big deal and capital punishment by stoning is a hugely big deal – not even in the same league as rolling through a stop sign.
And so… If you interpret and apply your reading of Torah literally, if the commandments come from God (whose laws cannot possibly be unjust), if the observance of Shabbat is supremely important and a central tenet of the faith, how can you feel nothing but pride and satisfaction from carrying out the commandments? Why would you “hope that such a case [as stoning to death the violator of Shabbat] never happened”? If you mean, “I hope that that there is never a violation of Shabbat under conditions in which stoning is mandated” – sure. Of course you don’t want there to be a violation. I assume that that is what you mean when you say that you would educate people – so that the penalty would hopefully never be carried out. But if violations nevertheless occurred under conditions in which capital punishment is to be the penalty, you would have to feel nothing but pride and satisfaction in having the opportunity, discipline and faith to carry out God’s commandment – even if that means throwing rocks at a person until that person dies. This is where you and I part ways. If read and applied literally today, this commandment, to me, would be unjust. I don’t think that a Jew, no matter how well educated, after knowing the law, and after having the opportunity change his ways, should be killed for refusing to obey Shabbat.
I have a different reading of the commandment at issue. I do not interpret the commandment literally. The commandment is there to highlight the awesome importance of observing Shabbat. Perhaps the stoning to death symbolizes a “death” other than actual killing - such as death of the Jewish spirit, of the capacity to experience creation, of the capacity to experience God. Perhaps it symbolizes a “death” that precedes an opportunity for re-birth and an opportunity to return to Torah.
You believe the law, as interpreted literally, is immutable (do I have that right? I don’t want to presume). But I believe that some of the laws, when interpreted literally, would be unjust. The two beliefs are irreconcilable. I also believe the law is immutable, but I also believe that the law need not and should not be interpreted literally. (I grant that you may see this as a distinction without much of a difference. But if you do then it is a matter of semantics and how we respectively define "immutable.")
I agree that God had the capacity to transmit the laws to be accessible and meaningful through all time. I also believe God did just that. We differ on how God accomplished this. God gave us brains and moral compasses and analytic ability and whole lot of other things. God meant for us to receive and struggle with the law independently and on our own through each of the generations. That is our obligation. Not to accept the law without thinking – but to struggle to understand it and to make sense of it and to apply it. “Accessible” does not necessarily mean “easy to understand.” It also can mean “understandable, but sometimes after working hard at understanding it.”
God clearly had the ability to create a universe in which evil did not exist, a universe where pain did not exist. God chose not to create such a universe, and for reasons of his own, created a universe in which pain and evil and struggle are ways of life. God created humans with free will and consciousness, etc. God did not create us and the universe to make it easy for humans to understand and to decide things. So why would God necessarily be expected to create the laws to be easy to understand and to implement?
There is a difference between saying the law is accessible to humans and saying the law is as simple to understand as paint by numbers or an instruction book for operating a microwave. We agree on the former, but perhaps not as to the latter.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David G: And so… If you interpret and apply your reading of Torah literally, if the commandments come from God (whose laws cannot possibly be unjust),
And let's keep that in mind for further on.
quote:Originally posted by David G: if the observance of Shabbat is supremely important and a central tenet of the faith, how can you feel nothing but pride and satisfaction from carrying out the commandments?
Because God doesn't command our emotions. We say "Baruch Dayan HaEmet" when someone dies, but we grieve anyway. You can be happy that you've carried out the commandment and sad that it had to happen, both at the same time. That's not a contradiction.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Why would you "hope that such a case [as stoning to death the violator of Shabbat] never happened"? If you mean, "I hope that that there is never a violation of Shabbat under conditions in which stoning is mandated" – sure. Of course you don’t want there to be a violation. I assume that that is what you mean when you say that you would educate people – so that the penalty would hopefully never be carried out.
And that was precisely what I said and meant.
quote:Originally posted by David G: But if violations nevertheless occurred under conditions in which capital punishment is to be the penalty, you would have to feel nothing but pride and satisfaction in having the opportunity, discipline and faith to carry out God’s commandment – even if that means throwing rocks at a person until that person dies.
That's a silly strawman argument, David. There's a midrash about the last few verses of Deuteronomy. After all, God dictated these to Moses, and they recount Moses's death. The midrash says, "God spoke the words, and Moses wrote them, in tears."
That's our model. You do what God says. You don't have to jump up and down about it, though.
Understand something, David. We don't claim to be perfect people. We're works in progress. The Sages say that "In a place where a baal teshuva stands, even a complete tzaddik cannot stand." We're always striving to improve ourselves. But we know that we don't know everything. We know that we can't judge God, because we don't have all the information. To place your personal ideas of what's just and what's not on God... well, that just may be one of the most fundamental differences between Orthodox and Conservative. Secularists are fond of saying that "Man created God in his own image." In the case of the Conservative movement, that's actually true. You refuse to accept a God who knows better than you what's right and what's wrong. You don't have to live up to God's expectations; He has to live up to yours.
quote:Originally posted by David G: This is where you and I part ways. If read and applied literally today, this commandment, to me, would be unjust.
As I said.
quote:Originally posted by David G: I don’t think that a Jew, no matter how well educated, after knowing the law, and after having the opportunity change his ways, should be killed for refusing to obey Shabbat.
Okay, so you disagree with God.
quote:Originally posted by David G: I have a different reading of the commandment at issue. I do not interpret the commandment literally. The commandment is there to highlight the awesome importance of observing Shabbat.
<nod> That, too. No question about that.
And btw, we don't "interpret" the commandment literally. We do what God told us to do. We know what the Authorial intent was/is.
But David, don't you see what you're doing? It isn't that you see the commandment as meaning something else. It's that you refuse to accept what it actually says, and therefore need to either reject it altogether or find a rationalization for why it says what it says without really meaning what it says. And that's because you insist that you are the arbiter of right and wrong. We don't have that level of hubris.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Perhaps the stoning to death symbolizes a "death" other than actual killing - such as death of the Jewish spirit, of the capacity to experience creation, of the capacity to experience God. Perhaps it symbolizes a "death" that precedes an opportunity for re-birth and an opportunity to return to Torah.
And perhaps it means just what it says. The thing is, David, that we aren't looking at a book with interpretable words and reading our own personal feelings into them. The law is very clear, and it's not a matter of the words you're reading in the Torah. The Conservative movement claims that "an eye for an eye" actually meant just that until the rabbis decided to interpret it non-literally. I get that. It's not true, but I get that that's where you're coming from.
quote:Originally posted by David G: You believe the law, as interpreted literally, is immutable (do I have that right? I don't want to presume).
As long as you understand that "literally" isn't being applied to the text of the Pentateuch. I have no idea if you ever bothered to read that Torah 101 post, so I don't know what your understanding is.
quote:Originally posted by David G: But I believe that some of the laws, when interpreted literally, would be unjust. The two beliefs are irreconcilable.
And you don't see anything wrong with that. With requiring God to conform to your moral standards.
quote:Originally posted by David G: I also believe the law is immutable, but I also believe that the law need not and should not be interpreted literally. (I grant that you may see this as a distinction without much of a difference. But if you do then it is a matter of semantics and how we respectively define "immutable.")
As I've said before, rationalization is a nasty vice. It's a form of self-deception.
quote:Originally posted by David G: God clearly had the ability to create a universe in which evil did not exist, a universe where pain did not exist. God chose not to create such a universe, and for reasons of his own, created a universe in which pain and evil and struggle are ways of life. God created humans with free will and consciousness, etc. God did not create us and the universe to make it easy for humans to understand and to decide things. So why would God necessarily be expected to create the laws to be easy to understand and to implement?
Who said anything about "easy"? You say that like someone who has never learned in an Orthodox environment. Maybe you should try it. Take a sabbatical. Go to Israel and learn in a yeshiva there. And then see if you don't have a better picture of what I'm talking about.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I don't claim to know better than God what is right or wrong. But I also don't think God wants us to follow His laws/His Torah blindly. I don't think God wants us to accept the Torah without our also making our own judgments of right and wrong.
I can't get past the commandment to stone to death a violator of Shabbat. I can't accept that women are not allowed to be called to the Torah on Shabbat and read from the Torah and lead services. I have thought long and hard about these issues and I can't accept that the above laws/restrictions are just. And as strange as this sounds [to you], I think this is how God wants me to think.
But thank you for Torah 101 (which I did read! And I think I understand it) and all of your thoughtful and knowledgeable input in this debate. I am genuinely impressed by your knowledge on the subject. I am now, more than any time in my life, extremely motivated to study and learn. After I gain more knowledge, however, I intend to re-engage you in this debate - unless of course after further study I end up agreeing with you.
[ January 02, 2006, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: David G ]
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I keep hearing about outreach programs, but there can't be too many in the Baltimore/DC metro area.
*jawdrop* Was that a joke? Would you like a list?
Maybe its because I have never lived in a Jewish community, but no I have never heard of or seen one. The closest was Jews for Judaism at the Baltimore Jewish festival, and they are more counter-missionary.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jews for Judaism is a lot more than counter-missionary.
In any case, Baltimore has one of the largest US Orthodox communities outside of the NYC area. With plenty of outreach organizations. AJOP is based there!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David G: Lisa, I don't claim to know better than God what is right or wrong. But I also don't think God wants us to follow His laws/His Torah blindly. I don't think God wants us to accept the Torah without our also making our own judgments of right and wrong.
I can understand, outside of Judaism, how someone could think that. What I can't understand is how you can possibly reconcile that with all of the sources that say the goal is to make your morals and ethics and principles and values conform to those of God, rather than the other way around.
Why does one have to be Jewish, if the whole thing is about your opinion? Do you just see it as some out-of-the-box framework in which to do your own thing? Kind of a warm cultural veneer, complete with lox and bagels and herring and Tevye the milkman? What earthly value is Judaism to you if you're the arbiter of right and wrong, and even God has to live up to your standards?
quote:Originally posted by David G: I can't get past the commandment to stone to death a violator of Shabbat. I can't accept that women are not allowed to be called to the Torah on Shabbat and read from the Torah and lead services.
You want to know something funny? The other day, I was reading a summary of teshuvot by Rav Henkin. He talks about the thing with women leyning. First off, there's no way women can be called to the Torah, because we don't have the same obligation that men do. And Jewish law says, extremely reasonably, that ones obligations can only be fulfilled by another if the other has at least the same level of obligation. And I don't have any problem with that.
As a side issue, I always find it a bit patronizing to hear non-Orthodox men telling Orthodox women how deprived we are. For most Jews who aren't Orthodox, the synagogue is virtually the be-all and end-all of Judaism. You walk in the door, and you do Judaism. You walk out the door, and it's back to "normal".
In Torah Judaism, however, the home is the center. Not the synagogue. And it's something that's supposed to be exactly as important when you're walking down the street as it is when you're in shul.
I can understand why, if the synagogue is all there is, someone could feel that everyone has to be able to do the same stuff there. The reason we don't have those issues is that our Judaism is something all-encompassing.
But back to Rav Henkin. He writes that the halakha is that women can't read from the Torah during services because of kavod ha-tzibbur, or "the honor of the congregation". I was taught, growing up Conservative, that this meant that Orthodox Jews think it's shameful for women to do anything publically. That's untrue. What it means is that originally, the person who got called up to the Torah also read the part he was called up for. And that having a woman read implied that there were no men in that town who were able to. That was the shameful thing.
Today, however, since the almost-universal custom is for the leyner to be someone other than the guy being called up, there's no issue of kavod ha-tzibbur anymore. And yet, he adds, women should not leyn for the congregation, because of assimilation. In other words, far from ignoring the world around us, it's actually the constant pushing of the Conservative and Reform movements to break one boundary after another that is keeping me from being allowed to leyn. And I love to leyn. I'm damned good at it. I used to teach it.
quote:Originally posted by David G: I have thought long and hard about these issues and I can't accept that the above laws/restrictions are just. And as strange as this sounds [to you], I think this is how God wants me to think.
David, that's a rationalization. Claiming to know better than God what God thinks... that's hubris in the worst way. Go and read about Nadav and Avihu (Aaron's sons) and see what God actually thinks about substituting your personal feelings about what the law should be for what God says the law actually is. We're supposed to learn from our mistakes.
quote:Originally posted by David G: But thank you for Torah 101 (which I did read! And I think I understand it) and all of your thoughtful and knowledgeable input in this debate. I am genuinely impressed by your knowledge on the subject. I am now, more than any time in my life, extremely motivated to study and learn. After I gain more knowledge, however, I intend to re-engage you in this debate - unless of course after further study I end up agreeing with you.
Why unless? <grin> There'll always be things to debate. But I look forward to hearing from you again. Happy UnHanukkah.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What earthly value is Judaism to you if you're the arbiter of right and wrong, and even God has to live up to your standards?
Out of interest, what value would any religion be if it permitted its people to act independently? Is any such religion inherently valueless?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're permitted to act independently. Within boundaries. I'm talking about defining all boundaries according to individual whim. I can understand that in something like Wicca, since the Wiccan Rede basically says, "An it harm none, do as ye will." In fact, I was raised with more or less that moral imperative. I remember my Dad saying, "You can do anything you want so long as you don't hurt anyone." Phrasing aside, that's the same exact thing.
It's a common sentiment, at least here in the US. And I'm not shocked that David seems to hold by it himself. I just don't get why you need a religion for that. What's the point? Just to have a Jewish ethnicity? To eat cholent?
There used to be a poster with a picture of a bagel and cream cheese, and printed in large letters, "Has 3,000 years of Jewish history come to this?" Or something of the sort. Well, has it?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I'm not shocked that David seems to hold by it himself.
I'm not sure he does. All we know is that he believes that some things are evil, even if God supposedly endorses them -- so he chooses to believe that God does not endorse them, because the alternative is to believe that God might endorse evil.
This doesn't mean he has an arbitrary moral code; it means that his moral code is not exclusively informed by the doctrines of his religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There used to be a poster with a picture of a bagel and cream cheese, and printed in large letters, "Has 3,000 years of Jewish history come to this?" Or something of the sort. Well, has it?
If you added a Satmar in the background or something, probably yes. They are the fastest growing group of American Jews.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I'm not shocked that David seems to hold by it himself.
I'm not sure he does. All we know is that he believes that some things are evil, even if God supposedly endorses them -- so he chooses to believe that God does not endorse them, because the alternative is to believe that God might endorse evil.
This doesn't mean he has an arbitrary moral code; it means that his moral code is not exclusively informed by the doctrines of his religion.
No. It means that he's created God in his own image. In Judaism, we worship God.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. It means that he's created God in his own image.
Not necessarily. It just means that a given religion's values are not the exclusive source of his ethical sensibility. Only if you believe that God is the source of all ethics would this constitute "remaking" God.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not quite correct. You are allowed to have non-divinely-inspired ethics, you just aren't allowed to have ones that directly conflict with those dictated by G-d.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: That's not quite correct. You are allowed to have non-divinely-inspired ethics, you just aren't allowed to have ones that directly conflict with those dictated by G-d.
What would be an example of a non-devinely-inspired ethic?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: That's not quite correct. You are allowed to have non-divinely-inspired ethics, you just aren't allowed to have ones that directly conflict with those dictated by G-d.
Thank you, Minerva. You said it better than I'd been trying to.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stephen, moderate vegetarianism would be one example. Refusing to eat force-fed veal would be another. Some people think it's important to have government funded/run social programs. Some don't. There are millions more, at least.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet this is missing the point, as I understand it: Stephan is essentially saying that if God does advocate a given action, that does not mean that action is good.
That doesn't mean that Stephan is making God in his own image; it means that Stephan is not making "good" in God's image.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Stephen, moderate vegetarianism would be one example. Refusing to eat force-fed veal would be another. Some people think it's important to have government funded/run social programs. Some don't. There are millions more, at least.
Ah yes, vegetarianism. I think the most memorable debate I ever witnessed in person was a veggie arguing with an Orthodox Rabbi over whether or not animals have souls.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And yet this is missing the point, as I understand it: Stephan is essentially saying that if God does advocate a given action, that does not mean that action is good.
That doesn't mean that Stephan is making God in his own image; it means that Stephan is not making "good" in God's image.
I assume you meant David G?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. Although you're welcome to question the inherent goodness of God as well, if you're up to it. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This seems to me rather like Catholics who will directly disagree with the Pope when the Pope is speaking "in office". I'm not sure what the precise terminology is for that, but I mean disagreeing with the Pope when the Pope makes it clear that he is not saying simply what is his own opinion, but what he believes himself to have been inspired to say by God.
I think starLisa's point is entirely valid. If God says, "Do this in such and such circumstances," especially in such exacting and tiny details as discussed in the stoning for non-observance issue, how do you get past that blunt defiance?
When lawyers do that, we roll our eyes and are generally aggravated. When kids do it, we roll our eyes and tell them to cut it out, you know what I meant. It seems to me that this is not a rule like, "Love your neighbor like you love yourself." I mean, that's got at least two words in it that are massively open to interpretation: love and neighbor. I think it's entirely reasonable for someone to say, "God means this.
But this does not seem to me to be a rule like that one. This one seems to say, "If conditions A-F are met and Person 1 does this thing, kill Person 1." Pretty cut-and-dried. Now what would seem quite reasonable to me is that since God has made it so detailed when it's required to kill the guy, that God prefers it happen very very rarely, if ever. I mean, I have difficulty imagining someone so thoroughly suicidal who wouldn't just take an easier route of jumping off a bridge or some such.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Stephen, moderate vegetarianism would be one example. Refusing to eat force-fed veal would be another. Some people think it's important to have government funded/run social programs. Some don't. There are millions more, at least.
Ah yes, vegetarianism. I think the most memorable debate I ever witnessed in person was a veggie arguing with an Orthodox Rabbi over whether or not animals have souls.
<grin> Oh, I would have enjoyed that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And yet this is missing the point, as I understand it: Stephan is essentially saying that if God does advocate a given action, that does not mean that action is good.
That doesn't mean that Stephan is making God in his own image; it means that Stephan is not making "good" in God's image.
See, I totally don't understand this view, if we are talking about the Jewish/Christian/Muslim view of G-d as a source of commandments (not just a nebulous being that created the universe). I can understand saying that there is no G-d. You could, I suppose, believe that an evil god created the universe. But in that case, why follow any thing that he said?
But if you accept G-d, how can you say that you know more? "Yes, I accept that G-d, but I think he was really wrong on the pork thing."
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Highland Park, NJ.
Bingo!
I thought so.
Someone want to calculate the odds that three of the . . . . um, however many frum Yidden we have on Hatrack all live/lived in (or in my case, just adjacent to) Highland Park, NJ?
Slightly freaky, neh?
Actually, it's more than three, if you include my two kids. Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I came across this today on Usenet. It's a terrific little story (or a couple of stories) that illustrates the Jewish perspective on making our wishes subordinate to those of God.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Highland Park, NJ.
Bingo!
I thought so.
Someone want to calculate the odds that three of the . . . . um, however many frum Yidden we have on Hatrack all live/lived in (or in my case, just adjacent to) Highland Park, NJ?
Slightly freaky, neh?
Actually, it's more than three, if you include my two kids.
And mine! (and let's keep quoting the quotes. I like the way it in- and out-dents.) Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
