Talk:Judaism/Archive 3

September 2003
Mkncconn writes "I think I might be excused if I come away from reading the Pentateuch with the impression that it is a shameful and deadly sin to worship any other than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."


 * Especially for someone coming from a Christian background, I can understand how one can reach this conclusion. However, the classical Jewish interpretation of the Bible is that worshipping no God, or multiple gods, is certainly wrong, but not deadly, and does not automatically lead to damnation. God forgives us our errors if we live good and decent lives. At least, that is the Jewish view. RK

It seems to me that Judaism, insofar as it is Biblical, teaches that belief is the origin of real justice. But...not so?


 * You are totally correct. However, Judaism does not teach that correct belief always leads to real justice. Rather, it works on a more practical level: We note that even true believers in Jewish theology sometimes become bad people, and that even people who reject Jewish theology can become good people. Our concpetion of God thus rewards people on who they are and how they live, more than what they believe. This is not to say that belief is not important. Intellectual honesty compels us to say that certain things are true. RK


 * Mkmcconn, I think you are also making the mistake of thinking that "reading" is a simple act. Within Jewish tradition there is a strong claim that reading is not at all a simple act, that there is no one way to read or interpret the Bible.  Judaism deals with this situation in a few ways: first, a belief in the oral law that God revealed to Moses at Sinai, without which one cannot fully understand the Written Law (What you call the Bible); second, specific techniques for interpreting texts; third, the notion that the interpretations of the Jewish community (or at least, community of scholars) have authority.  Although this idea that reading is not a simple or straightforward act is not at all new in Judaism (and it is one thing that distinguishes even the most ultra- of ultra-orthodox Jews from Christian fundamentalists), a whole slew of contemporary literary scholars (e.g. Roland Barthes, Maurice Blanchot, Jacques Derrida) have argued that no text is transparent, not even Moby Dick or Hamlet.  This is a general point that I do think gets at the heart of te issue.


 * As for the specific question of belief versus actions, yes, the first commandment involves belief in God -- this is "constitutive" of Judaism in that Judaism is based on a covenant between the Jewish people and God. Just as there is no reason to obey any law in the US if you reject the U.S. constitution (and thus, the authority of Congress and its laws), there is no reason to obey Halakha if you reject God.  But on the other hand, a person can reject the authority of the Constitution and the Congress and still be a good person, even break some laws, but never get arrested.  Similarly, a Jew can reject Jewish law and still be a good person -- just as non Jews ae not obliged to obey Jewish law, but, if they are good people, hae a share in the world to come.


 * When I was a child it just blew me away to learn that Christians believed that non-Christians couldn't go to heaven. OF course, it also took me a long time to figure out that if the children of Christians didn't believe in Jesus or go to Church, they really were not Christians, even if they had not converted to another relgion! Slrubenstein

Excommunication
Could someone add a part about shunning ? I think it should go under "Who is a Jew" (since clearly after being shunned, one is neither "still considered to be a Jew in good-standing in the Jewish community" nor can one be judged according to the Jewish Law). It is of some importance since it applied to such people as Spinoza, but I don't know enough myself to contribute (why it is decided, who decides it, how it is applied - I also think it has some specific name but cannot remember it). François


 * Good idea; I have now added a section to this article which deals with Cherem (Jewish excommunication), and created an article which examines this topic in more detail. I also have added a link to this new article in our articles on Excommunication and Shunning. RK 17:35, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Wow! Amazing work. Thanks. François 14:13, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Links and Critics
I deleted three "critical" of Judaism links, for a few reasons.

One link was a defense of Christianity. If people want to learn about Christianity, there is a pretty good article here they can go to. Another was a critique of a book by Joseph Telushkin -- a prolific writer with many fans but hardly an authoritative spokesperson for Judaism. The third was a too short discussion of the lack of archeological evidence for Solomon's kingdom. Well, I certainly think that material belongs in articles on Biblical Archeology or a history article. But Jews themselves have been debating, for about 300 years, over how to interpret the Bible and the historicity of Biblical stories. The article itself makes this clear. That some people argue that the Bible is not historically accurate is not a "criticism" of "Judaism." Finally, I have serious doubts as to whether there should be links to sites that are "critical" of Judaism. By the way, I would be just as sensitive about links to sites that are "critical" of Christianity, Islam, or any other culture. I have no objection to articles that discuss conflicts and problems within and between people of different faiths -- and, in the context of those articles, provide "criticisms" as specific points of view. But an article on Judaism is not an apporpriate place for links to anti-Jewish propaganda. Slrubenstein


 * serious doubts as to whether there should be links to sites that are "critical" of Judaism? Why ... for a balance and NPOV, critical links should be accepted in the religious articles ... I'm reinseerting the links ....Sincerely, JDR


 * Did you read those websites? One of them has nothing to do with the religion of Judaism at all. It was about Biblical archaeology, and if you want to stretch things, it also deligitimizes all of Christianity. And the website that wishes to convert Jews to Christianity to save them from eterenal damnation is really out of bounds. Yes, we are aware that many Chrisitians believe that all Jews are damned to hell, and many Christian groups see Jewish outreach groups as their enemy in their war to "save" the souls of those poor damned Jews. But how does that figure into an impartial discussion and or criticism of some aspect of Judaism? You could load a thousand such weblinks with that POV onto this page; however that is advocacy. The article on Infidels.Org, however, is much more impartial, and more on topic. RK 22:48, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * Did you read those websites? mainly a quick glance (not indepth) ...
 * Biblical archaeology? isn't that important? being that the archaelogy is important to the old texts and it's validity test of the text ...
 * it also deligitimizes all of Christianity? ok ... mabey needs to be listed there too ...
 * How it figures into discussions and/or criticisms of Judaism? Just a note that some view this belief is heretical [and, yes, this can be said of one religion vs another (nothing wrong with mentioning that in all religous articles, IMO)] ...
 * [snip thousand POV links]
 * advocacy? no, just an acknowledgemetn of opposite views ...
 * Mabey other links could be found [in the view of impartiality (but YMMV on that)] ... but they are need in all the religious articles ...
 * sincerely, JDR

I am now wondering if we should have any "criticism" links section in any of the religion articles. Having one for the Islam article opens it up for all the religion articles, and I can see this section exploding in length for each of our religion articles. It could be used as a form of tit-for-tat attacking. Critics of Judaism, critics of Islam, critics of Christianity, critics of Hinduism, etc., all will have a grand time adding links to all sorts of websites, to websites that are probably not going to be very impartial. ''Perhaps Wikipedia policy should deal with criticisms like other topics, as discussions within an article. That way we could have peer review and a decent shot at attaining NPOV.'' RK 02:59, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * Religious criticism articles are nothing new. For over a year, maybe two or more in some cases, there have been articles criticising or critiquing Christianity from the perspective of Jews, from the perspective of atheist philosophers, of atheist historians and scientists who decide to venture into philosophy or theology. We have articles about particular sects of Christianity that document their criticisms of each other, sometimes within the general article and sometimes the criticism itself split off into its own article. Some are done better than others, but few are truly impartial by the standards of all interested parties. Of those that have stabilized, most are uneasy compromises that eventually get upset when a new interested contributor shows up and, with the best of intentions, tries to 'nudge' the article a little in one direction or another, thus restarting the whole process. I know you're as aware of this as I am. Regarding the infidels.org web site, I remember when it was less polished in appearance, and more clearly admitted that it was aiming to convert Christians to atheism (or "nontheism", if there's a real difference). Please don't be too shocked or surprised if someone found a link critical of Judaism and actually wants it included. Haven't seen any links, so I'm not expressing an opinion regarding particular links. I guess I'm just a bit surprised that religious criticism in wikipedia seems to strike you as such a new idea. Wesley 07:10, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the point is that moderated discussions are Ok, but a long list of links to websites on the attack may not be useful. JeMa 15:23, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, I have an alternate proposal: that criticisms of of religion in general have their own articles/pages (e.g. atheism or agnosticism); that historically and culturally specific disputes have their own articles/pages (e.g. the Reformation); that articles that are critical of whole peoples have thier own pages (e.g. racism, anti-semitism); and that articles on specific religions be written in an NPOV way. I do not believe that NPOV is established by providing links to pages that are partisan, I believe it is accomplished through other means. Slrubenstein


 * NPOV is established (as far as I can tell) by providing balanced information in the topic's article (pro and con) ... criticisms can have thier own article (if there is enough content) and that content should be linked explicitly from the parent article (ala. "main article: [link]") ... otherwise it should be included into the article ...
 * Also ... a balanced list of external links would give resources for pro and con ... so NPOV can be established and can be cited.
 * sincerely, JDR

Wesley, I am not surprised by the existence of discussions of such criticisms within articles, nor am I against it. In fact, that is something I was trying to suggest as an alternative to the tit for tat list of links to websites that attack religion A, religion B, or religion C. I agree specifically with what Slrubenstein writes. RK 00:42, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have any objections to Slrubenstein's proposal, as long as there is enough material to make up more than a stub article. There are many instances where this is being done now. I still think that there are plenty of articles on various Christian topics with external links that attack Christianity in one way or another and make no bones about it. The appearance of such links here isn't a new phenomenon. I think in general it's much easier to arrive at a balanced article, than to arrive at a balanced list of external links. Plus, the content of the external links may change dramatically without any wikipedia editors noticing, which is one reason I've been hesitant to add very many external links to articles. Wesley 05:38, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Balanced article would be desirable, with a balanced list of external links. Sincerely, JDR

The question is, "what constitutes balance?" I have no objection to an article on Judaism that describes internal conflicts (e.g., saducees vs. pharisees; karaites vs. rabbinic Judaism; hasidism vs. musar -- well, this might be oversimplifying a division -- reform vs. orthodox; secular zionists vs. religious vs. cultural Jews, etc. I also have no objection to discussions of conflicts between Judaism and other religions (e.g. disputes with Christians at various times in history).  For example, many non-Jews are offended by the idea of "Chosen People."  Some Jews have accepted this criticism and have removed it from their prayerbooks; others argue that non-Jews have misunderstood the concept; all views should be presented in the article.  But there is a line.  For example, I do not think the Nazi's views of Jews should be included in order to provide "balance."  I am not accusing any of the JDR's links of being fascist or racist, I am simply using an extreme example to show how "balance" is not an obvious thing. I explained above why I objected to the specific links JDR provided as inappropriate. I did not and do not think they make the article more "balanced." Slrubenstein

Messianic Judaism
It seems someone has confused Messianic Jews with Jews for Jesus here. I am editing the article to clarify the distinguishment. It also seems there is a hudge problem with the Messianic Judaism entry as a result of this miistake. It is understandable that many Jews consider the messianics amongst us as a plague considering such a misunderstanding of and lack of knowledge about their views so lets try our best to correct potentially agitating errors like this one. Thankyou all for your cooperation and support of clarification promoting dialogue.


 * From my POV - both are wrong. Sparky


 * False. Wikipedia's article on this subject clearly states that the so-called "Jews for Jesus" are not identical with all of messianic Judaism; rather, they are just one of the "messianic Jewish" groups. However, all of the messianic groups are Christian groups deisgned to end Judaism by replacing it with a Jewish-looking form of Christianity. We are not fooled or amused. RK 13:42, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

FYI -- As a Jew I find any source that calls the Torah or the Tenach - The Hebrew Bible or the more odious Old Testament - offensive. Sparky 11:09, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * When translating the word "Tanakh" into English, a great many religious Jews now often use the term "Hebrew Bible"; they do this instead of using the Christianized and judgemental translation, "Old Testament". RK 23:37, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * Why? Orthodox and Ultras wouldn't bother translating for non-Jews. The term 'Bible' is a loaded word as it means:  the sacred writings of the Christian religion. It's seems redundant and silly if the intent was not to offend. But thanks for a speedy reply. Sparky

You must be joking; come with me some time to Barnes and Nobles, and you will find many books written by Jews in English! These books translate many Hebrew words into English, including "Tanakh" to "Hebrew Bible", or just "Bible". Obviously these Jews do not have a problem with this. JeMa


 * Not joking -- I don't choose to continue the errors of others. Books by Jews for non-Jews shouldn't define meaning. And Old Testament is offensive. -Sparky