Judaism debate, continued

[cnorman18]

Are you nuts? There isn't a Jew on Earth that doesn't recognize the difference between ethnic and religious Jews. What I am saying is that they are all Jews, and all part of the community. It may be due to centuries of persecution, or to being a tiny minority in a Gentile world; but we stick together, and we don't reject each other because we have different beliefs or none at all. The commitment is to the community, not to the religion, and especially not to any particular take on theology.

Make up your mind already. First you say that in order to be a part of the Jewish community....

Stop right there. No, I didn't. I said that to BECOME part of the Jewish community, i.e., to CONVERT to Judaism, one had to do those things (at which we will take a closer look presently). Born Jews don't, and I have made that clear too.

...you have to follow rituals...

Which are not relevant to theological beliefs.

...be tested....

Wrong word, but let it go. One must confirm one's commitment to the community, not to a particular theology. I've made that quite clear too.

...and be accepted by the community.

Through the process and ritual of conversion.

Ethnic Jews certainly don't have to do that

I never said they did. All that is relevant only to conversion, not to bring born Jewish.

and atheist and humanist Jews most certainly do nothing of the sort, yet they are still Jews.

Correct. Which is what I said.

You got backed into a corner so you're changing your tune, now anyone who is an ethnic Jew is magically part of this community whether they acknowledge or care about the community or not.

Also correct, but I have not "changed my tune." I have said that from the beginning.

Whether they care about the community is irrelevant. The community cares about them.

Those Jews who do not care about the community do not, in any case, generally identify themselves as Jews, which renders the point rather moot.

Like it or not, there are plenty of ethnic Jews who don't give a damn about your so-called "Jewish community", but you're trying desperately to use the term, just like some people try to use "black community" to imply strength in numbers and a powerful voting block where none really exists. You, and by that I don't mean to single you out, there are plenty who do the same thing, simply declare that all Jews are part of a community so you can say "look at how many of us there are". That doesn't fly.

Attributing motivation again. Sorry, that won't work. For starters, there IS a Jewish community which is acknowledged by virtually all Jews. Even Humanistic (that is, atheistic) Judaism requires a course in Jewish culture and community for conversion (which they term "adoption" into the community) and has a ceremony of formal welcoming.

Second, since Jews number about 1-1/2% of the world's population, "look at how many of us there are" isn't likely to be our motivation for doing anything. You are rather obviously making this up as you go along.

Incidentally, attributing "desperation" to one's opponent, in my experience, is a pretty sure sign that one is desperate oneself. I do not say that you are. It's just an observation.

I'm rather confident in the factuality and truth of what I'm saying, as it happens. If you want sources to back it up, I can give you a few dozen right now. All I have to do is Google "Jewish community" or "Judaism."

Just for laughs: Do YOU have any sources or authorities or references or anything to back up your totally baseless, unsupported and entirely personal opinions here?

I have never said any such thing. Look through my posts, all of them, 188 threads so far. I have always said that Judaism is pluralistic, and I have never said anything else.

Yet right here you're trying to claim there is a single Jewish community when there's nothing of the sort. There are many, many so-called communities, many beliefs, many ideas, etc. Judiasm is just as fragmented in it's thinking as Christianity is, Jews are just as diverse as any other ethnic group.

Judaism is a pluralistic community. Why is that so hard for you?

Want a higher authority that declares all Jews, of whatever belief, ethnicity, or whatever to be a single community? How about the state of Israel?

Anyone who is a Jew with any of the characteristics you list above may claim the Right of Return and be accepted as a citizen of Israel. Religious, atheist, ethnic, convert, whatever. Israeli Jews include all of those. Israel is by any meaningful definition a "community," and every Jew on Earth, regardless of theology or ethnicity, is a potential member of it and thus part of the larger community of Jews. We may argue and fight among ourselves, but even the odd cults that hold themselves separate acknowledge that other Jews are Jews and part of that larger community.

In short, you are spouting your own ideas and definitions and ignoring what Jews actually teach, believe and practice as matters of actual fact.

Perhaps you'd care to cite a source that explicitly says otherwise.

You can't post a list of criteria for being a Jew any more than you can post a list of criteria for being a Christian....

Sorry, I can and have. A Jew is one who has (1) been born to a Jewish mother (among some Reform Jews, mother or father), or (2) been through a process and ceremony of conversion. Simple. Theology is irrelevant.

It's a matter of record. Again, if you want multiple references, I will be most happy to give them.

....both groups have massive variations in their beliefs, no matter what your rabbi friend might think, a Jew is not a Jew.

Variations in belief are not only found among the branches but within them. Judaism is pluralistic. Period.

Interesting that you feel free to overrule and negate the view of a rabbi. From where comes YOUR authority to do so? Where were you trained and ordained? Or do you claim such pontifical authority simply on your own hook?

Wrong again. Judaism as an institution and a community unquestionably does include religion, but one does not have to participate or believe in that aspect of it to be a Jew. What's so hard about that? If that wasn't true, there could be no such thing as a "secular Jew" in the first place. In the same way, ethnicity is sn aspect of Judaism too; and though I participate in the religious aspect, I am not ethnically Jewish; still, I am recognized as a real Jew.

Oh, playing the old No True Scotsman fallacy, hmmm?

How am I doing that? Explain.

That fallacy is exclusive in nature and intent. The nature of Judaism is inclusive. Nice try.

"Secular Jew" isn't a title, it's a description, the same as "secular black", "secular Eskimo" or whatever. One is a Jew the moment one pops out of the womb, it has nothing whatsoever to do with one's beliefs.

Just I said. That is one way, and the most common one, to be Jewish.

Since one cannot change one's ethnicity, the only way to convert to Judaism is by way of the religious aspect; but even then, there are no specific theological beliefs prescribed. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. I've proven that over and over, and even proved that taking the Torah literally raises eyebrows when one is converting to Conservative Judaism. Nobody tells you what you have to believe.

And since one cannot change one's ethnicity, you need to specify that you're only talking about RELIGIOUS Judiasm and stop pretending that Judiasm, all of the various and disparate meanings thereof, are all the same or are even related.

Are you actually reading what I write? In a religious conversion, one is not taught a particular theology, and the commitment is to the people, not to any such set of beliefs. I've said that more than once, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

One is taught much about Jewish culture, about the various and diverse groups of Jews around the world, and about Jewish history; on theology, one is given a brief introduction to a few of the various schools of thought, and little more. All that is left to the individual believer. Theology is optional; community is not.

I have never said that all of the "various and disparate meanings" of Judaism are "all the same." Related, they inarguably are. If they aren't, how come they can all become Israelis?

That's like saying that all blacks have to be Southern Baptists, just because a lot of them are. There is no inherent link between being black and being a Southern Baptist, any more than there is an inherent link between being ethnically Jewish and following the Jewish religion, or even having any respect whatsoever for the Jewish culture. You're insisting on links that simply don't exist.

No, YOU are insisting that I've said things I haven't.

I restate your analogy as a direct statement: "You are saying that all Jews have to be religious Jews, just because a lot of them are."

I have never said any such thing.

Do you think that belief is based on the Torah? I've already dealt with that, and you're ignoring it. Again.

You've said that it's based on a lot of other writings as well and the same question applies to them. You're still not answering the question.

Reeeeally? Where did I say that the belief in God is based on any documents?

You keep talking about "answering the question," anrd "the same question," but you seem to have a hard time making that question clear.

Are you talking about belief in God? Authority on ethical matters? On theological matters? The "reason for the religion," as you have said elsewhere? What?

Your original assertions had to do with Biblical literalism, and now you seem to be extending that (?) objection to "other writings." How does that issue relate to any of the above? Do you even know what you are supposedly trying to ask, or are you floundering as badly as it appears?

I see you finally take a run at it below. Let's see how well you do.

And what would those be? Judaism does not formally attribute any "characteristics" to God. Ein Sof. Unknowable. Remember?

Yet they still do. Things like... EXISTING.

Since there are branches where that belief is optional or nonexistent, that is itself debatable; but in any case, that belief is not founded on the Torah or any other document. The men who wrote the source documents of the Bible obviously believed, and they had none.

Caring about the Jewish people.

Whoops. Since 1945, that one is EXTREMELY debatable. A very poor choice.

Giving the Jewish people a stretch of worthless desert.

That is not an attribute, that is an action; and the passages where that is recorded are taken no more literally by modern Jews than any other. The founders of Israel were uniformly secular, for the record.

In any case--"Worthless"? How does that square with "caring about the Jewish people"?

It's an ancient joke that if God had really loved the Jews, He would have given us a land with some oil under it. Note my signature.

These are all things that many Jews think are accurate and true about God.

So what? As I said, none of them are formally attributed to God by the Jewish religion, proven by the fact that all are debatable.

There is no Jewish creed of any kind. The closest we have ever come to that is Maimonides's Thirteen Points, and every one of them has been and still is debated.

Do you mean LITERALLY, or not? Why don't you use that word any more? Have you realized that that won't fly?

You're really hung up on that word, aren't you? I don't use it because every time I do, you go into a binary "the whole Torah has to be completely and totally literal" or "we get to pick and choose whatever we want because we feel like it" and the answer is in the middle somewhere.

Sorry, that's a blatant falsehood and a lame excuse.

What I have said, and consistently, is that the issue of the literal truth of the Bible is, in Judaism, irrelevant. The "binary" you mention above is related to the false dichotomies that YOU presented.

If you're going to reject stories in the Torah like the creation story or the flood story or the burning bush story, then why not just reject the whole God concept?

Can you explain how that logically follows?

Can you explain what you mean by "rejected"? Don't bother--you are obviously talking about literal, historical truth again, and not explaining why such "rejection" is tantamount to "discarding," which it isn't; nor dealing with the fact that the literal truth of those stories is neither accepted nor rejected in the first place, but held not to matter. Individual Jews may believe them or not, and nobody cares.

How many times have I explained this, and you're still beating that nonexistent drum?

You call ME unresponsive. I'm still trying to get you to explain and defend the points you tried to make when we started, and here you are just repeating them again and assuming them in your question!

You're the one who keeps insisting that your beliefs are logical and reasonable, yet every time I ask you to demonstrate how you logically or reasonably come to the conclusion that God exists, you change the subject.

Another falsehood. Your initial contention was that (1) belief in God depended on a literal reading of the Torah (or Bible), and (2) not reading any or all of the Torah (or Bible) amounted to "throwing it away."

By claiming that you're asking me to "demonstrate how I logically or reasonably come to the conclusion that God exists," YOU are changing the subject--which is rather easily proven: I have consistently and rather famously refused to play the game of 'Prove there is a God' since I first came to this forum.. If that had been your initial assertion, I would not have engaged.

We are still back where we started, Cephus. You have STILL not explained why a literal reading of Scripture is necessary to a belief in God, and you have STILL not explained why a NON-literal reading is equivalent to "throwing it out" in whole or in part. We have gotten precisely nowhere, because you can neither explain nor defend your original assertions!

It has not been a wholly unproductive conversation, though. We have learned much. About you, mostly.

We have learned that you have some entirely unsupported and factually wrong opinions about the existence of a Jewish community, some (again) entirely unsupported and factually wrong opinions about what defines a Jew, and some (yet again) entirely unsupported and factually wrong opinions about the teachings of the Jewish religion.

We have learned that you feel free to ignore facts that are repeatedly shown you and proven, that you feel free to ignore answers and cogent points and pretend they were never given nor made, that you are very quick with ad hominem and insult, but verrry slow to give references or cite sources--which is not surprising, because you clearly have none.

We have, perhaps above all, learned that you can claim authority to make pronouncements and pass judgments, not as your own opinion but as indisputable fact, on matters about which you know little or nothing--while simultaneously accusing others of doing that very thing on their own authority when that is clearly not the case. You even accuse others of being "antagonistic" when the only posts on this thread that fit that description are your own.

Would you care to start all over and try again, or are we done?

[cnorman18]

Which, of course, ignores and does not respond to the point (which is your ignoring and not responding to cogent arguments), but merely attempts to distract from it by referring to an unrelated and unproven allegation.

You presented a strawman of my statements and demanded that I respond to your strawman. Sorry, that's blatantly dishonest. Even after I repeatedly corrected your strawman, you keep reposting it.

"Accepts correction" and "admits mistakes", my xxx.

Sorry, Cephus, but that's so lame it needs crutches.

Just off the top of my head: You never responded to my remarks about the existence of a Jewish community vis-a-vis citizenship in Israel; nor to my lengthy and detailed differentiation between fundamentalism and liberal religion, for which you specifically asked; nor to my remarks about the remarkable similarity of American citizenship and being considered Jewish; nor to my proving that YOU first brought up the topic of Biblical literalism in this conversation and that you argued that it is essential to a belief in God, both of which you have since denied; nor to my proving that you equated not reading all or part of the Bible literally to discarding or "rejecting" it, which you have also since denied; nor, most importantly, to my repeated requests that you present some reference, some source, some authority, or something that proves that your remarks about Judaism and the Jewish community are anything more than your own baseless and entirely unsupported opinion.

Those are only a few of the cogent and on-point arguments which you have ignored and to which you have failed to respond. There are many others. NONE of them are "strawmen."

[Cephus]

Just off the top of my head: You never responded to my remarks about the existence of a Jewish community vis-a-vis citizenship in Israel; nor to my lengthy and detailed differentiation between fundamentalism and liberal religion, for which you specifically asked; nor to my remarks about the remarkable similarity of American citizenship and being considered Jewish; nor to my proving that YOU first brought up the topic of Biblical literalism in this conversation and that you argued that it is essential to a belief in God, both of which you have since denied; nor to my proving that you equated not reading all or part of the Bible literally to discarding or "rejecting" it, which you have also since denied; nor, most importantly, to my repeated requests that you present some reference, some source, some authority, or something that proves that your remarks about Judaism and the Jewish community are anything more than your own baseless and entirely unsupported opinion.

In fact I did and had a long discussion with Ayah about the Jewish community, based on your question. Did you not read it? As far as citizenship in Israel, someone else posted that Israel now considers non-religious Jews not to be eligible for automatic citizenship, which shoots your claims in the leg. And you have still completely failed to explain your position on Torah interpretation, instead throwing around that literalism strawman. How do you determine which passages are reliable and which are not with regard to the supernatural? Come on, I'm tired of asking already, if you can't answer, at least man up to it. Finally, I've posted extensively on the ridiculous nature of claiming a universal Jewish community exists, based on the utter lack of commonality that exists amongst Jews you want to claim are part of said community. You haven't responded to that.

Perhaps you should read all the responses in the thread, things do get discussed outside of posts aimed specifically at you, you know.

[cnorman18]

Just off the top of my head: You never responded to my remarks about the existence of a Jewish community vis-a-vis citizenship in Israel; nor to my lengthy and detailed differentiation between fundamentalism and liberal religion, for which you specifically asked; nor to my remarks about the remarkable similarity of American citizenship and being considered Jewish; nor to my proving that YOU first brought up the topic of Biblical literalism in this conversation and that you argued that it is essential to a belief in God, both of which you have since denied; nor to my proving that you equated not reading all or part of the Bible literally to discarding or "rejecting" it, which you have also since denied; nor, most importantly, to my repeated requests that you present some reference, some source, some authority, or something that proves that your remarks about Judaism and the Jewish community are anything more than your own baseless and entirely unsupported opinion.

In fact I did and had a long discussion with Ayah about the Jewish community, based on your question. Did you not read it?

I did You mentioned none of the things noted above, nor did you give a single reference to anyone's authority or opinion than your own, as I've repeatedly challenged you to do.

As far as citizenship in Israel, someone else posted that Israel now considers non-religious Jews not to be eligible for automatic citizenship, which shoots your claims in the leg.

I would require some specific source or reference for that before I believe it to be true. Got one?

And you have still completely failed to explain your position on Torah interpretation, instead throwing around that literalism strawman. How do you determine which passages are reliable and which are not with regard to the supernatural? Come on, I'm tired of asking already, if you can't answer, at least man up to it.

You asked which passages I consider to be literally true, not just about supernatural events but about anything, and I said, quote. "None." seems like an answer to me. You never responded to that either.

Finally, I've posted extensively on the ridiculous nature of claiming a universal Jewish community exists, based on the utter lack of commonality that exists amongst Jews you want to claim are part of said community. You haven't responded to that.

Yes, I have. I have made a rather good case for it, too, as has Ayah, though you have refused to respond to most of our points and examples--and, one more time, have failed to provide any reference of any kind that supports what you presume to pontificate on the matter.

Perhaps you should read all the responses in the thread, things do get discussed outside of posts aimed specifically at you, you know.

Nice try. In any case, you have now admitted that you were lying in your previous post.

I posted no strawmen; among other things, I proved, as I said, that you brought up the subject of Biblical literacy, and said (1) that a belief in the literal truth of the Bible is necessary to a belief ic God, and (2) that not reading the Bible literally in whole or in part amounts to "rejecting," i.e., discarding, the parts that one reads so. I posted quotes from your own posts that prove that you said exactly those things,, and yet somehow you still think you can get away with with calling that issue a "strawman." As I said, I have proven that you made those statements; but you are still refusing to--um--"man up" to making them, and to deal with the questions I have asked.

One of us isn't answering arguments and is stating falsehoods about what has been said on these threads so far. It isn't me.

[Ayah5768]

As far as citizenship in Israel, someone else posted that Israel now considers non-religious Jews not to be eligible for automatic citizenship, which shoots your claims in the leg.

I would require some specific source or reference for that before I believe it to be true. Got one?

I already answered this. It is from a Wiki article. It was not about non-religious Jews, it was about Jews who are members of a specific group. Below is a quote of my response to the poster. It is on page 2 of this debate for those who missed it.

There isn't a Jew on Earth that doesn't recognize the difference between ethnic and religious Jews. What I am saying is that they are all Jews, and all part of the community.

I have to disagree on this point. From Wiki:

"In 1993 the Supreme Court of Israel, in a case involving a couple affiliated with Jews for Jesus, ruled that Jews who adhere to the Christian beliefs are regarded by Israeli law as "members of a different faith," and are not eligible for the automatic citizenship that Israel grants Jews."

The next sentence in that article is this:

"This is done not to try to change Jewish Law, but to preserve the Jewish character of the State of Israel - i.e., that allowing in people whose sole mission is to get Jews to become Christians in inimical to one of the core ethics of the country (to be a haven for Jews)."

This case was much more recent:

Israeli Supreme Court sides with Messianic Jews (can receive automatic citizenship)


Posted on Monday, April 21, 2008 6:41:26 PM by Between the Lines

JERUSALEM (BP)--The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that Messianic Jews have the same rights regarding automatic citizenship as Jews who do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah.

The case was brought by 12 applicants who had been denied citizenship primarily because they were Jewish believers in Jesus. Most of them had received letters saying they would not receive citizenship because they "commit missionary activity," according to an e-mail circulated by Calev Myers, founder and chief counsel of The Jerusalem Institute of Justice.

[...]

The article goes on to say that a few of the people who were having problems (in the more current case) had a Jewish father but not a Jewish mother. That is a big distinction in the Jewish world and was probably a huge part of the complication.

The distinction that should be noted between the case that was lost by the Jews for Jesus and the case that was won by the Messianic Jews lies in whether or not they are performing missionary activities which are specifically designed to convert Jews. Jews for Jesus have a purpose beyond simply being both Jewish and "for Jesus." On their website, if you go to "what we do" you will find a lot of information about converting Jews and, quite frankly, little else. Their mission statement is pretty easy to understand. It is one sentence: We exist to make the messiahship of Jesus an unavoidable issue to our Jewish people worldwide.

Israel is our safe place where we can be Jewish. It is not legal to knock on a door in Israel and try to convert the home's inhabitants or to try to convert Jews using any other means. Anyone who is attempting to do that will not be able to receive automatic citizenship in Israel. You don't have to be Jewish to live in Israel, but if you are Jewish in Israel people of other faiths can't legally try to convert you. Therefore, members of Jews for Jesus, a group who's entire purpose and every action is based on the conversion of Jews to Christianity, can not both be a "Jew for Jesus" and gain citizenship in Israel because the entire point of who they are is illegal there.

An ethnic Jew who is Messianic can be messianic in Israel. S/he will get automatic citizenship.


[center]***************[/center]

Another thing about "Jews for Jesus" (which has nothing to do with these cases) is that most of them aren't Jews at all. The group started amongst people who have faith in Jesus "many of whom were Jews." That quote is what their site says word-for-word and clearly implies that even in the beginning it was a group of gentiles and "many" Jews. How many Jews? I don't know. But "many" isn't "most" and it certainly isn't "all." "Many" is a word you use when you want it to sound like the numbers are large when they, more than likely, are not. In other words, naming themselves "Jews for Jesus" was purposefully misleading and wildly inappropriate.

If I had to guess, which I do, I would say that that name was specifically designed to help forward their purpose of Jewish conversion to Christianity by trying to make them comfortable in the "fact" that they are sitting with their brethren when the Jews for Jesus come to talk to them.

Below is a link to Outreach Judaism, which is a site that helps refute some of the information put out there by Jews for Jesus and organizations like it. Don't let the name fool you. Outreach Judaism is there for Jews and is not an effort to convert non-Jews to Judaism.


http://www.outreachjudaism.org/