|
Tias posted:Oh hey, a jewish thread, cool! You're really supposed to be schooled in a specific way, and a person of character and wisdom, before undertaking such studies. Barring a way of proving this, knowledge of such is not something traditionally to be disclosed willy-nilly.
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:
If this is true, why go to a Rabbi for advice? If you practice in the way that you think is best for you, why consult the Torah, the Midrash, the Talmud? If all that matters is your own liberty to decide for yourself, what real weight is there in any search for truth outside of yourself, if what we think is best for us is what really matters? There are clearly things that we must not do, even should we become delusional and think that they're best for us. Human sacrifice, for example, is clearly objectively wrong. Just because someone says, "I think that's best for me" wouldn't make it ok for them to practice that. And if it's true for that, then how much else might this be true for?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
It wouldn't surprise me, as many see the trinitarian theology as polytheistic. I mean, trinitarians don't, but they wouldn't think that would they? If this theory I'm putting forward is correct, then it'd have some interesting ramifications, as it would mean that Unitarian churches would be "kosher" so to speak. I'm not sure how they'd feel about the J-Witnesses, as they believe that Jesus wasn't god, but rather an archangel.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I think you took my point about practicing in our own way out of context, jumping to human sacrifice is a hell of a loving leap dude. I was just trying to make the point that you don't need to be practice my specific religion to not go to Hell, or whatever, and you can totes be a good and redeemable person without having shared my exact literal experience. I'll admit it is a leap. An unfortunate flair for the dramatic, mea culpa. Let's take a milder example. There are some who, reading Genesis, read the serpent as the hero of the story. So, rather than worshiping the creator G-d, they worship the Serpent, Lucifer, whatever name you want to give this theoretically force. From a Jewish perspective, how is this at all permissible? How would this act not both blaspheme and deny God? Or do you think that the Noahide laws are not necessary for gentile redemption?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
What is the purpose of these rules? If the rules are a tool for a better happier life, than why not preach them to the gentile? if they're mere irrational tradition, why hold to them? Your vision of Judaism not concerning itself with the practices of the gentiles does not conform to my own experience with Jewish people and historical Jewish thought. If you see your neighbor worshiping a false God, one that teaches actual ethical malpractice, does one not have a moral imperative to speak up? If my neighbor were a Christian Scientist, and didn't allow his/her children to go to a doctor, you can be assured that I'll say something. Respectfully, to be sure, but a righteous man cannot let wickedness flourish unopposed. Let's consider the temple mount, for example. A Mosque was built on the site of the first and second temple. Is this not a continuous attack on the Jews, given that it is a non-Jewish building built upon the very place where the holy of holies, God's dwelling place on Earth, was?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Ancient Judaism really didn't give a flying gently caress if non Israelites went to Hell, or wherever, that's on them. Because Modern Judaism is no longer contained to Israel it has changed its stance that you don't need to be Jewish for redemption, the laws only apply to us though. It's kinda like asking why we don't enforce US copyright law in China. We do, but only if it impacts us and we can only do so much, since international law is fickle. Outside of that case, does anybody in the US actually care if someone in China plagiarizes another Chinese creation? Probably not. "To make of Abraham a great nation and bless Abraham and make his name great so that he will be a blessing, to bless those who bless him and curse him who curses him and all peoples on earth would be blessed through Abraham." This clearly shows some level of engagement with the gentiles. And another passage, from Jeremiah: 25 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh— 26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart.” If the circumcision is merely intended for the particular Israelite people, then why is G-d getting so incensed at the Egyptians et al for being uncircumcised? Is being circumcised a prerequisite for being circumcised in heart? If this is true, then all men on Earth should be circumcised, so that they do not offend G-d, and so that they may become circumcised in the heart. CountFosco fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Keromaru5 posted:
I just fundamentally disagree with this. What would you rather have: your soul or your stomach? You can only choose one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I legit think you're asking interesting questions, but I think trying to argue thousands of years of philisophical and religious debate with a couple out of context bible quotes is not really the answer. Jews aren't biblical literalists, for one thing. I'm not a Rabbi so I'm going to claim to be on the up and up about every little thing, but the continuing interpretation via Midrash is more important than just what one line out of the Bible says. There's a quote from Eastern regarding this which I think is useful: "If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian." Evagrios the Solitary (of Pontus) I would not define myself as a Biblical literalist, for what it's worth.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:are you even jewish cause if not who cares if you agree with it, if that quotation summarizes judaism it summarizes judaism I care about Jewish critiques of Christian theology and take them seriously and give them due respect. My point is not that it inaccurately summarizes Judaism, my point is that the soul is something of value far greater than any particular body part. I mean, do you disagree with this? quote:Are you saying you disagree with it as mindset for your own life, or you that disagree with the idea that this is how a pious Jew would see things? The former. I suspect that it is universally true that it is good for us to care about both the stomach and the souls of our neighbors, but far be it from me to insist that other people should have such a conscience.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:this is what we're supposed to do as well, although the flavor is different--each of us must think that they are "the worst of sinners" and not judge others. Count Fosco, you mentioned going to an Orthodox church, I don't know if you want to become Orthodox but if you do "don't judge others" is rule number 1 I struggle not to judge others as much as the next man. However, I would posit that one can care about the souls of others without judging them. Indeed, to share what you think of as the path to salvation is to judge a person positively, as implicit in the transmission of the knowledge of how to be ethical is the sense that the person is worthy of receiving the message. Consider what happened during the Anglo-Saxon invasion/migration. Massive numbers of pagan Germanic peoples entered the island and the native Romano-Brittani inhabitants were pushed to the west (Wales/Cornwall). After things settled out, there were problems with Anglo-Saxons who sought to join the Celtic Christianity that existed there, but the British generally refused to accept them. Furthermore, I think there really is some truth to judging the action and not the person. It seems clear to me that, as morally confused as we may be at times, there are certain actions that we can clearly judge as immoral, sinful. Murder, for example. A person commits a murder, we are obligated to condemn that. If a friend of family member of mine committed murder, I would be worried for their soul, wouldn't you? The critical question is how we act on that concern. How we act on the concern is critical. Reasoned dialogue, friendship and amity across faith lines, these are the only paths I can recommend. If Judaism is really not concerned about other peoples' souls, I stand corrected. My own particular understanding of the Noahide laws led me to believe that there exists within Jewish tradition some moral standards that they expect for gentiles. I personally believe that to look after the stomachs of others (i.e. simple charity work) carries within it an implied caring for their soul, for the soul depends on its earthly existence upon the body. When I extend a hand to another in assistance, I'm not doing it because those seem to me to be a particularly valuable arrangement of molecules, but because of the person that that all makes up. The whole being greater than the sum of its parts. If someone's starving, I don't give them some food with the expectation that the food will simply permit them to live a life of pain and misery. You give food with the expectation and hope that the food will allow them to continue to live life to enjoy and thrive as a human being. The action is not just an action, but a symbol. Charity is a living symbol of hope for the future of humanity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:
The whole conversation has, in keeping with rich forum tradition, gone all over the map. I came into this thread with some small measure of knowledge about Judaism. When I came upon things in this thread which struck me as different from this knowledge, I asked questions, engaged in dialogue (or debate if you want to call it that, whatever). Ok, let's get right back to the original paragraph which, when I read it, confused me. quote:My view of anyone not my religion (or an atheist) is we can't really know the truth. We all have to just sort of practice in the way we think is best for us. I can't say Judaism is the correct path and I'd never advocate anyone to follow me, because the covenant of Israel only covers those born into it, or those who willingly convert, nobodies going to Hell because they're not Jewish, it just doesn't work that way. I protested this point of view. I'll quote from what seems like a reasonable website: quote:Only truly righteous souls ascend directly to the Garden of Eden, say the sages. The average person descends to a place of punishment and/or purification, generally referred to as Gehinnom. This generally corresponds to the understanding of Jewish afterlife thought that I had. Now, RagnarokAngel has a strong agnosticism in regards to the fate of future souls, and that's fine, but this strong agnosticism didn't seem to me to be the norm throughout the global Jewish community, or among the majority of Rabbis. Am I wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Earwicker posted:
You're jumping from caring about the souls of others to presuming that this same person has morality all figured out and is going to impose it on the world (presumably through domination?) for their own benefit. That's a leap. Caring about the future of others is caring about the future of others, and if other peoples' futures extend past death (which it may very well not) then one can care about that as well. One can care about the soul of one thinks is perfectly exemplary morally, because not being omniscient, we may not be correct about the moral exemplariness of such a person.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 23:40
|
|