Valteron You didn’t start by saying a formal postion. You’ve moved the goalposts.The majority position of Judaism is that there is a heaven. However, it is not a formal position.
Believing in the resurrection of the dead in the Messianic age is (according to no less an authority than Maimonides) the formal Jewish position. He listed 13 articles of faith that one must believe to be a good Jew. Resurrection was on the list.
However, I would say that one can be a good Jew without believing in heaven. It could be argued, Judaism placing a much greater emphasis on actions than beliefs, that one could be a good Jew and not believe in G-d.
Re Your Homosexuality
Even assuming that it is a sin (which I don’t), no Jewish scholar I’ve ever heard of would agree that it condemns you to hell. It is simply one more sin to be weighed against your good deeds. If your good deeds outweigh your sins you will be judged righteous.
Re Endor
Note that I prefaced my statement with (accepting the basis of Judaism as true). I did so precisely to stop you from saying ‘The whole thing is fictional.’ If your relatives have accepted Judaism as true, how do they reconcile the summoning of a dead man’s spirit with their belief that their is no afterlife? How do they reconcile their belief with Maimonides’ articles of faith?
Ghanima I assume no such thing. Most atheists behave morally because they have consciences. Sociopathic atheists are the ones kept in line by fear of punishment.
You’re conflating “afterlife” with “Heaven.” It is formal Jewish doctrine (as defined both by the Mishnah and by Maiomonides) that the dead will be resurrected and judged. It is not formal doctrine that the reward for the righteous is Heaven in the sky. It’s not even a settled question whether the resurrection will be physical or spiritual. Some believe in a literal physical resurrection and immortality on Earth.
ETA, I should also add that not believing in a resurrection and judgement does not make someone evil or unrighteous, it just means that (according to the Mishnah) they’re not religiously Jewish.
Well, FINALLY! Sorry if I forgot to say a FORMAL doctrine. But if we can get back to my original point, you have now admitted that a Jew may or may not believe in Heaven and still be a good Jew, even if belief in Heaven is right now more popular among Jews. So what???
Well, my original point was that Christianity makes salvation (i.e., getting into Heaven) through the sacrifice of God’s son on a cross THE central point of its belief system. But Judaism makes the very belief in Heaven optional. All I was trying to illustrate is that either one (or in my view BOTH) of the religions are wrong. Either Heaven exists and Christ made it possible for people to get into it, or it does not even matter if you believe in Heaven or not. Both ideas cannot be right at the same time. And in my atheist view, they are both wrong.
My Jewish relatives are relatives by marriage (and I guess by blood in the case of the children, who are being raised Jewish). I have never criticized their beliefs to their face. I even behaved myself at the Bris as I watched the ignorant ritual of child genital mutilation being practised on my nephew.
But I will answer your question with a question (maybe I am more Jewish than I thought! ) Can one be a good Jew and not believe all of Maimonides’ articles of faith? Or do you have to accept all 13?
If so, is it not possible that my Jewish relatives who said that “When you’re dead that’s it!” don’t happen to believe the ressurection article? Would that keep them from being Jews? Or good Jews?
According to Maimonides (who is I would say the biggest name in all Jewish learning), anybody who does not believe all 13 articles is no Jew. For centuries, nobody of note disagreed with him. These days, most Reform Jews reject the notion of the messiah. However, according to most Orthodox and Conservative sources, Reform Jews are not practicing Jews. Reconstructionist Jews tend to view the messiah somewhat poetically and may believe in a messianic age but no actual messiah.
Since my criticism of you did not extend to atheists, in general, why should it extend to theists, in general? Any theist who displayed the sort of blind prejudice your regularly display in religious threads would be treated with equal disdain. Please don’t think that my post was a reaction to your theological beliefs, or your sexuality. I would never attack someone for being gay, or for being an atheist, particularly as I am both of those things myself. I will, however, attack someone for being a bigot. Which is what you are, and which is what prompted the comparison to James Dobson, who is also a bigot, and who also presumes to lecture others on what the targets of his bigotry “really think.” He is in no position to tell people what homosexuals think, and you are in no position to tell people what Christians think, because neither of you has one damned clue what you’re talking about.
Is this a private discussion, or can I jump in here?
Of course I have my biases. Everyone does. The question is, to what extent does one’s biases over-ride their good judgement? I flatter myself to think that, for the most part, I am aware of my biases and keep them in their proper perspective.
Now, if you will just show me your qualifications to decide that I am a bigot while you are “aware of (your) biases and keep them in their proper perspective” I might agree that you are right.
If you have no such qualifications to present, I will be forced to conclude that you are a pompous jerk.
I am simply fascinated by your ability to know the minds of others more clearly than they do themselves. I’d thought that claiming that ability was limited to a small group of asshole fundamentalists, none of whom frequent this board, thank God.
While you’re going strong, would you be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us as to what was on Fermat’s mind when he wrote that cryptic note about his last theorem?
I love the way you suddenly become offended at my “hatred” of a “basic tenet” of your religion. You mutilate the genitals of little boys (mine was too although I am not Jewish) because your unproven God allegedly ordered you to do so, and I am the one who is to be condemned?
What about the cultures that mutilate the genitals of little girls with clitorectomies? Here in Canada, we have taken to prosecuting parents (about 95% Muslim BTW) even if they take the child out of the country to have it done. Do I “hate” them as well?
Recently, the people of the Province of Ontario voted down a proposal for the funding of faith-based schools. Quebec recently eliminated all faith-based schoools including Catholic, Protestant and Jewish (Quebec was the only jurisdiction outside Israel with publicly funded Jewish schools, BTW). I supported all those moves. I guess that makes me more of a hater.
I guess hatred will reach its zenith when we start prosecuting people who circumcize boys for no good reason except that an invisible spirit told them to. Except that I probably will not see that in my lifetime.
The evil bitch of religion will someday die, but she will die hard. And humanity will look back on it as we look back on the age of witch burnings as some kind of bad dream that we are ashamed to admit our ancestors participated in.
Well, gee, if I am wrong about Christians wanting people to believe in Christianity, they have sure as fuck wasted a lot of time and money with missionary activity, televangelism, preaching, crusades, progroms, inquisitions, conquitadores, etc., or even just shoving their theism down my throat with stuff written on money and in state documents and ceremonies. Or even just Mormons and JWs bothering me at home.
I thought they were out to get people to share their beliefs! Ya coulda fooled me!!!
You’ve offended me for quite a while now, I just didn’t mention it until then.
Your characterization of a purely cosmetic change (Read Unca Cece’s take on it for unbiased facts) as mutilation is further proof of the bias Miller noted.
Why even bring up this nonsequitur other than to reveal a further bias?
Yep.
A clitorectomy removes a very special organ and greatly reduces if not destroys the capacity for sexual pleasure. A circumcision removes “ordinary skin” (Cite- Unca Cecil) and leaves the boy capable of sexual pleasure and orgasm. Comparing the two is ridiculous.
This has what to do with the subject at hand?
What you think we were never prosecuted before? Do you think the Soviet government, for example, didn’t ban circumcision? We outlasted the USSR. All but a lunatic fringe of Jews support circumcision. I call it a basic tenet of Judaism because it is. There is a Covenant between G-d and Israel. The mark of that Covenant is circumcision.
Polycarp Please don’t curse. You’re supposed to be above that. You’re supposed to subtly express your anger in a way that makes the target feel inadequate and ashamed of himself for erring.
Jack Dean Tyler was a one subject poster. His subject was circumcision. He was rather against it. He also claimed that the prepuce had all kinds of great sexual powers.
yea, I’m sure others have links that will explain to the nth degree. But essentially, it’s the concept that circumcision is only done for religious reasons. at the time when I signed authorizing the procedure for my son, data suggested that the procedure had medical benefits for the female partners of the male. had nothing to do w/religion.
Loss of penis sensitivity does not have to be total to make it child genital mutilation. I will not enter a spitting match with you citing medical authorities. I can haul out the British Medical Association among others to prove that it is pointless surgery. Unca Cecil is as capable of bias as the next person. There are enough threads about circumcision.
I will simply ask you a question. What would you say to a religious group who believes in cliterectomy? Who believes it is part of their covenant with G-D? Would you oppose them? Would you say they were wrong? If you answer me that no religion presently demands it, you are evading the question. New religions start all the time. Mormonism is not even 200 years old and they are constantly getting “new” revelations. So is Scientology. New Chistian culs start up every couple of years.
So what would you say to people who say G-d wants them to give their females cliterectomies?
Funny thing. Doctors in Britain, France, Germany, etc. don’t see any point at all in circumcision except in very rare cases. I guess the doctors in those countries are all quacks who don’t know what they are talking about.
Another nonsequitur. I never said it was medically necessary.
Blasphemy! You cannot handwave away his assertion that what is removed is only ordinary skin. Either provide a damn good cite, or admit that the Perfect Master is right.
I would oppose them. But, unlike you, I would be honest about my hatred of their practices and faith
) Can one be a good Jew and not believe all of Maimonides’ articles of faith? Or do you have to accept all 13?