You are claiming it’s always been the same answer?
OH MY ACTUAL GOD.*
*in whom I don’t believe
P.S. Dseid why did you point out that nothing is required to be considered a Jew besides having been born a Jew (or converted)? It’s not like anyone in the thread disagrees.
Again and again I have stated that I agree with this point, and yet you and other posters continued to discuss the “membership” issue.
Why?
There’s difference between consensus and universal. The consensus is that there are plenty of Jewish Atheists in non-Orthodox sects and that it’s a non-issue.
The only thing that people can come to universal agreement on is that you can never get everyone to agree to anything - but I’m sure some people would debate that. For example, I believe Indiana’s legislature once tried to pass a bill declaring pi to be equal to 3.2.
eta: also, try asking whether Catholics are allowed to use condoms or get Catholics to agree on infallibility. Or better yet, go straight for the Filoque clause.
It’s ironic that you make this statement since you did imply that there was a consensus view.
You said this:
The Conservative movement is one branch of Judaism. The movement has certain common thoughts on the practice of Judaism, but, for the most part, each congregation can differ as they see fit. For example, some Conservative affiliated synagogues allow women to read from Torah, a few hold outs do not. Some were early recognizers of SSM, others will still not perform those marriages.You can differ from these beliefs and still remain affiliated with the Conservative movement. If your congregations diverges in many ways or more significant ways, then your congregation can still call itself a Conservative synagogue but the Conservative movement association might not still recognize you as such and suggest you affiliate with Reform, Reconstructionist or be independent.
However, you are still a Jewish synagogue, just following a different movement.
So, while there are guidelines among each movement, it is not required to strictly adhere to those guidelines as the members of those synagogues see fit, individuals within synagogues may differ from their local leadership, and if you differ enough you can be independent or affiliate with another movement. Hardly a broad-sweeping consensus among Jews.
Of course the unorthodoxy/orthodoxy are going to expect closer adherence to the law, other movements differ in their own ways.
Do you understand the difference between authority (top-down) and consensus (bottom-up)?
Here’s an example:
Our (Conservative) synagogue was tackling the issue of burial in our cemetery the non-Jewish spouses of Jewish members. The Rabbi wanted to see if we should change our by-laws to allow it. So he pulled up examples of Torah and Talmud he felt touched on this issue and our synagogue members met to discuss and debate. We consulted the Conservative movement guidelines, called up other Conservative and Reform synagogues to see what they decided and why and met together over a 6-9 month period. Then the congregation met a whole and voted on the issue- as to what was right for us.
Over time, as more synagogues adopt interfaith burial policies, the Conservative leadership will change its policies to reflect the will of it’s members. When I was a kid girls couldn’t read from Torah in Conservative synagogues. Flash forward 30 years and women’s right to read Torah is an accepted Conservative movement guideline, because individual synagogues led the way.
Perhaps not. In this discussion, and to me, “consensus” means that most of the respected and prominent religious authorities are in accord on the issue. What’s your point?
Brazil has not, and I’d wager will not, offer any citation showing how there is a positive requirement to hold a belief in God is at all analogous to the negative requirement to abstain from membership in other religions. Absent an actual explicit argument, all we have are the clear tacit arguments and the endless needling based on false premises, misinterpretations, ignorance and already (thoroughly, repeatedly) refuted assumptions and glosses.
The nature of belief in God and the Jewish religion has been discussed, cited, and clarified beyond fruitful discussion in most respects. As brazil is not offering up a course of discussion that’s at all fruitful, and since he’s made 1/5 of the posts in this thread without doing so, it certainly doesn’t seem as if he intends to offer up such a discussion any time soon.
The correct response, I would hope, becomes clear.
No, in this context “consensus” means that most people who identify as Jews are in accord on the issue. Everybody, not just “respected and prominent” members of the religion.
That consensus may differ among the different branches of Judaism and, in general, as guidelines rather than directives. Plus, the member synagogues do not have to strictly adhere to these guidelines.
So it depends how broadly you want the consensus to be, and how rigid you expect to expect each member to accept the consensus.
Plus, there are differences between consensus ideas and requirements (I don’t know if that was part of the argument, if not, disregard). For example, the rules of kosher may have been defined and laid out by consensus among the authority, but adhering to the laws of kosher is a congregational and individual decision.
You are free to define words however you like, but it’s not fair or reasonable to insist that I am saying something which I am not. When I talk about “consensus,” that’s what I mean.
Judith, with all due respect, it has been explained to Brazil directly, or in this thread indirectly, something like a dozen or more times that Judaism does not work via “authorities” let alone a cadre of “respected and prominent” authorities who determine Judaism in a top-down manner. And that even when we can speak in generalities, there are divergences between and within various sects.
Either he cannot or will not accept this fact, but in either case hammering on it is useless. It’s just another turn on the merry-go-round.
Well, then I hope you found my posts informative on the place (guidelines) and extent (limited) of any consensus among the movement “authority”.
OK. When FinnAgain and I talked about consensus, that’s what we meant. What word would you use to mean what we mean?
Yes, it is.
con·sen·sus (kn-snss)
n.
- An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: “Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced” (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
- General agreement or accord: government by consensus.
Consensus means general agreement - deal with it.
I don’t know. But I do know that Finnagain said this:
I suppose the word “elements” could be read to mean individual members. But either way, he is clearly implying that there is a consensus by either definition.
And it always refers to general agreement by individual people and never general agreement by organizations?
Which I have attempted to explain it’s extent and utility. Do you want your answer or argue the question?