Does Judaism require a belief in God [Split from earlier thread]

[FinnAgain]

I think you are someone who’s had his argument eviscerated on the Dope, this day.
“Sure you’ve provided cites from multiple denominations, congregations and religious leaders all saying that they accept members who are atheists into their religious sects, but I’d much prefer to focus on the fact that there’s an uncited assertion that an opposing view exists within the millions of Jews on the planet.”

Or if you really want to keep your waiter metaphor going:

“Waiter, I would like noodle soup please.”
“Okay, here is a bowl of noodle soup for you.”
“Waiter, I disagree!”
“Wait, what? There are noodles here, are there not?”
“Yes, but this here? This is clearly a dead fly.”
“Then remove it.”
“Ah-hah, I’ve caught you! You must ignore the dead fly in order to pretend that I have noodle soup.”
“No…”
“Do you, or do you not serve noodle soup to your patrons here?”
“Yes, you have a bowl of it right in front of you.”
“Ah-hah, caught you again! We’ve already ascertained that this is not, in fact, noodle soup!”

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@brocks

I think you were my waiter at lunch the other day. “In a soup full of delicious noodles, you’ve chosen to focus on the one dead fly.”

Close but not quite. Look at the first two words of that copy-and-pasted quote Finn was replying to; it’s like watching a waiter deal with a guy who (a) found zero flies in the soup he’s eating, but (b) knows that someone else found a fly in her sandwich.

[tomndebb]

brocks and brazil84, before this thread goes off the rails or irritates anyone to the point that I have to start handing out Warnings, just what more do you want?

Judaism is not a monolithic structure. Any given belief by one set of Jews might possibly be challenged or contradicted by another set of Jews.
Given that, the most that one could remotely hope to get from this discussion is a general approach to consensus. So far, you have been provided a pretty much unanimous opinion from those who post here who are Jews. You have also been pointed to several different third party texts that say pretty much the same things.

I realize that this is a “debate” forum, but repeatedly claiming that you are not persuaded of a position when that is the only position that has been provided makes no sense. You are not debating, just digging your toes in the ground and asking a petulant “Whyyyyy??”.

If you have an actual point to make, (beyond your dismissal of provided evidence), bring it out. If you are simply unpersuaded, that is fine, but you are not going to be persuaded by anyone on this site, so you need to simply acknowledge that you are not persuaded and move on to some Jewish site to ask them.

[ /Moderating ]

[brocks]

@FinnAgain

I think you are someone who’s had his argument eviscerated on the Dope, this day.

You are welcome to your opinion, but my opinion is that your article supports my position more than it does yours. Did you even read it?

You need to provide cites showing that any of the major Jewish sects rejects membership for and/or actively expels members who don’t believe in God.

“Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the URJ, was at the meeting where Beth Adam’s application was turned down, and he agrees with the decision. While a congregation that disavows a belief in God would not be expelled from the URJ, he says, neither would it be admitted. And he hasn’t heard of any Reform congregations espousing such a position.”

So there’s your cite, from your own article. Guess it was more than one fly.

“Cantor Ellen Dreskin of Temple Beth El of Northern Westchester in Chappaqua, N.Y., who says she interprets the words in the prayer book “metaphorically and poetically,” not literally. She says her fellow clergy need to give their congregants permission to do the same.”

I think most native speakers of English would interpret that to mean that her fellow clergy do not presently give such permission. Another fly.

What you have is an article about a few individuals who want their atheism to be accommodated, and a few rabbis or cantors who are willing to do it, but IMO the article makes it clear that they are trying to change the thinking of the mainstream clergy, rather than being representative of the overwhelming consensus that you allege.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@brocks

You are welcome to your opinion, but my opinion is that your article supports my position more than it does yours. Did you even read it?

“Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the URJ, was at the meeting where Beth Adam’s application was turned down, and he agrees with the decision. While a congregation that disavows a belief in God would not be expelled from the URJ, he says, neither would it be admitted. And he hasn’t heard of any Reform congregations espousing such a position.”

So there’s your cite, from your own article. Guess it was more than one fly.

The cite that “a congregation that disavows a belief in God would not be expelled from the URJ” seems pretty solid.

[brocks]

@tomndebb

brocks and brazil84, before this thread goes off the rails or irritates anyone to the point that I have to start handing out Warnings, just what more do you want?

Judaism is not a monolithic structure. Any given belief by one set of Jews might possibly be challenged or contradicted by another set of Jews.

I think it took a while to get that acknowledged; I think that there has been less offense actually given by us than umbrage taken by people who apparently expect their views to be taken as gospel, pardon the expression; and I think that the cites provided do more to undermine FinnAgain’s position than to support it. But I also think that you are right that external sources would probably be more productive, now that I know what to look for, so that is the direction I’ll go.

I have to say though, after participating in much rougher debates regarding Christianity, I have no idea why you are talking about warning anyone.

[brazil84]

@FinnAgain

Providing the views of religious leaders and religious organizations evidently doesn’t cut it.

Apparently not according to your standards. However I would be willing to accept such a cite if you agree that the opinions of the most prominent and respected Jewish leaders (and organizations) are determinative.

and we’ve got someone who can speak “with authority” on theological matters.

If there’s nobody who can speak with authority, then how can the question have a simple answer?

It’s clear that you’re coming to this as an outsider,

I don’t think it makes a difference but if you are willing to keep my identity confidential, I’d consider taking a thousand dollar bet that I can document that you are wrong. Interested?

[brazil84]

@tomndebb

brocks and brazil84, before this thread goes off the rails or irritates anyone to the point that I have to start handing out Warnings, just what more do you want?

Either an acknowledgment that there is no consensus answer to the question, or a claim that there is a consensus answer and citations to statements by the most prominent and respected religious authorities in Judaism.

Citations from Reconstructionist authorities are interesting, but that’s just a small part of Judaism. In the United States, there are many other important authorities such as the UAHC, the USCJ, and probably others.

[FinnAgain]

@brocks

“Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the URJ, was at the meeting where Beth Adam’s application was turned down, and he agrees with the decision. While a congregation that disavows a belief in God would not be expelled from the URJ, he says, neither would it be admitted. And he hasn’t heard of any Reform congregations espousing such a position.”

I know that you think you’re stumbled upon something that means you’re right. You haven’t. Right there in black and white is the fact that the UAHC would not consider active atheism to be a disqualifying belief for any of their member congregations, let alone individual Jews (which is the topic of the thread, if you remember). They simply wouldn’t accept any new temples which were actively pro-atheism. That, of course, doesn’t address the question of whether or not you can be a Reform Jew and an atheist, but what their metric is for accepting new congregations into their umbrella organization.

You also seem not to understand how the UAHC/URJ works. As I actually know Eric Yoffie, have been to UAHC meetings and studied at HUC in Manhattan on the weekends for several years when I was in high school, and an outspoken atheist. I’m reasonably certain that I understand Reform Judaism’s position on whether or not you can be an atheist Jew better than you do. You also evidently do not understand how congregations work. Every rabbi who I ever studied with was fine with my atheism, that doesn’t mean that it would be at all similar to what Beth Adam’s position was, which was that they “conduct online services that do not invoke divine power” or that they would “[disavow] a belief in God” as their official position for the congregation. So we can add some pretty flagrant goalpost shifting to flagrant cherrypicking.

Likewise, you again are engaging in some ridiculously obvious cherrypicking. Right before Yoffee’s quote that you chose to focus on, it says rather clearly:

In rejecting the Cincinnati congregation’s application, Reform leaders opined that while individual Jews may not believe in God, a Reform synagogue may not declare such a position.

@brocks

“Cantor Ellen Dreskin of Temple Beth El of Northern Westchester in Chappaqua, N.Y., who says she interprets the words in the prayer book “metaphorically and poetically,” not literally. She says her fellow clergy need to give their congregants permission to do the same.”

I think most native speakers of English would interpret that to mean that her fellow clergy do not presently give such permission. Another fly.

No, just more proof of how you’re arguing, complete with smarmy snarky nonsense in the face of being proven wrong and refusing to admit it. Yet again, you’re deliberately ignoring that issue of how multiple organizations, including the one you tried to cite to gainsay the truth, agree that you can be an atheist and a Jew, and you’re trying to substitute the fact that there’s an issue of having explicitly pro-atheist clergy and adding new atheist congregations to a coalition of temples. The UAHC is not some sort of theological arbiter in any caes. Your argument is bankrupt.

@brocks

IMO the article makes it clear that they are trying to change the thinking of the mainstream clergy

Yet again we see why a tiny bit of knowledge is a very dangerous thing. And yet again, Judaism is not a top-down religion, the clergy do not decide what people think. They just don’t. And even on that point it’s been proven that you had to cherrypick what the URJ’s actual leadership said about how you can certainly be an atheist and a Jew and you’ve now had to shift the goalposts. It’s interesting that you won’t simply admit that you’re wrong.

The metaphor that Waldo provided is a good one. At this point you don’t have a fly in your soup. You’re rapidly approaching the point where you don’t even have a fly in the restaurant. But you’ve heard stories of how, at another restaurant that serves somewhat similar food, they have some flies.

[brocks]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

The cite that “a congregation that disavows a belief in God would not be expelled from the URJ” seems pretty solid.

Good heavens. If you hadn’t cut it off in mid-sentence, you would see that it directly contradicts his “and/or” assertion. And it’s from his own cite. You have to wonder what an article that was not written expressly to promote the cause of atheist Jews might say.

[brocks]

@FinnAgain

I’m reasonably certain that I understand Reform Judaism’s position on whether or not you can be an atheist Jew better than you do.

I’m sure you do. Unfortunately, you seem to want to be more confrontational than informative, and I’m tired of all the name-calling and accusations of ignorance, straw men, and cherry-picking, so I will thank everyone, including you, for their posts, and look for more information elsewhere.

[FinnAgain]

@brocks

Unfortunately, you seem to want to be more confrontational than informative

You’ve been informed. Repeatedly. You’ve decided to argue the point in the teeth of the facts.
Now you’re complaining that your argument is met with ‘confrontation’. That’s a bit like the chutzpah displayed by a man who murders his parents and then claims that the court should have mercy on him since, after all, he’s an orphan.

As for “accusations” of ignorance, don’t come to a debate while being ignorant of the basic frame of reference required to discuss it. As for strawmen, don’t use them (although I think only brazil has so far when he claimed I was speaking for “all Jews”). As for cherry picking, then stop cherry picking. If you’re going to come back and move the goalposts some more and complain about that too, then don’t move the goalposts.

@brocks

Good heavens. If you hadn’t cut it off in mid-sentence, you would see that it directly contradicts his “and/or” assertion.

No, it doesn’t. Not even close. You are yet again trying to shift the goalposts. The UAHC is not not “[a] major Jewish [sect which] rejects membership for and/or actively expels members who don’t believe in God.” The issue was whether or not Reform Jews can be atheists, not whether or not new reform congregations can espouse atheism.

@brocks

I think that there has been less offense actually given by us than umbrage taken by people who apparently expect their views to be taken as gospel

I haven’t noticed you expressing any umbrage. Other people have pointed out the facts, however, it seems you’d prefer to act is if Jews’ statements about Judaism are mere “views” to be seen as somewhat equal to your cherrypicking of online cites.

@brocks

I think that the cites provided do more to undermine FinnAgain’s position than to support it.

The cite that shows that congregations accept atheist members as religious Jews (but you try to handwave away by suggesting that maybe the congregations are just biding their time?)
The cite that shows that the UAHC accepts atheists as religious Jews and would not expel member temples for actively espousing atheism (but you try to handwave away because they wouldn’t accept new congregations who engage in that behavior?)
The cite that shows that Reconstructionists don’t even necessarily have a theistic concept of God at all let alone require one from their members, (that you, unless I miss my guess, simply ignored rather than handwaved?)

@brazil84

Apparently not according to your standards.

You obviously don’t understand my standards or how Judaism works, and I’m not going to try to explain it yet again since you seem more intent on JAQ’ing and trying to deny the facts than clearing up your ignorance on them. And if you want religious opinions that are “determinative” you need to look at other religions. Judaism doesn’t work that way. Your belief that there needs to be an “authority” in order for there to be a simple answer is an absurdity, but for some reason you can’t recognize that fact. Try to grok, however, that literally every single Jew who’s posted to this thread is trying to explain to you why you’re wrong, and you’re JAQ’ing to try to do… something.

@brazil84

Either an acknowledgment that there is no consensus answer to the question

There is virtually no consensus on any question in Judaism short of “can you be a Christian and a Jew at the same time?”
This has been explained to you repeatedly.

@brazil84

or a claim that there is a consensus answer and citations to statements by the most prominent and respected religious authorities in Judaism.

This has also been explained to you. Judaism does not work by “respected religious authorities”. You’re also ignoring that the UAHC supports the fact that there can be atheist Jews. But that was one of the cites that you’re deciding whether or not you’ll accept, pending whether or not someone will fallaciously claim that it’s an “authority” for Judaism.

[brazil84]

@FinnAgain

There is virtually no consensus on any question in Judaism short of “can you be a Christian and a Jew at the same time?”

You have also claimed – essentially without qualification – that Judaism does not require a belief in G-d. Don’t you see that this is a contradiction?

[tomndebb]

Where is the contradiction?

Jew + Atheist = OK
Jew + Christian, (a group that has a specific view of God that can be seen as polytheistic–not atheistic), = Not OK.

What contradicition?

[Farmer_Jane]

@brazil84

You have also claimed – essentially without qualification – that Judaism does not require a belief in G-d. Don’t you see that this is a contradiction?

Here’s a crazy thought: Judaism requires that you follow no other religion. Atheism is not a religion.

[Farmer_Jane]

@brocks

written expressly to promote the cause of atheist Jews

A ‘cause’? Are you confusing us again with the people who follow the guy in the red hat?

[SecondJudith]

@brazil84

You have also claimed – essentially without qualification – that Judaism does not require a belief in G-d. Don’t you see that this is a contradiction?

It isn’t a contradiction, and Judaism doesn’t require “qualification” like many hierarchical religions do.

[DSeid]

@John_Mace

Was there a time in the past when belief in God was essential to being a Jew?

I think there was a time during which the issue of non-belief just never came up. My impression is that active atheism is a relatively modern creature. The concern for the ancients was competition from other belief systems, not from disbelief. The closest is as already mentioned, Spinoza’s excommunication for his pantheism that was interpreted as non-belief. And many see that as lessof a Jewish action than an action of the surrounding culture grafted onto Jewish culture of the place and time.

As for the rest of this … what more can be said? Multiple sources have been provided that demonstrate that a Jew who professes disbelief will not be rejected as a Jew and that Jewish tradition judges by actions much more than faith. If some here don’t want to accept that answer because there is no single voice of authority for Jews, because in the modern world Judaism is a divergent group of movements from the Orthodox to secular humanists, with many points between, who disagree with each other on many points, fine. But again, one thing we pretty much all agree on, a Jew who behaves as we believe a Jew should, is a fine Jew whether they believe or not.

[Farmer_Jane]

@brazil84

Well is there any kind of consensus on whether Judaism requires you to believe in G-d? If there isn’t, then there is no simple answer to the question. If there is a consensus, then I would like a cite for it.

You would like a cite in which 13 million people came together to vote on whether or belief in God was tantamount to leaving the people? What?

Is God a part of Judaism? Yes. Is belief in God one of the tenets of widely-accepted practice? Yes. Is it necessary to be Jewish? No. Is it necessary to be observant? No. Not at all. Some would say it is no more so than keeping kosher or wearing tefilin.

In my Jewish Ethics course, about 4 of us are atheist, agnostic, on the fence or not even entertaining the question. There are 16 in the class.

When my son talks with me about religion or ethics or whatever, sometimes he’ll say, “But you don’t even believe in HaShem!” and I respond, “It doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion on what HaShem thinks!”

I did a Google search for “613” and “Mitzvot” I linked to the first few hits a few posts back.

Okay, but there is no ‘first mitzvah’ business…and if you are so good at Googling…

Unfortunately, I don’t know who you are so that’s not enough.

Then don’t ask. Go and Google. Conquer. Take it from those anonymous sources. :rolleyes:

Then what difference does it make whether anyone is expelled for atheism?

You can’t “take away” anyone’s Jewishness.

Can you please quote me in two places where I have done so?

:smack:

We are telling you what Judaism has to say about these ideas and you keep arguing.

@brazil84

Are you sure of this? How would you interpret the very first of Maimonides’ famous 613 mitzvot?

@brazil84

I’m not sure I understand your point here. As I understand things, he compiled the list of 613 Mitzvot based on his study of the Torah. Am I incorrect?

What exactly is the debate? According to every source I could find, Mitzvah number 1 is to “know there is a G-d.” ** How is this debatable**?

@brazil84

That may be so, but I think you need to provide some cites for your claim. An anonymous person on the internet who claims to speak for all Jews is not very authoritative.

Also, Judaism is enough of a thinking man’s religion that surely there have been rabbis who have tried to reconcile **the first Mitzvah with the idea that you don’t actually need to believe. ** I would like to know what their reasoning is.

You still have it stuck in your head that Jews have something called ‘the first Mitzvah’.

[Farmer_Jane]

@SecondJudith

It isn’t a contradiction, and Judaism doesn’t require “qualification” like many hierarchical religions do.

He apparently also can’t comprehend that a layman’s sincere position is just as valid as a Talmudic scholar’s.