That makes sense.
Isn’t this conversation made confusing and intractable by the fact that “Jew” can refer to an ethnic/genetic group like “Arab” or to a religious group like “Muslim”. If we used the same term to refer to both Arabs and Muslims, we’d have the same semantic and conceptual problems.
We have two conceptually distinct entities which have historically been very close and have largely overlapped, even to the point of nearly perfect overlap for most of their history. It’s easy to get confused in such situations.
When people use the same term to refer to concept A and concept B, especially when they’re related, the people they talk with can easily be confused, even if they don’t realize it, as to whether a particular statement referred to A or B. Then they respond, not making it clear whether they mean A or B, and the others are equally confused.
As long as no conceptual distinction is made and that they are always refered to by the same term, it will not be possible to think clearly and this conversation will go nowhere.
In case you haven’t noticed, they were separated by categories.
Hillel also famously said, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation*; go and learn.”
*Or: commentary.
There is nothing in Judaism called ‘the first Mitzvah’. Someone counted up all the mitzvot and put them into categories and said that knowing God was the most important. Considering Jews were up against Christian influences, it makes sense for such a statement to be had.
If you look at it more closely, at an age where a belief in no god was completely alien, the 13 Principles is basically a statement that Judaism is not to be mixed with Christianity and that Jews should hold steadfast to their faith.
I have already told you rabbis have opined that anyone who rejects those is not necessarily a heretic and that there are others who said that to make such a list of principles is diminishing the rest of the Torah.
Would you stop it already? You really aren’t getting this, are you?
Except that Arab is a geo-political term but - kinda. It used to be you could be an Arab Jew (as was half of Israel’s population in the early years) but now such a connotation isn’t allowed.
The problem is that it doesn’t matter what kind of a Jew you are - you don’t have to believe in God to be Jewish.
As far as distinction that different sects make about what you should believe, we’ve addressed that. It would appear that brazil is doing this on purpose.
I’d expand on that a little - the Talmud makes note of things that will automatically get you into the World to Come and things that will ban you from it, but I consider those to be statements of disapproval on one’s actions.
Judaism today teaches that the righteousness of all would have a place in the world to come. I think that came before Haskalah. What is or is not righteous is, again, always up for debate. I’d also venture a guess that the trief Jews are always allowed baal teshuvah (and not just on Yom Kippur ;)) and if God does exist, the ignorant can’t wholly be blamed for a lack of faith, but rather judged by action. It is certainly in line with the emphasis on personal redemption in Judaism, not to mention the practice of reciting Kaddish after a death.
Hell, if I insult a rabbinic court, I’m subjected to the same judgment.
But the OP was asking what Judaism requires and he still hasn’t answered the question, “Requires for what?”
Truth be told I think that separating the concepts is more modern than is Jewish identity. When you were part of a tribe, be it Sioux or Jewish, whether you were born into it, or joined the tribe some other way, you took on the complete package, religious rituals, mythologies, foods, dress, the whole megillah so to speak. Really, before Christianity that is how religions worked: the religion was part and parcel of the cultural identity and provided the justification for the behaviors that, among other things, defined group membership. Today’s Western world has religion as only one aspect of identity and one that can be mixed and matched, but that was not the historic environment of Judaism.
So now you do indeed have Jews by cultural identity who have no interest in religion whatsoever, and Jews who care a great deal about spirituality, who are observant, but who define proper observation and the importance of a God concept, in different ways, and some of them have very different cultural identities than each other (in America we are biased to the Ashkanazi stereotype, but there are, as alluded to above, Jews in India, East Africa, China, Western Asia, Egypt, Iraq, all of whom listen to different music and eat different foods as “Jewish” by cultural tradition). Lots of diversity in culture, ethnic identity, and beliefs, with varying degrees of overlap, but all of whom agree that statements of faith are less important than behaviors, that professing another God as your god excludes you but professing non-belief not so much so, if at all. Really it is probably the area that Jews of all sorts disagree about the least!
Exactly what claim do you say what I am making?
So according to you, more conservative elements also agree that Judaism does not require belief in G-d?
Does your typical Christian Church try to ferret out their congregants like that?
Why is that so terrible? I admit ignorance on this topic but I think it’s an important question.
Mainly I hope to understand just how broad a consensus there is in Judaism that belief in G-d is not required and how this is reconciled with Biblical passages (and interpretations) which seem to support such a requirement.
I agree with this 100%, but that’s not quite the question which we are discussing. The question is whether Judaism requires a belief in G-d.
By analogy, one can observe that Eddie Antar are Bernie Madoff are still Jewish even though they clearly went against the dictates of Judaism. (You agree that Judaism requires abstention from theft, right?)
How does the first statement square with the second one?
If statements of faith are less important than behaviors, someone who has faith in Jesus but keeps Jewish behaviors is still Jewish, since, as you will well remember, statements of faith are less important than behaviors.
I can see why some Jews would dislike that some group members profess faith in another creed but they can’t simultaneously say the religion is about actions and not beliefs and then exclude someone on the basis of beliefs. That’s trying to have your chametz and eat it too. If group membership is about actions and not beliefs, inclusion and exclusion ought to be based on one’s actions.
“Truth be told I think that separating the concepts is more modern than is Jewish identity”
Sure, seperating the concepts is more recent than Judaism. The fact that people 4000 years ago didn’t make some distinctions shouldn’t stop us from making them now. If you met a Sioux who told you he was Muslim, you wouldn’t think “But you can’t be, you’re Sioux.”
To be perfectly honest, I’d be genuinely surprised if most of them thought about it very much. Dogma just isn’t something Judaism really does. It’s not an intrinsic part of the religion. Some Jewish people opt into dogma (either atheists or believers), but for the most part it’s just not important. Which way to face for the Amidah, that’s important.
That’s up to each individual Jew.
ETA: After your last post, I’m quite confused about what you mean by “requires”. Could you explain what you mean in different words?
I did notice that.
Fine, as I alluded to before I accept this. Again, please tell me how you would like me to refer to item number 1 on the list.
I must have missed this. Can you give me their names please?
The way I understand it, “requires” means something that you should do in order to be a good Jew. I don’t understand it to be a requirement for synagogue or sect membership or something which is part of the definition of a Jew.
So for example, in my (relatively ignorant) opinion, Judaism requires that its adherents refrain from stealing. However Bernie Madoff is still considered a Jew and will not necessarily be kicked out of his synagogue.
Does that make sense?
Well go with that analogy. Without any question you be Jewish without a belief in God. The analogy is a good one in that one can disobey a rule but disobeying the rule does not mean you are no longer of the group. Thing is that stealing is considered a much bigger rule to have broken than is believing in God. That one is relatively minor.
I know you want simple black white answers but it doesn’t work like that. That is the one faith requirement, a negative requirement: non-belief is no biggie; other belief is. It makes sense from the tribal origins of the faith. There was no competing tribe of atheists.
Yes we can and we do. Sorry.
I do not disagree with that; I am merely pointing out that such distinctions are grafted on to the concept of Jewish identity. It is complicated even for Indian tribal identity. Is it blood line? Racial? How much bloodline? Any cultural requirement? Can you be adopted into a tribal identity? These are distinctions that are figure out.
As noted above, I completely agree with this. But it’s not quite the question which was asked. An individual Jew must decide whether or not he will steal anything. It’s not enough for him to say “Well, I’m still Jewish either way so what’s the difference?” If he went to his rabbi for advice, surely the rabbi would tell him that he should not steal even if he is sure he won’t get caught.
Similarly, one can imagine a Jew telling his rabbi that he is having doubts about G-d’s existence. What would a rabbi do in that case? Tell the guy not to worry about it, that it doesn’t matter whether or not he believes? Or would the rabbi say that he should think about all the miracles in both Jewish history and everyday life and try his best to have faith?
[Isaac Asimov]"So the guy says,* Rabbi, my son has just now turned to Christianity; what can you tell me?* And the Rabbi says, I’d normally know what to say, but my son just told me the same thing this morning; we can but pray to God for guidance. And so they pray, and God says, You think that’s bad, let me tell you what my son just told me…[/Isaac Asimov]
It depends. Is the rabbi an atheist?
It doesn’t have to be black and white to be coherent. I deal well in shades of gray. But saying “Judaism is about actions, not beliefs” and then “this belief gets you out” is not a question of shades of gray.
“Yes we can and we do. Sorry.”
I should have said “they can’t coherently” although that’s usually implicit. Of course you can and do, just like Jews for Jesus can and do call themselves Jews for Jesus and they can and do convince other Jews to be Jews for Jesus.
If I understand correctly, the test is to know whether or not you’re part of the tribe and adhering to another tribe’s religion is considered an abnegation of one’s membership into the Jewish tribe. With no authority able to decisively determine the criteria and with some Jews being proud of the “2 Jews, three opinions” meme, it seems like a question that will forever be debated.
Why pick belief though, as the requirement? There are many other prescriptions and proscriptions in Judaism which aim to delineate tribal membership. Yet a freshly shaven cheeseburger eating cotton/linen wearer would not be excluded from most Jewish groups.
Depends on the Rabbi. When I was prepubescent atheist (now I’m a soft theist) my Rabbi was fine with it. He preferred my having been actively thinking about it and being engaged to some others who believed without thinking about it at all. YMMV.
MichaelEmouse, Religion isn’t an exercise in logic. This is a description of what is, not what would be coherent. Judaism’s emphasis (I once again use that word) is on actions more than belief. The one belief item that matters a lot is non-belief in other gods. You don’t like that the religion has one big faith item and otherwise says it’s mostly about behaviors? That’s fine. It is still what it is.
Yes the issue of who is a Jew will be debated. And? What else is new?
Nitpick : rather a cultural one. There are many non Arabs in Arab countries (Kurds, Berbers, etc…)
You can be an atheist and a good Jew. Consider David Ben-Gurion or Einstein or other modern Jewish heroes. Athiesm is not an action. Atheism doesn’t hurt people. If I told my rabbi my thoughts on God, he’d respect them. And he’s Conservative.