What is Judaism seperate from the Jewish community?
That’s the atheist interpretation. Obviously, those who believe in the literal existence of God have a different interpretation.
I would argue that the athiest interpretation is the most robust, as it is not disproved by outside scholarship - should the stories in the Torah turn out to be mythological, rather than literally true (as I believe to be the case with many of them), the lessons learned are not discarded - in short, meaning is not related to the literal truth of the tale.
Take for example Noah. Geology and archaeology has long proved that there was no world-covering flood; moreover, comparative ethnology proves that flood-stories predate Judaism and are not confined to it - as the Greek Deucetolon (sp?) and the Sumerian examples attest. If tyhe meaning of the tale resided in its literal truth, it would have to be discarded (or one would have to ignore or disbelieve the evidence). However, if one looks at it as mythology and attempts to extract meaning from it, it yields some very contemporary lessons - namely, the essential unity of humanity (all descended from Noah), that all humans regardless of origin are equally capable of morality (the Noahide laws), etc.
Similarly, although it is most unlikely that the slavery-from-Egypt story is literally true, the lessons of humilty and sympathy that the tale is supposed to impart are not thereby lost.
I disagree on this. The plain reading is that the drafter is explaining why the commandment is given:
The “remember” is the reason why for the “command”, not the “command” itself.
I don’t see why this follows. There can be no “personal identification” with events that happened generations (in this case, thousands of years) ago. The events written about were already ancient when the Torah was redacted.
Take mythology from other cultures - is the meaning of the Oedipus myth any lesser or greater if Oedipus was never, in reality, King of Thebes? Does his existence or non-existence make any difference to the impact of this myth on Fruedian analysis?
The power of myths lies in the fact that they tap deeply into aspects of human experience, speak to something essential about who we are as humans. The Torah mythology has survived all these millenia because it does this task - tapping into human nature, warts and all - better than (say) ancient Egyptian mythology (though the Isis-Osiris myth had immense impact because it too speaks to something essential - getting repackaged in Christianity, for example).
The commandments all speak to a sense of humility and awe. This is if you like the core of the Jewish mysterium - strip the Jewish God of his “big Iron Age chief writ large” aspects, and what you are left with is a sense of human awe at the workings of the universe.
Here’s an article discussing the centrality of awe rather than faith in Judaism:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n4_v46/ai_20583575/
To my mind, and of course this is only my own opinion, the sense of awe came first, and then was crystalized and symbolized in the figure we today know as “God”. Because relatively primitive humanity had to put a mask on this primordial and inexplicable sense of holy awe, he invented a creation that made sense to them: basically, an image of a great chief who lives in the sky, which he called “God”. It is (again, merely my opinion) a mistake to confuse the sense of awe (which is real) with the image created to explain or symbolize it (which is simply a human mechanism for explaining the sense). This is exactly the sort of mistake which idolaters make - they mistake the human-made creation for the (inexplicable, un-graspable) reality.
There are loads of Torah verses I “neglect” because they don’t apply to me any more, or because I find them morally reprehensible. Judaism is an evolving religion. If it weren’t it would be dead.
This is wrong. If that were true the rabbis would have jumped straight to the Mishnah Torah or Shulchan Aruch instead of creating a work of literature more than a hundred times longer than the Torah. That’s practically the definition of creativity.
Ha, who hasn’t “studied parts of the Talmud”? Yes, I’ve had rabbinic training, but “studying parts of the Talmud” isn’t some mysterious high-level thing. We do it in cheder and bnei mitzvah classes, seriously.
I disagree with Maimonides on a lot of things, and his interpretation of the function and purpse of Torah and Talmud aren’t really relevant to me. I am glad they are to you, though. I thoroughly agree that Maimonides wasn’t inventive. He took a creative work and distilled it into laws. Did you ever notice how much shorter the Mishnah Torah is than the Talmud? His views don’t refute mine just by existing. We disagree.
To be honest I don’t really care how you read the Talmud and whether you value dogmatic reductions like Maimonides’ over creative artistry like the Talmudic storytellers, or vice versa. There isn’t any one single way to do Judaism. I won’t tell you how to do yours; don’t tell me how to do mine.
I think that in order to be part of a group, the other members need to accept you as part of that group. Because if they don’t, you simply aren’t. Group membership isn’t defined by people outside of the group, it’s defined by those within - they get to pick who’s in and who’s out. Think of lunch tables in high school…
Assuming that’s true . . . so what? I already agreed that technically Judaism requires little or nothing of its adherents.
I dunno what you are looking for.
Certainly, Judaism in the form of the Jewish community and congregations of various major Jewish denominations requires something from its adherents – committment to living a Jewish life, committment to engaging in the multiplicity of Jewish ritual, etc. The exact details of which vary between the denominations, but all are quite recognizably “Jewish”.
The major difference between Judaism and some other religions, particularly most sorts of Christianity, is the subject of this thread: no necessity to believe in anything in particular, so long as you do what you are supposed.
No, no “technically” about it. And synagogue dues also not required.
There is no other standard for what is “required”, for what makes a “good Jew”, a better Jew, or a righteous Jew, than what the Jewish community/communities believes does.
The spread of thought on that issue has been illustrated here, from a minority view, concentrated in the Orthodox community but not universally held even there, that believes that faith is both commanded and important, to the greater numbers of modern Jews who do not. What other sort of answer are you thinking is even possible?
I’m not sure, but probably a set of laws, beliefs, and practices. If you scroll up in the thread, you will see I gave examples of acts which seem to go against Jewish law or practice but will not prevent you from being accepted.
Ok, the following quote is wrong in your view:
Agreed?
I dunno what examples were cited, but like in many things, Jews can be considered bad people and bad Jews and still be Jews.
The more cogent concern is: what sorts of things would have Jews of most denominations consider other Jews “bad people - and bad Jews”?
-
I think stealing was mentioned. All denominations of Jew consider stealing wrong. A Jew who steals is considered, by other Jews, a bad person and a bad Jew.
-
Others - such as purely ritual or lifestyle matters - vary by denomination. Some congregations consider Jews who do not keep kosher to be bad Jews, though unlike stealing, this does not thereby make them bad people. Just “less Jewish”, as they are not following all aspects of the Jewish lifestyle.
-
Yet others are purely personal matters of choice. In most forms of Judaism, for example, there is no absolutely set concept of whether an afterlife exists, or what it is like. Jews who do not think an afterlife exists are neither bad Jews, not bad people. They just differ in opinion.
The problem you are facing is that, like most Christians, you seem to think that not literally believing in God puts you into the second category at best: a person who is ‘while not necessarily a bad person, is less Jewish (or perhaps not Jewish at all, or if they are, only by ethnicity)’. But this is not the case, except among some Orthodox. In the vast majority of Jewish sects, athiesm really falls into the third category - things that are purely a matter of personal choice.
Does Judaism require a belief in a god?
Don’t know, don’t care. However, given some of the discussion in this thread, it’s worth observing that atheism does require the absence of any belief in gods and consequently a rejection of any sacred laws. So, to pass as a Jewish atheist it is not enough to persuade the Jews that you meet their rules. You also have to persuade mainstream atheists that you have rejected the Jewish gods. Otherwise, you’re a Jew, not an atheist. I fear some of you don’t get that, and may suffer a disheartening rejection if you meet any proper atheists.
Yeah, and the same goes for any self-proclaimed ‘Buddhist atheists’.
I’ll keep that in mind if I attempt to joint a congregation of “proper atheists” and pass their atheism test.
Only if the atheists are woefully ignorant of Judaism.
I’m an atheist gentile married to an atheist Jew. I have no trouble with my wife’s (and my children’s) Judaism because they (and I) understand it as a framework of ethics and comfortable rituals.
And, BTW, my Passover brisket is TO DIE FOR.
Honestly not sure. I can see how people can read the texts and believe we are. In any case in terms of importance the command, if one believes it does exist, is just not a big deal one. In terms of judging who is a good Jew, your definition of “requires”, no, it is not required by the vast majority of the modern Jews’ beliefs.
cmkeller perhaps will answer this - to his faith is commanded and is important pole of the discussion - is following that command more or less important than say not eating milk and meat together? Who do you disrespect more, the atheist who is otherwise observant, or the believer he disregards many other laws?
Apparently many people in this thread are passionate in their desire to be acknowledged as atheists. Isn’t that the whole point of the thread? It seems pretty clear they are accepted as Jews.
No … acknowledged by whom? There is, as far as I know, no significant organized group of “athiests” to which acceptance and membership is accorded. This problem you are identifying (assuming I’m not being wooshed 
) doesn’t exist.
The point of this thread is to disabuse the OP of his or her mistaken notion that athiests are not accepted as Jews, or are in some way ‘not really’ Jews even if accepted.
Nope, doesn’t compute. Does your family’s atheism involve a belief in the gods and their laws?
I’m not saying you can’t be Jewish and an atheist. I’m saying that some people seem to be saying that you can believe in the Jewish gods and holy laws and still be an atheist. Which strikes me as funny.
But hey, knock yourself out. Like Malthus says, it doesn’t really matter.
I don’t understand the brisket reference? Do you think it makes up for not eating bacon, or what?
Maybe you’re right. The Hamster King seems pretty keen that the readers of this forum recognise that his family are atheists though.
Maybe I’m seeing a subtext which isn’t there. But if not, why is the atheism bit a big deal? Why not reply to the OP ‘we’re Jews, deal with it’.
The point is that Jewish athiests don’t, in fact, believe in the Jewish God (singular) or indeed in any god.
How does one “believe” in laws? One either chooses to follow them or not. Following a set of laws doesn’t affect atheism one way or another.
Though if you wish to set yourself up as a gatekeeper of “true” atheism - by all means, be your guest.
Atheist or theist, Jews love to debate and argue - particularly about Judaism. It is, after all, what this forum is allegedly for.
Really, shouldn’t your question be aimed at the OP? S/he brought it up. It is really no mystery why, when someone’s identity is challenged, they respond.