** Thus implying that being a eunuch is really, really bad (besides the obvious ways), since it’s used to show that keeping the covenant overrides all other things.
Sorry, but you’re not helping your case.
** As much as I hate to, I’m going to have to side with Chrisitianity on this: being a scholar of the law is not in itself moral or virtuous. A human being with an honest intellect takes precedence over all of the Prophets and every book ever written. Coming from me, that’s a whopper.
And again, you’re not demonstrating that Judaism is particularly enlightened with these quotes. Quite the opposite, actually.
** Without invoking Godwin’s Rule, I abhor the Jewish doctrine of “genetic purity” just as I abhor the Nazi doctrine of “racial purity”. The base assumptions are the same – it’s just that one is more politically correct than the other.
Being “exalted” by birth is utterly unreasonable.
** And how is being a bastard a spiritual distinction?
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but the whole “sins of the fathers” thing fell out of moral fashion several hundred years ago.
Here’s a thought: you agree to disagree, and I’ll agree to scour your belief system from the face of the Earth.
If you’ll allow me to stretch the analogy a little, that “bathwater” is more like the amniotic fluid that cushions the baby in the womb, which one tampers with at the “baby’s” peril. It may seem easy enough to discard individual laws that one doesn’t agree with, but at the end there’ll be very little left that can be called Judaism. **
[/QUOTE]
** Not at all. That is only the case because your definition of “Judaism” is so rigid.
Pathological inability to admit error is a common feature of religions, particularly old-style Judaism. It’d be no great loss to abolish that, and if “Judaism” was lost in the process, good riddance.
I’m much more favorably inclined towards Reform Judaism, but they’re still not changing quickly enough. More traditional observances? Bah.
Please look at the preceding verse: “Let not the foreigner who joins himself to G-d [by converting to Judaism] say, ‘G-d will surely separate me from His people’; and let not the eunuch say, ‘I’m a dry tree [with no Jewish future].’” The implication is that a convert, or a castrato, might think that G-d considers them unworthy, and is assured that this is not the case: G-d doesn’t judge a person’s worthiness based on circumstances (birth or physical defects) that they can’t control, but rather based on their actions, and makes it possible for them to make their own unique contribution to Jewish continuity. I’m afraid I can’t see how you’re getting from this that being a eunuch is “really, really bad” from a Jewish POV.
True, and I should have clarified this better: in Jewish tradition, a Torah scholar, by definition, is someone who practices what they study. (The Talmud, and other works of Jewish literature, contain some very harsh condemnations of people who treat the Torah as nothing more than an academic discipline, and fail to follow its guidelines and morals.) So the point of the Talmudic expression I quoted is similar to that made by Isaiah: personal merit trumps accident of birth in the Jewish scale of values.
Try this on for size, then: while it’s true that a kohen may not marry a convert, he can marry the daughter of one. (And, of course, a regular Jew can marry a convert without any restrictions.) Similarly, the Talmud describes a method by which a mamzer’s descendants will be permitted to marry any Jew. I frankly don’t profess to know G-d’s ultimate reasons for ordaining these rules, but regardless, it seems pretty clear that the idea of them being designed to establish “genetic” or “racial” purity - whether among kohanim or any other subgroup of the Jewish people - is a nonstarter.
I meant “distinction” in the sense of “the distinguishing of a difference,” not “the quality of being distinguished or worthy.” (Perhaps I should stay out of GD until I learn to express myself more clearly.)
The same Torah that lays down the rules about mamzerim also states that children are not to be punished for their parents’ sins (Deut. 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20).* But there’s a difference between sins and cause/effect relationships, and that’s what I was trying to get at with my analogy about birth defects: it doesn’t matter whether the exposure was deliberate or accidental; genetic effects don’t depend on morality or lack thereof. In the same way, a mamzer is not being punished for his parents’ actions, but Judaism teaches us that these actions do have a spiritual effect on the child. (Perhaps one reason for these rules is that they may serve as a deterrent to the parents, much as prospective parents can be induced to give up drinking, smoking, etc., based on warnings about such activities impairing their child’s health.)
I am aware of the statement in the Ten Commandments about G-d “visiting the sins of the fathers upon the sons unto the third or fourth generation.” Jewish tradition, though, understands this as specifically referring to the case where the children learn from their forebears’ example and persist in the same sins.
I do seem to have hit a nerve here in this discussion, and I apologize for any ill-feeling I’ve caused. I would like to point out that it’s all too easy to come to mistaken conclusions about Judaism based on superficial impressions, and respectfully suggest that you try to find out the facts about Judaism - in depth - before passing judgement on it. One possibility would be to try submitting questions to AskMoses.com or Aish’s Ask the Rabbi; they can give answers that are far clearer and more reasonable, and backed up by better research, than mine.
** But these laws set restrictions on these unfortunate people that don’t seem to directly result from their circumstances. To use traditional Christianity as an example, women are not permitted to become priests. There are other ways for women to be involved in worship, but not the priesthood. In the absence of any reason for this restriction (beyond the tradition itself), some branches of Christianity have allowed women to be ordained, reasoning that each individual must answer to the calling they feel and that it is not their place to prohibit a calling from one God has granted it to.
Being able to make “unique contributions” to the community, but not in the ways you’re gifted at or feel a calling to, is not a pleasant situation to be in. What justification does traditional Judaism offer for its law?
To again use Christianity as an example, Christ is said to have spent time even with prostitutes and moneylenders. This demonstrated that he came to minister even to the worst of the worst.
Your quote suggests that a person who abides by the codes of morality, even if they belong to some second-class group, is considered better than a High Priest (very high-status, yes?) who doesn’t. The contrast clearly implies that being in said group is a very, very undesirable thing..
** Precisely. Instead of studying these works from an objective and dispassionate viewpoint, it cannot be studied without being practiced. The memes must be propagated…
** It still considers accident of birth, and considers it quite seriously. Allowing bigotry to be outweighed by other factors doesn’t change the fact that it’s bigotry.
** The cultural imperative to marry other Jewish people is so strong that even unreligious grandparents want their grandchildren to marry “a nice Jewish boy/girl”. It’s a cliche. The effect of these laws is undeniable – even if we presume that’s not their intended effect, it is an effect.
Judging someone’s “purity” by the way they were born or what faith their parents had is not appropriate for a civilized culture.
** No, you are clearly understood. Traditional Jewish law and practice treats the offspring of an adulterous relationship as different from non-adulterous; not just different, but socially and religiously inferior.
Guess what my opinion of such behavior is.
** Yes. Hitler claimed that someone descended from Jews would necessarily be tainted, regardless of whether they were aware of this fact or even approved of Judaism. Yes, I’m quite familiar with this sort of thinking.
Tell me: precisely what are the effects on the child, and how do they justify treating the child differently?
Wouldn’t it be more effective to socially censure the parents and not the child? Not to mention more just…
** I know quite a bit about Judaism already, thank you. Until relatively recently, I wouldn’t have been able to learn a great deal. I believe there was even an informal tradition that studying its more esoteric aspects (without being a married, middle-aged Jewish man) could drive a person insane. How charming. Reminds me of the medieval RCC’s refusal to translate the Bible into the vernacular – the common, ignorant people might not understand it properly, after all, and they might fall into mortal sin.
Judaism is a religion of love, kindness, respect, literacy, logic, mercy, and knowledge.
It is also a religion of hate, cruelty, xenophobia, tribalism, mindless adherence to tradition, rationalization, vengeance, and ignorance.
I want to destroy Judaism, but only to burn away the dross and leave the gold. You, on the other hand, have committed yourself to its preservation, both the good and the bad. I have no pity for you. When the time comes, you will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven.
And what exactly qualifies you to decide which parts of it are gold and which parts are dross? What makes contemporary Western culture the perfect lens through which to make these judgments?
The Jewish religion has outlived countless societies which, if Jews had succumbed to the “refinement” offered by you from a member of one of them, the result would be radically different from the result you’d produce…and very likely a result you’d personally be less pleased with than Judaism as it has endured.
** What qualifies you to decide that it’s all gold, or that the dross should be preserved along with the gold, or that any culture should be preserved at all?
** What makes you think I like contemporary Western culture?
Don’t be so sure, smart guy. I’d trade all the forms of Judaism for ancient Greece – even with their misogyny, obsession with athletics, and Sparta – in a heartbeat.
If only you’d picked up some other cultural traits when you assimilated formal argumentation… [sigh]
“Qualifies me to decide”? I’m not looking to impose change or destruction on an existing, and very successful, society. I consider my predecessors the qualified ones, and follow their footsteps without needing to be “qualified.”
Because that is the source of most of your stated objections, in this thread, to Biblically-defined Judaism.
You know, there were Jews back in those days who thought the same thing. Guess which form of Jewish society managed to survive the shake-out of Roman holocaust?
You’re welcome to prefer a social system that has failed the test of time. I’ll thank you, though, to not denigrate the one that has passed it.
** Precisely my point. You worship tradition, not a deity. You don’t follow the commandments of a god, you follow what your friends, parents, and scriptures tell you. You’ve never spoken with a god – and neither have your predecessors, and neither have their predecessors.
What qualifies you to decide that your predecessors were qualified?
** May I ask how you reached this conclusion? It’s an invalid one – that is most certainly not where these objections originated.
Guess which form of Jewish society triggered the Roman holocaust, resulting in the Diaspora?
You value “that which has passed the test of time”, but I doubt you understand any arguments as to why that should be a valid criterion. Instead, you transmit a principle you’re unable to evaluate and analyze, because you’re psychologically incapable of actually looking at it objectively.
Traditional Judaism continues for precisely the same way fundamentalist Christianity persists in certain parts of America: ignorance is persistant, and very difficult to remove. The more effectively a religion can disuade its followers from analyzing its nature, the better it spreads.
On these boards, we have occasionally discussed the nature of the religious dietary prohibitions I presume you follow. Specifically, we discussed what happens when a faithful Jew is placed in a position where he must choose between eating un-kosher food and dying.
Do you recall what the general Orthodox response was?
You eat the food. A person is allowed to violate a commandment (except murder, idolatry, and sexual immorality) to save his life or someone else’s life.
Neither, really. The Jewish War was triggered by a combination of general Jewish nationalism, Nero’s insistance on being worshiped as a god, and a really incompetant Roman administration. While the Pharasees tended to be more nationalistic than the Saducees, neither group was willing to worship Nero as a god, and, in fact, because the direct trigger was accusations against Florian of stealing from the Temple, the Saducees, who were overrepresented among the priesthood, were probably more offended by that act than the Pharasees.
The event triggering the Diaspora was bar Kokhba’s rebellion, and by that point, the Saducees had pretty much disappeared, but I can’t imagine they would have been pleased by plans to build a temple to Jupiter on the Temple Mount either.
Yes, but I do it from considered conviction that they are correct, not from some sense of blind loyalty. More importantly…
Not true. My predecessors - the entire Jewish nation at the time - heard the words of the living G-d at Sinai, and throughout the following millennium, they were spoken to by prophets who spoke with G-d…prophets who were considered trustworthy based on the qualifications for prohecy the originals heard at Sinai.
Clearly, if you could make the above-quoted statement, there is much about Judaism, this think you seek to “destroy” or “refine”, that you are ignorant of.
Because most of your objections sound like they come right out of the U.S. Declaration of Independence or Constitution, or their equivalent amongst other Western-style democratic societies. For example, you spoke of discrimination…which society, historically, has considered un-equal treatment of people into a crime? Ancient Rome? Caste-system India?
Actually, it was the Hellenists who did that, not the traditional Jews.
What a crock. No religion has ever been more self-analyzed, nor encouraging of deep exploration, than Judaism. It’s clear, not just from this last statement, but from your entire most recent post, that you’ve never studied Judaism as a religion or Jews as people in any objective way. Educate yourself a little before you accuse.
Don’t know what you think you’ve seen on this board, but the correct response is that the person should eat the non-kosher food.
God said that those were the rules they were to live by. Yet a person who breaks those rules to preserve their life is not living by those rules, but by another set that takes precedence.
If they had adapted, they wouldn’t have nearly been destroyed, and the Temple would have stood. Ooh, and some of the problems now afflicting the Middle East might not exist. (There would probably be others, but that’s another thread…)
As it was, they adapted later. If they hadn’t accepted that the worship of God should (in practical terms) be transferred to rabbi and synagogues instead of priests and the Temple, what would have happened to Judaism?
** Define the criteria you use to judge correctness. (See? You do think you’re qualified, just as I think I’m qualified.)
** Your predecessors are the generation immediately before yours. You have no first-hand knowledge of the claims you’ve repeated than you have first-hand knowledge of the origins of life or the formation of the Earth.
You cannot cite as evidence the very claims you seek to support and expect to be treated as a rational and intelligent individual.
Additionally, the available archeological evidence shows that the accounts of Exodus did not occur. The accounts of the stay in Egypt and Babylon are inconsistent with what we know about the behavior of those empires and elementary logic.
Your claims are about as impressive as the Mormons’.
** Because obviously any negative conclusion someone draws about Judaism must be the result of ignorance, right? Surely no one who understands it could see it as anything other than divinely-inspired perfection!
** Neither has Western Civilization, nor modern American civilization.
The principles I use have never been put into practice, or even attempted, by any civilization of which I am aware, existing or dead. Modern U.S. society is as corrupted and degraded by my standards as yours is, and it’s about as smug about its perceived virtues.
** If they’d won, they would be the traditional Jews. But of course they weren’t truly following God’s Will, because they failed and you’re still here, right?
** No, no religion has ever believed itself to be more encouraging of deep exploration.
I have never encountered any theologian, regardless of the faith, who was capable of actually analyzing the fundamental axioms of their faith with reason. I’ve spoken to Reform Jews, Orthodox Jews, more Chrisitian denominations than I can remember, followers of Islam, Shakers, Quakers, Unitarians, and people who worship the divinity J. R. R. Tolkien made up in the Silmarillion*.
Anti-Semitism is hatred of people based on a perceived ethnicity. I don’t judge people by their descent and ancestry – it’s simply not relevant – and thus I am not an Anti-Semitism.
As far as I’m concerned, the Nazis accepted the error of viewing Jews as fundamentally different than non-Jews, then compounded it by trying to exterminate them. Ideas and beliefs, at least of the forms that distinguish currently existing religions, are not genetically inherited. The Nazis were an abombination that bought into the idea that a supposed ideology could be tied to biological descent.
“Jewish” is as valid an ethnicity as “Aryan”. They’ve even both Chosen People.
The “Jewish people” should live long and happy lives. The cluster of ideas currently using them to propagate itself should be abolished.
