In Judaism, the concept is known as the “Noahide laws”.
In essence, in Judaism there are a certain minimum set of laws which all people have to obey to be considered “righteous” - stuff like “don’t murder” and “don’t steal”.
If you follow them, you are just as “righteous” as an observant Jew, even if you are (say) The (Catholic) Pope. Sort of raises the issue of why anyone would want to be Jewish - but then, Judaism isn’t a prostheletizing religion.
So it is not the case that Judaism considers people in other religions, such as Catholicism, “unsaved”. There is no equivalence here.
It is a more valid criticism that members of one religion really have no right to complain about the doctrines of another. To my mind that is true to the extent that those doctrines have no impact on others … something not historically the case between Catholicism and Judaism.
I would add that there is no more misunderstood concept in all of religious history as that to the “chosen people”. This “chosen-ness” is universally understood by Jews as being an obligation not a reward - it does not imply Jews are superior or always right by any means - in the Bible, on the contrary, it was an explaination for why Jews were so often hammered or punished by God (they were, as it were, supposed to ‘live up’ to being chosen by being extra- moral, and punished if they were not: (Book of Amos 3:2): “You only have I singled out of all the families of the earth: therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities.”)
But why? If you think another religion’s practices are going to send its adherents to hell, wouldn’t you have something to say about that? How is it different from criticizing smoking, if you firmly believe that others harm themselves by smoking?
Maybe. Ask the Amalekites if God found them equal to the Israelites. Except you can’t, 'cuz God had the Israelites kill them all. The Israelites definitely had some special rights in the OT, even if they were accompanied by certain onerous obligations.
I note that those laws still prohibit idolotry and blasphemy, and therefore condemn those who do not “revere” the one God of the jews. That’s fine if you’re christian or islamic, one supposes, but not so great if you’re an atheist, hindu, buddhist, taoist…
My problem with the prayer in question is that it mentions Jews by name. You think you’re right, you want the whole world to believe as you do, fine. Just don’t single us out. That makes things a little too personal, you know?
As far as I’m aware, there exists not a single mention of Christianity in Jewish liturgy. I think we should keep that mutual.
The change was made, specifically, to the Tridentine Mass, not to the Mass currently celebrated by the overwhelming majority of Catholics. Last year, the pope relaxed the rules under which the Tridentine mass could be celebrated in an effort to be more inclusive of Traditionalists (who have always had the theoretical ability to worship using that liturgy, but who were often rebuffed by their local diocese as being too backwards looking).
At the time that the rules making it easier to celebrate a Tridentine Mass were published, there was a hue and cry among a number of people that the pope was deliberately trying to insert anti-semitic rhetoric back into the mass (ignoring, of course, the facts that the Tridentine Mass had been celebrated continuously for years so nothing was being “inserted” and that even under relaxed rules, something like .01% of Catholics are actually going to go out of their way to find a traditionalist mass to attend, and that no changes were made to the current liturgy). So, this year, responding to those calls for the elimination of the anti-Jewish rhetoric in the older liturgy, the pope removed the offensive language.
Some number of Jewish leaders are upset that he did not make more drastic changes while some number of Traditionalists are upset that he made any change, at all. (Much like among many Fundamentalist Protestants and the KJV bible, there is a strong belief among a large number of Catholic Traditionalists that the Tridentine Mass was handed to humanity directly by God and the slightest change is a direct violation of Divine Law and Natural Order.)
I’m not sure that some small number of Jewish scholars expressing disappointment in the decision quite rises to the level of outrage or cries of persecution, but One’s MMV.
I do not think that a prohibition on “idolatry” and “blasphemy” is exactly the same thing as “you gotta revere the God of the Jews”, myself. Though no doubt some commentators do.
Certainly, an Athiest by definition doesn’t worship “idols” in the traditional sense, or of necessity blaspheme; nor does a Taoist or Buddhist of the philosophical variety.
Hindus, and some Buddhists and Taoists certainly have religious statues which could be considered “idols” - as do some Christians; the argument is that they are not worshipping the Idol but rather the diety represented by that Idol. Most Jews would find that particular practice “idolatry”, but note it is not the fact of worshipping Ganesh or Indra which is the problem - it is worshipping an idol.
Myself, I believe that the real moral imperitve behind the admonisions against idolitry and blasphemy are as follows: (1) do not mistake outward forms and distractions for the Divine (and in this respect a philosophical Taoist or Buddhist may well be better off than a Jew); and (2) do not insult your own beliefs with hypocrasy or the beliefs of others with abuse. I admit this is my own interpretation, however.
Judaism isn’t the same thing as today’s multi-cultural liberalism, not by a long way. But you gotta admit, with the concept of Noahide Laws it comes closer than most forms of Christianity.
Since Paul said God doesn’t give a gift, like a covenant, and then take it away, there’s room in Christianity to say that the Jews aren’t taking a big risk, without being a drooling relativist. I think the Rabbi just said it’s a pity that the Pope didn’t go that way rather than: “Everybody must get Jesus!”
From what tomndebb said, it looks like a tempest in a teapot. The Evangelicals who continually say, “Everybody must get Jesus!” bother me more than the .01% of Catholics who say it once a year.
Actually, atheists are cool, so long as they don’t actively blasheme. Theoretically, a man can go his whole life without a single religious thought, and be the most wise of gentiles.
As for Hindus &c, well, I suppose one could say that since all gods are one God, ten they’re just orshiping Him in their on way, and not a “false idol.” That’s the beauty of rabinnical thought - anything can be debated.
To my mind the notion of good people going to eternal torment because they made a mistake as to what to believe just seems incredible.
However, my main point was that Jews have no right to complain about the religious doctrines pronounced by the Pope, except to the extent that those doctrines actually affect Jews.
To my mind, people can believe what they want. If Christians want to believe that I will go to hell for not being Christian, they have a perfect right to believe that; and they have a right to “say something about that”. As I have a right to ignore them.
Well, last I checked we aren’t living in Old Testament times. Judaism has moved on a bit since then.
I think it’s a dumb view too. But there’s no denying Paul wrote that we are saved by faith, not works. To me, that means non-Christians are SOL. Ergo, Christians ought to pray for the salvation of non-Christians. Not to do so would be…well…un-Christian.
Prayer is fine. Just do it silently, or in your own church or home. Don’t keep banging on my door to try to convert me, or turn every chance encounter at the grocery store into an opportunity to ‘save my soul’. :rolleyes:
You just seem like a nice guy, QtM, and I would hate to see you go to hell. So maybe, in your spare time, you could read this literature…
And just to reiterate, I am not a Christian (or anything else). I just don’t understand why Christians are somehow not supposed to be Christians, but instead relativists who think all paths to God are equally ‘valid’.
Because it would be much more convenient for me, personally. If Christianity as a whole were more ecumenical, many behaviors I find personally obnoxious would be curtailed. I’m not outraged that Christians don’t behave the way I want them to, so long as they aren’t trying to force me to adopt their beliefs, and I agree that this particular controversy is very much a tempest in a teapot. But I do think that things would be better off in general if folks (and not just Christians) dropped the whole, “One true path to God,” schtick.
Well, there you go, trying to change God’s truth to fit your personal preferences. I tell you, in the good old days (ca. 1500 AD) the Christians would have known how to deal with your ilk! None of this “One God, many paths” crap back then, nosirree.
