For the record, many Christians (Catholics, for example) and some Hindus believe that the Magis were real. St Casper (one of the Magis / Wise Man) was a Hindu from India.
So I believe - A Hindu celebrated the birth of Christ, about 30 years before there were any Christians around.
Wow. Yeah you don’t get to just say “nope” and quote one rabbi with a different opinion. That’s definitely not a mainstream belief in Judaism. But thank you for further Christplaining Judaism.
But Hindus can worship multiple gods, right?
Ooh, tell us more about this “good faith” discussion you’re supposedly wanting to have.
Rabbi Moshe, Rabbi Shlomo, and Rabbi Chaim were in a deep and heated debate over a minute piece of Jewish law. Rabbis Moshe and Chaim were on one side, while Rabbi Shlomo was steadfast in his opposition. The discussion went on for hours, deep into the night. Just before dawn, when Rabbi Shlomo was beginning to waiver, a booming voice came from the heavens, saying “Rabbi Shlomo is correct.”
There was a long, introspective pause when finally Rabbi Moshe broke the silence. “So, we’re now tied at two votes each.”
I’m sorry if the term triggers you, but when people come into a thread and tell Jewish people how they should feel about living in a Christian dominated country that’s EXACTLY the term for it.
So many good debates start that way, people preemptively apologizing for the offensive thing they’re about to say/defend having said…
I doubt the sincerity of your sorrow in this case.
Hey, go wild with all the made-up pejoratives you can muster. Not like I haven’t done the exact same thing myself before.
Just don’t hypocritically then try and tone police the debate, like you tried to do. You don’t get to lower the tone and complain that the tone is lowered.
I have no idea what this is referring to, but OK
There are some very smart people in the world who shape public debates with labels. For example take the labels : “Pro Life” and “Pro Choice”. Do you honestly think that a Pro-Choice person automatically is anti-life ? Or vice versa ? All these labels do, is setup stereotypical representation of the “other side” in our mind.
Similar to the above is the polytheistic trope about Hinduism. Many Hindus believe there is one Supreme being with many representations, Many others believe in their version of Supreme being the one and only true one, Many have dedicated Supreme beings for critical functions of existence, Many are atheists, etc. etc.
The thing though is Hinduism is not about belief, its about seeking. One can settle for belief or atheism, if they are done seeking or too lazy or whatever.
There is a strong notion, built in, that the truth will be different for everyone.
Is this how it is practiced today ? Nope - there are many fanatics but there are perhaps more intelligentsia.
How soon we forget…
You think me calling out your Christplaining is the same as you making up arguments that the other side never made? Ok
The same? Whatever gives you that idea?
No, I’m just pointing out that you use pejoratives and yet decry tone. Whether that’s plain hypocricy or cognitive dissonance is left as an exercise for the reader.
I already dealt with the ridiculous accusation of stawmanning upthread (where your response was noticeably absent) so there’s no need to demolish it all over again.
They are equivalent in the fact that the children they raise are ignorant of the Torah’s expectations of them as opposed to being knowledgeable and rebellious (e.g., apostates). The term reflects the most common cause of such a situations back when it was coined (Jewish children taken into slavery by the Romans) but the concept applies to anyone whose Torah violations are due to being raised without knowledge that those are something they should not do.
That likely depends on the individual, and on the degree to which they think (as opposed to the Torah considering them to be) they are bound by Jewish law. The non-Orthodox movements of Judaism have normalized intermarriage, leading many of the current generation who are considered Jewish by Torah law (and perhaps the generation prior) to simply think of themselves as “half (or some other percentage) Jewish” and not expected to follow Judaic law to the exclusion of their “other half”. This is a form of unawareness as well.
Sorry, i didn’t mean to misrepresent an enormous and diverse religion. But my understanding was that there is no injunction in Hinduism to only worship a single named deity, as there is in Judaism. So a Hindu might see a manifestation of divinity in Jesus without denouncing their Hinduism. Am i wrong about that?
I do not think you will find anyone describing themselves as Orthodox (other than “Open Orthodox”, which is basically Conservative without calling themselves it) who does not consider the Shulchan Aruch to be binding today. Certainly there are situational conditions/exceptions that are better explained in the numerous commentaries than in the raw text, but on the whole, it is certainly considered binding. It’s basically the starting point for any Orthodox discussion of Jewish law, and 95% of the time, the ending point as well.
In my experience, non-Orthodox Jews, at least those who are seriously involved in Judaism, are very well aware of the differences between their practices and traditional halacha. If you ask a Reform rabbi why she’s OK with eating bacon, she’ll give you an argument rooted in Jewish texts. You may strongly disagree with her, but you can’t accuse her of not understanding what your position is.
Or is it that by “knowledge” in this context, you mean not only “intellectually knowing what the traditional halacha is” but “having been told by your parents and teachers that you are obligated to follow it?”
I certainly agree that anyone describing themselves as “half Jewish” has seriously lost the thread, theologically speaking.
Yes, I knew the Shulchan Aruch is binding, but the only text I have available is unfortunately sparse in commentary, so I couldn’t say exactly why some of those laws are clearly not observed today in their most literal form, while others certainly are. I am certainly grateful to have someone who actually knows what they’re talking about participating in this discussion!
Hinduism is not based on injunctions. There are some guidelines…
Absolutely, we had a nice Catholic Cathedral from 1872 in a small Indian town. I used to go pray there before major exams - I am a Hindu atheist now. I visit the cathedral even now when I visit India, because it is very quiet and calming for me.
So if you take out words like Injunction, Deity, Divinity - which have specific meaning in Abrahamic religions, - and not fully translatable into Indian languages / philosophy, in essence most Hindus will respect / revere Jesus.
This is also a misconception. Hindus do not require anyone to denounce anything. If you are a Christian and want to call yourself a Hindu tomorrow - you are free to do so - no denouncing needed. You do not need to visit any “official” or anyone else. You can continue with your previous beliefs too - noone cares.
Converting to Christianity / Judaism / Islam does require you to denounce your previous beliefs.
Would you two please knock it off? Babale wasn’t (at least in this latest exchange) saying Dibble was Christsplaining, he was saying DrDeth was. And he was correct; dropping one rabbi’s opinion into the thread as if it conclusively proved any sort of point was boorish.
This brought to mind a situation at work ages ago. One of our co-workers unexpectedly died of a heart attack at 50. He had a wife and two teenagers. Danny was a really well-liked guy. Always jovial and helpful with knowledge. His funeral was packed with his co-workers. It was a Buddhist ceremony. At the end, the congregants were to file by the altar, bow, repeat a phrase (I’ve since forgotten what it was … it was a long time ago), and leave the temple. IIRC it was simply a phrase to wish peace on Danny’s soul or a similar sentiment.
One guy (fundy type) refused to do it. It felt very off. He drew attention to himself. I know it left a bad taste in my mouth – like he was telling the Buddhists their religion was bad and we non-Buddhists were bad people for following the ritual. Maybe it’s because I was not religious by that time, but I felt insulted on behalf of Danny’s family. Raised a Catholic I came of age in the ecumenical era of Pope John XXIII, so I’d attended all kinds of different religious ceremonies and didn’t think anything of it.
Would it have been considered apostate-like behavior for those who were Jewish?
Interestingly, most of my close friends in high school were Jewish, and all but one were very Reform. Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah were “beach days.”