Avi's Spiritual and Religious Journey - Part 2

[metis]

Tar and feathers come to mind.

Why would she want to tar and feather a telephone pole? Sorta kinky, I guess?

BTW, do you know the difference between "kinky" and "perverted"?







"Kinky" is doing it with a feather; "perverted" is doing it with the chicken.

 

[Avi1001]

French update....a shame:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/w...igrating-to-israel-rises-sharply.html?hp&_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-4f50-893a-9842af51e3ce_story.html?tid=pm_pop

 

[Avi1001]

Today I would like to discuss the notion of assimilation vis-a-vis the evolution of the Jewish people from henotheism to monotheism.

Actually, on second thought, lets skip the theisms and just discuss assimilation.

I don't think we've discussed this before. It could be an interesting topic.

Anyway, so, here we go.

In the earlier days, it was pointed out that had Judaism not evolved from henotheism to monotheism, assimilation might have resulted. I do believe this might be true, but the more interesting issue, perhaps, is assimilation itself.

Who doesn't know a family that has not had to deal with assimilation? What about conversion, what do you think about that ? What if your son/daughter said, I am going to convert ? What would you do then ?

And what if we look at this from another angle...because reform Judaism (small "r") has an open tent, we get most of the "Jews by Choice". However, for that same reason, some may choose to leave. Is that ok, or a big problem? Please explain why ?

 

[Levite]

Who doesn't know a family that has not had to deal with assimilation? What about conversion, what do you think about that ? What if your son/daughter said, I am going to convert ? What would you do then ?

Successful dealing with assimilation is resisting assimilation: finding a balance between living productively in the society in which one lives and retaining a strong culture and adherence to tradition.

I would hope that the way I bring up my children will ensure that they remain active and engaged members of the Jewish People, and will not be lost to us-- either to the apathy of secular assimilation, or to apostasy.

Every young person of intelligence and creativity goes through a questioning stage-- that's not what I mean. I mean a real dissolution to assimilation, or being led astray into apostasy. If, God forbid, one of my children became assimilated, I would express my sorrow over it, and do my best to be there to provide a bridge back for them into Jewish life. I suppose to a certain degree, I would do the same thing if-- God forbid-- one of my children became an apostate, but I would have to let that child know how unbelievably disappointed I was, and what a great wrong they were doing to their people.

And what if we look at this from another angle...because reform Judaism (small "r") has an open tent, we get most of the "Jews by Choice". However, for that same reason, some may choose to leave. Is that ok, or a big problem? Please explain why ?

People take seriously what they perceive as a serious commitment: they want to live up to something challenging.

The Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative converts I have met that become engaged, educated, active, contributing members of the the Jewish People are those who take their commitment to Judaism extremely seriously, and perceive their obligations to fulfill mitzvot as just that-- obligations, for which they are responsible not only to themselves, but to God and to the rest of the Jewish People. These are the folks who enrich the Jewish People with their presence, and who do not leave us once they join us.

Those who do not take their commitment to Judaism so seriously, and who perceive mitzvot as just a salad bar of cultural and religious quirks that they can take or leave as they happen to feel inclined-- these are the ones (in any denomination) who tend not to educate themselves, and whose presence in the Jewish community is just as tenuous and minimal as that of the people who were born Jewish and act that way. If they leave us, I'm not sure it's such a huge loss, because they weren't contributing much while they were among us.

While I think we are not in position to turn away anyone willing to go through the proper halachic forms of conversion, in the end, I think quality always trumps quantity.

 

[Avi1001]

This is a great starting point for a discussion about Jewish assimilationism in the 21st century. One point that I will make from the onset, I believe that assimilation now has a different impact than it did in our parents generation.

In our parents generation, assimilation was something scary, it was a "boogie-man" that we needed to fear, and we needed to try to make sure it did not affect us or our families. This is how I was taught about assimilation. I sense this notion, still, in the post below.

I believe the view in 21st Century Judaism will be that assimilation and even some conversion from Judaism will result. This is not necessarily bad. There will also be conversion to Judaism. So even in terms of numbers, I expect the reform movement to grow.

As far as the affect of assimilation of the observance of Halacha, I believe this will continue to be re-defined. We have discussed this before, but let me clarify. The emphasis of Halachic observation in reform is observance of the ethical Halacha. I see no reason for this to shift even with assimilation. So this boogie-man is easily killed (similar to killing the Buddah if we see him on the road. )

Does everyone therefore agree we should not worry much about assimilation ?

Successful dealing with assimilation is resisting assimilation: finding a balance between living productively in the society in which one lives and retaining a strong culture and adherence to tradition.

I would hope that the way I bring up my children will ensure that they remain active and engaged members of the Jewish People, and will not be lost to us-- either to the apathy of secular assimilation, or to apostasy.

Every young person of intelligence and creativity goes through a questioning stage-- that's not what I mean. I mean a real dissolution to assimilation, or being led astray into apostasy. If, God forbid, one of my children became assimilated, I would express my sorrow over it, and do my best to be there to provide a bridge back for them into Jewish life. I suppose to a certain degree, I would do the same thing if-- God forbid-- one of my children became an apostate, but I would have to let that child know how unbelievably disappointed I was, and what a great wrong they were doing to their people.

People take seriously what they perceive as a serious commitment: they want to live up to something challenging.

The Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative converts I have met that become engaged, educated, active, contributing members of the the Jewish People are those who take their commitment to Judaism extremely seriously, and perceive their obligations to fulfill mitzvot as just that-- obligations, for which they are responsible not only to themselves, but to God and to the rest of the Jewish People. These are the folks who enrich the Jewish People with their presence, and who do not leave us once they join us.

Those who do not take their commitment to Judaism so seriously, and who perceive mitzvot as just a salad bar of cultural and religious quirks that they can take or leave as they happen to feel inclined-- these are the ones (in any denomination) who tend not to educate themselves, and whose presence in the Jewish community is just as tenuous and minimal as that of the people who were born Jewish and act that way. If they leave us, I'm not sure it's such a huge loss, because they weren't contributing much while they were among us.

While I think we are not in position to turn away anyone willing to go through the proper halachic forms of conversion, in the end, I think quality always trumps quantity.

 

[metis]

I think so much depends on one's world view, so reaching consensus, even within Judaism, ain't gonna be easy. I think one major question we have to deal with is to what extent, if any, do we see ourselves as some sort of society or group being separate from other societies or groups?

Historically, our position mostly has been that Torah is for us only, therefore assimilation has been discouraged. But let's for a second abandon that belief and look at this differently.

If we were to take the position that Torah is for anyone who wants to buy into it, regardless of what their ethnic background may be, then what happens next? Does this destroy Torah? Does assimilation still constitute a threat? I think that depends on how one may interpret what Torah is trying to tell us, along with the questions of "divine inspiration" and "inerrancy".

As one who is a pretty loosey-goosey when it comes to how I deal with scripture, I don't see either as a threat; but if one has a much more conservative view, certainly they're not at all likely to share my feelings on this.

Which is right? Again, it boils down to our general belief in regards to how do we see Torah. Trouble is, none of us can in reality falsify the others' beliefs. In chess this is called "stalemate".

 

[paarsurrey]

Abraham tried to give his wife to a Pharoah

This is all doing of the sinful narrators and scribes.

Regards

 

[Levite]

This is a great starting point for a discussion about Jewish assimilationism in the 21st century. One point that I will make from the onset, I believe that assimilation now has a different impact than it did in our parents generation.

In our parents generation, assimilation was something scary, it was a "boogie-man" that we needed to fear, and we needed to try to make sure it did not affect us or our families. This is how I was taught about assimilation. I sense this notion, still, in the post below.

I believe the view in 21st Century Judaism will be that assimilation and even some conversion from Judaism will result. This is not necessarily bad. There will also be conversion to Judaism. So even in terms of numbers, I expect the reform movement to grow.

As far as the affect of assimilation of the observance of Halacha, I believe this will continue to be re-defined. We have discussed this before, but let me clarify. The emphasis of Halachic observation in reform is observance of the ethical Halacha. I see no reason for this to shift even with assimilation. So this boogie-man is easily killed (similar to killing the Buddah if we see him on the road. )

Does everyone therefore agree we should not worry much about assimilation ?

I think it is short-sighted to dismiss assimilation as a "bogey-man" of old times, no longer relevant today. Especially given that our numbers have not come close to recovering from the Shoah, and they weren't even great before it.

I teach Jewish Studies for a living: I am therefore intimately acquainted with the effects of assimilation, because the majority of the students I get have been given minimal Hebrew education (if any); and minimal education (if any) in traditional Jewish text, Jewish history, or Jewish music and literature. They have a more or less glancing familiarity with Jewish tradition based on sporadic shul attendance with their family and perhaps attendance at the Jewish lifecycle events of relatives. Most significantly, their penury of education is strengthened by the complete lack of Jewish life and observance in their homes.

They have never been taught to value Judaism and Jewish life, and so most of them don't. They value the things the secular culture around them teaches them to value: some things not so bad-- like academic achievement or social justice, and some things much worse-- like consumerism and passive media consumption and so forth.

That is what assimilation brings us. And young Jews like this, whether converts or Jews from birth, drift away from us because they have no reason not to do so.

And while I have met some really remarkable, engaged, and dedicated converts from all the Liberal movements, I have also met a lot who were not so engaged and dedicated, especially on the leftmost fringe of the non-Orthodox world. They seem to contribute little, except perhaps money in synagogue dues, and I certainly would not count them as valuable replenishment of lost numbers.

We need more Jews, and we need them to be active, thoughtful, engaged, committed, and passionate about Jewish education. We need this far more than we need synagogue dues.

And as for what you say about attitudes toward halachah in reform (with a small "r") Judaism, I can't say I find much redeeming about them, save perhaps only that reform-with-a-small-"r" Judaism seems to have a population of just you.

 

[paarsurrey]

The posts I read of yours seemed anti-OT, is that what you mean? Seemed pretty clear...

Please don't get me wrong.

I am not against the core teachings given by G-d to Moses and other prophets/messengers of G-d.

Surely light and guidance was provided to Moses by G-d.

Regards

 

[Avi1001]

....And as for what you say about attitudes toward halachah in reform (with a small "r") Judaism, I can't say I find much redeeming about them, save perhaps only that reform-with-a-small-"r" Judaism seems to have a population of just you.

I don't think so...see the first paragraph on page 34, here:

A Murder in Lemberg: Politics, Religion, and Violence in Modern Jewish History - Michael Stanislawski - Google Books

 

[Avi1001]

I agree with your view that we should share the knowledge of Torah. There is clearly no threat in so doing. In fact all the sacred books should be shared. This would make society much more open minded and educated.

I think so much depends on one's world view, so reaching consensus, even within Judaism, ain't gonna be easy. I think one major question we have to deal with is to what extent, if any, do we see ourselves as some sort of society or group being separate from other societies or groups?

Historically, our position mostly has been that Torah is for us only, therefore assimilation has been discouraged. But let's for a second abandon that belief and look at this differently.

If we were to take the position that Torah is for anyone who wants to buy into it, regardless of what their ethnic background may be, then what happens next? Does this destroy Torah? Does assimilation still constitute a threat? I think that depends on how one may interpret what Torah is trying to tell us, along with the questions of "divine inspiration" and "inerrancy".

As one who is a pretty loosey-goosey when it comes to how I deal with scripture, I don't see either as a threat; but if one has a much more conservative view, certainly they're not at all likely to share my feelings on this.

Which is right? Again, it boils down to our general belief in regards to how do we see Torah. Trouble is, none of us can in reality falsify the others' beliefs. In chess this is called "stalemate".

 

[Avi1001]

This is all doing of the sinful narrators and scribes.

Regards

Abraham thought if the the Pharoah knew that the beautiful Sarah was his wife, he would have him killed and take Sarah for himself. So Abraham told the Pharoah that Sarah was his sister, a clever ruse.

A story this crazy could not possibly be made up, it must be real.

So what is the basis for your claim ? Please provide your evidence. Here is a hint: start by providing the correct alphabet soup letter.

 

[metis]

I agree with your view that we should share the knowledge of Torah. There is clearly no threat in so doing. In fact all the sacred books should be shared. This would make society much more open minded and educated.

I think we often underestimate the fact that Judaism really does have much to offer, and it too often seems that we are reluctant to share this with others outside our faith. There are reasons why we often are reluctant, and I do believe them to be real, but I still think it's high time we talk about why we are proud of our faith approach.

 

[dantech]

I agree with your view that we should share the knowledge of Torah. There is clearly no threat in so doing. In fact all the sacred books should be shared. This would make society much more open minded and educated.

Last time the Torah was "shared", it created Christianity.

 

[metis]

Last time the Torah was "shared", it created Christianity.

But was that really bad?

 

[Avi1001]

Last time the Torah was "shared", it created Christianity.

Was it because Torah was shared or because Rome was occupying Israel and the Sanhedrin took action against Jesus, subsequently followed by his crucifixion by the Romans? It seems to me you are confounding cause and effect.

 

[dantech]

But was that really bad?

Historically, for Jews, yes. That was bad. Over the past 2000 years, how many Jews have been murdered or forced out of Judaism because of Christianity/Catholicism?

Today, it seems that for the most part, it has become more or less balanced around the world. However, we cannot say the same for out ancestors.

 

[dantech]

Was it because Torah was shared or because Rome was occupying Israel and the Sanhedrin took action against Jesus, subsequently followed by his crucifixion by the Romans? It seems to me you are confounding cause and effect.

That's a good point.

 

[metis]

Historically, for Jews, yes. That was bad. Over the past 2000 years, how many Jews have been murdered or forced out of Judaism because of Christianity/Catholicism?

Today, it seems that for the most part, it has become more or less balanced around the world. However, we cannot say the same for out ancestors.

But might not we have also suffered at the hands of any other religious or philosophical group? History tells us that minorities are often persecuted regardless which religion may have been in place, and also even in societies that were more secular in orientation.

Also, even though segregation could be and often was a reflection of religious and ethnic bias, genocide and pogroms run totally against what Christianity teaches. Unfortunately, there's always has been some Christians who seemingly never got Jesus' memo on this.

I guess the question would be whether the planet would be better off without Christianity, and I have very strong doubts that it would, although I guess we could never know this with certainty because we don't know what would be in its place.

 

[Desert Snake]

Was it because Torah was shared or because Rome was occupying Israel and the Sanhedrin took action against Jesus, subsequently followed by his crucifixion by the Romans? It seems to me you are confounding cause and effect.

Neither, it was parallelism in shared area, texts. The religions are clearly different, Xianity is not an 'offshoot' of Judaism.

shared religious text=/=shared religious text

Language, different groups, traditions, all point to this.