Judeo-Christian...say what?

[Flankerl]

Why should it say that?

Its just a name.

 

[Avi1001]

I say there is a BIG difference.

Many critics say all the laws are made up from the rabbis, from men.

That is not true.

The laws come from G-D.

I see calling it Torah judaism as opposed to rabbinic judaism as a very important and distinctive difference.

Orthodox judaism doesn't come from the rabbis, it comes from G-D.

Judaism and all religions comes from man and is for man.

The Torah was written by man for man. Same for Haftorah and Talmud.

The idea that anything about religion came from G-d is pure fiction. At best it is highly metaphoric and symbolic. The closest description is if we ascribe G-d as non-anthropomorphic, perhaps better to say panentheistic.

 

[dantech]

Judaism and all religions comes from man and is for man.

The Torah was written by man for man. Same for Haftorah and Talmud.

The idea that anything about religion came from G-d is pure fiction. At best it is highly metaphoric and symbolic. The most closest description is if we ascribe G-d as non-anthropomorphic, perhaps better to say panentheistic.

This is your opinion. To me, if Judaism comes from man, than there's no real purpose in practicing it.
Why eat kosher? Why not light fire on the Sabbath?

 

[dantech]

Where in the term "rabbinic judaism" does it say it's from G-D?

Rabbinic is mentioned but where is G-D mentioned?

So by this logic, a Mitzvah Derabanan comes only from Rabbis, since it doesn't mention God?

 

[Avi1001]

This is your opinion. To me, if Judaism comes from man, than there's no real purpose in practicing it.

Hi Dan, of course this is my opinion. Every post in this forum is the poster's opinion. No one has proof of the nature of G-d. I believe that Jewish ethics and morals are G-d inspired. And G-d is non-anthropomorphic and panentheistic. G-d is everything. The earth, water, air, the universe, and spirit. This is only logical, to me .

Judaism teaches man how to behave toward man. This is also a good reason to practice it.

 

[dantech]

Hi Dan, of course this is my opinion. Every post in this forum is the poster's opinion. No one has proof of the nature of G-d. I believe that Jewish ethics and morals are G-d inspired. And G-d is non-anthropomorphic and panentheistic. G-d is everything. The earth, water, air, the universe, and spirit. This is only logical, to me .

Judaism teaches man how to behave toward man. This is also a good reason to practice it.

It also teaches how to behave towards God.
Why the Sabbath if not God-given? Why Kosher?

 

[Avi1001]

It also teaches how to behave towards God.
Why the Sabbath if not God-given?

Actually, I will agree with you, in a subtle way. Judaism teaches us how to behave toward a non-anthropomorphic G-d, in the sense that I described G-d. So, do not pollute or destroy what G-d has given us. Do not be rude and arrogant toward other men (I know you are not rude or arrogant).

The Sabbath was created by man for man. It makes sense to rest. We are not machines to work all the time. We also need time to reflect.

Kosher is complex, but also created by man for man. Eco-Kashrut makes sense. Vegetarian is good because it spares animal life. Not eating pork and shrimps makes sense because they are high in cholesterol. The rest is for the most part empty ritual. This means that I see no logic in it. I respect the value you place in it.

 

[dantech]

Actually, I will agree with you, in a subtle way. Judaism teaches us how to behave toward a non-anthropomorphic G-d, in the sense that I described G-d. So, do not pollute or destroy what G-d has given us. Do not be rude and arrogant toward other men (I know you are not rude or arrogant).

The Sabbath was created by man for man. It makes sense to rest. We are not machines to work all the time. We also need time to reflect.

lighting a fire doesn't require that much effort. Neither does carrying or cooking. In fact, many will consider cooking a nice meal, and then relaxing by a fire very relaxing. These are laws that are forbidden because God has forbade them. No other logical reason.

Kosher is complex, but also created by man for man. Eco-Kashrut makes sense. Vegetarian is good because it spares animal life. Not eating pork and shrimps makes sense because they are high in cholesterol. The rest is for the most part empty ritual. This means that I see no logic in it. I respect the value you place in it.

Exactly. By not seeing any logic it, shows the lack of logic in what you believe, no disrespect. If there is no real logical reason to not eat pork, while it's perfectly okay to eat cow, then why would a man command others not to do so.
If it's by man, for man, than why would we need to dedicate one day of the year praying, and fasting none stop for forgiveness for our sins? If it's to ask for forgiveness from others, then why pray to God? We could ask these people for forgiveness. If a man forbade me from eating pork, then why would I pray to God for forgiveness after I have eaten it?

This is what I mean by Judaism makes no sense if it the Torah was designed by man, for man.

PS: I doubt they knew about cholesterol 3000 years ago. Also, apparently horse is very healthy.

 

[Akivah]

The Sabbath was created by man for man. It makes sense to rest. We are not machines to work all the time. We also need time to reflect.

Kosher is complex, but also created by man for man. Eco-Kashrut makes sense. Vegetarian is good because it spares animal life. Not eating pork and shrimps makes sense because they are high in cholesterol. The rest is for the most part empty ritual. This means that I see no logic in it. I respect the value you place in it.

I agree with Dantech. Consider all the laws and rules that Torah places on us. Trying to convince a million people camped at a mountain that they need to change their behaviour in such a radical way, can't be comprehended if it were just some man named Moses that told us to. Both during his life and immediately after, people would have abandoned those rules and started their own. People would have argued, rejected, and changed the rules if the source was just some guy. The only thing that makes sense to me, is that G-d came and appeared to all the people. Not just one person, but everybody saw G-d. Such a momentous event is the only source that makes logical sense.

 

[CMike]

So by this logic, a Mitzvah Derabanan comes only from Rabbis, since it doesn't mention God?

That's not the point. I didn't say the rabbis have not and are not involved.

What I am saying is that I object calling traditional judaism, rabbinic judaism, because it infers that this judaism is based mainly if not solely on rabbis. That is not true.

Traditional judaism is based mainly on what G-D said in the Torah. The rabbis clarified what is murkey but the religion isn't based on them.

 

[Flankerl]

The rabbis clarified what is murkey but the religion isn't based on them.

And thats the point behind naming it rabbinical judaism.

Before there was rabbinical judaism someone like you would have had to live with the fact that many of his fellow jews thought that the whole idea of the oral law is false.

There never was a judaism that has been unchanged ever since we got the torah. If so the whole 2nd temple period wouldnt make any sense at all with the non-oralists being a huge part of the people.


Today non-oralists are an extreme minority(Karaites) and have basically been declared heretics. Which i find stupid btw. For me thats the way of the... people of the two biggest religions on earth. Not something to emulate.

(somehow it was all different for the Beta Israel, despite the fact that they didnt care for the oral law and even have fancy own festivities)

 

[metis]

This is your opinion. To me, if Judaism comes from man, than there's no real purpose in practicing it.
Why eat kosher? Why not light fire on the Sabbath?

Why not? Don't traditions often have intrinsic value? In anthropology, we often refer to tradition as the "glue" that helps to hold society together.

But Avi is an agnostic, as I am, which is not the same as being atheistic, so there is going to be some question as to whether Torah/Tanakh may have some theistic cause behind it. But even if there isn't any, does that mean that Torah/Tanakh are just trash? Not imo, nor do I think in Avi's.


[Avi, I hope that I have you pegged correctly here, and sorry in advance if I didn't]

 

[dantech]

That's not the point. I didn't say the rabbis have not and are not involved.

That's not what I was saying. You asked why in "Rabbinic Judaism" the word "God" wasn't mentioned, to make it seem as if the lack of the word "God", and the presence of the word "Rabbinic" suggests that Judaism comes solely from the Rabbis. So I used the same logic on the word "Mitzvah". "Mitzvah Derabanan", even though it lacks the word "God", doesn't suggest that this Mitzvah is given to us only by Rabbis. We both agree they have a Divine origin.

What I am saying is that I object calling traditional judaism, rabbinic judaism, because it infers that this judaism is based mainly if not solely on rabbis. That is not true.

I disagree, I don't think it infers that at all. I believe it only adds to Judaism the aspect of the Rabbis (Talmud) which many don't even believe in.

Traditional judaism is based mainly on what G-D said in the Torah. The rabbis clarified what is murkey but the religion isn't based on them.

I never said it was based on them. They don't only clarify what is murky. They also add alot of Mitzvot that you would never have thought about without the Talmud. For example, all the laws referring to a Hazakah in Bava Batra.

 

[dantech]

Why not? Don't traditions often have intrinsic value? In anthropology, we often refer to tradition as the "glue" that helps to hold society together.

If it's only a tradition, then there's no reason to apologize on Kippur for having eaten pork.

But Avi is an agnostic, as I am, which is not the same as being atheistic, so there is going to be some question as to whether Torah/Tanakh may have some theistic cause behind it. But even if there isn't any, does that mean that Torah/Tanakh are just trash? Not imo, nor do I think in Avi's.

I honestly have no idea. I'm trying to think from your perspective but simply am not capable. To me it doesn't make sense to keep kosher, regardless of tradition, if the Torah is not of Divine origin. It doesn't make sense to turn your house upside down for 7-8 days of the year on Passover. It doesn't make sense to go through the effort of building a Sukkah outside of your home for 7 days of the year, and just for tradition.

I can understand eating Matza during that period of the year for tradition. But I don't understand strictly forbidding any form of bread during that time.

 

[metis]

If it's only a tradition, then there's no reason to apologize on Kippur for having eaten pork.

I honestly have no idea. I'm trying to think from your perspective but simply am not capable. To me it doesn't make sense to keep kosher, regardless of tradition, if the Torah is not of Divine origin. It doesn't make sense to turn your house upside down for 7-8 days of the year on Passover. It doesn't make sense to go through the effort of building a Sukkah outside of your home for 7 days of the year, and just for tradition.

I can understand eating Matza during that period of the year for tradition. But I don't understand strictly forbidding any form of bread during that time.

What I think you're doing is taking what I said all the way over to an atheistic position, possibly forgetting that us agnostics are not atheists. Again, I have no idea if there's any divine inspiration found in Torah, but that shouldn't be translated as saying that there isn't any.

Secondly, one can feel that halacha has intrinsic value without going to the extent of believing that it's all from haShem-- or even in part. I personally try to keep the Law as best I can but, yes, I all too often fall short. However, I don't lose any sleep over it, nor do I have a guilty conscience because I don't keep it as well as I would like. I just try to do the best I can do-- warts and all. Do I do this out of fear of "divine retribution"? Not at all.

I'm an anthropologist (retired 10 years ago), and I guarantee you that studying religions the world over is very sobering. It definitely tends to put the brakes on the "my way or the highway" approach, let me tell ya. It's not that I somehow think all religions are equal, which would obviously be an absurdity, but neither is this approach conducive to blind faith (I'm in no way accusing you of that, btw).

Therefore, I question. I'm sure you question. We make judgments, well knowing our judgments may not always be accurate. We do the best we can do. Therefore, maybe we're not that far apart.

Shalom

 

[CMike]

That's not what I was saying. You asked why in "Rabbinic Judaism" the word "God" wasn't mentioned, to make it seem as if the lack of the word "God", and the presence of the word "Rabbinic" suggests that Judaism comes solely from the Rabbis. So I used the same logic on the word "Mitzvah". "Mitzvah Derabanan", even though it lacks the word "God", doesn't suggest that this Mitzvah is given to us only by Rabbis. We both agree they have a Divine origin.

I disagree, I don't think it infers that at all. I believe it only adds to Judaism the aspect of the Rabbis (Talmud) which many don't even believe in.

I never said it was based on them. They don't only clarify what is murky. They also add alot of Mitzvot that you would never have thought about without the Talmud. For example, all the laws referring to a Hazakah in Bava Batra.

Where is G-D mentioned in the term "rabbinic judaism?"

 

[dantech]

Where is G-D mentioned in the term "rabbinic judaism?"

Good job ignoring everything I wrote for the Xth time.

 

[Avi1001]

lighting a fire doesn't require that much effort. Neither does carrying or cooking. In fact, many will consider cooking a nice meal, and then relaxing by a fire very relaxing. These are laws that are forbidden because God has forbade them. No other logical reason.

We haven't discussed this in detail before, so lets give it a try.

As a reform Jew (with a little "r"), I do not believe that the Torah was literally given by G-d to Moses. I believe the Torah is G-d inspired.

Hence, I do not feel it is necessary to literally follow the Torah laws that you refer to. It is a matter of individual choice.

Exactly. By not seeing any logic it, shows the lack of logic in what you believe, no disrespect. If there is no real logical reason to not eat pork, while it's perfectly okay to eat cow, then why would a man command others not to do so.
If it's by man, for man, than why would we need to dedicate one day of the year praying, and fasting none stop for forgiveness for our sins? If it's to ask for forgiveness from others, then why pray to God? We could ask these people for forgiveness. If a man forbade me from eating pork, then why would I pray to God for forgiveness after I have eaten it?

I neglected to mention, food prep of pork is critical, with trichinosis being a possible outcome of improper preparation. That is why man might command man not to eat pork.

Yom Kippur is a very unique holiday. A day of reflection is surely valuable. And repenting for sins between man and man certainly makes sense.

This is what I mean by Judaism makes no sense if it the Torah was designed by man, for man.

Judaism brings forward great ethical and moral principles. So it makes sense.

PS: I doubt they knew about cholesterol 3000 years ago. Also, apparently horse is very healthy.

They did not know about cholesterol, but the scribe, likely Ezra, must have had intuition, in order to forbid these foods. That is what is meant by G-d inspired.

 

[Avi1001]

I agree with Dantech. Consider all the laws and rules that Torah places on us. Trying to convince a million people camped at a mountain that they need to change their behaviour in such a radical way, can't be comprehended if it were just some man named Moses that told us to. Both during his life and immediately after, people would have abandoned those rules and started their own. People would have argued, rejected, and changed the rules if the source was just some guy. The only thing that makes sense to me, is that G-d came and appeared to all the people. Not just one person, but everybody saw G-d. Such a momentous event is the only source that makes logical sense.

Hi Akivah, I have heard the million man witness of the revelation argument before, but I do not buy it, sorry. If the participants had written a million versions of their observations, and we had them today, then, yes, I would agree. But, in fact, we have no evidence that G-d's appearance, described in the Torah, was witnessed by anyone other than the scribe. So I have to disagree with your logic.

 

[Avi1001]

Why not? Don't traditions often have intrinsic value? In anthropology, we often refer to tradition as the "glue" that helps to hold society together.

But Avi is an agnostic, as I am, which is not the same as being atheistic, so there is going to be some question as to whether Torah/Tanakh may have some theistic cause behind it. But even if there isn't any, does that mean that Torah/Tanakh are just trash? Not imo, nor do I think in Avi's.


[Avi, I hope that I have you pegged correctly here, and sorry in advance if I didn't]

Hi Metis, I agree that we cannot really be sure of the existence of G-d, and in that sense calling me agnostic is reasonable. However, I prefer to consider myself a theist, as my "religion" description suggests, a liberal Jew. This is because I believe in a non-anthropomorphic G-d, as I mentioned, a G-d which is essentially the entire universe, plus spirit.

And, in some respects, the atheistic position can be argued quite effectively, as well.