Ask a Muslim

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


there are many rabbinic aphorism that say that study of torah without good deeds is not worthwhile. There is also a famous statement that the righteous among the gentiles are assured a place in the world to come.

But even without good deeds, I assume that it's the right thing to "study the torah" ie being of the right belief.

Is this righteousness measured by torah standards or by other ie, the gentiles standards ?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by aneeshm
For religion geeks, this level of knowledge is par for the course . And in families such as mine, this level of knowledge of your own religion is almost expected.

ISTR your family has a priestly tradition.
In any case, I never got to discuss religion IRL with someone who had such precise knowledge, and who could back everything with a quote. And even when we discuss religion on Poly, such quote-mongering is unusual; this guy is so much about quoting that he sounds like a scientist or a lawyer.

The uncomfortable part is where ALL believers are better than ALL non-believers simply because they are believers.

He is a fundy. And a highly educated one at that. His opinions seem to be entirely based on the book. And Islam has been construed as a universal religion.

In other words: duh.

There's a reason why fundies are dangerous people.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BlackCat


But even without good deeds, I assume that it's the right thing to "study the torah" ie being of the right belief.

Is this righteousness measured by torah standards or by other ie, the gentiles standards ?

Its beleived that study of torah leads to good deeds. Id say that it would be held that study of torah without good deeds is self contradictory, its empty study, not true belief "ain derek eretz, ain Torah" without seemly behaviour, there IS no Torah.

And further, a life of bad deeds, by one who is know to study torah is a 'chillul hashem' a profanation of the name of G-d - ie something that brings G-d and his Torah into disrepute in the world, and thus is a WORSE sin than a similar bad deed done by someone who does not study Torah. Such things do happen, and are frequently commented on.

Is a belief itself a required deed? Does Judaism have dogmas that are subject to halacha, or can you believe anything as long as you follow the actions prescribed by Torah? In general the Orthodox say yes there are dogmas you must believe, while many Conservative Jews say no. This is a subject of considerable debate, the early sources being unclear.

Is the halacha of the torah (all the thou shalts) subject to external ethical judgement on other grounds. Again a question of bitter controvery. Id say all Orthodox thinkers would say no, while Conservative thinkers generally say yes (it gets complex in that there are different levels of jewish law, some derived directly from the bible, and some insituted by the early rabbis - the notion of applying judgements based on "ethical" principles to the rabbinic laws is less controversial than applying it to Biblical laws. However as important a figure in C judaism as R. Brad Artson, dean of the Univ of Judaism in LA, says that the principle of compassion and mercy in the bible are so clear, that ANY law, even of biblical origin, that denies them, must be reinterpretated to fit them.

This has come up intensely recently, as C Rabbis have debated the questions of ordinations and commitment ceremonies for gays.

[lord of the mark]

Homosexuality and Judaism: Synthesis or Impasse?

Bradley Shavit Artson

The greatest threat to the Jewish brit with God is the growing rift between our tradition and our ethics. Passionate defenders of Jewish traditionalism argue that we have no right to judge Torah and halakhah by contemporary moral standards, while equally zealous advocates of compassion and justice insist that communal standards must always give way before individual need.

The most recent example of the latter is to be found in the CCAR Report on Homosexuality and the Rabbinate. At the same time that the report "urges that all rabbis, regardless of sexual orientation, be accorded the opportunity to fulfill the sacred vocation which they have chosen” it also observes that there is a ”unanimous condemnation of homosexual behavior by Jewish tradition."

These claims may both be correct, but leaving them unreconciled, parallel assertions renders Jewish tradition irrelevant to Jewish living. If we do what Jewish tradition "unanimously" opposes, then why bother to consult that tradition? Why bother to identify with it? Morality and law have always stressed different priorities. There has always been a creative tension between legal precedents and changed economic, social, or moral conditions. But tensions are fruitful only when they are resolved, not when they are abandoned.

The status of gay men and lesbians within Judaism is but one issue where, far too quickly, creative application of traditional method isn't even attempted. The resulting dichotomy sunders halakhah and Jewish tradition from empathy and ethical concerns – the very wells from which our tradition has always drawn strength, vitality, and renewal. Such a rupture damages both morality and Judaism. Since one doesn't need Judaism to be a good person, the model of abandoning tradition in favor of ethical behavior demonstrates a logic whose conclusion is Jewish disinterest and irrelevance.

This year, then, at the chanting of Parashat K'doshim, serious attention to the nitty-gritty of how Jewish law can address new perceptions and new issues needs our attention – both to reclaim the ethical core that has always powered halakhic development and to reassert the ongoing relevance and sanctity of Jewish tradition.

To concede that an issue cannot achieve moral resolution within Jewish tradition is to assert that God does not speak through Judaism.

To insist that Jewish tradition is not responsive to reason, knowledge, and justice is to deny to God the service of the human mind and conscience, to pervert the very essence of the rabbinic revolution.

To ignore the evidence of thousands of decent men and women – gay and lesbian Jews who already enrich our heritage with their commitment, their desire to affiliate, their need to love and be loved – is to needlessly impoverish our communities and to endanger Jewish survival by excluding willing participants.

The need, then, is to reconcile tradition and homosexuality, not simply to shrug our shoulders and abandon one for the other. There must be a path of sanctification, reflecting biblical values and rabbinic methods, which can enlighten the lives of gay and lesbian Jews and restore some wholeness to our fractured lives.

In 1988, I suggested such a reading of the problematic texts in Leviticus and rabbinic writing - using the insights of psychology, anthropology, sociology, and sexuality in antiquity to provide a way of understanding Torah and its traditions that could sanctify gay monogamous relationships precisely as Judaism has sanctified loving, committed straight relationships. An extended version of that paper, with complete citations, was just published in the winter edition of the Jewish Spectator.

I believe that such an approach is even more essential now as the two camps move farther and farther apart. Those who claim to love tradition maintain a blanket hostility toward all homosexual expression – promiscuous or not, loving or not – while those who claim to love human liberation show rage and impatience with halakhic commitment, thereby precluding the self-correcting possibilities which already exist within biblical/rabbinic Judaism.

For the sake of our sacred brit, for the continued spiritual vitality of the Jewish People, we cannot allow that division to continue. It is relatively easy to insist on a moral posture. It is equally simple to reject any new development in favor of the status qua. Much more complicated, like life itself, indeed like God, is to wrestle with translating morality into communal consensus; righteousness, into law.

That way is the path of Torah, and the mission of the Jew.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Its beleived that study of torah leads to good deeds. Id say that it would be held that study of torah without good deeds is self contradictory, its empty study, not true belief "ain derek eretz, ain Torah" without seemly behaviour, there IS no Torah.

I think that we agree on the first point - the mere study of a religious scripture can in no way assure any kind of good.

I'm not quite sure what you mean with "deeds" - taken litterally, you say that if you haven't done good, then there aren't any sense in studying the torah. That doesn't make sense if that study results in doing good.

And further, a life of bad deeds, by one who is know to study torah is a 'chillul hashem' a profanation of the name of G-d - ie something that brings G-d and his Torah into disrepute in the world, and thus is a WORSE sin than a similar bad deed done by someone who does not study Torah. Such things do happen, and are frequently commented on.

I think that this goes for any religion.

Is a belief itself a required deed? Does Judaism have dogmas that are subject to halacha, or can you believe anything as long as you follow the actions prescribed by Torah? In general the Orthodox say yes there are dogmas you must believe, while many Conservative Jews say no. This is a subject of considerable debate, the early sources being unclear.

This is the part that always confuse me . The distinction between orthodox and conservative where the first are sticking to strict rules and the latter are liberal - here those two are pretty difficult to distingusih .

No offense, but you didn't really answer my question of wether the rightiousness of a gentile was to be measured by his standards or by the torahn ditto to get such a place. If it's the first I can see some openness, otherwise it's just "we are better, but if a nonbeliver acts as we find good, we could accept him".

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The most recent example of the latter is to be found in the CCAR Report on Homosexuality and the Rabbinate. At the same time that the report "urges that all rabbis, regardless of sexual orientation, be accorded the opportunity to fulfill the sacred vocation which they have chosen” it also observes that there is a ”unanimous condemnation of homosexual behavior by Jewish tradition."

These claims may both be correct, but leaving them unreconciled, parallel assertions renders Jewish tradition irrelevant to Jewish living. If we do what Jewish tradition "unanimously" opposes, then why bother to consult that tradition? Why bother to identify with it? Morality and law have always stressed different priorities. There has always been a creative tension between legal precedents and changed economic, social, or moral conditions. But tensions are fruitful only when they are resolved, not when they are abandoned.

The status of gay men and lesbians within Judaism is but one issue where, far too quickly, creative application of traditional method isn't even attempted. The resulting dichotomy sunders halakhah and Jewish tradition from empathy and ethical concerns – the very wells from which our tradition has always drawn strength, vitality, and renewal. Such a rupture damages both morality and Judaism. Since one doesn't need Judaism to be a good person, the model of abandoning tradition in favor of ethical behavior demonstrates a logic whose conclusion is Jewish disinterest and irrelevance.

This year, then, at the chanting of Parashat K'doshim, serious attention to the nitty-gritty of how Jewish law can address new perceptions and new issues needs our attention – both to reclaim the ethical core that has always powered halakhic development and to reassert the ongoing relevance and sanctity of Jewish tradition.

To concede that an issue cannot achieve moral resolution within Jewish tradition is to assert that God does not speak through Judaism.

To insist that Jewish tradition is not responsive to reason, knowledge, and justice is to deny to God the service of the human mind and conscience, to pervert the very essence of the rabbinic revolution.

To ignore the evidence of thousands of decent men and women – gay and lesbian Jews who already enrich our heritage with their commitment, their desire to affiliate, their need to love and be loved – is to needlessly impoverish our communities and to endanger Jewish survival by excluding willing participants.

The need, then, is to reconcile tradition and homosexuality, not simply to shrug our shoulders and abandon one for the other. There must be a path of sanctification, reflecting biblical values and rabbinic methods, which can enlighten the lives of gay and lesbian Jews and restore some wholeness to our fractured lives.

In 1988, I suggested such a reading of the problematic texts in Leviticus and rabbinic writing - using the insights of psychology, anthropology, sociology, and sexuality in antiquity to provide a way of understanding Torah and its traditions that could sanctify gay monogamous relationships precisely as Judaism has sanctified loving, committed straight relationships. An extended version of that paper, with complete citations, was just published in the winter edition of the Jewish Spectator.

I believe that such an approach is even more essential now as the two camps move farther and farther apart. Those who claim to love tradition maintain a blanket hostility toward all homosexual expression – promiscuous or not, loving or not – while those who claim to love human liberation show rage and impatience with halakhic commitment, thereby precluding the self-correcting possibilities which already exist within biblical/rabbinic Judaism.

Casuistry

[Joseph]

Re: Ask a Muslim

Originally posted by aneeshm
There's a Muslim answering poster questions over at CFC. His replies are..... illuminating, really. Post your questions here, and I'll ask them to him and post here his replies.

Or, in case anyone is a CFC member, here is the thread.

He is a girl and not a guy. I have read about 11 pages of it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BlackCat

No offense, but you didn't really answer my question of wether the rightiousness of a gentile was to be measured by his standards or by the torahn ditto to get such a place. If it's the first I can see some openness, otherwise it's just "we are better, but if a nonbeliver acts as we find good, we could accept him".

Im sorry i misunderstood your question. How is a gentile judged? Not on whether he believes in the Torah certainly. The Torah is for Jews, and non-Jews arent supposed to study it. A convert is traditionally held to be a Jew born into the wrong body, who realizes it and becomes a Jew.

So what is asked of a non-Jew? To follow certain basic ethical precepts, that ARE outlined in the Torah and are given to Noah (who is the father of all mankind) But how can a gentile know these, since gentiles dont have the Torah? Answer - they are accessible to all mankind through the use of reason!!!!!!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by aneeshm
he has ... said that (any and all) music is bad for the soul

:weep:

Nothing is better for the soul than music. And this is coming from someone who doesn't really believe in metaphysical crap like the 'soul'.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
Heh, by the way, the more conservative Muslim who showed up partway through the thread pegged aneeshm right away:



Bullseye.

-Arrian

That guy shoots straight

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Bradley Shavit Artson

Since one doesn't need Judaism to be a good person

Good for Judaism, if this is the wider opinon of that religion, and not just the interpretation of Mr Artson.

I prefer religions that give unbelievers a sporting chance. I know that Christianity and Islam damn the infidel - are there any others which don't necessarily insist on subscription to have a chance of being considered an OK person?

[Jon Miller]

You don't know much about Christianity (in all it's forms) Cort Haus.

JM

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You don't know much about Christianity (in all it's forms) Cort Haus.

Was it you or CyberShy who posted, in an "executive summary" of Christianity, that one is damned if one does not accept that Jesus died for his/her sins?

[Jon Miller]

I definitely didn't.

JM

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You don't know much about Christianity (in all it's forms) Cort Haus.

JM

Well, I'm sure it's possible to open a liberal branch, but the Protestantism that was rammed down my throat as a child was fairly clear on this matter.