From: faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: What is Jewish religion? (long...)
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:30:32 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA

On Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:12:00 +0000, stephenp@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stephen Phillips) said:

>> Alternate interpretation: Proof that Reform is a young movement compared to
>> traditional Judaism, and is learning the importance of tradition.

> It sounds like you've made out a good case for reverting to
> "traditional" Judaism.

Actually, what it says that it is not practice that identifies a movement; it
is more fundamental than that. People look and see someone that is not
practicing, and they say that that person is a Reform Jew. They see someone
who is practicing, and call that person Orthodox. They could have it
backwards. The non-practicing person could believe that that Tanakh is the
literal word of G-d, and is just hasn't achieved the ability to follow the
mitzvot yet. The practicing person could believe that the Tanakh is only
divinely inspired and a product of its times, but finds meaning in all the
rituals proscribed there in.

In an email message in response to one of my postings, I said:

    This is why I try and boil things down to the basic reasons. The practice
    that is followed or recommended is only a symptom of any particular
    movement.  Reform could recommend a practice that was a strict as
    Orthodoxy and still be Reform. The difference is at the core: it is the
    nature of Torah.

    Consider mathematics. In any given mathematical system there are certain
    lemmas, which can't be proven, upon which all assumptions are based. Bend
    one of these lemma and you get a variation of the original system. Break
    one and you get a different system. Consider Euclidian Geometry. A basic
    lemma is that the sum of all angles in a triange add up to 180 degrees.
    Non-euclidian geometry can into being when someone says: suppose this rule
    wasn't in effect.

    Judaism is like a geometry. I believe that there are various axioms that
    are the basis, for example:

	    LEMMA 1: There is unitary one G-d, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and
		     Jacob.
	    LEMMA 2: The Messiah has not yet arrived.
	    LEMMA 3: There have been no prophets since the Tanach was
		     Canonized. 
	    LEMMA 4: The Torah is the word of G-d.
	    LEMMA 5: The Talmud is the word of G-d, and is unchanging since
		     written.

    All Jews believe in Lemmas 2 and 3. Christianity abrogates Lemma 2; Islam
    Lemma 3. Most Jews believe in Lemma 1; "Humanistic" and possibly
    Recontructionist Jews bend Lemma 1, changing "is" to "may be". Atheists
    abrogate Lemma 1.

    The major O, C, R differences come from the last two Lemmas. O believes
    Lemmas 4 and 5. R believes in divine inspiration that reflects the time in
    which they were written. C believes Lemma 4, but believes the process of
    interpretation can continue in a limited fashion.

Thus, although Reform may eventually recommend more traditional practice,
their *belief* in the source of that practice will always be different; it
will be weakening of the lemmas.

Daniel
--
[W]:The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 310/336-8228
[Email]:faigin@aerospace.aero.org              [Vmail]:310/336-5454 Box#13149
	  "You mean on top of everything else, this ship is rigged?"
	     King Ferdinand, of Spain to Columbus (Stan Freberg)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish