Talk:Jewish views on religious pluralism

message: The comment about the Golden Rule contains a factual error.  The "golden rule" traditionally refers to Jesus' commandment, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  The commandment cited, "Love your neighbor as yourself," was identified by Jesus as the second greatest commandment in the Law, or else as one of the two equally greatest commandments in the Law (interpretations differ).
The Golden Rule may be found expressed in Luke 6:31.  The second greatest commandment is discussed in Mark 12:28-31.  A simple google search for "Golden Rule" will confirm that the second greatest commandment is nowhere called the Golden Rule, though Bertrand Russell may have labored under that misunderstanding along with his others.  This article, though, doesn't make it clear whether the article itself is identifying the Golden Rule with the greatest commandment or else just reporting that Russell identified it that way.
The term "Golden Rule" is not actually found in the Bible, but it has traditionally been applied only to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  I have never heard it applied to "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Jewish Rabbinical sources from before the time of Jesus expressed something similar to the Golden Rule: "Do not do to others anything you would not want done to yourself," but it has been pointed out that Jesus' formulation is in the positive and stronger than the Rabbinical formulation (which I believe comes from Hillel). Jdavidb
Actually, Jdavid, the formulation given by Jesus, while in the positive, is not stronger (philosophically and/or rhetorically). Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius) came up with a similar negative formulation to Hillel's, which Jesuits dubbed the "Silver Rule" to simultaneously both honour the rule and undermine it (in comparison to the "Golden Rule") for missionary purposes. Modern scholarship, however, has exhaustively demonstrated that the "Silver Rule" cannot be demonstrated to be logically fallible, whereas the formulation given in the gospels is. I'll demonstrate this briefly: If you're a masochist, by following the Golden Rule you would hurt others since you would want such things done "unto you", but most others would undoubtedly dislike this sadistic behaviour. However, using the Jewish or Confucian formulation, there is no harm done, as you wouldn't be participating in any actions that would have a direct negative impact on another person. While conceivably there might be some indirect negative fallout, the resulting behaviour between individuals would be overwhelmingly harmonious, or at least "cordial". You can find this demonstrated by quite a few notables in their fields, from ad naseum tenured philosophers to mathematicians who can demonstrate it much more succinctly in formulae using logic models. Quite interesting stuff, really. Kaelus 14:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While this reasoning is subtle I think both it and, on the other hand, the Christian claim that the positive rule is "greater" than the negative rule are just too subtle and ultimately false. In actual fact, in practice, the content of "treat others are you would like to be treated" and "don't treat other as you would not like to be treated" are essentially equivalent, technical logical argumentations using examples such as masochism notwithstanding. In fact this very example could be inverted and the negative rule could be taken as a basis for the masochist to inflict on you what you don't like and he likes, because he does not like not to be inflicted such things on. But seriously, the essence of the rule (in both its negative and its positive formulations) is that when you do something that affects others you should "put yourself in their shoes", you should try to see things from their point of view, in other words the essential content of (both) those rules is a plea to move from a position where you think yourself the center of the universe and treat other human beings from that posture, to a more symmetrical position where you view both you and another human being as being equivalent. This is what both rules try to convey and so they are essentially equivalent. Contact Basemetal here 20:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

text: According to the article on the Golden rule, the Golden rule does not refer specifically to Jesus' commandment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs) 05:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: First section -- Regarding the Golden Rule

message: Moved from article: "The Tanakh teaches that gentiles (non-Jews)." What did this originally mean? Dan 00:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Second section

message: This article's current organization into "classical" and "Modern" views, with the "Modern" views represented largely by Conservative rabbis and one or two Orthodox rabbis with views Conservative rabbis might find palable, seems to significantly understate both sides -- both those on the Orthodox side (particularly the Hareidi viewpoint) who largely reject pluralism or dialogue as an obstacle to Jewish self-preservation, and those on the Reconstructionist/Progressive side who reject the idea that there is anything Chosen about the Jewish people and regard chosenness as an outdated obstacle to pluralism and dialogue. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewpoint 

message: The article contained in one instance two alternative pronuciations of a Hebrew phrase: "Gilui arayot" (which is standard modern pronunciation) and "Gilui arayos" (which is the traditional Ashkenazi pronunciation). I left it there (pointing out that the second pronunciation was a restricted one). But frankly, there are numerous traditional pronunciations of Hebrew. There is no point littering an article, for every single Hebrew phrase, with all its possible pronunciations. Especially since, when it is done (as in this case) on a random basis, this will leave the reader with the impression that for the other phrases the pronunciation is uniform, which of course not the case. Except for articles whose topic is concerned precisely with the varieties of pronunciation of Hebrew, I believe the only sane thing to do is to use the more or less standard modern Israeli pronunciation of Hebrew (flawed as it may be) when representing the pronunciation of a Hebrew phrase. This is nowadays done in most departments of Hebrew studies all across the world even in the study of Biblical Hebrew and there is no reason why this should not be done in WP. Contact Basemetal here 20:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of Hebrew phrases 

message: "The Tosefta, a collection of important post-Talmudic discourses, also states: "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a)."
1) The tosefta is actually pre-talmudic, from the era of the Mishnah (2nd cent.).
2) The quote, and source (Sanhedrin 105a) are from the Talmude, (not Tosefta).
3) The tosefta itself is quoted later in the section.
Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  mistakes in  1.1	General classical views on other religions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jewish views on religious pluralism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040818204934/http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/articles/soloveitchik.htm to http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/articles/soloveitchik.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030210222130/http://www.huc.edu/aja/00-4.htm to http://www.huc.edu/aja/00-4.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040818232331/http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/conferences/Sol_intro.htm to http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/conferences/Sol_intro.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is this article's neutrality now being disputed? Jarble (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute