Talk:Judaism/Archive 8

message: I've removed the old contents of this page to Archive 6. It was far too unwieldy. There are, however, some useful discussions on it. If someone else has the time, I recommend re-arranging the archive by topic.Nomist 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussions archived

message: With respect to the following statement in the article:
"A Jew who ceases to practice Judaism is still considered a Jew, as is a Jew who does not accept Jewish principles of faith and becomes an agnostic or an atheist; so too with a Jew who converts to another religion. However, in the latter case, the person loses standing as a member of the Jewish community and becomes known as an apostate."
One denies the existence of God and remains part of the Jewish community yet one who adopts another God is ejected as an apostate?  An interesting paradox to be sure but an absurd contradiction, and one doubts there is any collective agreement among Judaism at large in drawing the line so to speak.  Of more import, the statement ascribes a pejorative term (Apostate) that is typically applied by Christians.  A Jew who ceases to practices Judaism is still a Jew although they might considered to be non-observant by observant Jews depending on the background of the particular Jew making the observation. If the author wishes to retain the statement, than the definition of a Jewish Apostate should simply be one who claims to longer be a Jew.  If the author wishes to state that according to a particular sect of Judaism (e.g. Orthodox), an apostate is..., that's fine assuming the author has an appropriate citation to make the claim.
Logical or not, agree with it or not, there is debate in the Jewish community on these issues. Some Jews do believe that a Jew who converts to another religion is no longer Jewish, and some Jews believe that a Jew who does not observe certain traditional commandments (e.g. the Sabbath) is a hebrew term called apikoros that is often translated as 'apostate.'  --Shirahadasha 01:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What makes a person Jewish?

message: Looks like vandalism in the opening paragraph...Jarfingle 00:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed...Nweinthal
The use of the word "followers" is incorrect for a non-religous jew is not a follower in the sense that he follows judaism it should say 
"15 million" jews--69.114.174.131 00:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be more than 15 million followers 

message: This encyclopedia makes a distinction between Judaism and Jew because many people today make this distinction.  So I have no objection to the italicized explanation of the difference between this article and the Jew article.  But this is a distinction between articles that we have to make as editors.  As editors however we are forbiddent o impose our own points of view on the subject matter of articles, this violates NPOV and NOR.  To delete the paragraph in question is to force this article to reflect a particular point of view.  Now, I have no objection to this article saying that sinc ethe Enlightenment i.e. in the modern period some people, especially early leaders of the Orthodox and Reform movement, defined Judaism as specifically a religion, and others, namely Zionists, as a nation.  But these remain modern distinctions and reflect particular points of view.  Boyarin is expressing another point of view, those of scholars espeically historians who study Judaism not only in the modern period but in its pre-modern antecedants.  His view is valid and should be included.  This paragraph complies with our policies: it is NPOV, and does not violate NOR, and it provides a verifiable source.  This is exactly what good articles are supposed to do.  It is not for an editor to delete a verifiable source just because that editor doesn't agree with it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that you misunderstand. Nobody is advocating that Boyarin's views be censored. However, the word "Judaism" primarily refers to the religion in any dictionary. Let us not imply that the religion Judaism (i.e. laws and beliefs) is some sort of wishy-washy amorphous thing not easily identified. The view of Boyarin is perhaps applicable to the Jewish people, hence it's suitability for the article "Jew". Is Boyarin arguing that "Judaism" as defined in the dictionary is wrong and that really the word refers to the Jewish people ?  Shykee 04:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of one's POV, there exists a word that refers to the religious practices and beliefs of the Jewish people. That word is "Judaism". Based on the quote, the extent of Boyarin's theory is that the identity "Jew" consists of more than just the religious aspects; it is nonsensical to suggest that he or any other "established scholar" argues that there is no word in the English language that refers primarily to the religious aspects of the Jewish people. Shykee 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You say "Jewishness" is an essential element of Judaism". What in the world does that mean ? I hope you will excuse me for saying that that is an extremely confused idea. Here is a simple examination of the concepts: Judaism, it seems we have agreed, refers to the religious rules and beliefs of the Jewish people. Jewishness, I also hope we agree, consists of all the aspects involved in being Jewish. Therefore, it is exactly the opposite -"Judaism is an essential element of Jewishness". Again, the quote of Boyarin only argues that "Jewishness" consists of more than just the religion; that theory/idea belongs in an article discussing "Jewishness" i.e. the article "Jew". This article, however, discusses one of the aspects of "Jewishness" (according to Boyarin) called Judaism. Perhaps there are other aspects- Jewish humor, Yiddish theater, Hebrew literature, etc. All those aspects do indeed belong in the article "Jew". And just as in those articles we do not find Boyarin quoted, even more so in the article "Judaism" where it is counter-productive to quote him; it confuses the issue and implies that the religion Judaism is some sort of amorphous shaky thing.Shykee 20:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shykee, the passage is relevant and sourced. I see no reason to remove it so I've restored. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the earlier comments and respond to the points before unilaterally editing. In short, Boyarin is not relevant here. Judaism is the religion, it is not "gefilte fish" and Jewish culture etc., which are relevant to the article "Jew". Quoting Boyarin in this article confuses the issue and implies that the religion Judaism is some sort of amorphous wishy-washy thing. Shykee 01:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please attempt to respond to my point (and Avi's) rather than resorting to hyperbole. You are raising a serious charge and I hope that you have carefully considered your accusation. I am obviously not attempting to censor any POV as I merely advocate including it in the article "Jew" rather than the article "Judaism". Your insistence on twisting Boyarin's theory to be applicable to the article "Judaism" is itself your personal POV that is not published anywhere. It would take either the basest ignorance or the basest malice to suggest that Judaism does not consist of a well defined religious system. Again, in the future please attempt to respond to the issues rather than resorting to unfortunate hyperbole. Shykee 14:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  restoring deleted paragraph 

message: Shykee, Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew sometimes cannot be translated exactly. Please see the Rambam (Maimonedes), Perush Hamishnayos (Explanation of the Mishnah), Sanhedrin, 10th Chapter, upon which these are based, and for example, in the second Yesod or "Fundamental", the Rambam specifically referes to G-d's ONENESS and UNITY, and how that unity is unlike any human concept of unity. Uniqueness completely misses the point. I am going to revert all of the edits, and then perhaps adjust the grammar. -- Avi 02:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct concerning "uniqueness" as not capturing the point of the actual explanation of the Rambam in Chelek. My error was to translate the words as found in the siddur; interesting how very few know that those are not the actual words of the Rambam. Actually, the main reason for my edit was #8, as the punctuation in the version before actually changed the meaning of the Rambam! A smaller issue was the translation of "Shelaimah" which is more accurately translated "complete".  Additionally, the verse in #Ten is more accurately translated "comprehends all their actions (or deeds)". The present translation misses the proof from the verse completely.  Shykee 03:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thirteen principles II