Talk:Dialectics in Judaism

message: Hi, since Leifern's and RK's comments are somewhat bundled together above, I will try to respond collectively to them here IZAK 13:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK, I think you'll appreciate that - regardless of our individual opinions on these matters - we can not write an encyclopedic entry that labels any kind of religious conviction as "wrong." I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me that you want to avoid any kind of confusion about what constitutes normative Judaism. In other words, you want to make it clear that what happens within Judaism is different from what happens between Judaism and other religious systems.  I think we agree that this topic has to be handled with great delicacy.  You're warning RK not to twist this into something that follows the CJ party line, and I'm sure he'd be inclined to send you a similar warning. Without a doubt, there will be disagreements, but hey, that's what this is all about :-) --Leifern 13:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I say we have to write that "any kind of religious conviction as 'wrong' "? I don't think you grasp the flow of my thoughts correctly. If you do not understand me, please ask, I will be glad to explain myself again. What I do object to is to write things that are false as in "is a statement true or false?" (because, as in logic, many arguments cannot be either all or both "true" and "false" etc. at the same time. Classical Judaism is not a religion that adheres to Relativism -- which is a phenomenon of modern times and is not in keeping with Judaism's notions of being an "eternal faith" -- a complex topic indeed, very different to what most people think religions are nowadays.) Since you admit that you may be "putting words in my mouth", I will confirm your view that, indeed, you are putting words into my mouth, saying things that I never said. In fact I do not follow your logic at one point, which doesn't seem to flow: You say that I "want to avoid any kind of confusion about what constitutes normative Judaism" and then you add that I also "...want to make it clear that what happens within Judaism is different from what happens between Judaism and other religious systems". And my reaction is, where do you see this from my responses above? Finally, I am not "warning" RK or anyone else, but in the past, RK has stated that he adheres to a Conservative (Judaism) outlook, and I was commenting upon that based on my long-term interactions with him (over three years!). Whenever he starts to yell that "Wikipedia is not an Orthodox encyclopedia" my standard retort to him is that "Wikipedia is not a Conservative encyclopedia" either. And as I mentioned below, I say it somewhat "tongue in cheek". Be well. IZAK 11:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a lot of this has to do with the qualifier one either explicitly or implicitly puts in front of a sentence.  "According to classical Judaism" may be one that is important to you. I doubt that any religion would cop to being a relativistic religion. There is always the conviction that a core is permanent and immutable, precisely because there is some concept of revelation. Just what the propositional content of that core causes wars, schisms, etc. --Leifern 12:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So from this last comment is one to gather that you view the "core" of Judaism, as say, no different to any other religions or even anti-"religions" like Satanism or Voodoo? IZAK 12:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IZAK's responses to Leifern and RK

message: I agree with Izak and JFW that we should merge this article with the already extant article on Schisms within Judaism.  I also agree that we should avoid giving the impression that the article promotes religious relativism; it should simply describe the various debates in a neutral manner, as Izak has already expertly done, and as Leifern is currently doing.  The resulting article may need to be renamed.  In doing this merge we should prepare a careful analysis of the context for the dispute, what its core elements were, how it was resolved, and what the lasting implications were. (Sorry Leifern, I stole the ideas right out of your mouth!  :) ) RK 21:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no disagreement.  Are you concerned that such an article would push a Conservative Jewish view of halakha or theology?  As far as I know, it wouldn't push any form of theology or halakha.  As I see it, the article would do no more than what you have already done: discuss the dynamics of debates that have led to the schism in Judaism . RK 20:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RK: I'm not worried, there is lot's of room on Wikipedia for everyone's sensible research and contributions, even if the "real world" ain't always so. I fully agree: It's totally fine to "discuss the dynamics of debates that have led to the schism in Judaism", no problem, my earlier comments were made "tongue in cheek". IZAK 10:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: I created this article originally and have now considered it's redundant to other articles. Although the emphasis is a bit different in this one, I would rather that we try to make Schisms in Judaism cover this topic.  --Leifern 21:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Deletion