On Jewish theism

[Yazata]

Again:

On the grounds of what may we dismiss such a view as by the rabbi quoted in the OP as "extremist"?

I already responded to that. You never replied, you just repeat your "question".

So is your question sincere, or is it just rhetorical?

If you're trying elliptically to say that these reported remarks (assuming that they were really made and aren't just a fabrication) aren't expressions of extremist views at all, that they somehow capture the true essence of "theism", then you should say that clearly and then try to defend it.

If that's not what you're trying to say, then perhaps you need to make your point more clearly.

And here's a question for you: If you are so unspeakably bitter at "theism", perhaps because of some unspoken thing that's happened to you in your life, then why do you still flutter crazily around it like a moth before a flame?

Why do you still seek God?

 

[aaqucnaona]

Here's the thing:

1. How can we be sure that the kind of view as presented by the rabbi in the OP
is not what theism is essentially all about?

2. On the grounds of what may we dismiss such a view as "extremist"?

Wynn, how is that not a total 180 from what you would have said 2 months ago? This is something that spidergoat or AI or Fraggle would say. Where am I wrong in starting that thread? Why was it locked?

 

[GeoffP]

The OP seemed to be just sort of a general... accusation? As to whether or not that might be actual Judaism, I think it's already been said that a connection between these positions and written or traditional Judaism. If so, one could conceivably call non-Semito-supremacist Jews "slackers", possibly. However, one could do the same for several other religions. Contrary liturgical or traditional evidence might, conversely, overtly counter such claims. In that case, one would simply chalk it up to a confusing array of liturgy, some benign and some malign.

 

[wynn]

I already responded to that. You never replied, you just repeat your "question".

Yes, you and several others noted that such views as the one by the rabbi in the OP are held only by a statistically relatively small number of Jews.

But what is the representative view of Jews?

The one held by the statistical majority of those who consider themselves "Jewish"?

Is the statistical majority truly the relevant instance in such things as religion?

If you're trying elliptically to say that these reported remarks (assuming that they were really made and aren't just a fabrication) aren't expressions of extremist views at all, that they somehow capture the true essence of "theism", then you should say that clearly and then try to defend it.

If that's not what you're trying to say, then perhaps you need to make your point more clearly.

I sense that I have poked into the hornet's nest with this OP.
But yes, it has always been my fear that theism is essentially about extreme exclusivism and elitism.

And here's a question for you: If you are so unspeakably bitter at "theism", perhaps because of some unspoken thing that's happened to you in your life, then why do you still flutter crazily around it like a moth before a flame?

Why do you still seek God?

Because I refuse to believe that the shit that so often goes on in the name of God is representative of God.

If I could, I would start a civil initiative "Citizens against abuse in the name of God." With Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain as the motto.
People should not simply be tolerated saying and doing all kinds of things in the name of God.
Doing something in the name of God should mean something, and it should be wholesome.

And this isn't simply due to my bad experiences with theists or some hostile theistic doctrines.
I would have to become a strong atheist to be able to simply dismiss those bad experiences and hostile doctrines.

 

[wynn]

Wynn, how is that not a total 180 from what you would have said 2 months ago?

Then you haven't been paying attention.

You score highly for judging on the Myers-Briggs test, don't you?

That tends to get in the way of noticing what people actually say.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Then you haven't been paying attention.

You score highly for judging on the Myers-Briggs test, don't you?

That tends to get in the way of noticing what people actually say.

You have been out of your usual lately. I am just curious.

 

[aaqucnaona]

"You score highly for judging on the Myers-Briggs test" what does that mean? Any reference or context please?

 

[wynn]

"You score highly for judging on the Myers-Briggs test" what does that mean? Any reference or context please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
It's the most commonly used personality test.

 

[GeoffP]

Yes, you and several others noted that such views as the one by the rabbi in the OP are held only by a statistically relatively small number of Jews.

But what is the representative view of Jews?

The one held by the statistical majority of those who consider themselves "Jewish"?

Is the statistical majority truly the relevant instance in such things as religion?

This wasn't the stance of the OP. That one was "Gee, can't wait to be enslaved by Jewish people./sarc"

 

[Emil]

I am Tarzan ! I am Superman. I'm King Kong ! I am the strongest man! All others are to serve me !
Now what ?

 

[Balerion]

I think you may have missed the point I made. It was to question whether the views of one extremist can fairly be taken to representative of the "Jewish faith".

I think you missed the point that "extremist" or fundamentalist views do not have to be representative of the majority opinion in order to be considered "Jewish", nor do they have to be anything more than a fringe opinion in order to be dangerous.

There was nothing wrong with Wynn's comment at the end of the OP. The rabbi was advocating gentiles as slaves for Jews. She made a sarcastic comment about how she can't wait. What's the problem?

Aren't they though? Isn't the only difference between the moderates and the fundamentalists that the moderates don't follow religious law to the letter? In other words, if people really followed the religion, they would all be fundamentalists.

Yes, and in the case of all three major monotheistic faiths, they'd all be hatemongers and bigots and misogynists, as well as having warrant for slavery. The Politically Correct among us choose to frame these kind of people as "extremists," but it's nothing more than a semantic trick. The proper word is, as you say, "fundamentalist."

This idea that just because a view is fundamentalist it somehow isn't [insert religion here] is absurd, and, frankly, irresponsible.

 

[Balerion]

The OP seemed to be just sort of a general... accusation? As to whether or not that might be actual Judaism, I think it's already been said that a connection between these positions and written or traditional Judaism. If so, one could conceivably call non-Semito-supremacist Jews "slackers", possibly. However, one could do the same for several other religions. Contrary liturgical or traditional evidence might, conversely, overtly counter such claims. In that case, one would simply chalk it up to a confusing array of liturgy, some benign and some malign.

Of course it's actual Judaism. It's a fundamentalist interpretation of the texts, but that doesn't mean it's not Judaism.

It's funny, we don't make this same fuss over Christian fundamentalists. If Wynn had quoted Fallwell and said "Gee, can't wait to burn in Hell at the behest of the Christian God" no one would have rushed in to say "Well, that's not really Christianity, and certainly no one would have accused her of bigoted rabble-rousing as the freaking administrator of the site did here. Why is that? Is it because we live in a Christian-dominated society and think they're big enough to stick up for themselves?

 

[wynn]

Yes, you and several others noted that such views as the one by the rabbi in the OP are held only by a statistically relatively small number of Jews.

But what is the representative view of Jews?

The one held by the statistical majority of those who consider themselves "Jewish"?

Is the statistical majority truly the relevant instance in such things as religion?

This wasn't the stance of the OP. That one was "Gee, can't wait to be enslaved by Jewish people./sarc"

Read.

 

[Bells]

Because I refuse to believe that the shit that so often goes on in the name of God is representative of God.

Why?

There are some who view God as being fearful and vengeful. As the all powerful and punishing God.

Those who hold such extremist views believe that God is their God and that they are right to say and do what they do.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is political, in that he sees Israel as being just for Jews and he views all non Jews as outsiders. The man is an extremist. And he is not alone. One only has to read The King's Torah to see the level of extremism that exists.

Where does this belief and the beliefs of others who claim a religious title from any religious denomination come from if not from their religious text and instruction? Religious books which form the corner stone for the Abrahamic religions are filled with massacres, slavery, murders and killings by God and for God under God's orders.

So I have to raise my eyebrows when you state that you refuse to believe that such things cannot be representative of God. They were in Biblical times, if one believes such a time existed and religious people do, so why not now? People are savage and Rabbi Yosef is no less savage than others of his ilk, regardless of their religion.

There is rising religious extremism in Israel, against Jews by Jews. It happens everywhere. One can only hope that the moderates and voices of reason are strong enough to fight against it.

 

[Yazata]

Yes, you and several others noted that such views as the one by the rabbi in the OP are held only by a statistically relatively small number of Jews.

Right.

But what is the representative view of Jews?

I'm not sure that question makes sense. To the extent that it does, I guess that the answer would be a set of views that all Jews would agree with, or something. If there is such a thing. We might approximate it by listing a set of views that a large majority of Jews would agree with.

The one held by the statistical majority of those who consider themselves "Jewish"?

If we are seeking "the representative view of Jews", then that would indeed seem to be the way to approach it.

Is the statistical majority truly the relevant instance in such things as religion?

Now you are veering off towards a very different question, namely what views are (or arguably should be) definitive of what true Judaism should be, as opposed to descriptive of the views that Jews actually hold in real life.

I sense that I have poked into the hornet's nest with this OP.

I think that you received a hostile response because criticising Jews and Judaism has become politically incorrect in the West.

That's why I pointed out that the kind of reduce-your-opponent-to-a-caricature argument that you were being slapped around for, because you'd pointed it towards Judaism, is made every day here on Sciforums towards Christianity. We often see the most extreme expressions of radical Christian opinion being treated as if they were somehow illustrative of Christianity's fundamental essence and illustrative of what every Christian secretly believes.

My view is that if it's a mistake to make that kind of argument about Jews, then it's just as questionable when it's directed at Christians. (Or atheists, for that matter.)

But yes, it has always been my fear that theism is essentially about extreme exclusivism and elitism.

I think that theism is just about belief in a theistic-style "God". (By 'theistic-style', I mean the idea that there's just one of these 'God's', that the single 'God' is a "person" with a psychology much like our own, and so on.)

'Exclusivism and elitism' don't seem to be implied by that. But they might start to be if we start adding additional doctrinal assumptions and fleshing the whole thing out into a complete theology -- Special revelations, chosen people, final divine Kingdoms...

So while I don't think that 'exclusivisim and elitism' are necessarily implied by theism, generically speaking in and of itself, I do think that they might be suggested by some of the fundamental elements of Hebrew theological mythology, at least if they are pushed and interpreted in particular ways. That seems to be what this particular rabbi was doing.

Because I refuse to believe that the shit that so often goes on in the name of God is representative of God.

Yes. I don't believe in God, but if I did, I would want to hold a view of God that's worthy of its holy and divine object. So I'd be very concerned with perfecting my idea of God. And that in turn would mean that I'd be likely to be skeptical of and to reject as unworthy many of the traditional and historical expressions of theism.

Of course, doing that would push me out into the realm of individualistic spirituality that I find so congenial and that you resist so stoutly.

If I could, I would start a civil initiative "Citizens against abuse in the name of God." With Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain as the motto.
People should not simply be tolerated saying and doing all kinds of things in the name of God.
Doing something in the name of God should mean something, and it should be wholesome.

People don't listen to me and I have no illusions about my ability to change anyone's mind. So all I can do is chart my own course in these matters. But yeah, I tend to agree with you.

There's a woman, an elderly Catholic, who posts on another discussion board that I used to frequent a couple of years ago. Many of her posts seemed rather spiritual and heart-felt. She was very big on 'open your heart' rhetoric.

But she also loved to preach hellfire and damnation, repeatedly and lovingly posting various Catholic saints' sickeningly graphic and detailed visions of the supposed tortures of hell. She took passionate joy in posting about people having their skin boiled off for eternity, screaming and crying for mercy, as Jesus walked by, refusing to listen. Then she'd veer back to preaching 'God is love', as if nothing had happened.

I pointed out that she had succeeded in making God indistinguishable from Satan, which can't be a good thing. If God tortures people for eternity, refusing to even listen his victims cries, and if she derives an almost sexual joy in reading and posting graphic details of the savagery, then her brand of religiosity, for all its hypocritical talk of "love", knows nothing of what it speaks. Her brand of religiosity simply isn't a suitable destination for the human religious quest.

It's as simple as that. Sometimes we have to exercise our own spiritual discernment, and that had to be one of the easier occasions.

 

[Emil]

http://www.freewarehof.org/myths.html

 

[Buddha12]

I am Tarzan ! I am Superman. I'm King Kong ! I am the strongest man! All others are to serve me !
Now what ?

 

[James R]

wynn:

Again:

On the grounds of what may we dismiss such a view as by the rabbi quoted in the OP as "extremist"?

For a start, the quote in the opening post says "spiritual mentor of the religious fundamentalist party..."

Fundamentalists with extreme views can safely be labelled extremists, I think.

Secondly, and much more importantly, my own knowledge of Judaism tells me that this is an extremist view.

What if it is his view that is actually representative of Jewish theism (or even theism as a whole?), and all the other more moderate seeming Jews are simply slackers?

It isn't representative. Or, rather, it is representative of a particular sub-group of Jews who are not a majority.

But what is the representative view of Jews?

It is a mistake to think that there is one Judaism. It's like imagining that there is one Christianity, and ignoring the fact that there are many denominations of Christians (Baptists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Greek Orthodox, Catholic etc. etc.)

What's the representative view of Christians as to whether, for example, dancing is acceptable? There isn't one; it depends on your particular sect or denomination. There's a majority view, of course, but that's not the same thing.

 

[wynn]

Now you are veering off towards a very different question, namely what views are (or arguably should be) definitive of what true Judaism should be, as opposed to descriptive of the views that Jews actually hold in real life.

Allright, I started a new topic for that.
There is the legitimate issue of what is a representative/true rendition of a particular religion.
Dictionaries may make it all appear quite simple, but real experience suggests otherwise.

I think that you received a hostile response because criticising Jews and Judaism has become politically incorrect in the West.

That's why I pointed out that the kind of reduce-your-opponent-to-a-caricature argument that you were being slapped around for, because you'd pointed it towards Judaism, is made every day here on Sciforums towards Christianity. We often see the most extreme expressions of radical Christian opinion being treated as if they were somehow illustrative of Christianity's fundamental essence and illustrative of what every Christian secretly believes.

My view is that if it's a mistake to make that kind of argument about Jews, then it's just as questionable when it's directed at Christians. (Or atheists, for that matter.)

Sure.

I think that theism is just about belief in a theistic-style "God". (By 'theistic-style', I mean the idea that there's just one of these 'God's', that the single 'God' is a "person" with a psychology much like our own, and so on.)

'Exclusivism and elitism' don't seem to be implied by that. But they might start to be if we start adding additional doctrinal assumptions and fleshing the whole thing out into a complete theology -- Special revelations, chosen people, final divine Kingdoms...

But the thing is that the main way in which we encounter theism is in some less or more institutionalized, organized way, and not in the generic, abstract one.

Even lone-ranger theists tend to operate out of some notions of exclusivism/elitism (e.g that they are such wonderful and honest people that they can believe in God all on their own, without the help of a priest or fellow believers).

Yes. I don't believe in God, but if I did, I would want to hold a view of God that's worthy of its holy and divine object. So I'd be very concerned with perfecting my idea of God. And that in turn would mean that I'd be likely to be skeptical of and to reject as unworthy many of the traditional and historical expressions of theism.

Yes.

Of course, doing that would push me out into the realm of individualistic spirituality that I find so congenial and that you resist so stoutly.

There are two extremes in matters of faith: fideism and solipsism. I try to avoid both.
This is why I, in an effort to avoid solipsism, point out the necessity of community with believers; and in an effort to avoid fideism, I point out the necessity of self-determination.

I have to navigate between the Scylla of fideism and the Charybdis of solipsism.
Fideism may be easier to confront than solipsism, though.

People don't listen to me and I have no illusions about my ability to change anyone's mind. So all I can do is chart my own course in these matters. But yeah, I tend to agree with you.

Perhaps the only way to really accomplish anything in that direction is to function as a member of an established religious organization and receive justification for one's efforts from there.
On one's own, one just looks like a busybody with too much time on one's hands.

I pointed out that she had succeeded in making God indistinguishable from Satan, which can't be a good thing. If God tortures people for eternity, refusing to even listen his victims cries, and if she derives an almost sexual joy in reading and posting graphic details of the savagery, then her brand of religiosity, for all its hypocritical talk of "love", knows nothing of what it speaks. Her brand of religiosity simply isn't a suitable destination for the human religious quest.

What did she reply?