Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Well it would obviously be the former, but that doesn't exactly render the OP irrelevant. Nor do I think that you were making the point that a specific interpretation of the verse is required and veering from that interpretation entails veering from an interpretation that conviction is required in order to rightfully kill someone. If that was the case not only was your analogy flawed but your argument was poorly articulated as well.That depends. Are you relying on the literal and in vacuo text, as is invoked in the original post - in which case, there is no way to distinguish them, or are you considering the various levels of Jewish law (as in "Challenging Judaism's Politics") which would make them very different but would render text in the OP irrelevant?
I don't recall mentioning killing (did you mean religious or legal conviction? Your choice of words leads to ambiguity) as it applies to the OP's quote, just that if one wishes to ask about "Judaism's politics" then one should be aware of Judaism's understanding of the verse in question. If one abides by Judaism's understanding then one can accept Judaism's reluctance to stone people. But if one sticks with the literal text, then one should stick with that reading across the board.Nor do I think that you were making the point that a specific interpretation of the verse is required and veering from that interpretation entails veering from an interpretation that conviction is required in order to rightfully kill someone.
But Judaism's laws regarding "ger" are clear. It isn't about illegal migrant workers, unless you'd like to go through the talmudic sources and show me otherwise.While there may be some disagreement regarding the interpretation of Ger, there is little disagreement that Judaism does not currently allow for the fulfilment of stoning people and killing gays.
Not accepting the talmudic understanding of "ger" is a rejection of Judaism's legal system, a rejection which would allow one to reinterpret the word. Once one is rejecting the traditional understanding via the talmud, one is left with the black letter text which says nothing of "conviction". I'm not sure how you think one can have it both ways -- abandon the talmudic understanding in one case but demand it in another. Unless this is a selective rejection which seems intellectually dishonest.Therefore not accepting that ger=proselyte does not mean one cannot accept the Talmudic requirement of conviction before allowing stoning people or killing gays.
Have you any classical sources to back up your interpretation? I have provided some for mine.I am not addressing your interpretation here (though I think you have a hard case).
What are you playing at?I don't recall mentioning killing
andThis must explain our constant stoning of those who break the Sabbath
These are the analogies to which I objected. You saying well if this how come not this. I said, hey wait are those the same. You said, yep exactly the same. I said second temple the same? You said yep nothing to different.then shouldn't it kill all the homosexuals?
All of this is contingent on the assumption that ger doesn't mean "stranger" and cannot be applied to refugee.(did you mean religious or legal conviction? Your choice of words leads to ambiguity) as it applies to the OP's quote, just that if one wishes to ask about "Judaism's politics" then one should be aware of Judaism's understanding of the verse in question. If one abides by Judaism's understanding then one can accept Judaism's reluctance to stone people. But if one sticks with the literal text, then one should stick with that reading across the board.
did anyone say that it did? What the OP did was assume it included refugees. A point you did not refute. You probably should have started with that. So we are not working with ger as meaning illegal migrant worker, but ger as including refugee.But Judaism's laws regarding "ger" are clear. It isn't about illegal migrant workers, unless you'd like to go through the talmudic sources and show me otherwise.
I already explained that if you were trying for this argument in the beginning then not only were your analogies flawed but your argument was poorly articulated.Not accepting the talmudic understanding of "ger" is a rejection of Judaism's legal system, a rejection which would allow one to reinterpret the word. Once one is rejecting the traditional understanding via the talmud, one is left with the black letter text which says nothing of "conviction". I'm not sure how you think one can have it both ways -- abandon the talmudic understanding in one case but demand it in another. Unless this is a selective rejection which seems intellectually dishonest.
You want classical sources to show that ger is interpreted as stranger?Have you any classical sources to back up your interpretation? I have provided some for mine.
No, it technically doesn't. I would assume he was talking about Judaism's influence on Israeli politics. But that is neither here nor there. To discuss Judaism at all meaningfully means accepting Jewish understanding of Jewish texts.To claim that there is a thing called "Judaism's politics" requires accepting the Jewish understanding of its own text.
But you really didn't show that he divorced it from Judaism's stated understanding. You certainly pointed out that Israeli law is distinct from Judaism, and that was a good point. You also used some flawed analogies, and are now using a difference in interpretation to justify those flawed analogies instead of acknowledging the differences in commandments.To take a single verse and divorce it from Judaism's stated understanding, but look at others and expect that Judaism's traditional legal view holds sway is illogical.
If you rely only on the text, then nothing different. If you want "Judaism" then very different, so much so that the initial "ger" is irrelevant to the OP's argument.You said yep nothing to different.
Yes, because "Judaism"All of this is contingent on the assumption that ger doesn't mean "stranger" and cannot be applied to refugee.
No, the OP assumed it applied to the people being deported by Israel who are illegal migrant workers.did anyone say that it did? What the OP did was assume it included refugees.
Well, just to entertain your argument, can you show me any notion within Judaism's sources that refer to "ger" as "refugee"?You probably should have started with that. So we are not working with ger as meaning illegal migrant worker, but ger as including refugee.
In that verse? Sure. What do you have?You want classical sources to show that ger is interpreted as stranger?
Then he should have said that.I would assume he was talking about Judaism's influence on Israeli politics.
Right, which then invalidates his original contention.To discuss Judaism at all meaningfully means accepting Jewish understanding of Jewish texts.
Sure I did. If he wants to apply it to a group that is not the group that Judaism understands that it applies to, then he is stepping away from the stated understanding.But you really didn't show that he divorced it from Judaism's stated understanding.
And you keep missing the point that there are only differences once you buy into the exact Jewish system which would make the application of the initial quote incorrect. You want to acknowledge only the differences which you think would make your argument stronger. But you can't do that and retain a solid intellectual position.acknowledging the differences in commandments.
That is not even close to the truth. Would you just say something like that in an attempt to be hurtful?I can only assume from your response that many Jews don't give a damn about refugees no matter how respectable their case, and this coming from a nation of refugees, despicable.
So Genesis doesn't work?....then I change my argument to suggest that refugees are newcomers/converts to Isreal and should be seen as ger in that respect just as the Jews were gerim in Egypt.If you rely only on the text, then nothing different. If you want "Judaism" then very different, so much so that the initial "ger" is irrelevant to the OP's argument.
Yes, because "Judaism"
No, the OP assumed it applied to the people being deported by Israel who are illegal migrant workers.
Well, just to entertain your argument, can you show me any notion within Judaism's sources that refer to "ger" as "refugee"?
In that verse? Sure. What do you have?
Agreed, but given the topic and content of his post, it is hard to imagine that he was discussing something the religion's inner politics. Which leaves only the assertion that Israel is in no way distinct from Judaism. And I sure hope he didn't mean that.Then he should have said that.
Judaism doesn't recognize ger as having political context? You realize this implies that the Jews were not Jews in Egypt.Right, which then invalidates his original contention.
Sure I did. If he wants to apply it to a group that is not the group that Judaism understands that it applies to, then he is stepping away from the stated understanding.
No, I see your point. It is a point when I just asked you about, you failed to articulate and only brought up afterwards.And you keep missing the point that there are only differences once you buy into the exact Jewish system which would make the application of the initial quote incorrect. You want to acknowledge only the differences which you think would make your argument stronger. But you can't do that and retain a solid intellectual position.
Yes, I precisely follow thisigns. However it wasn't present when I asked.Just to clarify the analogy:
The OP cites a verse and applies it in a way which does not abide by traditional Jewish understanding and instead uses a literal understanding.
I ask then if that same methodology (taking a verse and using a literal understanding) would then apply to other verses.
You asked about the distinction between the OP's "rule" and the others I cited.
I pointed out that any distinction requires applying the Jewish lens to the latter examples. Doing that would then require, for parity's sake, applying that same lens to the former (OP) verse.
Doing this would make the OP's verse inapplicable.
The only way this logic would work is if the OP's verse is taken outside the system while the other examples are considered from within the system. My analogy of "law taken on its face" vs. "law taken on its face" still holds.
Instead you offered, in what I only can read as a defensive tone, alternative analogies that did not suffer from the same problem. By parading a series of rhetorical questions:Isn't this different? Same with stoning anyone. That treatment of others requires an organization with the authority to hand out such sentences. Being hospitable does not.
Do you see anything in the text which requires that organization and only for certain laws? Lev 18:2 is an address to all the people and 8:4 requires that they all carry out the decrees. The next chapter, 19, which includes the quote in the OP also says that the "entire assembly" (verse 1) should follow the sabbath -- should the political parties demand that uniformly as per the same chapter? What about idolatry? Should the Israeli government outlaw all religions besides Judaism? Chapter 19 also allows slaves (verse 20) but forbids tattoos. Does there need to be an organization to set up slavery and get rid of the many ink parlors in Israel? How can people be allowed not to stand when an older person walks in? (verse 32). Does that require an organization? Do food laws require an organization? If not, how can people allow the serving of anything but kosher food?
Then, of course, I could point out that the Jewish understanding of "ger" in many normative circles is "convert" and not "illegal migrant worker".
Trying to mix politics and religion is a bad idea.
Huh? So far there hasn't been any mention of Genesis (or of anything "working")So Genesis doesn't work?
OK, you can suggest that. It isn't the view that Judaism has of the word "ger" in the context of that verse.....then I change my argument to suggest that refugees are newcomers/converts to Isreal and should be seen as ger in that respect just as the Jews were gerim in Egypt.
Judaism as a religion really doesn't have much to say about politics.Judaism doesn't recognize ger as having political context?
That's possibly just a semantic argument about the development of the word "Jew". You will have to clarify your pointYou realize this implies that the Jews were not Jews in Egypt.
How you read it is your issue -- the series of alternatives were all presented within the context of the interpretation you demanded (that "That treatment of others requires an organization with the authority to hand out such sentences.") Then I provided other text which exists without any demand for an authority or organization, and laws which would then have to be taken at face value and applied in the same way as the original verse.Instead you offered, in what I only can read as a defensive tone, alternative analogies that did not suffer from the same problem. By parading a series of rhetorical questions:
Consider yourself forgiven. It isn't easy for everyone to follow complex logical arguments.So forgive me if I have a little trouble swallowing that this is your argument when it wasn't really that apparent or present from the beginning of this thread, let alone when I asked for clarification.
My point is that these people no longer believed in G-d according to this view.Huh? So far there hasn't been any mention of Genesis (or of anything "working")
OK, you can suggest that. It isn't the view that Judaism has of the word "ger" in the context of that verse.
Judaism as a religion really doesn't have much to say about politics.
That's possibly just a semantic argument about the development of the word "Jew". You will have to clarify your point
Don't be upset. It is unbecoming.How you read it is your issue -- the series of alternatives were all presented within the context of the interpretation you demanded (that "That treatment of others requires an organization with the authority to hand out such sentences.") Then I provided other text which exists without any demand for an authority or organization, and laws which would then have to be taken at face value and applied in the same way as the original verse.
Consider yourself forgiven. It isn't easy for everyone to follow complex logical arguments.
What people? How does Genesis fit in? What does believing in God have to do with anything?My point is that these people no longer believed in G-d according to this view.
Upset at what? I'm not even surprised, let alone upset.Don't be upset. It is unbecoming.
The Hebrew people. Genesis fits in only if I can use Genesis to define ger as stranger, but you said I needed to have traditional Rabbinic acceptance of Ger in the particular verse so I went a different route.What people? How does Genesis fit in? What does believing in God have to do with anything?
Lol. Are you sure? Your words seem to depict a different story.Upset at what? I'm not even surprised, let alone upset.
You have clearly jumped to something completely unrelated without defining terms or scope. Genesis fits in to what? Why would you use Genesis to define "ger"? The word appears twice in Genesis. Which verse are you citing to derive meaning? Note that I didn't say that anyone "needed" to have any "acceptance" of anything. Only that in order to understand Judaism's view, one would have to look at the traditional explanations of the word.The Hebrew people. Genesis fits in only if I can use Genesis to define ger as stranger, but you said I needed to have traditional Rabbinic acceptance of Ger in the particular verse so I went a different route.
I'm not sure what a "political convert" is or why you create this particular binary, imposing your sensibility on the text.Well if they were not political converts/newcomers in Egypt they must have been religious converts/newcomers in Egypt.
Strangely, I don't feel forced by anything you have tried to interject.So this forces us to accept that they were political converts,
Classical sources are not Rabbinical?You have clearly jumped to something completely unrelated without defining terms or scope. Genesis fits in to what? Why would you use Genesis to define "ger"? The word appears twice in Genesis. Which verse are you citing to derive meaning? Note that I didn't say that anyone "needed" to have any "acceptance" of anything. Only that in order to understand Judaism's view, one would have to look at the traditional explanations of the word.
Well a political convert would be someone who lived in a land by that lands laws. Think resident alien.I'm not sure what a "political convert" is or why you create this particular binary, imposing your sensibility on the text.
You feel like the Hebrew people accepted the Egyptian gods and forgot about their God?Strangely, I don't feel forced by anything you have tried to interject.