Forms of judaism?

[Akivah]

The (sic!) Orthodox mind?

Sadly, there are those for whom, upon hearing that someone is 'Orthodox', the gates of their mind slam shut.​

Well ... perhaps.

We non-Orthodox are at a disadvantage. We recognize Orthodox rituals, ceremonies, and converts are being a valid part of Judaism. But the Orthodox don't recognize ours (non-Orthodox) as a valid part of Judaism.

 

[metis]

Yes, I agree we're at a disadvantage, but then again most of the time we're not. On Shabbat and other days, we will be meeting in our own shuls, so what takes place elsewhere becomes at least somewhat secondary. However, I'm not suggesting that we need or should see ourselves as being isolated from the rest of the Jewish community.

In every religion there is at least one element that insists that it is correct and others are of varying degrees heretical, so what we have seen here is not that uncommon. Where I have a problem is how can I be so certain in an area well known for most theologies being impossible to falsify, either what I may believe or what others who disagree me may believe? Let me give an example so I'm being clear.

If I say "The correct belief is that there are myriads of gods that created different universes, including ours", can you or anyone here prove that I'm wrong? Or if I say "The Bhagavad Gita is more correct than Torah when it comes to religious accuracy", can you prove me wrong?

So, if I really cannot even establish beyond a shadow of doubt there only one God, and if I can't even establish beyond a shadow of doubt that Torah is totally accurate, then how in the world can I realistically say with any logic that my version of Judaism is accurate to the point that all other branches are invalid?

 

[dantech]

I wish I could say that was funny, but I don't get it-- undoubtedly due to the fact that I don't know what "The Tanaim" is-- so I'll look it up.

OK, I looked it up and I still don't get it. I know if you have to explain a joke it ceases to be funny, but please educate me anyway.

The Tana'im are those who wrote the Mishna. Rashi hadn't been born yet, in their era.

 

[metis]

The Tana'im are those who wrote the Mishna. Rashi hadn't been born yet, in their era.

Thanks for the explanation, and my ignorance is showing as that I didn't know about the timing-- amongst other things. Maybe it's best I just stick to anthropology.

 

[dantech]

So, if I really cannot even establish beyond a shadow of doubt there only one God, and if I can't even establish beyond a shadow of doubt that Torah is totally accurate, then how in the world can I realistically say with any logic that my version of Judaism is accurate to the point that all other branches are invalid?

If that's the reasoning behind why you can't invalidate other branches, than it makes sense that the Orthodox can, doesn't it?
Orthodox Jews have no doubt regarding God's existence or regarding our Torah's accuracy.

 

[metis]

If that's the reasoning behind why you can't invalidate other branches, than it makes sense that the Orthodox can, doesn't it?
Orthodox Jews have no doubt regarding God's existence or regarding our Torah's accuracy.

Correct, but let me modify that and say they "think they can". It's like the saying that if you have one watch then you know what time it is, but if you have more than one then you can't be sure what time it is. Or, as Rabbi Gandhi said, the Truth is rarely simple.

I cannot establish that someone who's orthodox is wrong on almost anything that relates to what they may believe, but neither can they prove themselves correct. The main point of my last couple of posts that I'm dealing with here is that I have real problems with the "my way or the highway" approach, which has done so much damage in probably most societies over the centuries.

I certainly do not have problems with anyone having religious beliefs, but I wish all would be more tolerant towards those who may disagree with them, plus realize that it's always possible that "I may be wrong and they may be right". For example, Tumac could be 100% correct for all I know. Trouble is I'll never know because it really can't be established one way or the other.

 

[metis]

BTW, as an addition to my last post, we all are influenced by our past, and there's no doubt whatsoever that my anthropology highly influences my approach. Since "religion" is one of the five basic institutions all societies have and have had as far back as we can take them, we end up studying religions the world over, and that's always quite an eye-opening experience. It challenges us in terms of "Why do I believe in what I believe? Am I right and all these others are wrong? How can I tell?".

If one does this for 50 years, it can be enlightening-- and frustrating.

 

[RabbiO]

I am minded of an article that R' Eliezer Berkovits wrote in the '70s..........

Back in the early 1970s I went to hear a panel discussion between three rabbis, one Orthodox, one Reform and one Conservative. I no longer remember who the rabbis were, so let's just identify them as Rabbi X (O), Rabbi Y (C) and Rabbi Z (R).
The purpose of the panel was to discuss where there might be agreement between the movements, where there are disagreements as might be illustrated by an examination of certain issues. Forty + years later I have very little memory of what was actually discussed, except for the issue of the agunah. What has stayed with me all these years is how Rabbi Y would address his fellows as Rabbi X and Rabbi Z, Rabbi Z would, in turn, address the others as Rabbi X and Rabbi Y, but Rabbi X made a point of addressing the other two rabbis as Mr. Y and Mr. Z.

I had planned a rather different look at some the issue raised in the first part of your post. However, I don't know if there is any point. With this anecdote in mind, and noting Tumah's position, as well as CMike's ongoing disparagements, and without any input from rosends, I just don't see, at least for the forseeable future, the non-Orthodox and the Orthodox working together to hammer out the conversion conundrum. I do find it highly more likely that the major non-Orthodox movements can come together on this issue, although I can see where there might be some bumps along the way

 

[dantech]

Back in the early 1970s I went to hear a panel discussion between three rabbis, one Orthodox, one Reform and one Conservative. I no longer remember who the rabbis were, so let's just identify them as Rabbi X (O), Rabbi Y (C) and Rabbi Z (R).
The purpose of the panel was to discuss where there might be agreement between the movements, where there are disagreements as might be illustrated by an examination of certain issues. Forty + years later I have very little memory of what was actually discussed, except for the issue of the agunah. What has stayed with me all these years is how Rabbi Y would address his fellows as Rabbi X and Rabbi Z, Rabbi Z would, in turn, address the others as Rabbi X and Rabbi Y, but Rabbi X made a point of addressing the other two rabbis as Mr. Y and Mr. Z.

I had planned a rather different look at some the issue raised in the first part of your post. However, I don't know if there is any point. With this anecdote in mind, and noting Tumah's position, as well as CMike's ongoing disparagements, and without any input from rosends, I just don't see, at least for the forseeable future, the non-Orthodox and the Orthodox working together to hammer out the conversion conundrum. I do find it highly more likely that the major non-Orthodox movements can come together on this issue, although I can see where there might be some bumps along the way

I've always seen it like Tumah. Growing up, i've never heard the terms Orthodox, Conservative, Reform. It was about how religious one was. When this is how we perceive it, is there really a reason for the one who feels more religious to compromise with who he perceives as less religious?

I now begin to understand that conservative Jews are not necessarily less religious than Orthodox Jews. They just don't interpret the religion the same way. However, if the way they interpret it goes against a core belief of Orthodoxy, then the orthodox should have no reason good enough to compromise on their beliefs, should they?

One easy example is electricity on Shabbat. Big No No for us, but for Levite who is actually a conservative Rabbi, it's quite alright. So if we require a certain degree of observance from converts, isn't it normal for Tumah or myself to not accept Levite's convert as a Jew?

If you're a dentist in Hungary, and decide to move to Canada which doesn't trust Hungary's dentistry education, then you will need to go through exams and equivalences to prove you're capable. Doesn't this reasoning apply in this case too?

 

[metis]

I've always seen it like Tumah. Growing up, i've never heard the terms Orthodox, Conservative, Reform. It was about how religious one was. When this is how we perceive it, is there really a reason for the one who feels more religious to compromise with who he perceives as less religious?

I now begin to understand that conservative Jews are not necessarily less religious than Orthodox Jews. They just don't interpret the religion the same way. However, if the way they interpret it goes against a core belief of Orthodoxy, then the orthodox should have no reason good enough to compromise on their beliefs, should they?

One easy example is electricity on Shabbat. Big No No for us, but for Levite who is actually a conservative Rabbi, it's quite alright. So if we require a certain degree of observance from converts, isn't it normal for Tumah or myself to not accept Levite's convert as a Jew?

If you're a dentist in Hungary, and decide to move to Canada which doesn't trust Hungary's dentistry education, then you will need to go through exams and equivalences to prove you're capable. Doesn't this reasoning apply in this case too?

But the issue isn't really the idea that O must accept just anyone within their own ranks, as I don't see anyone here making that argument, but more along the line, using rabbiO's example, that some in O won't recognize converts in other branches as being Jewish, plus some O's not even referring to these other branches as even being "Judaism". Obviously, they have a right to do this, but it has the side-effect of sowing discord between us, and do we really need this with all the other issues we have to deal with?