![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Mkncconn writes "I think I might be excused if I come away from reading the Pentateuch with the impression that it is a shameful and deadly sin to worship any other than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
It seems to me that Judaism, insofar as it is Biblical, teaches that belief is the origin of real justice. But...not so?
Could someone add a part about shunning ? I think it should go under " Who is a Jew" (since clearly after being shunned, one is neither "still considered to be a Jew in good-standing in the Jewish community" nor can one be judged according to the Jewish Law). It is of some importance since it applied to such people as Spinoza, but I don't know enough myself to contribute (why it is decided, who decides it, how it is applied - I also think it has some specific name but cannot remember it). François
I deleted three "critical" of Judaism links, for a few reasons.
One link was a defense of Christianity. If people want to learn about Christianity, there is a pretty good article here they can go to. Another was a critique of a book by Joseph Telushkin -- a prolific writer with many fans but hardly an authoritative spokesperson for Judaism. The third was a too short discussion of the lack of archeological evidence for Solomon's kingdom. Well, I certainly think that material belongs in articles on Biblical Archeology or a history article. But Jews themselves have been debating, for about 300 years, over how to interpret the Bible and the historicity of Biblical stories. The article itself makes this clear. That some people argue that the Bible is not historically accurate is not a "criticism" of "Judaism." Finally, I have serious doubts as to whether there should be links to sites that are "critical" of Judaism. By the way, I would be just as sensitive about links to sites that are "critical" of Christianity, Islam, or any other culture. I have no objection to articles that discuss conflicts and problems within and between people of different faiths -- and, in the context of those articles, provide "criticisms" as specific points of view. But an article on Judaism is not an apporpriate place for links to anti-Jewish propaganda. Slrubenstein
I am now wondering if we should have any "criticism" links section in any of the religion articles. Having one for the Islam article opens it up for all the religion articles, and I can see this section exploding in length for each of our religion articles. It could be used as a form of tit-for-tat attacking. Critics of Judaism, critics of Islam, critics of Christianity, critics of Hinduism, etc., all will have a grand time adding links to all sorts of websites, to websites that are probably not going to be very impartial. Perhaps Wikipedia policy should deal with criticisms like other topics, as discussions within an article. That way we could have peer review and a decent shot at attaining NPOV. RK 02:59, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)
Wesley, I am not surprised by the existence of discussions of such criticisms within articles, nor am I against it. In fact, that is something I was trying to suggest as an alternative to the tit for tat list of links to websites that attack religion A, religion B, or religion C. I agree specifically with what Slrubenstein writes. RK 00:42, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
The question is, "what constitutes balance?" I have no objection to an article on Judaism that describes internal conflicts (e.g., saducees vs. pharisees; karaites vs. rabbinic Judaism; hasidism vs. musar -- well, this might be oversimplifying a division -- reform vs. orthodox; secular zionists vs. religious vs. cultural Jews, etc. I also have no objection to discussions of conflicts between Judaism and other religions (e.g. disputes with Christians at various times in history). For example, many non-Jews are offended by the idea of "Chosen People." Some Jews have accepted this criticism and have removed it from their prayerbooks; others argue that non-Jews have misunderstood the concept; all views should be presented in the article. But there is a line. For example, I do not think the Nazi's views of Jews should be included in order to provide "balance." I am not accusing any of the JDR's links of being fascist or racist, I am simply using an extreme example to show how "balance" is not an obvious thing. I explained above why I objected to the specific links JDR provided as inappropriate. I did not and do not think they make the article more "balanced." Slrubenstein
It seems someone has confused Messianic Jews with Jews for Jesus here. I am editing the article to clarify the distinguishment. It also seems there is a hudge problem with the Messianic Judaism entry as a result of this miistake. It is understandable that many Jews consider the messianics amongst us as a plague considering such a misunderstanding of and lack of knowledge about their views so lets try our best to correct potentially agitating errors like this one. Thankyou all for your cooperation and support of clarification promoting dialogue.
FYI -- As a Jew I find any source that calls the Torah or the Tenach - The Hebrew Bible or the more odious Old Testament - offensive. Sparky 11:09, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You must be joking; come with me some time to Barnes and Nobles, and you will find many books written by Jews in English! These books translate many Hebrew words into English, including "Tanakh" to "Hebrew Bible", or just "Bible". Obviously these Jews do not have a problem with this. JeMa
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Mkncconn writes "I think I might be excused if I come away from reading the Pentateuch with the impression that it is a shameful and deadly sin to worship any other than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
It seems to me that Judaism, insofar as it is Biblical, teaches that belief is the origin of real justice. But...not so?
Could someone add a part about shunning ? I think it should go under " Who is a Jew" (since clearly after being shunned, one is neither "still considered to be a Jew in good-standing in the Jewish community" nor can one be judged according to the Jewish Law). It is of some importance since it applied to such people as Spinoza, but I don't know enough myself to contribute (why it is decided, who decides it, how it is applied - I also think it has some specific name but cannot remember it). François
I deleted three "critical" of Judaism links, for a few reasons.
One link was a defense of Christianity. If people want to learn about Christianity, there is a pretty good article here they can go to. Another was a critique of a book by Joseph Telushkin -- a prolific writer with many fans but hardly an authoritative spokesperson for Judaism. The third was a too short discussion of the lack of archeological evidence for Solomon's kingdom. Well, I certainly think that material belongs in articles on Biblical Archeology or a history article. But Jews themselves have been debating, for about 300 years, over how to interpret the Bible and the historicity of Biblical stories. The article itself makes this clear. That some people argue that the Bible is not historically accurate is not a "criticism" of "Judaism." Finally, I have serious doubts as to whether there should be links to sites that are "critical" of Judaism. By the way, I would be just as sensitive about links to sites that are "critical" of Christianity, Islam, or any other culture. I have no objection to articles that discuss conflicts and problems within and between people of different faiths -- and, in the context of those articles, provide "criticisms" as specific points of view. But an article on Judaism is not an apporpriate place for links to anti-Jewish propaganda. Slrubenstein
I am now wondering if we should have any "criticism" links section in any of the religion articles. Having one for the Islam article opens it up for all the religion articles, and I can see this section exploding in length for each of our religion articles. It could be used as a form of tit-for-tat attacking. Critics of Judaism, critics of Islam, critics of Christianity, critics of Hinduism, etc., all will have a grand time adding links to all sorts of websites, to websites that are probably not going to be very impartial. Perhaps Wikipedia policy should deal with criticisms like other topics, as discussions within an article. That way we could have peer review and a decent shot at attaining NPOV. RK 02:59, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)
Wesley, I am not surprised by the existence of discussions of such criticisms within articles, nor am I against it. In fact, that is something I was trying to suggest as an alternative to the tit for tat list of links to websites that attack religion A, religion B, or religion C. I agree specifically with what Slrubenstein writes. RK 00:42, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
The question is, "what constitutes balance?" I have no objection to an article on Judaism that describes internal conflicts (e.g., saducees vs. pharisees; karaites vs. rabbinic Judaism; hasidism vs. musar -- well, this might be oversimplifying a division -- reform vs. orthodox; secular zionists vs. religious vs. cultural Jews, etc. I also have no objection to discussions of conflicts between Judaism and other religions (e.g. disputes with Christians at various times in history). For example, many non-Jews are offended by the idea of "Chosen People." Some Jews have accepted this criticism and have removed it from their prayerbooks; others argue that non-Jews have misunderstood the concept; all views should be presented in the article. But there is a line. For example, I do not think the Nazi's views of Jews should be included in order to provide "balance." I am not accusing any of the JDR's links of being fascist or racist, I am simply using an extreme example to show how "balance" is not an obvious thing. I explained above why I objected to the specific links JDR provided as inappropriate. I did not and do not think they make the article more "balanced." Slrubenstein
It seems someone has confused Messianic Jews with Jews for Jesus here. I am editing the article to clarify the distinguishment. It also seems there is a hudge problem with the Messianic Judaism entry as a result of this miistake. It is understandable that many Jews consider the messianics amongst us as a plague considering such a misunderstanding of and lack of knowledge about their views so lets try our best to correct potentially agitating errors like this one. Thankyou all for your cooperation and support of clarification promoting dialogue.
FYI -- As a Jew I find any source that calls the Torah or the Tenach - The Hebrew Bible or the more odious Old Testament - offensive. Sparky 11:09, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You must be joking; come with me some time to Barnes and Nobles, and you will find many books written by Jews in English! These books translate many Hebrew words into English, including "Tanakh" to "Hebrew Bible", or just "Bible". Obviously these Jews do not have a problem with this. JeMa