![]() | This page 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. |
Tim wrote: "Okay, so is Lisa right and there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity? Apparently so."
Am I the only one who is getting tired of this? Tim, if you want to retain an assumption of good faith, you have to stop this. Seriously. All rabbinic sources disagree with Christianity. You are engaging in spin, based upon your personal POV opinion of the issues, and it's just wildly inappropriate. You've been called on it by myself and by Slrubenstein, and possibly by others, but you don't seem to have any willingness whatsoever to acknowledge that you are mistaken.
You are saying this:
Fact: Shituf = Arianism
Fact: Shituf ≠ Trinitarianism
This is your personal opinion. It may be the view of Christianity as well. It is not fact. Fact is:
Jewish view: Shituf = Trinitarianism
Christian view: Shituf ≠ Trinitarianism; Shituf = Arianism
[1]
Consider the path of a disagreement. You want to start after a determination is made about whether trinitarianism is or is not shituf, and look at what Judaism has to say. But the disagreement starts further back on that path. With the very determination of whether trinitarianism is or is not shituf. That is the disagreement.
You cannot say that it is not. That's OR. That's POV. That's simply one view. There is another verifiable view of the matter, and you keep trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that it either doesn't exist or has no validity.
You've said "Christianity defines Christianity". And the answer to that is "not here, it doesn't". Here, Christianity only defines the Christian view of Christianity.
Please take a step back and try and realize that continuing to say things like "are there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity?" only places you further outside of Wikipedia policy and makes it impossible for this conflict to end. - LisaLiel ( talk) 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, there are several layers to this:
Our disconnect has been that I’ve been searching for item number 3 before settling with 4.
“Okay, so is Lisa right and there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity? Apparently so.”
That statement was simply giving up on 3 and settling for 4. I agree with you that 4 is absolutely valid for Wikipedia. It’s just that 3, if it exists, is even better.
That’s all.
The statement wasn’t being argumentative. It was just saying, “Okay, if I a universally intelligible statement can’t be found, file it away in our heads and move on.”
Hope that clears it up. Tim ( talk) 13:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I just realized that it may be helpful to translate that process to this instance:
Is it acceptable to give a citation of a Jewish view that doesn’t match the actual doctrine it’s addressing? Sure – but for the sake of the readers do a second check to see if there could be an even better citation.
I had thought Telushkin to be that citation. He seemed to be the greatest scholar in all of Judaism to actually fill number 3. Is he the greatest scholar in all of Judaism? Of course not! From Moses to Moses, there has never been another like Moses… (but there are a lot of great men with different names nonetheless).
I was okay with “the vast majority in all of history thinks thus and so” even if it seemed there was an exception. I wasn’t comfortable with “EVERY Jew thinks thus and so” when I was looking at one Rabbi who I thought was an exception. “Every” statements are tough to document on Wikipedia. But, if there really isn’t an exception, THEN “every Jew thinks thus and so” is okay as well. At least we took the time to look.
Fair? Tim ( talk) 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
HG -- my idea is that when "first order" (1) and "second order" (2) definitions match (3), that's the first citation to look for. If not (4), then have 1, 2, and 4 instead. I'm not saying to AVOID 4. I'm just saying to check for 3 first. That's all. Tim ( talk) 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- for one thing, you and I are in the minority of the "Jewish view." Only 10% of us are observant and give a bleep about halakhic authority. You and I do for our personal lives. Certainly we'd like to encourage more of that in the other 90%. Also, I'd like to be able to lean on you for the big bombs. I'd just appreciate it if you could try to aim them where I'm pointing the laser beam if at all possible. I had THOUGHT it was possible in that instance. I was wrong. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so when you can. But more to the point -- a big bomb 3 is MUCH better than a little nugget 3. Absolutely! And should it be "representative"? Yes, again. But, still, look for the 3 if you can. You pull out the guns and let me communicate the location of the target. If you have a gun pointed in that direction -- please, shoot that one first. Tim ( talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
All I see Tim saying is, don't use the OR of "every Jew thinks/doesn't think thus and so" as has been done with figs and everything else under the sun here (which is a major reason for my AfD), find some cites. If you can't find cites right now then move on to the next item. Is that a big problem? - Bikinibomb ( talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with finding cites saying something like this:
The last view is scarce but I've seen it out there. That covers every possible view, doesn't it? - Bikinibomb ( talk) 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he will block as long as we don't attack anymore. At least I hope he sees blame needs to go all the way around, not just heaped on one side.
Anyway...so is it that you are looking for something that says Gentiles shouldn't even think about God in limited terms, or being of a partnership? The long lists of Noahide laws I think covers a lot of that, I gave a link to one but there are other versions. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Didn't we kind of leave off with that being unresolved? In the archives I posted:
Most recent authorities agree that Children of Noah are forbidden to believe in a partnership. But even according to these, the Children of Noah are permitted to swear by the name of an idol in combination with God (to swear by the Lord of Hosts and a Hindu deity, for example). Idolatry
Well, this says MOST. So they have reason to think that SOME don't agree they are forbidden, right? So you are on the right track, if you want to give all sides of the story. I don't think it matters that one is way more notable than another, for simple honesty's sake if not every single Jew on the planet believes it is forbidden then you still kind of have to say some don't, which is a lot of what I've been griping about here, the desire to make it black or white when it's not really that way. The question now is finding a source that says some believe it is specifically not forbidden. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 21:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this is more to the point:
So long as ascribing power to a deity other than the Creator remains conceptual, it is permissible to the Children of Noah according to many authorities[6]. But worship of this independent being is clearly idolatry. Idolatry - Bikinibomb ( talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's say there is a major Jewish view that blah blah is ok for Christians but not for Jews. Sure you can say that, but someone like me who thinks it makes no sense is going to add a little sourced reminder/criticism that ethnic Jews can also be Christians since once a Jew, always a Jew, and then the reader may also see that this popular Jewish view makes no sense, since how can something be ok for Christians but not for Jews if Jews can also be Christians? So if you found a source using the term "Gentiles" rather than "Christians" and better yet another saying that most Jews believe Christians are also Gentiles and not Jews, you'll clean up that messy view so that it doesn't need to be rebutted. Sometimes you need to go looking for sources and cherrypick a little if you are interested in getting the spirit of the correct view across, if not the exact words. Unless as I said you want a rebuttal that makes it look nonsensical to the reader. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 04:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest folks here carefully review WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Note that religious scripture is specifically listed as a primary source. I would include classic Rabbinic works, such as Mishneh Torah in that category. To quote the policy: "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."-- agr ( talk) 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
We should keep the Jewish cites in the Jewish section and the Christian ones in the Christian section. Readers might mistake Louis Jacobs for a Christian and get a bit tangled. Tim ( talk) 15:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The statement that Judaism rejects trinitarianism as Judaism understands it is not going to be helpful to the Christian readers, since Christianity also rejects trinitarianism as Judaism understands it (i.e. Arianism).
Guys, I am NOT trying to defend Christianity here. Keep the Jacobs source, but can you help me find another one in which Judaism rejects trinitarianism as Christians understand it? We really DO reject trinitarianism as Christians understand it, BTW. Anyhow, I'll do some hunting for a more on target source. Please KEEP the Jacobs source, but I'd appreciate some help finding an on target source as well. I'll start with Schechter, Cohen, and the Rambam.
Thanks. Tim ( talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The Tzadik problem is another matter -- and in fact what I am looking for would be helpful there as well. I've seen some instances in which the Tzadikim were treated in an Arian way. For instance, the Chofetz Chaim treats Josephs brothers as Tzadikim, and incapable of sinning. Their treatment of Joseph becomes a righteous beit din condemning him to death for lashon hara, and their action was treated as mercy. So, when I gave a talk at a Lubavitch lunch, I used Joseph as a human example for us to learn from, knowing to stay away from treating his brothers as human. Wrong move. JOSEPH is the Tzadik in Lubavitch tradition, and his brothers are treated as human. Let's forget the different groups, the Jesusers, the Josephers, the patriarchers -- and look for a principle involved... I'll describe it better below. Tim ( talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
More specifically, I'm looking for a citation in which Judaism prohibits an intra-divine relationship, instead of just an inter-divine relationship. For instance, we need something that denies that God can function as his own mediator, or that he would even need to do so. Tim ( talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"God has no body, parts, or passions" (Westminster Confession, 1689 London Confession, etc.) is a foundational statment for Christian doctrine. If we include a Jewish statement that "Worship of any three-part god by a Jew is nothing less than a form of idolatry" -- well, in all fairness we should give a similar statement from Christian sources. Dagg, or Berkhoff, or even Calvin are clear examples, as well as the confessions I just pointed out. Both religions reject a God with parts for a simple reason: both religions insist on monotheism, regardless of what they think about each other. Do we REALLY need a joint statement against a partitioned deity? Tim ( talk) 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I see that inclusion is just more POV push and whimsy, a random irk that came to mind. Aren't there more important things to say regarding the Jewish view of Christians, like maybe, Jews don't believe Jesus is Christ as they do, to start off with? From the AfD this article may be going away anyhow, which is good since there will be less problems with sticking to introduction content and cherrypicking quotes like that... - Bikinibomb ( talk) 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's what I mean by whimsy. In one article an editor insists on saying the Jesus has no role whatsoever in Judaism. The lo and behold, in another article sees fit to make "Christianity" a shared term just to add the view of Judaism that Christianity is generally considered idolatry according to Jewish theologians, first unsourced, then after some reverts with a source that doesn't really say that. So if Christianity is about Jesus, one role of Jesus in Judaism is a view of idolatry.
So as a test I changed "Christ" to a shared term to see if she would revert it and of course she did as a Christian only term, she did the same with Yeshua even though it was a common Hebrew name. If Christianity is a shared term, why not its base of Christ? That's the kind of POV spewing game playing bullshit I was trying to help put an end to with those guidelines. I guess the solution is probably to create a new account, keep my nose clean in it, make admin, then if I encounter this in the future I can use my superpowers to clamp down, just as an admin was used to twist and shape this article. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The material on oaths is not ancillary. They are the only source in Jewish for this topic. Moses Iseerles is almost the entire discussion in Jewish law on this topic. In contemporary times, these short statements have been used to produce broad theories of how Judiasm views Christianity. But all the tradition of Jewish law has is Isserles. Any statement like "they accept the same God" `is already a contemporary interpretation usually reflective of the author-even if they start off by saying "in Jewish law."-- Jayrav ( talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The article looks like a real encyclopedia article now. Thanks, everyone. Tim ( talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I responded to Lisa on another page with the following. This may not be the article for it, but this is the idea that I'm trying to find documentation for:
Again -- it may not belong here, but it will belong somewhere. Tim ( talk) 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Maimonides regards God as not even having attributes but isn't God defined as having attributes of mercy, justice, kindness, etc? So is the real problem with Trinity its basic attempt to define God, if some defining is done in Judaism even if abstract? Or does it have more to do with saying that the father attribute of God sired a son attribute of God giving God a physical attribute? That was always my problem with Trinity, making God Himself a man. Rather than saying God is God and never a man, but He can control and give power to men so much that they became as God over the people, in the case of Moses in Exodus 4:16, and the role Jesus is said to play. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess why I keep asking about Shekhinah is that I've always seen that it is a dwelling, settling, or presence of a female attribute or dimension of God Himself, and the assumption is that if there are really 2 dimensions or attributes or whatever you would call it, you couldn't take away the female part leaving one male God, you would have no God, since there are two dimensions but only one God.
I've never seen Shekhinah described as a created thing to act as a doorway, window, etc. -- if most Jews view it as that, why don't they say that instead of saying it is a feminine aspect of God dwelling on earth? - Bikinibomb ( talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The wiki entires for Jewish view of God, God, unity of God, attributes can all use work. Most of them are messes. Maybe you can put you conversation to work fixing up these articles? -- Jayrav ( talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying like, this post here is my presence, but it was a created thing and can be deleted and I'll still exist -- and so...the Shekhinah can be deleted and God will still exist?
I can't speak for all Islam since it is as diverse as any religion, but yeah, Genesis says we were created in God's image, and He does things that are loving, compassionate, etc. He can also be hateful to His enemies, but you know, with a perfect hatred that is always justified. It's like, what you see God do is what He is, there's not one God making things happen here to create the illusion of a different God feeling a different way. That kind of seems like polytheism and idolatry, where you have all these attributes that seem like God and you worship as God, but in reality they are created things, windows, channels, etc. and not God. Either you are worshiping a God you know and believe in because of that knowledge, or you are worshiping a creation and something other than God. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
What about Psalms 116:5 Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful.? It sounds like you are saying God is not really merciful Himself, mercy is just a thing He created. I get the image of an emotionless computer hooked to our brains giving us the illusion that it has mercy, when it's only a set of instructions. So the merciful thing we worship is just an illusion, which would rather seem to be idolatry. Do you think Psalms is really divinely inspired, if it leads us to worship only the illusion of a merciful God, if in reality we can't really know anything about attributes of God? - Bikinibomb ( talk) 16:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
What is your interpretation of being created in God's likeness? Since it's not about flesh I always believed it was about emotions, thought, etc. That He experiences love, hate, etc. as we do, so that a human is a reflection of God making Him knowable, even with our limitations. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 17:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
See, this is what happens when I take things for granted. I've removed the Isserles quote. Here are the reasons. One is that the quote doesn't exist. Not in Yoreh De'ah 15, at any rate. Maybe it exists elsewhere. Another is that it's not a quote from R' Isserles, but a quote of R' Isserles quoting the Tosfot on Sanhedrin 63a. You can go to E-daf to see the actual page and read the Tosfot for yourself, if you like. A third reason is that the translation was incorrect. And not in a small way. The Tosfot there does not say that shituf is permissible for non-Jews. It says that "we have not found that causing non-Jews to commit shituf is forbidden, as lifnei iveir (lit. placing a stumbling block before the blind; i.e. causing another to sin) does not apply to non-Jews". The Tosfot there is clear that shituf is forbidden for non-Jews. While I am under the impression that sources to exist that permit it, this Tosfot is not one of them. - LisaLiel ( talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You do not remove something - Moses Isserles becuase the number in source was incorrect. You are to add a tag - check source or add source. I meant to write 156 but worte 15 instead. I will try to find time to double check. Also I added a full translation of tosafot.-- Jayrav ( talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)And if you do not like my translations then fix them or make a comment - do not remove them.-- Jayrav ( talk) 00:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, Christianity is a monotheistic religion. That's also the Christian view. That's also the definition given, cited, and accepted by Wikipedia standards.
It's also the reason Christianity rejects divine partnership.
The short version is this: Judaism allows polytheism (shituf) to gentiles. Christianity does not allow polytheism (shituf) to anyone.
Christianity is actually MORE monotheistic in their position than we are. Fair is fair. We tolerate this polytheism and they do not. Tim ( talk) 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- Christianity is a monotheistic religion in about 99% of the sources you'll find out there. It's not the place of Wikipedia editors to removed SOURCED statements and replace them with their UNSOURCED POV. Tim ( talk) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we have to put such a caveat for every religion on every page? In lists of monotheistic religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are right up there together on almost every list. Plus, the section is the Christian view. Their VIEW is that they CONSIDER themselves thus and so? That's a bit redundant, don't you think? Instead of having to document their normative status both internally and externally "as a monotheistic religion" I would think rather that we would have to heavily document any position that stated they weren't. Tim ( talk) 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I put in caveats stating the views are... views. Anything more will make us look like some kind of antimissionary site. Tim ( talk) 20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
What do I need to do here? I've given one Jewish source for Christianity being a monotheistic religion. I can add others from all branches of Judaism (I started with Orthodox). Also, I can quote the Christian positions against any multiplicity of deities. Christians do not regard polytheism to be acceptable for ANYONE. Do I need to quote those positions as well?
This is getting tedious. I think the Christian section is cited twice as much as all the Jewish sections of this article combined.
Although I've had friends in Jews for Judaism, Wikipedia is NOT J4J (on either side of the acronym). Tim ( talk) 11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- I'm simply insisting that the Christian view be stated. That's all. Look, you had the luxury growing up of simply being Jewish. You didn't need to reject anything, real or imagined. You simply needed to accept what you were born with. I didn't have that luxury. To convert I had to do more than reject some fantasy religion you keep making up and calling "Christianity." I had to reject the real thing. What I have a strong connection to is reality, Lisa. Christianity is a monotheistic trinitarian religion. I didn't have to reject shituf ideas because I was never a Jehovah's Witness.
As for contradictory views -- I have not attempted to change the Jewish views. You've correctly stated them, although they show us to be, as a whole, largely ignorant of Christianity. But let's be fair and not look intolerant at the same time.
Everything I've put in is sourced and acceptable by Wikipedia standards, and the more you change it, the longer and more sourced it will be. How deep do you want to dig? Tim ( talk) 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, Lisa -- the continuous smacks about my conversion are inappropriate and offensive. I have a thick skin, but they are getting in the way of any kind of rational discussion. As a Jew, I object to your making our religion appear to be intolerant: intolerant of Messianics, intolerant of Christians, and -- even more bizarre -- intolerant of people who are fully aware and understand Christianity and choose to embrace Judaism anyway. Treatment of a convert in this way is a violation of Torah as well. I have no interest in being a poster child for conversion, I have little patience for polemics on either side, but I DO insist on factual presentations in an encyclopedia on subjects I know something about and have sources to back it up.
For the record, Judaism is authoritative for itself regarding its treatment of Christianity even if that is based on a misunderstanding of Christianity. We do not have to understand something perfectly in order to make a decision for ourselves. As such, the decisions on shituf are both unnecessary and valid. They are unnecessary because Christians do not believe in partnership. They are valid because to us it seems as if they do and we have to make a rationale regarding our relationship that makes sense to us. Our treatment of Christians, then, is more lenient than it needs to be, but that's perfectly okay. Jews cannot be expected to understand Christianity, nor should they be required to do so. The amount of education required to make a ruling regarding Christianity as it really is would be impractical for the Jewish population and would be dangerous as well -- because people have a way of getting stuck inside paradigms they were merely trying to understand. I would say the same regarding Christian decisions of how to relate to us. They should relate to us based on how they understand us. They do not have to relate to us based on how we understand ourselves. To do so would require them to understand us as we understand ourselves -- something only truly possible with a lot of education and a huge paradigm shift that could lead to a lot of conversions (in either direction) if it was tried.
Ultimately a religion (such as our religion) must make decisions for itself based on the best of our understanding. That's valid. However, Judaism remains self defined. Christianity remains self defined. Our relations with each other do not have to match those self definitions -- and it would be impractical and religiously dangerous for individuals to try.
All that being said -- an encyclopedia that has the temerity to object to Christianity being presented "as a monotheistic religion" in a section titled the "Christian view" -- well such an encyclopedia is not NPOV, is it? Tim ( talk) 15:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
And I added more opinions, and will continue to add more opinions every time you make a change. Tim ( talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Tim wrote: Uh -- try keeping polemics out. When describing the CHRISTIAN view, describe the Christian VIEW of "persons."
I'm not engaging in polemics. Post Christian apologetics on a different page if you must. - LisaLiel ( talk) 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that conflict is part of the NPOV process here. Let's, please, have some peace. I really need to finish proofing my galley and have no interest in being the defender of Christianity on Wikipedia.
Also, R. Wurzburger is cited on this page. He was a most peacful man, and I still mourn his passing. In fact, he is the one who made the decision for the Beit Din to encourage me to finish my book. In his name, Lisa, let us please move on from this. Tim ( talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
How about creating a R. Wurzburger wiki page? -- Jayrav ( talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, I see you just did. nice idea. -- Jayrav ( talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Could any one provide the Hebrew graphics for the term, please. Muscovite99 ( talk) 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, I was content with Novak and wanted to leave Telushkin out of it since you told me that he wasn't happy with his terms "the trinity represents three aspects of one God". Can we just go back to the edit before today and leave this alone? This is completely unnecessary. Tim ( talk) 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- if "one God" isn't monotheistic, then we need to define the term a different way. Also, Telushkin (if he indeed wrote you) rejected your representation of what I was saying -- which does not resemble what I was saying. I NEVER said that Christianity was okay for Jews, EVER. Nor would I EVER use Telushkin as a source to support something that I do not myself believe. I merely left him out to be polite. Now, I wrote Telushkin myself and received no response. Until then, "one God" sounds pretty mono(one)theist(God)ic to most folks. Tim ( talk) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:53:59 -0600
- From: Lisa Liel <lisa@starways.net>
- Subject: help, please
- Dear Rabbi Telushkin,
- I am engaged in a debate with a person I'll call T. T is an Orthodox Jew who converted from Christianity. Previously, he was a Christian pastor and theologian.
- The debate revolves around the issue of shituf and the Christian trinity. I have stated that the unanimous view of Jewish authorities is that worship of the trinity constitutes idolatry *for Jews*. T insists that this view is not unanimous, because there is one notable Jewish authority who says otherwise. That authority, he says, is you.
- He bases this claim on the following quote from your book, "Jewish Literacy":
- Throughout the centuries, more than a few Jewish thinkers have argued that the idea of the trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) seemed idolatrous. Ultimately, however, the majority of Jewish scholars concluded that although Christianity speaks of a trinity, it does not conceive of the three forces as separate with different and conflicting wills. Rather, the trinity represents three aspects of one God. While Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief, it is not avodah zarah."
- I read this as you saying that trinitarianism is not idolatry for non-Jews, but T insists that you are saying it isn't idolatry even for Jews. He wants to post this publically on Wikipedia as a notable Jewish position.
- Thank you for your help.
- Kol Tuv,
- Lisa
- Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:40:37 EST
- Subject: Re: help, please
- To: lisa@starways.net
- Your explanation is correct. If he posts it as he tells you he wants to do he is falsifying what I said.
- Thank you.
- WIth best wishes
- Joseph Telushkin
Lisa -- I'll do you one better. How about we just go back to the way it was worded YESTERDAY with just Novak? As an author, I have no intention of using an unwilling source from my own camp! Fair?
As for the subject at hand, the information you supplied Telushkin did not explain that I always held his statement "it is forbidden to Jews" to mean that "it is forbidden to Jews." If I were Telushkin, with just your note, I would have said something similar to what he said. Although "falsifying" is a word I would not have used on so little information. That being the case, out of politeness I would rather we leave the poor Rabbi out of it and go back to yesterday. Or, if you prefer, we can leave it as is. I'll leave the call to you. But I doubt your personal email line would survive any other editor -- so I'd suggest going with my idea. Tim ( talk) 23:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Then we'll have to leave it as is, since "one God" is, uh, by definition "monotheistic." Tim ( talk) 23:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- what part of "one God" doesn't mean "one God"? Eh? Tim ( talk) 01:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Declare all you want. It's in print, and it's explicit. Tim ( talk) 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- Telushkin did NOT disagree that "one God" meant "one God." That's not OR. That's just mono(one)the(god)ism. I accepted your compromise and offered you one better, and I cannot fathom why you are baiting and switching. I'm restoring it to your last offer and asking you to call your OWN edit a day. Tim ( talk) 02:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- Telushkin, an Orthodox Rabbi, manifestly states that (at least) GENTILE Christians are not worshipping multiple deities. This isn't OR. If "one God" isn't monotheism, then NOTHING is. The only OR here is that "personal email" that you claim to have from him (which BTW, no one could verify). Tim ( talk) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- he says that Christians worship "one God" and he even says this is the majority Jewish view. It's not my fault that he didn't STATE "only Gentile" Christians. Of course you inferred that, and if your unverifiable email did come from him, he apparently didn't mean "Christians" when he said "Christians" but only meant "Gentile Christians." Fine -- I accepted that on face value. But the subject of Shituf IS about (at least Gentile) Christians, which has to be included in Telushkin's comment or else you include no Christians at all. It's not me who made an inference that "Christians" means "Christians." It's simply the English language. And, in fact, one would have to radically reword his statement to MAKE it say what you CLAIM he says it means:
I'm not the one falsifying Telushkin here -- you are.
And one other thing. Not only is Shituf forbidden by Jews for Jews -- it is also forbidden by Christians for Christians. Christianity holds the concept we call Shituf to be polytheistic and forbidden, and the fact that we allow it for anyone makes us far more permissive about idolatry than they are.
As for Telushkin intervening, he is most welcome to answer my email to him from six months ago. Tim ( talk) 16:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Steve, Christians actually DO have very strong views of the concept we call "Shituf" -- and they roundly condemn it as a polytheistic heresy called "Arianism." Since we APPLY "shituf" TO Christians, the fact that they actually reject the concept is most pertinent. To give an example, let's say that a group of people had a concept for "Jews need human blood for passover" (i.e. the blood libel), and they made a term for it and applied it to us in governing their relations with us. The fact that we ourselves condemn the consumption of ANY blood (even animal blood) would have a place in such an article. I'd like to add that the comparison is no hyperbole. The concept of multiple deities in partnership is as anathema to Christians as the concept of eating human blood is to us. Tim ( talk) 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- the Trinity is not a Christian statement about Judaism. Shituf is a Jewish statement about Christianity. What Christianity actually teaches regarding the concept of divine partnership is as essential as authentic Jewish dietary rultes would be in an article about the blood libel. To bury it is a violation of NPOV. Just tonight I brought the subject up with an aquantaince who is an Eastern Orthodox Monk, and he was completely floored that anyone would allow Arianism (i.e. Shituf) as an acceptable belief for Gentiles. Arianism is explicitly forbidden within Christianity as polytheistic. Tim ( talk) 02:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- stop with the personal attacks. They are unseemly, and definitely un-halakhic. And if you think the concept of lesser deities in partnership with God has nothing to do with Arianism, then you absolutely demonstrate that you do not understand Arianism. I've offered a broader definition of Shituf that would actually ADDRESS Trinitarianism and not just Arianism. But until we find a sourced text that does this, then we are stuck with Arianism. If Shituf is supposed to be about Trinitarianism, then please find that definition that does so.
This is ridiculous -- just leave it to the edit from last week and call it a day. We can both walk away and forget about it. Tim ( talk) 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- I'd welcome arbitration. To have an article about Jewish concept of a Christian concept without mentioning the Christian concept itself is like having an article on the blood libel without mentioning that Jews forbid eating blood. Tim ( talk) 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Should an article on a Jewish religious subject include a section on Christian views just because the subject is viewed by some Jewish rabbinic authorities as pertaining to Christianity? - LisaLiel ( talk) 13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew! Tim ( talk) 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, you have a good point, and I apologize for the edit-warring. I should have taken this to RfC a lot earlier. I've rewritten the article and limited it to an article about the Jewish concept of shituf, without polemics for or against Christian beliefs. - LisaLiel ( talk) 14:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, THANKS! Geeze, now we can rest for a bit with some rationality. I'm going to pop off for the rest of the weekend. I have a second galley proof to finish and a screenplay submission to make. Stick Shabbat in between there and that leaves no Wiki time. In any case, there won't be any consenus between Lisa and myself. Believe me, I've tried. Please go through some of the edit history to see how I've tried repeatedly to compromise. I even offered to let her remove all references to Christianity -- but she cannot do so, because the concept is applied primarily TO Christianity. In any case, I've asked for third parties to look in from both Christianity and Judaism. I actually SUGGEST that Lisa and I BOTH avoid future edits for at least a month to give others time to do what they want. I suggest this, because the issue seems to be personal (I could be wrong). But even if I'm wrong, blocking BOTH of us from this page for a solid month would be well in order. Can you do that? Tim ( talk) 15:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Andrew -- the page right now is the same as it has been FOR MONTHS before Lisa got annoyed with me on a different article's talk page and decided to retaliate with a Wikiwar here. I'd suggest, if you DO any reversion, please revert the page to the way it was before the edit war began this week, and then block BOTH of us for a month to let non-combatants fix it. This is nothing more than a personal issue. Tim ( talk) 15:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, folks, I guess I'll try to weigh in. I think in theory the idea of a "Christian Response" section would be acceptable, since we are talking about a major and well known criticism of Christianity here. However, as it stands, the section is badly written and doesn't really provide any useful information. I think it goes without saying that Christians would deny that their religion is polytheistic, since we share the Ten Commandments with them and it does say quite explicitly that we are not supposed to have any God before Him. So, my !vote is get rid of the section for now, but if we can work to improve it I would support adding it back.
I would also strongly suggest to both Lisa and Tim that you guys seriously take like a day off of editing and try to put things in perspective. You are obviously both very worked up and you need to
chill out and stop undermining each other. It's not very becoming, take it from me.
L'Aquatique
happy fourth!
17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to rewrite this article as it should have been in the first place. Tim created it with Christianity foremost in his mind, but shituf has nothing to do with Christianity, even if there is a minority view that Christian worship is shituf rather than avodah zarah. - LisaLiel ( talk) 14:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Uh -- try again, Lisa. There are references to Christianity ALL THROUGH the article. If it's not about Christianity, then remove all references to Christians and Christianity. But you can't -- because that's the whole point of Shituf. Tim ( talk) 14:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I just removed any reference to Christianity. Since Shituf is primarily applied to Christianity, the article now meets Andrews requirments.
The article itself, however, is now false. But that's up to you and Andrew. If Wikipedia is about making falsehoods -- enjoy. Tim ( talk) 14:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- you said that Shituf "has nothing to do with Christianity". I then invited you to delete all references to Christianity. You failed to do so, and when I deleted paragraphs that mention Christianity, you labelled that as vandalism.
Well, make up your mind. If eliminating references to Christianity is vandalism, then Shituf is being applied to Christianity. You can't have it both ways.
That being said, Andrew -- thanks for the block. I'm going to stay off until I finish a screenplay submission... which will take me a few days. I leave the helm in your capable hands. Tim ( talk) 15:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Andrew -- notice the "I will not allow". Can you just block us both for a month and let people who are not the target of a personal attack do some real work? Tim ( talk) 15:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I would point out that this is purely a personal event, and the persons involved should step back and allow both sets of affected parties (Christians and Jews) take an equal look at it and apply Wiki-good-sense. I've addressed Christians and Jews equally. Lisa, on the other hand, has been only enlisting one side.
Here's what's going to happen: an artificial consensus is going to be generated and Lisa's edits will be enforced. Only Christian sources that use the JEWISH term for Arianism (Shituf) will be allowed, instead of Christian sources that use the CHRISTIAN term for Shituf (Arianism). It will appear by an artificial constraint that Christians have nothing at all to say about their own belief, in spite of the fact that they have a great deal to say about it, and have roundly condemned the concept of partnership for the past 1600 years.
And here's what else will happen -- I will no longer care. A personal agenda, and a personally enlisted single side of eyeballs will honestly enforce a single POV upon both Wikipedia and a major world religion.
And hopefully, no one else will care as well, and we can all get a life.
I will point out that the enlistment of a single POV will bring people of good faith and good will who will believe they are applying things even handedly -- but judged by a limited POV that needs balance according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I'll drop by in August and assess the damage. Tim ( talk) 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't take my word for it -- give the definition for Shituf to any Christian theologian or pastor and ask him the term used for that definition. The concept of the "spirit" and "son" as lesser beings in "partnership" with God is Arianism. If you want sources, there's a whole Wikipedia page on it. Again -- don't believe me. Check out with any ten theologians or pastors and you'll get a very quick consensus. The fact that we use a different term for Arianism doesn't change it. Now -- if you doubt my motives, DO THE TEST I just suggested. But if you won't, then don't doubt my motives. Doubt your own. Now, also, I'll be back in August. That gives you plenty of time. If you can't be bothered to read the Arianism article and ask the participants to see if this is the same concept in an entire month... then there will be no doubt about motives, will there? Tim ( talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with mediation -- as long as both Christians and Jews are involved in the mediation. I've enlisted both sides into this, and I only see you enlisting one. Further, your removal of Christianity's self identification as a monotheistic faith on the Christian page tonight [3] is begging the question. I REALLY do not have time for this. I would prefer that we both step back and stop the war of attrition. Stop stalking my old edits. I don't have time to keep restoring them. Tim ( talk) 05:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It's so good to see such a fine collection of editors at this page. I find myself in agreement with almost everyone, and that doesn't surprise me given what I have heard from them in the past.
As far as I can see, there is a basic idea that all agree on (though there is disagreement on how to implement it). This article is first and foremost about a technical Jewish term, and it is Jewish usage in Jewish context, sourced therefore upon Jewish writings that needs to form the substance of this article.
Were this a dictionary, there would be no more to say.
This, however, is an encyclopedia article, which means it addresses published opinion on a topic (often involving alternate views of the subject matter). We are not simply identifying and disambiguating the range of usage of shituf; for this to be encyclopedic, the significance of the idea in the history of thought must be cited. Naturally, this is predominantly Jewish. However, Jewish sources will be the most reliable about the meaning of the word when it is applied, but not about the "truth value" of propositions formed by such usage.
For example, "shituf means associating some additional element closely with the Creator" crudely describes one meaning. However, "the Christian view of Trinity is shituf" may be true, or may be false, it is a POV and invites responsible editorial efforts to obtain any relevant alternative. At that point, trinity becomes our "search term" in querying the literature. To deny this option is to deny a POV to any scholar that is knowledgable about the Trinity but not with Jewish terminology. It undermines the possibility of Wiki presenting a NPOV. It permits Jewish scholars to be experts on the Trinity, merely because they use the word, while denying others to be experts on the Trinity unless they use the word shituf. The whole point of first defining the meaning of shituf is to introduce reliable words and phrases entailed by that term, which permit responsible comparison with literature that interacts with the idea if not the word itself.
If what I am saying is reasonable, I think the problem is that in the clash between Tim and Lisa, the idea that shituf is defined as the Jewish view of the Christian Trinity has been proposed. I'm not sure that is actually the case. Were it so, though, it is clearly essential to clarify what the Trinity actually is in Christian teaching. Christians have the exclusive right to articulate what they believe, everyone has the right to criticise that.
In a nutshell, the problem boils down to the question of whether shituf is a misunderstanding of the Trinity or a criticism of the real thing. So what if it is a misunderstanding, Christians misunderstand Jews dreadfully, can it never be the other way around? Even Christians misunderstand the Trinity!
I would also add that I don't think we're looking hard enough. There are many Jewish scholars with profound insight into Christianity who will probably articulate the misunderstanding. It's not "us versus them" and a Jewish scholar who makes the point would be ideal, but any scholar ought to be fine. Alastair Haines ( talk) 06:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Above, Alistair wrote, "In a nutshell, the problem boils down to the question of whether shituf is a misunderstanding of the Trinity or a criticism of the real thing." Now, I may be misunderstanding him, but if he really means this he is violating Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not understand with misunderstandings or valid criticisms. it is interested only in notable points of view from reliable verifiable sources. It is not for Wikipedia to say that the view is a misunderstanding, or a criticism of the real thing. That simply is far outside Wikipedia's objectives and criteria. As long as anyone is concerned with these questions they will be wasting time and abusing this talk page with unconstructive and irrelevant talk. The only questions are, is it a notable view, whose view is it, does it come from a verifiable and reliable source? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks, this shouldn't be that complicated. We're all agreed (and have been) that:
Lisa's position (if I understand it) is that Christianity is EITHER Shituf OR flat out idolatry.
My position is that Shituf either DOES or DOES NOT describe Christianity.
If it DOES, then we should fine tune the wording in our definition so that it actually addresses Christianity, and not just Arianism. This is, by the way, an astonishingly simple fix.
If it DOES NOT, then we should admit it, give a pointer to Arianism, and call it a day.
I really don't care which solution is picked. I would even invite Lisa to decide whether the article should apply Shituf to Christianity or not.
But please don't insist that it DOES apply to Christianity and leave such a laughably obvious definition of Arianism up there. It does Christians no good, it makes Jews look horridly ignorant, and it leaves Wikipedia with an easily avoided self contradictory article.
If Lisa choses to say that Shituf DOES apply to Christianity, then my proposal is that I modify the wording of the definition so that it actually does so, and then get help finding a reference that matches that target.
If Lisa choses to say that Shituf DOES NOT apply to Christianity, then she can give the caveat and pointer to Arianism and call it a day.
I think that this is eminently reasonable on my part, it gives Lisa the absolute control she wants, it keeps Wikipedia from contradicting itself in a single article, and it saves all of us a lot of time and energy better spent elsewhere -- like having real lives.
Best Tim ( talk) 17:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- you finally did it. Yes, this last definition is not internally contradictory. It contradicts Telushkin's statement that "it is not idolatry," but given the email you say came from him, his own statement cannot be taken in a non-contradictory way.
I would edit only one thing -- the semi-colon into "or":
And we will still need the links to Tritheism, Trinitarianism, and Arianism. Can we rest, now? Tim ( talk) 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Lo chashuv. Since we're all agreed, whichever of us does it first, it shouldn't matter. Tim ( talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This text is ok. But I would still use Christianity as an example so people know what the heck you are talking about. Since, what else is the term gonna apply to except Christianity, it's not like there are a bunch of other religions with a Thor or a Diana co-ruling with the one God of Israel. Christianity is the only one that has that, as I'm aware.
Example (Caps added):
Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel. AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE CONSIDERATION OF THE SON JESUS AS A LESSER DEITY RULING ALONG WITH THE ONE GOD OF ISRAEL IN SOME FORMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
- Bikinibomb ( talk) 06:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Bikini, thanks for your note. There is no form of Christianity that sees Jesus as a lesser deity, or even a co-deity. That would be Arianism, or Tritheism, both of which are specifically outlawed by Christianity. It's not good enough to present a definition that rejects something Christianity is not; the definition must also reject something that Christianity IS. It was never Judaism's intention to AGREE with Christianity AGAINST Tritheism and Arianism. It was Judaism's intention to disagree with CHRISTIANITY, which is what we have presented (or approximated). Tim ( talk) 08:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, no problem precluding Wicca. I just wanted Christianity precluded. For what it's worth -- we BOTH wanted to preclude Christianity. That's the irony of this situation. Anyhow, I'm going to collect (what I think to be) the agreed to version in a sandbox and come back with a link. Lisa, I'll need you to verify that this is what we came up with so the third parties can see what we were looking at.
Be back in a few... Tim ( talk) 13:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has requested mediation on the Shituf page, so I looked up the mediation process. The first step is to ask for third party opinion -- which is the reason I'm here.
Shituf, briefly, is a Jewish term applied to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The definition of the concept, however, appears to be Arian: lesser beings (the son and spirit) worshipped in junior "partnership" with God. Accordingly, I included a short Christian view section which simply describes that Christianity has formally rejected multiple deities in junior partnership since Nicea.
The contention is whether or not the section should be included.
My argument is that an article describing Jews eating human blood on passover would require a short section describing that Jews actually FORBID such a practice. Accordingly, an article describing Christians in Arian ways would require a short section describing that Christianity actually FORBIDS such a belief.
In any case, since the other editor suggested mediation, I'm taking the first step and asking for third party review.
Thanks. Tim ( talk) 13:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys -- as I said -- a third party look is in order. In English, Lisa just said you were all polytheists, which is a legitimate Jewish view. My take is that it's nice to have a section saying that you forbid polytheism.
And as for the history of this, the entire concept was created in the Middle Ages in reference to the question of whether Jews could have business dealings with Christians, since they were forbidden to have business dealings with idolaters. The Jewish solution is that, "Yes, they have multiple deities, but they are like junior partners." Loosely defined, "shituf" is "partnership." The context and origin was directed toward Christianity. Christianity, therefore, cannot be excluded from the article without making it polemic.
Again, thanks. You should be honored -- two Jews are asking for YOUR third opinion! Tim ( talk) 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- in the past few days you've called Christians polytheists at least six times. Anyone can go through your contribs or just read the Shituf talk page. That kind of bias needs to at least be admitted. If it's your belief -- be proud of it.
As for the edits -- Lisa can't edit out all references to Christianity on the Shituf page because it's APPLIED to Christianity. When I removed any paragraph that used the word "Christian" or "Christianity" she reverted it as vandalism.
That being said, I no longer care. I have better things to do than to prevent a member of my own religion to promote falsehood to yours. You're welcome to chime in.
Best. Tim ( talk) 14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
John -- BINGO. Thanks. Okay, I need to sign off now and spend some time with my family. I'll look back in Sunday. Best. Tim ( talk) 15:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, for the sake of the third parties, I've incorporated what I believe we agree on here [5].
I only added a few neutral context links to the three we agreed to (Monotheism, Polytheism, Judaism, Christianity). For the sake of the Jewish perspective of the articly I indented Trinity, Arianism, and Tritheism as if they were all three subsets of Christianity. Christians may not like it, but this IS a Jewish concept.
Please let me (and the third party reviewers) know if the Shituf sandbox meets with your approval so that we can just cut and paste whenever the article is unlocked.
Best. Tim ( talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- please look further below. I didn't renege. I just had a generic marker without a time stamp. Look in the first paragraph in "A Word About Edits" where I wrote "Right now the latest version that is in the lines that Lisa and I have agreed to is this [7]."
I understand your concern, but that Christian views section was added later by Carlaude. Tim ( talk) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The main problem I would see with a "Jewish views" section in articles on Trinitarianism is that there is "views" rather than a "view" -- better a statement of differing views with a pointer here.
A "Christian view" section in Shituf is different because:
Carlaude -- I'm assuming that you are a Christian, and you seem to know the subject. That being said, I will attempt to answer your post in a different way from Lisa. Before I start, however, I would like to state from the outset that Lisa and I both agree that the Jewish concept of Shituf is used by Jews in application to Christianity. It was not originally created for that purpose, per se, but it has been applied toward Christianity for a long time.
Now for your points.
That being said, the fact that most Jews miss the mark in the wording is for the precise reasons Lisa's comments may leave you non-plussed. They aren't connecting because they aren't addressing your own faith. Lisa has disagreed with a concept that you also disagree with.
Nevertheless, what Lisa and I have worked on here is a definition that does cover Christianity, in addition to Arianism and Tritheism. The reason is simple: Jewish thinkers say that the concept applies to Christianity. Even if the wording is imprecise, they DO intend the application. Fortunately, I was able to find a wording "aspect" from Telushkin that is applied in reference to the Christian belief. He writes that Christians do not worship three gods, but three aspects of one God. Well, that's not perfect, but I think you'll agree that he's at least in the right ball park.
And so we have a word from Telushkin added into the definition that gives the same conclusion about Christianity -- sometihng like "we aren't supposed to see God that way, but we won't be upset that you do."
And that's basically the point of Shituf. The term is NOT meant to condemn Christianity (Lisa's tone notwithstanding), but rather to be at peace with it. We are us, and you are you. We shouldn't be you, but we're okay that you are. As a man, I feel the same way about women... Tim ( talk) 15:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- this is PRECISELY the problem. Christians have EXPLICITLY defined God as a simplex unity (as cited in the Berkhof note in the latest sandbox version of "Christian views"). You are saying that "Gee, Christians don't MEAN to worship multiple gods, but the poor silly souls do."
No, Lisa. Christians are not stupid, and they know their own faith. In fact, Christianity is incredibly concerned with precision when it comes to the singularity of deity. The whole "compound unity" fluff you've seen in the past is a heresy currently contained within Messianic Judaism, which is a carryover from the fact that the Trinity doesn't compute exactly within a Jewish paradigm. It's like running Microsoft Word for Windows on a Macintosh. It IS Microsoft Word, but it will look like gibberish on your machine. The action of praying in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit is not a polytheistic action because it is not a polytheistic belief. They do NOT believe in multiple deities, and therefore they are not praying to multiple deities. You can't PRAY to something you do not BELIEVE. The belief absolutely governs the action in this case.
Now, the fact that you keep insisting that they are doing something they are not doing is the reason we've had trouble with this article. I've insisted that we either have a definition that DOES cover Christianity or have a caveat in which Christianity can state that it does NOT. I believe we have found that wording.
Now, you said "Tim is deliberately claiming that I am even addressing Christian concepts, let alone agreeing or disagreeing with them". No, I'm saying that you are disagreeing with the concept of praying to multiple deities. And I am saying that Christians will shout "Amen, sister!" to that all day long. Tim ( talk) 15:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would agree with that too. Shituf is a Jewish concept that Jews apply to Christians, and if the only readers here were Jews, then it wouldn't matter whether or not the wording made sense. But if it doesn't match, and there's no caveat, then a general audience (which includes Christians) would recognize that the article is self-contradictory and thus diminishes Wikipedia as a resource for real information (instead of fantasy-land wishful thinking "information"). Although we have no obligation to present ultimate "truth", it's helpful not to contradict ourselves with obvious nonsense. Tim ( talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- the Nicene self definition of Christianity holds that Christians worship one God. They worship the Father. They worship the Son. They worship the Holy Spirit. They worship one God. If you want to complain, then we can dig into Kabbalah and we won't compare very well to Christianity, will we?
But what do they mean? They mean one God "without body, parts, or passions" (Westminister Confession of Faith).
Are you following this? No? Then I don't think it is the Trinity you have a problem with, but monotheism. Tim ( talk) 16:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- here is something that might be helpful. You say that "worshiping a trinity" is not monotheism. Well, to test your competence to make that statement, define the Trinity in terms that Christians will agree, and THEN disagree with THAT.
If you cannot define the Trinity, that is, if you don't have an idea what it is, then it is completely irrelevant if you think "blank" isn't monotheism.
Here is where you and I disagree -- I believe that Judaism DOES forbid CHRISTIANITY to Jews. You do not. You believe that Juidaism forbids some fantasy-land religion of pseudo Arianism that you want to pretend is Christianity.
The sad thing here is that Judaism does indeed have something to say in contrast to authentic Christianity. There really is a rational and knowledgable level of address that exists. But one would never guess it from your writing. You are so busy shouting against polytheism that you can't hear all the shouted agreements from any Christians in the audience against whatever unregonizable group you are railing against.
Slow down. Listen. Find the target. It's behind you... A little to the left now... lower... ah! There it is... Tim ( talk) 16:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Uh, Lisa -- the only problem we have here is that I disagree with CHRISTIANITY and you do not. You are disagreeing with ARIANISM. Well, Christians disagree with that, too.
You are very much invited to join me in my disagreement with a religion that exists in the real world called "Christianity." Tim ( talk) 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
[cut irrelevant text]
This is all fine -- but you should discuss it elsewhere if it is so much not about the real page. -- Carlaude ( talk) 17:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Tim, I simply do not understand why Christian sources concerning Christianity's monotheism are relevant to the article on shituf. Can you sum it up in one or two sentences? I heave read through a lot of what you wrote, most of which is about Christianity and not about shituf. Why is it relevant? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I still do not understand you. Jews DID apply the concept Shituf to Christianity. That is simple and non-controversial. And it has no bearing on the definition. I saw no contradiction in the article. Shituf is associating God the creator with another named being, and many Christians belief that Christianity is an example of shituf. Where is there any room for contradiction? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Right now the latest version that is in the lines that Lisa and I have agreed to is this [8].
Since the current definition actually does address Christianity, a Christian clarification is not essential. It was only essential while the article was limited to Arian definitions while claiming to address Christianity. That is, the problem was that the original article wording was contradicting itself. The latest stipulated definition does not contradict itself, because it includes monotheistic Trinitarianism within the definition (or the best approximation from a noted source -- Telushkin).
However, it's certainly welcome to see that a Christian IS participating in edits of the sandbox, and I'd like to see if he believes that we need further fine tuning of the wording so as to not contradict ourselves. That is, if we SAY a concept applies to Christianity, it is helpful that it is to CHRISTIANITY that it applies. Or, if not, we should at least recognize such with a Christian views section.
Summary: I currently believe that the stipulated wording DOES include Christianity within the scope of the definition, and that therefore a separate Christian views section is not essential.
But that's only my own single opinion. Tim ( talk) 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"internal aspects". Again, that's not perfect, but it's as close as you can get and still be in a Jewish vocabulary. There is a writer named Telushkin who wrote the following:
I'm sure you'll agree that it's closer to the mark than the descriptions on the existing Shituf page. Tim ( talk) 15:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Right now the latest version that is in the lines that Lisa and I have agreed to is this [9].
Lisa -- look at the timestamps on the history page. As soon as I saw that Carlaude had added a Christian views section I updated this talk page with a timestamp link. Tim ( talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW -- now that you've undid the Carlaude edit -- please give it a run through so we can make sure we're all on the same page and we'll give it a final timestamp.
Best. Tim ( talk) 16:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks, I noticed you opened a Medcab case. I am a mediator but I don't think I'm going to take this one on since I have personal involvement. I was, however, thinking about the article while I was laying in bed this morning, and I believe I might have found a compromise. Can every party take a look at User:L'Aquatique/Shituf and see if you find it acceptable? L'Aquatique review 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone cares -- I think L'Aquatique's version is even better than mine. L'Aquatique preserved more of the original consensus article.
My primary motivation right now is some peace, however. I'm happy with either L'Aquatique's current version or the timestamped one in my sandbox. L'Aquatique's is better, but I'm okay with mine too. Whatever everyone wants. Tim ( talk) 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with this one also. I'm not the one who spent all the real world time researching Philo. :-) Tim ( talk) 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(Copied from the Cabal page) Oh -- for the record:
Hope that makes the mediating easier... Tim ( talk)
Can I take a break now? Tim ( talk) 19:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh good grief. ANOTHER version to read? Let me know when you're done. Tim ( talk) 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"No one"? This is Wikipedia, Lisa -- EVERYONE gets to edit. Tim ( talk) 19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
All I've ever asked for here is that the article have a definition that did not contradict the scope of the usage in the article itself (or else give a caveat). That is, that the article not contradict itself.
Since the usage given for Shituf in the current article is applied to Christianity, but is limited to Arianism and Tritheism, then the scope of definition should either include all three religions, or give a caveat.
I understand that in a very limited POV there is no difference between Christianity, Arianism, and Tritheism. But that's my point: the scope of concern in Judaism does equate those three. Therefore the definition of the term must do so as well. Since the term is a Jewish concept, the scope of the definition must include what Judaism is actually using the term for.
To do less would be to create an article that does NOT address Christianity, and therefore fail to include what Jewish sources in the article say that they mean.
Once the definition included all three religions: Christianity, Tritheism, and Arianism -- then it finally had the encyclopedic flexibility to include or exclude any sources Lisa wanted to pick and choose. It no longer mattered. Whatever Jewish sources she would find would be included within the scope of definition.
My AGENDA here has been ENGLISH. Wikipedia is not written in JEWISHESE (that is, conotations based on assumptions that Jews make that do not always mean the same thing to neutral audiences). For instance, Jews often say things like "belief in the Trinity is okay for Christians, but not for Jews."
When a Jew reads that he is mentally registering this: "belief in the Trinity is okay for GENTILES, but not for Jews."
When anyone else is reading that he is mentally registering this: "belief in the Trinity is okay for people who believe in Christianity (gentiles or jews), but not okay for people who believe in Judaism."
We have to be AWARE of our readers. You can't assume that all of the readers of this encyclopedia are Jewish. They aren't. There are atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and yes, Wiccans. You have to use ENGLISH in ways that give the same conotations to ALL readers.
Further, it is not necessary that all audiences AGREE with the article. But it IS necessary that they UNDERSTAND the article. This isn't polemics. This is just GOOD EDITING.
So -- now I'm exposed. You have my agenda. Attack away. I no longer care. ALL of Lisa's articles on ALL of the user spaces are satisfactory, because they have a definition that does not contradict any cited reference she puts in the guts of the article.
Now, can we give this a rest? Tim ( talk) 14:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
As I said, Lisa -- I'm happy with all four versions. The three ones that you did with the fine tuned definition, and the existing one. Since I don't have a stake in the Philo section, I don't care about that either. You have carte blanche (however that's spelled). Tim ( talk) 19:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I figure it would appear more of a consensus if I took Lisa's edit and posted it, rather than Lisa being stuck out on a limb later on.
I haven't read every word, but the opening definition includes Christianity within its scope, there is a variation of Jewish views, and there are links to potential similar articles. It actually looks well covered. Tim ( talk) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, I've sent the following to Dr. Berger:
Dr. Berger,
I've read through Lasker's book and your shiur, and you are right that Shituf is intended to be directed not only to Arianism and Tritheism, but also to Trinitarianism as well.
I have a working definition for "Shituf" that I think covers all three theistic systems, and would appreciate it if you let me know if I am understanding the full scope of the word:
Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.
Is that correct?
The wording "external powers" addresses Arianism, "deities" addresses Tritheism, and "internal aspects" addresses Trinitarianism.
Thanks so much for your help!
Tim
I probably should have finished it with something like "is there anything I left out that I need to add?"
BTW, I'm not trying to take credit for your wording. I'm just trying to stay focused on the definition. I'll let you know what Dr. Berger writes. Tim ( talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tim, This still has some problems. Shituf as you define it clearly includes beliefs that fall short of pure monotheism (tritheism for sure). Thus, the second sentence doesn't work. Also, some Jews did not regard "internal aspects" as problematic, depending on how they are understood (attributes for some philosophers; the sefirot for many kabbalists). Best regards. David Berger
Lisa,
It looks like we've got a bit of work to do. I can see his point about internal aspects possibly intersecting with some kinds of Jewish thought. We are both agreed, however, that Christianity is seen to NOT be permissible to Jews in Jewish thought, while the Sefirot are.
While I have no intention of OR -- I think some R is in order. If you're willing, I'll do some research this week on Sephirot and try to map out informally what I think the differences are between Kabbalistic thought and Trinitarian theory.
Right now I'm trying to figure out a wording based on Dr. Berger's answer... now that he points it out, I DO see an internal contradiction in the second sentence:
That is, according to the first half, "any...avodah zarah...is...forbidden...to non-Jews".
But in the second half some "avodah zara [is]...permissible for non-Jews".
I recall that Telushkin explicitly said in his quote that belief in the Trinity is "forbidden for Jews, but it is not avodah zara."
Are we getting something wrong in the definition of avodah zara that I'm missing?
Also, if I understand Dr. Berger correctly, tritheism is not really Shituf, but idolatry.
Tim
Lisa,
Here's what I wrote to the other source:
Dr. Greenstein,
My Rabbi suggested I email you with a question I gave him. I’ve been working on a definition of “Shituf” to make sure I understand the full application of it:
Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.
If I understand Shituf correctly, it is not only applied by Jews to Arianism (“external powers”) and Tritheism (“deities”), but is also applied to Trinitarianism (“aspects”). Am I correct that it applies to all three theistic systems? Does this wording cover everything intended by the term, or do I need to add anything?
Thanks so much,
Tim
Tim, Shalom - First, please be sure to give my best to your Rabbi when you get a chance. I think we met at his son's wedding. If I am not mistaken I had the pleasure of sitting next to you and of meeting your wife. With that in mind - how are you doing? Nice to hear from you.
You ask a difficult question. One point to keep in mind is that definitions perform functions. Different definitions can be given for the same thing/term, depending on the context and need. I do not know what the purpose is of clarifying this definition. You write that it is "to make sure I understand the full application of it." But you do not say what kind of application you mean. Do you mean that you want to define what the permissible boundaries of belief are for yourself? Or do you want to define these boundaries for others? Do you want to define this for others in order to decide what your attitude should be regarding their belief, or are you responding to someone who wishes guidance for themselves? Belief is so difficult to explicate, for one's self and certainly for and to others!
Now - regarding your definition - I would start with a definition of `avodah zarah. There is a broad definition and a narrow definition. The broad definition is that it refers to any forbidden worship.
But this does not clarify nuances and gradations. I suggest as the narrow, base-line definition -
The acceptance and/or worship as a deity instead of God of an entity other than God.
This is forbidden through the second of the ten commandments, and also, arguably, as a violation of the "positive command" to accept God, and as a further violation of the "command" to accept only God, alone, as God. (Some do not see these as commands, but as prior groundings for any and all commandments.)
The next question is - if one indeed accepts/worships God, is it forbidden to worship other entities as deities along with God?
Here it depends on the "entity." If the entity is conceived as co-eternal with God, this is also forbidden, as above. We are "commanded" to accept only One God and that God is One.
But what if the entity is considered to be a creation of God, subsidiary to God? In that sense, couldn't one say that one has accepted God, alone, as God? But, as defined by Sefer Ha-Chinnukh, this is nevertheless forbidden. He writes (mitzvah 26 [28 in the Chavel edition]) - "If he accepted as deity any of the created entities, even though he admits that God rules over him and his deity, he violates the command, "You shall have no other gods, etc." This is commonly referred to as the sin of "shittuf."
Again, though, the question can be asked - does this refer to "created entities" existent in the material world, only, or does it refer to spiritual entities, also? What about angels? And what does "accept as deity" mean, since the One God is held to be Supreme? Apparently (certainly in the view of many authorities) it is permissible to believe that angels are Divinely empowered to accomplish certain tasks. Thus, acceptance of the fact of their operation as spiritual powers subsidiary to God seems allowed. In the Slichot prayers before the Days of Awe there is a petition to the angels to usher our prayers upwards, to God's Throne. (Some authorities opposed the prayer, but it is still there.) Furthermore, there is one tradition in Judaism (advocated, for instance, by Rav Saadiah Gaon) that accounts for prophetic visions of God as really being visions of a "Created Glory" - a Divinely created manifestation of God's Presence, serving as an intermediary between the Infinite, unknowable God and human beings. The midrash has traditions that explain that all the nations of the world, except Israel, are ruled by Heavenly Princes, appointed over them by God. Clearly these Jews did not think they were guilty of "shittuf."
Finally, your definition seeks to forbid, under the category of "shittuf" worship of "internal aspects." I think that what you mean by that is powers internal to God's Being, as it were. I think this is what you mean when you seek to include Trinitarianism in the prohibition. But, while I am not an authority on the theology of a trinity, I think the claim is that this belief still accords with belief in One God. I would find it hard to differentiate it from the kabbalistic concept of 10 internal aspects of God that are integral to the One God. Indeed, sometimes the kabbalists were accused of being no better than the Christians. They always protested that they were pure monotheists, and so do trinitarian Christians.
As Sefer Ha-Chinnukh explains, this mitzvah is unlimited in terms of time. We must spend every day of our entire lives striving to fulfill it. This mitzvah is never completed until the moment we die. And then, only God will be able to measure how and how much each of us has succeeded. I would suggest that a deep lesson in the halakhic view that "shittuf" is not forbidden to non-Jews is precisely the message that, given how hard it is for ourselves, it is better for us Jews not to legislate how others should seek to describe their complex experience of the One God of us all.
kol tuv,
I think I can rewrite this now.
Well and good. HOWEVER, Shituf is not a statement of limitation or judgment on non-Jews, rather it is a permissiveness on non-Jews that allows us peaceful commerce. The precision of the formular then, is not as essential as it would be for a judgment. That is, you can use a LOOSE definition to be permissive.
Shituf, then, should be a LOOSE definition.
Further, Shituf is NOT meant to be the basis by which we judge "Jews shalt not". It isn't the reason we cannot be Christians, and therefore, again, the definition does not have to be as precise.
Therefore, it is not necessary to define "Person" as either a "created being" or an "internal aspect." It is simply an association. If Christians regard it as an internal aspect, okay. But even if they regard it as a created being they are STILL okay under Shituf.
It is only when they regard the Persons as separate deities that they are not okay.
Tim ( talk) 13:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I moved this from the other page:
Lisa, you write "anything short of worshipping a singular and indivisible God is not monotheistic". But that's the problem. CHRISTIANS not only agree with you, they INSIST on it. Really, it's a dimensional thing. A billiard ball is one ball. It has three spatial dimensions. The Christian deity has three personal dimensions. That's it. Period. It's FORBIDDEN in Judaism. But exactly in which category is it forbidden, and is that actually Shituf, or is it some other forbidden thing? I think we agree that the "trinity" is forbidden in Judaism. We also agree that tritheism is flat out idolatry (Christians do too). I'm glad for that note from Dr. Berger, by the way, because it was troubling. Anyhow, the only difference is in the definition of the "trinity". You are giving an Arian definition (which is fine, you can state your meaning from the outset and we're set). The problem is that this isn't the Wikipedia definition, nor even the English definition. So, what do we do? We ARE writing in Wikipedia, and we ARE doing it in English. Tim ( talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Also -- if you're willing, this will really help: when you make a statement about the "trinity" run it through a dimension-analogy to see if that's working out. For instance, "Jews believe in a singular and indivisible billiard ball." Right. But... they don't. Here's the real difference: there is no "inside" or "outside" to God. There are no external or internal anythings to associate him with. The problem of the trinity (more relevant even than shituf, I suspect) is that it is a definition at all. To speak of "internal" or "external" or aspectual relationships is to put God on some kind of intellectual display, which is (if I understand Maimonides right) idolatrous. Anyhow, it's a Shituf page. There's a Trinity page. Maybe they do or don't intersect. As I said, it doesn't matter to me whether they do or don't, only that we note it and move on. Tim ( talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The Rabbis I questioned gave answers that add nuance to Lisa's section of the article (i.e. the guts of the article). However, since Lisa and I have had difficulties in communicating to each other, I think it best if I leave her guts alone and she leaves my highlight alone. That gives her 98% of the article to negotiate with third parties and it gives me 2% of the article to negotiate with third parties.
I think this is fair. If there is a real problem with either section, I'm sure there are plenty of really good third party editors that can keep us straight.
I've tried to make a definition that
Again, I believe a 2% / 98% split is more than fair, and it allows the third parties out there to finally have something stable enough to edit at will.
And it gives Lisa and myself a break. Tim ( talk) 14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The material about Philo does not mention shituf anywhere. If someone wants to present a reliable source that says that Philo spoke about shituf, that would be reasonable for this article. But without such a source, including Philo on the grounds that you think what he is addressing is the equivalent of shituf is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
If you are unable to provide a rationale for this material being in the article, I will remove it on the basis of WP:OR. - LisaLiel ( talk) 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, exactly what part of God in partnership or association with other powers is not Shituf? Are you now changing the definition of Shituf? I also remember Egfrank suggesting to you that a reference cannot be included unless it uses a specific term and you flatly rejected that principle. Please follow the same logic. Tim ( talk) 18:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the following quote from Philo says exactly that: God being one being, has two supreme powers of the greatest importance. By means of these powers the incorporeal world, appreciable only by the intellect, was put together, which is the archetypal model of this world which is visible to us, being formed in such a manner as to be perceptible to our invisible conceptions just as the other is to our eyes. Philo APPENDICES A TREATISE CONCERNING THE WORLD I-- Jerryofaiken ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me understand this: since your sources are ignorant of Philo then Philo shouldn't be discussed? Wouldn't it be better if you found some better educated sources?
Rabbinic literature indicates that anyone holding the view that God created the world with separate powers holds a minim view.-- Jerryofaiken ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, you wrote: "The "rule" you're suggesting, that a citation must contain the actual word it is being used for, is not acceptable. It is arbitrary, in fact...You can't invent rules and then delete sources because they don't conform to your invented rules. That's vandalism and POV" [16]. And I have an alter ego now? I suppose you think the same of HG as well because I'm trying to include him on the Gender of God page. Lisa, the issue here is simple -- you do not own Judaism or Wikipedia. I am not editing this page or the Gender of God page either, and I suggest you step aside as well. Other human beings exist on this planet. Tim ( talk) 19:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Philo does not hold that these are angels. see the following: ON FLIGHT AND FINDING - (68) On this account, I imagine it is, that when Moses was speaking philosophically of the creation of the world, while he described everything else as having been created by God alone, he mentions man alone as having been made by him in conjunction with other assistants; for, says Moses, "God said, Let us make man in our Image."{19}{#ge 1:26.} The expression, "let us make," indicating a plurality of makers. (69) Here, therefore, the Father is conversing with his own powers, to whom he has assigned the task of making the mortal part of our soul, acting in imitation of his own skill while he was fashioning the rational part within us, thinking it right that the dominant part within the soul should be the work of the Ruler of all things, but that the part which is to be kept in subjection should be made by those who are subject to him. (70) And he made us of the powers which were subordinate to him, not only for the reason which has been mentioned, but also because the soul of man alone was destined to receive notions of good and evil, and to choose one of the two, since it could not adopt both. Therefore, he thought it necessary to assign the origin of evil to other workmen than himself, --but to retain the generation of good for himself alone. -- Jerryofaiken ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You've already admitted that your opinion was not informed when you indicated you weren't aware of the passages from Philo. What is obvious is that you are only interested in your opinion even if it is an uneducated opinion.-- Jerryofaiken ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- "And G-d said: 'Let us make man'" (Bereishit 1:26). With whom did He take counsel?
- Rabbi Ammi said: He took counsel with His own heart. He was like a king who built a palace with the counsel of an architect. When he saw the palace, it did not please him. At whom was he indignant? Was it not at the architect? Hence, "and it grieved Him at His heart" (Bereishit 6:6) [with which He had taken counsel at the making of man].
- Rabbi Hanina said: He consulted the ministering angels.
So far you haven't cited a notable source concerning Philo. As you said, your don't believe that your sources are familiar with Philo.
Amony Christians, Philo is among the best known examples of shituf and not the talmud since the talmud introduces a concept that from the Christian viewpoint is heretical concerning God. Per Christianity, God is the creator of the universe and no one else. God is identified as the creator of the universe so if angels participated in the actual creation of the universe then that would make them also God. Christianity unlike talmudic Judaism rejects the concept as heretical that anyone other than God created the universe. Both Christianity and Judaism indicate that a plurality of some type was involved with creating the universe. Since God claims to be the creator then Christian theology identifies the plurality as the three persons of the single trinity - The Father giving the ideas of creation as commands in the form of let there be... and the Son bringing into physical existence the ideas of the Father...and the Holy Spirit hovering above the water. Judaistic theology recognizes the plurality and either rejects the grammatical literal construction of the words of the torah or accepts angels participating in actual creation. I am differentiating actual creation i.e. physical universe being made out of only the ideas of God versus tending to what was already made. -- Jerryofaiken ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
As Philo didn't characterise his own view as shituf, for wikipedia editors to say that it was is a clear breach of WP:OR and WP:RS and the material, in its present form, ought to be deleted. Furthermore if proper sourcing can be provided the discussion should first of all be in Philo's view of God, with then perhaps a reference across to that article from here. But without a source, it should be out altogether. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Samuel, do you only allow rabbinic sources? Definitions of shituf should come from knowledgable sources shouldn't they? According to Lisa, none of her rabbinic sources are knowledgable of the passages of Philo. So should we omit all info that doesn't come from a rabbinic souce? -- Jerryofaiken ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Didn't we used to have citations for the scriptural stuff? I've seen them somewhere. Of course I've seen Philo somewhere too -- ugh. I don't have time for this! Why can't people just put citation flags on there? You can't research to cite something that's invisible. This edit deletion has to stop. Tim ( talk) 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
Uh, folks, this silence is making me uncomfortable. Are we interested in citations and information or not? (Hint, silence will imply in the negative) Tim ( talk) 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- 5. According to many authorities, a Noahide is not warned about the concept of "partnership with God."[5] The concept of partnership is the acknowledgment of the existence of the God of Israel in combination with the belief in the possibility and existence of a deity (independent will) other than God. So long as ascribing power to a deity other than the Creator remains conceptual, it is permissible to the Children of Noah according to many authorities [6]. But worship of this independent being is clearly idolatry. The danger of the concept of partnership is that it frees people to act in accord with nonexistent gods and opens a doorway to actual idolatry. Most recent authorities agree that Children of Noah are forbidden to believe in a partnership. But even according to these, the Children of Noah are permitted to swear by the name of an idol in combination with God (to swear by the Lord of Hosts and a Hindu deity, for example).
- [5] Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim, chapter 156, law 1
- [6] Nodah B’Yehudah, volume 2, Yoreh Deah, number 148
- Behold, I say that they have tied a rope to a rope and a strand to a strand; where does this 'chacham' get this idea that the gentiles are not commanded concerning shittuf?! And nevertheless this thing is found in the mouths of many chachamim... and I have toiled and I have not found this thing either in the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud, and not in any of the gedolei harishonim; and if this was true, then the Rambam should have brought in Hilchos Melachim as a psak halacha that a gentile is not commanded on avoda zarah with shittuf, so why did he exempt this din? He also contests that, regarding avoda zarah, there is no difference between a Jew and a gentile, for behold, an explicit baraisa in Maseches Sanhedrin 56b states, 'Everything that a Jewish beis din executes upon, b'nei Noah are warned concerning them'; and likewise in Hilchos Melachim 9:2... and it seems to me that the fact that it has become commonplace for people to say that b'nei Noah are not warned concerning shittuf is according to an error they made in reading Tosafos in Maseches Bechoros 2b.... In light of [Tosafos] the Rama poskaned in Orech Chaim 156.... These words have been misconstrued by many chachamim who reasoned that the intention of the Rama is that b'nei Noah are not commanded concerning serving avodah zarah in shittuf. However, this is not in fact the case. The intention of the Tosephos and the Rama is that combining the Name of Heaven with something else in an oath does not constitute the actual worship of idolatry; rather he is combining the Name of Heaven with something else, but he is not calling in the name of Elokim and he is not saying 'you are my g-d.' Instead, he is merely mentioning him in his oath with the Name of Heaven in a manner of honor, regarding which we find a prohibition upon Israel, as it is written 'and in His Name shall you swear'; this is a warning to Israel not to swear except in His Name (blessed be He) and not to combine the Name of Heaven and something else, as the Rambam wrote in 11:2 of Hilchos Shevuos -and the gentiles are not warned regarding this shittuf. However, regarding the service of avoda zarah with shittuf, there is no difference between a Jew and a gentile!... The general principle that we have received is that anything for which a Jewish court administers death upon, the gentiles are also forewarned upon, as we wrote above. Afterwards I saw in the Sefer Meil Tzeddaka in sec. 22, who also makes the same distinction; however, he did not bring the proof which I have written here....
So... we can't cite Katz or Novak's take on the sources, but we can cite your own take? If you really need to own this article, fine. I'll start a NPOV article elsewhere, because Divine Relationships is an interesting subject, and it spans this, Philo, Arianism, angelolatry, Josephus, the LXX, and that friendly topic -- Christianity.
And since you own this POV fork, the only place for NPOV is elsewhere. But not tonight. Tim ( talk) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Novak got it from Katz (I have the citation at home). Katz (I think it was religion and tolerance 163-164, but I'm not sure) apparently considered that the earlier Halakhists (Tam) gave Gentiles a pass on shuttfut, an "extradivine relationship" (basically angelolatry and Arianism), but not shituf, an "interdivine relationship" (which Novak correctly pegs as Trinitarianism). In other words, the earlier halakhists did not specifically give gentiles a pass on Trinitarianism, but only on the inclusion of lesser beings in their reverence. Novak doesn't name Arianism (that I saw), but he does name reverence of angels. According to Novak (and I'll have to get Katz's book), Katz argues that the later halakhists misunderstood shuttfut when they lumped it into shituf. Novak disagreed about a misunderstanding, but granted that they did skirt around the trinity when they lumped the two together. Although I had Novak's book, I was clued into this by an email from another editor -- showing where Novak gives the history behind Philo, Josephus, and the Septuagint giving a pass to gentiles who include the supreme God along with their other deities (I think page 41), and tracing it through shuttfut and then shituf (I think page 49) from Rabbenu Tam into the late eighteenth century. He also gave references for what several Rabbis have already told me: the shituf and/or shuttfut boundary is crossed in Kabbalistic ideas regarding the Sephirot.
In any case:
And he has a ton of endnotes for all kinds of reading enjoyment and further Wiki editing. Since I'm interested in the subject I plan to read a number of the books he cites -- but it will take a number of months because of my writing and editing schedule.
Also, that other Wiki editor gave me Christian sources for the Philo problem. Christians have to deal with it, because Philo's work regarding the Divine Logos seems directly incorporated into John's Gospel. I've also spoken with a number of Jewish teachers who have made the same point. Christians actually have to defend against this, since they teach that this was a special revelation of God in the New Testament, rather than an incorporation of pagan philosophy filtered through Philo's attempted response.
But the short story is that Novak is operating as a historian here, and I've had a number of Orthodox Rabbis tell me that he did a good job covering the history of this thought. His notes are extensive, and he validates your sources, Jerry's sources, and a number of "nuggets" that all of us miss.
And most important for me -- he solves the Arianism/Trinitarianism problem. Basically it is not Shituf that points to Arianism, but Shuttfut -- but since both are lumped together it doesn't really matter. In other words, Novak would validate you own point on the matter.
That is, if you will allow a Jewish historian to be a source in documenting Jewish views. But I have to leave that to you. I don't have the energy to fight. We could fix the article in a couple of days and end the stupid wikiwars.
Also, we'll need some cooperation from other editors too. When Jerry and Sam got into the chopping war, Jerry was technically correct that Sam was playing a double standard, but I disagree with both of them here: it's a simple matter of treating all POVs neutrally here. Philo is well known, and I'm certain that Steve and Sam couldn't have been unaware of it. In fact, Philo is a huge point a lot of people make against Christianity, and it's doubtful that Novak would be the only writer to note it. Just a cursory look at some polemical histories (such as Lasker) and Swartz's book on Jewish Christian Dialogue both make reference to it, but I haven't researched it in depth.
Regardless, Lisa, I give you credit for at least removing your sources in order to follow the same standard, especially in light of the very strong history we have here on Wikipedia, and your own powerful inclinations on Jewish subjects. But in my opinion it wasn't necessary. I had the citations and said so. It's a simple matter of allowing cooperation.
However, back to cooperation from other editors -- Sam, Steve, Jerry -- cool it. Steve and Sam, I asked a very simple question about how you would define Shituf in such a way that would exclude Philo. Your silence on the matter showed some kind of hidden agenda. That's just wrong. Steve -- you know that we've worked cooperatively on other articles. The silence was unnecessary. And Sam, removing one set of unreferenced source notes and not another set shows a bias that will not allow useful editing here. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. In order for that to work we have to recognize that we have blind spots and allow editors with contrary POVs to help us out.
And Jerry -- come on -- this isn't the place for the arbcom to be proven. Let's leave the article work to the article.
Lisa, you and I have an opportunity to end this feud, but you have to lower your defenses. You KNOW my agenda, and you know that you can appeal to it at any time: I want any article to be equally comprehensible to all POVs. Sometimes the article is ABOUT a POV and it should do so accurately, but it has to be comprehensible to all POVs. Is Shituf about a POV? You bet! Should it accurately state that POV? Absolutely. But it has to be comprehensible to multiple POVs. And if there is a hole that is "obvious" to one POV or another, don't gloss it over; state it. It doesn't harm the article. Tim ( talk) 16:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I see the issue Novak was addressing but not the term. I suspect I'll have to research this further, because it's unlikely that Novak would have been inventing something. The problem is that if he is right -- then YOU are right that Shituf does indeed cover Trinitarianism. But if he just invented it, then I'm right that it's limited to Arianism. I got excited when I saw it because Novak was vindicating you. But I appreciate your honesty there. Obviously I'll need to read Katz's book as well and follow the sources that both of these authors point to.
Tim (
talk)
18:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, you can't practice a form of worship you don't believe in,
unless you're pretending on TV. Here's the rub, we have sources that you approve of, who are completely unintelligible to people familiar with Christianity.
But you approve of them because they are Orthodox. Fine. Why not infuse some intelligible terminology from a Conservative Rabbi for the rest of the folks?
Novak did a splendid job, and (quite refreshing) he hit the bullseye. Everything I've seen in his book now is absolutely on target, clear English, explains both nuances contained in the current use of Shituf in a way that encapsulates both Arianism and Trinitarianism so that Arianism no longer even needs to be addressed.
Plus, he provides citations for your own Deuteronomy quotes, Jerry's Philo concerns, and even Kabbalistic concerns that at least two Rabbis have taken the time to warn me about. It's perfect.
But no -- he's a Conservative Rabbi. Lisa, I'm just as Orthodox as you are, but I know a perfect Wikipedia source when I see one.
Finally, imagine if I had a Wikipedia article on a Russian Orthodox technical term for the blood libel, and I argued that the fact we don't actually eat children's blood on Passover has no place in the article, and no sources can be used unless they were Russian Orthodox and used the Russian Orthodox terminology. And in fact you couldn't even use a Greek Orthodox source because he's not Russian Orthodox. Come on, Lisa -- this is ridiculous. So the guy is a Conservative Rabbi. He's solved every single problem you and I have had on this page over the last eight months -- including your Deuteronomy quote, Philo, and Arianism. Poof -- all solved. Who has the POV problem? Tim ( talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
To respond to Tim's suggestion above that this material belongs in an article about divine relationships, I disagree. Shituf is a Jewish concept. If you want create a subheading in Divine Relationships about it and link to this article, that's fine. - LisaLiel ( talk) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, even if that were his objective, it doesn't invalidate the history and notes that he gives. It merely illustrates his motivation. But I think that you need to drop some defenses here or else you'll end up writing all of the Jewish articles all by yourself. Can Orthodox writers document Orthodox views? Of course -- but so can Reconstructionists if they are writing as scholars, and so can Christians, Buddhists, and atheists. As long as they are doing proper documentation themselves, they can present the history of these views in a scholarly way and as such present a valid source for our own work. I've seen you argue that Orthodox writers can more accurately state the truth of what Christians REALLY believe than Christians can themselves (and you and I both know I can show numerous diffs on this). Well -- turn that around: even atheists can correctly document what other beliefs say. That's the difference between systematic theology and historical theology. A Baptist systematic theology will present the Baptist view, but a Baptist historical theology can present Roman Catholic and Jewish views, because it is not writing "what God thinks" but instead "what certain people at certain times have thought." That's what Novak was doing. And that's exactly what Wikipedia should be doing too. Does he draw his own conclusions at the end of the book? I'm sure he does. But the historical part is, well, history. Tim ( talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, I think this needs to be addressed also. I'm not after interfaith dialogue here. I'm after interfaith (and non-faith) cooperation, sourcing, and comprehension. Buddhists, atheists, Muslims, Christians, Jews should be able to do neutral point of view research together, and in fact the best way of guaranteeing Wikipedia's neutral point of view goals is for multiple POVs to cooperate. There's just jargon that each group has that means different things. It's not enough for a Jewish concept to be stated accurately; it needs to be communicated accurately. The reception that the generic audience takes should be the same as the intention of the editor and his sources. But jargon is one of those hidden enemies to communication. It's not merely the absence of a term in another group, but also the presence of a different term with the same meaning, as well as the same term with a different meaning. No single POV group can see its own blind spots. Even if one POV group had all the answers to ultimate truth, it does no good if it is using terms in different ways from the other groups. Wikipedia is a multi-group effort.
Will that help interfaith dialogue? Sure. But that's only a side effect of my own goal: clear, universally comprehensible language. Do I acheive that goal in my own writing? Of course not. But that's what other editors are there to help me with, just as I am here to help them with. Tim ( talk) 16:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if a putative reliable source uses poor scholarship, that fact can't be mentioned in a Wikipedia article unless another reliable source makes the point. And I don't feel like writing an entire book about how bad Novak's scholarship is. A blog entry, maybe, but more than that would be a waste of time, in my opinion.
Tim (SkyWriter) cited David Novak earlier, and what he attributed to Novak was so wild that I had a hard time believing Tim. But to whatever extent I was skeptical of Tim's veracity in this case, I both withdraw and apologize for that skepticism. Tim correctly reported what Novak wrote. Novak, however, deserves condemnation for his shoddy use of sources and his presentation of half truths. I'm of two minds regarding Novak. I don't know whether he was so intent on making the case of his book that he was willing to take shortcuts, or whether he just messed up.
I apologize for the length of this entry. But since Tim is intent on using Novak's book as a reliable source, I think it's necessary to show why I don't think it is.
To begin with, the book in question is Jewish-Christian Dialogue: A Jewish Justification. The title alone tells you that the book isn't going to be a work of historic scholarship, but rather a polemic/apology for a kind of dialogue which is very controversial among Jews. In fact, the first section of the book is entitled "Jewish Opposition to Dialogue" (pp. 3-9).
I'm not going to go through the whole book poking at all of the mistakes Novak makes. I'm not interested enough. But I do need to address the material on shituf, because it's this material that Tim wants to use as a source for what shituf is. This material appears on pp. 46-49.
Novak cites the Talmud (Sanhedrin 63b) as forbidding a Jew to set up a partnership (shutfut) with a non-Jew, because the non-Jew might be required to swear by his god. The Tosfot on that statement brings the view of Rabbenu Tam that "even though they associate [meshatfim] the name of God and something else, we don't find that it is forbidden to (indirectly) cause others to associate."
It would probably be a cheap shot for me to note that Novak transliterates the word for "associate" as mishtatfim, a related word that's more common in modern Hebrew. Nevertheless, it speaks to both his scholarship and his knowledge of Hebrew.
At this point, at the end of page 47, Novak says something astounding. He claims that Rabbenu Tam has "reworked" the idea of shutfut, changing it from partnership between Jew and non-Jew to the relationship between the non-Jew and his god. While the words shutfut and meshatfim share the same root stem in Hebrew, they do not share the same grammatical form (binyan). The noun derived from meshatfim is shituf. And at no time does Rabbenu Tam ever use shutfut to refer to the relationship between a non-Jew and his god.
Then on page 48, Novak says that the rabbis were able to extend this leniency even to the Christian trinity because the term shutfut, which Novak claims had been reinterpreted from meaning a partnership between two people into a relationship between Christians and their god was "now seen as being interchangeable with a related term, shittuf, which in philosophical Hebrew denites an interdivine relationship."
How many mistakes can be made in a single sentence? In this case, it'd be three:
For these bloopers, he cites Jacob Katz, in Exclusiveness and Tolerance, pp. 163-164, particularly note 2 on page 163. I didn't have to take this one out of the library, because Google has most of the book available online ( [18]), including those pages.
Katz, unfortunately for Novak, does not claim that shutfut was used in the way Novak claims. Nor does Katz equate shituf and shutfut. Nor does Katz say anything about interdivine, intradivine or extradivine relationships. Nor do any rabbinic sources.
Yes, Novak says all of this. But he brings not a single source for any of it. Except for Katz, who as everyone can see said nothing of the sort.
So is Novak's book a reliable source? It depends. Is it a reliable source for what shituf is? Certainly not. Novak has originated certain views, but he has no sources of his own for them. But it's a published book, and Novak is a Conservative rabbi. Certainly that should confer a degree of reliability upon the book as a source. And clearly it does. The book is a reliable source for the iconoclastic and novel ideas of one man: David Novak. As such, I used the book as a source for the statement "It is frequently used as a reason to justify interfaith dialog with Christians".
I would not suggest that it is a reliable source for anything else in this article. Not even in the Conservative section, because to the best of my knowledge, despite his being a Conservative rabbi, his views are purely his own here, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conservative Movement.
Because I think that Novak is entitled to know what's being said about him, I'm also going to be e-mailing this analysis to him. His faculty profile at the University of Toronto is easily Google-able ( [19]). - LisaLiel ( talk) 20:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- thanks for your note. I'll answer each of your points shortly. Tim ( talk) 13:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa,
Since your notes were so involved, I needed to sort through them in order to form as concise an answer as possible.
The trouble we are dealing with is one of religious analogue. The pieces on Wikipedia will only slowly develop in this area. The information is there, but it will take a while before they start to converge.
As for Shituf – one of the things I left out of the talk page before were secondary notes from those same Rabbis warning me that the Sephirot do indeed constitute Shituf. David Novak also made the same observation in his book. I understand that you disagree with Novak, but the Rabbis I corresponded with told me both in person and in email the same point.
There are analogues in religion – similar ideas covering essential philosophical aspects of infinity in relation to finitude. In Kabbalistic thought there is the Ein Sof and the Sephirot. In Christian thought there is the “one only supreme God without body or parts” (Westminster Confession of Faith; 1689 Second London Baptist Confession; etc.) and there is the Trinity. And, for that matter, in Hinduism there is the infinite impersonal Brahma and the billions of gods. These are analogues. The differences in religions are not matters of whether they have such analogues, so much as in what they do with them.
There are other analogues regarding special revelation and general revelation. General revelation is more of a bottom-up affair. We look at the created order and are able to form certain conceptions of the Creator from what we see. Special revelation is a top-down affair. God “reveals” himself. Take the Torah, for instance: is it the word of Moses or the Word of God? The answer to both alternatives is “yes.” In Christianity, is Jesus the son of Mary or the Word of God? Again, the answer to both alternatives is “yes.” Is a Torah scroll physical? Sure. It is physical, and finite. We read through it and reach the end each year. But although it is physical and finite in length, it is spiritual and infinite in depth – and so when we finish it, we are never finished with it, but have to go back, and back, and back, forever. This is how Christians see Jesus. That, by the way, is the subject of “incarnation” or the “two natures of Christ.” You were getting this confused with an entirely different subject called the “Trinity.” Just as a Torah scroll is physical and finite, the Christian analogue of Jesus is 100% human and finite. That is the human nature. He is not part human. He is all human. The Torah scroll is not part physical. It is all physical. Correspondingly, just as the Torah scroll is spiritual and infinite, the Christian analogue of Jesus is 100% divine and infinite. He is not part God. He is all God. The Torah scroll is not part the Word of God. It is all the Word of God.
The analogues for the Sephirot and the Trinity are completely different. Your mixing up the incarnation and the Trinity is like a Christian mixing up the Sephirot and the Torah. These are entirely different subjects. In Judaism, “God is Person” (I like the way Neusner expressed that). In Christianity, God is also Person – but He is Person in every “person” that is possible: first, second, and third persons. God is within us; God is beside us; God is beyond us. God within us partners with God with us to reconcile with God without us – itself an eternal process since that which is by definition “beyond” is always beyond. God is first, second, and third person – something in “I” working with “Thou” to reconcile with “Him.” God is not limited to any single person in a grammatical or rational sense. Judaism does this too, but we don’t formally express this as the “Three Person God.” We simply express this as “God.”
On a purely rational and philosophical way, these are accomplishing the same thing.
And yet, we don’t simply express this as “God” do we? No, we don’t. There is the Ein Sof. But the Ein Sof is by definition beyond us, singular in such a way that it cannot be “with” anything or anyone. God has no partners – not even us. To become “with” the Ein Sof would be to make it no longer “Ein Sof.” It would be like a Christian saying that Jesus is “God the Father.” No, he cannot be God the Father (God beyond us) any more than up can be down. Instead, he is “God with us” – Immanuel. God “beyond us” cannot be God “with us” unless he were to change, become finite, and no longer be “beyond.” And in both Christianity and Judaism, God does not change. God is not limited to “beyond.” Neither is he limited from “beyond.” And neither is he limited from “with” or “within.” God is infinite, without boundaries, without limitations, and without absence. He is within, with, and without. He is first, second, and third person. He is all these things and must be all these things because he is infinite. And if he were not any of this, he would be finite. Judaism has a similar philosophical problem of the infinite Creator. Because he is infinite, there are no handles by which we can grasp him. But he isn’t limited from us either. And that’s the problem. If God is infinite and we are finite, what are we interacting with? Does one interact with part of infinity? Well, no, because in neither Judaism nor Christianity can God have any “parts.” But are we interacting with all of God? Well, yes… sort of. “All of God” is in the tiniest grain of sand, and is simultaneously greater than all creation. But that computes with us about as well as 1=3. So we create these aspects of God in our philosophical system called the Sephirot.
To get to your Baal Peor point… the Rabbis are not condemning the belief that God is infinitely Person (i.e. Person in every possible way), but they are condemning the action of worshipping God as infinite Person. Okay – if that’s what you really want to say, so be it.
And you’ll answer, “no that isn’t what I’m trying to say at all.”
And I’ll answer, “no, that isn’t what you are TRYING to say – but it is certainly what you are ACCOMPLISHING.”
To be honest, the Sephirot are not as clean an approach as Christianity. These aspects really are parts. As such they must be created.
In Christianity, God doesn’t create himself. Neither does he have created parts. He is eternal, infinite, and entirely whole – one in every way that a Person can be; first, second, and third.
And he is whole with us and without us. He ultimately doesn’t need us, because even entirely alone, he is never alone.
What does this have to do with the article?
Glad you asked.
I finally had to leave the definition on Shituf alone once I saw that Novak was saying the same thing that the Rabbis offline were warning me about – the Sephirot are Shituf. If this article were being worked on from an NPOV collaboration of editors, this would be a simple thing to document (not only from Novak, but from other sources as well).
But this isn’t NPOV, and this isn’t a collaboration. This is a single editor effort, with a strong POV that doesn’t recognize subjective analogues, but instead must define all of reality, and indeed all other religions, from an objectivist Orthodox POV grid.
The truth, friend, is that Wikipedia is not about Truth. Wikipedia is about finding notable and verifiable sources from any POV they come from, and simply documenting what is there. That’s it.
And as I frequently point out – Wikipedia.en tries to do this in English.
But Wikipedia cannot do this in the environment the present article is governed under. At least, it cannot do this when two editors are clashing the way we are – with overhead nearly as infinite as the same Jewish God you and I both worship in an Orthodox way.
And that’s perhaps the greatest irony of all. We are both Orthodox Jews, passionately committed to our Lord and Faith and way of life as revealed in Torah – both written and oral. That’s not our problem. Our problem is not that we are committed to our POV.
Our problem is that you believe our POV defines all reality and is in fact itself the definition of NPOV.
And I know it is not.
But I also know that Wikipedia will grow faster and better without the tendentious overhead the two of us create. Is Wikipedia better served by my tweaking an article that has nothing to do with Judaism while you own whatever articles you want? Sure it is. At least we won’t endlessly clutter talk pages so much that we finally crash the servers.
And you know what? Judaism articles will grow in spite of your ownership. They have to – because you are finite, and you cannot contain Judaism to the sphere of your own time and expertise (as great as those are). The entire corpus of Wikipedia will grow around you until it towers around the tiny islands of Judaism you keep down against the rising tide. No amount of sand bags could hold back the Red Sea once Moses lowered his staff.
So I’ll improve other articles in cooperation with other editors in support of NPOV.
Good luck with your sand bags.
And in the end, Wikipedia will be okay. You have a lot of great things to contribute. You are a talented writer, with great learning and great research to offer.
I do too. And so I propose that we keep out of each other’s way.
This is the last time I will interact with you on any article under this name. And in fact I will make a point of not interacting with you on any other name. Wikipedia is better with the two of us acting separately than together. You get to keep any article you want. You can say anything you want, with no argument from me. And if you come into another article and an editor leaves – it might be me, or Alastair, or Bikinibomb, or Egfrank. Or it could just be someone else.
But Wikipedia has more sandboxes than you can even visit, let alone control.
I’m going to go play well with others now.
All the best to you. Tim ( talk) 14:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Tim wrote: "Okay, so is Lisa right and there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity? Apparently so."
Am I the only one who is getting tired of this? Tim, if you want to retain an assumption of good faith, you have to stop this. Seriously. All rabbinic sources disagree with Christianity. You are engaging in spin, based upon your personal POV opinion of the issues, and it's just wildly inappropriate. You've been called on it by myself and by Slrubenstein, and possibly by others, but you don't seem to have any willingness whatsoever to acknowledge that you are mistaken.
You are saying this:
Fact: Shituf = Arianism
Fact: Shituf ≠ Trinitarianism
This is your personal opinion. It may be the view of Christianity as well. It is not fact. Fact is:
Jewish view: Shituf = Trinitarianism
Christian view: Shituf ≠ Trinitarianism; Shituf = Arianism
[1]
Consider the path of a disagreement. You want to start after a determination is made about whether trinitarianism is or is not shituf, and look at what Judaism has to say. But the disagreement starts further back on that path. With the very determination of whether trinitarianism is or is not shituf. That is the disagreement.
You cannot say that it is not. That's OR. That's POV. That's simply one view. There is another verifiable view of the matter, and you keep trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that it either doesn't exist or has no validity.
You've said "Christianity defines Christianity". And the answer to that is "not here, it doesn't". Here, Christianity only defines the Christian view of Christianity.
Please take a step back and try and realize that continuing to say things like "are there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity?" only places you further outside of Wikipedia policy and makes it impossible for this conflict to end. - LisaLiel ( talk) 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, there are several layers to this:
Our disconnect has been that I’ve been searching for item number 3 before settling with 4.
“Okay, so is Lisa right and there are NO Rabbinic sources that disagree with Christianity? Apparently so.”
That statement was simply giving up on 3 and settling for 4. I agree with you that 4 is absolutely valid for Wikipedia. It’s just that 3, if it exists, is even better.
That’s all.
The statement wasn’t being argumentative. It was just saying, “Okay, if I a universally intelligible statement can’t be found, file it away in our heads and move on.”
Hope that clears it up. Tim ( talk) 13:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I just realized that it may be helpful to translate that process to this instance:
Is it acceptable to give a citation of a Jewish view that doesn’t match the actual doctrine it’s addressing? Sure – but for the sake of the readers do a second check to see if there could be an even better citation.
I had thought Telushkin to be that citation. He seemed to be the greatest scholar in all of Judaism to actually fill number 3. Is he the greatest scholar in all of Judaism? Of course not! From Moses to Moses, there has never been another like Moses… (but there are a lot of great men with different names nonetheless).
I was okay with “the vast majority in all of history thinks thus and so” even if it seemed there was an exception. I wasn’t comfortable with “EVERY Jew thinks thus and so” when I was looking at one Rabbi who I thought was an exception. “Every” statements are tough to document on Wikipedia. But, if there really isn’t an exception, THEN “every Jew thinks thus and so” is okay as well. At least we took the time to look.
Fair? Tim ( talk) 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
HG -- my idea is that when "first order" (1) and "second order" (2) definitions match (3), that's the first citation to look for. If not (4), then have 1, 2, and 4 instead. I'm not saying to AVOID 4. I'm just saying to check for 3 first. That's all. Tim ( talk) 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- for one thing, you and I are in the minority of the "Jewish view." Only 10% of us are observant and give a bleep about halakhic authority. You and I do for our personal lives. Certainly we'd like to encourage more of that in the other 90%. Also, I'd like to be able to lean on you for the big bombs. I'd just appreciate it if you could try to aim them where I'm pointing the laser beam if at all possible. I had THOUGHT it was possible in that instance. I was wrong. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so when you can. But more to the point -- a big bomb 3 is MUCH better than a little nugget 3. Absolutely! And should it be "representative"? Yes, again. But, still, look for the 3 if you can. You pull out the guns and let me communicate the location of the target. If you have a gun pointed in that direction -- please, shoot that one first. Tim ( talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
All I see Tim saying is, don't use the OR of "every Jew thinks/doesn't think thus and so" as has been done with figs and everything else under the sun here (which is a major reason for my AfD), find some cites. If you can't find cites right now then move on to the next item. Is that a big problem? - Bikinibomb ( talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with finding cites saying something like this:
The last view is scarce but I've seen it out there. That covers every possible view, doesn't it? - Bikinibomb ( talk) 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he will block as long as we don't attack anymore. At least I hope he sees blame needs to go all the way around, not just heaped on one side.
Anyway...so is it that you are looking for something that says Gentiles shouldn't even think about God in limited terms, or being of a partnership? The long lists of Noahide laws I think covers a lot of that, I gave a link to one but there are other versions. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Didn't we kind of leave off with that being unresolved? In the archives I posted:
Most recent authorities agree that Children of Noah are forbidden to believe in a partnership. But even according to these, the Children of Noah are permitted to swear by the name of an idol in combination with God (to swear by the Lord of Hosts and a Hindu deity, for example). Idolatry
Well, this says MOST. So they have reason to think that SOME don't agree they are forbidden, right? So you are on the right track, if you want to give all sides of the story. I don't think it matters that one is way more notable than another, for simple honesty's sake if not every single Jew on the planet believes it is forbidden then you still kind of have to say some don't, which is a lot of what I've been griping about here, the desire to make it black or white when it's not really that way. The question now is finding a source that says some believe it is specifically not forbidden. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 21:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this is more to the point:
So long as ascribing power to a deity other than the Creator remains conceptual, it is permissible to the Children of Noah according to many authorities[6]. But worship of this independent being is clearly idolatry. Idolatry - Bikinibomb ( talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's say there is a major Jewish view that blah blah is ok for Christians but not for Jews. Sure you can say that, but someone like me who thinks it makes no sense is going to add a little sourced reminder/criticism that ethnic Jews can also be Christians since once a Jew, always a Jew, and then the reader may also see that this popular Jewish view makes no sense, since how can something be ok for Christians but not for Jews if Jews can also be Christians? So if you found a source using the term "Gentiles" rather than "Christians" and better yet another saying that most Jews believe Christians are also Gentiles and not Jews, you'll clean up that messy view so that it doesn't need to be rebutted. Sometimes you need to go looking for sources and cherrypick a little if you are interested in getting the spirit of the correct view across, if not the exact words. Unless as I said you want a rebuttal that makes it look nonsensical to the reader. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 04:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest folks here carefully review WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Note that religious scripture is specifically listed as a primary source. I would include classic Rabbinic works, such as Mishneh Torah in that category. To quote the policy: "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."-- agr ( talk) 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
We should keep the Jewish cites in the Jewish section and the Christian ones in the Christian section. Readers might mistake Louis Jacobs for a Christian and get a bit tangled. Tim ( talk) 15:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The statement that Judaism rejects trinitarianism as Judaism understands it is not going to be helpful to the Christian readers, since Christianity also rejects trinitarianism as Judaism understands it (i.e. Arianism).
Guys, I am NOT trying to defend Christianity here. Keep the Jacobs source, but can you help me find another one in which Judaism rejects trinitarianism as Christians understand it? We really DO reject trinitarianism as Christians understand it, BTW. Anyhow, I'll do some hunting for a more on target source. Please KEEP the Jacobs source, but I'd appreciate some help finding an on target source as well. I'll start with Schechter, Cohen, and the Rambam.
Thanks. Tim ( talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The Tzadik problem is another matter -- and in fact what I am looking for would be helpful there as well. I've seen some instances in which the Tzadikim were treated in an Arian way. For instance, the Chofetz Chaim treats Josephs brothers as Tzadikim, and incapable of sinning. Their treatment of Joseph becomes a righteous beit din condemning him to death for lashon hara, and their action was treated as mercy. So, when I gave a talk at a Lubavitch lunch, I used Joseph as a human example for us to learn from, knowing to stay away from treating his brothers as human. Wrong move. JOSEPH is the Tzadik in Lubavitch tradition, and his brothers are treated as human. Let's forget the different groups, the Jesusers, the Josephers, the patriarchers -- and look for a principle involved... I'll describe it better below. Tim ( talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
More specifically, I'm looking for a citation in which Judaism prohibits an intra-divine relationship, instead of just an inter-divine relationship. For instance, we need something that denies that God can function as his own mediator, or that he would even need to do so. Tim ( talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"God has no body, parts, or passions" (Westminster Confession, 1689 London Confession, etc.) is a foundational statment for Christian doctrine. If we include a Jewish statement that "Worship of any three-part god by a Jew is nothing less than a form of idolatry" -- well, in all fairness we should give a similar statement from Christian sources. Dagg, or Berkhoff, or even Calvin are clear examples, as well as the confessions I just pointed out. Both religions reject a God with parts for a simple reason: both religions insist on monotheism, regardless of what they think about each other. Do we REALLY need a joint statement against a partitioned deity? Tim ( talk) 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I see that inclusion is just more POV push and whimsy, a random irk that came to mind. Aren't there more important things to say regarding the Jewish view of Christians, like maybe, Jews don't believe Jesus is Christ as they do, to start off with? From the AfD this article may be going away anyhow, which is good since there will be less problems with sticking to introduction content and cherrypicking quotes like that... - Bikinibomb ( talk) 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's what I mean by whimsy. In one article an editor insists on saying the Jesus has no role whatsoever in Judaism. The lo and behold, in another article sees fit to make "Christianity" a shared term just to add the view of Judaism that Christianity is generally considered idolatry according to Jewish theologians, first unsourced, then after some reverts with a source that doesn't really say that. So if Christianity is about Jesus, one role of Jesus in Judaism is a view of idolatry.
So as a test I changed "Christ" to a shared term to see if she would revert it and of course she did as a Christian only term, she did the same with Yeshua even though it was a common Hebrew name. If Christianity is a shared term, why not its base of Christ? That's the kind of POV spewing game playing bullshit I was trying to help put an end to with those guidelines. I guess the solution is probably to create a new account, keep my nose clean in it, make admin, then if I encounter this in the future I can use my superpowers to clamp down, just as an admin was used to twist and shape this article. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The material on oaths is not ancillary. They are the only source in Jewish for this topic. Moses Iseerles is almost the entire discussion in Jewish law on this topic. In contemporary times, these short statements have been used to produce broad theories of how Judiasm views Christianity. But all the tradition of Jewish law has is Isserles. Any statement like "they accept the same God" `is already a contemporary interpretation usually reflective of the author-even if they start off by saying "in Jewish law."-- Jayrav ( talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The article looks like a real encyclopedia article now. Thanks, everyone. Tim ( talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I responded to Lisa on another page with the following. This may not be the article for it, but this is the idea that I'm trying to find documentation for:
Again -- it may not belong here, but it will belong somewhere. Tim ( talk) 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Maimonides regards God as not even having attributes but isn't God defined as having attributes of mercy, justice, kindness, etc? So is the real problem with Trinity its basic attempt to define God, if some defining is done in Judaism even if abstract? Or does it have more to do with saying that the father attribute of God sired a son attribute of God giving God a physical attribute? That was always my problem with Trinity, making God Himself a man. Rather than saying God is God and never a man, but He can control and give power to men so much that they became as God over the people, in the case of Moses in Exodus 4:16, and the role Jesus is said to play. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess why I keep asking about Shekhinah is that I've always seen that it is a dwelling, settling, or presence of a female attribute or dimension of God Himself, and the assumption is that if there are really 2 dimensions or attributes or whatever you would call it, you couldn't take away the female part leaving one male God, you would have no God, since there are two dimensions but only one God.
I've never seen Shekhinah described as a created thing to act as a doorway, window, etc. -- if most Jews view it as that, why don't they say that instead of saying it is a feminine aspect of God dwelling on earth? - Bikinibomb ( talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The wiki entires for Jewish view of God, God, unity of God, attributes can all use work. Most of them are messes. Maybe you can put you conversation to work fixing up these articles? -- Jayrav ( talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying like, this post here is my presence, but it was a created thing and can be deleted and I'll still exist -- and so...the Shekhinah can be deleted and God will still exist?
I can't speak for all Islam since it is as diverse as any religion, but yeah, Genesis says we were created in God's image, and He does things that are loving, compassionate, etc. He can also be hateful to His enemies, but you know, with a perfect hatred that is always justified. It's like, what you see God do is what He is, there's not one God making things happen here to create the illusion of a different God feeling a different way. That kind of seems like polytheism and idolatry, where you have all these attributes that seem like God and you worship as God, but in reality they are created things, windows, channels, etc. and not God. Either you are worshiping a God you know and believe in because of that knowledge, or you are worshiping a creation and something other than God. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
What about Psalms 116:5 Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful.? It sounds like you are saying God is not really merciful Himself, mercy is just a thing He created. I get the image of an emotionless computer hooked to our brains giving us the illusion that it has mercy, when it's only a set of instructions. So the merciful thing we worship is just an illusion, which would rather seem to be idolatry. Do you think Psalms is really divinely inspired, if it leads us to worship only the illusion of a merciful God, if in reality we can't really know anything about attributes of God? - Bikinibomb ( talk) 16:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
What is your interpretation of being created in God's likeness? Since it's not about flesh I always believed it was about emotions, thought, etc. That He experiences love, hate, etc. as we do, so that a human is a reflection of God making Him knowable, even with our limitations. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 17:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
See, this is what happens when I take things for granted. I've removed the Isserles quote. Here are the reasons. One is that the quote doesn't exist. Not in Yoreh De'ah 15, at any rate. Maybe it exists elsewhere. Another is that it's not a quote from R' Isserles, but a quote of R' Isserles quoting the Tosfot on Sanhedrin 63a. You can go to E-daf to see the actual page and read the Tosfot for yourself, if you like. A third reason is that the translation was incorrect. And not in a small way. The Tosfot there does not say that shituf is permissible for non-Jews. It says that "we have not found that causing non-Jews to commit shituf is forbidden, as lifnei iveir (lit. placing a stumbling block before the blind; i.e. causing another to sin) does not apply to non-Jews". The Tosfot there is clear that shituf is forbidden for non-Jews. While I am under the impression that sources to exist that permit it, this Tosfot is not one of them. - LisaLiel ( talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You do not remove something - Moses Isserles becuase the number in source was incorrect. You are to add a tag - check source or add source. I meant to write 156 but worte 15 instead. I will try to find time to double check. Also I added a full translation of tosafot.-- Jayrav ( talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)And if you do not like my translations then fix them or make a comment - do not remove them.-- Jayrav ( talk) 00:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, Christianity is a monotheistic religion. That's also the Christian view. That's also the definition given, cited, and accepted by Wikipedia standards.
It's also the reason Christianity rejects divine partnership.
The short version is this: Judaism allows polytheism (shituf) to gentiles. Christianity does not allow polytheism (shituf) to anyone.
Christianity is actually MORE monotheistic in their position than we are. Fair is fair. We tolerate this polytheism and they do not. Tim ( talk) 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- Christianity is a monotheistic religion in about 99% of the sources you'll find out there. It's not the place of Wikipedia editors to removed SOURCED statements and replace them with their UNSOURCED POV. Tim ( talk) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we have to put such a caveat for every religion on every page? In lists of monotheistic religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are right up there together on almost every list. Plus, the section is the Christian view. Their VIEW is that they CONSIDER themselves thus and so? That's a bit redundant, don't you think? Instead of having to document their normative status both internally and externally "as a monotheistic religion" I would think rather that we would have to heavily document any position that stated they weren't. Tim ( talk) 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I put in caveats stating the views are... views. Anything more will make us look like some kind of antimissionary site. Tim ( talk) 20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
What do I need to do here? I've given one Jewish source for Christianity being a monotheistic religion. I can add others from all branches of Judaism (I started with Orthodox). Also, I can quote the Christian positions against any multiplicity of deities. Christians do not regard polytheism to be acceptable for ANYONE. Do I need to quote those positions as well?
This is getting tedious. I think the Christian section is cited twice as much as all the Jewish sections of this article combined.
Although I've had friends in Jews for Judaism, Wikipedia is NOT J4J (on either side of the acronym). Tim ( talk) 11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- I'm simply insisting that the Christian view be stated. That's all. Look, you had the luxury growing up of simply being Jewish. You didn't need to reject anything, real or imagined. You simply needed to accept what you were born with. I didn't have that luxury. To convert I had to do more than reject some fantasy religion you keep making up and calling "Christianity." I had to reject the real thing. What I have a strong connection to is reality, Lisa. Christianity is a monotheistic trinitarian religion. I didn't have to reject shituf ideas because I was never a Jehovah's Witness.
As for contradictory views -- I have not attempted to change the Jewish views. You've correctly stated them, although they show us to be, as a whole, largely ignorant of Christianity. But let's be fair and not look intolerant at the same time.
Everything I've put in is sourced and acceptable by Wikipedia standards, and the more you change it, the longer and more sourced it will be. How deep do you want to dig? Tim ( talk) 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, Lisa -- the continuous smacks about my conversion are inappropriate and offensive. I have a thick skin, but they are getting in the way of any kind of rational discussion. As a Jew, I object to your making our religion appear to be intolerant: intolerant of Messianics, intolerant of Christians, and -- even more bizarre -- intolerant of people who are fully aware and understand Christianity and choose to embrace Judaism anyway. Treatment of a convert in this way is a violation of Torah as well. I have no interest in being a poster child for conversion, I have little patience for polemics on either side, but I DO insist on factual presentations in an encyclopedia on subjects I know something about and have sources to back it up.
For the record, Judaism is authoritative for itself regarding its treatment of Christianity even if that is based on a misunderstanding of Christianity. We do not have to understand something perfectly in order to make a decision for ourselves. As such, the decisions on shituf are both unnecessary and valid. They are unnecessary because Christians do not believe in partnership. They are valid because to us it seems as if they do and we have to make a rationale regarding our relationship that makes sense to us. Our treatment of Christians, then, is more lenient than it needs to be, but that's perfectly okay. Jews cannot be expected to understand Christianity, nor should they be required to do so. The amount of education required to make a ruling regarding Christianity as it really is would be impractical for the Jewish population and would be dangerous as well -- because people have a way of getting stuck inside paradigms they were merely trying to understand. I would say the same regarding Christian decisions of how to relate to us. They should relate to us based on how they understand us. They do not have to relate to us based on how we understand ourselves. To do so would require them to understand us as we understand ourselves -- something only truly possible with a lot of education and a huge paradigm shift that could lead to a lot of conversions (in either direction) if it was tried.
Ultimately a religion (such as our religion) must make decisions for itself based on the best of our understanding. That's valid. However, Judaism remains self defined. Christianity remains self defined. Our relations with each other do not have to match those self definitions -- and it would be impractical and religiously dangerous for individuals to try.
All that being said -- an encyclopedia that has the temerity to object to Christianity being presented "as a monotheistic religion" in a section titled the "Christian view" -- well such an encyclopedia is not NPOV, is it? Tim ( talk) 15:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
And I added more opinions, and will continue to add more opinions every time you make a change. Tim ( talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Tim wrote: Uh -- try keeping polemics out. When describing the CHRISTIAN view, describe the Christian VIEW of "persons."
I'm not engaging in polemics. Post Christian apologetics on a different page if you must. - LisaLiel ( talk) 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that conflict is part of the NPOV process here. Let's, please, have some peace. I really need to finish proofing my galley and have no interest in being the defender of Christianity on Wikipedia.
Also, R. Wurzburger is cited on this page. He was a most peacful man, and I still mourn his passing. In fact, he is the one who made the decision for the Beit Din to encourage me to finish my book. In his name, Lisa, let us please move on from this. Tim ( talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
How about creating a R. Wurzburger wiki page? -- Jayrav ( talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, I see you just did. nice idea. -- Jayrav ( talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Could any one provide the Hebrew graphics for the term, please. Muscovite99 ( talk) 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, I was content with Novak and wanted to leave Telushkin out of it since you told me that he wasn't happy with his terms "the trinity represents three aspects of one God". Can we just go back to the edit before today and leave this alone? This is completely unnecessary. Tim ( talk) 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- if "one God" isn't monotheistic, then we need to define the term a different way. Also, Telushkin (if he indeed wrote you) rejected your representation of what I was saying -- which does not resemble what I was saying. I NEVER said that Christianity was okay for Jews, EVER. Nor would I EVER use Telushkin as a source to support something that I do not myself believe. I merely left him out to be polite. Now, I wrote Telushkin myself and received no response. Until then, "one God" sounds pretty mono(one)theist(God)ic to most folks. Tim ( talk) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:53:59 -0600
- From: Lisa Liel <lisa@starways.net>
- Subject: help, please
- Dear Rabbi Telushkin,
- I am engaged in a debate with a person I'll call T. T is an Orthodox Jew who converted from Christianity. Previously, he was a Christian pastor and theologian.
- The debate revolves around the issue of shituf and the Christian trinity. I have stated that the unanimous view of Jewish authorities is that worship of the trinity constitutes idolatry *for Jews*. T insists that this view is not unanimous, because there is one notable Jewish authority who says otherwise. That authority, he says, is you.
- He bases this claim on the following quote from your book, "Jewish Literacy":
- Throughout the centuries, more than a few Jewish thinkers have argued that the idea of the trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) seemed idolatrous. Ultimately, however, the majority of Jewish scholars concluded that although Christianity speaks of a trinity, it does not conceive of the three forces as separate with different and conflicting wills. Rather, the trinity represents three aspects of one God. While Jews are forbidden to hold such a belief, it is not avodah zarah."
- I read this as you saying that trinitarianism is not idolatry for non-Jews, but T insists that you are saying it isn't idolatry even for Jews. He wants to post this publically on Wikipedia as a notable Jewish position.
- Thank you for your help.
- Kol Tuv,
- Lisa
- Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:40:37 EST
- Subject: Re: help, please
- To: lisa@starways.net
- Your explanation is correct. If he posts it as he tells you he wants to do he is falsifying what I said.
- Thank you.
- WIth best wishes
- Joseph Telushkin
Lisa -- I'll do you one better. How about we just go back to the way it was worded YESTERDAY with just Novak? As an author, I have no intention of using an unwilling source from my own camp! Fair?
As for the subject at hand, the information you supplied Telushkin did not explain that I always held his statement "it is forbidden to Jews" to mean that "it is forbidden to Jews." If I were Telushkin, with just your note, I would have said something similar to what he said. Although "falsifying" is a word I would not have used on so little information. That being the case, out of politeness I would rather we leave the poor Rabbi out of it and go back to yesterday. Or, if you prefer, we can leave it as is. I'll leave the call to you. But I doubt your personal email line would survive any other editor -- so I'd suggest going with my idea. Tim ( talk) 23:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Then we'll have to leave it as is, since "one God" is, uh, by definition "monotheistic." Tim ( talk) 23:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- what part of "one God" doesn't mean "one God"? Eh? Tim ( talk) 01:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Declare all you want. It's in print, and it's explicit. Tim ( talk) 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- Telushkin did NOT disagree that "one God" meant "one God." That's not OR. That's just mono(one)the(god)ism. I accepted your compromise and offered you one better, and I cannot fathom why you are baiting and switching. I'm restoring it to your last offer and asking you to call your OWN edit a day. Tim ( talk) 02:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- Telushkin, an Orthodox Rabbi, manifestly states that (at least) GENTILE Christians are not worshipping multiple deities. This isn't OR. If "one God" isn't monotheism, then NOTHING is. The only OR here is that "personal email" that you claim to have from him (which BTW, no one could verify). Tim ( talk) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- he says that Christians worship "one God" and he even says this is the majority Jewish view. It's not my fault that he didn't STATE "only Gentile" Christians. Of course you inferred that, and if your unverifiable email did come from him, he apparently didn't mean "Christians" when he said "Christians" but only meant "Gentile Christians." Fine -- I accepted that on face value. But the subject of Shituf IS about (at least Gentile) Christians, which has to be included in Telushkin's comment or else you include no Christians at all. It's not me who made an inference that "Christians" means "Christians." It's simply the English language. And, in fact, one would have to radically reword his statement to MAKE it say what you CLAIM he says it means:
I'm not the one falsifying Telushkin here -- you are.
And one other thing. Not only is Shituf forbidden by Jews for Jews -- it is also forbidden by Christians for Christians. Christianity holds the concept we call Shituf to be polytheistic and forbidden, and the fact that we allow it for anyone makes us far more permissive about idolatry than they are.
As for Telushkin intervening, he is most welcome to answer my email to him from six months ago. Tim ( talk) 16:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Steve, Christians actually DO have very strong views of the concept we call "Shituf" -- and they roundly condemn it as a polytheistic heresy called "Arianism." Since we APPLY "shituf" TO Christians, the fact that they actually reject the concept is most pertinent. To give an example, let's say that a group of people had a concept for "Jews need human blood for passover" (i.e. the blood libel), and they made a term for it and applied it to us in governing their relations with us. The fact that we ourselves condemn the consumption of ANY blood (even animal blood) would have a place in such an article. I'd like to add that the comparison is no hyperbole. The concept of multiple deities in partnership is as anathema to Christians as the concept of eating human blood is to us. Tim ( talk) 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- the Trinity is not a Christian statement about Judaism. Shituf is a Jewish statement about Christianity. What Christianity actually teaches regarding the concept of divine partnership is as essential as authentic Jewish dietary rultes would be in an article about the blood libel. To bury it is a violation of NPOV. Just tonight I brought the subject up with an aquantaince who is an Eastern Orthodox Monk, and he was completely floored that anyone would allow Arianism (i.e. Shituf) as an acceptable belief for Gentiles. Arianism is explicitly forbidden within Christianity as polytheistic. Tim ( talk) 02:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- stop with the personal attacks. They are unseemly, and definitely un-halakhic. And if you think the concept of lesser deities in partnership with God has nothing to do with Arianism, then you absolutely demonstrate that you do not understand Arianism. I've offered a broader definition of Shituf that would actually ADDRESS Trinitarianism and not just Arianism. But until we find a sourced text that does this, then we are stuck with Arianism. If Shituf is supposed to be about Trinitarianism, then please find that definition that does so.
This is ridiculous -- just leave it to the edit from last week and call it a day. We can both walk away and forget about it. Tim ( talk) 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- I'd welcome arbitration. To have an article about Jewish concept of a Christian concept without mentioning the Christian concept itself is like having an article on the blood libel without mentioning that Jews forbid eating blood. Tim ( talk) 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Should an article on a Jewish religious subject include a section on Christian views just because the subject is viewed by some Jewish rabbinic authorities as pertaining to Christianity? - LisaLiel ( talk) 13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew! Tim ( talk) 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, you have a good point, and I apologize for the edit-warring. I should have taken this to RfC a lot earlier. I've rewritten the article and limited it to an article about the Jewish concept of shituf, without polemics for or against Christian beliefs. - LisaLiel ( talk) 14:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, THANKS! Geeze, now we can rest for a bit with some rationality. I'm going to pop off for the rest of the weekend. I have a second galley proof to finish and a screenplay submission to make. Stick Shabbat in between there and that leaves no Wiki time. In any case, there won't be any consenus between Lisa and myself. Believe me, I've tried. Please go through some of the edit history to see how I've tried repeatedly to compromise. I even offered to let her remove all references to Christianity -- but she cannot do so, because the concept is applied primarily TO Christianity. In any case, I've asked for third parties to look in from both Christianity and Judaism. I actually SUGGEST that Lisa and I BOTH avoid future edits for at least a month to give others time to do what they want. I suggest this, because the issue seems to be personal (I could be wrong). But even if I'm wrong, blocking BOTH of us from this page for a solid month would be well in order. Can you do that? Tim ( talk) 15:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Andrew -- the page right now is the same as it has been FOR MONTHS before Lisa got annoyed with me on a different article's talk page and decided to retaliate with a Wikiwar here. I'd suggest, if you DO any reversion, please revert the page to the way it was before the edit war began this week, and then block BOTH of us for a month to let non-combatants fix it. This is nothing more than a personal issue. Tim ( talk) 15:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, folks, I guess I'll try to weigh in. I think in theory the idea of a "Christian Response" section would be acceptable, since we are talking about a major and well known criticism of Christianity here. However, as it stands, the section is badly written and doesn't really provide any useful information. I think it goes without saying that Christians would deny that their religion is polytheistic, since we share the Ten Commandments with them and it does say quite explicitly that we are not supposed to have any God before Him. So, my !vote is get rid of the section for now, but if we can work to improve it I would support adding it back.
I would also strongly suggest to both Lisa and Tim that you guys seriously take like a day off of editing and try to put things in perspective. You are obviously both very worked up and you need to
chill out and stop undermining each other. It's not very becoming, take it from me.
L'Aquatique
happy fourth!
17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to rewrite this article as it should have been in the first place. Tim created it with Christianity foremost in his mind, but shituf has nothing to do with Christianity, even if there is a minority view that Christian worship is shituf rather than avodah zarah. - LisaLiel ( talk) 14:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Uh -- try again, Lisa. There are references to Christianity ALL THROUGH the article. If it's not about Christianity, then remove all references to Christians and Christianity. But you can't -- because that's the whole point of Shituf. Tim ( talk) 14:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I just removed any reference to Christianity. Since Shituf is primarily applied to Christianity, the article now meets Andrews requirments.
The article itself, however, is now false. But that's up to you and Andrew. If Wikipedia is about making falsehoods -- enjoy. Tim ( talk) 14:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- you said that Shituf "has nothing to do with Christianity". I then invited you to delete all references to Christianity. You failed to do so, and when I deleted paragraphs that mention Christianity, you labelled that as vandalism.
Well, make up your mind. If eliminating references to Christianity is vandalism, then Shituf is being applied to Christianity. You can't have it both ways.
That being said, Andrew -- thanks for the block. I'm going to stay off until I finish a screenplay submission... which will take me a few days. I leave the helm in your capable hands. Tim ( talk) 15:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Andrew -- notice the "I will not allow". Can you just block us both for a month and let people who are not the target of a personal attack do some real work? Tim ( talk) 15:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I would point out that this is purely a personal event, and the persons involved should step back and allow both sets of affected parties (Christians and Jews) take an equal look at it and apply Wiki-good-sense. I've addressed Christians and Jews equally. Lisa, on the other hand, has been only enlisting one side.
Here's what's going to happen: an artificial consensus is going to be generated and Lisa's edits will be enforced. Only Christian sources that use the JEWISH term for Arianism (Shituf) will be allowed, instead of Christian sources that use the CHRISTIAN term for Shituf (Arianism). It will appear by an artificial constraint that Christians have nothing at all to say about their own belief, in spite of the fact that they have a great deal to say about it, and have roundly condemned the concept of partnership for the past 1600 years.
And here's what else will happen -- I will no longer care. A personal agenda, and a personally enlisted single side of eyeballs will honestly enforce a single POV upon both Wikipedia and a major world religion.
And hopefully, no one else will care as well, and we can all get a life.
I will point out that the enlistment of a single POV will bring people of good faith and good will who will believe they are applying things even handedly -- but judged by a limited POV that needs balance according to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I'll drop by in August and assess the damage. Tim ( talk) 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't take my word for it -- give the definition for Shituf to any Christian theologian or pastor and ask him the term used for that definition. The concept of the "spirit" and "son" as lesser beings in "partnership" with God is Arianism. If you want sources, there's a whole Wikipedia page on it. Again -- don't believe me. Check out with any ten theologians or pastors and you'll get a very quick consensus. The fact that we use a different term for Arianism doesn't change it. Now -- if you doubt my motives, DO THE TEST I just suggested. But if you won't, then don't doubt my motives. Doubt your own. Now, also, I'll be back in August. That gives you plenty of time. If you can't be bothered to read the Arianism article and ask the participants to see if this is the same concept in an entire month... then there will be no doubt about motives, will there? Tim ( talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with mediation -- as long as both Christians and Jews are involved in the mediation. I've enlisted both sides into this, and I only see you enlisting one. Further, your removal of Christianity's self identification as a monotheistic faith on the Christian page tonight [3] is begging the question. I REALLY do not have time for this. I would prefer that we both step back and stop the war of attrition. Stop stalking my old edits. I don't have time to keep restoring them. Tim ( talk) 05:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It's so good to see such a fine collection of editors at this page. I find myself in agreement with almost everyone, and that doesn't surprise me given what I have heard from them in the past.
As far as I can see, there is a basic idea that all agree on (though there is disagreement on how to implement it). This article is first and foremost about a technical Jewish term, and it is Jewish usage in Jewish context, sourced therefore upon Jewish writings that needs to form the substance of this article.
Were this a dictionary, there would be no more to say.
This, however, is an encyclopedia article, which means it addresses published opinion on a topic (often involving alternate views of the subject matter). We are not simply identifying and disambiguating the range of usage of shituf; for this to be encyclopedic, the significance of the idea in the history of thought must be cited. Naturally, this is predominantly Jewish. However, Jewish sources will be the most reliable about the meaning of the word when it is applied, but not about the "truth value" of propositions formed by such usage.
For example, "shituf means associating some additional element closely with the Creator" crudely describes one meaning. However, "the Christian view of Trinity is shituf" may be true, or may be false, it is a POV and invites responsible editorial efforts to obtain any relevant alternative. At that point, trinity becomes our "search term" in querying the literature. To deny this option is to deny a POV to any scholar that is knowledgable about the Trinity but not with Jewish terminology. It undermines the possibility of Wiki presenting a NPOV. It permits Jewish scholars to be experts on the Trinity, merely because they use the word, while denying others to be experts on the Trinity unless they use the word shituf. The whole point of first defining the meaning of shituf is to introduce reliable words and phrases entailed by that term, which permit responsible comparison with literature that interacts with the idea if not the word itself.
If what I am saying is reasonable, I think the problem is that in the clash between Tim and Lisa, the idea that shituf is defined as the Jewish view of the Christian Trinity has been proposed. I'm not sure that is actually the case. Were it so, though, it is clearly essential to clarify what the Trinity actually is in Christian teaching. Christians have the exclusive right to articulate what they believe, everyone has the right to criticise that.
In a nutshell, the problem boils down to the question of whether shituf is a misunderstanding of the Trinity or a criticism of the real thing. So what if it is a misunderstanding, Christians misunderstand Jews dreadfully, can it never be the other way around? Even Christians misunderstand the Trinity!
I would also add that I don't think we're looking hard enough. There are many Jewish scholars with profound insight into Christianity who will probably articulate the misunderstanding. It's not "us versus them" and a Jewish scholar who makes the point would be ideal, but any scholar ought to be fine. Alastair Haines ( talk) 06:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Above, Alistair wrote, "In a nutshell, the problem boils down to the question of whether shituf is a misunderstanding of the Trinity or a criticism of the real thing." Now, I may be misunderstanding him, but if he really means this he is violating Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not understand with misunderstandings or valid criticisms. it is interested only in notable points of view from reliable verifiable sources. It is not for Wikipedia to say that the view is a misunderstanding, or a criticism of the real thing. That simply is far outside Wikipedia's objectives and criteria. As long as anyone is concerned with these questions they will be wasting time and abusing this talk page with unconstructive and irrelevant talk. The only questions are, is it a notable view, whose view is it, does it come from a verifiable and reliable source? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks, this shouldn't be that complicated. We're all agreed (and have been) that:
Lisa's position (if I understand it) is that Christianity is EITHER Shituf OR flat out idolatry.
My position is that Shituf either DOES or DOES NOT describe Christianity.
If it DOES, then we should fine tune the wording in our definition so that it actually addresses Christianity, and not just Arianism. This is, by the way, an astonishingly simple fix.
If it DOES NOT, then we should admit it, give a pointer to Arianism, and call it a day.
I really don't care which solution is picked. I would even invite Lisa to decide whether the article should apply Shituf to Christianity or not.
But please don't insist that it DOES apply to Christianity and leave such a laughably obvious definition of Arianism up there. It does Christians no good, it makes Jews look horridly ignorant, and it leaves Wikipedia with an easily avoided self contradictory article.
If Lisa choses to say that Shituf DOES apply to Christianity, then my proposal is that I modify the wording of the definition so that it actually does so, and then get help finding a reference that matches that target.
If Lisa choses to say that Shituf DOES NOT apply to Christianity, then she can give the caveat and pointer to Arianism and call it a day.
I think that this is eminently reasonable on my part, it gives Lisa the absolute control she wants, it keeps Wikipedia from contradicting itself in a single article, and it saves all of us a lot of time and energy better spent elsewhere -- like having real lives.
Best Tim ( talk) 17:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- you finally did it. Yes, this last definition is not internally contradictory. It contradicts Telushkin's statement that "it is not idolatry," but given the email you say came from him, his own statement cannot be taken in a non-contradictory way.
I would edit only one thing -- the semi-colon into "or":
And we will still need the links to Tritheism, Trinitarianism, and Arianism. Can we rest, now? Tim ( talk) 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Lo chashuv. Since we're all agreed, whichever of us does it first, it shouldn't matter. Tim ( talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This text is ok. But I would still use Christianity as an example so people know what the heck you are talking about. Since, what else is the term gonna apply to except Christianity, it's not like there are a bunch of other religions with a Thor or a Diana co-ruling with the one God of Israel. Christianity is the only one that has that, as I'm aware.
Example (Caps added):
Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel. AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE CONSIDERATION OF THE SON JESUS AS A LESSER DEITY RULING ALONG WITH THE ONE GOD OF ISRAEL IN SOME FORMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
- Bikinibomb ( talk) 06:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Bikini, thanks for your note. There is no form of Christianity that sees Jesus as a lesser deity, or even a co-deity. That would be Arianism, or Tritheism, both of which are specifically outlawed by Christianity. It's not good enough to present a definition that rejects something Christianity is not; the definition must also reject something that Christianity IS. It was never Judaism's intention to AGREE with Christianity AGAINST Tritheism and Arianism. It was Judaism's intention to disagree with CHRISTIANITY, which is what we have presented (or approximated). Tim ( talk) 08:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, no problem precluding Wicca. I just wanted Christianity precluded. For what it's worth -- we BOTH wanted to preclude Christianity. That's the irony of this situation. Anyhow, I'm going to collect (what I think to be) the agreed to version in a sandbox and come back with a link. Lisa, I'll need you to verify that this is what we came up with so the third parties can see what we were looking at.
Be back in a few... Tim ( talk) 13:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has requested mediation on the Shituf page, so I looked up the mediation process. The first step is to ask for third party opinion -- which is the reason I'm here.
Shituf, briefly, is a Jewish term applied to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The definition of the concept, however, appears to be Arian: lesser beings (the son and spirit) worshipped in junior "partnership" with God. Accordingly, I included a short Christian view section which simply describes that Christianity has formally rejected multiple deities in junior partnership since Nicea.
The contention is whether or not the section should be included.
My argument is that an article describing Jews eating human blood on passover would require a short section describing that Jews actually FORBID such a practice. Accordingly, an article describing Christians in Arian ways would require a short section describing that Christianity actually FORBIDS such a belief.
In any case, since the other editor suggested mediation, I'm taking the first step and asking for third party review.
Thanks. Tim ( talk) 13:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys -- as I said -- a third party look is in order. In English, Lisa just said you were all polytheists, which is a legitimate Jewish view. My take is that it's nice to have a section saying that you forbid polytheism.
And as for the history of this, the entire concept was created in the Middle Ages in reference to the question of whether Jews could have business dealings with Christians, since they were forbidden to have business dealings with idolaters. The Jewish solution is that, "Yes, they have multiple deities, but they are like junior partners." Loosely defined, "shituf" is "partnership." The context and origin was directed toward Christianity. Christianity, therefore, cannot be excluded from the article without making it polemic.
Again, thanks. You should be honored -- two Jews are asking for YOUR third opinion! Tim ( talk) 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- in the past few days you've called Christians polytheists at least six times. Anyone can go through your contribs or just read the Shituf talk page. That kind of bias needs to at least be admitted. If it's your belief -- be proud of it.
As for the edits -- Lisa can't edit out all references to Christianity on the Shituf page because it's APPLIED to Christianity. When I removed any paragraph that used the word "Christian" or "Christianity" she reverted it as vandalism.
That being said, I no longer care. I have better things to do than to prevent a member of my own religion to promote falsehood to yours. You're welcome to chime in.
Best. Tim ( talk) 14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
John -- BINGO. Thanks. Okay, I need to sign off now and spend some time with my family. I'll look back in Sunday. Best. Tim ( talk) 15:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, for the sake of the third parties, I've incorporated what I believe we agree on here [5].
I only added a few neutral context links to the three we agreed to (Monotheism, Polytheism, Judaism, Christianity). For the sake of the Jewish perspective of the articly I indented Trinity, Arianism, and Tritheism as if they were all three subsets of Christianity. Christians may not like it, but this IS a Jewish concept.
Please let me (and the third party reviewers) know if the Shituf sandbox meets with your approval so that we can just cut and paste whenever the article is unlocked.
Best. Tim ( talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- please look further below. I didn't renege. I just had a generic marker without a time stamp. Look in the first paragraph in "A Word About Edits" where I wrote "Right now the latest version that is in the lines that Lisa and I have agreed to is this [7]."
I understand your concern, but that Christian views section was added later by Carlaude. Tim ( talk) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The main problem I would see with a "Jewish views" section in articles on Trinitarianism is that there is "views" rather than a "view" -- better a statement of differing views with a pointer here.
A "Christian view" section in Shituf is different because:
Carlaude -- I'm assuming that you are a Christian, and you seem to know the subject. That being said, I will attempt to answer your post in a different way from Lisa. Before I start, however, I would like to state from the outset that Lisa and I both agree that the Jewish concept of Shituf is used by Jews in application to Christianity. It was not originally created for that purpose, per se, but it has been applied toward Christianity for a long time.
Now for your points.
That being said, the fact that most Jews miss the mark in the wording is for the precise reasons Lisa's comments may leave you non-plussed. They aren't connecting because they aren't addressing your own faith. Lisa has disagreed with a concept that you also disagree with.
Nevertheless, what Lisa and I have worked on here is a definition that does cover Christianity, in addition to Arianism and Tritheism. The reason is simple: Jewish thinkers say that the concept applies to Christianity. Even if the wording is imprecise, they DO intend the application. Fortunately, I was able to find a wording "aspect" from Telushkin that is applied in reference to the Christian belief. He writes that Christians do not worship three gods, but three aspects of one God. Well, that's not perfect, but I think you'll agree that he's at least in the right ball park.
And so we have a word from Telushkin added into the definition that gives the same conclusion about Christianity -- sometihng like "we aren't supposed to see God that way, but we won't be upset that you do."
And that's basically the point of Shituf. The term is NOT meant to condemn Christianity (Lisa's tone notwithstanding), but rather to be at peace with it. We are us, and you are you. We shouldn't be you, but we're okay that you are. As a man, I feel the same way about women... Tim ( talk) 15:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- this is PRECISELY the problem. Christians have EXPLICITLY defined God as a simplex unity (as cited in the Berkhof note in the latest sandbox version of "Christian views"). You are saying that "Gee, Christians don't MEAN to worship multiple gods, but the poor silly souls do."
No, Lisa. Christians are not stupid, and they know their own faith. In fact, Christianity is incredibly concerned with precision when it comes to the singularity of deity. The whole "compound unity" fluff you've seen in the past is a heresy currently contained within Messianic Judaism, which is a carryover from the fact that the Trinity doesn't compute exactly within a Jewish paradigm. It's like running Microsoft Word for Windows on a Macintosh. It IS Microsoft Word, but it will look like gibberish on your machine. The action of praying in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit is not a polytheistic action because it is not a polytheistic belief. They do NOT believe in multiple deities, and therefore they are not praying to multiple deities. You can't PRAY to something you do not BELIEVE. The belief absolutely governs the action in this case.
Now, the fact that you keep insisting that they are doing something they are not doing is the reason we've had trouble with this article. I've insisted that we either have a definition that DOES cover Christianity or have a caveat in which Christianity can state that it does NOT. I believe we have found that wording.
Now, you said "Tim is deliberately claiming that I am even addressing Christian concepts, let alone agreeing or disagreeing with them". No, I'm saying that you are disagreeing with the concept of praying to multiple deities. And I am saying that Christians will shout "Amen, sister!" to that all day long. Tim ( talk) 15:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would agree with that too. Shituf is a Jewish concept that Jews apply to Christians, and if the only readers here were Jews, then it wouldn't matter whether or not the wording made sense. But if it doesn't match, and there's no caveat, then a general audience (which includes Christians) would recognize that the article is self-contradictory and thus diminishes Wikipedia as a resource for real information (instead of fantasy-land wishful thinking "information"). Although we have no obligation to present ultimate "truth", it's helpful not to contradict ourselves with obvious nonsense. Tim ( talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- the Nicene self definition of Christianity holds that Christians worship one God. They worship the Father. They worship the Son. They worship the Holy Spirit. They worship one God. If you want to complain, then we can dig into Kabbalah and we won't compare very well to Christianity, will we?
But what do they mean? They mean one God "without body, parts, or passions" (Westminister Confession of Faith).
Are you following this? No? Then I don't think it is the Trinity you have a problem with, but monotheism. Tim ( talk) 16:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- here is something that might be helpful. You say that "worshiping a trinity" is not monotheism. Well, to test your competence to make that statement, define the Trinity in terms that Christians will agree, and THEN disagree with THAT.
If you cannot define the Trinity, that is, if you don't have an idea what it is, then it is completely irrelevant if you think "blank" isn't monotheism.
Here is where you and I disagree -- I believe that Judaism DOES forbid CHRISTIANITY to Jews. You do not. You believe that Juidaism forbids some fantasy-land religion of pseudo Arianism that you want to pretend is Christianity.
The sad thing here is that Judaism does indeed have something to say in contrast to authentic Christianity. There really is a rational and knowledgable level of address that exists. But one would never guess it from your writing. You are so busy shouting against polytheism that you can't hear all the shouted agreements from any Christians in the audience against whatever unregonizable group you are railing against.
Slow down. Listen. Find the target. It's behind you... A little to the left now... lower... ah! There it is... Tim ( talk) 16:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Uh, Lisa -- the only problem we have here is that I disagree with CHRISTIANITY and you do not. You are disagreeing with ARIANISM. Well, Christians disagree with that, too.
You are very much invited to join me in my disagreement with a religion that exists in the real world called "Christianity." Tim ( talk) 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
[cut irrelevant text]
This is all fine -- but you should discuss it elsewhere if it is so much not about the real page. -- Carlaude ( talk) 17:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Tim, I simply do not understand why Christian sources concerning Christianity's monotheism are relevant to the article on shituf. Can you sum it up in one or two sentences? I heave read through a lot of what you wrote, most of which is about Christianity and not about shituf. Why is it relevant? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I still do not understand you. Jews DID apply the concept Shituf to Christianity. That is simple and non-controversial. And it has no bearing on the definition. I saw no contradiction in the article. Shituf is associating God the creator with another named being, and many Christians belief that Christianity is an example of shituf. Where is there any room for contradiction? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Right now the latest version that is in the lines that Lisa and I have agreed to is this [8].
Since the current definition actually does address Christianity, a Christian clarification is not essential. It was only essential while the article was limited to Arian definitions while claiming to address Christianity. That is, the problem was that the original article wording was contradicting itself. The latest stipulated definition does not contradict itself, because it includes monotheistic Trinitarianism within the definition (or the best approximation from a noted source -- Telushkin).
However, it's certainly welcome to see that a Christian IS participating in edits of the sandbox, and I'd like to see if he believes that we need further fine tuning of the wording so as to not contradict ourselves. That is, if we SAY a concept applies to Christianity, it is helpful that it is to CHRISTIANITY that it applies. Or, if not, we should at least recognize such with a Christian views section.
Summary: I currently believe that the stipulated wording DOES include Christianity within the scope of the definition, and that therefore a separate Christian views section is not essential.
But that's only my own single opinion. Tim ( talk) 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"internal aspects". Again, that's not perfect, but it's as close as you can get and still be in a Jewish vocabulary. There is a writer named Telushkin who wrote the following:
I'm sure you'll agree that it's closer to the mark than the descriptions on the existing Shituf page. Tim ( talk) 15:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Right now the latest version that is in the lines that Lisa and I have agreed to is this [9].
Lisa -- look at the timestamps on the history page. As soon as I saw that Carlaude had added a Christian views section I updated this talk page with a timestamp link. Tim ( talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW -- now that you've undid the Carlaude edit -- please give it a run through so we can make sure we're all on the same page and we'll give it a final timestamp.
Best. Tim ( talk) 16:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks, I noticed you opened a Medcab case. I am a mediator but I don't think I'm going to take this one on since I have personal involvement. I was, however, thinking about the article while I was laying in bed this morning, and I believe I might have found a compromise. Can every party take a look at User:L'Aquatique/Shituf and see if you find it acceptable? L'Aquatique review 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone cares -- I think L'Aquatique's version is even better than mine. L'Aquatique preserved more of the original consensus article.
My primary motivation right now is some peace, however. I'm happy with either L'Aquatique's current version or the timestamped one in my sandbox. L'Aquatique's is better, but I'm okay with mine too. Whatever everyone wants. Tim ( talk) 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with this one also. I'm not the one who spent all the real world time researching Philo. :-) Tim ( talk) 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(Copied from the Cabal page) Oh -- for the record:
Hope that makes the mediating easier... Tim ( talk)
Can I take a break now? Tim ( talk) 19:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh good grief. ANOTHER version to read? Let me know when you're done. Tim ( talk) 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"No one"? This is Wikipedia, Lisa -- EVERYONE gets to edit. Tim ( talk) 19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
All I've ever asked for here is that the article have a definition that did not contradict the scope of the usage in the article itself (or else give a caveat). That is, that the article not contradict itself.
Since the usage given for Shituf in the current article is applied to Christianity, but is limited to Arianism and Tritheism, then the scope of definition should either include all three religions, or give a caveat.
I understand that in a very limited POV there is no difference between Christianity, Arianism, and Tritheism. But that's my point: the scope of concern in Judaism does equate those three. Therefore the definition of the term must do so as well. Since the term is a Jewish concept, the scope of the definition must include what Judaism is actually using the term for.
To do less would be to create an article that does NOT address Christianity, and therefore fail to include what Jewish sources in the article say that they mean.
Once the definition included all three religions: Christianity, Tritheism, and Arianism -- then it finally had the encyclopedic flexibility to include or exclude any sources Lisa wanted to pick and choose. It no longer mattered. Whatever Jewish sources she would find would be included within the scope of definition.
My AGENDA here has been ENGLISH. Wikipedia is not written in JEWISHESE (that is, conotations based on assumptions that Jews make that do not always mean the same thing to neutral audiences). For instance, Jews often say things like "belief in the Trinity is okay for Christians, but not for Jews."
When a Jew reads that he is mentally registering this: "belief in the Trinity is okay for GENTILES, but not for Jews."
When anyone else is reading that he is mentally registering this: "belief in the Trinity is okay for people who believe in Christianity (gentiles or jews), but not okay for people who believe in Judaism."
We have to be AWARE of our readers. You can't assume that all of the readers of this encyclopedia are Jewish. They aren't. There are atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and yes, Wiccans. You have to use ENGLISH in ways that give the same conotations to ALL readers.
Further, it is not necessary that all audiences AGREE with the article. But it IS necessary that they UNDERSTAND the article. This isn't polemics. This is just GOOD EDITING.
So -- now I'm exposed. You have my agenda. Attack away. I no longer care. ALL of Lisa's articles on ALL of the user spaces are satisfactory, because they have a definition that does not contradict any cited reference she puts in the guts of the article.
Now, can we give this a rest? Tim ( talk) 14:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
As I said, Lisa -- I'm happy with all four versions. The three ones that you did with the fine tuned definition, and the existing one. Since I don't have a stake in the Philo section, I don't care about that either. You have carte blanche (however that's spelled). Tim ( talk) 19:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I figure it would appear more of a consensus if I took Lisa's edit and posted it, rather than Lisa being stuck out on a limb later on.
I haven't read every word, but the opening definition includes Christianity within its scope, there is a variation of Jewish views, and there are links to potential similar articles. It actually looks well covered. Tim ( talk) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, I've sent the following to Dr. Berger:
Dr. Berger,
I've read through Lasker's book and your shiur, and you are right that Shituf is intended to be directed not only to Arianism and Tritheism, but also to Trinitarianism as well.
I have a working definition for "Shituf" that I think covers all three theistic systems, and would appreciate it if you let me know if I am understanding the full scope of the word:
Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.
Is that correct?
The wording "external powers" addresses Arianism, "deities" addresses Tritheism, and "internal aspects" addresses Trinitarianism.
Thanks so much for your help!
Tim
I probably should have finished it with something like "is there anything I left out that I need to add?"
BTW, I'm not trying to take credit for your wording. I'm just trying to stay focused on the definition. I'll let you know what Dr. Berger writes. Tim ( talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Tim, This still has some problems. Shituf as you define it clearly includes beliefs that fall short of pure monotheism (tritheism for sure). Thus, the second sentence doesn't work. Also, some Jews did not regard "internal aspects" as problematic, depending on how they are understood (attributes for some philosophers; the sefirot for many kabbalists). Best regards. David Berger
Lisa,
It looks like we've got a bit of work to do. I can see his point about internal aspects possibly intersecting with some kinds of Jewish thought. We are both agreed, however, that Christianity is seen to NOT be permissible to Jews in Jewish thought, while the Sefirot are.
While I have no intention of OR -- I think some R is in order. If you're willing, I'll do some research this week on Sephirot and try to map out informally what I think the differences are between Kabbalistic thought and Trinitarian theory.
Right now I'm trying to figure out a wording based on Dr. Berger's answer... now that he points it out, I DO see an internal contradiction in the second sentence:
That is, according to the first half, "any...avodah zarah...is...forbidden...to non-Jews".
But in the second half some "avodah zara [is]...permissible for non-Jews".
I recall that Telushkin explicitly said in his quote that belief in the Trinity is "forbidden for Jews, but it is not avodah zara."
Are we getting something wrong in the definition of avodah zara that I'm missing?
Also, if I understand Dr. Berger correctly, tritheism is not really Shituf, but idolatry.
Tim
Lisa,
Here's what I wrote to the other source:
Dr. Greenstein,
My Rabbi suggested I email you with a question I gave him. I’ve been working on a definition of “Shituf” to make sure I understand the full application of it:
Shituf is the term used in Jewish law for worship of the God of Israel with an association of external powers, deities, or internal aspects. Any worship deemed by Judaism to fall short of pure monotheism is considered avodah zarah ("strange worship" or "idolatry"), and is forbidden both to Jews and to non-Jews, but shituf is a lesser form of avodah zarah which some rabbinic authorities consider to be permissible for non-Jews, since it does include worship of the One God of Israel.
If I understand Shituf correctly, it is not only applied by Jews to Arianism (“external powers”) and Tritheism (“deities”), but is also applied to Trinitarianism (“aspects”). Am I correct that it applies to all three theistic systems? Does this wording cover everything intended by the term, or do I need to add anything?
Thanks so much,
Tim
Tim, Shalom - First, please be sure to give my best to your Rabbi when you get a chance. I think we met at his son's wedding. If I am not mistaken I had the pleasure of sitting next to you and of meeting your wife. With that in mind - how are you doing? Nice to hear from you.
You ask a difficult question. One point to keep in mind is that definitions perform functions. Different definitions can be given for the same thing/term, depending on the context and need. I do not know what the purpose is of clarifying this definition. You write that it is "to make sure I understand the full application of it." But you do not say what kind of application you mean. Do you mean that you want to define what the permissible boundaries of belief are for yourself? Or do you want to define these boundaries for others? Do you want to define this for others in order to decide what your attitude should be regarding their belief, or are you responding to someone who wishes guidance for themselves? Belief is so difficult to explicate, for one's self and certainly for and to others!
Now - regarding your definition - I would start with a definition of `avodah zarah. There is a broad definition and a narrow definition. The broad definition is that it refers to any forbidden worship.
But this does not clarify nuances and gradations. I suggest as the narrow, base-line definition -
The acceptance and/or worship as a deity instead of God of an entity other than God.
This is forbidden through the second of the ten commandments, and also, arguably, as a violation of the "positive command" to accept God, and as a further violation of the "command" to accept only God, alone, as God. (Some do not see these as commands, but as prior groundings for any and all commandments.)
The next question is - if one indeed accepts/worships God, is it forbidden to worship other entities as deities along with God?
Here it depends on the "entity." If the entity is conceived as co-eternal with God, this is also forbidden, as above. We are "commanded" to accept only One God and that God is One.
But what if the entity is considered to be a creation of God, subsidiary to God? In that sense, couldn't one say that one has accepted God, alone, as God? But, as defined by Sefer Ha-Chinnukh, this is nevertheless forbidden. He writes (mitzvah 26 [28 in the Chavel edition]) - "If he accepted as deity any of the created entities, even though he admits that God rules over him and his deity, he violates the command, "You shall have no other gods, etc." This is commonly referred to as the sin of "shittuf."
Again, though, the question can be asked - does this refer to "created entities" existent in the material world, only, or does it refer to spiritual entities, also? What about angels? And what does "accept as deity" mean, since the One God is held to be Supreme? Apparently (certainly in the view of many authorities) it is permissible to believe that angels are Divinely empowered to accomplish certain tasks. Thus, acceptance of the fact of their operation as spiritual powers subsidiary to God seems allowed. In the Slichot prayers before the Days of Awe there is a petition to the angels to usher our prayers upwards, to God's Throne. (Some authorities opposed the prayer, but it is still there.) Furthermore, there is one tradition in Judaism (advocated, for instance, by Rav Saadiah Gaon) that accounts for prophetic visions of God as really being visions of a "Created Glory" - a Divinely created manifestation of God's Presence, serving as an intermediary between the Infinite, unknowable God and human beings. The midrash has traditions that explain that all the nations of the world, except Israel, are ruled by Heavenly Princes, appointed over them by God. Clearly these Jews did not think they were guilty of "shittuf."
Finally, your definition seeks to forbid, under the category of "shittuf" worship of "internal aspects." I think that what you mean by that is powers internal to God's Being, as it were. I think this is what you mean when you seek to include Trinitarianism in the prohibition. But, while I am not an authority on the theology of a trinity, I think the claim is that this belief still accords with belief in One God. I would find it hard to differentiate it from the kabbalistic concept of 10 internal aspects of God that are integral to the One God. Indeed, sometimes the kabbalists were accused of being no better than the Christians. They always protested that they were pure monotheists, and so do trinitarian Christians.
As Sefer Ha-Chinnukh explains, this mitzvah is unlimited in terms of time. We must spend every day of our entire lives striving to fulfill it. This mitzvah is never completed until the moment we die. And then, only God will be able to measure how and how much each of us has succeeded. I would suggest that a deep lesson in the halakhic view that "shittuf" is not forbidden to non-Jews is precisely the message that, given how hard it is for ourselves, it is better for us Jews not to legislate how others should seek to describe their complex experience of the One God of us all.
kol tuv,
I think I can rewrite this now.
Well and good. HOWEVER, Shituf is not a statement of limitation or judgment on non-Jews, rather it is a permissiveness on non-Jews that allows us peaceful commerce. The precision of the formular then, is not as essential as it would be for a judgment. That is, you can use a LOOSE definition to be permissive.
Shituf, then, should be a LOOSE definition.
Further, Shituf is NOT meant to be the basis by which we judge "Jews shalt not". It isn't the reason we cannot be Christians, and therefore, again, the definition does not have to be as precise.
Therefore, it is not necessary to define "Person" as either a "created being" or an "internal aspect." It is simply an association. If Christians regard it as an internal aspect, okay. But even if they regard it as a created being they are STILL okay under Shituf.
It is only when they regard the Persons as separate deities that they are not okay.
Tim ( talk) 13:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I moved this from the other page:
Lisa, you write "anything short of worshipping a singular and indivisible God is not monotheistic". But that's the problem. CHRISTIANS not only agree with you, they INSIST on it. Really, it's a dimensional thing. A billiard ball is one ball. It has three spatial dimensions. The Christian deity has three personal dimensions. That's it. Period. It's FORBIDDEN in Judaism. But exactly in which category is it forbidden, and is that actually Shituf, or is it some other forbidden thing? I think we agree that the "trinity" is forbidden in Judaism. We also agree that tritheism is flat out idolatry (Christians do too). I'm glad for that note from Dr. Berger, by the way, because it was troubling. Anyhow, the only difference is in the definition of the "trinity". You are giving an Arian definition (which is fine, you can state your meaning from the outset and we're set). The problem is that this isn't the Wikipedia definition, nor even the English definition. So, what do we do? We ARE writing in Wikipedia, and we ARE doing it in English. Tim ( talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Also -- if you're willing, this will really help: when you make a statement about the "trinity" run it through a dimension-analogy to see if that's working out. For instance, "Jews believe in a singular and indivisible billiard ball." Right. But... they don't. Here's the real difference: there is no "inside" or "outside" to God. There are no external or internal anythings to associate him with. The problem of the trinity (more relevant even than shituf, I suspect) is that it is a definition at all. To speak of "internal" or "external" or aspectual relationships is to put God on some kind of intellectual display, which is (if I understand Maimonides right) idolatrous. Anyhow, it's a Shituf page. There's a Trinity page. Maybe they do or don't intersect. As I said, it doesn't matter to me whether they do or don't, only that we note it and move on. Tim ( talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The Rabbis I questioned gave answers that add nuance to Lisa's section of the article (i.e. the guts of the article). However, since Lisa and I have had difficulties in communicating to each other, I think it best if I leave her guts alone and she leaves my highlight alone. That gives her 98% of the article to negotiate with third parties and it gives me 2% of the article to negotiate with third parties.
I think this is fair. If there is a real problem with either section, I'm sure there are plenty of really good third party editors that can keep us straight.
I've tried to make a definition that
Again, I believe a 2% / 98% split is more than fair, and it allows the third parties out there to finally have something stable enough to edit at will.
And it gives Lisa and myself a break. Tim ( talk) 14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The material about Philo does not mention shituf anywhere. If someone wants to present a reliable source that says that Philo spoke about shituf, that would be reasonable for this article. But without such a source, including Philo on the grounds that you think what he is addressing is the equivalent of shituf is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
If you are unable to provide a rationale for this material being in the article, I will remove it on the basis of WP:OR. - LisaLiel ( talk) 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, exactly what part of God in partnership or association with other powers is not Shituf? Are you now changing the definition of Shituf? I also remember Egfrank suggesting to you that a reference cannot be included unless it uses a specific term and you flatly rejected that principle. Please follow the same logic. Tim ( talk) 18:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the following quote from Philo says exactly that: God being one being, has two supreme powers of the greatest importance. By means of these powers the incorporeal world, appreciable only by the intellect, was put together, which is the archetypal model of this world which is visible to us, being formed in such a manner as to be perceptible to our invisible conceptions just as the other is to our eyes. Philo APPENDICES A TREATISE CONCERNING THE WORLD I-- Jerryofaiken ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me understand this: since your sources are ignorant of Philo then Philo shouldn't be discussed? Wouldn't it be better if you found some better educated sources?
Rabbinic literature indicates that anyone holding the view that God created the world with separate powers holds a minim view.-- Jerryofaiken ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, you wrote: "The "rule" you're suggesting, that a citation must contain the actual word it is being used for, is not acceptable. It is arbitrary, in fact...You can't invent rules and then delete sources because they don't conform to your invented rules. That's vandalism and POV" [16]. And I have an alter ego now? I suppose you think the same of HG as well because I'm trying to include him on the Gender of God page. Lisa, the issue here is simple -- you do not own Judaism or Wikipedia. I am not editing this page or the Gender of God page either, and I suggest you step aside as well. Other human beings exist on this planet. Tim ( talk) 19:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Philo does not hold that these are angels. see the following: ON FLIGHT AND FINDING - (68) On this account, I imagine it is, that when Moses was speaking philosophically of the creation of the world, while he described everything else as having been created by God alone, he mentions man alone as having been made by him in conjunction with other assistants; for, says Moses, "God said, Let us make man in our Image."{19}{#ge 1:26.} The expression, "let us make," indicating a plurality of makers. (69) Here, therefore, the Father is conversing with his own powers, to whom he has assigned the task of making the mortal part of our soul, acting in imitation of his own skill while he was fashioning the rational part within us, thinking it right that the dominant part within the soul should be the work of the Ruler of all things, but that the part which is to be kept in subjection should be made by those who are subject to him. (70) And he made us of the powers which were subordinate to him, not only for the reason which has been mentioned, but also because the soul of man alone was destined to receive notions of good and evil, and to choose one of the two, since it could not adopt both. Therefore, he thought it necessary to assign the origin of evil to other workmen than himself, --but to retain the generation of good for himself alone. -- Jerryofaiken ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You've already admitted that your opinion was not informed when you indicated you weren't aware of the passages from Philo. What is obvious is that you are only interested in your opinion even if it is an uneducated opinion.-- Jerryofaiken ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- "And G-d said: 'Let us make man'" (Bereishit 1:26). With whom did He take counsel?
- Rabbi Ammi said: He took counsel with His own heart. He was like a king who built a palace with the counsel of an architect. When he saw the palace, it did not please him. At whom was he indignant? Was it not at the architect? Hence, "and it grieved Him at His heart" (Bereishit 6:6) [with which He had taken counsel at the making of man].
- Rabbi Hanina said: He consulted the ministering angels.
So far you haven't cited a notable source concerning Philo. As you said, your don't believe that your sources are familiar with Philo.
Amony Christians, Philo is among the best known examples of shituf and not the talmud since the talmud introduces a concept that from the Christian viewpoint is heretical concerning God. Per Christianity, God is the creator of the universe and no one else. God is identified as the creator of the universe so if angels participated in the actual creation of the universe then that would make them also God. Christianity unlike talmudic Judaism rejects the concept as heretical that anyone other than God created the universe. Both Christianity and Judaism indicate that a plurality of some type was involved with creating the universe. Since God claims to be the creator then Christian theology identifies the plurality as the three persons of the single trinity - The Father giving the ideas of creation as commands in the form of let there be... and the Son bringing into physical existence the ideas of the Father...and the Holy Spirit hovering above the water. Judaistic theology recognizes the plurality and either rejects the grammatical literal construction of the words of the torah or accepts angels participating in actual creation. I am differentiating actual creation i.e. physical universe being made out of only the ideas of God versus tending to what was already made. -- Jerryofaiken ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
As Philo didn't characterise his own view as shituf, for wikipedia editors to say that it was is a clear breach of WP:OR and WP:RS and the material, in its present form, ought to be deleted. Furthermore if proper sourcing can be provided the discussion should first of all be in Philo's view of God, with then perhaps a reference across to that article from here. But without a source, it should be out altogether. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Samuel, do you only allow rabbinic sources? Definitions of shituf should come from knowledgable sources shouldn't they? According to Lisa, none of her rabbinic sources are knowledgable of the passages of Philo. So should we omit all info that doesn't come from a rabbinic souce? -- Jerryofaiken ( talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Didn't we used to have citations for the scriptural stuff? I've seen them somewhere. Of course I've seen Philo somewhere too -- ugh. I don't have time for this! Why can't people just put citation flags on there? You can't research to cite something that's invisible. This edit deletion has to stop. Tim ( talk) 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
Uh, folks, this silence is making me uncomfortable. Are we interested in citations and information or not? (Hint, silence will imply in the negative) Tim ( talk) 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- 5. According to many authorities, a Noahide is not warned about the concept of "partnership with God."[5] The concept of partnership is the acknowledgment of the existence of the God of Israel in combination with the belief in the possibility and existence of a deity (independent will) other than God. So long as ascribing power to a deity other than the Creator remains conceptual, it is permissible to the Children of Noah according to many authorities [6]. But worship of this independent being is clearly idolatry. The danger of the concept of partnership is that it frees people to act in accord with nonexistent gods and opens a doorway to actual idolatry. Most recent authorities agree that Children of Noah are forbidden to believe in a partnership. But even according to these, the Children of Noah are permitted to swear by the name of an idol in combination with God (to swear by the Lord of Hosts and a Hindu deity, for example).
- [5] Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim, chapter 156, law 1
- [6] Nodah B’Yehudah, volume 2, Yoreh Deah, number 148
- Behold, I say that they have tied a rope to a rope and a strand to a strand; where does this 'chacham' get this idea that the gentiles are not commanded concerning shittuf?! And nevertheless this thing is found in the mouths of many chachamim... and I have toiled and I have not found this thing either in the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud, and not in any of the gedolei harishonim; and if this was true, then the Rambam should have brought in Hilchos Melachim as a psak halacha that a gentile is not commanded on avoda zarah with shittuf, so why did he exempt this din? He also contests that, regarding avoda zarah, there is no difference between a Jew and a gentile, for behold, an explicit baraisa in Maseches Sanhedrin 56b states, 'Everything that a Jewish beis din executes upon, b'nei Noah are warned concerning them'; and likewise in Hilchos Melachim 9:2... and it seems to me that the fact that it has become commonplace for people to say that b'nei Noah are not warned concerning shittuf is according to an error they made in reading Tosafos in Maseches Bechoros 2b.... In light of [Tosafos] the Rama poskaned in Orech Chaim 156.... These words have been misconstrued by many chachamim who reasoned that the intention of the Rama is that b'nei Noah are not commanded concerning serving avodah zarah in shittuf. However, this is not in fact the case. The intention of the Tosephos and the Rama is that combining the Name of Heaven with something else in an oath does not constitute the actual worship of idolatry; rather he is combining the Name of Heaven with something else, but he is not calling in the name of Elokim and he is not saying 'you are my g-d.' Instead, he is merely mentioning him in his oath with the Name of Heaven in a manner of honor, regarding which we find a prohibition upon Israel, as it is written 'and in His Name shall you swear'; this is a warning to Israel not to swear except in His Name (blessed be He) and not to combine the Name of Heaven and something else, as the Rambam wrote in 11:2 of Hilchos Shevuos -and the gentiles are not warned regarding this shittuf. However, regarding the service of avoda zarah with shittuf, there is no difference between a Jew and a gentile!... The general principle that we have received is that anything for which a Jewish court administers death upon, the gentiles are also forewarned upon, as we wrote above. Afterwards I saw in the Sefer Meil Tzeddaka in sec. 22, who also makes the same distinction; however, he did not bring the proof which I have written here....
So... we can't cite Katz or Novak's take on the sources, but we can cite your own take? If you really need to own this article, fine. I'll start a NPOV article elsewhere, because Divine Relationships is an interesting subject, and it spans this, Philo, Arianism, angelolatry, Josephus, the LXX, and that friendly topic -- Christianity.
And since you own this POV fork, the only place for NPOV is elsewhere. But not tonight. Tim ( talk) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Novak got it from Katz (I have the citation at home). Katz (I think it was religion and tolerance 163-164, but I'm not sure) apparently considered that the earlier Halakhists (Tam) gave Gentiles a pass on shuttfut, an "extradivine relationship" (basically angelolatry and Arianism), but not shituf, an "interdivine relationship" (which Novak correctly pegs as Trinitarianism). In other words, the earlier halakhists did not specifically give gentiles a pass on Trinitarianism, but only on the inclusion of lesser beings in their reverence. Novak doesn't name Arianism (that I saw), but he does name reverence of angels. According to Novak (and I'll have to get Katz's book), Katz argues that the later halakhists misunderstood shuttfut when they lumped it into shituf. Novak disagreed about a misunderstanding, but granted that they did skirt around the trinity when they lumped the two together. Although I had Novak's book, I was clued into this by an email from another editor -- showing where Novak gives the history behind Philo, Josephus, and the Septuagint giving a pass to gentiles who include the supreme God along with their other deities (I think page 41), and tracing it through shuttfut and then shituf (I think page 49) from Rabbenu Tam into the late eighteenth century. He also gave references for what several Rabbis have already told me: the shituf and/or shuttfut boundary is crossed in Kabbalistic ideas regarding the Sephirot.
In any case:
And he has a ton of endnotes for all kinds of reading enjoyment and further Wiki editing. Since I'm interested in the subject I plan to read a number of the books he cites -- but it will take a number of months because of my writing and editing schedule.
Also, that other Wiki editor gave me Christian sources for the Philo problem. Christians have to deal with it, because Philo's work regarding the Divine Logos seems directly incorporated into John's Gospel. I've also spoken with a number of Jewish teachers who have made the same point. Christians actually have to defend against this, since they teach that this was a special revelation of God in the New Testament, rather than an incorporation of pagan philosophy filtered through Philo's attempted response.
But the short story is that Novak is operating as a historian here, and I've had a number of Orthodox Rabbis tell me that he did a good job covering the history of this thought. His notes are extensive, and he validates your sources, Jerry's sources, and a number of "nuggets" that all of us miss.
And most important for me -- he solves the Arianism/Trinitarianism problem. Basically it is not Shituf that points to Arianism, but Shuttfut -- but since both are lumped together it doesn't really matter. In other words, Novak would validate you own point on the matter.
That is, if you will allow a Jewish historian to be a source in documenting Jewish views. But I have to leave that to you. I don't have the energy to fight. We could fix the article in a couple of days and end the stupid wikiwars.
Also, we'll need some cooperation from other editors too. When Jerry and Sam got into the chopping war, Jerry was technically correct that Sam was playing a double standard, but I disagree with both of them here: it's a simple matter of treating all POVs neutrally here. Philo is well known, and I'm certain that Steve and Sam couldn't have been unaware of it. In fact, Philo is a huge point a lot of people make against Christianity, and it's doubtful that Novak would be the only writer to note it. Just a cursory look at some polemical histories (such as Lasker) and Swartz's book on Jewish Christian Dialogue both make reference to it, but I haven't researched it in depth.
Regardless, Lisa, I give you credit for at least removing your sources in order to follow the same standard, especially in light of the very strong history we have here on Wikipedia, and your own powerful inclinations on Jewish subjects. But in my opinion it wasn't necessary. I had the citations and said so. It's a simple matter of allowing cooperation.
However, back to cooperation from other editors -- Sam, Steve, Jerry -- cool it. Steve and Sam, I asked a very simple question about how you would define Shituf in such a way that would exclude Philo. Your silence on the matter showed some kind of hidden agenda. That's just wrong. Steve -- you know that we've worked cooperatively on other articles. The silence was unnecessary. And Sam, removing one set of unreferenced source notes and not another set shows a bias that will not allow useful editing here. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. In order for that to work we have to recognize that we have blind spots and allow editors with contrary POVs to help us out.
And Jerry -- come on -- this isn't the place for the arbcom to be proven. Let's leave the article work to the article.
Lisa, you and I have an opportunity to end this feud, but you have to lower your defenses. You KNOW my agenda, and you know that you can appeal to it at any time: I want any article to be equally comprehensible to all POVs. Sometimes the article is ABOUT a POV and it should do so accurately, but it has to be comprehensible to all POVs. Is Shituf about a POV? You bet! Should it accurately state that POV? Absolutely. But it has to be comprehensible to multiple POVs. And if there is a hole that is "obvious" to one POV or another, don't gloss it over; state it. It doesn't harm the article. Tim ( talk) 16:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I see the issue Novak was addressing but not the term. I suspect I'll have to research this further, because it's unlikely that Novak would have been inventing something. The problem is that if he is right -- then YOU are right that Shituf does indeed cover Trinitarianism. But if he just invented it, then I'm right that it's limited to Arianism. I got excited when I saw it because Novak was vindicating you. But I appreciate your honesty there. Obviously I'll need to read Katz's book as well and follow the sources that both of these authors point to.
Tim (
talk)
18:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, you can't practice a form of worship you don't believe in,
unless you're pretending on TV. Here's the rub, we have sources that you approve of, who are completely unintelligible to people familiar with Christianity.
But you approve of them because they are Orthodox. Fine. Why not infuse some intelligible terminology from a Conservative Rabbi for the rest of the folks?
Novak did a splendid job, and (quite refreshing) he hit the bullseye. Everything I've seen in his book now is absolutely on target, clear English, explains both nuances contained in the current use of Shituf in a way that encapsulates both Arianism and Trinitarianism so that Arianism no longer even needs to be addressed.
Plus, he provides citations for your own Deuteronomy quotes, Jerry's Philo concerns, and even Kabbalistic concerns that at least two Rabbis have taken the time to warn me about. It's perfect.
But no -- he's a Conservative Rabbi. Lisa, I'm just as Orthodox as you are, but I know a perfect Wikipedia source when I see one.
Finally, imagine if I had a Wikipedia article on a Russian Orthodox technical term for the blood libel, and I argued that the fact we don't actually eat children's blood on Passover has no place in the article, and no sources can be used unless they were Russian Orthodox and used the Russian Orthodox terminology. And in fact you couldn't even use a Greek Orthodox source because he's not Russian Orthodox. Come on, Lisa -- this is ridiculous. So the guy is a Conservative Rabbi. He's solved every single problem you and I have had on this page over the last eight months -- including your Deuteronomy quote, Philo, and Arianism. Poof -- all solved. Who has the POV problem? Tim ( talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
To respond to Tim's suggestion above that this material belongs in an article about divine relationships, I disagree. Shituf is a Jewish concept. If you want create a subheading in Divine Relationships about it and link to this article, that's fine. - LisaLiel ( talk) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, even if that were his objective, it doesn't invalidate the history and notes that he gives. It merely illustrates his motivation. But I think that you need to drop some defenses here or else you'll end up writing all of the Jewish articles all by yourself. Can Orthodox writers document Orthodox views? Of course -- but so can Reconstructionists if they are writing as scholars, and so can Christians, Buddhists, and atheists. As long as they are doing proper documentation themselves, they can present the history of these views in a scholarly way and as such present a valid source for our own work. I've seen you argue that Orthodox writers can more accurately state the truth of what Christians REALLY believe than Christians can themselves (and you and I both know I can show numerous diffs on this). Well -- turn that around: even atheists can correctly document what other beliefs say. That's the difference between systematic theology and historical theology. A Baptist systematic theology will present the Baptist view, but a Baptist historical theology can present Roman Catholic and Jewish views, because it is not writing "what God thinks" but instead "what certain people at certain times have thought." That's what Novak was doing. And that's exactly what Wikipedia should be doing too. Does he draw his own conclusions at the end of the book? I'm sure he does. But the historical part is, well, history. Tim ( talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, I think this needs to be addressed also. I'm not after interfaith dialogue here. I'm after interfaith (and non-faith) cooperation, sourcing, and comprehension. Buddhists, atheists, Muslims, Christians, Jews should be able to do neutral point of view research together, and in fact the best way of guaranteeing Wikipedia's neutral point of view goals is for multiple POVs to cooperate. There's just jargon that each group has that means different things. It's not enough for a Jewish concept to be stated accurately; it needs to be communicated accurately. The reception that the generic audience takes should be the same as the intention of the editor and his sources. But jargon is one of those hidden enemies to communication. It's not merely the absence of a term in another group, but also the presence of a different term with the same meaning, as well as the same term with a different meaning. No single POV group can see its own blind spots. Even if one POV group had all the answers to ultimate truth, it does no good if it is using terms in different ways from the other groups. Wikipedia is a multi-group effort.
Will that help interfaith dialogue? Sure. But that's only a side effect of my own goal: clear, universally comprehensible language. Do I acheive that goal in my own writing? Of course not. But that's what other editors are there to help me with, just as I am here to help them with. Tim ( talk) 16:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if a putative reliable source uses poor scholarship, that fact can't be mentioned in a Wikipedia article unless another reliable source makes the point. And I don't feel like writing an entire book about how bad Novak's scholarship is. A blog entry, maybe, but more than that would be a waste of time, in my opinion.
Tim (SkyWriter) cited David Novak earlier, and what he attributed to Novak was so wild that I had a hard time believing Tim. But to whatever extent I was skeptical of Tim's veracity in this case, I both withdraw and apologize for that skepticism. Tim correctly reported what Novak wrote. Novak, however, deserves condemnation for his shoddy use of sources and his presentation of half truths. I'm of two minds regarding Novak. I don't know whether he was so intent on making the case of his book that he was willing to take shortcuts, or whether he just messed up.
I apologize for the length of this entry. But since Tim is intent on using Novak's book as a reliable source, I think it's necessary to show why I don't think it is.
To begin with, the book in question is Jewish-Christian Dialogue: A Jewish Justification. The title alone tells you that the book isn't going to be a work of historic scholarship, but rather a polemic/apology for a kind of dialogue which is very controversial among Jews. In fact, the first section of the book is entitled "Jewish Opposition to Dialogue" (pp. 3-9).
I'm not going to go through the whole book poking at all of the mistakes Novak makes. I'm not interested enough. But I do need to address the material on shituf, because it's this material that Tim wants to use as a source for what shituf is. This material appears on pp. 46-49.
Novak cites the Talmud (Sanhedrin 63b) as forbidding a Jew to set up a partnership (shutfut) with a non-Jew, because the non-Jew might be required to swear by his god. The Tosfot on that statement brings the view of Rabbenu Tam that "even though they associate [meshatfim] the name of God and something else, we don't find that it is forbidden to (indirectly) cause others to associate."
It would probably be a cheap shot for me to note that Novak transliterates the word for "associate" as mishtatfim, a related word that's more common in modern Hebrew. Nevertheless, it speaks to both his scholarship and his knowledge of Hebrew.
At this point, at the end of page 47, Novak says something astounding. He claims that Rabbenu Tam has "reworked" the idea of shutfut, changing it from partnership between Jew and non-Jew to the relationship between the non-Jew and his god. While the words shutfut and meshatfim share the same root stem in Hebrew, they do not share the same grammatical form (binyan). The noun derived from meshatfim is shituf. And at no time does Rabbenu Tam ever use shutfut to refer to the relationship between a non-Jew and his god.
Then on page 48, Novak says that the rabbis were able to extend this leniency even to the Christian trinity because the term shutfut, which Novak claims had been reinterpreted from meaning a partnership between two people into a relationship between Christians and their god was "now seen as being interchangeable with a related term, shittuf, which in philosophical Hebrew denites an interdivine relationship."
How many mistakes can be made in a single sentence? In this case, it'd be three:
For these bloopers, he cites Jacob Katz, in Exclusiveness and Tolerance, pp. 163-164, particularly note 2 on page 163. I didn't have to take this one out of the library, because Google has most of the book available online ( [18]), including those pages.
Katz, unfortunately for Novak, does not claim that shutfut was used in the way Novak claims. Nor does Katz equate shituf and shutfut. Nor does Katz say anything about interdivine, intradivine or extradivine relationships. Nor do any rabbinic sources.
Yes, Novak says all of this. But he brings not a single source for any of it. Except for Katz, who as everyone can see said nothing of the sort.
So is Novak's book a reliable source? It depends. Is it a reliable source for what shituf is? Certainly not. Novak has originated certain views, but he has no sources of his own for them. But it's a published book, and Novak is a Conservative rabbi. Certainly that should confer a degree of reliability upon the book as a source. And clearly it does. The book is a reliable source for the iconoclastic and novel ideas of one man: David Novak. As such, I used the book as a source for the statement "It is frequently used as a reason to justify interfaith dialog with Christians".
I would not suggest that it is a reliable source for anything else in this article. Not even in the Conservative section, because to the best of my knowledge, despite his being a Conservative rabbi, his views are purely his own here, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conservative Movement.
Because I think that Novak is entitled to know what's being said about him, I'm also going to be e-mailing this analysis to him. His faculty profile at the University of Toronto is easily Google-able ( [19]). - LisaLiel ( talk) 20:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- thanks for your note. I'll answer each of your points shortly. Tim ( talk) 13:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa,
Since your notes were so involved, I needed to sort through them in order to form as concise an answer as possible.
The trouble we are dealing with is one of religious analogue. The pieces on Wikipedia will only slowly develop in this area. The information is there, but it will take a while before they start to converge.
As for Shituf – one of the things I left out of the talk page before were secondary notes from those same Rabbis warning me that the Sephirot do indeed constitute Shituf. David Novak also made the same observation in his book. I understand that you disagree with Novak, but the Rabbis I corresponded with told me both in person and in email the same point.
There are analogues in religion – similar ideas covering essential philosophical aspects of infinity in relation to finitude. In Kabbalistic thought there is the Ein Sof and the Sephirot. In Christian thought there is the “one only supreme God without body or parts” (Westminster Confession of Faith; 1689 Second London Baptist Confession; etc.) and there is the Trinity. And, for that matter, in Hinduism there is the infinite impersonal Brahma and the billions of gods. These are analogues. The differences in religions are not matters of whether they have such analogues, so much as in what they do with them.
There are other analogues regarding special revelation and general revelation. General revelation is more of a bottom-up affair. We look at the created order and are able to form certain conceptions of the Creator from what we see. Special revelation is a top-down affair. God “reveals” himself. Take the Torah, for instance: is it the word of Moses or the Word of God? The answer to both alternatives is “yes.” In Christianity, is Jesus the son of Mary or the Word of God? Again, the answer to both alternatives is “yes.” Is a Torah scroll physical? Sure. It is physical, and finite. We read through it and reach the end each year. But although it is physical and finite in length, it is spiritual and infinite in depth – and so when we finish it, we are never finished with it, but have to go back, and back, and back, forever. This is how Christians see Jesus. That, by the way, is the subject of “incarnation” or the “two natures of Christ.” You were getting this confused with an entirely different subject called the “Trinity.” Just as a Torah scroll is physical and finite, the Christian analogue of Jesus is 100% human and finite. That is the human nature. He is not part human. He is all human. The Torah scroll is not part physical. It is all physical. Correspondingly, just as the Torah scroll is spiritual and infinite, the Christian analogue of Jesus is 100% divine and infinite. He is not part God. He is all God. The Torah scroll is not part the Word of God. It is all the Word of God.
The analogues for the Sephirot and the Trinity are completely different. Your mixing up the incarnation and the Trinity is like a Christian mixing up the Sephirot and the Torah. These are entirely different subjects. In Judaism, “God is Person” (I like the way Neusner expressed that). In Christianity, God is also Person – but He is Person in every “person” that is possible: first, second, and third persons. God is within us; God is beside us; God is beyond us. God within us partners with God with us to reconcile with God without us – itself an eternal process since that which is by definition “beyond” is always beyond. God is first, second, and third person – something in “I” working with “Thou” to reconcile with “Him.” God is not limited to any single person in a grammatical or rational sense. Judaism does this too, but we don’t formally express this as the “Three Person God.” We simply express this as “God.”
On a purely rational and philosophical way, these are accomplishing the same thing.
And yet, we don’t simply express this as “God” do we? No, we don’t. There is the Ein Sof. But the Ein Sof is by definition beyond us, singular in such a way that it cannot be “with” anything or anyone. God has no partners – not even us. To become “with” the Ein Sof would be to make it no longer “Ein Sof.” It would be like a Christian saying that Jesus is “God the Father.” No, he cannot be God the Father (God beyond us) any more than up can be down. Instead, he is “God with us” – Immanuel. God “beyond us” cannot be God “with us” unless he were to change, become finite, and no longer be “beyond.” And in both Christianity and Judaism, God does not change. God is not limited to “beyond.” Neither is he limited from “beyond.” And neither is he limited from “with” or “within.” God is infinite, without boundaries, without limitations, and without absence. He is within, with, and without. He is first, second, and third person. He is all these things and must be all these things because he is infinite. And if he were not any of this, he would be finite. Judaism has a similar philosophical problem of the infinite Creator. Because he is infinite, there are no handles by which we can grasp him. But he isn’t limited from us either. And that’s the problem. If God is infinite and we are finite, what are we interacting with? Does one interact with part of infinity? Well, no, because in neither Judaism nor Christianity can God have any “parts.” But are we interacting with all of God? Well, yes… sort of. “All of God” is in the tiniest grain of sand, and is simultaneously greater than all creation. But that computes with us about as well as 1=3. So we create these aspects of God in our philosophical system called the Sephirot.
To get to your Baal Peor point… the Rabbis are not condemning the belief that God is infinitely Person (i.e. Person in every possible way), but they are condemning the action of worshipping God as infinite Person. Okay – if that’s what you really want to say, so be it.
And you’ll answer, “no that isn’t what I’m trying to say at all.”
And I’ll answer, “no, that isn’t what you are TRYING to say – but it is certainly what you are ACCOMPLISHING.”
To be honest, the Sephirot are not as clean an approach as Christianity. These aspects really are parts. As such they must be created.
In Christianity, God doesn’t create himself. Neither does he have created parts. He is eternal, infinite, and entirely whole – one in every way that a Person can be; first, second, and third.
And he is whole with us and without us. He ultimately doesn’t need us, because even entirely alone, he is never alone.
What does this have to do with the article?
Glad you asked.
I finally had to leave the definition on Shituf alone once I saw that Novak was saying the same thing that the Rabbis offline were warning me about – the Sephirot are Shituf. If this article were being worked on from an NPOV collaboration of editors, this would be a simple thing to document (not only from Novak, but from other sources as well).
But this isn’t NPOV, and this isn’t a collaboration. This is a single editor effort, with a strong POV that doesn’t recognize subjective analogues, but instead must define all of reality, and indeed all other religions, from an objectivist Orthodox POV grid.
The truth, friend, is that Wikipedia is not about Truth. Wikipedia is about finding notable and verifiable sources from any POV they come from, and simply documenting what is there. That’s it.
And as I frequently point out – Wikipedia.en tries to do this in English.
But Wikipedia cannot do this in the environment the present article is governed under. At least, it cannot do this when two editors are clashing the way we are – with overhead nearly as infinite as the same Jewish God you and I both worship in an Orthodox way.
And that’s perhaps the greatest irony of all. We are both Orthodox Jews, passionately committed to our Lord and Faith and way of life as revealed in Torah – both written and oral. That’s not our problem. Our problem is not that we are committed to our POV.
Our problem is that you believe our POV defines all reality and is in fact itself the definition of NPOV.
And I know it is not.
But I also know that Wikipedia will grow faster and better without the tendentious overhead the two of us create. Is Wikipedia better served by my tweaking an article that has nothing to do with Judaism while you own whatever articles you want? Sure it is. At least we won’t endlessly clutter talk pages so much that we finally crash the servers.
And you know what? Judaism articles will grow in spite of your ownership. They have to – because you are finite, and you cannot contain Judaism to the sphere of your own time and expertise (as great as those are). The entire corpus of Wikipedia will grow around you until it towers around the tiny islands of Judaism you keep down against the rising tide. No amount of sand bags could hold back the Red Sea once Moses lowered his staff.
So I’ll improve other articles in cooperation with other editors in support of NPOV.
Good luck with your sand bags.
And in the end, Wikipedia will be okay. You have a lot of great things to contribute. You are a talented writer, with great learning and great research to offer.
I do too. And so I propose that we keep out of each other’s way.
This is the last time I will interact with you on any article under this name. And in fact I will make a point of not interacting with you on any other name. Wikipedia is better with the two of us acting separately than together. You get to keep any article you want. You can say anything you want, with no argument from me. And if you come into another article and an editor leaves – it might be me, or Alastair, or Bikinibomb, or Egfrank. Or it could just be someone else.
But Wikipedia has more sandboxes than you can even visit, let alone control.
I’m going to go play well with others now.
All the best to you. Tim ( talk) 14:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)