What Judaism IS--well, sort of...

[Wowbagger]

Even shorter definition of a Judaism: Anyone who calls him or her self a Jew, for whatever reason, is probably a Jew.

(The only known possible exception might be Jews for Jesus.)

 

[cnorman18]

--

So God is distant, not here and now?

Fitting that together with this:

Can you explain more about how we were all there?

If the symbolism of "God speaking" is brought into the present moment (as in, we are ALL, in some sense, HERE), would that be a distortion of Judaism?

I'm not sure we're on quite the same page, but let me take a run at it.

The Torah specifically says, IIRC in the words of Moses, that the words he speaks "today"--then--were directed not only to those who were present, but to all that would come after. There was even a direct reference to converts like me, I think. Tradition teaches that every Jew who ever was or would ever be was present at Sinai, in some unspecified spiritual sense.

What you said would not be a distortion of Judaism as I understand it. Does God speak to us today, in the present moment? Yes, certainly, but we'll have no truck with God speaking "in our hearts" or any such subjective and thus highly doubtful nonsense. God speaks through our minds as we study Torah and the tradition, and participate in shaping and refining of it in the present day.

Judaism is a very cerebral religion; it recognizes human intelligence and reason as channels for God's truth. Understand that this is no mere symbolism or metaphor. We believe that our thought, speech, and actions, especially when undertaken in the context of interaction with the tradition and the community, is literally an interaction with the mind of God.

A moment's reflection will reveal that this is not as insane as it first appears. Given that God no longer speaks directly, either from the top of a mountain or through reluctant prophets, how else could He speak or act but through the community? We Jews believe that we are
God's partners in Creation--and not only Jews.

When Dr. King marched through Selma, he spoke for God, in the finest tradition of the prophets of the Bible, speaking truth to power in the cause of freedom and suffering martyrdom for his trouble. He was not given the literal words of God in a supernatural way, but be spoke God's message anyway. The fact that he was an adulterer matters not at all; his message was still from God. The greatest of all the prophets, Moses, was a murderer.

One need not be famous and celebrated for this principle to hold. When you teach a child that it is wrong to bully another, smaller child, you speak for God.

Even if you don't believe in Him. When you speak on behalf of justice, mercy and truth, or feed the hungry, or comfort the afflicted, or fight against evil, you are God's mouth and hands and mind. Those on this forum who rail against phony prophets and religious con men--Peter Popoff comes to mind--are on God's side whether they know it or not, and God cares not a bit what we believe or don't believe. All that matters is what we do.

 

[cnorman18]

--

"As I recall it's founded on a revelation to one person - Abraham."

His was the first covenant, that's true; but the birth of Judaism as it is understood today, as a religion available to all and not as a private revelation to a single family, took place at the striking of the second Covenant, at Sinai, when "All the people answered as one, saying, 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do!'" (Exodus 19:8)

"Interpretation of Scripture is as fundamental to Islamic scholarship as it is to Jewish scolarship, and the moral principles are the same...

And there's no ranking system."

The implication that there is no moral distinction possible is, shall we say, debatable.

The passages of the OT that are problematic have long since been discounted or otherwise dealt with; on the other hand, the many passages in the Koran that explicitly call for the outright murder of unbelievers, and very specifically Jews, are being actively taught and promoted as we speak, with ugly real-world results.

Perhaps the application of the similar moral principles taught by Islam (a statement with which I concur) to current Koranic scholarship and textual criticism leaves just a bit to be desired.

 

[cnorman18]

--

Even shorter definition of a Judaism: Anyone who calls him or her self a Jew, for whatever reason, is probably a Jew.

(The only known possible exception might be Jews for Jesus.)

What you say here was actually a decision of the Israeli Supreme Court when dealing with the case of the Falashas, the black Jews of Ethiopia. As far as Israeli citizenship is concerned, if you say you're a Jew, you're a Jew.

That's one solution (there are others) to the problem of "who is a Jew", but it doesn't say much about the content or nature of Judaism.

And, yes, you are right; Jews have a special technical term for "Messianic Jews".

We call them "Christians".

 

[jimtron]

The passages of the OT that are problematic have long since been discounted or otherwise dealt with; on the other hand, the many passages in the Koran that explicitly call for the outright murder of unbelievers, and very specifically Jews, are being actively taught and promoted as we speak, with ugly real-world results.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the OT is and has been used in what I would call hateful ways. One problem I have with religion: who gets to determine the "proper" interpretations of scripture? Is homosexuality a sin according to god, or not, for example? Fred Phelps has used the Bible to justify hating gays.

In more general terms: one reason I don't follow any religion, is that I can't imagine how I would know which interpretation of which translation of which scripture of which religion accurately reflects god.

 

[nosho]

Does God speak to us today, in the present moment? Yes, certainly, but we'll have no truck with God speaking "in our hearts" or any such subjective and thus highly doubtful nonsense. God speaks through our minds as we study Torah and the tradition, and participate in shaping and refining of it in the present day.

Judaism is a very cerebral religion; it recognizes human intelligence and reason as channels for God's truth. Understand that this is no mere symbolism or metaphor. We believe that our thought, speech, and actions, especially when undertaken in the context of interaction with the tradition and the community, is literally an interaction with the mind of God.

A moment's reflection will reveal that this is not as insane as it first appears. Given that God no longer speaks directly, either from the top of a mountain or through reluctant prophets, how else could He speak or act but through the community? We Jews believe that we are God's partners in Creation--and not only Jews.

When Dr. King marched through Selma, he spoke for God, in the finest tradition of the prophets of the Bible, speaking truth to power in the cause of freedom and suffering martyrdom for his trouble. He was not given the literal words of God in a supernatural way, but be spoke God's message anyway. The fact that he was an adulterer matters not at all; his message was still from God. The greatest of all the prophets, Moses, was a murderer.

One need not be famous and celebrated for this principle to hold. When you teach a child that it is wrong to bully another, smaller child, you speak for God.

Even if you don't believe in Him. When you speak on behalf of justice, mercy and truth, or feed the hungry, or comfort the afflicted, or fight against evil, you are God's mouth and hands and mind. Those on this forum who rail against phony prophets and religious con men--Peter Popoff comes to mind--are on God's side whether they know it or not, and God cares not a bit what we believe or don't believe. All that matters is what we do.

This seems to be is a powerful statement about a Jewish notion of God present in this very moment. It also stands in contrast with your discussion of God in the OP:

He is separate from and above all attributes of the Universe which we inhabit ...

What you actually seem to be describing is a God who is part of and interconnected with the universe that we inhabit. And this is not mere symbolism, but a manifest reality in everyday experience. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[cnorman18]

--

"If 'm not mistaken, I believe that the OT is and has been used in what I would call hateful ways. One problem I have with religion: who gets to determine the "proper" interpretations of scripture? Is homosexuality a sin according to god, or not, for example? Fred Phelps has used the Bible to justify hating gays."

Of course the Bible has been misused. I have actually owned a "study Bible" that used the portions of Leviticus that forbade planting two crops in the same field and combining two kinds of fabric in one garment to defend racial segregation as "God's law". That was the only time in my life I have condoned (in fact, performed) the burning of a book. That was in 1975.

There is no book that has ever been written that could not be twisted, misquoted or misused to promote evil, except maybe "The Cat in the Hat." (On second thought, scratch that one too. Mike Myers's movie was lousy.)

Who gets to interpret Scripture? Anybody, but then the rest of get to decide if that interpretation is valid. Phelps is free to preach that "The Bible says God hates gays" all he wants, within limits (which he has clearly exceeded by any meaningful standard of free speech), but then the rest of us are free to employ a little judicious use of the alphabet and say, "FU twice, Fred, that's TBS and you're a MF AH SOB."

Who gets to determine the 'proper' interpretation of Scripture? Again, anybody. But you still get to--in fact, you have to--decide which one is right, or which ones, or pick "none of the above" and come up with your own.

Or, of course, one is free to ignore the question entirely as being of no interest, since one doesn't believe in the book in the first place. I've seen a book that claims there's a big hole at the North Pole where flying saucers piloted by Nazis go in and out and where you can get to a civilization that lives on the inside surface. I'm sure there are reviews and critiques and commentaries, but I don't think I'll bother; I've sort of made up my mind. I certainly won't spend hours on the Internet arguing over the size of the hole.

All that said, I do think that the contention that all interpretations are equally valid is a wee bit specious. God hasn't arranged it so that when you go to the bookstore, the right interpretation glows with a golden light, but that doesn't mean they're all the same.

An extreme example, but you'll see the point: I go to the drugstore to get a cold remedy. I'm aware that none of them are likely to cure my cold, but I want to feel better, so I'm going to get one.

On the sidewalk outside is a guy in a propellor beanie and high-tops hawking Coke bottles filled with a greenish liquid labeled "Buford's Mirical Cold Medacine." Gee, should I buy it?

Fred Phelps is the guy in the beanie.

"In more general terms: one reason I don't follow any religion, is that I can't imagine how I would know which interpretation of which translation of which scripture of which religion accurately reflects god."

Decide for yourself. Freedom of the marketplace, man. God didn't just send us Scripture, or Scriptures; He also gave us brains that are intended to be used for thinking and making decisions.

If one wishes to consider the content of a given "holy book" on its own, go for it. But bear in mind that one is engaging in a literary analysis and nothing more. One may not assume that that book, by itself, necessarily teaches or even contains the content of that RELIGION, as opposed to the content of the BOOK. They are invariably separate and distinct to some degree.

The fact is, ALL religions have at least two sources for their teachings: Scripture, whichever one it is, and the traditional teachings of that religion. It is irresponsible and illegitimate to consider a religious text apart from the teachings of that faith, and then use one's OWN analysis to criticize that faith, insisting that its followers must believe and teach things that they patently don't.

If you're looking for a religious text that you can use independently, on your own, to look for moral guidance and spiritual or theological truth, then consider the texts alone (and good luck to you); but if you're about choosing (or, not to put too fine a point on it, JUDGING) a RELIGION, and not just a book, then you are obligated to consider the WHOLE of that faith's teachings and not just stop with the book. In most religions, the book is considered unintelligible without the help of the tradition. This is as true of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and
Bahais as it is of Jews.

And in fact, there is always a third source of authority: human reason. Some religions prefer, or even require, that their followers limit their use of it; and one ought to take that into account when making one's judgments or choices. Even those that demand that believers accept their teachings without question or analysis, though, at least expect that they be
able to understand what they are told to believe.

I can speak for no other faith, and to a degree I can't even claim to speak for Judaism (many Orthodox communities rather fall into the "open your mouth and close your eyes" camp), but in general Jews consider reason to be a higher authority than either tradition or Scripture. That is one reason that one finds such a wide variance in the religious and ritual practices of Jews even within the same congregation, and why we leave each other alone about such things.

When considering moral questions, one is expected to consider the teachings of Torah in light of the tradition, and use one's own reason and capacity for logical analysis and make them one's own--either through arriving at an intelligent, seriously considered assent, an equally serious rejection, or a thoughtful compromise or revision. When those judgments extend to the community as a whole, then the teachings either are affirmed, revised, or are thrown out entirely and abandoned.

This process even applies to the individual congregation or synagogue. In Judaism, local tradition has the force of law--and that is not repressive, but democratic. One individual alone has little chance of altering the teachings of Judaism worldwide (insofar as there are unanimous agreements anyway--most such matters are not likely to be questioned by anyone), but in the local congregation one may actually institute changes. There are "Traditional" congregations that no longer separate men and women at services, and allow women to be called to the Torah (a ritual reading during the service), for instance. ("Traditional" usually means, "We're mostly Orthodox, but not always.")

After posting ideas like this, I've been asked (and more than once), "Well, since Judaism gets its morality from somewhere else (i.e., oneself), why not just dump the Torah and the religion entirely?" Well, no; the fact that we are allowed, and even expected, to use our own judgment does not mean that we made up the teachings on our own. Jewish teachings, especially on matters of ethics and proper behavior, are voluminous and very detailed; and since so much good work has been done over the last 2,000 years or more, one might be reluctant to toss it and start over.

When one is studying a mathematical text, one might reasonably be expected to check the calculations from time to time to confirm their accuracy--but that does not mean that one might as well throw it away and write one's own book from scratch. We learn from the wisdom and learning of the past in EVERY field of study, even though we are obliged to judge it and confirm, revise, or discard it as we see fit. The teachings of Judaism are no different in that regard.

On the subject of versions and translations of the Bible, I can be of some help, I think, even concerning the Christian Bible. I studied both OT and NT at a highly reputable seminary under some world-class theologians and Bible scholars, and I haven't forgotten everything I learned since I became a Jew.

The differences between and among the various translations of the Bible from reputable mainstream publishers are trivial. When I was a minister, I routinely consulted five or six at one time, to confirm and make sure of the meaning of the text, but often merely to choose the most graceful phrasing for a particular passage. The meaning was very rarely obscure or significantly different in any of them--except for the King James Version. It was usually the most beautifully phrased--but for some passages, it was literally unintelligible to a modern reader, just as a few scenes in Shakespeare are hard to make head or tail of today. No surprise there; both were produced at about the same time.

For the record, the whole issue of "copyist's errors" is generally much ado about nothing (thanks, Will). There has never been much doubt about the text of the Torah (the first five books); it probably has seen only a letter here and there changed since it reached its final form about 2,000 years ago. If you know how Torah scrolls are copied, you won't find that surprising.

The rest of the OT has proportionately more errors--that is to say, variant readings in different manuscripts--but nothing of any moment. A word here, a letter there, occasionally even a whole line of text is missing or added; still, only rarely is the meaning impacted to any meaningful degree. The NT is where errors really multiply, but that may only be because there are so many more manuscripts out there. The biggest single issue in the textual criticism of the NT may be the last section of the Gospel of Mark, which most scholars believe was written later than the rest of that book.

But all this is quibbling. Modern translations consult all of the old manuscripts and employ the most respected scholars to determine the proper reading. Most good hardcover translations will have variant readings, if they're significantly different, in footnotes anyway. Unless you're a specialist, any good modern translation will do.

Beware of Bibles marketed by churches that are not "mainstream", though. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, sell a heavily edited and revised "translation" that departs pretty far from the genuine article.

I find that I almost forgot to answer a key question. Oh, well. My sermons were always too long and sometimes left out the point, too.

"Is homosexuality sinful, or not?"

Not.

That is the overwhelming consensus among liberal Jews, and that view is even making inroads into the Orthodox community. There are a lot of Orthodox gays who are working to make that happen. I have personally attended a gay/lesbian synagogue here in Dallas. Nice people; as warm and welcoming a shul as any I've ever attended, and more so than some.

The general rule is simple enough; any activity that is permitted to straights is equally permitted to gays. Any activity that is forbidden, or frowned upon, for straights (e.g., promiscuity, sex in public and scaring the horses, etc.) is equally disapproved of for gays. Being gay, in and of itself, has no more moral significance than having red hair.

Thanks for reading.

Peace,

Charles

 

[cnorman18]

--

Doubled. Sorry.

 

[cnorman18]

--

This seems to be is a powerful statement about a Jewish notion of God present in this very moment. It also stands in contrast with your discussion of God in the OP:

What you actually seem to be describing is a God who is part of and interconnected with the universe that we inhabit. And this is not mere symbolism, but a manifest reality in everyday experience. Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes.

However--

(you knew that was coming)

--the sense in which God is "part of and interconnected with the universe" is not necessarily in conflict with the idea that God is "separate from and above all attributes of the Universe which we inhabit, and which He made." That last phrase is key.

Any analogy which puts a human in God's place is liable to misuse and misunderstanding, but consider this one (and give it no more significance than I do here):

Suppose I design and build a complex machine and set it running. I am obviously "separate from and above" it--but if I choose to, I can get our my screwdriver and be "part of and interconnected with" it in any way I like. Too, the very fact that I designed the thing means that my thought and creativity, integral parts of my Self, are "part of and interconnected with" it from the smallest sprocket to the case I put it in.

Here endeth the analogy. God did not build a machine. He built a Universe, and for our purposes here, a world.

(For those who came in late, I am not doing "Creationism" here. Jews believe that God made the Universe, but we've never presumed to know how He did it. We're just fine with evolution, thanks very much.)

He filled that world with creatures who were made with the capacity of free will; some of them are even capable of rational thought. (I am not here alluding to whatever variety of human moonbats that comes to mind, though that applies as well; my point is that even bears presumably get to decide which berry, or
Boy Scout, they're going to eat.)

With His Revelation, God taught humans some basic principles of morality and justice. Alternatively, by making them capable of reason, he gave them the capacity to figure out those principles on their own. Either way, His essence--His Mind--still influences and speaks through humans today. We religious types also believe that it is possible for God to directly inspire humans to speak or act for Him, though to what degree or extent, in the present day, is unknowable even by the person himself. I have often found words coming to my lips, especially when trying to comfort or counsel another, that were not in my mind till I began to speak them. Was that God speaking through me, or merely my intuition, intelligence, education and training acting in concert at need? I don't know, and I live in this head. It would be arrogant beyond belief for me to claim that it was God, and I can't and won't--but, for a believer, the possibility is there.

I can tell you this: anyone who positively makes that claim has eliminated any possibility that it might be true. There are any number of TV channels where one can see that demonstrated 24-7.

So how do we know if a person is speaking for God or is just shooting off his mouth?

Well, here we are again. That's why God gave you a brain. If the guy promises miracles or salvation and wants your money, or advocates repression, injustice or bigotry, he's a fake, no matter how much Scripture he can quote. If he is fighting for human dignity, freedom and justice--well, he might not have anything to do with God, but at least he agrees with God on the issues.

We have no way of knowing where, or to what extent, God is directly active in the world, or if He is active at all. That He still influences it through us humans, at least, religious or not, is in my opinion obvious.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Of course. Judaism is nothing if not self-referential.

So is existence. "I think, therefore I am, therefore I think..."

The Circle of Life. Ouroboros, the snake eating its own tail. Nothing new there.

So Judaism is pagan then? I've always suspected it.

Godless, I calls it.

 

[cnorman18]

--

So Judaism is pagan then? I've always suspected it.

Godless, I calls it.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk...

 

[CapelDodger]

"As I recall it's founded on a revelation to one person - Abraham."

His was the first covenant, that's true; but the birth of Judaism as it is understood today, as a religion available to all and not as a private revelation to a single family, took place at the striking of the second Covenant, at Sinai, when "All the people answered as one, saying, 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do!'" (Exodus 19:8)

Wouldn't that be all of the people that hadn't been swallowed up by the earth for having congress with golden images while Moses was away getting the message? My memory's a bit hazy on that.

The implication that there is no moral distinction possible is, shall we say, debatable.

Go ahead and debate it. You've already set Judaism up as occupying the moral high ground. I don't buy it.

When you say "Judaism as it is understood today", I think you mean Judaism as you understand it, from your post-Enlightenment perspective.

The passages of the OT that are problematic have long since been discounted or otherwise dealt with; on the other hand, the many passages in the Koran that explicitly call for the outright murder of unbelievers, and very specifically Jews, are being actively taught and promoted as we speak, with ugly real-world results.

I think you've been subject to propaganda. Great effort has been made to conjure this stuff out of the Koran but the results don't stand up to scrutiny. Whoever presents them : neocon culture-clasher or Wahabbist.

Very ugly things are being taught by Jewish fanatics to Jewish children in the settler community. Both sides have their minority death-cults, and they're not unusual at times of social stress; the Black Death in Europe brought out the Flagellants.

Perhaps the application of the similar moral principles taught by Islam (a statement with which I concur) to current Koranic scholarship and textual criticism leaves just a bit to be desired.

Bin Laden et al get a lot of coverage in the West, but they represent a tiny minority and their theology is crap. The reporting of the real Islamic world in the West is what leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[cnorman18]

--

**"Wouldn't that be all of the people that hadn't been swallowed up by the earth for having congress with golden images while Moses was away getting the message? My memory's a bit hazy on that."**

And your point would be what?

Given that I've already said that (a) the Torah is not intended to be read as literal history and (b) troubling passages like that one have long been a puzzle and a burden to Jews who study the Book, this strikes me as more of a non sequitur than a cogent criticism.

(What you have mentioned above is the movie version, by the way. In the Book, Korah and his followers were swallowed up for questioning the authority of Moses, which makes it even MORE of a problem. We know that the Book got it wrong anyway, because it says that Korah and all his descendants and kin were killed; but some of them apparently lived to write some of the Psalms.)

**"Go ahead and debate it. You've already set Judaism up as occupying the moral high ground. I don't buy it."**

See below.

**"When you say "Judaism as it is understood today", I think you mean Judaism as you understand it, from your post-Enlightenment perspective."**

Most liberal Jews share that perspective. In any case, from whose perspective should I write? Someone else's?

**"I think you've been subject to propaganda. Great effort has been made to conjure this stuff out of the Koran but the results don't stand up to scrutiny. Whoever presents them : neocon culture-clasher or Wahabbist.

Very ugly things are being taught by Jewish fanatics to Jewish children in the settler community. Both sides have their minority death-cults, and they're not unusual at times of social stress; the Black Death in Europe brought out the Flagellants.

Bin Laden et al get a lot of coverage in the West, but they represent a tiny minority and their theology is crap. The reporting of the real Islamic world in the West is what leaves a lot to be desired."**

After some consideration and reflection, I have concluded that you are very right, and I was very wrong.

If I am to be consistent in my position on what is legitimate and proper when it comes to judging religion, I must accept the word of Muslims who say that murder and terrorism are a betrayal of their faith and not a part of it. Indeed, I have often said that myself, on other fora if not this one.

Your point on the reporting about Islam in the West is well taken, too. Biased reporting, and the fact that extremists and media whores usually speak most frequently and with the loudest voices, can give a distorted view of any religion. Watching cable TV, one could easily reach the conclusion that Christianity is dominated by fakes, hucksters, con men, and egotists--and I don't believe that either.

I hereby retract any and all disparaging remarks I have made, explicitly or implicitly, about Islam. I apologize for those remarks and will be careful in the future not to allow the heat of the argument or my passion for my own faith to lead me into the disparagement of others.

Islam is an ancient and honorable religion, a sister faith to my own, and I do not believe that suicide bombers and jihadists are any more representative of it than Baruch Goldstein was representative of Judaism. It was wrong of me to say or imply otherwise.

As I have said repeatedly, Jews are forbidden to judge other faiths, and I deeply regret that I have myself violated that prohibition.

Thank you for your remarks. I needed a good slap in the chops, and I'm grateful for it.

Peace.

Charles

 

[jimtron]

After some consideration and reflection, I have concluded that you are very right, and I was very wrong.

I have a great deal of respect for people who can listen to opposing viewpoints and admit when they're wrong. We should all do that.

Cnorman18, if I may ask: why Judaism? Is it because you share the values of the religion--it's compatible with your views? Or because you think Judaism is the most likely religion to accurately reflect the truth about god? Or something else?

 

[cnorman18]

--

I have a great deal of respect for people who can listen to opposing viewpoints and admit when they're wrong. We should all do that.

Thanks, but one of my core beliefs is that you can't pretend to believe things that you don't.

That means you can't continue to defend views that you've learned are wrong just because you hate to lose an argument. It's more important to learn the truth and change what you believe than to remain undefeated. Philosophy is a chess game, and losing a match doesn't put any blood on you.

Cnorman18, if I may ask: why Judaism? Is it because you share the values of the religion--it's compatible with your views? Or because you think Judaism is the most likely religion to accurately reflect the truth about god? Or something else?

You may ASK... *cough*

Seriously, I don't mind. I get that question a lot, especially from other Jews (a lot of them can't imagine why anyone would want to DO this).

You know how I like to write, and it's a long story, so bear with me. I don't usually talk about it much, for reasons that will become apparent, especially in one aspect. Why I feel it's okay to talk about it HERE, I'm not sure, but I do. Maybe it's because I trust smart people. I think you usually have to be dumb to be cruel.

Anyway:

The overwhelming majority of converts to Judaism do it because they're getting married to Jews. I've got nobody and want nobody. Most of the rest have fallen in love with the culture, the history, the food, the rituals, the whole family/tribe/civilization thing. Not me; I have a hard time with all of that.

For me it was, and is, purely theological and intellectual. Head, not heart. And there's a reason.

I started to write a long section about this, but it was pure self-indulgence, so here it is, straight up; I am an extremely high-functioning autistic. I only found this out about three years ago; before that, I always thought I was just strange (and so did most people in my life). Well, I AM strange, but now I understand and accept it. I actually kind of like who I am, peculiarities, blind spots and all.

It's a spectrum disorder, and manifests in a lot of different ways. In my case, my intelligence was not impaired; I don't know that it was enhanced, either, but I was reading at a high-school level before I was five. I don't discuss my IQ except under great provocation, but it isn't low. I'm certainly not retarded, which many people think is connected to autism. It's not.

For the rest, it works out this way: high-order language skills, obsessive interests that come and go, a peculiarly retentive memory, an inability to form emotional connections, and an inability to "read" nonverbal cues--facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. (which is why I like the Internet; words only, pure intellect).

In general, a hyper-intellectual and compulsively rational approach to everything. Emotion is irrelevant to me. I HAVE them; they just don't matter to me much.

I can feel angry or sad or happy, but it's all in my head; it's hard to explain. Others usually can't tell what I'm feeling, because it doesn't show. I sometimes have to consciously check to see how I feel myself. I live entirely in my head, and it's as likely as not that I won't notice if I feel depressed or happy. I'm usually conscious of feeling nothing at all, emotionally speaking.

I'm neither cold nor callous; on the contrary, I am very warm and friendly, I know maybe 10.000 jokes and tell them well, and I'm as faithful a friend as you could want. It's just that all of this is cognitive; I care about people intellectually, and I don't miss them when they're not here. I can get choked up over a sad story, and seeing a person suffer makes me ache for them, like anybody else--but that applies equally to family, friend and stranger. I just can't feel love or devotion, or a need for a companion or even company. I'm not lonely. I don't even really understand what that means.

Why does all this personal hoo-hah matter to the question? Here's why: I'm incapable of making myself believe something that I really don't. If it strikes me as irrational, no matter how much I SHOULD believe it, I just can't overrule what I know to be true or untrue. In a way, I guess you could say I was born a skeptic.

God knows, I've tried to fake it. I was raised Methodist--for my money, the best of the Christian denominations--but even as a child, I never quite bought into the whole Jesus thing. Since I could have no emotional attachment to either baby Jesus or the bleeding Saviour, and the heart-tugging hymns and emotional trappings had no effect on me, I just couldn't get with the program. On the other hand, I felt obscurely certain that there was a God; I just couldn't see what He had to do with Jesus.

Now people like me can be a little obsessive about pleasing others. Maybe it comes from getting in trouble so often when we couldn't tell what Mom was feeling or what we were expected to do, from being blind to all the subtle cues that other people take for granted (that also makes us very good listeners); but for whatever reason, I wanted to be a good and faithful Christian and get the approval of others. So I tried to ignore my doubts and disbelief and faked it.

I also tried to resolve them in the only way I knew; cognitively. There MUST be a way to understand these things, I thought--everyone around me believed them, so why couldn't I? So I studied theology and even went to seminary. Surely the next tome of badly translated German Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology or ethics would make it all clear and I could buy into it all with a clear mind and a clear conscience.

Never happened. After three years in the ministry, I finally bailed out and started managing a Pizza Hut. I kept a sort of eclectic faith that cherry-picked the parts that made sense--the ethics, mostly--and ignored St. Paul and Jesus and most of the NT.

Especially Revelation. Worst and most useless book in the Christian Bible, and I taught that from my pulpit.

I had always liked the OT, though. Where the NT was always a closed book to me, the OT sang. These people were real; not a perfect and flawless Holy Man in the bunch. Noah was a drunk, Abraham a near-child murderer, Jacob a conniver, Moses a cowardly, tongue-tied killer, David an adulterer, Solomon a sensualist; most of the Prophets were just ordinary, bumbling Joes that REALLY didn't want the job--if this book was supposed to be holy propaganda that made these guys out to be better than the rest of us, their agents weren't reading the scripts.

And the language! When Amos, a poor man with a menial job and no scholar, stood up to blaze away at injustice--his words could have blistered the paint. Psalms; these are words from someone's heart, and they aren't all mindless praise. Take a look at Psalm 88 sometime. There's no light in it, no God-will-make-it-all-OK deus ex machina BS. This was written by a man on the ragged edge of suicide. Having spent some considerable time in that neighborhood myself, I recognized the scenery, and it was nothing you'd show people that you're trying to get to move in.

There was some stuff in there that I didn't like at all, and some stuff that was mind-bogglingly boring--page after page of "begats", for instance.

So what? When I had the Beatles' White Album on vinyl, I used to skip over half the tracks. The other half were worth it.

Anyway, time passed, as it generally does. I fell into teaching, which I loved, and into a 20-year nightmare marriage. I got married because I was supposed to--everybody else did--and as with Christianity, I figured that there MUST be a way to make it work. Bad idea. You can't love somebody because you're supposed to, or because you want to, or because it's the right thing to do. For me, it was like a colorblind man trying to paint. It didn't help that she was a cast-iron witch, either. So I eventually bailed out of that, too.

20 years after I left the ministry, I began to read about Judaism, in books actually written by Jews. And for the first time, I found the things that I had ALWAYS believed, all in one place:

There's no list of stuff you have to pretend to believe.

What you believe doesn't matter anyway. God is interested in what you DO.

Nobody's going to Hell because they're not in our little club.

Everybody is welcome in Heaven, and nobody gets a preferred seat--or a ticket in advance.

How do you get in? You know how. Be good--and you do too know what that means. Now quit screwing around and go do it.

None of that stuff about Heaven is important. There may not be a Heaven anyway, and there's probably no Hell; we don't have the brochure.

If you have to be promised a lollipop if you're good and a spanking if you're bad, you're not getting the idea anyway. This is a religion for grownups.

If you've done something rotten to somebody, don't ask God for forgiveness. You have to go to the guy you hurt. God can't help you with that.

Nobody's going to wash your sins away forever. Here's some soap; give it your best shot, then get back to work. Keep the soap--you'll need it again.

Here's a book. You don't get the book so you can throw away your brain.

There's some good stuff in it, and some bad stuff, and some stupid stuff too, but it's all worth reading; it's kind of like life that way. Find the meat and throw away the bones.

If you're not sure, ask somebody you think is smart and good: but mostly, work it out for yourself.

If somebody tells you something stupid and says it comes from God, you don't have to believe them.

Nobody is holy, but everybody is sacred. Bow down to no human, and treat no human with contempt.

Life is sacred. Shed no blood, not even animal blood, unless you have to--and that doesn't mean "want to".

And so very much more.

I stopped counting the books I've read at 100, and I haven't heard a false note yet.

Anyway, after learning about this religion that everyone outside it thinks they understand (when even rabbis will tell you that they're still working on it), I decided that I had to convert, if I could. It takes about three years. I became a Jew at the age of 50.

If I had had the emotional connections to Christianity that most Christians do, I could never have done it, but as it was I walked away and never looked back. I've never doubted for a moment that it was the right thing, for me, to do.

I don't think it would be the right thing for anyone else. It's been worth it for me, but it hasn't been a walk in the park. Most of my family no longer speaks to me. Good thing I never felt the tug of those bonds much anyway.

This is a lot more than I intended to write, and a lot more personal than I intended to get. I dithered for a day before deciding to post it.

What the hell. Somebody wants to use this as ammunition against me, especially my peculiar neurology, to prove that I'm wrong in a debate--well, that would be contemptible as well as invalid, and I'll feel free to ignore anyone who would do it. Worst-case scenario, I stop posting, go elsewhere, and keep my mouth shut next time.

I'll close with one of my favorite quotations, from Frank Zappa:

"It has now been reliably determined that
God does not want us all to be the same."

Peace.

Charles

 

[CapelDodger]

And your point would be what?

That unanimity after a cull is not terribly impressive. We've seen it often enough in history. "Anybody else got any questions? No? OK, moving on ..."

Given that I've already said that (a) the Torah is not intended to be read as literal history and (b) troubling passages like that one have long been a puzzle and a burden to Jews who study the Book, this strikes me as more of a non sequitur than a cogent criticism.

(a) is a matter of varied opinion, (b) we can agree on (atheists around here are forever bringing that sort of stuff up, which confirms that it is a problem). As to non sequitur, see above.

(What you have mentioned above is the movie version, by the way. In the Book, Korah and his followers were swallowed up for questioning the authority of Moses, which makes it even MORE of a problem.

I knew I was hazy (it was years ago I read up on this stuff) but I didn't realise it was that bad. I've long regarded the Mt Sinai story as representing an important political event involving Moses and a disparate group of local tribes that were all down on their luck.

We know that the Book got it wrong anyway, because it says that Korah and all his descendants and kin were killed; but some of them apparently lived to write some of the Psalms.)

Deliberate misreporting, on the face of it. They're all dead, so any claimant to Korah's status must be a fraud.

Most liberal Jews share that perspective. In any case, from whose perspective should I write? Someone else's?

You should try and see it from other's perspectives. Such as pre-Enlightment perspectives. There's nothing special about the modern liberal interpretation; it's not a culminating point where the message has finally got through.

After some consideration and reflection, I have concluded that you are very right, and I was very wrong.

That's damned handsome of you, sir. I tip my hat.

I'll just say it's not so much biased reporting as selective reporting that's the problem. Only foreign news that impacts on the West is widely reported there, and from the Muslim world that tends to be heavy on threats and violence. A billion Muslims going about their business ain't news. A video of bearded bluster and bravado recorded in a cave is news.

Thank you for your remarks. I needed a good slap in the chops, and I'm grateful for it.

I'd rather think of it as a nudge . Your reputation is unsullied.

 

[cnorman18]

--

That unanimity after a cull is not terribly impressive. We've seen it often enough in history. "Anybody else got any questions? No? OK, moving on ..."

Oh, OK. I didn't get that.

In the Midrash, it's even worse. One story tells how God physically lifted the mountain and held it over the crowd as the question was asked.

"Are you guys going to sign on for this?"

"Uhh--sure! Right! Hey, no problem!"

You should try and see it from other's perspectives. Such as pre-Enlightment perspectives. There's nothing special about the modern liberal interpretation; it's not a culminating point where the message has finally got through.

I'm not sure I'd be able to speak for 17th-century Judaism. I'm not sure I'd want to: I'm getting enough flak around here talking about this week's edition.

That's damned handsome of you, sir. I tip my hat.

I'm trying to remember the last time I heard somebody use the words "handsome" and "you" in the same sentence...

I'll just say it's not so much biased reporting as selective reporting that's the problem. Only foreign news that impacts on the West is widely reported there, and from the Muslim world that tends to be heavy on threats and violence. A billion Muslims going about their business ain't news. A video of bearded bluster and bravado recorded in a cave is news.

I think you're right. When I was in college, I participated in a small demonstration. Four hours of people marching peacefully around in a circle carrying signs, and 10 seconds of pushing and shoving, too insignificant to even be called a "scuffle". Guess what made the evening news. I saw the footage; they made it look like a riot.

I'd rather think of it as a nudge . Your reputation is unsullied.

Yeah, well, you've obviously never talked to my ex-wife...

 

[CapelDodger]

In the Midrash, it's even worse. One story tells how God physically lifted the mountain and held it over the crowd as the question was asked.

"Are you guys going to sign on for this?"

"Uhh--sure! Right! Hey, no problem!"

At the time, the people telling that story thought it unobjectionable, in fact a selling-point for the religion. A distinctly pre-Enlightenment attitude. Before a god that powerful, there's no shame in abasement.

I bring the Enlightenment up because it seems to me that you've gone searching for a religion that reflects the moral sense you already have - which I would describe as post-Enlightenment. You can find it Judaism, but people find - and have found - very different moral senses in it.

You can find the sense of personal moral responsibility in most religions, along with the Golden Rule - "do not do to others that which would be hateful to you". What you'll also find is that most followers of mass religions have a more simplistic attitude, at the level of ritual and form and shared identity. (That's one of my favourite oxymorons : "shared identity" .) Going through the motions.

To my mind, since you have the moral sense already there's no obvious point in searching out a religion to match. To the extent that I've sought an under-pinning to my moral sense I've observed, read about, and pondered on our human nature. That's where insights are to be found.

Yeah, well, you've obviously never talked to my ex-wife...

I can speak only for this haven of reason and good manners, of course. Not the Hell that is Other People.

 

[cnorman18]

--

At the time, the people telling that story thought it unobjectionable, in fact a selling-point for the religion. A distinctly pre-Enlightenment attitude. Before a god that powerful, there's no shame in abasement.

I bring the Enlightenment up because it seems to me that you've gone searching for a religion that reflects the moral sense you already have - which I would describe as post-Enlightenment.

I was not searching; I gave that up at 20 or so, when I decided to "dance with who brung me," in Texas parlance--I was born a Christian, let's make it work.

I stumbled upon Judaism, and recognized home when I saw it. I had spent my whole life thinking about God and what I knew to be true and good, and suddenly here was this ancient faith that honored the same things I did and held the same core principles with exactly the same priorities. I was 50 when I converted, and had long since abandoned the search.

It's like giving up on women (which I have done, actually) and suddenly finding the one that you never knew existed, but fits you like she was made to be your mate.

I never knew anyone believed the things I did. I thought I was alone.

You can find it Judaism, but people find - and have found - very different moral senses in it.

What can I say? It's like the woman I mentioned above. They must not know her.

It would be interesting to know if the "people" you mention, who have found "very different moral senses" in Judaism, are actually Jews, or people judging it from the outside.

You can find the sense of personal moral responsibility in most religions, along with the Golden Rule - "do not do to others that which would be hateful to you".

True. One reason Jews are reluctant to condemn other religions as false.

What you'll also find is that most followers of mass religions have a more simplistic attitude, at the level of ritual and form and shared identity. (That's one of my favourite oxymorons : "shared identity" .) Going through the motions.

It is not my intention to be rude, but--so what?

When I was a Christian, I was faced with the fact tnat my religion was laced with execrable specimens like Robert Tilton, Jim Bakker and Oral Roberts. I wished that my only difficulty had been those who just "went through the motions."

Still, it was not the fact that parasites and con men perverted my religion that forced me from it; it was the illogic, the doctrines that ran counter to everything I knew to be just and right ("Everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus burns in Hell," for starters) that made me leave.

There were a heluva lot more con artists and crooks that used Christianity as cover for their scams than I've seen in Judaism, though; by comparison, we have virtually none. I kinda like that.

The fact that there were those who knew and understood little of my faith and were indifferent to learning more did not trouble me as a Christian; why would it trouble me as a Jew?

To my mind, since you have the moral sense already there's no obvious point in searching out a religion to match.

Like I said, I wasn't searching.

To date, I've read probably 200 books on Jewish theology, ethics, history, and the interpretation of the Torah and Jewish law; I've yet to find a single false note or a principle taught that I found illogical or morally objectionable, whereas with Christianity, I hit them every couple of blocks.

Why on Earth would I say, "Screw this, I can do it all myself"??

Not to mention the fact that I have developed a certain affection for
God.

It seems more and more clear to me that, just as atheists take my failure to apply rigorous logic to my decisions and beliefs about
God as either a moral lapse or a sign of low intelligence, I find the failure of atheists to understand and appreciate the difference between believing in the living God of the Prophets and the Psalms and believing in the Easter Bunny as a failure to understand and appreciate what the religious impulse really is, or what the word "faith" actually signifies beyond an irrational and unprovable belief in a hypothetical supernatural being.

If your initial response is, "But that's all it is," my point is proven.

One who can see no substantial difference between copulating with a hooker and making love with the mother of one's children is in a similar position regarding the word "love".

To the extent that I've sought an under-pinning to my moral sense I've observed, read about, and pondered on our human nature. That's where insights are to be found.

I personally am not convinced that the moral insights of the religious people of the past have nothing to teach us.

I am not convinced that God is irrelevant, either.

I'm beginning to think that it's a bit pointless to talk about tne existence or significance of God in a forum where most of the members only understand the word "God" as an intellectual concept or a theoretical hypothesis.

The only rough parallel that I can think of is the difference in attitude and understanding between one who discusses "street crime" as a societal, political and economic problem, and one who has actually been assaulted, mugged, or raped.

For one, the question is one of logic and intellectual analysis; for the other, it's life and death with the smell of blood on it. Logically, there should be no difference...

I can speak only for this haven of reason and good manners, of course. Not the Hell that is Other People.

Got it. I've BEEN married.

Peace,

Charles