Talk:Reconstructionist Judaism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Reconstructionist Judaism is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles. |
|
Project Judaism To-do:
|
|
Article says "In agreement with the classical medieval Jewish thinkers, Kaplan affirmed that God is not personal". I always thought that the "classical medieveal Jewish thinkers" (which I'm guessing means Maimonides, the other philosophers whose names I forget, and the Rabbis that wrote commentaries on the Talmud, whose names I forget also) taught God was personal. They agreed (or at least Maimonides did) that God was incoporeal but I still thought they held he was personal. Or am I projecting Christian theology onto Judaism? Also, how many Jews actually are Reconstructionists, as a percentage? This is mainly a U.S. movement, right? -- SJK
- Its not widely known, but most of the medieval Jewish theologians (Saadya Gaon, Maimonides, Samuel Ibn Tibbon, Gersonides, etc.) taught that God was not anthropomorphic or personal. This is in stark contrast to the Biblical view and the Talmudic view, which does teach that God is personal. Maimonides and other held that the Bible and Talmud spoke in the way that they did, because this is all the common people could be expected to understand. But to a wide person (which Maimonides defines as one who has mastered physics and philosophy) will see that all the anthropomorphic statements in the Bible are just metaphors to express a relationship, and are not truly descriptions in of themselves. Maimonides and other created elaborate reconciliations between the non-personal rationalism of Aristotelian philosophy and the person anthropomorphic teachings of the Bible and Talmud, always teaching that the the Aristotelian rationalism was what the Bible really meant all along. Mordecai Kaplan was controversial because he went further than this; for Maimonides, God had ontological reality, and existed apart from our thoughts and beliefs. God was and is the ultimate cause of all existence. For Kaplan, his writings kept varying between affirming God as real, and affirming that God is only the name we use for our collective beliefs about righteousness. He was widely accused of atheism, and some of his followers certainly are. Kaplan's theology kept bouncing back and forth between affirming God as real or not, and he made clear that its more imporant to say that we believe in God (and act like it) then to actually believe in God's independent, real existence. For Kaplan, belief in God weas behavioural, and not necessarilly indicative of anything real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).
-
- I object to the use of the term "the" classical medieval Jewish thinkers. During the Middle Ages, other classical medieval Jewish thinkers were writing poetry, such as anim Zemirot (Shir HaKavod or the Hymn of Glory), with some of the most personal and anthropormorphic imagery in Jewish thought. It would be incorrect to say "the" classical medieval Jewish thinkers, as the impersonal school reflected only one wing of thought in a long-standing debate. Wikipedia should not use language which appears to take sides on this sort of issue. --Shirahadasha 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't know about you guys, but I find behaviour very real indeed, disturbingly so at times Zargulon 19:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The link that gives a 404 is exactly why external links are such a bad idea. I would love to link to lots of external pictures for art entries (policy aside), but most of them are very unstable. Touristic sites change all the time, and most university sites change each term. --MichaelTinkler
Moved from article: ***would someone please add origin of siddur?*** 64.73.246.2 El_C 10:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Personal Autonomy and Reconstructionism
an individual's personal autonomy should generally override traditional Jewish law and custom, yet also take into account communal consensus,
What is the basis for this claim? Does it come from any accepted Reconstructionist text. Reconstructionism explicitly differentiates itself from Reform Judaism in that it holds that divergence from traditional Jewish law and custom should occur through a communal decision-making process.
- "Unlike Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, Reconstructionism does not view inherited Jewish law (halahah) as binding. We continue to turn to Jewish law for guidance, if not always for governance. We recognize that in the contemporary world, individuals and communities make their own choices with regard to religious practice and ritual observance. But where Reform Judaism emphasizes individual autonomy, Reconstructionism emphasizes the importance of religious community in shaping individual patterns of observance. Belonging to a community leads us to take the patterns of observance within that community seriously; our choices do not exist independently, but are made in response to our community as part of our participating in it. Reconstructionism thus retains a warmly traditional (and fully egalitarian) approach to Jewish religious practice."
- I guess it depends on your interpretation of the above text, taken from http://www.jrf.org/recon/rjis.html. Personally, I read the bolded part as a measure of individual decision making within certain aspects, but communal decision making as an important part of where the individual starts from in his or her own decision making process.
[edit] Rejection
This article states Reconstructionist Jew reject the "Belief that their Religion is the right way for everyone"
Isn't that True of all Jews (Considering the Noachide Laws)?
- The distinction is that Reconstructionist Judaism regards Judaism as having guidelines rather than obligations, for everyone, Jew or non-Jew alike. In Kaplan's original formulation the rules are purely human inventions and not the product of a personal God. An analogy would be the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, which in the story are mere guidelines but believed to be rules due to a clever marketing ploy. It would be a bit like regarding the Ten Commandments as the Ten Suggestions. --Shirahadasha 01:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
according to the article, reconstructionists reject a "belief" that is nonexistent in judaism.
this implies that some jews DO in fact believe "their Religion is the right way for everyone", which is false. some might think theirs is the right way for every jew, but none would extend that to "jew and non-jew alike".
i don't see how the distinction between 'guidelines' and 'obligations' has any bearing on this.
couldn't it be fixed by changing "the right way for everyone" to "the right way for all Jews" or "the only correct form of judaic practice" or whatever? or, if the important take-away point is really about the relativism/subjectivity of these 'guidelines' (which are, apparently, valid for everyone?) shouldn't it just say that instead? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.10.149.33 (talk • contribs) 24 November 2006.
- My understanding is that the distinction between "guidelines" and "obligations" -- put more neutrally, of course -- is the key distinction involved. Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism hold that Halakha, traditional religious law including the rules of ritual practice, represents a religious obligation on all Jews and not following it represents a sin. My understanding is Reconstructionist Judaism does not believe this; it believes Halakha and Jewish ritual practice represent nice things to try (doubtless someone else can formulate this better), but there is no question of "requirement" to do it or "sin" for not doing it. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than me can explain how Reconstructionism formulates this more accurately. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert in Reconstructionist Judaism, I'll leave it to others to explain this issue further and make any needed changes to the page. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
i understand why that is such an important distinction, i just don't see how it's relevant to this specific problem with this one specific sentence:
"Rejection of the belief... that their Religion is the right way for everyone"
it shouldn't say "everyone". jews think judaism is ONLY for jews, not "everyone"; being god's 'chosen people' means god chose them from all the other, non-chosen, non-jewish people.
on the other hand, many religions DO hold that "everyone" should be converted -- they have massive missionary efforts to convert as many of "everyone" as possible. judaism has taken the exact opposite approach, making it relatively difficult for new converts to join the community. apparently this is meant to test their sincerity and commitment. anyway, that's why there are no jewish missionaries, evangelism, etc.. the outreach that does happen is aimed at people who are ALREADY jewish.
this is a really big, really fundamental difference between judaism and christianity, for all kinds of reasons beyond the scope of this article. the important thing here is to not claim something as uniquely reconstructionist that is true for all jewish denominations.
i'm changing this to "Rejection of the belief that the Jews are God's chosen people, and that their Jewish practice is an obligation"
(sorry, i don't know how to sign this) 72.10.128.169 01:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
i forgot to say, i thought your way of putting it--"a nice thing to try"--captures the sentiment really nicely! 72.10.128.169 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
