Mail.Liberal-Judaism

• Bill Schwartz <nurev@starpower.net>
• Moshe Shulman <mshulman@ix.netcom.com>

• Iris Noah Weiss <iris.weiss@berlin.snafu.de>

• Awaskow@aol.com (Arthur Waskow)

• Rabbi Steve Forstein <rebsteve@mailcity.com>

• Robert Kaiser <rkaiser1@email.msn.com>
• Daniel Faigin <faigin@pacificnet.net>
• LeeSol@aol.com (Lisa Solomon)

• Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshirmehta@myself.com>
• Marian H. Neudel <gmneudel@bgu.edu>
• Herman Rubin <hrubin@stat.purdue.edu>
• Earl B. Lichten <eblichten@bigfoot.com>

From: Bill Schwartz <nurev@starpower.net>
Date: Mon Sep  6  7:34:08 US/Pacific 1999
Subject: Re: Christian Jews??

Hello all,

My name is Bill Schwartz. I had intended to lurk more than participate on this
list, but the subject of Jews for Jesus or so called Christian Jews is one
that disturbs and infuriates me.

I am a fully identified Jew who is not a Liberal, and is a devout Atheist.  I
simply mention this so that folks can know where I am coming from politically
and religiously.

Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshirmehta@myself.com> writes:

>There have been Christian Jews too...Why, the one known to most of the world
>as *The* Messiah, namely Jesus, was also one of them! From a reading of the
>Gospels it is abundantly clear that he considered *his* vision of Judaism to
>be the truth, and the vision of most of the others in his milieu to be a
>false interpretation of Judaism.  Was he, then, not Jewish?

There is no such thing as Christian Jews. Jews for Jesus are ex-Jews who
converted to Christianity but maintain a more authentic cultural adherence to
the early messianic Jesus movement which was entirely Jewish in nature.

The question of whether Jesus was Jewish is misleading. There is no doubt that
he was Jewish. Even a practicing Jew. What is becoming historically more clear
and controversial is that he was never a Christian.

I have had several interactions with people from this missionary group both on
the Net, and face to face. Jews for Jesus missionaries are forbidden to
discuss the deity of Jesus with real Jews. The reason is clear. In Judaism,
the deification of a human is quite clearly idolatry. The essence of Judaism,
the revolutionary world view ( back in ancient times ), the blood shed, the
philosophy itself, and ultimately the self evident truth that humans are not
god, is what differentiates and ultimately separates Jews from Christians.

This is the boundary. There may be many interpretations of the Tanach or even
other aspects of Jewish culture, but idolatry is simply NOT Jewish.

Bill Schwartz

Return to Table of Contents

From: Moshe Shulman <mshulman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon Sep  6 16:05:46 US/Pacific 1999
Subject: Re: Christian Jews??

Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshirmehta@myself.com> wites:

>This reminds me of a tale about the Ramba"m (I read it many years
>ago, so I am repeating from memory, and thus imperfectly, but the
>gist of the story is all here.) The Ramba"m once came up with the
>idea that in the *Shem'a*, the word *echad* is not to be taken as
>"one" in a mathematical sense, as if being contrasted with "two",
>"three", "four" and so on, but rather in a sort of experiential
>sense, the way each of us experiences *only* himself or herself
>directly. No one experiences "two" of himself (even those with split
>personalities experience only one of them at a time), and this sort
>of "one" is not a mathematical "one", but rather something *beyond*
>mathematics, as being a sort of "One *without* a second".  A great
>idea philosophically, no doubt, and demonstrating marvelous subtlety
>of thinking.

This is not a fact. The Rambam taught that our view of G-d was
essentialy negative, since we could not 'know' Him. His discussion of
'oneness' (in his commentary on the Mishnah) deals not with the verse,
but with a general philosophical conception of G-d as being
non-compound in nature..

moshe shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
http://www.chassidus.net                chassidus website
Outreach Judaism:              http://www.outreachjudaism.org/

Return to Table of Contents

From: Iris Noah Weiss <iris.weiss@berlin.snafu.de>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:09:15 +0200
Subject: Cremation or Burial of Partners from Mixed Marriages

As I am volunteering on a jewish server in Germany I got the following request
by an American Jew:

"My husband and I are of different faiths but are not actively participating
in any synagogue or church. We wanted to know how the reformed Jewish faith
views cremation and how a service and choice of plot would take place being
that we are not of the same faith and wish to be buried in the same plot."

I would be interested to know how American Reform Jewish communities deal with
this issue. 

Iris Weiss

Return to Table of Contents

From: Awaskow@aol.com (Arthur Waskow)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:46:15 EDT
Subject: Ending Torture in Israel

Thanks be to God! -- I have just heard NPR report that the Israeli High Court
has today forbidden the use of "physical pressure" -- that is, torture -- on
detainees (all Palestinian) -- a practice that had not only been in use but,
worse, had previously been authorized and permitted by the State and by a
commission appointed to review it ten years ago.

The use of torture by Israel on prisoners has been one of the most shameful
chapters in the history of the Jewish people, and it was with enormous relief
that I heard the news report. I look forward to reading the Court's decision.

Barukh atah YHWH elohenu ruakh ha'olam, hatov v'hametiv -- Blessed are You,
the Breath of Life -- that's who is our God !!-- who is good and makes good
things happen.

Brukhah at YHWH elohenu ruakh ha'olam, harotzah b'tshuvah. Blessed are You Who
takes pleasure in tshuvah, in our return to You.

Brukhah at YHWH elohenu ruakh ha'olam, ohevet tzedakah u'mishpat. Blessed are
You who loves justice and uprightness.

Barukh atah YHWH elohenu ruakh ha'olam -- sheh'hekhianu v'kimanu v'higianu
lazman hazeh. Blessed are You who fills us with life, lifts us up, and carries
us to this moment!!

Dear Chevra, Blessings to us all for a year of seeing the Image of God in all
human beings, and a year of polishing to a lustrous glow the Image of God in
our own self

Arthur

Return to Table of Contents

From: Rabbi Steve Forstein <rebsteve@mailcity.com>
Date: Mon Sep  6 17:13:33 US/Pacific 1999
Subject: Once more, on Un'taneh Tokef

I am a congregational rabbi in the Reform movement. We use the Reform
machzor, Gates of Repentance. In going over the Rosh Hashanah morning
service with our choir director I came smack against the passage I had
been avoiding with dread all this summer, the Un'taneh Tokef. I am in
anguish about this passage and have been for years. On the one hand I
affirm with all my might that we do "write the book of our own lives",
although I don't see it as being someplace "up there" with God. We
write it within our own selves, within our souls, if you will; and we
cannot deny what we have written. Good or ill and always both, the
life we have lived is our own. That portion of the Un'Taneh Tokef that
affirm our responsibility for our lives is deeply correct and
eternally relevant.

The phrasing at the end of the piece, rendered by Gates of Repentance
as "But REPENTANCE, PRAYER and CHARITY temper judgement's severe
decree," is more difficult. When I understand it this way, "Whatever
may come to me physically, personal renewal, an increased awareness of
the everpresence of the Divine, and deeds of loving-kindness towards
others are unalloyed good. They improve me and my lot and improve the
world." I find it the existing wording acceptable with
reinterpretation.

But the middle, O my, the middle!!! Are we are "sheep" passing "under
the staff"? Does God set "the bounds of every creature's life and"
decrees "it's destiny"? Sounds like a selection of the flock for the
shochet!! And "who by sword and who by beast"? Why not "who by
terrorist car bomb and who by a crazy's assault weapon?" Do any of you
believe this stuff? Do any of our people? What good does it serve? Do
we think we can scare them into goodness?

Isn't this what is really happening: we scare the kids and disgust
many of the adults? And, do we really want to teach about a judging
God, who can be bribed in the next 10 days by a (probably temporary)
change in our external conduct? Is that the God that we believe in?
Instead I want to teach that WE must judge our own lives, with the
utmost strictness and with considerable compassion, and find ways to
change the rigid patterns that have heretofore condemned us to joyless
relationships, to exploitation of others, and to considerable death
within our lives. I want to teach of a God Who yearns for us to change
our souls, Who desires that we live fully and joyfully, with
compassion and courage, and Who holds out to us many opportunities to
turn and to change?

That is what I believe and what I wish to teach. I choke on the words
of the Un'Taneh Tokef as it is. A palliative introduction that speaks
of the history of this passage or reinterprets it will no longer do
for me. Have any of you an alternative version or a way of
understanding that can help me in this anguish?

"...this people, I assert, has accepted upon its body and soul the
burden of eternal allegiance to the Kingdom of the Spirit."  Bialik,
1925

Rabbi Steve Forstein  preferred email address: rebsteve1@prodigy.net

Return to Table of Contents

From: Robert Kaiser <rkaiser1@email.msn.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:11:26 -0400
Subject: Syncretism and Double Standards

Bernard Rotmil <cussinjo@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> The use of the word "syncretism" as a pejorative term has sent me to the
> dictionary for its official definition.

You misunderstand me.  I was not using this term as a perjorative; I was using
it in the usual dictionary sense of the term.

> Now, having seemingly clarified that question---to myself at any rate ---let
> me confess that, perhaps due to my fluency in the French language, it evoked
> in my mind the word "cretin".

This was not my intention.  I was not making ad homenim attacks; I was trying
to get people to think about a very simple issue: if you keep adding foreign
religious elements to Judaism, you will end up with something quite different
than what you started with, with elements of more than faith.  This, by
definition, is syncretism.  Saying that is not an insult.  Now, if that is
your goal, and that is how you advertise your group, then fine.

> Western religions, and Hinduism...is obsessed with hierarchy of power and
> the bestiality of the masses---and do we know it needs to be obsessed
> about---and the need to control it by strict formalism and rigid dogmas and
> promises of eternal rewards. Judaism was born in that world and does retain
> some of these aspects--not all of them necessarily negative.

That is simply not so.  Judaism was not born in the midst of Western
religions.  Rather, it was born in the anicent near-east, over 3,000 years
ago.  Your argument contains a serious historical anachronism.  Further, you
are affirming a rather strict Orthodox claim about Jewish theology, one that
I--and most members of this list--do not accept as either historically or
religiously valid.  I suggest that you read my detailed essay on the evolution
of the various Jewish principles of faith [available to anyone upon request],
and the entries on this topic in the Encyclopedia Judaica.  Judaism was most
certainly not about forming rigid dogmas; that only became predominant within
Judaism after the time of Maimonides, and in any case, strict dogmatism is no
longer accepted by most Jews.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/articles_of_faith.html

> Bhuddism, and most other Eastern philosophies, are not really religions in
> the Western sense. It is a life discipline requiring deep introspection
> since there is where they find their divinity. It is similarly concerned
> with the discovery of self and the understanding of who and what it is we
> are.  Through intense focus and physical disciplines it achieves a moment of
> total understanding that defies verbalization: one just grasps its
> dimensions and the nature of self.  That does not contradict Judaism and may
> in fact complement it.

Actually, all of these ideas - in Jewish forms - can be found within Judaism.
Sadly, most Jews are unaware of this part of our tradition, and are only
exposed to such ideas through Christian, Buddist, pagan or Hindu paths.

> Intense meditation accords well with Judaism and has been practiced by many
> rabbis and sages throughout its long history.

I totally agree with you.  However, this does not support the practice of
incorporating elements of gentile practices into Judaism.  I think many people
are still conflating two separate topics: (A) Judaism has a long history of
esoteric mysticism (the Kabbalah), meditative practices, and tefila that
promote introspection.  (B) Other religions have non-Jewish versions of all
these things.

My point is that A does not equal B.  Most Jews unfortunately know nothing of
(A), and a growing amount are now being exposed to growing amounts of (B),
without a good background in Jewish theology.  Does this sound like the best
way to learn about Judaism?  Not to me.  That path can lead to creating a
syncretic blend of mutliple faiths.  If we want to promote (A), then just
promote it.  We don't need to go to a Buddist Ashram or pagan goddess
worshipping ceremony to become more spiritual and introspective.

> Jewish Renewal is an age long endeavor to renew one's spiritual ties to
> Judaism.  However, If Jewish renewal is meant as a "movement" intending to
> reach out to the eastern philosophies to adopt its introspective element, it
> would not contradict but only affirm what our sages and devout Jews have
> practiced for ages.

But why deliberately refuse to adopt Jewish introspective elements, and use
gentile ones instead?  I do not understand the logic behind this.  Would you
say "Judaism has prayer, so we can reach out to Christian liturgy and their
love of Jesus to renew our own faith in God".  Is that valid too?  No, of
course not, because Judaism has its own rich and varied prayer tradition, and
it is ridiculous to say that we need to add elements of Christianity to it to
become spiritual Jews.  Similarly, it is ridiculous to claim that we need to
add elements of Buddism, Hinduism or paganism to Judaism as well.

Your post claims that it is acceptable to incorporate elements of all other
faiths into Judaism, with the one exception of Christianity.  But that is not
pro-Judaism, that is just an anti-Christian attack. We need to base Judaism on
more than just saying "I'm not a Christian, therefore I'm Jewish".  We need to
base Judaism on what we believe in, not on merely what we reject,

Shalom,

Robert Kaiser

Return to Table of Contents

From: Daniel Faigin <faigin@pacificnet.net>
Date: Mon Sep  6  7:23:53 US/Pacific 1999
Subject: Syncretism and Double Standards

When we start talking about practices as opposed to theology, it is difficult
to say that a particular practices is "Jewish" or not. For example, Robert
Kaiser writes:

> (A) Judaism has a long history of esoteric mysticism (the Kabbalah),
> meditative practices, and tefila that promote introspection.  (B) Other
> religions have non-Jewish versions of all these things.

What distinguishes Jewish meditation from non-Jewish meditation? Wouldn't it
solely be the theology? If not, what else? The position one sits in? 

Robert also writes:

> Would you say "Judaism has prayer, so we can reach out to Christian liturgy
> and their love of Jesus to renew our own faith in God".

What is the prayer has no elements of theology? What if the prayer, while
nominally Christian based on its authorship, is based 100% on Jewish sources.

Similarly, there are other practices (such as organs for music, or robes for
clergy) that started with the Christians, but have been adopted by liberal
congregations. Are these "Christian" practices, when they have no connection
with theology?

I think we should stop harping on practices. With respect to practices and
prayers, we should not care about the source--we should care about the meaning
and theology. If the practice brings one closer to God, then it is doing its
job. The practices we have now have evolved over many years, as communities
have adopted local customs. In liberal Judaism, they continue to evolve.

Of course, non-Jewish theology is not appropriate. But theology is not
practice, it is a belief system. 

From what I have seen, Jewish Renewal uses practices that do not conflict with
Jewish theology to improve peoples spirituality (not that Jewish practices, by
definition, do not contradict Jewish theology). The theology is clearly
Jewish.

J4J, and "Messianic Judaism" generally have conflicting theologies,
irrespective of their practices.

Let's move on to more fruitful discussions, folks.

Daniel

Return to Table of Contents

From: LeeSol@aol.com (Lisa Solomon)
Date: Mon Sep  6  7:25:54 US/Pacific 1999
Subject: Re: Syncretism and Double Standards

In a message dated 9/3/99 3:00:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Kaiser 
writes:

> A person who is a Jew does indeed have the civil right to learn about other
> religions. In fact, I do this myself, and I encourage others to do so as
> well (and for this I have been severely chastised by some of those who lie
> to the religious right of me.)  And yes, we live in a free world, where a
> Jew can even choose to leave the Jewish faith, and adopt another religion,
> or adopt a syncretic amalgam of religions.  However, in many cases the end
> result is that you have a person of Jewish descent, sure, but they are not
> practicing Judaism. 

This last sentence is only true if one accepts the definition that "practicing
Judaism" is restricted to Traditional/Orthodox practice.

> But this argument [about Christian Jews] is identical to ones found on the
> Jews-for-Jesus website.

And that argument fails to recognize that Christianity is a product of Paul,
and not Jesus' teachings. Ergo, it is of little merit in this discussion, imo.

> However, once someone adopts another faith, they can no longer be said to be
> practicing the religion known as Judaism.

So, you're saying that to be truly practicing Judaism one must believe in
Judaic theology; i.e. it's what one believes that determines whether or not
their practice is Judaic. Adopting another faith is not only adopting another
faith's rituals, but accepting its theology. Here, I agree. Or, are you
defining Jewish practice by ritual, and not belief?

				      **

In v9n33, Robert Kaiser writes:

> I did not claim that Jewish Renewal siddurs quote Buddhist texts.
> Rather, I was concerned about the introduction of elements of Buddhist
> practices and theology, and simultaneously, the absence of many traditional
> Jewish elements practices and theology. I feel that this is dangerous
> territory, and one that we need to think very carefully about.

By saying that you're concerned that "the absence of many traditional Jewish 
elements practices and theology" is "dangerous territory," you're in effect 
stating that non-Orthodox Judaism is dangerous, as there are many traditional 
elements that are not included in Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative 
practice and belief. I not only disagree that this is "dangerous territory," 
but consider it inappropriate for this particular mailing list, as well as 
distinctively unsuitable anywhere during the introspective and healing months 
of Elul and Tishrei.

If I inferred something that you did not intend to imply, perhaps we can both 
take a look at why such a miscommunication occurred.

Kol tuv,

Lisa Solomon

[Moderator's Note: Lisa is correct that this discussion is moving into 
dangerous territory, with respect to the list guidelines. I caution 
submitters to carefully review their posts before submitting them.]

Return to Table of Contents

From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshirmehta@myself.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 14:19:58 -0400
Subject: The Tree of Knowledge

Hi Folks:

Re:

> Earl B. Lichten questions what was so wrong about eating of the Tree of
> Knowledge.  My understanding is that we need to to consider the complete
> title -- that is -- "The Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil".  Once man had
> "tasted" the difference -- he was on his own and had to banished from the
> Garden of Eden. He could be good or he could be evil, but G-D was not about
> to control his actions.  The advantage , of course, was that now Man would
> have free will -- the ability to _choose_ between the Good and the Evil. But
> with that "territory" comes all the agonies, misfortunes, and horrors that
> we all know about.

This is also my understanding; and I have to add, that I don't think it was
*necessarily* a bad thing for Adam and Havah to have done what they did. It
was a *choice* given to humanity: either remain ignorant of good and evil, and
remain in bliss (I wonder: is that were the term "ignorance is bliss" comes
from?), or know good and evil, and take the responsibility of knowing it,
along with the freedom of will that was exercised in the original act of
getting to know it.

The responsibility is not, however, so terribly unbearable: it just means no
more free lunch! We have to work for a living, but no good parent today will
tell their kids that working for a living is such a terrible thing, now will
they?

Of course the phrase "working for a living" applies to *every* sort of
work. That means, we *also* have to make sure that disasters don't arise and
affect us adversely. Like, here in Canada we have winters that go down to 40
below, so we have to make sure our homes are adequately insulated and heated,
and that we have proper warm clothing. Similarly, and especially in a Jewish
context, we have to make sure that things like the Holocaust and the
Inquisition never happen again.

And it's *we* who have to do this: the LORD may help us, maybe, but He won't
do it for us *altogether*, any more than we can have a free lunch any
more. And *that*, I think, is the moral of the story.

Best wishes,

Ardeshir Mehta,
Ottawa, Canada.

Return to Table of Contents

From: Marian H. Neudel <gmneudel@bgu.edu>
Date: Mon Sep  6  7:35:19 US/Pacific 1999
Subject: Re: The Tree of Knowledge

I think there is a crucial distinction between knowledge and information.
Knowledge transforms.  A child who has learned how to speak is a different
<person> from the infant (the Latin root of the word <means> not-speaking)
s/he was before.  The person who learns how to read, to speak another
language, to sing, ride a bicycle, swim, drive a car, etc. has become a
different person in the process.

Information, OTOH, is the intellectual equivalent of Olestra (tm).  It is
meant to pass through the person who uses it without in any way changing
him/her.  Most of what our educational systems purvey and most of what the
so-called knowledge workers really work with these days is information, not
knowledge.

And if Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of Information in the Garden, we
would still <be> in the Garden. By acquiring the knowledge of Good and Evil,
they were transformed into people who could no longer live in Eden.  They had
to take on the real challenges of the real world--work, the recalcitrance of
nature, childbirth, and death-- because they had become people who could not
live without those challenges.

Marian Neudel
We've already paid the piper. When do we get to dance?

Return to Table of Contents

From: Herman Rubin <hrubin@stat.purdue.edu>
Date: Mon Sep  6  7:36:35 US/Pacific 1999
Subject: Re: The Tree of Knowledge

John Schlager <Johnjsch@aol.com> writes:

>Earl B. Lichten questions what was so wrong about eating of the Tree of
>Knowledge.  My understanding is that we need to to consider the complete
>title --that is--- "The Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil".  Once man had
>"tasted" the difference---he was on his own and had to banished from the
>Garden of Eden.  He could be good or he could be evil, but G-D was not about
>to control his actions.  The advantage , of course, was that now Man would
>have free will---the ability to _choose_ between the Good and the Evil. But
>with that "territory" comes all the agonies, misfortunes, and horrors that we
>all know about.

There is a quite different reading of this.  That is, the ancient Semitic
phrase "good and evil" means "everything".  This was the tree of all secular
knowledge, and if man ate from this, he would be able to eat from the Tree of
Life, and become an eternal being, not having to develop.

As Art Kamlet posted in scj, God tested man to see if he could use his brains,
and think and question, and Adam and Eve passed!  They could now be kicked
out, and be expected to use their intelligence to acquire the knowledge to
master the physical universe.

This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558

Return to Table of Contents

From: Earl B. Lichten <eblichten@bigfoot.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 15:29:16 -0500
Subject: The Tree of Knowledge

To all of you: I want to thank you for the thoughtful responses to my 
questions regarding the Tree of Knowledge. It appears that the consensus is 
that the Five Books of the Torah are the culmination of an oral tradition, 
and the represent the views of various scribes over the centuries.  These 
people viewed  God as a Paternal figure concerned with the minute details 
of his newly formed group who owed allegiance to him alone.   With the full 
passage of time and a great deal of scholarship some of the concerns 
God  had had have changed.  We, the Jews of today,  are indebted to the 
previous generations for their concepts of ethics, justice  and 
morality.   However, modern thinking is that  God is no longer involved in 
the day to day operations of his people. Rather he is likened to the 
Chairman of the Board managing the overall universe.  This planet earth is 
just a small portion of that conglomeration.  Thus, I accept the idea that 
when God set up the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve he was a most 
paternalistic stern father setting out the limits of his children's 
actions.  This allegory is an excellent teaching tool.

Thanks again to all of you for your responses.

Earl B. Lichten 

Return to Table of Contents

"It is not our task as liberal Jews to complain about the Orthodox attitude or to be bullied by it, but rather to choose our legitimate path according to the inner logic and development of liberal Judaism" (Rabbi Walter Jacob)

Previous Issue: v9n33		Next Issue: v9n35
MLJ Home Page	Return to Retrieval Form