Is Judaism a Religion of Peace?

[Thorgasm]

Beliefs and ideas are very similar and I was actually using them in an analogous way. And both are very different than behaviors. A belief does not always lead to the same behavior. One's individual interpretation of that belief leads to behavior.

But ideas are easier to change than beliefs are. Beliefs aren't as easily challenged.

 

[Thorgasm]

This is not logical, IT. Sleeping with someone's wife was not what caused the violence. The husband's interpretation of that event and what it meant to him is what caused the violence. You would be guilty for sleeping with his wife, but innocent in respect to the violence that occured after.

It's perfectly logical. People are responsible for their own behavior especially when they know what the consequences of that behavior will be. It doesn't justify the consequences, but the party receiving the consequences can't claim innoncence by ignoring the reality of the reaction to their behavior.

If I don't sleep with that man's wife, I don't receive violence. My sleeping with his wife doesn't happen in a vacuum.

 

[Demon of Light]

Wrong again. You do not seem to understand the difference between an idea and behavior. A religion presents an idea. The fact that not all people respond to that idea in the same way demonstrates that the religion is not the issue, but how the individual interprets that religion is the issue.

Are you for real? If your religion says explicitly to chop off the hands of thieves and you then go and chop off the hands of thieves does that really mean a person's religion did not influence their actions? People responding differently says something about the people, not the religion.

I don't think it's necessary to pretend that the religious violence of Christianity and Islam are equally shared in Judaism. It is not. Judaism can be considered a "peaceful" religion. Did you know that even Buddhist Monks in Tibet have clashed in violence against police? Certainly isolated events in history won't turn Buddhism into a religion of blood.

The difference is that Buddhism specifically instructs people not to engage in violence. So does Christianity, which is why I dispute any suggestion that Christianity is a religion of war or a violent religion. Many adherents of Christianity have been violent just like many adherents of Buddhism have been violent.

The vast majority of Judaism's history has been defensive. Wars of aggression in the name of God just isn't in the prescription.

Actually, it is specifically demanded of them in order to reclaim what is "theirs" from the people who presently reside there. That most of their history involves fighting aggression does not mean it never entails engaging in aggression. I would not call it a religion of war, because ultimately it is generally oriented towards the nation rather than expansion.

It was not and is not interested in expansion or the consumption of "infidel" or "heathen" souls.

I would agree with this. Were it said that Judaism is "largely" peaceful I would also agree with that. However, saying it is peaceful is just not accurate.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It's perfectly logical. People are responsible for their own behavior especially when they know what the consequences of that behavior will be. It doesn't justify the consequences, but the party receiving the consequences can't claim innoncence by ignoring the reality of the reaction to their behavior.

If I don't sleep with that man's wife, I don't receive violence. My sleeping with his wife doesn't happen in a vacuum.

In bold. That's the fallacy in your example. No one KNOWS what the exact consequences will be. It depends on individual interpretation and feelings.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Are you for real? If your religion says explicitly to chop off the hands of thieves and you then go and chop off the hands of thieves does that really mean a person's religion did not influence their actions? People responding differently says something about the people, not the religion.

Firstly, your example is ridiculous. Try to come up with something based in reality. Secondly, people interpret the meanings of religion and those beliefs in different ways. Religon is NOT static. Look at Judaism. Reform Jews interpret Jewish beliefs differently than Orthodox Jews. What is said is interpretted differently. It's not the religion, it's the people's interpretation that's the issue. If this was not the case, EVERYONE would commit violence in the name of religion, and religion would be the only reason that people would commit violence. Unless you can prove that... which you can't, you are wrong.

The difference is that Buddhism specifically instructs people not to engage in violence. So does Christianity, which is why I dispute any suggestion that Christianity is a religion of war or a violent religion. Many adherents of Christianity have been violent just like many adherents of Buddhism have been violent.

And yet there has been plenty of violence enacted in the name of Christianity... depending on one's interpretation of Christianity. This is called self-pwnage.

 

[Thorgasm]

In bold. That's the fallacy in your example. No one KNOWS what the exact consequences will be. It depends on individual interpretation and feelings.

No, they don't know with a certainty, but they know that there is a serious risk. It's risky behavior. This is why Israel gave the Dome back to Muslims after the six day war. It was to "keep the peace".

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

No, they don't know with a certainty, but they know that there is a serious risk. It's risky behavior. This is why Israel gave the Dome back to Muslims after the six day war. It was to "keep the peace".

If you can't prove cause, then you can't say religion causes violence. Whether something happens or not because of an activating event is dependant on other factors. The event, itself, is not the cause.

 

[Demon of Light]

Firstly, your example is ridiculous. Try to come up with something based in reality.

It is irrefutably based in reality as Muhammad explicitly endorsed removing the hands of thieves and many Muslim countries prescribe this punishment to this day.

Secondly, people interpret the meanings of religion and those beliefs in different ways. Religon is NOT static. Look at Judaism. Reform Jews interpret Jewish beliefs differently than Orthodox Jews. What is said is interpretted differently. It's not the religion, it's the people's interpretation that's the issue.

If someone asks me to get them a soda and I bring them coffee I can't get out of it by claiming my interpretation of his or her words was different.

If this was not the case, EVERYONE would commit violence in the name of religion, and religion would be the only reason that people would commit violence. Unless you can prove that... which you can't, you are wrong.

This argument is ridiculous and so fallacious I am not entirely sure how to begin to point out its many gaping flaws. I can say that the religion and the people are separate and distinct. Just as the tenets of the religion do not define the people neither do the actions of the people define the religion.

And yet there has been plenty of violence enacted in the name of Christianity... depending on one's interpretation of Christianity. This is called self-pwnage.

This here children is called not getting the point. Someone disobeying the explicit instructions of their faith is not a different interpretation of anything. It is disobeying the explicit instructions of their faith.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It is irrefutably based in reality as Muhammad explicitly endorsed removing the hands of thieves and many Muslim countries prescribe this punishment to this day.

Notice the word in bold? Proves your position wrong right there. Unless it is all, it is the interpretation of of what Muhammad said that is the issue, not what Muhammad said.

If someone asks me to get them a soda and I bring them coffee I can't get out of it by claiming my interpretation of his or her words was different.

You are really bad at this analogy thing. The items you mention are material objects, not a believe like religion. Also, the items you mention are very specific and no open to interpretation. Here's the analogy you were trying for: if someone asks you to get you a DRINK and you get them coffee, they can't blame you for not getting them soda.

This argument is ridiculous and so fallacious I am not entirely sure how to begin to point out its many gaping flaws. I can say that the religion and the people are separate and distinct. Just as the tenets of the religion do not define the people neither do the actions of the people define the religion.

If you are trying to prove your position with this comment, you are failing miserably. You are, in fact, proving mine. Thank you. Again... self-pwnage at it's finest.

This here children is called not getting the point. Someone disobeying the explicit instructions of their faith is not a different interpretation of anything. It is disobeying the explicit instructions of their faith.

And here children is not understanding the concept of interpretation. Instructions of ones faith are based on interpretation of that faith.

 

[Demon of Light]

Notice the word in bold? Proves your position wrong right there. Unless it is all, it is the interpretation of of what Muhammad said that is the issue, not what Muhammad said.

How can you interpret "cut off the hands of thieves" differently?

You are really bad at this analogy thing. The items you mention are material objects, not a believe like religion. Also, the items you mention are very specific and no open to interpretation. Here's the analogy you were trying for: if someone asks you to get you a DRINK and you get them coffee, they can't blame you for not getting them soda.

Except the example of cutting off the hands of thieves is very specific and not open to interpretation. Just like Mosaic law requiring that adulterers be stoned it is not ambiguous language.

If you are trying to prove your position with this comment, you are failing miserably. You are, in fact, proving mine. Thank you. Again... self-pwnage at it's finest.

Do you even know what my position is here? I am thinking maybe you do not.

And here children is not understanding the concept of interpretation. Instructions of ones faith are based on interpretation of that faith.

There is sometimes room for interpretation and other times it is unambiguous. Obviously you want to believe that most or all of it is ambiguous because it serves this politically-correct notion that all religions are equal and none is better than another. Unfortunately, reality does not work that way.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

How can you interpret "cut off the hands of thieves" differently?

Easy. The Bible and other holy books are filled with metaphors. One can interpret them as such.

Except the example of cutting off the hands of thieves is very specific and not open to interpretation. Just like Mosaic law requiring that adulterers be stoned it is not ambiguous language.

This is another example of why you don't get it. This is not a black or white issue. Of course it is open to interpretation if your faith/religion believes that the holy books speak in metaphors and morality, not literal translations.

Do you even know what my position is here? I am thinking maybe you do not.

I know you are doing what you always do. Argue. That defines you, regardless of the position.

There is sometimes room for interpretation and other times it is unambiguous. Obviously you want to believe that most or all of it is ambiguous because it serves this politically-correct notion that all religions are equal and none is better than another. Unfortunately, reality does not work that way.

No, your reality is black or white... which does not reflect reality. Religion is always open to interpretation which is why some believe in literal translations and some do not.

 

[Gardener]

I hope this helps: Sophistry - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary




.

It's always so ehilarating watching youg people learning new words.

 

[Demon of Light]

Easy. The Bible and other holy books are filled with metaphors. One can interpret them as such.

Yeah, uh, no. It is very clear that you are supposed to chop off the hands of thieves. Mind explaining how someone might metaphorically give an adulterer 100 lashes, I say that because the Quran explicitly prescribes that punishment with the hadith including stoning.

This is another example of why you don't get it. This is not a black or white issue. Of course it is open to interpretation if your faith/religion believes that the holy books speak in metaphors and morality, not literal translations.

How exactly do you metaphorically stone someone to death as punishment for adultery?

I know you are doing what you always do. Argue. That defines you, regardless of the position.

Way to not answer. :thumbs:

No, your reality is black or white... which does not reflect reality. Religion is always open to interpretation which is why some believe in literal translations and some do not.

I do not see it in terms of black or white, however I see what you are doing and it is ultimately the more cowardly thing to do. Rather than condemning the tenet of a major faith you declare "well, uh, m-maybe they, uh, do not you know really mean it like that." Some things are up for interpretation, but then there are some things that simply cannot be brushed away like that.

 

[Grimjack19]

No, and neither is Islam or Christianity.

 

[scourge99]

A religion presents a belief. Beliefs are harder to change than ideas.

Very true, but how shady is that line between idea and belief? How many corpses are buried between Berlin and Cambodia thanks to Stalin and Mao's beliefs, which were facilitated by Marx' idea? Or were Stalin and Mao still running off the idea? Analysts have described communism as a godless religion. Marx's idea was highly impractical and will never be a reality in anything bigger than a small community. Islam may be the same thing in this world because it too is impractical as government in a world where civilizations clash constantly. Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism doesn't have this potential to clash (unless as the object of scapegoating), which places it into that "peaceful" category more so than the other two.

IT, perhaps "worldview" is a term better suited for your argument rather than "belief".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view#Worldviews_in_religion_and_philosophy

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Yeah, uh, no. It is very clear that you are supposed to chop off the hands of thieves. Mind explaining how someone might metaphorically give an adulterer 100 lashes, I say that because the Quran explicitly prescribes that punishment with the hadith including stoning.

Further proof that you do not understand the concept of interpretation and how it works and varies in different religions, sects of religions and people. Here is an example of the belief system from Reform Judaism:

The classical approach of Reform Judaism towards halakha was based on the views of Rabbi Samuel Holdheim (1806–1860), leader of Reform Judaism in Germany, and other reformers. Holdheim believed that Reform Judaism should be based solely upon monotheism and morality. Almost everything connected with Jewish ritual law and custom was of the ancient past, and thus no longer appropriate for Jews to follow in the modern era. This approach was the dominant form of Reform Judaism from its creation until the 1940s. Since the 1940s, the American Reform movement has continued to change, sometimes evolving in what appears to be a traditional direction. Many Reform congregations use more Hebrew in their religious services and are incorporating aspects of laws and customs, in a selective fashion, into their lives. This is a departure from the classical Reform position in favor of more traditional Judaism.

Even those in the traditionalist wing of Reform Judaism still accept that the primary principle of classical Reform is personal autonomy. Autonomy has precedence over Jewish tradition; halakha has no binding authority for Reform rabbis. The difference between the classical Reformers and the Reform traditionalists is that the traditionalists feel that the default position towards choosing to follow any particular practice should be one of acceptance, rather than rejection. While representing a minority, this group has influenced the new Reform statement of principles, which states that "We are committed to the ongoing study of the whole array of 'mitzvot' and to the fulfillment of those that address us as individuals and as a community."

Currently, some Reform rabbis promote following elements of halakha, and developed the concept of Progressive Halakhah. For instance, the American Rabbi Walter Jacob, the Israeli Rabbi Moshe Zemer and the British Liberal Rabbi John D. Rayner believe in many parts of traditional Jewish theology, but take present developments and valuations of ethics and law into consideration. Others actively discourage the adoption of more traditional practices or beliefs, because they believe that this is not in the ethos of the Reform movement. Both encouraging or discouraging practices stipulated by halakha are considered acceptable positions within Reform.

Now, of course this is different from Orthodox Judaism. Which is right? Neither. Which is wrong? Neither. Talmudic and Jewish law is interpretted by those who follow their specific sect. If talmudic law was absolute, there would be no interpretation. But it's not and there is.

How exactly do you metaphorically stone someone to death as punishment for adultery?

The person is punished for adultery. That punishment is interpretted based on the people and the era. Very simple concept.

Way to not answer. :thumbs:

It's completely accurate. Your denial does not alter that.

I do not see it in terms of black or white, however I see what you are doing and it is ultimately the more cowardly thing to do. Rather than condemning the tenet of a major faith you declare "well, uh, m-maybe they, uh, do not you know really mean it like that." Some things are up for interpretation, but then there are some things that simply cannot be brushed away like that.

The cowardice is yours. As usual, when proven wrong, you refuse to admit it. Your lack of logic and knowledge about these subjects is quite apparent to everyone but yourself. It is amusing watching you spin yourself, however. Anything in religion is open to interpretation because it is a belief and all of our beliefs and morality are individual and relative. But let me know when you understand how interpretation in religion works.

 

[Winston Smith]

It's always so ehilarating watching youg people learning new words.

I just learned two, myself. Thanks!

 

[First Thought]

That is just a ridiculous notion. A religion's tenets inevitably impact the behavior of its adherents.

Look at what you wrote: "adherents." One must make the decision to adhere. Hence, blaming absract entities like religions, who have no life force of their own, is quite silly. Personal Responsibility is key.

Sure, the people ultimately decide but when their decision is informed by their religion suggesting the religion is not in some way a cause of that behavior is just choosing a lie because it is more comforting.

This is like the argument to ban violent video games because they "make" kids violent. Just because a few individuals have difficulty separating reality and fiction, does not mean that everyone has the same problem.

 

[Gardener]

I just learned two, myself. Thanks!

Congratulations, Winston.

You caught me typing too fast. Well done.

 

[Demon of Light]

Further proof that you do not understand the concept of interpretation and how it works and varies in different religions, sects of religions and people. Here is an example of the belief system from Reform Judaism:



Now, of course this is different from Orthodox Judaism. Which is right? Neither. Which is wrong? Neither. Talmudic and Jewish law is interpretted by those who follow their specific sect. If talmudic law was absolute, there would be no interpretation. But it's not and there is.

Read what your own source says:

Almost everything connected with Jewish ritual law and custom was of the ancient past, and thus no longer appropriate for Jews to follow in the modern era.

That is not a difference of interpretation. That is called picking and choosing what rules you follow. I am not going to suggest there is something wrong with that, but it does not really reflect on the religion itself. Anyone who faithfully follows the religion would reject this sect. In order for Islam to be a progressive religion its adherents would have to ignore many of Muhammad's teachings. Of course, in effect they are not really following their religion anymore and are simply letting their own personal feelings guide their beliefs.

The person is punished for adultery. That punishment is interpretted based on the people and the era. Very simple concept.

So someone who reads "adulterers must be killed by stones" declares "That means the marriage must be annulled with the adulterous spouse paying damages!" and you think that is just as legitimate an interpretation. Give me a break.

It's completely accurate. Your denial does not alter that.

I saw no need to deny such a ridiculous accusation. Rather, I was mocking the fact you did not even try to answer my question. You seem to think you know what my point is and I asked you to tell me what you thought it was since it seemed you really didn't know. Instead of answering you decide to accuse me of disagreeing just to disagree.

The cowardice is yours. As usual, when proven wrong, you refuse to admit it. Your lack of logic and knowledge about these subjects is quite apparent to everyone but yourself. It is amusing watching you spin yourself, however. Anything in religion is open to interpretation because it is a belief and all of our beliefs and morality are individual and relative. But let me know when you understand how interpretation in religion works.

You might as well declare that everything in the world is open to interpretation because that is how meaningless your position is here. That an individual may share beliefs in a religion, but not hold all of those beliefs is obvious. Suggesting that somehow changes anything about the religion itself is just absurd. In some cases you have room for interpretation, but in others it simply becomes a matter of picking and choosing what tenets you will follow. That is not a differing interpretation of anything.

Look at what you wrote: "adherents." One must make the decision to adhere. Hence, blaming absract entities like religions, who have no life force of their own, is quite silly. Personal Responsibility is key.

That might work if religion were not something instilled in an individual from birth or occasionally forced on them by government or society. Racism has no life force of its own either, but are you going to suggest it cannot have negative effects?

This is like the argument to ban violent video games because they "make" kids violent. Just because a few individuals have difficulty separating reality and fiction, does not mean that everyone has the same problem.

Are you seriously comparing the experience of playing a video game to adhering to a system of morals and beliefs?

 

[First Thought]

That might work if religion were not something instilled in an individual from birth or occasionally forced on them by government or society.

Individuals always have the option to use their own mind and reach their own conclusions. All conditioning, regardless of it's source, can be broken.

Racism has no life force of its own either, but are you going to suggest it cannot have negative effects?

Racism is a concept. Racism itself cannot beat or cause violence to anyone. People's belief in racism as truth is what causes problems.

Are you seriously comparing the experience of playing a video game to adhering to a system of morals and beliefs?

No, I was illustrating how it is silly to blame things(religions, video games, etc.) instead of asking people to take responsibility for their actions and beliefs.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

So someone who reads "adulterers must be killed by stones" declares "That means the marriage must be annulled with the adulterous spouse paying damages!" and you think that is just as legitimate an interpretation. Give me a break.

Jews are no longer stoning women for adultery. Is that true for Islamic countries?

 

[Demon of Light]

Individuals always have the option to use their own mind and reach their own conclusions. All conditioning, regardless of it's source, can be broken.

Never said it wasn't, but you cannot deny that many do not overcome such conditioning and act as a result of that conditioning.

Racism is a concept. Racism itself cannot beat or cause violence to anyone. People's belief in racism as truth is what causes problems.

I am not sure what you are trying to say there. Just because racism cannot take physical form and lynch a black guy does not mean it does not led to such violence.

No, I was illustrating how it is silly to blame things(religions, video games, etc.) instead of asking people to take responsibility for their actions and beliefs.

This is not about blame, but all about acknowledging that when a religion advocates violence explicitly that you cannot simply act like religion has nothing to do with an adherent engaging in violence.

Jews are no longer stoning women for adultery. Is that true for Islamic countries?

The point here is about whether Jews not stoning women for adultery is a result of them interpreting religious texts differently or just not following certain tenets they find personally offensive. I see no reason why what Islamic countries do has any relevance to that point.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Read what your own source says:



That is not a difference of interpretation. That is called picking and choosing what rules you follow. I am not going to suggest there is something wrong with that, but it does not really reflect on the religion itself. Anyone who faithfully follows the religion would reject this sect. In order for Islam to be a progressive religion its adherents would have to ignore many of Muhammad's teachings. Of course, in effect they are not really following their religion anymore and are simply letting their own personal feelings guide their beliefs.

Absolutely is interpretation. You are equating faithfully following a religion with believe, literally, in what a religion's book says. YOU don't get to dictate what is faithfully following a religion. This is why your thinking is black/white. The religious tenets of a particular sect, based on their interpretation of the holy book of that religion is as valid as another sect's.

And personal feelings always guide one's beliefs. You continue to demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about on this topic.

So someone who reads "adulterers must be killed by stones" declares "That means the marriage must be annulled with the adulterous spouse paying damages!" and you think that is just as legitimate an interpretation. Give me a break.

Absolutely. The fact that you do not demonstrates that you do not understand how different religions are forrmed and how the literalist view is just ONE interpretation. Try to not think in such rigid terms. Absolutes tend to be failures in debate.

I saw no need to deny such a ridiculous accusation. Rather, I was mocking the fact you did not even try to answer my question. You seem to think you know what my point is and I asked you to tell me what you thought it was since it seemed you really didn't know. Instead of answering you decide to accuse me of disagreeing just to disagree.

Disagreeing to just disagree is what you do. My assessment was spot on. You're just upset that I called you out on it.

You might as well declare that everything in the world is open to interpretation because that is how meaningless your position is here. That an individual may share beliefs in a religion, but not hold all of those beliefs is obvious. Suggesting that somehow changes anything about the religion itself is just absurd. In some cases you have room for interpretation, but in others it simply becomes a matter of picking and choosing what tenets you will follow. That is not a differing interpretation of anything.

Any belief system... and religion is a belief system, is open for interpretation. Just because YOU do not think it is, doesn't mean it isn't. There are plenty of different sects of Christianity that have interpretted the bible differently. All completely valid. Your claim that things are NOT open to interpretation is absurd and proven incorrect by all of the different sects of all major religions. You've got nothing, Demon. I know that you will not admit you are wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that you are.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Never said it wasn't, but you cannot deny that many do not overcome such conditioning and act as a result of that conditioning.

And many do not. You just keep pwning yourself and digging yourself deeper.

This is not about blame, but all about acknowledging that when a religion advocates violence explicitly that you cannot simply act like religion has nothing to do with an adherent engaging in violence.

It is the adherent's interpretation of what the religion advocates and the behavior that that person must do that is the cause. Since not everyone does the same thing, one cannot blame the religion. An individual's interpretation is the issue.

The point here is about whether Jews not stoning women for adultery is a result of them interpreting religious texts differently or just not following certain tenets they find personally offensive. I see no reason why what Islamic countries do has any relevance to that point.

:lol::lol::lol:

In bold. Keep talking Demon. You are doing a great job helping me.