Post by: Stand_watie on September 15, 2006, 10:43:23 AM
I have a sketchy understanding of Orthodox, Reformed and Conservative and had heard press reporting references to Ultra-Orthodox, but don't recollect hearing "fundamentalist" being used?
(edited, I mixed up 'Liberal' with 'Conservative' in my original post)
***
*Disclaimer to others
Yes, I realize I can look up almost every topic on the net, but 95% of the fun of messageboarding is getting answers from real live people that you can respond to with further questions - for example notice on this thread the actual real person answer is a lot more interesting and nuanced than is the encylopedia answer.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/viewtopic.php?id=4339
Post by: wingnutx on September 15, 2006, 11:15:01 AM
Sorry, that's all I have
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 15, 2006, 11:25:52 AM
Post by: wingnutx on September 15, 2006, 11:36:19 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 15, 2006, 01:51:16 PM
Quote from: fistful
I heard Laura Schlesinger referred to as a fundamentalist a couple of years ago. Is she a Jewish fundie?
Dr. Laura first converted and became Orthodox. Then she decided she was Conservative. Then she decided she didnt want to be Jewish anymore. A shonda.Anyway, there is no such term as "fundamentalist Jew." The Orthodox (and there is a huge spectrum in that term) generally mirror conservative Christians in their attitudes towards many many things.
Post by: Stand_watie on September 15, 2006, 02:07:00 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: fistful
I heard Laura Schlesinger referred to as a fundamentalist a couple of years ago. Is she a Jewish fundie?
Dr. Laura first converted and became Orthodox. Then she decided she was Conservative. Then she decided she didnt want to be Jewish anymore. A shonda.Anyway, there is no such term as "fundamentalist Jew." The Orthodox (and there is a huge spectrum in that term) generally mirror conservative Christians in their attitudes towards many many things.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 15, 2006, 02:20:53 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on September 15, 2006, 05:14:04 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Also called "chareidim." What about them?
If there's any easy answer to this, how do their beliefs differ substantively from Orthodox? If not an easy answer, feel free to refer me to a particular book or article.
Post by: Antibubba on September 15, 2006, 06:46:24 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 15, 2006, 08:37:18 PM
I think the person that I overheard referring to Schlesinger as a fundamentalist, just happened to believe she was a fundamentalist Christian, or was using it as a pejorative for a social conservative.
Post by: Stand_watie on September 15, 2006, 08:46:29 PM
Quote from: Antibubba
See, the Jews are the "Chosen People", but Jewish fundamentalists claim they're Dad's favorite.
But father Abraham had many sons! 
(Just recollecting a Sunday School song that probably (probably rightfully) angers some of Abrahams biological children to hear goyim singing).
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 15, 2006, 08:53:12 PM
Many sons had Father Abraham.
I am one of them, and so are you,
So let's all praise the Lord.
Make sure you do the hand motions while you sing.
Post by: Stand_watie on September 15, 2006, 08:57:21 PM
I just borrowed a book from my dad, and haven't read it yet. It's a bit of a weighty tome, about 700 pages, and I see my dad has read, highlighted and scribbled notes through the whole thing. My time is quite cramped, and I'd like to know if anyone particularly recommends or unrecommends(I know I make up words like George W.) an author named Gedalia Alon? The book is titled 'The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age' translated by Gershon Levi for the 'Magnes Press', copyright 1980.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 15, 2006, 08:59:55 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on September 15, 2006, 09:15:55 PM
Quote from: fistful
Your pop's an Ancient History prof, or a preacher?
He was a pastor when he was very young for several years. A professor (history and English literature) for ten years and an author for the past 25. I believe his degrees were in 'Christian Education', 'English Lit.' and 'History'. I very seriously entertained the notion of History as a career, and if I ever become independantly wealthy (say, I win the lottery, which will have to be with a found ticket, since I don't play) I'll take it up as a full time hobby.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 16, 2006, 04:45:22 PM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: The Rabbi
Also called "chareidim." What about them?
If there's any easy answer to this, how do their beliefs differ substantively from Orthodox? If not an easy answer, feel free to refer me to a particular book or article.Otherwise in general they disdain secular culture and anything perceived as "non-Jewish" in clothing, language, etc. In Israel their schools do not teach anything secular, only religious subjects. For reasons mentioned above they will not serve in the army.
The situation in the US is a little different. There is a lot of talk about the "chareidization" of orthodoxy. There is a good article (on line) by Rabbi Haym Soloveitchik with the word Rupture in it, where he discusses the phenomenon. He himself comes from a very famous rabbinic family and his cousins in Israel are chareidim.
I shy away from the term "fundamentalist" because in Christian circles it implies a belief in literal meaning of the Bible. Im Judaism things are more subtle than that.
Post by: Stand_watie on September 16, 2006, 06:33:04 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: The Rabbi
Also called "chareidim." What about them?
If there's any easy answer to this, how do their beliefs differ substantively from Orthodox? If not an easy answer, feel free to refer me to a particular book or article.Otherwise in general they disdain secular culture and anything perceived as "non-Jewish" in clothing, language, etc. In Israel their schools do not teach anything secular, only religious subjects. For reasons mentioned above they will not serve in the army.
The situation in the US is a little different. There is a lot of talk about the "chareidization" of orthodoxy. There is a good article (on line) by Rabbi Haym Soloveitchik with the word Rupture in it, where he discusses the phenomenon. He himself comes from a very famous rabbinic family and his cousins in Israel are chareidim. I shy away from the term "fundamentalist" because in Christian circles it implies a belief in literal meaning of the Bible. Im Judaism things are more subtle than that.
If they were pressed upon to state their feelings of right/wrong and the proper role of government would you consider them (politically if they're voters) conservative/liberal/or name your shade of in between?
Literal interpetation of the Bible is indeed a major tenet of conservative Christianity (with reasonable understanding that parables are parables, figures of speech are figures of speech (70 times 7 proclaimed by Jesus is a number that fundamentalist Christians means "countless" rather than 490) and the "horns of the unicorn" is a mistranslation of the times when people believed in unicorns and europeans didn't know what a musk oxen was). I won't debate people on the issue, and accept that I'm a minority. That said, do you know of any sects of Judaism that believe in a literal interpetation of what protestant Christians call the 'Old Testament' (and I'd like to know the proper terminology in religiously educated Jewish circles for that group of 39 religious 'books' so I won't sound like quite such a heathen when I refer to them?), for example, are there any major Jewish sects who believe that Elijah actually slew 420 prophets of ba'al or do the most literal of them believe "the number is just a figurative meaning a "bunch" and 420 is a symbolic number in Judaism?
Would I be out of line then to gather that the largest differences between Chareidem and Orthodox are political and the interpetation of to what extent to follow particular religious teachings rather than major fundamental doctrinal differences? The best Christian parallel I can think of is between "fundamentalist" Christianity and my understanding of Amish Christianity (which I understand to be 18th century orthodox Christianity + eschewing secular politics + pacifism + adhering to 18th century dress standards + eschewing electricity and modern transportation).
If he's religious at all, do you know what Noam Chomsky's religious sect is?
Post by: lee n. field on September 17, 2006, 04:05:18 AM
Quote
(70 times 7 proclaimed by Jesus is a number that fundamentalist Christians means "countless" rather than 490)
Unless you're talking about Daniel's "70 weeks of years", and then they'll count the days.Quote
Literal interpetation of the Bible is indeed a major tenet of conservative Christianity (with reasonable understanding that parables are parables, figures of speech are figures of speech.
Don't forget genre. A statement like "the hills skipped like rams" would mean something different in the Psalms than it would in, say, a sober historical narrative like 1 Kings.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 17, 2006, 04:37:25 AM
Since all Orthodox Jews accept the validity of the Oral Torah (Torah Shebal Peh) "literallness" is sort of relative. So yes we accept that there were miracles (Moses splitting the Red Sea) just as described. But to call that a literal interpretation is just not right.
There is a sect of Jews who hold a literal interpretation, more or less, called Karaites. THey have been largely irrelevant since the 17th century.
Politically the chareidim are conservative in social matters. But in Israel the chareidim who vote only do so to get more money frlom the government.
Post by: matis on September 17, 2006, 06:09:07 AM
The Rabbi has it covered.
(Only one off-the-topic point, Rabbi. As you know, the word "meshugga" means crazy in Yiddish. But simply adding an "S" to turn the word into a noun seems to me simply an Americanization. Until I was six and began school I spoke better Yiddish than English, and I said "mishigginer" to mean a crazy person. I TOLD you this was off-topic [grin])
Also, as I pointed out in once in an ealier thread, please do not equate my knowledge of Judaism with that of The Rabbi. my understanding is that he is Orthodox and observant. I am neither.
After having spent most of my life as a militant atheist, the birth of my daughter motivated me to look into my Jewish heritage and to affiliate with Chabad, a Chassidic sect who are ultra-Orthdox and who practice a hugely successful outreach to non or less religious Jews.
I have and continue to learn much and I fell in love with the grand heritage that my forefathers have passed down to me. I was enabled to influence my ex-wife to return from her Fundamentalist Christian church (no offense at all meant to Christians) to Chassidic (Chabad) Judaism. This kept my then three-year-old daughter from growing up apostate and she is also, now at age 18, a firmly committed ultra-Orthdox (again, Chabad) Jew. To accomplish this had become my main mission in life.
I learned much about what Judaism really is and it is my unshakable opinion that modern derivations such as Reform or Conservative or Reconstructionist and especially Humanistic Judaism -- are not really Judaism at all. The practitioners are certainly my fellow Jews, but they don't practise real Judaism.
I'm sorry if I ruffle some Jewish feathers with this, but Judaism is not liberal politics, no does it eschew violence and war when absolutely necessary and it certainly cannot be "added" to one's life only on Saturdays and the High holidays. Judaism is not really even a religion at all, but a complete way of life centered around worship of G-d. Although the synagogue is certainly very important, it is the home that is the center of Judaism.
But personally I struggle with belief, have got much old mental furniture I have not yet been able to completely rid myself of and that I must step over or around in my thinking.
My understanding of Judaism cannot be compared to that of The Rabbi.
I do not always agree with all of The Rabbi's posts and the above is not to be taken as fawning or obsequious (sp?). I am simply stating the truth about our relative understanding of Judaism.
Best regards,
matis
Post by: The Rabbi on September 17, 2006, 06:34:40 AM
Your family must have been Hungarian or Romanian.
Meshugga is actuallya Hebrew word (you can find it in p.Ki Savo I think in the Tochacha at the end).
From my limited contact with people, a person can be meshuga. A crazy person is a meshuganer. Crazy people are meshugoyim. YMMV.
Post by: matis on September 17, 2006, 07:21:32 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Your family must have been Hungarian or Romanian.
Nope, They were from Poland (my father, Warsaw) and Russia (my mother, Ludsk). So we were "poilisheh" and not "Litvahks".So where most of the Yiddish speakers around us said, "breit, as in "rate") for bread, we said "broit". Where they put "putter" (butter) on their bread, we ate ours with "pitter".
But then Yiddish, primarily bastardized German, appropriated words from the language of whatever country the Jews sojourned in. So in Canada, we would say, "effen de VINDEH", for "open the window" and "err furt in zine CAR", for he's riding in his car.
Yet, it is said that few languages can express nuances of feeling as can Yiddish.
matis
Post by: The Rabbi on September 17, 2006, 07:43:35 AM
Yiddish is not bastardized German, something often heard. Rather the two languages go back to a common ancestor, Old High German. Yiddish preserves some words from that language that German lost. But it also added words from wherever people were. So my great-grandfather (from Madlibozic, which is Lublin district) said "powolie" for slow. Other people say pomozhe or langsam or something else in Hungarian I cant remember.
Post by: matis on September 17, 2006, 08:30:57 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Sure sounds Galitzianer to me. Piter for puter, teen for tun etc.
Yiddish is not bastardized German, something often heard. Rather the two languages go back to a common ancestor, Old High German. Yiddish preserves some words from that language that German lost.
Yep, you're right:Yiddish is not bastardized German, something often heard. Rather the two languages go back to a common ancestor, Old High German. Yiddish preserves some words from that language that German lost.
"Yiddish is roughly 65% Germanic origin (it developed in parallel with
German from 12th century Middle German). It's thus mostly intelligible
to German speakers. Another 20% or so (depending on context of the speech)
is of Hebrew origin, and thus normally only understandable by Jews.
The remainder is a mixture of Slavic and other languages, such as French."
(David Sherman in YIDDISH MAILING LIST, Issue 12)
And we are Galitzianer, which describes most Polish Jews.
matis
Post by: Stand_watie on September 17, 2006, 05:52:29 PM
Quote from: matis
.. So in Canada, we would say, "effen de VINDEH", for "open the window" and "err furt in zine CAR"...
Didn't you say "effen de VINDEH, eh?" and "err furt in zine CAR, eh?" ?Little Canadian joke, sorry (and I think you said you'd lived in Quebec rather than Ontario, so not even regionally appropriate)
P.S., where did you say you had lived in Canada and for how long? Just curious. My dad went to college in Hartland, New Brunswick, and some of my extended kin are originally (well originally Scotland, but "originally within the last 350 years" from Nova Scotia.
Post by: Stand_watie on September 17, 2006, 06:36:09 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
... So yes we accept that there were miracles (Moses splitting the Red Sea) just as described. But to call that a literal interpretation is just not right...
Rabbi (and I'd like to stress that I ask this question not as an invitation or an interest in debate over rightness or wrongness, but as an attempt to understand specifically what you believe), would you give me illustrations of portions of the Tanach that you consider valid but do not take to be literal? For example (and I'm not suggesting that you do or don't believe this, I'm simply using an example of a story that is very commonly believed not to be literal) many people, even of the Christian religion do not consider the Genesis rendition of the flood to be literal and accurate.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 17, 2006, 10:37:00 PM
Where you get into non-literal is more in the actual strictures. A famous example is in Leviticus with "an eye for an eye." Anyone who takes that literally is an "apikorus" which I am not sure how to translate but heretic comes close. We understand that to mean monetary compensation. And it was always understood that way.
I guess a better way of expressing it is that there is other information the actual text leaves out but we have a tradition to supplement it. For example, a simple reading of the text would suggest that Laban is a decent enough person. But our tradition is that he is a miserable cheating lying old man. You wouldnt see that right away but there are hints to it.
Proper Yiddish btw would be "effen die fenster" and "er furt in sein auto." But vindo for fenster seems to be a common Anglicising--it isnt the first time I heard it. I had an old man from Romania tell me when he first came someone told him "ich redt ein plein Yiddish" and he didnt understand him. He should have said "ich redt ein poshut yiddish" to mean I speak a plain Yiddish.
Then there is an archaizing tendency. Someone else told me that diaper was diaper in Yiddish but his brother in law started using the word vimpl (which is a towel). It was trying to make Yiddish sound less American.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 18, 2006, 02:52:57 AM
Post by: Stand_watie on September 18, 2006, 08:06:52 AM
I will admit that particular turn of phrase has been a thorn in my flesh before, as I frequently hear Jesus mis-quoted as demanding "an eye for an eye" when he was quoting the passage you cite, and there is reason to think even in that passage that the terminology is euphemistic.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2006, 08:17:31 AM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Interesting Rabbi. I read the passage a couple of times, and if the contextual factors were right (I haven't researched it, but now I think I will) I think I could agree with your take even though I call myself a literalist. Do you know of any Jewish concordances/commentaries that do a verse by verse of the Tanach in English that you'd recommend?
You want the Chumash with Rashi's commentary.
Post by: matis on September 18, 2006, 08:25:43 AM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: matis
.. So in Canada, we would say, "effen de VINDEH", for "open the window" and "err furt in zine CAR"...
Didn't you say "effen de VINDEH, eh?" and "err furt in zine CAR, eh?" ?Little Canadian joke, sorry (and I think you said you'd lived in Quebec rather than Ontario, so not even regionally appropriate)
P.S., where did you say you had lived in Canada and for how long? Just curious. My dad went to college in Hartland, New Brunswick, and some of my extended kin are originally (well originally Scotland, but "originally within the last 350 years" from Nova Scotia.
Actually, English speakers in Montreal (when I was there, about 35% of population), did say, "eh", pretty much like the rest of Canadians.
matis