Questions about Jews, Judaism and so on.

[civ2]

ori
Whatever.
You can sit on your claim until it hatches - won't make it right, or me agree to it.
If it makes you happy (how - is beyond myself)...

PS. The inability to back up a claim clearly shows its emptiness.
If you disagree with that - then it's your problem in real life.

 

[ori]

I actually agree with that, its just you that don't back up your position, while I do, the history of hassidism is well known and its oponents' views as well, hell even wikipedia knows a thing or two about these relatively undisputed occurances.

 

[civ2]

ori
BWAHAHAHA!!!
So it's Rabbi Wikipedia now?!?
The most reliable Halakhic authority of 21 century.
And it's YOU who claims "Besht had bad ideas" - I'm just saying that no normal religious Rabbi holds this view today.
(I know a nut who are still a "misnaged", though the reason is purely personal - he's related to Vilna Gaon. "Family honor", though the wrong way this time.)
History and its outcome actually prove that there was nothing anti-Halakhic to begin with.
But you for some weird reason got so stuck in your belief that Hassidim are devils...

 

[ori]

you really ought to reread my argument, and its most certainly not what you make it to be, which you would be aware if actually cared to engage in discussion.

 

[The_J]

Whatever.
You can sit on your claim until it hatches - won't make it right, or me agree to it.
If it makes you happy (how - is beyond myself)...

* Argument from Ignorance
* Argument from Lack of Imagination
* Argument from Personal Incredulity

The claim that a statement is true because it has not been proven false, or that a statement is false because it has not been proven to be true. Famously refuted by Carl Sagan with the statement, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Based on shifting the burden of proof onto whichever side of the argument you want to lose. If something can not be proven either way, just act like the opinion opposite of yours is inherently sillier, and you can assert that your position must be assumed correct until someone from the other side can prove you wrong. Usually involves an appeal to one's own authority and/or Burden of Proof Fallacy, and is essentially a claim of personal omnipotence; if the arguer cannot imagine a way for something to have happened, it is clearly impossible.

BWAHAHAHA!!!
So it's Rabbi Wikipedia now?!?
The most reliable Halakhic authority of 21 century.

Also called:

* Appeal To Mockery
* The Horse Laugh
* Reductio ad ridiculum

A simplistic fallacy in which it is suggested an argument is false by presenting it in a way in which it appears absurd. This often dovetails into Strawman Fallacy or Appeal To Ignorance.

And it's YOU who claims "Besht had bad ideas" - I'm just saying that no normal religious Rabbi holds this view today.

Works or creators are discredited as not part of the genre due to not living up to arbitrary standards. Often this is followed by examples of what are considered real examples of the genre (see also Pretender Diss). By extension, you aren't considered a real fan of the genre if you don't know of these works. Sometimes, when dealing with a Dead Horse Genre or another sufficiently ghettoized field, the fallacy is used to try and distance a well-liked entry from it.

In real life, it's most commonly found in arguments about politics, race, nationality, or religion, usually when it comes to perceived stereotypes that only something negative "can only be done" in a specific region or group of people (especially The Rival) and "not" the accuser's own group; with of course ignoring the fact that it can.

Essentially a form of Begging The Question, in that, to accept the argument that No True Scotsman would do X, one must accept that the definition of "True Scotsman" includes "would not do X."

History and its outcome actually prove that there was nothing anti-Halakhic to begin with.

Claiming something is superior to something else because the first is older.

This post is brought to you by Your Fail Logic Forever

 

[civ2]

The_J
The normal way to discuss things:
A brings a claim.
B disagrees.
A must bring at least some proof (or just as simple as few sources, in this case) or it is reduced to just an "opinion", which isn't worth anything outside of A's "world".
IF A brings anything substantial to discuss THEN B must bring something to refute it.
In THIS case though:
A brought an accusation.
B disagreed and specifically asked for sources, many times.
A simply repeats his general statement without bringing any external sources, also uses well-known names without quoting them.
B repeats the request for sources.
A tells B it's his burden to bring proof.
B tells A that A is simply stupid by running such a "discussion".
A doesn't learn a bit.
Don't you tell me, if YOU were B, you'd be happy with such "discussion".

 

[Smellincoffee]

What is an Orthodox service like? I have heard that Christian liturgical practices have their origins in similar Jewish practices.

 

[The_J]

a) sure not the normal way to discuss things
b) sure also not what has happened here

 

[warpus]

@civ2, he was just pointing out all the logical fallacies you were using. Logical fallacies are bad, mmkay

 

[civ2]

Smellincoffee
No idea about the other part, but Jewish prayers are both very simple yet very impressive.
People gather, take books and... READ.
Well, some part of the prayer is lead aloud by the kantor - the guy that stand in the front and... reads aloud.
But - everyone must read the entire prayer for himself.
(With some small parts being again read just aloud.)
Men and women sit separately, either women upstairs on the balcony, or the room is split in two by a separation wall.
For many parts of the prayer (and to make it a "communal" prayer rather than "personal") you need a quorum (minyan in Hebrew) of 10 Jewish men 13+ years old.
Women are not considered/required part of the "prayer community" though they are present and also take some small part in it.
The main difference between a communal and personal prayer is that some parts can only be read while there is a quorum.
"Religion-wise" there is no actual difference, though the more people are praying together - the better.
Again, each and every one, both men and women, are required to read the prayers themselves, at least whispering or louder.
Men are obligated to pray 3 times per day (normal day, holidays have 1 more time, and the Day of Atonement has a total of 5) - morning, afternoon and evening.
Women are obligated to pray at least once a day at the time convenient to them.
I think Rabbi Wiki is good for basic info anyways.

warpus/The_J
OK, here we go:
1. AtI.
I wasn't claiming anything except that he was wrong in his claim.
That's not a claim on itself.
Again, I hold that if you claim something - be prepared to prove, and sources are the best way.
2. AtR.
Don't tell me you believe everything Wiki says?
Especially on topics 200+ years old and very narrow in info.
3. NTS.
I've never heard (read, was shown) any normal Rabbi saying things this guy says.
I'm a religious Jew who interacts with religious Jews a lot in many ways.
I would've heard it, were it true.
My personal evidence says the other way around.
Again, I asked him to bring sources - why didn't he, if there ARE such???
4. AtT.
Is basically the same as above.
All I said was - nowadays no serious authority holds like that.
And asked for sources, again, and again, and again.
5. To end with the beginning:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - in this case, absence of sources is the evidence of incredibility.

 

[GoodGame]

Is this an "Ask a <insert> thread?".


If yes, then the title should be fixed.



Here's one:
Do you feel secular humanism as an ideology is at odds with Judaism? I'm not talking about separation of church and state, but about the actual beliefs of secular humanism.

 

[civ2]

GG
I'll try fixing, thanks.
About "human"-ism.
The more you worship the Human, the lower it falls sooner or later...
Nothing to do with religion, it's just works this way.

EDIT:
Renaming doesn't work or am I doing something wrong???
ADMINS maybe?!?

 

[timtofly]

The last few pages have been more entertaining than "enlightening", although I think I have gained some knowledge.

If any are interested, it reminds me of Protestors and the Universal Church.

My question: who is the "Protestant" and who is the "Catholic" in this debate, if there is such a comparison? I am being serious in that this is an honest question and needed for me to put things in an historical perspective.

Another question and more "out there": Did any of this 1800 debacle happen in and around Germany? If not, then where?

Thanks.

Yes, I could probably research it myself, but then loose the humanity of the whole thing.

 

[civ2]

timtofly
I don't agree on such comparison.
There are no "sects" in Judaism the same way there are in other religions.
The group's philosophy is either totally based on the entire Torah (called "orthodox" due to such notions in other religions, actually a bit off topic in Judaism) - or it's not considered to be a proper Judaism.
Not a "sect", but rather "outsiders".
A typical example would be Karaites - they use only the Written Torah, totally rejectng the Oral one, thus separating themselves from being true Jews.
Chassidic groups had, have and never will have anything to do with such separation.
It's exactly as much based on the entire Torah, as was the older "branch".
Actually, Chassidism is nothing more than the deeper part of Torah, more "Kabbalistic" one.
(To remove confusion, let's say it's like quark physics - you need to "invent" the quarks to have a science about them - but everything was there already to begin with.)
As of Reform, the "branch" itself is hardly truly Jewish (not the people: once born Jewish - forever Jewish; though they do make big trouble when it comes to conversions), but I doubt they will reach those extremes of real separation like the Karaites did in the past - the modern society is too "open" for that to really happen, people mingle too much.
Thank G-d for that.

 

[Jehoshua]

I would say the distinction is more equivalent to the schism between the Karaim and Orthodox Judaism. The Karaim rejected the oral law of judaism (the oral torah), but accepted the written law (the torah scriptures) completely. The protestants likewise accepted the written christian scriptures completely, but like the Karaim they rejected the oral law, sacred tradition in Catholic Christian terminology.

 

[civ2]

Jehoshua
Your post is confusing.
You MEAN to say that the difference between Protestants and Catholics is similar to that of Karaites and Orthodox Jews (though I'd disagree even with that, not much, yet).
But the question was about Chassidism - and THAT is a totally different situation.
Not even close to either of the above.
1. Wasn't (and never intended to be) a "separation" - unlike some people tend to imagine.
2. The very situation was a result of misunderstanding multiplied by recent troubles.
3. It's 200 years old - and OBSOLETE! People "remember" it only for PERSONAL reasons OR if they don't KNOW the real reasons behind it.
The above being said, I have also no idea what cause the breach in Christianity, but since it has NO connection to me whatsoever - I'm not interested in the topic.
So, the people who have no connection to either Judaism or Chassidism, also should refrain from commenting on the topics both unrelated and unknown to them.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This post is brought to you by Your Fail Logic Forever

YFLF Would be a good name for this thread.

 

[Jehoshua]

@Civ2

And I wasn't talking about Hasidim.

I was rather pointing out that the schism between the Karaim and Orthodox Judaism is more analogous to the Catholic/protestant conflict than Timtoflys imposition of that analogy onto the conflict between Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism. Ergo I was pointing out the incompatibility of Timtofly's analogy to the subject of his question.

@Zig

And deliberately antagonising comments generally are bad form.

 

[civ2]

Jehoshua
That's why I said it was confusing.

OK, NEXT???

 

[timtofly]

Jehoshua
That's why I said it was confusing.

OK, NEXT???

Did it happen in Germany?


You missed the question that I asked in the 3rd Catholic Thread (I think). I asked Jehoshua something along the lines that (to me), Catholics are in the same place that Judaism was 1st century AD. They have the letter of the law, but not the spirit.

I now realize that both Judaism and Catholics also seem to adhere to a oral Tradition that is limited to only those in the "know". To truly understand G-d's Word, one also needs to have the oral/magisterium "knowledge".

This tradition was "passed" down or commanded to be passed down from the apostles.

There seems to be a disconnect in logic though. The 3rd and 4th Centuries "saw" the Church trying to eradicate Judaism, but it has persisted. Judaism denies the Church it's foundation, as seen in recent questions in ask a Catholic thread.

However; both seem to hold that G-d only reveals Himself through each individual "religion" and never on a personal level with those outside these edifices of knowledge. Enter one who tries to do so and you get Islam. Enter German reasoning and you get Protestants.

G-d showed Himself to the Jews. Jesus gave Himself for the Church. The Holy Spirit comes to those who are are in darkness. The Bible can be read by any who come across it. G-d still shows Himself to those who will "hear". People are still being convicted through the "soul" and spirit. Are these just "facts" that make sense to me, or are they "heretical"?