On the contrary, HonoreDB is using emotional outrage in an attempt to force religious readers to recognize the illogic of their text. It’s when they’re apathetic about the Midianite women that they come to proclaim outlandishly evil things like genocide being ok if god said to.
The Old Testament did condone slavery and rape (in the taking of slaves as wives). This is outrageous and wrong. Nothing illogical about it.
I don’t intend to get in an argument over that can o’ worms. I’ll just point out that that particular line of retreat is unavailable to many of the theists promoting the moral quality of the Torah or Bible. Their god is supposed to be unchangable and his laws are supposed to be written on all men’s hearts. They instead tend to move into one of these positions:
1) “You need to focus on the essence of the text instead, which is whatever I say it is.”
2) “You’re misinterpreting the obvious and plain text. It’s really saying the opposite of what it says.”
3) “Rape and slavery and murder really aren’t that bad, in a certain angle and light.”
In my experience, they tend to abhor your line of reasoning, and if it is logical or reasonable it is still not an option for them. (Feel free to correct me with examples.) I think HonoreDB’s comment is still a reasonable approach for pushing against that inconsistency.
Here’s a line of argument which doesn’t fall into your three categories. I have no idea whether it’s completely honest.
Judaism is as Judaism does. In other words, if you want to know what Judaism is, look at actual Jewish behavior first, and then if you like make some predictions so that you can update.
The conquest of Canaan was a long time ago. While, to put it mildly, there are some contentious issues associated with the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, even the most Orthodox aren’t recommending or engaging in anything as horrific as that quote from Leviticus. (OK, I don’t know this with absolute certainty, but I’m willing to bet one minus something close to epsilon that if it were happening, it would get back to me.)
Just because it says on the label that Judaism is about the absolute G-d-given truth (in some sense) of the Torah, it doesn’t mean that’s exactly what Judaism is about. This does make it a lot harder to figure out what’s going on, but people stuff is like that.
Does this unpack to “Judaism whatever people who claim to be Jewish do”? Or is there some other standard available to determine what particular subset of the observable behavior in the world is “what Judaism does”?
Does this unpack to “Judaism whatever people who claim to be Jewish do?”
Pretty much that, though I’d amend it to “Judaism is whatever people who claim to be Jewish do that they say is part of their religion.” Deli food is Jewish, but not Judaism.
I admit I want some consensus exceptions for Jews for Jesus (from what I’m told, actually Baptists) and Christian Identity (white supremacists who claim to be the only Jews).
I’d amend it to “Judaism is whatever people who claim to be Jewish do that they say is part of their religion.”
(nods) OK, understood. I’m not sure that’s a particularly informative place to carve, but it’s at least coherent.
I admit I want some consensus exceptions for Jews for Jesus (from what I’m told, actually Baptists) and Christian Identity (white supremacists who claim to be the only Jews).
I understand why, though I wonder how viable that is. I mean, sure, it’s probably true that approximately all non-JfJ soi-disant Jews agree that the JfJ are no more Jews than the Jehovah’s Witnesses are. Then again, it’s also probably true that approximately all haredim would agree to something similar about Reform Jews. And as long as we’re ignoring some people’s self-labeling, I’d sort of like to put in for an exception excluding the haredim, come to that; I’m a Jew, but I don’t do what they do.
Which I guess is OK, it just leads to lots of different mutually exclusive things to which the label “Judaism” applies, and the need to resolve what Judaism we’re talking about before the conversation gets too far. Which happens a lot with language anyway.
Thinking about this some more, I am interested in your thoughts about the difference between “Judaism is whatever people who claim to be Jewish do that they say is part of their religion” and “Judaism is whatever people who claim to be Jewish do that people who don’t claim to be Jewish don’t do.”
The latter has some interesting properties, but I’m not sure if they’re valuable ones from the perspective of wanting to preserve a coherent notion of Jewish identity.
I think this is the single most powerfully written argument against Judaism that I’ve ever read in my life, and it’s four paragraphs long.
HonoreDB, I don’t know how long that took you to write, but if you wrote a book of Bible stories from the victims’ perspective, I think it might sell.
You should know better than to succumb to the emotions where logic is warranted.
On the contrary, HonoreDB is using emotional outrage in an attempt to force religious readers to recognize the illogic of their text. It’s when they’re apathetic about the Midianite women that they come to proclaim outlandishly evil things like genocide being ok if god said to.
The Old Testament did condone slavery and rape (in the taking of slaves as wives). This is outrageous and wrong. Nothing illogical about it.
This is “outrageous and wrong” now. It was neither back then.
I don’t intend to get in an argument over that can o’ worms. I’ll just point out that that particular line of retreat is unavailable to many of the theists promoting the moral quality of the Torah or Bible. Their god is supposed to be unchangable and his laws are supposed to be written on all men’s hearts. They instead tend to move into one of these positions: 1) “You need to focus on the essence of the text instead, which is whatever I say it is.” 2) “You’re misinterpreting the obvious and plain text. It’s really saying the opposite of what it says.” 3) “Rape and slavery and murder really aren’t that bad, in a certain angle and light.”
In my experience, they tend to abhor your line of reasoning, and if it is logical or reasonable it is still not an option for them. (Feel free to correct me with examples.) I think HonoreDB’s comment is still a reasonable approach for pushing against that inconsistency.
Here’s a line of argument which doesn’t fall into your three categories. I have no idea whether it’s completely honest.
Judaism is as Judaism does. In other words, if you want to know what Judaism is, look at actual Jewish behavior first, and then if you like make some predictions so that you can update.
The conquest of Canaan was a long time ago. While, to put it mildly, there are some contentious issues associated with the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, even the most Orthodox aren’t recommending or engaging in anything as horrific as that quote from Leviticus. (OK, I don’t know this with absolute certainty, but I’m willing to bet one minus something close to epsilon that if it were happening, it would get back to me.)
Just because it says on the label that Judaism is about the absolute G-d-given truth (in some sense) of the Torah, it doesn’t mean that’s exactly what Judaism is about. This does make it a lot harder to figure out what’s going on, but people stuff is like that.
Does this unpack to “Judaism whatever people who claim to be Jewish do”? Or is there some other standard available to determine what particular subset of the observable behavior in the world is “what Judaism does”?
Pretty much that, though I’d amend it to “Judaism is whatever people who claim to be Jewish do that they say is part of their religion.” Deli food is Jewish, but not Judaism.
I admit I want some consensus exceptions for Jews for Jesus (from what I’m told, actually Baptists) and Christian Identity (white supremacists who claim to be the only Jews).
(nods) OK, understood. I’m not sure that’s a particularly informative place to carve, but it’s at least coherent.
I understand why, though I wonder how viable that is. I mean, sure, it’s probably true that approximately all non-JfJ soi-disant Jews agree that the JfJ are no more Jews than the Jehovah’s Witnesses are. Then again, it’s also probably true that approximately all haredim would agree to something similar about Reform Jews. And as long as we’re ignoring some people’s self-labeling, I’d sort of like to put in for an exception excluding the haredim, come to that; I’m a Jew, but I don’t do what they do.
Which I guess is OK, it just leads to lots of different mutually exclusive things to which the label “Judaism” applies, and the need to resolve what Judaism we’re talking about before the conversation gets too far. Which happens a lot with language anyway.
Thinking about this some more, I am interested in your thoughts about the difference between “Judaism is whatever people who claim to be Jewish do that they say is part of their religion” and “Judaism is whatever people who claim to be Jewish do that people who don’t claim to be Jewish don’t do.”
The latter has some interesting properties, but I’m not sure if they’re valuable ones from the perspective of wanting to preserve a coherent notion of Jewish identity.
Attempting to incite emotional/moral outrage is a valid form of argument. What is this “emotion is not logical” bullshit?