JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dr. Dan on October 29, 2009, 01:25:18 PM
-
A few weeks ago on the ask JTF, Chaim mentioned that Jews were allowed to discuss/debate theology with Christians since there is a common root of what our beliefs are with each other, but with Muslims we aren't supposed to debate since their whole theology denies the Torah and Christian bible.
Another person mentioned to me that an Orthodox rabbi told her that Jews were not permitted to walk inside a church (non museum), but allowed to walk in a mosque since Muslims believe in the "same" Gd as the Jews (but I don't think Allah goes with Hshem).
Can someone tell me if this is correct? I'm going to post this for the next askJTF as well to get Chaim's answer
-
Yes,
The Halacha is that a Jew can enter a mosque because there is no Avodah Zara... While a Jew cannot enter the sanctuary of a church. This came up last year because many voting places are in churches...
-
From Chabads : ASK MOSES
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/255,2400/Am-I-allowed-to-enter-a-church-or-mosque.html
Am I allowed to enter a church or mosque?
Entering a mosque does not pose a problem, since Islam is based on a belief in the one-and-only G-d.
Entering a Church however, is problematic as Christianity is based on belief in the Trinity, a concept in which G-d is not 'one-and-only' but has partners as well.
[According to many Halachic authorities, belief in the trinity is only forbidden for a Jew. A non-Jew may follow these tenets since belief in the omnipotent G-d is still present.]
Therefore, it is forbidden for a Jew to enter the sanctuary of the church, i.e. where the actual prayer services are held. This could be misinterpreted as identification with the philosophy. However, it is permitted to enter other rooms in a church for non-religious purposes.
-
thank you.. i also posted a question like this on this week's ask JTF..
the reason why is the seemingly contradiction that we are allowed to discuss and debate theology with Christians, but not with Muslims.
-
Actually muslamics can not and never discuss such matters.
-
But there are Christian congregations like the Lutheran Church that doesn't believe in Trinity... But as far as I know - maybe a more liberal interpretation - you can go and visit the place for tourist reasons, but you mustn't pray inside it! I would never go into a mosque again. I have visited 3 mosques so far and found them uncomfortable places!
-
But there are Christian congregations like the Lutheran Church that doesn't believe in Trinity... But as far as I know - maybe a more liberal interpretation - you can go and visit the place for tourist reasons, but you mustn't pray inside it! I would never go into a mosque again. I have visited 3 mosques so far and found them uncomfortable places!
Lutherians believe in the trinity. But they don't believe in praying to Mary or the saints.
-
But there are Christian congregations like the Lutheran Church that doesn't believe in Trinity... But as far as I know - maybe a more liberal interpretation - you can go and visit the place for tourist reasons, but you mustn't pray inside it! I would never go into a mosque again. I have visited 3 mosques so far and found them uncomfortable places!
Lutherians believe in the trinity. But they don't believe in praying to Mary or the saints.
Do they? Someone told me they didn't! :)
-
But there are Christian congregations like the Lutheran Church that doesn't believe in Trinity... But as far as I know - maybe a more liberal interpretation - you can go and visit the place for tourist reasons, but you mustn't pray inside it! I would never go into a mosque again. I have visited 3 mosques so far and found them uncomfortable places!
Lutherians believe in the trinity. But they don't believe in praying to Mary or the saints.
Do they? Someone told me they didn't! :)
Lutherians believe definitively in the concept of trinity.
-
Christians believe in one god just as jews do.
Trinity does not mean three gods.
Trinity means that god have had three forms, you know, like water -> ice, liquid, etc etc ...
The trinity is the father, the son and the holy spirit, for christians, the father is god as we all know him, the son is god when he came through jesus christ, the holy spirit is when god can move as spirit in each and every one of us. This doesn't contradict judaism, I don't know how that contradicts the image of god as the jews draws it ... its the same, except christians believed in jesus christ and that God have walked and talked with them through him (the son) and the holy spirit (the spirit of the man).
-
Christians believe in one G-d just as jews do.
Trinity does not mean three gods.
Trinity means that G-d have had three forms, you know, like water -> ice, liquid, etc etc ...
The trinity is the father, the son and the holy spirit, for christians, the father is G-d as we all know him, the son is G-d when he came through jesus christ, the holy spirit is when G-d can move as spirit in each and every one of us. This doesn't contradict judaism, I don't know how that contradicts the image of G-d as the jews draws it ... its the same, except christians believed in jesus christ and that G-d have walked and talked with them through him (the son) and the holy spirit (the spirit of the man).
Hashem is not divisible, he is infinite... He exists before time, during time, and after time... There is no way that Hashem is corporeal... This makes the idea of Jesus as G-d impossible to the Jewish belief. This is why he is rejected. He also did not fufill the prophecies of Moshiach and this is another reason Jews cannot believe in Jesus. Also Christians pray to Jesus and Jews are prohibited from praying to intermediaries and only pray to Hashem {Didnt Jesus say that the only way to G-d is through him? This is heretical in Jewish belief}.... There is no such thing as Three things are really one thing... Hashem is Hashem, he is indivisible... Jesus violates so many Jewish ideas that it is not possible to explain it here... Do some research on why Jews dont believe... i can provide many good sites...
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/
5) CHRISTIANITY CONTRADICTS JEWISH THEOLOGY
(back)
The following theological points apply primarily to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination.
A. G-d AS THREE?
The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks G-d into three separate beings: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).
Contrast this to the Shema, the basis of Jewish belief: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our G-d, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4). Jews declare the Shema every day, while writing it on doorposts (Mezuzah), and binding it to the hand and head (Tefillin). This statement of G-d’s One-ness is the first words a Jewish child is taught to say, and the last words uttered before a Jew dies.
In Jewish law, worship of a three-part G-d is considered idolatry—one of the three cardinal sins that a Jew should rather give up his life than transgress. This explains why during the Inquisitions and throughout history, Jews gave up their lives rather than convert.
B. MAN AS G-d?
Roman Catholics believe that G-d came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
Maimonides devotes most of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that G-d is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. G-d is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that G-d assumes human form makes G-d small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "G-d is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).
Judaism says that the Messiah will be born of human parents, and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-G-d, and will not possess supernatural qualities. In fact, an individual is alive in every generation with the capacity to step into the role of the Messiah. (see Maimonides - Laws of Kings 11:3)
C. INTERMEDIARY FOR PRAYER?
The Catholic belief is that prayer must be directed through an intermediary—i.e. confessing one’s sins to a priest. Jesus himself is an intermediary, as Jesus said: "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."
In Judaism, prayer is a totally private matter, between each individual and G-d. As the Bible says: "G-d is near to all who call unto Him" (Psalms 145:18). Further, the Ten Commandments state: "You shall have no other gods BEFORE ME," meaning that it is forbidden to set up a mediator between G-d and man. (see Maimonides - Laws of Idolatry ch. 1)
D. INVOLVEMENT IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD
Catholic doctrine often treats the physical world as an evil to be avoided. Mary, the holiest woman, is portrayed as a virgin. Priests and nuns are celibate. And monasteries are in remote, secluded locations.
By contrast, Judaism believes that G-d created the physical world not to frustrate us, but for our pleasure. Jewish spirituality comes through grappling with the mundane world in a way that uplifts and elevates. Sex in the proper context is one of the holiest acts we can perform.
The Talmud says if a person has the opportunity to taste a new fruit and refuses to do so, he will have to account for that in the World to Come. Jewish rabbinical schools teach how to live amidst the bustle of commercial activity. Jews don’t retreat from life, we elevate it.
PS: Jews have no 'image' of G-d as you put it... The second commandment clearly says that there should be no images made nor worshipped.
PPS: Also I should clearly state that what I am saying is aimed at Jews. Non-Jews can worship what they want as long as it brings them closer to Hashem...
-
Let us agree that there are differences in our theology. I am afraid I will say something which is not understood here... Jewish law is clear in its standing on Christianity, and many Righteous Jews have died with Shema {the most importants jewish prayer} on their lips as they were burned at the stake by religious inquisitors and crusaders...
-
A few weeks ago on the ask JTF, Chaim mentioned that Jews were allowed to discuss/debate theology with Christians since there is a common root of what our beliefs are with each other, but with Muslims we aren't supposed to debate since their whole theology denies the Torah and Christian bible.
Another person mentioned to me that an Orthodox rabbi told her that Jews were not permitted to walk inside a church (non museum), but allowed to walk in a mosque since Muslims believe in the "same" Gd as the Jews (but I don't think Allah goes with Hshem).
Can someone tell me if this is correct? I'm going to post this for the next askJTF as well to get Chaim's answer
The Muslims are monotheists even if their religion is evil. We have severe restrictions on not going into places that are considered polytheistic (avoda zara). The mosque is not considered a danger of avoda zara (even tho I can't see why a Jew would want to go in one). But a Jew cannot believe in christianity, cannot practice it, and cannot go into a church according to halacha. We can't practice Islam either, but if someone did, he would not be considered to be doing avoda zara.
-
Christians believe in one G-d just as jews do.
Trinity does not mean three gods.
To you maybe it doesn't, but to us it does, regardless of what you actually believe about it. We have our own parameters and that belief is forbidden to us. Severely forbidden... For us.
-
Muman and everyone else who has responded to this thread, I appreciate your inquiries.
I think we should leave it to this because we want to avoid any religious debates with our Christian friends on the forum...it's Chaim's wishes actually. However, if there is anyone here that wants to have a frank respectful discussion, it's best to do it over private messenger.
(perhaps we should lock this thread).
-
but muman613, that brings up another question, does G-d really "cant" be corporeal (edit replaced ethereal)? can't he go into any form he wants? if so? how can G-d not can anything at all ?! if you believe that G-d is infinite and G-d is all-mighty all-knowing, then why do you believe that something can be "impossible" for him?
-
I regret that I chose to post in this thread at all.
To madmarv: it is more an issue of God "wouldn't." Just like the old atheist line, "can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?" The answer to that is no. No because it's nonsensical. Not "No" because we limit God in any way. No because it is completely upside down thinking.
Let us cease this discussion.
-
but muman613, that brings up another question, does G-d really "cant" be corporeal (edit replaced ethereal)? can't he go into any form he wants? if so? how can G-d not can anything at all ?! if you believe that G-d is infinite and G-d is all-mighty all-knowing, then why do you believe that something can be "impossible" for him?
Ah, the old "Can Hashem make a Stone so heavy that he can't lift it?" question...
This is an infinite loop and the only answer is that the question is illogical.
Let me see if I can attempt to explain this conundrum.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/07/hashem-and-logic.shtml
Can G-d make a square-circle, or a thing which is both red and not-red, or a rock so heavy even He can’t lift it? In other words, must G-d obey the laws of logic?This question is more serious than it seems. In Principia Mathematica, Bertrand Russell derives all of mathematics from the roots of symbolic logic. This means that if Hashem can not defy logic, he also can not make pi=3.5. Even worse, if physicists ever get a theory of everything, or if such a theory exists and is never found, than the laws of nature are forced by the laws of math which in turn are all derivable from the laws of logic. If we answer that paradoxes about Hashem aren’t true, we would need to explain, then, how miracles are possible.
The nice thing about logic, however, is that a wide variety of things can be proven as long as you pick the right set of postulates. While all of math including geometry are derivable from boolean logic, there is no indication that reality has to map to Euclid’s postulates. (In fact, it doesn’t.) Math gives us many models, reality only conforms to one/some of them. Proofs are simply systems for taking a set of postulates and finding their conclusions. The postulates themselves, come before the application of logic.
Both extreme positions are supported. The Ramchal (Pischei Chachmah 30) insists that G-d’s omnipotence is absolute, even with regard to things we would regard as impossible. The Rambam, on the other hand, (Moreh 3:15) states:
That which is impossible has a permanent and constant property, which is not the result of some agent, and can not in any way change, and consequently we do not ascribe to G-d the power of doing what is impossible. No thinking man denies the truth of this maxim; none ignore it, but such as have no idea of Logic…. Likewise it is impossible that G-d should produce a being like Himself… to produce a square whose diagonal is equal to one of its sides….
We have shown that according to each of these theories there are things that are impossible, whose existence cannot be admitted, and whose creation is excluded from the power of G-d, and the assumption that G-d does not change their nature does not imply weakness in G-d, or a limit to his power.
R. Aryeh Kaplan, in “Jewish Life – Summer ‘74″ discusses the question of paradox. He raises a number of classical paradoxes:
How can G-d know what I will decide tomorrow, and yet I have free will in that decision?
G-d is unchanging. However, He is now “the One Who created the universe” whereas He wasn’t before creation. How?
Can G-d create a stone so heavy even He couldn’t lift it?
(I addressed the first two in terms of the inappropriateness of using time-based language when discussing G-d in an earlier entry.)
R’ Kaplan explains:
A very good analogy would be trick glasses in which the right lens is red and the left is green. Therefore, if a person wearing such glasses looks at a white paper, he sees it as red with his right eye, and as green with his left. If he looks at it through both eyes he sees some psychedelic mixture of red and green, but under no conditions can he perceive the color white.
With respect to the stone:
The attributes of action would say that He can create such a stone, “G-d is omnipotent and can do all things.” The negative attributes would indicate that such a stone could not exist.
So, the authorities are split: no (Ramchal), yes (Rambam), and all of the above (Rabbi Kaplan). That should give me some rein in which to speculate.
When we looked at Divine Attributes, we defined G-d’s omnipotence as a negative statement. A declaration about what He isn’t. G-d gets results without invoking the notion of “power”. Thus, it is meaningless to invoke the notion of “a rock too heavy for Him to lift” as it is to talk about “a song too red.” G-d cannot just lift a stone of infinite weight, omnipotence means that weight is a non-issue to what He can lift, just as color is.
The other question is can G-d defy paradox in general. I’d have to agree with the Rambam at least to the extent that some system of logic must apply. Didn’t Hashem intend us to use logic to come to understand what we can of Him. If He is above logic, what use is it? How can one say “Since Hashem created logic, therefore …” as the Ramchal does to start his very argument to conclude that theological answers needn’t be logical? How can we the proceed with the rest of this discussion if we didn’t already assume that logic works?
Contemporary logic seems to bear out a position very close to the Ramchal’s. Human reason seems to be closer modeled by Bayesian probability or Fuzzy Logic than the old Aristotelian-Boolean kind. In English: we are equipped to deal with things other than a black-and-white true vs. false. We can reason about things we can only know are probably true. And while happiness and sadness are opposites, ambivalence, where a person feels both because of different perspective on the same thing, is common. As are dialectics: People can believe “The world was created for me” and “I am dust and ashes” at the same time. Quantum level events conform to a Quantum Logic, which is also non-Boolean and non-Aristotelian. An electron can be in a superposition state, where it’s both in one state and another, even though the two contradict; at least until observed. (Don’t try to understand that — I didn’t claim it makes sense, just that it’s how subatomic particles work.)
Aristotle’s Law of Contradiction applies to neither our minds nor the constituents of our atoms. Why need it apply to G-d?
Related to this is my essays on logic and eilu va’eilu (plurality in halakhah) in Mesukim MiDevash for Naso,
and earlier in this blog.
Or, to put it another way — even if logic is a part of Truth, and therefore of Hashem’s essence, which of the many possible systems of logic does that mean? Presumably one of Infinite richness, not the Aristotelian that both the Rambam or the Ramchal were discussing.
-
Sorry but I don't think that "the old "Can Hashem make a Stone so heavy that he can't lift it?"" is same as this one.
the old "Can Hashem make a Stone so heavy that he can't lift it?" is like saying can red be black? which is two different things, totally illogical as you said.
I know that judaism and christianity have their differences, but I just don't believe this is one of them.
-
FYI Muman, over the years.....many Christians were also burned at the stake...some for having bibles, and other things (Joan of Arc is a good example).
If you had a bible, you were tried for being a heretic I think. Emporer Nero would burn Christians on stakes and use them to light the streets, if I remember correctly. (I think it was Nero).
Let us agree that there are differences in our theology. I am afraid I will say something which is not understood here... Jewish law is clear in its standing on Christianity, and many Righteous Jews have died with Shema {the most importants jewish prayer} on their lips as they were burned at the stake by religious inquisitors and crusaders...
-
Sorry but I don't think that "the old "Can Hashem make a Stone so heavy that he can't lift it?"" is same as this one.
the old "Can Hashem make a Stone so heavy that he can't lift it?" is like saying can red be black? which is two different things, totally illogical as you said.
And according to Judaism "can G-d be man?" is exactly the same thing. Saying "can man be G-d" is totally illogical by Jewish belief and the Jewish knowledge of /relationship with G-d. So, you are wrong. Judaism and Christianity DO differ (in the biggest way possible) on this matter.
God and man are two different things
in Judaism. Let this be the end of this discussion and let us not mislead people about the differences in these religions.
-
And according to Judaism "can G-d be man?" is exactly the same thing. Saying "can man be G-d" is totally illogical by Jewish belief and the Jewish knowledge of /relationship with G-d. So, you are wrong. Judaism and Christianity DO differ (in the biggest way possible) on this matter.
G-d and man are two different things
in Judaism. Let this be the end of this discussion and let us not mislead people about the differences in these religions.
I also said "I know that judaism and christianity have their differences, but I just don't believe this is one of them"
So I know they DO differ ...
-
Yes.
I was posting to show that even Christians have been persecuted. I am not sure what you are getting at.
I have much respect for the Jewish faith. People went to concentration camps for hiding the Jews during the holocaust. They were not fighting amongst each other at all, they managed to agree on the things they agreed with ...and let God be God.
Sorry but I don't think that "the old "Can Hashem make a Stone so heavy that he can't lift it?"" is same as this one.
the old "Can Hashem make a Stone so heavy that he can't lift it?" is like saying can red be black? which is two different things, totally illogical as you said.
And according to Judaism "can G-d be man?" is exactly the same thing. Saying "can man be G-d" is totally illogical by Jewish belief and the Jewish knowledge of /relationship with G-d. So, you are wrong. Judaism and Christianity DO differ (in the biggest way possible) on this matter.
G-d and man are two different things
in Judaism. Let this be the end of this discussion and let us not mislead people about the differences in these religions.
-
FYI Muman, over the years.....many Christians were also burned at the stake...some for having bibles, and other things (Joan of Arc is a good example).
If you had a bible, you were tried for being a heretic I think. Emporer Nero would burn Christians on stakes and use them to light the streets, if I remember correctly. (I think it was Nero).
Let us agree that there are differences in our theology. I am afraid I will say something which is not understood here... Jewish law is clear in its standing on Christianity, and many Righteous Jews have died with Shema {the most importants jewish prayer} on their lips as they were burned at the stake by religious inquisitors and crusaders...
The Romans killed the Jews, they killed our great Rabbis using every imaginable torture method man can devise... I do realize that Christians were killed by the Romans, but it was because of the Romans desire to rid Israel of the Jewish presence...
Aish.com has a good section on the history of Rome and the land of Israel...
http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48942411.html
ROMAN PERSECUTION
Adding fuel to the ideological fire was the way the Romans tried to extract money -- by taxation and sometimes outright looting -- from the local population. This was especially true of several of the governors (procurators) of Judea who were exceptionally cruel and avaricious. Josephus provides us with numerous examples of Roman mistreatment of the Jewish inhabitants of Judea:
Pilate (Procurator of Judea 26-36 C.E.), who had been sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent those images of Caesar called standards into Jerusalem by night. This aroused a very great tumult among the Jews when day broke, for those who were near them were astonished at the sight of the images as indications that their law was trampled underfoot, for those laws do not permit any sort of images to be brought into the city...After this he caused another disturbance by expending that sacred treasure which is called Korban (funds be used for offerings in the Temple) on aqueducts...Gaius Caesar...represented himself as a god and desired to called so....He sent Petronius ( governor of Syria 39-41 C.E.) with an army to Jerusalem to place his statue in the Temple and command him that in case the Jews would not admit them, he should kill those who opposed it and carry all the rest of nation away into captivity.(2)
Historian Paul Johnson in his History of the Jews (p. 136) explains why this proved a particularly incendiary element in the conflict:
The Hellenized gentiles ... [who] constituted the local civil service and the tax collectors ... were notorious in their anti-Semitism ... Foolishly, Rome insisted on drawing its Judaean procurators from Greek-speaking gentile areas - the last and most insensitive of them, Gessius Florus came from Greek Asia Minor."
Florus persuaded Nero to strip the Jews of Caesarea of their citizenship, making them effectively aliens in the city and totally at the mercy of the Greco-Roman population. The Jews revolted, and their protest was viciously put down with many people killed and synagogues desecrated. The pogrom spread to other cities where the Hellenized population seized the opportunity to get rid of the Jews - Jewish homes were invaded, looted and burned down.
Jewish refugees, vowing vengeance, began to stream into Jerusalem.
But Florus only escalated the conflict, first by giving Roman soldiers free rein to massacre more than 3,600 Jews who had jeered him, and then by arresting Jewish elders, having them publicly flogged and crucified.
Florus...called out aloud to the soldiers to plunder that which was called the Upper Market Place, and to slay those that they encountered. So the soldiers taking this exhortation of their commander in a sense agreeable to their desire of gain, did not only plunder the place they were sent to, but forcing themselves into every house, they slew its inhabitants; so the citizens fled along the narrow lanes, and the soldiers slew those that they caught, and no method of plunder was omitted; they also caught many of the quiet people, and brought them before Florus, whom he first whipped and then crucified.{Crucifixion was the standard Roman punishment for rebellion.} (Josephus, The Wars of the Jews 2.14.9)
Now there was no turning back. The Jews took up arms.
To go up against the might of the Roman Empire was nothing short of suicidal, and indeed, the Jewish War would end in great tragedy. But when it began in 66 CE, it had some astonishing successes with Florus fleeing from Jerusalem for his life and the Roman garrison isolated and overwhelmed.
But such insults to its might Rome could not abide. Jewish historian, Rabbi Berel Wein in his Echoes of Glory (p. 155) relates graphically what happened next:
The success of the Jews in driving Rome from Jerusalem sent shock waves throughout the Roman Empire. It also unleashed a wave of bloody pogroms against Jews, especially in Caesarea, Alexandria and Damascus. Thousands of Jews were slaughtered in these riots, and thousands more were sold into the slave markets of Rome.
The sages and rabbis advised a reconciliation with the Romans, seeing that, if irritated any further, Rome would retaliate with even greater force and then surely destroy the whole country and decimate the Jewish people.
Considering that the Sadducees were already pro-Rome and the Pharisees held generally moderate views, their wisdom might have prevailed. But the Zealot extremists would have none of it.
Vowing to fight to the death, they went up against a new Roman contingent making its way toward Jerusalem and slayed 6,000 Romans soldiers. Coincidentally, the victory was won on the very same spot where the Maccabees had vanquished the Greeks, and the Zealots -- seeing a Divine hand helping them -- were encouraged further.
The Roman answer was to dispatch four legions under one of the empire's most experienced commander, Vespasian.
Vespasian's strategy was to subdue conflict throughout the region first, and then to take the final prize -- Jerusalem.
-
And according to Judaism "can G-d be man?" is exactly the same thing. Saying "can man be G-d" is totally illogical by Jewish belief and the Jewish knowledge of /relationship with G-d. So, you are wrong. Judaism and Christianity DO differ (in the biggest way possible) on this matter.
G-d and man are two different things
in Judaism. Let this be the end of this discussion and let us not mislead people about the differences in these religions.
I also said "I know that judaism and christianity have their differences, but I just don't believe this is one of them"
So I know they DO differ ...
You missed my point.. My point was that they differ ON THIS ISSUE whereas you claimed that they didn't. Not only in your original statement, but you quoted it again right above this. "I just don't believe this is one of them."
Believe it or not, madmarv, but the reality is that this IS one of the issues where the two religions disagree, and it is a foundational principle of Judaism to disagree with that particular concept of Christianity. That's a fact whether you like it or not, and whether you are in denial about it or not.
-
Yes.
I was posting to show that even Christians have been persecuted. I am not sure what you are getting at.
I have much respect for the Jewish faith. People went to concentration camps for hiding the Jews during the holocaust. They were not fighting amongst each other at all, they managed to agree on the things they agreed with ...and let G-d be G-d.
I was responding to madmarv. I did not take issue with what you wrote (although I'm not an expert on that aspect of history you were discussing).
-
Alright then, you are right, we do disagree on this one :) so let's move on
-
:dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:
-
And if I consider worshipping and throwing down to a black stone in Mecca as avoda zara, I have all rights to see it that way. For me it is avoda zara also. And the Muslims do not pray the same G-d we pray to. The quranic description, and allahs commandments (if called so) are clearly contradictory to our Torah. Thus he cannot be our Hashem! Thus all prayer done in a mosque is avoda zara also. At least for me. I do respect our rabbinical authorities, but this doesn't mean that their opinion is 100% right on some issues. Mosques and islam have not existed in Biblical times. So we have no clear prescription from the Torah and thus no 100% sure opinion about it.
-
It seems to be subject to dispute.
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/eng/print.asp?id=2625
Entering a Moslem mosque is subject to dispute.
The Tzitz Eliezer (14, 91) prohibits like any other idol worshiping place and most other opinions allow (Yabia Omer 7 YD 12)
For the other religions, I don't know what they believe in or how their temples operate but I assume they are also a form of idol worshiping and as such, entry to their temples is strictly prohibited.
I do believe, though, that Jews are allowed to pretend to convert to Islam to save their lives (but not Christianity). Chaim has said that.
-
It seems to be subject to dispute.
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/eng/print.asp?id=2625
Entering a Moslem mosque is subject to dispute.
The Tzitz Eliezer (14, 91) prohibits like any other idol worshiping place and most other opinions allow (Yabia Omer 7 YD 12)
For the other religions, I don't know what they believe in or how their temples operate but I assume they are also a form of idol worshiping and as such, entry to their temples is strictly prohibited.
Very interesting post, I did not know that opinion existed. It may be that European-based scholars came down more strongly on muslamic religion than did the Middle-east/north africa based scholars such as Rambam.
I do believe, though, that Jews are allowed to pretend to convert to Islam to save their lives (but not Christianity). Chaim has said that.
That's true, but the likely source of that opinion Chaim cites (Rambam) is also of the opinion that Islam is NOT avoda zara. Anyway, good points.
-
Very interesting post, I did not know that opinion existed. It may be that European-based scholars came down more strongly on muslamic religion than did the Middle-east/north africa based scholars such as Rambam.
What did the Vilna Gaon, source of most of HaRav Kahane's theology and by extension Chaim's, say about this?
That's true, but the likely source of that opinion Chaim cites (Rambam) is also of the opinion that Islam is NOT avoda zara. Anyway, good points.
Throughout the Middle Ages, Christianity was more anti-Semitic than Islam. There wasn't a whole lot of Christian Zionism back then. The Islamic world tolerated Jews as dhimmis at many times in this period because they wanted Jews to enrich their kingdoms and contribute their great expertise in technical, legal, and educational areas. Could it be that this explains why Jewish scholars living in Islamic lands would be more tolerant of Islam than those living outside of them?
-
Very interesting post, I did not know that opinion existed. It may be that European-based scholars came down more strongly on muslamic religion than did the Middle-east/north africa based scholars such as Rambam.
What did the Vilna Gaon, source of most of HaRav Kahane's theology and by extension Chaim's, say about this?
Again, I've posted about this before, but the Vilna Gaon is not the primary source of Rabbi Kahane, and he selected from a variety of sources in his writings. There are certain haredim who are claiming to base themselves entirely on the halachic approach of the Gaon, and their hashkafa is far from Rabbi Kahane's. But I think that is because Rav Kahane was not a 'primarily' anything rabbi, but drew from all areas of truth. His opinions on warfare and running a Jewish state were undoubtedly predominantly based on Rambam, who was one of the few Jewish sages who even wrote on such subjects in any detail. But he did of course draw from Vilna Gaon, because how could one not do so!
A good question though, and I cannot find anything at the moment. I did see something interesting, but sort of tangential. It does imply that Vilna Gaon did not believe the Muslim belief in Allah was pagan or non-monotheistic belief. But I hesitate to quote it. It is a secondary account of a student in the name of the Gaon, and it is also a tangentially related case. However it is a prominant student who became a big authority himself. In such cases it is assumed he is authentically making a claim in his rabbi's name. He would not falsify that, and otherwise he could simply claim it in his own name.
That's true, but the likely source of that opinion Chaim cites (Rambam) is also of the opinion that Islam is NOT avoda zara. Anyway, good points.
Throughout the Middle Ages, Christianity was more anti-Semitic than Islam. There wasn't a whole lot of Christian Zionism back then. The Islamic world tolerated Jews as dhimmis at many times in this period because they wanted Jews to enrich their kingdoms and contribute their great expertise in technical, legal, and educational areas. Could it be that this explains why Jewish scholars living in Islamic lands would be more tolerant of Islam than those living outside of them?
It might be for some, but not in the case of Rambam. He based his opinion on his conception of pure monotheism (he was unique in Judaism in some of his views here), and that Islam also fit the bill of said monotheism despite being evil and a heretical faith for a Jew. And of course he does assert that Islam is complete falsehood, forbidden to adopt and other such statements. He refers to Muhammad as the madman.
But I do accept the idea in general that the environment/treatment can influence the opinions on the surrounding group in question. It will influence how we will be instructed to interact with such groups in many complicated halachot, no doubt.
Rambam however, had no misconceptions about the treatment of Jews by Islam. He and his family personally experienced the persecution of Islam and fled his home country, and he consoled those Jews of areas in North Africa and in Yemen who were put to the sword of Islam and faced massive forced conversion attacks. They sent Rambam letters appealing for halachic guidance amidst their turmoil.
-
בס"ד
I might add the tower of every mosque with the crescent on top of it is a typical sign of Avodah Zara, Bernard Louis has already stated that that symbolizes what is mentioned in the Tanach as "Tzalmei Zachar" with a sign of Avodah Zara on top it, and Islam as a religion is Avodah Zara since it's Kffira in Toraht Moshe.
-
אַל־תַּשְׁלִיכֵ֥נִי מִלְּפָנֶ֑יךָ וְר֥וּחַ קָ֝דְשְׁךָ֗ אַל־תִּקַּ֥ח מִמֶּֽנִּי׃
Psalm 51:11
Cast me not forth from Thy presence, And Thy Holy Spirit take not from me.
-
It seems to be subject to dispute.
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/eng/print.asp?id=2625
Entering a Moslem mosque is subject to dispute.
The Tzitz Eliezer (14, 91) prohibits like any other idol worshiping place and most other opinions allow (Yabia Omer 7 YD 12)
For the other religions, I don't know what they believe in or how their temples operate but I assume they are also a form of idol worshiping and as such, entry to their temples is strictly prohibited.
I do believe, though, that Jews are allowed to pretend to convert to Islam to save their lives (but not Christianity). Chaim has said that.
WHAT? Denying Hashem in order to survive?! NEVER, then I'd prefer to die. Honestly!
-
בס"ד
I might add the tower of every mosque with the crescent on top of it is a typical sign of Avodah Zara, Bernard Louis has already stated that that symbolizes what is mentioned in the Tanach as "Tzalmei Zachar" with a sign of Avodah Zara on top it, and Islam as a religion is Avodah Zara since it's Kffira in Toraht Moshe.
Kefira and avoda zara are not the same things.
-
It seems to be subject to dispute.
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/eng/print.asp?id=2625
Entering a Moslem mosque is subject to dispute.
The Tzitz Eliezer (14, 91) prohibits like any other idol worshiping place and most other opinions allow (Yabia Omer 7 YD 12)
For the other religions, I don't know what they believe in or how their temples operate but I assume they are also a form of idol worshiping and as such, entry to their temples is strictly prohibited.
I do believe, though, that Jews are allowed to pretend to convert to Islam to save their lives (but not Christianity). Chaim has said that.
WHAT? Denying Hashem in order to survive?! NEVER, then I'd prefer to die. Honestly!
Doing so was NOT the equivalent of denying Hashem. To the Muslims, the God was the same. They were forcing people to accept their false "prophet." To say a meaningless formula that one doesn't actually believe, was according to Rambam not only completely permitted to save one's life, but also has no halachic ramifications by doing so. It was NOT a denial of God to do so.
-
Christians are not permitted to deny our religion under any circumstances, although we may remain silent when asked. We all hope we will have more strength than Peter though if put to the test. I hope I'm never tested in that way.
-
בס"ד
בס"ד
I might add the tower of every mosque with the crescent on top of it is a typical sign of Avodah Zara, Bernard Louis has already stated that that symbolizes what is mentioned in the Tanach as "Tzalmei Zachar" with a sign of Avodah Zara on top it, and Islam as a religion is Avodah Zara since it's Kffira in Toraht Moshe.
Kefira and avoda zara are not the same things.
http://www.kipa.co.il/ask/show/34823
1.) For A Jew, it is Avodah Zara, any religious belief besides Judaism is Avodah Zara for a Jew.
2.) Islam shares too much with Paganism, and "Allah" is the name of the Babylonian mythological idol, also the crescent as a symbol of Islam and that same that is on top of the mosque is a symbol of idolatry.
-
בס"ד
בס"ד
I might add the tower of every mosque with the crescent on top of it is a typical sign of Avodah Zara, Bernard Louis has already stated that that symbolizes what is mentioned in the Tanach as "Tzalmei Zachar" with a sign of Avodah Zara on top it, and Islam as a religion is Avodah Zara since it's Kffira in Toraht Moshe.
Kefira and avoda zara are not the same things.
http://www.kipa.co.il/ask/show/34823
1.) For A Jew, it is Avodah Zara, any religious belief besides Judaism is Avodah Zara for a Jew.
2.) Islam shares too much with Paganism, and "Allah" is the name of the Babylonian mythological idol, also the crescent as a symbol of Islam and that same that is on top of the mosque is a symbol of idolatry.
True.
These are facts denied by muslims today, to avoid questioning the bond and the relationship with the pagans throughout the history.
-
בס"ד
KWRBT, if you are able to read Hebrew, then I recommend you to read this discussion about the issue.
http://www.myehudit.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1075&p=4754#p4754
-
A single muslamic in the crowd of infidels says that: G_d is one called with different names.
5% muslamics among the crowd of infidels say that G_d is one called with different names such as Allah.
10% muslamics among the crowd of infidels say that G_d is one, also called as Allah.
15% muslamics among the crowd of infidels say that G_d is one and is called as Allah.
20% muslamics among the crowd of infidels say that Allah is one and is called as Allah.
25% muslamics among the crowd of infidels say that the Allah only is the only Allah.
Clearly it is a replacement theology, wherein they attempt to gradually replace the concept of G_d with Allah. It must be an antithesis to all and may not be comparable to any theological concept.
I consider them to be cruel, separatist and hardliner pagan.
-
Same here....
It seems to be subject to dispute.
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/eng/print.asp?id=2625
Entering a Moslem mosque is subject to dispute.
The Tzitz Eliezer (14, 91) prohibits like any other idol worshiping place and most other opinions allow (Yabia Omer 7 YD 12)
For the other religions, I don't know what they believe in or how their temples operate but I assume they are also a form of idol worshiping and as such, entry to their temples is strictly prohibited.
I do believe, though, that Jews are allowed to pretend to convert to Islam to save their lives (but not Christianity). Chaim has said that.
WHAT? Denying Hashem in order to survive?! NEVER, then I'd prefer to die. Honestly!
-
בס"ד
בס"ד
I might add the tower of every mosque with the crescent on top of it is a typical sign of Avodah Zara, Bernard Louis has already stated that that symbolizes what is mentioned in the Tanach as "Tzalmei Zachar" with a sign of Avodah Zara on top it, and Islam as a religion is Avodah Zara since it's Kffira in Toraht Moshe.
Kefira and avoda zara are not the same things.
http://www.kipa.co.il/ask/show/34823
1.) For A Jew, it is Avodah Zara, any religious belief besides Judaism is Avodah Zara for a Jew.
2.) Islam shares too much with Paganism, and "Allah" is the name of the Babylonian mythological idol, also the crescent as a symbol of Islam and that same that is on top of the mosque is a symbol of idolatry.
Like I said, kefira and avoda zara are not the same things.
As to the rest of what you write, Rambam disagrees with you. The people who "converted" to save their lives did not REALLY practice Islam. They did not really believe the meaningless formula they said. As such, they did not practice kefira OR avoda zara. And according to Rambam's conception of monotheism, no, Islam was not avoda zara.
-
My two cents.
You can argue debate about Islam as much as you want, just as you could do the same with Satanism, or Communism, or Naziism. Islam is NOT a valid religion, it is an ideology of hate and world domination... so debate away!!!!
-
My two cents.
You can argue debate about Islam as much as you want, just as you could do the same with Satanism, or Communism, or Naziism. Islam is NOT a valid religion, it is an ideology of hate and world domination... so debate away!!!!
Did I say it was "valid" ? No. But that does not make it avoda zara. When people argue halachic principles they cannot be so vague as to just label something "I don't like" as whatever label they want. None of us here likes Islam, nor does any of us consider Muhammad anything more than a lying pedophile. So what?