Wikipedia: Judeo-Christian tradition/Talk

The text reads "The New Testament teaches that if someone comes to harm you, then one must turn the other cheek. This has led many Christians to develop a theology of pacifism, the avoidance of force and violence at all times. In practice, this has not often been followed (i.e. the many crusades, pogroms in Russia, Martin Luther's exhortions to burn down synagogues with Jews still in them) when applied towards gentiles; it is most often applied towards inter-Christian disputes."

I think this text is one-sided, if not biased towards Christian practice of non-violence. The examples of violence by Christians are true, but grotesque and absurd to the everyday Christian today. They do not represent the teachings of Christ (love your enemy), nor of his own example, nor of the numerous examples in history which have not been written down in history text books, nor of the daily life of many Christians, nor of the experiences of millions of Christian martyrs, in history and today. Jesus' exhortations have often been followed. Most Christians I know do put this in practice, though we are fallible as anyone else. This part of the text deserves a more balanced approach--TK

: Well, as one who comes from the Quaker tradition, I could not disagree more with the assertion that most or even many Christians believe in turning the other cheek or loving one's enemy, or even apply it in their everyday lives. How many Christians own guns or believe in capital punishment? Most Christians do not believe in loving their enemy or turning the other cheek, no matter how much they might pay lip service to the notion.

: The article was about real-world Christians, not about Jesus's personal behaviour. In any case, your rebuttal is invalid. It is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, and fails in all cases. I personally have rebutted this argument when it was used to attempt to defend the actions of Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish extremists, I have rebutted it when I saw it applied to Islam, and for the sake of logical consistency, I must rebut it here as well. The "No true Scotsman" is a logical fallacy described in a Wikipedia entry. It is an argument that goes like this - "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply - "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal - "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Atrocities of religions are often discussed away using this fallacy.

You must speak from an American point of view? As far as I know in Western-European countries we know no death penalty and are generally not permitted to walking around with a gun, so that's no issue here. Anyway, I know you're right that many people who call themselves Christian act in ways that are contrary to Jesus' teachings. However, what Jesus said has everything to do with faith and love; it is not an isolated rule, it is a heart-issue and cannot be seen, nor practised apart from the rest of his message. And again, many Christians have followed Christ's words in these, believe it or not. That's why the wording of the passage should be less rigourously negative about the matter. "This has not often been followed" simply is not true! Please do not only look to major political events, grave enough as they have been.

: Again, you are claiming that millions of Christians throughout history were not really Chrisitians, but that only you and the people that you like are the real Christians. Again, this argument is just the same old "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy. It is invalid. Your argument may, of course, be used to describe how you believe a given faith system should choose to act in the future, but it cannot white-wash the existence of members of any given faith system for their actions in the past. RK

"Its origins are in American politics"? Really? I'd like to see some evidence of that. --LMS

Re: "Christianity teaches that the purpose of Jesus's message in the [[New Testament] is to show that beliefs (such as belief in Jesus as the son of God) held by a person are considered by God to be more important than one's actions." I think that might be more particularly true of Protestantism, but I don't know how true that is of all variants of Christianity. Also, it is worth nothing that the epistle of James in the New Testament argues very much in favor of the importance of works. I think it is true that Christianity places great emphasis on faith, but like so many theological points within that religion, there are disagreements and probaby just enough ambiguity in the New Testament on the subject to support a variety of Christian interpretations.

: That is true, and I agree that it should be mentioned in the article. However, Christianity, as the great majority of it has actually has existed for the past 2000 years, has downplayed - or entirely ignored, James's point of view. In practice, Christianity is based indirectly on Jesus' statement's, and directly on Paul's interpretation and amplification of them. Similarly, there are phrases in the Tanach (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament) which might argue for faith over works, but in reality, rabbinic Judaism has not followed this path. Again, this is because Judaism is not the faith of the Bible directly, but rather is based on how the rabbis have interpreted the Bible. RK

: Thus, we need to differentiate between biblical quotes, and the theology, dogmas and practices that have in practiced developed from them. We have to do this; discussing what Judaism or Christianty could have developed into would be an interesting exercise in alternate history, which is a legitimate historical endeavour, but its not good for an encyclopaedia entry. RK

: I agree that we need to differentiate between biblical quotes and actual practice, but I still think that the emphasis on faith over works is more evident in Protestantism than other varients of Christianity. Also, many variants of Christianity believe that salvation is available to non-Christians (this is official Catholic dotrine these days, if I am not mistaken).

: I agree with the first part; the emphasis on faith over works is more evident in many Protestant denominations than Catholicism. (I don't know much about this in Orthodox Christianity). Also, there have been a few mainstream to liberal Protestant groups that have unambiguously stated that salvation is indeed available to non-Christians. Most Protestant groups mildly to vehemently disagree. As for the Catholic Church, there is no one official viewpoint at the moment; instead, there is a theological & political struggle going on right now in the Catholic Church over this issue. A number of high-level Catholic officials have issued statements saying that Jews indeed do have a way to God without Jesus; these statements are very clear with regard to Jews, but not so in regard to other non-Christians. In response, other equally high-level Catholic officials have issued statements that make it fairly clear that Jews, while loved by God, nonetheless can not achieve salvation due to their non-acceptance of Jesus as their saviour. The Jewish community has expessed some concern over these battling proclamations of dogma. RK

: Unfortunately, I don't have any reference works at my disposal, but it has been my understanding that it is the official position of the Catholic Church that salvation is available to non-Christians, regardless of what some individual Catholics might think. Perhaps we need someone knowledgeable on Catholic theology who can clarify this point.

Its not just "some individual Catholics". The entire official structure of the Church has not yet come to agreement on this issue. Please do some more reading, and I will also try to dig up the specific references that I have read. There is a theological struggle going on in the Church, and the winner is not yet clear. What is clear is that the traditional view has precedence until a new view becomes formally and officialy accepted, and the traditional view for the past 2000 years has been that all people go to Hell (or perhaps limbo) without belief in Jesus. To the best of my knowledge, this is also what the vast majority of Catholic priests teach outside of the US. RK

: RK: AFAIK, the official position of the Catholic church is that non-Christians can be saved without belief in Jesus. The dispute is rather over whether they are saved by Jesus, even though they don't believe in him (that is what the conservatives say), or whether they are saved by God not through Jesus (which is what some liberals say). -- SJK

Regarding faith and works, it's worth noting that Martin Luther relied heavily on the book of Romans but had no idea what to do with James; I've heard it rumoured that he would have gotten rid of it if he could, as he did the Protestant "Apocrypha", but wasn't able to manage it. Whether that's true or not (can't remember where I heard it), Protestantism definitely emphasizes right faith, as in believing and saying the right "magic words".

My impression of Eastern Orthodoxy is that works are integrated into the Christian life; our religious life consists of prayer, fasting, almsgiving and repentance; the first two happen chiefly inside the church and at home, the latter two have a broader social impact (or at least they should). Theologically, we believe that there is a synergism between what God does and what we do, and between what happens in the interior of our hearts and minds and what happens in our outwardly visible actions. Thus, a cleaner heart will lead to cleaner actions; however, I shouldn't wait for my heart to get cleaner to do good works, since going through the motions of good works will also make it easier for my thoughts and motives to reform. Naturally, the Orthodox have succeeded at times, and failed at times, both individually and corporately. So have the Jews, and practitioners of any other religion that sets standards for behaviour that is moral, ethical and just.

I would like to hear how this compares with Roman Catholicism, as I honestly have no idea. But I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt (smile) and edit the text to include various views of faith vs. works within Christianity. If there are differing historic views within Judaism, it would be good to be honest and open about those as well; I don't know whether there are or aren't. Does Judaism rely so much on actions that an atheist would find salvation, if his behaviour was upright? --Wesley

: Absolutely! Judaism teaches that any atheist Jew who spends his life doing good deeds and following Jewish custom will get a heavenly reward (or whatever you want to call the afterlife). Also, any atheist gentile who spends his life doing good deeds will get the same reward, and they are not even expected to have to follow any Jewish custom at all. Conversely, according to Judaism even a devout and religiously observant person will find that their beliefs and observance counts for very little in the eyes of God if that person was a scoundrel and murderer. God does care about our beliefs, but He cares more for our actions. Jewish philosophers are universal on that point. Even the most extreme advocates of holding certain principles of faith as mandatory (such as Maimonides) explained that this was only because a person who held such beliefs was more likely to be led to follow the right actions. (See his "Guide for the Perplexed) for a detailed discussion of this.) RK

: Fascinating. I didn't know this. I may be wandering off topic, but in modern Judaism, does God play any role in making it possible for a person to do good deeds, or in forgiving bad ones? For that matter, how do Jews deal with sin these days, since there are no sacrifices and no priesthood AFAIK? --Wesley

: Midrash Avot de Rabbi Natan states "One time, when Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was walking in Jerusalem with Rabbi Yehosua, they arrived at where the Temple now stood in ruins. "Woe to us" cried Rabbi Yehosua, "for this house where atonement was made for Israel's sins now lies in ruins!" Answered Rabban Yochanan, "We have another, equally important source of atonement, the practice of gemilut hasadim (loving kindness), as it is stated 'I desire loving kindness and not sacrifice''". Also, the Babylonian Talmud teaches that "Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eleazar both explain that as long as the Temple stood, the altar atoned for Israel, but now, one's table atones [when the poor are invited as guests]." Tractate Berachot, 55a RK Similarly, the liturgy of the Days of Awe (the High Holy Days; i.e. Rosh HaShanah? and Yom Kippur) states that prayer, repentence and tzedakah (charity) atone for sin. Come to think of it, this info should really be in the main entry. RK

I have modified the section on the Bible to reflect two important points: first, many Jews are offended by the characterization of the Tanach as an "Old" Testament -- moreover, I think it is important to recognize that even when people read the same book, how they read the book and what it means to them may be fundamentally different. Second, I think there are many Jews who accord the Talmud the same status as the Tanach -- SR

: Jews believe that the meaning of the laws in the Tanach are authoritatively explained in the Mishnah and Talmud. Thus, although the Talmud is not part of the Jewish biblical canon in name, it effectively is in practice. The Jewish description of the relationship between the two is called the "oral law". (See Mishnah entry for more details.RK

: Well, a quick search on Google yielded the following article:

http://www.adelaide.catholic.org.au/Communications/News2000/news_22.htm According to this article, Catholic doctrine does say that salvation is available to non-Christians through some sort of "special grace", but it appears the details of this theology are not completely or fully formulated, and the doctrine also suggests that the salvation of non-Catholics is precarious, so their doctrine is somewhat ambiguous. I am sure there are better documents out there that more fully clarify this point--this was just what came back from a quick search. I guess when you claim to be the One True Church as the Catholics do, it is a little hard for them to be particularly tolerant of other religions, since they claim to be instituted by God.

: Note that the person you refer to is held to be wrong by other high-level Catholic officials. Keep digging. You will see that this is not the one, official Catholic view. Rather, it is one view that the theologically liberal wing is promoting; the religiously conservative wing takes a contrary position. RK

: Okay, take a look at http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_othe.htm . Note that Pope John-Paul is quoted down near the bottom of this page as saying "salvation is not denied to non-Christians". That being said, the Dominus Iesus document offended a lot of non-Cathoclics, including non-Christian Catholics, although I'm not sure why anyone should be surprised. Catholicism has never claimed to be just one denomination among many, but claimed for itself the right to be the sole legitimate Church instituted by God. Anyway, if the pope says that salvation is not denied to non-Christians, then that would sound to me fairly definitive as far as current Catholic doctrine goes.

: I think the fundamental issue is that Judaism, being a national religion, has no problem with the notion that other nations have their own paths to God (or "salvation"), whereas Christianity, being a universal religion, has a problem with religions that make radically other claims about God and such. I do not mean that Christianity has no way of accomodating such claims, only that Christian theologians have rather more work ot do to make such accomodation, and it is easier for other Christians to reject such accomodations. I think this is a crucial difference between the two religions -- it explains why conversion to Judaism is more like a form of adoption (i.e. becoming a member of the nation, in part by metaphorically becoming a child of Abraham) whereas conversion to Christianity is more a declaration of faith. It also explains why Jews are relatively less interested in the afterlife -- Jewish eschatology is traditionally more concerned with the fate of the nation (or people) than with the problem of individual death. An individual dies, but the people still live. I don't feel comfortqble enough with these issues to write a clear and neutral entry to the article, but I hope someone else can address these points in the article -- SR

: I think that what you say makes a lot of sense. -- Egern

: Thanks -- I will include it in the article.

Going back to the pacifism issue... while Christians have corporately failed to practice peace, they have fought amongst themselves as well as against non-Christians. The Crusades wound up attacking Eastern Orthodox Christians as well as Muslims, the Reformation led to battles between Lutherans, Catholics, and Calvinists, and both of those groups hunted down and killed the Anabaptists, and of course the later wars between various European countries were fought between ostensibly Christian nations. This is nothing to brag about; kind of like the racist who hates all races equally. As far as teaching, Catholicism has long promoted a [Just War]? theory which many Protestants have also subscribed to and adapted. I think that Eastern Orthodoxy promotes personal pacifism, but also says that governments have a right to use military force to protect their citizens. Some monks have made much stronger statements and followed stricter practices in this regard. In the West, only the Anabaptists (Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites) and Quakers have really called on governments to be pacifist, or encouraged their members to avoid military service. All in all, I don't think it's accurate to suggest that Christians have a double standard, one for inter-Christian disputes and another for non-Christians. --Wesley

To clarify my comments from above, Judaism does not teach that belief in God is optional; in fact, its a mandatory belief. Even Reform Judaism teaches that belief in God is the cardinal belief of Judaism. For Christians, belief in God and Jesus are mandatory, and the punishment for failure to believe in God and Jesus is that the doubter will never achieve salvation. Most Protestant Christian sects make it clear that people who don't believe in Jesus will burn in Hell. In stark contrast, Judaism holds that there is no punishment for failure to believe in God. Thus, to a Christian this might appear as if Judaism was effectively saying "Well, you don't really have to believe in God". In actuality, Judaism is trying to say, "Yes, you must believe in God, but nonetheless we won't punish those who don't". RK

RK, I am not sure that Judaism has "cardinal" beliefs; I am not questioning the importance of God in Judaism, but I do wonder whether there is a better way to talk about it. I do believe that Judaism has three cardinal sins: murder, adultery, and idol worship. As I understand it, what makes these cardinal sins is that one is supposed to die rather than commit one of these acts (as opposed to, say, eating pork at gun-point) (this isn't necessarily enforcable either, but there is a clear internal standard for distinguishing between these rules and others). I am not sure, though, if the rabbis would equate atheism with idol-worship -- SR

Judaism certainly has cardinal principles of belief. It always had, and still does. However, since the end of the Talmudic era, no official eccesiastical rabbinic body ever officially canonized any one particular set of them. The last canonization of beliefs for all Jews appeared in the early version of the Shemonah Esrah (the Amidah). This includes a belief in God, the messiah, some sort of resurrection of afterlife (its very vague), God's providence in the world, a covenant between God and Israel, and a few other points. Since then, various rabbinic authorities have written various creeds of belief. The most popular was Maimonides's 13 principles of belief, and this was adopted as nearly binding by all Jewish communities around the world from 1400 to 1800. Orthodox Judaism incorrect claims that all Jews are bound by the particular details of Maimonide's code, but this is factually false. Anyone familiar with Jewish history can see that there never was a time when Maimonide's principles were literally the last word in Jewish theology. On the other hand, Reform Jewish apologists in the 1800s and early to mid-1900s were totally wrong when they claimed that Judaism had no beliefs. Such statements could only have been made by men unschooled and ignorant of the very books that they claimed to teach. An essay describing the range of beliefs traditionally held by Judaism as canonical can be found at the link below:

[1]

A suggestion:

How about letting the article describe what Jews and Christians have in common? Then the articles on Judaism and on Christianity can fully delineate what each believes in particular. Ed Poor

This is a logical suggestion, but I disagree with it frankly because although I understand that the notion of Judeo-Christian culture may have originated in an inclusive spirit and meant to counter anti-semitism, I believe that more often than not it systematically misconstrues Judaism, misinterpreting Jewish beliefs in terms of Christian beliefs.

: I agree. RK

This is one reason for my interest in the notion of "cardinal" Jewish beliefs. I appreciate RK's providing the link on Jewish theology. But I still do not understand how he can make a claim for "cardinal" beliefs given that this essay begins with this assertion: "In the same sense as Christianity or Islam, Judaism can not be credited with the possession of Articles of Faith. Many attempts have indeed been made at systematizing and reducing to a fixed phraseology and sequence the contents Of the Jewish religion. But these have always lacked the one essential element: authoritative sanction on the part of a supreme ecclesiastical body. And for this reason they have not been recognized as final or regarded as of universally binding force." It is the notion of "cardinal" itself that I do not accept. . I am unclear as to how you (RK) distinguish between "cardinal" beliefs and non-cardinal beliefs, unless it is a purely statistical measure. Do you mean that "The one belief that all Jewish theologians agree upon is..." This may be more precise than "cardinal," although I am not sure Mordecai Kaplan thought would agree

: This is a difficult subject to write about. Christianity has specific beliefs, and you either believe in them or you don't. (Different Churches have different variants of these beliefs). Humanism, Buddhism and Hinduism have no set formal beliefs. In contrast, Judaism has always had beliefs...but it has never one specific formal list of indisputable theological principles. The essay I wrote was meant to prove to Orthodox Jews that their claims about an unambiguous, specific, binding set of beliefs was erroneous. However, I also hold the left-wing Reform view (which holds that Judaism has no beliefs) to be equally wrong. I think a better way to put it is to say that Judaism does have beliefs, but due to both a lack of rabbinic centralization, and no small amount of theological humility, traditional Judaism has perhaps wisely allowed Jews to have a measure of flexibility in this area. This amount of flexibility is large compared to Christianity, and small compared to Humanism and Buddism. I'm trying to be clear, but its not easy to be clear about a situation deliberately left undefined! :) RK

: well-put, and I appreciate the response. The lack of Rabbinic centralization is a crucial difference between Judaism and Catholicism -- more important though I think is a tradition not just of theological humility but pluralism (e.g. the Talmud provides both majority and minority and dissenting opinions which later Rabbis can draw on). Anyway, I understand your point, SR

But to respond to Ed Poor, my main concern is that precisely in attempting to compare Judaism and Christianity, and find points of convergence, very important (but perhaps subtle) differences are erased (and usually erased in a way that favors Christian perspectives) -- SR

: Good point. How about a separate article entititeled Comparing and Contrasting Judaism and Christianity? --Ed Poor

: Again, logical -- and I wouldn't have very strong feelings one way or the other. One could simply re-title this particular article, and include a discussion of "Judeo-Christian tradition" within it. Most of my additions were inspired by the fact that when I first read the article it began with a discussion of problematic aspects of the concept "Judeo-Christian Tradition." It is important to me that whatever happens to this material, any entry of the JC tradition calls attention to how the concept is problematic. And my main point is not just that it is problematic in a kind of logical way (e.g. how much could two different religions have in common any way?), but in a more political way -- that including "Judeo" in "Judeo-Christian" is about as inclusive as including the "Old Testment" in the Christian Bible. SR

: I like Judaism and Christianity equally, perhaps because my mother is Jewish and my father is Episcopalian. Of course, I am aware of many differences between the two traditions, and I would not want to see these dismissed, neglected, or glossed over. Ed Poor

: I think the creation of a second article, with a link, is a fine sollution to the issue you raised.

: Ed, you have misunderstood the purpose of this entry. You have neutered the article by deleting practically all the content. Judaism and Christianity do have some things in common, but they are not the same religion. That is the point of this entry. By deleting this material and putting it elsewhere you inadvertently reinforce the misunderstanding that this entry was created to enlighten people on. This material must be restored. It doesn't matter whether "you like" Judaism or Christianity. Personal feelings are irrelevent. After all, if liking them means removing the material, then woulnd't that imply that describing the complex Judeo-Christian tradition would be a sign of not liking one (or both) of these religions? A second article could be created to discuss a different subject that only happens to be mentioned here - but not to remove the main topic of the article! RK